Everyone has a strong opinion on whether the
longbow or the crossbow was the better ranged weapon in the Middle Ages. There are speculative
but nonetheless common claims like: “the longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages and the
crossbow was the sniper rifle”. History buffs, testers and historians can get into heated debates
about armor penetration, rate of fire and tactical application of these weapons. Certain aspects like
rate of fire or penetration power can be tested experimentally, as has been done, for example,
by fellow YouTuber Tod from Tod’s Workshop , but testing has limits: after all, tests are not
battles. Also, the interpretation of such tests often leads to logical fallacies – for example:
a better rate of fire doesn’t necessarily imply a more effective weapon in battle. In the
same vein traditional historiography runs into problems because they often ignore the
tactical implications of practical tests. A proper comparison of the two weapons needs to
consider both practical tests and historiography. So, in this video we’d like to shed some light
on the main arguments of the debate. We‘ll bring together testing and research and – maybe –
get a baby step closer to understanding these two weapons and their roles in medieval warfare.
This video is sponsored by War Thunder, a highly immersive vehicle-oriented combat game that makes
you feel like you’re on a battlefield. In our view, War Thunder achieves this by creating all
vehicles in incredible detail, making it authentic and thus more believable. They are actually
modeled down to their individual components. But War Thunder also looks very good graphically:
the 4k resolution is especially stunning and the authentic sound design and fitting music
create an atmosphere to immersive yourself in. As a military history content creator, it’s
amazing to see that their vehicles span over 100 years of development, from the 1920s to
the present day - and all their vehicles, that is to say over 2000 tanks, helicopters and
ships, can be customized, for example with 3d decorators such as bushes or equipment. This makes
War Thunder the most comprehensive combat game on the market. Our favorite feature is the vehicle
damage model, which is dynamic, meaning there are not general hit points that would feel gamey,
but the vehicle and the crew suffer actual damage instead. Right now, you can play War Thunder for
free on PC, Xbox Series X and S, PlayStation 5 or the previous console generation. Get yourself
a free bonus pack including multiple premium vehicles, a premium account, boosters and much
more, by using the link in the description below! Traditionally the line of arguments goes somewhat
like this: Longbows were relatively cheap, had a superior rate of fire, and were
famous for their success in battle, but they were hard to master, not suited for
confined spaces, and required extensive training. Crossbows, in comparison, were more powerful,
could be held loaded, and could be used with minimal training, but they were extremely
expensive and had a slow reload time. So, at the core of the debate are rate of fire – which
is usually considered the main advantage of the longbow –weapon power – traditionally considered
the main advantage of the crossbow – and training requirement – here too, the traditional argument
gives the edge to the longbow. While there are certainly other arguments, most historical
debates revolve around these three points. There was probably never a moment
in history when a monarch actually sat down and made a list of pros and cons to
decide which ranged weapon he would go with. Still, some ended up preferring bows
– most famously England, well Wales, with the longbow – and some with crossbows
like the republic of Genoa or France. The choice was determined by various factors like
the cost of the weapons, materials available, and local craftmenship. Deciding for or
against one of the two weapons was quite tricky for contemporaries and it certainly
is for modern historians and history buffs, mainly because there are ongoing and unresolved
debates on the efficacy of each weapon. So, let’s set the historiographical stage of
this debate. Where are we at with this debate? First of all, the current state of research
has much more to say about longbows than about crossbows. As shown in our video about
the debate on the efficacy of the English longbow, the discussion about that weapon has
progressed quite a bit. At the same time, research on the crossbow has really only
focused on the history of the weapon and its evolution. We actually know very little
about its efficacy or tactical application. Side note: this doesn’t mean there are 0 studies
about it, but there is little material to work with and there are no established opinions
which a vast majority of scholars would support. This unequal state of research mirrors
in the very history of the weapons. According to two of the leading experts on bows
in warfare, Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy, the bow as a piece of technology was very much
standardized by the high Middle Ages and armies in western Europe almost exclusively relied on
the longbow and not on other forms of the bow. The crossbow, in contrast, was continually
being developed throughout the Middle Ages. Trigger mechanisms were improved,
new spanning devices were introduced, and most significantly, the lathes evolved from
wood to composite materials and finally to steel. The only change to the longbow was that it
became slightly larger and thus a bit more powerful throughout the high and late middle ages.
But this doesn‘t compare to the massive change in crossbows: A Genoese Crossbowman fighting in
the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 can hardly be compared to a 15th century crossbowman
fighting in the Hussite army in Bohemia. To make matters more complicated, traditionally,
the crossbow was often described as a siege weapon and the bow as a battle weapon. This
line of argument can be found in popular media but also in the work of historians, for
example, David Green or Hardy and Strickland. In this line of thinking the crossbowman is seen
as an early form of a sniper who could take his time and aim at an attacking enemy from behind the
safe cover of a castle wall. In such a confined space, this would definitely make sense. It is,
however, pretty speculative, because according to the historian Sturart Gorman nobody has
actually published a thorough study analyzing this scenario and the claims that come with it.
This is due to the fact that existing research focuses on battle situations in which English
longbows faced crossbows directly; for example, the battle of Crécy, where English archers
shot two poorly equipped companies of Genoese Crossbowmen to pieces – they lacked a vital
part of their equipment: their pavise shields. There are almost no studies that look at the use
of crossbows in isolation and the deployment of both weapons during sieges. Be that as it may,
only looking at the cases in which the two faced off against each other directly is no solution –
context is vital. So, as with any debate, things are more complicated than they seem. Alright
then, with the historiographical stage set, let’s analyze the common arguments.
Argument 1: Rate of Fire Generally speaking, there is no denying that
longbows had a much higher maximum rate of fire than crossbows. Several tests by archers
and YouTubers have shown this. For example, in a speed test by Tod’s Workshop, Tod didn’t
even manage to shoot two bolts from his 860# windlass crossbow in the time the archer Joe
Gibbs shot six arrows from his 160# warbow. This significant difference suggests that
a longbow would also outperform a weaker crossbow which could be loaded much more quickly
with a belt hook or a goat’s foot lever. Even a simple hand-spanned crossbow with a mere 130# lost
the race against a 130# longbow in another test. But as Tod and Joe themselves discuss, this does
not properly reflect battlefield conditions. It merely shows maximum speed under ideal
circumstances. Accurately determining how many arrows and in which frequency an archer typically
loosened during battle is much more complex. And, more importantly, is a high rate of fire
even desirable to begin with? A closer look shows that rate of fire might not
be as significant as usually believed. For several reasons, longbows were rarely shot
at maximum speed. Speed and exhaustion would reduce precision significantly, and going through
all arrows at the very beginning of a battle was probably not what an archer wanted anyways. Here
we have important evidence from primary sources which clearly suggest that English longbowmen
were still shooting several hours into the battle. Unfortunately, there are no exact arrow
counts for armies in the Middle Ages. Only the inventories of the arrows and longbows on
ships during the reign of Henry VIII, for example, the famous Mary Rose give us some idea. These
lead us to understand that an archer shooting at the maximum rate would run out of arrows in
minutes. Although an army probably brought more arrows to battle than a ship, it would have taken
a staggering number of projectiles to sustain a six-arrow-per-minute rate of fire for the several
hours a medieval battle would have lasted. Even if this extraordinary number of arrows would
have been available – which was sometimes a real possibility – the question of stamina
remains. Nobody could shoot arrows at that rate for a very long time. Joe Gibbs,
for example, estimates that he would need a break after shooting 12 to 18 arrows at
this speed, so after just about 90 seconds. Some medieval archers could probably shoot more
arrows at the cost of precision, but the physical condition of the archers certainly varied greatly,
yet everyone would run out of stamina at some point. So, the assumption that longbowmen were the
machinegunners of the Middle Ages is misleading. The crossbow, in comparison, had a
relatively slow rate of fire because, in most cases, you needed tools to reload
– or, more precisely – to cock it. However, this was probably not as slow as often supposed.
Shooting it was physically less demanding, which allowed for a steady pace, loading with belt hook
or levers was much quicker than with a windlass, and sometimes crossbowmen even shot in teams, as
was allgedly the case with Genoese crossbowmen. When doing this, one man took cover to reload
while the other was shooting. This way, they could keep up a rate of fire twice the maximum
of a single man with minimum loss of precision. So, in practice, archers probably shot at a much
slower speed than they theoretically could have, while crossbowmen were perhaps not as slow as one
might think. Depending on the reloading device and the mode of fire, the crossbow’s rate of fire
could at least be doubled compared to Tod’s test. All in all, the argument for a higher rate
of fire as an advantage for longbows stands, but in the end it might be just less relevant
than often supposed. Most definitely, the longbow was certainly faster,
but the difference was probably less significant than is often assumed
because archers wouldn’t have opted for maximum fire rate anyways.
Argument 2: Weapon Power The second point that is usually discussed
is weapon power or draw weight, which in most cases also implies penetration power. Right
away, it is difficult to assess the average draw weight of medieval war crossbows, even within
one army at a specific time, because there was a wide variety of sizes and designs and only few
historical weapons have been examined as of yet. Broadly speaking, they were in the range of
700-1400#, much more than the average longbow, which was in the range of 90-185#. This is often
seen as the crossbow’s most significant advantage, especially combined with the possibility of
holding the weapon loaded. In the Middle Ages, the crossbow was already renowned for its
armor-piercing capabilities. Some sources as for example Anna Comnena even portray it as
a wall-penetrating infernal machine. However, this overstatement might simply express sheer awe
about the arrival of a new weapon. The church, in a similarly overstating tone, condemned the use
of the weapon as unchivalrous, probably due to the fact that in the early 13th century noble knights
in chainmail were now threatened from range. Even though crossbows had more power, in terms of
physics they were less efficient. A large share of the weapon's power was not transported
to the bolt and ultimately to the target. This is demonstrated by the fact that in the test
mentioned above, the 130# crossbow‘s maximum range was less than a third of a 110# longbow‘s
range. Maximum range is also impacted by the different projectile forms of the bolt and
the arrow, but this significant loss of energy is mainly due to the shorter distance the bolt
is accelerated compared to an arrow. Overall, the difference in the power that was projected
to the target by the arrow or bolt was much smaller than the poundages of the weapons imply.
Nevertheless, the historian Clifford Rogers has shown that a crossbow bolt shot from a heavy
steel crossbow had much higher kinetic power than an arrow shot from a warbow. But again, this
must be seen in context, especially the weapon’s tactical deployment. In his essay “Catapults
Are Not Atomic Bombs: Towards a Redefinition of 'Effectiveness' in Premodern Military Technology”
the military historian Kelly DeVries has argued that the stronger crossbow was better suited
for delivering fatal blows at an enemy, that is, defeating them before the two armies even got
in contact, while the longbow was best suited to a role as a support weapon, harassing and
killing the enemy over an extended period of time. This was, arguably, the primary tactical purpose
of English archers during the 100 Years’ War. The current understanding is that they were
meant to be constantly pouring a deadly hail of arrows onto the French to pin them
down, force them to attack, or confuse them. In this scenario, penetrating power was not as
decisive for the effectiveness of the English archers as is often supposed. The crossbow's
brute force, on the other hand, is thought to have killed or maimed enemy soldiers before
the main body of the army charged into them. So simply put, these two weapons primary purposes
were different. Crossbows were meant to kill directly before impact while longbows were
used to harass the enemy to force a mistake. So, what we can make of all this is that the
difference between the two weapons is usually overstated, but the crossbow's greater
power and the longbow's better rate of fire still influenced the tactics used by the
armies that employed them. The two weapons had a similar but not quite the same purposes
and were suited to different tactical uses. Argument 3: Training Requirements
Another aspect frequently brought up in this debate is training. Scholars and history
enthusiasts point out that it took an archer extensive training to become fully proficient
with a longbow, while a crossbow could be used with minimal training. This has been proven
in Tod’s test too, where he, as a relatively untrained crossbowman, could go toe-to-toe with
Joe, who has years of training and experience, at least precision wise. What sets apart the
two weapons is mainly the physical abilities necessary to shoot them. Drawing a bow of 100#
or more is highly demanding and only possible with regular training over an extended period
of time – about a year in Joe Gibbs’ estimate. But keep in mind that bows of up to 185# were
found on the Mary Rose. Because heavy crossbows are loaded with the help of levers, cranks, or
windlasses, the physical demands are much smaller. The problem with this argument is that it often
leads to the fallacy that English archers were generally superior soldiers because of their
training. But just because English archers developed the physical ability to draw a bow does
not mean that they were superior in other regards, for example, discipline, or accuracy. According
to Matthew Strickland, in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the average English
archer would be a semi-professional yeoman, but many would of course be below average. There
would have been significant variation in skill. Through the training necessary to use the bow,
an archer most likely achieved a certain level of competence and accuracy, but the little
evidence for archery practice in the Middle Ages does not provide a clear picture of training
standards. One source often cited is an ordinance by Edward III to the sheriff of Kent in the 14th
century requiring archers to train on feast days. This was reissued over and over until the 15th
century, indicating either that English archers practiced regularly or, on the contrary,
that they didn’t practice enough and had to be constantly reminded to fulfill their
duty. In the end, the English obviously kept up enough discipline to have an adequate reserve
of longbowmen ready for war at all times. Still, numerous logistical and societal problems with
creating and maintaining an elite body of archers made that quite difficult. Over all, the sources
suggest that most were fit enough to shoot a bow effectively, but many were not exactly elite
archers. It is, by the way, also important to note that target practices and competitions for
archers and crossbowmen were common all across the European continent. So, crossbowmen
would not have been completely untrained. All in all, it was more difficult to shoot a
longbow effectively. The English still managed to keep a body of capable archers ready, but
certainly not every archer in a large English army was at peak condition. Unfortunately, today the
practical level of training of the average archer or crossbowman is almost impossible to assess.
Conclusion Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of
bows and crossbows and how exactly they were used on the battlefield could significantly
improve our understanding of medieval warfare in general. But analyzing this is more complex
than it often seems. There is no simple answer to whether the longbow or the crossbow was
superior, not even whether one was better suited for siege warfare or open field battle.
Most of the arguments traditionally made for or against either longbow or crossbow stand firm.
However, they are usually heavily simplified and presented in a rather stereotypical manner
without any context. Hopefully, this video shows that things are not that straightforward
and that traditional arguments sometimes need critical assessment. Historical research on
the topic is incomplete, and the debate is a lovely example of historiography in progress.
Only dialogue with testers and debates between scholars of different disciplines will eventually
lead to better theories and maybe even answers. Thanks again to War Thunder for sponsoring
this video. Don’t forget to make use of the large free bonus pack by using
our link in the description below!
