Crossbows vs. Longbows

[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. =)

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Remember that dictionaries change over time and are subject to modern whims which include incorrect usage. I prefaced that post with "pedantic" to emphasize I was being cute and informative and not offending your sensibilities. Next time I will add some smileys to make that clear.

Hey! Did you know that definiton is wrong?

Well then sorry to be pedantic, but you're wrong.

Believe it or not lexicographers know what they're doing. Language doesn't change on 'whims' and the definition isn't wrong, it's modern. Then again your definition of wrong appears to be 'not what I think'. If you expect everyone to use the definitions of words you personally believe rather than the ones in, say, the dictionary, I think you have an uphill battle on your hands.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Redeyes

What an absurd and peculiar little dictionary entry you have found...
I hope people here don't believe this is the correct and historical way to say "loose" just because of this.

The fact that it's defined as such in the Cambridge dictionary means people already use the language this way. That's how dictionaries work. They record and define usage, they don't direct it. If you look up 'loose' you'll find a definition relating to firing arrows also.

[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.

[Sombre]

The repeating crossbow was used in ancient china, yes. I don't think any accounts of its effectiveness are available though.

[Thierry]

Originally Posted by Sombre

The repeating crossbow was used in ancient china, yes. I don't think any accounts of its effectiveness are available though.

Okay I knew nothing of chinese warfare. After some searsh, it seems crossbow was used at least around 500 BC in china. It lead to various improvings, probably meaning that it was usefull. Interestingly, it seems it was a weapon of choice for close defence. Chinese crossbows seems to have a better 'latch' system, not counting the repeatable ones. That could explain this (you could keep it loaded)

Tien Chin should definitively have crossbows

I seem to remember reading Judge Ti novels that he or his assistants used crossbows. It's also in a french serie on china, but that's a more dubious source ('Ivory Puppet' if it was ever translated in English)

And Ermor / Pythium should have Scorpions or other crossbow like machine of war. Usefull for siege, but maybe for battle too (against elephants ?)


EDIT : Hey there's a book on comparison of crossbow vs long bow !
http://books.google.fr/books?id=xCDK...esult#PPA22,M1

From this very interesting book you learn that the 'long bow reign' ranges from 1298 (Falkirk) to 1550 where hand-gun were far more efficient in warfare. Also it should be noted that various kind of crossbows were used (until hand-guns replaced them also), and that we should compare long bow to steel crossbow, the ones used at the same period.

[Aezeal]

hmmm Thierry, very nice of you to tell us what we should compare but could you maybe tell us the general conclusion we could deduce from that book too then?

[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.