Longbow v crossbow (and handgun) - historical discussion

[Charlie_]

[warning - long rambling post ahead!]

Ok, so here's something that I'm scratching my head about, the reason being I am working on some wargame rules of my own.

Longbows and crossbows. And handguns.

I find the whole subject of archers and their role on the medieval battlefield very interesting, and there's a few new conclusions I've come to lately (anything Tobias Capwell says on the matter is worth listening to). The whole 100 years war subject and the questions of arrow vs armour, english vs french, longbow vs crossbow, and archer vs knight is a complicated one and the true answers are definitely much more interesting than what we first learn about the subject perhaps as kids (ie English archer shoots and kills silly French knight, wooh!).
Could longbow arrows penetrate plate? I think the answer is "not really". Shoot an arrow at the chest of a man-at-arms in full plate, and he should be ok. Even if it does manage to penetrate and stick into his breasplate, it's unlikely to go anywhere near deep enough to cause more than a scratch to his actual flesh. But if an arrow finds a weak spot between the plates, he will be injured. Throw LOADS of arrows at him, and some fill find those weak spots. Injury doesn't mean instant death, but injury sure may stop him fighting and subsequently lead to death (falling down and being finished off, or trampled and crushed, weakening him sufficiently, or leading to infection and other post-battle complications).
Another point Capwell makes is that when being hit by an arrow in plate armour, you still feel the force of it (apparently he has tested this firsthand!). Walking into lots of arrows would be like walking into a severe hailstorm. Throw lots of arrows at closely packed soldiers, and even if only a few of them kill, it sure is gonna cause discomfort to everyone. So the role of massed archery in battle does not necessarily have to be about KILLING OUTRIGHT, but a mix of things to disrupt the enemy formation. Add to that the fact that english archers were competent hand-to-hand fighters as well, and their role is not definitely not just about the killing power of the longbow. They were multi-purpose all-round light infantry.
Something else worth thinking about - we always hear about how many arrows archers were able to fire a minute, which at first does make it sound like a neverending hail of arrows. But the strength needed to fire these war bows, which were much bigger and more powerful than any later equivalent, would surely tire the archers quickly - it was like weight lifting! They couldn't keep up a "12 arrows a minute" or whatever pace for more than... a minute? And of course they had a limited supply of arrows. Also, we may have in our head the image of archers firing into the air, so the hail of arrows drop on the enemy from above from a great distance, but Capwell points out that probably most of the arrows were fired 'straight' at close range. It's a good point - almost all medieval paintings of battles you see depict the archers shooting straight at eachother at almost point blank range! So perhaps the idea of rapidly firing to fill the air with arrows to rain on the enemy from a great distance isn't quite how it worked.

So anyway, let's get back to the original subject. How did longbows REALLY compare to crossbows (and handguns), most importantly in their battlefield role? We all know the crossbow took longer to reload, but does that really mean for every shot the crossbowman fires the longbowman is constantly loosing off 10 times as many shots?
I've read so many conflicting accounts of the range and power of both weapons, that I think in the end, when it comes to down to representing the range and power of them in tabletop wargaming, IT DOESN'T MATTER. They are about equal. More or less. Kind of.
The longbow does seem like the best overall weapon - what are the advantages the crossbow has to offer? It would seem the main one is ease of use. Once you know how to load the thing, you are set to go. You don't need to be a bodybuilder to use it (archers had to be very strong!). But then why did professional mercenaries use it? Why didn't they ditch it for the longbow?
Anyway, that doesn't help when it comes to wargame rules. I grew up with Warhammer. In the WFB / WAB rules, crossbows were stronger than longbows, but you could not both move and shoot with them in one turn, to represent how they take longer to load (I guess). But the more I think about the subject, I think in my rule system the crossbow shouldn't be any more powerful than the longbow (or indeed a sword to the face!). So without that strength bonus, what can I offer to make the crossbow a viable option on the tabletop? It doesn't need to be equal to the longbow. In fact, I want to make it clear that when it comes to massed ranked armies, the longbow should definitely be king, and the crossbow at a disadvantage (longbows should give some sort of 'shoot in multiple ranks' rule). But when it comes to smaller units, skirmishing, defending fortified positions, etc, a crossbow is at no disadvantage. Deploying 100 longbowmen on the field should be MUCH more useful than 100 crossbowmen, but 5 crossbowmen behind a wall should be just as useful as 5 longbowmen.

And medieval handguns - does anyone have any idea of what the range and power of these things actually was??? I think that once they had became relatively reliable, their main attraction was ease of use again. Did they really differ in role to the crossbow? I'm tempted to just say "treat as crossbows" in my rules. Or am I overlooking something?

Another thing concerning longbowmen - the Wars Of The Roses give us quite a unique series of battles in that all of them (as far as I am aware) saw the typical English armies of the times facing off against eachother in the traditional ways of the time. Lots of longbowmen on both sides. But in all my reading, I never have come across examples of arrows being a deciding factor or causing really serious casualties. All battles seem to come down to a hand-to-hand brawl which decides everything. They all seem to open with the customary archery duel, then everyone gets stuck in with poleaxes. The only times archery seems that important is as a way of forcing the enemy to act - at Towton (I think?) the Yorkist archers caused enough discomfort among the Lancastrians that the latter abandoned their good position to close for melee to get things over with (and they weren't helped that their archery barrage was rendered useless due to the weather). But was that actually due to mass casualties or not? Was the archery duel for the most part only there as 'tradition'?

Anyway, I've seen a lot of very interesting, intelligent discussions on this site concerning various aspects of medieval warfare, so I'd like to open up the floor for a discussion of archers, their battlefield role, the REAL effect of arrows on the battlefield, how the fully armoured man-at-arms fared against arrows, how longbows really compared with crossbows and handguns, how the three different weapons (and their tactical use) can best be represented on the tabletop by a rules system... And anything related to the subject as a whole!


(Also, here's a video with Mr Capwell offering some very interesting thoughts on the subject .... Video has link to part 2, and also any other videos on that channel are worth a watch)

[Mr.J]

I'm by no means an expect on the subject and I am sure someone with better knowledge than I will come along shortly but just to comment on a couple of bits that you have said:

Something else worth thinking about - we always hear about how many arrows archers were able to fire a minute, which at first does make it sound like a neverending hail of arrows. But the strength needed to fire these war bows, which were much bigger and more powerful than any later equivalent, would surely tire the archers quickly - it was like weight lifting! They couldn't keep up a "12 arrows a minute" or whatever pace for more than... a minute?

But then why did professional mercenaries use it? Why didn't they ditch it for the longbow?

I think the main counter to this is that English archers would be regularly practicing from a young age meaning that drawing a longbow wouldn't take any great effort in battle, their muscles, joints etc. would be used to the weight of this. Professional mercenaries used crossbows as you suggest, because anyone could pick one up and shoot it. Without the years of practice they simply wouldn't be able to draw a longbow.

It has been suggested that the English archers of the time could loose around 15 arrows a minute. Arrows were supplied in sheaves of 24, and archers would usually carry between 60-75 with them into battle. If we use Agincourt as an example with roughly 5000 archers at this battle they could have released approximately 75,000 arrows in one minute. So this would only give them around 3-4 minutes of consistent fire (if my maths works). However it is most likely that a surplus would have been supplied to keep the archers supplied however I don't know in what quantities these would have been in.

I wouldn't fancy my odds walking into that even with the fanciest of armour, also think of the damage it would do to their mounts and the general disorientation that this would cause.

As far as handguns go this would depend on how early you are talking about but their is archaeological evidence to suggest that at Towton in 1461 handguns exploded so it is questionable as to how reliable (or safe) they would have been.

I certainly think they would have been a faff to reload and use rapidly.

[Patrice]

Crossbow bolts are heavier, and I give them more penetration strength than arrows in my rules.

But their main advantage was probably that crossbowmen did not need much training. Longbowmen had to be trained from childhood?

Handguns had a limited useful range; it improved in the late 15th century, but French troops still preferred crossbows in the 1520s.

An advantage of handguns is: lead bullets and black powder, when you can make them in big quantity, are less expensive than arrows or crossbow bolts...

[Charlie_]

I think the main counter to this is that English archers would be regularly practicing from a young age meaning that drawing a longbow wouldn't take any great effort in battle...

Yes, that's true, they would be training with them most of their lives. Still, I do wonder how much rapid shooting they could keep up until they tire, but I guess that goes hand in hand with the limited supply of arrows.

It has been suggested that the English archers of the time could loose around 15 arrows a minute. Arrows were supplied in sheaves of 24, and archers would usually carry between 60-75 with them into battle ... this would only give them around 3-4 minutes of consistent fire (if my maths works).

Perhaps an idea for wargames rules would be a one-time arrow storm for massed ranks of archers? Once per battle they can unleash A LOT of arrows, representing those first 3-4 minutes of consistent fire?

I wouldn't fancy my odds walking into that even with the fanciest of armour, also think of the damage it would do to their mounts and the general disorientation that this would cause.

Absoutely, as I said I think the injuries caused to full plate armoured men at arms would be due to the vast quantity of arrows, many of which would inevitably find the weak points in the armour, rather than the penetrating power of the arrows... And yes, damage to horses would be a big factor in firing on cavalry. And this 'general disorientation' would be something great to represent on the tabletop if possible....

Handguns had a limited useful range; it improved in the late 15th century, but French troops still preferred crossbows in the 1520s.

An advantage of handguns is: lead bullets and black powder, when you can make them in big quantity, are less expensive than arrows or crossbow bolts...

Yes, a very good point! A serious advantage - quick mass production of ammunition.

Though that's a tricky thing to represent on the tabletop...

[Silent Invader]

Here's an assessment:

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

[Emir of Askaristan]

Archers certainly needed to be trained for years and their training had a physical effect on their bodies. there are lots of different test and trials out there with archers and bows and arrows being put together. As far as I know however there yet to one with several dozen archers shooting into the brown against armoured targets, initially dropping the arrows onto the targets and then as they close firing directly and horizontally.

This is a quite a good test and the author sets out his methodology, the equipment and the armour being tested, using ballistics material protected by cloth as his target. To gauge effect he compares the results for depth of penetration and deformation caused by the impact.

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

Having men out practicing archery is expensive. Crossbows and handguns don't require this much training.  Once give training a handgunner doesn't require much skill to maintain his weapon. He can make bullets as he eats his dinner by the fire in camp in minutes. Knocking out a window or two or stealing length of pipe for lead will see him through a battle - the only thing he needs is powder.

I don't know if plate provides any more or less protection against shot than against arrows, but since most soldiers didn't wear full plate it doesn't matter. The handgun becomes a more efficient killer.

[Cubs]

This is a massive can of worms and frankly, I think the only answer one can definitively give is that fans of the longbow prefer the longbow and fans of the crossbow prefer the crossbow (plus fans of the composite bow prefer the composite bow).

But there is plenty to consider and it all depends of how deeply you want to go into the fiddly details. Below are my own opinions, which I do not claim carry any more weight than the next man -

1) The longbow, war bow, great bow, English/Welsh bow was not just a standard self bow. I mean, it was, in essence, but there are plenty of commentaries from European observers who make special mention to the girth and length (ahem) of the bow used by English (and Welsh ... and to a lesser extent Scots) archers. It was a beast, at least as tall as the man using it and usually more. For various reasons, away from mainland Britain, it just wasn't seen in anything like the same numbers.

2) A skilled longbowman (more on that below) would indeed by expected to demonstrate they could fire a minimum of 12 aimed arrows per minute. However, this would not be expected in battle, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. But they could, and often did, seriously mess up crossbowmen who forgot to hide behind something whilst reloading because of the difference in speed (don't forget those pavises boys!).

3) There is no single size or design of longbow and no single size or design of crossbow, so one could always argue that one was more powerful than the other, if it was bigger!

4) The arrows are all important. The short bolts used in crossbows had a bodkin head specifically for punching through armour and at close range I would definitely say the crossbow had the edge in power. However, the bolts are short and had leather flights. The momentum bleeds off a crossbow bolt beyond short range due to air resistance and it becomes inaccurate and loses power in mid to long range. 

   Longbow arrows were longer, hand made with a variety of heads (bodkin, leaf and one that was between the two, whose name escapes me) for different targets. The flights were meticulously crafted with goose feathers and kept the arrow stable in flight even at long range. The heavier, longer shaft also helped with accuracy and power at longer range. Having said that, cheap and shoddily made arrows must also have been around, which wouldn't have enjoyed the full benefit of those advantages and in battle, you might not always have the most suitable arrow head to hand.

5) Arrows again. Crossbow bolts were mass produced, cheap and quick to make and repair. Being smaller, a lot more could be conveniently carried by the crossbowman and they would be fired slower. Decent arrows for a longbow were the work of a craftsman, they were expensive (a dozen arrows might represent a week's wages for an archer) and needed to be transported and stored properly to avoid damaging the feathery flights. Ideally, although an archer might only carry 24 in a couple of cloth bags on his person, carts full of replacement arrows would be nearby, and they would send runners to pick up spent arrows from the battlefield if possible. Some could be reused, some could be scavenged for 'spare parts' to repair broken arrows. But sometimes the arrows did run out and longbowmen then were not backwards at getting stuck in with their hand weapons. That famous strength could be very effective behind a lead hammer.

6) The man was as important, if not more important, than the weapon. It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to believe that a monarch or lord recruiting for foreign service will try to get the very best bowmen he can for the money. Someone raising a local peasant force will have to make do with fairly indifferent archers. Most people can learn how to use an ordinary bow in a day, albeit to a low standard. But it took years, mostly from childhood onwards, to make a skilled longbowman. By law, boys and men had to practice the bow (or sling), so most people would have been familiar with its use, but not everyone would have been able to wield a longbow to a high standard.

7) The 'arrow storm' practised by longbowmen was a long range, area effect weapon using massed volleys. Whilst the first arrow was still in the air, it would be possible to launch one or two more. But would a commander have chosen his targets carefully so as not to waste his precious arrows for little effect? Certainly, although gravity would have made the arrow storm a fearsome thing to be under, any shield or plate armour would render the man underneath more or less invulnerable (if decidedly uncomfortable). Lightly armoured troops, or horses of course would be another matter entirely, but it was not an aimed shot and arguably not a very efficient use of energy or ammo.

  At short range, firing flat 'over open sights' as it were, now that was different. Plate armour might not be penetrated except at very short range, but the power of an arrow hitting a man full on the chest was easily capable of knocking him over. The cumulative effect of concussive hits can well be imagined, especially when you think just how many archers might be concentrating their fire on the front rank of an assault. What sort of shape would an armoured attacker be in when/if he made it to the fighting line and then had to face the enemy men at arms? The horse would have gone long ago. This might well be the time when those 12 arrows a minute proved essential to neutralise mounted threats quickly. Many men at arms preferred to raise their visors as well on the battlefield, especially as they fought for breath (plenty of commanders did this to aid their view of events). An open face was a fairly simple target for most archers.

Unsupported archers - longbows or crossbows - were dead meat. Used in the wrong way, either of them were vulnerable. Crossbows were best used with pavises or from fortifications, so the man could duck into cover to crank up the bow. Longbowmen were best used defensively, in prepared ground that prevented the enemy closing quickly, especially from unexpected directions. If they held their ground, were supported by men at arms and the enemy was restricted to a single line of advance, longbows were indeed battle winners. But there are other occasions when they were caught on the move, or were disordered, or not supported, and they crumbled. But then the same is true of any weapon or soldier really. Use it right and you'll be fine. Use it wrong, and you're in trouble.

In conclusion, my own personal opinion is that the EFFECTIVE range of a longbow should be about the same or slightly longer than a heavy crossbow (a bolt might indeed fly further, but it won't be accurate or effective) and its accuracy at distance should be better. Whether you want to represent that on the weapon's stats or the archer's stats is an interesting question (if the latter, it allows you to distinguish between skilled and levied archers).

The rate of fire for a longbow should be greater, but some thought given to the arrow supply question. If you don't want to go into keeping tallies, then perhaps restricting the rate of fire in gaming terms to represent archers conserving their supply.

At short range the crossbow should be more effective against heavy armour, although the longbow shouldn't be ineffective.

Longbowmen were extremely valuable assets to a commander and conversely, they were hated by the enemy. Some representation should be made as regards their availability/points cost.

Ratios of 3:1, 2:1 and occasionally 1:1 longbowmen to men at arms, were fairly common in medieval armies, but remember they were also used as back-up melee troops to support the heavy guys and there is even some debate as to whether the term 'archer' was occasionally used just to describe a lightly armed recruit, whether he had a bow or not!

[Cubs]

PS. I forgot handgunners. Personally, I think certainly in early years they were more about a commander showing how fashionable he was in getting the latest gadget, than in being overly effective. However, by mid-late medieval period, as they evolved into something like a reliable weapon, I would say everything that goes for the crossbow, goes for the handgun, but more so. Even shorter effective range, very slow reload, but utterly devastating at short range (probably with a morale effect, too).

[Atheling]

Just to mention, anyone interested in the Longbow ie Warbow debate could to worse than reading Prof. Anne Curry and Matthew Bennett.

They would be my two top priorities

Cheers,
Darrell.

[Cubs]

Just to mention, anyone interested in the Longbow ie Warbow debate could to worse than reading Prof. Anne Curry and Matthew Bennett.

They would be my two top priorities

Cheers,
Darrell.

Cheers, I just picked up Anne Curry's Agincourt for less than £3 on Kindle!

[janner]

The Warbow by Matt Strickland and Robert Hardy is also worth a looksee.

You can actually grasp the rudiments of shooting a self bow in a matter of hours. The problems start when it comes to dealing with intervening cover and weather, and continue onto coping with with higher poundage bows and the stress of battle. Then there is the oft forgotten issue of knowing how to best use large groups of archers: deployment, command and control, logistics etc.

[Atheling]

Cheers, I just picked up Anne Curry's Agincourt for less than £3 on Kindle!

Which one? She has at least four books with 'Agincourt' in the title at my at count??  

Bennet is better for the Warbow. Hardy's book which is tempered by Strickland is also a good in depth view.

Darrell.

[Cubs]

Which one? She has at least four books with 'Agincourt' in the title at my at count??

The new history one. I've just read a couple of reviews and it's taken a pounding! Some of them recommend the Julie Barker book, which I've already read (and really enjoyed).

[Charlie_]

Then there is the oft forgotten issue of knowing how to best use large groups of archers: deployment, command and control, logistics etc.

Yes, that's what I'm particularly interested in with my wargame rules. I'm quite keen to keep things simple, and just give longbowmen the potential to be very effective through correct use (deployment, command and control as you put it), where in a similar situation the use of crossbowmen would be limited. So, a little unit of 5 archers are going to be much the same whether with longbows or crossbows..... But if arming archers with longbows, you have potential to field large numbers, and when deployed and commanded correctly, they become a very effective missile unit. If armed with crossbows, you'll be wasting them in such numbers.
And then, if you don't use those large numbers of longbowmen well, they suddenly just become lightly armed infantry.

Some of them recommend the Julie Barker book, which I've already read (and really enjoyed)

Ah yes, I read that one many years back, it's still here beside me on my bookshelf. I might have to give it another read through I think.

[SteveBurt]

Some big things with firearms:
1. It's much quicker to train someone to shoot a musket than a bow
2. A musket shoots just as well when the firer is fatigued. Bowmen will quite rapidly be unable to fire with full power.
3. Musket balls are much quicker and cheaper to make than arrows.