What makes the Crossbow so powerful?

[RPW@Cy]

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.

Doyle. And I'm not relying on him. Following on from your later post, I think it's Mallet I read though over 20 years ago and I've forgotten some details, such as that Hawkwood wasn't the first commander of the English Company. I'd note too that at no point did I ever suggest longbowmen were a majority of the company, I merely cited Hawkwood's career as evidence in rebuttal to an earlier poster who claimed longbows were only good for killing Scots or Frenchmen, not *real* soldiers, or somesuch point. Other than that - yes, Hawkwood's success was down to being an outstanding leader and commander rather than any particular weapon taken in isolation. He still led longbowmen in Italy though

 

[Flubber]

I'd note too that at no point did I ever suggest longbowmen were a majority of the company...

I'll just note what you actually wrote...

... who led a company based on English longbowmen into Italy...

The White Company was not "based on" longbowmen. The majority of the unit were mounted men-at-arms and their squires. Infantry never made up a majority of the unit and longbowmen were never a majority of the infantry.

The White Company was also not wholly or even predominately English. It was formed by a German and it's ranks boasted the usual odds and sods the constant warfare in Europe had produced. During Hawkwood's first battle in command of the White Company, so many of the Hungarian members of the unit quit the field rather than attack Hungarians in another mercenary company that their departure meant the Company as a whole had to withdraw.

Finally Hawkwood did not lead the Company "into Italy". That was done by the German who raised the unit and the unit had been fighting in Italy for several years before Hawkwood was voted it's commander.

As a veteran of the HYW, Hawkwood employed the "combined arms" tactics he'd seen used. Contemporary observers of Hawkwood's battles and campaigns remarked solely on his use of his men-at-arms as dismounted heavy infantry, something he seems to have been the first in Italy to do. There is no mention of longbowmen playing any unique or otherwise important role in his battles. Apparently Hawkwood used his archers in the manner his contemporaries expected him to do and received results from those archers that his contemporaries expected him to receive.

The longbow was just one of several weapons the White Company and Hawkwood employed. While it played a role in whatever tactical puzzle arose, it was never the crucial piece and it was never used in a manner which excited comment.

 

[RGB]

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."

No, please, don't "put it another way", find me examples of the contrary. That was the original ask.

I never said it was a rubbish weapon - I said that to defeat men in armour, the longbow like many other tools of the day, needed a perfect setup. Specifically, I was responding to this kind of thing:

Training time was definitely key. The longbow was a devastating weapon (especially but not only against knights)

Where's this especially coming from? The English in the HYW had almost many successes when they simply pitted men at arms against men at arms in melee, as they had when they put archers up against men at arms.

When properly deployed (like seriously dug in) it had enormous value in overcoming numerical advantage. That makes it a great tool for an army that cannot summon enough numbers but has a tactically obliging enemy. Does it say anything about how it's "especially effective" against knights? Of course not.

The idea that a bow is more effective against an armoured man moving fast than an unarmoured man moving at regular speed is frankly funny.

To your second point regarding mercenaries:

Longbowmen (from England, not Franc-Archers who eventually just became armoured men anyway) were recruited by lots of people all over mainland Europe once they had their famous victories over French stupidity. As Flubber said, nowhere did they score major success let alone prove decisive in the manner of Crecy. They had some successes in Scotland, as part of the English army, but the Scottish tactics gave them ample time to shoot on largely lightly protected men.

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

Okay.

1. There is no evidence that at the time of the Norman invasion the Welsh used long self-bows with high draw weights like the HYW English.

2. Mountainous and hilly areas and even forested ones, all with poor infrastructure and no central authority to simply take over from, are notoriously hard to conquer and hold. Witness Switzerland, Cantabria/Navarre, Lithuania, and of course the piece de resistance, the Caucasus. None of them needed longbow cultures to be unconquerable.

Wales on the other hand got subdued as soon as they encastellated it and laid some roads. It's not some kind of special case.

3. "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"

I invite you to reproduce this. To really simulate mail-leg-saddle-horse you will need a large pig carcass (or hey, a horse carcass), leather saddle, a saddle-cloth, then a large lamb shank dressed up in nice riveted mail with padding under. You will score a success when the arrow tip sinks deep enough to kill the "horse" - I'd say the entire arrowhead could do it, provided we pretend that the horse was simply in shock and threw the rider instead of expiring on the spot (that would require a good deal more).

Also please keep in mind that generally, saddles are placed over that part of the horse that has the backbone and ribs in it.

Please report the results of your findings. Or do a physics calculation if you don't like mucking around with all that meat.

The best victories of heavy cavalry come against unprepared foot.

Yes of course. But by unprepared, I hope you understand that I mean "not completely dug in", rather than "unaware".

People saying that the longbow was some kind of knight-killer (it could be, but so could a heavy stick with a sharp nail in it!) don't often talk about how the longbow needs to be used to do that function (dug in, mud, flanks secure, armoured men up front, enfilade) and for some reason ignore the results of longbow-heavy armies (HYW has at least three spectacular examples) who were just not fast enough digging in when cavalry hit them.

Which leads me to (perhaps deliberately contrarily) to speculate that it was the tactical setup that was decisive and not the weapon itself.

For example, if an army at Crecy or Agincourt had a majority of crossbowmen instead of longbowmen, but otherwise the battle went exactly the same way, do you expect the crossbow army to lose?

 

[Simreeve]

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

For a large part of the medieval period, the French crown probably didn't have enough control over the greater feudal lords to ensure that these ensured their peasants carried out the extensive training needed for effective use of the longbow.

 

[Elfwine]

Yes of course. But by unprepared, I hope you understand that I mean "not completely dug in", rather than "unaware".

People saying that the longbow was some kind of knight-killer (it could be, but so could a heavy stick with a sharp nail in it!) don't often talk about how the longbow needs to be used to do that function (dug in, mud, flanks secure, armoured men up front, enfilade) and for some reason ignore the results of longbow-heavy armies (HYW has at least three spectacular examples) who were just not fast enough digging in when cavalry hit them.

So longbows that were a tactical disadvantage did . .. as we would expect a weapon at a tactical disadvantage to do.

Which leads me to (perhaps deliberately contrarily) to speculate that it was the tactical setup that was decisive and not the weapon itself.

For example, if an army at Crecy or Agincourt had a majority of crossbowmen instead of longbowmen, but otherwise the battle went exactly the same way, do you expect the crossbow army to lose?

All things being even, I would not be as confident in it.

I'd say, if for calculation's sake we can expect Crecy or Agincourt 80% of the time (all factors added up, including terrain and tactics and incompetent opposition), I'd say "crossbow Crecy or Agincourt" is about 60-70% of the time. Assuming that the crossbowmen can handle melee work if needed as well as the longbowmen, otherwise I would say significantly less likely.

The longbow is worth it. But its worth in the the context of judicious tactics where the commander knows what archers can/can't do.

I think calling it needing a "perfect" set up is unfair, as it implies it only worked in very limited situations unlike other weapons - all the other weapons that could deal with heavy cavalry also needed to be used judiciously with acknowledgement of their limits.

I don't think we're entirely in disagreement - that the tactics making good use of the bow made more impact than the bow alone - but the red part bothers me.

 

[RGB]

I'd say, if for calculation's sake we can expect Crecy or Agincourt 80% of the time (all factors added up, including terrain and tactics and incompetent opposition), I'd say "crossbow Crecy or Agincourt" is about 60-70% of the time. Assuming that the crossbowmen can handle melee work if needed as well as the longbowmen, otherwise I would say significantly less likely.

They probably had better personal gear (though of course a bowman who looted France long enough probably had good gear too) not to mention servants with polearms, so I see no reason why crossbowmen would be worse in melee than longbowmen. And they had pavises! You'd have to climb over them or push them aside to get through.

I COULD however buy the idea that the rate of fire would be too low to defeat a huge numerical disparity. Maybe. If someone could demonstrate it to me that it was the rate of fire that was decisive.

I think calling it needing a "perfect" set up is unfair, as it implies it only worked in very limited situations unlike other weapons - all the other weapons that could deal with heavy cavalry also needed to be used judiciously with acknowledgement of their limits.

Well...I'd say the lancer was also a very specialised weapon, needing space, relatively flat dry ground, great organisation and an enemy lured out of defensive works.

My main argument here is specifically for the longbow as a battlefield weapon. It was hella useful in many more situations that that though!

I think basically that on the battlefield we compare the bow vs. the harness, and off the field, on campaign, we compare the horse vs. the bow. In my estimation the bow is slightly worse in both cases, but very very economical to maintain and CAPABLE in the right conditions of defeating both the harness and the horse, making their use not risk-free (capturing men in harness and ahorse and then ransoming them was something British nobles built a good deal of their HYW campaign and personal fortunes on, and the longbowmen dabbled too, so despite harness+horse being a great if expensive combination LOTS of things could defeat it).

Of course the main question here wasn't the man at arms vs. the bowman, it was the crossbow vs. the bow as represented by the soldiers using them at the time.

How did it compare on the battlefield, the siege, and the campaign? What made the crossbow so popular with soldiers despite its acknowledged limitations? Why is is that the value of the longbow in an English army higher than the value of the longbow when Englishmen go abroad for mercenary work?

Maybe you can also narrow down the "perfect" conditions for the crossbow for me, then we can discuss. The technical aspects are somewhat known but they don't seem to be telling me a whole lot when looking at period military history.

 

[Elfwine]

They probably had better personal gear (though of course a bowman who looted France long enough probably had good gear too) not to mention servants with polearms, so I see no reason why crossbowmen would be worse in melee than longbowmen. And they had pavises! You'd have to climb over them or push them aside to get through.

I COULD however buy the idea that the rate of fire would be too low to defeat a huge numerical disparity. Maybe. If someone could demonstrate it to me that it was the rate of fire that was decisive.

I can afford better personal gear than the average knight, but that doesn't mean me swinging a broadsword isn't going to end badly - for me. Money does not mean skill.

And those pavises can be dealt with on their own.

Meanwhile, servants with polearms - oh, so we're counting those too and not just the crossbowmen themselves?

I thought this was "What if the English force was armed with crossbows and not longbows", not "what if the English was larger and had crossbowmen and more men with polearms"?

How did it compare on the battlefield, the siege, and the campaign? What made the crossbow so popular with soldiers despite its acknowledged limitations? Why is is that the value of the longbow in an English army higher than the value of the longbow when Englishmen go abroad for mercenary work?

Maybe you can also narrow down the "perfect" conditions for the crossbow for me, then we can discuss. The technical aspects are somewhat known but they don't seem to be telling me a whole lot when looking at period military history.

I think the "Takes much less time to learn how to use" factor is being ignored here. I don't know very many armies that are going to be able to recruit people trained since they were knee high to a grasshopper in the bow, but crossbowmen can be trained in months. That's a huge incentive for mercenary outfits to pick the weapon where they can replace their losses of trained personal more easily.

The crossbow has all the disadvantages the longbow has in terms being caught unprepared, and those circumstances also mean its defensive gear is equal out (the pavise needs at least some effort just like the stakes for a longbowman - maybe not as much, but if we're looking at being caught by surprise, I wouldn't want to be either).

 

[RGB]

I can afford better personal gear than the average knight, but that doesn't mean me swinging a broadsword isn't going to end badly - for me. Money does not mean skill.

Why would crossbowmen have less skill than yeomen? No need to get defensive, it's a reasonable enough assumption that both would be comparable, not being formally trained, except one would have more personal gear on.

Meanwhile, servants with polearms - oh, so we're counting those too and not just the crossbowmen themselves?

You can't not count them in a realistic scenario where the crossbow-English are defending their own camp. But yes, that probably complicates matters. Let's pretend that every longbowman was given a good winch crossbow, a jack, a helmet, a pavise and personal arms, and equal level of expertise with his new weapon.

Why do you estimate this particular force to be a good 10-20% less effective than a similar force with longbows?

I think the "Takes much less time to learn how to use" factor is being ignored here. I don't know very many armies that are going to be able to recruit people trained since they were knee high to a grasshopper in the bow, but crossbowmen can be trained in months. That's a huge incentive for mercenary outfits to pick the weapon where they can replace their losses of trained personal more easily.

Sure, we may be getting somewhere there. That's what happened with the pike, and the reitar for that matter. A lancer is a specialist, a reitar is a generalist. A pikeman needs some basic training, a swordsman needs tonnes. But swordsmen had definite weaknesses vs. pikemen (and getting run over by horse was definitely one of them), and reitars just flat out outcompeted the lancers in cav vs. cav engagements. So I don't know.

What's the longbow's failing? Less useful in sieges? Less useful on ships (the Scots and English still used them though)? Wasteful with arrows? Bowstaves too expensive because you have to kill a very specific type of tree in large numbers?

 

[Elfwine]

Why would crossbowmen have less skill than yeomen? No need to get defensive, it's a reasonable enough assumption that both would be comparable, not being formally trained, except one would have more personal gear on.

For the same reason why the average archer in general didn't? Skirmish-trained archers are not good at melee on the whole, and most archers were skirmish-trained - I have to assume given that the crossbow was the standard weapon that crossbowmen are included here.

And even if not, they have the polearmmen, which means that they're likely to rely on them rather than be able to switch between big damn melee weapon and big damn bow - not that there's something wrong with this in the context of a company with both, but taking the crossbowmen on their own, yes.

You can't not count them in a realistic scenario where the crossbow-English are defending their own camp. But yes, that probably complicates matters. Let's pretend that every longbowman was given a good winch crossbow, a jack, a helmet, a pavise and personal arms, and equal level of expertise with his new weapon.

You can very much not count them if the point is comparing the weapons and not "What if the English army was entirely different?"

So okay, yes.

Why do you estimate this particular force to be a good 10-20% less effective than a similar force with longbows?

Slower rate of fire, which is significantly less advantageous for the "raining a shitload of arrows down on you" tactic we see the longbowmen using in these battles. Range, judging by Crecy (I don't know on the others, I do have at least limited data there) is apparently comparable - possibly in the crossbow's favor but not substantially enough to do any good as they were used (admittedly, they were used very badly, but its what we have).

Mind, this IS doing the "substitute crossbows for longbows" - add in the polearmmen and we change things, but we also considerably change the whole situation, as we're not looking at "which archers do you want?" as "what would be the ideal medieval army?"

Sure, we may be getting somewhere there. That's what happened with the pike, and the reitar for that matter. A lancer is a specialist, a reitar is a generalist. A pikeman needs some basic training, a swordsman needs tonnes. But swordsmen had definite weaknesses vs. pikemen (and getting run over by horse was definitely one of them), and reitars just flat out outcompeted the lancers in cav vs. cav engagements. So I don't know.

What's the longbow's failing? Less useful in sieges? Less useful on ships (the Scots and English still used them though)? Wasteful with arrows? Bowstaves too expensive because you have to kill a very specific type of tree in large numbers?

I keep pointing out the training issue because I think that's a very large part of it - how many armies and merc companies will take something that takes years of training over something that doesn't unless the former is so overwhelmingly more effective that there's no reason anyone would ever use the latter.

Add in the expense (yew) question, and it becomes considerably less desirable even if crossbowmen don't perform as well as the longbowmen in terms of shooting and killing.

After all, I'd take the longbow over the musket, quality of weapon wise, but you know why the musket won.

 

[RGB]

After all, I'd take the longbow over the musket, quality of weapon wise, but you know why the musket won.

It was a massively powerful weapon capable of beating any personal protection at close range which other weapons couldn't even hope to scratch?

It had a few good points other than that, but so many disadvantages...I mean, you could kill yourself just loading it. It weighed more than a halberd. It needed the user to know how to mix powder and cast bullets.

But it could also spoil your day something terrible whether you were a knight or a swiss infantry captain. And that is a big deal. Big enough to overlook almost everything else.

 

[Elfwine]

It was a massively powerful weapon capable of beating any personal protection at close range which other weapons couldn't even hope to scratch?

It had a few good points other than that, but so many disadvantages...I mean, you could kill yourself just loading it. It weighed more than a halberd. It needed the user to know how to mix powder and cast bullets.

But it could also spoil your day something terrible whether you were a knight or a swiss infantry captain. And that is a big deal.

And was comparably simple to train people to use compared to other weapons of the I-will-ruin-your-day sort - early models less so than the way it developed, but still. Not something you needed only the finest recruits for.

 

[RGB]

And was comparably simple to train people to use compared to other weapons of the I-will-ruin-your-day sort - early models less so than the way it developed, but still. Not something you needed only the finest recruits for.

I think I did bring up longbowmen needing a particular kind of strength (and yes, practice too, since their weapon was a lot less lethal than the musket). The knight needs...well, a whole lot more than that, even. Musket needs good endurance for marches, I suppose, and some technical knowledge.

The crossbow didn't have anywhere close to the musket's massive killing power, but was still used for a very long time alongside it. I just think it was extremely versatile as a weapon and suitable for both quick training and expert use. It was also very powerful and accurate at short range, which actually makes sense when you remember that sieges were way more common than pitched battles.

 

[Grumpy young Man]

You also have to keep in mind that vampires are more easily to kill that way. Ask the Dawnguard.

 

[Grouchio]

What about the Arbalest?

 

[tallthinkev]

One thing, a far as I can tell, it does not matter how much power or how fast a bow or crossbow can be fired. 65-70% of the hitting power is, what you have on the pointy end.
By the early 1400's armour had got so good that English long bows could not puncher it with iron bodkin tipped arrows. A steel bodkin could go though French armour, but as we know steel is pricey, therefore it was a case of going for the horses not the man. Early hand held fire arms could still not puncher good steel armour. The tipping point came in the late 16th century, when a lead ball could go though armour.