Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Scarlioni]

Bows used in war can be broken into two very broad categories. Composite bows and Longbows. Battlefield performance of both weapons is pretty much the same. Longbows had the advantage of being cheaper and easier to make, however pertty much everywhere but southeast asia (southern india, indo china, and the indonesian archapeligo) the composite bow displaced the longbow.

Predating the composite bow, the longbow required good hardwood, abundent in SE asia. The longbow was much more resistent to moisture and heat. This probably explains it's retention in SE asia.

Composed primarily of horn and sinew the composite bow was more expensive and time consuming to manufacture. However it was shorter, handier, and the materials for it's construction were readily availble everywhere (Had beef for dinner? Favorite horse just died?). The rise of chariot and later cavalry probably fueled the developemnt of the shorter composite bow. Both the persian and egyptian empires of antiquity were built on the backs of this weapon.

The classic use in warfare was as the "arrow storm." This is the classic strategy of firing as many arrows as possible at the opposing force attempting to "blot out the sun." In this strategy arrows would not be considered armor piercing, indeed the wounds inflicted by arrows used in this manner would hardly even be considered life threatening (unless like Harold at Hastings you catch one in the eye). That is unless they hadn't been poisoned.

Poisoned arrows are mentioned in the some of the earliest writings. The Scythian hero Heracles both used arrow poison and died from it. Herodotus' reciepe for Scythian arrow poison is as follows.

Dig a hole
Insert freshly dead venomous snake into hole
Defecate into hole
Cover hole and wait a week.
Coat your arrow heads in the resulting slime

This was common right up until the introduction of gun powder. Standing under an arrow storm in armor with a shield meant you were likely to survive the barrage. If you so much as even got scratched you'd have wanted to seek immediate medical attention before infection and gangrene set in. This was a bummer for morale.

In the Bayeux tapestry Norman archers are shown with their arrows in the dirt. The only reason to do this is because you don't want to defecate into your quiver. Horse archers weren't able to do this, having to draw their arrows from quivers, and no one ever complained that it slowed their rate of fire.

All war bows were able to peirce mail up to about 10 meters if wielded by a professional archer. This wasnt seen as an issue. After all this was what shields were for. Plate armors were introduced to combat early firearms.

Now the Welsh longbow was something special altogether. It was clearly a superior weapon system in the cattle rustling/raid/reprisal raid that charcaterized warfare in the absence of the nation state. Remember the Normans were originally vikings that settled in France and knowing a good idea when they saw it adopted cavalry. Upon encountering the Welsh longbow the decendents of the Normans abandoned the cavalry charge in favor of the longbow.

Someone said that the longbow was cheap. Not true. The English were importing yew staves from the continent by the reign of Edward the IV for the construction of longbows. The poeple of England were paying their taxes in arrows throughout the hundred years war. The use of the longbow died out because the yew became an endangered species thorught Europe because of English demand. No other wood would do for the english longbow.

Another point made in the thread was that bodkin points were made of hard iron and would shatter upon impact. This would have been seen as a plus since it would prevent your opponent from firing it back at you. The romans used soft iron in the constrution of their pilums (javelins) so that if they hit a shield the weapon would deform preventing their opponents from throwing the weapon back at the romans.

One of the biggest mysteries concerning ancient archery I know of comes from the obelisk describing Ramses 'victory' at Karnack. The Egyptians are supposed to have fired reed arrows 800 meters. How does one fire an arrow made of reeds? Some sort of sabot system maybe? Take a regular arrow shaft, split in half, cut a groove in the middle and place the reed there. With a good tail wind maybe you'll get 800 meters out of it? Would be a good harassing weapon if nothing else.

I share my knowledge of croosbows tomorrow.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

In the Bayeux tapestry Norman archers are shown with their arrows in the dirt. The only reason to do this is because you don't want to defecate into your quiver. Horse archers weren't able to do this, having to draw their arrows from quivers, and no one ever complained that it slowed their rate of fire.

I've read that arrows were stuck into the dirt because that way they were more readily available. I don't know how long it takes to pull an arrow from a quiver, but for long arrows it's faster to stick them to the ground and grab the closest one. I'm not sure how long the arrows for a longbow would be, but if they're long enough the archer wouldn't even have to bow down that much.

Horse archers' fire rate wouldn't have mattered as much, because they didn't do the "arrow storm" thing AFAIK. Weren't horse archers all about hit-and-run: riding near the enemy force with an arrow ready, letting it loose, and then riding out of their archers' range and readying another arrow?

Also, horse archers couldn't use longbows because they were too long. The longer arrows could also be slower to draw from a quiver.

[Scarlioni]

For a longbow with it's (presumably, I actully don't know) longer arrows placing them in the dirt at your feet would be quicker than using a quiver. However this would only apply to set peice battles and prepared ambushes. The Normans were using compound bow at hastings and the bayeaux tapestry shows them putting their arrows in the dirt.

I believe the first mention of the Welsh longbow is from the Peterbough Chronicle. The Norman's were mentioning the bows of the Welsh as something special upon they're very first encounters with it. I think I read once that most bows could penetrate mail at 30 feet the Welsh/English longbow could perice mail at 50 feet.

I've only ever heard the claim that pathologists can identify English longbowmen because of their bones. I've never heard this stated about any other archers anywhere any time. The draw on those things must have been huge.

As for horse archers and arrow storms. Oh yes they did! That was the point! Imagine two thousand horse archers charging you, rank upon rank of them, and firing arrows as they charged. The arrows fired from further away coming in at high angles while arrows fired from closer at lower angles impacting at near the same time. At about thirty feet from your line they suddenly wheel away carrocle style performing the parthian shot as they ride away. Once safely away from you the horse archers would reload their quivers and do it agian and again and again. When you couldn't take it anymore, to busy hiding behind your shield and not expecting it, they'd not wheel away. Whipping out their sabres at the last instant and charge home. Also horse archers could ride around your shield wall on the flanks pouring fire into your formations ala old holywood westerns with the indians riding in circles around the wagonberg.

The magyars smashed numerically superior armies again and again using this, only to have the mongols return the favor a few centuries on.

I've seen a Magyar composite bow. It was truly a work of art. The waterproofing was snakeskin.

I'll write my opinions on crossbows tomorrow night. Someone started a thread on pikes and I definately have to get in on that

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

Someone said that the longbow was cheap. Not true. The English were importing yew staves from the continent by the reign of Edward the IV for the construction of longbows. The poeple of England were paying their taxes in arrows throughout the hundred years war. The use of the longbow died out because the yew became an endangered species thorught Europe because of English demand. No other wood would do for the english longbow.

Most of what you said is accurate. However, it was not entirely for bows that caused the yew to become endangered. Yew was also used in crossbeams in ships, which contributed significantly.

For these and other reasons england developed the royal forests, and royal forestry laws - to the extant that at some point it was punisheable by death fell trees in these forests.

I have also seen the Mongolian foot bow - a huge recurved bow, sometimes up to 8 feet - that could fire an arrow WELL more 800 m.

The abilities of the ancients truly were amazing... the largest trebuchets used vs constaninople were able to fire a stone weighing a ton, almost a mile. Constantinople had walls up to 20 feet thick and 40 feet high or so...

[Scarlioni]

Most of what you said is accurate. However, it was not entirely for bows that caused the yew to become endangered. Yew was also used in crossbeams in ships, which contributed significantly.

I didnt know yew was a preferred wood in ship building. Where can I learn more?

I have also seen the Mongolian foot bow - a huge recurved bow, sometimes up to 8 feet - that could fire an arrow WELL more 800 m.

I thought the ancient greeks had those too, but apparently I was thinking of this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes

The abilities of the ancients truly were amazing... the largest trebuchets used vs constaninople were able to fire a stone weighing a ton, almost a mile. Constantinople had walls up to 20 feet thick and 40 feet high or so...

I've read similar statements concerning the ammunition fired at the siege of Constantinople but I thought it was launched by something similar to this

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&usg=__1_0QTXz9OuewYaGtTw72xWe1PN4=&h=442&w=800&sz=623&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=jKgZz1bYeJO6LM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDardanelles%2Bgun%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

I didnt know yew was a preferred wood in ship building. Where can I learn more?

I thought the ancient greeks had those too, but apparently I was thinking of this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes

I've read similar statements concerning the ammunition fired at the siege of Constantinople but I thought it was launched by something similar to this

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&usg=__1_0QTXz9OuewYaGtTw72xWe1PN4=&h=442&w=800&sz=623&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=jKgZz1bYeJO6LM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDardanelles%2Bgun%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

The mongolian bow I was referring to was fired lying down, using the feet against the bow, and drawing back with the muscles of the arm and abdomen.

I saw it in a korean war museum - along with a replica of the turtle - a boat with metal plating done hundreds of years before the merrimac. I haven't found any online references to it.

For more usual bows, Ottoman Sultan Selim III was once witnessed to have fired an arrow from a Turkish composite bow an amazing distance of 889metres (2917feet) though its effective range was considerably less.

As for the dardanelles guns - no, I wasn't speaking about guns, but actual trebuchets or catapults - the word has different meanings depending on where in the world you are.

[Maerlande]

I hope I'm not bothering anyone by repeating something from earlier in the thread. But I did a quick read and didn't see any of this.

I am an archer as a hobby. And a mechanical engineer. Here are a few bits of the physics of a bow.

1) The killing power of an arrow and also it's armour piercing ability is a function of the kinetic energy. Which is mass times velocity squared.

2) The kinetic energy imparted into an arrow or bolt is not a linear function of the draw strength. It is actually closer to the area of the draw from bow tip to tip versus the area of a strung bow not drawn. Therefore, the taller the bow the more energy for the same draw weight. So, simply put, a 100 lb composite bow 4 feet tall puts less energy into the arrow than a 100 lb long bow.

3) Cross bows have VERY short draws and generally very small bows. 36 inch is quite big. Longer and they are unweildy to shoot through crenelations. These two combined mean that crossbows must have much greater draw strength to put the same kinetic energy into the bolt.

4) Crossbow bolts have less mass than arrows. Both are usually the same diameter and made of much the same material. But arrows are 2-3 times longer.

5) In bow hunting, a 50 lb regular recurve bow is acceptable by law in my province. To hunt with a crossbow you must use 150 lb minimum. This is due to the clearly superior penetration of bows for comparable draw. Lighter crossbows are banned because the have insufficient penetration.

6) One clear advantage to using a crossbow to hunt is it may be carried drawn. Drawing a bow can be noisy enough to spook the prey.

I am also a recreationist. Our club uses draw weight to define acceptable sizes of bows and crossbows for combat archery. Bows may not be more than 30 lb. Crossbows may be 60. Having been hit many times by these using blunts, I can clearly say that a 30 lb japanese long bow hits MUCH harder than any recurve or crossbow within those rules.

As an archer there are some very interesting effects of bow shape. Recurve bows draw hard initially and remain fairly hard to hold drawn. Long bows are quite easy to start to draw but the weight increase rapidly at full draw. They are extremely hard to hold drawn.

I typically shoot a 55 lb recurve bow for traditional target archery. I'm a very large man and quite strong but I can only hold full draw for about 10 seconds. However, I can shoot 6 arrows in 30 seconds quite easily. It's not as accurate as a bit slower, but I can hit the target and score fairly well. My accuracy does not improve much by shooting slowly. With my large bow, my arm shakes and I lose accuracy if I hold it.

So, the real physical effects of bows and crossbows suggest some answers to these questions. English and Japanese longbows in the hands of a strong and skilled archer have very high penetration. The only comparable crossbows are the crank type. The simple goatsfoot crossbows that load moderately quickly have no where near the penetration. And that's simple physics. Even the 150 lb horseback composites typically have less penetration than a long bow.

PS: The thugs informed me I misread the date. I'm a year too late.