What makes the Crossbow so powerful?

[Elfwine]

Right. It's typically only used for hunting and cavalry. Even most lighter types used a belt-hook.

15 shots a minute for a longbow, however, means 15 bad shots, a tired archer, and running out of arrows. I doubt people really did it often.

The video guy is doing twelve shots a minute, so I'm not sure it would be that bad.

But it would be something you'd only do if you were firing as fast as you could pull ( with the result looking like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAUp1ripJLE ), rather than for well aimed shots at individuals/targets.

Still, in the right circumstances, the crossbow rocks - I hate to say this as a longbow fan, but it really is a solid weapon. Add a pavise for defense and its not even that bad vs. the longbow (the reason we see crossbowmen mowed down in the HYW by longbowmen is those being absent - along with incredibly inept use of the Genoese crossbowmen by their commanders).

 

[RGB]

...along with incredibly inept use of the Genoese crossbowmen by their commanders).

That's my other point. Longbow mercenaries (they of great repute but very underwhelming performance) could get reasonably rich. Longbowmen who looted France and ransomed knights along with the English nobles could get quite well-off and come back to create successful businesses on that war money. But the majority simply weren't rich, and weren't successful.

Meanwhile, crossbowmen were formed in professional well-paid companies early on and that never changed until Spain and France put together the first national armies.

Something just doesn't connect between the idea that the crossbow is simply easier to use but otherwise inferior in every way, and the recorded fact of the Italian archer going to war with (a) servant(s) and a cart full of gear, versus the English archer who only got rich on the battlefield.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

@ Elfwine: Yes, it doesn't help to have your cavalry run over your own crossbow-men...
Though maybe they did that so the Genoese didn't have to be paid!

 

[Elfwine]

That's my other point. Longbow mercenaries (they of great repute but very underwhelming performance) could get reasonably rich. Longbowmen who looted France and ransomed knights along with the English nobles could get quite well-off and come back to create successful businesses on that war money. But the majority simply weren't.

Meanwhile, crossbowmen were formed in professional well-paid companies early on and that never changed until Spain and France put together the first national armies.

Something just doesn't connect between the idea that the crossbow is simply easier to use but otherwise inferior in every way, and the Italian archer going to war with 2 a servant and a cart full of gear, versus the English archer who only got rich on the battlefield.

What does the fact most longbowmen were yeomen and not mercenaries have to do with the value of the two kinds of bows?

Although I agree that the merc companies of crossbowmen existing and being hired suggests they were worth their pay.

@ Herzen: Not just that, but sending them into battle while they were exhausted and unprepared - and then acting like them routing was some kind of surprise.

 

[RGB]

What does the fact most longbowmen were yeomen and not mercenaries have to do with the value of the two kinds of bows?

Everything to do with the typical argumentation. Longbow is a work of art used by consummate professionals, you see, and the crossbow is a cheap and dirty weapon used by ploughboys.

We've had those opinions expressed on this very thread.

Of course it's the longbow that's been rescued very late in history from being just a peasant weapon (surviving only in Britain and Scandinavia, really), and the crossbow was the one used by actual soldiers everywhere else.

This isn't to say the longbow was a bad weapon, of course it wasn't. But crossbows "winning" due to "cost" simply doesn't make sense in the context of actual medieval Europe.

I could buy the crossbow/horse bow dichotomy in Eastern Europe, yes. City militia had crossbows, gentry were horse archers. That's a given. But in most of Western Europe there was no longbow culture at all. There must have been other reasons than just cost of materials and training vs. the crossbow that made it go away.

 

[Elfwine]

Everything to do with the typical argumentation. Longbow is a work of art used by consummate professionals, you see, and the crossbow is a cheap and dirty weapon used by ploughboys.

We've had those opinions expressed on this very thread.

Of course it's the longbow that's been rescued very late in history from being just a peasant weapon (surviving only in Britain and Scandinavia, really), and the crossbow was the one used by actual soldiers everywhere else.

This isn't to say the longbow was a bad weapon, of course it wasn't. But crossbows "winning" due to "cost" simply doesn't make sense in the context of actual medieval Europe.

I could buy the crossbow/horse bow dichotomy in Eastern Europe, yes. City militia had crossbows, gentry were horse archers. That's a given. But in most of Western Europe there was no longbow culture at all. There must have been other reasons than just cost of materials and training vs. the crossbow that made it go away.

The anti-archery prejudice amongst the nobility, and the lack of French (For instance) yeomen?

Those did play a fairly significant role.

Doesn't explain why "actual soldiers" didn't adopt the longbow more except for one thing - with the longbow taking so much training, the crossbow is more practical.

 

[RGB]

The anti-archery prejudice amongst the nobility, and the lack of French (For instance) yeomen?

The nobility did practice archery as sport, for hunting mostly, even in France. And surely the French hunters/farmers used bows as well for game? I mean, they had entire guilds of fowlers in Paris and Bordeaux and not all of them used nets.

It never translated into a war weapon. That's all I'm saying.

I would argue that it's the particular kind of physical conditioning that most people lacked, not some amazing shooting skills. Archery isn't that terribly difficult if you'e shooting at a crowd, but drawing even 80 lbs is ridiculously painful for me, for example.

 

[Flubber]

Doesn't explain why "actual soldiers" didn't adopt the longbow more except for one thing - with the longbow taking so much training, the crossbow is more practical.

That could be one factor but I think we've been overlooking another: In the centuries since both weapons were regularly used in warfare, the longbow has received better press than the crossbow.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

That could be one factor but I think we've been overlooking another: In the centuries since both weapons were regularly used in warfare, the longbow has received better press than the crossbow.

Perhaps in the English language...

 

[Flubber]

Perhaps in the English language...

Which is the language of this board, the mother tongue of most of it's members, and the language which most of the history they've read is written in.

The myths surrounding the "superiority" of the longbow could be nothing more than the results of a language driven selection bias.

 

[Elfwine]

The nobility did practice archery as sport, for hunting mostly, even in France. And surely the French hunters/farmers used bows as well for game? I mean, they had entire guilds of fowlers in Paris and Bordeaux and not all of them used nets.

It never translated into a war weapon. That's all I'm saying.

I would argue that it's the particular kind of physical conditioning that most people lacked, not some amazing shooting skills. Archery isn't that terribly difficult if you'e shooting at a crowd, but drawing even 80 lbs is ridiculously painful for me, for example.

Practicing archery as sport does not translate into seeing the bow as a legitimate weapon in battle.

I don't know what French hunters/farmers/etc. used.

And yes, physical conditioning - although I think the shooting itself might take much practice (not sure how much this varies between crossbow and others).

 

[MNP]

From what I've read, Wales had short bows with the bowstave shaped like the later weapon and the Vikings brought the large Scandinavian flat blow to Britain. It was the combination that produced the longbow. Also didn't the French establish some sort of longbow companies in the later 1400s or something?

Even at the famous 100 years war battles the archers arced the arrows and didn't aim straight across at the French knights IIRC. I want to say it was something about hitting their horses in the ass being the preferred tactic.

 

[Elfwine]

From what I've read, Wales had short bows with the bowstave shaped like the later weapon and the Vikings brought the large Scandinavian flat blow to Britain. It was the combination that produced the longbow. Also didn't the French establish some sort of longbow companies in the later 1400s or something?

Even at the famous 100 years war battles the archers arced the arrows and didn't aim straight across at the French knights IIRC. I want to say it was something about hitting their horses in the ass being the preferred tactic.

I think so, but with little success - the amount of training it takes to make a really good longbowman, English-style, is more than just developing the bow muscles (see http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/215909.html ).

 

[MNP]

I think so, but with little success - the amount of training it takes to make a really good longbowman, English-style, is more than just developing the bow muscles (see http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/215909.html ).

Yes, they didn't work very well. My point was simply the French tried it but preferred other methods for whatever reason.

 

[RPW@Cy]

That's my other point. Longbow mercenaries (they of great repute but very underwhelming performance) could get reasonably rich. Longbowmen who looted France and ransomed knights along with the English nobles could get quite well-off and come back to create successful businesses on that war money. But the majority simply weren't rich, and weren't successful.

I'm taking from this paragraph that you've never heard of Sir John Hawkwood, one of the richest and most successful of all the mercenaries who led a company based on English longbowmen into Italy and who was so ferociously successful that not only did he become massively rich and gain a memorial in the Duomo in Florence but also was the origin of the saying "Un Inglese Italianato e un diavolo incarnato" (an Italianised Englishman is a devil incarnate)?

 

[RPW@Cy]

Every famous bow victory over men at arms came against:

1. An army charging uphill in the mud against an enemy with secure flanks
2. A TIRED army charging uphill in the mud with no plan other than "charge"
3. Archers dug in behind trenches, stakes, and THEN men at arms to protect them.
4. Point-blank enfilading archery over prolonged periods of time.

That's nothing short of a perfect setup. I'm struggling, in fact, to think of a single battle where longbowmen were not only decisive, but even effective, outside of that setup (when it wasn't against Scotland).

Someone might correct me of course if they can think of something.

Or to put it another way - "longbows were rubbish, apart from all the times they were effective, which I am now going to rule out on various spurious grounds."

I have to say this argument - which I have seen before when debating the merits of Wellington vs. Napoleon or Monty vs. Rommel - that intelligently deploying your troops so as to maximise the advantages of their weapons and equipment and minimise their disadvantages and avaoiding battle until you were certain to win is in some way proof of inferiority rather than the reverse hasalways struck me as bizarre, as though it's the job of generals and armies is to be entertaining rather than victorious.

But if you want other examples, you can always study the career of Sir John Hawkwood in Italy (but he had an outstanding eye for picking ground too, so presumably falls foul of the four points above), or one could note that the longbow was originally the Welsh longbow, and was a non trivial part of the reason why the Normans overran England in six months but took another 200 years to conquer Wales. Not many pitched battles, but lots of vicious little ambushes in mountain valleys and forest paths that produced some juicy anecdotes along the line of the knight who had his horse killed under him. Not unusual you may think, except the arrow passed through the knight's leg, the chainmail he was wearing (twice - on entrance and exit) and the saddle first

 

[Flubber]

I'm taking from this paragraph that you've never heard of Sir John Hawkwood, one of the richest and most successful of all the mercenaries who led a company based on English longbowmen into Italy and who was so ferociously successful that not only did he become massively rich and gain a memorial in the Duomo in Florence but also was the origin of the saying "Un Inglese Italianato e un diavolo incarnato" (an Italianised Englishman is a devil incarnate)?

Separating the usual myths from the actual facts here...

The mercenary unit popularly known as the "White Company" was raised and brought to Italy by a German. The unit operated in Italy for several years there before electing Hawkwood it's commander. The unit always contained more cavalry than infantry and longbowmen never made up a majority of that smaller infantry component. Much of the unit's, and therefore Hawkwood's, success had to due with the unit having a much lower desertion rate than other contemporaneous mercenary units.

Arthur Conan Dole should not be used as a history resource.

 

[Elfwine]

Where's that from, out of curiosity, Flubber?

Not disputing it, as what I know of the White Company relates to Faramir's guard in LotR more than the historical mercenary band, just looking for where to read up on it.

Belated @ RGB: And I can probably phrase "every victory by (particular troop type) came when (well used)."

The best victories of heavy cavalry come against unprepared foot. The best victories of horse archers come against foolish pursuers. The best victories of heavy infantry occur. . . well, there isn't enough medieval heavy infantry for a database.

I'm not saying the longbow is all that its always been said to be, but there's an alarming broad gap between arguing "the longbow is only effective in circumstances tailor-made for it", and "the longbow is not a super weapon", and the former is going too far to correct the myths.

The longbow was never (by people who knew what they were doing) deployed as a weapon capable of winning all on its own without support or tactical deployment. Neither was the crossbow. So what's the point that it couldn't just act like this was a game of Age of Empires (or worse, I think AoE might actually model this given how many hit points heavy cavalry have).

 

[Flubber]

Where's that from, out of curiosity, Flubber?

A book by a fellow named Mallet called "Mercenaries and their Masters". If you want to know why Machiavelli wrote what he did about mercenaries of that era, you need to read Mallet.

 

[Elfwine]

A book by a fellow named Mallet called "Mercenaries and their Masters". If you want to know why Machiavelli wrote what he did about mercenaries of that era, you need to read Mallet.

Will take a look.