Talk:English longbow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English longbow article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified English longbow as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] New information on the longbow

The Great Warbow - Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland

This book seems to advocate the theory that the longbow in warfare has a much older history in England than usually presumed. If someone can take a look, we can possibly update this article. Please note, that it is noted for the Neolithic longbows that they were quite week and had a different construction, so the only similarity is the length, despite several other claims on various websites. Wandalstouring 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is basically about the medieval longbow, discussions of origins seem to be more detailed in Longbow. Not saying it can't be changed, but that has been the trend. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The label "English" longbow is perhaps wrong as this book points out, so I think it essentially belongs here, while longbow concerns any long bow. Wandalstouring 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand this point. Are you suggesting that we rename the article English Warbow?

--Merlinme 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English or Welsh longbow?

An anon added the below "disclaimer", moved to here:

[Disclaimer: The original Norman-English invasions of Wales, under the first Plantagenets, found the Welsh using a short bow, most fully described in Geraldus Cambrensis' "Itinerare Triugh Wales" (roughly, "Travels Through Wales"; Cambrensis, immediately following the passage quoted below by the primary author of this article, describes the bow as "short" and "rudely made" and "of elm", utterly distinguishing it from the English longbow). The longbow did not appear to have been known to the indigenous Welsh bowmen and, in fact, it was the English use of the longbow, during Edward I's incursions (c. 1250 AD/CE), which did much to bring Wales under English control, since the Welsh had no effective answer to the weapon. Thereafter, and under both English suzerainty and tutelage, the Welsh were quick to adopt the longbow and began, increasingly, to appear as longbow archers within any combined Anglo-Welsh army, whence came the mythology of the "Welsh longbow". In fact, bows recovered from the Nydam Bog boat burials (in the vicinity of the ancestral Angle homeland, c. 200 AD/CE) are almost indistinguishable in size and configuration from longbows recovered from, e.g., the Tudor ship "Mary Rose" (c. 1520 AD/CE), providing compelling evidence for the English origin of the longbow, popular mythology notwithstanding. Third Century AD/CE Gothic bows, from the areas around the Black Sea, though shorter and somewhat distinguished morphologically, also mimic/herald the form of the later longbow, again indicating a Germanic origin for the weapon. The misattribution of the longbow to the Welsh remains a common error, requiring no greater rebuttal than the "Legend of Robin Hood", a Saxon folk hero who was, famously, using the longbow before the proponents of the Welsh origin of the longbow would even allow for its introduction into England.]

The origins of the longbow needs to be discussed, but this is un-sourced and reads like original research making the claim that the longbow was an English invention and that the Welsh longbow is a "myth". This may be standard and un-contested, or it may be controversial, I do not know. These seem like fairly strong claims, sources are needed as well as a balance of other views. -- Stbalbach 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting, but I would also go with original research. From what I know of Robin Hood, he wasn't even a particularly good archer until quite late versions of the legend, and in any case, the word 'longbow' wasn't generally used in medieval times; so I don't know how the legend of Robin Hood can be used to justify the claim that the longbow was English.

--Merlinme 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia "Robin Hood" entry: 'The earliest surviving Robin Hood text is "Robin Hood and the Monk".[2] This is preserved in Cambridge University manuscript Ff.5.48, which was written shortly after 1450' (i.e. well after the high point of the use of the longbow). Also: 'The idea of Robin Hood as a high-minded Saxon fighting Norman Lords also originates in the 19th century.'

--Merlinme 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the above is indeed original research. That the Welsh originally used bows unlike the classic English longbow is well established (it's in Giraldus Cambrensis), but the point about Robin Hood seems spurious as, according to Dr Gill Spraggs, who knows English outlaw legends very well indeed, "There were ‘rymes’ – probably metrical narratives, but possibly songs – about Robin Hood in the fourteenth century, and it seems fairly certain that the roots of the legend lie somewhere in the thirteenth century, but the earliest surviving Robin Hood stories were not written down till the fifteenth century." My guess is that the author of the passage above has been overly influenced by the modern fiction convention of placing Robin Hood in the reign of Richard I, which idea was first established by Scott in 'Ivanhoe'.80.229.9.98 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unneeded bias

Lines such as "This rate of fire was much higher than that of crossbows or any other projectile weapon of the period, including firearms." are somewhat missleading as this article has to do with the English Longbow, not bows in general. There was nothing special about the Enlgish Longbow in regards to rate of fire, one could just a easily argue that the eastern composite recurve was just as fast or faster when you consider the thumb draw (sometimes called the Mongol draw). There seem to be a few arbitary statements making the Longbow seem like the best bow of the period. I don't want to start an argument of longbow vs. composite bow, however I think that we need some clarifying statements in this regard. Master z0b 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough- I've modified it.

--Merlinme 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Units

I stumbled upon this page and noticed the units where incoherent, some in the form “metric (imperial)” some “imperial (metric)” some pure metric and some pure imperial. This makes for uneasy reading. So I put every thing in the “Standard International (imperial)” form, as I believe it makes it more legible for the majority of the world. CyrilleDunant 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we're writing about the English (Welsh) longbow. A large majority of the literature (everything written before decimalisation and quite a lot after it) will refer to feet, inches, pounds force etc. In some cases your edits are just wrong. E.g. The Antiquaries Society did not say the bow was 1.5m or 1.83m in length; they said it was 5 or 6 feet. Richard Bartelot did not say the bow was 1.83m long with a 914mm arrow; he said it was 6 feet long with a 3 foot arrow. Please do not change quotes to make the article more 'coherent'. I have no particular objection to giving standard units in addition to the Imperial units, but I would have thought in this particular case, given the subject matter and the quotes, it makes more sense to give Imperial units first. --Merlinme 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not a particularly easy matter to resolve, but I would suggest something along the following lines: don't change quotes, whichever form they use; stick to feet and inches when describing the length of the bows and arrows, because they were essentially 6ft long with a 3ft arrow, they weren't 1.83m long with 914mm arrows. I'd suggest we standardise on Newtons rather than kgf as well. I don't mind if Newtons comes before lbf. I don't have a particularly strong view on distance and weight. In practice these should be taken from some sort of source anyway, so use whichever form the source uses. --Merlinme 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I appologize about changing the quotes, this is of course wrong...CyrilleDunant 08:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Royal Antiquaries Society of Great Britain "

This does not exist. Which Society of Antiquaries is being credited with the statement? --Wetman 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow Length

Interesting, when I corrct the misinformation in the main article and state why in here, giving references, then both the correction and the comment are suddenly deleted. Is this a bias? --82.28.46.207 11:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR

The earliest known bows, from Stellmoor in northern Germany, are dated to approximately 10,000 years ago. Arrow heads have been found in the Sahara and other places where dry sand is an excellent preservative. Recognizable longbows dating as far back as the Mesolithic period have been found in many parts of Northern Europe

please point out how these long bows are connected with the English longbow! As far as I know there is no source but wiki constructing a direct connection although these things are thousands of years apart. If you want a predecessor go to the Viking longbows, not Mesolithic stuff. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see recognizable longbows have been a European tradition since the Mesolithic. I have put in Strickland as a reputable secondary source, specifically pages 39 to 40. He points out that the only really distinctive thing about the English longbow was the power, and only then for warbows; other than that, it was an absolutely normal part of a European continuum. He dismisses the "shortbow" idea as a construct from rock drawings which had no sense of scale, by late Victorian historians.
The North African bows are another matter. Can anyone provide a good reference, preferably with radiocarbon dating, to the Saharan rock paintings showing long bows?Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What is the connection between the mesolithic bows and the English longbow? Where is the positive proof that over several thousands of years people used longbows? Even if you compare the production and material you will realize that they are totally different. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You mispresent one researchers opinion as common opinion on a subject. Please point out that only he has this mesolithic tradition idea or produce more sources that do so otherwise you give that theses undue weight.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The Traditional Bowyer's Bibles also refer the same idea to the same original sources; this is definitely not original research. As far as I can tell, the consensus is that basically all European bows have been made in approximately the same style for millennia. True, the bog finds are few and scattered, the historical references are only slightly better, and not all of the bows are made of yew nor are all of them completely within the various modern definitions of a "longbow", but all those I've seen or heard of are quite recognizable as longbows, and (correct me if I'm wrong) since Mesolithic times there is no hint of any other indigenous bowmaking tradition in northern Europe. (I am aware that the Romans used composite bows even in the damp squalor of the British Isles.) The viking bows would be an obvious part of that tradition.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/past/past46.html has a brief account of another bow, I think it's the one that I saw in the national museum of Ireland last spring. A powerful-looking item. I append their reference list: Clarke, W. 1963. Neolithic bows from Somerset, England, and the prehistory of archery in north-western Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 29, 50-98. Glover, W. 1979. A prehistoric bow fragment from Drumwhinny Bog, Kesk, Co. Fermanagh. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 323-7. Hedges, R.E.M., Housley, R.A., Ramsey, C.B. & Van Klinken, G.J. 1991. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist. Archaeometry 33, 121-34. McDermott, C., Murray, C., Plunkett, G. & Stanley, M. 2002. Of bogs, boats and bows. Archaeology Ireland 16(1), 28-31. Sheridan, A. 1993. The Rotten Bottom longbow. PAST 14, 6.

HTH Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article about English Longbows or about Longbows in general?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that all of this extra information about longbows in the Sahara and from the Mesolithic have essentially nothing to do with the particularly powerful longbows used in England. Yes, it seems that longbows have been in use there for a while, but that again seems to be a different topic from "English Longbow". The description section talks broadly about longbows found in England, and the general use of the bows throughout Europe, but very little about the specific type of bow generally considered English (i.e. the kind used against the French in the Hundred Years' War). Most of that information seems to fit more appropriately into the longbow article. This article should stick specifically to information about the longbow referenced in the article's first paragraph.

Alucardtepes (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formation image

I think this article needs a image of a archer's formation, insted of \___/. Although it does work, I think with an image it could clear it up more, and there could be other parts of the army listed. Maybe I'll create an SVG in inkscape of a formation, highlighting (hiliting looks too much like 'Hitlering') the archers position. 142.23.10.137 (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (trav1085, using a school computer, foar tilde pawaa, et cetera (you get the picture))

Sounds like a good plan to me, please go ahead and see what you can come up with. --Merlinme (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Rose?

This article references a "Mary Rose" longbow, however the links are to Mary Rose, the warship. Is this an error in linking? I can't imagine a warship, equipped with cannons, using longbows; however I'm happy to be corrected.

--Pjf (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the warship was equiped with early cannons. The usual small arms on deck would have been crossbows and melée weapons with very few guns, but for this ship was English they tried longbows instead of crossbows(they had some battle records in that their archers defeated the famed Genuese crossbowmen). Wandalstouring (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Both cannons and longbows, see [1]. HTH Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longbow vs Crossbow

This is one of the things that I didn't see in the article: Which has a greater range:The English longbow or (using Crecy as an example)the Genoese crossbow? I have always thought it to be the longbow, but I could be wrong. Please tell me so I can sleep at night.60.241.153.207 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Nelsondog

I'm not 100% sure. I think it depends to some extent which crossbow you're talking about. In the earlier medieval period (from memory) the crossbow had a shorter range. Later, when they were using dirty great windlasses to crank the crossbow, which created enormous kinetic force (hundreds of pounds) I believe they were comparable or even longer ranged than the longbow, i.e. very approximately 300 yards for extreme range. There was very little chance of hitting anything at that range though, let alone penetrating armour. More interesting would be the effective range, which would be under 100 yards. At that range you could hit a unit of men and hope to penetrate their armour. The primary difference between the crossbow and English longbow though was not the extreme range, it was the rate of fire vs. the relative power. Crossbows send much heavier bolts than arrows, even arrows fired from a very heavy longbow, so they arrive with far greater force at the same range than an arrow. In particular this meant the crossbow was better at penetrating armour. Longbows seem to have had trouble penetrating heavy armour at much more than thirty or forty yards. On the other hand, the longbow could be fired several times in the time it took to fire a crossbow once. This meant that in an exchange between crossbows and longbows, crossbowmen often came off worse. Armour penetration wasn't much of an issue as neither wore heavy armour. To try and overcome this weakness, crossbowmen from about the 14th century relied on a very large shield (a pavise) to shelter behind while they were reloading. If you read the account of the Battle of Crecy, the Genoese should have had pavises (it was an Italian innovation used by their mercenary crossbowmen), however the pavises had not been unloaded by the time the battle started, with the result that they took heavy losses from the longbows and retreated. --Merlinme (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
To put some figures on the rate of fire, the longbowmen were supposed to be able to fire an aimed shot every six seconds (i.e. ten a minute). The medieval crossbow is usually said to have a rate of fire of about one a minute, which is obviously a serious problem if they were engaged in a straight exchange with longbowmen without protection from a pavise or similar. --Merlinme (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This rates of fire are too low. 10-16 shots/minute for a soldier with a longbow and 3-4 shots per minute for a crossbow with the same kinetic energy for the projectiles. Still a good thing to have a pavese, what can be added is that ammunition for the crossbow is easier to produce and aiming is improved. You can't compare a heavy arbalest(1-2 shots/minute) with a longbow, it's like comparing cannons and rifles. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
They both seem a bit high to me. I've not seen a figure for longbow higher than 12/ minute, not aimed shots, anyway. Nor more than about 2/ minute for a crossbow, although it does obviously depend exactly which crossbow we're talking about. Anyway the fact remains that we're talking 4-6 times faster rate of fire for the longbow. "Aiming is improved" is slightly misleading. The crossbow is easier to aim without practice, because it fires in more or less a straight line, whereas a longbow doesn't. However I'm not sure if a trained crossbowman was significantly more accurate than a trained longbowman, certainly when aiming at a unit of men from 100 yards. But it is part of the reason that longbowmen took such a large amount of training, whereas crossbowmen could be mustered quickly. --Merlinme (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to correct you, but the crossbow does never shoot in a straight line(basic ballistics). The bolts of a crossbow are usually a bit heavier than the arrows of a bow and for this reason travel at a slower speed(and thus not as far as an arrow)-> E=(mv²)/2 and nothing else. You reach fast reloading times with two footdrawn(80-150kg) crossbows that are exchanged between the archer and his servant of up to 8 shots per minute, however, this number I divided by 2 for you need at least two people. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about ballistics, I'm talking about the archer's paradox, which as far as I'm aware doesn't apply to crossbows. I simply don't know enough about medieval crossbows to know if the rate of fire you're talking about is correct. I did however find a fascinating modern comparison of crossbow and bow here: [2] Ignoring the issue of sights, which as far as I'm aware didn't exist in medieval times, he still thinks crossbows would be more accurate for a beginner, because of the archer's paradox, and also because of consistency in release and draw length. However: "a modern bow in the hands of an expert will shoot more accurately than a crossbow in those of a beginner; and it's not obvious to me that an expert crossbow shooter will out-shoot an expert archer, particularly at fixed-distance target shooting." He also says that he fires three or four times as fast with a longbow as a crossbow (although it sounds like the crossbow has a particularly good cocking mechanism, as he can fire a shot in ten seconds; I don't believe medieval crossbows were so efficient). --Merlinme (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Another site here: [3] which goes into much less detail, but still interesting because it's talking directly about the medieval longbow vs. medieval crossbow. It confirms the other site about one thing; I was talking a certain amount of rubbish above, about the weight of crossbow bolts. Apparently bolts tend to be lighter than arrows. The increased penetration (kinetic energy) of crossbows does exist, but is due to increased velocity, not increased mass. The figures given in the website seem quite extraordinary; I knew crossbows were inefficient, but it seems amazing that a 740lb crossbow can only send a bolt weighing 1/2 as much 4% faster. I would tend to think they were using a particularly inefficient crossbow. He acknowledges himself that the crossbow is generally thought to be part of the reason for the invention of heavier armour, which even allowing for kinetic energy being mass * square of velocity, the bolt would have to be 40% faster to achieve the same impact. Although there may be other factors at work to do with the way the average bolt hits the average piece of armour compared to an arrow. Yet another site here: [4] which gives precise figures for rate of crossbow fire. I still think two a minute is a reasonable figure, bearing in mind we would be talking about crossbows with a draw of 300lb+. --Merlinme (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Some basic facts about bows. The bigger the mass, the slower the speed of the projectile. The efficiency problem of bows and crossbows is that the sinew slows down while the projectile accelerates, leading to worse a efficiency if the projectile is lighter, faster. I know this nonsense comparison between a very light crossbow bolt and a heavy arrow, just forget it. That is operating one weapon under worst and the other under optimum conditions. The Mongols for example had heavy(short range) and light(long range) arrows, just to point out that different projectiles have different purposes. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read the sites I found, the main reason for the relative inefficiency (for the same draw weight) of a crossbow is that the arrow/bolt is accelerated for less distance (because a crossbow string is drawn back less far). This is simply a function of the size of the bow; a (horizontally held) crossbow is not 6 foot across, unlike a (vertically held) longbow. Also, you seem to be confusing range with initial velocity; the figures for the medieval comparison site are quoted in feet per second, so the flight characteristics of a heavier or lighter arrow/ bolt shouldn't come into it.
I didn't say that this isn't the case. You seem rather confused. I compared a crossbow with 150kg to a bow with 80kg, that is fair since the crossbow has half the draw length.
You never actually said this. 80kg (186lb) is an enormous longbow. 150lb(68kg) is more realistic. Efficiency is perhaps the wrong word; all I was trying to say was that double the draw weight for a crossbow does not necessarily mean double the power. With a power stroke two to three times longer for a longbow, you need a crossbow with two to three times more draw weight to produce the same velocity on a similarly sized arrow/ bolt. --Merlinme (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely right. But while comparing them you should also take the handshock in consideration and thus an expert on the crossbow(they were professional mercenaries with a group of servants each) is far better at sniping than an expert on the longbow, however, the longbow has more shots per minute and is thus likely to hit something, especially if the target is not heavily armoured. In a battleline the space for archery is limited and it is there that the better sniper excels. On the flanks where there is cavalry and space the longbow archers are better. This was also reflected in the battle order of the English army. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read the first site I found: "despite the increased draw weight, the crossbow actually stores much less energy, because its prod is much shorter than a bow, and the draw length consequently shorter. Energy is proportional to force multiplied by distance -- and the force required to draw a crossbow only reaches its peak at the last inch or so of draw. It turns out, if you do the maths, that a 150lb crossbow at full draw is only storing about one third to one half the energy of a 40lb bow." If you read the BBC site I found: "Longbows do manage to stay in the game because, even though the draw weight is so much lower, the arrows and the bolts both leave their respective weapons at about the same velocity. This is because the ends of the longbow are further apart (six feet or so) and have longer to build up the speed of the arrow. The crossbow on the other hand typically has a span of two to three feet, so the ends of the bow do not move as far, thereby not having time to speed the bolt up as much." I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it, a longbowman pulls the arrow back to his ear; say, 2.5 feet. A crossbow string on the other hand will be drawn back more like 1.5 feet. So in other words the acceleration force is being applied for 3/5 distance.
Show me the exact calculation, this is very likely nonsense. The crossbow has a shorter draw length and compensates with larger draw weigth(half the length, double the weigth). This peak is reached by longbows as well as crossbows, except they are compound bows or Chinese multiple-bow arcuballistae. A longbow can be compared to a footdrawn crossbow in energy of the projectile, but is worse in hitting because of the much harder(faster) handshock(actio equals reactio) and the worse position to compensate this(training can improve the aim but that is the same reason why a rifle tends to hit at a greater distance than a pistol).
I'm not actually disagreeing. It seems to be generally agreed that the power should be pull weight * power stroke. A modern crossbow seems to have about 1/3 the length of power stroke as a bow, implying a three times more powerful crossbow releases the arrow/ bolt with about the same force. I'm not sure where the link I gave got his figures for 150lb crossbow vs. 40lb bow; I would have expected the force to be about equal, or somewhat more for the crossbow. --Merlinme (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether my layman's explanation is 100% correct or not I'm not entirely sure, but what I am sure about is the essential point that a crossbow produces a lower exit velocity for the same draw weight. The figures in the "medieval" site above seem too extreme, for the reason discussed (that crossbows were known for their armour penetrating abilities). It should be said that on that site the writer does make the point that "it should be stated that the bolt loosed by the crossbow could have been heavier without experiencing much of a decrease in exit velocity. A heavier arrow loosed by the longbow would have had a significantly reduced exit velocity." So it could well be that the bolt used was far too light; and a heavier bolt at a similar velocity would have had increased penetration. However the point remains that a crossbow is not as efficient at transferring force as a bow (although the very high initial draw force you can achieve with a crossbow means that it can still deliver bolts with more power). --Merlinme (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You are right that the crossbow bolts had a lower velocity because they were heavier and they were not shot in showers(100-150m) like arrows but aimed directly by snipers at short distance(30-50m or even 2m in the Hussite system). The efficiency is a point one can argue about because in Europe the crossbows were often recurve and of composite material after the crusades, making them a bit more efficient than a simple bow or longbow.Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much we're actually disagreeing. After doing some more reading, I can't say I'm a great deal more enlightened (it's controversial, especially because it depends on the exact crossbow and bolt used). Bolts do generally seem to have been the same weight, or perhaps slightly heavier than arrows, but again it depends on what sort of crossbow you're talking about. However I think it's interesting that a 300lb crossbow would deliver about the same force as a 100-150lb longbow (although this does ignore any subtleties in the flight of arrows vs. bolts, and the way they strike armour). I also don't think my estimates of rate of fire were that far out. As crossbows became better designed however, the rate of fire and the power went up. This would probably have been later than Crecy though. --Merlinme (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
At Crecy the paveses were not unloaded and for this reason the crossbowmen and their not very well armoured servants were without cover and had to take already casualties before being within their effective range and then had a slower rate of fire -> they retreated. Comparing draw weights to derive at conclusion about the efficiecy is a bit ill structured. You need to compare the energy stored that is force per length and thus there isn't any difference (also not a force is produced, but they have the same kinetic energy released with their projectile). A slight difference there is because the material of the crossbow is thicker and thus a bit slower at releasing energy. For this reason slower, heavier, bolts have a better performance. What you are absolutely wrong about is that the rate of fire went up for crossbows. The system of using one archer with servants had been established already during the reign of Richard III. and with increasing draw weights the crossbow became deeadlier, but with a slower rate of fire per crossbow per minute. This could be compensated in rate of fire per metre frontline by a rotation system(Hussite warfare).Wandalstouring (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Hal paragarph

The paragraph that starts "Prince Hal (later Henry V) was wounded in the face by an arrow at the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403). ..." was originally added by me at 00:56, on 9 September 2004. I am not sure if it was a quotation or a summary of something I was reading at the time. I can not find anything on the net with this wording but if anyone knows that it is a quotation then please mark it as such and add the source. For the time being I have added as a citation an article written in 2006 that is from a reliable source that goes into more detail than the paragraph and backs up what is said in the paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I wonder if it is a quote because I added to Wikipedia indented in italics but in those days I might have done that for simile style reasons. But thinking about it and reading the new source I am fairly sure it was a summary I wrote because I think I deliberately used the word "dowels" rather than whatever was used in the original source I was reading so that the text would clearly be unique. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)