Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Crossbows outrange Longbows?
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: Yeomanbowman on April 25, 2009, 06:45:16 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on May 30, 2009, 07:29:42 pm ---
--- Quote from: Yeomanbowman on April 25, 2009, 06:45:16 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version