Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Lonbow vs. Crossbow Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 02:40 |
Originally posted by Temujin
i vote for the crossbow for the same reason i would prefer muskets over bows. as for Pauls comparison, well out of the three the composite bow is the fastest and in terms of penetration ranks between crossbow and longbow. the only advantage of the longbow is the long range and rate of fire (compared to x-bow). the longbow only prooved deadly against unarmoured or mail-clad opponents. the hail of arrows is like a rain of razor blades. the longbow has no decent penetration power, at least on short distances.
|
The longbow was very effective against plate too in the early days, such as Agincourt, where it went through plate at long range. However as smiths became more adept at the tempering of armour, throughout the 15th century it became less and less effective. By the end of the 15th century it could only penetrate plate armour at point blank range. This caused a huge raising of drawing power to make it penetrate at longer ranges (meaning less and less people could use it), which in turn was offset by ever increasing steel quality and tempering.
Longbow was no better at penetrating armour than composite or recurved bow and a recurved bow in turn no better at long range shooting than a longbow.
It was all in the arrows. Longbows fired heavy armour penetrating ones, recurved bows light weight distance ones. swap arrows they'd swap performance.
The advantage of a recurved bow was its shortness enabled it to be shot on horseback, the advantage of a longbow was unlike a with a recurved bow, arrows shot at long range remain steady rather than begin to vibrate and lose accuracy like with a recurved.
Recurved bow was used on horseback shooting light arrows at long range. It was superior at this to a longbow at being able to be shot from horseback but inferior to a longbow at this in terms of accuracy. A longbow was used at short range with heavy arrows to penetrate armour, both bows could perform this function equally well.
Edited by Paul - 14-Nov-2007 at 02:46
|
|
|
Eondt
Earl
Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 06:25 |
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
Originally posted by Eondt
Disadvantages:
Longbow - Took years of training to master (something Ben Franklin didn't take into account), less accurate than the crossbow. |
What did Ben Franklin experience or write about concerning longbows? Please elaborate for it sounds interesting.
|
Refer to Brian J. Checco's post just above mine.
|
|
Eondt
Earl
Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 06:31 |
Originally posted by Paul
The longbow was very effective against plate too in the early days, such as Agincourt, where it went through plate at long range. However as smiths became more adept at the tempering of armour, throughout the 15th century it became less and less effective. By the end of the 15th century it could only penetrate plate armour at point blank range. This caused a huge raising of drawing power to make it penetrate at longer ranges (meaning less and less people could use it), which in turn was offset by ever increasing steel quality and tempering.
|
I don't know Paul, the whole longbow vs. plate issue is still debated and disputed with no clear winner. Even the longbow's role in Agincourt is being disputed (Agincourt was transition plate anyway). Personally I don't think we'll ever really know as getting lab conditions to replicate the historic battlefield conditions is an almost impossibility.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 09:32 |
Originally posted by Seko
True to a point edgewaters. Composite bows were diverse materials. That's how they made 'em in the Steppes too. However, a long tree was needed to carve out a longbow since it was not composite. Adding to which a recurved bow tended to be composite. Style and substance. |
Composite bows and longbows are not exclusive - there were composite longbows as well ;)
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 15:05 |
Originally posted by Paul
Originally posted by Temujin
i vote for the crossbow for the same reason i would prefer muskets over bows. as for Pauls comparison, well out of the three the composite bow is the fastest and in terms of penetration ranks between crossbow and longbow. the only advantage of the longbow is the long range and rate of fire (compared to x-bow). the longbow only prooved deadly against unarmoured or mail-clad opponents. the hail of arrows is like a rain of razor blades. the longbow has no decent penetration power, at least on short distances.
|
The longbow was very effective against plate too in the early days, such as Agincourt, where it went through plate at long range. However as smiths became more adept at the tempering of armour, throughout the 15th century it became less and less effective. By the end of the 15th century it could only penetrate plate armour at point blank range. This caused a huge raising of drawing power to make it penetrate at longer ranges (meaning less and less people could use it), which in turn was offset by ever increasing steel quality and tempering.
Longbow was no better at penetrating armour than composite or recurved bow and a recurved bow in turn no better at long range shooting than a longbow.
It was all in the arrows. Longbows fired heavy armour penetrating ones, recurved bows light weight distance ones. swap arrows they'd swap performance.
The advantage of a recurved bow was its shortness enabled it to be shot on horseback, the advantage of a longbow was unlike a with a recurved bow, arrows shot at long range remain steady rather than begin to vibrate and lose accuracy like with a recurved.
Recurved bow was used on horseback shooting light arrows at long range. It was superior at this to a longbow at being able to be shot from horseback but inferior to a longbow at this in terms of accuracy. A longbow was used at short range with heavy arrows to penetrate armour, both bows could perform this function equally well.
|
Sometimes Paul I wonder where you get your info. Yes arrows make a difference as do the bows. Did you know that over 3000 years that the Steppe archers had used inumerable arrows of all kinds of distinctions? Armour penetrating heavy arrows for short distances was in their arsenal too. For distance, the composite bow still reigns supreme. The bow was light, in general, and carried a punch. They were steady and tended to stay in one piece: http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/turkish/
The long distance record by Ottoman Selim III was used with a typical recurved composite compound bow in the middle ages. That record was eclipsed in 1910 at a european archery contest using a composite bow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_bow
A bow of the strength described by Stayner and Paterson would project a war arrow a long distance. But here again, no one is sure how far: Stayner believes the war arrow had an effective range of 180 yards;11 Paterson maintains a slightly further distance of 200 yards;12 and Bartelot estimates a useful range of 249 yards.13 Captain George Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, notes that the members of the Queen's Body Guard for Scotland, who still shoot, use six foot long self yew bows of 55 to 60 pounds draw weight. The range of these modern bows is 180-200 yards shooting light target shafts.14
Composite bow distance:
The maximum flight record set by Turkish archers (using old flight arrows), shooting in the conventional manner, seems to have been at least 874 yards...
Asian bows, such as the Mongol bow and especially the Turkish bow had the longest range for ranged weapons until the invention of the modern breech-loading firearms in the early 20th Century[5]. Estimates for the Mongol bow give it a draw force comparable to the English longbow (90-180 lbs / 41-81 kg) of about 100 to 160 lbs (45 to 70 kg). However, due to a better design, the mongol bow has a range of 320 to 350 yards (290 to 320 m) or more[6], a range longer than that of the longbow (250 yards / 225 m). A more contemporary review by Hildinger suggests that it was only accurate at up to 80 yards (75 m) when shot from horseback, but "shooting in arcade" (at 45 degrees) allowed for much greater ranges.[7]. It is important to note that modern champion archers maintain that you cannot 'guarantee' a hit on an individual target at more than 80 yards with any bow whatsoever, but could always hit an army of thousands of individuals.
Edited by Seko - 14-Nov-2007 at 15:24
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 15:09 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
Originally posted by Seko
True to a point edgewaters. Composite bows were diverse materials. That's how they made 'em in the Steppes too. However, a long tree was needed to carve out a longbow since it was not composite. Adding to which a recurved bow tended to be composite. Style and substance. |
Composite bows and longbows are not exclusive - there were composite longbows as well ;)
|
Yes, wood laminated over wood but the majority of longbows have traditionally been self bows (one wood). Most composite bows are of asian origin.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 19:10 |
good post Seko
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 20:17 |
Effective range is not the same as maximum range. I'm sure I saw a reference that a Mary-Rose bow replica fired close to 400 yards.
|
|
Crusader3943
Knight
Joined: 11-Mar-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Nov-2007 at 01:56 |
Originally posted by Sarmat12
Both are bad. My vote goes for composite bow, of course (but it's not on the list) |
Both the Longbow and the Composite bow have strong and weak points. The Composite bow was much easier to fire and better for shooting on horseback, but it sacrificed the longbow's massive ranch and relatively big firepower.
|
Crusader3943
|
|
Crusader3943
Knight
Joined: 11-Mar-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Nov-2007 at 01:57 |
Originally posted by Paul
OK there two blokes in heavy platemail running at you.
If you have a crossbow, you shoot one, hope he's either wounded or dead, you then drop the crossbow and run like crap from the other.
If you have a longbow, you shoot the one on the left half a dozen times, then the one on the right half a dozen times. hope they're both wounded or dead, otherwise drop the bow and run like crap.
If you have a composite bow, you just drop the bow and run like crap.
|
|
Crusader3943
|
|
longshanks31
Colonel
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Nov-2007 at 20:02 |
the longbow is one of the finest weopons of war ever invented, an english bowman could fire upto 12 per minuit, i heard an estimate for one battle that 70,000 arrows rained down on the enemy in the first two minuites, by any standards that is devastating, the longbow in the hands of a pro was accurate enough.
|
long live the king of bhutan
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Nov-2007 at 00:23 |
Of course, then there is the Native American flatbow (a self-staff, often recurve). In the 1920s, scientific studies were undertaken to show which shape was best for a bow. It was expected to explain why the English longbow was superior.
Instead, there was a quite unexpected result. It showed that the Native American flatbow was the most efficient design and could withstand much higher draw weights using a shorter staff. Out of it developed the American Flat Bow, which in turn evolved into the Olympic standard bow.
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Nov-2007 at 08:54 |
And man can make a flatbow from almost all narrow, heavy wood, but for a longbow/warbow you need yew. And the arms of the longbow (because of his shape) are usually heavier (slower) than the arms of a selfbow.
Edited by Tar Szernd - 29-Nov-2007 at 08:55
|
|
Sun Tzu
Consul
Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Nov-2007 at 13:29 |
For a Weapon, the Longbow was better, but for skill, the crossbow was better. To use a longbow and actually kill someone at a distance required some skill, while the crossbow required less. which meant that more people could fire a crossbow than longbow.
|
Sun Tzu
All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
|
|
Illirac
Colonel
Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Nov-2007 at 13:37 |
an expert longbowman once killed it was hard to replace, a crossbow could be used by anyone thats why I chosed a crossbow: in war there is no time to train new recrutis - you take a pesant, you give him a crossbow and he can kill anyone...yes of course the longbow was more deadly though and can fire on larger distances
Edited by Illirac - 29-Nov-2007 at 13:38
|
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Nov-2007 at 13:59 |
As for the original question, I think it is pretty obvious the crossbow gains the upper hand. Of one simple reason. The crossbow replaced the longbow, and it certainly wouldn't have if it was a worse weapon. I don't entirely buy the notion about being cheaper to equip people with crossbows either. Using an example, the Swedish peasants supplied themselves with weapons; during the Viking age and early Middle Ages they used (long)bows; by the 15th century they prefered crossbows instead. Note that they used these weapons in times of peace as well as war. German mercenaries in Danish pay fighting a Swedish farmer army, ca 1500.
|
|
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Nov-2007 at 05:43 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
As for the original question, I think it is pretty obvious the crossbow gains the upper hand. Of one simple reason. The crossbow replaced the longbow, and it certainly wouldn't have if it was a worse weapon. |
Ok, first off, the crossbow never replaced the longbow at all. The English didn't go from longbows to crossbows. They went from longbows to firearms. Nobody else used longbows, and they all went from crossbows to firearms. Further, the heyday of the crossbow was the 13th century, with decreasing usage following that. The heyday of the longbow was the 14th, just as plate armours appeared which could resist the crossbow designs of that period.
More importantly, they're not similar weapons in any respect. They have completely different roles on the battlefield. Crossbows were sniping weapons, typically used in sieges or against forces in static, defendable positions. Crossbows were not a decisive arm, but a supporting arm that backed up other forces. Longbows were a decisive arm backed up by other forces, not a supporting arm. They were used in field battles against attacking armies, not so great for sieges, and poorly suited to sniping (since they couldn't be held drawn for very long). They were used to hit the enemy with sustained barrages, a sort of indirect fire called clout shooting, which crossbows couldn't really do. Just two completely different weapons. It's like comparing swords vs trebuchets.
Second off, even if the crossbow did replace the longbow, it wouldn't necessarily be because it was a better weapon. The early firearms which eclipsed both longbows and crossbows were initially inferior in every aspect imaginable, except matters of economy.
Edited by edgewaters - 30-Nov-2007 at 05:50
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Dec-2007 at 22:13 |
well you apparently fully ignore continental europe, lognbows were known and even widely used by Scandinavian, French and Burgundian armies and also in the HRE.
|
|
Sikander
Pretorian
Joined: 12-Aug-2004
Location: Portugal
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 23:11 |
In most of Continental Europe the crossbow became the main ballistic weapon. The reasons are manyfolded:
- the crossbow can be used by everybody with almost no training. While it takes years to fully train an archer, it takes a few week's practice to train an efficient crossbowmen;
- the crossbow allowed the creation of full-time militias. The creation of the first national armies derives in part from the creation of these crossbowmen militias [examples: the Italian urban militias, the Portuguese "besteiros do conto" (municipal militias) and their Castilian counterparts, etc]. It's interesting that they didn't create archer militias but prefered instead crossbowmen;
- the crossbow has greater penetration than the the longbow due to the heavier bolt + armour piercing tip (I've seen examples of it, they're nasty!);
It is false, as said elsewhere in this thread, that the crossbow's heydays were in the 13th century. In fact, the heydays came in the 14th/15th centuries with weapons using a steel bow, far stronger than the wooden or composite ones [yes, people usualy ignore that but crossbows also had composite (i.e., wood+bone+horn) bows as well]. The arquebus only fully replaced the crossbow in the 16th century, not before that.
That said, let's not also forget the way both weapons were used: the bow was a supression weapon, just like today's heavy machine guns. A group of archers would fire at a certain area and would continue this "area fire" for a while in order to disturb their foes and wound of kill some of them ;
The crossbow, on the other hand was more like a sniping rifle: one shot one kill. It's extremely accurate and the bolt suffers less from crosswinds than a ligther arrow.
Finally, one must say that the longbow is too overated because of two battles, Crecy and Agincourt.
It is estimated that as Agincourt the English longbowmen fired something as half a million arrows at the French(!) However, most of the French were killed at the subsequent massacre, not in the battle itself.
On the other hand, the Italian crossbowmen on the French side were badly used, weren't given their pavise shields and eventualy were overruned by the knights. What can I say?
So, I'll cast my vote on... the crossbow.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 09:20 |
Originally posted by edgewaters
Ok, first off, the crossbow never replaced the longbow at all. The English didn't go from longbows to crossbows. They went from longbows to firearms. Nobody else used longbows, and they all went from crossbows to firearms. Further, the heyday of the crossbow was the 13th century, with decreasing usage following that. The heyday of the longbow was the 14th, just as plate armours appeared which could resist the crossbow designs of that period.
More importantly, they're not similar weapons in any respect. They have completely different roles on the battlefield. Crossbows were sniping weapons, typically used in sieges or against forces in static, defendable positions. Crossbows were not a decisive arm, but a supporting arm that backed up other forces. Longbows were a decisive arm backed up by other forces, not a supporting arm. They were used in field battles against attacking armies, not so great for sieges, and poorly suited to sniping (since they couldn't be held drawn for very long). They were used to hit the enemy with sustained barrages, a sort of indirect fire called clout shooting, which crossbows couldn't really do. Just two completely different weapons. It's like comparing swords vs trebuchets.
|
The English were far from the only to use the longbow. However, by the 15th century most others had switched to crossbows instead. The English were merely the exception to the rule. They are both suppression weapons, as Sikander said. Both were supportive arms, so a comparison is perfectly valid.
|
|