Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Krec]

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/crossbow.htm
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/longbow.htm

[Gregstrom]

And... crossbows were used by William Tell, who was Swiss. And Switzerland has a border with Austria, where Hitler was born. Therefore crossbows are tainted with Hitler-ness, and evil.


And Godwin is satisfied, and we can all go home.

[Maerlande]

Oh I love that logic Gregstrom. Fine stuff.

[BigDaddy]

I've never had a problem with necroing thread that are like this one. If someone want to discuss this type of thing, this can just as easily be the clearinghouse of information.

I am not a bow expert, but it is not difficult, for me at least, to understand penetration as a mixture between projectile mass and velocity and strike area, which yields power delivered per unit area. If I understand basic bowcraft, you get more overall stopping power from a large (higher grain) arrow than a small arrow, but less accurracy. This means that loading the projectile with energy is a function of some kind, and not just a gross number as in you get such and such joules or watt/hours or whatever, per pull (also, the last inches of pull seem to load more, so longer arrows seem to have more power).

So, most bows of whatever type should have fine penetration.

There was not a great deal of variety in materials for bows in medieval times, and crossbows were generally not 5 feet wide, as a long bow might be tall. From what I have seen, long bows also flexed quite a bit more. This would generally seem to favor the long bow for loading capacity over the crossbow, even if it take more weight to pull back the string. Modern crossbows, though still often narrow, flex like crazy, to a point I've never seen anyone do with a bow. Compound bows still seem superior however. Though it's likely there is a comparative crossbow variety as well. Most compound bows are composite of some sort and so are crossbows, but compound bows seem to be more wood like, whereas crossbows seem to be more like metal springs. I haven't a clue which is necessarily more powerful, becaue the compound bow is generally much larger, and crossbow remains nocked. Thus, there is not much of a clue from user interface. My assumption is that at the high end of penetration in the modern world are sophisticated compound crossbows that are quite large and are pulled back with a mechanical device. This seems like the most reason and sane way a person could load a projectile with as much force as can be reasonably accomplished.

But what about slings? I looked around at sling information, and it seems that slings remained effective for a very long time. Even now they have their harrasment value with certain irregulars. They use a blunt object, so the object needs to be very heavy or very dense. Indeed, when there was metal armor, the slings used lead shot, which was quite deadly, on the Romans.

However, the ranks of slingers dwindled, and this is likely to be due to skill and culture limitations. I've never used a sling, but they aren't and obvious as a bow, and certainly no were near as obvious as a crossbow.

In ancient Israel, they have found a lot of sling stones, some quite large (fist size!). There is some evidence that the Ancient people of the region used slings to achieve great results (also explaining why other nations came up against them with calvalry and chariots). One -could- assume that sling use was a sort of national pass time in the region. This would explain the various size and sling projectiles as well, and the skill involved. Contemporary persons skilled with the sling are quite effective and accurate. I would concede that such a situation could easily be like that with English Longbowmen, only, it seems, on a grander scale, as all the peasantry use the sling. I can picture granny giving the little ones their first sling lesson, because the men are to busy seeing who can sling the 3 pound monster stone the farthest.

[sector24]

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

If I understand basic bowcraft, you get more overall stopping power from a large (higher grain) arrow than a small arrow, but less accurracy.

This is not really the case in modern archery. The characteristics of the bow determines what kind of arrow you can fire. If you try to shoot an arrow too heavy or too light for your bow, it will not fly straight. Frequently when your arrows are fishtailing (left/right) or porpoising (up/down) it's because the arrow is the wrong weight for the bow.

Technically you are correct though. If you fire an arrow too heavy for your bow, it may increase its stopping power and will definitely decrease its accuracy. But that's probably not what you meant.

[BigDaddy]

Originally Posted by sector24

This is not really the case in modern archery. The characteristics of the bow determines what kind of arrow you can fire. If you try to shoot an arrow too heavy or too light for your bow, it will not fly straight. Frequently when your arrows are fishtailing (left/right) or porpoising (up/down) it's because the arrow is the wrong weight for the bow.

Technically you are correct though. If you fire an arrow too heavy for your bow, it may increase its stopping power and will definitely decrease its accuracy. But that's probably not what you meant.

I actually got that from an archery magazine. If I understand correctly, assuming you are correct, and I bet you are, and I'll add that I didn't say different, that a certain bow can handles several kinds and legnths of arrows with a variety of heads. Typically only refered to as length and weight in grains. I think the variation in lengths a bow can handle doesn't vary -that- much, but you can certainly use heavier arrows to obtain more stopping power, but generally sacrifice accuracy and range.

I'm not an expert, but I have poked around reading things from people who are. So, I'm trying to understand how a few sources here actually agree. A bow might come with a reccomended arrow weight, but that isn't a number that can't be adjusted for circumstance and archer, if I understand correctly.

[Knai]

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

I've never had a problem with necroing thread that are like this one. If someone want to discuss this type of thing, this can just as easily be the clearinghouse of information.

I am not a bow expert, but it is not difficult, for me at least, to understand penetration as a mixture between projectile mass and velocity and strike area, which yields power delivered per unit area. If I understand basic bowcraft, you get more overall stopping power from a large (higher grain) arrow than a small arrow, but less accurracy. This means that loading the projectile with energy is a function of some kind, and not just a gross number as in you get such and such joules or watt/hours or whatever, per pull (also, the last inches of pull seem to load more, so longer arrows seem to have more power).

So, most bows of whatever type should have fine penetration.

There was not a great deal of variety in materials for bows in medieval times, and crossbows were generally not 5 feet wide, as a long bow might be tall. From what I have seen, long bows also flexed quite a bit more. This would generally seem to favor the long bow for loading capacity over the crossbow, even if it take more weight to pull back the string. Modern crossbows, though still often narrow, flex like crazy, to a point I've never seen anyone do with a bow. Compound bows still seem superior however. Though it's likely there is a comparative crossbow variety as well. Most compound bows are composite of some sort and so are crossbows, but compound bows seem to be more wood like, whereas crossbows seem to be more like metal springs. I haven't a clue which is necessarily more powerful, becaue the compound bow is generally much larger, and crossbow remains nocked. Thus, there is not much of a clue from user interface. My assumption is that at the high end of penetration in the modern world are sophisticated compound crossbows that are quite large and are pulled back with a mechanical device. This seems like the most reason and sane way a person could load a projectile with as much force as can be reasonably accomplished.

But what about slings? I looked around at sling information, and it seems that slings remained effective for a very long time. Even now they have their harrasment value with certain irregulars. They use a blunt object, so the object needs to be very heavy or very dense. Indeed, when there was metal armor, the slings used lead shot, which was quite deadly, on the Romans.

However, the ranks of slingers dwindled, and this is likely to be due to skill and culture limitations. I've never used a sling, but they aren't and obvious as a bow, and certainly no were near as obvious as a crossbow.

In ancient Israel, they have found a lot of sling stones, some quite large (fist size!). There is some evidence that the Ancient people of the region used slings to achieve great results (also explaining why other nations came up against them with calvalry and chariots). One -could- assume that sling use was a sort of national pass time in the region. This would explain the various size and sling projectiles as well, and the skill involved. Contemporary persons skilled with the sling are quite effective and accurate. I would concede that such a situation could easily be like that with English Longbowmen, only, it seems, on a grander scale, as all the peasantry use the sling. I can picture granny giving the little ones their first sling lesson, because the men are to busy seeing who can sling the 3 pound monster stone the farthest.

On crossbows. A large part of the reason they were as powerful as they were while as small as they were was the materials involved. They don't bend back as far as a bow in most cases, and are nowhere near as wide. On the other hand, bows aren't made with significant amounts of metal, where the bow part of a crossbow frequently is. As for penetration, it is a combination of a lot of things. Weight, angle, bow power, weather, arrow shape, armor slope, etc, which applies to both bows and crossbows, and makes direct calculations pretty much impossible. Still leaves testing as an option.

On slings, fist sized stones are generally not used, although there are exceptions, and there is always that guy who is actually going to try a 3 pound stone. But generally you are looking at the 1-3 ounces weight (30-100 grams). As for stones, slings are used for sharp objects fairly often. Dart slings are commonplace, poisoned dart slings not commonplace enough. Then of course there is the Apache method, where the projectiles become sharp. Obsidian might be rounded now, but when it hits the rock right next to you the pieces flying at you aren't.

On bows and arrow weights. The weight and length of an arrow are fairly restricted on a per bow basis, although you can swap out heads pretty much as you want, as long as you avoid the kind of stuff that is too impractical for use anyways. It does impact flight, particularly if you try for flaming arrows (where you wrap something just behind the head then light it), but in general you are limited. A few points to the atlatl here, and a few days for me to avoid the word on.

[TwoBits]

When debating bows, x-bows, and/or slings, be sure to keep in mind the effectiveness of the Cretan archers. With their pyromancers in tow to cast Flaming Arrows, their composite bows could slay Carthaginians or Cyclopses with equal ease! No wonder the Romans used Cretan mercenaries in great numbers when they conquered Marverni and C'tis.

Yeah, sure, the Balearic Island slingers had their day against unarmored Spanish barbarians unsupported by wyverns, but when used as mercs in the east against the Seleucids and their flying elephants (courtesy of Seleucid Oreiads of course), well, they didn't do so hot there, did they?

And you know, all that's a historical fact, cause I read all about it in the Lives of the Pantakrators, by Plutarch, the famous necromancer.

[BigDaddy]

This is like an unending conversation about which crossbow or long bow is more powerful in general?

I've read that medieval crossbows were generally less powerful. So, what am I to make of all this conflicting information? What has likely happened is that musuem quality medieval crossbows are no doubt quite powerful and well made (and no doubt accurate). Given the relative complexities, however, and relative ages...

As far as slings go, I was trying to make the sling seem familiar within the context of ancient societes, were it was a very common weapon.

And as for arrow weight, I'm sure there is a nominal weight for the greatest accuracy and/or maximum range amd/or greatest power.

Edit: Now I just "went shopping" and read a x-bow manual. Use the heaviest arrow or bolt that your launcher can fire and you can fire accurately to take down your game as this is the most humane way of doing so. Using a LIGHTER arrow or bolt is considered dry firing. In some cases the x-bow or bow is not tested using a variety of arrows and using other arrows could void the warranty. Nonetheless, weight in grains on just one sight varied (for the same other specs.) from 6.6 grain/inch to 9.2 grain/inch. Which is a large difference. Enough that the manual reccomends always choosing the heaviest one you can shoot accurately at a reasonable range, so as to be humane. Thanks.

[BigDaddy]

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

Particularly the piece at the end. It appears there was much development with regards to the crossbow during the medieval period.