h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Well I take you're saying that the layman term is more accurate in discription than the 'knowledgable circles'."

Ah right. I think I need to reword. What I meant is that the general impression one gets, if one does not read round / investigate personally, is that the longbow was the greatest thing going and the crossbow was little more than a hunting toy that them darn forinners from the continent played with. I shall reword. I have to admit, I did think my wording there was a little informal for a proposed edited guide entry.

"Why is the Longbow not better if say, a historian of arms, comes to that conclusion?"
Because most historians of arms don't come to that conclusion. And in this case because some of his points were blatently not true to anyone who has a good working knowledge of the weapons in question.
It isn't better. But then it isn't worse either. The problem is people think they are comparable. And they are not. They were designed to do different jobs, and they are very good at those respective jobs. And thats what I have been trying to drive at by comparing on a like for like. So a crossbow is more accurate (yes, I'll get to you asmodai in a minute ) but a longbow is faster. They were developed for different usages.

"From this entry I did get the impression that the long bow is better to the crossbow in terms of design- Quicker to /shoot/, easier to reload, is weathered against rain in a continent that is paricularly damp. Although the wind will take a toll on the lightness of the arrows the barrage of arrows can be more effective than a crossbow bolt in doing damage over a wide area whereas the crossbow bolt which I've seen pierce a car door is clumsy when being charged."
Sounds fair. But on the other hand, if I were defending a castle, for example, stuck in a cramped room with a small slit to shoot out of, i'd sooner have a crossbow. If I had 1 shot, and it had to count, I'd rather have a crossbow. Horses for courses! YOu know all those cruciform arrow slits you see in castles? They were for crossbows, not bows. Bow slits are vertical.

"But of course they both have positives and negatives and the fighting situation needs to be taken into consideration "
Exactly! One of the strengths of the longbow was the sheer numbers of archers the english fielded.

"Possibly, but without doubt the archer would be better trained as opposed to our humble crossbowman. I mean sure one to one shooting they'd be equal, as you point out the archer has a greater rate of fire. He could hit the same target five times and make a cup of tea all with exactly the same amount of accuracy."
I think you do the crossbow man a serious disservice. It was as highly regarded as the archer by those in the know. The retained crossbowmen of England were no mere paupers, but men of relative high standing, at least as good as the archers. I believe two crossbowmen were They trained regularly and as highly trained in their weapon as the archer. Would you say the hand cannon, or brown bessie was a worse weapon than the longbow band crossbow because the training involved was less?

Look at it from the other side, the longbow was such a useless weapon that you had to be trained from the age of 5 till late teens (over 10 yrs of training) before you were considered competant OK, that is deliberately antagonistic, but given the tack you are taking, a perfectly valid point of view. And once you have it, you have this damn great stick to carry around, that could snap at any point whilst using it, is useless for indoors fighting, and is easily broken if someone clumsily steps on it, such as one might whilst legging it across a field.

As said above, there is good and bad about them all!

"Technique - fully agree (should have mentioned but hey). A longbow just seems a much greater weapon because of who was using it. We both know that any idiot can pick up a cross bow and use it competantly with no guidance after a few practice rounds. The longbow takes longer learn, but because of this i tend to favor the longbow as the superior weapon."
(No offence to crossbow users of corse) None taken, honest!
YOu are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I personally feel that there is no superior weapon. If we faced each other with 1 shot, I'd quite happily take the crossbow to your longbow. YOu'd get the shot off first (but only just if you were being accurate) but mine would be far more certain of killing you outright!

"But I am comparing the weapons, not the users" - i think the users are worth a mention basically because of the difference in the two users. Sure the crossbow may be easier, but the longbow archer was certainly more accurate. I beleive a longbow could be used competively, but a crossbow archer wouldnt have spent as long training.
A crossbowman wouldn't need to spend as long training since his weapon is not so inherently inaccurate.
Sorry about this, but the longbow is less accurate over any given distance than the crossbow. That's flat shooting, of course. Range shooting (ie at an angle) doesn;t matter since accuracy was not the point.

"Rate of fire(shooting) - Imagine them both in a situation on a battlefeild. An archer with longbow can take his time, choose his targets and loose, each arrow hitting its target. The crossbowman on the other hand has a single shot."
But that isn;t how it was used! The longbows were used to send volleys. You almost never see (and thats just a caveat, I have never seen) a picutre or record of the time showing a longbow archer shooting flat. crossbows always did. The archer didn't aim. That wasn;t the point. Crossbowmen did aim, that was the whole point. But lets take your example.
Firstly, let us assume we have a suicidal archar who wishes to aim and loose each arrow at a specific target. To do this he will have to flatshoot. Point blank range of a longbow is less than 70 yds (hmm, I wonder if that is were Mr. TV Man got his killing range from?). So at 70yds in front of you is the enemy, legging it towards you with a sword, bill, mace or large hay fork. Possibly wearing armour, or at least a padded jack. And there you are. In an archers sdallet, if you're lucky, which just protects the skull. <Maybe some form of stomach protection. Maybe even light padded armour, but not much since it restricts movement too much. To put it bluntly, your days are numbered.
But the crossbowman, now he has greater accuracy and at least another 20yds point blank to shoot over.
Which is why the archers always shot from a range, because it was bloody stupid to do it any other way!

"Really not sure of your point here, could you elaborate? As for rust etc, they had this stuff called called wax. And also oil."
True, but supplying it for all troops would eventually cause problems. The non metallic parts of the longbow make it more effective in winter. Ah, but as mentioned, the longbow was 3/4 broken when fully drawn. Everytime you draw a longbow you risk breaking it. Reliable? Also, you have to waxthe bow tave thoroughly before and after each use, and keep the string waxed thoroughly. There is no difference in maintenance really, not if you wanted to ensure it operated effectively.

Longbow isnt all its cracked upto be - id still rather have a longbow then a crossbow.
And that is your opinion. Mine would depend on the circumstances. And that's what makes the world go around


I should add, for credentials sake, that I have shot both english longbow and crossbows from the same period.
If you are interested in this area, I can seriously recommend Mr. Ralph Payne-gallways book. Very thorough and a product of it s time. It also includes instructions on how to make a crossbow, and various siege weapons

Thankkew...

This probably the biggest, none wasting space post I've seen!

"YOu'd get the shot off first (but only just if you were being accurate) but mine would be far more certain of killing you outright!" - True but id be able to shoot six arrows (being fairly inept, but with basic knowledge) at you, whilst you were still loading. Thats the whole point. Certainly in a seige the crossbow was more convienient a weapon (the close spaces means little room to draw the bow) for turrets as you suggest, in a full scale seige archers could fire from ramparts just as easily, or possibly from the courtyard below if space permits (and lets face it, its not easy to scale a wall when theres the minimum of 12 arrows raining down on your head)

"Would you say the hand cannon, or brown bessie was a worse weapon than the longbow band crossbow because the training involved was less?" - bugger knows what either of those are (if it hasnt got a bow, then i aint fussed). The first cannon was used at agincourt. It fired a single shot and killed a single french knight. Accuracy or luck? One question im not entirely sure on is whether its possible to draw and cock a crossbow on the move?
I ask because in the above situation, i could shoot you at distance several times then leg it as fast as my little legs could carry me

If your fighting indoors would the attacker really be armed with a crossbow as well. Remember youd only get one shot per minute. A minute is plenty of time for someone to climb over his comrade and stab you with a sword or other pointy instrument of death.

Accuracy - what im saying is that the eyesight of the archer with longbow would be far greater attuned (this is difficult to explain). Whilst the crossbowman could quite rightly, after some training, become quite competent and shoot accurately. The longbow became a part of the users entire life. Crossbows were dearer, so for the common pleb a longbow was the first choice. As it built into life of the archer things such as hunting came into play and so moving targets on the flat become more common. Sure the crossbow may be as accurate over a shorter time - but one shot kill? would you seriously say that on the flat, with a minute (it'll take the attacker a minute to get to you) to kill someone running towards you with a huge sword, that you'd feel happy waiting the full minute to shoot him/her? of would you not take this risk and use the longbow. You fire, and if you miss you fire again more times if need be.

I reckon that the longbow comes off as the worst weapon in your entery when i have to strongly disagree. The sheer weight of fire and numbers, plus the longbow became second nature to the archers using it make a hell of a difference.

You could mention the psycological impact of both weapons. There was a general at thermopylae who was told the sky would by blackened out by the enemy arrow because there was just so many. If your convinced that the crossbow is more accurate and reiable i wont try to disuade you, but would you really want to be stood around when hundreds of arrows were falling on your head? I know you mention it breifly, but perhaps adding it to the comparison (mainly because the one shot thing was a massive weakness to the crossbow, even if only for the psycological aspect)

"The first cannon was used at agincourt. It fired a single shot and killed a single french knight"
English Knight. it was a french cannon and was pretty useless (although it did kill, obviously). Chiefly remembered because it signalled the start of the gunpowder age and the death of the bow weapons.

"One question im not entirely sure on is whether its possible to draw and cock a crossbow on the move?
I ask because in the above situation, i could shoot you at distance several times then leg it as fast as my little legs could carry me"
I'm sure it is possible, but I wouldn't want to try it! Not sure, will have to scan the archives for mounted crossbowmen.

"If your fighting indoors would the attacker really be armed with a crossbow as well. Remember youd only get one shot per minute."
Again, depends on the bow. A smaller close range bow could easily get 6 shots per minute. And yes, they would, since prior to the indoors fighting they would be fighting from the towers and ramparts.

"Accuracy - what im saying is that the eyesight of the archer with longbow would be far greater attuned (this is difficult to explain). Whilst the crossbowman could quite rightly, after some training, become quite competent and shoot accurately. The longbow became a part of the users entire life. Crossbows were dearer, so for the common pleb a longbow was the first choice. As it built into life of the archer things such as hunting came into play and so moving targets on the flat become more common. Sure the crossbow may be as accurate over a shorter time - but one shot kill? would you seriously say that on the flat, with a minute (it'll take the attacker a minute to get to you) to kill someone running towards you with a huge sword, that you'd feel happy waiting the full minute to shoot him/her? of would you not take this risk and use the longbow. You fire, and if you miss you fire again more times if need be."
OK, a number of things I disagree with you on here.
Actually, the archers did not train purely for accuracy, but for speed.
It wasn't cost, they were legally bound to use the longbow. They had no choice. A Lord may have decided to have some crossbowmen, but it was hardly the individuals choice. Although mercenaries of course did have such a choice.
The crossbow was actually the preferred weapon for hunting. It's a lot easier to stalk an animal with a crossbow than a huge great 6ft+ stave!
Yes, one shot kill. Even speed shooting. Go try it some time.
And the other reason I would be happier with a crossbow, even a huge gert one that could only manage 1 per minute (which you would not have on the open battlefield anyway, but I'll go with your choice of weapons) would have at least 20yds effective range over the longbow. So I have more time to do it!

"I reckon that the longbow comes off as the worst weapon in your entery when i have to strongly disagree. The sheer weight of fire and numbers, plus the longbow became second nature to the archers using it make a hell of a difference."
Well, you think that, another poster thinks the longbow comes off better. Personal opinion!
And I do make that point about speed and numbers, but they were not shooting for accuracy. They didn't care. There were lots of enemy so if it didn't get Jacques, then it would get Pierre standing behind him.
And the sword became second nature to the knight, the bill became second nature to the billman and the crossbow became second nature to the crossbowman.

"You could mention the psycological impact of both weapons. There was a general at thermopylae who was told the sky would by blackened out by the enemy arrow because there was just so many. If your convinced that the crossbow is more accurate and reiable i wont try to disuade you, but would you really want to be stood around when hundreds of arrows were falling on your head?
Interesting, hadnb't heard that one, I shall include it, thanks!

"If your convinced that the crossbow is more accurate and reiable i wont try to disuade you"
I am convinced. I am convinced by the stats, the effective range, the accurate range, the way the weapon was used, the construction, from seeing people use it and from using it myself.

Look at the construction of the weapon. A crossbow has a stock, with a groove it in. The bolt sits in the groove and is propelled along it. It is in contact with the stock, which is flat and staright. Therefore the initialy trajectory of the bolt is constrained by the stock. This means it is unlikely to go off in odd directions. It's like having half a barrel. And we all know that the longer the barrel the more accurate the shot. Well, until rifling came along anyway. Now a\ longbow has 2 movable points of contact for the arrow. One where the hand grips the stave, and one where the nock fits the string. There is no set path for the arrow. There is nothing to constrain the arrows flight to the straight and narrow. You draw the bow slightly differently, the arrow veers off to this side or that. Hence why you need to train so much.

"but would you really want to be stood around when hundreds of arrows were falling on your head? "
Nope, not me! And on the field of battle when you want to take out a shedload of the enemy, I'd bring on the longbow archers every time, hence my comment to that effect in the article. I fully agree with you, a devastating weapon in its area.

"I know you mention it breifly, but perhaps adding it to the comparison (mainly because the one shot thing was a massive weakness to the crossbow, even if only for the psycological aspect)"
But as I have clearly set out, the 1 shot thing is only a sproblem of the heavier crossbows. Lighter bows could manage more.

Your questions are nearly all good ones and have certainly had me stretching my knowledge and reasoning. But you do seem to confuse some ideas. The rates of shooting, and the accuracy of shooting. The faster you shoot, the less accurate you are. For the crossbowman this is less of an issue since he merely has to point in the right direction. Which not insignificant skill (look at modern rifle shooting, a lot of skill to be very accurate, and those weapons are far more inherently accurate than either of these), where as the longbow archer has many more factors.

I am not down on the longbow, I shoot as the only crossbow man with 2 groups of well respected traditional longbow archers and believe me, they don't let me forget! But with a vrossbow both the target accuracy and the grouping of the shots is far better since there are fewer variables that come into play.

I think we must agree to disagree on this. And someday perhaps we will have the chance to compete against each other and make our decision that way!

and yes, there references to the mounted crossbowman. ALthough as yet I am unsure of the technology used. Certainly the slurbow was used ( a crossbow with a barrel so the bolt didn't fall off!). And you wouldn't be able to use any of the heavier bows.

Moving and firing - I didnt mean mounted, i meant on foot. Mounted i doubt that you'd be able to even draw the long bow. What im saying is that the crossbow might force you to stand still (where as the bow can be drawn with a breif stop for loosing before moving on again).

What i was saying with accuracy and rate of fire is that because of the number of shots, even if he did miss the longbow man had time to shoot again in the time the crossbowman was loading.

Yep i think you've got it. Longbows are still better though

Ah right, I see what you mean!
YEs, you are right, a crossbowman would be forced to stand still to cock the bow. I suppose the only one where you might get away with it would be with a goat's foot lever, but you'd have to be a hell of a strong person to do it.

"Yep i think you've got it. Longbows are still better though"

I've always thought custard pies were the ultimate hand weapon, but then that might be just me
PG(loves Buster Keaton films)HF

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Well done!

And what a stir it's already caused. The great debate will continue I'm sure.

Congratters

If I ever get around to writing about the mediaeval battles of Portugal, I shall now have an entry to link to! 'On their left flank, the 6500 Portuguese troops were supported by about 500 English crossbowmen, sent by Richard II.'

Thanks!
Watermusic

Congratulations!

Just the lift I needed whilst staying at home sicky with a bad back!
Thanks for everyones help!

and a note for the sub editor

In the section 'Crossbow Development'
The sentence " so that when aimed on a flat trajectory at a man's head at 70 yards the bolt would hit the man no lower than his chin."

Should read 50 yards and not 70. My bad

We will forgive you

Well done!


Wanna swap ailments?

Congratulations! I'm looking forward to seeing the final edited version of this entry.

I've been on the road for work the last few days or I would have posted this earlier.

Cheers!

Thanks to all who helped with this, it's at the top of the Front Page now!!