Longbow versus Crossbow?

[FifteensAway]

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! 

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

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.

[Daeothar]

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...

[OB]

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."

[ced1106]

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! :/

[FifteensAway]

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...

[Rick]

Richard the Lionhearted probably regretted (briefly) ever getting involved with crossbows after getting fatally wounded by one! 
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.

[boneio]

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".

[Pattus Magnus]

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!

[Rick]

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.

[Dice Roller]

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.

[Moriarty]

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.

[Wilgut Spleens]

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.

[Cubs]

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. 

[Moriarty]

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.