Crossbows vs. Longbows

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Every post, and this does look more and more like a personal agenda - and a very emotionally biased one, at that. On that note, I do not choose a side in this argument, I believe that both tools of war have valid applications, and that one may excel where the other fails - thus my amusement with this entire argument. But still, I want to dance with you, Joe.

And by this reasoning you are emotionally involved as well through your amusement.

You are gleefully missing the point. He said that working with less sophisticated equipment creates a better operator. The point boiled down to this - take a modern compound bow, and remove the sights and other "archer aids". Odds are, that the classically trained longbowman will operate that bow at a level superior to a modern archery student, who has only ever fired a bow with all of the modern accessories.

This simply cannot be possible. The mechanical aids also deal with the very function of the bow itself and the quality of its shots before the archer is involved. And how do you train said expert archer if the quality of equipment is not a given? Technology is a good thing. If you had it why wouldn't you use it?

Again, the theory behind the use of archers seemed to be "sheer # of pointy sticks flying through the air". Perhaps hastily crafted arrows are not suitable for target archery, or even for hunting. But they are just fine for firing at thousands of screaming soldiers. Most of them. You shrug off the bad arrows, because you have highly trained your archers to fire quickly and tirelessly, to saturate your field with projectiles.

This relies on purely on faith and the exactness required for even a semblance of accuracy over a short distance doesn't bear this out. You are assuming that they are "good enough" and assuming that again the archers are trained to the point where they shoot "tirelessly." Not so. Each successive shot of a bowmen will tend to get worse and worse as they tire and as they suffer from fear.

Oddly, you are also making an -assumption- here, that disagrees very widely with historical accounts, that only precisely and purposefully fired arrows are lethal. Most bow volleys were not fired at short range, and thus were not fired directly. They are lobbed in the general direction of a foe, with the assumption that enough of them will find meat, to justify the expense.

I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times. Why then did they not overpower said troops with their bows? Many of those countries like India had the longbow in their culture for many more years and refined to a point that England never took it. But despite the fact that said Imperialist powers were armored only in a brightly colored coat and armed with a weapon that was arguably slower than a crossbow, the bow shooting peoples did not prevail. If said fighting style of cohesive lateral missile weapons were not effective the outcome of that period of history would be very different.

And again when you look at other medieval battles you see without significantly hampering the assault and other factors England did not win. I continually point to Patay because you had a well rested troop of longbows outnumbering mere French scouts and they even had some stakes set up. But despite your claims they could not cut down a mere 100 of those French in total from any distance. While they in turn were massacred. Focus and seizing the moment in a cohesive strike is far better than missile spam of dubious quality.

I don't know, come back to me when modern craftsmen can replicate the functional perfection of say, a Stradivarius, or the Great Pyramid. There are truly countless examples of physical feats that our predecessors performed at levels of proficiency that are as yet unmatched in modern day.

Simply not true for reasons that others explained.

I believe the entire argument up to now, has been the temporal ease with which the English were able to raise large numbers of longbowmen. The point being that perhaps 1000 crossbowmen in many cases are superior to 1000 longbowmen, but 2000 longbowmen with slightly inferior ability, and slightly inferior arrows, will create a level of saturation that will -possibly- achieve the desired effect more readily. There are 2 VERY important points about this. The first is that the historical accounts are that this period was one of great success for England, so we know that the Welsh longbow must be good for something. But also, we know that there is no true way to compare the performance of the available alternatives, because we're hundreds of years past the fact. So you are arguing theory (your heartfelt beliefs in the ability of the crossbow) versus the reality of the longbow's success.

Again I've already mentioned Constance, the Hussite Crusades, Burgundian Wars and so on. "Longbow success" had more to do with French failures than the longbow. Because when they stopped failing they started winning quite handily.

And once more you had Europeans grossly outnumbered by bow wielding indigenous populations. Who won there is quite evident. You are still exaggerating the quality per arrow. There is no slightly. It has to be way way down. There is no other possible way they could literally MISS an UNARMORED dude that many times otherwise despite them being in nicely organized blobs.

Many animal parts were used for composite bows (cross or traditional), but composite crossbows were not used exclusively, nor was whale bone the industry standard. Seems that ox and other more commonly seen animals yielded most of the materials.

And even this brings the cost up. More materials mean more cost. The fact they even bothered with whale bone shows how important they thought they were and how they could not be "cheap."

I do not think that anyone argued that we can do things that more primitive men could not. The point is, they also could do things that WE cannot. Pride in our accomplishments will not bring back the depth and capability of pre-modern craftsmen.

Pride won't technology will.

Nunchuck skills?

Yea verily.

Where do you get your figures on expected medieval salaries? This is a pretty bold claim, and I think deserves a source.

Compared to several other claims made by other posters that go unquestioned? Not really but you didn't ask them now did you? No doubt in several places I've read but if you want an example from the horses mouth you can look at this old English wage roll cited here in this quaint old book

http://books.google.com/books?id=r7o...esult#PPA59,M1

"Paid to Geoffry le Chamberlin, for the wages of twelve crossbow-men, and thirteen archers, for twenty-four days, each crossbow-man receiving by the day 4d and each archer 2d"

Archers made more than a standard foot mook generally and crossbows more than that as shown here.

Well it's a good thing that no one ever celebrated and revered master archers, or you might not have a point at all here.

Except that "Master of Crossbowmen" was also Master of Archers. My point is still there I'm sorry to inform you.

I have yet to see a weapon fire magic bullets, and I would agree that the longbow certainly does not do so. And neither does the crossbow.

I think your rigid thinking holds you back from the true reality of warfare (especially medieval warfare), that there is no right answer - there is only what works.

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

This simply cannot be possible. The mechanical aids also deal with the very function of the bow itself and the quality of its shots before the archer is involved.

I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times. Why then did they not overpower said troops with their bows?

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

You missed the point. Operator (the archer) can change his equipment and adapt.

A skilled acher A without mechanical aid will shoot worse than skilled archer B with mechanical aid.
If both use bows WITHOUT mechanical aid, A will shoot better than B because B hasn't learned to judge things without his aids.
Which one would shoot better, if BOTH used mechanical aids? Will the things A has learned before using an aid offset the fact that B has more experience shooting with an aid?

Second, colonialist and imperialist times were different. I haven't studied the time, but gunpowder weapons would make huge difference. For one, gunpowder made knights obsolete, something longbows and crossbows never managed.

Third, crossbows and firearms aren't related. A gun isn't "better crossbow". That's like saying water-pistols are based on crossbows. Some guns are held like crossbows and I guess almost all have a trigger, but there are many guns that are nothing like the crossbow, and many of the things that make guns superior would be impossible in a crossbow.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

You missed the point. Operator (the archer) can change his equipment and adapt.

A skilled acher A without mechanical aid will shoot worse than skilled archer B with mechanical aid.
If both use bows WITHOUT mechanical aid, A will shoot better than B because B hasn't learned to judge things without his aids.
Which one would shoot better, if BOTH used mechanical aids? Will the things A has learned before using an aid offset the fact that B has more experience shooting with an aid?

Again you keep returning to aid in the form of aiming. Aid includes things such as weapon quality and the quality of the shot of an arrow not only the "sights" as someone mentioned before. Just because you take the hard way around doesn't mean the results are inherently better. If someone sings a beautiful opera standing up and someone seeks a very meh opera standing on his head juggling poodles with his feet who is the better singer? If you are judging by RESULTS the guy who standing wins. To judge poodle guy the winner you have to operate on faith that without the poodles the potential skill level would rise up to overcome the other singer. Longbowmen were stuck with their "poodles" from the very beginning and were worse for it because the RESULTS are going to be much much worse. There is no magical human potential that uplifts them.

Second, colonialist and imperialist times were different. I haven't studied the time, but gunpowder weapons would make huge difference. For one, gunpowder made knights obsolete, something longbows and crossbows never managed.

They are not really different because those powers fought nations who were more or less still in the previous age using previous age weaponry. The imperialist would not have prevailed if there was a distinct tactical on battlefield advantage. And if by knight you meant mounted troops with a powerful charge no they did not disappear in practice. Cavalry was still very much in use.

Third, crossbows and firearms aren't related. A gun isn't "better crossbow". That's like saying water-pistols are based on crossbows. Some guns are held like crossbows and I guess almost all have a trigger, but there are many guns that are nothing like the crossbow, and many of the things that make guns superior would be impossible in a crossbow.

Incorrect. Guns and crossbows are so alike the conquistadors used them interchangeably in their accounts. The principles in their use are alike in the main ways I already mentioned. The advantages of a held missile weapon as to achieve greater frontage, rotating ranks, improved defensive posture, and so on. Guns in their use are evolution of the crossbows uses. The Maître des Arbalétriers in France eventually evolved to the Maître de l'artillerie for that reason.

Originally Posted by Agema

Were they highly trained? Well disciplined? Good morale? I'd suggest overwhelmingly they were not. Many also did not have (as) good bows. Or they did not use massed bowfire. In fact, several times those Indian longbowmen actually took a fair toll on the English in battles.

And why wouldn't they be as trained as a medieval longbowmen? And just as well disciplined? Are you seriously suggesting that a culture who had the longbow for hundreds and hundreds of years to the sophistication that they could make them from STEEL wouldn't have as good bows? LOL? And how good a bow do you need to penetrate a bright red jacket? And with the numbers they had they should have taken much more than a significant toll especially since at Assaye they had much more artillery and in fact the Indians had superior rocketry technology. But they didn't win. You are still operating on faith that English longbowmen were somehow special compared to EVERYBODY else on the planet.

You continually misportray Patay. Firstly, the English were caught unprepared with barely the time to form up, which has doomed many armies. Secondly, what you dismissively call "scouts" were HEAVY CAVALRY. Thirdly, the English (5000) outnumbered the French (1500) as a whole, but in fact there were well under 1000 longbowmen, who had neither got their stakes up properly (which you half-concede), were not supported by melee troops, nor had their flanks secured.

They were formed up they had TIME to hammer some stakes down. How prepared do those sorry jokers need to be? LOL! There were lot of archers as usual if the longbow was a rapid shooting crazy machine of awesomeness said cavalry would have been toast. But it didn't happen. Because they weren't as good as you think they are.

I severely doubt longbowmen were present in the Hussite crusades or Burgundian wars in significant numbers, or that the generals using them would be accustomed to their best usage, if indeed they even could get best usage given the relatively small number of them available.

The Hussite Crusades were a big deal. Everybody was spamming troops at them. Longbowmen were a major part of Charles the Bold's military identity to point where they are continually featured in depictions of his army.

That's like saying railways evolved from canals. Firearms did not evolve from the crossbow or the bow.

Addressed above.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

[
Incorrect. Guns and crossbows are so alike the conquistadors used them interchangeably in their accounts. The principles in their use are alike in the main ways I already mentioned. The advantages of a held missile weapon as to achieve greater frontage, rotating ranks, improved defensive posture, and so on. Guns in their use are evolution of the crossbows uses. The Maître des Arbalétriers in France eventually evolved to the Maître de l'artillerie for that reason.
...

Addressed above.

No. Firearms replaced crossbows where crossbows were prevalent, and replaced bows where bows were prevalent. Early firearm usage more closely relates to the crossbow due to the fire rate and weapon shape, but that does not in any way mean it evolved from crossbows.

And why wouldn't they be as trained as a medieval longbowmen? And just as well disciplined? Are you seriously suggesting that a culture who had the longbow for hundreds and hundreds of years to the sophistication that they could make them from STEEL wouldn't have as good bows? LOL? And how good a bow do you need to penetrate a bright red jacket? And with the numbers they had they should have taken much more than a significant toll especially since at Assaye they had much more artillery and in fact the Indians had superior rocketry technology. But they didn't win. You are still operating on faith that English longbowmen were somehow special compared to EVERYBODY else on the planet.

Discipline, experience, morale and training etc. obviously have nothing to do with how long a culture has had a technology, and there's plenty of evidence the Indian archers of the period did not score highly on most of those counts.

The musket was superior to the longbow or crossbow, equally obviously. No-one's trying to claim bow-armed troops would casually massacre an army 400-500 years more advanced.

(And secondly, you previously said "bow wielding indigenous populations" from which we could infer Native Americans, Dervishes, or whoever else. Now you're just changing your argument to specify Indians.)

They were formed up they had TIME to hammer some stakes down. How prepared do those sorry jokers need to be? LOL! There were lot of archers as usual if the longbow was a rapid shooting crazy machine of awesomeness said cavalry would have been toast. But it didn't happen. Because they weren't as good as you think they are.

I don't think any archers on the planet, ever, could stop a heavy cavalry charge without adequate infantry support, a proper defensive position, or being on a horse themselves to move away. That applies to crossbows or longbows.

I think you are treating everyone arguing with you here as a "longbow fanboy" (in your own words). Your arguments amount to little more than misrepresenting us as if we think a few longbowmen instantly dominate any battlefield. As everyone has gone to great, great pains to state this is not the case, I do not understand why you persist with it. Until you wish to be reasonable, I don't see the point continuing this debate.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by Agema

No. Firearms replaced crossbows where crossbows were prevalent, and replaced bows where bows were prevalent. Early firearm usage more closely relates to the crossbow due to the fire rate and weapon shape, but that does not in any way mean it evolved from crossbows.

If you mean purely technology wise yes but in usage and essential principles they are on the same line which is how they could coexist in essentially the same breath until the firearm was refined.

Discipline, experience, morale and training etc. obviously have nothing to do with how long a culture has had a technology, and there's plenty of evidence the Indian archers of the period did not score highly on most of those counts.

This reasoning of yours is dubious and somewhat vague. There's nothing about the English medieval archer that would suggest they would surpass the Indian one on any of these aspects. If anything the Indian army had a more complex way of breaking down the chain of command.

The musket was superior to the longbow or crossbow, equally obviously. No-one's trying to claim bow-armed troops would casually massacre an army 400-500 years more advanced.

And if rate of shooting and the accuracy of those arrows were "good enough" as has been stated before by others this wouldn't be true because speed wise the musket is in the same ballpark as the crossbow and accuracy wise it is in many ways worse. That was what I was getting at.

(And secondly, you previously said "bow wielding indigenous populations" from which we could infer Native Americans, Dervishes, or whoever else. Now you're just changing your argument to specify Indians.)

I'm not changing anything as I've mentioned Indians specifically before.

I don't think any archers on the planet, ever, could stop a heavy cavalry charge without adequate infantry support, a proper defensive position, or being on a horse themselves to move away. That applies to crossbows or longbows.

Perhaps but one is very much more reliant of support and other factors than the other. I'll give you a hint it rhymes with "bong snow."

I think you are treating everyone arguing with you here as a "longbow fanboy" (in your own words). Your arguments amount to little more than misrepresenting us as if we think a few longbowmen instantly dominate any battlefield. As everyone has gone to great, great pains to state this is not the case, I do not understand why you persist with it. Until you wish to be reasonable, I don't see the point continuing this debate.

Even when arguments do not include "instantly dominating" they have cue words that try to wheedle something special out of them. You are all not a hive mind and like I said when I post I try to be comprehensive and remember all that has been said before by other people and not just who I'm quoting at the moment. And if you remember I was speaking of this phenomenon existing elsewhere as well. There have been elements of weirdness, the original post's assertion, the assumptions made by certain individuals about how arrows can behave, three arrows in a bird before it hits the ground and all that. Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me.

Because the one thing that we all seem to agree on - is that you seem to be turning a personal preference into historical fact, and that your approach to expressing such has a tonality that makes people not want to agree with you from the start (re: immediate failure of an argument once the opposition has been called a fanboy, a homosexual, or a nazi).

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Because the one thing that we all seem to agree on - is that you seem to be turning a personal preference into historical fact, and that your approach to expressing such has a tonality that makes people not want to agree with you from the start (re: immediate failure of an argument once the opposition has been called a fanboy, a homosexual, or a nazi).

Again as I have already mentioned my personal preference is one of parity in these games I don't want one to be overpowered over the other, but "historical fact" is what I've been telling you personal preference or not. Arguing that "tonality" matters, but then claiming the importance of fact is contradictory as someone can say a fact calling another a "homosexual nazi fanboy" without the fact becoming a nonfact; tonality changes nothing. Otherwise I could have dismissed anyone calling me a troll or saying I was biased against the English or unreasonable or other tricks without addressing the core of what they were saying in turn, no? Like I said speaking broadly and relating about what is seen in these versus things over the past if you don't fit the profile I am obviously not talking about you then am I?

And again like I said your consensus doesn't exist and if did it matters no more than "tonality" does. Such things are only failures in argument when it is all they have left.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times.

And once more you had Europeans grossly outnumbered by bow wielding indigenous populations. Who won there is quite evident. You are still exaggerating the quality per arrow. There is no slightly. It has to be way way down. There is no other possible way they could literally MISS an UNARMORED dude that many times otherwise despite them being in nicely organized blobs.
...

Were they highly trained? Well disciplined? Good morale? I'd suggest overwhelmingly they were not. Many also did not have (as) good bows. Or they did not use massed bowfire. In fact, several times those Indian longbowmen actually took a fair toll on the English in battles.

I continually point to Patay because you had a well rested troop of longbows outnumbering mere French scouts and they even had some stakes set up.

You continually misportray Patay. Firstly, the English were caught unprepared with barely the time to form up, which has doomed many armies. Secondly, what you dismissively call "scouts" were HEAVY CAVALRY. Thirdly, the English (5000) outnumbered the French (1500) as a whole, but in fact there were well under 1000 longbowmen, who had neither got their stakes up properly (which you half-concede), were not supported by melee troops, nor had their flanks secured.

Again I've already mentioned Constance, the Hussite Crusades, Burgundian Wars and so on. "Longbow success" had more to do with French failures than the longbow. Because when they stopped failing they started winning quite handily.

I severely doubt longbowmen were present in the Hussite crusades or Burgundian wars in significant numbers, or that the generals using them would be accustomed to their best usage, if indeed they even could get best usage given the relatively small number of them available.

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

That's like saying railways evolved from canals. Firearms did not evolve from the crossbow or the bow.