Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Agema]

Originally Posted by MachinegunJoeTurbo

The English did it because of cost reasons and got stuck so to speak which is a recurrent problem with the country throughout it's history similar to how they were slow to change from hand cutting coal to machine cut which hampered their industry

Er, do you have a problem with the English or British?

Firstly, you seem determined to not just deny any credit to them for use of the longbow, but to make out they were cheap, and only won battles because the French were incompetent.

Now you're making bizarre accusations that they repeatedly get "stuck" using old and inefficient technologies and practices. On what grounds would you argue they were any worse than any other race nation? How do you explain they were and still are near the front of technological advancement since about 1700?

* * *

I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information but...

Worldwide the average power for bows of all designs is about 220 newtons (50 pounds) at 70 cm (28 inches) of draw which is suitable for most hunting applications. Bows for warfare tend to be much more powerful, with the most powerful bows being the English longbow and the African elephant bow, both of which topped the 900 N (200-pound) at 80 cm (32 inches) mark.

This is the point. It's not that longbows are worldwide and strong bows are worldwide. It that bows - of any sort - with draw weights of an English longbow were very rare as battlefield weapons. Getting thousands of men who can pull a 220N bow effectively is a very different matter from getting thousands who can pull an 600-900N bow.

I maintain that extra weight a) made the bows much more effective and b) that it required the sort of training the English king compelled on his subjects. Which makes the English longbow not just your average bow fired by your average archer.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

When young children are referring to "magical pebbles that grow trees" I'll hold you to what you said. How am I troll? I prefaced that factoid with an inference that I was intentionally being silly which is why I'm not badgering people about it when they use it elsewhere. And it is still true that "fire" is not the appropriate term. It is still incorrect.

Well I'm not trying to convince you, believe me. Especially after that stupid response. Since it's been demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, it's cool for you to continue. No-one with any sense will listen.

It also now appears you've never even played dominions. You couldn't possibly be a troll

[Incabulos]

Just watched a history channel special on xbows and longbows, an also a show on the battle of Crecy.

The longbow archers fired a rate of roughly 12 arrows a minute. So every 5 seconds.

The range of the longbow outpaced the range of the xbow until you get into the composite xbows which were certainly not cheap and were very labour intensive and because of cranking the rof on those was terrible.

Sheer numbers of arrows and the fact that England was using the longbow during a period of mounted nobility meant the longbow was incredibly effective at halting charges. The lack of penetration at long ranges is one reason English longbowmen were trained to aim for the horses. Longbow groups were also more mobile than xbow groups who used pavises from behind which they fired. (although they were left on the baggage train at crecy).

What it boiled down to in the programs was that whoever has to charge the enemy is going to hurting, thhose charging longbows through sheer volume and barrages at multiple points in the charge. Those charging at pavise protected xbows would be killed at a much closer range.

But the biggest purpose of the xbows and thier pavises was to provide a line of defence and retreat from which the knights could charge.

Of course at Crecy the French knights ended up killing the Genoese xbows when they routed, I guess the 'cowardice'(they were being slaughtered) sent them into a rage. Just one of many errors that helped the English succeed against such odds.

[sum1lost]

Originally Posted by Incabulos

Just watched a history channel special on xbows and longbows, an also a show on the battle of Crecy.

The longbow archers fired a rate of roughly 12 arrows a minute. So every 5 seconds.

The range of the longbow outpaced the range of the xbow until you get into the composite xbows which were certainly not cheap and were very labour intensive and because of cranking the rof on those was terrible.

Sheer numbers of arrows and the fact that England was using the longbow during a period of mounted nobility meant the longbow was incredibly effective at halting charges. The lack of penetration at long ranges is one reason English longbowmen were trained to aim for the horses. Longbow groups were also more mobile than xbow groups who used pavises from behind which they fired. (although they were left on the baggage train at crecy).

What it boiled down to in the programs was that whoever has to charge the enemy is going to hurting, thhose charging longbows through sheer volume and barrages at multiple points in the charge. Those charging at pavise protected xbows would be killed at a much closer range.

But the biggest purpose of the xbows and thier pavises was to provide a line of defence and retreat from which the knights could charge.

Of course at Crecy the French knights ended up killing the Genoese xbows when they routed, I guess the 'cowardice'(they were being slaughtered) sent them into a rage. Just one of many errors that helped the English succeed against such odds.

For what it is worth- Drawing a full longbow is incredibly muscle intensive. Firing at the max rate of fire was only possible for a minute or two before even the most comptent bowmen gave out. Realistically, after the initial volley most bowmen would pace themselves to a much slower rate of fire- faster than a crossbow, but not to the point of firing every few seconds.

On top of that, any archer who fired at the speed people have been describing would empty his quiver within minutes. The most arrows I have ever read of an archer carrying was 60, and that was in multiple quivers, and they were smaller arrows for a horsebow. (Marco Polo's decription of a mongolian warrior)

[Incabulos]

accounts of Crecy describe porters continually bringing arrows from the supply lines.

It also described that a ferocious rate was only needed for the first charge. The resulting field of long arrows and crippled horses etc meant the second charge was much less of a threat.

A barrier of dead horses was actually achieved. Of course Crecy is an example of where the longbow really shined, and was put to great tactical use. The terrain forced a difficult charge and approach from a single direction.

In modern tests they did show that it wasn't until the last 1/4 of a charge (when the knights were almost at the base of the hill) that the arrows penetrated armor. The first 1/4 of the charge and almost no arrows hit even the horse. The last 1/4 of the charge almost all the arrows would hit. The targets looked like hedgehogs.\\they also timed the charge to cover the field and it took 40 seconds. That is an awful long time to be under fire from that many longbows. Crossbows simply would not have been as effective.

Seems to me crossbows would excel at taking down slower moving heavily armoured infantry.