Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Humakty]

Guys, you're getting me wrong, I'm not a crossbow (or longbow) proponent, I was just referring to the Holy Rules of Armor Penetration. My country fielded both in good quantity, and seem to have been satisified by this compromise.

[chrispedersen]

This leads to the question of artillery. Why are there no scorpions (heavy, long range crossbow), or other heavy artillery in the game?

God, I can't believe I just added to this thread again.

Yeah, I started a mod for siege units. Gave up when I ran into art. = )

[13lackGu4rd]

I think siege units just don't fit into dominions, seeing how huge a part magic has in here. magic *is* in fact the "artillery", as in "artillery support", "artillery spells", etc.

[Maerlande]

LingChih! I can't believe either! You fool you :)

[Sombre]

LOL at the CLOTbow fanbois.

[Fantomen]

I made a small traditionally crafted flatbow for my son last summer. I was amazed at the power you get out of it, shoots really far. I thought the smaller size would make it fairly harmless, but I had to limit the useage because it got too dangerous. If those are what markata uses I think they're underpowered.

Now I'm working on a fullsized one for myself, really looking forward to trying it out.

[Wrana]

I made a small traditionally crafted flatbow for my son last summer. I was amazed at the power you get out of it, shoots really far. I thought the smaller size would make it fairly harmless, but I had to limit the useage because it got too dangerous. If those are what markata uses I think they're underpowered.

Now I'm working on a fullsized one for myself, really looking forward to trying it out.
Well, be careful. My friend once shoot clean through a refrigerator unit with a bow made for re-enactment...;)
As for ballistae/artillery units - they are quite possible and I'm including them in my WarHammer project. An art is, of course, a beast.:( But yes, in a base game it's considered there are no light field pieces and heavy ones aren't really transportable - which was the case for most parts of history.

[Dhaeron]

Wee! Can't resist keeping this thread alive. (And it was about time to finally post something here after lurking for years)

I've been doing archery as a hobby for while a while so i hope i'm somewhat knowledgeable about the subject.
The big problem with using a strong bow is not so much aiming (which works very well) or learning how to use it, but to build up the muscles needed to use it. Despite the claims of many computer and PnP RPGs (whose creators probably never touched a bow in their lives) using a bow repeatedly requires significant muscle mass and enormous stamina. Shooting a 100lb bow is pretty much like lifting 100lb barbells, with one arm, repeatedly. And Under battlefield conditions the proverb was: Accuracy is nice, but go for volume. Shooting ten or more arrows a minute was desirable. But go ahead and try that with a bucket of water and see how often you manage until it feels like your arm falls off.
It takes months, or even years of training to build up the kind of stamina needed to keep shooting for more than a very short time. Shooting with a reasonable degree of accuracy can be learned in a few days though.

A crossbow on the other hand can be used by anyone, anytime.

Another fun fact is that medieval and ancient crossbows (the greeks already used them) reached mostly the same projectile velocity as bows, mostly because that's limited more by the materials available for the arrows & bolts, than by the materials available for the bows & crossbows. A big part of why compound bows can have stronger pull is that they increase acceleration over time, putting less strain on the arrow.
Since crossbow bolts are shorter than arrows, they were generally lighter in medieval times, making them overall perform worse.
With modern materials crossbows can easily outperform bows, and it can be possible with medieval materials as well, but people didn't have the knowledge of physics back then to design them that way.

[Maerlande]

Dhaeron,

Welcome to the conversation. The primary point of bumping this thread is to remind Lingchih that he can never live down starting it.

But I have some rebuttals for you :)

The big problem with using a strong bow is not so much aiming (which works very well) or learning how to use it, but to build up the muscles needed to use it.

I don't agree with this. I shoot archery maybe 10 times a year. And I shoot a 55 lb recurve bow. It was my first bow and I've had it for 25 years. I can't shoot all day, but I can easily shoot 40 arrows which is a pretty big bunch for any quiver. And I'm a desk jockey. So it's not like I work out regularly or do anything in particular to pump my strength. I am strong and big, but it's all just native ability.

If I was a peasant forking hay onto wagons I would easily be able to shoot a 100 lb bow. Forking hay onto wagons is an over the head move. Also using a scythe builds massive arm and shoulder muscles. I used to be able to place a 60 lb hay bale onto a wagon above my head using a fork. A fork of hay is not light. Do that all day and you'd find drawing a big bow easy.

We all tend to forget that medieval peasants worked all day at hard physical labour. It's unrealistic to compare them to modern couch potatoes.

The mongols shot 150lb composite bows from horseback.

Another fun fact is that medieval and ancient crossbows (the greeks already used them) reached mostly the same projectile velocity as bows, mostly because that's limited more by the materials available for the arrows & bolts, than by the materials available for the bows & crossbows

This is incorrect. The physics of the problem are reasonably simple. It's conservation of energy. The archer puts the integral of force times draw into the bow as energy (or the work done by the archer). If we want a simple calculation, using 100 lbs force for 28 inches (assuming a straight line force curve from zero to 100 lb on a longbow) the energy put into the missile is exactly 159 J or 0.15 BTU. I have converted to SI for the calculations.

Assuming 100% efficiency the missile when fired will have exactly 159 J of energy since energy is conserved. This does not account for energy lost as heat and sound in the string and bow but will be good enough for our calculation. The kinetic energy of the missile is then mass time velocity squared. I found some modern replica arrow heads online that mass about 2 oz each. Add that to the mass of a 1/4" diameter by 36" long cedar arrow (the material I use) we get a total mass of 0.54 oz. The velocity of the arrow is then 333 ft per second.

Let's now try this with a simple goat's foot type crossbow with perhaps a draw of 200 lbs. The draw length of a goat's foot crossbow is about 12 inches. Assuming the same type of force curve we get a input energy of. If the bolt is made of cedar as well with a similar point, it's mass is now 0.27 oz. The bolt velocity is 436 feet per second.

So basically, the velocity of a missile fired from any type of bow is a function of the input energy and mass of the missile. There is no direct comparison possible between crossbows and bows. It's all variable.

This is also why the material of the bow is irrelevant to the discussion. For what it matters, the bow could be made of adamantium or kevlar. The input energy doesn't change since it comes from the human archer. And a human archer has a very strict limit on the energy available. Crossbows can put potentially more energy into the missile because they over come the limits of human power by mechanical leverage. The trade off is loading time.

Of course, someone will argue that the bolt could be made of steel. And it could but then carrying them would be difficult. If we change the bolt shaft to steel the bolts weigh 4 oz each and then 40 bolts would weigh 10 lbs. Pretty heavy but I suppose not impossible. The worst problem is that the velocity drops to 113 feet per second which is so slow that you could simply step out of the way and the ballistics are such that range would deteriorate.

Summary

It is a standard rule of thermodynamic analysis in energy conversion that finding the output from a certain input you do not require to know anything about the internal workings of the energy conversion machine. A simple efficiency rating (to account for losses) is adequate. In the case of bows, they convert human force and distance into kinetic energy. On this basis, the materials, shape, construction, etc are irrelevant. All that matters is the input energy and the efficiency of conversion.

As far as output energy, a crossbow simply does one thing. It increases the energy input by allowing more time for the human to apply the energy. Whether it's simply a goat's foot, windlass or lever action, the job of a crossbow is to mechanically leverage the force of a human. And it takes more time to do so.

I can keep going, but let's see if anyone has the knowledge to try to refute my facts. So far, 80% of this discussion is simply annecdotes and opinion. It's very shy on fact.

For anyone interested, I can share my calculation pages by irc or here.

[Illuminated One]

Well, firstly of course the material matters. That's why noone built bows from stone or ice.
Of course if you are saying when I have a bow made from material x that shoots an arrow weighting y with the speed z and another bow from material q that does exactly the same thing with the same arrow than yes, the material matters not (ignoring all other things that might be important for a soldier like weight or ruggedness), then yeah, but that's a truism.

And it is not quite as simple as (energy put in)*(effeciency) = 1/2 (mass of projectile)*(speed of projectile)².
You'll have a maximum velocity that you can archieve, as that's the maximum velocity with that the bow snaps back into shape. This is dependent on material and bow shape and weight but bugger me if I can provide a formula. (Still, it's easy enough to verify: you can't throw a table tennis ball faster than a golf ball because your arm is at full speed then already).
You'll still put in the same amount of energy into the bow but that isn't imparted on the arrow but on the bow.

[Fantomen]

I can verify that material and construction matters a lot. A flatbow, along with many other types, depends on the dynamic between the elastic surface wood(front of bow) of the tree and the hard corewood(backside of bow). The bigger the difference between core and surface the more efficient the bow will be relative to its draw weight. That is why different kinds of tree are more or less suitable.

The bow is consequently built by first splitting the tree in four quarters and then you pick the one without branches or other defects. You work out the bow from the "back" leaving the elastic surface intact and carve away enough of the hard wood to get your preferred draw weight.

Laminated bows follow the same principle, but are built with materials of varying hardness/elasticity instead which are then glued or wired together.

You can elevate the effectiveness of your wooden bow by applying a string of elastic material along the front and some hard material on the back. The vikings of Iceland used sinews and bone for example.

[thejeff]

Or in other words:
Assuming 100% efficiency
You can't do this. It's a false assumption and that's where all the problems come from.

As the old physics joke goes: "First, assume a spherical cow..."

[Maerlande]

Of course if you are saying when I have a bow made from material x that shoots an arrow weighting y with the speed z and another bow from material q that does exactly the same thing with the same arrow than yes, the material matters not (ignoring all other things that might be important for a soldier like weight or ruggedness), then yeah, but that's a truism.

You are correct. And that was what I was saying. But more important, the available energy is no more than can be put into the bow by an archer. The previous posters were confusing the issue with discussions of using modern materials vs. wood, sinew, horn and bone. Making a kevlar bow has no effect on the input energy. It might have some effect on the energy conversion efficiency. But tastles on the string to reduce noise generation do that as well and don't require modern materials.

This all started with, to paraphrase, crossbows are stronger than longbows. This is an irrelevant argument. Given enough time, a human being can load a 1000 lb draw crossbow if he wants to. And the material discussion keeps distracting for the key energy requirement. In no way can a human fired bow store more energy than the human can put into it.

You'll have a maximum velocity that you can archieve, as that's the maximum velocity with that the bow snaps back into shape.

Excellent point and one I did not address. Easiest way to model it mathematically is by an efficiency factor. I don't know the details sufficiently to make an analysis of this effect but I would be very interested if you can find some references or can supply some more information. Along with that same point there is a serious problem with the arrow flexing. It is my understanding that this is why modern hollow shaft metal and composite arrows are much more effective. They fly faster and straighter. But frankly, modern materials are not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about medieval bows and crossbows.

Another point I wish to address again is the fallacy that wood, bone, sinew, and horn are not good materials. They are brilliant materials and are still used in serious engineering work for the simple reason that they do certain jobs better than any modern materials. A wonderful example is the mosquito bombers made in England of plywood and glued with cassein. As an engineer I am intimately familiar with the tendency of engineers to limit themselves for manufactured materials. It's a terrible shame because many natural materials have superb properties nearly impossible to duplicate with man made materials.

Fantomen: I completely agree and I think you will note that I mention in passing composite bows used by Mongols. I am familiar with the use of high tensile strength elastic materials on the front of the bow and high compressive strengths on the backside.

But going back, this discussion has been about the relative penetration abilities of longbows vs. crossbows. I have previously provided references respecting the engineering properties of medieval materials and they compare quite favourably to modern materials. In general, the most important difference is in manufacturing cost. A steel bow can be built for a few dollars today. A hand made sinew, yew wood, and horn composite bow is extremely pricey. I can build a reasonably effective crossbow prod from a used car leaf spring in about 2 hours for $5 from the auto wrecker. It would take me days or weeks to build the same quality prod of sinew, wood, and horn. And that assumes I have the skill which I don't. But this is a modern view. In the medieval period, quality steel was hand made from wootz ingots folded numerous times to ensure the perfect carbon iron ratios, quenched, tempered and then ground. A bow could be built by a peasant artisan from materials scrounged from the yard.

TheJeff: Of course the efficiency of a bow or crossbow is not 100%. The point that I think you missed is that the resulting velocity of the missile when comparing a bow and crossbow is a function of the input energy and the mass of the missile. I can repeat the analysis at 50% efficiency or 80%. But the general implications are the same. Short draw requires more pull to get the same energy in the missile. Lighter missiles will go faster (and of course I accept that there are fixed velocity limits).

And for you three debaters and all the rest: I challenge you to put the same effort to do the calculations that I did.

I realize that I have written a wordy response. Let me summarize again.

1) The energy put into a bolt or arrow will never be more than the energy put into the bow by the human archer. And this is fixed by physical limitations of human beings.

2) A crossbow can store more energy because mechanical leverage allows the human to spend more time putting more total energy into it.

3) The trade off is speed of loading versus missile energy.

To get more energy into a missile you require a way to store energy in more compact forms. The most practical example of this is gunpowder.

[Squirrelloid]

It should probably be noted that longbows tend to be fired indirectly, that is, with a high arc, and that the force behind a strike comes from gravity. Now, while the height an archer can put an arrow at is dictated by the energy released firing the bow, he can cheat additional striking power by occupying higher ground (and thus causing the arrow to fall farther than he sent it up).

[Knai]

You can do that with crossbows as well, but really, eventually the slower loading time just makes it pointless, though a lower, slighter arc is often pretty good just because of some angles you can get better with it. That said, slings get even nastier at higher angles. Comparable firing rates to a bow, but sling bullets are pretty heavy, and rather difficult to remove from people once they get hit by them.

The issue with a bow is that it is ultimately limited by how hard you can pull. Which can get ridiculous, but a crossbow can always go above that. Again I draw an analogy to a sling, what matters there is how fast you can get it, and there are ways to change that (sling length, wind resistance, etc.).

[Wrana]

You can do that with crossbows as well, but really, eventually the slower loading time just makes it pointless, ...
This would have an additional problem as crossbowmen weren't usually trained in this due to a more flat trajectory common for crossbows and the possibility to aim along its "barrel" which made such training unnecessary.

[Maerlande]

Knai,

The issue with a bow is that it is ultimately limited by how hard you can pull.

If you read the previous post in this thread I suspect you will find I stated exactly this a dozen times. No matter how many times I say it, there appears to be folks who don't comprehend. And as I have said previously, a crossbow allows higher pull by using more time to do it.

Comparable firing rates to a bow, but sling bullets are pretty heavy, and rather difficult to remove from people once they get hit by them.

I'm curious. What makes you think sling bullets are heavy? Let's take the example of a one inch diameter rock. Assuming it is made of basalt it weighs 0.87 oz. As previously stated the mass of an arrow is about 0.54 oz. This is not exactly a huge increase. Can you back up your statement of generalities with some calculations or facts? So far it appears to be base generalization with no substance. I'm also curious to learn how a rock is hard to remove from a person? Perhaps it penetrates the stomach cavity and is therefore a challenge to extract?

Squirrelloid:

It should probably be noted that longbows tend to be fired indirectly, that is, with a high arc, and that the force behind a strike comes from gravity.

Quite a simplification. But I haven't the time tonight to analyze. I will get back to you.

[chrispedersen]

Dhaeron,

Welcome to the conversation. The primary point of bumping this thread is to remind Lingchih that he can never live down starting it.

But I have some rebuttals for you :)

The big problem with using a strong bow is not so much aiming (which works very well) or learning how to use it, but to build up the muscles needed to use it.

I don't agree with this. I shoot archery maybe 10 times a year. And I shoot a 55 lb recurve bow. It was my first bow and I've had it for 25 years. I can't shoot all day, but I can easily shoot 40 arrows which is a pretty big bunch for any quiver. And I'm a desk jockey. So it's not like I work out regularly or do anything in particular to pump my strength. I am strong and big, but it's all just native ability.

If I was a peasant forking hay onto wagons I would easily be able to shoot a 100 lb bow. Forking hay onto wagons is an over the head move. Also using a scythe builds massive arm and shoulder muscles. I used to be able to place a 60 lb hay bale onto a wagon above my head using a fork. A fork of hay is not light. Do that all day and you'd find drawing a big bow easy.

We all tend to forget that medieval peasants worked all day at hard physical labour. It's unrealistic to compare them to modern couch potatoes.

The mongols shot 150lb composite bows from horseback.

Another fun fact is that medieval and ancient crossbows (the greeks already used them) reached mostly the same projectile velocity as bows, mostly because that's limited more by the materials available for the arrows & bolts, than by the materials available for the bows & crossbows

This is incorrect. The physics of the problem are reasonably simple. It's conservation of energy. The archer puts the integral of force times draw into the bow as energy (or the work done by the archer). If we want a simple calculation, using 100 lbs force for 28 inches (assuming a straight line force curve from zero to 100 lb on a longbow) the energy put into the missile is exactly 159 J or 0.15 BTU. I have converted to SI for the calculations.

Assuming 100% efficiency the missile when fired will have exactly 159 J of energy since energy is conserved. This does not account for energy lost as heat and sound in the string and bow but will be good enough for our calculation. The kinetic energy of the missile is then mass time velocity squared. I found some modern replica arrow heads online that mass about 2 oz each. Add that to the mass of a 1/4" diameter by 36" long cedar arrow (the material I use) we get a total mass of 0.54 oz. The velocity of the arrow is then 333 ft per second.

Let's now try this with a simple goat's foot type crossbow with perhaps a draw of 200 lbs. The draw length of a goat's foot crossbow is about 12 inches. Assuming the same type of force curve we get a input energy of. If the bolt is made of cedar as well with a similar point, it's mass is now 0.27 oz. The bolt velocity is 436 feet per second.

So basically, the velocity of a missile fired from any type of bow is a function of the input energy and mass of the missile. There is no direct comparison possible between crossbows and bows. It's all variable.

This is also why the material of the bow is irrelevant to the discussion. For what it matters, the bow could be made of adamantium or kevlar. The input energy doesn't change since it comes from the human archer. And a human archer has a very strict limit on the energy available. Crossbows can put potentially more energy into the missile because they over come the limits of human power by mechanical leverage. The trade off is loading time.

Of course, someone will argue that the bolt could be made of steel. And it could but then carrying them would be difficult. If we change the bolt shaft to steel the bolts weigh 4 oz each and then 40 bolts would weigh 10 lbs. Pretty heavy but I suppose not impossible. The worst problem is that the velocity drops to 113 feet per second which is so slow that you could simply step out of the way and the ballistics are such that range would deteriorate.

Summary

It is a standard rule of thermodynamic analysis in energy conversion that finding the output from a certain input you do not require to know anything about the internal workings of the energy conversion machine. A simple efficiency rating (to account for losses) is adequate. In the case of bows, they convert human force and distance into kinetic energy. On this basis, the materials, shape, construction, etc are irrelevant. All that matters is the input energy and the efficiency of conversion.

As far as output energy, a crossbow simply does one thing. It increases the energy input by allowing more time for the human to apply the energy. Whether it's simply a goat's foot, windlass or lever action, the job of a crossbow is to mechanically leverage the force of a human. And it takes more time to do so.

I can keep going, but let's see if anyone has the knowledge to try to refute my facts. So far, 80% of this discussion is simply annecdotes and opinion. It's very shy on fact.

For anyone interested, I can share my calculation pages by irc or here.

I'll take a pound of actual results over a two pages of reasoned theory, any day.
(Not to comment on the discourse.. it was pretty good so far as that went).


But the facts are that in medieval ages, in england for example, yeoman were required to spend a day a week in archery training. EVERY yeoman, unless they arranged exceptions. And this was to increase accuracy, and stamina.

Up until the 14th century, and probably well into the 14th century velocities and penetration were almost identical. This wasn't theoretical - the british did penetration tests, both vs oak planks and plate mail.

British quartermaster records go back that far - sadly, I don't recall the name.

Finally, english steel was notoriously poor quality, due to the poor quality ores. HIgh quality steel was done on the north coast of spain (bilbao area), toledo, and damascus.

[Maerlande]

But Chris,

You aren't being suckered by the rhetoric are you? You understand my point that whatever the material the energy input is a human being. And I totally agree with you on the training of Yeomen. It's pretty famous. Which goes back to the original debate. Longbows were getting the shaft as far as I'm concerned. They are incredible weapons but do need training.

But of course if you want to submit fact you will be required to find those references :) I promise to read them.

And really, you can't say this But the facts are that in medieval ages, in england for example, yeoman were required to spend a day a week in archery training. without references. Because how do we know those are facts?

I'd love to see those penetration tests. I did some digging but best I could find were British naval round tests. Not irrelevant but the energies involved are orders of magnitude higher.

[Knai]

I'm curious. What makes you think sling bullets are heavy? Let's take the example of a one inch diameter rock. Assuming it is made of basalt it weighs 0.87 oz. As previously stated the mass of an arrow is about 0.54 oz. This is not exactly a huge increase. Can you back up your statement of generalities with some calculations or facts? So far it appears to be base generalization with no substance. I'm also curious to learn how a rock is hard to remove from a person? Perhaps it penetrates the stomach cavity and is therefore a challenge to extract?

Typical sling bullets were made of lead for one thing, or clay way back when. Incidentally the density of basalt is about 3 g/cm^3, compared to 11.54 for lead. That works out to 3.23 ounces for a 1 inch sphere, which is much higher than the .54 for an arrow. Rocks are really not high priority ammunition. Now, 2 1 inch long .75 inch diameter parabolas attached together (foot ball shaped ammunition, in common use.) is .471 inches cubed, compared to .523 for the sphere, and weighs only 2.9 ounces. Most sling bullets are in the 2-3 ounce range, though there are outliers. The Balearic slingers are known for using 5 oz bullets, but that is exceptionally heavy, though lighter than some of the Incan ammunition, which were typically very heavy, large rocks, with limited range. Note that I'll try to find the data I was looking at earlier for some of the specifics. Among them are Roman sling bullets typically weighed between 30 g and 90 g. 28g is about 1 oz (28.4 if I remember correctly), so 1-3 for Romans, which is a big difference. The sling is a very dangerous weapon, just difficult to aim for the obvious reason that it is an aim while firing weapon instead of an aim then fire weapon, and the projectile is a decent distance from the hand.

There are a few exceptions to lead bullets other than the Incans. Another is the Apache, who used obsidian in some cases, despite low weight. However, it was used differently, obsidian is rather brittle, and if an obsidian sling bullet shatters near you, it is going to cause some injury, not to mention being bad for morale. Though heavy armor helps hugely at this point.

As for removal difficulty, there are two main factors. The first is the difficulty inherent in removing an object that has fully penetrated. All of the sling bullet is inside the struck target, whereas an arrow is only partially inside someone shot. Furthermore, sling bullets were round, egg shaped, or shaped roughly like an American foot ball. If you can't get around to the back of objects shaped like any of these, you can't get a good grip on them easily, which means either stuffing your hand in an injury, pushing tissue out of the way, and pulling it out (which will lead to infection), or specialized tools (which probably still will lead to infection in earlier eras, but at least won't cause further immediate damage.) The Romans actually eventually developed some specialized prongs, which could still prove problematic. Note that an arrow or crossbow bolt, as a cylindrical pointed object, is much easier to remove, though it obviously has to be done carefully.

[Squirrelloid]

Military arrow heads are made so that you cannot pull it back out of the wound without significant tearing. The best solution is to push it through (after cutting the shaft down), but this isn't always survivable.

[Rookierookie]

I was under the impression that arrowheads are removed by digging it and any flesh attached to it out with a knife.

[Knai]

Often that is the method. Either way though, you need to be able to get a grip on the head, and carefully remove it, and the equipment required is much less specialized, either a knife or pushing. Its not easy by any means, but the ability to grip makes it far easier.

[Sombre]

Well they're all going to die from secondary infection anyway,.. so,.. what's the difference again? :]

[pyg]

Well they're all going to die from secondary infection anyway,.. so,.. what's the difference again? :]

Yes, but diseased units only loose 1 hp a month so they should live to fight a few more times.

[Knai]

Well they're all going to die from secondary infection anyway,.. so,.. what's the difference again? :]

Who knows. You might triple the rate of survival with what amounts to a rounding error on rate of death. :)

[Wrana]

Military arrow heads are made so that you cannot pull it back out of the wound without significant tearing. The best solution is to push it through (after cutting the shaft down), but this isn't always survivable.
Not necessarily. Scythian design was, but, say, English wasn't. Ancient Greeks used both variants.
"Needle" heads designed for punching through armor never head additional spikes as these would interfere with penetration. The same goes for crossbow heads.
Of course, even straignt arrowhead could warp after striking armor or bone and muscles around wound could contract, so pulling arrow back could become difficult.
As for the best solution, that was the "Dioclos' spoon" - a specially designed tool pushed into the wound channel to catch an arrowhead and pull it back. Of course, it required a trained surgeon to use - but pushing arrow through needed one, too - to avoid major bloodvessels, for example. :)

[Illuminated One]

Excellent point and one I did not address. Easiest way to model it mathematically is by an efficiency factor. I don't know the details sufficiently to make an analysis of this effect but I would be very interested if you can find some references or can supply some more information. Along with that same point there is a serious problem with the arrow flexing. It is my understanding that this is why modern hollow shaft metal and composite arrows are much more effective. They fly faster and straighter. But frankly, modern materials are not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about medieval bows and crossbows.

Ignoring all "complicated" stuff like friction or speed-dependent forces it would still be damn hard to model, and flexible objects can only be really analysed via computerprograms afaik. However there are two simple points to add:
The energy put into the bow ( - losses) doesn't equal the energy of the arrow but the energy of the arrow and all the moving bowparts at the moment of launch. I can't calculate how a bow would actually behave but for a simple balista with rigid arms and torsion springs in the middle this should come to
E(bow) / E(arrow) = mass(bow) / 16 * mass(arrow)
With E(arrow) = (1/2) * mass(arrow) * speed²(arrow)
So speed²(arrow) = 2 * E(input) / (mass(bow)/8 + mass(arrow))

So if the bow weights 8 times as much as the arrow the catapult has only an efficiency of 50% (and that's not even counting entropy) a catapult which weights 24 times as much only 25%.
(While every real bowshape should be more energy efficient this still applies with different factors)

Now, so making the bow heavier (or changing its shape) makes it less efficient, why would we do so anyway? For one thing because we want additional draw weight.

And that makes two factors that limit the crossbows we can build. It's undoubtedly true that the crossbowman can put a lot more energy into the crossbow, but the question is could the medieval people build crossbows that could handle that extra energy while putting enough of it into the bolt to make a difference.

[chrispedersen]

But Chris,

You aren't being suckered by the rhetoric are you? You understand my point that whatever the material the energy input is a human being. And I totally agree with you on the training of Yeomen. It's pretty famous. Which goes back to the original debate. Longbows were getting the shaft as far as I'm concerned. They are incredible weapons but do need training.

But of course if you want to submit fact you will be required to find those references :) I promise to read them.

And really, you can't say this But the facts are that in medieval ages, in england for example, yeoman were required to spend a day a week in archery training. without references. Because how do we know those are facts?

I'd love to see those penetration tests. I did some digging but best I could find were British naval round tests. Not irrelevant but the energies involved are orders of magnitude higher.

Both longbows and crossbows are getting the shaft as far as I'm concerned for reasons of making a game. Happens in a lot of systems - why play a swordsmen when an archer kills you dead ...

The in game deviation way exceeds anything reasonable. As a rule of thumb I'd estimate left right deviaition to be no more than 5% of the distance, with an expert marksmen. In game turns, I might say 5% * (5-Experience).

As I said, I dont' recall the name of the book, but a simple google of medievel arrow penetration yields a few links


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/longbow.htm

Which notes that an arrow could penetrate 4" of solid oak.
At 200 meters, it penetrated 1", at 100 meters it could penetrate plate armor.

the following site
http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

has excellent statistics that the muzzle velocities of the crossbows and the arrows were very similiar. 133 vs 138 fps.
He claims that the 'most powerful' crossbows could penetrate plate at 200 meters.

He notes that the efficiency of the crossbow was nowhere near that of the longbow, as the tips of the lathes did not have sufficient time to move.

By the late medieval period (15th century) crossbows had exceeded longbows in penetration power.

[BigDaddy]

Still, I think I'm understanding more of the situation here. The crossbowmen were unskilled. Skilled crossbowmen worked in teams of three with two loaders and a shooter with 3 crossbows and a couple shields that make a wall, but those were mercenaries. Essentially all the longbowmen were a type of mercenary as well. These were all skilled units. The crossbowmen were handed a weapon and sent out.

At various times its been pointed out the someone has to load the force into the weapon. While for 1 shot this is not a big deal for either, after 10 minutes it's a huge deal for the conscripts, even if the crossbow is easy to shoot, even if they aren't expected to shoot that fast... yes, even with the mechanical advantage, you'll still need to pull the string back, and the crossbow took a lot more 'work' (scientific definition) from a lot less skilled soldier. The team of three avoids all this trouble, but, still, wouldn't you rather have 3 longbowmen? Ah, yes, a good general would find good locations for both.

[Maerlande]

Hmm, decent analysis BigDaddy.

Fatigue comes in to play.

[Wrana]

Still, I think I'm understanding more of the situation here. The crossbowmen were unskilled. Skilled crossbowmen worked in teams of three with two loaders and a shooter with 3 crossbows and a couple shields that make a wall, but those were mercenaries. Essentially all the longbowmen were a type of mercenary as well. These were all skilled units. The crossbowmen were handed a weapon and sent out.


Something like this, yes. You should also note that numbers of such skilled crossbowmen in mercenary units were sometimes less even than numbers of knights - crossbows included some rather intricate details, so were not that common. I've seen a publication of a muster rolls of some mercenary companies - numbers such as 15 knights and 20 crossbowmen seem quite common.
And another thing - crossbow contained an inherent factor of accuracy problem: a joining of bow to stock (forgot a proper name of it). In many museum pieces they are simply lashed together! This was another reason why professionals often preferred a longbow.

[chrispedersen]

usually each knight had an accompaniement of foot soldiers and men at arms he was required to provide.

Typically only nobles were nights with commoners, freemen as longbowmen, men at arms etc.

Medievel lords were required to provide specified numbers of men at arms and there were equivalencies.. so one knight was equal to five men at arms etc.

[BigDaddy]

I didn't realize how controversial crossbow vs. longbow was. It seems that this is a controversial topic in modern times as to what to allow people to hunt with. I had thought it was obviously a decent hunting device at least for rifle season. I do think it is much easier to use than a regular or compound bow, and really similar in usage to a gun. Nonetheless, if you see it from the game management side of things, you could just determine crossbow hunting season in a way that help manage deer populations on the margin. Bow hunters see this as horning in on their territory, but if I see it from a conservation aspect, I'm looking to make hunting as open as possible when I need deer harvested safely, and effectively.

[Eximius Sus]

Wow. 283 replies. This is an interesting forum. Some of these threads are really huge. Do you folks really have that much to say about this game?

[GrudgeBringer]

It is a deep game with a lot of different opinions on how things are used (weapons, spells, etc). Remember that different nations have different capabilities and attributes....So what might work for one nation doesn't work for another.

Once you start reading some of the threads you will see that you can glean what you need to know about a certain question and then go back to it for a different question on the same subject.

I have been playing 2 years and some of these guys still amaze me with the amount of knowledge they have. Just read the wiki, the manual and the walk thru that people have written as well as ask questions, and you will start picking it up quickly.

[Eximius Sus]

But this thread seems to be about real bows. I read some of it but it's crazy long and bizarre.

[thejeff]

There is the occasional temptation to go off on long tangents. Really long tangents.

And then come back a year later and raise the thread from the dead.

It happens.

[Lingchih]

Ahh! God no! It's been resurrected again!@

[Ferrosol]

did we ever settle the debate on the value of bagpipes?

[Eximius Sus]

What do bagpipes have to do with this thread?

Does anyone else think midget sized crossbows like those on the hoburgs should be weaker? Seems to me a 3 foot tall hoburg would be incredibly challenged to shoot a full size crossbow. Maybe they use their feat?

[Eximius Sus]

There is the occasional temptation to go off on long tangents. Really long tangents.

And then come back a year later and raise the thread from the dead.

It happens.

Oh. I guess that's what I did.

[RadicalTurnip]

What do bagpipes have to do with this thread?

Does anyone else think midget sized crossbows like those on the hoburgs should be weaker? Seems to me a 3 foot tall hoburg would be incredibly challenged to shoot a full size crossbow. Maybe they use their feat?

When this thread was alive the first time (not resurrected) there was a thread made mocking it called something like "Bagpipes vs. Oboes" or something. I'm pretty sure everyone agreed that Bagpipes were superior, so it never made "Thread Behemoth" status like this one...and I'm not even certain it was oboes or some other inferior instrument that couldn't hold a candle to the bagpipe.

[Eximius Sus]

You mean this thread?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45416&highlight=bagpipes

That thread made me laugh. Pretty good job of making fun of this thread. I guess I should keep that in mind when getting particular about game or historical detail.

[Wrana]

That thread made me laugh. Pretty good job of making fun of this thread. I guess I should keep that in mind when getting particular about game or historical detail.

On the other hand, you may just find something useful here. ;)
And on the subject of hoburg x-bows, I'd just make them same damage, but slower to reload.
Someday I am going to read this entire thread. Surely. :D

[Eximius Sus]

On the other hand, you may just find something useful here. ;)


Did you find something useful?

[chrispedersen]

That thread made me laugh. Pretty good job of making fun of this thread. I guess I should keep that in mind when getting particular about game or historical detail.

On the other hand, you may just find something useful here. ;)
And on the subject of hoburg x-bows, I'd just make them same damage, but slower to reload.
Someday I am going to read this entire thread. Surely. :D

Halflings, being smart, and living in a world with bigger folk, would just have regular crossbows - with 2 or 4 hoburgs manning them. At least, I enjoy the image.

[Eximius Sus]

It seems to me a crossbow is like Viagra. It lets an old bugger go on a little longer.

[Lingchih]

I don't think we have properly expounded on the actual arrowhead used. That alone could make quite a difference. A nice, aerodynamical head, or a killing head? Stone, bronze, or iron? Explosive, flaming, or conventional?

[rdonj]

Arrowheads with spinning drillbits?

[Eximius Sus]

Arrowheads with spinning drillbits?

That's silly. It's clearly known that the spiral mounting of fletchings was develop to increase the spinning penetration of arrows. Archimedes began his invention of the screw pump with a helical arrow head designed to spin it's way through bronze breastplates.

[Ragnarok-X]

I prefer longbows all the way.

[Lizardo]

A crossbow bolt is no more 'piercing' than an arrow. In fact the arrow typically has more mass and because of its length compared to cross section and fetching more flight stability.

The tip of the projectile is more important for the penetration of armor. The bows, and arrows, of Japanese Samurai were measurably superior to the English Longbow but the English arrows could penetrate both chain mail and plate armor. The Japanese arrow typically fails to penetrate chain (because Japanese knights never used it).

Composite re-curve short-bows are also very effective.

Penetration characteristics of a crossbow bolt are no different. It is simply easier to build crossbows and train crossbowmen.

Sling bullets just do not penetrate armor. They are blunt impact. You need gun powder to make a bullet effective. Slingers should though be able to carry 50 bullets and crossbow men 20 bolts.

Arquebus's were not so terribly inaccurate as to be useless, they killed or maimed what they hit and they reloaded as fast or faster than a crossbow with no strength needed. Breach loading versions were also available, just not widely so.

The use of crossbows and bows should be fatiguing, modified by strength.

What's also unsettling about shooting is the pattern of impact which tends to be all over the target area. Generally directed kinetic ammunition shouldn't stray too far to the left or right.

Missile weapons generally only penetrate at most 4". This means that shields should be very effective against most arrows/bolts and almost impossible for sling bullets.

An Arquebus will simply ignore shield and armor at effective range.

In this regard, distance should affect both accuracy and potential damage.

Bows could also be customized for the character's strength.

[Gregstrom]

Can some friendly admin re-title this "The thread that WILL NOT DIE", please?

[Fantomen]

Can some friendly admin re-title this "The thread that WILL NOT DIE", please?

This is a serious discussion, and the outcome will affect how crossbow/longbow based wargames are developed all over the world. FFS show some respect for the effort and time people put into this very important subject.

Speaking of that, how about we start a mac vs PC thread?

[Gregstrom]

Sorry Fantomen, I hadn't realised how C3R34L!!!!11111!!11!1 the discussion was.

[Fantomen]

Thanks for your understanding Greg.

@Lizardo: In order to relate the issue to dom3, assuming a bone/cherrywood ethiopian recurved composite shortbow, how would a vine arrow affect velocity and penetration. That spell always struck me as slightly out of touch with proper aerodynamics.

[Eximius Sus]

That's just BS fantomen. You are confusing the poor noob. It's all about the input energy.

[HoneyBadger]

Crossbows were frowned upon as not being the weapon of a Christian gentleman (meaning that it was perfectly OK to skewer a Muslim with one, but quite unchivalrous and rude to knock a proper knight off his noble steed with a crossbow bolt, especially since peasants could do so behind a bush. Peasants, after all, were made for sucking.)

I suspect that infamy had something to do with the rise of gunpowder, which fell under the very popular "knocks over castles" clause.

It's Rule of Cool, for lack of a better term.

Longbows remained quite popular, even after the introduction of gunpowder. Their decline had quite a bit to do with the fact that all the yew trees that made the best bows, had already been harvested. Mature yew trees became remarkably difficult to locate, in the late Middle Ages.

Slings, on the other hand, are insidiously difficult to aim, and fairly dangerous to friendlies, in close quarters. While powerful, they just weren't very good weapons for using in ranks.

[Gregstrom]

Oh dear.

[Lizardo]

Only rejoined children.

It's relevant if the game distinguishes things like crossbows, short bows and longbows. Might be nice if the distinctions had some basis in the actual products.

The vine effect occurs on impact I assume thus it is irrelevant to aerodynamics or lack there of.

Crossbows really aren't that great except that you can have them cocked and ready and they are easy to aim and fire. They're also a lot easier to make than a good bow.

Mods could always lock the topic if it serves no useful purpose.

[HoneyBadger]

Crossbows aren't great...compared to a Glock 9, AK, or assault shotgun. Compared to a 14th century hand-cannon, they're spiffy.

They're still great for hunting, superior in some ways to guns. Infact, a lot of states only allow crossbow-hunting for disabled hunters who can't easily use a gun.

Matchlocks, wheel-locks, and their predecessors had the unhappy tendancy to messily explode in the hands of their intended firers, among their many drawbacks. It was great for knights and nobles to give them to peasants (peasants are made for sucking) and then ride off to fight from horseback, because there was no way in hell a peasant could afford to mass-produce quality guns or quality powder, back then. Coupled with their inaccuracy, and the need for highly trained, and hideously expensive, special warhorses (which themselves took decades and decades to develope) to merge guns with calvalry (the only way low class gunfighters could hope to outmaneuvar landed chivalry on the battlefield), guns were reasonably safe to put in the hands of the common mass.

If crossbows had recieved the same level of technological attention guns have for centuries, it's reasonable to suppose they'd operate at a much, much higher level than they currently do--and possibly much closer to the guns we have today.

At the time gunpowder became weaponized, crossbows and ballistae were the most advanced ranged weapons on the battlefield (the hand version of the trebuchet-pretty much the omega catapult-was basically a sling, afterall...). A seige arbalest could be fired accurately, by a single soldier with modest training, at up to 900 meters, every 30 seconds, and deliver 5000 pounds of force. That's not nothing. Consider that that could be done from behind a large, heavy shield, and that crossbows could atleast be fired from a horse, without much special training from the horse. Crossbows and ballistae could also be stacked together, creating 2 and 3 shot versions, and repeating crossbow technology had existed for centuries before guns were ever invented.

The problem with crossbows was that they were too dangerous, and too easily produced and employed.

[RadicalTurnip]

Except crossbows aren't made of cherry.

And their cross-section is a dodecahedron, so therefore they are inferior weapons.

[Squirrelloid]

honeybadger, i don't know where you're getting your information, but so much of it is flat out wrong that i don't know where to start.

Example: your figures for speed and power of an arbalest come from an uncited assertion on wikipedia. In particular, i highly doubt the 2/min rate of *accurate* fire listed. You might be able to winch and fire 2/min without aiming at all. But those 5k lbs of force have to be cranked into the arbalest by the operator, and that takes time. (You don't get anything out that you don't put in). And there is open scepticism of 5k lbs of force as an accurate number on the talk page. (Indeed, the page is basically uncited since one of the two citations has absolutely nothing to do with any material actually on the page, and the other may or may not, but without being specifically referenced to a statement there's no way to know).

I will point out that it was firearms which forced the increasing thickness of combat armor in the late medieval period until armored knights became completely untenable.

I will point out that the french used crossbows/arbalests (there's no difference in medieval useage) because they were afraid to let peasants train with longbows, and thus their peasants *couldn't* use longbows in any military capacity. (the english, otoh, required peasants to train with the bow for most of the medieval period, and thus had a corp of highly trained bowmen available).

And by the time there were steel-bowed crossbows (c. 14th century), the cannon had already become state-of-the-art in medieval siege warfare.

And by the time you have either matchlocks or wheellocks, crossbows were museum pieces at best.

[HoneyBadger]

It was a Wikipedia reference (I like it because it's easy for everyone online to follow, much more easily referenced than a lot of out of print texts, and while it may not be perfectly accurate, it's accurate enough for a game), but I'd like to point out that I actually own a crossbow, that I'm very familiar with their use, and traditional construction-including the steel versions-
that I've spent over 3 decades studying the history of arms and armour, and that I grew up around such. My father professionally appraised swords for auction-houses, for years, and my family has an extensive collection of books on the subject, and on medieval weaponry, in general.

You're welcome to argue the point, but 2 accurate shots a minute is quite doable, even with a heavy crossbow, using a common windlass, provided you have enough upper body strength, and training.
30 seconds may not seem like much, but it becomes quite a lot of time, when someone's threatening your family with an axe.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

I've probably forgotten and remembered Dominions 3 more than any game ever. Since Elemental War of Magic seems to be a bust so far I've been looking back at the Dom and was surprised that I actually had an account, the topic was still here and on top, and people have over the months finally understood the things I was talking about once they got over their butthurt.

[Eximius Sus]

I was trying to figure out what you were talking about and here it is.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=668804&postcount=53

Glad you are back to provide clarity on this issue. It's clearly muddled up with fanciful dreams and a lack of reality.

[Fantomen]

Oh so glad you are back, we missed your unequaled insight in the world of aerodynamics!

[rdonj]

I've probably forgotten and remembered Dominions 3 more than any game ever. Since Elemental War of Magic seems to be a bust so far I've been looking back at the Dom and was surprised that I actually had an account, the topic was still here and on top, and people have over the months finally understood the things I was talking about once they got over their butthurt.

Although the topic had faded into obscurity for quite some time, until one forum troll revived it to embarrass poor lingchih. Sigh.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

How is it embarrassing? This is a wonderful thread. Afterall, I posted in it. ;)

Also it probably brought in at least few extra customers because it shows up on the front page of google when you search the topic title.

[Eximius Sus]

Although the topic had faded into obscurity for quite some time, until one forum troll revived it to embarrass poor lingchih. Sigh.

Troll in the dungeon!

[HoneyBadger]

The modern use of the word "arbalest" tends to denote a steel crossbow, and is useful as such. The medieval word was indeed interchangeable.

Squirreloid: Since you find fault with my references, what exact are yours? How can a crossbow be considered a "museum piece" when they're still being manufactured today? And if armour was being thickened only to protect against bullets, why were crossbows disavowed due to their ability to kill armoured knights, in the first place?

Here are a list of non-Wikipedia references:

Crossbows were banned by the church in 1139AD. http://www.castles-of-britain.com/castle36.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144231/crossbow
Does anyone wish to argue that the influence of the Church was unimportant and easily disregarded, in medieval Europe?

The arquebus (a very primitive handgun) was first used in Europe circa AD1450+ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arquebus http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/255834/harquebus
and it was compared directly to the crossbow.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144231/crossbow "The crossbow was the leading missle weapon of the middle ages". That's a direct quote from the online Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Cannons were used in warfare before that point, ofcourse, but it's ridiculous to imagine an army made up of only cannons, even modern cannon in modern times (armies aren't even made up entirely of mobile armor tanks).

Pike and shot tactics were employed as early as 1503, and it was a combination of arms that granted it's success (pike, cannon, and firearms--which include the English longbow)
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/tactics.htm
This success continued through the 30 Years War, past the mid 1800s, and it was even suggested as late as the American Civil War, that Confederate regiments include 2 companies of pike, a plan supported by Rober E. Lee.

However, the Swiss were already using similar tactics, as early as 1315, utilizing the crossbow. "If the worst occurred and an isolated column was caught in the open, the troops could always form a square or hedgehog, facing outward in all directions while keeping up a steady fire from their crossbows and relying on their pikes to keep the opposing horse at a respectful distance until help arrived."

Plate armour, as used by the classical knight, was still being perfected (not thickened) in the 16th century (Maximillian-style gothic plate).

http://stormshock.com/archive/articles/development.html
"German full plate armor in the sixteenth century represented the height of personal body armor in all of human history. This armor was called Maximilian armor and it was nearly impenetrable by all hand-powered weapons at the time. Even arrows and crossbow bolts were known to bounce off of such armor harmlessly. Furthermore, Maximilian armor distributed weight evenly throughout the body allowing freedom of movement and jogging."

Clearly, gunpowder didn't immediately render plate obsolete upon it's arrival.

http://stormshock.com/archive/articles/development.html
"Battles such as the massacre at Wisby or the battle of Poitiers pointed out the vulnerabilities of many types of armor to arrows and crossbow bolts."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/froissart1.html
The battle of Crecy, where thousands of crossbows were used by the winning side, occurred in 1346.

The battle of Agincourt (very famously won by longbow-using English) occurred circa 1415, and included crossbows on both sides. These were the more primitive, less effective, wood and horn bows, but the Genoise using them were still the most orderly of the French forces, until devastated by longbow fire.

The last major battle of the 100 years war was at Castillon (1453), where thousands of crossbows were used alongside gunpowder weapons, including cannon.

Gunpowder had been manufactured in the Tower of London, in the early 1300's.

http://www.royalgunpowdermills.com/wargm_chronology.htm

All of which would indicate that crossbows were quite common on the battlefield, for well over 100 years after gunpowder was common in Britain, Europe, and the Middle East. Certainly not by the 14th century (1300's).

And the Longbow may not have been used much in France, but the Germans and Scandinavians had no such restriction. http://www.teamultimedia.com/HRMH/History%20of%20Weapons/Welsh%20and%20English%20Longbow.html The Swiss legend of William Tell (an expert crossbowman) should be enough to indicate the popularity of the crossbow in that region.
http://www.amazon.com/Crossbows-Royal-Netherlands-Army-Museum/dp/9059721748

I couldn't find any direct references, but I've read and heard of a lot of theories and suggestions that heavy crossbows were employed in teams, with one team member firing, while the other reloaded the bow, and perhaps maintained a large pavaise. This makes a certain amount of sense, particularly in a seige, and would easily account for the 2 shots per minute, and more easily account for the use of a very powerful "seige" type hand crossbow.

Crossbows were even employed in WW2, by Austalian commandoes, and by U.S. special forces in Vietnam.
http://www.extremely-sharp.com/es/learn/aimcross.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Military-Use-of-Crossbows---An-Introductory-View&id=3877948

So clearly, there's no issue of them having become mere "museum pieces", even in modern times.

[Eximius Sus]

A seige arbalest could be fired accurately, by a single soldier with modest training, at up to 900 meters, every 30 seconds, and deliver 5000 pounds of force

I can't find anything in your above list of reference to back up this claim from your earlier post.

And of course, 5000 lbs draw weight does not deliver 5000 lbs of force at the target. It imparts a certain kinetic energy to the bolt depending on draw distance (work = force x distance). The weight and resulting muzzle velocity of the bolt is a more useful comparison.