Longbow versus Crossbow?

[Dice Roller]

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.

[Hobgoblin]

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.

[jon_1066]

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.

[Patrice]

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...

[kodiakblair]

 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 

Got a right shock when trying the longbow contraption in the Leeds Armoury, my digital reading was pathetic 

[Cubs]

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.

[jon_1066]

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.

[Rick]

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).

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

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.

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.”

[Hobgoblin]

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.

[Rick]

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.

[FifteensAway]

Well, at least a few of you are focusing on the Robin Hood era of the question!     

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.

[OB]

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.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

 

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.

[Hobgoblin]

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.