- This topic has 4 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
I'm watching a History Channel show on the modern building of a castle, and I just leaned that the Crossbow was outlawed under Church law sometime around the Middle Ages and that users of it could be excommunicated. It was easier to use than the longbow, and unlike its cousin, it could pierce armor. This made knights susceptible to this kind of weapon while in battle. I'm just mentioning this because it's interesting. I didn't know the crossbow has this kind of power.
I don't understand. The crossbow could take out armored knights but it was outlawed? Wouldn't foreigners that weren't under the influence of the church just dominate with them?
I believe that the idea was that because the crossbow was so easily used by ordinary infantry, it was too good of a weapon. In other words, it was considered “unfair” (sort or befuddling when you consider that the point of war is to destroy the other side). Remember, back in those days knights would have lived by a code, and I imagine that with all the training, money, and nobility that went into knighthood, they would be viewed upon as being more valuable than common pikemen or the like. While there might be honor in being sliced by a broadsword while in hand to hand combat, I think that it would have been considered a “waste” to be gunned down by a few crossbows in the back when you're not looking.Also, I imagine that the nobles - or possibly even the king himself - would have been on the battlefield in certain circumstances. These people would need to be around on both sides after the fighting is done because the people wouldn't know how to govern themselves (or so the conception might be).This is actually a very interesting question you bring up, Cousin Avi, and I am going on my hunch. I may have to look into this deeper.
If this was a Church law, it would have ruled over nations on both sides of a war (just as the code of chivalry likely ruled over opposing nations as well). Even today we have codes of war (i.e. Geneva Conventions) that nations are bound to abide by in times of conflict. If a nation breaches that code, it might get punished by an international tribunal, or it might not get help with its rebuilding after the war is done.
True. Men, especially of that time were very serious about honor and chivalry. So I Can see them refraining if instructed to do so.
It was easier to use than the longbow, and unlike its cousin, it could pierce armor.Your information is wrong. It was the longbow that could pierce armor.
Medieval weapons is not my area of expertease. But I do think the longbow was a more formidable weapon then the crossbow. It made me think of a Sioux Chief (speeding ahead a few centuries) Who was renowned because he could shoot an arrow completely threw the body of a buffalo. So the bow, by anyones standards is a formidable weapon.By the way, welcome, Carmy!
It was easier to use than the longbow, and unlike its cousin, it could pierce armor.Your information is wrong. It was the longbow that could pierce armor.
Hello Carmy. I heard about the piercing capability of the crossbow on the show I watched which I mentioned above. I just did some reading and found the following evidence to support my claim that the crossbow had superior penetrating power than the longbow. This is from Wikipedia:
The use of these devices allowed soldiers to use and fire weapons with a draw force far in excess of what they could have handled with a bow. In the later years of the crossbow it had enough kinetic energy to penetrate any chainmail and most plate armor hit squarely: some reached a draw force of nearly 350 lbf (1600 N), compared to the 60-180lbf (300-900 N) draw force for a longbow.
If you think about it, it seems that a mechanical device would naturally be able to create more force than the non-mechanical longbow. While the entry I cited suggests this might not always have been the case with the crossbow early on, I think that the longbow's popularity would have been due to the ability to mass produce it at a lower price than the xbow, and the fact that the xbow had moving parts meant that it would have been less reliable on the battlefield.
After further research this is what I found. The crossbow was known as early as the forth century but up until the close of the twelfth century it was used mainly for sport. But as discussed earlier it was banned in 1139 by Pope Innocent II as a barbarous weapon. Later Richard I of England and Philip Augustus of France sanctioned it's use during the crusades. By the middle of the thirteenth century after improvements to the longbow it was found that the longbow outclassed the crossbow for several reasons. A skilled archer could discharge half a dozen arrows in the time it took a crossbowmen to wind up his bow for a second shot. Also the distance covered by the arrow, together with the penetrative force were equal to that of the Crossbow and is generally considered to have been superior. The book pointed out that as the English gradually discarded the crossbow in favor of the longbow, the continental nations did just the opposite in favor of the crossbow. And of course history shows us who really emerged as the power in Europe, and you wonder if this did not contribute.
One other note. It was mentioned earlier that a crossbow could draw up to 350 ft lbs. That sounds like more then it is. I mentioned the Sioux who was able to shoot through the body of a full grown buffalo, And I am certain that the longbows were superior to the Sioux bows. If a Sioux bow could go through the body of a Buffalo I would be willing to wager that a Longbow could penetrate armor.
A bow's length away was the distance the hunters had to try for, and the preferred targets were the intestinal cavity just behind the last rib, and just back of the left shoulder and into the heart. At that narrow distance their powerful bows could sink an arrow into the buffalo's body up to the feather, or even pass it clear through him. In Washington Irvings "a tour on the praires' He wrote of a Pawnee Brave who he witnessed that shot a buffalo through the body and wounded the one on the other side. I will try and remember where I read the Sioux account.
Ok, perhaps you are correct. However, how would you determine that going through the intestinal cavity of a buffalo would mean that one could place an arrow through armor? I think that by the late Middle Ages the armor was more complex and reliable than mere chain mail. And wouldn't this have been the whole point of armor? To defend against longbow attacks?
I used the buffalo as an example because it is the largest land mammal in N. America, it can weigh up to 2000 pounds and stand 6 and a half feet tall. It's wide and heavy and its hides are thick. (wagons going west would sometimes line the interiors of the wagon box's with buffalo hides for extra protection from arrows.) So for an inferior bow to penetrate an animal like this, all the way through, I would say an English longbow could penetrate armour that early on was only about 2mm thick. It wasn't until later that armor plating began to improve and it became more difficult for the arrows to Peirce the armor. So really I guess we need to figure out a little more precisely which era we are talking about because medieval is a bit to broad for this subject.
