Crossbows vs. Longbows

[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

[Agema]

Some bows have been capable of extreme ranges, but I think we could assume they were specialised for the purpose, maybe for medieval bragging rights. Your average skilled battlefield archer with a powerful long or composite bow would be unlikely to exceed 300-400 metres.

[JimMorrison]

It was my understanding that they, of course, were for specialized use, referred to by terms such as War Bow and Siege Bow (in various languages). Their use (AFAIK) was similar to mortar fire today - indirect bombardment across valleys or over walls to harass and demoralize an opponent that is trying to maintain a defensive position.

[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.

[Lingchih]

Wow, you resurrected this thread Maerlande? Well, your post was good, and informative.

[Maerlande]

Well, I didn't really mean to resurrect a dead thread. Someone made a mention of it on IRC and I saw a place to comment with some science. But I misread the date of the last post I guess I still don't quite live in 2010.

[militarist]

Sorry for my English, it's not native

"Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a crossbow or a longbow fight, but the Battle of Crecy was won by longbowmen zinging the French Knights to death, right?"

That's a nice legend, but reality can be quite far from our understanding of what really happened there. There were numerious scintific reconstructions - scientists found examples of iron, which was used in french armors, and arroheads of arrows of longbowmens. And, having estimated arrow speed (using special cameras, and devices) , sent by professional archer, they made experiment - English arrows with iron quality which was used during this fight against french armor of that time. And arrows when were hitting armor in most of cases didn't pierce it.
Of course, if there are a lot of arrows, and french knights were not covered ideally with it, and there we different armors, probably.. but they came to different theory which, by their belief explains what happened there.

The main difference between English forces and French was in a very high amount of long bowmen (which were just twice cheaper than footmen). These guys were not really protected a lot, were in cloth boots, some shirts...something very far from heavy armored french men. Of course there were footmen also, but proportions.

The field was chosen by English strategists, basing on this difference.
It was a very nerrow field, where French just could not attack from many siddes, and had to send all army through quite narrow place. It was rain, a lot of mud. A lot of French knights, trying to get through narrow part of the field, and shower of English arrows, which added to this mess. French, heavy armored knights, just struck in mood by their heavy iron boots.When you are in a mess of bodies and mood, you are heavy, and your heavy boots struck in a land, swampy from rain, you are quite limited..English longbowmen, with their cloth boots and no heavy staff, were much more mobile, and just more effective, killing them, just by stabbing their long knifes into faces and weak places of armors of the French.. Then huge amount of French just gave up. And, king of England, just executed them all because he didn't believe that he has already won and expected more French to come and to free his numerious prisoners.

I don't remember the film, where all this research was explained. Some made in UK, for sure.

So, long bows have quite cool reputation, but, really , it is based more on this battle, and in this battle it was strategy and weather, who brought victory to England, and long bows were maybe third factor,or 4th, 5th..etc.

[Maerlande]

Sounds like the analysis done by John Keagan in "The Face of Battle"