Long bow or crossbow?

[Gothmog]

From Agincourt, we know that English lowbow was positively deadly, and far more superior than French Crossbow.

But I also read somewhere that because Crossbow was so powerful and so accurate, it was banned by the church from being used against another christian army.

So which one is better?

------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://www.grahamday.dial.pipex.com/rose-knight1.gif

[This message has been edited by Gothmog (edited 07-10-2002).]

[Papewaio]

Longbow. Because of its ROF and effective armour piercing range combinded means that you could fire a hail of arrows at a mass of troops and you are bound to hit someone.

Crossbow on the other hand maybe more accurate and even have better armour piercing so in a one on one situation it may be better, but that assumes you hit or can load and fire faster then the other guy shooting at you. If outnumbered it takes too long to load to be as effective against troops.

----
In the game I will probably use crossbows like I use muskets in STW. For use against heavily armoured troops and have Longbows behind them firing over the top at all comers. With a nice wrapping of spears. In offence though I have always found slow rof missile troops less effective then mobile high rof missile troops like CA.

[JAG]

there was a huge thread on this . . i posted quite a few posts. . i will summerise . .

im my opinion there is no competition . .the longbow with its range, power and destruction was far superior to the crossbow . .

with a longbow you did not only have a powerful weapon but a feared weapon, and this fear made the english into a hated enemy.

the men who used the longbow had been using it since they were childen and so as a result they could fire and reload effortlessly and so get aways around 3 for every crossbow shot, plus with this amount of arrows in the air you found urself constantly under a barrage of missles . .and with this constant bombardment it was difficult for the crossbowmen to get thier shots off, they used shields to help defend themselves (which were not used at agincourt and so the disastorous affects).

the longbow could pearce anything they had at the time which meant if it hit, it put a man down which meant almost every arrow was punishing and deadly, which is a reason why the frech did not want to get into a open battle with the english. there was a test a few years back now where a bullet proof vest was being tested, no bullet went through it, fired from any gun but when a longbow shot was tested it went clean through!

the crossbow were much harder to use aswell, less accurate and less powerful. the crossbowman cursed the rain, as the english longbowmen could take the strings off thier bows and put them in a safe dry place (dont ask) the crossbowmen could not which meant the strings on the bows were tight and made for harder and less accurate work.

bah im starting to ramble i will finish there. there is more i could say but wont, basically the longbow was the superior weapon it infact i would say is the most powerful weapon in history . .it's devastation has never been equaled or surpassed and apart from a nuke i dont think it will (apart form things like nukes)

------------------
"...but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came."


Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address
4 March 1865

[Kraxis]

The crossbow was banned because now a peasant could kill any knight if he hit him right. But really as said, it is not a contest between the two, the longbow is just so much better.

[deejayvee]

Hi everyone. I'm new here at the org but have been over at the ezboard forum for a while.

One question: Does anyone know much about the stats of the Mongol's bows? I read somewhere once and they were quoting range figures better than the longbow, but I've never been able to find anything else.

[Hirosito]

i would combine the two because the longbows excellent ROF means it runs out quickly. inthe jaffa battle it great to have the crossbows firing until the end.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[Kraxis]

Exactly Hirosito.
That is why I retained the crossbows when I made my mod with the longbows.

[DrNo]

Hirosito, I know what you mean about Crossbows firing until the end.

However crossbows fire slow, so if you expect to face alot of melee troops then archers and longbows are better than crossbows.

The big advantage of Crossbows is when engaging an enemy who wants to stand off and won't engage.
i.e. Good for attacking an enemy in a strong defensive position and drawing them out. Or for taking out enemy cavalry archers.

Time for a demo test I think. 1 Richard Longbow unit vs 1 Saladin Crossbow unit coming up!

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

I dont like either crossbows or pavise crossbowmen, pavise arbalasters however are pretty good, just hard to use due to slow RoF.

WIth longbows i have ound myself consistently withdrawing them from the field after they have exhausted their arrows (unless its a really close one and i need them to mellee).

Pavise arbies , on the other hand, can fire all day (due to slow RoE) and their shields make thema ble to go up against normal archer types "reasonably well) - but, tbh that's miss-using them.

What they are good at is "ignoring" light arcery fire and gunning straight for the heavy foot or cavalry... their penetration seems to be even higher than longbows (in terms of per-shot penetration) [DR maybe look at the stats and see if thats so?]

So a "one shot" from arbalasters is likely to kill more than a "One shot" from longbows.

However, longbows fire faster and further (though arbie range isnt bad at all) so once again....

Other good thing with longbowmen is that they move pretty fast, much faster than pavisemen (no shields to carry) and longbows in mellee can also take care of peasant based units, high valour longbowmen can take on most light infantry in fact... get them into the rear of pretty much "anything" and they rock.... i tend to keep my longbowmen safe though.. its hard to produce them all just from Wales and i only like the "best".

[Nelson]

Here's my take on crossbows and longbows:

Crossbows were much easier to use than longbows. IMO too much is made of the church's position on crossbows which was temporary at best or at least ignored or forgotten. Their continuous use through out the middle ages suggests that one's piety was not threatened by taking up the crossbow.

Crossbows could have better penetration against plate armor beyond short range than longbows. The bigger and more powerful they were the more slowly they fired of course.

Longbows offered artillery style area saturation that was rapid and especially dangerous to unarmored or lightly armored men and horses out to 300 yards or so. At close range plate might be pierced. Lowgbowmen were not zen marksmen. It was their remarkable training in mass long range shooting that made them great. Not to mention that they could swing a mean maul when they had to!

[DrNo]

Well my tests went well, better than expected.

Saladin had 1 60 man unit of Crossbows and me(Richard) had 1 60 man unit of Longbows. Both Honour(Valour) 4.

I put my longbows into 2 rows and waited for Saladin on flat bit of Jaffa map.
The longbows started to fire first as Saladin moved into range and got off about 2 shots before Crossbows were at the right range for AI to decide to fire. Managed to drop a couple of crossbowmen.

So first conclusion: Longbows have better range.

At the range the AI decided to fire, it's crossbows did little damage, only managing to take out 5 Longbowmen by the time my quivers were empty and half the Crossbowmen were dead.

So second conclusion: At long range Longbows rule!

Next experiment was to allow Saladin into position then move my Longbows towards enemy about half the distance from previous test. At this distance the fight was about equal and slightly in favour of crossbows by the time Longbows had run out of ammo.

So third conclusion: At shortish range Crossbows rule!

Then tried a third experiment where I moved my longbows very close perhaps half the distance of previous engagement. The Crossbows dropped 12 of my longbows with 1 shot and then preceeded to charge and engage in h-t-h. My longbows got off 2 shots and only managed to kill 3-4 crossbowmen as they charged.

So fourth conclusion: Longbows don't kill more the closer you move.

That's probably down to the arc of the arrows so best range is medium to long for longbows and closer the better for crossbows etc..

There are no stats on ranged weapons in the stats file, I'm hoping there is in full game however.
Darkmoor you could always search your game copy for txt files and see what you find.

Unit costs
Longbows 325
Crossbows 200
Arbalester 250

All 3 move at same speed, but Longbows have 2 less armour and 1 point worse of in h-t-h.
Longbows do have a shield which gives a bonus like the PaviseCrossbowmen and PaviseArbalester. So this may even the melee stats but we don't know how shield modifier affects combat rating.

Also Longbows also have an axe so are better against heavily armoured opponents(Knights) than Crossbowmen etc..
Again we don't know how much of an effect having an armour piercing weapon or not makes to combat.

[Emp. Conralius]

The English victory at Agincourt was mainly due to French insolence in the face of battle. And also the fact that French crossbow strings got wet and became inoperable. And then, of course, the French Knights dismounted and they were slaughtered by arrows as they tried to gain a footing up a muddy hill. During the Hundred Years War, the French would cut of the draw-fingers of any English bowmen captured. As a result, the English adopted the "fingers of defiance" in which they would hold up their draw fingers before firing arrows. Like the "peace" sign.

[Orda Khan]

Deejayvee, I shoot a Mongol bow and the stats you read were probably correct. This subject has been debated at length and without wishing to resurrect the old arguements, I will give you some info on the Mongol composite bow.
Nowadays you rarely see more than 60lbs draw strain on any bow, this is a safety and practical issue. No good trying to extract an arrow that is buried in the boss. If we consider these poundages and run a comparison, the Longbow does not perform as well. The effective range of the Mongol bow, even at this poundage is 275 yards. It is deadly accurate at 60-70 yards. The important thing to remember is to compare bows of the same draw strain. The Longbow filled the sky with showers of arrows fitted with bodkin heads, long for chain mail, short for plate armour. The shape of these heads plus the velocity of the arrow falling from great height acted like a 'dotpunch' and literally popped through the armour. The Mongol and other steppe nomad bow was used in a completely different way. Mounted archers galloping back and forth, retreating firing backwards causing chaos and splitting ranks the emphasis being speed and mobility, the flat tragectory and speed of their arrows making them deadly accurate. Had they chosen to stand behind ranks of spears, fit their arrows with bodkin heads and aim at the sky, their bows were up to the task. For the Longbow there was only one option as it was too unwieldy to be used in any other situation. If you compare the construction of the bows you will find the secret. The Longbow is of one piece design incorporating heartwood and sapwood for strength and flexibility. Traditionally made from Yew but now more commonly from Osage. They still require warming up and even then are unpredictable. The Mongol bow is of five piece construction the belly of the limbs (the side facing the archer) was covered with horn, the back of the limbs (side facing away) was covered with tendon. The limb tips or siyahs were also clad with horn for strength. Its shape is double recurve and this shape stores the power in the limbs whose angles and construction allow a very long draw that does not 'stack' much before 32 inches. It was the modern compound bow of its time. Consider also that mediaeval bows were sometimes as much as 160lbs draw, they were extremely nasty weapons, so much so that arrows were still being loosed from Mongol bows in the Crimean War. As we can see from historical accounts, both did their jobs well in a different way.
(takes big breath)
........Orda


------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

And welcome to the org deejayvee!


------------------
La vie est un don.

[Wavesword]

I echo much of what has been posted. A trained longbowman could probably send up to 15 arrows off a minute without any great accuracy. Firing at a mass of knights their arrows caused chaos by killing horses rather than riders. (btw seperating horses from riders is a major issue that should be dealt with sometime, somewhere in games) At Crecy in 1346 French knights charged frontally, got beat. At Poitiers in 1356 the French learnt their lesson and attacked with dismounted knights, but these troops could be attacked succesfully in melee once they became fatigued.
The Crossbow's main virtue was its relative ease of use. I think it was particularly useful for the siege defender as time wasn't such a pressing factor- Richard the Lionheart was killed by a crossbow at a siege. Also the Genoese mercenaries relied upon by the French were obviously less dedicated to the cause of victory than the two nationalities. After all a knight wasn't going to use a crossbow when not hunting (perhaps a falcon would be a good missile weapon? Put those bloody birds to a use), and they weren't going to train the peasants. Troop morale also plays a part in the effectiveness of weapons- tho' the English being on defensive and picking ground would also lessen effects.

[Mithrandir]

Welcome to the org deejayvee!




------------------
untouchable, unbreakable,elven spirit,Elven soul

[deejayvee]

Thank you for the warm welcome.

And thank you very much Orda Khan. I've read a lot about the longbow (in fact I started reading about Medieval Europe when a friend of mine mentioned the longbow and I wondered why the English used them so effectively and no one else did. A lot of enjoyable reading was involved to answer my question) and was curious about the Mongol bows.

BTW, did the Mongols use the thumb draw? As opposed to the 2 or 3 finger draw?

[Emp. Conralius]

yea, they adopted it from the Chinese. But the Chinese used a thumb ring.

[Kraxis]

Orda, you forgot one aspect of the Longbow. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

It is/was simply too big for you to aim over the arrow by putting up to the cheek. It had to be drawn down at the shoulder for it to drawn far enough. Thus it isn't/wasn't a weapon for accuracy (unless you trained every day for years, which some did).
So when somebody shows a good measure of accuracy in the Longbow I'm impressed.

[Aelfred Magna]

. . . which is precisely why they had to train for an entire lifetime in order to be any good with it. The Crossbow types just had to point and shoot.

[Orda Khan]

Thanks Deejayvee and humble apologies, welcome to the forum. The thumb ring was used by the Mongols yes, as it was by most other steppe archers. This also requires the arrow to be fired off the thumb cradle not the back of the hand. The thumb ring is a superior method of draw as the hand is in a more natural position so the inner forearm is less fatigued. A point I forgot to mention was the weight of the bow itself. The limbs of the longbow being so long that on release it doesn't half jar your elbow. If you get a chance to check out a one piece longbow (some are made using laminates)you will be amazed at the kinks and lumps in some of the limbs, all to do with the natural grain, they can look quite bizarre.
.........Orda

------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

I was allowed to "try" to draw a real Longbow at the War Museum... bascically, i couldn't.

In describing the useage and more importantly the "user" they also reminded me that at the time the average height was closer to 5 foot - 5.5 foot.

They also have a large number of "special" arrows that were developed inclduing "whistling" ones - designed literally to scare the enemy these made a piercing whistle along the entire flight...

the mind boggles...

[Nelson]

Nothing to be ashamed of about the bow, Darkmoor. The following is a quote from Bert S. Hall's Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe:

Quote
The disadvantage of the longbow was that, like all systems of archery, it depended on an entire peasant culture to sustain it. One could learn to use a crossbow, as one could later learn to use firearms, in a matter of weeks or at most months; and the rather low level of proficiency required could be kept up with a minimum of practice. Archers, at least those good enough to be useful for miltary purposes, have to train from childhood, and they frequently perform near the limits of human capabilities. (Pathological examination of one of the archers who sank with the Mary Rose in 1545 revealed deformations of the left forearm, the upper backbone, and the first three fingers of the right hand, the ones used to release an arrow.) The extreme demands longbow archery placed on its practictioners help to explain why, despite its' success on the battlefield, it never became wholly generalized in western Europe and also why in the long run it was bound to decline and wither away even in the land of its birth.
[/QUOTE]

He also wrote that at Crecy longbowmen are estimated to have fired nearly half a million arrows over six hours.

[deejayvee]

With the accuracy of the longbow, I guess that's why they really became an effective weapon of war when they were used in large numbers and correct formations.