through a much shorter trajectory than the long and powerful expanse of the longbow’s. Also, the longbow’s arrow was heavier than a quarrel, which gave it greater penetrative power over a greater distance. To match the longbow’s lethality, the crossbow would have had to be considerably larger, which would have made it impossibly unwieldy. Even in itscomparatively light form it already suffered from a lengthy loading procedure that left the crossbowman vulnerable.
These characteristics molded the tactical use of both types of bow. The crossbow tended to be deployed in relatively close action where the flat trajectory would have a potentially devastating effect (the problem was, of course, that the closer the crossbowman was to the action, the greater his chances of being ridden down or shot down during the relatively lengthy periods of reloading). The longbow, on the other hand, tended to be used at longer distance in arcing trajectories where its high speed of reloading (about twelve shafts per minute, compared with perhaps three per minute for the crossbow—about the same rate as a black-powder musket) could inflict a storm of harm on the enemy.
The famous confrontation between the Genoese mercenary crossbowmen fighting for France and the English and Welsh longbowmen at the battle of Crécy in 1346 is a good illustration. The Genoese were the first to advance within range but without the large shields (
pavise
) behind which they could shelter while reloading. In addition the French approach had been chaotic, and the chronicler Jean Froissart writes that “there fell a great rain,” which almost certainly slackened the crossbow bridles. In contrast, the longbowmen unstrung their bows during the drenching downpour and coiled the linen strings under their helmets for protection. The Genoese got off the first volley and would almost certainly have had to retighten the strings of their crossbows, which increased their risk of being counterattacked. At this point the three thousand or so longbowmen
knocked [fitted the arrows to the string] and drew, closing their backs, opening their chests, pushing into their bows, anchoring for a second, holding their drawn arrows firm, thumbs of their drawing hands touching right ears orthe points of jaws as they aimed for a heartbeat when the drawn shafts slid past their bow hands until the cold steel of the arrowheads touched the first knuckles; letting fly, right hands following the strings almost as swiftly as the shafts’ flight past the brown bows, grabbing the next arrow from ground, or belt, or quiver, to knock and draw and anchor and loose, in deadly unrelenting repetition. 31
The hail of arrows—“so thick that it seemed like snow”—took a terrible toll, and the Genoese broke, many only to fall beneath the hooves of the advancing French knights who contemptuously rode down their own crossbowmen in a mad rush to get at the English.
The essential difference between the crossbow and the longbow had as much to do with relative cost as with relative lethality. A longbow, although mechanically simpler than the crossbow, was not necessarily cheaper. It was made from specialized wood, the supply of which presupposed land use dedicated to growing trees rather than more immediately profitable crops. The crossbow, even if made of wood, did not demand the exacting material of the longbow; in fact it could be, and was, made of a composite of materials. But perhaps more important, the crossbow also had a striking economic advantage that would be a preview of the age of the handgun: It did not take the great deal of training, practice, and physical strength to turn out a competent crossbowman that it took to turn out an archer. The long training of an archer was by far the most significant “below-the-line” cost of the bow. It would be the crossbow, unlovely and unloved, rather than the longbow, romantic and revered, that pointed the way to the future and the victory of
These characteristics molded the tactical use of both types of bow. The crossbow tended to be deployed in relatively close action where the flat trajectory would have a potentially devastating effect (the problem was, of course, that the closer the crossbowman was to the action, the greater his chances of being ridden down or shot down during the relatively lengthy periods of reloading). The longbow, on the other hand, tended to be used at longer distance in arcing trajectories where its high speed of reloading (about twelve shafts per minute, compared with perhaps three per minute for the crossbow—about the same rate as a black-powder musket) could inflict a storm of harm on the enemy.
The famous confrontation between the Genoese mercenary crossbowmen fighting for France and the English and Welsh longbowmen at the battle of Crécy in 1346 is a good illustration. The Genoese were the first to advance within range but without the large shields (
pavise
) behind which they could shelter while reloading. In addition the French approach had been chaotic, and the chronicler Jean Froissart writes that “there fell a great rain,” which almost certainly slackened the crossbow bridles. In contrast, the longbowmen unstrung their bows during the drenching downpour and coiled the linen strings under their helmets for protection. The Genoese got off the first volley and would almost certainly have had to retighten the strings of their crossbows, which increased their risk of being counterattacked. At this point the three thousand or so longbowmen
knocked [fitted the arrows to the string] and drew, closing their backs, opening their chests, pushing into their bows, anchoring for a second, holding their drawn arrows firm, thumbs of their drawing hands touching right ears orthe points of jaws as they aimed for a heartbeat when the drawn shafts slid past their bow hands until the cold steel of the arrowheads touched the first knuckles; letting fly, right hands following the strings almost as swiftly as the shafts’ flight past the brown bows, grabbing the next arrow from ground, or belt, or quiver, to knock and draw and anchor and loose, in deadly unrelenting repetition. 31
The hail of arrows—“so thick that it seemed like snow”—took a terrible toll, and the Genoese broke, many only to fall beneath the hooves of the advancing French knights who contemptuously rode down their own crossbowmen in a mad rush to get at the English.
The essential difference between the crossbow and the longbow had as much to do with relative cost as with relative lethality. A longbow, although mechanically simpler than the crossbow, was not necessarily cheaper. It was made from specialized wood, the supply of which presupposed land use dedicated to growing trees rather than more immediately profitable crops. The crossbow, even if made of wood, did not demand the exacting material of the longbow; in fact it could be, and was, made of a composite of materials. But perhaps more important, the crossbow also had a striking economic advantage that would be a preview of the age of the handgun: It did not take the great deal of training, practice, and physical strength to turn out a competent crossbowman that it took to turn out an archer. The long training of an archer was by far the most significant “below-the-line” cost of the bow. It would be the crossbow, unlovely and unloved, rather than the longbow, romantic and revered, that pointed the way to the future and the victory of
Similar Books
