Lonbow vs. Crossbow

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.

Edited by Paul - 14-Nov-2007 at 02:46

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.

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.

Edited by Seko - 14-Nov-2007 at 15:24

good post Seko 

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.

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.

 

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 Szer�nd - 29-Nov-2007 at 08:55

Edited by Illirac - 29-Nov-2007 at 13:38

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