Let's Get It Right: Longbow vs Crossbow - A Video Essay

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
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!
Info
Channel: SandRhoman History
Views: 457,763
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: longbow, crossbow, longbow vs crossbow, english archer, archer, archery, history archer, history, documentary, english longbowmen history, english longbowman history, english longbowmen documentary, english longbowman documentary, longbow vs crossbow documentary, longbow vs crossbow history, longbow vs crossbow explained, longbows, vs crossbows, historical english archer, history english archer, welsh archer, archers england, england archers, archer england, england archer
Id: dO_8ZQ37D4Y
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 18min 43sec (1123 seconds)
Published: Sun Jun 25 2023
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.