[Guy Bayes]

I don't think the "war was endless sieges" was true everywhere, in the east, in Wales and Ireland it seemed more fluid

Certainly the mongols didn't seem to waste a lot of time in endless sieges

[Peteris R.]

[Guy Bayes]

The siege of Kiev lasted 7 days, I don't think any of the mongol sieges of western cities lasted tremendously long

Castles didn't sprout over Wales until after it was conquered by Edward I, there were a lot of open field battles between relatively big (for the time) armies there in the 13th century. Same for Scotland. You had Battle of Llandeilo Fawr, Battle of Moel-y-don and Battle of Orewin Bridge

You had crossbows and bows both at the Battle of Hastings

I think like most things middle ages it kinda depends on when in the middles ages you are talking and where you are geographically. The realities of war can shift and shift again and weapons can go in and out of fashion for various reasons in various places

The hundred years war, sure, tons of sieges but that is only a small part of the bow-vs crossbow thing. Even "longbow vs cross bow" is only a small part, there is a "horsebow vs crossbow" side of things

[Peteris R.]

[Kevin Smith]

[quote="Benjamin H. Abbott"]

[Matt Lentzner]

[M. Curk]

I would say so, too. Longbow is more agile (you can move much quicker around the battlefield while shooting a longbow than a crossbow), so in the case of skirmishing or raiding in my opinion it is a more effective weapon. With a longbow you can run while loading it, then stop for a few seconds to shoot and move ahead. With a crossbow you can't do this. So in my opinion a longbow is more effective for skirmishes or quick attacks, while a crossbow might be better for sieges or more static battles (especially because you are able to hold it ready to shoot for theoretically unlimited amount of time).

And for the longbow use in England, was it so popular because of its effectiveness or was it just because of tradition?

[R. Kolick]

[Guy Bayes]

I think rate of fire is more important in skirmishes and set piece battles as opposed to sieges. Bows have a huge advantage there.

Also mounted archers almost always use bows of some kind for what I have read.

[Randall Moffett]

Guy,

Not quite. Sometime in the late 12th we see a fair number of mounted crossbowmen. They were used fairly often into the 16th century. I think Durer includes some great illustrations of mounted crossbowmen. It seems for sometime they were far more common than mounted archers on the bulk of Europe.

Now the big debate for all archers is if they ever made a habit out of loosing bolts and arrows from the saddle or if it was simply a mobility thing.

RPM

[Guy Bayes]

Yes mounted in the sense of firing from the saddle is what I meant, my understanding is crossbowmen dismounted to fight

Spanning a crossbow from a moving horse has got to be an interesting trick

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Various evidence indicates that at least some mounted crossbowers shot and spanned their weapons from horseback. I've read accounts of this in twelfth or thirteenth century Spain, early sixteenth-century regulations for French mounted archers, Sir John Smythe's desire for mounted crossbowers, and so on.

[Randall Moffett]

Guy,

There are bits here and there of evidence as Ben points out of their use mounted. The interesting thing is that there is very little evidence for the dismount as well. We can assume this is the case but we see very little evidence in accounts stating the mounted crossbowmen or bowmen were intended to simply use the horse as a means of mobility. I have similar questions about hobelars as I see nothing to indicate their expectation to dismount but I guess that is something for another post someday.

RPM

[Kevin Smith]

I can fire a 100 lb longbow from horseback (granted I'm unusual for modern times in my upper body strength) but I have hardly put the time into training for this that a medieval archer would have. Composite horn and sinew bows can easily reach that draw weight. An equivalent crossbow would have to be 300 lb draw weight. How would one even begin to span that mounted? Trying to crank a windlass or use a goatsfoot mounted would be a bit tricky.

[Dan Howard]

The whole point of the crannequin was to enable a crossbow to be spanned with one hand while on horseback. It was slower than a windlass but could span crossbows just as heavy. Bradbury (p. 149) reckons up to 1200 lbs but the crannequin requires around 35 seconds while the windlass only 12 seconds.

[Guy Bayes]

yeah cranequin kinda late in the game though right? Late 1400's? After firearms?

[Dan Howard]

Mid 15th century, but we know that mounted crossbowmen were used in battle up to at least the 16th century. We also know that crossbows were spanned from horseback long before crannequins. Ben has already noted accounts of the Spanish doing it as early as the 12th-13th century. We don't know how heavy they were or what equipment was used though. And we don't know whether they fought from horseback or dismounted to shoot. Isn't there an illustration of Maximillian wearing plate harness and shooting a crossbow from horseback? How likely is he to be wearing heavy armour while hunting?

[Randall Moffett]

And the goat's foot lever as well was used on horseback.

We have evidence in the 12th century of all sorts of people from Richard I to Philip Augustus using mounted crossbowmen. I remember something about Frederick II mixing some mounted horsemen and crossbowmen in Italy as well sometime in the 1220s or something. I suspect they were an elite force and that they tended to be more akin to the top level foot archers and uppers than the average levied archer or footman.

RPM

[Larry Bohnham]

Haven't read all the posts on this subject, but here I go anyway. I have both cross bows and traditional bows. My traditional bows run the gamut from period correct (14th-15th cent) long bows to modern recurve and compound bows. My cross bow is modern but I have fired accurate repro medieval ones. I won't belabor the pros and cons; I wouldn't want to be hit with either. My admittedly unscientific test firing and hunting experience has shown the following.

My 150# crossbow will drive a field pointed bolt three + times deeper through the same backstop as either my 50# recurve or my compound bow inside thirty yards. It is just plain devastating. While I have yet to do so, but plan to some day, I have no doubt that it would easily and effectively penetrate 16ga sheet steel. Effectiveness is the key here. After penetrating the barrier media, enough energy must remain in the projectile to sufficiently penetrate the intended target. For a human that is from 5 to 10 inches, depending on angle, to reach vital organs. Based on my observations, a period steel cross bow of 1200#'s would rip through any plate armor then available and probably completely perforate the man behind it. and possibly do lethal damage to anyone standing immediately behind the first target. Against an unarmored horse the bolt would probably go a third to half the way through the animal from front to back., with similar results as a full metal jacket 7.62 X 51 bullet. There is a video in circulation of the folks at Todd's Stuff firing their 1200# repro cross bow. The sound alone at discharge is almost like a gun shot..

The cross bow was used roughly for as long as the longbow. People do not take things to war for centuries if they don't work very well. The economics of England vs the Continent were different as well as the relationship of the commoners to the nobility. Both weapons made sense to the cultures that used them. Then as now, no weapon is perfect, you use what you can get that is effective enough for your mission.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Sir John Smythe wanted goat's foot levers (gaffles) for his mounted crossbowmen and expected them to span while mounted.