Battlefield range of crossbows

[Erpingham]

Jon Freitag's blogging about realistic medieval rules got me thinking about something I want to be clear about in my own rule writing - effective battlefield ranges of missile weapons.  I'll try to give a bit of context, but at the same time avoid diving down too many research areas.

Firstly, what do I mean by effective battlefield range? Well, there is no standard definition of effective range but there is a general agreement it's where the weapon has a good chance of making an impact on the enemy.  It is immediately obvious that this has to vary according to target. It will also vary according to the shooter.  A shooting guild champion who practices regularly is probably going to be more effective than a burgher who has just been issued a bow from the communal armoury to perform militia duty. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume a bunch of average shooters aiming at blocks of close order troops. In terms of effect, do we want to annoy/harass them or do we want them hors de combat?  We probably need to think of both.

Ok, now we reach the beginning  I looked again at Sven Ekdahl's theory about the tactics of Teutonic Order crossbowmen. It's been discussed on the forum before (raised by me, IRRC).  Anyway, Ekdahl suggested that the crossbowmen started the battle by showering bolts on the enemy at around 250-300 metres range, shooting at a high angle.  Then, when the enemy were worn down, the crossbowmen would advance to 80m and engage in more flat trajectory shooting and start doing real damage. His long range estimate is based on experiments with replica field crossbows (we don't need to go into the vast number of crossbow types the Teutonic order had but he is thinking moderate draw weight weapons, not the big siege and wall crossbows).  I can't see where he gets his 80m from (some think he is drawing from TO records but I think he has taken a point blank range figure from modern experiments).

This seems quite plausible but it isn't based on any contemporary data, as far as I can see.  We do have some comparative info from late 15th and early 16th century shooting competitions (these really were a popular pastime in much of Europe).  These suggest ranges of 90 - 100m were regularly shot over - perhaps a bit further. So maybe he has erred on the conservative side for the shorter range.  For what it's worth, Mike Loades in his Crossbow book seems to favour 60 yds and under for short range.

I'd be interested if anyone has some more details of target shooting ranges (I've seen about three with sufficient detail) but tactical manuals making recommendation or historical accounts which specify ranges would all be helpful in firming up this range study.

So far the historical has been the focus, but the intention is to be clear on the basis for dividing missile ranges between high impact/shorter range and disruptive/harassment shooting at longer range, and how that is simply represented/abstracted. But that might better form a topic in the Rules Discussions area.

[Jon Freitag]

A bit of serendipity, Anthony, as I considered the same when studying authenticity of Medieval rules in the post to which you refer.  I do not have any field trials comparing crossbow v longbow for effective range.  For my gaming and rule-writing purposes, I put crossbow and longbow having the same short-range while only longbow have a long-range at double the short-range.  Scientifically rigorous?  Probably not but this provides a relativity between the two missile platforms.  An equally important part of the equation is how fast can a formed body of advancing troops cross this "beaten" zone. 

[Justin Swanton]

Interesting video here where a 600 pound crossbow is tested against a 165 pound longbow. Their extreme range is about the same - a little over 200 yards. Sure, a heavier crossbow will shoot further, but will also take much more time to winch up.

Shooting to extreme range is actually quite accurate as the parabolic curve of the arrow or bolt's flight ends up pretty much in the same place whether the bow is elevated a little above or below 45 degrees. How long to get through the beaten zone? Presuming the men advance at about 2km/h with their shields up, that's 33 metres a minute, so probably a good half minute or so before they're through. Long enough for some lucky arrows or bolts to find chinks in the armour.

[Jon Freitag]

How long to get through the beaten zone? Presuming the men advance at about 2km/h with their shields up, that's 33 metres a minute, so probably a good half minute or so before they're through. Long enough for some lucky arrows or bolts to find chinks in the armour.

"A good half minute" must be a colloquial term.  At a march rate of 33m/minute, covering 200m will take at least six minutes.

[DBS]

For what it is worth, Guilmartin in his work on Renaissance galley warfare reckons 75 yards as the maximum effective range against an armoured target, perhaps 150 yards tops vs an unarmoured target.  He notes that Payne-Galloway quoted 80-300 yards, but argues this might be true for lethal effect against a relatively unarmoured target if the bolt hits, without taking into account the likelihood of actually hitting said target.  He has a very dim view of the accuracy of military crossbows firing war bolts, and also notes their much greater drag than arrows, so his guesstimate of 150 yards is based on the point where drag really hurts the bolt.

Now, if one assumes one's enemy is kind enough to be in a very dense formation, then accuracy is less of an issue, just as with muskets, in terms of true effective range.  But if they are not so kind...  As Guilmartin notes, the appeal of the crossbow in its maritime use was a weapon that needed not a lot of skill to use, but equally skill may not have allowed marked increases in effect, unlike conventional archery.

[Erpingham]

An equally important part of the equation is how fast can a formed body of advancing troops cross this "beaten" zone.

The closest I can offer to contemporary evidence is Humphrey Barwicke in A Breefe Discource (etc.) in 1592

I would firste deliuer a single Bullet, at 24. score off or there abouts, by that time they had marched fourescore neerer, I would deliuer another Bullet,

He is shooting a musket, hence the long range, but the march rate is what interests us. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us how long it takes him to load a musket  Going from a fellow Elizebethan firearms enthusiate, Barnabe Rich, probably about 40 seconds. An English pace was about 30 inches. So about 120 paces - 300 ft, 100 yds - a minute is what he is thinking. The trouble with Barwicke is that he is engaged in a row with Sir John Smythe about longbow effectiveness and he tends to exaggerate (as does Smythe).  In this case, a slower advance rate would be an advantage to his argument, though.  But 120 paces seems high - it's modern light infantry pace - and it does reflect drilled troops. Medieval seems more slow and steady to me - a petit pace.

Another idea which I have seen, based on the introduction of marching to a drum beat in the 16th century, is that the rate of march was 60 beats per minute, at one pace per beat.  So half Barwicke's rate.  The problem with attempts to use Napoleonic and later rates is there was a shift to faster manouever in the latter half of the 18th century.

[Justin Swanton]

How long to get through the beaten zone? Presuming the men advance at about 2km/h with their shields up, that's 33 metres a minute, so probably a good half minute or so before they're through. Long enough for some lucky arrows or bolts to find chinks in the armour.

"A good half minute" must be a colloquial term.  At a march rate of 33m/minute, covering 200m will take at least six minutes.

The beaten zone at extreme range isn't 200m but more like a dozen or two dozen metres since all the arrows/bolts are shot to pretty much the same distance. So there's a eye of the hurricane once past the 200m mark and before reaching the 100m mark of direct line-of-sight shooting.

[Erpingham]

Now, if one assumes one's enemy is kind enough to be in a very dense formation, then accuracy is less of an issue, just as with muskets, in terms of true effective range. 

Which is why I made this assumption - our game problem is mainly about bodies of men, not picking off individuals.  One shooting record I found was of a match in 1458.  Over a range of 91 m., crossbowmen shot 50 arrows at a 15cm target.  The winner hit it 11 times. Doesn't sound much but that's pretty impressive.  But of course, the other 320 competitors didn't do as well, so it has limited value for massed shooting, alas.

[Justin Swanton]

An equally important part of the equation is how fast can a formed body of advancing troops cross this "beaten" zone.

The closest I can offer to contemporary evidence is Humphrey Barwicke in A Breefe Discource (etc.) in 1592

I would firste deliuer a single Bullet, at 24. score off or there abouts, by that time they had marched fourescore neerer, I would deliuer another Bullet,

He is shooting a musket, hence the long range, but the march rate is what interests us. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us how long it takes him to load a musket  Going from a fellow Elizebethan firearms enthusiate, Barnabe Rich, probably about 40 seconds. An English pace was about 30 inches. So about 120 paces - 300 ft, 100 yds - a minute is what he is thinking. The trouble with Barwicke is that he is engaged in a row with Sir John Smythe about longbow effectiveness and he tends to exaggerate (as does Smythe).  In this case, a slower advance rate would be an advantage to his argument, though.  But 120 paces seems high - it's modern light infantry pace - and it does reflect drilled troops. Medieval seems more slow and steady to me - a petit pace.

Difference between infantry in 1592 compared to, say, 1400 is that the former had no adequate protection against firearms so did not rely on it so much. The best tactic was to close with the enemy as quickly as possible to mitigate the effect of their firearms (which weren't very accurate anyway). Even then the infantry would be trying to keep formation whilst advancing which would naturally slow them down. 100 yards a minute translates to 6km/h, about as fast an an unencumbered man without a care in the world can manage before breaking into a trot.

Infantry in 1400 could stop arrows with shields and body armour hence would tend to be naturally heavier and more cautious when advancing, keeping behind their raised shields and in particular taking care to cover their faces, which made visibility a problem, obliging them to advance slowly.

Another idea which I have seen, based on the introduction of marching to a drum beat in the 16th century, is that the rate of march was 60 beats per minute, at one pace per beat.  So half Barwicke's rate.  The problem with attempts to use Napoleonic and later rates is there was a shift to faster manouever in the latter half of the 18th century.

Ditto. I doubt one can equate infantry movement speeds in the 18th 15th centuries.

[Justin Swanton]

Now, if one assumes one's enemy is kind enough to be in a very dense formation, then accuracy is less of an issue, just as with muskets, in terms of true effective range. 

Which is why I made this assumption - our game problem is mainly about bodies of men, not picking off individuals.  One shooting record I found was of a match in 1458.  Over a range of 91 m., crossbowmen shot 50 arrows at a 15cm target.  The winner hit it 11 times. Doesn't sound much but that's pretty impressive.  But of course, the other 320 competitors didn't do as well, so it has limited value for massed shooting, alas.

Difficult to miss in massed shooting since your target is wide and deep. All you need to do is get the range right. The infantry need to be close enough together that when they close for melee, there aren't any gaps that can be exploited. That makes them easy to hit.

[Duncan Head]

From the Tang dynasty manual of Li Jing, as preserved in later Tang encyclopedias. Translation posted by "Yun" in the old China History Forum:

When the formation is ready, the drums are sounded and the crossbowmen loose their bolts when the enemy are a distance of 150 paces away. The bowmen loose their arrows next, when the enemy are 60 paces away. If the enemy comes within 20 paces, the crossbowmen and bowmen put down their crossbows and bows, which will be gathered up by the men in the support companies. The crossbowmen and bowmen each have a modao 陌刀 (or daobang 刀梆, sword-pole) tied to their arm, and will now pull on the rope to pick up their modao and advance with a shout to attack the enemy along with the vanguard (zhanfeng 战锋) companies. These crossbowmen each have 50 bolts, and are arranged in a V-formation (or goose-flight formation 雁行阵) at the front of each combat company. If a crossbowman fails to advance into close combat with the others, he is executed.

From an early 11th-century Song source, quoted in Needham Science and Civilization.... V:6 p.122:

All the military theorists of the Tang maintained that the crossbow had no advantage over hand-to-hand weapons, and they insisted on having long bills and great shields in the front line to repel the charge, and made the crossbowmen to carry sabres and long-hafted weapons. The result was that if the enemy adopted an open-order formation and attacked with hand-to-hand weapons, the soldiers would throw away their crossbows and have recourse to those also. A body of the rearguard was therefore detailed beforehand to go round and collect up the crossbows. But now things are not at all like this. The crossbow is the most efficient weapon of any, even at distances as small as five feet. The crossbowmen are mustered in separate companies, and when they shoot, nothing can stand in front of them, no formation can keep its order. If attacked cavalry, the crossbowmen will be as solid as a mountain, shooting off such volleys that nothing can remain alive before them. Although the charge may be impetuous it will not reach them.

[nikgaukroger]

Despite the latter statement there is other information saying that the Song infantry were a mixed formation with a rank of men with shields and various pole weapons, 3 ranks of crossbowmen and a rank of archers. (Lorge has it as I recall)

[Erpingham]

The beaten zone at extreme range isn't 200m but more like a dozen or two dozen metres since all the arrows/bolts are shot to pretty much the same distance. So there's a eye of the hurricane once past the 200m mark and before reaching the 100m mark of direct line-of-sight shooting.

Do you have a source for this single long range shot Justin? Or is it a speculative idea?

[Keraunos]

From the Tang dynasty manual of Li Jing, as preserved in later Tang encyclopedias. Translation posted by "Yun" in the old China History Forum:

If a crossbowman fails to advance into close combat with the others, he is executed.

These references to men having to be encouraged to do battle by the threat of execution always intrigue me.  As late as 1911 there are accounts from the Hankow uprising of revolutionary troops advancing so as to keep clear of a line of executioners wielding two handed swords.  Old practices or old tropes die hard?

[DBS]

Which is why I made this assumption - our game problem is mainly about bodies of men, not picking off individuals.  One shooting record I found was of a match in 1458.  Over a range of 91 m., crossbowmen shot 50 arrows at a 15cm target.  The winner hit it 11 times. Doesn't sound much but that's pretty impressive.  But of course, the other 320 competitors didn't do as well, so it has limited value for massed shooting, alas.

I would also observe that accuracy in target practice is likely superior to accuracy in combat, when the target is advancing towards you with the intention of killing you, and there is likely to be a fair amount of shouting and possibly jostling just on your own side of discipline is less than perfect.  Also, estimation of range can always be tricky, especially when nervous.  Does a good commander of crossbowmen in a field action favour commencing fire at a theoretical effective range, hoping to get off more than one bolt per man, and also hoping to induce hesitation in his target, or does he favour one good, hopefully devastating, volley at closer ranges where even his less skilled lads are likely to hit?  If said volley gives the enemy pause for thought, he might then get more volleys away.

The other factor is of course the type of crossbow.  Earlier weapons with just a simple stirrup might be much faster firing, but less likely to drop a man with even a good solid hit.  (But a Saracen might still be deterred from getting too close to Richard's column...)  Steel-bowed, windlass jobs are likely much more lethal if they hit, but how many bolts are you going to be able to shoot against an advancing enemy?