Longbow v crossbow (and handgun) - historical discussion

[Atheling]

Yep, as I said earlier, I'm not going to get 'stuck in the mud' of this very contentious issue, thus i bow out  

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

That was truly awful to read... 

[sukhe_bator]

I'm not sure I can add much more to the debate but for what it is worth I think a lot of people neglect the psychological and cumulative effect of weapons in combat.
In the West we are so conditioned by images of C20 warfare to weapon fatalities that we tend to forget that before the C20 3/4 of the deaths in war were through disease, either just getting to and from the battlefield or as a result of sometimes minor wounds inflicted. The main aim of weapons were to 'overpower' the enemy forces and drive them from the field, and not necessarily kill them. Therein lies the success of a successful Napoleonic bayonet charge.
If early handguns and cannon were that crap in combat, why would armies continue to invest in them and drag them cross country? There's been much debate about the relative efficacy of Asian weapons vs Europeans in the Renaissance and in particular the C18 expansion of European interests in Asia. Much attention has focused on the relative merits of the weapons employed. Take Indian rockets for example. A mass volley of these babies is enough to scare the sh1t out of most people and the noise and smoke is another factor which can unsettle all but the most battle hardened cavalry. Yet they don't actually have much in the way of destructive power and their accuracy is rubbish. Yet they were cheap and gave more bang for your buck than a whole raft of levies of dubious quality and continued to be used for centuries. Many Asian weapons were also deliberately designed to look intimidating and scary. It was as much the threat of their use as the actual damage they could potentially inflict. 
The same is true for handguns and early cannon. Its enough to hear and see the explosive discharge, but to see the effects of a high power ball punch through the guy next to you wearing plate armour, go out the other side and then proceed to take out a few guys behind is enough to give anyone pause for thought - let alone a levy or militiaman with relatively little battlefield experience. It is the sheer messy awful randomness of it. The morale effect far exceeds the actual damage inflicted. These weapons were expensive but relatively simple to use. Crossbows added an element of silent terror, and while you might duck from a volley of bowfire, even a 1/4 inch oak plank won't do you much good from a well aimed bolt. The extra range was a bonus when used in garrison. Much has also been made of weapon ranges but most bows were routinely used at far closer ranges to increase the chances of a strike and inflicting damage. Even the much vaunted composite bow was regularly used in a high velocity strike at close range with an almost guaranteed hit, followed by a rapid evasion, rather than at a stand off game-hunting range. A volley of arrows would make anyone duck (even in armour) and was the Medieval equivalent of suppressive fire. This tends to break up the cohesion, adds confusion and helps weaken and break up an attack.
I think wargames rules have often concentrated too much on the mechanics and not the 'human' factor...
 

[Arlequín]

There is also the 'control' aspect to consider. Having a large pool of archers requires plenty of practice, with access to the weapons. While during the HYW this activity could be directed towards fighting the French, it was also what enabled the raising of armies in the WotR. Under Henry VIII, weapons were kept under lock and key in parish armouries (usually in the bell-tower), rather than the homes of individuals, so as to make life difficult for potential rebels.

The spread of firearms enabled armies to be raised and trained quickly, without the need for the constant training archers required, which further limited the need for an 'armed general public'. You raised your army, gave them musket or pike, along with a limited amount of training and then disbanded them when the war was over. The weapons were gathered in and placed in their respective armouries. The men went home with experience, but did not have the weapons to potentially threaten the state.

[Paleskin]

longbow 'wins' everytime......without it we wouldnt have the urban myth/historical fact regards the origins of the two fingered salute 'V' sign!

[sukhe_bator]

THE CROSSBOW wins - you'd lose a darn sight more than a coupla digits if you're captured - ergo crossbows are well 'ard!

[Arlequín]

The arquebus wins... longbows, crossbows, where are they now? (says everyone from the 17th Century onwards) 

Joking apart I think the edge goes to the longbow, providing you have a picked force of good archers using them, otherwise the crossbow wins on utility (point this end at the enemy and lift this lever).

Bear in mind though that neither ever won a battle and if Agincourt is the exemplar, the long march through the mud to the English lines probably contributed more to the French defeat than the arrows of the happy few.

Atheling's previous comment about attacking armies generally losing in the WotR also bears consideration too... when you have armies of largely inexperienced men, moving them about does nothing for cohesion.

When you consider the large quantities of archers there must have been on both sides, they don't seem to have been a factor, other than when one side lacked them (Edgecote), or was unable to respond to enemy fire effectively (Towton), thus prompting an ill-considered attack. English horse made its reappearance during this period too, hardly what you would expect in an archer-heavy environment.

[jon_1066]

If you take Agincourt as the example the onus was on the English to attack since they needed to pass the French to get to Calais.  Yet it is the French slogging through the mud.  Why?  The English bought up their archers to shoot at the French.  If the archer was nothing more than a nuisance why did that prompt the French to attack?

[Charlie_]

Great discussion guys, many interesting points raised, gives me a lot to think about!

When you consider the large quantities of archers there must have been on both sides, they don't seem to have been a factor, other than when one side lacked them (Edgecote), or was unable to respond to enemy fire effectively (Towton), thus prompting an ill-considered attack.

I have often pondered the same thing....

[Cubs]

When you consider the large quantities of archers there must have been on both sides, they don't seem to have been a factor, other than when one side lacked them (Edgecote), or was unable to respond to enemy fire effectively (Towton), thus prompting an ill-considered attack. English horse made its reappearance during this period too, hardly what you would expect in an archer-heavy environment.

I reckon you probably answered the question with 'other than when one side lacked them'. The armies of the WOTR knew what archers did (because they had them in their own army), rarely made the same mistakes as the French made a few generations ago and kept their vulnerable troops (like horses) out of the way until after the archery duel was over. Arrows spent, the bowmen then presumably became lightly armoured foot soldiers. Rather than assume this made the bowmen obsolete, my own view is that the longbowmen on either side just cancelled each out. If an opposition didn't/couldn't use their bowmen, then it had a major effect on the outcome of the battle.

I can see a parallel with Napoleonic skirmishers. They fought a 'battle within a battle' against their opposite numbers before the main bodies closed together. They rarely had a huge impact, simply because the other side also fielded them and it was against them that their energies were spent.

I do accept that the late 15th century was probably past the zenith of the skilled longbowman, though, and that the WOTR were their last hurrah before dwindling into relative obsolescence during the Tudor period, except on board ships.

[Jericho]

I think the main question you have to ask is; what's the tactical point of the weapon?
Is it to inflict casualties or simple harrassement? If casualties, do you want the enemy wounded, maimed or killed?
Or is it to pin down enemy units or to provoke them into a foolhardy charge?

All the while trying to get and staying in the mindset of a 15th Century (and I'll use the term broadly) tactician.

Then the weapons itself.

The warbow:
Almost comparable in strength and ability to Excalibur if the die-hardfans are to be believed 
Yes the bow might have had a longer range but when did a weapon on maximum range ever do something noteworthy?
With years of training an archer can become an excellent shot and that in itself is selfdefeating. New waves of untrained crossbowmen can keep coming battle after battle and the only thing they need to remember is 'point and shoot'.
Bowmen just can't keep up to this, so you'll run out of bowmen soon or have an army of bad shots instead.

The crossbow:
Maybe a shorter range than the warbow but did that range-difference make any sort of change on a medieval battlefield?
Training will also be shorter than bowpractice and many of them had pavises for defence too. (The Flemish even had one man who handled the pavise and helped with the ammunition per two crossbowmen.)

The handgun:
New kid on the block and probably shortest effective range of all three.
If after 400 years the Napoleontic gunpowder weapons still suck with terrible aiming, unpredictable trajectories and lots of smoke; one has to wonder why someone ever thought 'hey, this might be the future someday, give or take a half millenium.'
So it must have had some kind of desirable effect on the battlefield. Probably the deafening, bladder-releasing havoc it created when fired. And probably the logic of 'If the enemy has them, I want double that.'
(Simply put, it wouldn't be until the renaissance really kicked in that some started figuring out that they could make a name and a career on handguns tactics. But that is somewhat beyond the timeframe of this topic.)

And I have to agree with Cubs. While the warbow was a good weapon I fear that it was too oldschool for the 15th century. Technology was quickly passing it by, but it wasn't the artillery that decided the battle, in the end it were and will always be the pointy sticks. Even today, as soon you can see the white of their eyes of course.

That brings us to next part of Charlie_'s question of their usage in wargame rules.
Aren't most rules simply based on shooting, hitting and killing? And leaving the possibility of pinning and provoking out of the equation? Let's not forget the morale-squashing effects of an arrow barrage or hail of bullets.
Should/shouldn't these units have a limited supply of ammunition?
Maybe the games ought to be played without shooting units all together, and start the game directly after the obligatory volley of arrows 

In my eyes both the warbow and crossbow were equals and should be treated as such in rules. Handguns should have a shorter effective range to hit but have some sort of psychological advantage over the other two.

[Charlie_]

Aren't most rules simply based on shooting, hitting and killing? And leaving the possibility of pinning and provoking out of the equation? Let's not forget the morale-squashing effects of an arrow barrage or hail of bullets.

What I'm working with right now is that as soon as a unit takes 25% missile casualties within one turn, it needs to pass a discipline test to act itself that turn. No panicking or running away, or being driven back, just not being able to do anything, representing disorder.
What that should hopefully mean is that if you take LOTS of archers (Agincourt style) and your archery barrage causes enough casualties to the enemy battle line, certain units will be stuck in place as they are disordered, disrupting the general enemy battle line and advance.
(My rules don'tt use an I-GO-U-GO system, so it will be a case of trying to get off your archery barrage before the enemy advances too close. Good discipline and leadership makes achieving this more likely.)
If you don't take masses of archers, any missile casualties you cause are unlikely to have such an effect.
The point is, it won't be the actual power of the longbow that effects how the battle unfolds, but certain ways of using massed ranks of archers may do so, though this relies on good leadership and sound tactics.

Maybe the games ought to be played without shooting units all together, and start the game directly after the obligatory volley of arrows  

That certainly would make things simpler!!!!

Handguns should have a shorter effective range to hit but have some sort of psychological advantage over the other two.

Im thinking that the 25% missile casualties described above will cause panic and perhaps flight rather than just disorder if from handguns, pretty much how it works in WAB.
Though having just typed that, I realise a problem - what if it is both arrows and handguns that cause the 25% threshold to be reached? Perhaps the 'handgun panic' will only ever happen if it comes from one single barrage of handgun fire (whereas otherwise several different units can shoot at different times in one turn, picking off casualties until the 25% threshold is reached). So handguns don't always cause such a psychological reaction, but a huge sudden barrage of handgun fire resulting in heavy casualties, that could certainly result in the enemy fleeing.

[janner]

If the crossbow was so easy a weapon to master and maintain, why did rulers continue to hire professional crossbowman, such as from the Italian City States, rather than 'waves of untrained crossbowmen [that] can keep coming battle after battle and the only thing they need to remember is 'point and shoot'.' Much like Planatagenet use of bowman, I suggest that there was more too it that an individual's ability to learn how to shoot.

As an aside, in regards to medieval crossbows, I've noted that the trigger mechanisam can be quite 'lively' and I cannot remember any example incorporating a safety catch. So walking with a bolt nocked over broken ground might be a risky business.

[Jericho]

If the crossbow was so easy a weapon to master and maintain, why did rulers continue to hire professional crossbowman, such as from the Italian City States, rather than 'waves of untrained crossbowmen [that] can keep coming battle after battle and the only thing they need to remember is 'point and shoot'.' Much like Planatagenet use of bowman, I suggest that there was more too it that an individual's ability to learn how to shoot.

Well, that sentence of me was maybe talking too boldly but it was trying to say that in terms of relative training the crossbowmen would have a serious advantage of the warbow.

The other point of why rulers tended to go for mercenary units instead of city militias of their own territory is I think easy.
I know here in the Low Countries most troops didn't really like to fight on behalf of their Duke and much less outside their own duchy. Because most of the time it wasn't in the interests of theri home cities. So they'll do the absolute bare minimum to comply with orders; and I think that nowadays everybody knows people like that in real life too at work and such 
So to have reliable troops under your command, you'll have to find troops who need you as much as you need them, aka mercenaries.
At least one had control over them with money. Although many would find out that even money isn't a guarantee of their loyalties. And that's of course why nations after a good while start to ditch mercenaries alltogether and build proper armies.

[Patrice]

If the crossbow was so easy a weapon to master and maintain, why did rulers continue to hire professional crossbowman, such as from the Italian City States, rather than 'waves of untrained crossbowmen [that] can keep coming battle after battle and the only thing they need to remember is 'point and shoot'.' Much like Planatagenet use of bowman, I suggest that there was more too it that an individual's ability to learn how to shoot.

most troops didn't really like to fight on behalf of their Duke and much less outside their own duchy. Because most of the time it wasn't in the interests of theri home cities. So they'll do the absolute bare minimum to comply with orders; and I think that nowadays everybody knows people like that in real life too at work and such 
So to have reliable troops under your command, you'll have to find troops who need you as much as you need them, aka mercenaries.

Yes. A petty landlord could easily give crossbows to two or three of his servants and train them; but if you want a whole army you need crossbowmen mercenaries who not only know how to use their weapon individually, but also know how to fight as an organised group on a battlefield, this is much more difficult.
Many French towns had a small company of militia crossbowmen. They could take part in battles outside their town but they certainly would be reluctant to go far away.
Interestingly, the crossbowmen militia of Rouen is recorded to have fought very well in English service in some battles in the 1430s when the town was under English rule...