Longbows are no good

[Carl]

That's why your illustration is a little off... steel crossbows and longbows do not give the same momentum. Yes, the crossbow loses momentum faster over distance, but it starts out with significantly higher momentum to begin with... thus averaging out about the same in the end

I am aware of this BTW, the problem here is that as speed increases, the rate at which momentum is lost increases exponentially, (momentum is mass X velocity if you didn't know), as a result it's going to lose momentum even faster. yes in direct fire the crossbow WILL carry further, and it WILL retaining power better at short ranges. However, as the range increases then the longbow starts to get closer to and then surpass the crossbow. This doesn’t necessarily have to come before the longbows max range, but I’d be inclined to believe to would. Just a hunch based on my, (limited), science knowledge BTW.

@dopp: Do you know if you can find this anywhere, or anything similar? It sounds a touch dodgy considering I’ve seen a longbow go through fairly thick chain mail. Sure the plate is a lot better, but considering the relative thickness differences, it sounds odd. For that matter the suits of Historical Plate I’ve seen at the Royal Armouries in Leeds (UK), look a LOT thicker then 3mm everywhere. Not saying your wrong, rather it sounds very odd.

[Kraxis]

3mm is very thick... and quite heavy.

You can't compare mail, as it is particularly weak against arrows with a chisel point. Point get into ring, expands as it moves and breaks the ring from the inside. Simple enough, and the main background behind the bodkin.
With good padding the problem becomes much less, but still the arrows would penetrate the rings themselves. As the account of the 1st Crusade knights that had lost their horses and were peppered by horse archers until they looked like porcupines, yet they felt no ill effects themselves. Obviously the enemy arrows penetrated the rings (they stuck to the man), but not the padding beneath.

So whenever you see tests against mail, make sure there is padding and something behind the padding to simulate the person. And make sure the mail is stretched out and generally fairly large (or else the mail will just move with the force into the target creating a falsly strong impact, but this is more regarding melee).

Also, I have seen people try to argue for the longbow's 1337'ness with tests made against plate that was then penetrated, but not told people that it was in fact darkened aluminium. Talk about closing your eyes and wanting things to be true.

[Carl]

3mm is very thick... and quite heavy.

I know that, just that the stuff I’ve seen up close looks a LOT thicker, probably half a cm+. Of course most of these WHERE famous suit, or based on famous suits, so maybe they where unusually thick?

Also, I have seen people try to argue for the longbow's 1337'ness with tests made against plate that was then penetrated, but not told people that it was in fact darkened aluminium. Talk about closing your eyes and wanting things to be true.

Of course, by the same token, when doing it against proper steel you need to bear in mind the type of steel used in both the plate and the arrow head. If the plate is too good a quality (we can make much better quality steel today), it could have knock on effects on the accuracy.

You can't compare mail, as it is particularly weak against arrows with a chisel point. Point get into ring, expands as it moves and breaks the ring from the inside. Simple enough, and the main background behind the bodkin.
With good padding the problem becomes much less, but still the arrows would penetrate the rings themselves. As the account of the 1st Crusade knights that had lost their horses and were peppered by horse archers until they looked like porcupines, yet they felt no ill effects themselves. Obviously the enemy arrows penetrated the rings (they stuck to the man), but not the padding beneath.

The test was against a model of a Boar draped in Mail, (it was a publicity piece for Time Team). Don't know for sure what the boar was made of, probably wood based on the impact sound. Also a 15 yard test I think, (I can't remember the distance given I’m afraid). It defiantly went through the mail and buried itself firmly in the boar, and this longbow only had 60lb of draw supposedly.

Also thanks for the Mail explanation, I knew it was at a disadvantage vs. missiles, but didn't know the exact cause.

My biggest reason for being a touch disbelieving of the test mentioned is the fact that the English DID use Longbows extensively prior to gunpowder, and apparently won often, yet the enemy would often have been wearing plate, so it has to have been useful against it or they would have switched to crossbows.

[Kobal2fr]

My biggest reason for being a touch disbelieving of the test mentioned is the fact that the English DID use Longbows extensively prior to gunpowder, and apparently won often, yet the enemy would often have been wearing plate, so it has to have been useful against it or they would have switched to crossbows.

Of course it's usefull against plate, but not the way you think. It did break through mail, but it never did "punch right through" plate, bodkin or no bodkin.

The crossbow had supplanted the bow in the first place because it surpassed it in practicality (easier to use, can be carried loaded) and most importantly range (except in the specific case of the longbow), even though it lost in firing rate. But when you can outshoot the enemy, and/or carry a pavise, speed doesn't really matter. Range is what it was all about, not killing power.

The advantage the longbow had over the crossbow wasn't in killing power either, but in sheer volume of fire. If you fire 10 arrows per minute, even if most of them are wasted you're statistically bound to hit something vulnerable overtime, like armor joints, helmet slits, horses and so on. Spray and pray, if you will.

The reason the English stuck to their longbows for so long was simply because *they* had men available who had trained enough in bowyery and who could handle bows huge enough that their range was roughly equal to that of the crossbow (a little more, a little less, it doesn't really matter), while firing faster. The other nations did not, nor did they care to train their folk for years and years when two weeks and a crossbow was good 'nuff.

But in any case, the reason why longbows garnered such fame for their efficacity in battle doesn't have anything to do with the weapon's qualities.
It is because the English pioneered the tactical use of missile troops as the battle winning, "kill" units.

The other western kingdoms considered missiles mainly as harrying tools (force the enemy to move), and siege tools (keep the enemy away from the walls, be he sieger or siegee). The knights were the "kill unit", both out of social structure and past experience. But the English had realized in their battles against the Scots that knights could be beaten by "clever rabble", in contradiction to prevalent assumption, and had the ingeniosity to turn to their own missile rabble as their main strength, in much bigger numbers than their enemies did.

It's not really that English longbowmen were superior to French crossbowmen : there were more of them, and they were used in a completely different tactical role.

Going back to the longbow vs crossbow debate itself, I think things are modelled accurately in the game :

- terrain and situation aside, crossbows will beat regular archers because they can get a couple solid volleys in before the archers can even get in range, and if you micromanage your Xbows, archers won't even have a chance to fire. But longbows will destroy un-pavised crossbows through their rate of fire.

- Longbows are better than crossbows, pavise or not, at killing things in a timely fashion. Crossbows will kill just as many soldiers as longbows in the end, but it will take them much, much more time - kill about as many with each volley, much slower volleys. More volleys shot in a "tired" state too. XBows are perhaps firing a little bit too fast, I'll grant you that. And then again, that's iffy.

- And pavise win archer duels because that what pavises were about in the first place. Ride those jokers down, see how they like them apples.

[cassiusdio]

Knights may have been well protected, protected to such an extent that being killed by an arrow was more down to the archers luck than a certainty. What is often overlooked is that the majority of soldiers were not knights, and were not protected to the same degree.

A feudal Levy dictated that a knight answer a call to battle and bring along a certain number of men at arms. these soldiers were maintained at his expense and were always availiable. since a suit of good quality plate armour was very expensive, he would equip his men either with older armour, or with armour of a lesser quality.

so in battle, a unit of 'knights' on foot or horseback, would have been made up of a number of well armoured knights, and their more numerous, and not so well armoured men at arms. Arrows were far more likely to kill the men at arms than the knights, which is why so many knights were captured by the english, the men at arms generally had arrows sticking out of them.

as to the claim that longbows are no good IG. well i feel i must disagree, i am of the oppinion that one should maximise your strengths, and the english ability to field longbows is one of them, so instead of having a fairly conventional 3-4 units of them, i take 10-12. in that quantity they are quite, quite lethal, certainly lethal enough that my fairly outnumbered heavy infantry can adequately deal with any enemy that get through, and they have the added advantage that you can make your battle line fairly horse proof

regards

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Wouldn't the trajectory play a role here?

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Nah longbows are not good in the game...reasons being..

Range is not long enough
Rate of fire is too slow (not at all like they were)
No. of arrows/ammo is too low...least 50+ is needed (for al bowmen)

Even taking into account the problems in the game..and of course less effective against plate armour..(compare to crossbows)..

Simply put you were getting shots in and much more of them...well before the enemy can wield his crossbows normal archers to bear on your forces. That is why...and the only reason why they worked so well.

Not to suggest crossbows are useless...far from it...you simply need to engage faster..and if we look at why crossbowmen became armoured..well the reason is above.

Needs fixing

[CBR]

The main advantage of a composite bow is that the use of tendons and bone means you can have a lighter bow compared to a selfbow of equal draw weight. It also means a shorter bow which is easier to use on horse back.

A lighter bow means an arrow will be sent off at a higher velocity, as it represents a higher proportion of the combined arrow/bow limbs/string weight that are all moving forward when letting it loose.

Fast arrows are great for horse archers shooting at other horse archers racing back and forth at shorter ranges. The faster the arrow the easier it is to hit a moving target.

But overall a self bow and a composite bow is near identical when it comes to potiential power: a 100 pound composite drawn to the ear would be the same a 100 pound longbow also drawn to the ear. The longbowman would just need a heavier arrow to get the same power: say 70 grams compared to 40 grams for the compostite bow.

The lighter arrow would have better max range because of its higher velocity but also have lesser power at that range (lighter arrow means worse ballistic coefficient) and long range shooting in general doesnt do much anyway.

IIRC some Italian city states had composite bows in their navies in late 15th century, of course along with arquebus and crossbows. The construction was certainly not a secret to European countries as they afterall used composite crossbows. But as a weapon for the masses there was not much point in having composite bows as they were more expensive and didnt give any significant advantages for a foot archer.

You don't need special physics. Normal ones will suffice.

When shooting at max range you need an angle of about 45 degrees. When the missile has reached halfway(actually bit more than that) it has reached its maximum height and will start falling down. It doesnt do that because it has expended all its energy, but because gravitational acceleration has picked up enough speed to counter the missile's upward speed. When it finally reaches its target only a small part of its velocity has come from gravity.

Arrows might be more slender than a bolt but there are few more elements to consider. Sectional density (total mass/frontal area) is important. The shape and fletchings produces drag too. A crossbow bolt is AFAIK considered to have a better ballistic coefficient than arrows but I think they are still very close to each other.

The heavier crossbows had a higher max range than longbows anyway: tests with a 150 pound longbow using a 86 gram heavy bodkin arrow gave a max range of about 250-260 yards. A 1200 pound crossbow with a bolt of similar weight had a range of about 450 yards. Another crossbow of perhaps 800 pounds had a max range of 380 yards. A more ordinary crossbow, using belt and hook to load, would perhaps be 3-400 pounds and I guess a range of 250-300 yards yards would not be too far off. Lighter flight arrows from that longbow would of course produce better max ranges of 350-400 yards but the lighter they are the less energy(penetration) they have


CBR

[CaptainSolo]

The crossbow had supplanted the bow in the first place because it surpassed it in practicality (easier to use, can be carried loaded) and most importantly range (except in the specific case of the longbow), even though it lost in firing rate. But when you can outshoot the enemy, and/or carry a pavise, speed doesn't really matter. Range is what it was all about, not killing power.

Firearms supplanted the longbow and other ranged weapons due to practicality but it dosent mean they were better weapons.The British Baker rifle used in the Peninsular war outranged the musket.The Musket had more killing power due to their numbers and volley fire when in optimun range.Killing power is what it's about at the end of the day.

The advantage the longbow had over the crossbow wasn't in killing power either, but in sheer volume of fire.Spray and pray, if you will.

Do you imagine an arrowshaft would do any less damage to a man than a crossbow bolt? The ability to kill a man as well as do it faster = more killing power to me.Your 'spray and pray' quote is just ignorant.Longbowmen were extremely accomplished archers in their own right.Against densely packed targets there was no need to pick individual targets though they were more than capable of doing so.

The reason the English stuck to their longbows for so long was simply because *they* had men available who had trained enough in bowyery and who could handle bows huge enough that their range was roughly equal to that of the crossbow.The other nations did not, nor did they care to train their folk for years and years when two weeks and a crossbow was good 'nuff.

They may also have stuck to them as they were hugely successful. The reason the other Western European nations did not follow the English in fielding large numbers of quality bowmen is simply because they couldn't.As you say it took years to master the longbow,not to mention the physical strength needed to use one.No other country in this region had that capacity.It was purely a phenomonon taken up in many counties in England and Wales,the majority as a sport,that led to a ready supply of skilled archers for use by English kings.Your quote on the Crossbow being good e'nuff certainly dosent stand.It certainly wasn't good e'nuff for Captain Grimaldi at Agincourt who was in command of several thousand crossbowmen who were sent reeling back down the hill with horrendous losses.

But in any case, the reason why longbows garnered such fame for their efficacity in battle doesn't have anything to do with the weapon's qualities.
It is because the English pioneered the tactical use of missile troops as the battle winning.

I'll agree with your second point but it was purely down to the weapons qualities.Ridiculous to say otherwise.If the English had used the tactics you describe but with crossbows they wouldnt have been half as successful so therefore the weapon played a huge part.

The other western kingdoms considered missiles mainly as harrying tools (force the enemy to move), and siege tools (keep the enemy away from the walls, be he sieger or siegee). The knights were the "kill unit", both out of social structure and past experience. But the English had realized in their battles against the Scots that knights could be beaten by "clever rabble", in contradiction to prevalent assumption, and had the ingeniosity to turn to their own missile rabble as their main strength, in much bigger numbers than their enemies did.

I assume when you say 'clever rabble' you are refering to the highly skilled and highly disciplined men who formed the backbone of the army? The Yeoman who already had an important role in society and who were recruited on their own terms of pay rather than by being pressed in?

It's not really that English longbowmen were superior to French crossbowmen : there were more of them, and they were used in a completely different tactical role.

Laughable.The English at Crecy,cut the Genoese to ribbons,who were the masters of the crossbow never mind the French.The Longbowmen were superior in every way,training,discipline,experience etc etc etc.Also because they were much more respected as soldiers by their commanders they could act on their own initiative without direct orders.I Have no doubt that the French soldiers could have been very formidable had their commanders seen their true worth rather than viewing them as second class citizens.The Longbowmen were much more valued than their French counterparts.


As a sidenote,Pavise crossbowmen's main function was to encroach upon entrenched defenders,such as ones defending walls,and pick them off from behind their shields.They were in no way created as an out and out counter to archers on a large battlefield.If the French king had listened to Grimaldi's pleas before being uncerimoniously sent to certain death up the hill at Crecy maybe things would have been different.

[dopp]

They may also have stuck to them as they were hugely successful. The reason the other Western European nations did not follow the English in fielding large numbers of quality bowmen is simply because they couldn't.As you say it took years to master the longbow,not to mention the physical strength needed to use one.No other country in this region had that capacity.It was purely a phenomonon taken up in many counties in England and Wales,the majority as a sport,that led to a ready supply of skilled archers for use by English kings.Your quote on the Crossbow being good e'nuff certainly dosent stand.It certainly wasn't good e'nuff for Captain Grimaldi at Agincourt who was in command of several thousand crossbowmen who were sent reeling back down the hill with horrendous losses.

Laughable.The English at Crecy,cut the Genoese to ribbons,who were the masters of the crossbow never mind the French.The Longbowmen were superior in every way,training,discipline,experience etc etc etc.Also because they were much more respected as soldiers by their commanders they could act on their own initiative without direct orders.I Have no doubt that the French soldiers could have been very formidable had their commanders seen their true worth rather than viewing them as second class citizens.The Longbowmen were much more valued than their French counterparts.

As a sidenote,Pavise crossbowmen's main function was to encroach upon entrenched defenders,such as ones defending walls,and pick them off from behind their shields.They were in no way created as an out and out counter to archers on a large battlefield.If the French king had listened to Grimaldi's pleas before being uncerimoniously sent to certain death up the hill at Crecy maybe things would have been different.

Now just to clarify, was Grimaldi at Agincourt or at Crecy? There's the matter of about a century or so between the two battles. There is also the little matter of the Genoese lacking some essential equipment (pavises) and not intending to have a missile duel in the first place, so the Crecy example isn't good enough either.

Of course the crossbow and the longbow are not the same weapon using different mechanisms. They have different characteristics and properties. The crossbow is a powerful weapon but takes longer to load. Nobody disputes that. How much longer to load is perhaps a little iffy, since you could have someone else load one crossbow for you while you fired the other, and since volley fire would have reduced the practical (as opposed to theoretical) rate of fire possible with the longbow. Regardless, crossbowmen, being sensible people, would account for the weakness in their rate of fire by bringing something thick enough to shelter behind while they reloaded. It's playing to the strengths of your equipment. Thus protected, they would have largely nullified the strengths of their longbow opponents. Pavises would be no more bulky a piece of battlefield equipment for stationary missile troops as defensive stakes, in fact the Persian archers used them extensively centuries before. Battlefield fortification of all sorts was common (war wagons anyone?) and not limited to sieges, nor to crossbowmen alone. The Genoese at Crecy fought without their pavises and got routed. This does not make them inferior troops, because they lacked an essential piece of equipment. You could not conclude that Italian riflemen are inferior to Ethiopian warriors just because they were issued the wrong ammunition for their weapons on one occasion and beaten to death in melee.

I'm pretty sure that longbows were effective weapons. Large, powerful bows like that, wielded by superior, professional soldiers, used in way that complemented their strengths and covered their weaknesses. So were a lot of other weapons. Maybe even crossbows. Maybe even muskets. Powerful weapons, wielded by professionals and played to their own particular strengths. I can see how the pavise deal is a problem in archery duels, mainly because the longbows don't have that option themselves. But the pavise armor bonus ingame can still be pierced easily by longbows with their AP, so the crossbows only have a minor advantage compared to what they might have IRL if they had pavises and the longbows didn't. The longbowmen get a unique ability to plant stakes, something that every unit should be able to do (the Flemish dug holes around their pike formations to channel the attacking knights at their weapons) but only they can ingame. They get indirect fire in a rather improbable way (who's spotting for them?), whereas the crossbows firing in an arc is a bug that kills nothing. They can fight knights in melee with AP weapons. Their rate of fire is twice that of crossbows and four times that of muskets, a high-end troop that requires 15 more turns and 27k more florins to produce than retinue bowmen. They are quite uber.