The English archers took one pace forward and poured out their arrows on the Genoese crossbowmenj so thickly and evenly that they fell like snow.... Many cut their bowstrings and some threw down their crossbows. They began to fall back." (Froissart, Chronicles, p. 88). With these words Froissart, describing the opening stages of the battle of Crecy (1346), introduced to modern readers the idea of the longbow's superiority on the medieval battlefield. The English victories of Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415) further aggrandized the idea of the longbow's preeminent place above and beyond its sister weapon, the crossbow. Despite this supposed superiority, continental armies continued to use the crossbow, even well after the tactical advantages of the longbow were known. The peculiar nature of the victories of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt belie the fact that upon the medieval battlefield, where small clashes between heavily armored men and siege warfare was the norm, it was the crossbow, with its advantages of accuracy and penetration that was the preferred weapon for the marksmen, whether in defense or offense.

During the medieval period the short bow and crossbow were used extensively throughout England, the continent, and the middle east, both for hunting and in battle. The crossbow, powerful but slow, proved effective against heavily armored opponents, whereas the short bow dominated mounted combat and infantry skirmishes. The nature of warfare changed during the later Carolingian period. Under the Germanic Emperors most able bodied men served their lords in the feudal levy. However, the rising dominance of the mounted win- of the medieval army made the costs of direct service prohibitive for most commoners. It became standard practice for men, and later whole villages, to cover the costs of equipping one of their own for war. Mounted soldiers in armor dominated the battlefields of Europe throughout the I 1 11, 1211, and 13" centuries.

As the infantry receded into the background, the crossbow rose to prominence. The weapon proved highly effective against armored opponents and became the favorite weapon of defense for mercenaries, small towns, and castles. One of the best known proponents of the crossbow, Richard I, "The Lionhearted," used the weapon extensively both in Europe and on crusade. So prolific and dangerous had the weapon become against the Knights that the Hohenstaufen Emperor, Conrad II, forbid any of his feudal levies to use it in his lands, the Lateran Council of 1139 condemned it as an evil weapon, disallowing its use by any Christian accept against the infidels. The weapon continued to see widespread use by almost all the armies of Europe. The longbow, on the other hand was an entirely different type of weapon.

The longbow's history begins in England. Evolving from the short bow it was used almost exclusively in England and certainly originated there. Edward 1, King of England, introduced the longbow during the welsh wars (1272-1307). He chose the weapon over the crossbow for reasons that are not entirely clear. No doubt, the broken terrain, the unarmored nature of his opponents and the lack of set battles, however small, played into his decision. When battling a foe without armor there is no real need for the crossbow.

It proved a cost effective and battle worthy weapon. From this point on, the English Kings included the longbow in their annual assizes. The longbow's first real test of battle was Halidon Hill (1333) where Edward III used it against the Scots to great effect. Edward dismounted his Knights and positioned them along a 500' high ridge. When the Scots attacked they were so harried by the archers that they were unable to break the knight's line of battle. From this point forward Edward demanded from his Barons set numbers of longbowmen.

Proponents of the longbow attest to its amazing ability to propel arrows over great distances, with deadly accuracy, and enough power to penetrate armor. The crossbow is seen in a different light, as a slow and cumbersome, if powerful, weapon, it could never compete with, much less, match the longbow's rate of fire. Though these descriptions are accurate to a degree, our Medieval ancestors saw things in a different light.

The use of the crossbow for marksman did not begin to diminish until the advent of the firearm, whereas that of the longbow, almost exclusively an English weapon, lost much of its importance after the end of the Hundred Years War. Even in the English Wars of the Roses the longbows no longer commanded a central role.

Throughout the German Empire, Italy, France and Spain small battles and sieges remained the dominate style of combat in the warfare of position and the crossbow remained the dominate weapon of choice for the marksmen. In the 1370's the addition of the windlass improved the crossbow's rate of fire (though it could never compete with the longbow) and a thick steel bow made the crossbow even more affective. The windlass and new bow gave the crossbow a pull of something in the range of 1200 lbs (Bradbury, The Medieval Archer, 148) compared to 50 lbs for the longbow. The range and penetrating power this gave the crossbow far exceeded that of the short or long-bow.

Comparing the longbow and crossbow is a difficult task. The longbow only dominates one area of Europe, and that, for a short time. It proved to bean extremely effective weapon within a limited arena. Its power, range and most importantly its rate of fire far exceeded the English needs. However, it must be remembered that during the Hundred Years War, the English, vastly outnumbered, were forced to attack France but had to avoid large clashes of arms. Never able to field the feudal armies which France could, they were forced into defensive positions whenever battle was given. These positions favored the longbow and consequently the English.

One finds the same conditions existed at Crecy and Poitiers at Halidon Hill. The outnumbered English carefully chose their terrain, dismounted their knights, mingled them with units of archers and awaited the French onslaught. The French, accustomed to fighting small set battles and siege warfare were utterly unprepared for Edward's tactics. They attacked in disordered groups and were decimated in both battles. Both fights were hard won however and the English suffered many casualties.

Aside from three peculiarities, Agincourt was fought under largely the same circumstances. First, the weather was not conducive to attacking wings of heavily armored horse. Second, the French attacked was carefully orchestrated. And lastly, the English counter attacked on foot. The mire of the battle field bogged down the attacking phalanxes of mounted Knights. Their horses became easy prey for the many thousands of arrows shot by the English and the English attacked what had become a disorganized mob and destroyed them.

Credit should be given to the longbow's effectiveness in all these battles. However, too often overlooked is the generalship of the English Kings. Edward III and Henry V used their armies far more effectively than their French opponents. They chose their ground carefully, set up defensive works and placed their troops so that they could work in concert. To give the longbow too much credit is to detract from the skill of command these two men possessed. Furthermore, the French failed to use their own crossbowmen in a similar manner. At all three battles the crossbowmen were sent forward in tight formations, across open ground to engage the English. They proved wonderful targets for the longbow and could never compete with that weapon's rate of fire.

To further support this thesis one has but to look at the battle of Verneuil (1424) where both sides used archers and the French were far more careful in attacking. The English won the battle but at a horrific cost. The victory was as great as Agincourt but not as one sided. Also, at Formigny (1450) the French launched determined attacks against the English archers, upsetting their defensive positions and removing the overall effectiveness of the longbow. The hard fought battle ended with a French victory. The final battle of the Hundred Years War, Castillon (1453), proved the reverse for the English. The French held a fortified camp with breastworks and the English, even with the use of the longbow, were unable to dislodge the defenders. It was the first battle that culverins were used in large numbers, the French intermingling them with crossbowmen and other archers. The massed English attacks, resembling those of the French at Crecy or Agincourt, led to disaster and ultimately defeat.

The few set piece battles fought by the English should not detract the military historian from the general nature of Medieval warfare, which generally favored the defense. Where well fortified positions were assailed the attacker was at odds to achieve victory. It was position warfare at its best. Lengthy sieges reduced large towns far more often than large set battles won wars. Edward III's successful reduction of Calais was far more valuable a victory in the Crecy campaign than the victory at Crecy itself Calais gave him a foothold in France which was not lost to the English until the time of Henry Vill.

The longbow was all but useless in confined areas. The arrow slits castles accommodated crossbows not longbows. Furthermore longbows were unable to penetrate most metal armor, relying more upon the sheer numbers of arrows to drive an enemy to ground, and at Agincourt specifically to kill the mounts of armored men. Bolts shot from crossbows could penetrate breastplates and shields with relative ease. And to the Medieval soldier, these advantages far outweighed the disadvantages of weight and a slow rate of fire. In the Medieval period the longbow was a weapon of limited scope, the crossbow, far more versatile and powerful, the weapon of choice.