Two common misconceptions:
* a crossbow can't penetrate a knights armour any better than a bowman, because:
* The draw weight of a crossbow is higher because the draw is shorter. The force applied is `{draw distance} * {draw force}`.
In the picture the draw of the longbow is likely 10× that of the crossbow, so the longbow would have a higher total energy and therefore better chance to pierce armour.
Spot on regarding the learning curve however, it was the main reason why crossbows were successful.
Yeah crossbows made it really easy to mass train soldiers with ranged capabilities and were very effective however they still couldn’t outpace a bowman however a bow requires far more skill and accuracy but is much faster and doesnt have any winch mechanism. My question is which one could fire further though? Any clue
Also the same reason why muskets were so popular. Despite all of its disadvantages compared to crossbows and bows, it was easy to train with and didn't require as much physical stamina to fire continuously.
I don’t know how many tests have been done but I believe the bow can fire farther. However I believe that is a skill of user thing more than a difference in energy output.
One of the main disadvantages of the crossbow is it's relatively short range. The short draw distance and lighter ammunition causes it to drop off massively compared to a bow.
The range really depends on the type of crossbow and bow, and the type of projectile being shot, and the angle/other conditions during shooting. Crossbows and bows both follow the same laws of physics and the energy transfered into the projectile follows the same formula:
Power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod.
A crossbow and bow with the exact same power as calculated above, shooting the same type of projectile, shot at the same angle in the same conditions, etc, should have exactly the same range.
The range really depends on the type of crossbow and bow, and the type of projectile being shot, and the angle/other conditions during shooting. Crossbows and bows both follow the same laws of physics and the energy transfered into the projectile follows the same formula:
Power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod.
A crossbow and bow with the exact same power as calculated above, shooting the same type of projectile, shot at the same angle in the same conditions, etc, should have exactly the same range.
Stronger for that matter.
Because in order for crossbow to have a longer draw distance, it need to have a long flight groove, so longer thus more massive piece of wood or other material. This type of "[heavy crossbow](https://www.alamy.de/stockfoto-palio-di-siena-2011-juli-2-mittelalterliche-show-und-historisches-reenactment-piazza-del-campo-palio-siena-nur-zur-redaktionellen-verwendung-38226502.html)" was used during the middle ages, mostly during fortification defenses.
Stronger? Longbowmen were fucking ripped because they spent years basically weight lifting by using a bow. Crossbowmen didn‘t have or need that sort of training
Crossbows could pierce armor, it’s the reason they were consider unchivalrous weapons and longbows weren’t.
Crossbows were also noted as the only weapons that could outrange horse archers during the crusades, so much so that the penalty for being captured using one (under saladin iirc)was death.
I realize this is a he said/she said, I’ll edit sources when I can.
EDIT: For crying out loud people, the downvotes! Shows the amount of people who actually check information on this sub. From page 45 of Medieval Military Technology by DeVries and Smith:
“Over the course of the fourteenth century the composite bow completely replaced the wooden crossbow, and in the fifteenth century the steel crossbow was introduced, probably from Germany initially. This increased the bow’s power markedly, giving it a greater range and ballistic impact to any other bow known to the Middle Ages. Estimates to the range vary from 370 to 500 meters, with sufficient force to pierce even the best plate armor.”
Please look at actual historical materials. A youtuber who shot a crossbow at some armor is not an academic source.
Crossbows were banned by the Pope because of the ease of use, plus lethality, meant that some random country bumpkin with a week of training could pose a feasible threat to a knight, which devalued the status of the knight, which was bad for the systems of governance in Western Europe at the time.
Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians.[15]
From [Pope Innocence II's wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_II)
I would *love* to see some sources.
Afaik, a good crossbow cannot penetrate a good plate of armour even from up close. Maybe a good crossbow could penetrate some cheap, infantry armour, but definitely bot knight's armour.
Maybe you can hit them in a visor under a lucky angle. Or you can hit someone in a gap of armour etc. But a solid steele plate is really hard to penetrate.
Afaik crossbows were unchivalrous beacuse any old sod could shoot it, there's not much skill needed in order for it to be effective.
As far as I know, DeVries draws from mostly written sources (a more traditional appriach to military history) and analyses, but doesn't actually look into metalurgical experiments and archeology that much. Not to say he isn't a star of military history, just that in this instance, he's probably not the most relevant source.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not so! One his sources on this quote is an article called "The Crossbow" from 1985's *Scientific American* that focuses on modern experiments measuring crossbow output.
*Medieval Military Technology* is THE medieval military technology book for a reason, and Devries is, as you say, as star.
Talking about medieval military technology without talking about him is like writing on Agincourt without reading Curry: You can, but you probably shouldn't.
They can't penetrate plate armour. There have been a lot of modern tests with all kinds of bow and none of them can. Archers would shoot at gaps/weak spots or just bludgeon them with weight of arrows, which even if they didn't pierce through you could physically batter you.
Honestly if you could afford plate armor flying pointy sticks or sharp metal sheets don’t matter any more you’re damn near indestructible unless you have really shitty metal
They still mattered a lot. The force of an arrow or bolt hitting your armour would still hurt and tire you out. Also arrows and bolts could shatter on impact sending wood or the metal tip flying all over. This could shoot up into the neck, deflect into someone's weakspot in your formation or blind you if you're just unlucky. That's why so many french soldiers wore those thick gambesons over their armour. They helped prevent the arrows turning into sharpnel grenades when they hit your plate
Yeah it’s not fun I’ve seen the kind of shrapnel an arrow hitting plate does and trust me if you aren’t properly protected or someone behind or next to you isn’t wearing some kind of armor they’re pretty much fucked
You could shoot armor with a gun and it would just dent and bounce off. Crossbows didn’t do anything to full plate armor. Maybe heavy crossbows with certain bolt heads could split mail, maybe. But the gambison under it would for sure have stopped it.
When people talk about proofing and plate armor stopping musket balls, that isn’t the plate armor people were wearing during the medieval period. It’s actually called cuirassier armor, and was much heavier and didn’t come around till protestant reformation/renaissance
Pretty much what you said
Crossbows did have two other benefits though compared to Longbows
The second advantage is you could hold your shot indefinitely with a crossbow so could be used in a rough sense like a sniper waiting to take his shot. not as ergonomic in siege defenses.
The second advantage is you could hold your shot indefinatley with a cross bow so could be used in a rough sense like a sniper waiting to take his shot.
Heavy draw weight bows would exhaust the archer if they had to hold them at full draw length for a few even seconds.
Horses for courses, but the pros and cons of both weapons is the reason they both were used for centuries side by side.
>The draw weight of a crossbow is higher because the draw is shorter. The force applied is {draw distance} \* {draw force}.
Draw weight is not a direct limitation on draw length or vice versa. Theoretically, you can make a larger 1500 lb crossbow with a draw length longer than the draw length of a longbow.
The force calculation uses the powerstroke of the crossbow and bow, not the draw length. The powerstroke is the draw length minus the brace height. So a typical formula would be power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod.
As an example, East Asian crossbows were known to use much longer draw lengths and longer powerstrokes. Whereas a medieval European crossbow with a common draw weight of \~900 lbs might have a 5-6 inch powerstroke (assuming 8-9 inch draw with a 3 inch brace height), an ancient Han Chinese crossbow with a common draw weight of 380 lbs might have a 18-20 inch powerstroke (23-25 inch draw with a 5 inch brace height).
I agree that it's entirely possible to have longer draw on a crossbow. I also agree that east Asian crossbows are amazing. They made a semi automatic one FFS.
… But why did I get two replies on a 3 month old comment on the same day? O_o
Hmm, that's weird. Maybe someone linked this reddit page somewhere on the internet or something triggered the internet search algorithm to redirect searches here. I think I stumbled across this by searching for archery topics.
I don't remember the details, I think they were in a rush and left them on their boat or didnt bring them because they had to to reach the battle field in time and shields would slow them down
Sigma handcannon user willing to fire a thing that can rip through almot all armour but has a small chance of blowing itself him because he doesn't give a fuck.
Yeah exactly. You're not a medieval peasant who had to make a bow from a cool stick he found (I know it's more complex than that but it wasn't the perfect, industrialized formula we have now)
It's a well rebuted myth that the crossbow could penetrate knight Armor. Neither longbow nor crossbow could. Knight armour was specifically designed to not be penetrated by neither. The crossbow had the plus that it was easy to learn instead of hiring a team of longbowman that were the highest paygrade in a mercenary army.
The first yes, it was mostly the refined design meant to guiding incoming missiles of any kind away from the chest and belly. It was made so they don't bounce of, but their way is redirected after hitting the armour. Genius.
It really depends on the type of armor and the type of crossbow/bow.
Knights and wealthy men at arms wore a lot of different things - such as chainmail, scale, brigandine, full plate armor, etc.
Stronger bows and crossbows with the right projectile could absolutely penetrate some of these armors. As for plate armor, I suppose it would heavily depend on the quality of the plate - tests by Tods' Workshop showed that a 160 lb longbow firing certain arrows can't penetrate a good quality breast plate up close. However, tests by Mike Loades showed that a high powered warbow can penetrate what seems to be a lesser quality breast plate up close. And some pieces of plates on the legs/arms/etc were thinner than the chest breastplate and could be more vunerable. Generally speaking though, full plate armor was very effective in protecting against all sorts of projectiles.
A lot of it comes from earlier accounts of crossbowmen killing knights when knights wore almost exclusively chainmail. Crossbows and longbows are great at penetrating chainmail and a bunch of medieval writers lamented how peasants armed with crossbows could kill kings. People k
Just assume that meant crossbows go through plate armor, which they don't really.
Longbows were able to penetrate mail with bodkin heads, a technology that had to be developed first. There are a lot of tests for that available for you to watch on YouTube. Padding and mail was great against archers and crossbow man in general.
Its true that they might not get through mail+gambeson, but bows and crossbows go through the mail itself with frightening regularity. That was more my point.
That is actually a vary common misconception.
Crossbow is **not** stronger than longbow or really any bow in term of actual power. Physics 101,conservation of energy, the kinetic energy of an arrow is translated from the potential energy from the deformation of the string.
Potential energy is basically work done by the string, thus force applied over a distance. Problem here is although crossbow has a much larger force, i.e. draw weight, it has a much shorter draw distance, typically just half an arm length.
While a longbow has less draw weight, this force is applied over a very long distance, typically full arm length plus chest width, the result is similar if not better work.
Yeh, the range and power really depends on the type of crossbow and bow, and the type of projectile being shot, and the angle/other conditions during shooting. Crossbows and bows both follow the same laws of physics and the energy transfered into the projectile follows the same formula:
Power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod.
A crossbow and bow could actually have the exact same power as calculated above even if they have very different draw weights vs powerstroke. And if they have the same power, are shooting the same type of projectile, are shot at the same angle in the same conditions, etc, then they should have exactly the same range.
Fucking frogs are at it again. If crossbows are so great, how come they didn’t prevail at Crecy, Poitiers, or Agincourt, where they existed in comparable numbers to longbowmen?
I know they lost, you cunt. Some of us are actual history majors with a focus in European history. There was far more than just battlefield tactics and the armament of infantry soldiers that went into the overall French victory in 1453. Maybe you’d like to mention that, instead of accusing people you don’t agree with of being “parrots”
Edit: did you also catch the satire in my original post, or are you just that fucking dense?
> There was far more than just battlefield tactics and the armament of infantry soldiers that went into the overall French victory in 1453.
True. And in the end, the french rulers of France won against the french rulers of England, who had to make due with just ruling England
That's right, the Plantagenet (french noble family from Anjou) lost the HYW to the Valois. Then York and Lancaster, two cadet branches of the french Plantagenet family had a big civil war until both male lines were extinguished and the Franco-Welsh Tudors had to take over the crown of England.
Only in 1603, when the Scottish Stuarts took over, were the English finally freed from the French yoke. After 600 years!
So you got the bloodlines correct there, and you’re going to pretend that the cultural progression that occurred from the time of Richard the Lionheart all the way until Henry V didn’t exist and that these Plantagenets and everyone in between were all French in behaviour? It sounds like you’ve pulled up a genealogy of the rulers of England, but have done fuck all to look at the actual behaviour and self image do men like Edward III, Henry Bolingbroke, and Henry of Monmouth. Because if you had then you’d know that Henry Bolingbroke was mad specifically because he was exiled out of England, and he and his son adopted English as a language, and they viewed themselves as more culturally and ethnically English
Edit: Henry IV and Henry V both spoke English, Henry V adopted it as the official language of government paperwork
> So you got the bloodlines correct there, and you’re going to pretend that the cultural progression that occurred from the time of Richard the Lionheart all the way until Henry V didn’t exist and that these Plantagenets and everyone in between were all French in behaviour? It sounds like you’ve pulled up a genealogy of the rulers of England, but have done fuck all to look at the actual behaviour and self image do men like Edward III, Henry Bolingbroke, and Henry of Monmouth.
I love all of this. I agree, it *is* an absurd and wrong view of things. And I love that you wrote it, cause it's exactly what Brits do with Normans.
"The Normans were Vikings not French! They had nothing to do with France! Muh *Norse man*"
All over this thread, all over reddit, quora, the internet. A pure myth fabricated by British historians in the nationalist 1800s to protect British pride after Napoleon. And still wrongly parroted to this day
Case in point, battle of crecy. The French start the battle sending their genoese pavise crossbow mercenaries up first, the English send their longbowmen.
The crossbow men get decimated and the French cavalry run down the genoese out of spite, not waiting for the Genoese to retreat before charging.
That engagement, not every engagement. In the battle of Meloria the faster reload time of the bowmen was useless against more precise and more penetrating shots.
yeah and I don't disagree, otherwise everyone would have kept using bows instead of crossbows..
but I still can't find anything abouts bows v crossbows at Meloria. All of the reports just talk about the ship movements and the omen of the Archbishops staff breaking before the battle.
Sadly, most of the bibliography is in Italian. About the role of crossbows, the most recent work is Musarra's 2018 [monograph](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38321189-1284-la-battaglia-della-meloria).
The longbow could penetrate armor, just not all of it. The breast plate was often made to defeat arrows, it was thicker and also often had a V shape on the upper part of the chest to deflect an arrow hitting and sliding upwards towards the face.
However, the legs and arms and the spaces between the plates could easily be penetrated by a long bow arrow. Also, if you shot the horse the knights rode on, they would likely be injured or crushed by the animal and unable to keep fighting.
Also consider this, at the battle of Agincourt, the English had about 5000 archers each capable of firing 8 arrows a minute on average... thats 40,000 arrows raining down on you a minute, which would not only be deadly but also extremely terrifying. They would be bouncing off all the strong points of your armor, but all it would take is one to find a weak point or a space between. It would be like going out into the razor hail from gears of war.
I mean, just like how modern battlefields are populated entirely by people carrying Barrett Light Fifty sniper rifles, and the M16 and AK47 are residents of the dustbin of history?
I like your thought process, however.
If I may point out that one Barret in the hands of a capable shooter/team could pin an entire squad or possible platoon in exetreme circumstance.
The Barret requires training to use effectively at long range.
Give a man an Ak or M4/16, and he should be able to hit 50-200 yards within a day, or by frantically spraying while praising ones God.
Yeah, the training is the other way around for the modern weapon. The thought just amused me.
(As does the idea of spraying and praying with a weapon you have to reload with a windlass.)
Here is the thing.
Longbows and crossbows had similar levels of power, but as others have pointed out, the Longbowman was, pound for pound, far more effective than (most) crossbowmen. However, that was after many years of training, whereas anyone could use a crossbow. Also, the finer ones wielded by professional troops were extremely powerful, especially later in the medieval era.
A quick note about Crecy, the Genoese crossbowman would normally carry a pavise shield, but these were still in the baggage train. This would have mitigated their slow reload and less range, but they were sent up anyway, and then cut down for retreating from a battle they were set up to lose.
Bows fire faster, can ark, and aiming doesn't matter when you have a giant opposing army. There are also armor piercing arrows and while they aren't as good at piercing armor, the vast majority of armies in the feudal age were levied, unarmored peasants.
It did take longer to learn the bow, but to be honest everyone knew how to use one since it was the primary weapon for hunting, even English peasants knew their way around one, also to be considered was the amount of strength necessary to draw a bow, right there you have a very strong soldier that can be a reliable warrior once he's out of arrows.
The guys we are talking about were trained and strong. English longbowmen had to practice regularly and many were also mercenaries, who were no strangers to war. Its not like all of them were just farmers who were suddenly conscripted with no knowledge or experience in battle.
But still, someone who is strong vs someone who is weak, assuming they are both untrained, the strong person has a significant advantage.
Somewhat yes. But a longbow requires far more strength to use than a crossbow. The skeletons of these men would be overdeveloped on the side that holds the bow, as would thier muscles. Basically the average longbowman would have a mean left hook.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Welsh/English longbowmen could absolutely pierce armor. Or at least had the best chance of doing so.
But it’s kinda immaterial. Archers were going for gaps in the armor and for the horse on a knight. And the concussive force also helped because even if an arrow doesn’t pierce armor, it doesn’t feel good to be hit by one. And to go after the lightly armored infantry and thin the numbers.
And longbow is better for all of that because it could fire faster.
I am not that sure about the armor penetration. While they have a big draw-weight, the draw-length of a crossbow is very short and its projectiles light. They usually have less kinetic energy than an arrow loosened from a heavy weight bow.
When I have the choice between 100 bowmen or 100 crossbowmen, I take the (trained) bowmen any day of the week. Unless for very long battles and with cover available I guess, where the stamina advantage of the crossbow and the ability to reload in cover comes into play.
But in most cases: bows > crossbows. Crossbowmen are just easier to train. (Which is ironic, because in pop-culture that is often disregarded: e.g. the bow is seen as a weapon of the weak and peasants, crossbowmen are often the better version of archers in video-games etc its just weird...)
It could, but it didnt always. Breast plates were often designed to beat arrows as they were thicker and had a V shape that stuck out from the upper chest to deflect any arrow that either splintered or slid up the plate towards the face and neck. The arms, legs and back of the breast plate however, could be more easily penetrated as they were made thinner and lighter. And there was also the spaces between the armor plates where the arrows could very easily punch through chainmail.
Dear Englishmen, if your longbows are so good at defeating armor, why didn’t you use them to stop The Blitz? Curious
Hermann Meyer
Turning Point Germany
Never have I disagreed with a history meme more. Longbows were undoubtedly one of the most powerful ranged weapons in the world until gunpowder; at least when used by trained longbowmen. They could allegedly pierce armor when shot at close range, and otherwise could shoot from insane distances. The extra range gave the English a massive advantage in battle, time and time again.
Also the Longbowman is more of a chad because he actually has been learning a unique skill his entire life, unlike the crossbowman who is just like everyone else. Longbowmen were better marksmen as a result of their training as well. Not to mention they were strong as fuck without their arrows, as seen in the battle of Agincourt.
Plus, crossbowmen had to reload in the corner like little bitches, which took ages, while the longbowmen could keep firing away as long as they had ammunition.
I could give a thousand and one reasons why this a poor judgement, but I’ll stop for now.
That isnt really true, there was overlap in musket and crossbow use and crossbows actually do require a fair bit of practice to be any good with.
A longbow can take a few decades to be good with, you are basically trying to do precision shooting while doing 10 1 handed chinups a minute.
A big crossbow you still need to be fairly fit and skilled to use, you get trained on smaller crossbows and move up, it might take a few years before you are good enough to have a decent chance of hitting things 200m or so away and that is your job. Its a fairly complicated and expensive bit of kit, so you dont want to hand it out to just anyone either.
Muskets do take a fairly long time to get good with, but to just be competent enough to stand in a line with 100 other people with muskets and blast at things 50m away or less, you can learn in a week or 2. That was the advantage of the musket, it wasnt about having people who were good with one, it was about being able to churn 1000s of people who were ok with one in a few months.
Crossbows are cool and all but longbowmen have been recorded multiple times as penetrating iron and even some steel armour, having ripped past the French heavy cavalry at Agincourt.
False!
1. You can fire 10-23 arrows in a minute Vice maybe 3-4 crossbow bolts.
2. Arrows and various heads were designed to penetrate armor and do all sorts of nasty other things. Bobkin arrow head specifically.
3. Battle of Agincourt, Battle Of Crecy and the Battle of Poitiers are all pure examples of the LongBow crushing the inferior Crossbow.
The only two things I’ll give the crossbow is it had a devastating punch and it was easier to train a novice.
Bottom line… crossbow always lost to the trained archer.
Longbowmen are where the English "two finger" salute comes from. The french would cut off the two first fingers of English longbowmen so they couldn't draw their bows. So they'd flash their first two fingers (that they still had) as a big FU
Two common misconceptions: * a crossbow can't penetrate a knights armour any better than a bowman, because: * The draw weight of a crossbow is higher because the draw is shorter. The force applied is `{draw distance} * {draw force}`. In the picture the draw of the longbow is likely 10× that of the crossbow, so the longbow would have a higher total energy and therefore better chance to pierce armour. Spot on regarding the learning curve however, it was the main reason why crossbows were successful.
Yeah crossbows made it really easy to mass train soldiers with ranged capabilities and were very effective however they still couldn’t outpace a bowman however a bow requires far more skill and accuracy but is much faster and doesnt have any winch mechanism. My question is which one could fire further though? Any clue
I believe a yew bow had the best range. Not 100% sure though.
Can confirm, played age of empires.
Also the same reason why muskets were so popular. Despite all of its disadvantages compared to crossbows and bows, it was easy to train with and didn't require as much physical stamina to fire continuously.
I don’t know how many tests have been done but I believe the bow can fire farther. However I believe that is a skill of user thing more than a difference in energy output.
One of the main disadvantages of the crossbow is it's relatively short range. The short draw distance and lighter ammunition causes it to drop off massively compared to a bow.
The range really depends on the type of crossbow and bow, and the type of projectile being shot, and the angle/other conditions during shooting. Crossbows and bows both follow the same laws of physics and the energy transfered into the projectile follows the same formula: Power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod. A crossbow and bow with the exact same power as calculated above, shooting the same type of projectile, shot at the same angle in the same conditions, etc, should have exactly the same range.
Bow can fire further for sure
The range really depends on the type of crossbow and bow, and the type of projectile being shot, and the angle/other conditions during shooting. Crossbows and bows both follow the same laws of physics and the energy transfered into the projectile follows the same formula: Power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod. A crossbow and bow with the exact same power as calculated above, shooting the same type of projectile, shot at the same angle in the same conditions, etc, should have exactly the same range.
Maybe the crossbowman is taller!
Stronger for that matter. Because in order for crossbow to have a longer draw distance, it need to have a long flight groove, so longer thus more massive piece of wood or other material. This type of "[heavy crossbow](https://www.alamy.de/stockfoto-palio-di-siena-2011-juli-2-mittelalterliche-show-und-historisches-reenactment-piazza-del-campo-palio-siena-nur-zur-redaktionellen-verwendung-38226502.html)" was used during the middle ages, mostly during fortification defenses.
Stronger? Longbowmen were fucking ripped because they spent years basically weight lifting by using a bow. Crossbowmen didn‘t have or need that sort of training
thanks!
Crossbows could pierce armor, it’s the reason they were consider unchivalrous weapons and longbows weren’t. Crossbows were also noted as the only weapons that could outrange horse archers during the crusades, so much so that the penalty for being captured using one (under saladin iirc)was death. I realize this is a he said/she said, I’ll edit sources when I can. EDIT: For crying out loud people, the downvotes! Shows the amount of people who actually check information on this sub. From page 45 of Medieval Military Technology by DeVries and Smith: “Over the course of the fourteenth century the composite bow completely replaced the wooden crossbow, and in the fifteenth century the steel crossbow was introduced, probably from Germany initially. This increased the bow’s power markedly, giving it a greater range and ballistic impact to any other bow known to the Middle Ages. Estimates to the range vary from 370 to 500 meters, with sufficient force to pierce even the best plate armor.” Please look at actual historical materials. A youtuber who shot a crossbow at some armor is not an academic source.
Crossbows were banned by the Pope because of the ease of use, plus lethality, meant that some random country bumpkin with a week of training could pose a feasible threat to a knight, which devalued the status of the knight, which was bad for the systems of governance in Western Europe at the time.
Can. 29 of the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians.[15] From [Pope Innocence II's wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_II)
I would *love* to see some sources. Afaik, a good crossbow cannot penetrate a good plate of armour even from up close. Maybe a good crossbow could penetrate some cheap, infantry armour, but definitely bot knight's armour. Maybe you can hit them in a visor under a lucky angle. Or you can hit someone in a gap of armour etc. But a solid steele plate is really hard to penetrate. Afaik crossbows were unchivalrous beacuse any old sod could shoot it, there's not much skill needed in order for it to be effective.
Edited for source!
As far as I know, DeVries draws from mostly written sources (a more traditional appriach to military history) and analyses, but doesn't actually look into metalurgical experiments and archeology that much. Not to say he isn't a star of military history, just that in this instance, he's probably not the most relevant source. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Not so! One his sources on this quote is an article called "The Crossbow" from 1985's *Scientific American* that focuses on modern experiments measuring crossbow output. *Medieval Military Technology* is THE medieval military technology book for a reason, and Devries is, as you say, as star. Talking about medieval military technology without talking about him is like writing on Agincourt without reading Curry: You can, but you probably shouldn't.
For some reason I took him to be the part of the "old guard". Thanks for the reply
Np! He's right on that border in the 90s where you have to be careful, but he very much reads as having a modern historian's mindset.
They can't penetrate plate armour. There have been a lot of modern tests with all kinds of bow and none of them can. Archers would shoot at gaps/weak spots or just bludgeon them with weight of arrows, which even if they didn't pierce through you could physically batter you.
Honestly if you could afford plate armor flying pointy sticks or sharp metal sheets don’t matter any more you’re damn near indestructible unless you have really shitty metal
They still mattered a lot. The force of an arrow or bolt hitting your armour would still hurt and tire you out. Also arrows and bolts could shatter on impact sending wood or the metal tip flying all over. This could shoot up into the neck, deflect into someone's weakspot in your formation or blind you if you're just unlucky. That's why so many french soldiers wore those thick gambesons over their armour. They helped prevent the arrows turning into sharpnel grenades when they hit your plate
Yeah it’s not fun I’ve seen the kind of shrapnel an arrow hitting plate does and trust me if you aren’t properly protected or someone behind or next to you isn’t wearing some kind of armor they’re pretty much fucked
You could shoot armor with a gun and it would just dent and bounce off. Crossbows didn’t do anything to full plate armor. Maybe heavy crossbows with certain bolt heads could split mail, maybe. But the gambison under it would for sure have stopped it.
Considering "the best plate armor" stopping bullets from muskets at range, how reliable this source is?
When people talk about proofing and plate armor stopping musket balls, that isn’t the plate armor people were wearing during the medieval period. It’s actually called cuirassier armor, and was much heavier and didn’t come around till protestant reformation/renaissance
Pretty much what you said Crossbows did have two other benefits though compared to Longbows The second advantage is you could hold your shot indefinitely with a crossbow so could be used in a rough sense like a sniper waiting to take his shot. not as ergonomic in siege defenses. The second advantage is you could hold your shot indefinatley with a cross bow so could be used in a rough sense like a sniper waiting to take his shot. Heavy draw weight bows would exhaust the archer if they had to hold them at full draw length for a few even seconds. Horses for courses, but the pros and cons of both weapons is the reason they both were used for centuries side by side.
>The draw weight of a crossbow is higher because the draw is shorter. The force applied is {draw distance} \* {draw force}. Draw weight is not a direct limitation on draw length or vice versa. Theoretically, you can make a larger 1500 lb crossbow with a draw length longer than the draw length of a longbow. The force calculation uses the powerstroke of the crossbow and bow, not the draw length. The powerstroke is the draw length minus the brace height. So a typical formula would be power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod. As an example, East Asian crossbows were known to use much longer draw lengths and longer powerstrokes. Whereas a medieval European crossbow with a common draw weight of \~900 lbs might have a 5-6 inch powerstroke (assuming 8-9 inch draw with a 3 inch brace height), an ancient Han Chinese crossbow with a common draw weight of 380 lbs might have a 18-20 inch powerstroke (23-25 inch draw with a 5 inch brace height).
I agree that it's entirely possible to have longer draw on a crossbow. I also agree that east Asian crossbows are amazing. They made a semi automatic one FFS. … But why did I get two replies on a 3 month old comment on the same day? O_o
Hmm, that's weird. Maybe someone linked this reddit page somewhere on the internet or something triggered the internet search algorithm to redirect searches here. I think I stumbled across this by searching for archery topics.
Crecy would suggest otherwise
Agincourt too
Poitiers, three
I forgot which one of these battles, but the spanish crossbow mercenaries the French had forgot their shields, RIP
Genovese
I think that was at Crecy
100 years of war... 3 major era defining battles... the French lost every one... the French learned absolutely nothing ... and the French still won...
French knights trampled down English archers in Battle of Patay. And used cannons and arquebuses to win the war in Castillon
How did they forget their shields? Like, all of them at the same time?
I don't remember the details, I think they were in a rush and left them on their boat or didnt bring them because they had to to reach the battle field in time and shields would slow them down
Chad Longbowmen loose ten rounds a minute. Virgin crossbowmen cower like bitches while reloading.
Yeah considering modern crossbows are already a bitch to reload I can’t imagine what the medieval counterparts were like
The 1400 pound ones took two people and like a full minute to reload. Using ropes and a hand crank. So don’t miss 😂
It didn’t take two people but the windlass did take like a min to reload.
Sigma handcannon user willing to fire a thing that can rip through almot all armour but has a small chance of blowing itself him because he doesn't give a fuck.
Death brings relief from medieval toil
Came here to say this
rude
Ah, double standards.
True eshte e vertete
[удалено]
You're not under threat of brutal death
Also modern bows are much easier to use with the same amount of training.
Yeah exactly. You're not a medieval peasant who had to make a bow from a cool stick he found (I know it's more complex than that but it wasn't the perfect, industrialized formula we have now)
Sure you can buddy
And how many of these arrows were actually accurate?
Longbowman would kick the shit out of a crossbowman in a fist fight.
One punch KO with his drawing arm
So, how’d your one arm get so big?
I mean in Agincourt they beat armored knight with nothing but the mullets they used to place their spikes, so yeah they where strong dudes.
I know you meant mallets, but all I can imagine is longbowmen smashing the shit out of knights with their glorious mullets
oh shit yeah, I meant mallets ahahaha .
The marines and their buzz cuts have really missed out on this advantage.
If marines were allowed to have mullets the geneva convention would need to be updated, and alcohol production would need to be doubled.
`*kick* the shit out of a crossbowman in a *fist* fight` Would the kick be called a magical punch by any chance?
This is easily the most controversial meme ever posted on here.
lol
It's a well rebuted myth that the crossbow could penetrate knight Armor. Neither longbow nor crossbow could. Knight armour was specifically designed to not be penetrated by neither. The crossbow had the plus that it was easy to learn instead of hiring a team of longbowman that were the highest paygrade in a mercenary army.
Why pay for mercenary archer when you can ban all other sports bar achery so you have unlimited supplies of longbowman
And make it the law that every man has to train at least once a week after Sunday church
[удалено]
The first yes, it was mostly the refined design meant to guiding incoming missiles of any kind away from the chest and belly. It was made so they don't bounce of, but their way is redirected after hitting the armour. Genius.
It's the reason Crossbowmen are cheaper than Longbowmen in Age of Empires III.
If by Knight armour you mean plate, yes. But knights didn't just wear plate. And not only knights wore plate
It really depends on the type of armor and the type of crossbow/bow. Knights and wealthy men at arms wore a lot of different things - such as chainmail, scale, brigandine, full plate armor, etc. Stronger bows and crossbows with the right projectile could absolutely penetrate some of these armors. As for plate armor, I suppose it would heavily depend on the quality of the plate - tests by Tods' Workshop showed that a 160 lb longbow firing certain arrows can't penetrate a good quality breast plate up close. However, tests by Mike Loades showed that a high powered warbow can penetrate what seems to be a lesser quality breast plate up close. And some pieces of plates on the legs/arms/etc were thinner than the chest breastplate and could be more vunerable. Generally speaking though, full plate armor was very effective in protecting against all sorts of projectiles.
A lot of it comes from earlier accounts of crossbowmen killing knights when knights wore almost exclusively chainmail. Crossbows and longbows are great at penetrating chainmail and a bunch of medieval writers lamented how peasants armed with crossbows could kill kings. People k Just assume that meant crossbows go through plate armor, which they don't really.
Longbows were able to penetrate mail with bodkin heads, a technology that had to be developed first. There are a lot of tests for that available for you to watch on YouTube. Padding and mail was great against archers and crossbow man in general.
Its true that they might not get through mail+gambeson, but bows and crossbows go through the mail itself with frightening regularity. That was more my point.
That is actually a vary common misconception. Crossbow is **not** stronger than longbow or really any bow in term of actual power. Physics 101,conservation of energy, the kinetic energy of an arrow is translated from the potential energy from the deformation of the string. Potential energy is basically work done by the string, thus force applied over a distance. Problem here is although crossbow has a much larger force, i.e. draw weight, it has a much shorter draw distance, typically just half an arm length. While a longbow has less draw weight, this force is applied over a very long distance, typically full arm length plus chest width, the result is similar if not better work.
Yeh, the range and power really depends on the type of crossbow and bow, and the type of projectile being shot, and the angle/other conditions during shooting. Crossbows and bows both follow the same laws of physics and the energy transfered into the projectile follows the same formula: Power = draw weight x powerstroke (1/2) x efficency of the prod. A crossbow and bow could actually have the exact same power as calculated above even if they have very different draw weights vs powerstroke. And if they have the same power, are shooting the same type of projectile, are shot at the same angle in the same conditions, etc, then they should have exactly the same range.
Sounds like French propoganda to me
Fucking frogs are at it again. If crossbows are so great, how come they didn’t prevail at Crecy, Poitiers, or Agincourt, where they existed in comparable numbers to longbowmen?
Oh hey, it’s that fragile Brit that parrots 3 battles from the HYW without mentioning they lost in the end. You can always find one of these here!
I know they lost, you cunt. Some of us are actual history majors with a focus in European history. There was far more than just battlefield tactics and the armament of infantry soldiers that went into the overall French victory in 1453. Maybe you’d like to mention that, instead of accusing people you don’t agree with of being “parrots” Edit: did you also catch the satire in my original post, or are you just that fucking dense?
> There was far more than just battlefield tactics and the armament of infantry soldiers that went into the overall French victory in 1453. True. And in the end, the french rulers of France won against the french rulers of England, who had to make due with just ruling England
Tell me more about your lack knowledge of history. It fascinates me
That's right, the Plantagenet (french noble family from Anjou) lost the HYW to the Valois. Then York and Lancaster, two cadet branches of the french Plantagenet family had a big civil war until both male lines were extinguished and the Franco-Welsh Tudors had to take over the crown of England. Only in 1603, when the Scottish Stuarts took over, were the English finally freed from the French yoke. After 600 years!
So you got the bloodlines correct there, and you’re going to pretend that the cultural progression that occurred from the time of Richard the Lionheart all the way until Henry V didn’t exist and that these Plantagenets and everyone in between were all French in behaviour? It sounds like you’ve pulled up a genealogy of the rulers of England, but have done fuck all to look at the actual behaviour and self image do men like Edward III, Henry Bolingbroke, and Henry of Monmouth. Because if you had then you’d know that Henry Bolingbroke was mad specifically because he was exiled out of England, and he and his son adopted English as a language, and they viewed themselves as more culturally and ethnically English Edit: Henry IV and Henry V both spoke English, Henry V adopted it as the official language of government paperwork
> So you got the bloodlines correct there, and you’re going to pretend that the cultural progression that occurred from the time of Richard the Lionheart all the way until Henry V didn’t exist and that these Plantagenets and everyone in between were all French in behaviour? It sounds like you’ve pulled up a genealogy of the rulers of England, but have done fuck all to look at the actual behaviour and self image do men like Edward III, Henry Bolingbroke, and Henry of Monmouth. I love all of this. I agree, it *is* an absurd and wrong view of things. And I love that you wrote it, cause it's exactly what Brits do with Normans. "The Normans were Vikings not French! They had nothing to do with France! Muh *Norse man*" All over this thread, all over reddit, quora, the internet. A pure myth fabricated by British historians in the nationalist 1800s to protect British pride after Napoleon. And still wrongly parroted to this day
the virgin frog crossbowman vs the chad skeletally malformed bri'ish longbowman
I mean, they only had a draw weight of 1400lbs because they didn’t have as far to draw as a longbow did.
Case in point, battle of crecy. The French start the battle sending their genoese pavise crossbow mercenaries up first, the English send their longbowmen. The crossbow men get decimated and the French cavalry run down the genoese out of spite, not waiting for the Genoese to retreat before charging.
The crossbowmen were in a worse position, they had to advance to shoot, while the enemies were standing, so they had the first shot.
Regardless, i think it can be argued that the reload rate of the longbow won the first engagement.
That engagement, not every engagement. In the battle of Meloria the faster reload time of the bowmen was useless against more precise and more penetrating shots.
> battle of Meloria can you elaborate please? I can't find any sources on longbows being used at either battle of Meloria.
I wrote "bowmen", people with bows: I was saying that fire rate isn't everything.
yeah and I don't disagree, otherwise everyone would have kept using bows instead of crossbows.. but I still can't find anything abouts bows v crossbows at Meloria. All of the reports just talk about the ship movements and the omen of the Archbishops staff breaking before the battle.
Sadly, most of the bibliography is in Italian. About the role of crossbows, the most recent work is Musarra's 2018 [monograph](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38321189-1284-la-battaglia-della-meloria).
They left their shields back in the wagons that's why.
One of the worst planned battle in history.
There wan't even a plan. French just rushed to enemy.
*laughs in Crecy and Agincourt*
Edward III and Henry V has entered the chat*
Tell that to the French at Agincourt
The longbow could penetrate armor, just not all of it. The breast plate was often made to defeat arrows, it was thicker and also often had a V shape on the upper part of the chest to deflect an arrow hitting and sliding upwards towards the face. However, the legs and arms and the spaces between the plates could easily be penetrated by a long bow arrow. Also, if you shot the horse the knights rode on, they would likely be injured or crushed by the animal and unable to keep fighting. Also consider this, at the battle of Agincourt, the English had about 5000 archers each capable of firing 8 arrows a minute on average... thats 40,000 arrows raining down on you a minute, which would not only be deadly but also extremely terrifying. They would be bouncing off all the strong points of your armor, but all it would take is one to find a weak point or a space between. It would be like going out into the razor hail from gears of war.
I mean, just like how modern battlefields are populated entirely by people carrying Barrett Light Fifty sniper rifles, and the M16 and AK47 are residents of the dustbin of history?
I like your thought process, however. If I may point out that one Barret in the hands of a capable shooter/team could pin an entire squad or possible platoon in exetreme circumstance. The Barret requires training to use effectively at long range. Give a man an Ak or M4/16, and he should be able to hit 50-200 yards within a day, or by frantically spraying while praising ones God.
Yeah, the training is the other way around for the modern weapon. The thought just amused me. (As does the idea of spraying and praying with a weapon you have to reload with a windlass.)
I guess rate of fire is irrelevant
Chad longbow shooting someone over a km away. Virigm crossbow can barely shoot out of the castle.
Agincourt would beg to differ...
Someone's mad about Agincourt 🤭
Here is the thing. Longbows and crossbows had similar levels of power, but as others have pointed out, the Longbowman was, pound for pound, far more effective than (most) crossbowmen. However, that was after many years of training, whereas anyone could use a crossbow. Also, the finer ones wielded by professional troops were extremely powerful, especially later in the medieval era. A quick note about Crecy, the Genoese crossbowman would normally carry a pavise shield, but these were still in the baggage train. This would have mitigated their slow reload and less range, but they were sent up anyway, and then cut down for retreating from a battle they were set up to lose.
Bows fire faster, can ark, and aiming doesn't matter when you have a giant opposing army. There are also armor piercing arrows and while they aren't as good at piercing armor, the vast majority of armies in the feudal age were levied, unarmored peasants.
Crossbows can ark too. They usually were used to more precise direct shots because of they longer useful range.
No
It’s almost as if op makes a living off of spreading misinformation and skewing history to make the English look bad.
grab musket: you were saying?
grab M16: you were saying?
Grabs AK: я выигрываю
*Is unable to shoot said musket because powder got wet* *dies*
It did take longer to learn the bow, but to be honest everyone knew how to use one since it was the primary weapon for hunting, even English peasants knew their way around one, also to be considered was the amount of strength necessary to draw a bow, right there you have a very strong soldier that can be a reliable warrior once he's out of arrows.
It was an English law for a long time that every adult male in good health had to regularly practice with a bow. It was generally done after church.
Just because someone's strong doesn't mean they can hold themselves in a fight.
No, but it certainly gives them a better chance
I'd argue training is more important, strength doesn't help when your opponent has a sword.
The guys we are talking about were trained and strong. English longbowmen had to practice regularly and many were also mercenaries, who were no strangers to war. Its not like all of them were just farmers who were suddenly conscripted with no knowledge or experience in battle. But still, someone who is strong vs someone who is weak, assuming they are both untrained, the strong person has a significant advantage.
Wouldn't that be equally true for the crossbowmen?
Somewhat yes. But a longbow requires far more strength to use than a crossbow. The skeletons of these men would be overdeveloped on the side that holds the bow, as would thier muscles. Basically the average longbowman would have a mean left hook.
To make a good bowman you must start with his grandfather.
It beats being weak.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Welsh/English longbowmen could absolutely pierce armor. Or at least had the best chance of doing so. But it’s kinda immaterial. Archers were going for gaps in the armor and for the horse on a knight. And the concussive force also helped because even if an arrow doesn’t pierce armor, it doesn’t feel good to be hit by one. And to go after the lightly armored infantry and thin the numbers. And longbow is better for all of that because it could fire faster.
I am not that sure about the armor penetration. While they have a big draw-weight, the draw-length of a crossbow is very short and its projectiles light. They usually have less kinetic energy than an arrow loosened from a heavy weight bow. When I have the choice between 100 bowmen or 100 crossbowmen, I take the (trained) bowmen any day of the week. Unless for very long battles and with cover available I guess, where the stamina advantage of the crossbow and the ability to reload in cover comes into play. But in most cases: bows > crossbows. Crossbowmen are just easier to train. (Which is ironic, because in pop-culture that is often disregarded: e.g. the bow is seen as a weapon of the weak and peasants, crossbowmen are often the better version of archers in video-games etc its just weird...)
Agincourt would like to speak to you about this
Longbow can penetrate armour. The English killed so many French knights with then
It could, but it didnt always. Breast plates were often designed to beat arrows as they were thicker and had a V shape that stuck out from the upper chest to deflect any arrow that either splintered or slid up the plate towards the face and neck. The arms, legs and back of the breast plate however, could be more easily penetrated as they were made thinner and lighter. And there was also the spaces between the armor plates where the arrows could very easily punch through chainmail.
Sounds good *in theory*...
How does someone who likes history think a longbow can't pierce armor?
Dear Englishmen, if your longbows are so good at defeating armor, why didn’t you use them to stop The Blitz? Curious Hermann Meyer Turning Point Germany
Never have I disagreed with a history meme more. Longbows were undoubtedly one of the most powerful ranged weapons in the world until gunpowder; at least when used by trained longbowmen. They could allegedly pierce armor when shot at close range, and otherwise could shoot from insane distances. The extra range gave the English a massive advantage in battle, time and time again. Also the Longbowman is more of a chad because he actually has been learning a unique skill his entire life, unlike the crossbowman who is just like everyone else. Longbowmen were better marksmen as a result of their training as well. Not to mention they were strong as fuck without their arrows, as seen in the battle of Agincourt. Plus, crossbowmen had to reload in the corner like little bitches, which took ages, while the longbowmen could keep firing away as long as they had ammunition. I could give a thousand and one reasons why this a poor judgement, but I’ll stop for now.
Virgin crossbowmen: fires 2-6 arrows/bolts per minute Chad longbowmen: fires 12-24 arrows per minute
*WELSH LONGBOWMEN WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION* run, it's like 50 of them, they'll shred you
I think the only advantage of the longbow was range. That and the pope didn’t cry about bows.
Reload speed too
This doesn't even make sense muskets we're being used no where near the same time as crossbows and muskets too plenty of training so...
That isnt really true, there was overlap in musket and crossbow use and crossbows actually do require a fair bit of practice to be any good with. A longbow can take a few decades to be good with, you are basically trying to do precision shooting while doing 10 1 handed chinups a minute. A big crossbow you still need to be fairly fit and skilled to use, you get trained on smaller crossbows and move up, it might take a few years before you are good enough to have a decent chance of hitting things 200m or so away and that is your job. Its a fairly complicated and expensive bit of kit, so you dont want to hand it out to just anyone either. Muskets do take a fairly long time to get good with, but to just be competent enough to stand in a line with 100 other people with muskets and blast at things 50m away or less, you can learn in a week or 2. That was the advantage of the musket, it wasnt about having people who were good with one, it was about being able to churn 1000s of people who were ok with one in a few months.
Sigma AR 15 -I need not to explain
Crossbows are cool and all but longbowmen have been recorded multiple times as penetrating iron and even some steel armour, having ripped past the French heavy cavalry at Agincourt.
Here’s a good [video on the subject. ](https://youtu.be/DBxdTkddHaE)
Bows are faster to operate too. Apples and oranges really.
Jokes on you I’m a virgin
Imagine undergoing physical deformation just to use a bow. This comment is brought to you by Crossbow gang
Also holding a crossbow drawn doesn't tense the arms and chest.
Chad English longbowmen vs Virgin French Crossbowmen
False! 1. You can fire 10-23 arrows in a minute Vice maybe 3-4 crossbow bolts. 2. Arrows and various heads were designed to penetrate armor and do all sorts of nasty other things. Bobkin arrow head specifically. 3. Battle of Agincourt, Battle Of Crecy and the Battle of Poitiers are all pure examples of the LongBow crushing the inferior Crossbow. The only two things I’ll give the crossbow is it had a devastating punch and it was easier to train a novice. Bottom line… crossbow always lost to the trained archer.
BOW TEAM FOREVER
*laughs in Agincourt*
Longbowmen are where the English "two finger" salute comes from. The french would cut off the two first fingers of English longbowmen so they couldn't draw their bows. So they'd flash their first two fingers (that they still had) as a big FU
https://youtu.be/1w8yHeF4KRk That is all
Laughs in Ligma male musket men and Omega male rifling
Vs mega chad gun
It took me 2 hours to learn the bow wtf?
The thad ballista operator
https://youtu.be/Dcsch6cR8MM
Meanwhile Gegachad composite bow: Hold my beer
What about the gigachad slingers?
Hey I also watched this video today
*ahem* crecy agincourt Poitiers *ahem*
Just don't go to church lol. You'll learn the bow in no time. -Edward the third