Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: FifteensAway on August 18, 2025, 08:24:32 PM
-
How did the longbow compare to the crossbow circa 1200 as far as accuracy and range? And I'm asking about battlefield conditions, not controlled testing. My understanding is that at least theoretically the longbow had longer range and the crossbow was slower to load. But what were the practical realities?
Thanks!
-
Crossbowmen did not need the many years of training and conditioning that a bowman required. Logistically, crossbows were easier to deal with as well. Accuracy and range might not have really that different, but these factors alone made crossbows (and muskets even later) more popular.
-
Also (and speaking out of experience as an archer myself as well); keeping up a rate of fire was far more difficult for longbowmen as opposed to crossbowmen, due to the far greater physical exertion.
While theoretically, longbows could fire at 6 arrows per minute, keeping that up for even half an hour would completely exhaust an archer. So the practical rate of fire was considerably lower.
So much so, that the rate of fire advantage in sieges was completely negated. And this, in combination with the other advantages crossbows had made it the better choice in the end...
-
There is some very interesting information on this blog. I came across it last week.
The Commentaries of Messire Blaize de Montluc, Mareschal of France | Bow Vs. Musket
Worth poking about a bit. There are 3 articles on crossbows and more on the longbow. The author makes the following well evidenced point that runs contrary to our gaming perceptions.
"Blaize de Montluc, John Underhill, John Smith and Humfrey Barwick all outright state that firearms outreach bows. Yet, many wargames have it the other way around. This inaccuracy comes from people comparing the maximum range of a bow when aimed at 45 degrees, which can indeed be hundreds of yards, especially with light arrows, to either the point blank or “effective” range of a firearm. If bows were held to the same consistent standard as firearms, the bow’s effective range would probably not be much over 40 yards."
-
Plenty of video essays on YouTube, but this short adds that you can take cover better with a crossbow.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NtOxQTKbb5o
But, yes, it boils down to training times. You could reflect this in military rules by allowing fewer units of archers compared to crossbowmen.
History is riddled with arms choices based on anything but the arms themselves! :/
-
So, how do we reconcile this statement (from Wikipedia article on history of crossbows)?:
"French forces employing the composite crossbow were outmatched by English longbowmen at Crécy in 1346 AD, at Poitiers in 1356 AD and at Agincourt in 1415 AD"
And, of course, entirely possible those are isolated and inaccurately dramatized events but still...
All of those are well after 1200 at which time, apparently, crossbows remained relatively rare in Western Europe and quite difficult to load - though apparently Richard the Lionhearted was instrumental, perhaps, in bringing the weapon into Western Europe in greater numbers than previously.
I've done a bit of archery myself but with very modern bows so I understand the comment about maintaining a rate of fire - it takes a lot of effort to pull a 100 pound test bow, doubt I could do so any more, probably be challenged at 60 pound test.
(OB, I peaked at those commentaries but they are far too late for the period in question, the 1500s it seems - and seem to bare on comparison between crossbows of that time frame versus firearms rather than longbows.)
Part of what drives my question relates to how many crossbows to introduce into my Robin Hood adventuring games. I have some but may add some more (will definitely add some additional bowmen based on first game).
Off to search a bit more on the internet...
-
Richard the Lionhearted probably regretted (briefly) ever getting involved with crossbows after getting fatally wounded by one! lol
I don't really know but look at the historical record; english longbows were developed from the welsh bow and longbow used against (and alongside) the Saxons and Anglo Saxons (who respected their potency so much that they 'borrowed' it wholesale from the welsh). The crossbow is introduced later but doesn't completely replace the longbow - both are used (often side by side) until they are both replaced by the handgun as it evolves into the musket. Now that, to me, doesn't really fit with the crossbow being inherently superior to the longbow, so I'd be inclined to treat the articles that downplay the longbow and boost the crossbow with a touch of scepticism until someone offers a much better explanation as to why, if it was just a so-so weapon, did it endure for the length of time it did.
-
There's no clean or simple answer really. Is a philips head screw 'better' than a flat head? Or is the 'best' one simply the one you've got lots of in a box? Why do some schools buy Apple tablets en masse and others Android?
As other posters mentioned, logistics is the main factor for armies, not how good the tool is, certainly not when they're both similarly effective at putting holes in people.
On the battlefield, the range and rate of fire en masse of longbows appears broadly to be better than crossbows. In a siege, crossbows might be preferred as there was more cover and you were probably actually aiming rather than just sending as many shafts as possible in the general direction of the enemy.
If you're not the English, you probably don't have a load of trained archers available. You probably do have a bunch of crossbows in the armoury ready to hand out to the milita who only need a couple of hours practice. In all likelihood it'll be a mix of both.
For Robin Hood you're probably doing skirmish games so I would think your locals would be using largely bows due to long tradition, with maybe a few new-fangled crossbows available for foreign mercenaries or defense of the castle.
IMO the answer as to what a model should be armed with lies in the question "who is using it" rather than "which is more effective".
-
I agree with most of the above (except the example of flat head vs Phillips screws, both are trash compared to Robertson screws ;) ).
The other key thing to consider is which level of battle you’re depicting in the game. On a mass battlefield the pros and cons of longbows vs crossbows may well even out, but in a skirmish, being able to loose 3-4 shafts in the time it takes to span a crossbow will make an important tactical difference. The crossbowman better not miss with his first shot!
-
There might also be a regional bias for or against certain weapons. The Normans had known about the longbow (and faced them) long before Hastings but preferred fielding crossbows to adopting the longbow. It's one of those questions which keeps coming up from time to time without any clear answer. It is what it is.
-
A couple of things not mentioned yet.
Firstly, it's one of missile trajectory. This is closely associated with training (which has already been mentioned), but a crossbow has a flatter trajectory which makes it easier to learn how to use accurately, especially at short ranges.
Secondly, as for the longbow still being popular alongside the crossbow, this is due to cost of the item. Both items require skilled artisans, but a longbow is essentially just a piece of wood. Whilst a crossbow is not only a piece of wood but also lots of pieces of metal that require a blacksmith - much more expensive to create. Your English yeoman is going to opt for the much cheaper longbow and he's got all his life to learn how to use it properly. Whilst the local earl or duke may stockpile crossbows because he's wealthier and wants something that anyone can use effectively at a time of crisis. It's a bit like why sports such as football are more popular on the council estates than something like polo - all you need for a game of football is a ball. Much cheaper and more accessible.
As for penetration and range...well, they're about the same.
Rate of fire has been mentioned. A good point was made - longbows, theoretically, are faster. But it's hard to keep up that rate. I suspect that, at long range, the rate of fire wasn't much different between the two. It's only when the enemy get close and are about to charge that the difference matters - with the adrenaline flowing and the urgency of the situation, the comparative rapidity of the longbow would have presented a more intense hail of fire.
-
Also (and speaking out of experience as an archer myself as well); keeping up a rate of fire was far more difficult for longbowmen as opposed to crossbowmen, due to the far greater physical exertion.
While theoretically, longbows could fire at 6 arrows per minute, keeping that up for even half an hour would completely exhaust an archer. So the practical rate of fire was considerably lower.
So much so, that the rate of fire advantage in sieges was completely negated. And this, in combination with the other advantages crossbows had made it the better choice in the end...
While accurate, it was not necessarily the case. We have to remember the likelihood of shooting for 30 minutes was slim, because they had a limited supply of arrows both with the archer and with the train. Remember that a man moving at 2mph will travel about 50 yards in that minute. If the archer were to start shooting at 200 yards, at 6 shots per minute he would expend his ready supply in the four minutes it would take the man to reach him.
Tod’s Workshop has done some testing on a reproduction crossbows, and came up with results of over 220 yards range and about one shot every 30 seconds for a windlass crossbow (1400AD). In a test for speed of loading, a 160lb Warbow could put out six aimed shots in the time the windlass crossbow managed one.
-
Another consideration is that of circumstance. Crossbows were considered the superior weapon for defending castles as stated in the magnificent Warbow by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy the straighter trajectory being a real advantage when shooting from a height and the shooter gaining the benefit of hard cover when loading.
-
Whenever this particular discussion crops up, I always revert back to the man, not the kit. Put a crossbow in the hands of a relatively inexperienced soldier and it's still an effective weapon; do the same with a longbow (or warbow or whatever) and it's far less effective. England, Scotland and Wales had a core of skilled bowmen they could call on and this is what made the difference, but they also made up the numbers sometimes with barely trained archers (which is a term that seems to have been used in some musters to describe any sort of ill-equipped soldier, not just bow-armed). From all that I've read (just leisure reading, not actual research) it seems that the effective range of the longbow was a little bit further, due to the heavier arrows and the use of volley fire. At close range the crossbow had more punch at the cost of rate of fire, but of course, they did sometimes come with pavises. And then you have the question of the size of the weapon, because there wasn't really a standard. Bigger bow, bigger punch, longer range and back to the ability of the man.
-
I’ve come to think that maximum ranges are not the most useful figures in the world. As you say, it’s more about the user than the weapon, and crossbows were easier to use effectively by less well trained men.
-
Yeah, the term 'longbow' itself is worthy of a big discussion.
By and of itself, it doesn't really mean much.
'Longbow' was just used to distinguish it from a crossbow (because, well, it was longer).
But as for any difference between 'longbow', 'warbow', 'selfbow'...well, there wasn't really. All three terms mean the same thing.
'Composite bow' is different because it was a bow made of a composite of materials (wood, horn, sinew) as opposed to a bow that was comprised of a bit of wood by itself (hence 'self' bow).
But best to park that discussion because anyone interested in the subject will have their own hobby horse theory.
To bring it back to gaming, these discussions often arise because the OP is probably struggling to wonder why any gamer would take a crossbow option because, generally, they are no more powerful or longer ranged than a longbow, except slower (most rules come up with something like 'you can't move and shoot a crossbow in the same turn').
Mechanics wise it is hard to distinguish between them. That's because the real reason both existed side by side were mainly cultural, which doesn't appear in rules.
-
Whenever this particular discussion crops up, I always revert back to the man, not the kit. Put a crossbow in the hands of a relatively inexperienced soldier and it's still an effective weapon; do the same with a longbow (or warbow or whatever) and it's far less effective. England, Scotland and Ireland had a core of skilled bowmen they could call on and this is what made the difference, but they also made up the numbers sometimes with barely trained archers (which is a term that seems to have been used in some musters to describe any sort of ill-equipped soldier, not just bow-armed).
This is very much my impression too. Didn't both English and Scottish kings ban football at various times, in an effort to promote archery practice? My understanding is that effective use of a longbow required massive physical development, given the hefty draw weights. I gather that the archaeological evidence backs this up: you can tell who was a longbowman in the grave pits at Towton or wherever because of the development of the bones of the left arm.
From that, I think you can infer that if you didn't have that sort of bone and muscular development, you wouldn't have been great as an archer. I'm sure there are a fair number of sedentary adult males around today who couldn't draw a 160lb warbow, or at least not effectively (it must be equivalent to a sizeable bent-over row with one arm and a kind of static bench press with the other).
So my assumption has always been that properly trained longbowmen couldn't be whistled up in the way that crossbowmen could, if you supplied the crossbows and a week or two to train. If you need years of practice to develop the requisite strength to be effective, crossbows and then handguns will eventually become the safer bet for those who need troops.
-
It’s for Robin Hood! The Merry Men have good olde English longbows and the dastardly sheriff and his men have those nasty foreign crossbows.
-
For gaming matters I make a difference between: early longbows; 14th-15th C. Welsh or English longbows; and medieval crossbows. The range being the same, but penetration on armoured targets being better and even better (the crossbows are slower of course).
It's rather arbitrary but it works on the gaming table...
-
I'm sure there are a fair number of sedentary adult males around today who couldn't draw a 160lb warbow, or at least not effectively (it must be equivalent to a sizeable bent-over row with one arm and a kind of static bench press with the other).
Played rugby and boxed (middleweight) as a lad. Followed that with 40 years on the tools as a joiner; by no means a weakling :D
Got a right shock when trying the longbow contraption in the Leeds Armoury, my digital reading was pathetic lol
-
I recall MacKenzie Crook being recorded on the set of 'Ironclad' (in which he plays an archer) - he wryly commented something along the lines that he was glad to see the writers had gone with the concept of an enormously muscled longbowman. I was a prop and during my playing days I had a go at an 80lb bow, firing 10 arrows at a medieval fair (or perhaps fayre). I did manage to draw to my eye each time, but after 10 arrows I was rubbing my sore arms, not to mention my poor chafed fingers and traumatised forearm! Given the disparity in average body sizes, you can imagine how much training went in to being competent.
I think I read in Juliet Barker's 'Agincourt' book the '12 aimed arrows in a minute' standard that recruiters required for taking archers on campaign (or perhaps just that campaign). Given that this was a relatively small force of picked men Henry V was taking, as opposed to a general muster with each nobleman scraping his peasant barrel to make up the numbers, I presumed this was a way to sort the wheat from the chaff and not a realistic expectation of what each man would be doing during a battle. Apart from anything else, supplying arrows in the right quantity, quality and type seems to have been a logistical nightmare.
-
Crossbows have a much lower rate of fire
Quarrels are smaller than arrows so you can carry more.
Crossbows don't require much training, longbows require specific long term training
Crossbows can be reloaded behind a pavise
So in a field battle at the decisive moment a load of longbows would expect to see off a similar number of crossbows, but well trained longbow men are hard to find and will tend to fire off all their arrows pretty quickly. In a long drawn out siege then the crossbow has the edge as it is not about rate of fire but total volume of fire.
In the hundred years war the French basically tried to avoid field battles after Poitiers because of the Longbow dominance. Also consider that sieges were far more numerous than field battles and you can see why crossbows were used extensively.
-
As to the 'logistical nightmare' - oh yes! There are historical anecdotes going back (at least) to Hastings of nobles supplying wagon-loads of arrows to the army just to make sure they were supplied. I seem to remember that one noble managed to change the potential outcome of a battle (may have been as late as the WotR) by stopping the arrow carts from reaching the army. It would have been a key weak point for any army with bows (slightly less so for crossbows but still significant).
-
Richard the Lionhearted probably regretted (briefly) ever getting involved with crossbows after getting fatally wounded by one! lol
I don't really know but look at the historical record; english longbows were developed from the welsh bow and longbow used against (and alongside) the Saxons and Anglo Saxons (who respected their potency so much that they 'borrowed' it wholesale from the welsh). The crossbow is introduced later but doesn't completely replace the longbow - both are used (often side by side) until they are both replaced by the handgun as it evolves into the musket. Now that, to me, doesn't really fit with the crossbow being inherently superior to the longbow, so I'd be inclined to treat the articles that downplay the longbow and boost the crossbow with a touch of scepticism until someone offers a much better explanation as to why, if it was just a so-so weapon, did it endure for the length of time it did.
Romantic cultural bias. Crossbows had been around even in the Dark ages (picts iirc) and classical period in the form of Ballistae. Harder to make, so rarer. then, The reason the bow hung on for so long had much to do the same reasons horse mounted cavalry and massed infantry were facing machine guns during WW1 and Japanese officers still carried Katanas during WW2. Officers of the Napoleonic period couldn’t even agree on how many ranks to put into infantry formations and whether columns were better than lines for attacking. Henry VIII fielded a Longbow equipped unit purely for subjective romantic notions, not its combat effectiveness. Soldiers have always had very conservative mistrust over novel methods in the next war. “If it were good enough for Grandda it’s good enough for me.”
-
Henry VIII fielded a Longbow equipped unit purely for subjective romantic notions, not its combat effectiveness.
Is that true? Longbows weren't the decisive factor at Flodden, maybe, but they were still important: Stanley's archers routed Argyll and Lennox's highlanders, and arrow wounds were a factor in James IV's death on the field.
Also, I'm not sure that the prominence of longbows in the Mary Rose's armament was purely romantic.
-
No it isn't true. The Mary Rose had many bows found on board as well as a large quantity of arrows. It was still considered a weapon of war into the Tudor period.
Awf appears to be taking disparate pieces of information and stringing them together in the hope they make a coherent argument. Unfortunately his main argument that soldiers distrust the new is unfounded - soldiers throughout history have embraced new technologies when it's proven that the new is far superior to the old. If this weren't the case then the modern soldier would likely be equipped with bronze armour, a big shield and a spear; not to mention that the sling or javelin would be the preferred ranged weapon.
-
Well, at least a few of you are focusing on the Robin Hood era of the question! ;) lol
Seems quite a lot of strong thought on this matter. But I think, from a few in this discussion, and other readings, crossbows in 1200 were relatively rare and longbows fairly numerous.
So, yes, I will have some crossbows in my collection - especially since I have a castle (or three) to use for my games. But longbows will dramatically outnumber crossbows.
And rules in use are Fistful of Lead: Bigger Battles. So larger scale skirmishes with maybe a few battles that might get up to 50-70 figures per side.
Why more than one castle? Besides, why not? Well, Nottingham is a main castle but there can - and will - be subsidiary castles like Locksley Hall. It is meant to be a, hopefully, long running series of games with all of the well known participants from the various legends and follow on stories and films and additional characters of my invention just to spice it all up.
So, thanks for the input here from all but it seems to have gotten to a lot of repetition of the same little bits and pieces from what seems a relatively few sources. Which is standard for older bits of history, few resources, not all reliable, and not all in agreement. But this is just for a game so not to be taken too seriously. Laughter is expected in the games - and the first run out did not disappoint. See my thread here on MA section of LAF.
-
Is that true? Longbows weren't the decisive factor at Flodden, maybe, but they were still important: Stanley's archers routed Argyll and Lennox's highlanders, and arrow wounds were a factor in James IV's death on the field.
Also, I'm not sure that the prominence of longbows in the Mary Rose's armament was purely romantic.
Stanley's archers were shooting into the rear of Argyll and Lennox's units. Meaning they were hitting the unarmoured followers rather than the armoured front rankers. The latter were supposed to lead the fighting. They also had bows but not much chance to use them due to Stanley's surprise. Taken by surprise and out of formation they collapsed.
Elsewhere at Flodden the archers were stymied by Scots armour and pavises. It is hard to see that the archers accomplished much.
On the other hand I do think Henry thought the Longbow was still an effective weapon. By Elizabeth's time a long bow man was not considered armed for war.
-
Awf appears to be taking disparate pieces of information and stringing them together in the hope they make a coherent argument. Unfortunately his main argument that soldiers distrust the new is unfounded - soldiers throughout history have embraced new technologies when it's proven that the new is far superior to the old.
I see that you haven’t spent much time with military mindsets. Tell that to Billy Mitchell.
-
Stanley's archers were shooting into the rear of Argyll and Lennox's units. Meaning they were hitting the unarmoured followers rather than the armoured front rankers. The latter were supposed to lead the fighting. They also had bows but not much chance to use them due to Stanley's surprise. Taken by surprise and out of formation they collapsed.
Elsewhere at Flodden the archers were stymied by Scots armour and pavises. It is hard to see that the archers accomplished much.
Well, the sources seem to think the rout of the highlanders is reasonably significant, in that it prevented the relief of James's third battle, even though they note that the archers were (unexpectedly?) ineffective elsewhere because of the Scots' armour/pavises and the bad weather: "a great wind with them [the Scots], and sodden rain, all contrary to our bows and archers".
My point is really that archers still played a significant part even though they underperformed overall. They might have played a bigger part on a dry day. And the fact that the Scottish king (among the most heavily armoured, surely) was twice wounded by arrows suggests that bows weren't entirely ineffective against the armoured front ranks.
On the other hand I do think Henry thought the Longbow was still an effective weapon. By Elizabeth's time a long bow man was not considered armed for war.
Yes: the efforts to maintain or revive longbow practice run up into the seventeenth century; I gather there are some socio-economic arguments that a shift from yeomanry to sheep-farming tended to count against regular longbow practice, which would in turn have reduced the efficacy/availability of 'full-power' warbow archers.
-
But this is just for a game so not to be taken too seriously. Laughter is expected in the games - and the first run out did not disappoint. See my thread here on MA section of LAF.
Hear, hear! I did see that thread, looked fun :)
I've enjoyed the discussion, and I think it's perfectly fair that the consensus is that there's no definite consensus lol If we actually knew everything about the past then interesting threads like this wouldn't happen. Paradox? ;) :D
-
If this is for a Robin Hood style game /campaign.
Traditionally especially on film one way of telling the sides apart was the 'gallant outlaws' using the long bows and the 'dastardly Norman henchmen' using crossbows.
fifteen if you are feeling devious paint up a uniformed contingent of longbow men for the sherriff's side commanded by an unscrupulous Sgt or captain belonging to Prince John or a yet as Unknown rival of the sherriff.
Also don' t forget the bunch off sherriff's men pretending to be outlaws :o
I am led to believe that you were more likely to see people with longbows or other styles of basic bows as crossbows were regarded as a strictly military weapon to be controlled.
I think the main thing to remember is that not all the archers are going to be master bowmen.
PS I remember as a child being taken to Hathersage to see a 7 foot grave , I wonder who???
-
...
Yes: the efforts to maintain or revive longbow practice run up into the seventeenth century; I gather there are some socio-economic arguments that a shift from yeomanry to sheep-farming tended to count against regular longbow practice, which would in turn have reduced the efficacy/availability of 'full-power' warbow archers.
They also weren't replaced by crossbowmen but by handguns.
-
They also weren't replaced by crossbowmen but by handguns.
Yes, absolutely. And there are some interesting arguments about training there too: handgunners did need lots of training to avoid blowing themselves and others up - although perhaps nothing like the long-term training needed to perform well with the heaviest warbows.
In England at least, would it be fair to say that the warbow had "won" over the crossbow by the early 16th century? And that it was handguns that then won out over bows of any kind?
-
Yes: the efforts to maintain or revive longbow practice run up into the seventeenth century; I gather there are some socio-economic arguments that a shift from yeomanry to sheep-farming tended to count against regular longbow practice, which would in turn have reduced the efficacy/availability of 'full-power' warbow archers.
It was partly a tax grab as the king got the fines for not praticeing.
And secound a cost shifting, archgers paid for there own bows an ammo, gunners had to have there powder paid for.
The effective ranges of both are quite short once there armour involved, the energy to punch thru armour was lost relativy quicky.
There both fairly simple to make at the low power forms, but once you start upping the power you have to up the size or get complex in materal terms.
That makes composite bows and crossbows expensive items that need people to really look after them.
(it is possabile to just make the crossbow larger with a wooden bow, japanse where forced to follow that line and abandoned crossbow as unwiealdable)
Theres two of the castle related advantages of crossbows that people tend to forget.
The first is that you can use far larger pullys, winch an levers to spand them.
Secound crossbow bolts can be made without feather flechings and so are more rat proof, if your looking to store tens of thousands of bolts then a long storage life matters.
In england longbows where legaly a weapon that every one was ment to have under the law and practce with weekly.
But that level of kit, 12 arrows and the really low amount of practce legaly needed didnt turn everyone into robin hood.
the efforts to maintain or revive longbow practice run up into the seventeenth century
-
The other advantage of crossbows, which i have yet to see mentioned but might be great value to one of the Sheriff’s guardsman in a baggage convoy, is that the weapon can be carried around cocked and quite ready to shoot, while a bowman cannot. I wonder how a longbowmen surprised at short range might fare in comparison. This might be a matter of mere seconds but those seconds might make a big difference.
-
The other advantage of crossbows, which i have yet to see mentioned but might be great value to one of the Sheriff’s guardsman in a baggage convoy, is that the weapon can be carried around cocked and quite ready to shoot, while a bowman cannot. I wonder how a longbowmen surprised at short range might fare in comparison. This might be a matter of mere seconds but those seconds might make a big difference.
Yeah, good point: a crossbowman could be "on overwatch" in game terms, whereas a longbowman can't be readier than having an arrow on the (unpulled) string.
There's probably an argument, too, that crossbows are likely to be more accurate in a skirmish game (rather than when firing at bodies of men).
-
Well, at least a few of you are focusing on the Robin Hood era of the question!
That's why I mentioned weaker longbows before the Late Middle Ages. In the War of the Breton Succession (early HYW) campaign I ran some years ago I suggested that in the first year there still could be some longbows but less powerful and nearly out of fashion in France ...till the English arrived with 14th C. longbows and in a few years the Montfortist (English allied) players could have hired some in their troops.
I gather there are some socio-economic arguments that a shift from yeomanry to sheep-farming tended to count against regular longbow practice, which would in turn have reduced the efficacy/availability of 'full-power' warbow archers.
I haven't thought of this reason but you may well be right (long ago I was a student in economics, I always like to think about the social & economical background of any type of troop to understand better - or to believe that I understand ;) what they can do)
-
Well, fifteensaway, if you want me to put it into Robin Hood (which was a later medieval construction by merchant guilds to sell Lincoln green cloth) terms for you, then the oppressed English (Saxon) peasants used the longbow, whilst the brutal Norman overlords used the crossbow - Robert of Loxley, being the last of a Saxon noble house, of course sided with his oppressed people against the Normans! lol
-
Plus, the longbow was cheap (at least in money, although it took the right piece of wood, a lot of skill and patience to make a good one), the crossbow expensive. That's why the good guys (poor oppressed peasants) had them and the bad guys (rich sneering gentry and their lackeys) had crossbows. Why Robin Hood had an American accent is a question for another day.
-
Why Robin Hood had an American accent is a question for another day.
Because he hadn't been in Waterworld yet? lol
-
Another good question is why he travelled from the south coast to Nottinghamshire via Hadrians wall? lol
-
sorry wrong thread
-
Nowhere in the OP does it mention this is for a Robin Hood game.
But if it's for fantasy then you should feel free to make whatever distinction suits the tone and feel of the game you want to create.
Don't forget the essential for any Robin Hood game, especially our American cousins. Accent and pronunciation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnfWqtZE_80
-
This from Helion released today might interest. I'm tempted but maybe not £30.00 tempted.
The English Longbow - Investigating a Myth Volume 1
The medieval English longbow has long been debated. The English Longbow – Investigating a Myth examines the arguments and offers a balanced account. It begins with a clear description of the weapon system – bow, arrow, and arrowheads. The book explores the origins of the longbow, the Shortbow–Longbow debate, and evaluates its effectiveness using recent research alongside contemporary accounts. It also looks at the role of the bow in the so-called ‘Infantry Revolution’ and considers its relationship with the crossbow.
Jonathan Davies
-
Yeah, £30 is steep unless you're really, really into archery! lol
It says it's a balanced book, then makes mention of the 'myth' of the longbow in the title, as if everything about it is make-believe, which appears to be a quite biased position. I'll pass, even if I had 30 quid spare, I'd pass.
-
Having worked in publishing for a number of years, I would urge you to be aware of the difference between the author and the publisher's marketing department.
The author *may* (and I emphasise it is only a 'may') have gone into it with honest impartial intentions keen on exploring the history of the longbow.
But then the marketing team got hold of it and decided they need to make it sound like a contentious and critical exploration with exposes, revelations, and critical new ideas and opinions. Just to make it marketable.
So they may, in some cases, give the book a title that catches the eye, or add a subtitle like the one presented here. Wrap it in a sensational cover.
The author will have had nothing to do with that and it may not be representative of the author's intentions.
Maybe.
But the old adage is definitely true - never judge a book by its cover.
-
Yeah, the term 'longbow' itself is worthy of a big discussion.
By and of itself, it doesn't really mean much.
'Longbow' was just used to distinguish it from a crossbow (because, well, it was longer).
The term Longbow was introduced by the Victorians,contemporary accounts just refer to the bow or occasionally the Warbow
-
Nothing of substance to add, but I just wanted to say I've learnt some interesting things from this thread (I have been wondering about whether to differentiate bows vs crossbows in a primitive sci-fi setting) and have thoroughly enjoyed reading it all. Lead Adventure really is great.
Nowhere in the OP does it mention this is for a Robin Hood game.
But he does mention it in his first reply, it was there on the first page of the thread. ;)
-
*must have been typing at the same time as BP. This is in reply to WS*
Ooo...not quite true.
A will from 1444 refers to 'a sadil, alle my longe bowes...'
There are earlier references to the term but may or may not be suspect. 1444 is the earliest definite use of the term and its casual use and assumption that the reader would know what is being referred to suggests the term had been in wide use prior.
EDIT: Sorry, should have offered a source. This was something I remembered from my days doing medieval re-enactments, but after posting the above I suddenly thought to myself, 'are you sure?' So I did some Googling:
https://historymedieval.com/the-longbow-unveiling-the-secrets-of-english-archers/