I thought that the true English longbow wasn't in general use lets say in 1066 at Hastings and that the bows used by the Normans were somewhat smaller and less powerful ?

In the time of Richard Coeur de Lion and during the Third Crusade his army seemed to depend on crossbows and I haven't read about much longbow use in that Crusade ?

During this period the crossbow was being banned for use against Christians by the Pope because it was said to be to easy to kill Knights with one. At the same period if bows were as powerful as the contemporary crossbows I would think they too would have been banned / frowned upon / cursed?

O.K. there may be something to the idea that there are some contradictions when we try to reconcile different theories and some numbers may not add up.

Early crossbows only had to be effective against maille and be easier to use and a bit more powerful than bows.

Later plate becomes a factor and the longbow as well as more powerful goatsfoot or windlass crossbows appear on the scene: Classic arms race between attack and defence, and during some intervals one or the other can be ahead ?

Average draw weight of longbows may also have tended to go up until a practical maximum was reached: A 100 pounds is manageable, a 150 pound draw is getting up there in difficulty and might be reachable by many archers; but for 150 to be average one would expect there to be a lot of 180 or even 200 pound longbows. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Have any of you ever tried a 165 pound bent over dumbbell row for reps ! A 100 or 125 pound row is fairly challenging but 165 pounds feels like a lot more than just another 40 pounds: And I'm not trying to aim at something when lifting weights.

At this point I think we have exhausted the subject and risk repeating ourselves: After David does his tests we can argue then about interpreting the results with some fresh facts and video. :D

David, tyhat's very interisting. Do you happen to know when Europe got the 'proper' crossbow? I know the romans used mounted ones, and you had that odd 'belly bow' thing....

But I've always wondered if the crossbox was invented out of those, or 'imported' from China, as the Crossbow was such a primary weapon there.

Folks,
This thread has been very informative so far. However, I want to remind everyone involved that this topic, and all others here, need to be discussed without rancor and with civility. Some posts are flirting with being over the line.

Could be wrong, BUT ........ If at Hastings the Normans were using bows of the same power as the Mary Rose bows at the 150 pound range I would think the Saxon shield wall would have been decimated rather quickly and the Normans would have walked over the Saxon easily rather than having a fairly tougher fight.

Exactly how many samples of bows do we have between 1000 A.D. and the Marie Rose find ??? A bow at 150 dated 1250 lets say would prove that bows of this power were used but would it prove that all warbows would be this powerful.

Also, there could have been some evolution / progression in power as longbows appear to have become " the " British weapon. ( Average of 100 evolving to an average of 150 ? )

At the time of Richard there may well have been bows used in the Crusades but not in the numbers of later British armies and what I read of the Third Crusade put more emphasis on crossbow use at that time.

Now, the warbows may well have been as powerful as those of Crecy but for some reason their effectiveness in large numbers doesn't seem to have been realized at that early date for some unknown reason ? OR, just maybe the power level was just a bit lower " on average ".

Maybe not proof, but the power of weapons should have had a great effect on how battles were fought and should at least make the question of power level a possible reason for less effect / numbers / popularity on the battlefield.

Over the years, from Victorian ideas to more recent studies we can look at available evidence and arrive at different conclusions but unless we find large numbers of bows for every century or decade from the early Medieval period to the renaissance we should still be careful to not say in absolute terms that we have proof covering the entire period based on the Mary Rose find and a few isolated earlier finds.

Benjamin: I'm not saying you are wrong but I'm not sufficiently convinced to conceded that all debate is now futile because the proof is so strong that there are no reasons to continue asking questions and bringing up, hopefully logical, arguments. :D :cool:

Abstracts from what I have read.

Not to draw this even further off topic but Edward I was the first British ruler to take a deep interest and be effective in employing massed longbow tactics.
(against the Welsh ;))
Edited to furthr add that Edward I also had quite a contingent of crossbowmen but this is a century and more before the debate at hand.

"English Longbows" seem to be of Scandanavian influence and were not really so much a Welsh weapon. There was a section of Wales where they were popular before Edward I
(can't remember the chieftains name at the moment).

There is iconography that shows Welsh warriors with short bows being drawn to the chest. I believe this is also indicated on the tapestry of the bows at Hastings.
That long, ear drawn, bows might be harder to represent doesn't seem to make much sense.

None of it has any real bearing on the crossbow vs plate argument except some comparative numbers.

Cheers

GC

Y'all really should consider picking up The Great Warbow by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy. It covers the "shortbow" thing quite well. Strickland is an excellent historian.

Quote:

If at Hastings the Normans were using bows of the same power as the Mary Rose bows at the 150 pound range I would think the Saxon shield wall would have been decimated rather quickly and the Normans would have walked over the Saxon easily rather than having a fairly tougher fight.

Why? The Saxons were well-trained infantry protected by shields and mail. William's archers, crossbowmen, and slingers were probably not as numerous as in later English armies. Longbowmen never "decimated" well-armored infantry.

Interesting post. I have seen this topic on so many sites lately I have been amazed by how interested people are in it. First off some things; I think both sides have some thigns right. I do not think armour was ever 100% from projectiles. SEcond I think in many occasions it was very effective in keeping missiles from penetrating.

Dan,

Not to detract from your posts as they are interesting but perhaps something that would help. The lists of breastplates you listed are all from outside the medieval period. Not one is even close to the era of crossbows and bows being used in war. I work with arms and armour, (was told out collection of englsih civil war armour was second to the Royal Armouries at one point) and these thicknesses seem the top range, although 3mm still likely would stop most missiles, few pre 15oo breastplates were that thick. For that matter into the 16th 2-3mm is fairly common for breastplate thicknesses. IT is the cavalry armour that tends to be extremely heavy. We have 9 full suits from circa 1600 and the thickest is 4-6mm on the chest but much, much less on all limbs. But this is outside the point of the topic, for thicknesses verse longbows and crossbows you need armour from pre 1500. Once again no intention to derail the main issue or your valuable posts.

As of now there is no real good source for this out I am aware of thicknesses of MEDIEVAL armour. The R.A. is likely to have something in time but I would not know when a publication date will be as the research is still to be under way. But from that breastplates, likely the second thickest part of armour (aside from the head) tends to be the breastplate between 1.2-2mm in the pre 1500 era. Now Once I get the table together perhaps I can post it but that will be after my current project ends in a few months. The museum I am at has a suit from 1535 (closer) and most is 2mm-2.5mm with one section almost at 3mm and one at 1.7mm. I can let all interested know how the research goes with thickness and since they sell their publications likely cannot copy the info but can direct to where it is at.

Going back to hardnes of arrowheads. In the guilds making the heads in London this is a reoccuring issue in their own laws dealing with the hardness of them. Look in the Calendar letter Books of London and the Calendar of Memoranda and Plea Rolls has a number of citations of use. Hardness is a constant issue so in their eyes they were hard, to oppose this they never state this of armour of the time (second half of14th). The steel crossbow is difficult but there is inference of this by the fact in some inventories, the best known likely that of the pope in mid 14th has a number of crossbows, some IDed of 'horn' I think the term is and some are not. This indicates composite construction and another of something else and as far as I know they were not using self bow crossbows at this point so just as likely that they were steel. Of course no way to tell as they do not give more detail or value but the best find would be in an debt inquest of post mortem inquest as they give prices. If one said with horn and one not and the prices were significantly different you'd be good, so if someone finds that let me know.... I though for a time in England they used Arblast and crossbow differently but it varies from decade to decade too much for a pattern I think.

I think the comparison between the top grade armour heavy in favor of the armour but the comparison for the vast majority would be in the lower quality, most of which were not heat treated and likely not as thick (back to not enough research done yet to make a firm assumption). I think M. Strickland and Hardy are great people to look at as both have access to the RA armour as guides as well as real weapons to look at, Hardy being one of the Directors. In the end it is more complicated than a yes it can no it cannot I think. From the distance and in a number of situations I am sure most knights felt farly confident behind their armour, I am sure at times less so.

Once again fun post,

Randall Moffett