Longbows are no good

[AussieGiant]

Hell of a read.

[Lord_hazard]

From a historical realism point of view, I agree with Carl, pavise crossbows should win - that enormous shield minimises exposure to enemy fire. So M2TW is a little generous to the longbow in giving them near parity. More than a little generous, given that the longbows can unrealistically make the pavise explode into flame, killing the crossbowmen.

In reallife the archers and crossbowmen who used a pavis would not have it on his back, they would put it into the ground or for the larger pavises have a groom carry and hold it.
But that dosnt change the fact that crossbows have a much shorter range then the yew longbow that the british used and its slower to fire.
The crossbowmen would be cut down from afar unless they were willing sacrifice speed for protection by only moving behind a big pavise carried by a groom, but it this game they carry it on their back, whats up with that?
The english longbowmen if compared would be miles ahead the crossbowmen in every regard other then not being as cost effective as a crossbow.
The english longbowmen in this game are underpowered and sadly just like any other archer unit. Not only historically incorrect but also a game ruiner when playing england (for me anyways).

[econ21]

But that dosnt change the fact that crossbows have a much shorter range then the yew longbow that the british used ...

I don't believe that is a fact. Most sources I have read indicate rough parity in effective range. (It will, of course, depend on the bow - both longbows and crossbows can vary a lot.) Also the longbow's lethality was mainly at the shorter ranges.

Here's about the first hit google throws up on "longbow crossbow range":

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

The english longbowmen in this game are underpowered ... a game ruiner when playing england (for me anyways).

Who are you fighting? Against Venetian massed stacks of pavise crossbowmen, I can see you being disappointed although I doubt anyone would seriously try to duke it out with them. But against anything else I've encountered, my longbowmen do great. A unit of longbowmen will pretty much destroy a stationary unit of knights, dismounted or mounted, let along pikemen and more lightly armoured troops. The trouble comes when the enemy is not stationary...

[Von Nanega]

I usually run 6 to 8 longbow units in a full army. This many arrows from the mighty bows have routed many of Englands enemies in my game. They are definatly worth the price IMO. In one battle four of my longbows marching to reinforce an army were attacked by a french army. They deployed stakes and managed to wreck the french full stack before charging and routing the rest. Good battle and amusing too. One just has to use them with an eye to terrain and the present tactical situation considered.

[Lord_hazard]

I don't believe that is a fact. Most sources I have read indicate rough parity in effective range. (It will, of course, depend on the bow - both longbows and crossbows can vary a lot.) Also the longbow's lethality was mainly at the shorter ranges.

Here's about the first hit google throws up on "longbow crossbow range":

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



Who are you fighting? Against Venetian massed stacks of pavise crossbowmen, I can see you being disappointed although I doubt anyone would seriously try to duke it out with them. But against anything else I've encountered, my longbowmen do great. A unit of longbowmen will pretty much destroy a stationary unit of knights, dismounted or mounted, let along pikemen and more lightly armoured troops. The trouble comes when the enemy is not stationary...

The crossbow has a better punch then a longbow but a normal crossbow cant accurately hit a target 300+ meters away.
True that there are many different types of crossbows and they all varied in strength and effective range. But theres only two types of longbows the ones made of yew(the english longbows) and those not made of yew. But normal crossbows had inferior range and all the variations had a very low rate of fire. And that homepage isnt very scientific.
The way english longbowmen used their bows wasnt straight fire, as you would do with the crossbow, but they all fired into certain areas to carpet that area with bodkin arrows. But the bodkin arrow wasnt made to combat platemail as the platemail wasnt really widespread at that time, instead it was made to pierce chainmail, so the crossbow bolt with its greater energy would easily pierce most types of armor within its effective range.
The main difference is that the longbow has a better rate of fire then the crossbow.

The reason i said the longbowman wasnt better then alot of the other archers in the game, is based on their stats. Ofc you will rule the battlefield with longbowmen when fighting against the AI. But i havent tried mp yet, so its mostly based on the stats of the units which are pretty much identical.

[eddiethebastard]

There are a number of issues with these comparisons, firstly there are no recorded instances (as far a I know) of generally successful indirect fire from crossbows, the Longbow works superbly in indirect and very long range fire because of the length of the projectile, this gives the arrow immense stability and, comparatively high accuracy.

Secondly, the old saw about the power of composite horse bows is a joke, draw weights for elite longbowmen reached as high as 200 lbs, even for an immensely strong man there is absolutely no way that any horse bow could be usable over the 100lb mark, add in the projectile weight and bodkin head and you have a weapon that, like the steel crossbow is actually usable against armoured men, at least when not facing troops wearing face hardened steel armour on both man and mount. I haven't seen tests of higher grade steel for the bodkin, but that would be interesting. There aren't any accounts of men with a pin cushion of longbow arrows sticking in them and still wandering around.

Thirdly the available wood, Yew is an absolutely superb material to make bows out of, it absolutely rocks, a lot of modern composite bows use pulleys to gain an edge, this would not have been an option for period eastern archers

[Musashi]

Secondly, the old saw about the power of composite horse bows is a joke, draw weights for elite longbowmen reached as high as 200 lbs, even for an immensely strong man there is absolutely no way that any horse bow could be usable over the 100lb mark

Erm, draw weight is draw weight. A 100 lb composite bow is no harder to draw and use than a 100 lb longbow.

[Carl]

Most true and most HA could draw back furthar. The Recurve ows also transfer energy to the arrows more efficently resulting in a higher still power. A decent Composite Recurve bow should vastly outperorm a Longbow.

[Lord_hazard]

Most true and most HA could draw back furthar. The Recurve ows also transfer energy to the arrows more efficently resulting in a higher still power. A decent Composite Recurve bow should vastly outperorm a Longbow.

"The traditional construction of a longbow consists of drying the yew wood for 1 to 2 years, then slowly working the wood into shape, with the entire process taking up to 4 years. (This can be done far more quickly by working the wood down when wet, as a thinner piece of wood will dry much faster.) The bow stave is shaped into a D-section, from a half cross section of a tree or branch. The inner side of the bow stave consists of rounded heartwood and the outer of sapwood with a flat back. The heartwood resists compression and the outer sapwood performs better in tension. This combination forms a natural 'laminate', similar in effect to the construction of a composite bow. Longbows will last a long time if protected with a water-resistant coating, traditionally of "wax, resin and fine tallow"."

[Lord_hazard]

I think its important to distinguise the different crossbows. Most types of crossbows were inferior to the longbow in everything but the punch, some later and bigger models were superior in range, accuracy and by far a greater punch.
But these crossbows, like the arbalast were heavy and took a very long time to reload which left the crossbowman very vulnerable unless he had an pavise infront of him, werent as common as the more "normal" crossbows.
If you want proof that the longbow could and did defeat a "modern" crossbow just look at the battle of agincourt were the british archers totally outclassed the french archers and crossbowmen, whos blots fell short of the longbowmen.
"The French artillery, reduced to a position of impotence by a lack of a clear field of fire, and the archers and crossbowmen, outclassed by the faster, longer and more accurate rate of fire of the longbow, had been pushed out of position by the men-at-arms."

If CA wants crossbows that are better then the longbow then they should call them by their rightfull name, just like they did in MTW, and not just call them crossbows.
The biggest problems with the longbow is that it hasnt a near fast enough rate of fire in this game. I can live with normal crossbows having the same range as the english longbow, just barely live with it.

[CBR]

The crossbow has a better punch then a longbow but a normal crossbow cant accurately hit a target 300+ meters away.

Only heavy crossbows had a better punch. Belt hook crossbows of 300-400 pound draw weight would be similar to heavy longbows in power.

And no one could hit anything accurately at 300+ meters anyway. At that range bolts and arrows would be dropping down at 45 degrees or so depending on power of the weapon. That means if the shooter misjudges distance by just 2 meters he would miss no matter how accurate the weapon is.

But normal crossbows had inferior range and all the variations had a very low rate of fire.

The most common crossbows used were belt and hook crossbows. I have not seen any data to suggest they had inferior range to heavy longbows when using heavy bolts. Only when bows used light flight arrows would they have had better range, but such arrows were in a minority and have less energy compared to heavy war arrows. All in all they had similar effective range.

A belt and hook crossbow can do 8-10 shots/minute max compared to 20+ shots/minute for light bows. Heavy crossbows using a windlass or crannequin would be more like 1-2 shots/minute max. As I described in an earlier post in this thread, one archer (Simon Stanley) who can use longbows of 170+ pound draw weight doesnt like to shot more than 6 shots/minute when using such monsters.

Now obviously the fast firerates are really just light draw weight tests to see how long it takes to perform the whole loading proces. Weapons of heavier draw weight would require more work to use and if one wanted a bit of aiming it would slow down too.

I dont think there was that much difference between the belt hook crossbow and heavy longbows.

The way english longbowmen used their bows wasnt straight fire, as you would do with the crossbow

Missile troops would use direct "fire" if at short range and use indirect at long ranges. There would be no difference between bows and crossbows. Obviously troops in the rear ranks would still use high trajectory shooting even at short ranges.

firstly there are no recorded instances (as far a I know) of generally successful indirect fire from crossbows

Skeleton remains from Visby shows bolt wounds from both short range direct fire as well as wounds from bolts that came down nearly vertical. There are illustrations of crossbowmen using crossbows at around 45 degrees. Of course shooting at near max range is never very effective but that is the same for bows.

Erm, draw weight is draw weight. A 100 lb composite bow is no harder to draw and use than a 100 lb longbow.

Technically thats not entirely true. The force-draw curve of a composite is different than a self bow. A self bow has a slight rise (meaning the gradual increase in draw weight becomes bigger for each inch. A composite is more linear (although depends on design)

Basically it means that a composite bow has more energy stored in it if we assume same brace height, draw lenght and draw weight (and even the recurve design might not make them completely identical but nevermind that). But the more energy stored also means more work for the archer. A longbow archer who can shoot a 150 pound bow might prefer a 140 pound composite bow or less.

It is my understanding though that horsearchers did not use as heavy a draw weight as footarchers but TBH I dont have much information on that.


CBR

[Lord_hazard]

Most crossbows were harder hitting then the english longbow.
Longbowmen would choose areas wich they then showered with arrows, which means they mostly fired in an high arch. The crossbow wasnt used in this way and was fired in a more leveld arch of fire to try and land precise lethal shots. Which means archers used indirect fire crossbowmen didnt(for the most part).
Only the heavy crossbows had a better range then the longbow, but bear in mind that the two weapons were mostly fired differently.

[gardibolt]

Longbowmen are pathetic in this game. Their range is so small they only get off a single volley before they're charged by infantry. I was expecting something like the RTW Forester Warband, with real killing power, but longbows are next to useless except in defending sieges.

[Brythoniaid]

I have to agree, they are not very good at all.

After reading this thread, Im really disappointed by the amount of "english, english, english" At the battle of Agincourt the longbow men were WELSH, And at the battle the WELSH fought under their own banner and not under the banner of "england", But of course the welsh dont get any credit because England has and always will be the main producer of british history, Seeing as they play only a role of pain and death they have to make it sound a hole lot better.

Also the welsh were using Longbows as early as 633AD when the King of Northumbria was killed by a Welsh Longbow man, And indeed the vast majority of longbow men used by the English during the middle ages were WELSH because its one of their transitional weapons, But today stolen and claimed as being english.

[Moah]

I have to agree, they are not very good at all.

After reading this thread, Im really disappointed by the amount of "english, english, english" At the battle of Agincourt the longbow men were WELSH, And at the battle the WELSH fought under their own banner and not under the banner of "england", But of course the welsh dont get any credit because England has and always will be the main producer of british history, Seeing as they play only a role of pain and death they have to make it sound a hole lot better.

Also the welsh were using Longbows as early as 633AD when the King of Northumbria was killed by a Welsh Longbow man, And indeed the vast majority of longbow men used by the English during the middle ages were WELSH because its one of their transitional weapons, But today stolen and claimed as being english.

Hear hear! One of my bugbears too! The English only developed any sort of longbow culture after Edward 1 conquered Wales. They used Welsh Archers and it was generations of Welsh "ex-pats" and welsh influence that led to the English counties developing it for themselves (although tbf they did in the end). So, for the history buffs, the English shouldn't be allowed any longbows until the late 1200s!

Of course I'm a scot. It's easier to admit our armies were slaughtered by the Welsh than the English.....And Culloden was the lowland scots beating our own. Flodden Field was purely because James IV refused to let his artillery open fire out of chivalry!!! Falkirk was the Welsh archers and the treachery of scottish nobles (cavalry)...Prestonpans was..erm...eh..a bug! Yes that's it. The AI was broken!

[Orda Khan]

Secondly, the old saw about the power of composite horse bows is a joke, draw weights for elite longbowmen reached as high as 200 lbs

Only in somebody's imagination.

Thirdly the available wood, Yew is an absolutely superb material to make bows out of, it absolutely rocks, a lot of modern composite bows use pulleys to gain an edge, this would not have been an option for period eastern archers

Yew is very good due to the combination of heartwood and sapwood. The Asiatic composite uses horn and sinew to achieve the same effect. However the materials used are 4 times better than wood. A longbow will eventually 'follow the draw' and become weaker, plus they have a tendancy to break when least expected.
The cams you talk about are a feature of modern 'compound' bows which are a 20th Century design and neither Asiatic composites nor longbows will compete with one of those

......Orda

[Carl]

Ahh, sanity returns. I was waiting for you to turn up Orda. As soon as i saw your name I knew sanity was back. Thanks as he has tottaly worn my patience to the limit.

[Oleander Ardens]

Ahh, sanity returns

YUP

[Lord_hazard]

I have to agree, they are not very good at all.

After reading this thread, Im really disappointed by the amount of "english, english, english" At the battle of Agincourt the longbow men were WELSH, And at the battle the WELSH fought under their own banner and not under the banner of "england", But of course the welsh dont get any credit because England has and always will be the main producer of british history, Seeing as they play only a role of pain and death they have to make it sound a hole lot better.

Also the welsh were using Longbows as early as 633AD when the King of Northumbria was killed by a Welsh Longbow man, And indeed the vast majority of longbow men used by the English during the middle ages were WELSH because its one of their transitional weapons, But today stolen and claimed as being english.

Hehe true, didnt want to say anything because it would make an already complex game even more complex. But your absolutely right.

[MadKow]

Hehe true, didnt want to say anything because it would make an already complex game even more complex. But your absolutely right.

CA are well aware of that. The proof is that in the previous installment, the original MTW, Wales could raise +1 Longbowmen, thanks to the nice feature of regional units, lost in the RTW engine.

[Lord_hazard]

CA are well aware of that. The proof is that in the previous installment, the original MTW, Wales could raise +1 Longbowmen, thanks to the nice feature of regional units, lost in the RTW engine.

Ive almost forgotten about the regional bonuses, oh how i would love to see this feature to reappear.

[Lord Fluffy]

CA are well aware of that. The proof is that in the previous installment, the original MTW, Wales could raise +1 Longbowmen, thanks to the nice feature of regional units, lost in the RTW engine.

Has anyone ever used the Welsh longbowmen mercenary unit? Are they as bad as their stat would suggest?

Regarding the 200lbs longbow remark, there's actually a guy in England right now that has been videotaped shooting a 200lbs longbow. It was for an ad for backtop material. Interesting draw method, he really has to draw with his entire body, no clasical T form there.

[Ulstan]

I see everyone has their own pet bow type that should be able to rock any other bow type :p

But that dosnt change the fact that crossbows have a much shorter range then the yew longbow that the british used and its slower to fire.

Where are you getting the shorter range from? I see no reason to believeve in a shorter range, either from the authors I have read, or just thinking of the physics behind it.

The harder an object is thrown, the farther it will go. Barring some great aerodynamic difference between crossbow quarrels and the bodkin arrows english archers used, I see no reason to believe one would travel farther, when shot with the same force at the same angle.

Now, the question becomes, which bow is capable of generating more force? Obviously the later crossbows win here, where they used mechanical advantage to pull the 'string' tighter than would be possible by sheer brute force alone (and english longbowmen were quite strong).

Of course, there are all kinds of crossbows: belt hook, lever, winch, crappy string crossbows where the crossbowmen would simply pull the string back with his arms, etc. Some of these would have farther range (and thus more penetrating power) than longbows, some less.

All would take far longer to shoot.

[Reapz]

The reason i said the longbowman wasnt better then alot of the other archers in the game, is based on their stats. Ofc you will rule the battlefield with longbowmen when fighting against the AI. But i havent tried mp yet, so its mostly based on the stats of the units which are pretty much identical.

Crapalot you can't rely on unit stats. The fact is that in-game testing shows that longbowmen are very powerful and handily beat pavise militia crossbowmen.

[Carl]

@Ulstan: Firing power is also related to draw length, which would typiclly be longer for a bow than a crossbow, theirs also things like efficciancy of transfer. Draw weight dosen't tell you everything as it raerly remains constant over the whole draw.

Secondly. The weight of the projectile matters a LOT. To use a modern example, the 5.56mm bullet vs. the 7.76mm bullet.

The 5.56mm bullet has a higher exit velocity, greater total kenetic energy and less surface area for drag to act upon, yet it carries over rifle ranges no better than a 7.76mm bullet and has worse penetrating power over most ranges. A 7.76mm bullet also carries much better over Machine Gun ranges.

Thus depending on weather Orda's belif furthar back in the thread is correct, (about the size and thikness of arrows that high draw bows would have needed), it could well be that the Longbow would have had a much heavier projectile than the Crossbow and thus carried better. As a general rule, a heavy projectile with a low velocity will carryu better than one with a high velocity and a low mass. Of course if the velocity diffrance is high enough, that goes out the window.

[Lord Fluffy]

@Ulstan: Firing power is also related to draw length, which would typiclly be longer for a bow than a crossbow, theirs also things like efficciancy of transfer. Draw weight dosen't tell you everything as it raerly remains constant over the whole draw.

Draw weight is never constant over the whole draw. Depending on how the limbs are made it can have a smooth increase or it can stack like crazy. But agreed on the whole draw length or power stroke effecting the energy of the arrow.

This is why a 150lbs modern crossbow fires their bolts at about the same speed as a 30lbs recurve(depends on the archer's draw length).

[craziii]

The one thing I dont understand was I always thought the english longbow was by far the best range bow avail?

I always thought the xbow was a hard punch weapon but not the same distance.

But as the english I never see the advantage of longbowmen except to basic milita archers. The other crossbow troops at least get those shields to hide behind.

the composite bow is the best in range, not the fantasize longbow. dunno why so many ppl are stuck on how longbows should own every other bow units, especially units that have giant shields for protection.

[Oleander Ardens]

The weight of the projectile is extremly important, because it influences so much in archery.

A) Usually you match the weight among other things to the type and draw weight of the bow. Different bows of with different draw weights react in different ways to different proj. weigths.

Historically the easter composite bows were far better then the western warbows (longbows) at throwing light arrows with high speed over huge distances. The efficiency gap here is quite huge.The heavier the projectile the narrower this gap becomes even if at any reasonable proj. weigth the composite bow is more efficient.

Medieval Crossbows are generally very bad at shooting light bolts, due to short draw lenght and the short mechanical steel arms. Their efficiency increases quite drammatically the heavier the bolt becomes. Of course there are practical limits to it's weight.

Ancient Crossbows and Manuballistae should have been more efficient with lighter bolts due to rather long composite arms. They are also more efficient with heavier bolts, but are more difficult to produce, harder to maintain than Xbows with steel arms. They also simply canot reach the incredible draw weights of certain late medieval Crossbows.

B) A lethality study was done in Africa, by an american doctor and bowhunter whose name escapes me. In any case after a great deal of testing there seemed to be conclusive proof that the formula matching the data was not Ekin= 1/2 m V² but the Impuls I= m [mass] V [velocity}

This makes huge sense when looking at all the arrowweights used in history. They are infact usually a good deal heavier than the ones which should in theory produce a higher kinetic Energy.

Cheers
OA

[Orda Khan]

Regarding the 200lbs longbow remark, there's actually a guy in England right now that has been videotaped shooting a 200lbs longbow. It was for an ad for backtop material. Interesting draw method, he really has to draw with his entire body, no clasical T form there.

Yes I've seen it. A local archer I know has also used a longbow (that he and a friend made) of 182lbs. He used it in a flight competition and achieved a distance of 385 metres.
There are many composite Turkish bows upwards of 160lbs being used and their flight ranges are ridiculously long.
What we have to realise is these are very much the exception rather than the rule. Longbows of that time were nearer 80 - 120lbs and Asiatic composites of the horseback archers 50 - 80lbs.
On a side note, the Welsh certainly inspired the English use of the longbow and large numbers of Welsh bowmen took part in English campaigns but there were also large numbers of English bowmen as well

......Orda

[Lord_hazard]

Ive been wondering about the difference between english and welsh archers, how big was the difference? Was the difference minimized as time by? Or was the welsh archers the elite archers of their time? As far as i know they both used yew bows, but did the bow types differ?