The chinese cross-bows's prime advantage is that it can fire multiple bolts at great speed, providing great damage to the enemy at a short range. Its disadvantage is short range.

The english longbow's superiority lies in its long range, such that it can fire a rain of arrows at the enemy before it even gets close. This is effective against infantry and cavalry charge.

I'm just curious as to what it would happen if an army of chinese cross-bow archers fight against an army of english longbow archers, assuming they are all equal in numbers. Who will win?

This seems to be a Vs comparison of weaponry..

well, Chinese had both composite bow and crossbow so...

anyway. like you mentioned, the use of crossbow vs. long bow is so different, that they woulld be difficult to compare in battle.

i've used both crossbows and composite bows (never used a long bow though) and it is world's apart.

but i think you answered your question. crossbow=short range, long bow=long range. the reason you would use a long bow (or composite bow for that matter) is a completely different reason you would use a crossbow

crossbow is more like-you're 15 feet away from enemy and you don't feel like drawing your weapon and charging at him so you take him out with a crossbow

Which Chinese crossbow are you referring to? The multiple-bolt rapid-fire one (the Zhuge Nu) has small bolts that don't do much damage at long range, that's true. The normal one has much longer range, but has a slow reload time.

The English longbow and steppe/Chinese composite bow are quite evenly matched. Both take great strength to draw (in fact the composite bow takes greater strength than the longbow!), and have long range and high penetrative power. The disadvantage of the longbow is that it cannot be used by cavalry, and its arrows are large, limiting the number that can be carried. The disadvantage of the composite bow is that it's extremely time-consuming and skill-intensive to make!

As for Chinese normal crossbows vs. English longbowmen, my guess is that all other things being equal (i.e. no use of cavalry and infantry by either side), the longbowmen would run out of arrows and be forced to retreat. That is assuming the Chinese can use pavises to protect themselves, as they often did. If not, they might well break and run, rather than try and reload, like the Italian crossbowmen did when showered by English longbowmen at the opening stage of the battle at Agincourt.

That would still be a win for the longbowmen, since they get to shoot at the crossbowmen till they run out of arrows, while all the crossbowmen can do is hide behind their pavises (which would have greatly restricted their maneouverability). The longbowmen might not get many kills, but they can retreat back to their camp for afternoon tea without having lost a single man.

What kind of armor did the Chinese crossbowmen wear?

The longbow's chief advantage is not so much range as firepower (many Western crossbows could actually outrange longbows). But at long range the longbow's armor-penetrating power dropped off dramatically, so if the Chinese crossbowmen have good armor that gives them a much better chance of getting in range.

I assume the pavises can't be moved except very slowly.

Although the English longbowmen would launch a 'storm' of arrows into massed ranks of French cavalry or Scottish billmen. As at Agincourt or Crecy during the 100 Years War, while the longbow arrow may not take down a well-armoured knight at long range, they could stop their horses. A knight off his horse was then very vulnerable to the men-at-arms and billmen.

Well, longbows do fire more arrows per minute.

Crossbows have the range to match that of the longbow, but I'd say that in a fight between a pure longbow army and pure crossbow army, a longbow army would win because of the faster rate of fire.

well, the way they would set it up is a group to fire while another group reloaded so no matter how many arrows they planned to launch at any given time, they would prepare by doubling reserves

Assuming that both sides had the same amount of men and weapons, woudn't that mean that the amount of bolts fired from the crossbowmen in each salvo would be halved?

This was actually not a volley-firing tactic but rather a human-chain conveyor-belt tactic. It was used no later than the Northern Song dynasty, as recorded in the Wujing Zongyao manual. How it's done is that there are two ranks of men behind the crossbowmen. The rear rank loads and draws its crossbows and passes them to the middle rank, who pass the loaded crossbows forward to the front rank of crossbowmen. After the shooting of each crossbow, it is also passed back to the loaders through the middle rank. This relay system saves the front crossbowmen from having to spend time reloading, but it also means that the number of crossbows must be twice the number of crossbowmen, so that there is always one set of loaded crossbows on standby.

So yes, if both sides had the same number of weapons and men, it would mean that only a third of the Chinese are shooting, as opposed to all of the Englishmen.

Therefore, if the English weren't able to kill them all in the beggining, they would probably be caught under a fierce storm of arrows, making it very hard to reload.
(Have you noticed how much harder it is to do anything, even tie your shoe under a hail of arrows? Most likely you want to GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!!!)

I assume you meant crossbow bolts. Since only 1/3 of the crossbowmen are actually firing anything, the volume of fire would be reduced by quite a bit. Furthermore, a longbow does not need to be reloaded. Just draw, aim, and fire. What's more, even with the three-row system being used, the longbowmen are still going to have an advantage in rate of fire.

im new here, but im British, i own a longbow, i can shoot it ( no bow on earth "fires" you can only shoot a bow", but i think that this topics answer is show at crecy poiters and angincourt all three times the geonese crossbowman advanced, and where shot to peices

Comparing European Crossbow to that of Chinese is completely a flaw, the Song Sheng Bi crossbow has a much better developed mechanism and bolts, their range is some 500 meters and the effective range around 365 meters. Furthermore European crossbowmen were not as highly trained and disciplined, they did not use the countermarch for crossbow units. Agincourt itself is not a good example, the crossbow men there are severely outnumbered by the Longbowmen and it was raining. Not to mention the English had the ground advantage and last but not least the Genoese crossbow had a shorter range and thus could not outfire the longbow. Only the later winched crossbow of the late 14th century had a distance matching that of Sheng Bi Nu. And it took much longer time to load. Features usually found on military crossbows in Europe of the 14th to 16th centuries include a fairly plain, straight stock, a sinew bridle binding the lath to the stock, a cylindrical latch nut and a long iron trigger. It would have either a simple rest or a grooved track to guide the bolt. The Chinese mechanism on the other hand is much more complicated allowing much greater accuracy(leading to greater distance) assemblage, firing rate, and much more resistant to the weather. This is similar to the percussion cap's advantage over the Flintlock of the 19th century.

it wasnt raining at agincourt, the longbowmen wouldnt have isked there bows and strings in bttle if it was, more to the point what sidearns did the chinese crossbowmen cary? english archers carry swords,falchions and axes. contury to popular belief the geonese crossbowmen emloyed by the french where proffessional soldiers, they had good disicpline. but also consider the reputation of the "harlequin" as the frech called the engish archers.

Regarding the side-arms carried by Chinese crossbowmen, it depends on whether you're talking about the Tang dynasty or the Song dynasty. Tang crossbowmen were armed with the modao 陌刀, a very deadly long-hafted blade that could (according to the histories) chop through both horse and rider when used against cavalry. But Song crossbowmen preferred to concentrate on shooting and leave the hand-to-hand fighting to others.

Zeng Gongliang 曾公亮, writer of the Song military manual Wujing Zongyao 武经总要 (1044):

The crossbow is the strongest weapon of China and what the four kinds of barbarians [i.e. Yi 夷 in the east, Di 狄 in the north, Man 蛮 in the south and Rong 戎 in the west] most fear and obey. ... Now for piercing through hard things and shooting a long distance, and when struggling to defend mountain passes, where much noise and impetuous strength must be stemmed, there is nothing like the crossbow for success. However, as the drawing [i.e. the arming] is slow, it is difficult to cope with sudden attacks. A crossbow can only be shot off [by a single man] three times before it comes to hand-to-hand weapons. Some have therefore thought crossbows inconvenient for fighting, but truly the inconvenience lay not in the crossbow itself but in the commanders, who did not know how to make use of crossbows. 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 halberds [i.e. changji 长戟] and great shields [i.e. pavises] in the front line to repel the charge, and made the crossbowmen to carry sabres [i.e. dao 刀] and long-hafted weapons [i.e. modao 陌刀]. 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 to go around and collect up the crossbows.

But now [i.e. in the Song army] 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 [enemy] formation can keep its order. If attacked by cavalry, the crossbowmen will be as solid as a mountain, shooting off such volleys that nothing can remain alive before them. Although the charge my be impetuous it will not reach them. Therefore the barbarians [i.e. Khitan] fear [the crossbow]. For struggling around strategic points among mountains and rivers and defiles, overcoming men who do not lack bravery, the crossbow is indispensable.

Regarding the method of using the crossbow, it cannot be mixed up with hand-to-hand weapons, and it is beneficial when shot from high ground facing downwards. It only needs to be used so that the men within the formation are loading while the men in the front line of the formation are shooting. As they come forward they use shields to protect their flanks. Thus each in their turn they draw their crossbows and come up; then as soon as they have shot bolts they return again into their formation. Thus the sound of the crossbows is incessant and the enemy can hardly even flee. Therefore we have the following drill -

shooting rank
advancing rank
loading rank.

[Note: I must admit to having forgotten this passage that I read in the past (and even quoted in an older thread), and mistakenly taken a secondary source's word that the Wujing Zongyao drill was not a volley-fire drill but a human-chain drill. Now it seems I stand corrected. It IS a volley-firing drill for three ranks.]

"it wasnt raining at agincourt,"

Sorry, I was actually refering to bad weather.








" contury to popular belief the geonese crossbowmen emloyed by the french where proffessional soldiers, they had good disicpline."

Not as well drilled as the Song crossbowmen, which has the countermarch formation and could stop virtually any cavalry charge. In fact Song prefered the crossbow over the composite bow which was comparable with the long bow in power and distance. There are also different versions of the Chinese crossbow, the cavalry crossbows are described by militarists as not able to miss within 100 paces which is equivalent of 165 yards.

btw the Genoese crossbow has already been proven to have less range and power than the contemporary Ming crossbow due to its inferior mechanism and manufacturing. The average range of the Genoese crossbow is only 320 meters at most 355 as extreme. Even the Tang manual records the maximum distance of the crossbow to be 460 meters.


Yun, it seems to me that the foot stirrup is already in use during the Tang dynasty, the Song however added the belt tieing to the waist so the crossbowmen could load without bending down. However they claim this was already invented during the Han but lost towards the end of the 3rd century.

I'll like to make a of the Longbow as a superior weapon to contribute to this argument. Theres some misconception about it as an inferior weapon copmpared to a composite bow. While a composite bow may has a heavier draw than a longbow (which is debatable). A longbow by virtue of its length is able to distribute its energy more efficiently along its arms and has a much longer draw, a combination of this factors allows it to be much easily handled at full-drawn. Sort of a primitive compound bow, and therefore can have an unusually heavier draw than a normal.

The recorded maximum effective range of a longbow is approximately 200m, 20m for armor piercing. Yet it is supposed to outrange the genoese crossbowmen. I will check the veracity some of those sources if I were you, perhaps they were refering to maximum range with smaller bolts.

Warhead, I suppose you're referring to this foot stirrup:



And the belt loop-and-claw in the Song Shenbi Nu:



But doesn't this mean that the belt loop takes a sitting down posture, which is worse than bending down? Or are you referring to a belt loop that is used standing up by pulling the crossbow upwards? In that case, how far would the pull have to be?

"The recorded maximum effective range of a longbow is approximately 200m, 20m for armor piercing. Yet it is supposed to outrange the genoese crossbowmen. I will check the veracity some of those sources if I were you, perhaps they were refering to maximum range with smaller bolts. "

I did, and its precisely mentioned by many sources including Needham and other expert of crossbow that the Genoese crossbow had a superior range, in Crecy it was more due to the weather and geographical circumstance.


"Theres some misconception about it as an inferior weapon copmpared to a composite bow. While a composite bow may has a heavier draw than a longbow (which is debatable). A longbow by virtue of its length is able to distribute its energy more efficiently along its arms and has a much longer draw, a combination of this factors allows it to be much easily handled at full-drawn. Sort of a primitive compound bow, and therefore can have an unusually heavier draw than a normal."

There aren't any claim that composite bow is superior. In fact I clearly mentioned in this quote: "composite bow which was comparable with the long bow in power and distance." The compositebow's superiority lay in its maneuvrebility efficiency and perhaps a greater distance in its variety of bolts. Longbow on the other hand had greater stopping power, espcially at longer range.

OK, this thread:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=1475

Says that the second picture was of the old drawing style using the legs. But this website:

http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/miltech/crossbow.htm

Says that it illustrates the use of the belt claw. Can someone clairfy?

Yun Needham quotes from a Song manual that said the belt claw was already in existence during Han but lost by the 3rd century a.d., I guess that is part of the reason why later army seem to emphasize less on crossbow than Han and Song, also there isn't a specific date on when the crossbow stirrup was invented, Needham say it might very well be around since Tang.

Most internet sources claims otherwise, that the longbow outranged the genoese crossbows. History seems to bear out the truth at Crecy, the crossbowmen advanced to shoot but they were outranged. After taking heavy losses they retreated, it was agreed by historians that the British archers had the initiative. note that the longbowers did not have to advance to engage the crossbowers.

Logic alone tells me that it is impropable that a genoese crossbow can outrange the longbow. A crossbow is afterall merely a device for storing Kinetic energy to loose a bolt. The lesser span of it's lathe, shorter draw necessitates a much lesser projection of the force and velocity than a normal bow employing the same force to draw. Modern tests with replica crossbows up to 1000lb could only throw a projectile approximately 450yards. It wasn't until the 16th century with the invention of mechanical drawing that a corssbow could match the longbow in range.

"Most internet sources claims otherwise, that the longbow outranged the genoese crossbows. History seems to bear out the truth at Crecy, the crossbowmen advanced to shoot but they were outranged. After taking heavy losses they retreated, it was agreed by historians that the British archers had the initiative. note that the longbowers did not have to advance to engage the crossbowers.

Logic alone tells me that it is impropable that a genoese crossbow can outrange the longbow. A crossbow is afterall merely a device for storing Kinetic energy to loose a bolt. The lesser span of it's lathe, shorter draw necessitates a much lesser projection of the force and velocity than a normal bow employing the same force to draw. Modern tests with replica crossbows up to 1000lb could only throw a projectile approximately 450yards. It wasn't until the 16th century with the invention of mechanical drawing that a corssbow could match the longbow in range. "


How many internet sources have you consulted to come to a concliusion of the word "Most". The fact that the arbalest could outrange the Longbow has already been proven through bow experts through repeated testing.
Here are just some of those internet sources which obviously isn't refering to what you've said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2866061

"Range

The crossbows used in battle have a longer and more effective range than the longbows. This is due mainly to the poundage, a typical battlefield crossbow having anything up to 1200lb draw weight whereas the heaviest longbow would be in the 150lb area. The projectile also has an effect. The crossbow bolt is smaller and offers less resistance. When compared on equal draw weight, the crossbow and longbow are roughly equal on range, the crossbow slightly losing out to the longbow in this Researcher's experience.

On even ground, the longest verified longbow shot was about 300 yards long. The crossbow could be effective to 100 yards more than that. They've been used to shoot across the Menai Straits 3 before now. The heaviest longbow weighed up to 150lb, whereas the crossbow would be 500lb plus. So the comparison is not of like with like. If like for like poundage is compared, and this researcher has done some experimentation in this area, a 100lb longbow seems to have further range than the crossbow since the arrows are developed to 'fly' and are lighter. The crossbow bolt is not. It is short, sharp, and to the point. A 2.5-ounce head is common for a warhead bolt on a light (100lb-150lb) crossbow.
"
http://www.caa-archery.org/history.htm

"English were raiding in France - (estimated size 12000 men - 7000 of them archers)(size by time of battle 8100?) in 3 divisions under king, prince of Wales and (a duke?) English were on a hill, with the archers in wedges? rained the day before, some accounts state that the English kept their strings dry by putting them under their helmets French force approx 12000 with mercenary Genoese crossbowmen (6000 ?)

Due to the rain the French order of battle became somewhat confused the crossbowmen were in front - they advanced to within range and began to fire - due to the rain many of the strings snapped or misfired - in addition, since the crossbow is slow to load, they only got one round off before being cut down by the English archers the crossbowmen turned and fled, some dropping their bows or cutting their strings. The French seeing this decided to run down their own mercenaries (showing what they thought of archers) the rear lines not knowing what was going on also charged with the result that all of the French army became a mob within range of the English archers and the archers broke the charges English dead - negligible French dead - 1200 - 4000 knights and "no one troubled to count the rest""

The english archers were not effected by the rain because they can unstring their bows, the crossbowmen could not thus they have to advfance to shoot and loosing their range advantage.


As for more men pulling so it should be further, there is no logic behind that, a rifle also has more stopping power but its range is only around 200 meter at best. Does that mean its not as strong?

Well not disagreeing with you that potentially a crossbow can have a longer range, given a way of mechanically drawing the string, which at the battle of Crecy alas have not been invented yet. The genoese crossbowmen were still drawing it with the hand, I highly doubt if any were beyond 150+lb. This is utilizing both arms to pull up the string and using your back as a fulcrum in case any genius will like to say they can benchpress it easy.

Btw the article you posted was comparing crossbows up to 1200lb versus a 150lb longbow btw. An m16 potentialy has a max range of 1200m, at 200m I could blow away anyone, at 400m with a scope it is chancy bu still doable. As an ex militaryman I would say that a rifle is MUCH longer range than just 200m.

from wikipedia

By the Hundred Years' War, the English had perfected archery on foot, using a longbow. Archers were drawn from the peasantry, and trained rigorously from childhood. In combat, they would often fire two arrows, one on a high trajectory, and one on a low trajectory. These two arrows would hit the enemy simultaneously from two different angles, making defense difficult. The advent of the bodkin point allowed arrows to pierce most armor.

Do not forget that the poundage alone doesn't mean much for comparing lonbows and crossbows.

What you need to have is the poundage at full draw x the stroke length.

For instance, a longbow with a brace height of 6" with a full draw of 32" will be used effectively on 26" length.

A crossbow with a brace height of 4" and a full draw of 14" will be only using 10" of stroke.

Thus, in the example above, this longbow of 100 pounds would be the equivalent strength of that 260 pounds crossbow. (not fully true as there is much more friction in the crossbow).

However, if most males soldier can quickly draw a 100 pounds bow after a few years of training, there must be a cranking system in order to c**k a 260 pounds crossbow, which in turn slows the rate of fire.

I would then say : yes, maximum range would be on the crossbow side, but needing such heavy weight prods that the rate of fire would make it unpractical on the battlefield. It could be fine on siege crossbow, though.

Don't even bother trying to compare performance between crossbow with longbows or any self drawn bows.

They are completely different type of animals. It's a waste of time. They utilise completely different technology.

Like comparing performance of a Helicopter to a Tank ... Here is an example of a conversation ...

Tank : I got bigger guns
Chopper : yeah ? I got missles
Tank : my armour it thicker
Choper : try hitting me you ween
Tank : You calling me a wuss ?
Chopper : no, i say you are a ween
Tank : Mines bigger then yours
Chopper: that's couse you're fat

Note that the conversation makes NO SENSE! this is the same when you compare Crossbows and Self draw bows

well, not really. Comparing a tank to a helicopter is like comparing a bird to a fish, but the crossbow to a longbow would be like comparing two types of birds to one another.

I always thought crossbows outranged longbows.
Crossbow - longer range
longbow - faster rate of fire

It depends on which bows and which crossbows...

But, historically, there was a day in 1346 in France near a place named Crecy, when Genoese crossbomen were a bit disappointed to realise that the English longbows facing them had both longer range and faster rate of fire.

hmmm it depends on the environment

it is like comparing a rifle and a pistol. Accuracy against Range.

each has its purpose.

And of course, most importantly the USER!

Good point, the archers must also be skilled at using their weapons.

Crossbows would be good at close combat, and I guess longbowmen would be more of an assistant of the infantry.

A crossbowman does not need ANY training--the saying was that "any low life could kill the noblest of nobles(with crossbow)"

However a longbowman taken ALOT of training.

It is true that longbowman are effective against crossbowman though---But longbowman are unlikely to have as much penetration power.

This has been done to death many times....

13thC onwards 'English' longbows are around 80-120 lb pull and both outrange and, at close range, out penetrate hand pulled (also stirrup, one-leg, two-leg etc) crossbows.

However, they required years of practice and training for the archers.

Later, mechancally wound crossbows with layered steel prods were developed in Europe that were significantly more powerful (250-400 lb) - but these were expensive weapons which also required expert users.

Most 'Chinese' crossbow troops were low grade and not particuarly well trained (there were significant exeptions to this), and thus were much less useful in general warfare. The 'English' archers, were trined, experienced profesional soldiers. This was itself enough to make them very useful troops (regardless of weapons). Most wore armour, many were also mounted (and sometimes actually fought as cavalry), all had effective melee weapons. a comparrison between the two is only valid when you understand how different the two types were.

The crossbow, was a more sophisticated weapon, that did not tire out the user as much as a normal bow. The crossbow could remain in the cocked position, allowing the user more time for aiming. However, its disadvantage, as most have already mentioned is the longer reload time.

I think it should also be taken that 'English Longbowmen' is much more specific than "Chinese Crossbows"

With the english bowmen, we usually think of those fellows who fought the french in that muddy feild. With "Chinese crossbowmen", well, no specific battle comes to mind (well, not usually, maybe for people like Warhead they could cite something from an appropriate period)


Since the bowmen we are thinking of were well trained and pretty elite, we should pick out a similiarly elite group of Chinese crossbowmen from history.

^it was proven that the English arrows had no chance in hell of penetrating the exquisitly made armours wore by the French...more likely the longbowmen simbly stabled them to deam with daggers and swords.

Battles are won by good soldiers and good generals, not their weapons. The only way to make all variables equal in this discussion would be to say "Well, if there were an ammount of unarmored/armored longbowmen standing X distance away from the same ammount of crossbowmen who were identical in every way and they had infinite bows/bolts shooting at eachother like robots without using any strategy or maneuvering, which group would be the last one standing." Then that would make the only variable the distance. I think that would be the only way to make it a fair argument with a definite conclusion (based on the range).

Then it will bring us back to "there's no bad soldiers under a good general".

I agree with what you said. But weapons cannot be neglected and will be a top priority in any unit. The condition, the improvement and of course the skill of the users.

It's like what you said, but with more variables.

So it's how the general use the various units (strategy/tactic) and how the units are proficient in the various weapons (training) and how are the condition (in the various aspects too) of the weapons.

How can they be low grade if when a soldier missed 3 times in a row even the general is punished?



Didn't we already settle that a Han crossbow can kill at 260 meters flat trajectory while a
English longbow can kill at 180 meters? European genose crossbows can also outrange longbows, although at certain times when weather comes into play things may be different. Out-penetrate isn't even a question. More pounds means more penetration power. Two hands give you more weight than one hand.

"13thC onwards 'English' longbows are around 80-120 lb pull and both outrange and, at close range, out penetrate hand pulled (also stirrup, one-leg, two-leg etc) crossbows."

Not correct at all. Longbows only outrange the older composite type European crossbows of the 13th century. The arbalest in the 15th century outrange the longbow in its maximum effective range. And outpenetrate it in close range. Arbalests could go right through plate armours at point range. The only advantage of the Longbow is the medium distance around 200 yards, at that distance it is more powerful then the crossobw. The crossbow's powerful is at its strongest when it is just released, but trails off fast, yet remains in air, while the Longbow doesn't decrease in power as much until landing. And these aren't wincharmed in any sense.
The maximum battle range of the Longbow is only 250 yard. The Arbalest could go 375 yard, the Sheng Bi Nu, is even further, maximum at 500 yards.
The Song crossbowcorps are fully professional experts and is one of the most feared units in the Song army.



"Most 'Chinese' crossbow troops were low grade and not particuarly well trained (there were significant exeptions to this), and thus were much less useful in general warfare. "

I don't know where you get this erroneous infromation from, the fact is, Chinese crossbowmen are significantly better trained than their western counterparts. The crossbow are also more standard and Song crossbowmen are all professional men. European crossbowmen haven't even accomplished the countermarch and the Geneose crossbowmen's retreat after just a brief exchange of fire shows their lack of discipline.
Its probably the opposite in that there are exceptions when crossbowmen are not well trained, these happen with temporary conscripts during emergency situation. Song army is fully professional. Tang and Ming army are all semi-professional, but the truth is battle experience is alot more important than training time.


"The 'English' archers, were trined, experienced profesional soldiers. This was itself enough to make them very useful troops (regardless of weapons). Most wore armour, many were also mounted (and sometimes actually fought as cavalry), all had effective melee weapons. a comparrison between the two is only valid when you understand how different the two types were."

The Song crossbowmen are not only fully professional, they are dedicated to crossbow alone on the battlefield. Thats actually a improvement from the Tang crossbowmen who are also trained in MoDao and is expected to go into full melee combat with the opponent at contact. These men are some of the best trained in the entire army. Far from the ridiculous low grade troop you are talking about.

If by 'flat' you mean up 1m and back down 1m - flight time is 0.89s - quarrel average velocity 290m/s. (faster than revolver bullets!)
X-bow has 0.5m draw so acceleration required is 90000m/s/s - a light 0.1kg bolt needs 9000N force ie a 1900lb bow !!!! this is 15 times more than top estimates for Han x-bows.

Range is achieved by high angle shots.



NO more poundage (force) gives more initial velocity. Unfortunately a shorter prod means you draw te string less so the velocity reduces. This is why composite recurve bows with high power and long draws can achieve long ranges.



crossbows spanned by hand are the lowest powered one or two handed. When you draw a bow you are pushing with both arms and both sholders, significantly more muscle power is available.

For comparrison here are some notes by an English crossbow fan...

On even ground, the longest verified longbow shot was about 300 yards long. The crossbow could be effective to 100 yards more than that. They've been used to shoot across the Menai Straits 3 before now. The heaviest longbow weighed up to 150lb, whereas the crossbow would be 500lb plus. So the comparison is not of like with like. If like for like poundage is compared, and this researcher has done some experimentation in this area, a 100lb longbow seems to have further range than the crossbow since the arrows are developed to 'fly' and are lighter. The crossbow bolt is not. It is short, sharp, and to the point. A 2.5-ounce head is common for a warhead bolt on a light (100lb-150lb) crossbow.

Speed

The crossbow is much slower than the longbow. During the peak of the longbow's usage, an archer had to be able to loose 12 arrows a minute and was expected to loose more. A competent archer could manage 17 or so - and an exceptional archer could manage up to 24 per minute. Comparatively the crossbow managed far less, although there is no single figure due to the different methods of spanning the bow.

* Windlass (400lb or greater) One per minute (or less!)
* Cranequin (250lb +) Two or maybe three if lucky!
* Goat's foot leaver (250lb - 350lb) Three per minute
* Belt Hook (125lb +) Three to four
* Hand-spanned (equal to or less than 125lb) Seven, or possibly eight per minute

989AD When fighting the Liao, some Song infantry were described as lacking "crossbows, shoes and hats".

After another battle whare the Liao captured 20,000 Song troops, the "competant crossbowmen" amongst the prisoners were sent to garrison a fort on the north West frontier - there were only 300 deemed good enough.


Some Song troops were superb, but not all.

I never said the speed of a crossbow bolt. That depends completely on the poundage, no arrow goes the same speed, making this invalid. 260m and 180 m are both flat trajectory(parrallel to the ground). They may not shoot at that range, because the target would be pretty small, but they can kill at that range.




That depends on HOW much initial velocity. A good example would be the rubber band analogy. Anyone that shoots rubber bands knows that the more you pull(creating more poundage), the longer the range. As for a shorter prod, which crossbow are you talking about? When you draw a bow, one hand have to support it, and only one can be used to draw the string back. This means LESS muscle.

Of course, crossbow bolts tend to be heavier than any normal arrow, so it trades power with range(although two handed crossbows still tend to be of longer range). Maybe with special flight arrows the longbow can achieve more range.

Sorry, I haven't put my point accross well.
You never get a "flat trajectory (parallel to the ground)", gravity accelerates the missile towards the ground during it's flight, the longer it is in flight, the faster it is falling. To counter this you aim the weapon up at an angle, this gives the missile an initial velocity away from the ground, gravity has to slow this then accelerate it back down, giving a longer flight time.

If you fire the weapon parallel to the ground the missile will hit the ground at the same time regardless of the initial velocity. For example if your weapon is 1.5m above the ground it takes 0.553 s for the missile to hit the ground. A bullet from a modern .22 hunting rifle with a velocity of 450m/s would travel 249m before hitting the ground. An AK-47 with a muzzle velocity of 710m/s would send tthe bullet 392m before it hit the ground.

Crosbows can achieve 300m ranges, but only with high trajectory flights.




Actually in this example the increased range is not from varying the force but from applying it over a longer time (streaching the band varies the force - initially increasing it but applying the force for the extra time is far more significant)




You push the bow with one arm, pull the string with the other, then you 'bend into the bow' this uses yur shoulder muscles to swivel your arms straighter, further drawing the string. This allows you to apply hugh amounts of force on the string, but the drawback is that you can only hold the pose for a very short time. The key advantage of any crossbow is the trigger that allows it to be held, cocked and ready to fire, without effort.



A heavier bolt requies more force to accelerate to the same velocity, but it will also maintain that velocity better (given similar design, drag etc).

Yes special flight arrows do have enormous ranges (Turkish style composite bows have the longest ranges).

Yes, I'm aware that a perfect flat trajectory is impossible. Most aim a LITTLE above their targest, and this is still considered flat trajectory. However, 45 degrees and such would definitely NOT be flat trajectory.


For pulling the bow, a two handed crossbow would be able to use the legs instead of the arms to straighten the bow, and the two arms would be able to pull the string back. That's an extra leg power(and sometimes the waist). This can be seen by how average medieval European crossbows(hand pulled)have about 150 pounds, which would be almost the max for a longbow. Han had 350 pounds, but I'm DEFINITELY treating this with a grain of salt. It'll be more likely one's fingers would snap before the string is pulled all the way. Chris Peers states that it would be more like 210 pd, which is much more believable.

As for who will win in a fight, it's like a sniper rifle against a machine gun(yes, the analogy isn't perfect). It totally depends on how far the two are away from each other.



Can you state the battle? Also it's kind of vague to say Song Infantry and Song troops without saying the number of crossbowmen. It takes a lot of training to be able to do countermarch, and the Liao often avoided riverine battles, supposedly because of superior crossbowmen of the Song. The real disadvantage is the lack of loyalty to the general, since the general in command keep on switching.

What I'm trying to explain is that bows and crossbows can't achieve these ranges with a flat trajectory.

take a 250lb xbow (more than can be reasonably spanned by hand), 0.5m draw (generous for a bow of that strength) and a 0.1kg bolt (a heavy killing bolt, typical for military xbows). this will have a launch velocity of 118m/s. Fire it parallel to the ground and it goes 104m before it hits the grouns (an appreciable range).
to go 260m you need to shoot at a 28 degree angle (possibly higher, I used a bullet range calculator and bolts have higher drag).

Anyone who tells you that you have a flat trajectory range of 260m is plain wrong (indeed claiming anything over 80m is rubbish!)



In a straight up fight, I don't think that bows/crossbows have any marked advantage over one another, it's down to training, experience, leadership and, most importantly, morale.



I'll have to dig back through Wittfogle and Fong, Its in the bit about the wars in the 1020's