Topic: problem with bows and crossbows

[Marc R]

ROF shouldn't be lightly dismissed in a battlefield weapon. . .modern weapons slid down the calibre scale and kept upping the ROF until they reached the .22/5.56mm full auto capable weapons common today. This comes down to overkill. It's better to shoot twice at lethal force, than shoot once at double lethal force. . .dead is dead.

I find, with PCs, that the crossbow fits exactly the description given above:

Shoot it once before melee, then drop it until the next combat.

It's just not worth re-loading in combat time. . .and bows, if anything are a bit shafted in RM. (At peak efficiancy, a lone expert longbowman could probably get off 2-3 aimed shots per 10 second round)

I'm sure that carried over on the battlefield. . .a well drilled group could volley every 10 sec. . . .if every signifigant hit is a lethal one, it's likely better to be firing 3-6 times as fast.

[Justin]

not that I'm disagreeing, but the Pope is a weapons expert?
(My, wouldn't that make for a neat setting! Reminding me of the uber class from Rifts Wurmwood.)

[Arioch]

I'm sure that carried over on the battlefield. . .a well drilled group could volley every 10 sec. . . .if every signifigant hit is a lethal one, it's likely better to be firing 3-6 times as fast.

I think that xbow-men were put in two or more rows that fired their weapons alternately to increase their rate of fire.

[Marc R]

"Volley Fire By Ranks!"

Still, if 120 longbowmen face 120 crossbowmen, in formations of 6 ranks of 20. . .

120 longbows fire, 20 crossbows fire, 1st rank.
120 longbows fire, 20 crossbows fire, 2nd rank.
120 longbows fire, 20 crossbows fire, 3rd rank.
120 longbows fire, 20 crossbows fire, 4th rank.
120 longbows fire, 20 crossbows fire, 5th rank.
120 longbows fire, 20 crossbows fire, 6th rank.

vs

120 longbows fire, 120 crossbows fire
120 longbows fire.
120 longbows fire.
120 longbows fire.
120 longbows fire.
120 longbows fire.

It's not much difference in overall weight of fire, you're just trading rate of fire for volume of fire. . .assuming 6:1 ratio (and re-loading a heavy crossbow in a minute is a decent time frame IMO) it would take 720 crossbowmen to maintain the same rate and volume of fire as 120 longbowmen. Once the missiles cross the threshold of "Lethal" then the rate and volume of fire issue becomes paramount.

[dutch206]

Pope Innocent II, 1139 AD, at the Second Lateran Council:

"We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on."

It turns out his objection wasn't based on the health and welfare of the Faithful.  He just thought it wasn't very sporting for someone with one month of training to be able to take out a Knight who had trained for his entire life.

I find this ironic, since Saint Sebastian was the patron saint of archers.

[Marc R]

Social commentary I'd say, moreso than religious.

This is akin to many of the laws that made it illegal for commoners to bear arms, in various forms, and the basis for the "Right to bear arms" issue. . (i.e. knights who treat their vassals like a bandit treats victims would have the most to fear from the leveling produced by a commoner with a crossbow.)

That said, the abjectness of poverty of the lower classes would make owning a crossbow rather expensive, unless they were constantly hunting with them. Oddly enough, the social classes that did a lot of hunting with bows tended to get better than serf treatment and were on that upper lower class / lower middile class cusp. . .English Yeomen, German Jaegers, etc.

[markc]

 In Lord Millers example above with arches and crossbowmen I think I would let the archers fire at will and keep the crossbowmen ready incase anyone charged the formation. That way you had sustained fire with the archers as well as some protection for the archers. And as staited above the crossbow is a very deadly weapon at closer ranges.

MDC

[Arioch]

Still, if 120 longbowmen face 120 crossbowmen, in formations of 6 ranks of 20. . .

Since it's simpler to train xbowmen than bowmen, I think we should consider 120 bowmen ws 240 or even 300 xbowmen. Still, bowmen will have many advantages against xbowmen: higher rate of fire, higher range, ... 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

An important consideration is the manner in which the two are fired.

Archers at their most lethal (historically) were more like area-effect weapons. They concentrated massed fire on a specific area at distance rather than a specific target, thus volleys would be arched over intervening objects and units (friendly or otherwise) and still have an effect. To get the highest rate of fire from a bow, it needs to be loaded side-on and lowered then raised, with longbow especially this takes a lot of room. Also the majority of archers in massed battles would not load from quivers, the arrows would be arrayed in the ground point first this speeds up re-loading drastically because of the reduced chances of fumbling the ammunition.

Longbows are also VERY powerful weapons used as direct fire weapons, however they only will rival a crossbow, if the user is fully trained with a high-strength rated bow.

Crossbow are direct-fire weapons, and because of their compactness can be fired in closer ranks and with a variety different firing positions. For example a volley could consist of two rows the front one kneeling.

A lot of the myth of the longbow comes from their lethality, and, in truth, most Knights were not dispatched by the armor piercing effect of arrows, but rather by the arrows that missed and hit vunerable areas. The primary "soft spot" being the mount that the knight rode.

The mount goes down in a charge, you probably get trapped by the falling mount or trampled by other mounts in the same unit.

The "power vs speed vs accuracy" thing is a very important consideration and remained so with the early firearms, most early units could not survive without the protection of another unit, especially where the weapon required a long reload time. 

[Hurin]

Yes, the power and range of the longbow have been a bit exaggerated.

One would wonder, from LordMiller's example above, why anyone in their right mind would ever use a Xbow. The answer is that the Xbow does have some advantages over the bow.

Some people have mentioned penetrating power. The bolt of a crossbow is heavier than that of a longbow. The longbow is a powerful weapon, but try a Xbow... you can shoot those things through refrigerators. The crossbow had better armor penetration, even after the Longbow was used with the 'bodkin' arrow.

As many people have noted, the crossbow is also much easier to use.

Finally, the crossbow also has advantages in static situations, such as sieges or naval warfare. The longbow is a bit more cumbersome, and one has to expose a bit more of one's body to fire it from cover; also, with a longbow, it takes considerable strength to keep it drawn and take careful aim. This makes the crossbow ideal for firing from behind walls and from ships-- and of course we know it was the maritime Italian city states that were best known for supplying mercenary crossbowmen.

[vieja escuela]

I agree,The problem is to take it to the rules, though the missile of cross-bow is mas thickly and heavily and therefore the hole mas big and deeply the maximum damage and arch continues being major in the table of bow



The cross-bow of hunt with inlays very similar to that supports the Emperor Carlos V in Lucas Cranach's picture metallic arch of almost 2 centimeters of thickness

[Marc R]

In the end, for a commander, it comes down to a balance between gear and man.

A crossbow is an equalizer, in that even a poorly trained troop can use it. . .but it's expensive.

A longbow is a multiplier, it takes the right person, with the right training, to use it properly.

Often, the crossbow costs less then training and maintaining longbowmen. . .so in history, it's often better to have 5 crossbowmen than 1 longbowman. (You'll notice the major difference, that the crossbow dominated armies were ones where a rich guy provided poor guys with crossbows, while the longbow dominated armies were made of yeomen, who provided themselves with a longbow.). . .many cultures wouldn't sit well with the idea of a whole class of people running around loose with heavy ranged weapons all the time, just so you could call up your longbowmen when you needed them. The lifetime training a longbow master needed created a class below the nobility that had greater political rights, simply because there was an armed, non noble class running around. The continental cultures did have some similar examples, not all longbow based, like German Jaegers, but it wasn't a widespread phenomena, for a lot of reasons, mostly political and economic.

The ROF issue essentially only matters if you have time. . .if two ships close and boarding ensues, the benefits of a crossbow to fire once, dump, draw and board are good enough. . . .in an open field battle where the longbowmen are covered by infantry from charges, the ROF benefit tends to come to the fore.

I never said crossbows were bleh. . .just that thrice dead is not much of an improvement over dead. . .and once you get a weapon deadly, it's better to get the ROF up than to make it punch harder. Hence the switch from 7.62mm single shot rifles to 5.56mm assault rifles. Of course, that example turns the previous logic on it's head. . .since single shot rifles benefit skilled operators more, while auto rifles benefit noobs more.

[markc]

 Also IMO men would maybe grow up with a short or longbow if they needed to hunt to live so you do not need as much training. But in the quick and dirty method as you talked about above the crossbow is much easier to hand to someone and have them shoot it a couple of times to get the idea and push-em up to the frount.

MDC

[Marc R]

The major effect of that, is in morale.

Most of those battles glorified in english lore often hinged on the fact that the longbowmen, who were voulenteers levied from yeomen with a lifetime of bow practice, stood their ground, while the crossbow centered missile units created out of conscripts and mercenaries fled the field when the going got rough.

in game terms, it might end up being better having a hundred 5th level archers than five-hundred 2nd level crossbowmen.

In the end, that might be the logic that best translates into game terms. . .any shopkeeper can buy a crossbow and use it, while a longbow implies a lifetime of training. . .so if you encounter two 30 year old men, one with each weapon, the crossbowman could be anything, but you know the longbowman is mid level or better. . .

[markc]

LM,
 I agree. Also did you see the show on the History Channel that found out that the mongle horn bow was very good? But if it got wet it fell apart during the battle very bad if you were a mongle warrior.

MDC

[Hurin]

.

 (You'll notice the major difference, that the crossbow dominated armies were ones where a rich guy provided poor guys with crossbows, while the longbow dominated armies were made of yeomen, who provided themselves with a longbow.). . .many cultures wouldn't sit well with the idea of a whole class of people running around loose with heavy ranged weapons all the time, just so you could call up your longbowmen when you needed them. The lifetime training a longbow master needed created a class below the nobility that had greater political rights, simply because there was an armed, non noble class running around. The continental cultures did have some similar examples, not all longbow based, like German Jaegers, but it wasn't a widespread phenomena, for a lot of reasons, mostly political and economic.

This is actually not quite correct. If you look at the societies that were most renowned for the crossbow, they are often the wealthiest ones. The Italian city-states, such as Genoa (which provided crossbowmen to the French armies), were the richest in Europe. The crossbowmen from Genoa were quite well off-- at least as well off or better than the English Lonbowmen, and in fact the citizens of the Italian city states often had more political rights than English commoners (due to communal and republican systems of government, as opposed to English monarchy).

Why did you have to be so wealthy to be a crossbowman? Because crossbows cost quite a bit of money-- more than the longbow for sure. And you would normally have to pay this yourself, since almost all medieval troops bought and provided their own weapons and armor; it was actually exceptionally rare for a medieval commander to provide every soldier in his army with equipment. The knights bought their own armor, horses, weapons, etc. from the returns of their lands. The Genoese crossbowmen, like the English lonbowmen, bought their own weapons and armor as well. Sometimes you see stockpiles by commanders, especially of arrows/bolts, but until quite recent modern history, soldiers were expected to bring their own weapons and armor, even if they increasingly were subject to muster/review from the later Middle Ages on. This was the whole reason behind the high medieval 'Assize of Arms' and other attempts by English kings to have the people of England buy and furnish their own weapons and armour-- so that the kings would have access to a pool of soldiers who trained and equipped themselves, and thus could then be hired as mercenaries or, in a pinch, called up as conscripts. The idea of weapons and armour issued by the state is more of a modern (and really, even post-18th century) conception.

[Hurin]

The major effect of that, is in morale.

Most of those battles glorified in english lore often hinged on the fact that the longbowmen, who were voulenteers levied from yeomen with a lifetime of bow practice, stood their ground, while the crossbow centered missile units created out of conscripts and mercenaries fled the field when the going got rough.

Sorry, but in the interest of historical accuracy, I have to disagree with that as well.

The idea that the battles of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt turned on the fact that volunteers outperformed mercenaries and conscripts really doesn't seem very convincing to me.The decisive and by far the most numerous arm of the French army, moreover, was neither conscripts nor mercenaries, but professional knights. And as a generalization, medieval mercenaries were as good or better than other types of troops, because they had more experience than either conscripts or 'volunteers'-- as one can see at the battles of Bouvines, for example, or in the pages of Orderic Vitalis. This was why the kings of England, such as Henry II and Richard Lionheart increasingly relied on mercenary armies, and the feudal system declined. If you look at the armies of the English kings by the time of the 100 years war, they are essentially mercenary forces.

And we should also note that, in the end, the French won. So it seems that mercenaries and crossbowmen do have some pretty good uses after all.

Tactical factors and command decisions seem much more likely explanations for the English victories in the 100 Yrs War. The English had honed a particularly devastating tactical system in the Scottish Wars of Independence, but it had one weakness: it relied on the enemy to take the tactical offensive and launch an assault on prepared defenses. At Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt, the French took the bait. The defeat can hardly be blamed on the poor Genoese crossbowmen.

For the most convincing explanations of such battles, I would recommend Anne Curry's recent and widely acclaimed book, Agincourt: A New History. It really is the most definitive scholarly account of the battle. Also good, though now dated, is John Keegan's chapter on it in The Face of Battle.

[Hurin]

LM,
 I agree. Also did you see the show on the History Channel that found out that the mongle horn bow was very good? But if it got wet it fell apart during the battle very bad if you were a mongle warrior.

MDC

Actually, both the Mongol and Turkish recurved composite bows generally out-performed the English longbow. They had similar or better draw force and better range than the lonbow, due to their superior, composite construction (the main drawback being that these components could come loose in humid conditions). So generally, the Mongol and Turkish bows were better than the longbow. Our deification of the English longbow is just the unfortunate consequence of the continuing dominance of Euro-centric and Anglo-centric historiography.

[Marc R]

Agreed on many points. Foremost the point about over-stressing the english longbow due to anglocentric perspective. (There are other bows back in this thread as good or better, japanese and south american versions I recall off the top of my head.)

Mercenaries tend to have one serious drawback in the field. The Force represents usually the only asset of the commander. . you don't see many mercenary companies willing to to actually make a stand to the last, or to make forlorn hope attacks. . .the better the unit, and therefore the more expensively trained the men, the more they became casualty averse in general.

Another important distinction should be made between actual professional mercenaries (A historical minority) and plunder based mercenaries (a historical majority). . .the latter were never really well reputed for much except spreading devistation. (Which, admitedly was often the point) in my opinion, they are grey area quasi-official bandits.

The Italian city states were one of the rare instances with a majority of the professional type in play. It's also a much studied period of military history, due to the unnatural political and economic pressures that kept italy from unifyng. I can recall many times hearing the era referred to along the lines of "War as a barroque game" with rules like "if one side succeeds in forcing a breach in the fortifications, the battle is over and the city will surrender." since in the end, it was war run by merchant-princes who didn't want the city sacked, and the mercanaries were all too happy to not follow the battle through to the massacre-and-burning stage, especially since they might be fighting on the same side a month later, and would appreciate the same "civilized" rules being applied to them. It's an odd time period, where most of the norms are turned on their heads.

As to the pay scaling. . .If one Knight is expected to appear if called, with X number of Men at arms, X of them being crossbowmen, etc etc. . .the feudal system in which knights showed up with their levy often did include all those brick-a-brack of soldiery. And I refute the argument that anyone beholden to a knight as a man-at-arms was middle class. . .perhaps in relation to a peon, peasant or slave, but not in any modern sense of what that word means. I will agree that they were a big step up from the bottom, but that was only because the bottom was so low.

The point I was making in the example above was that a longbow is not a dabblers weapon. . .a crossbow can be, which is not to say an expert cannot weild one. The same is true of guns, anyone can use one, but you can be an expert. . .the difference being that if 10 full grown men with longbows show up, you almost definitely would be correct in guessing right off the bat that they were not noobs. 10 men with crossbows could be a crack unit of genoan mercanaries. . . .or a mob of recruits that got their bows a week ago. . . .or a posse of 10 angry shopkeepers chasing a con artist.

[Hurin]

Agreed on many points. Foremost the point about over-stressing the english longbow due to anglocentric perspective. (There are other bows back in this thread as good or better, japanese and south american versions I recall off the top of my head.)

I'll return the favour and agree with you on most points, but with a few caveats below:

Mercenaries tend to have one serious drawback in the field. The Force represents usually the only asset of the commander. . you don't see many mercenary companies willing to to actually make a stand to the last, or to make forlorn hope attacks. . .the better the unit, and therefore the more expensively trained the men, the more they became casualty averse in general.

True to an extent, though I did include one example of a mercenary company making a veritable last stand at the Battle of Bouvines, when all the other types of troops had fled. This was one of the reasons that kings and other commanders generally preferred mercenaries to conscripts, militia and volunteers.

Another important distinction should be made between actual professional mercenaries (A historical minority) and plunder based mercenaries (a historical majority). . .the latter were never really well reputed for much except spreading devistation. (Which, admitedly was often the point) in my opinion, they are grey area quasi-official bandits.

I'm not sure what period you're talking about here, but in medieval armies, the professional mercenaries were often the majority-- especially in the very small battles of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

The Italian city states were one of the rare instances with a majority of the professional type in play. It's also a much studied period of military history, due to the unnatural political and economic pressures that kept italy from unifyng. I can recall many times hearing the era referred to along the lines of "War as a barroque game" with rules like "if one side succeeds in forcing a breach in the fortifications, the battle is over and the city will surrender." since in the end, it was war run by merchant-princes who didn't want the city sacked, and the mercanaries were all too happy to not follow the battle through to the massacre-and-burning stage, especially since they might be fighting on the same side a month later, and would appreciate the same "civilized" rules being applied to them. It's an odd time period, where most of the norms are turned on their heads.

As to the pay scaling. . .If one Knight is expected to appear if called, with X number of Men at arms, X of them being crossbowmen, etc etc. . .the feudal system in which knights showed up with their levy often did include all those brick-a-brack of soldiery. And I refute the argument that anyone beholden to a knight as a man-at-arms was middle class. . .perhaps in relation to a peon, peasant or slave, but not in any modern sense of what that word means. I will agree that they were a big step up from the bottom, but that was only because the bottom was so low.

The point I was making in the example above was that a longbow is not a dabblers weapon. . .a crossbow can be, which is not to say an expert cannot weild one. The same is true of guns, anyone can use one, but you can be an expert. . .the difference being that if 10 full grown men with longbows show up, you almost definitely would be correct in guessing right off the bat that they were not noobs. 10 men with crossbows could be a crack unit of genoan mercanaries. . . .or a mob of recruits that got their bows a week ago. . . .or a posse of 10 angry shopkeepers chasing a con artist.

Middle class in the Middle Ages meant not a slave/serf (90% of the population) but not a noble or member of the clergy. So yes, to an extent, you are right. But actually many of the Italian mercenaries such as those who fought at Crecy would fit into modern definitions of a middle class as well. The came from the towns and cities, had a much higher standard of living than slaves or serfs and generally practiced a trade-- war, in this instance, though undoubtedly many of them were butchers, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, etc. before they became professional mercenaries. So while I will admit that the average free peasant probably wouldn't conform to what we would see as middle class, the wealthy Italian Burgher would, I would say.

I agree completely with you, however, on the fact that the longbow was not a dabblers weapon.