Crossbows outrange Longbows?

[Yeomanbowman]

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.

[Rod]

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.

[bow-toxo]

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.

[Yeomanbowman]

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

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.   

[Rod]

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.
 

[bow-toxo]

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

[Rod]

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.

[kiwijim]

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

[Len]

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.

[Yeomanbowman]

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.

[Jaro]

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.

[kiwijim]

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

[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.

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

[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.

[kiwijim]

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