Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 14th, 2017, 12:41 PM   #41
Suspended until May 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,457

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
Didn’t knew those wages for England. We seem to agree that they were not second rate warriors. For the wages you are talking for what century? 
i believe it was for the 13th century, at the beginning of the 100 Year War. Later on, rhe longbowmen got paid more. Unfortunarely, I can't find that? article at the moment where I go the info from.

I found another article that gave the price of archers as 3d/day and Welsh infantry as 2d/day for 1346.

http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html




Quote:
About the team, I don’t recall reading any source stating that, but we can admit that it was possible.

For the Iberian Peninsula, there is a hunters site about crossbows with an article for the Reconquista period, albeit not academic, it is well written and documented: IMPORTANCIA DE LA BALLESTA EN LA ESPAÑA MEDIEVAL Y LA RECONQUISTA (sorry, in Spanish);

That small article quotes one interesting study made for the Iberian Peninsula, for armament, crossbows included, for the Reconquista, but it isn’t available online, "La evolución del armamento medieval en el reino castellano-leonés y Al-Andalus: (siglos XII-XIV)", by Alvaro Soler del Campo:

https://books.google.pt/books/about/...AJ&redir_esc=y
Thx
Bart Dale is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 14th, 2017, 12:55 PM   #42

sparky's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Sydney
Posts: 2,019

.
is there some indication of the penetration power of each for a typical distance of say 100meters
piercing steel armor doesn't seems to be realistic , even if it may have occurred on rare occasion

What about mail or surcoat ? which would have been more frequent
sparky is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 02:50 PM   #43

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,199
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Steel was also less effected by changed in humidity and water. Ralph Payne-Gallwey soaked some strings for 24 hours, with little effect on performance. The much higher tension of the steel bows, and the typically shorter draw had less effect than on the wooden crossbows used at Crecy.

Also, in Chapter V on his "The Book of the Crossbow", Ralph Payne-Gallwey used actual 15 th crossbows, and got a range of yard of 390 yards, while he said the best range for llongbow would be around 340 yards, and more typically 290 yards.

Of course, a 160 lbs long bow is not typical, and while some may have achieved that draw,ma number would have been and were less. Even then, I suspect not many could draw a 160 lbs. bow, While an ordinary man could draw and fire crossbow capable of going 380 yards.

The shorter range that crossbows were used at may be due to the lower of fire. The longer the distance, the less likely you will hit your target, and crossbowmen couldn't afford to waste bolts. Longbow could afford to, putting up a hail of fire that was bound to hit something.
Ralph probably exaggerated the range:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
One thing that I noticed about Ralph Payne Gallway's claims is that he has a propensity to exaggerate. Caerphilly's Onager weighs up to 3 tons, and can only shoot a 4 kg stone ball to a range of 80 . Yet Ralph's Onager, despite weighing 1 tonn less, was claimed to be able to shoot a 3.64 kg stone ball up to 457 meters. This produced about 8,900 joules, or approximately 4 times the joules as that of the Caerphilly Onager.

Both machines use the same type of design, so why is Ralph's lighter Onager doing roughly 4 times better than that of Caerphilly's Onager? Caerphilly's quality of reproduction shouldn't be that bad, considering that its traction trebuchet (using the same budget money as its Onager) managed to shoot a 5 kg stone ball to 110 meters, despite being pulled by only 6 men. Tarver's traction trebuchet reproduction only shot a 4.7 kg stone ball to 105 meters, despite being pulled by 15 men. A Chinese episode from 我爱发明 2013 also made a traction trebuchet reproduction that only shot a 2.5 kg stone ball to 64.5 meters. It was pulled by 6 people. All use the same type of design, so Caerphilly's quality for its reproduction is already above average by a lot!

I already had this doubt before based on Ralph's claims on his crossbow performance, and was waiting for people to confirm it. For example, Ralph also claimed that his 1,200 lb medieval crossbow could shoot over 400 meters. This should give well over 300 joules, perhaps even topping 400 joules. Yet we have two professional modern crossbow reproducers, both of whom produced a crossbow of 1,200-1,1250 lbs draw weight. One, made by Todd, had steel limbs with draw weight of 1,250 lbs and only shoots to 140-150 joules. The other, made by Andreas Bichler, had composite limbs with draw weight of around 1,200 lbs, and shoots to 200 joules.

All these added together shows Ralph's claims seem to be exaggerated. I was waiting for someone else to confirm it, and Todd (the crossbow producer mentioned above) just did. Granted, Ralph's crossbow had an inch or so longer powerstroke, but that should only increase its joules by about 20%, not 300%. I can only conclude that Ralph is exaggerating.



It's 22 minutes in.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old October 14th, 2017, 04:24 PM   #44
Suspended until May 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,457

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackneyedScribe View Post
Ralph probably exaggerated the range:

There is no indication Mr. Payne-Gallwey exaggerated., In Chapter 3 in tne Book of the Crossbow, in the presence of others, he obrained ranges of 440 to 450 yards as mearued by others with a 15th steel siege crossbow, He had to replace the wood stock, but the steel was original. While it could be used by one strong man. weighing 18 lbs it wan't used for field combat, but for fortificatios and sieges.

It is just as likely that the ancient Chinese writers exaggerated the performance of the Chinese crossbow. Mr. Payne-Gallwey had no incentive to exaggerate, and his distances were measure under conditions that could be accurately measured, neither which was true for the Chinese. The distances claimed for the Chinese crossbows were part of showing the superiority of the Chinese and their weapons over the barbarians, and the distances were not measured in as controled settings as Mr. Payne-Gallwey did his. Nor do we have other witnesses for the Chinese writers claims, no Mongol, or non Chinese source backs up the claim. It is interesting to note, that during the Ming dynasty, when there were non Chinese European foreigners in China who could have confirmed the Chinese claims, the performance of the Chinese crossbows becomes much less impressive.

(The argument that guns caused the decline of the Ming crossbow seems dubious. The Europeans continued to use crossbows until the early 16th century, well after the introduction of gunpowdered weapons in the 14th century, and past the middle of the Ming dynasty. At least in the first hald of the Ming dynasty, there shoild have been the incentive to reain the alleged powerful Song dynasty crossbos, but that did not happen. Even in the first half of the Ming reign, we don't see evidence of the supposed powerful Song crossbow. And it is unlikely the Mongols would havd suppressed all knowledge of a powerful and useful weapon - as it is said, the "Mongols never met a weapon they did not like. The powerful Song crossbow should have found some niche in the Mongol army. For sieges and fortification defense, if nothing else. And Marco Polo makes no mentoon ov Chinese crossbows far more powerful than their European counterpats. Surely he would have remaked on such powerful crossbows had they been around.)

Last edited by Bart Dale; October 14th, 2017 at 05:07 PM.
Bart Dale is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 04:27 PM   #45

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 8,006

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Steel was also less effected by changed in humidity and water. Ralph Payne-Gallwey soaked some strings for 24 hours, with little effect on performance. The much higher tension of the steel bows, and the typically shorter draw had less effect than on the wooden crossbows used at Crecy.

Also, in Chapter V on his "The Book of the Crossbow", Ralph Payne-Gallwey used actual 15 th crossbows, and got a range of yard of 390 yards, while he said the best range for llongbow would be around 340 yards, and more typically 290 yards.

Of course, a 160 lbs long bow is not typical, and while some may have achieved that draw,ma number would have been and were less. Even then, I suspect not many could draw a 160 lbs. bow, While an ordinary man could draw and fire crossbow capable of going 380 yards.

The shorter range that crossbows were used at may be due to the lower of fire. The longer the distance, the less likely you will hit your target, and crossbowmen couldn't afford to waste bolts. Longbow could afford to, putting up a hail of fire that was bound to hit something.
Another factor is choice of shot.

Longbows generally had a choice of what they were loosing, light needle point arrows for long range, heavy shafter bodkin points at close range.

You start peppering the enemy while theyre forming up with light arrows , harrassing and provoking them into doing something stupid because your poking holes in their flags and horses.

Then when theyre running towards you onto a wall of stakes you start hitting them with heavy shots and picking off the poor and unarmoured.

when the heavy armoured nobility who can resist the heavy shot have run up to the line of stakes and cant go any further because their horse doesnt want to be impaled you drop the bow and go out amongst the stakes with a bill and dagger and stab the horse somewhere really painfull, wait till it throws the rider and then stab him while he's on the ground.

Then for grins and giggles you loot his pockets and go back to your bow to wait for the second echelon.

Crossbowmen were good for a single job, English bowmen were a multi-purpose killing machine!
Nemowork is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 04:43 PM   #46

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 2,787

Agreed. English archers were extremely versatile. If you take away their bows, they will still be a useful contingent in any army.
Dan Howard is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 04:44 PM   #47

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 2,787

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
I did not know you knew him personnally / to call him by his first name.

Mr. Payne-Gallwey did not exaggerate, In Chapter 3 in tne Book of the Crossbow, in the presence of others, he obrained ranges of 440 to 450 yards as mearued by others with a 15th steel siege crossbow, He had to replace the wood stock, but the steel was original. While it could be used by one strong man. weighing 18 lbs it wan't used for field combat, but for fortificatios and sieges.

It is more likely that the ancient Chinese writers exaggerated the performance of the Chinese crossbow. Mr. Payne-Gallwey had no incentive to exaggerate, and his distances were measure under conditions that could be accurately measured, neither which was true for the Chinese. The distances claimed for the Chinese crossbows were part of showing the superioruty of the Chinese and their weapons over the barbarians, and the distances were not measured in as controled settings as Mr. Payne-Gallwey did his. Nor do we have other witnesses for the Chinese writers claims, no Mongol, or non Chinese source backs up the claim. It is interesting to note, that during the Ming dynasty, when there were non Chinese European foreigners in China who could have confirmed the Chinese claims, the performance of the Chinese crossbows becomes much less impressive.
Yep. Galwey's research is far more reliable than any Chinese text we have.
Dan Howard is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 05:09 PM   #48

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,199
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
I did not know you knew him personnally / to call him by his first name.

Mr. Payne-Gallwey did not exaggerate, In Chapter 3 in tne Book of the Crossbow, in the presence of others, he obrained ranges of 440 to 450 yards as mearued by others with a 15th steel siege crossbow, He had to replace the wood stock, but the steel was original. While it could be used by one strong man. weighing 18 lbs it wan't used for field combat, but for fortificatios and sieges.

It is more likely that the ancient Chinese writers exaggerated the performance of the Chinese crossbow. Mr. Payne-Gallwey had no incentive to exaggerate, and his distances were measure under conditions that could be accurately measured, neither which was true for the Chinese. The distances claimed for the Chinese crossbows were part of showing the superioruty of the Chinese and their weapons over the barbarians, and the distances were not measured in as controled settings as Mr. Payne-Gallwey did his. Nor do we have other witnesses for the Chinese writers claims, no Mongol, or non Chinese source backs up the claim. It is interesting to note, that during the Ming dynasty, when there were non Chinese European foreigners in China who could have confirmed the Chinese claims, the performance of the Chinese crossbows becomes much less impressive.
Ralph did not tell who these witnesses are. Otherwise let us see you represent the writings from these nameless witnesses to confirm it. You can't use Ralph's claims of witnesses to back up Ralph's claims. All we know is that modern reconstructions did not match Ralph's claims at all, at neither the onager nor the crossbow.

Ming crossbow design is different from the more powerful crossbow designs of the Han and Song dynasties. The power of the crossbow was superseded by gunpowder weapons in the niche for hard hitting ranged weaponry, so they sacrificed a big portion of their powerstroke to replace it with a cheekrest.

Modern replica of a Han/Song style crossbow of merely 164 lbs had been shown to pack a punch already, due to its long powerstroke. This is less than half the draw weight of their typical crossbows. A medieval European crossbow of such a low draw weight would be very weak in comparison. Whereas modern reproduction of the winched crossbow is very underpowered when compared to Ralph's claims. Likewise modern reproduction of traction trebuchets actually exceeded the claims of similar sized trebuchets written in the song dynasty's Wujing zongyao. Whereas modern reproduction of the onager was very underpowered compared to Ralph's claims on his reproduction, despite the fact that Ralph's reproduction was smaller..

I see people who were adamant about "reproductions" in the face of plain physics, dismiss the reproductions that they demanded. Now that reproductions do not match what was written by one singular individual they prefer to believe, they dismiss it too. Whereas textual claims that match the laws of physics are given a lower priority. If it were medieval European crossbows who had long powerstroke rather than Chinese crossbows, I doubt if the degree of skepticism would be this great.

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; October 14th, 2017 at 05:37 PM.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old October 14th, 2017, 05:26 PM   #49

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,199
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
Yep. Galwey's research is far more reliable than any Chinese text we have.
Howard, when I showed you my physic equations which match Chinese texts, you dismiss them and demand proof by reproduction. Now reproduction crossbows show gallwey's claim to be exaggerated. Reproduction from the Caerphilly onager also show Ralph's claims on his onager reproduction is exaggerated, while the traction trebuchet reproduction in Caerphilly actually exceeds the claims for similar sized trebuchets in Chinese Wujing ZongYao. I expect you to hold to the same standard you demand of others.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T4eX6oZdG6w

The above link is a reproduction on a Chinese crossbow of 164 lbs in draw weight. The prod is subpar, being made of mere bamboo rather than a proper composite recurve prod, so it's not going to be as good as the real thing given the same draw weight. Still, it managed to pierce a wooden target clean through at 90 meters (17:13). Now this replica has a very weak draw weight for a battlefield crossbow. Typical Han crossbows would 2.4 times that draw weight, and their prod would be more efficient. Now should a steel medieval crossbow have the draw weight as the replica in the link, then it's power would be equivalent to a bow of around 20 to 30 lbs, due to its short powerstroke and inorganic prod.

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; October 14th, 2017 at 05:47 PM.
HackneyedScribe is online now  
Old October 14th, 2017, 05:53 PM   #50

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 2,787

We know that you are a China apologist. They doesn't change the limitations of the sources you are relying on.
Dan Howard is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
advantages, crossbows, english, longbows



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On English longbows timtimwowo European History 46 July 10th, 2017 03:34 AM
Longbows in the Revolutionary War Menshevik Speculative History 42 February 7th, 2015 09:02 AM
'Recurved' longbows Phoenix Rising War and Military History 9 November 17th, 2013 07:19 AM
Horses and Crossbows - Teutonic Advantages HeirofAlexander Medieval and Byzantine History 4 May 8th, 2012 05:43 AM
Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order HeirofAlexander War and Military History 0 May 5th, 2012 11:23 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.