Kind of a biased test. The crossbow soldier could have put his bolts in the ground as well, but other than that, a crossbowman could use the shield to bench his bow for more accuracy, and he could keep his weapon cocked and ready while hidden or behind a crenellation, or up his draw weight with a windlass and far exceed a longbow’s penetration power. Good for different things, but a really biased comparison. Also, all weapons take skill to use. Ease of use is actually a good thing anyway.
@cptmiche No muscle memory needed? So you need to constantly think about every detail? How's that a good thing? Muscle memory is what allows you to carry out tasks without needing to think about every tiny thing - I can touch type because of muscle memory, I don't need to examine the keyboard and search out each letter. I'd rather have muscle memory for something that was going to keep me and my teammates alive, thank you.
You are in the marines in your dreams. If you were, you wouldn't talk such drivel. First you are telling me that that you can turn a boob into a trained soldier in a week. Now you have changed your story. You are also telling us about longbowmen. How many English archers were there at Crecy? If the term longbow isn't used until the mid 15th century, how many of them had longbows. You are like Mike Loades - making things up as you go along.
English longbowmen were at the Siege of La Rochelle in 1627, and the Royalists used small numbers in the early stages of the English Civil War. The Duke of Wellington, like you, thought that longbows would be a good idea, and is on record as inquiring if there were any people in England still skilled in its use. He was told there were not. By the beginning of the 15th century, England had a recruitment system where there had to be 3 archers recruited for every man-at-arms.
@adventussaxonum The French, at Agincourt, for example, had not figured this out. There are contemporary French pundits who say that there were thousands of perfectly good arblasters who could have shot at the English, but were put in the second wave. Well, they weren't perfectly good. The idea that you could train a crossbowman in a week is nonsense. At Agincourt the French had militia crossbowmen - fine for shooting from walls or loopholes. Useless on the battlefield.
@tigranvartanovitch Many of these militia crossbowmen had no helmets, inadequate harness, and there were often not enough pavises to go around. And they couldn't follow orders. The English archers, on the other hand, could turn up with any old stick with a piece of string attached, and just shoot in the direction pointed out to them. A battlefield crossbowman had to be a soldier of professional standard...and the Genoese and Gascons didn't come cheap.
@tigranvartanovitch that isnt entirely true, you could give any boob a crossbow and they can in theory shoot just as well as a trained crossbowman. longbowmen took many years to learn how to shoot the bow, they needed to develop incredible musclestrength to use the 100+ pound longbows used in medieval warfare. it was the training aspect that was appealing about the crossbow. It was a way of quickly arming and training a militia to fight semi effectively, not to replace your archers entirely
@cptmiche "You could give any boob a crossbow, and they can in theory shoot just as well as a trained crossbowman."
You've obviously never been in the army. There is more to soldiery than learning how to shoot straight.
Read what I have written. Thousands of French militia crossbowmen and archers turned up at Agincourt and never shot a single arrow/bolt, because the French commanders thought they were unusable. They were right. The term longbow was not used until the Paston letters.
@tigranvartanovitch well for one, im right now in the marine corps, we learn to shoot a rifle with precision accuracy in less than 2 weeks time. Also, like i said, in theory. It means there is no muscle memory needed, there is always the decisipline factor, and yes, putting thousands of militia crossbowmen against english longbows was a VERY bad idea, militia was often used against other militia, with experienced troops against themselves. IE a knight could kill 100 militia before falling
@cptmiche untrue, knights could easily be subdued by numbers only! They only stayed safe by staying in groups and using bodyguards who were expendable.
Most of the sources i've come across suggested you could train someone to fire accurately with a crossbow in 2 months, whereas it takes years of practice to fire the heavy welsh longbow accurately.
@WitheringintheDark Longbow isn't Welsh. I am not arguing about how long it takes someone to shoot straight with an arblast: I'm arguing how long it will take to turn someone into a soldier. If you think that you train someone to shoot straight and then he is a soldier, think again.
@tigranvartanovitch You're right, but bear in mind, in medieval times you didn't have standing professional armies like in modern days. Your standard army would be composed mostly of peasants, who weren't so much trained as drafted, given a weapon and padding (if they were lucky). Training these guys as soldiers was too expensive and time consuming, and besides they were needed in the fields. With a crossbow and minimal training, they could inflict a few casualties among enemy knights.
@SepherStar Well if your rich enough learning the long bow is irrelevant most of the time unless you want to hunt with it, the rich learnt how to ride horses, how to use a lance, practising with swords and various other weapons ... no real time for the fickle bow used by the commoners. Where as a commoner can use his bow to hunt, to earn a living and to fight with, if he was using it daily or practising daily he'd certainly be a good bowman. Backgrounds do matter at this age.
@SepherStar Well if your rich enough learning the long bow is irrelevant most of the time unless you want to hunt with it, the rich learnt how to ride horses, how to use a lance, practising with swords and various other weapons ... no real time for the fickle bow used by the commoners. Where as a commoner can use his bow to hunt, to earn a living and to fight with, if he was using it daily or practising daily he'd certainly be a good bowman. Backgrounds do matter at this age.
@WitheringintheDark Its mainly training the muscles as full power longbows have a really high draw weight. At this time people practiced from a young age though so there were enough people about who could use them, crossbows must have been far far more expensive too
@adventussaxonum With so many archers in the English army, it is a waste putting arblasters in among the archers just to provide firepower, you would have to deploy them among the infantry; so you would have to train them when to stand in front of the men at arms, when to move behind them, when to move among them. The English figured this out; that's why when they went on campaign, they only hired the professionals - the Gascons.
Crossbow is more powerful and easier to use, the soldiers knew how to deal with it after a few days / weeks.Bow is less powerful but reloads faster.Archers need(ed) a long training to be good.
No one would say that the archers alone won the victories, but that their effect on battles between totally disparate numbers was above what would have been expected from a mediaeval missile weapon.
Of course, the English Royal armies used crossbows for over 200 years after the Conqueror. Then they went for the longbow- I wonder why? Maybe the kings of England appreciated the levelling of the class system and the greater role of "ordinary" people- hmm..
@adventussaxonum Because the longbows provided mass fire. The English armies also kept crossbowmen -some of them mounted - who were trained in the finer points of soldiery. Most of them came from Gascony. When England lost Aquitaine at the end of the hundred years war, the Gascon crossbowmen were recruited by the French army, and were still very much in evidence during the early 16th century. After Pavia, the Gascons were given firearms.
@tigranvartanovitch -" Because the longbows provided mass fire." - Which wins battles. As did disciplined musket volley fire in later eras.
Just a thought- 6000 longbowmen would have been an interesting force multiplier at any battlefield in the mid18th- early 19th century. Outranging musketry and 12 arrows a minute instead of 2-3 volleys .
meh i prefer cross bow cuz its easier to shoot but i say its probly best to have a combo of crossbow and longbow in your troops. although if i had to run out of in the open on my own i would shoot a longbow instead
@Deadman1709 Longbow archers could have shields just as easily and did, look up some of the medeival sieges there are even paintings of footman holding a shield wall for archers and archers with planted shields, the compairison should be between the weapons not the accesories they could have both used, or what kind of training either took, the longbow is considered the 3rd greatest weapon of all time, the crossbow was used because anyone could use it and it was pretty good for tower shots.
Shields weren't used as extensively with longbows. Even in sieges a crossbow user can utilize cover better because, unlike a longbowmen who has to stand strongly and leave himself open to return fire.
On the battlefields, shields were rarely if ever used by longbowmen, making them more fragile than crossbowmen who can duck behind the shield while they reload. This was shown often during the wars in Italy.
@Caliburnis Okay think about it this way, the crossbow is just a small bow with small arrows 1/3rd size, meaning the only way to get the same strength was to increase the draw weight to 3 times that of the longbow, this meant it required mechanical aid to load, and having 1-2 guys loading for each guy shooting was countering the very purpose of having higher rate of fire, and I am talking the induvidual archer and crossbowmen, any army with better/worse weapons can win through strategy/more will
@Caliburnis Also yes you could take cover better while shooting a crossbow making it good for sieges, and they did use shield more because they had more money if they had crossbows, but as I said we are comparing the induvidual weapons, where as said on this video the bow had twice the rate of shot and over twice the range, and as not said in here due to the larger span of a bow more momentium transfered which maintained power to over long range. All I'm am saying is I rather be a skilled archer
You can't take a weapon on its own without taking into the context by which it was used. By that logic I can pit a man with a shield against a man with a sword and determine that the shield is an inferior tool not worth learning because he would be at a disadvantage.
There is a further problem as well, that crossbows can be made in huge draw weights. The highest I've ever seen was something like 3,000lbs. This meant the crossbow could deal much more damage.
What happens, for instance, if you have to target armoured opponents? A longbow is going to be essentially impotent, with only luck allowing for penetration whereas a high draw-weight crossbow has a much higher chance of actually penetrating the armor and doing damage.
@Caliburnis Then in other words each weapon had its own areas of quility and flaw, I would prefer the longbow and consider it better for street fights forest and other areas requiring quick movement and fast shooting, but can see the value of a crossbow in a open field or a castle siege, either way I just think the bow is more versitile and cooler, (I love using them :) lets not turn this into an arguement, I also consider the axe better than sword, its just my view, peace my friend :)
Further, because a crossbowmen was a professional mercenary, he can afford assistants arming his crossbows for him while he ducks behind cover and returns fire. So, basically you can have a guy firing crossbows, with one or two assistants reloading his crossbows for him and increasing his rate of fire by two or three times, potentially matching the output of a longbow with greater power.
@Caliburnis - what about a crossbowman and his TWO assistants (three men) against THREE archers.
That rate of fire on the video,was with a very light draw weight crossbow.No windlass there! The crossbow didn't do too well v the longbow at Crecy, did it? One volley and they never had a chance to reload.
Now you're incurring three times the cost of employing those three archers who are specially trained individuals who have to spend years training just to go onto the field, versus one specially trained mercenary and his not-quite-so expensive assistants.
@Caliburnis - those "specially trained" archers GREW up with the bow, and trained in their spare time at their village butts. It was a lifestyle,hobby,and apprenticeship. The cost to the Crown ,in time and money was negligible. Wages when on campaign- you had to pay crossbow mercenaries too! Probably a fair bit more than an archer.
Longbowmen were primarily of the yeoman "class", a sort of middle class role. They weren't simple villagers, and were in every sense of the world professional soldiers. The longbowmen employed were people who trained extensively in war-time use of the bow. The bows they used, with up to 150 pounds of draw weight are far more powerful than more common hunting bows.
As stated, these longbowmen weren't simple villagers who trained in how to fire longbows in their spare time. They didn't go home every harvest season to gather crops. They didn't grow their crops in the first place. They didn't go home every few months to "go back to" an old trade. They were soldiers primarily.
@Caliburnis - Yes-when they were soldiers. The twenty years of upbringing to reach that potential, was BEFORE their service. They weren't peasants, they were a proto-middle class,as you say,but they weren't full time professionals until they were ready.
Some maintained professional roles in peacetime- in retinues etc. Some had other trades too!
As well, the status of legislated longbow use was in place in France, Germany, etc for crossbows; you were given substantial tax breaks if you own and trained with a crossbow in German towns for instance, and large percentages of the German population (particularly townspeople) would own and train with crossbows.
@Caliburnis -Maybe, but you don't hear of the great victories won by the German and French crossbows,against the odds. These crossbowmen hadn't forced the Knightly class to upgrade to vastly more expensive armour between say, Hastings and Crecy. The sheer firepower of the longbow was a slap in the face to a mounted elite who knew all about crossbows, and weren't scared of them!
Actually, there is little or no evidence that the longbow forced much armor development at all. Longbows had been in use since around hastings, but the major centers of armor development and production were in areas where the longbow was not really used much at all; MIlan and Southern Germany, for instance, were the first places we see fully developed plate armor. The Longbow was simply not used much there as a battlefield tool, where the Crossbow was dominant.
@Caliburnis - it wasn't exactly "dominant" was it? The dominant missile weapon in those regions,yes. The armoured knight still ruled the battle field.
With good reason. It wasn't until gunpowder weapons and the development of pike that reliable tools for defeating heavy cavalry were developed. The longbow itself was more of a hit or miss affair. If all the conditions necessary for effective longbow use were there, they functioned well. If not, well...
There are numerous instances were longbows either failed to be effective or were defeated outright.
@Caliburnis -"There are numerous instances were longbows either failed to be effective or were defeated outright"-. that can said for EVERY personal weapon that ever existed.
The longbow was more isolated, and encouraged very little development in military martial thought. Throughout the Hundred Years War, for instance, the major developments weren't in the structure of the French military, but rather in how they used the existing methods which proved utterly devastating to the Longbow heavy armies of the English after the Loire Campaign. The Italian cavalry at the battle of Verneuil also resisted the Longbow with little effort.
The Lombards were using state of the art armor which came from Italy, not France. Italy had little or no armor development in regards to Longbow combat.
And we do see instances of crossbows being instrumental in victories, such as in the Battle of Jaffa, and all throughout the crusades where the crossbow was the dominant ranged tool for the Crusading armies.
Well, actually overwhelmingly decisive can describe Jaffa, as the Crossbowmen basically turned the battle, which was quite nearly a route and a Crusader defeat without them.
You make it sound as if the Longbowmen were the only soldiers on the English side at Crecy. We can say something similar about the Longbowmen at Crecy;
All they did was disorient the French charge and force them into a disorganized press and melee where the terrain of muddy ground prevented the French from fighting properly against the English Knights and Men At Arms.
@Caliburnis - They did kill an awful lot of Frenchmen too! Granted at Agincourt,it was the threat of the archers that funnelled the French into a struggling mass. At Crecy the Genoese got one shot and were swamped by firepower.
Don't forget the disparity in numbers. It would have been impossible for the archers to have won on their own- but they did an inordinate amount of damage to body AND morale.
The Genoese were exhausted from the march, and fighting a battle against someone with the advantage of the high ground; even if they were English longbowmen as well they would have been defeated in that engagement.
The actual records of the battle actually don't show that the longbows themselves inflicted that many casualties. The vast overwhelming majority was in the melee.
The combination of the French tactical incompetence, English tactical prowess, favorable terrain and weather, and combined arms tactics ensured the English victory. To pin the victories on the longbowmen alone, or even above all else, is ridiculous and shows someone who has a very weak understanding of military affairs and medieval history in general.
Not all crossbows used windlasses; in fact, those crossbows would be reserved for sieges and fortified positions where you can use cover and it doesn't matter how many arrows you fire, none of them are going to do anything.
At Crecy, the Genoese crossbowmen were exhausted and were not allowed to carry their pavisses with them.
Further, the crossbow was enthusiastically adopted all throughout Europe. The only thing to move it off of the battlefield was gunpowder weapons.
The crossbow is usually for specific purposes, the most common defending walls during seiges or attacks. The longbow is a lot more versatile, lighter, faster, and in experienced hands, very powerful. But they're two different weapons, and will always harbour different opinions.
i saw film yenanaqui indian held bow horizontally-the hand holding the bow had an arrow placed between each of the knuckles-hr shot one arrow after another in a smooth motion keeping his holding arm immobile to keep the target-this was done up in a tree half hanging over the edge shooting down at a moving canoe- ok he was very skinny-it helps-looked like very fun-even trance-like
In actual combat the longbow proved to be far more effective because it was faster and far more effective at longer range. The crossbow was more effective against armor at closer range but rarely did the crossbowman get the chance to fire off more than two bolts before the cavalry was on him. One area that was more effective with the crossbow was the opportunity to more accurately and quietly take out sentries and guards at close range before a raid.
keep in mind the conditioning of forces in those days...longbowmen could shoot all day. just as the mounted mamaluk archers who's composition bows were as powerful as a longbow. you however could not keep high rate of fire all day. just as you can be conditioned to swing a sword in full armor all day. the training for knights, seargents, and the mamaluk were brutal. firearms were only superior because anyone could quickly be trained to use them and they were cheap.
@rozuell as far as i know the earlier crossbows in england were loaded with having the feet at the bow and dragging the string back before shooting. so it may have been faster but the crossbow wasn't that powerfull as this version
S/B disadvantage is that ure more likely to need to take eyes off the battlefeild...a real soilder prolly was trained to not take his eyes off like this bloke?
I played the demo of it, and it was good, but I was told you had to command the armies. I don't know why games always make you the commander, I just want to be a cog in the machine. :P
you always have the option of letting your boys off without any supervision and do what you like, of course this will likely get them killed (unless they're knights).
also you can join forces with other lords where the lords control their own army and you can do whatever you like independently
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the only real advantages i see to the cross bow are 1 that it could be fired one handed(after it is loaded) which allows a sword/knife/shield to be used with the other hand 2 they were probably made with better quality because less would be made and for the more wealthy soldier
Most medieval crossbow cannot be fire 1 handed too much recoil or simply too heavy. Not counting the crap accuracy you will get even if it is a model that possible to shot 1 handed.
i dont see how there could be too much recoil but i could see how it could be too heavy but i figured that you could tuck the stock under the arm for support im not talking about holding it with an out streched arm, and if you know where it shoots like they would have why would you get crap accuracy
The crossbow is not nearly as effective as people think. To get to a high enough power to punch through armor you need something like an arabalest which has a steel bow and needs a windlass to pull back the string which takes a long time. A bow you can get #130 of power, you can knock, draw, aim and fire in a matter of seconds.
Well one advantage people seem to forget is that you can load a crossbow at your base in saftey, run around corners or threw the woods or something and fire instantly when you see the target, with a long bow you have to take out an arrow, aim and draw, so if you are just going against one target the crossbow is a lot faster
Umm, having hunted with a bow, you can "string" an arrow, keep it at the ready, and move through woods or open ground, up and down stairs easily, and as the video above, it is much faster to load, if you happen to miss or otherwise require a second shot.
No arguments there, if you have a coumpund bow, but unless you are built like hercules, you could not hold a longbow string fully drawned and walk around with it for more than a few seconds
Yes, you would have to draw and loose it quickly. I would prefer the crossbow for fighting in a built up area, moving around corners, etc, loosing from a wall, but would absolutely want the longbow for field combat, or most other applications where I would have to loose again and again.
The simple answer is that firearms are more effective missile weapons. They have a longer effective range than bows or crossbows. Bullets have superior penetrative qualities than arrows and can reliably defeat armour. Even a crossbow bolt can often be defeated by quality plate armour. The reason for the musket defeating the bow has little to do with training etc and more to do with firepower.
I am aware of greater fire power, my reference wa to the early matchlock systems that high rates of unreliability- those pioneering guns in the 1400s. Also I note that Britain retained longbows even when they had arquebuses althoug oly for a short time
But thanks i didnt know that some plate could keep out bolts
And while you could spend 3 years to train 100 soldiers to shoot a longbow, you could spent 3 months to train 300 peasants to shoot a crossbow and overwhelm the enemy with cheap, easily replaced missile fire.
@neveSykcuL You didn't spend 3 years training soldiers to shoot a longbow - the yeomen of England(and Wales) GREW up with it, and practised continually in their spare time (Football was even banned ,to encourage that practice). Their "cost" was their wages(and possibly supply of arrows)- probably cheaper than a crossbow mercenary- not to mention the loot and ransoms they helped provide.
lol longbow was the best weapon in medieval age the best longbowmen were the english that could pass an arrow through a ring in 100 steps also in 100 stps the could easily pass an arrow through the cut on a helmet that allowed to knight to watch and get it through his brain oh and they shooted much more faster than that
Not really the scenario you describe is not very likely. Bows aren't particularly accurate weapons under battlefield conditions for numerous reasons. Can you imagine trying to shoot an arrow through the eye slit of a knight thats galloping towards you on a horse at about 30mph? If it happens its going to be through sheer luck.
Actually a Turkish composite bow was a much better bow, only advantage of English longbow had over it was that it was much easier to make and could endure humidity much better (which is quite an advantage considering English climate =p)
Right. Crossbow was pretty good rate, but the longbow...that guy does not know the technique for shooting fast. There are people out there today, in our modern day and age with less training than back then, who can shoot between 15-20 arrows in 30 seconds. World record currently is 22 if I recall correctly - and that's 22 that hit a target.
The main problem with drawing bows has to do with the weight you're drawing. The English longbow was usually between 100-150 pounds in draw weight, so every time you drew it it'd be like pulling 100-150 pounds, In order to do this with a bow you have to have very specific muscle groups developed. For instance, if I were a swordsman of the time, and I tried to draw a 150 pound bow, even if I were an amazing swordsman, it would come /very/ hard to me. I might not be able to do it.
@Caliburnis And muscle strength can't be trained? I have never held a longbow in my hands, but considering that I can do at least ten single-arm bent-over rows with 80 kg (177 lbs) and I could certainly make at least 10 reps with 45 kg (100 lbs) during a single-arm bench press, I think I would be capable to shoot with a 200-250 lbs longbow. But I admit that I would be quite fatigued after mere 1 minute, and my fingers would be probably K.O. as well.
Yes, but it takes a long time to effectively train yourself to use them. Unless you're an experienced archer you will not be able to draw the bow effectively. The muscle groups required for archery are /very specific/. By no means would someone not used to this be able to draw a 200-250 pound bow. Mark Stretton is one of the strongest archers in the world currently, and he tops out around 200lbs. He doesn't even like to draw 170lbs. It's not the same thing as normal weight training.
I always thought that archer were less strong then other soldier (was the easy job to have).Is it only to be able to draw and aim correctly that you need training or is there something else.
And i think training for the bow and the crossbow would require the same amount of time.
You need to train your muscle for the bow
and you need to learn how to use and clean your crossbow
@drouinfrank2 longbow takes a couple years of practice and is also physically more demanding (up to getting bone deformations).
a crossbow is easier to use effectively, plus a crossbow can have more than twice the power (although usually lacking stability for range, as well as experienced men).
If you think you can learn a longbow effectively in just 2 months youre very wrong. It would take longer than that just to be build up muscle to draw the bow properly, let alone be effective in combat.
@CrestedPaingod Crossbow had a few other advantages over longbow aside from that, one you could cock it and run around with it locked and ready to go, just like a modern rifle, with the bow you have to take your time to string it and can not walk around with it fully drawned. Later when crossbows where made with steelprods, they had power enough to go through armor, longbows could not do that
@CrestedPaingod Exactly humanity will always take the easy route over the more effective, also I will take the twice as fast and twice as far over the easier to use at close range anyday, plus longbow maintnence is easier, and cheaper, and arrows larger and fly faster for more deadly wounds, Longbow was also rated 3rd greatest weapon ever made over most guns, crossbow was considered a useless technology as it came only shortly before guns replaced both anyway.
True, the crossbow takes 0 training, so a militia man could use it, but that's not an issue for a professional army. Professionals are expected to train and it doesn't take a life time to learn the long bow to battlefield proficiency in 2 months intensive training.
The real advantage of the crossbow and ultimately of the musket over either of them is the ammunition. Arrows are big and expensive. Bolts, less so and lead balls are dirt cheap, easy to make and easy to carry.
Also, full strength war bow would have been 100-150 lbs, and aimed shots over the course of a battle, not just thirty seconds. Both performances are fairly accurate.
How long do you think a charge by cavalry takes? It's for that part of the battle, that role for the bow, where speed would be of importance. Shoot 10 arrows, fall back, rest, prepare for the next round of charge or to pick off retreating - where speed would not be necessary.
John Keegan's "Face of Battle" includes an excellent section on Agincourt and breaks down the different arms' function and performance. A charge really wasn't a gallop, more of a fast trot; an archer would likely not have had time to rest if he wanted to survive. They were on the wings with little support and noone to fall back behind.
That's one battle, in certain type of terrain. This test was not "How were circumstances at Agincourt?", but more a question of "What is the capacity (in ideal circumstances)?"
Crossbow aren't really meant to be used at long range on battle fields, they were more direct and they had at close range the capability of being dangerously powerfull and quite precise down range. Yes, let's say the have a bit like the same status as muskets.
The crossbowman can reach an average level of competency relatively quickly when compared to a longbow man. Do not forget though that a professional soldier is not content to remain at "average" proficiency. I know people who build and shoot reproduction period style crossbows for many years now. In the hands of a truly experienced crossbowman, rate of accurate fire will easily exceed a moderately skilled longbowman. I have personally witnessed 9 crossbow shots in 30 seconds, very humbling.
Well remeber Beerheart, a trained man with a handspand one can yes, but a medieval crossbow had to be 3 time the draw weight of the longbow to equal its strength, and the longbow men used bows of a minimum of 120Ibs. So the crossbow men on a battlefield couldn't use these to be as effective as they needed/wished. The crossbow in looks like a hand...
This is an unfair test. The English longbowmen were said to be highly trained enough to have 4 arrows in the air at once. I cant verify that, but i know i could have shot just as rapidly with my flatbow and back quiver, and im only 18 and shooting for 5 years. Also the crossbows used by the Genoese mercenaries were of the most powerful sort, requiring a windlass to cock them- this would take much longer than the belt hook arrangement.
Not quite. Crossbows like that didn't show up until a little later after Crecy.
There's another video taken from this series that shows the time taken to cock one of those windlass operated crossbows. It's a bloody long time, to say the least.
really? i thought the arbalest had been developed by this time? hmmm. then that suggests that the crossbows used in the hundred years war wernt quite the powerhouses everyone thinks them to be. though tbh we'll never know, we'd have to have a proper battle to test it. and i dont think many people will volunteer for that
Crossbows where more powerful and lethal than guns up until the very late 1700, before then all firearms, such as blunderbusses, muskets and cannons where highly unreadable, even slower than a crossbow and pose much greater threat to the shooter himself than the enemy.
Surely that isn't an authentic English longbow. A real military longbow would have a draw weight of well over 100 pounds. Even the estimates for the lighter draw weights are as much as 80 pounds.
i have tested a english and i have a norwegian longbow. the english was a weapond i culd fire with ease,but my norwegian longbow is hard as hell. nice vid though
What's this supposed to prove, again? The quickest way to get pointy sticks into the air is obviously to throw them by hand. The surest way to get them into some poor sod's forehead, though... Now, that's the real question.
And that longbowman hardly drew the bowstring or aimed at all, either! I bet that if both of them actually bothered with force and precision, the bow would've come out ahead in the beginning, but lagged ever further behind as the bowman got tired. Those strings are heavy.
the longbow wouldnt have got tired because the longbowman had only 40 seconds before a calvary charge would be upon them. And the tactic was to get as many arrows in the air as possible rather than shooting accuratly
Firing speed is the main consideration when firing at oncoming cavalry, and forty seconds isn't enough to tire a trained arm. But which battle begins and ends with the same cavalry charge? Not one where the difference between longbow and crossbow matters, I'll wager.
No. In all likelihood, more accuracy than a fifteen degree angle, more force than to pierce unarmoured flesh at fifteen feet and more stamina than for one charge will come into play. Thus, the bowman lags behind whenever it matters
Why would a trained archer get a tired arm? Your arm might get knackered mate but that's because you weren't forced to train like the English were during this period! Anyway, a crossbow still has to be drawn so will still tire the user as well.
And also, the long bow is more versitile than the crossbow. It can be used to rain down blankets of arrows at long range and then when the enemy is closer it can be used to pick off individuals. A crossbow can't contend with the speed, power or distance a longbow can pump arrows out at and it was used by lazy mercenaries who thought the longbow was beneath them, end of.
Well, actually not. The Longbow largely lost its ability to reliably penetrate armor by the late 1300s(Perhaps earlier, because even maille was able to repel most arrows fired by a longbow). Crossbows on the other hand had /much/ higher draw weights(As in, 300-3,000lbs, as opposed to the 100-150lbs for a longbow) which could allow them a higher chance to penetrate armor.
Well no, the Longbowmen really will get tired faster, because his muscles are being used more than that of the Crossbowmen who uses mechanical devices to span his crossbow. But over the course of the battle the Longbowmen will get drained faster, while the Crossbowmen will retain a relatively steady rate of fire and an entirely consistent level of power in their shots.
@Caliburnis not rly its takes a lot of effort to bend down repeatedly or use the mechanical setups to reload a crossbow say over 30 times in a row or 3 minutes and longbowmen were big powerful guys who could fire a longbow all day since thats what thier trained for besides having twice the range able to attack sooner and cuase havoc, but crossbows were far more powerful and accurate at close range which could get between armor pretty easily as not many ppl had full sets.
It also takes a lot of energy to pull the string of a bow, more times than with a crossbow. Imagine taking 120-150 pounds, and then moving it with just your arms. That's going to wear on you after a while. It also depends upon the mechanical device at hand. Many would make it much less stressful (Ie; pushing with the legs instead of with the arms) than drawing a bow many more times. Now, I'm not willing to say the extent of the differences.
@Caliburnis Theres historical accounts of crossbowmen sitting down and firing from that position cos its much harder then a longbow and rememebr only big strong rugby player types were usualy trained up for the war longbow, with enough training u can fire a longbow all day or at very least till your quivers empty ,again its about picking your targets not just amount of wood u can get in the air since you spread pestilence,as u can see on the videoxbow is TIRED and the Lbow isnt even sweating
There were accounts of people sitting down and /reloading/ from that position due to that being one of the earliest kind of drawing. You don't sit down to reload with later crossbows.
And as for crossbow usage; these people were /still/ trained extensively in crossbow usage, so they're going to be used to firing them.
He actually doesn't seem too tired to me. A little bit out of breath because he's /really/ going at it and trying to fire as many arrows as possible, but that's not the objective for crossbow usage. We also don't know the respective draw weights of the two weapons, so this limits the usefulness of this video. As well, we don't know exactly who these people are. There isn't enough information provided in the video to make a good determination.
The battle of hastings didn't see a significant crossbow versus longbow engagement. Crossbows didn't come to the forefront until just after the First Crusade.
The modern day crossbow out compets todays long bow when it comes to speed and strength
TheIrishryan 5 months ago
Kind of a biased test. The crossbow soldier could have put his bolts in the ground as well, but other than that, a crossbowman could use the shield to bench his bow for more accuracy, and he could keep his weapon cocked and ready while hidden or behind a crenellation, or up his draw weight with a windlass and far exceed a longbow’s penetration power. Good for different things, but a really biased comparison. Also, all weapons take skill to use. Ease of use is actually a good thing anyway.
MrBedlam75 5 months ago
@cptmiche No muscle memory needed? So you need to constantly think about every detail? How's that a good thing? Muscle memory is what allows you to carry out tasks without needing to think about every tiny thing - I can touch type because of muscle memory, I don't need to examine the keyboard and search out each letter. I'd rather have muscle memory for something that was going to keep me and my teammates alive, thank you.
leziath 6 months ago
Crossbow PWNS Bow
hqkill 8 months ago
You are in the marines in your dreams. If you were, you wouldn't talk such drivel. First you are telling me that that you can turn a boob into a trained soldier in a week. Now you have changed your story. You are also telling us about longbowmen. How many English archers were there at Crecy? If the term longbow isn't used until the mid 15th century, how many of them had longbows. You are like Mike Loades - making things up as you go along.
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
English longbowmen were at the Siege of La Rochelle in 1627, and the Royalists used small numbers in the early stages of the English Civil War. The Duke of Wellington, like you, thought that longbows would be a good idea, and is on record as inquiring if there were any people in England still skilled in its use. He was told there were not. By the beginning of the 15th century, England had a recruitment system where there had to be 3 archers recruited for every man-at-arms.
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
@adventussaxonum
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
@adventussaxonum The French, at Agincourt, for example, had not figured this out. There are contemporary French pundits who say that there were thousands of perfectly good arblasters who could have shot at the English, but were put in the second wave. Well, they weren't perfectly good. The idea that you could train a crossbowman in a week is nonsense. At Agincourt the French had militia crossbowmen - fine for shooting from walls or loopholes. Useless on the battlefield.
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch Many of these militia crossbowmen had no helmets, inadequate harness, and there were often not enough pavises to go around. And they couldn't follow orders. The English archers, on the other hand, could turn up with any old stick with a piece of string attached, and just shoot in the direction pointed out to them. A battlefield crossbowman had to be a soldier of professional standard...and the Genoese and Gascons didn't come cheap.
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch that isnt entirely true, you could give any boob a crossbow and they can in theory shoot just as well as a trained crossbowman. longbowmen took many years to learn how to shoot the bow, they needed to develop incredible musclestrength to use the 100+ pound longbows used in medieval warfare. it was the training aspect that was appealing about the crossbow. It was a way of quickly arming and training a militia to fight semi effectively, not to replace your archers entirely
cptmiche 9 months ago
@cptmiche "You could give any boob a crossbow, and they can in theory shoot just as well as a trained crossbowman."
You've obviously never been in the army. There is more to soldiery than learning how to shoot straight.
Read what I have written. Thousands of French militia crossbowmen and archers turned up at Agincourt and never shot a single arrow/bolt, because the French commanders thought they were unusable. They were right. The term longbow was not used until the Paston letters.
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch well for one, im right now in the marine corps, we learn to shoot a rifle with precision accuracy in less than 2 weeks time. Also, like i said, in theory. It means there is no muscle memory needed, there is always the decisipline factor, and yes, putting thousands of militia crossbowmen against english longbows was a VERY bad idea, militia was often used against other militia, with experienced troops against themselves. IE a knight could kill 100 militia before falling
cptmiche 9 months ago
@cptmiche untrue, knights could easily be subdued by numbers only! They only stayed safe by staying in groups and using bodyguards who were expendable.
clintdelicious 6 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch
Most of the sources i've come across suggested you could train someone to fire accurately with a crossbow in 2 months, whereas it takes years of practice to fire the heavy welsh longbow accurately.
WitheringintheDark 9 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Longbow isn't Welsh. I am not arguing about how long it takes someone to shoot straight with an arblast: I'm arguing how long it will take to turn someone into a soldier. If you think that you train someone to shoot straight and then he is a soldier, think again.
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch the best training for a solider starts when its the real thing
MLy1996 7 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch You're right, but bear in mind, in medieval times you didn't have standing professional armies like in modern days. Your standard army would be composed mostly of peasants, who weren't so much trained as drafted, given a weapon and padding (if they were lucky). Training these guys as soldiers was too expensive and time consuming, and besides they were needed in the fields. With a crossbow and minimal training, they could inflict a few casualties among enemy knights.
CoronelMarmota 5 months ago
Comment removed
SepherStar 4 months ago
I thought boys were taught how to use the long bow at a young age, peasant or not.
SepherStar 4 months ago
@SepherStar Well if your rich enough learning the long bow is irrelevant most of the time unless you want to hunt with it, the rich learnt how to ride horses, how to use a lance, practising with swords and various other weapons ... no real time for the fickle bow used by the commoners. Where as a commoner can use his bow to hunt, to earn a living and to fight with, if he was using it daily or practising daily he'd certainly be a good bowman. Backgrounds do matter at this age.
Jam971 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SepherStar Well if your rich enough learning the long bow is irrelevant most of the time unless you want to hunt with it, the rich learnt how to ride horses, how to use a lance, practising with swords and various other weapons ... no real time for the fickle bow used by the commoners. Where as a commoner can use his bow to hunt, to earn a living and to fight with, if he was using it daily or practising daily he'd certainly be a good bowman. Backgrounds do matter at this age.
Jam971 4 months ago
@WitheringintheDark Its mainly training the muscles as full power longbows have a really high draw weight. At this time people practiced from a young age though so there were enough people about who could use them, crossbows must have been far far more expensive too
clintdelicious 6 months ago
@adventussaxonum With so many archers in the English army, it is a waste putting arblasters in among the archers just to provide firepower, you would have to deploy them among the infantry; so you would have to train them when to stand in front of the men at arms, when to move behind them, when to move among them. The English figured this out; that's why when they went on campaign, they only hired the professionals - the Gascons.
tigranvartanovitch 9 months ago
Both weapons are perfect for what they're designed for. You really want both in an army.
DavidUmstattd 9 months ago
Crossbow is more powerful and easier to use, the soldiers knew how to deal with it after a few days / weeks.Bow is less powerful but reloads faster.Archers need(ed) a long training to be good.
I personally prefer a bow !
daonpa 10 months ago 2
@daonpa a turkish horsebow shoots far faster and further than a medieval crossbow-just with less power
minxel16 10 months ago
No one would say that the archers alone won the victories, but that their effect on battles between totally disparate numbers was above what would have been expected from a mediaeval missile weapon.
Of course, the English Royal armies used crossbows for over 200 years after the Conqueror. Then they went for the longbow- I wonder why? Maybe the kings of England appreciated the levelling of the class system and the greater role of "ordinary" people- hmm..
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum Because the longbows provided mass fire. The English armies also kept crossbowmen -some of them mounted - who were trained in the finer points of soldiery. Most of them came from Gascony. When England lost Aquitaine at the end of the hundred years war, the Gascon crossbowmen were recruited by the French army, and were still very much in evidence during the early 16th century. After Pavia, the Gascons were given firearms.
tigranvartanovitch 11 months ago
@tigranvartanovitch -" Because the longbows provided mass fire." - Which wins battles. As did disciplined musket volley fire in later eras.
Just a thought- 6000 longbowmen would have been an interesting force multiplier at any battlefield in the mid18th- early 19th century. Outranging musketry and 12 arrows a minute instead of 2-3 volleys .
adventussaxonum 9 months ago
meh i prefer cross bow cuz its easier to shoot but i say its probly best to have a combo of crossbow and longbow in your troops. although if i had to run out of in the open on my own i would shoot a longbow instead
GMSamuelRhine 1 year ago
It takes a charging knight how long to cover 200 meters?
20 seconds .... 15?
That's your relevant rate of fire for how the long bow was used at Agincourt and Crecy.
They had 3 - maybe 4 shoots to break those charges up.
indirectapproach 1 year ago
they killed the horse at 1.20 lololool
timHYPERLITE 1 year ago
In theory its important who is able to shoot first so the longbowmen had the advantage of shooting first.
mjufpn 1 year ago
I can say that with a pavise, the exposure time of the crossbowmen is very short, when he pop his head up to fire. That's quite sth.
Deadman1709 1 year ago
@Deadman1709 Longbow archers could have shields just as easily and did, look up some of the medeival sieges there are even paintings of footman holding a shield wall for archers and archers with planted shields, the compairison should be between the weapons not the accesories they could have both used, or what kind of training either took, the longbow is considered the 3rd greatest weapon of all time, the crossbow was used because anyone could use it and it was pretty good for tower shots.
miles305678 1 year ago
@miles305678
Shields weren't used as extensively with longbows. Even in sieges a crossbow user can utilize cover better because, unlike a longbowmen who has to stand strongly and leave himself open to return fire.
On the battlefields, shields were rarely if ever used by longbowmen, making them more fragile than crossbowmen who can duck behind the shield while they reload. This was shown often during the wars in Italy.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis Okay think about it this way, the crossbow is just a small bow with small arrows 1/3rd size, meaning the only way to get the same strength was to increase the draw weight to 3 times that of the longbow, this meant it required mechanical aid to load, and having 1-2 guys loading for each guy shooting was countering the very purpose of having higher rate of fire, and I am talking the induvidual archer and crossbowmen, any army with better/worse weapons can win through strategy/more will
miles305678 1 year ago
@Caliburnis Also yes you could take cover better while shooting a crossbow making it good for sieges, and they did use shield more because they had more money if they had crossbows, but as I said we are comparing the induvidual weapons, where as said on this video the bow had twice the rate of shot and over twice the range, and as not said in here due to the larger span of a bow more momentium transfered which maintained power to over long range. All I'm am saying is I rather be a skilled archer
miles305678 1 year ago
@miles305678
You can't take a weapon on its own without taking into the context by which it was used. By that logic I can pit a man with a shield against a man with a sword and determine that the shield is an inferior tool not worth learning because he would be at a disadvantage.
There is a further problem as well, that crossbows can be made in huge draw weights. The highest I've ever seen was something like 3,000lbs. This meant the crossbow could deal much more damage.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@miles305678
What happens, for instance, if you have to target armoured opponents? A longbow is going to be essentially impotent, with only luck allowing for penetration whereas a high draw-weight crossbow has a much higher chance of actually penetrating the armor and doing damage.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis Then in other words each weapon had its own areas of quility and flaw, I would prefer the longbow and consider it better for street fights forest and other areas requiring quick movement and fast shooting, but can see the value of a crossbow in a open field or a castle siege, either way I just think the bow is more versitile and cooler, (I love using them :) lets not turn this into an arguement, I also consider the axe better than sword, its just my view, peace my friend :)
miles305678 1 year ago 2
@miles305678
Also remember that the crossbow requires considerably less training time making it much more useful in army situations.
DavidUmstattd 10 months ago
@miles305678
Further, because a crossbowmen was a professional mercenary, he can afford assistants arming his crossbows for him while he ducks behind cover and returns fire. So, basically you can have a guy firing crossbows, with one or two assistants reloading his crossbows for him and increasing his rate of fire by two or three times, potentially matching the output of a longbow with greater power.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - what about a crossbowman and his TWO assistants (three men) against THREE archers.
That rate of fire on the video,was with a very light draw weight crossbow.No windlass there! The crossbow didn't do too well v the longbow at Crecy, did it? One volley and they never had a chance to reload.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
Now you're incurring three times the cost of employing those three archers who are specially trained individuals who have to spend years training just to go onto the field, versus one specially trained mercenary and his not-quite-so expensive assistants.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - those "specially trained" archers GREW up with the bow, and trained in their spare time at their village butts. It was a lifestyle,hobby,and apprenticeship. The cost to the Crown ,in time and money was negligible. Wages when on campaign- you had to pay crossbow mercenaries too! Probably a fair bit more than an archer.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
Longbowmen were primarily of the yeoman "class", a sort of middle class role. They weren't simple villagers, and were in every sense of the world professional soldiers. The longbowmen employed were people who trained extensively in war-time use of the bow. The bows they used, with up to 150 pounds of draw weight are far more powerful than more common hunting bows.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
As stated, these longbowmen weren't simple villagers who trained in how to fire longbows in their spare time. They didn't go home every harvest season to gather crops. They didn't grow their crops in the first place. They didn't go home every few months to "go back to" an old trade. They were soldiers primarily.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - Yes-when they were soldiers. The twenty years of upbringing to reach that potential, was BEFORE their service. They weren't peasants, they were a proto-middle class,as you say,but they weren't full time professionals until they were ready.
Some maintained professional roles in peacetime- in retinues etc. Some had other trades too!
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
None of what you just said, of course, effects how they were paid and maintained when they were being employed in a military faculty.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
As well, the status of legislated longbow use was in place in France, Germany, etc for crossbows; you were given substantial tax breaks if you own and trained with a crossbow in German towns for instance, and large percentages of the German population (particularly townspeople) would own and train with crossbows.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis -Maybe, but you don't hear of the great victories won by the German and French crossbows,against the odds. These crossbowmen hadn't forced the Knightly class to upgrade to vastly more expensive armour between say, Hastings and Crecy. The sheer firepower of the longbow was a slap in the face to a mounted elite who knew all about crossbows, and weren't scared of them!
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
Actually, there is little or no evidence that the longbow forced much armor development at all. Longbows had been in use since around hastings, but the major centers of armor development and production were in areas where the longbow was not really used much at all; MIlan and Southern Germany, for instance, were the first places we see fully developed plate armor. The Longbow was simply not used much there as a battlefield tool, where the Crossbow was dominant.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - it wasn't exactly "dominant" was it? The dominant missile weapon in those regions,yes. The armoured knight still ruled the battle field.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
With good reason. It wasn't until gunpowder weapons and the development of pike that reliable tools for defeating heavy cavalry were developed. The longbow itself was more of a hit or miss affair. If all the conditions necessary for effective longbow use were there, they functioned well. If not, well...
There are numerous instances were longbows either failed to be effective or were defeated outright.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis -"There are numerous instances were longbows either failed to be effective or were defeated outright"-. that can said for EVERY personal weapon that ever existed.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
Comment removed
Caliburnis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adventussaxonum
Precisely.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
The longbow was more isolated, and encouraged very little development in military martial thought. Throughout the Hundred Years War, for instance, the major developments weren't in the structure of the French military, but rather in how they used the existing methods which proved utterly devastating to the Longbow heavy armies of the English after the Loire Campaign. The Italian cavalry at the battle of Verneuil also resisted the Longbow with little effort.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - the Lombards were very heavily armoured- and who won?
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
The Lombards were using state of the art armor which came from Italy, not France. Italy had little or no armor development in regards to Longbow combat.
You missed the point of the statement.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
And we do see instances of crossbows being instrumental in victories, such as in the Battle of Jaffa, and all throughout the crusades where the crossbow was the dominant ranged tool for the Crusading armies.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - true. "Instrumental" not overwhelmingly decisive such as at Crecy, but I get your point.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
Well, actually overwhelmingly decisive can describe Jaffa, as the Crossbowmen basically turned the battle, which was quite nearly a route and a Crusader defeat without them.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - it wasn't Crecy was it? They helped rally an awkward situation and enabled Richard to charge.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
You make it sound as if the Longbowmen were the only soldiers on the English side at Crecy. We can say something similar about the Longbowmen at Crecy;
All they did was disorient the French charge and force them into a disorganized press and melee where the terrain of muddy ground prevented the French from fighting properly against the English Knights and Men At Arms.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis - They did kill an awful lot of Frenchmen too! Granted at Agincourt,it was the threat of the archers that funnelled the French into a struggling mass. At Crecy the Genoese got one shot and were swamped by firepower.
Don't forget the disparity in numbers. It would have been impossible for the archers to have won on their own- but they did an inordinate amount of damage to body AND morale.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
The Genoese were exhausted from the march, and fighting a battle against someone with the advantage of the high ground; even if they were English longbowmen as well they would have been defeated in that engagement.
The actual records of the battle actually don't show that the longbows themselves inflicted that many casualties. The vast overwhelming majority was in the melee.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
The combination of the French tactical incompetence, English tactical prowess, favorable terrain and weather, and combined arms tactics ensured the English victory. To pin the victories on the longbowmen alone, or even above all else, is ridiculous and shows someone who has a very weak understanding of military affairs and medieval history in general.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@adventussaxonum
Not all crossbows used windlasses; in fact, those crossbows would be reserved for sieges and fortified positions where you can use cover and it doesn't matter how many arrows you fire, none of them are going to do anything.
At Crecy, the Genoese crossbowmen were exhausted and were not allowed to carry their pavisses with them.
Further, the crossbow was enthusiastically adopted all throughout Europe. The only thing to move it off of the battlefield was gunpowder weapons.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
The crossbow is usually for specific purposes, the most common defending walls during seiges or attacks. The longbow is a lot more versatile, lighter, faster, and in experienced hands, very powerful. But they're two different weapons, and will always harbour different opinions.
Esphidia 1 year ago
ask those french soldier died at crecy and azincourt, who's better between bow and crossbow...
Ereinion3019 1 year ago
i saw film yenanaqui indian held bow horizontally-the hand holding the bow had an arrow placed between each of the knuckles-hr shot one arrow after another in a smooth motion keeping his holding arm immobile to keep the target-this was done up in a tree half hanging over the edge shooting down at a moving canoe- ok he was very skinny-it helps-looked like very fun-even trance-like
lmollot 1 year ago
consider also that English bowmen had used the longbow since they could walk
elesararwos 1 year ago
In actual combat the longbow proved to be far more effective because it was faster and far more effective at longer range. The crossbow was more effective against armor at closer range but rarely did the crossbowman get the chance to fire off more than two bolts before the cavalry was on him. One area that was more effective with the crossbow was the opportunity to more accurately and quietly take out sentries and guards at close range before a raid.
Justliquor 1 year ago
keep in mind the conditioning of forces in those days...longbowmen could shoot all day. just as the mounted mamaluk archers who's composition bows were as powerful as a longbow. you however could not keep high rate of fire all day. just as you can be conditioned to swing a sword in full armor all day. the training for knights, seargents, and the mamaluk were brutal. firearms were only superior because anyone could quickly be trained to use them and they were cheap.
umarpm 1 year ago
An inexperienced crossbow man could kill an armored knight on a horse who had a lifetime of experience, with a single bolt.
ChristianRusten 1 year ago
Shield like that wich has a crossbow was in army from 1410 (Tannenberg, Grunwald).
Mateusz19891031 2 years ago
i actually heard that crusaders were scene to have fought sitting down shooting cross bows, so that might have been a faster way of shooting
rozuell 2 years ago
@rozuell as far as i know the earlier crossbows in england were loaded with having the feet at the bow and dragging the string back before shooting. so it may have been faster but the crossbow wasn't that powerfull as this version
makahuro 1 year ago
S/B disadvantage is that ure more likely to need to take eyes off the battlefeild...a real soilder prolly was trained to not take his eyes off like this bloke?
Axbent 2 years ago
where can i watch the full episode? :)
hobeeorchid 2 years ago
On YouTube :) Just type "The Longbow" or "Weapons that made Britain- The Longbow" and you should find it.
gswiaczny 2 years ago
thanks!
hobeeorchid 2 years ago
I played the demo of it, and it was good, but I was told you had to command the armies. I don't know why games always make you the commander, I just want to be a cog in the machine. :P
kalcaron 2 years ago
you always have the option of letting your boys off without any supervision and do what you like, of course this will likely get them killed (unless they're knights).
also you can join forces with other lords where the lords control their own army and you can do whatever you like independently
radicalhit 2 years ago
Longbows pwn, and look cool.
I want a game where I can be a longbow-man.
kalcaron 2 years ago
age of chivalry
mirandatuga 2 years ago
Comment removed
iniudan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the only real advantages i see to the cross bow are 1 that it could be fired one handed(after it is loaded) which allows a sword/knife/shield to be used with the other hand 2 they were probably made with better quality because less would be made and for the more wealthy soldier
xXpreflexXx 2 years ago
Most medieval crossbow cannot be fire 1 handed too much recoil or simply too heavy. Not counting the crap accuracy you will get even if it is a model that possible to shot 1 handed.
iniudan 2 years ago
i dont see how there could be too much recoil but i could see how it could be too heavy but i figured that you could tuck the stock under the arm for support im not talking about holding it with an out streched arm, and if you know where it shoots like they would have why would you get crap accuracy
xXpreflexXx 2 years ago
I like the longbow, personally.
Give both you and I a set price, and recruit as many men as our armory will allow.
Now, at first blush 9-4 arrows to bolts might be not that bad considering the power difference...but say I get fifteen men for your 10.
That's 135 arrows to 40 bolts. Then there's the range. Then the accuracy... the accuracy of a bolt after something like 20 meters goes to shite.
There's a REASON every civilization made a veersion of a longbow but not everyone made a crossbow.
DannyAces 2 years ago
Actually most other civilization made, for military use, composite bow not single piece longbow like the english one.
iniudan 2 years ago
Well I meant more people made bows than crossbows. It just makes more sense to.
DannyAces 2 years ago
The crossbow is not nearly as effective as people think. To get to a high enough power to punch through armor you need something like an arabalest which has a steel bow and needs a windlass to pull back the string which takes a long time. A bow you can get #130 of power, you can knock, draw, aim and fire in a matter of seconds.
WolfOfBloodAndBone 2 years ago
Well one advantage people seem to forget is that you can load a crossbow at your base in saftey, run around corners or threw the woods or something and fire instantly when you see the target, with a long bow you have to take out an arrow, aim and draw, so if you are just going against one target the crossbow is a lot faster
Jaahaah 2 years ago
Umm, having hunted with a bow, you can "string" an arrow, keep it at the ready, and move through woods or open ground, up and down stairs easily, and as the video above, it is much faster to load, if you happen to miss or otherwise require a second shot.
opiumhorse 2 years ago
No arguments there, if you have a coumpund bow, but unless you are built like hercules, you could not hold a longbow string fully drawned and walk around with it for more than a few seconds
Jaahaah 2 years ago
Yes, you would have to draw and loose it quickly. I would prefer the crossbow for fighting in a built up area, moving around corners, etc, loosing from a wall, but would absolutely want the longbow for field combat, or most other applications where I would have to loose again and again.
opiumhorse 2 years ago
With the English Longbow you don't hold full draw for long only a couple of seconds,the old saying a 'Fully dawn bow is nine tenth broken' holds true
bofblog 2 years ago
he means that you have the arrow nocked and the ready not drawn (could be pointing were ever) all you would have to do is draw and loose
xXpreflexXx 2 years ago
yeah that works if the nock on the bolt holds the string and the bolt doesnt fall off when you are walking
xXpreflexXx 2 years ago
does anyone know the drawweight of this crossbow?
123nicefellow123 2 years ago
Makes you wonder why cross bows didnt stay around longer in the face of matchlocks. I know you can train matchlock men faster but how much faster?
fp470 2 years ago
The simple answer is that firearms are more effective missile weapons. They have a longer effective range than bows or crossbows. Bullets have superior penetrative qualities than arrows and can reliably defeat armour. Even a crossbow bolt can often be defeated by quality plate armour. The reason for the musket defeating the bow has little to do with training etc and more to do with firepower.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
I am aware of greater fire power, my reference wa to the early matchlock systems that high rates of unreliability- those pioneering guns in the 1400s. Also I note that Britain retained longbows even when they had arquebuses althoug oly for a short time
But thanks i didnt know that some plate could keep out bolts
fp470 2 years ago
And while you could spend 3 years to train 100 soldiers to shoot a longbow, you could spent 3 months to train 300 peasants to shoot a crossbow and overwhelm the enemy with cheap, easily replaced missile fire.
neveSykcuL 2 years ago 6
@neveSykcuL You didn't spend 3 years training soldiers to shoot a longbow - the yeomen of England(and Wales) GREW up with it, and practised continually in their spare time (Football was even banned ,to encourage that practice). Their "cost" was their wages(and possibly supply of arrows)- probably cheaper than a crossbow mercenary- not to mention the loot and ransoms they helped provide.
adventussaxonum 1 year ago
lol longbow was the best weapon in medieval age the best longbowmen were the english that could pass an arrow through a ring in 100 steps also in 100 stps the could easily pass an arrow through the cut on a helmet that allowed to knight to watch and get it through his brain oh and they shooted much more faster than that
giaktour 2 years ago
Not really the scenario you describe is not very likely. Bows aren't particularly accurate weapons under battlefield conditions for numerous reasons. Can you imagine trying to shoot an arrow through the eye slit of a knight thats galloping towards you on a horse at about 30mph? If it happens its going to be through sheer luck.
mrbeast85 2 years ago
The idea in the Medieval Period was in this case of a charge you bring down the horses,then foot soldiers finished the job
bofblog 2 years ago
Actually a Turkish composite bow was a much better bow, only advantage of English longbow had over it was that it was much easier to make and could endure humidity much better (which is quite an advantage considering English climate =p)
iniudan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my videos on youtube (Viking vs. samurai : Thrand's aftermath part 1, 2 and 3 and also fighting bonus video)
ThegnThrand 2 years ago
Right. Crossbow was pretty good rate, but the longbow...that guy does not know the technique for shooting fast. There are people out there today, in our modern day and age with less training than back then, who can shoot between 15-20 arrows in 30 seconds. World record currently is 22 if I recall correctly - and that's 22 that hit a target.
robno101 2 years ago
The longbow was an effective weapon. However, it took a life time to master. The crosswbow took a couple of months thats what its main advantage was.
CrestedPaingod 2 years ago 14
@CrestedPaingod Maybe I am demented, but what's so technically difficult on drawing a bow?
centrum99 1 year ago
@centrum99
The main problem with drawing bows has to do with the weight you're drawing. The English longbow was usually between 100-150 pounds in draw weight, so every time you drew it it'd be like pulling 100-150 pounds, In order to do this with a bow you have to have very specific muscle groups developed. For instance, if I were a swordsman of the time, and I tried to draw a 150 pound bow, even if I were an amazing swordsman, it would come /very/ hard to me. I might not be able to do it.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis And muscle strength can't be trained? I have never held a longbow in my hands, but considering that I can do at least ten single-arm bent-over rows with 80 kg (177 lbs) and I could certainly make at least 10 reps with 45 kg (100 lbs) during a single-arm bench press, I think I would be capable to shoot with a 200-250 lbs longbow. But I admit that I would be quite fatigued after mere 1 minute, and my fingers would be probably K.O. as well.
centrum99 1 year ago
@centrum99
Yes, but it takes a long time to effectively train yourself to use them. Unless you're an experienced archer you will not be able to draw the bow effectively. The muscle groups required for archery are /very specific/. By no means would someone not used to this be able to draw a 200-250 pound bow. Mark Stretton is one of the strongest archers in the world currently, and he tops out around 200lbs. He doesn't even like to draw 170lbs. It's not the same thing as normal weight training.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis What about using some hooks attached to the wrists? Did you try it? It could improve the strength of the pull magnificently.
centrum99 1 year ago
@centrum99
Actually things like that /do/ help, but traditionally using a bow doesn't involve such things.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
I always thought that archer were less strong then other soldier (was the easy job to have).Is it only to be able to draw and aim correctly that you need training or is there something else.
And i think training for the bow and the crossbow would require the same amount of time.
You need to train your muscle for the bow
and you need to learn how to use and clean your crossbow
Should take 2 or 3 month for each one
drouinfrank2 1 year ago
@drouinfrank2 longbow takes a couple years of practice and is also physically more demanding (up to getting bone deformations).
a crossbow is easier to use effectively, plus a crossbow can have more than twice the power (although usually lacking stability for range, as well as experienced men).
If you think you can learn a longbow effectively in just 2 months youre very wrong. It would take longer than that just to be build up muscle to draw the bow properly, let alone be effective in combat.
TheGanjoss 1 year ago
@CrestedPaingod Crossbow had a few other advantages over longbow aside from that, one you could cock it and run around with it locked and ready to go, just like a modern rifle, with the bow you have to take your time to string it and can not walk around with it fully drawned. Later when crossbows where made with steelprods, they had power enough to go through armor, longbows could not do that
Jaahaah 1 year ago
@CrestedPaingod
later on that same episode, the documentary guy taught a bunch of people how to effectively use a crossbow in 2 days.
Supertomiman 1 year ago
@CrestedPaingod Exactly humanity will always take the easy route over the more effective, also I will take the twice as fast and twice as far over the easier to use at close range anyday, plus longbow maintnence is easier, and cheaper, and arrows larger and fly faster for more deadly wounds, Longbow was also rated 3rd greatest weapon ever made over most guns, crossbow was considered a useless technology as it came only shortly before guns replaced both anyway.
miles305678 1 year ago
@CrestedPaingod
True, the crossbow takes 0 training, so a militia man could use it, but that's not an issue for a professional army. Professionals are expected to train and it doesn't take a life time to learn the long bow to battlefield proficiency in 2 months intensive training.
The real advantage of the crossbow and ultimately of the musket over either of them is the ammunition. Arrows are big and expensive. Bolts, less so and lead balls are dirt cheap, easy to make and easy to carry.
Unwardil 1 year ago
Also, full strength war bow would have been 100-150 lbs, and aimed shots over the course of a battle, not just thirty seconds. Both performances are fairly accurate.
PaulieFetz 2 years ago
How long do you think a charge by cavalry takes? It's for that part of the battle, that role for the bow, where speed would be of importance. Shoot 10 arrows, fall back, rest, prepare for the next round of charge or to pick off retreating - where speed would not be necessary.
robno101 2 years ago
John Keegan's "Face of Battle" includes an excellent section on Agincourt and breaks down the different arms' function and performance. A charge really wasn't a gallop, more of a fast trot; an archer would likely not have had time to rest if he wanted to survive. They were on the wings with little support and noone to fall back behind.
PaulieFetz 2 years ago
That's one battle, in certain type of terrain. This test was not "How were circumstances at Agincourt?", but more a question of "What is the capacity (in ideal circumstances)?"
robno101 2 years ago
Agreed. As long as we agree ideal was unlikely on the battlefield. And besides, both are freaking fun to shoot!
PaulieFetz 2 years ago 4
Crossbow aren't really meant to be used at long range on battle fields, they were more direct and they had at close range the capability of being dangerously powerfull and quite precise down range. Yes, let's say the have a bit like the same status as muskets.
Madmachine73 2 years ago
Can anybody guess the length of the stock of the crossbow in this video?
Also, was that a 14 in draw length?
TheAznValedictorian 2 years ago
the longbow is like a automatic rifle and the crossbows like a bolt action pistol O-o lol
ninjasquidface 2 years ago
Well they are different each, but were probably used together.
abdula31 3 years ago
I really want to learn archery. :/
hollandjamess 3 years ago 5
I prefer the bow.
MaMoral88 3 years ago 3
The crossbowman can reach an average level of competency relatively quickly when compared to a longbow man. Do not forget though that a professional soldier is not content to remain at "average" proficiency. I know people who build and shoot reproduction period style crossbows for many years now. In the hands of a truly experienced crossbowman, rate of accurate fire will easily exceed a moderately skilled longbowman. I have personally witnessed 9 crossbow shots in 30 seconds, very humbling.
BeerHeart 3 years ago
Bull shit
WarbowofEngland 3 years ago 4
The chinese made repeating corssbows, but I doubt that's what he's talking about. He sounds full of shit to me but it's probably not impossable.
BelligerentAuthority 3 years ago 2
The Chinese and Koreans had them, but they weren't brilliant. They had low power, were clumsy and too heavy for field use.
good against unarmed peasants at close range being walls was their thing...
Urbitrix 2 years ago
The Romans made a repeater ballista but its not a small hand weapon lol
CrestedPaingod 2 years ago 2
Their are modern semi-automatic crossbow, they hold maybye 30-50 bolts and can shoot as fast as you can
Jaahaah 3 years ago
Well remeber Beerheart, a trained man with a handspand one can yes, but a medieval crossbow had to be 3 time the draw weight of the longbow to equal its strength, and the longbow men used bows of a minimum of 120Ibs. So the crossbow men on a battlefield couldn't use these to be as effective as they needed/wished. The crossbow in looks like a hand...
LuvGlamRock 2 years ago
This is an unfair test. The English longbowmen were said to be highly trained enough to have 4 arrows in the air at once. I cant verify that, but i know i could have shot just as rapidly with my flatbow and back quiver, and im only 18 and shooting for 5 years. Also the crossbows used by the Genoese mercenaries were of the most powerful sort, requiring a windlass to cock them- this would take much longer than the belt hook arrangement.
zaltais2 3 years ago 2
Not quite. Crossbows like that didn't show up until a little later after Crecy.
There's another video taken from this series that shows the time taken to cock one of those windlass operated crossbows. It's a bloody long time, to say the least.
halfassedfart 3 years ago
really? i thought the arbalest had been developed by this time? hmmm. then that suggests that the crossbows used in the hundred years war wernt quite the powerhouses everyone thinks them to be. though tbh we'll never know, we'd have to have a proper battle to test it. and i dont think many people will volunteer for that
zaltais2 3 years ago
and then we made guns... :D
worldfest 3 years ago 2
Crossbows where more powerful and lethal than guns up until the very late 1700, before then all firearms, such as blunderbusses, muskets and cannons where highly unreadable, even slower than a crossbow and pose much greater threat to the shooter himself than the enemy.
Jaahaah 3 years ago 4
Surely that isn't an authentic English longbow. A real military longbow would have a draw weight of well over 100 pounds. Even the estimates for the lighter draw weights are as much as 80 pounds.
StoneSlinger0oo0 3 years ago
i have tested a english and i have a norwegian longbow. the english was a weapond i culd fire with ease,but my norwegian longbow is hard as hell. nice vid though
Norguy77 3 years ago
SPELL THE HEADING CORRECTLY i thought lonbow would be a diff type of crossbow or something that i didnt know about!
jerzkid87 3 years ago
What's this supposed to prove, again? The quickest way to get pointy sticks into the air is obviously to throw them by hand. The surest way to get them into some poor sod's forehead, though... Now, that's the real question.
And that longbowman hardly drew the bowstring or aimed at all, either! I bet that if both of them actually bothered with force and precision, the bow would've come out ahead in the beginning, but lagged ever further behind as the bowman got tired. Those strings are heavy.
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 years ago
the longbow wouldnt have got tired because the longbowman had only 40 seconds before a calvary charge would be upon them. And the tactic was to get as many arrows in the air as possible rather than shooting accuratly
jakescuba 3 years ago
Firing speed is the main consideration when firing at oncoming cavalry, and forty seconds isn't enough to tire a trained arm. But which battle begins and ends with the same cavalry charge? Not one where the difference between longbow and crossbow matters, I'll wager.
No. In all likelihood, more accuracy than a fifteen degree angle, more force than to pierce unarmoured flesh at fifteen feet and more stamina than for one charge will come into play. Thus, the bowman lags behind whenever it matters
PanzerDivisionBOM 3 years ago
Why would a trained archer get a tired arm? Your arm might get knackered mate but that's because you weren't forced to train like the English were during this period! Anyway, a crossbow still has to be drawn so will still tire the user as well.
beeson1981 3 years ago
And also, the long bow is more versitile than the crossbow. It can be used to rain down blankets of arrows at long range and then when the enemy is closer it can be used to pick off individuals. A crossbow can't contend with the speed, power or distance a longbow can pump arrows out at and it was used by lazy mercenaries who thought the longbow was beneath them, end of.
beeson1981 3 years ago
Well, actually not. The Longbow largely lost its ability to reliably penetrate armor by the late 1300s(Perhaps earlier, because even maille was able to repel most arrows fired by a longbow). Crossbows on the other hand had /much/ higher draw weights(As in, 300-3,000lbs, as opposed to the 100-150lbs for a longbow) which could allow them a higher chance to penetrate armor.
Caliburnis 3 years ago 4
Longbows were 100-200 pounds
AgnotTheOdd 3 years ago
The average is 100-150, bows over 150lbs are exceedingly rare.
Caliburnis 3 years ago
Well no, the Longbowmen really will get tired faster, because his muscles are being used more than that of the Crossbowmen who uses mechanical devices to span his crossbow. But over the course of the battle the Longbowmen will get drained faster, while the Crossbowmen will retain a relatively steady rate of fire and an entirely consistent level of power in their shots.
Caliburnis 3 years ago 7
@Caliburnis not rly its takes a lot of effort to bend down repeatedly or use the mechanical setups to reload a crossbow say over 30 times in a row or 3 minutes and longbowmen were big powerful guys who could fire a longbow all day since thats what thier trained for besides having twice the range able to attack sooner and cuase havoc, but crossbows were far more powerful and accurate at close range which could get between armor pretty easily as not many ppl had full sets.
thelondongeezer 1 year ago
@thelondongeezer
It also takes a lot of energy to pull the string of a bow, more times than with a crossbow. Imagine taking 120-150 pounds, and then moving it with just your arms. That's going to wear on you after a while. It also depends upon the mechanical device at hand. Many would make it much less stressful (Ie; pushing with the legs instead of with the arms) than drawing a bow many more times. Now, I'm not willing to say the extent of the differences.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis Theres historical accounts of crossbowmen sitting down and firing from that position cos its much harder then a longbow and rememebr only big strong rugby player types were usualy trained up for the war longbow, with enough training u can fire a longbow all day or at very least till your quivers empty ,again its about picking your targets not just amount of wood u can get in the air since you spread pestilence,as u can see on the videoxbow is TIRED and the Lbow isnt even sweating
thelondongeezer 1 year ago
@thelondongeezer
There were accounts of people sitting down and /reloading/ from that position due to that being one of the earliest kind of drawing. You don't sit down to reload with later crossbows.
And as for crossbow usage; these people were /still/ trained extensively in crossbow usage, so they're going to be used to firing them.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@thelondongeezer
He actually doesn't seem too tired to me. A little bit out of breath because he's /really/ going at it and trying to fire as many arrows as possible, but that's not the objective for crossbow usage. We also don't know the respective draw weights of the two weapons, so this limits the usefulness of this video. As well, we don't know exactly who these people are. There isn't enough information provided in the video to make a good determination.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis battle of hastings longbow trumped the crossbow
TheUnipop 1 year ago
@TheUnipop
The battle of hastings didn't see a significant crossbow versus longbow engagement. Crossbows didn't come to the forefront until just after the First Crusade.
Caliburnis 1 year ago