Crossbow archery

[Erpingham]

Noting the comments of Matt Bennet, I revisiting archery tactics again in a new thread.  It is in some ways the same - how were the weapons used and did it differ at different ranges.  This time I was reading around crossbow use and returned to an article I'd read before, though mainly for the horse parts - Sven Ekdahl's Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order in Prussia

Mr Ekdahl says some things about the use of crossbows by the Teutonic Order, as follows

A simple crossbow such as the stirrup crossbow (Steigbügelarmbrust) weighed up to 4 kg, of which 2 kg were accounted for by the bow.  This, like the stock, was about 90 cm in length and the sectional dimensions at the middle were about 23 by 54 mm.  In the case of a long-range shot of something over 300 m the bolt, after about nine seconds, struck the ground steeply at an angle of 70o.  Although the energy on impact fell to about half the initial energy, the shot was still effective up to 200 m.121
   At the beginning of a battle the crossbow bolts were shot diagonally upwards for a distance of about 200 m towards the enemy lines.  Among the hail of normal bolts it was also the practice to include Heulbolzen (whistling bolts) which produced a sharp whistling sound; in the Order's records they are referred to as Bremsen (gadflies).122  Their purpose was to weaken the enemy and their horses psychologically, and to cause confusion.  This effect was not produced by the sound as such, but by the fact that experience had shown that there was a relationship between the sound and pain; there was something like a 'Pavlovian Reflex' in both man and beast.  An interesting parallel could be made with the German use of the Stuka dive-bomber in the Second World War, which, of course, used the same device of the association of a particular sound with danger, in order to cause the same effect - namely fear and confusion on the part of the enemy.
   After such a punishing hail of bolts at the beginning of a battle, the crossbowmen moved forward in order to take aimed shots at a distance of up to 80 m, and thus to contribute to the further course of the battle.  The great difference from the English longbowman lay in the often decisive fact that the longbowmen could shoot six or seven arrows before the crossbowmen could get off one shot (if they had mechanical winders) 123.
121. Harmuth, pp. Die Armburst. Ein Handbuch (Graz, 1986)199-200.
122. Ekdahl, 'Die Armbrust im Deutschordensland Preussen zu Beginn des 15. Jahrhunderts', in FAH, 5, pp. 17-48 , p. 18.  See also Harmuth,.pp. 50, 175.
123. Payne-Gallway, The Crossbow, Medieval and Modern, Military and Sporting. Its Construction, History and Management. With a treatise on the Balista and Catapult of the Ancients and an Appendix on the Catapult, Balista and the Turkish Bow (first published 1903, 7th impression London, 1981).p. 37.


Mr Ekdahl's simple crossbows are the composite type, which were popular with the Teutonic Knights, who made them in their armouries.

Some interesting elements here.  We can see the long range nuisance shooting and the short range aimed shots we discussed under the previous thread.  Note the "gadding" idea which also surfaces in 16th century English manuals. 

I gave some thought to this in the light of the Genoese at Crecy.  What if they used a similar approach?  They advance, making occassional shots - the gadding phase? - trying to come to effect aimed shooting range.  The English longbow is, even in the short range volley model, devastating at 80m and, if we take 16th century English practice, could have engaged effectively 25-30m beyond.  It would also fit with the observed but sometimes disbelieved comment that the Genoese were outranged.

So, is Ekdahl right and does his insight have a wider application?

[Patrick Waterson]

I have previously come across illustrations of Swedish and/or Danish crossbowmen shooting en masse at a 45-degree angle, but failed to find any when actively searching for them.  C'est la guerre.

This system does seem to be fairly well represented around the Baltic coast (Scandinavian Society members may know much more than I do on this particular point); whether the Genoese also used such procedures is an interesting question.

My initial impression (which may be right or wrong) is that the description of the Genoese approach sounds as if they were employing, or intending to employ, direct shooting - had they been using indirect shooting, I would have expected them to halt at a specified range in order to deliver a massed volley or at least a hail of bolts.  Of course, they might not have managed to reach such a range before English longbow archery and cannon broke up their efforts to close.

I note Mr Ekdahl's description of long-range shooting implies more than just nuisance effect:

"After such a punishing hail of bolts at the beginning of a battle, the crossbowmen moved forward in order to take aimed shots at a distance of up to 80 m ..."

It looks as if such shooting was intended to have a significant effect.

An observation: pavises seem to have been rare in Baltic armies - at least on the battlefield.  I have a suspicion that Italian and Scandinavian crossbow traditions evolved in broadly different ways, but at present that is just a suspicion without sufficient firm evidence one way or another.

[Mark G]

It does feel right to me.
I also see a parallel with flight arrow shooting in the east to provoke, with real arrows kept back for close range attacks.

[Erpingham]

I have previously come across illustrations of Swedish and/or Danish crossbowmen shooting en masse at a 45-degree angle, but failed to find any when actively searching for them.  C'est la guerre.

I suspect you are remembering a 16th century woodcut by Olaus Magnus, who shows crossbowmen bombarding men-at-arms in this fashion.

An observation: pavises seem to have been rare in Baltic armies - at least on the battlefield.  I have a suspicion that Italian and Scandinavian crossbow traditions evolved in broadly different ways, but at present that is just a suspicion without sufficient firm evidence one way or another.

And there may be differences still with the German tradition.  The Teutonic Knights certainly used pavises as several survive but I don't know about field use.  German examples are pretty common too, with the same caveat.

[Patrick Waterson]

There is also this illustration from an early 15th century manuscript.  From the absence of pavises this might indicate action on the battlefield, although the use of incendiary missiles suggests deployment against a stronghold.

This website also has a number of interesting pictures (and information generally).  Some of the upward-pointing crossbows are being used in sieges, or rather assaults, but not all of them.  The site's Crossbow Timeline has some interesting snippets, e.g.

1351 French ordinance lists all crossbowmen to have a good quality crossbow to match his strength and a good spanning belt.

1361 Battle of Wisby bolt heads 4-6cm long found with sockets. Wounds show a number of cases where bolt has gone straight through skulls.

[Erpingham]

I believe the 1351 ordnance even says the crossbowman has to show up at muster and shoot several bolts, to prove he not only has a bow but can use it (an anti-fraud measure - there are several in the ordnance).

[Erpingham]

This is the Olaus Magnus picture

http://www.avrosys.nu/prints/olausmagnus2/100544.jpg

[Andreas Johansson]

And there may be differences still with the German tradition.  The Teutonic Knights certainly used pavises as several survive but I don't know about field use.  German examples are pretty common too, with the same caveat.

Not technically German, perhaps, but Bohemians in Bavarian employ used pavises in the field battle of Wenzenbach, 1504. Judging by contemporaryish illustrations, however, the Bohemian mercenaries then were no longer mostly crossbowmen, but armed with pikes and other close combat weapons.

Olaus Magnus' illustrations can be rather fanciful, so I wouldn't take it as too much proof of anything tactically.

[Patrick Waterson]

Olaus Magnus' illustrations can be rather fanciful, so I wouldn't take it as too much proof of anything tactically.

When depicting creatures of the frozen north, yes; whether he extends the same inventiveness of representation into matters his readership would be more familiar with is perhaps debatable.  His weapon sketches seem ordinary enough.

[Erpingham]

Olaus Magnus' illustrations can be rather fanciful, so I wouldn't take it as too much proof of anything tactically.

Some are wonderful, like an apparent image of lancers on reindeer engaged in combat against ostriches.  His pictures of humans were perhaps more realistic but whether crossbowmen faced men-at-arms shooting high trajectory shots while standing behind caltrops (?) is hard to judge.

[Patrick Waterson]

We can probably leave Olaus on one side for the present as far as hard evidence is concerned; I think there is still a fair amount of circumstantial and indicative material pointing to high-trajectory shooting using crossbows, albeit not necessarily in all crossbow-using armies.

[Erpingham]

In odd moments I've been searching the internet for more bits of information on crossbows range and effects.  I've noticed that a lot of information out there is a recycling of approximations by other authors rather than based on either experiment or original sources.  A useful summary of these sorts of material is here, helpfully footnoted so it can be seen where the information came from.

http://web.mit.edu/21h.416/www/militarytechnology/crossbow.html

I did find one interesting set of tests

http://www.historiavivens1300.at/biblio/beschuss/beschuss1-e.htm

This also quotes a couple of period estimates of crossbow range.

Finally, I decided to look into crossbow shooting contests to see the range a good crossbowman could hit a target at.  Surprisingly difficult to get these, but 300-340 ft appears to be a common distance.  Payne Gallwey, in his history of the crossbow, reckoned that steel bows he tested had a point-blank range of about 70 yds.  The idea, then, that accurate targeted shooting might be at around 80m seems plausible from these other sources. 

[Patrick Waterson]

Useful information: thanks.

As Herr Bichler's Beschusstest indicates, the design of missile can have a significant impact on the weapon's effectiveness.  His Bolt 4 had a tendency to bounce off armour - even a gambeson - whereas Bolt 1 reliably penetrated.  It is perhaps noteworthy that in both penetration photographs (fig 11 and fig 12) the bolt seems to have followed a non-straight track, which might give some insight into why crossbow bolts were considered to produce nasty wounds.

There is also the missile weight/bow energy relationship.  For bows, the right weight for an arrow is 5 grains per pound of pull (sorry, no idea what this is in metric equivalents) and crossbows would have had their own missile weight/draw weight relationship which could perhaps add 10 yards or so to the point blank range category - as for that matter could a slightly more powerful draw energy.

On the matter of ranges, it looks as if 80 yards or thereabouts would seem to be optimum direct shooting range, with anything over that either indirect en masse or directly aimed but dependent upon the target standing very still, according to whichever practice was being followed by the crossbow unit in question.

[Nick Harbud]

Hi Guys, coming late to the party again...

If one accepts Andreas' note, the illustrations seem to give credence to Loades' observation that high angle fire was only used in sieges or at sea. 

The comments regarding effective range as 70-80m is pretty much what everyone, including Loades and the reconstructors have observed.  Also somewhat shorter than the 100m reckoned to be maximum effective musket range.  As I have noted earlier, this maximum does not seem to be strongly a function of the inherent weapon accuracy.  This is also the range band used for modern target or field archery, indicating that this is the range where one can clearly differentiate between good and mediocre archers.  Longer than this and it is all down to wind, chance, etc.

Regarding the fall off in crossbow bolt penetration at long range, this is to be expected.  The bolt needs to physically constructed in a way that it can withstand the tremendous forces exerted upon it at launch.  This compromises its aerodynamic properties more than the equivalent longbow shaft.  Incidentally, Mark Stretton has experimented using a longbow arrow with a crossbow head - it showed superior penetration, but slightly less good aerodynamics and range.

437.5 grain =  1 oz.
1 grain = 64.8 mg.

The arrows tested by Hardy in 'The Great Warbow' were 2-3 oz = 875-1312.5 grains, equivalent to 176-262 lbs pull.  This is somewhat larger than th 140 lb longbow commonly used.

One other question for you all.  Does anyone know a good source for shield weights and construction?

[Erpingham]

If one accepts Andreas' note, the illustrations seem to give credence to Loades' observation that high angle fire was only used in sieges or at sea. 

But to do this, we must reject Ekdahl's proposed tactics, for 200m is way to far for flat trajectory shooting.