Longbow and strong crossbow, how to choose weapons in ancient battlefields

In medieval Europe, for about a hundred years, longbows were like missiles today. Strangely, I saw that there were longbow troops in Britain. At that time, her main rivals were Scotland and France. She is well aware of the advantages of the longbow, and has been defeated repeatedly, but she still stubbornly confronts it with a strong crossbow. Similarly, during the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, there were strong crossbow troops, and even musket troops appeared in the Ming Dynasty, but why didn't there always be longbow troops in China?

The Ming Dynasty's "Art of War": Take turns to send crossbows and spears.

Bow and crossbow is a weapon that China skillfully used for a long time. There is a saying in the Warring States Policy and the Western Zhou Dynasty Policy ("Chu has a young man, who is good at shooting, and those who remove the leaves shoot with a hundred paces, and hit the target with a hundred shots"), but China, like France and Scotland, did not develop a large-scale longbow force. This is certainly not a technical contract, but a deliberate choice not to use it. Without longbow troops, Mongolian cavalry are naturally no opponents, because chariots and infantry are not as fast as cavalry, and it is impossible to kill the enemy from a long distance with longbow. As a result, the Yuan Dynasty came to power.

European historians have long been puzzled by this phenomenon. Allen and Leeson(20 15), two economists, put forward an answer, which may be used to discuss why there are European-style strong crossbows and muskets in China's history, while there are few longbow troops in Britain. Allen and Leeson assume that this is an institutional choice, not a technical obstacle, for the simple reason. The technical threshold of longbow is not high, which is much easier and cheaper than the mechanical principle required for strong crossbows, so England makes good use of longbow troops. But why doesn't France "learn from foreigners to control foreigners", but use a strong crossbow (or crossbow) that is more expensive and more difficult to win? That's because the political situation in France is unstable. If the longbow cannot be used, the local governors will easily assemble the militia and train the longbow troops with strong combat power, and the rulers are worried that they cannot be effectively suppressed.

Crossbow (crossbow) is a weapon, just like a gun, and it is easy to learn. Its advantage is standardized operation, and its range is far greater than that of longbow. However, the crossbow has a big disadvantage: as shown in the above picture, the crossbow must be fired first, then fired (prepared) and finally fired (installed). Longbow does not have this disadvantage: skilled people can aim and shoot 6 arrows per minute; If you don't aim, you can shoot an arrow of 10, which makes the arrow rain and is particularly lethal to cavalry.

Furthermore, longbowmen can be assembled in a formation, or they can act separately according to the terrain and mountains and rivers, looking for cover and sniper, which is convenient for attack and defense. However, longbow troops need intensive firing to defeat the enemy, and the training period is long (2-3 years), which requires frequent practice and high training cost. In other words, longbow troops must train a large number of archers, and the overall cost is very high.

From left to right: English longbow, European flat bow, European bow, Mongolian bow and modern hunting bow. The length of the English longbow is almost twice that of the modern hunting bow.

We can draw a concept: the rulers of France and Scotland are aware of the advantages of longbow, but they are also worried about internal rebellion, so they are faced with the problem of choice: if they can't help longbow, internal rebellion will easily occur; If longbows are forbidden, you can only use crossbows, which are easily defeated by foreign enemies (Britain). If the cost of external pressure (foreign aggression) is lower than that of internal rebellion (Annie), we will choose the weapon of self-knowledge and inferiority (crossbow).

(2) Historical examples

1333, 19 In July, during the Second Scottish War of Independence, archibald Douglas led 15000 people to gather on the east hillside of Harry. The enemy was King Edward III of England, with only 8000 people. The British army is in command, dividing the troops into three groups, with a long bow in front to break the enemy. Scotland attacked from the foot of the mountain, and the British army rained down. The other side was exhausted and in flight, and the British cavalry pursued it until nightfall. The Soviet side suffered thousands of casualties, while the British side was only injured 14.

During the Hundred Years' War between Britain and France, a great battle of keresey (Battle of keresey or Battle of keresey,1August 26th, 346) took place. The man with the longbow in the picture below is English, and the crossbowman is French. In the following battlefield layout, the red mark on the upper left is the British side, and the blue mark on the lower right is the French side. The red arrow of the British side is the longbow army. In front of the French side is Genoa's crossbow team (crossbow army), and the phalanx behind it is 5000 cavalry. The British side has a total of * * * 14000 people, including 5000 longbowmen. There are 20,000-30,000 French people, including 6,000 crossbowmen. The archer, the French side launched more than a dozen charges, and the British long archer quickly defeated the French army with the crossfire of "shooting left, shooting right and shooting left". The French side lost 1500 to 4000 armed soldiers, and there were no casualties in the infantry. The British side lost 100 to 300 people, which once again verified the power of the longbow.

Battle of keresey (Battle of keresey or keresey),1August 26th, 346.

The battlefield layout of keresey campaign

Allen and Leeson (20 15, page 690, table 1) sorted out 25 battles between 1298- 1453. There are four British rivals: France, Scotland, Lancaster and Percy. In these 25 games, the British army won 16: 1327 lost four games before, mainly because there were no longbow troops, and then lost five games. As long as the longbow troops are dispatched, the scale is thousands and they are almost invincible. In 200 years, it is not easy for England to face enemies from all directions. What is puzzling is that the advantages of longbow troops are obvious to all. Why is it only adopted in Britain?

(3) Institutional factors

The height of the longbow is similar to that of the shooter, and the string can reach the ear when it is full. The longbow in the Middle Ages was made of a whole piece of purple wood, with a length of about 2 meters, a pulling force of about 120 pounds, an arrow length of about 1 meter and a range of about 100 meter. The pulling distance of the traditional short bow is about 0.7 meters, and the pulling force is about 40 kg, which is about 40-60 kg for ordinary adults. The production cost of large crossbow (strong crossbow) is about 6 times more expensive than that of long bow. Free peasants in England are required to perform military service, thus providing a rich source of longbowmen. After two or three years of training, skilled people can shoot six arrows per minute, while each arrow of a strong crossbow takes about 1 minute. At that time, the interval between muskets may be longer, and the longbow has the advantage of high-speed continuous firing, and it is easier to adjust the formation with the terrain.

The deployment of the British side is centered on longbowmen, supplemented by lancers and cavalry. If each person shoots six arrows per minute, then 3000 long archers can shoot 1.8 minutes at the same time. Arrows and rain cover the sky and scream like rain, just like today's machine gun troops. This is very shocking on the battlefield, and it is also very lethal to cavalry and infantry. The production cost of longbow is not high, the effect of killing the enemy is obvious and the history is clear. Why not use superior weapons with small profits but quick turnover? There must be a last resort.

British longbowmen

Some people think that the reason why the British side always wins is not necessarily because of the longbow, but because of its superior strategy and tactics. Take the Hundred Years' War between Britain and France (1337- 1453) as an example, the losers have plenty of time to review the improvement of the enemy's superiority. Britain's main rivals are France and the Soviet Union. Knowing that the longbow is powerful, it is not difficult to imitate it, but it has never been established. There must be something hidden. Another said: Longbow originated in Wales. In the past, hunters used it to hunt in the forest. Scotland's open highlands have no tradition of making peace with France, so they don't use longbows. In fact, Britain and France have limited geographical differences and similar economic behaviors, but the types of weapons used are obviously different and have been stable for a long time.

There is also an institutional factor that has appeared in both Japan and France. After musket was introduced into Japan, it had obvious advantages compared with the weapons valued by traditional Bushido (riding, shooting and knife). But the tradition of the army is bushido, which needs long-term exercise to gain respect. After the introduction of muskets, you can be familiar with weapons in a short time, and you can also take the life of a samurai who has been practicing for many years. This incident has seriously damaged the values of Bushido, so the orthodox samurai have now made an irrational choice: despise foreign guns that can easily kill people a hundred paces away, otherwise how will the traditional Bushido handle itself?

Similarly, French knights have long-term pride (occupation and status), but they can't beat the longbow to kill people from a distance on the battlefield. Therefore, knowing the advantages of longbow, we must also resist this superior weapon, otherwise how to maintain the traditional dignity and glory of knights? This hypothesis seems reasonable, but the cost of long-term defeat is far higher than the gain of dignity. Knights were slaughtered by longbows and lost large areas of territory. There is absolutely no reason not to use a longbow. After the end of the shogunate era, the Meiji Restoration quickly embarked on the route of building powerful ships and artillery. Why is France so stubborn? There must be institutional constraints.

How unstable is the political situation in France: The following picture shows the situation during 1086- 1422. (1) Black is the actual control area of the ruler: the range is different every hundred years, and even the area has changed greatly. (2) The mesh area belongs to France, but it does not recognize royal rule. (3) The slash area is controlled by Britain. If you and I were11-15th century French kings, would you dare to develop longbow troops in China?

Source: Allen and Leeson (20 15), page 700, Figure 2.

Now turn around and check the characteristics of the longbow.

(1) Longbow troops need a large number of people, in order to achieve the effect of arrows raining down and crossing left and right. This is different from the effect of walking with a hundred steps: it is not by individual stunts, but by the team to play a shocking effect.

(2) In order to control the dominant longbow troops, the rulers must set up long-term supporting measures: holding archery competitions, awarding bonuses to attract experts, and enacting laws to give preferential treatment to longbow players. For example, the Longbow Law promulgated by 1363: it is illegal to prohibit longbow soldiers from leaving the country, to prohibit crossbows (crossbows) and to stipulate that they cannot do sports other than longbow on Sundays. It's like the Netherlands, which stipulates that fish must be eaten for dinner on Friday to develop navigation, and supports fishing and ocean-going activities. The longbow method was abolished two hundred years later (1595), mainly because of the rise of muskets, and long-range hot weapons (propelled by gunpowder) replaced cold weapons based on human body and mechanical principles.

(3) The manufacturing cost of longbows is low, people can manufacture them in large quantities quickly, and it is easy to gather people into an army. If the rulers cultivate the longbow military culture for a long time, it will inevitably lead the princes to follow suit. For the rulers, this is a serious potential threat: to develop longbow troops is to raise tigers as trouble. Britain dares to develop, mainly because of its stable political situation and low rebellious tendency (there are no vicious dogs at home). France and Scotland don't have this condition because there are wolves at home. In short, the Longbow Army has several shortcomings: it is easy to train, gather people, make trouble and get out of control. For rulers, the advantage of weapons is secondary, and the stability of political power is the priority: what good is victory if you lose your sovereignty? Under the consideration of "safety always takes precedence over the outside world", the ruler's rational choice is a strong crossbow rather than a long bow.

How strong is the fighting capacity of the longbow? Give three examples. In the battle of laroche-Delin, the ratio of the two sides was 6.29 (French) 1 (British). Battle of Duplin Moore, (Scotland) 5 to (England) 1. Battle of Ginkul, (French) 4 to (British) 1. The British army won all three wars, which is not only a tactical or strategic advantage. The missile (longbow) plays an important role. Before the rise of artillery, longbows also had the function of killing enemies at a long distance in naval battles. Take the Battle of Schluis (1340) as an example. The French side used a strong crossbow and the British side used a long bow. As a result, the French side lost 190 of the 2 13 ships, and about16,000-18,000 people died.

Longbow and crossbow have their own advantages and disadvantages:

The crossbow has a long range, but it is loaded slowly, and the firing rate per minute is at least 6 times worse.

The crossbow has a long range, but it must concentrate its firepower with an array, which cannot produce the shocking effect of arrows raining down.

Crossbows must be made of steel to shoot far, which is more expensive and more difficult than longbows.

Cold weather, stiff hands and feet, strong crossbow is not easy to operate. If it is too cold, the steel bow will break easily when pulled hard.

Longbow is weak in strength, but low in cost, self-made, simple and light.

The reinforced longbow can penetrate light armor when the tension exceeds 150 pounds. If the pulling force exceeds 160 pounds, the range can reach 300 yards (1 yard is about 0.9 meters). /kloc-the crossbow in the 0/5th century can shoot 375 yards at the farthest, with a difference of about 20%.

European armor didn't rise until the1380s, and crossbow force can penetrate armor. Longbow doesn't have this advantage. In the early period of the Hundred Years' War between Britain and France (1337- 1453), the longbow still dominated the war.

Long archers can be more flexible in the open field. If it is evenly matched, it is usually a killing machine like longbow that wins.

Training mature archers is time-consuming and labor-intensive, and once it is lost, it is difficult to make up for it.

The use of longbows also requires various conditions. First, the concentration of political power can cultivate the social conditions and culture required by the longbow (as mentioned above). Second, the regime is stable and not afraid of internal rebellion.

The regime that uses crossbows is actually choosing an expensive, slow and inconvenient weapon. If civil strife really happens, the rulers will have no superior weapon (longbow) to suppress it. If you use the crossbow for a long time, you will suffer a big loss if you encounter an invasion from a foreign enemy with a long bow. Political stability is an important factor in choosing weapons. Institutional factors take precedence over technical factors.