[Randall Moffett]

Ben,

I am not sure I am following you correct. It seems like you are simply discounting the crossbowmen during the 14th and 15th century. The concept that longbowmen simply swept crossbowmen off the field is one that is so general it is simply incorrect. There are several battles, in particular in Italy where longbow men are forced from the field by crossbowmen but in particular continental examples of the continued importances and devestation caused by the crowwbow. As well there are loads of incidents where crossbows prove very important in medieval battles during the 14th and 15th, including likely more accounts of armour penetration than longbows. The issue with the crossbow usually comes down to numbers of them and the quality of leadership. Remember the Crossbowmen of Genoa were considered one of the top troops of their day.

As well I am not sure the shorter or longer draw works that way. You have way too many other variables to consider.

Leo,

I think the issue with the RA bolts is like many of them. Lack of context. We have no idea if these ones were even specifically used for war, or if so how. Personally I am sure some bolts were like these ones that were used for war. That is not the key issue here though. The idea that bolts were one size fits all it simply not true. We have accounts like that of The Patent Rolls and John Fasolf's inventory that have a series of different bolt types. Clearly we are not dealing with one simply standard bolt that was used for everything. So going back to my original point. I think we likely are dealing with a number of different bolts not simply one military bolt. These likely vary in detail from design of head, body and weight. I know there are some museums in Germany and in Denmark that have large collections of hundreds if not thousands that would be interesting to see if there is variety. Sadly the RA has a rather limited number of them that are likely for war not hunting. In the end I have seen several random bolts at various places that make me question a simple one bolt weight system.

Now were medieval accounts exaggerated. Of course. That said we have enough accounts of armour being soundly defeated by bolts in the 14th and 15th century that I think it unlikely this is being grossly exaggerated. For example the story of Joan of Arc having her armour penetrated and almost being killed. I think testing with various weight bolts is essential to getting to the real answer here. We have plenty of indication that 'some' crossbows could out distance longbows. We also have indication that many crossbows seems to have been able to penetrate plate armour. Considering the lack of context to most bolts (and crossbows) in museums I think it would be an error to disregard the historic accounts based upon them and therefore one needs to have a go at trial and error to figure it out.. We have seen similar info come forward with renewed testing with the longbow.

RPM

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Leo Todeschini]

Randall Moffett wrote

[Randall Moffett]

Ben,

There are a number of accounts that tell of how useful crossbows were during the late medieval period.

Froissart includes a handful, one being at the battle of Sluys.

You have Le Baker who includes several examples from their effect in the wars in Brittany as well as how they were able to stand up to the English at Poitier, at least until the French men at arms appear to have got in the way. His account of Poitiers for example really makes it look like they are doing very well against the archers. As well he indicates the English had a good number of crossbowmen employed in this battle to great effect.

During the reign of Henry IV the English who were sent to intervene in the Armagnac and Burgundy factions came home telling of how effective and devastating the crossbows had been, even though almost all the English force was archers. (See Wylie's Henry IV for sources as he uses several accounts to show this occurrence)

And we have Jean de Waurin for the 15th that includes both their use in general in battles of the late HYW as well as later ones dealing with infighting between Burgundy and France etc. He also includes specifics persons hit as well, indicating some type of marksmen. In 1430 he indicates John Stewart head of an English force was hit by a bolt that seemingly penetrated his cuisse.

And of course interestingly enough you have just as many primary accounts telling of the Hussites and their crossbows as, if not more, their crossbows. Ironically the war club/flail is the most mentioned, more than wagon or anything about guns. (See Fudges compilation of Hussite sources for this).

To be fair there are many examples of the continued use and success of the crossbow in the late medieval period. Many of the sources are likely not in English though but they are still invaluable in this understanding.


Leo,

OK. Sounds good to me. Keep up the good work!

RPM

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Randall,

Thanks for the sources. I don't see much excitement; the list instead matches my perception of the crossbow in late medieval Europe as a utilitarian weapon. Perhaps that was simply because folks had gotten used to it, but the quick adoption of the gun suggests the crossbow did not live up to the modern claims about armor penetration.

[Randall Moffett]

Quick adoption of firearms......

Where? Firearms seem to have taken longer than nearly any weapon in the hands of soldiers. It is not until perhaps 1480 that guns really begin to give crossbows real competition and really not until the mid 16th when they really start to replace them in any actual sense. One of the issues that is increasingly becoming clear is that during the last 2, maybe 3 decades of the 15th century gunners were either placed with crossbowmen in most continental armies or left with the artillery. Bert Hall seems to figure the latter more common. Even in Italy and German you still see crossbows numbered in 1000s in the late 15th while guns are still typically in the hundreds. It is not till maybe the 1520s where one sees major shifts in Italy, Germany and Spain toward gun use over crossbows but all these still see traditional bows and crossbows in use for several more decades.

That said most info on this comes from sometimes difficult sources. It is very likely if we start looking at the hard numbers from inventories and musters we'd get a better picture. Those I have seen from Spain, and others of these main movers seem to show a development not wildly advanced over France and England. Such a look into Swiss military musters from the last 2 decades showed most missile weapons still being crossbows, by 1500 they seem to be dropping missile weapons in general for simply masses of pikes.

Now regards to penetration.... another hard one. Hall seems to have very compelling arguments that limits to early firearms load of powder for fear of rupture limited the potential power. So where as clearly they do penetrate better one has to be careful in this regards. It actually seems the crossbow and individual guns were looked at as simply interchangeable around 1500. Seems that since firearms often were less costly really did them many favors over the crossbow.

If you want a good summary if you have not read Hall's book on Ren. Warfare it is a good one. Just reread it and really think it is top notch.

RPM

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Jean Henri Chandler]

The historical use of crossbows is relatively unknown in North America because our history is basically filtered through the English or French sources through the English lens. This skews things a bit because the English thought Longbows were better than all other missile wepaons and the French basically had contempt for any type of warrior other than heavy cavalry. The failure of Genoese crossbowme at battles like Agincourt against the English was due to the same haphazard planning that doomed the French cavalry, not to the skill of Genoese crossbowmen who proved themselves many times over in other battles. Historically Crossbows were more widely used and were more feared in Europe than any other type of missile weapon in the Medieval to Renaissance period, but they were no more of a super weapon than any other, they just had a niche which was widely applied in many contexts.. Most of this happened in Central, Northern and Eastern Europe though so we Anglophones don't hear much about it unless we can cross those particular language barriers (which is much easier now days due to google translate et al).

Crossbows were statistically the most frequent cause of death in battlefields excavated in Spain and in Prussia. I spoke to one military archeologist recently who told me they were able to map out the course of battles in Prussia by finding the bolt heads with metal detectors (in some cases still embedded inside ancient trees). In Central Europe, Hussite crossbows on Tabors (war wagons) proved to be the means of defeating Ottoman and Tartar armies in several key battles in Hungary under John Hunyandi, as well as against German, Hungarian and Western European (Heavy cavalry) Crusaders in the Hussite Wars, and on both sides in the 13 Year war between the Prussian Cities and Poland vs. the Teutonic Order. I can cite several key battles in which the infantry armed about 80% with crossbows turned the course of the outcome against both horse-archers and armored heavy cavalry.

The Teutonic Order in particular kept a lot of detailed records of the Crossbow, they also employed Longbows during the Crusades, usually brought in by Burgundian or English Lords on Crusade, and they compared the two weapons. They liked the longbow alot but they felt it was most suited for seige warfare. One of the factors in the favor of the crossbow was that it was easier to use on horseback than a longbow was, when using the wippe or goatsfoot, or (especially) with the cranequin. In Central and Eastern Europe where the list of potential enemies included Ottomans and Tartars a fast-mobile form of archery was very important. Crossbows fulfilled this role in the west until really wheel-lock firearms made pistols and petronels sufficiently efficient for cavalry use in the 16th Century.

Longbows and recurves had better range for lofted / area shots giving them a potential advantage in wide-open areas, almost like light field artillery or mortars, whereas crossbows had by far the greatest effective direct-shot accuracy (up to 150 m -200m or more according to Teutonic Order sources) and semed to have some limited armor-piercing ability out to a further distance which gave them an edge in closer quarters fighting as was often found in hilly and heavily forested parts of Europe. I don't think the Teutonic Knights (or the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Italians etc.) had any particular reason to exaggerate the effectiveness of crossbows because (unlike the English who identified with the Longbow as their national weapon) they did not have any horse in that race; they used recurves, they used longbows, they used firearms and light artillery, they liked them all but found the crossbow best suited their needs up until the end of the 15th Century when matchlock firearms began to increasingly replace them.

As for bolt weights, they used a lot of different bolts and according to Teutonic Knights and Polish records I've read, they used light harassing bolts at long range, including whistling bolts called 'bremsen' (Gadfly), and heavier bolts at shorter range. They also had other types of bolts for shooting flame-bolts, they had fowling heads, others I can't figure out the purpose of.

I've still yet to find a definitive source on weights though, I've seen lots of them on auction sites etc. but they never list the weights.

We'll get to the bottom on all this though soon, I have a feeling more data will be emerging this year.

J

[Nicolas Grinschgl]

Hi there!

I dont know if those videos have been posted here yet. Unfortunately the page with the exact parameters is gone
by now, but if i remember correctly the crossbow used in this test has ~900 - 950 lbs. The breast plate used has been
hardened.

http://www.plattnerwerkstatt.de/files/Beschus...t_de_1.wmv

http://www.plattnerwerkstatt.de/files/Beschus...t_de_2.wmv

best regards,
Nicolas

[William P]

as for crossbows themselves iam sort of under the general understanding that not all bow designs are equal i.e that the modern cam and pulley system is one of the most efficient ways of transferring tension into velocity a concept known as 'cast per pound' apparently. my source is this... http://www.youtube.com/watchv=jpbM5_3TVkE&...h_response

basic jist of cast differences is that flatbows and recurves apparently have a higher cast per pound, meaning that a 60 pound english longbow would cast an arrow less than a 60 pound compound bow,


and by the same token i remember SOMEWHERE dont remember where, that the crossbow was apparently less efficiant in terms of deistance cast per pound, evidenced by the fact that you seem to need a 850-1200 pound metal prod crossbow to achieve the same distance and power as a 130Lb english warbow.,

one could say the crossbow is the gas guzzler of the bow types.

as for arrowhead design, i found this video and this description of a plate cutter head most interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0kZ2CHRWE&am...ideo_title shooting plate cutter and needle bodkin heads at a flat panel TV interesting results.
i asked later about plate cutter heads and this description of its function is worth noting here.

A plate cutter has a short, 4-sided, almost pyramidal shaped front which creates the initial hole, the 4 sides of the massive lozenge head then create small cuts enabling the metal to split & curl back out of the way. The head is thick to stop it bending or curling like a needle bodkin. The head is wider than the shaft to allow the shaft to slip through the hole without further friction. The Towton head was just one type found at the site. I imagine it was a general purpose head.

he directed me to this site http://www.evado.co.uk/Hector%20Cole/Arrowheads/index.html the plate cutter head is the arrowhead on the 5th row, 2nd from the lleft called heavy war bodkin him also saying this

"The plate cutter I was describing has a shorter, stubbier front point to it, then a longer and less eliptical body, but you should get the basic idea."

im wrong, feel free to correct me

[Randall Moffett]

Yes this was posted years ago. Basically shows a super breastplate which is as thick as some of the thickest medieval breastplates, some 2 times as thick as what appears the average for the medieval period. I do not recall the exact draw weight but if I remember correctly it was not that high but since the links do not seem to retrieve anything and the website is lacking any information on this it is rather vague. If I remember correctly it has been claimed 500, 800 and now 900-950 lbs draw on this same website. To me the fact it was not posted on the main site seems very odd and makes the test against a 3-4mm, heat treated breastplate a bit useless.

No one is contesting that armour can be made to be difficult to impossible to piece.

RPM

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Back to the bolt weight issue, this guy says the bolt he is using is 140 grams, which is considerbly more than Todd was estimating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvrQYeWR-3E&am...efresh_thu

And this one at 90g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yogv2dDnx64&NR=1

Anybody know who this guy is ? based on Hungary...

Lists the force at 3,000n and 4,000n respectively. What does 3,000n mean?

J

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Looking through this thread, I note that it is claimed that Jeanne d'Arc's armour was pierced by a crossbow bolt. Having looked at the primary sources, I noted that nowhere is such a claim made, interestingly enough. It has been inferred because she was wounded. Lest this seem a 'no-brainer', I would like to point out that in one such incident, at the siege of Paris, she was wounded in the thigh. Those of us who know armour well know that most cuisse designs do not provide good protection to the inside of the thigh, as they are cut away enough to make riding comfortable. This is most likely true of the Italo-French armour she was wearing (the better French plate makers were ethnic Italians, frequently immigrants). From the description of events, it seems likely she was hit when she turned when one of her pages, who was holding her banner while she was probing the moat with a lance, was first wounded then killed by crossbow sharp shooters (his armour was not penetrated; he took a wound that pinned his foot to the ground (the French often do not seem to have worn sabatons, a common piece of armour omitted), and he was killed when he lifted his visor to see better how to pull the bolt out). Her worst wound was at Orleans while climbing a seige ladder, when she took a bolt close to the base of her neck on the left side, towards the back. Though it penetrated quite deeply (close to six inches if memory serves), she took no serious harm, surprisingly. This tells us something about possible precise locations for her wound, as there is so much potential for harm in that area of the body. I discussed this at length with Olivier Bouzy at the Institute for Jeanne d'Arc in Orleans. The one sure type of helmet she is recorded as wearing during her career was a salade, which would make a great deal of sense from the standpoint of being seen by her men and ease of wear. A salade does not give the coverage to the shoulders that a siege hat does (the French style pretty much lacks the flaired-out bell shape of the German style), nor does a bevor wrap around the back of the neck. Full sized pauldrons were still not common at this time, spaudlers being the most usual shoulder protection. If the wearer of a salade and spaulders should happen to, say, hold onto a ladder with one hand, look down and beckon with the other, it leaves a nice open spot within the neck line of the cuirass. I think it likely she took the hit towards the rear through her trapezius muscle and under the skin near the scapula, as it does not seem any of her bones were struck. Very, very lucky!

[Nathan Robinson]

Thanks for posting that account, James. It gives a lot to think about, but perhaps more entertaining to me is that it gives much to imagine and visualize.

Cheers

[Simone Pozzobon]

Hi everyone!
I found this test of an arbalest. It is against wood instead of metal and the draw weight of the bow is 3000 lbs. The shot is made from 40 m according to the description under the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMI-Syen34U

Bye!

[Bartek Strojek]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Bartek Strojek]

This is mostly speculation, but crossbow held the advantage here - arms of the bow were so short, that response after release was very quick, and thus the whole system had some serious velocity even despite it's heavy weight.

For sure I know that in "Die Amrbrust" cites velocities of ~ 70 or more m/s for 500 kg bows.

So bolt didn't really had to be that ridiculously heavy to utilize energy sensibly.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Bartek Strojek]

Don't have the thing handy, especially don't feel like checking, especially, that, unfortunately " ich verstehe nicht" is about the pinnacle of my German.

Fortunately found some guy citing:

" Halb rustung " class crossbow with steel prod with bolt mass not more than 80 gram - about 67 m/s

Halb rustung would be half a tonne, generally, so ~500kg.