Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Jmilbrandt on April 04, 2009, 01:06:47 am
-
I was just watching Warriors on the history channel, it was about the battle of Agincourt. The host was talking about the differences between the longbows the English had and the crossbows the French had. He said that a crossbow generally outranges longbows and that the only advantage to the longbow was the reload speed. That isn't true is it? I always thought that longbows out ranged crossbows.
-
a 100# longbow would store about the same energy as a 200# crossbow typicaly, if they were large crossbows with longer draws they would store mre energy naturally.
-
One of the great advantages of the cross bow is that it takes relatively little training for someone to get procient. Also, you don't need the physical strength a war bow shooter has to have. They can stay loaded and spanned for a long time, and you don't need as much room as a long bow.
Making one is much more complex and difficult, though, so they would have been far more expensive than a yew bow. Less material needed for the bolts vs. a war arrow, too.
Dane
-
From what I always understood at Agincourt the crossbowman were out of range for there crossbows, at the range of of the English Longbows. And since the crossbows werent effective the French charged their calvery and got slaughtered. Joel
-
I believe most of the crossbows were relatively light weight back then, less than 200#. These would have lacked range over the longbow. Steve
-
The accounts of Agincourt I have read state the Italian mercenary crossbowmen were getting nicely aerated/perforated long before they could return fire. They turned and marched back out of range of the longbowmen where the French reneged on payment and slaughtered the crossbowmen instead of paying their wages.
-
That's the story I read too.
-
By 1400´ most crossbows would still have composite prods, though there are steel prods already in use, they are nowhere as thick and heavy as late 1600´ hunting renaissance crosbows too often cited as "as heavy as 1200 pounds".
Composite prods have drawweight limitations and by that time belt hook with or without single pulley was standart spanning device for field weapons. That should tell you how heavy these probably were. But these bows had still relativelly long draw (for crossbows I mean)
In 1500´the situation was different, steel prods/short draws were standart and german cranequin most common in mid/western europe. In Schilling chronicles is "sound of german cranequins being unwind" described as most prevalent sound on battlefield. At that time though arquebuis was already cheaper and more used alternative.
We have here some husite crossbows from early 1400´ intended for field use and they do not appear to be very heavy, nor well made......
Jaroslav
-
I think some of you may be confusing crecy with agincourt in regards to crossbowmwen being killed by the French knights etc. A typical fieldcrossbow of the time probably had a draw of around maybe up to 300lb , so its not going to out range an English warbow and its not going to get anywhere near it for rate of fire, IMO .
-
It was Crecy the crossbowmen were ridden down by their own cavalry,because they had retreated from the engagement with the Longbowmen.They had to retreat because they had no pavises to reload behind so they fell like wheat to the English arrows.
At Agincourt the crossbowmen werent positioned so they could shoot at the English,the battlefields so narrow and the French Nobles were so eager to kill the English peasents they filled their 'battles' with Infantry and left the Crossbowmen to the rear,they must of been confident ;D.
-
In 1901 Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey shot a 3 oz bolt from a siege crossbow 450 yards over the Menai Straits several times. The stock was a replica but the prods were original 15th century steel ones from Genoa. They had a pull of over 1/2 a ton!. However, the weight in the hand was on 18lbs and he said could be shot without a stand by a fit man. According to him the crossbows at Agincourt were made with steel prods.
Cheers,
Jeremy
-
Well paint me stupid.... I always thought of a crossbow as a weapon more suited for defending the castle in siege warfare. In an open field battle I want the longbow. ;)
-
Two mediaeval sources claim that a longbow would shoot farther than a crossbow unless the crossbow were big enough to be a problem to carry.
-
Erik, what period are these sources, please? Gerald of Wales implies that xbows were a little more powerful. As you know he was familiar with the Welsh elm bow and the Aglo-Norman xbow.
-
Erik, what period are these sources, please? Gerald of Wales implies that xbows were a little more powerful. As you know he was familiar with the Welsh elm bow and the Aglo-Norman xbow.
I have to apologize. I have searched my notes and can't find the references. They were mediaeval ones. What aas the quote fron Geaald of Wales ? I'm not familiar with it. He was of course writing just when the crossbow was becomimg very popular and Richard Lionheart was about to go on crusade and hire lots of crossbowmen in Italy.
-
Hello Erik,
Gerald recounts a tall tale of the Welsh elm hand bow and finishes with, "It is difficult to see what more you could do, even if you had a crossbow". Clearly the implication is that at this time the xbow was regarded as the more powerful weapon. Being of Welsh/Norman descent he would have been very familiar with the Norman xbow.
BTW I think Badger may have his estimation of the draw-weight of a 15th C field crossbow too low, the best being fitted with steel prods at this point. 600lbs is easily achievable and the poundage Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey quotes. The rate of shooting must have been demoralisingly slow with or without a pavise.
-
The accounts of Agincourt I have read state the Italian mercenary crossbowmen were getting nicely aerated/perforated long before they could return fire. They turned and marched back out of range of the longbowmen where the French reneged on payment and slaughtered the crossbowmen instead of paying their wages.
This is a version I have not heard before and though it is quite amusing to imagine an orderly withdrawal and pay negotiations taking place in the heat of battle, the contemporary accounts are unanimous in reporting that (at Crecy) the French rode down the Genoese when they attempted to fall back under the English barrage of arrows, having been sent forward without the protection of their pavises which had been leftl on the baggage train.
Rod.
-
Hello Erik,
Gerald recounts a tall tale of the Welsh elm hand bow and finishes with, "It is difficult to see what more you could do, even if you had a crossbow". Clearly the implication is that at this time the xbow was regarded as the more powerful weapon. Being of Welsh/Norman descent he would have been very familiar with the Norman xbow.
Thanks for the info. It is a little puzzling in a period when hand held crossbows were bent up using a belthook. I wouldn't think that a crossbowman then could manage a pull of much more than 200 pounds and it seems unlikely that would achieve penetration of a 3 inch oak door. Gerald was familiar enough with handbows to know what they were normally made of.
-
Gerald actually claimed the penetration was a hand span so 4" but he was prone to the odd bit of exaggeration. He recounts a 'factual' tale of a human/horse chimera as the result of an unholy union between an Irish man ad a horse :o
There is a difference between range and penetration of course. As an extreme example a flight arrow would have great range yet poor penetratrative powers despite the high velocity. A bolt is thick, short, heavy and stiff and would not break as readily as an arrow with an oblique strike against armour pro-rata.
Jumping forward a century or so, I think the French had a vested interest in scapegoating the largely foreign xbow men. They ineptly deployed them without pavises and blamed the rain for weakening the xbow strings. However, Payne-Gallwey soaked a period sting for hours and no ill effect was detected.
-
Payne-Gallwey casts doubt upon this "soaked string" hypothesis having tested strings by soaking them.
He makes the quite sensible observation that an unfitted loose string that has been allowed to unwind to some degree is prone to absorbing far more moisture than a well waxed string that is taut under tension, where the effect of soaking is slight.
He also speculates that the type of crossbow current at the time of Crecy (with a composite wooden prod) to which the "soaked strings anecdote refers, as Len has said, not Agincourt where the crossbowmen were held in the rear, not advanced, may well have been slack braced as compared to the later bows of much higher poundage and therefore more prone to suffering from a soaking.
Rod.
-
Erik, what period are these sources, please? Gerald of Wales implies that xbows were a little more powerful. As you know he was familiar with the Welsh elm bow and the Aglo-Norman xbow.
I've found one Thomas Elyot, died 1546, wrote of longbowmen; "...for being industrious they killed their game further from them (if’ they shot a great strength) than they can with a crossbow, except it be of such a weight that the arm will repent the bearing thereof twenty years after". BTW, my translation of 'Journey through Wales' says 4 fingers, which on my hand is very close to 3 inches.
Erik
-
Reflecting on how often this type of enquiry crops up on the internet, and wondering about the difficulty of accessing information on the subject, this morning I googled "crossbow/history" and first on the list was a Wikipedia reference to Payne-Galllwey, so knowing the "quality" of so much of the Wikipedia content, I then googled Payne-Gallwey and third on the list was his "Book of the Crossbow" listed by Amazon.
From my own copy, a few extracts, though I will first say that a quick look at pages 3 to 10 "The Military Crossbow" would have rendered this question pretty much redundant.
Whatever, a few additional extracts...
From page 5:
"It should be remembered that the bows of the Genoese at Crecy were doubtless composite ones, made of wood, horn, sinew and glue, bows of steel being of later introduction."
He further describes how the string on such bows would be rather slack braced and the consequences of the affect of moisture or immersion oon such a string.
As to the method of drawing and the dates of different methods.
Page 84: The Goats Foot Lever.
"Not represented until the middle of the 14th C."
Page 90: The Windlass.
"First alluded to in contemporary accounts of sieges and battles which occurred shortly before the last quarter of the 14thC."
Page 134: The Cranequin.
" I can find no cranequin or even an illustration of one of a date previous to 1480.
Though I know of several crossbows made about 1460 that have the projecting pins through their stocks
which indicate that cranequins were applied to bend their bows."
As to the efficacy of equivalent draw weights let me just say that when I last saw the former "Warwick Bowman" shoot a crossbow described as of 100 lb draw weight with a steel prod at a target less than 20 paces away, not only did he miss with his first shot, the prod being misaligned on the stock, but when he hit the safety netting behind the target, the prod bounced off the tightly stretched netting and fell to the ground.
A field pointed 500 grain arrow from my light 54 lb longbow would have most likely passed through such a net and perhaps have been caught by it's fletching, if large enough, though I commonly get pass throughs on two layers of such netting hung slack when shooting at balloons.
The only time I shot a balloon in front of such a net with a bodkin pointed standard arrow out of the same 54 lb bow, the shaft was found about 75 paces beyond the net due to the fletch passing through the net having slowed down the shaft.
FWIW
Rod.
-
Before I start my rave, let me first say that I consider the longbow to be a far superior battleground weapon than the crossbow.
The first point I will make is that Galloway states that the crossbow strings at Agincourt may well have been made from animal sinew,"the strongest fibre of the day" in which case they would have been adversely affected, if not rendered useless, by moisture.
Secondly, the longbow archers at Agincourt had the advantage of elevation. This would have extended their range and diminished the range of the arbalistors.
Finally, it is possible to load a very heavy crossbow with a belt and pulley. 400-500lbs is not out of the question. I know because I have done it. If a goats foot is used, 500-600lbs is possible. Even with their small draw length (sometimes as little as 6"!), and all their other inefficiencies, crossbow of this draw weight store and release more energy than longbows and will outrange them.
As an example of these capabilities, I have a homemade crossbow here that draws 320lbs at 11.5" of clean draw. Admitably it has a powertuff prod, fastflight string and is slow to load with an 'Excalibur' pulley draw device. This brut, however, will shoot its 1320 grain solid fibreglass bolt just over 310m on a hot day. Slightly further on a cold day. It's striking power is awesome and I look forward to loosing some blunts at bunnies with it!
Regards
James
-
I think kiwijim is refering to Crecy not Agincourt which is a very different battle. Also , I find it hard to believe the crossbowmen allowed their strings to get soaked. These were proffessional troops of high quality, the same as those who defeated a Mongol army so they were no slouches. I think they were just overwhelmed/defeated by the numbers of English arrows hitting them and also surprised by the range the English attained which would have, as kiwijim sais, been helped by shooting down hill.
-
Erik, what period are these sources, please? Gerald of Wales implies that xbows were a little more powerful. As you know he was familiar with the Welsh elm bow and the Aglo-Norman xbow.
I've found one Thomas Elyot, died 1546, wrote of longbowmen; "...for being industrious they killed their game further from them (if’ they shot a great strength) than they can with a crossbow, except it be of such a weight that the arm will repent the bearing thereof twenty years after". BTW, my translation of 'Journey through Wales' says 4 fingers, which on my hand is very close to 3 inches.
Erik
Thanks Erik,
That's an interesting quote and would indicate that in the case of a heavy long bow at least "(if’ they shot a great strength)" the trajectory was flatter than a light crossbow in a hunting scenario. Perhaps those with less strength would gravitate to such a weapon rather than a heavy crossbow, which would make ones arm ache. I'm not sure how this would translate to a military context.
I think in my translation Gerald says the penetration was a palms depth, hence 4" but I may well be wrong. Either way, if true, in healthy wood it's impressive.
Thanks for posting the reference.
-
Actually Gerard of Wles wrote that cited phrase in latin and it reads precisely as "nearly width of palm".
Jaro
kwijim - 600# with lever cranked crossbow? That is something like science fiction. Also pulley on hook reduces the weight required 2x but lenghtens what is necessary to draw by the same factor. That sets limits for 75 kg normal man into semthing like 100 kg of pull, if he isnt too short (like me) and can get the string to crank into the nut.
-
Jaro,
An average man can load a 200lb crossbow with his arms. With the help of a simply pulley, and average man can double that draw weight and load a 400lb crossbow without too much trouble. Your legs are stronger than your arms and can draw proportionally more. Add the strength of you legs and a pulley, a 400lb draw is easially obtainable. There is no science fiction to it.
Goats foot levers usually have a loading ratio of roughly 1:4. At this ratio a 600 lb crossbow requires about 150lbs of leverage to span. This is not difficult if you place the butt of the tiller on the ground and push the goatsfoot down. As an example, Swiss target crossbows usually draw about 250-400lb and are loaded with a foward-mounted goatsfoot lever. Sometimes by women, so even you could do it! No science fiction here either.
But dont take my word for it. Do a goggle search on 'the crossbowmans den'
Robin Allen has made some beautiful medieval replica crossbows there, including a goatsfoot loaded crossbow drawing over 500lbs
regards
James
-
An average man can load a 200lb crossbow with his arms. With the help of a simply pulley, and average man can double that draw weight and load a 400lb crossbow without too much trouble.
200 lb is about 90 kg and that is pushing and no average man cannot do it - since the string is short and the angles bad. I have actually made medieval german crossbows, suposse I know what Im talking about. I can do it, but I m very strong since I shoot heavy bows.
I hate to dissapoint you but on the page you sugested me to search is not a single medieval crossbow.
Anyway if we were to talk about composite bows, they have construction limits at about 400#, for a field crossbow, but that would be in mid to western european area such as german loaded with cranequin.
The survey of czech medieval crossbows from 15. century does point to the fact that they did not appear to be very strong for field use.
The problem is that steel prods, which are so wanked in terms of drawweight are horribly inneficient short crank and that they went into use (as to replace more costly composite prods) only because of being easier to produce, not because they shot better and sadly, for most part at the time, crossbow was already replaced by cheaper and more reliable arquebuis. That is last third/ end of 15. century.
Would you point me to actual medieval crossbow replica and citation of source which is it copiing, since this is sort of my field and what I usually see is steel prod/ steel nut/steel fitting of prod (which is completelly out of the picture) etc, with stock shape which does not appear to be similar to any medieval crossbow I have seen.
Jaro
-
That is we have steel prods quite soon in 15. century, but the configuration so usually copied steel prod/steel nut/ bolt groove/ steel montage of prod is not typical for medieval crossbows and I dare say some of these aspect did not appeared sooner than 16. in case of steel spanners or montage of prod to stock 17. century.
Medieval crossbows, shall we talk about them are entirelly different sort of animal, if you follow.
J.
-
Hi Jaro,
I also make crossbows, not low weight medieval replicas, but heavy crossbows- with draw weights starting at 200lbs. I can tell you, as an absolute fact, that 200lb prod is well within the capabilities of the average man.
Remember, many of the better quality hunting crossbows, like Excalibur, have draw weights over 200lb.
Regards
James
-
Jaro,
Are you saw you saw no medival crossbows at this site?
Prehaps you went to a different site?
http://www.thecrossbowmansden.com/Home.html
-
Jaro,
Are you saw you saw no medival crossbows at this site?
Prehaps you went to a different site?
http://www.thecrossbowmansden.com/Home.html
I looked too, twice, and also couldn't find anything that looked like a mediaeval crossbow. I saw some with wierd looking tillers, some like rifle stocks etc How do you locate the mediaeval ones ?
Erik
-
look on the 'projects' page
-
look on the 'projects' page
Yes, saw that one with the photo of a modern rifle type match crossbow stock and mention of bronze nut, trigger guard, screws, and Swiss target bow.
-
Gerald actually claimed the penetration was a hand span so 4" but he was prone to the odd bit of exaggeration. He recounts a 'factual' tale of a human/horse chimera as the result of an unholy union between an Irish man ad a horse :o
Nothing unusual in that - very common in Ireland - amazed you hadn't noticed! There is also the union between human and pig which gives rise to very successful politicians, human and donkey often to be found working in banks - and whole host of others.
C
-
Gerald actually claimed the penetration was a hand span so 4" but he was prone to the odd bit of exaggeration. He recounts a 'factual' tale of a human/horse chimera as the result of an unholy union between an Irish man ad a horse :o
Nothing unusual in that - very common in Ireland - amazed you hadn't noticed! There is also the union between human and pig which gives rise to very successful politicians, human and donkey often to be found working in banks - and whole host of others.
C
:o ;D ;D ;D
-
Gerald actually claimed the penetration was a hand span so 4" but he was prone to the odd bit of exaggeration. He recounts a 'factual' tale of a human/horse chimera as the result of an unholy union between an Irish man ad a horse :o
Nothing unusual in that - very common in Ireland - amazed you hadn't noticed! There is also the union between human and pig which gives rise to very successful politicians, human and donkey often to be found working in banks - and whole host of others.
C
You're an Irishman, Chris. I wouldn't have got away with any jokes :D At times I think my builder is the result of human/sloth.
-
Kiwijim - the crossbow on "projects" page has nothing to do with medieval crossbows. Nothing at all. The shape, the stock, the prod, nothing matches. The technology is lightyears from what would have been used on 15. century crossbow. If you think it its correct, then you know nothing about them.
They are tricky to build, if you cut the corners with modern technology and I dont know anybody who would build comercial replica of medieval crossbow, which would at least LOOKED like one, the correctness of construction aside. I know of hobbysts who build very good replicas, altough most uses fiberglass prods dressed and masqueraded as composite prods - which is what I do, hovewer the stock, the bone parts, the friction bedded roller nut, the rope fastening of the prod etc. can be made correctly. But nobody sells it since it is bloody work, which does not pays off.
Yeomanbowman - Gerald of Wales is amusing medieval liar, though most of the chroniclers seem to have their weak moments. I recall Geralds description of crowning of Wales king, which involves intercourse with white as, then killing the animal with swords and eating soup cooked from the meat. But he sure knew how to amuse readers.
-
jaro,
I am not going to enter an argument whether those crossbows are late medieval or not, in hindsight I am prepared to conceed there. The only reason I provided the link was to show you a +500lb crossbow being loaded with a goatsfoot. Do not let that detract from my original points:
1)Medieval crossbows could have been alot heavier than given credit.
2)A simple spanning device enables a heavy crossbow to be spanned with relative ease.
3)Crossbows of this power will store and release more enery than longbows and will outrange them.
So far you have used speculation to accuse me of talking science fiction and not knowing anything, but come on jaro, disprove me or shut it. >:D
regards
james
-
I have used my personal experience which I have with building of medieval crossbows. You have used a site which does not have anything to do with medieval crossbows as a source of your information.
Frankly, I dont know if you are aware of standarts of academical debate, but negatives do not need to be proven. It is not me who have to "disprove" anything, it is on you to "prove" things. So far you did so by citing information from site which concerns building of crossbows with metal grooves and using match rifle stocks.
Let me amuse gentle readers of this with little reiteration:
1) Medieval crossbows could have been alot lighter than given credit (Completelly ommiting the fact that there is more than one type of such crossbow and that we have surviving examples of some which must have been very light. )
2) Simple spanning device enables crossbows which coud otherwise only be spanned by very strong men to be spanned with relative ease (That is if you have studied the actual development of crossbows, you would find examples which have been uprgaded from simple hook to hook with a single pulley and then in late 15. century for german cranequin - which is observable on the changes the craftsman did on the stocks) - we have the actual museum examples of this development
3) Crossbows of which power? If you are talking about anything else than cranequin cranked crossbows, then the answer is probably "no".
Note on goat lever - I have trouble of finding them in some numbers in medieval sources. Its either hook or hook with pulley, or later a cranequin. There is english windlass crank, but that is it and not very common in western or mid europe or on continent anyway. The goat lever is something I associate with swiss or continental sporting crossbow of 17. century and there is very little of them. Should goat lever be used on lighter meditearean types of crossbows, such as used in Italy - it was wood, and there we are back where we were, not as strong as you wildly imagine.
Jaro
-
jaro, as I said,
read my points or my posts, all of which you seem to skirt around.
I would have thought the simple maths I provided earlier would have proven, beyond doubt, my point about span weight achievable by cocking mechanisms. The numbers you quoted about what the average man can span are, really, a bit silly. You sound a bit like a Victorian historian talking about draw weight s of the english war bow.
Also, If you object to being patronised, then dont accuse someone of ficton straight-up, espeacially when you can't prove it.
You see, I build and shoot working heavy crossbows, and quite simply , I object to reinactors or academics telling me what I am and am not capable of.
However, if you want a scrap, why dont you email me personally. or even better drop in for a drink.
Regards
james
-
look on the 'projects' page
I was describing the projects page. The only mediaeval thing there was the description of mediaeval bolts.
-
Dont get distracted by all the other stuff on the site, The only reason I provided the link was to show a 500lb plus crossbow that was loaded with a goats foot. As I said before I am happy to conceed that those crossbows are not medieval.
regards
JAmes
-
[quote author=Jaro link=topic=12247.msg187577#msg187577 date=124479
Note on goat lever - I have trouble of finding them in some numbers in medieval sources. Its either hook or hook with pulley, or later a cranequin. There is english windlass crank, but that is it and not very common in western or mid europe or on continent anyway. The goat lever is something I associate with swiss or continental sporting crossbow of 17. century and there is very little of them. Should goat lever be used on lighter meditearean types of crossbows, such as used in Italy - it was wood, and there we are back where we were, not as strong as you wildly imagine.
Jaro
[/quote]
A further note on goat's foot or 'gaffle' lever in Elizabethan times. Smythe, in whose time old men could remember the use of crossbows and longbows on horseback, recommended the use of "crossbowyers on horseback, under sufficient conductors well skilled in that weapon. I would they should have crossbows of two pound and a half of the best sort, with crooked gaffles hanging at their strong girdles after the manner of Germans, that they might on horseback bend their crossbows the more easily and readily, with four-and-twenty quarrels in a case well and fitly set at their saddle pommels". These gaffles were the easiest way for a mounted man to cock a crossbow.
-
First snooty BS I have seen on this board, and like usual, from people that should know better! Behave yourselves in public!
-
Let's try to differ without getting into personal comment.
I can and will delete anything I consider inappropriate and repeat offenders will not be tolerated.
Rod.
-
Hi Guys,
I recently came across this: http://www.armbrust-manufaktur.de/mittelschwere_armbrust2.php.
This is apparently a 350kg crossbow loaded with a wippe goatsfoot; something that I have been told, on this forum, to be impossible. I'm not trying to flog a dead horse here, but let me state again that at the time of Azincourt, medieval people had the physical strength, technology and the incentive to build battle crossbows more powerful than people generally give them credit for.
Regards
James