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

[@SandRhomanHistory]

Play War Thunder now with my link, and get a massive, free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more: playwt.link/sandrhomanhistory2023 EDIT: Uhh, the math at 09:05 is wrong -> 360/hour

[@GenericInternetter]

09:08 6 arrows per minute = 360 arrows per hour

[@michaelm3691]

*TITLE BREAKDOWN* _"Let's get it right"_ Added 0 information. Made it twice as long as necessary. _"Longbow vs Crossbow:"_ Concise and descriptive. _"A Video Essay:"_ A hyperconcentration of cringe so dense, it caused Charm anti-particles and Tau particles (the notoriosly cringe particles) to fuse together in the creation of new fundamental particles of pure cringe. 2/5 stars - informed but dissappointed.

[@REALdavidmiscarriage]

I think the argument you made about crossbows being able to double their rate of fire is somewhat deluding, if you have 2 people firing a weapon instead of 1 of course you will double the rate of fire, you could also have 2 bowmen doing the same, I don‘t understand how this is significant…

[@Gigas0101]

there's only one good vehicle in war thunder, the italian L3/33

[@matheusimon7316]

Eh, the devs ruined it for years, really doubt the devs will fix anything

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Won't be long until a Bannerlord or Mordhau player leaks classified information to prove his point in this debate.

[@dmitritelvanni4068]

Strat gaming... Get on it

[@unknownpack5717]

The Vatican leaks...

[@TaRAAASHBAGS]

"Kill archers they're all gay" - Mordhau player

[@wolliveryoutube]

Internal security of the Duchy of Burgundy is severely compromised

[@frostedhams]

I never know which one to use in bannerlord. Or what to upgrade my troops to.

[@joaoteixeira6443]

I have been doing research on this subject for quite a while. Moving on to testing this year. My emphasis has been on the portuguese context, since we do have quite a few sources on various aspects of crossbow employment from a semi-professional corps. A few points: 1 - as to the power differences, the tests I have seen never take into account the myriad of variations in prod material (this is relevant due to energy loss through inertia), or the possible variation on quarrel characteristics, and other crossbow specifications - far too much standardization is assumed when discussing this problem. If we look at examples from museums alone, we see a lot of variation in design through western Europe alone. 2 - I have never seen considered in a significant degree in mainstream discussion (particularly online), that the crossbow might have offered economic advantages to the longbow. Crossbow manufacture involved more professionals, and was highly specialized. In Portugal, for example, around the Tejo (a river in central Portugal), we have references of at least 5 different professionals involved in crossbow production, and delivery to a private subject or troop. Prods, tillers, ticklers, strings, irons, quarrels and fletching, among other things, were mostly a specialised separate production which would later require assembly, testing, and tuning. This can kickstart local economies, produce basis for export (which happened in Flanders), promote trade, and provide the Crown, increasingly more concerned with standardization, with an economic and proto-industrial base of supply for its host. The 1471 expeditions to North Africa illustrate that. 3 - regarding training, we have a lot more insight as to the training of portuguese crossbowmen than we do of english longbowmen, for example. It is not surprising these sources are unknown, or ignored, due to language differences, but they exist. Recently, there have been two, maybe three, historians focusing on the problem and none of them has work published in English. If you would like me to provide you a translation of the seminal phd thesis on the subject I can @SandRhomanHistory ; In sum, however, training was extensive, and carried out every week, great legal pains were taken to ensure the coordination at local level, and the maintenance of equipment, training standards, and muster; tax privileges were complemented with fines for breaking agreements and obligations. We read of bank shooting of 100 quarrels a Sunday, coordination practice, and hunting parties - the latter are especially relevant due to vermin control (eagles), and special hunting privileges. 4 - employment, following from point number 3, is far more varied for crossbowmen in the sources than we see discussed elsewhere. Ambushes, small scale raiding parties, sieges, bodyguard duty, etc., all feature in the sources. 5 - As to the value of the bowman as a soldier, I think we ought to pay close attention to application and ordnances of other countries not France or England, such as Portugal and Spain, and reflect on the fact that the bow was extremely rare, while the crossbow was preferred, and the individual crossbowman was equiped to a higher standard, equipped with javelins, as well shield and sword, and expected to have a very high standard of proficiency. This only stopped when the crossbowman had its privileges revoked in favour of the gunman.

[@chaosmagician1865]

😊

[@chaosmagician1865]

😊😊😊😊😊

[@patrickols]

I got a thousand hours of play on Total War Medieval so I am an expert on this subject and I say that Tsar Bomba is a much better weapon than either one

[@paulraines9635]

In theory yes, but historically the longbow and crossbow have countless kills while the Tsar Bomba has yet to rack up one.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

_But they were all deceived... for another handheld ranged weapon was made..._

[@philippluft7632]

In the Land of Italy, in the fires of Florence, the dark alchemists forged in secret a master weapon, to replace all others. And into this weapon they poured their cruelty, their malice and will to dominate all battles. „One weapon to rule them all.“ One by one the ranged weapons of the army of Europe fell to the power of the gun.

[@BraveGisgo]

Goat comment

[@synthWizkid]

But they "were all of them" deceived.....

[@hedgehog3180]

I feel like there are two key issues that plague this debate. 1. We are pitting one specific weapon, the longbow, against an entire category of weapons, crossbows. Crossbows came in many different shapes and sizes as pointed out and those were suited for different niches. You can't just lump all crossbows together just like you can't lump all spears together. To get better answers you should probably compare more specific crossbows with longbows in order to narrow down the comparison. 2. A tendency to assume pre-modern combat followed similar rules to modern combat. Focusing too much on technical specifications is generally emblematic of a fairly modern understanding of technology, it makes sense in a world with standardized mass production where these things are consistent and can be quantified with tests (though even when talking about modern combat people over focus on it often). But generally in pre-modern it makes much more sense to think about the role a weapon plays as is pointed out and especially it's morale effect. Pre-modern battles were very often determined by morale so the literal physical impact of a weapon isn't as important as the effect it can have on the cohesion and morale of an enemy, not in that it was literally scary necessarily but often in it's ability to break up formations or tire the enemy. If we look at some other famous bows like the compound bows used by many steppe nomads it in itself was inferior in many technical aspects to longbows or crossbows but it was part of the tactics many steppe nomads used which were often successful because they were able to tire less mobile enemies and make them rout.

[@poggywoggy1999]

there many different types of long bow tho

[@TheBullethead]

I disagree with your point #2. Just where do you draw the line between "modern", "early modern", and "pre-modern"? For example, the Aztec empire was in the Stone Age but had a very centralized government over millions of people and a HUGE military-industrial complex to gin out standardized obsidian blades and points by the millions for both domestic and military use. They had the bow but that was relegated to peasant levees. The nobility, who wore armor, preferred the atlatl dart, which had rather greater penetrating power than the short self bows of the peasants, and which were only really good against the opposing peasants.

[@autokrator_]

Does your passion for history help to distract you from the fact that you will never be a woman?

[@thomaswalsh4552]

Common mistake, but *composite, not compound bows Imagine the horror of the mongols using compound bows…

[@danielwarren7110]

ummm not sure if anyone has pointed this out.... 9:07 ---- 6 arrows a minute is not 60 arrows an hour... it is 60 in ten minutes and 360 an hour not allowing for rest. so 1,800,000 arrows an hour for 5,000 archers with no rest period in that hour... otherwise enjoy the video.

[@rotciv1492]

Be it a crossbow or a longbow, both pale against the efectiveness of a single Frenchman swearing to you from the top of a castle wall.

[@richardstephens5570]

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time."

[@X.Y.Z.07]

"You father was a hamster, and your mother smells like elderberry!!!"

[@brucebartup6161]

"Sire, I have a plan . . . run away, run away! " The secret of British attack doctrine : always secure your means of retreat and be prepared to use them.

[@boriskapchits7727]

The higher rate of fire is certainly important. What makes the difference is not an average rate over few hours of battle, it's the ability to loose arrows at key points of the battle, for example when under charge. If a horseman charges on a formation, arrowmen had rather short time gap to loose the arrows on the charging force, they were in range for a couple of minutes or so. And it is much better to loose ten arrows then three bolts. Modern soldier can fire 500 round per minute, it does not mean that he carries to battle tons of ammunition, and he does not need to. But still, the ability to fire at this rate is important

[@SandRhomanHistory]

true, we could have made that point better. Still, depending on the situation and the tactical use of a weapon, higher rate of fire doesn't necessarily equal better weapon (which is what we tried to argue here).

[@boriskapchits7727]

@@SandRhomanHistory well, to be sure higher rate is an advantage, but you've made it very clear that beyond technical ability of a weapon there is question of tactical use and tradeoffs.

[@LorneAlexander]

theres nothing so discouraging to a knight as seeing the sky blacken over and over again with endless volleys of death raining down. one fallen horse can totally kill a charge cavalry are great but they need support

[@JumbalayahJihad]

I like to think that every weapon is situational and not a direct upgrade to each other. By sticking to weapon classes in the same or similar eras, they are more side grades to each other. While there may be better alternatives to some, there isn't a hard and fast, overall inferior weapon unless purposely taken out of context.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

well said.

[@ihl0700677525]

"Superior" weapon design will eventually supersede the inferior design, like nobody would disagree that modern 20th century .308 rifle with is superior to 18th century smoothbore musket. In case of longbow, the English, during the Crusades (e.g. under Richard the Lionhearted) use crossbow extensively. But they eventually adopt longbow during the 100 years war as their primary ranged weapon. This means longbow was in fact *superior* to crossbow in the context of English favored strategy of rapid large scale raiding (chevauchee) during 100 years war. They deploy a lot of *mounted archers* during these raids, who were foot archers that ride horse to move around (like later Dragoon units). They primarily fight on foot with longbow, but they also shoot from horseback (most likely with smaller bow), as depicted in many contemporary artworks. Btw, contrary to popular belief, mounted archers were *common* in Medieval Europe. From England, France, Burgundy, HRE, Eastern Roman Empire, the Rus, the nomadic tribes, all the way to Chinese dynasties, they all use mounted archers and horse archers. These were *NOT* unique to nomadic tribes of Eurasian plain.

[@limonbattery]

There's this Italian treatise c. 1453 which recommends either the English longbow or Turkish composite bow for sappers (among other various recommendations for an army of the time.) Considering both hand cannons and crossbows were well known to the Italians by this point, there are couple reasons I think they chose to recommend the bow for this specific application. 1. Sappers were not primary combatants, certainly not on a battlefield, so armor penetration is not as big a concern. Even then, they would still be at risk during a siege, so they definitely should still be armed somehow. 2. The bow can allow indirect fire, which is more difficult for the crossbow and not an option for the hand cannon. If you are most likely going to be shooting at someone in a fortified position (if at all), then this could be critical to actually targeting them at all. 3. The crossbow would require you to bring a spanning mechanism, and the hand cannon powder and likely a stand or even a second guy to help you hold it. In any case, both are much more cumbersome to transport than the bow, which is worth considering when again combat is not your main job, but more of something you need to prepare for. Especially when sappers should be bringing other equipment for their primary job. As for why the Turkish bows were considered equally viable despite being more exotic for a European context, they probably performed similarly enough and/or had unique advantages that made them worth using if you could get your hands on them. If I had to make a guess, it'd be the more efficient design allowing less draw weight for the same power, which would be nice for users who are probably not training as hard as military archers. Both would probably be insufficient against a plate armored opponent anyway so I doubt that was a major factor. gallica.bnf.fr/.../btv1b8478964h/f46.planchecontact

[@dolsopolar]

@@limonbatterythere's a lot of contemporary arguments about which weapons were better. Especially in the late 16th century which guns mostly replaced bows by that point. There's many 'military theorists' arguing through their writings wheter longbow were better than muskets. (Spoilers: muskets won) the interesting part is how similar they are to internet arguments today for example the argument that there aren't any living archers in their time as competent as the one from agincourt so they can't prove their points.

[@freakystyle1996]

Something I noticed is that some info on the use each weapon had can be found in surnames. As surnames come from professions, you can tell what kind of troops were actual soldiers (and not just levies) in each region by the names they left: for example, in English, you can find family names as Archer and Bowman, while in Spanish and Catalan you have Ballestero and Ballester (i.e. Crossbowman).

[@joaoteixeira6443]

This is interesting, but ultimately impossible to draw conclusions from since before the 1600's in places like Iberia the soldiers were part time only. Most of the bowmen were weavers by profession, at least in Portugal, since it was the most well represented profession in the middle classes of emerging burghers with contacts with the English and northern European wool trade market.

[@boriskapchits7727]

The surname are not coming from middle ages, this is relatively modern invention. So at the best it can give you some information on your ancestors three hundred year ago

[@freakystyle1996]

Three hundred years ago, archers and crossbowmen were no longer commonplace, and hadn't been for almost two centuries

[@robo5013]

@@boriskapchits7727 Surnames were definitely used in the middle ages, especially by the British. Many men were named after biblical characters and in Britain John was so popular that whole villages had the vast majority of their men named John. To differentiate between the people in court records a surname was given, based on what occupation they had when relevant, such as smith, brewer, carpenter, etc. If they were just run of the mill farmers (millers would have been called miller) then they got a name based on something else, such as a geographic feature they lived near. That is where names such as Atwell or Atwood came from because they lived near, or at, the well or woods. I am of Irish descent and we can trace our surname, or clan name, back thousands of years to well before the iron age, much less the middle ages.

[@TheMrcassina]

italy is full of Balestra, Balestrieri, Balestri ecc..

[@takeiteasy8847]

Just because it is not sustainable to fire at maximum cadence does not imply that it is not a huge advantage. When the enemy charges you will probably fire most of the time with maximum cadence to discourage him and inflict maximum damage while he is within range. There is no denying that in those critical moments firing more projectiles is a huge advantage. Of course no one keeps it up for hours but that is not the point.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

true. it was not our intention to imply that but to critique the common argument that rate of fire equals better weapon!

[@vanivanov9571]

@@SandRhomanHistory Which is why we still use the Brown Bess.

[@dolsopolar]

@@vanivanov9571 since the very reasons many army were slow to adopt repeating rifles was because their logistics couldn't keep up with the ammunitions new guns would consume and soldiers would quickly empty their ammunition(at least that's what they were afraid of) you kinda proved his point.

[@dragonade85]

Context is everything. Not mentioned is that English longbows liked to fight from behind an obstacle - pits at Crecy, stakes at Agincourt - which was part and parcel of their harrassing role in goading an enemy to attack at a disadvantage. At Patay, a battle not generally discussed in English histories, longbowmen were caught before they could emplace stakes and were badly beaten.

[@Arbelot]

Good. That means the French were able to adapt.

[@QuantumHistorian]

A quick note on physics here. The "poundage" of a bow is NOT its "power". Commonly confused by historians who stopped doing physics in middle school, but that's no excuse. So a quick physics lesson: Pound is a measure of force. A 500 pound crossbow means that, at maximum draw, it takes a force equivalent to a 500 pound mass pulled down by gravity to pull the string back any further. *Energy* in the bow is the integral of that force over the draw distance. So the energy is (very roughly) draw weight * spanning distance * some number between 1/2 and 1 depending on the geometry and pre-tension in the bow. This is energy stored in the bow, but not all of that gets transferred to the projectile because, on release parts of the bow itself start moving so the kinetic energy is shared between the arrow and the bow itself. Does this actually matter for the debate? Not entirely. But getting the elementary science wrong never helps anyone either.

[@jeice13]

The energy being lost in the bow is relevant here because crossbows, especially of higher weights, have noteably lower efficiency to the point that i think todds workshop founr a heavy crossbow (somthing like 1500 pound i think, its been a while) didnt even have twice the power of one that wan under 400 pounds

[@QuantumHistorian]

@@jeice13 By bow I meant the bendy bit in either a crossbow or longbow. I just didn't feel like writing "crossbow or longbow" 3 times per sentence, so referred to them both as bows. Reread the comment with that in mind. Oh, and in your last sentence, when you said "power" did you mean energy?

[@jeice13]

@@QuantumHistorian im aware, though what i was pointing out was more that the often stiffer heavier bow or prod of stronger crossbows typically means that it can not try to accelerate the projectile to the same speeds and thus takes even more losses in efficiency than a bow of the same draw length. They also regularly push the string into the stock creating friction so even the rather impressive chinese crossbows are slightly less efficient than the same mechanism not mounted on a crossbow stock and trigger. European crossbows are worse because they have all the problems i mentioned whereas the asian design managed to put the string catch far enough back to basically be a normal bow mounted on a stock (but with dramatically higher draw weights)

[@jakubchalupa8510]

Crossbow is even more useful when you have cover than people realize. It comes from most people misunderstanding how a crossbow is shot. Typically you don't hold it as a rifle, but with one hand at the back of the stock, with the other with a overhand grip with a thumb on the nut holding the arrow down - which makes it much easier to just put the weapon over the cover with as little exposure as possible, shoot and hide again. It's why you have pavise crossbowmen and not pavise archers. You'd think an archer would benefit from a pavise just as much on a battlefield, but if you ever shot a longbow, you'd know that having stuff in front of you is a massive headeache and if you hit anything with the limbs, you've probably irreversably destroyed it. When you are a longbowman on a castle wall, you either have to have space in front of you, which severly limits your ability to shoot at people downwards, and if you wnat to shoot down, you have to get close to the wall, and put your whole bow in front of the wall, becoming a massive target. For the crossbow, if you can rest the styrrup on a surface, you can shoot from there no problem.

[@gallowglass3764]

Huh! Noted

[@StevenMcCloskey]

The math at 9:09 is off, if they fired 6 arrows/minute that's 360 arrows/hour, not 60/hour. So 1.8M arrows per hour for the 5000 archers. Solidifies your point more that they would not be firing at the maximum rate constantly during a battle.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

yep, our mistake, didn’t check it while reviewing.

[@andreashauschild7757]

I am not a archer, but I had had the chance to try to shoot a longbow and several xbows. I am a pretty big guy at 182 cm and of stout build. I am reasonably fit. Shooting smaller bows was allready demanding but I was not able to shoot a 120 pound bow more then once or twice before I was not able to draw it anymore. Xbows where different. Yes the winch took some getting used too, but it was doable without to much strain. The smaller xbows without winch where you stand on it and pull up was more taxing, but i was able to do it about 15 time before straining. Shooting with precision was almost impossible with the long boy because I was pretty much shacking just to maintain the draw for any length of time while with the xbow after a few shots my accuracy was very good. I personally think the xbow is a better choice for armies that are mustered. The reason is simple. You can practice something and learn it, but building the strength required to shoot a long bow for any length of time efficient takes years. From a logicistical point of view the xbow is a much better weapon when dealing with semi or non proffessional armies.

[@NUSensei]

Great discussion. I'm glad you touched on two vital fallacies: 1. Rate of fire is overrated. On paper, yes, the longbow could get more arrows out quicker - but so what? Commentators play into the "damage per second" video game logic when in reality, no weapon is practically shot at their maximum rate of fire. The sensationalist view continually pushes the speed aspect of archery without regard to the effectiveness. There was little purpose in shooting to miss and running out of arrows when it really mattered. 2. The "archery laws" of England. This has continually be construed to mean that every single person in England was an expert archer because they trained every Sunday. However, that is not what the history thoroughly documents. We know of the laws regarding ownership of bows. We know of the passive aggressive reminders to keep on practising. This doesn't mean that a population that otherwise had no use for archery would be proficient marksmen. I'm glad that you provided the alternate view that these laws could suggest that the people were _not_ putting in the time to practice.

[@vanivanov9571]

1. If men are charging at you, you will appreciate every arrow you can get into their ranks in that short time. You don't need a high rate of fire throughout an entire battle. 2. ...They weren't taking all of England to France. Only the top few % of archers were taken on campaign, with high standards. The English became very proud of their bow culture, and it's survived today, the idea they weren't producing good arches is historical revisionism.

[@romaliop]

Obviously since neither fully replaced the other over a long period of time, both had their advantages.

[@arnvonsalzburg5033]

I guess most army leaders just used the troops that were affordable and available at their place and time.

[@squidmanfedsfeds5301]

@@arnvonsalzburg5033that’s what I’m thinking, if a noble or anyone really, needed men they would go with what’s available Whether it be crossbowmen or bows

[@Станислав-с6п8я]

Crossbowmen were almost always professional warriors, mercenaries. It could not be otherwise, because the cost of their equipment was many times higher than that of archers. Naturally, professional mercenaries were generally better trained in all aspects of warfare at the time. The French kings always preferred crossbowmen, but they did not always have the money to hire enough of them. At Poitiers (1356), the English archers tried to shoot with the French crossbowmen, but even having used up the main supply of arrows, they could not suppress them. There is a mention that the English archers even managed to go into the flank of the French attacking formations, but the arrows bounced off the armor of the French knights moving on foot, which indicates that the effectiveness of the longbow was not at all the same as we are shown in the movies.

[@rolletroll2338]

In the movies and videogames, heavy armors made of 2mm plates of carbon steel are pierced and cuted trough like they were made of paper instead. It's infuriating

[@alanlayton4958]

Great video, but your rebuttal of the Longbow = Machine gun point, miss represents how machine guns are used. The high rate of fire exhausts a machine gun as well. Properly used machine guns don’t just spray bullets the entire battle. If they did the would exhaust their ammunition rapidly. But machine guns are still very useful. A high rate of fire with low bows curry key moments in a battle would still be very useful.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

good point. thanks for taking the time to comment! I think articles that refer to the longbow as a medieval machine gun do overemphasize rate of fire though. they kinda make the same assumptions that you rightly pointed out are inaccurate!

[@Sadreath]

The one argument for the crossbow that I always found made a lot of sense in a Siege scenario is that you could fully reload the weapon behind cover and than only leave cover to shoot. In order to fire an arrow you have to stand up, draw and shoot without being behind cover.

[@stylicho]

Am I missing something? 6 arrows a minute doesn't equal 60 arrows an hour. It equals 60 arrows every 10 minutes

[@MrSheckstr]

No the 6 a minute does not equal 60 and hour…. But at the same time it does not equal 60 arrows in ten minutes either ….. Whether we are talking about slings, bows, or rifles estimating rate of fire over longer periods of time through single step multiplication is not very practical or logical…. Limiting factors not relevant in short periods become exponentially more and more relevant in longer periods…. Endurance of the operator and fatigue and stresses on the weapon as well as ammunition supply…. The leather strap on the sling will break overtime, the bowstring will stretch out , the barrel will overheat…. The shoulder of rhe operators of all these individuals will degrade over time

[@biffmarcum5014]

@@MrSheckstr No but also got to remember a battle was not just one constant melee. They clashed withdrew, then the next wave. WE DO KNOW that the english would gather arrows in between these waves.

[@The_ZeroLine]

I think we underestimate how good and how much endurance bowmen who grew up depending on long bows for food, defense, entertainment, etc. were. The bow likely became like an appendage. Sort of like how one of the reasons the Mongolians were unstoppable was because they were used to doing everything from horseback, especially bows since they were little children. It’s so different in comparison to archery simply as a hobby or even for competition. However, I have no doubt, many people have hilariously inaccurate theories on them.

[@sauerkrautlanguage]

The point touched earlier in the video is one of the most important. Clearly two different places at different times developed military weapon systems based on different principles, one on high intensive labor input and the other on high intensive capital input, and thus developed their entire technological, logistical, productive and cultural forms of organization around them. These complex regional historical systems are not born out of a simple game theoretic minmax calculation of "which system is objectively better accross all possible scenarios" because even the systems themsevels weren't perfectly efficient, indeed there was literally no way to ensure either perfect training standards for archers or perfect manufacturing standards for crossbows. Furthermore the organization of technological and labor resources was highly descentrallized and informal, and greatly regionally circumscribed, so a game theoretic arms race probably wasn't ever necessary nor plausible. For example there was probably no reason for genoese crossbowmen to adapt their system significantly much as a result of their loss against the english since their area of military operations clearly was not centered on Northern Europe anyways, nor can it ever be proven if the victory was a fluke because English archers didn't go south either to try and fight crossbowmen with full pavisses. The point is that these systems could for the most part remain relatively aloof of each other, the same way that saracen archery didn't lead to a revolution of dropping the objectively inferior self bows for recurves. Another extremely important point is derived from imposing modern standards of warfare on premodern warfare, because melee combat was a thing back then, and as such ranged weapons shouldn't strictly be judged with regards to how they compete directly against each other, but how do they compete against melee troops which have a parallel arms race going on with ranged weaponry through the development of armor. In short, pockets of relative inefficiency, overfitting to specific regional tactical niches, and culturally bound inertia, plus a very small differential of effectiveness either way, are all reasons as to why both systems coexisted rather than extinguished each other. In the later gunpowder period, when you see a much more closely integrated literary military culture, more far reaching military endeavors, and a greater technological and tactical innovative frontier, is when you start seeing rapid and sustained change in army organization

[@thrifikionor7603]

I think the biggest reasons why the crossbow took over in mainland europe have little to do with efficiency of the weapon. By the end of the middle ages, yew became quite rare, at the same time metallurgy got a lot better making steel prods the better choice for a mass produced weapon. Crossbows and its bolts are also the better weapon to stock up armories, much easier to maintain than a delicate wooden bow with comparably flimsy arrrows (compared to a thick rugged wooden fletched crossbow bolt of course) that might even warp rendering them less useful or completly useless. Since sieges were the most common type of engagement, in the case of a besieged town you could just hand them out to some moderately trained citizens as defense was often organised by the guilds. A crossbow is also of course the better weapon for the defender. So now you already have a weapon thats common in use, its just logical that that weapon gets more popular for general warfare use. Later when the arquebus and musket came around, they quickly replaced the crossbow as they filled pretty much the same niche.

[@robinmiller871]

The game changer for the longbow, that is often ignored is the access and culture of the longbow. In England, you had a culture of your peasants using longbows. It was a form of survival and pride. England nailed it with hosting competitions for the longbow. This gave the poor a realistic path to climbing the hierarchy or at least make some real money. The main benefits of all this are... when it was time for war, you had a very large pool of ready made, veteran archers that came equipped and ready to roll. The advantages of this cannot be overstated. Also, a citizenry who can repel invading armies if pushed... another major advantage.

[@nemofunf9862]

Amazing. The video basically concludes that a direct comparison is pointless due to various reasons. And yet, people in the comments immediately start arguing again about which is better. 👍

[@54032Zepol]

because crossbows are better duh

[@nemofunf9862]

@@54032Zepol But Longbows can fire so much faster, omg. And also Agincourt.

[@54032Zepol]

@@nemofunf9862 yes its so easy to shot a bow that fast and accurate please you must be an expert archer go ahead show everyone your bow skills

[@robo5013]

@@nemofunf9862 Agincourt was won when the longbowmen put away their bows and attacked the French, who were pushing the English line back, in the flanks with melee weapons. It was the swords and axes of the bowmen that won the battle, not the bow. That is why Henry V praised the valor of his longbowmen.

[@nemofunf9862]

Jesus guys, I was being ironic. Could you please read what I wrote in my original comment?

[@dango470]

Rate of argument fire misses out the point that archers can see situations where they should fire faster, and then situations where they would not need to fire as much. So they see an opening and go full out, then they slow down or stop shooting and wait for an opening. The ability to put six arrows where a single crossbow bolt would be is a massive tactical advantage, even if you only use this ability sporadically

[@squidmanfedsfeds5301]

Yup, I’m thinking crossbowmen/bowmen vs a cavalry charge would be a good example of opening where more arrows would probably be better

[@mattmexor2882]

Sustained rate of fire is different from burst rate of fire. Common sense suggests two things to consider and test: 1) a longbowman likely could not keep up a greater rate of fire over an hours long battle than a crossbowman. The work that a crossbowman did was more the kind that can be done all day, like working in a field. The work a longbowman did was like that of a baseball pitcher. He would get fatigued after a certain number of shots. If he were forced to work significantly faster he would get fatigued with fewer shots. And if he worked very hard for a long time one day he may have been rather ineffective the next couple of days. 2) At certain moments in the battle it would likely be advantageous for a unit to loose many arrows/bolts in a short period of time. The longbow provides such flexibility, offering a potential tactical advantage. Also, the way crossbows were used tactically perhaps ranged widely as it seems there were a wide range of types of crossbows available. I think the question of which was better in battle is unknowable. Perhaps the choice between the two came down more to social and economic conditions than to battlefield effectiveness. If one were significantly more overall effective than the other then the other would likely have faded away. But whether to employ one or the other may have come down to the situation one found oneself in. Longbowmen required years of training to be able to pull war bows. Some places had what could be called a longbow culture. Yet in other places, mercenaries preferred to equip themselves with crossbows. What is the reason for that? Was there a greater survivability for crossbowmen? Was there a cost advantage to the longbow unit in places where a longbow culture existed, but in the case of a mercenary group who is paid for their effectiveness in battle it was no problem to deal with the extra equipment cost? It seems hard to answer these questions without first knowing how the units were employed in battle and what capabilities they gave to the commanders under whom they fought.

[@mrgopnik5964]

It would take us longer to make a definite answer to this question, than it took for armies to replace both weapons with arquebusses

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

& then heavily armored Manchu cavalry wielding bows crushed armies of arquebusiers in the 17th century.

[@IntraFinesse]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I had not heard of this. Which battles? I want to research that!

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

@@IntraFinesse The Batle of Sarhu 1619 stands out. Here are some translated quotations from Huangchao Jinshi Wenpian from a Historum thread: "The thralls (Jurchen) have a lot of Mingguang heavy armor, shorter and smaller arquebuses cannot pierce it. That's why (our) training nowadays should draw the picture of enemy as shooting targets, and focus (the training) on shooting at their hands and eyes. We should also call craftsmen to manufacture "Big Arquebus" (probably musket or jingal) at once, at least 1000 was needed, that can pierce iron armor. "At the present, the slaves (Jurchens) won and we lost horribly for three reasons...they are armor, equipment, battle horses, which are rough military indicators and we also cannot match them in any...According to the reports of the Koreans, the slave places in the northern passes had iron smiths dwelling there. Their profession is to make armor. I also heard that their iron workers spread out for many li. Your subject also saw people who returned from the Liao region saying that the armors, masks and armguards used by enemy troops(read: Jurchen) are made of "Jingtie" (some kind of high quality steel), and their horses wear the same. That's why during their battle with Joseon encampment, enemy infantry dashed forward and quickly dismantled the chevaux de frise. While Joseon troops are armed with guns (arquebus) and arrows (bow), they could do nothing. This was caused by the durable armor. As for the armors of our soldiers, we could do nothing but somewhat imitate the system of the Helian clan but what we created in the army were all slag contained iron, and other than the chest and back, there are naked parts, when the enemy are within 5 paces, they only shoot at the face, each shot will certainly kill, so no one can resist it."

[@limonbattery]

​@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Should be noted that with non-standard shot, powder etc. in early modern armies the failure of black powder weapons comes up in many places and should be taken with a grain of salt, as it's more a sign of inconsistency than ideal behavior. There are records even centuries later of colonial European forces complaining of failing to break the skin of unarmored tribals (or vice versa for guns sold to tribals) because their guns were frankly kept in shit condition. See Sir Garnet Wolseley of the Second Anglo-Asante War.

[@dolsopolar]

⁠@@b.h.abbott-motley2427ah yes group of poor arquebusiers overran by essentially bulletproof heavy cavalry that also happen to carrybows(among their dozens of weapons they carried with them) therefore bows are better than guns

[@TypdersichderTypnenn]

6 arrows / minute != 60 arrows / hour. It's 360 arrows / hour. So 1.8 million arrows / hour at Agincourt, at that rate.

[@MrCristianposso]

That's not achiavle, archery gets you tired very quickly, not even mentioning the number or arrows.

[@TypdersichderTypnenn]

@@MrCristianposso Never said it was achievable. Merely doing math.

[@bello9740]

best way to think of it is if one was truly better, we'd be using just that one instead of both

[@otavio.a.8.r]

No experience with warbows, but with normal 45 lb bows I used to practice for one to two hours every weekend, sometimes supplementing it with evening training during the week. It was quite common to spend 1 to 2 hours shooting continuously, with short breaks in between sets to get the arrows back. 8 arrows per set (1 arrow each 3 to 5 s), get them and repeat it. I imagine with warbows people would get more tired, especially in a siege shooting for probably a whole morning or afternoon, but they could very much shoot a bit, exchange with another archer, return and if necessary in some times continuously shoot really fast when many enemies are going up the wall or something. Especially with fear and adrenaline involved. Furthermore let's be honest, no one nowadays practices the same amount and with such heavy bows as the people of this time. An experience archer would probably be more than able to continuously shoot for 2 hours, maybe in a bit slower pace during the second one. In addition, to my understanding this 6 arrows per minute (10 s per arrow) seems so slow even for someone with a warbow. I suspect this time is counting with the guy taking the rest in between the arrows. Remember when his not pulling the string, he's not making force, so it counts as resting too. To me bows are much better in many aspects, the only exceptions I thinks is the facility to train an army and the need for more power of penetration if many enemies are wearing heavy plate armour. Besides that bows are cheaper, faster, easy to manipulate and can be used on horseback (Mongolian and Turkish style bows), which in Eastern Europe and asia was the primarily use of a bow. Also, although probably not so common to do, bows permit more mobility, shooting in curves (literally is super easy to make a arrow curve in the air), and can be used alongside a sword, specially on horseback or on foot, there are some turkish tecniques that allow archers to hold the bow while using a sword to fight enemies that approached them, then take another arrow and just continue shooting. I believe that the reason for the swap for crossbow was more a matter of training time and necessity to penetrate better armors, as armours got cheaper and more people could aford some kind of protection.

[@Aserox]

You're comparing your experience shooting a 45 pound bow to firing 100+ pound bows over a couple of hours? Don't get me wrong, I could fire my 70 pound bow for multiple sets of 20 arrows without too big an issue, but youre missing that its over double the poundage youre firing at there bud. . . Adrenaline doesnt last for multiple hours, and will completely wipe you out when its gone. Also volley fire is a thing, 6 arrows per minute is plenty. Spend some time firing 100+ pounds constantly for even 10 minutes let alone an hour and let us know the results.. Time spent not firing is not a rest, just not straining yourself further.

[@otavio.a.8.r]

@@Aserox I'm comparing that a person who is used to training with a certain weight of bow can usually stand shoot it for a longer time than what they usually practice. I used the 45lb example as I used to practice once a week but sometimes atempt to shoot 4 hours strait. I could last more than what I was used to but of course it was more demanding and would fell a bit of pain after. So, what I'm saying is that if you are used to the bow, you can shoot at least 1 to 2 hours in high intencity if needed. Returning to the historical example, unlike historical archers, modern archer who practice with warbows are either training with lighter bows and ocasionally the warbow, or practice with the warbow once to some days a week. Acient archers (the same archeologists say that sufered bone alteration as adaptation of their work) were probably practicing much more and were more adapted to shoot. Probably practicing with heavy bows as much as they could. I really doubt they couldn't last more than 1 hour in high intencity even with the heavier bows. For us they are super heavy, but maybe not for them. As for the adrenaline, I did not say that it would last for several hours, but even attacks during sieges did not happen without a break, people did not spend 24 hours attacking without stopping, and there is the possibility of alternating between archers depending on how many were in the city. Of course they would get tired, but I think we are subestimating how long they could last. Besides if your life depends on it, you would stop shooting because you got tired, you would put more effort. So if for example during the siege the enemies are trying to go up a stair and get the walls they would put more effort to hold them. So yes, I agree with you we can't compare 45 with 130lb (it was not the best way to express what I was trying to say), but we equally can't compare modern people with little or moderate training with people who literally have abnormal bone structure due to their training.

[@gabrielcastillo9745]

The question of whether getting an army of archers or crossbow users really depended on whether or not your country had a long-standing archery tradition. If yes, then go for the bows because an army of truly skilled archers can fire much faster and be just as powerful and accurate as an army of crosbow users. But if you don't have that tradition, it is far better to invest in crossbows, because you will only need a couple of months to train an army with no archery experience to be good enough with crossbows.

[@fiddlesticks7245]

Longbows will never penetrate plate, while super heavy crossbows can.

[@natfoote4967]

Before I watch this I have to say: In my experience with both, I regard the longbow the superior weapon. It, however, requires considerable training and years of practice to master. The crossbow fires like a musket. It can be taught in an afternoon and practiced in a week. Furthermore, the musculature of the longbowman is odd and specialized. Any farm boy with a strong back can load a crossbow.

[@davemccage7918]

That’s like saying a Toyota Prius is superior to a Ford F250, or vice versa. They are both vehicles and are used for transportation, it just depends on what you’re trying to accomplish with them.

[@natfoote4967]

@@davemccage7918 Please parse the statement again and focus on the "I regard" subject and verb. It is like saying you, personally, find an F250 more useful to you. I'm a practiced, open-field archer. If I was a guard I would want a crossbow, instead, but I'm not.

[@ringofasho7721]

Same

[@lscibor]

The problem with this trope is that continental Europe very much had crossbow culture, archers competing with each other at shooting competition all over the land, and professional crossbowmen were well paid.... well, professionals. So you would have plenty of crossbowmen training for years. And in all likeness, you would have plenty of weekend warriors among the bowmen as well, for every superhero accurately shooting 150 pound bow all day you would have bunch of guys able to loose decent arrow from 80 pound bow few times.

[@stephanpetri262]

I think the cost are also an intersting factor to look at. Many interpretations are that the mechanical parts of a crossbow had to be more expensive than wood. This leaves out however is that a longbow couldn't be made from simple "wood". England imported Yew for their bows from all over europe, with bavarian sources of the 16 ct stating that not a single yew can be found in the kingdom due to those exports. So it is safe to assume that a longbow wasn't as cheap as many people think.

[@Jwsponky]

And... I'm not sure if you'd phrase it 'on top of' or 'in addition to' that, some reports have it that the reason the English eventually had to import the bow staves is because they had logged the yew tree to near if not compete EXTINCTION in the British Islands to make bow staves.

[@nicholasaustin4796]

The thing about crossbowmen is that they were still considered infantry being armed with decent weapons and armor. This was possible because it was extremely easier to teach a infantry man how to use a crossbow when needed rather than devoting his life to master the longbow.

[@squidmanfedsfeds5301]

Yeah fair point Im thinking why wouldn’t any infantry man bring multiple weapons with him, for example I’ve heard Roman soldiers very often carried a sling with them tied around their head or waist So it probably wouldn’t take much to carry a small crossbow with you even if you were say, a spearmen

[@dolsopolar]

nope. english longbowmen were know to also able to function as light cavalry("light" by western european standard would still wear a considerable amount of armor and weapons) and some literally become a man at arms later in their career even when started as an archer.

[@nicholasaustin4796]

@@dolsopolar first learn how to properly speak English before making claims... " english longbowmen were know to also able to function" English men were in longbow championships at a very young age by cultural tradition so obviously they were masters of the longbow. Now imagine giving a longbow to somebody in France or Flanders who are in their 30's and have never held one, while expecting them to use it effectively against men with armor or horseback knights within a few weeks before battle. It won't happen.

[@LordReginaldMeowmont]

The obvious pro and cons is the troops. Archers require more training and thus more pay because there's less supply. You could get more crossbowmen because anyone can pick one up and get decent in a week, thus high supply and less pay. Realistically, if you have enough food and supplies for all the crossbowmen, you can break even on shots per minute vs archers just by having more men.

[@darthkek1953]

Archers are not trained, they are raised. That's the problem, if you don't start them early you don't get proper results. Crossbowmen an be trained though. But the kit is more expensive.

[@kevinjohnbetts]

When one compares these weapons it's hard without the tactical usage being brought into consideration. The longbow's famous battles were won by men positioned behind battlefield defences designed to hinder an enemy advance, Ideally some reconnaissance would have taken place allowing for the marking of range, All these act as force multipliers. In open field battles where the only shelter a longbowman could take was a ditch. gully, or hiding behind the heavily armoured men-at-arms, rendered them far less effective. Crossbowmen were better in open-field battles, especially when deployed where shields could protect those reloading whilst the first 'rank' fired. However these were far more cumbersome formations dependent both on the discipline of the archers and those of the 'shock troops' following in their wake. Medieval commanders did not have a good reputation for patience or tactical acumen, regularly launching speculative charges in search of glory when time spent waiting for the crossbowmen to do their work would have been far more sensible.

[@captainnyet9855]

Yes, the longbow is mostly famous for winning the few battles where it was allowed to perfectly exploit it's advantage, generally through the ineptitude of enemy commanders calling to rapidly advance on a well prepared enemy position.

[@matthewzito6130]

I think you're looking at rare-of-fire the wrong way. After all, modern machine guns don't fire continuously for hours at a time. They would quickly overheat. ... However, what they can do is generate a high a volume of fire at critical points during a battle. ... It would have made sense for archers to operate in a similar manner, firing rapidly when they needed to and conserving their arrows at other times.

[@kelvingriffiths6017]

Makes sense to me.

[@derek7762]

Great video, a great part missing is how these were all used outside of European contexts. For example, if you look at Chinese armies, many are documented to have had hundreds of thousands of equipped crossbowmen. I must imagine strategies and tactics here were much different compared to what you described. Of course, there are also many variations of bows and crossbows throughout time and place.

[@Sorenzo]

A likely benefit of the crossbow in sieges is that you can keep it aimed for a long time, waiting for someone to let their guard down... Also if you risk running out of arrows, there's a reduced benefit to a high rate of fire.

[@mangalores-x_x]

an important aspect of range is that it is not about how far a weapon shoots but within what range it is effective. That is btw where a longbow drops to ranges where a musket is more lethal. Sure, you can fire farther but why would you bother, you are unlikely to get through armor and shields anyway. In fact in the late Middle Ages we are talking alot of armor even among common soldiers, a lot of heavy shields, a lot of formation fighting. A longbow cannot even get through plate at 10 meters. In the meantime the range at which an arquebus is still accurate it will also still punch through armor and thus actually has a longer effective range than a bow against formed infantry. So suddenly the supposedly aweful range of arequebus and muskets is actually a longer effective range than what bows and crossbows could do. Even before I do believe the range at which longbow archers would fire in volleys against an enemy assault would actually not be that far out to what arquebusiers would do. In the same vein fire superiority is a concept of modern warfare, not how missile weapons were used in the past. Ammo consumption and their availability would prevent that. Again, advantage ultimately went with gun powder weapons. The accuracy was decent enough at the ranges that mattered with more ammo to shoot and high lethality at the receiving end.

[@MatteoRomanelli-kl9fb]

Ultimately the difference between the 2 came down to costs. A crossbow man could have been trained in about 4 to 6 weeks whereas a longbow man was actually someone who trained since childhood. The latter was far more expensive and far less replaceable . During the 100 years war the English kings ensured to protect their longbow men at all costs because they know that their replacement was fat more difficult.

[@roycspary8923]

power is not directly related. the time the power is applied is very important a crossbow has a very short power stroke usually a few inches a longbow is in modern times thought of as having a draw length of 28 inches the power reduces a bit through the power stroke but the long power styroke adds greatly to the energy the arrow carries i am an ametur archer. being freakishly tall my draw length is 32 inches so at best there is an average but it was variable. also after shooting once a week, 90 arrows wiyhin a year i was getting at least 80 into the bullseye at 30 meters and Iwas far from the best so at that distance I could put an arrow int a persons face others were doing that at double the distance so do not underestimate long bow accuracy especially in someone who trained for decades. a lot of this was to handle high draw weights but accuracy alsoimproves. assuming a medieval archer has poor aim is likely a good way to die painfully

[@alex86fire]

In large scale battles accuracy of the degree you mention is not that important. It was more important for everybody to shoot at a certain range. I don't think they were choosing individual headshots. It would be very hard to coordinate who shoots who. Another aspect is the distance. The distances were far greater, going into the hundreds of meters at certain points during the battle. There is also a big chance that archers would have to shoot over their own infantry so they would not have a direct line of sight on the enemy. I have not shot a bow enough times to be able to say how much that influences one's ability to hit a target but I imagine it adds another skill element to shooting a bow (having to shoot upwards so that the arrow hits the target on the way down).

[@stuartstevens2069]

I always thought it was quite simple, the British allowed the arming of its peasantry ( with enforced practise of archery for generations)where the French was always wary of that…..

[@AnimaTriste]

6 arrows per minute does not equal 60 arrows per hour 6x 60=360 At least where I live...

[@DC-hw7fw]

XD

[@DC-hw7fw]

They usually took longer due to longer distance and the fact that they didn't rush the shots for camera (no such camera existed, obviously). Plus, the crossbow in the vid is used for hunting. It is NOT what they used in battle.

[@Staremperor]

What is better weapon, crossbow or longbow? Simple answer - neither. If one would be undeniably better, the other wouldn't be used at all. But they were both used at the same time, so both have to have a merit.

[@therightarmofthefreeworld4703]

And they both started to fall out of use at about the same time. Also, if the crossbow was superior (regarding all factors in warfare) then the only explanation for the English using longbowmen en masse is that every English ruler for about 300 years was either too stubborn or stupid to abandon it, which is implausible.

[@saintpres4ge533]

Longbow was better but took decades of training and skill, also to make it was harder as you needed good trees to make such long bows, while crossbows were easier to make with shortbows and metal mechanical components, throw on quicker training time, easier to supply/replace and easier to use defensive items like the pavese, crossbowmen were worse combat wise but if you could field more of them you could get more value out. Gunpowder just ends up being an upgrade of the crossbow for the same reasons, easier to produce, less training, still fatal, once you have critical mass, guns win

[@EroticOnion23]

@@saintpres4ge533 crossbows being cheaper to make??!

[@saintpres4ge533]

@@EroticOnion23 With advances in machinery after the black death plus crossbows also using short bows which meant you could make them easier than requiring specific trees. Also being more metal components. In essence, after a certain point it was easier and cheaper to mass produce crossbows than it was to make longbows. Combine this with having more versatile soldiers with less training required meant you could field more crossbowmen, for cheaper and replace them easier. Once the Industrial revolution happened, guns replaced both with ease, having factories that could pump out crates of guns dwarfed everything else

[@EroticOnion23]

@@saintpres4ge533 longbows were just a stick with a string?

[@arcxjo]

10:30 did it really never occur to you that archers didn't all have to fire at once too? You could have a formation 6 ranks deep, and after the ones in the front fire a volley the second row fires one, then the third ... until you've gone down the whole set and start from the front again. With that setup, you could have a continuous rain of arrows as long as your ammunition held out.

[@dbix11]

He made all those animations just to be proven wrong by a simple comment

[@caliburn1123]

exactly it was the norm to have several rows of archers, after one row shoots it falls back to reload, when they reload the next volley is shot, and so it goes

[@sreardonatpfg]

The crossbow is better for no other reason other than ease of use. You can train a group of men how to shoot a crossbow well in a week, it takes years to teach someone to shoot a bow well.

[@stonedog5547]

Not quite, you can learn to shoot a bow accurately fairly fast.... However to shoot a heavy warbow needs years of training to lay on the muscle in the right places, and with the really big bows, to warp your skeleton to the point it can stand the pressures involved. Muskets replaced them both because you can teach almost anyone how to load and fire in under an hour...... Speed (like 3 to 4 rounds fired in a minute) takes extra practice though

[@Pepe-pq3om]

Being able to hold your aim for a long time is also an upside. I've read that crossbows also could be manufactured faster, wich would be a big deal but I'm not sure about that.

[@Justjustinp]

I think people vastly underestimate culture and economics in the debate. England had a longbow culture and thus, likely more longbow crafters and people who dedicated themselves to training with them. If you were to join the English army and had to buy a ranged weapon surrounded by longbows, you’re probably going to want to buy a longbow. And that sentiment probably transferred to the generals composing the armies. Similarly, the Italians, particularly in Genoa, had a crossbow culture. As you said, people weren’t drawing out charts comparing the two, probably just using the ranged weapon of the culture.

[@poiuyt975]

This plus the industrial capabilities. Italy was technologically more advanced than England in that period and thus was capable of creating more complex weapons. England in the middle ages was a relatively privitive country for European standards.

[@isoxsniper4307]

People never realize that these two weapons had different purposes crossbows were smashing weapons which is why they had heavy bolts with blunt rounded tips and crossbows had 1000 pound draw weights. They were meant to hit a larger wooden or armored target and smash through it. bows are mean to penetrate through soft flesh which is why the arrows are sharper, lighter,thinner, longer also more tip heavy to provide a faster more stable flight using less draw weight. Less draw weight also meant that the reload speed of bows made them more suitable for firing at smaller, individual, moving, fleshy targets but the blunt force of a crossbow made it more suitable for smashing through carriages

[@TheNapster153]

Also, crossbows were known for their more larger brethren, ballistas and scorpions of you were Roman. Those were ancient artillery engines. The crossbow was just the next step in miniaturising an already effective weapon of war. Like how cannons paved the way for muskets and modern firearms.

[@isoxsniper4307]

@@TheNapster153 yes sir love it when I got historians in the building

[@jamesb15uk]

Rate of fire for any weapon isnt important for how many arrows or rounds you can put out in an hour. No weapon in any kind of combat is likely to be firing for an hour. If bow were ever fired in "bursts", that would likely only be for 10 seconds, 20 seconds, maybe upto a minute? But I would think unlikely to be longer than that. I depends how long your intended target presents itself etc. So with that in mind, the much faster rate of fire of a longbow, probably could be a huge factor. You may only fire 6 arrows in a battle, but if you fire all 6 in a crucial minute inflicting heavy casualties (and the scarper). That is possibly decisive. There are of course, all other factors, some of which in favour of cross bows. I'm just saying rate of fire is huge, when you need it.

[@lifaenkroll35]

EDIT: After finishing the video, thanks for the nuances you bring in your video. I usually don't post commentaries. But I've watched multiple videos from tod's workshop. The least I can say is: his tests or really often really biased (not always, but really often). For instance, while comparing 2 items/pieces of equipment, he doesn't explain much about the limits of his tests and rarely compare the items in the same conditions. Also, you mention "crossbows" .. ok, not all crossbows were hard / long to reload. Ok, all of them were - at least - slightly longer to reload than a bow. But there's a huge difference depending on the model.

[@stayhungry1503]

what about range? strangely no mention of that. i'd reckon thats an important metric. also, wind resistance? maybe not as important but we know of at least one battle that was essentially decided by the wind, the battle of towton where the counter wind shortened the range of the arrows massively so they all fell short to the jeers of the enemy. crossbow bolts are heavier (i think?) and travel in a flat trajectory so im guessing wind would have less effect on them?

[@rickansell661]

... Obviously I am imagining this part of the video. Longbow c. 3x range of Crossbow. kzbin.info/www/bejne/moDCaY2HaJx3ars

[@dominicyelin]

Bows were also generally fired straight. The hail of arrows thing is a movie trope. Bows were not usually fired in an arc like some kind of massed artillery at longer ranges than they can be fired straight, they were just fired straight at the target, much the same as crossbows. Similar range and power. Huge variability in the power and range of both bows and crossbows anyway.

[@thunderlink317]

​@@rickansell661Yes, it was shown, but not brought up as an argument. So does it matter or not?

[@Elfunko99x]

6 arrows per min and 60 min in an hour means 360 arrows per hour with no exhaustion. By 5,000 archers that would be 1,800,000 arrows. Whoever your logistics guy is who said 300,000 arrows should be tarred and feathered 😂🤣 9:03

[@thehellyousay]

Go ahead, fire 6 arrows per minute with a 120lb warbow for 1 hour, and get back to us about the "no exhaustion" aspect you claim, yeah? If you survive the cardiac arrest, that is.

9:06 - 6 arrows per minute doesn’t equate to 60 arrows per hour, but rather 360. Your calculation is off by a factor of 6.

[@clamum9648]

Lol I thought maybe I missed something there. I thought about it for a couple seconds and was like "wait wut"

[@bushka2000]

That would make it 1.8 million arrows in total, which even better proves the point.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

yup, it's a mistake. didn't check it while reviewing.

[@Spiderfisch]

The anwer is musket

[@theadobeblacksmith._.]

Not really

[@theadobeblacksmith._.]

@user-th4uo8dj3e @user-th4uo8dj3e never said the bow was superior but neither was the musket it was good sure but the precision and the reach of a musket could not reach as far as a long bow but they were really great weapons especially when used in pike and shot tactics and it's clear why people continued to use black powder weapons but to say it's better isn't true there is a reason why the long bow was still being used until the 17th century. Now don't get me wrong I think the musket was a genius weapon that revalationized weapons but to say it's better than the long bow is only half the truth.

[@derphurr8814]

Why don't we look at the spread of their use? I don't know about all about Europe, but in the Iberian peninsula it seems that the bow was more common in the earlier period, before crossbows took over starting somewhere in the 10th-11th century. The bow was still kept for specialized purposes, but the crossbow became the favoured long-ranged infantry weapon. The people that lived before us were not stupid. Their lives depended on using the best military technology available to them in order to survive. If both crossbows and bows were used at the same time does that not imply that they are both formidable weapons but with slightly different use cases? The varying regional popularity of crossbows and bows is to be expected because people face different geographical, strategic, cultural etc circumstances. However, it does seem like generally by the later middle ages that crossbows were more common in most countries across Europe. This implies to me that the crossbow was generally favoured, possibly due to crossbowmen being easier to train and replace than bowmen. But if a country had access to excellent archers, they would encourage their proliferation and use them in battle. This is the case with England. I also believe the whole longbow vs crossbow debate is a bit of anglo-saxon chauvinism, since it was such an iconic English weapon. Therefore in the past people have tried to big it up for reasons of national pride. Hence why there is more research available on the longbow than the crossbow, at least in English. Great video, keep up the good work!

[@zord1352]

Also people faced different enemies at different times. At early medieval it was common to massing peasants with only shields, but later more of the levy were equipped with padded armour or even mails. Also the number of professional troops increased therefore the armour. When we want to answer the question "which is the better weapon" we should consider "against who"

[@limonbattery]

@@zord1352 This is also relevant for OP's example of Iberia. They did fight Western style armies, but also had the Moors in their backyard and were more often concerned with them for many centuries during the Reconquista. So you see some trends in Iberia that were very unique compared to other European regions, including adopting some Islamic inspired tactics or equipment. The use of light shields, javelins, crossbows etc. are noteworthy, as well as a surprising amount of lightly armored skirmishers who were instead meant to be easy on logistics and able to track down a mobile (and probably also lightly armored) enemy force. Even their heavily armored men at arms tended to be slightly lighter than elsewhere, or at least very slightly behind in armor trends.

[@larsmurdochkalsta8808]

I think the most important thing is that people realize they're not directly comparable. They both provided the capability of man portable direct fire. But in many ways that's where the similarities end. Drawing modern comparisons isn't really viable. For example, a crossbow has a low skill floor and a low skill ceiling. Where a longbow has a higher skill floor and a very high skill ceiling. Give someone a crossbow and train them for a couple days and they'll figure it out. A couple days training with a longbow and they'll still need years of conditioning before their back is strong enough to fire a legitimate warbow. Not to mention the difference in marksmanship techniques. The crossbow requires mechanical skill, where a longbow requires a kinesthetic intuition. You could say that longbows are more powerful, but the counter argument would be something like an arbalest or windlass. To which the counter argument could be the longbow can fire faster than either of those. To which the counter argument could be that it takes years or decades to train a good warbow archer, but only months to a year for a good heavy crossbow Archer. To which the counter argument could be etc etc Essentially I'm taking the really long way of saying that military procurement at any point in history is a complex topic. So the only reason we boil it down to something as simple as crossbow versus longbow is because we don't live in a time where it matters and all the geopolitical, cultural, and economic context exists. But in historical times the decision between crossbow and longbow could have come down to factors such as was hunting illegal for the last 20 years? Because if it was then you probably wouldn't have enough trained archers and would need to use whatever variety of crossbow is most likely to defeat your opponents armor at that time.

[@bigchonkerraccoon5046]

This comment should be pinned

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

I love the longbow machine gun animation. Hilarious! Great work.

[@josephd.5524]

There is no best weapon, there are only compromises.

[@WassabiJoe]

I'd have to say one point on the rate of fire: Historically most fighting probably wasn't done in big battles, but rather smaller skirmishes and ambushes, where rate of fire definetly is a huge factor. To be fair, second to that would be sieges, where it generally isn't a factor at all...

[@Intranetusa]

This video confuses power with draw weight, which is only one out of three factors that determine power. Whether a bow or crossbow is more powerful is really dependent on the three factors of draw weight, power stroke, and efficency of the prod. Some bows are actually more powerful than many crossbows. Furthermore, the prod of crossbows did not necessarily evolve from wood to composite to steel. These different materials existed at the same time during the late middle ages, and composite material was actually a better but more expensive material to use than steel.

[@LoupDeFer-p9v]

Take 20 untrained individuals , give them quick training session and find out . Most likely crossbow would win , it took 5 years and a stack of gold to train bowmen ( although every peasant in England was obliged to train with bow ). Same thing with hand cannon and later with muskets , well trained bowmen would obliterate even musketeers . It all came to price and length of training .

[@mildlyderanged]

I think that the relative mechanical complexity of a crossbow should be taken into account, it makes the weapon more user friendly and requires less training to use sure but as any soldier will tell you technology in the field will break and theres no way your fixing a crossbow in the field, whereas the simpler nature of a bow means less to go wrong , and of the two things that can go wrong (string breaks or bow breaks) one can be done by the soldier in the fielr

[@meowfaceification]

Something that all of these comparisons miss out on is the logistics required to support the weapons. Crossbows were heavier, required specialized craftsman to maintain, and would be difficult to repair in the field without heavy specialized equipment and materials. This all means that your supply convoy needs to move more men and material. Which means a slower advance, more difficulty crossing rough terrain, which means more mouths to feed and increased caloric requirements. Both for the men and the animals pulling the carts. Especially when you get into heavy longbow versus heavy crossbow. You could carry dozens of replacement bowstrings for the weight of a single metal crossbow string. Yes the time required to train archers impacts these decisions. However this is offset but the time required to train blacksmiths to maintain crossbows. Every archer would be adept at maintaining their own bow and wouldn’t be reliant on a specialized individual. If they break a string during a battle they could replace it themselves quickly. If you break a crossbow or lose the blacksmiths in your column your crossbowmen are out of commission. Specialized weapons and tactics win battles. Logistics wins wars.

[@tihomirrasperic]

but imagine this, you have armored infantry to which you add a crossbow while the enemy is far away, they are archers, when he gets close, then they are armored infantry there is no such thing with a bow and arrow, when it comes to close combat, they are very light infantry, only mobility saves them, if possible

[@killerkraut9179]

But a longbow arrow is normaly much longer then the crossbow Bolt Problems for transport and storage castles are often not that Big! And you need good wood for longbows! If you want to use powerfull Longbow you need the right persons i think isnt just about training its about genetics as well! And after my knowledge Crossbow Bolts need usually 2 vanes Longbow arrows usually 3 vanes ! And Heavy draw weight Bow shoting can fast destroy the body of the Archers!

[@Astrellaable]

Long bow arrows are more costly and time intensive to craft as well though.

[@nagranoth_]

9:05 Eh.. there's slightly more than 10 minutes in an hour. 6 arrows/minute is not 60 arrows/hour.... 10:44 you can't just claim the crossbow speed can be doubled if someone else loads... this is only true if loading doesn't take longer than aiming and shooting. I think you're missing the main point with longbow speed though. It's not that you'd be constantly firing at high speed, it's that you're more responsive. You can shoot, miss, shoot again, rest for a bit. You can quickly shoot dozens of arrows at a group of enemies that aims to overrun you, avoiding hand to hand combat, while crossbowman get of maybe 2 volleys in the same time. Yes of course you need to rest, of course you need to spare arrows, so on average you might shoot the same amount of times, but you're way more flexible in timing. It's thee same reason why you'd rather change a magazine of bullets rather than loading them by hand. The point isn't to fire as much as possible, but to be _unable_ to shoot less.

[@surgeonsergio6839]

9:05 I think you forgot a 3 in the 60 arrow/hour as for 6 arrows/minute = 6*60 arrows/hour = 360 arrows/hour and for 5000 archers that'd be a staggering 1.8 million arrows per hour!

[@anti-spiral159]

I can't imagine shooting 1 arrow per minute in the middle of a battle lol.

[@andrewjensen7413]

I think Crossbow men defending a towers or a Gatehouse would most likely have other people loading more than one Crossbow just swapping them over being ready to fire so they are only require to aim and shoot making them more Deadly.

[@thcdreams654]

Obviously the correct answer is long crossbow. Or cross longbow. Thanks for the great content bro. You always kill it with your top quality work.

[@neonsamurai1348]

One criticism. having crossbowmen teamed up taking turns, does not increase the overall rate of fire, it halves the number shooting at any one time.

[@JakobDeluxe]

I was looking for this comment 👍🏼

[@edhikurniawan]

Longbowmen also did the same too.

[@WWFanatic0]

On the rate of fire discussion, rate of fire was almost certainly crucial. Your uptime, the burst rate, are critical. You don't need to shoot 6 hours a minute the entire hour. You need to do it for that brief period where the enemy is within your effective range but not too close that it's dangerous for archers or your own infantry are engaged. Battles are hours of boredom and minutes of intensity. A loose comparison is to modern air cooled machine guns and assault rifles. They cannot sustain automatic fire very long and their sustained rate is much lower than cyclical rate. Soldiers also would run out of ammo within minutes if they fired full auto during the entire engagement. It's useful for those brief windows where you are fighting. The machinegun comparison is actually fairly accurate in this regard.

[@forlorndream1400]

That makes a lot of sense. I imagine the longbowmen would rapid fire as the enemy charged making a wall of arrows to thin the heard. After that it would be single shots at aimed targets wherever possible.

[@gusmcgranahan9779]

Here is my two cents: 1. The crossbow is a weapon more geared toward skirmishing. More suited to men going out in front of the enemy to harass and screen. This is evidenced by the fact that the crossbow is more of a direct-fire and short range weapon. The crossbowman's job is to annoy the enemy and hold the foe at bay, and to prevent the enemy crossbowmen from doing the same. 2. The longbow is more the weapon for infantry support. This is why the longbow can preform better indirect-fire. Essentially the longbow is replicating the effects of an entire line of spearmen, only these spearmen often attack from above. This is why there were no pervasive pavise archers, they weren't going up against other ranged weapons. 3. I believe our way of looking at the evolution of arms is flawed. It is my theory that the handgun/musket was not the replacement for the crossbow or archer, but instead the replacement for the melee weapon of the common soldier. when we look at the roles formerly performed by the crossbowman and archer, we find their replacement is field artillery. Consider how cannon typically used more individually powerful cannon balls at longer range in a skirmishing fashion and grape or canister shot (essentially replicating the effects of an entire line of musketeers) at closer range for infantry support.

[@marcus1992000]

The third point is quite correct, firearms replaced the halberd pike combination with pike and shot

[@ihl0700677525]

Contrary to popular belief, *mounted archers* (who shoot from saddle) were quite common during medieval time in Europe. English archers often fought mounted, as depicted in various contemporary pictures (Google it). During raiding expedition (chevauchee), many, if not most of the English soldiers were mounted, including the archers. Crossbowman too fought on horseback, but I suppose crossbow could not be as effective due to being more unwieldy, not to mention the apparent difficulty to reload on horseback.

[@gusmcgranahan9779]

@@marcus1992000 this could even apply out to the napoleonic era order of battle.

[@vanivanov9571]

Point 3 is largely incorrect. Melee continued to dominate warfare well into the 19th century. Even WW1 saw the return of flails. The Swedish Empire in particular was known to use its muskets more like glorified single-shot javelins before charging into melee.

[@gusmcgranahan9779]

@@vanivanov9571 while it is no doubt a fact that melee continued to play an often decisive role on the battle field, my point was that the tactical usage of the crossbow and longbow more closely resemble the use of cannon than muskets. Point three has more to do with the perception of the evolution of arms than with the popularity of melee versus ranged combat.

[@Wolf-yt5de]

In all three of the famous "archer battles", Crecy, Poitier and Agincourt the French Knights reached the English line and the battle was decided hand to hand. So, my questions, were the archers more influential because of archery or as light infantry? Maybe their ability to do both competently?

[@robo5013]

Exactly! Most people don't realize that the battle of Agincourt especially was won by the English only when the longbowmen attacked the French in the flanks with melee weapons. They only hear that the longbowmen were credited with winning the battle and assume it was with the bow. If that had been the case then Henry V wouldn't have praised the valor of his longbowmen.

[@WalesTheTrueBritons]

English line? They were all Welsh!

[@robo5013]

@@WalesTheTrueBritons The bowmen in the English army at the time were mostly Englishmen. Welshmen generally made up less than 10% of the bowmen. The longbow itself was of Welsh origin but that doesn't mean that only they used it. By the end of the 100 years war the French had adopted its use. And hired Welsh longbowmen as well so there were probably more Welshmen fighting for the French throughout the war than the English.

[@sanderd17]

3:16 Humans have made decisions by paying pros and cons for a very long time. You may question how much direct influence a monarch had on the equipment of his troops. But certain people, be it knights of generals, definitely spent a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of equipment and their related tactics.

[@larsmurdochkalsta8808]

I don't think anyone was thinking that people were shooting six arrows per minute sustained. But the high rate of fire would still land you an advantage if at any point, the enemy offered you a soft target for any amount of time over 10 seconds by this test. If there's a cavalry charge that's in range for 22 seconds your archers might be rested from not having a target for a while and then they can all get twice as many shots off as a crossbowman could.

[@crito3534]

To my knowledge crossbowman were generally professional soldiers serving as either mercenary companies or fortification garrison. While english longbowmen could also be professional, but were many times levied in times of war. So it is quite convenient for levies to already have the skills needed and or the equipment. Crossbows had much higher cost so were not as viable for mass training and private ownership. In other european countries it was generally prefered do employ levie troops as pikemen.

[@BingleFlimp]

Bannerlord could actually be a good game for displaying some of the practicalities of either weapon. In the multiplayer, the way you use the bow and crossbow are completely different. The bow is harder to aim with because of the delay you inevitably have to deal with when drawing the bow before you can shoot and you can only draw the weapon for so long before getting tired. With a crossbow, while taking longer to span, there is no limit to how long you can aim and choose your targets.

[@jeydonfal1]

if the longbow was the obvious better weapon in every way then european nations wouldnt have busted their asses innovating and manifacturing crossbows.

[@benardman2665]

If the macodian pike formation wasnt great, then rome wouldnt have fought to work around it. Lol. The Roman's didnt recreate another "better" version of the pike formation. They just learned better stragedy to beat the pike. It's much more arguable, english bowman were great due to superior battle tactics over superior weapon technology.

[@jeydonfal1]

@@benardman2665 its funny that you mention romans cause they were famous for copying strategies and weapon designs. So yeah, what works gets copied

[@greywolf7577]

The longbow wasn't better in every way. It took many years of practice to get good at using a longbow. It also took a lot more strength to pull and hold a longbow. But they could be fired a lot faster than a crossbow could, which is why they were still used.

[@Pepe-pq3om]

​@@greywolf7577Being able to shoot faster sure is great, but it's not always a big deal

[@kooroshrostami27]

This is indeed a strict logic, the arms race in war-torn Europe was absolutely brutal and inferior equipment would inevitably be replaced.

[@nathanirby4273]

I think an interesting thing to look at would be the Spanish Conquistadors, like Cortez had a high number of crossbowmen with him when he conquered Tenochtitlan , and they were often facing off against enemies armed with bows

[@J_n..]

the battle order of the Knights Templar and the Teutonic Knights described mounted crossbowman in a dual role of skirmishers and second line shock cavalry. and surviving documents suggests that in the 15th century german speaking areas a lance was considered of one knight, one squire and one mounted crossbowman as minimum requirment

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Mounted crossbowers don't enough attention.

[@Wow22109]

​@b.h.abbott-motley2427 it really doesnt specially when hunting with crossbows was actually a thing

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

@@Wow22109 Hunting with crossbows & poisoned bolts was even a thing after firearms had become ubiquitous. The poison one 17th-century Spanish hunting manual describes supposedly works very fast, so it's curious it wasn't used in warfare more if it was really so effective.

[@andersschmich8600]

Ballistrieri a cavalo? Was that their Italian name? I think that were used a lot by the Venetians and Milanese.

[@Wow22109]

Yeah i understand, like dragoons I think they will be used for scouting role or setup ambushes, I think their role would be pretty limited

[@GyroGarrison]

It was great to see all the debates around the subject. Gives you an example of the size of the debate.

[@martinh.6404]

There was an interesting test from Tod's Workshop where they shot with a crossbow and a longbow from a medieval tower. The outcome was that's difficult to shoot downwards with a longbow.

[@CoffeeFiend1]

Often times you can have a comparison between A and B and A may have 11 pro's and 2 cons and B can have 3 pro's and 7 cons and most people will immediately say "yeah well obviously it's A then". Well no. A quantity of pro's and cons is utterly fucking meaningless without context. There could be a circumstance where a single pro outweighs 5 cons or vice versa.

[@Ksorkrax]

Like your video, quite competent well researched style. Especially that you make it clear that things are not fully figured out. Some input: 1. The long term production of longbows has some problems. For the heavy renaissance english longbows, one needs yew heartwood, which needs to be carefully dried by a master of the craft for quite a long time. The english started to run out of yew trees to fell, and even today, those are rare in GB. On the other hand, once the design is done, you can mass produce crossbows easily, and while skilled workers are always good, you don't need the true masters. This is also the reason why firearms took over, which are even faster to mass produce. 2. I disagree with the way things are formulated around 12:28, "share of the weapons power", and later directly "loss of energy", which is a scientifically false statement. You then talk about draw length, which shows you clearly understand the topic at hand. For scientific precision: there is no loss of energy here, it's simply that poundage is a measure of force rather than energy. 3. Maybe I missed it, but one should strongly emphasize the topic of holding a readied weapon. When you want to be ready to shoot at any moment but not instantly. Doing that with a crossbow is trivial, but holding a drawn longbow for several seconds is quite demanding and greatly reduces accuracy. Also, in terms of accuracy, the crossbow is held like a rifle, which makes aiming far easier. You talked about it being far easier to train people to use a crossbow, which is related to that, but your argument is mostly about the lower echelon of troops. In terms of elite troops, there might still be quite the advantage in accuracy with the crossbow because of how it is held, and because of the holding a drawn longbow issue. Not relevant when you pepper an area with missiles, but highly relevant against charging knights, for instance.

[@robertmooberry725]

English style was to dig pits 1 foot square and deep to break up cavalry charges. The archer carried large stakes which they pounded into the ground with lead mallets and then sharpened. Imagine that you are in a group of longbowmen and the French cavalry are beginning their charge. They are out at a slow trot and slowly pick up speed. For the last 50-100' the charge at their top speed. At maximum range (200-300 yards) you probably fire a couple of shots per minute for harassment value and who knows "you might get lucky." When that body approaches the max effective range (60-100 yards) is when you'd start pouring it on. Tired after 12-18 shot isn't going to be as much of an issue because with all of that steel coming at you adrenaline will kick in. Also, that cavalry charge is going to cover that 60-100 yards very quickly. Hopefully the pits (1 foot wide/long and 1 foot deep) that you've dug and the stakes that you have planted break that charge. If they have you can pull out your lead mallet and have at any knights that have been disabled or can be overwhelmed by your numbers. You likely won't shoot much until the cavalry have disengaged because you don't want to hit your own. The footman charge is a bit different. They'll be the ones without the status or cash to have a horse. They'll likely be less heavily armored. The action will be similar. They will form up and begin at a march. as they close the distance they will begin to move at a trot. For the last 10-20 yards they charge. You'll fire a few shot per minute to harass them at max range. As they approach max effective range is when you will pour it on. On foot they will be closing the distance much slower so you'll have more time to hammer them. Adrenaline will kick in, but you will start to tire and slow and get a bit sloppy as they approach melee. Hopefully your fire has broken up their formation and dramatically thinned their numbers. Once again you pull out your lead mallet and go after them as they negotiate the pits that you have dug and the stakes that you have planted. There should be some men at arms out front to help and the enemy will be fighting fatigue from their double time march and the last 10-20 yards of charging. Once again you might fire some aimed shots, but until the French break contact or a second wave comes in you likely won't shoot much. I wouldn't characterize the long bow as only a harassment tool. As the enemy closes it will have the power to punch through cheaper/earlier plate armor. Later in the period armor made of better steel with sloped/curved plates would have been more resilient, but this stuff was expensive in comparison. Your average knight would not have been able to afford it even to save his life. I think that the depictions in Bernard Cornwell's books are very likely close reality. Crossbowmen's job would have been similar. Fire harassing shots at max range and pour it on when the enemy reaches a range where the bolts should penetrate the enemy's armor more effectively. Which a sovereign uses would depend on what is available and what they can afford. If you have a large peasant body that practices with the longbow regularly then you use them. If you have access to a large amount of cash you hire professional mercenary crossbowmen. If you have access to neither then you put what crossbow you can afford into the hands of some peasants and you train them as money and/or time affords. Late crossbows with steel arms could shoot 340-500 yards. That doesn't mean that they were accurate or could reliably kill at that range. Since the crossbow couldn't fire as fast one would have to adjust their tactics.

[@Naeron66]

No, you won't fire a few arrows at maximum range. You would fire lots of arrows at maximum range because the more you fire the more are likely to hit and possibly injure a target. Its not aimed fire its area fire. It as also important to remember that a lot of the troops longbows might be firing at were not heavily armoured. It was never just knights in plate armour for much of that period.

[@orimoreau3138]

3:17 I don't know why would you think that. The idea of making a list of positives and negatives of a ranged weapon for your men seems like an entirely reasonable thing for a monarch to do. I would think not only did it happen, it most likely happened many times throughout centuries that those weapons were considered for use in battle EDIT : ok nvm this entire video seems to be defeating strawmen, disappointing

[@HereTheArtBegins]

Premodern rulers were limited a lot more by local traditions and economies and the weapons they had familiarity with than a more rational top down approach that you'd expect in a modern nation-state. Much of the time you're just recruiting from what you have available. You can put your thumb on the scale a bit by incentivizing certain practices but medieval rulers had much less control over their populations than commonly thought. You could always hire mercenaries, but those come at an extreme cost and risk. If you're at war. and the territory you rule has a lot of cities with crossbow guilds then you're likely to going to be forced to use lots of crossbowmen because that's just what you had available. To switch from one to the other because you think it's more efficient would be a project of multiple years, perhaps even a generation or more.

[@glennchartrand5411]

The main difference was that a crossbow was pre-loaded. A crossbowman could hold with his weapon loaded for minutes at a time waiting for a target of opportunity but a longbowman could only hold for a few seconds So a man with a crossbow could be near the front line and instantly fire a bolt through a gap in the shields or someone peering around a barricade. A Longbowman though could be a hundred feet back lobbing a large number of arrows over the front line and waiting for the law of averages to get a hit. A good analogy is the difference between Artillery and a Tank.

[@homeboundtraveller6100]

The Campaigning Season is starting soon, and as luck would have it. Some Mercenaries Companies are still without contract, and are available for hire to supplement your forces, Money is Not a problem. Who do you hire? 300 Veteran Longbowmen -or- Veteran 300 Genoese Pavise Crossbowmen

[@Dave-bd2eo]

Guess it depends on who/what/where I’m fighting. In a siege those pavise’s will come in handy for instance.

[@AndreaFasani]

Fuck the longbowmen. I'll side with technology.

[@scarecrow559fresno]

team crossbow

[@midshipman8654]

they seem to be able to fill slightly different but overlapping tactical roles. from a pure skirmish, Id say a crossbow with a pavise tends to have an advantage both from protection and moral. as well from defensive positions like castles. while in an open feild combined arms with heavy cavalry and foot soldiers also in the mix, the mobility of the longbow might be more advantagious. however, as larger tactical battlefield units, where the indivigual isnt as great as the whole, I dont think their effectiveness is all too dissimilar to each other when adequately well trained motivated and organized given the widespread use of both. In fact, maybe the esprit de corps of the english longbow as gentry and having a bit of a status might have been as impactful as anything. I mean, even in the earlier 3 crusades, the crossbows seems to have been very effective as well even in its technilogical youth and against opponents who specialized in archery, the turks, and to an extent, the fatimids. the battle of Jaffa for example.

[@Thraim.]

>the internet has strong opinions on something Oh boy, here we go again.

[@blecao]

Is there something that the intwernet doesnt have a strong opinion of?

[@bardslee]

The English longbow's power lay in mandatory training, turning ordinary people into professional soldiers. This enabled England to quickly raise an army without straining its economy. The taxation system revolved around bow and arrow production, allowing even peasants to contribute in supplies, unlike traditional taxation limited to the nobility. This marked the birth of the industrial military complex and helped a small, damp island compete with larger, wealthier nations like France and Spain.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

Whoa

[@SantaMuerte1813]

You do realize that the owners of that 'small, damp island' were at the same time also the biggest vassal of the French kings up to around 1200? And what made the English compete with the Spanish was a lucky timing of bad weather.

[@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874]

Mandatory training meant once a week. That does not make anybody a professional soldier.

[@jorgejustin461]

10:26 you accidentally stumbled on the real difference. Crossbows are direct fire weapons; bows are indirect and direct. Interestingly Total War: Medieval II helps support this argument, as the game is a light simulation if you use crossbows in an open field, you will find that the back ranks of the unit kind of bug out trying to shoot, and they tend to shoot straight up into the air rather than in a flat arc. This greatly diminishes their effectiveness in game. Conversely a unit of archers will fire normally until the enemy is upon them. However, if you place the crossbowmen on an incline facing the enemy the whole unit gets a nice flat shot at the enemy resulting in a massive increase in effectiveness. On a similar point, archers can be hidden on the OTHER side of the hill (if it is small) because they can just shoot over it. Archers were usually drilled to fire in volleys in a general direction and so they were capable of shooting at enemies they could not see. The other thing to remember is that battle deaths where very light in these periods, neither crossbows nor bows where effective killers, but both are excellent at wounding. Wounding an enemy is actually better than killing them, because someone has to look after the wounded soldier, and it places additional strain on the enemy's logistics. The goal of all these battles was never to kill all the enemy troops but to cause a route. Finally, the real advantage of archers in a field battle is maneuverability. Archer's need less stuff than Crossbowmen, especially if we are talking about Italians or French crossbows which in a field battle would almost always try to use a Pavis. In Agincourt English Longbows actually rode their horses up the wooded flanks of the battle and shot at the French from inside the wooded area. A unit of crossbows would struggle to be as effective in this scenario.

[@allsoover]

>Wounding an enemy is actually better than killing them, because someone has to look after the wounded soldier though in the heat of the battle, with immense psychological stress of being shot at by enemy missiles, and quite possibly feeling hatred against the opposing force for any personal or tribal reason, it is my personal opinion that nearly no one ever deliberately only wounded hostile fighters while restricting themselves from killing >The goal of all these battles was never to kill all the enemy troops but to cause a route. some what, killing all enemy troops would have been a near impossible task in the larger battles anyways (in smaller skirmishes - that may only consist of a few ten to a hundred or so fighters on both sides - that were many times more common than the big battles we so often hear of, total annihilation of one side's fighters would have been possible and maybe even occurring at relatively high rates), but if it was possible and they couldnt take prisoners for ransom they would have absolutely done it or tried to at least, as in the case of Agincourt. attempts at romanticizing conflict and sugarcoating the real deadliness of it I believe to be a terrible idea, whether you are pro or anti warfare you have to realize that it was an immensely brutal affair, fought by lines of overexcited and often nervous men effectively drugged up on adrenaline, sometimes fearful and ready to run away as soon as possible, sometimes awaiting the moment of opportunity to strike and claim a kill for their own glory

[@modavies8401]

Children began strength training at a very young age in order to become longbow men. Anybody was capable of firing a crossbow with only a little training.

[@54032Zepol]

Listen the battle of crecy was due to strategic blunder even if you had the same longbowmen on the opposing side they would still get devestated.

[@delfimmarques5014]

In Portugal there was the battle of Aljubarrota (1385) in which Portugual had both "frecheiros" (Crossbowmen for the most part) and less numerous English longbowmen both are mentioned in chronicles but the stars are the longbows , they seem to have been considered more effective.

[@FaytVanguard]

Counter point: remember English are very biased. Just like Samurai with their Katanas. Favorability can blind.

[@kytesiridar1610]

@@FaytVanguard Not to mention that a crossbow is way easier to aim than a bow.

[@morriganmhor5078]

I am afraid there are a few points in your piece that need to be taken into more thoroughly, namely: 1) Seems to me that most sources taken into account are in English. However, there exist dozens of manuals on reflex bows in Arabic, Turkish or Persian. Also, bow in various forms was used in the whole of Europe, not only in England and France but also in Scandinavia, Germany, Bohemia and Poland-Lithuania. There could be other sources in those lands. 2) In addition to Mary Rose data, there are also so-called pipe rolls in England from which it could be gleaned how many arrows/bolts were stored in various castles of the Crown - and possibly also a number of archers /crossbowmen stationed there at a specific time.

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

Look at the title of the video. The video covers the comparison between *LONGBOWS* and crossbows. Not just any bows. That means that sources from other countries won't be useful unless they contain relevant data about crossbows.

[@morriganmhor5078]

@@kamilszadkowski8864 I was reacting on domě points Sand made in the course of his Pieve, not the title.

[@НилИванов-ж1ц]

​@@kamilszadkowski8864longbow is any bow that is sufficiently long. It is not unique technology.

[@chrisknight6884]

This was one of the better debates - well researched and not trying to prove one side by cherry-picking data. Some take-aways that were not mentioned directly: The longbow had a greater range (and greater rate of fire), which would be important for wearing down the enemy before they would be in range to hurt you. The longbow could do a lot of damage to attacking troops - especially horses as they approached, the crossbow much less so. So as a defensive weapon in a battle, the longbow is clearly the weapon of choice. The other thing I want to point out, is that at short range the crossbow could do a lot more damage against armoured soldiers as it did have the penetrating power and accuracy that the longbow lacked so as the armies clashed - particularly if the armoured soldiers were not mounted, the crossbow would come into its own. The point was made that the two weapons were not used in the same manner, but in the recorded battles where they were employed against each other, the longbow invariably came out on top. The debate is though, was this because of the superiority of one weapon over the other, or the tactics of the commanders, the discipline or the bravery of the troops? Things as we see in the video are not clear-cut.

[@tomyoung8563]

That last bit seems like the main thing Long bowmen could clear out the crossbow men, which would give the side with longbows a serious tactical advantage for the rest of the battle

[@Arbelot]

At Crécy, it was reported that it was a rainy night before the battle. The English were able to unstrung their longbows while the Genoese under French service weren't able to. That factor greatly affected the skirmish phase of the battle: The Genoese weren't able to fire their crossbows as effectively as English longbowmen were able to fire theirs.