Crossbows vs. Longbows

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by vfb

So, for example, if you were at the Battle of Hastings, and you were told to shoot over the shield wall and ensure victory for the Normans, you'd be like, "Sorry dude, I can't arc."

You can't vary the drawing of the bow and still have it work the way it is suppose to work. They wouldn't have been able to shoot over that wall at any distance within their range. For example if they were close they couldn't just give the arrow a little tug to scoot over. Bows have to be shot full powered. It's simply the mechanics of how they work. Read my post and I'm talking about absolute arcing all the time. They obviously can do so when in a position that allows them in accordance with the power of their weapon but not in the way you see in these games where the crossbow is forced to shoot straight and the bow has all this extra magical flexibility. You can ,and they did, lob high angle shots with a crossbow too. However that isn't arching whenever is it? That is my point if I was not clear.

@Sombre.

Lol at lexicographers knowing what they're doing. Have you heard about words like "acorn" being removed from the Oxford Junior dictionary? Sorry the definition is still wrong, but that is not your fault so this isn't a flame. Security smiley incoming.

Originally Posted by Agema

I don't support the "because they were cheap" argument for one main reason: I don't think it adequately explains the adoption of massed bowfire as a tactic itself. I think that requires military commanders seeing how a weapon can be used and adapting to it. In the ancient and medieval eras, massed bowfire was common in Eastern militaries, but the further west into Europe you got, the more the ethos was melee: archery was generally about softening up or harassing an opponent prior to the real action. That the English used such mass deployment of archers suggests a tactical doctrine at variance with not just their own history, but the prevailing cultural habits of Western Europe. Thus they would have to have weapon to make that doctrinal change viable.

They were massed because they could be because they were cheap enough for the populace to snag them up. They wouldn't be able to sub in another competing range weapon because they did not have the pimpin' money rolls to do it with. There was no mystical English hoodoo going on and restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

This is why I suggest the English longbow is a "battle winner" - it was a weapon you could heavily base your army on, not that it meant proper scouting, logistics, good morale, disciplined troops and decent generalship became less necessary. It could fulfill this role because weaker bows could not fire an arrow far enough and or with enough penetration, whereas crossbows that had the range and power fired too slowly. Yes, I think it *was* a superb weapon; the many victories accomplished with it should be some testament to its effectiveness.

To prove this you would have to prove that what the English have accomplished could not have been done otherwise without the longbow. The longbow's power is inflated simply because the strategies of the French were poor. Poor enough when at Morlaix when they didn't even use them they still won with basically what amounted to traps and pointy sticks. When the French gain cohesion and focus later on, they fell apart.

And the crossbow is not as "slow" as you think it is. For one you have to realize the inherent advantages of a missile weapon held in such a manner allowed a greater frontage. The man in front can lower his profile giving the men behind clear sight. This also allows multiple ranks to take turns ensuring a continuous and more cohesive stream of missiles. Recalling my good discussion with my buddy at the top of my post remember what I said about bow arcing. Imagine a longbowman standing behind his fellow longbowman. The longbow because it is...long cannot be shot from a crouched/prone position in the manner of crossbow/firearm. So how is the guy gonna get around his buddy? If the target is too close and he aims up a little bit he'll over shoot. If he trys to go way high up he is likely to miss. And not to mention he's doing this without being able to see past his buddy's pumpkin head. So he can't even get a rough idea on how to adjust following shots. Combine this with what I've said before and the rate of shooting of the longbow is no where near the kind of efficacy that you think it is.

Strong bows with huge draw weights are indeed worldwide. However, that doesn't mean it's easy and anyone plucked from the general populace could do it without practice: they would largely have been specialised hunters and the like. Producing tens of thousands of such archers available for warfare is a different matter. Longbows vary, well, yes this has been agreed. In that sense you'd be right that there was nothing very special about longbows generically. However, to do so would also mask the fact that the Welsh/English version was much more powerful than your average longbow. At which point, we'd be asking instead "Which longbow does the game mean?"

Producing many archers has been done before. Again there is nothing special about the Welsh/English longbow comparative bows are found elsewhere in Europe there is no extra power that it has. And it isn't that difficult. There is no special Englishness that let's them engage in the kind of martial archery practice that happened elsewhere. Average longbows of that strength are found in old Viking burial sites. The weapon is really really old.

Edit: Oh yeah a couple more things. The V thing is pure apocrypha. To pull a warbow you need three-four fingers. So there is no significance in two. Longbowman would not likely be bothered to be ransomed back in the first place and so they would have dead so it didn't matter how many fingers they had left. Churchill lied his rear end off about a whole lot of things and admitted it too.

And the church ban didn't do anything since the pope at the time was weak.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

@Sombre.

Lol at lexicographers knowing what they're doing. Have you heard about words like "acorn" being removed from the Oxford Junior dictionary? Sorry the definition is still wrong, but that is not your fault so this isn't a flame. Security smiley incoming.

I work at OUP. There's certainly been some hysteria in the media about words being removed, but it is extremely skewed. Probably because they have an audience to pander to and because the truth is less interesting. Still, rather than bleating what you read in a poorly researched article about the Junior Dictionary eroding the language, maybe you should check the facts for yourself.

The Junior Dictionary is designed for very young children, as an introduction to dictionaries. They are expected to already know the majority of the words in the book, adding to their sense of security and familiarity when using it. Clearly the dictionary also has a limit on the number of words it contains. So when the vocabulary of young children changes, as it does constantly, the dictionary must change to reflect this. It isn't like 'monarch', 'bishop', 'acorn, 'psalm' etc were left out as an oversight due to stupidity, or were removed as political correctness gone mad, or because the researchers at OUP Reference division wanted to exert thought control over the next generation. It's an accurate (according to a team of professional linguistic researchers, as opposed to say, you) portrayal of the vocabulary and language needs of very young children in england.

If you look at a list of all the hundreds of words removed and added and you choose a handful selectively based on your political or 'logical' agenda, you can 'prove' just about whatever you want. I would think this was obvious.

For the last time - dictionaries do not DRIVE language, they merely represent and define it. The definition could be inaccurate due to an error somewhere in the process, but since they are representing modern language usage a definition cannot be 'wrong' if it accurately portrays the current use. Which 'fire' for loosing arrows certainly does. Regarding the Junior dictionary, if very young children aren't using pulpit, acorn, psalm etc that's hardly the fault of OUP. We just record it. If your argument is that you know more about the state of language and how to construct a dictionary than the researchers at OUP, then wow. Enjoy your fantasy land.

It's pretty clear now you're a troll, which I will blame you for, because it is your fault. Even so you could at least try to get things halfway correct. That way you wouldn't get 'pwn3d' like a 'n00b' every time you open your mouth. 'LOL '

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

@Sombre

When young children are referring to "magical pebbles that grow trees" I'll hold you to what you said. How am I troll? I prefaced that factoid with an inference that I was intentionally being silly which is why I'm not badgering people about it when they use it elsewhere. And it is still true that "fire" is not the appropriate term. It is still incorrect.

Originally Posted by Endoperez

I haven't seen longbows used in the way you describe, in games or in movies. What games are you talking about, and what, exactly, is this magical aiming effect?

At least to me, your original mention of arcing seemed to ignore the fact that the archers have more options than "straight" and "arc of X degrees". Changing the angle the arrows are fired at will also affect the place where they come down, obviously. While it can't be used always, it would allow for some flexibility. The constant force is also a limit for crossbows, also used in similar manner.

Unless it has been patched is it not true in this game where crossbows will shoot the backs of troops they are behind of while arrows will go over? That's what I'm referring to. Both bows and crossbows are limited by constant force because a bow has to be balanced to it's anchor and pulled the same way every time. The difference is , is that crossbows do not allow for the same degree of human error because the string always rests on the "nut" (the part that rolls over when the trigger is pulled). While with a bow that spot is inconsistently reached especially in the heat of battle.

I think you missed Agema's point here. He also said that the English didn't have other range weapons to sub in. Money was a big part of this.

Longbows are cheaper than crossbows, and a trained man can load a longbow faster than he can a crossbow. If your goal is to fire as many arrows/bolts into the enemy army fast, longbows do it better than crossbows, both because their rate of fire is better and because they are cheaper, ergo you can afford more longbowmen.


As far as I know, there was no other cheap ranged weapon that could fire at a comparable distance, in the time period we are talking about. If longbow is the only such weapon, then the English couldn't have used the tactic of massed archers with anything but the longbow. I can't see anything wrong with this logic. Unless you know something I don't, that means longbows really were the superior choice, for this single instance.

Due to the money situation they were more or less forced into a position regardless yes I mentioned this a while back too. But what was necessary for England at the time does not equate to an absolute optimal decision in general. Also there is a misconception with rate of shooting . The simple reason is that when you consider all the negative factors effecting the quality per arrow of the longbow this number is not as significant as it may seem at first glance.

Given the poor leadership of their enemies at the time I do not feel a massed archer strategy was necessary and in the long run it was a hindrance.

We are not talking about longbows and crossbows in this game, but about their historical usage. Since we're talking about how the English used their longbows, we should talk about the time and place they used the longbows in.

Well the purpose of a historical discussion in a game forum, to be on topic, is to gain insight and what is right for ingame mechanics.

This sounds more like something from the period when firearms and rank-fighting were in use. To my knowledge, crossbows were never used like this, but I could be wrong. Can you post any example? It's an intriguing image, and I'd be interested in reading more about it.

Alternating shooting is present in multiple pictures of the period such as in German usage books and in Froissart's manuscripts. It's a described technique in the ancient Chinese military. The descriptions of the "streams" are present in the wars of Charles VIII in Sweden and the Hussite Crusades. I can't name any specific books for the moment as it's been quite a while. Like everyone else here I'm simply casually sharing.

Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.

I don't know how longbowmen were stationed in the battlefield, but of course they couldn't be stationed so close to each other that they wouldn't have space to fire or aim. However, since the weapon has rather long range, it isn't necessary. It would make defending an army or longbowmen more difficult than an army of crossbowmen, since the longbowmen would cover a larger area. However, as I said above, crossbows couldn't be massed (by English) in such numbers any way.

I know that but extreme high angle shots would be...unwise as you risk raking your own ranks. You would gain distance and then at some point get closer however that "closer" area could be hit with a direct shot in any case. And again training goes only so far when you consider the fickleness of the weapon. Imagine an expert marksmen using a modern firearm and each shot has a different character. Is it possible for his training to overcome it when he cannot predict how each shot will behave? Perhaps to a degree. But now flip it on it's head. Is it possible to train an expert marksman in the first place with such a weapon? I would say...not really. No longbow volley could be cohesive enough to hit even a blob with the same amount of cohesion of other weapons.

There have been other armies that used huge amounts of archers, and longbows have been used by specialized hunters (and the like) in other places. The proper question is, has anyone else ever trained an army of longbowmen?

It is an interesting question, for two reasons:
1) If longbows are so useful, why didn't anyone else do it?
2) If they aren't superior weapons, why did the English do it?

I think the second question has been answered in this thread: for the English, it was cheaper and/or more efficient to mass longbows than other similar weapons, like crossbows.

Now the question becomes, why did they need so many archers? I found someone who thought it was because archers were good against CAVALRY, not infantry. Arrows would kill and/or wound unarmored horses, and the presence of longbowmen would force the French to dismount. It was just one person and he didn't cite any sources, so make of that what you will.

The longbow was a major part of India for a long long time. And I already mentioned Assaye and the not good things that happened to those guys. You wouldn't see an "army" (and I'm assuming you mean some quantifiable number greater than "huge amount") because it wasn't really a good idea. The ultimate failures of such a system become evident when they you know...lost horribly. The English did it because of cost reasons and got stuck so to speak which is a recurrent problem with the country throughout it's history similar to how they were slow to change from hand cutting coal to machine cut which hampered their industry (obviously much latter in history).

Originally Posted by Chrispederson

This is just poppycock.
It was common military practice in the medieval ages to

a). Mark out spacings around castles as markers so bowmen and artillery knew how hard to pull for the effective range.

b). It was often done to fire same at *less* than full strength to deceive your opponent as to the maxiumum range of your pieces.

According to your argument that each bow had a specific "sweet spot". Nonsense. If you are saying that a bow had to be pulled with 40 lbs of strength - Imagine how hard it would be to match each bowman to each bow.

It is much rather true that each bow had a *Wide* range of acceptable pull strengths. And generally, the harder you pulled it the farther the arror flies.

Competitions in the middle ages were held at various distances, with some at more than 1000 feet.

Bows DO have an anchor. You can't overdraw a bow or you damage it. And if you underdraw it they arrow won't even fly straight not to mention even if it did it would be significantly weaker. Yes precisely it is HARD to balance each bow. This is why such a weapon in that time period is inherently INCONSISTENT.

Other points:
While crossbows did have the ability for a moderate amount of ascenscion- they had essentially no ability for declension.

Talented bowman could put 5 arrows in the air in two seconds - and putting three arrows in a bird before it hit the ground. You can't even begin to compare the rate of fire of a crossbow.

Saying things is rocks scissors paper is a little misleading - yes, after a time systems and tactics develop to compensate for a new weapon.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.

LOL you are vastly overestimating the rate of shooting for a bow as well as their possible accuracy.

And can you clarify what you said about crossbow "declension" I do not get your meaning.

The longbow was NOT an "amazing and groundbreaking development" because it is neither amazing nor groundbreaking since in that time period the weapon was already old as dirt.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Unless it has been patched is it not true in this game where crossbows will shoot the backs of troops they are behind of while arrows will go over? That's what I'm referring to.

To my knowledge, this has never been the case, and I've played since the first Dominions game. Arrows, crossbow bolts, sling bullets, javelins and fire bolts cast by wizards will all arc the same way, given they hit the same place in the ground. They only differ in range and precision.

I might write answer to the rest of your post later.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Talented bowman could put 5 arrows in the air in two seconds - and putting three arrows in a bird before it hit the ground. You can't even begin to compare the rate of fire of a crossbow.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.

I don't believe anyone can fire 5 unaimed arrows in two seconds. It's probably possible to have the five arrows in the air at the same time, though. I agree that crossbow is much slower, but I can't believe any bow being that fast.


I also agree with MGJT in regards to the fact that longbow itself isn't an English invention, and not new by that time. He's commented on it already, but longbows have existed for thousands of years. They had varying draw strengths, of course. I found a few mentions of something called "African elephant bow", but couldn't find a time for it. I did find an image of a girl who had killed an elephant with a single arrow, but her bow was a modern, adjustable hunting bow.

I liked the other parts of your post, but without sources, your points will just be ignored by MGJT.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

When young children are referring to "magical pebbles that grow trees" I'll hold you to what you said. How am I troll? I prefaced that factoid with an inference that I was intentionally being silly which is why I'm not badgering people about it when they use it elsewhere. And it is still true that "fire" is not the appropriate term. It is still incorrect.

Well I'm not trying to convince you, believe me. Especially after that stupid response. Since it's been demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, it's cool for you to continue. No-one with any sense will listen.

It also now appears you've never even played dominions. You couldn't possibly be a troll

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

You can't vary the drawing of the bow and still have it work the way it is suppose to work. They wouldn't have been able to shoot over that wall at any distance within their range. For example if they were close they couldn't just give the arrow a little tug to scoot over. Bows have to be shot full powered. It's simply the mechanics of how they work. Read my post and I'm talking about absolute arcing all the time. They obviously can do so when in a position that allows them in accordance with the power of their weapon but not in the way you see in these games where the crossbow is forced to shoot straight and the bow has all this extra magical flexibility. You can ,and they did, lob high angle shots with a crossbow too. However that isn't arching whenever is it? That is my point if I was not clear.

I haven't seen longbows used in the way you describe, in games or in movies. What games are you talking about, and what, exactly, is this magical aiming effect?

At least to me, your original mention of arcing seemed to ignore the fact that the archers have more options than "straight" and "arc of X degrees". Changing the angle the arrows are fired at will also affect the place where they come down, obviously. While it can't be used always, it would allow for some flexibility. The constant force is also a limit for crossbows, also used in similar manner.

They were massed because they could be because they were cheap enough for the populace to snag them up. They wouldn't be able to sub in another competing range weapon because they did not have the pimpin' money rolls to do it with. There was no mystical English hoodoo going on and restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

I think you missed Agema's point here. He also said that the English didn't have other range weapons to sub in. Money was a big part of this.

Longbows are cheaper than crossbows, and a trained man can load a longbow faster than he can a crossbow. If your goal is to fire as many arrows/bolts into the enemy army fast, longbows do it better than crossbows, both because their rate of fire is better and because they are cheaper, ergo you can afford more longbowmen.


As far as I know, there was no other cheap ranged weapon that could fire at a comparable distance, in the time period we are talking about. If longbow is the only such weapon, then the English couldn't have used the tactic of massed archers with anything but the longbow. I can't see anything wrong with this logic. Unless you know something I don't, that means longbows really were the superior choice, for this single instance.

...restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

We are not talking about longbows and crossbows in this game, but about their historical usage. Since we're talking about how the English used their longbows, we should talk about the time and place they used the longbows in.

And the crossbow is not as "slow" as you think it is. For one you have to realize the inherent advantages of a missile weapon held in such a manner allowed a greater frontage. The man in front can lower his profile giving the men behind clear sight. This also allows multiple ranks to take turns ensuring a continuous and more cohesive stream of missiles.

This sounds more like something from the period when firearms and rank-fighting were in use. To my knowledge, crossbows were never used like this, but I could be wrong. Can you post any example? It's an intriguing image, and I'd be interested in reading more about it.

So how is the guy gonna get around his buddy? If the target is too close and he aims up a little bit he'll over shoot. If he trys to go way high up he is likely to miss. And not to mention he's doing this without being able to see past his buddy's pumpkin head. So he can't even get a rough idea on how to adjust following shots. Combine this with what I've said before and the rate of shooting of the longbow is no where near the kind of efficacy that you think it is.

Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.

I don't know how longbowmen were stationed in the battlefield, but of course they couldn't be stationed so close to each other that they wouldn't have space to fire or aim. However, since the weapon has rather long range, it isn't necessary. It would make defending an army or longbowmen more difficult than an army of crossbowmen, since the longbowmen would cover a larger area. However, as I said above, crossbows couldn't be massed (by English) in such numbers any way.

Producing many archers has been done before. Again there is nothing special about the Welsh/English longbow comparative bows are found elsewhere in Europe there is no extra power that it has.

There have been other armies that used huge amounts of archers, and longbows have been used by specialized hunters (and the like) in other places. The proper question is, has anyone else ever trained an army of longbowmen?

It is an interesting question, for two reasons:
1) If longbows are so useful, why didn't anyone else do it?
2) If they aren't superior weapons, why did the English do it?

I think the second question has been answered in this thread: for the English, it was cheaper and/or more efficient to mass longbows than other similar weapons, like crossbows.

Now the question becomes, why did they need so many archers? I found someone who thought it was because archers were good against CAVALRY, not infantry. Arrows would kill and/or wound unarmored horses, and the presence of longbowmen would force the French to dismount. It was just one person and he didn't cite any sources, so make of that what you will.

[KissBlade]

Obviously there are situations where the longbow proves it's mettle as opposed to times when it does not. However, history is written by the victors and for the most part, the British Empire wrote most of the history. Since the longbow was seen as one of it's pride, it's no surprise that it achieves it's fame in strategy guides. =)

[Agema]

It's also acceptable to use "fire" with respect to bows in the Oxford English Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary (two of the three most-used British dictionaries) and, I think, Merriam-Webster.

* * *

I don't support the "because they were cheap" argument for one main reason: I don't think it adequately explains the adoption of massed bowfire as a tactic itself. I think that requires military commanders seeing how a weapon can be used and adapting to it. In the ancient and medieval eras, massed bowfire was common in Eastern militaries, but the further west into Europe you got, the more the ethos was melee: archery was generally about softening up or harassing an opponent prior to the real action. That the English used such mass deployment of archers suggests a tactical doctrine at variance with not just their own history, but the prevailing cultural habits of Western Europe. Thus they would have to have weapon to make that doctrinal change viable.

This is why I suggest the English longbow is a "battle winner" - it was a weapon you could heavily base your army on, not that it meant proper scouting, logistics, good morale, disciplined troops and decent generalship became less necessary. It could fulfill this role because weaker bows could not fire an arrow far enough and or with enough penetration, whereas crossbows that had the range and power fired too slowly. Yes, I think it *was* a superb weapon; the many victories accomplished with it should be some testament to its effectiveness.

Strong bows with huge draw weights are indeed worldwide. However, that doesn't mean it's easy and anyone plucked from the general populace could do it without practice: they would largely have been specialised hunters and the like. Producing tens of thousands of such archers available for warfare is a different matter. Longbows vary, well, yes this has been agreed. In that sense you'd be right that there was nothing very special about longbows generically. However, to do so would also mask the fact that the Welsh/English version was much more powerful than your average longbow. At which point, we'd be asking instead "Which longbow does the game mean?"

[Thierry]

Rarely is a weapon a 'war winner' by itself. In 100d war, it's not the bow by itself wich won battles. But its efficient use, i.e. trained bowman (see how it was done in england), tactics and learning how your adversary thinks (see why french knight were decimated), using the landscape (forest, protection or defending a chock point). On other set up or use, your mighty bowmen would avail to nothing.

What about a fight between horse archers and 'static' longbowmen ? Being charged on a dry plain instead of a drenched soil ? Or turned by light cavalry ?

At one time the most efficient weapon was the military pike, largely used by switzerland/swiss federation. Yet was the pike by itself a superior weapon ? It has its case of use, like most other weapons...

From what I gathered, crossbows were deadly, more accurate and dangerous than the longbow. Every european nations used them, most in countries were the noble cast was less in power. After all being killed by a rufian while you're a knight is not glorious. So many crossbow mercenary were italian (Genoa). One kind of crossbow was outlawed by the church because it was too efficient. (The one you draw/arm with your feet instead of a winch).

Funily enough, in England the rufian hero is Robin Hood, with a bow, while for the swiss I think its Guillaume/Whilelm Tell with a crossbow (In France it's Thierry La Fronde, 'La Fronde' stands for 'sling', his weapon. I don't want to restart on bow vs sling, I know nothing of slings !!! Even if I share his firstname (for reasons.. thanks TV !))

So why do see so many reports of longbow being so efficient in war ? Crossbow were far more expensive, heavy and had a far less fire rate. The troop was slower, harder to use and didn't deliver as much a punch while large archer formations managed 'saturation fire' at time. They were very efficient in some settings (castle, small troops, 'hand weapon' for travelers, etc..) Hence their use by all major european nations, england included. By they were not effecient in a masse battle, loosing to the bow.

English longbow were notorious because they were technically superior to other european countrie's bow, and mainly because the training and drafting of the archer was really above. It turned to France copying the organisation and forming 'Archers francs' companies, trained professionals. I heard that Churchill 'V' for victory hand sign comes from this time : the english archer showing that they still had their two fingers to draw the bow, while the french threatened to cut it on any prisonneer This alone shows how efficient those guys were !

->
Oh by the way, can someon from (or learned in) Asia tell us how crossbow were used in asia ? In my old RPG time, we had 'repetition' crossbow It is (supposed to be) an Chinese invention ?

As for me I'm confortable with having crossbow AP and bow not. It hads variety to the game and different strategies

[Gandalf Parker]

Mandatory Warning:
If you feel this is a worthy discussion which should continue then please make a strong effort to discuss the subject and NOT discuss each other. Personal attacks of any type will close a thread and possibly remove it entirely.