Totally guessing here but maybe the English raiding so many towns made the French over eager to catch them and both the french knights and the genoese crossbowmen had left a lot of their equipment in the slow moving caravan, severely reducing their effectiveness against longbows and this was made even worse by commanders telling them to attack over and over anyway due to their numbers advantage and eventually the French army was spent.
And combine them with cheaper bombards to cut through skirms. Also, ally them with Dravidians to get a wicked Condotierro with armor-piercing abilities.
I prefer to use cavalry heavy factions- always run them down with lighter and quicker horses, attacking from behind- even during sieges- works like a charm As Poland- i had many "historical" victories against Denmark, Milan and Venice especially- because i could run them down having 300- 400 men against their 1200 or something like that Polish Nobles rule as unit against those
Thanks for providing a proper describtion of the battle of Crécy. People tend to cite it as ultimate proof that english longbowmen were superior to crossbowmen, ignoring the fact that in this battle the crossbowmen were basically rendered useless by incompetent leadership forcing them to engage an enemy who had a superior position without their proper equipment. The genoese crossbowmen at their worst got beaten by english longbowmen at their best, which doesn't say all that much.
I hardly think anyone on the English side was "at their best" that day. From what I've read the disenteary epidemic that was raging through the English army played a role in their decision to make a stand against a numerically superior army with a massive cavalry advantage. Cavalry which was the most formidable in the world at the time and made the idea of fighting them a daunting undertaking best avoided if you had other options. I'm guessing a Lance through the chest might be preferable to shitting yourself to death.
Using crossbow and shield might not look like a huge leap of logic in hindsight, but back in the day it was so groundbreaking that regular infantry might as well fought Elites with energy shielding.
I knew crossbows where placed on the ground to reload, but I never realised they used a hook for it. Holy cow that's genius, using your hands you're still limited by the muscles in your forearm that need to grip the string, but with the hook you can use the full force of our body's strongest muscles in our upper legs.
i have seen similar methods to really tighten a knot, but this is really stupid simple and stupid effective. If only gunpowder hadn't been developed crossbows would probably have dominated wars to this day
@@Chadius_ThundercockI remember an account where a British guy got a crossbow, kidnapped a woman, shot her dad with the crossbow, went off to the woods, and then got hunted and killed. The chronicler left a whole, "kids these days have no values" thing.
An interesting thing about the Genova's "contract culture". Contracts were everything and ruled every working Activity in Genova, and were of 2 tipes. With, or without, the "mugugno" wich Is a genovese Word translated as "complaining, in a annoing way, that NEVER stop". So how It works: you can be offered the contract with the mugugno, lover pay BUT the ability to complain about... Everything you was ordered to do, or without the mugugno: pay was Better but you cannot complain about anything. Now, people from Liguria and Genova expecially are famous for theyr greedynes, so the contracts were almost exclusivly with the mugugno, and still are today :)
I worked somewhere for the lowest possible pay whilst there whole business depending on you giving customers a good happy experience/interaction, and you weren't allowed to complain despite the awful working conditions whilst they profited £700,000 a week.
The Grimaldi and Doria families still hold a great deal of importance to this day here. Why, I can just now peer out of the window and see a giant cruise ship with the name "Grimaldi" painted on it. xD
The discussion of Genoa, and by extension the Genoese Crossbowman is really fascinating, especially compared to the much more researched history of Venice for example
As a Genoese, I deeply appreciate your comment. People thinks only to Florence and Venice with respect to Medieval and Renaissance Italy, but the city of Embriaco (who made first Crusade "successful"), Columbus, Andrea Doria, Mazzini (father of "Young Italy" and "Young Europe"), Mameli (writing the anthem), Novaro (giving music to anthem), the land of Bonaparte and Garibaldi families is not exactly a side note of History. Of course we have pride but we are still self-critical with Crimes commited in wars, values luckily have changed for the better, but our city was really the Republican (and Socialist) hearth of unified Italy 🏴😎🇮🇹
I like to play as Genoa in Medieval 2 Total war in a mod Stainless Steel 6.4, because they have 1 sneaky city in a Crimea, merchant Italian faction with great possibility for diplomacy and trade.
7:00 - That might explain why crossbows weren't mixed in with pikes very early in history. The pavisse carriers already had their own long spears? That would make it a sort of mixed formation of 50/50 crossbow/spears already.
Ah yes; that was a question that I was asking for a long time, many theories but little to no real explanation of the reason of not incorporating crossbows abd spears. But you had archer with infantry already i guess it is similar.
the crossbows were first used to defend from static protected positions like walls and ships so they werent threatened by kngihts. the pavise were mainly vs enemy projectile fire they werent really spears that would threaten armoured knights. But the Crossbowbolts already did that so they werent sitting ducks like normal archers.
Crece was a battle where the Noble Knights managed to "Snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory". Had they just waited for the gear and infantry to catch up - as well as the ground to dry - they could probably have defeated that position. Other examples include the "Battle of the Golden Spurs". And I think there was a similar one during a northern crusade?
But one has to balance it against all the times quick charges by knights won battles. Like the destruction of the Mongol vanguard during the Battle of Mohi, or when Barbarossa's army charged itself out of an encirclement, or the impromptu charge during Richard the Lionheart's march along the coast. This channel even brought up an example where James the Conqueror tried to have his veteran infantry charge a castle-breach, defended by a phalanx-like formation, and after the veteran infantry refused to attack, the mounted knights instead advanced and won against the phalanx-like formation after several charges. Let's remember that one of the most numerically impressive victories in history was with an exhausted knight-based army charging a militia-based army about 6 - 60 times its own size, during the Battle of Monte Porzio (all though during that battle, it was not a simple single charge, but a lot of well-disciplined timing related to several charges, with skillful maneuvering on a larger force). All those battles in which knights charged prematurely stemmed from all the times the knights charged and instead won. There was a reason that the tactic of aggressive charges was so common, because it often worked. If one looks only at the exceptions however, one will get a very skewed view.
@@vinz4066 You are correct, in those famous English defensive battles where the French charged prematurely, the English were commanded by knights, and the frontline fighting was done by the dismounted English knights to a disproportionately large degree (well, "man-at-arms" is the technical military terminology of the time, but in this context it mostly means armed men from the noble knightly class, even though most of them were technically squires in this period). So to suggest, as some people seem to, that they were some kind of "battles between the classes" is quite frankly ridiculous. Both sides were controlled by knights. Even during the Battle of the Golden Spurs, which is even more commonly depicted as a battle between the classes, 4 of the 6 Flemish commanders were still knights. The Battle of Patay is an excellent example of what a quick mounted charge can do to effectively deal with longbowmen. A force of 5000 English longbowmen managed to reveal their position to French scouts, by raising a hunting cry at a wandering stag... 180 French knights charged down 500 longbowmen, they were then joined by 1300 additional knights, and they inflicted about 2500 casualties on the English longbowmen, with only about 100 suffered on their own side. But how often does anyone hear about the Battle of Patay...?
@@wojtek1582 With both Hungarian knights and experienced ones of the French knights recommending them not to, but they were overshadowed by two young hotheaded French knights, who were advisers to the French commander. It was not a case of knights just seeing red and charging, it was an actual decision made by a few inexperienced poor commanders, with other commanders, also knights, trying to convince them not to.
2:22 I suspect that they formed specifically to meet the requirements of the Genoese Naval wars against the saracen pirates. The crossbow is the preffered method in Italy due to the high number of sieges, and was particularly preferabble in Naval Battles, which the Sea repubblics fought a LOT, since accuracy and strength and more importantly timing were more crucial than speed or quantity in that enviroment. 2:53 The funny thing is that Genoese came to be known as a catch all term for Italian Mercenary outside of italy. So if you met a mercenary of Italian origin in germany for example, he'd be called a genoese even if he never even seen the sea. Similarly "Lombard" was the catch all term for Italian merchants outside of italy, even though a lot came from genoa and tuscany and not necessarily lombardy. (This is similar how the term viking was a catch all term for scandinavians pillaging europe, regardless if the were swedes, norwegians or danes). 4:36 whilst it is true to some extent that Longbows required training to be used (One needed to build up special muscles to use the longbow properly), It is a bit of a misnomer to say that the crossbow required little training. Sure for the average militia maybe an hour or two could have sufficed. But that could also have sufficed to get a "good enough" result also for regular bowmen. It's like comparing conscripts to professional soldiers in modern armies since they both use guns. Reload speed, accuracy, battle effectiveness increased with skill and time. 10:43 it is unfortunate that this is their most famous battle. It makes sense since this battle is known in the Anglosphere because it involved the english. But if you asked a Genoese, they might say that the battles of Curzola and Meloria at 7:28 were far more indicative (especially Curzola) and the various sieges of the Fondachi (Merchant quarters) all over the mediterranean show them off in a better light. Like the famous siege of Kaffa where the Genoese beat the Mongols during the siege (later plague not withstanding). In fact the mongols used the Genoese themselves against the Russians at Kulikovo Field.
I always play the "what if" on how to defeat the Mongols and such types are armies. And Genoese Crossbowmen definitely play a big part, as well as armored knights. Also, you could make a good combined arms army out of mercenaries, if you got Swiss Pikemen, Genoese Crossbowmen, and German Black Riders. :D
Genoese Luigi Giribetto (Louis Giribaut) invented rotating carriages to better maneuver culverins, really helping Jean Bureau in creating the poweful french artillery which won french war (despite the french vile massacre of genoese crossbowmen). France: "I never said thank you". Genoa: "And you'll never have to" (proceeds jumping into the void to defend Constantinople and discover America) 😎🏴
Btw, "corps" is pronounced the same as "core." It's a French word and my general rule for French origin words is just not to say the last sound as it's spelled. It's usually correct 95% of the time.
Agreed. In English, a group of soldiers is referred to as a corps, pronounced "core" after the French pronounciation. The word corpse refers to a dead body.
Yeah, and in the Hussite armies crossbows caused most ranged damage, with firearms responsible for sowing confusion and visible gruesome carnage. Jan Zizka knew his people and weapons well and used them to their best advantage, which is sign of competent commander
Exactly: genoese pavise crossbowman with crossbow expert and sharpshooter are one of best ways to play warrior. Just imagine: BBEG: "What's your powers" Mage: "I cast spell" Druid: "Nature power" Cleric: "I am perfect healer" You: "I AM GENOESE MOTHAFAKKA" (starts placing tower shield for +2AC and blasting everything with hand crossbow) 😂
@@emanuelefiorentino8831 In the typical small engagements with few combatants, seen in D&D outside of mass combat scenarios, anyone behind cover is quickly outflanked. An enemy who has the ability to ignore your pavise or fire through your arrow slit from a great range is also a problem (although I'd argue that's more an issue with abilities like that being overpowered and irrational). On a D&D mass combat battlefield, ranged attacks are super useful, especially in post-2000 D&D editions where movement rate is so slow per attack. The archers or crossbowmen can make MANY shots against an advancing army. Also, the less-decisive effect of all kinds of missiles against body armor is ignored in 2e onward. That said, the offensive caster with area-effect magic which acts as artillery that can kill blocks of enemy soldiers will make a significant difference. Although I'd argue that someone using Animate Dead can have a greater impact on each battle, on every war, and in maximizing the domestic economy between wars. But for the resources needed to field a single 10th level caster, how many crossbowmen can you field instead? It's actually probably a better damage output to use masses of troops. Regardless, the hunkered-down crossbowman is a virtually non-issue in man-to-man fighting in D&D where the game's rules are written to produce results with verisimilitude. If you're all playing a bunch of Marvel Avengers, anything goes, and it could just as easily be the cheese-addicted Tabaxi shithead who is the decisive factor. In a pointless game like that it's basically just Cops n' Robbers with dice, and the children are welcome to have their fun.
Roman Seige Ballista huge with a draw weight of 4000-4500lbs. Steel Prod Windlass crossbows could have draw weights up to 4900lbs but only put 1250lb draw weights to increase reload or spanning speed as it was overkill. Steel was cheap enough for wealthy peasants of Geonese to finally afford them in the 13th century medieval era.
It's always a good thing to see a new SandRhoman upload in my feed. Without a doubt your's is one of the best researched and presented history channels on youtube.
This was fascinating. I became acquainted with Genoese crossbowmen recently in reading Iris Origo's "The Merchant of Prato," a biography of Francesco Di Marco Datini, 1335-1410 (published in New York by Knopf, 1957). Datini had a very long career as a merchandiser of various goods, first from Avignon, then from his home in Prato, and finally from Florence. Depending upon the destination, goods went either overland or by sea - and if by sea, there are frequent references to Genoese crossbowmen as protection on the ships, with the note that these warriors were highly regarded - and generally feared. Thanks so much for providing the background.
@Turaglas I don't remember if the Genoese required it or not, but if Datini shipped by sea, he usually used Genoa, so possibly that was a requirement of the Republic.
@@absyahwa7698 I enjoyed the academic and kind response that you gave. It is a testament to your upbringing and social status! I am sure your response will become a hallmark of intellectual acumen.
Oh don't get me started on those bloody Genoese crossbowmen 😁😁 !!! Since vanilla Medieval 2 Total War through literally every mod they're a pain to deal with. Great killing power against nearly every unit and pretty tough in melee too.
Roman Seige Ballista huge with a draw weight of 4000-4500lbs. Steel Prod Windlass crossbows could have draw weights up to 4900lbs but only put 1250lb draw weights to increase reload or spanning speed as it was overkill. Steel was cheap enough for wealthy peasants of Geonese to finally afford them in the 13th century medieval era.
@@carlosvalle612 important to know that draw weight means little if you don't know the length of the bow. A wide crossbow with less draw weight could send a bolt further and harder than a tiny bow with an insane draw weight. :)
@Turaglas There are limits to usefulness with wide bows, though if you have a pavise to put the mini ballista on, it could work, but there is probably a reason why people did what they did, there often is.
once again a very good video. good info, good presentation, good research, and most importantly: a good example how history should be presented on TH-cam.
It surprises me how often medieval battles were lost because the French knights were too overconfident and charged before everyone was ready. Off the top of my head I believe I can think of three times including this one.
It also happened at the Battle of Halmyros, the Duke of Athens, Walter of Brienne (by birth, culture and arrogance very much a french nobleman) and most of his mounted knights were slaughtered when they recklessly charged against the defensive position set-up by the mercenaries of the Catalan Company, in hindsight it would had been cheaper to Walter to actually pay his mercenaries instead of trying to expel them by force of his dominions.
This reply is a year late, but a factor in history for early engagement was the battle rewards. The nobles and crossbowmen were expensive, and a leader could pay them with recovered equipment from the fallen foes instead of with his personal funding. So if they had routed the English, it would have paid the dies for his most expensive units possibly for years.
I think it's also pretty important that, just like the Greco-Persian wars, there are bias on which battles got popular. Both French and Persia win quite a lot of battles, and battles like Agincourt and Marathon are more of the exception.
Wow this is good timing I've been watching loads that involved the Geonese crossbow men, and here's a new video to describe exactly who they were, thanks.
The military has always been a way for the lower classes to improve their standing. From crossbow men, roman legionaries, and even today in the American military. I myself joined to do just that
@@gabrielvanhauten4169 you can make a lot of money if you move up in the army. In addition to making connections and getting spacial benefits as a veteran.
@@kjsdpgijn It’s all about the benefits rather than pay. I understand that if you are a veteran of the US armed forces you get good pension, health insurance (I could be wrong about this one), several years of free college tuition paid and discounts in supermarkets and restaurants.
@@rivopoiss1 negative I fled to northern Africa and joined the nubian calvary guard. There I served pasha Muhammed until he betrayed me and I started a armed rebellion against tyranny
The palio is a crossbow contest still in place in most of Liguria and Toscana. In the Comunal time The palio where you best chance to show to a recruiter from Genova u had skin for the job.
As an archer i can tell you that bowstring wax defeats rain handily. No doubt these people had access to beeswax and coated their string liberally. Also, even thought composite bows were naturally more sensitive to weather again, they were usually covered with a linen cover infused with wax to protect them. Obviously the prod of the crossbow became less of a variable whe the switch to steel was made.
I frequently see people claiming that crossbowmen were superior to longbowmen, or that longbowmen were superior to crossbowmen. The simple fact is that which is "better" depends entirely on the battlefield conditions and the overall composition and leadership of the armies involved. In some circumstances longbowmen are clearly more effective than crossbowmen, and in some circumstances crossbowmen are clearly more effective than longbowmen. Anyone who tells you differently is an idiot who has no idea what they're talking about.
You cannot Say "It depends by leadership" you don't evaluate a unit by the leadership 😂 you have to think about pros and cons of the weapon and the unit itself
Also, there are a tons of metrics. A unit/weapon can be great in battle but bad in war (costly, long training, difficult to use) so it is hard to make meaningful comparisons. Some "legendary" units stand out, but to judge what was better between them is, in my view, unnecessary
I tend to think that Longbows were more versatile Battlefield weapons (main advantage probably being rate of fire and range) - but required a lot more investment and training (pretty much a lifetime) for the Archer. Crossbows on the other hand, you could train troops to use them pretty competently (not necessarily master) in weeks, but you would be able to get get a pretty effective Crossbow unit in a pretty short amount of time. However, where I think the Crossbow would be superior to the Longbow would be in Siege Warfare (which tended to be log and drawn out in comparison to field battles) due to the nature of being able to have a Crossbow in a 'ready' position pretty much indefinitely and ready to fire at any time a suitable opportunity appears because the mechanism takes all the strain at this point - Whereas a Longbow can't do that because the man takes all the strain and no-one is strong enough to hold the Longbow in that 'ready' position for any reasonable length of time (despite what films may show) :)
@@alessandromazzini7026 if an army's leadership is very familiar with the capabilities and shortcomings of crossbowmen, but not very familiar with the capabilities of longbowmen, then crossbowmen are a better choice because the leaders will be more able to use them effectively (and vice versa). Conversely, if the enemy army's leaders have never faced longbowmen and are unaware of their effective maximum range or rate of fire, but are very familiar with the range and rate of fire of crossbowmen, then longbowmen would be more effective against them. Context matters, and familiarity with specific weapons by commanders is part of that context. A weapon that is novel to the enemy leaders will be more effective than one that is not, because they will be less familiar with the best ways to counter it. That's part of the pros and cons of the weapons.
The difference is the soldier. The yeoman trained on the bow since childhood and thus had big beefy arms that could pull back big bows. But if you're a nation that doesn't have a militia culture and furthermore are hiring mercenaries for contracts that are a couple years, you don't have time to train them on a war bow. So you have to give them a machine that will draw the bow back for them - aka a crossbow. In our modern world we like to focus on weapons. But back then the man was far more important than the tool.
"Some who are dressed like Robin Hood and his merry men,🚹 fought alongside, Voivode, 🦇 Vlad tepes 3, 🧛♂️ Dracula the impaler,🐲 against the Muslim 🕌 Ottoman ☪ Turkish,🇹🇷 army 🙋 of the Sultan Mehmed the 2nd, during the 1462 night, 🌃 attack." "In order to protect Vlad tepes dracula the impaler's 🧛♂️ home 🏡 land of wallachia, Romania 🇷🇴 from the Muslim 🕌 Ottoman ☪ Turkish 🇹🇷 soldiers led by the Sultan Mehmed the 2nd, born in Ottoman, ☪ Turkey, 🇹🇷 in 1432 and died in 1481."
The Persian Achemanids were some of the first professional army to use organized large shield bearing soldiers in combination with rows of archers behind them . The large shields provided cover while rows of archers switched continually to fire their arrows towards enemy lines
At 8:28 you said Mamluks. However, In 1099 Jerusalem was governed by the Fatimi, they just conquered the city a few years ago. Maybe you want to use it instead of Slave soldier but The area of the Levant was mostly under the hegemony of Seljuks and Seljuks was not use Mamluks. They have their own soldier which called Gulam(slave soldier).
No the seljucks used mamluks, Zanki for instance was assadsinated by some of his mamluks. Mamluks and ghulams are tge same thing. Donald Sydney Richards stated tha: "Mamluke also translates ghulam, the term with the same significance, used more frequently in the eastern islamic world".
I low my hat for the genoese crossbowmen,but i think you should also make a video on the Venicians Marines that conquers Constantinople end were the first to have some squads of knight that charge directly from the ship,thanks to special navy project.thanks to this forces Venice conquer all the Dalmatian coast city, a lot of Grece s islands,Cyprus and a big part of black sea s land!!!!!
The crossbow allowed Western European armies to fend off what would've been a certain collection of Steppe civilizations taking over the entire Eurasian landmass. A technology that changed history.
8:27 Small correction, they would be fighting the Fatimids during the First Crusades. The Mamluks wouldn't emerge into history until the 13th century, after they overthrew the Ayyubids, who in turn got rid of the Fatimids. Other than that, superb video as always.
Actually, considering we know precisely that 1,542 French knights were killed at Crécy, that the Genoese crossbowmen probably numbered around 2,000, certainly not more than 4,000, and that the French infantry didn't take part in the battle, it is obviously completely impossible that the French suffered more casualties than these numbers added, let alone "15,000 casualties", which is the estimate of a pro-English contemporary source, and not at all the one of most historians. And Clifford Rogers is strange because he claims the English were 15,000 and the French at least twice and maybe thrice larger, which would make between 30,000 and 45,000, which is highly unlikely.
One will tend to come across a certain 'fetishism' among Anglophone historians concerning Crécy and Agincourt. These battles bear an almost totemistic importance in the discourse and otherwise clear-headed historians are liable play fast and loose with the figures (as you have demonstrated concerning Rogers) and wider implications. The battles' importance in the emergence of a sense of English national identity and the neatly packaged contrast between 'the flower of French nobility' and 'sturdy Englishy yeomen' endlessly embellished and retold in combination with the 'cult' of the longbow is an industry at this point :)
Great video as always. I though thte St. George's cross was an English thing. Obviously another Sought-After Mercenaries you should do is the Gallowglass. If you need research material I have quite a few sources.
hey, the St. George's cross was used by many many cities, leagues, states. Its origins go back to the cursades. Let me know any good sources on the Gallowglass. We looked into scottish mercs in the context of the thirty years war. There is plenty to talk about but we have not really started to gather literature on the topic.
Saint George was a Turk serving in the Roman legions who allegedly slew a "dragon" in Palestine. Most likely a salt water crocodile, but whatever. Richard the Lionheart heard of this during the crusades and appropriated George as an English Saint, however many others did the same and George probably lived and died with ever knowing Britain existed.
@@SandRhomanHistory By the Thirty Years War they had gone extinct due to the 9 years war and Queen Elizabeth's ban on using them. They would evolve into the Irish gunners in Pike and Shot formations. Good books would be "The World of The Galloglass" by Sean Duffy. "Galloglass 1250-1600: Gaelic Mercenary Warrior" by Fergus Cannan. "Colonial Ireland 1169-1369" by Robin Frame. "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the middle age:" K.W. Nicholls. "Richard II and the Irish Kings : "Darren McGettigan. and The Geraldine's and Medieval Ireland: Peter Crooks and Sean Duffy. And if you want some youtubers who are better at than me. Irish Medieval History and Clans and Dynasties would gladly help you.
Talking about the teams of Crossbow men and Pavise holder, I wonder if you could get some kind of medieval drill going on. I mean like having ranks of crossbowmen, who fire, then start reloading, and the one behind comes forward to fire. Have enough ranks so that the first rank has reloaded by the time it comes around to them again. Another alternative is to have one crossbowman, and 2-3 helpers who reload crossbows for him, so that he can keep up a steady stream of fire.
Crossbowmen were required to "shoot between ranks" we don't really knows what this mean tho, prob manovring and shooting between 2 group of friendly units Also what are you saying is not that useful because they did arch their fire a bit
At 4:43 you talk about pope urban banning the use of the crossbow in 1139. But by then he had been dead for 40 years. Just wanted to point that out. Great video!
Yup. Unfortunately there's weird little pockets of misinformation in these videos. Like the misconception that archers fired arrows up in an arc in volleys, which simply isn't true. The arrows/bolts would be useless shot that way.
It's an easy mistake to make, urban ii did actually ban crossbows in 1097, they were later banned again in 1139 by innocent ii. Source: crossbows and christians, by Vincent van der Veen. He mixed up the popes
My only thing with this video is that the pavise shield wasn’t introduced until the 14th century so the Genoese Crossbowmen would have been without this for at least half if not most of their history.
In my opinion and anecdotal experience. Being properly equipped. And whomever was in charge of training instilled a high sense of "warriorism" into these soldiers.
It's worth mentioning that while a crossbow has vastly higher draw weight in comparison to a longbow, it is also vastly less effective at actually delivering power to the projectile, that being caused by shorter draw length. The same effect is known from modern firearms where longer barrel accelerates a projectile more before it leaves it. So, it's important to note that crossbows were not necessarily some armor piercing unstoppable knght killing monster in comparison with bows. The advantage of a crossbow is that it's more accurate, easier to aim, one can hold it on target and wait for ideal opportunity to shoot (keeping a war bow drawn for extentended duration may be physically impossible, dependiong on the weight and your strength), and does not need extensive physical strength (war bows required up to years of regular training for one to be strong enough to draw them). You can also lean over battlements with crossbows, while using bows from them can be cumbersome at best. The main disadvantage of a crossbow is way lower rate of "fire" (not a historical term) and possibly cost (a steel-armed crossbow would be, I imagine, more expensive than most longbows). It's fairly clear that both brought different compromises and as such, were preferred by different armies and in different contexts. About the crossbow string argument... I find it incredibly silly. Rain HAPPENS. If it was able to disable your main weapon, wouldn't you have means of protecting it on you? Either the rain didn't affect the strings, or they had means of protecting them. Medieval people had less knowledge about the world, but they weren't impractical morons. What is well known is that whenever crossbowmen/bowmen have high ground, they have a massive advantage. They can shoot further, shoot over shields, and if they miss their target by overshooting, they stand chance of hitting the guy behind their target. Neither of that is the case when archers stand under their target.
No, crossbows were much more effective against armor, they did not melt it like butter but there is a reason why the papacy wanted to prohibit its use against christians. If you want to take down armored targets you need a crossbow
@@leonardoferrari4852 Modern testing proves you wrong, we're talking known physics re: joules of energy delivered using replicas fired in test conditions. But additionally, it depends greatly on the type of armor, thickness exactly where it was struck, angle of attack, head type of the quarrel, hardened steel jacketing of the head vs. not, and even whether the head was lubricated with beeswax. But all things being equal, a larger longbow with a lower draw weight firing a larger, heavier projectile than the smaller crossbow with incredible draw weight firing a smaller, lighter projectile produces similar results. The primary difference is the ease of training a crossbowman vs. a longbowman, so a king can put the same resources into his army and end up with way more combat-ready troops with crossbows than with longbows. The main tradeoff is a crossbow's lower rate of fire. Everything else is a minor effect that can go one way or the other. Consider even that fatigue per shot for the shooter is higher with a bow, meaning a bowman might fire faster but he's limited to fewer shots before he's knackered, which might happen long before the battle is over. Heck, even early man-portable guns were worse than a bow or crossbow.
@@googiegress where am I wrong? You wrote paraghraps about thing that are not relevant, it's obvious that in certain conditions the bow was better than a crossbow and vice versa. It's not the topic tho. Crossbows are more powerfull then bows, the whole point of a crossbow is to use a mechanism to fire a bow that could not be used traditionally
@@leonardoferrari4852 Then you didn't read. Crossbows do not penetrate armor significantly better than bows. Crossbows have a higher draw weight but also heavier arms to accelerate with that force, shorter draw distance to transfer that force to the bolt, and a lighter bolt to carry that force. That means the force in joules upon impact is not dissimilar. Other factors make up a more significant difference in penetrating power.
Were there any repercussions to the French actions against the Genoese in Crécy? To my surprise, the Genoese kept serving under French after that battle...
Genoese Luigi Giribetto (Louis Giribaut) invented rotating carriages to better maneuver culverins, really helping Jean Bureau in creating the poweful french artillery which won french war (despite the french vile massacre of genoese crossbowmen). France: "I never said thank you". Genoa: "And you'll never have to" (proceeds jumping into the void to defend Constantinople and discover America) 😎🏴
It was mentioned that the Genoese leaders there were not in good standing with their families at home. So I imagine they just said 'good riddance'. As for mercs coming in... well work is work.
Armour penetration isn't the thing, at least plate armour, vs chain and gambesons maybe. When shot, even biggest ones with pulleys are about as strong as warbows, most of the power goes to the steel bow of the system, not the shot, even if the power needed to pull it is a lot bigger than the warbow. Also the bolts are generally lighter than the arrows, so the momentum of the bolt vs the arrow were about the same when comparing the strongest ones. The "armour piercing" thing comes mostly from role playing games, and if a crossbow bolts are characterized armour piercing, so should the warbow arrows.
They probably still hit harder than most selfbows in use by armies tho. And at the time, plate armour was not really much of a thing until around the 14th century. Before that, it was mail and stuff.
> thousands of examples of crossbows piercing armor and shields Lmao, the youtube comments get dumber every year. Just look info about the Hussite War Wagons if you want to see hundreds of knights with the best late medieval plate armor getting pierced by crossbowmen.
knights, they're the meme of fighting a battle to lose the war. ignore commands, need a squad's upkeep, mutiny's and tantrum prone, insufferably pompous, and stupid. they're lucky they were in the same hierarchy as the guys writing to give them hype and downplay their losses.
I agree with all of that, and yet, when they were good, they were really good. I think of the Normans conquering Southern Italy with often sub 1000 knights in their armies, more like 200-300. Even going to far as to invade the Byzantine Empire. And knights in the Crusades made an outsized difference, in limited numbers. If they could act rationally and pragmatically, then they were a force multiplier that could decide battles on their own. IF... :D
Patay, Ascalon, Antioch, Cerami, Mohi, Kressenbrunn, and many other battles saw the devastating effects of a heavy shock charges by knights. It's rather ridiculous to say that the finest troops in medieval Europe and the closest thing they had to a professional soldier was somehow ineffective... these tactics were so common because of how successful they were.
The theory about rain-resistant crossbow strings assumes two things: A) all their strings were in ideal condition, B) the crossbowmen trained in the rain to compensate for the deviations caused by wet strings.
You couldn't have the Common Man piercing the armor of a Noble Knight. These Mercenaries were well drill and I think it would surprise us how efficient they were. But it shouldn't. The Human mind is a deadly weapon
Me: S…see your honor, I’ve always been into medieval stuff… Concerned Family Members: Uh huh Me: And, watching this AND hiring Genoese Crossbowmen to besiege our noisy neighbor is just a natural progression of my interest Concerned Family Members: what
In case people don't realize, it takes actual years to train a longbow user, a crossbow has a much more simply point and shoot mechanism which takes up some of the work the actual archer would do. You don't have to hold a drawn bowstring, your front arm or supporting arm can be stabilized such as resting the elbow along the top of a wall which helps increase accuracy. You have a much more direct flight which means less aiming vertically and more bolts on target since you have an easier time working out your drop and that also presents less time in the air for the arrows or bolts to be shifted off course. War bows are cool and have had some great success but let's not turn smooth brains here are start screaming how amazing a longbow is. It's not even the best of the war bows. What made the English longbow (not actually English) so useful was the fact that the English started cultural trends around how archery was a gentlemens sport which got more English men into practicing consistently with the longbow. Besides 3 to 6 months of training vs 2 years at minimum and you can see how good crossbows actually are as weapons. Though I suspect that maintaining them was probably a bit more stressful than a bow. I mean the catholics ban crossbows and so did a few kingdoms because 6 month trained crossbow men can kill a knight pretty easy and losing a knight who spent years of training to a farmer simply because of the weapon made many high ranking people worried.
this longbow needs training is a myth. An adult male can learn to shoot a bow reasonably well in just a few hours. Try it This goes for pretty much any other physical endeavor. You're saying it takes 6 months to train to use a crossbow? Are you out of your mind? Assuming you train 8 hours a day, in 6 months a person could learn to juggle 5+ objects, obtain brown-black belts in every martial art, learn to swim/rollerblade/iceskate/skate/ski/snowboard/etc, learn to play sports like snooker/ping pong/bowling at a proficient level, and after all of that still have ample time to do something else And yet you're saying that someone has to constantly load and shoot a crossbow 8 hours a day, for half a year, to learn to use it? You have very dim faith in humans' intellect. Unless someone has an IQ of less than 70, learning to shoot a crossbow or a bow should take a couple hours, and probably around 50 hours to become proficient and develop a subconscious muscle memory. Shooting half a year for 8 hours a day is for those who want to shoot with their feet in a circus and win the olympics
@@artyomarty391 and any idiot can point a rifle. It still takes a few years at most to learn about humidity and its affects on your shots, wind and its affects on your shots. Terrain because that could affect your shots. The basic idea can be trained in a few hours. Actual proficiency takes years. A crossbow would take month to hit a basic proficiency. That means smooth and timely reloading, consistent shots on target. Proper maintenance and understanding of your weapon platform. You are a meth addict if you think even half of that can be learned and turned into experience in a few hours.
@@artyomarty391 whoa I never said 6 hours a day, I stuck with England's time-line. Once a week typically a few hours a day at most. That's because you have muscle fatigue, some days you can't go shooting cause it's raining. Some days you actually have to do bow maintenance. The rest of the week was filled with sun up to sun down work. Stop mixing things we have days like a free 8 hours a day that we can train with, they never had that. Work and taking care of the home was an all day affair. Want to see what years of training looked like go look at the steppe horse Archers. You can see a clear difference between 1 years worth of training vs a lifetimes.
@@artyomarty391 BTW a longbow is a type of war bow which typically had a draw of over 90 pounds. That shit is hard to draw without training the muscles and drawing technique, in fact it's impossible without the right technique. It takes a long time to 1 get that technique down not a few hours, like months. You are talking using the bow for muscle training cause they did not have a gym where they could go train these muscles. Then learning the technique to draw and to learn to do that smoothly and learn how to release correctly and develop the smoothness to keep your arrows on target. Neither of which is needed for a crossbow. Major muscles groups are used to draw a crossbow and you don't need to practice how to release the bolt. You literally point and pull a release. You put in zero effort to actually think about the subject before you responded to me. Please for the love of God, at least do minimal research on the subject. Hell go learn how to shoot a war bow, that would make you realize how off you were or even go look up historians on TH-cam that have and examine war bows. Shadiversity is a wonderful channel that would help you gain more knowledge on the subject.
@@mattiOTX for the love of God please ask historians on the subject. Go watch some TH-cam videos. Get acquainted with the subject I used to be like you, believed this myth for 15 years, then went to an archery range and watched some historians on youtube
Get a 25% discount for CuriosityStream with code sandrhoman! It's just $14,99 for one year! curiositystream.com/SandRhoman
more merc videos pls
Just a tip. In Italian, Guglielmo is spelled with the first G hard, like "Gucci"
@@laonch6073 no, it's spelled Wilhelmo
Totally guessing here but maybe the English raiding so many towns made the French over eager to catch them and both the french knights and the genoese crossbowmen had left a lot of their equipment in the slow moving caravan, severely reducing their effectiveness against longbows and this was made even worse by commanders telling them to attack over and over anyway due to their numbers advantage and eventually the French army was spent.
COR not corpse, as in the French word for body.
Of course they were the most sought after. After all they have +5 bonus damage against cavalry, camels and elephants and +7 with the Elite upgrade.
Genoese Crossbowmen in loose formation 😭
Don't forget their ability to survive a single Mangonel shot with their relatively high HP for a ranged unit
Don’t forget about the tech that make carts cheaper, really useful
And combine them with cheaper bombards to cut through skirms. Also, ally them with Dravidians to get a wicked Condotierro with armor-piercing abilities.
@@andreivarbanov3528 "weak vs siege weapons"
yeah right
The most dedicated Rhodok cosplayers I've ever seen
Rhodok stands
Bro set up pavise or whatever that shield was and rain hellfire
Those firing lines were the only thing that stood a chance against the Khergits.
Grünwalder approves!
Wtf is rhodok
Man, this brings back memorys.
I so hated going against these guys in Medival II: Total War.
I still do hate it/them ! 😁😁. Playing Tsardoms Total War and they're still a pain in mods.
yeah nothig changed. so difficult
Same as always. Better chose the right side
I prefer to use cavalry heavy factions- always run them down with lighter and quicker horses, attacking from behind- even during sieges- works like a charm
As Poland- i had many "historical" victories against Denmark, Milan and Venice especially- because i could run them down having 300- 400 men against their 1200 or something like that
Polish Nobles rule as unit against those
I was much more scared of the peasant crossbowmen from the moors
Thanks for providing a proper describtion of the battle of Crécy. People tend to cite it as ultimate proof that english longbowmen were superior to crossbowmen, ignoring the fact that in this battle the crossbowmen were basically rendered useless by incompetent leadership forcing them to engage an enemy who had a superior position without their proper equipment. The genoese crossbowmen at their worst got beaten by english longbowmen at their best, which doesn't say all that much.
I take it you are not English then?
Well the English longbowmen were exhausted and sick from their campaign weren't they ?
th-cam.com/video/0f8E3LAxY0o/w-d-xo.html
I hardly think anyone on the English side was "at their best" that day. From what I've read the disenteary epidemic that was raging through the English army played a role in their decision to make a stand against a numerically superior army with a massive cavalry advantage. Cavalry which was the most formidable in the world at the time and made the idea of fighting them a daunting undertaking best avoided if you had other options. I'm guessing a Lance through the chest might be preferable to shitting yourself to death.
@@samdumaquis2033 The crossbowmen as well just finished marching haven't they? I would rather be tired than non-armoured and out of positioned
Using crossbow and shield might not look like a huge leap of logic in hindsight, but back in the day it was so groundbreaking that regular infantry might as well fought Elites with energy shielding.
Sad plasma noises 🤭🤭
Comparing a halo game to real life. Logic
@@xxae-chaaxx3445 It's an analogy, not a comparison.
Wort wort wort
That was subtle.
I knew crossbows where placed on the ground to reload, but I never realised they used a hook for it. Holy cow that's genius, using your hands you're still limited by the muscles in your forearm that need to grip the string, but with the hook you can use the full force of our body's strongest muscles in our upper legs.
i have seen similar methods to really tighten a knot, but this is really stupid simple and stupid effective. If only gunpowder hadn't been developed crossbows would probably have dominated wars to this day
Longbows were also more effective per say, but crossbows were easier to use, and thats why they were a more efficient weapon as a whole
@@bambostarla6259the issue with bows is that bows require a lifetime of training, and losing even one archer was a lose of multiple years of training
@@Chadius_ThundercockI remember an account where a British guy got a crossbow, kidnapped a woman, shot her dad with the crossbow, went off to the woods, and then got hunted and killed. The chronicler left a whole, "kids these days have no values" thing.
An interesting thing about the Genova's "contract culture". Contracts were everything and ruled every working Activity in Genova, and were of 2 tipes. With, or without, the "mugugno" wich Is a genovese Word translated as "complaining, in a annoing way, that NEVER stop". So how It works: you can be offered the contract with the mugugno, lover pay BUT the ability to complain about... Everything you was ordered to do, or without the mugugno: pay was Better but you cannot complain about anything. Now, people from Liguria and Genova expecially are famous for theyr greedynes, so the contracts were almost exclusivly with the mugugno, and still are today :)
Belin, fré una pillola così bella mi ha tolto la voglia di mugugnare per almeno cinque minuti
haha
As a portuguese I say give me mugugno or give me death.
I worked somewhere for the lowest possible pay whilst there whole business depending on you giving customers a good happy experience/interaction, and you weren't allowed to complain despite the awful working conditions whilst they profited £700,000 a week.
@@paradoxicalpanda7954 Can you think of any red flags there might have been, in hindsight?
The Grimaldi and Doria families still hold a great deal of importance to this day here. Why, I can just now peer out of the window and see a giant cruise ship with the name "Grimaldi" painted on it. xD
Well, the Grimaldi are still the ruling house of the Principality of Monaco
@@bernardodagostino8049 Those are an offshoot of the Genoese family
I didn't know they were the same Grimaldi
The discussion of Genoa, and by extension the Genoese Crossbowman is really fascinating, especially compared to the much more researched history of Venice for example
As a Genoese, I deeply appreciate your comment. People thinks only to Florence and Venice with respect to Medieval and Renaissance Italy, but the city of Embriaco (who made first Crusade "successful"), Columbus, Andrea Doria, Mazzini (father of "Young Italy" and "Young Europe"), Mameli (writing the anthem), Novaro (giving music to anthem), the land of Bonaparte and Garibaldi families is not exactly a side note of History. Of course we have pride but we are still self-critical with Crimes commited in wars, values luckily have changed for the better, but our city was really the Republican (and Socialist) hearth of unified Italy 🏴😎🇮🇹
I like to play as Genoa in Medieval 2 Total war in a mod Stainless Steel 6.4, because they have 1 sneaky city in a Crimea, merchant Italian faction with great possibility for diplomacy and trade.
7:00 - That might explain why crossbows weren't mixed in with pikes very early in history. The pavisse carriers already had their own long spears? That would make it a sort of mixed formation of 50/50 crossbow/spears already.
Ah yes; that was a question that I was asking for a long time, many theories but little to no real explanation of the reason of not incorporating crossbows abd spears. But you had archer with infantry already i guess it is similar.
the crossbows were first used to defend from static protected positions like walls and ships so they werent threatened by kngihts. the pavise were mainly vs enemy projectile fire they werent really spears that would threaten armoured knights. But the Crossbowbolts already did that so they werent sitting ducks like normal archers.
So they were basically hybrid builds in Battle Brothers.
Crece was a battle where the Noble Knights managed to "Snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory".
Had they just waited for the gear and infantry to catch up - as well as the ground to dry - they could probably have defeated that position. Other examples include the "Battle of the Golden Spurs". And I think there was a similar one during a northern crusade?
But one has to balance it against all the times quick charges by knights won battles. Like the destruction of the Mongol vanguard during the Battle of Mohi, or when Barbarossa's army charged itself out of an encirclement, or the impromptu charge during Richard the Lionheart's march along the coast. This channel even brought up an example where James the Conqueror tried to have his veteran infantry charge a castle-breach, defended by a phalanx-like formation, and after the veteran infantry refused to attack, the mounted knights instead advanced and won against the phalanx-like formation after several charges. Let's remember that one of the most numerically impressive victories in history was with an exhausted knight-based army charging a militia-based army about 6 - 60 times its own size, during the Battle of Monte Porzio (all though during that battle, it was not a simple single charge, but a lot of well-disciplined timing related to several charges, with skillful maneuvering on a larger force).
All those battles in which knights charged prematurely stemmed from all the times the knights charged and instead won. There was a reason that the tactic of aggressive charges was so common, because it often worked. If one looks only at the exceptions however, one will get a very skewed view.
@@Osvath97
Of all the languages you speak facts
Also the english used knights too
@@vinz4066 You are correct, in those famous English defensive battles where the French charged prematurely, the English were commanded by knights, and the frontline fighting was done by the dismounted English knights to a disproportionately large degree (well, "man-at-arms" is the technical military terminology of the time, but in this context it mostly means armed men from the noble knightly class, even though most of them were technically squires in this period). So to suggest, as some people seem to, that they were some kind of "battles between the classes" is quite frankly ridiculous. Both sides were controlled by knights. Even during the Battle of the Golden Spurs, which is even more commonly depicted as a battle between the classes, 4 of the 6 Flemish commanders were still knights.
The Battle of Patay is an excellent example of what a quick mounted charge can do to effectively deal with longbowmen. A force of 5000 English longbowmen managed to reveal their position to French scouts, by raising a hunting cry at a wandering stag... 180 French knights charged down 500 longbowmen, they were then joined by 1300 additional knights, and they inflicted about 2500 casualties on the English longbowmen, with only about 100 suffered on their own side.
But how often does anyone hear about the Battle of Patay...?
Nikopolis 1396 - another example of "French knights charge without thinking and lose".
@@wojtek1582 With both Hungarian knights and experienced ones of the French knights recommending them not to, but they were overshadowed by two young hotheaded French knights, who were advisers to the French commander.
It was not a case of knights just seeing red and charging, it was an actual decision made by a few inexperienced poor commanders, with other commanders, also knights, trying to convince them not to.
2:22 I suspect that they formed specifically to meet the requirements of the Genoese Naval wars against the saracen pirates. The crossbow is the preffered method in Italy due to the high number of sieges, and was particularly preferabble in Naval Battles, which the Sea repubblics fought a LOT, since accuracy and strength and more importantly timing were more crucial than speed or quantity in that enviroment.
2:53 The funny thing is that Genoese came to be known as a catch all term for Italian Mercenary outside of italy. So if you met a mercenary of Italian origin in germany for example, he'd be called a genoese even if he never even seen the sea. Similarly "Lombard" was the catch all term for Italian merchants outside of italy, even though a lot came from genoa and tuscany and not necessarily lombardy. (This is similar how the term viking was a catch all term for scandinavians pillaging europe, regardless if the were swedes, norwegians or danes).
4:36 whilst it is true to some extent that Longbows required training to be used (One needed to build up special muscles to use the longbow properly), It is a bit of a misnomer to say that the crossbow required little training. Sure for the average militia maybe an hour or two could have sufficed. But that could also have sufficed to get a "good enough" result also for regular bowmen. It's like comparing conscripts to professional soldiers in modern armies since they both use guns. Reload speed, accuracy, battle effectiveness increased with skill and time.
10:43 it is unfortunate that this is their most famous battle. It makes sense since this battle is known in the Anglosphere because it involved the english. But if you asked a Genoese, they might say that the battles of Curzola and Meloria at 7:28 were far more indicative (especially Curzola) and the various sieges of the Fondachi (Merchant quarters) all over the mediterranean show them off in a better light. Like the famous siege of Kaffa where the Genoese beat the Mongols during the siege (later plague not withstanding). In fact the mongols used the Genoese themselves against the Russians at Kulikovo Field.
I always play the "what if" on how to defeat the Mongols and such types are armies. And Genoese Crossbowmen definitely play a big part, as well as armored knights.
Also, you could make a good combined arms army out of mercenaries, if you got Swiss Pikemen, Genoese Crossbowmen, and German Black Riders. :D
You really think 2 hours is enough to get a "good enough" archer?
@@kurokami007 Yes. For a mass volley it is enough.
You can't get an archer in 2 hours, show me an average man that can shoot a 120lb+ bow, let alone do it well!
@@jake4194 That's why I said regular bow and not longbow. Most armies used a regular or composite bows, not longbows.
*Genoese crossbowmen* : take some steps back
*French knights* : « And I took that personally »
Genoese Luigi Giribetto (Louis Giribaut) invented rotating carriages to better maneuver culverins, really helping Jean Bureau in creating the poweful french artillery which won french war (despite the french vile massacre of genoese crossbowmen).
France: "I never said thank you".
Genoa: "And you'll never have to" (proceeds jumping into the void to defend Constantinople and discover America) 😎🏴
Btw, "corps" is pronounced the same as "core."
It's a French word and my general rule for French origin words is just not to say the last sound as it's spelled. It's usually correct 95% of the time.
I think your rule is correct, there´s just very few exceptions to that, and your eyeballed 95% is set moderatety low, to my opinion.
Stop giving out the secrets, english isnt meant to make sense - thats the joke.
Agreed. In English, a group of soldiers is referred to as a corps, pronounced "core" after the French pronounciation. The word corpse refers to a dead body.
I shudder every time he says "corpse" it's fucken jarring.
I wonder how he pronounces colonel. 😄
Yeah, and in the Hussite armies crossbows caused most ranged damage, with firearms responsible for sowing confusion and visible gruesome carnage. Jan Zizka knew his people and weapons well and used them to their best advantage, which is sign of competent commander
When I saw the picture of a man with a crossbow and a large shield (paveza), I also remembered the Hussites.
This series is great for inspiring groups to use in D&D-campaigns
Exactly: genoese pavise crossbowman with crossbow expert and sharpshooter are one of best ways to play warrior.
Just imagine:
BBEG: "What's your powers"
Mage: "I cast spell"
Druid: "Nature power"
Cleric: "I am perfect healer"
You: "I AM GENOESE MOTHAFAKKA" (starts placing tower shield for +2AC and blasting everything with hand crossbow) 😂
@@emanuelefiorentino8831 In the typical small engagements with few combatants, seen in D&D outside of mass combat scenarios, anyone behind cover is quickly outflanked. An enemy who has the ability to ignore your pavise or fire through your arrow slit from a great range is also a problem (although I'd argue that's more an issue with abilities like that being overpowered and irrational).
On a D&D mass combat battlefield, ranged attacks are super useful, especially in post-2000 D&D editions where movement rate is so slow per attack. The archers or crossbowmen can make MANY shots against an advancing army. Also, the less-decisive effect of all kinds of missiles against body armor is ignored in 2e onward. That said, the offensive caster with area-effect magic which acts as artillery that can kill blocks of enemy soldiers will make a significant difference. Although I'd argue that someone using Animate Dead can have a greater impact on each battle, on every war, and in maximizing the domestic economy between wars. But for the resources needed to field a single 10th level caster, how many crossbowmen can you field instead? It's actually probably a better damage output to use masses of troops.
Regardless, the hunkered-down crossbowman is a virtually non-issue in man-to-man fighting in D&D where the game's rules are written to produce results with verisimilitude. If you're all playing a bunch of Marvel Avengers, anything goes, and it could just as easily be the cheese-addicted Tabaxi shithead who is the decisive factor. In a pointless game like that it's basically just Cops n' Robbers with dice, and the children are welcome to have their fun.
Ah finally Genoesse crossobowman. Despite their title i'm pretty sure they also serve as infantry due to their heavy armor. Will watch this eagerly.
Roman Seige Ballista huge with a draw weight of 4000-4500lbs. Steel Prod Windlass crossbows could have draw weights up to 4900lbs but only put 1250lb draw weights to increase reload or spanning speed as it was overkill. Steel was cheap enough for wealthy peasants of Geonese to finally afford them in the 13th century medieval era.
It's always a good thing to see a new SandRhoman upload in my feed. Without a doubt your's is one of the best researched and presented history channels on youtube.
This was fascinating. I became acquainted with Genoese crossbowmen recently in reading Iris Origo's "The Merchant of Prato," a biography of Francesco Di Marco Datini, 1335-1410 (published in New York by Knopf, 1957). Datini had a very long career as a merchandiser of various goods, first from Avignon, then from his home in Prato, and finally from Florence. Depending upon the destination, goods went either overland or by sea - and if by sea, there are frequent references to Genoese crossbowmen as protection on the ships, with the note that these warriors were highly regarded - and generally feared. Thanks so much for providing the background.
@Turaglas I don't remember if the Genoese required it or not, but if Datini shipped by sea, he usually used Genoa, so possibly that was a requirement of the Republic.
@Turaglas And Origo reports Datini as writing that he hired Genoese crossbowmen.
VC😊 pp
Excellent video. One small note though. Corps is pronounced as "core" not "coreps". It is French so there are silent letters!
He's been doing it for years - I doubt he'll stop anytime soon.
The French are gay
Who tf cares
@@absyahwa7698 Damien Paroski does
@@absyahwa7698
I enjoyed the academic and kind response that you gave. It is a testament to your upbringing and social status! I am sure your response will become a hallmark of intellectual acumen.
“We believe in crossbows in this household!”
@Turaglas “Only polearms and crossbows are believed under my roof!”
1:52 Origins
5:12 Mechanism & battle strategies
8:11 Battles
10:27 Battle of Crecy (1346)
Oh don't get me started on those bloody Genoese crossbowmen 😁😁 !!! Since vanilla Medieval 2 Total War through literally every mod they're a pain to deal with. Great killing power against nearly every unit and pretty tough in melee too.
Roman Seige Ballista huge with a draw weight of 4000-4500lbs. Steel Prod Windlass crossbows could have draw weights up to 4900lbs but only put 1250lb draw weights to increase reload or spanning speed as it was overkill. Steel was cheap enough for wealthy peasants of Geonese to finally afford them in the 13th century medieval era.
@@carlosvalle612 important to know that draw weight means little if you don't know the length of the bow. A wide crossbow with less draw weight could send a bolt further and harder than a tiny bow with an insane draw weight. :)
@Turaglas There are limits to usefulness with wide bows, though if you have a pavise to put the mini ballista on, it could work, but there is probably a reason why people did what they did, there often is.
Me chasing them down with Mailed Knights
psssht nuthing personnel
once again a very good video. good info, good presentation, good research, and most importantly: a good example how history should be presented on TH-cam.
I never knew about Genoese crossbowmen before! That is awesome :D Thank you for sharing this. I'm gonna have to do some research now
It surprises me how often medieval battles were lost because the French knights were too overconfident and charged before everyone was ready.
Off the top of my head I believe I can think of three times including this one.
Virgin longbowmen hiding behind pallisades VS Chad mounted knight charging into certain death because it looks cool.
It also happened at the Battle of Halmyros, the Duke of Athens, Walter of Brienne (by birth, culture and arrogance very much a french nobleman) and most of his mounted knights were slaughtered when they recklessly charged against the defensive position set-up by the mercenaries of the Catalan Company, in hindsight it would had been cheaper to Walter to actually pay his mercenaries instead of trying to expel them by force of his dominions.
This reply is a year late, but a factor in history for early engagement was the battle rewards. The nobles and crossbowmen were expensive, and a leader could pay them with recovered equipment from the fallen foes instead of with his personal funding. So if they had routed the English, it would have paid the dies for his most expensive units possibly for years.
I think it's also pretty important that, just like the Greco-Persian wars, there are bias on which battles got popular.
Both French and Persia win quite a lot of battles, and battles like Agincourt and Marathon are more of the exception.
Wow this is good timing I've been watching loads that involved the Geonese crossbow men, and here's a new video to describe exactly who they were, thanks.
Hello from Genoa!
Yesterday I was searching infromation about pavise and discovered Genoese crossbowmen so it's perfect timing
Try playing Medieval 2 Total War and you can control 1000's of them on a battlefield !
"The Pope has banned Crossbows against Christians!"
"The Pope? How many divisions does he have?"
Obvious joke is obvious but fitting.
”The Pope: Many”🤌🇻🇦
In this time period...he had plenty of real world pull. Not so much in 1945
The church is one of many Italian landowners.
something something Total War
something something pronounced "core"
something something love your videos, please make more!
The military has always been a way for the lower classes to improve their standing. From crossbow men, roman legionaries, and even today in the American military. I myself joined to do just that
today? how, if you in the military you will barely become an important person like a politician?
@@gabrielvanhauten4169 you can make a lot of money if you move up in the army. In addition to making connections and getting spacial benefits as a veteran.
@@kjsdpgijn It’s all about the benefits rather than pay. I understand that if you are a veteran of the US armed forces you get good pension, health insurance (I could be wrong about this one), several years of free college tuition paid and discounts in supermarkets and restaurants.
Did you become Genoese crossbowman?
@@rivopoiss1 negative I fled to northern Africa and joined the nubian calvary guard. There I served pasha Muhammed until he betrayed me and I started a armed rebellion against tyranny
The palio is a crossbow contest still in place in most of Liguria and Toscana.
In the Comunal time The palio where you best chance to show to a recruiter from Genova u had skin for the job.
As an archer i can tell you that bowstring wax defeats rain handily. No doubt these people had access to beeswax and coated their string liberally. Also, even thought composite bows were naturally more sensitive to weather again, they were usually covered with a linen cover infused with wax to protect them. Obviously the prod of the crossbow became less of a variable whe the switch to steel was made.
- Genoese fall back from an inferior position at a heavy disadvantage -
French Knights - "so anyway I started chopping...."
Great production, man. I love your narrating and body of work, keep up the effort.
I frequently see people claiming that crossbowmen were superior to longbowmen, or that longbowmen were superior to crossbowmen. The simple fact is that which is "better" depends entirely on the battlefield conditions and the overall composition and leadership of the armies involved. In some circumstances longbowmen are clearly more effective than crossbowmen, and in some circumstances crossbowmen are clearly more effective than longbowmen. Anyone who tells you differently is an idiot who has no idea what they're talking about.
You cannot Say "It depends by leadership" you don't evaluate a unit by the leadership 😂 you have to think about pros and cons of the weapon and the unit itself
Also, there are a tons of metrics. A unit/weapon can be great in battle but bad in war (costly, long training, difficult to use) so it is hard to make meaningful comparisons. Some "legendary" units stand out, but to judge what was better between them is, in my view, unnecessary
I tend to think that Longbows were more versatile Battlefield weapons (main advantage probably being rate of fire and range) - but required a lot more investment and training (pretty much a lifetime) for the Archer. Crossbows on the other hand, you could train troops to use them pretty competently (not necessarily master) in weeks, but you would be able to get get a pretty effective Crossbow unit in a pretty short amount of time.
However, where I think the Crossbow would be superior to the Longbow would be in Siege Warfare (which tended to be log and drawn out in comparison to field battles) due to the nature of being able to have a Crossbow in a 'ready' position pretty much indefinitely and ready to fire at any time a suitable opportunity appears because the mechanism takes all the strain at this point - Whereas a Longbow can't do that because the man takes all the strain and no-one is strong enough to hold the Longbow in that 'ready' position for any reasonable length of time (despite what films may show) :)
@@alessandromazzini7026 if an army's leadership is very familiar with the capabilities and shortcomings of crossbowmen, but not very familiar with the capabilities of longbowmen, then crossbowmen are a better choice because the leaders will be more able to use them effectively (and vice versa). Conversely, if the enemy army's leaders have never faced longbowmen and are unaware of their effective maximum range or rate of fire, but are very familiar with the range and rate of fire of crossbowmen, then longbowmen would be more effective against them. Context matters, and familiarity with specific weapons by commanders is part of that context. A weapon that is novel to the enemy leaders will be more effective than one that is not, because they will be less familiar with the best ways to counter it. That's part of the pros and cons of the weapons.
The difference is the soldier. The yeoman trained on the bow since childhood and thus had big beefy arms that could pull back big bows. But if you're a nation that doesn't have a militia culture and furthermore are hiring mercenaries for contracts that are a couple years, you don't have time to train them on a war bow. So you have to give them a machine that will draw the bow back for them - aka a crossbow.
In our modern world we like to focus on weapons. But back then the man was far more important than the tool.
I love your channel !
Very informative without boring or confusing most people.
They were present in Siege of Constantinople by Mehmed II I belive and fought incredibly well!
The Byzantines and Genoese where allied for years they both shared a hatred of Venice.
@@hoponpop3330 lol
"Some who are dressed like Robin Hood and his merry men,🚹 fought alongside, Voivode, 🦇 Vlad tepes 3, 🧛♂️ Dracula the impaler,🐲 against the Muslim 🕌 Ottoman ☪ Turkish,🇹🇷 army 🙋 of the Sultan Mehmed the 2nd, during the 1462 night, 🌃 attack." "In order to protect Vlad tepes dracula the impaler's 🧛♂️ home 🏡 land of wallachia, Romania 🇷🇴 from the Muslim 🕌 Ottoman ☪ Turkish 🇹🇷 soldiers led by the Sultan Mehmed the 2nd, born in Ottoman, ☪ Turkey, 🇹🇷 in 1432 and died in 1481."
The Persian Achemanids were some of the first professional army to use organized large shield bearing soldiers in combination with rows of archers behind them . The large shields provided cover while rows of archers switched continually to fire their arrows towards enemy lines
Nice, also do you guys plan to cover sling weapons and their famous wealders any time soon. Since it's really underapreatiated weapon....
Balearic slingers anyone... 🤔
not anytime soon, I think. Invicta has done a video on the Balearic slingers (ancient Rome).
Maybe rodian slingers
Pope Urban II literally went “OMG crossbows OP plz nerf!”
At 8:28 you said Mamluks. However, In 1099 Jerusalem was governed by the Fatimi, they just conquered the city a few years ago. Maybe you want to use it instead of Slave soldier but The area of the Levant was mostly under the hegemony of Seljuks and Seljuks was not use Mamluks. They have their own soldier which called Gulam(slave soldier).
No the seljucks used mamluks, Zanki for instance was assadsinated by some of his mamluks.
Mamluks and ghulams are tge same thing.
Donald Sydney Richards stated tha: "Mamluke also translates ghulam, the term with the same significance, used more frequently in the eastern islamic world".
Those suckers saved a lot of my medieval 2 campaigns.
I low my hat for the genoese crossbowmen,but i think you should also make a video on the Venicians Marines that conquers Constantinople end were the first to have some squads of knight that charge directly from the ship,thanks to special navy project.thanks to this forces Venice conquer all the Dalmatian coast city, a lot of Grece s islands,Cyprus and a big part of black sea s land!!!!!
Loving these videos!
Me too ! Especially as many of these historical units show up in the Total War series of games which i play all the time.
Possibly my favorite unique unit in Age of Empires II 😁
Unless you were fighting them.
The crossbow allowed Western European armies to fend off what would've been a certain collection of Steppe civilizations taking over the entire Eurasian landmass. A technology that changed history.
Your proof of this assertion?
What a coincidence, I just closed Medieval 2 playing Milan campaign, those guys wreck everything
One thing to note is that the stirrup did not start to appear on crossbows until the early-mid 13th century, same with belt hooks.
Genoese Crossbowmen: To victory of death! For the Republic!
Pe Zena e pe San Zòrzo!
@@rezzoc91 What?
@@lerneanlion it's a motto in zeneize
@@brainyskeletonofdoom7824 You mean in the Republic of Genoa?
@@lerneanlion no, the zeneize language, used in Genoa
8:27 Small correction, they would be fighting the Fatimids during the First Crusades. The Mamluks wouldn't emerge into history until the 13th century, after they overthrew the Ayyubids, who in turn got rid of the Fatimids.
Other than that, superb video as always.
Do not get confused! The fatamids used Mameluks as soldiers.
The use of these "slave-soldiers" was a stable of most muslim rulers.
Going against these dudes in MII:TW when they had the high ground was an absolute PITA.
Pepperidge Farm remembers...
Excellent dissertation
Actually, considering we know precisely that 1,542 French knights were killed at Crécy, that the Genoese crossbowmen probably numbered around 2,000, certainly not more than 4,000, and that the French infantry didn't take part in the battle, it is obviously completely impossible that the French suffered more casualties than these numbers added, let alone "15,000 casualties", which is the estimate of a pro-English contemporary source, and not at all the one of most historians.
And Clifford Rogers is strange because he claims the English were 15,000 and the French at least twice and maybe thrice larger, which would make between 30,000 and 45,000, which is highly unlikely.
Are you the same La Hire on reddit?
@@andreascovano7742
Yes it's me lol
@@lahire4943 So how is your epic struggle with De Ruyter going?
One will tend to come across a certain 'fetishism' among Anglophone historians concerning Crécy and Agincourt.
These battles bear an almost totemistic importance in the discourse and otherwise clear-headed historians are liable play fast and loose with the figures (as you have demonstrated concerning Rogers) and wider implications.
The battles' importance in the emergence of a sense of English national identity and the neatly packaged contrast between 'the flower of French nobility' and 'sturdy Englishy yeomen' endlessly embellished and retold in combination with the 'cult' of the longbow is an industry at this point :)
@@andreascovano7742 I'm afraid he has had to abandon in front of the truth xd
This was unexpected yet very interesting
Seeing this wonderful video makes me very proud about carrying brave Ligurian blood in my veins. Scignorîa!
love the study of the Genoese of this time
Good job. Enjoyed it. Thank you.
A famous unit...and a fantastic video, beautiful illustrations, maps and most interesting write up!👍👍😍😍😍
Great video, very intresting topic and nice illustrations.
There's 2 kinds of people in the comments section.
The men of culture referencing AOE2
and the gigachads referencing Total War
Great video as always. I though thte St. George's cross was an English thing. Obviously another Sought-After Mercenaries you should do is the Gallowglass. If you need research material I have quite a few sources.
hey, the St. George's cross was used by many many cities, leagues, states. Its origins go back to the cursades. Let me know any good sources on the Gallowglass. We looked into scottish mercs in the context of the thirty years war. There is plenty to talk about but we have not really started to gather literature on the topic.
Saint George was a Turk serving in the Roman legions who allegedly slew a "dragon" in Palestine. Most likely a salt water crocodile, but whatever. Richard the Lionheart heard of this during the crusades and appropriated George as an English Saint, however many others did the same and George probably lived and died with ever knowing Britain existed.
@@montycasper4300 He wasn't a a Turk, they had not arrived yet, most likely a Greek speaking Anatolian or Syrian.
@@SandRhomanHistory By the Thirty Years War they had gone extinct due to the 9 years war and Queen Elizabeth's ban on using them. They would evolve into the Irish gunners in Pike and Shot formations.
Good books would be "The World of The Galloglass" by Sean Duffy. "Galloglass 1250-1600: Gaelic Mercenary Warrior" by Fergus Cannan. "Colonial Ireland 1169-1369" by Robin Frame. "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the middle age:" K.W. Nicholls. "Richard II and the Irish Kings : "Darren McGettigan. and The Geraldine's and Medieval Ireland: Peter Crooks and Sean Duffy.
And if you want some youtubers who are better at than me. Irish Medieval History and Clans and Dynasties would gladly help you.
@@montycasper4300 That's probably true. England was not known for using local English sources. How many lions are native to the British Isles?
Loving your videos! Thanks so much for your work
Another excellent video, informative and entertaining
Excellent video sir
This vid came up on my recommended glad it did have subbed and pressed the bell hello from Scotland
Talking about the teams of Crossbow men and Pavise holder, I wonder if you could get some kind of medieval drill going on.
I mean like having ranks of crossbowmen, who fire, then start reloading, and the one behind comes forward to fire. Have enough ranks so that the first rank has reloaded by the time it comes around to them again.
Another alternative is to have one crossbowman, and 2-3 helpers who reload crossbows for him, so that he can keep up a steady stream of fire.
I think most of the times were the shildbarer, the shooter and the charger, so you Need only 1 skilled men (the shooter) and have a High rate of fire
Crossbowmen were required to "shoot between ranks" we don't really knows what this mean tho, prob manovring and shooting between 2 group of friendly units
Also what are you saying is not that useful because they did arch their fire a bit
Another great one!
At 4:43 you talk about pope urban banning the use of the crossbow in 1139. But by then he had been dead for 40 years. Just wanted to point that out. Great video!
Yup. Unfortunately there's weird little pockets of misinformation in these videos. Like the misconception that archers fired arrows up in an arc in volleys, which simply isn't true. The arrows/bolts would be useless shot that way.
It's an easy mistake to make, urban ii did actually ban crossbows in 1097, they were later banned again in 1139 by innocent ii.
Source: crossbows and christians, by Vincent van der Veen.
He mixed up the popes
One of my favourite units for a medieval total war campaign playing as Venice 👌
My only thing with this video is that the pavise shield wasn’t introduced until the 14th century so the Genoese Crossbowmen would have been without this for at least half if not most of their history.
It could be inferred that long shields were used, having other styles and/or names. But this is a good point.
Nicely done video
The fact that these were only 100 florins upkeep in Med II was completely broken. You could melt entire ranks of knights for pennies on the dollar.
Now I know who to have help me slide on the opps, thanks man!
Great video, very interesting. Only unpleasant aspect was the butchering of all Italian names :D
I wonder why no one thought at a "pike and crossbow" square formation back in the day.
Prototype tercio
In my opinion and anecdotal experience. Being properly equipped. And whomever was in charge of training instilled a high sense of "warriorism" into these soldiers.
Great video!
You say Urban II prohibited the use of crossbows in 1193, but Urban II died in 1099. Can you explain this?
Love the artwork!
It's worth mentioning that while a crossbow has vastly higher draw weight in comparison to a longbow, it is also vastly less effective at actually delivering power to the projectile, that being caused by shorter draw length. The same effect is known from modern firearms where longer barrel accelerates a projectile more before it leaves it. So, it's important to note that crossbows were not necessarily some armor piercing unstoppable knght killing monster in comparison with bows. The advantage of a crossbow is that it's more accurate, easier to aim, one can hold it on target and wait for ideal opportunity to shoot (keeping a war bow drawn for extentended duration may be physically impossible, dependiong on the weight and your strength), and does not need extensive physical strength (war bows required up to years of regular training for one to be strong enough to draw them). You can also lean over battlements with crossbows, while using bows from them can be cumbersome at best. The main disadvantage of a crossbow is way lower rate of "fire" (not a historical term) and possibly cost (a steel-armed crossbow would be, I imagine, more expensive than most longbows). It's fairly clear that both brought different compromises and as such, were preferred by different armies and in different contexts.
About the crossbow string argument... I find it incredibly silly. Rain HAPPENS. If it was able to disable your main weapon, wouldn't you have means of protecting it on you? Either the rain didn't affect the strings, or they had means of protecting them. Medieval people had less knowledge about the world, but they weren't impractical morons. What is well known is that whenever crossbowmen/bowmen have high ground, they have a massive advantage. They can shoot further, shoot over shields, and if they miss their target by overshooting, they stand chance of hitting the guy behind their target. Neither of that is the case when archers stand under their target.
Good points. High ground is always preferable. Not just for archers
No, crossbows were much more effective against armor, they did not melt it like butter but there is a reason why the papacy wanted to prohibit its use against christians.
If you want to take down armored targets you need a crossbow
@@leonardoferrari4852 Modern testing proves you wrong, we're talking known physics re: joules of energy delivered using replicas fired in test conditions. But additionally, it depends greatly on the type of armor, thickness exactly where it was struck, angle of attack, head type of the quarrel, hardened steel jacketing of the head vs. not, and even whether the head was lubricated with beeswax. But all things being equal, a larger longbow with a lower draw weight firing a larger, heavier projectile than the smaller crossbow with incredible draw weight firing a smaller, lighter projectile produces similar results.
The primary difference is the ease of training a crossbowman vs. a longbowman, so a king can put the same resources into his army and end up with way more combat-ready troops with crossbows than with longbows. The main tradeoff is a crossbow's lower rate of fire.
Everything else is a minor effect that can go one way or the other. Consider even that fatigue per shot for the shooter is higher with a bow, meaning a bowman might fire faster but he's limited to fewer shots before he's knackered, which might happen long before the battle is over.
Heck, even early man-portable guns were worse than a bow or crossbow.
@@googiegress where am I wrong? You wrote paraghraps about thing that are not relevant, it's obvious that in certain conditions the bow was better than a crossbow and vice versa.
It's not the topic tho.
Crossbows are more powerfull then bows, the whole point of a crossbow is to use a mechanism to fire a bow that could not be used traditionally
@@leonardoferrari4852 Then you didn't read. Crossbows do not penetrate armor significantly better than bows.
Crossbows have a higher draw weight but also heavier arms to accelerate with that force, shorter draw distance to transfer that force to the bolt, and a lighter bolt to carry that force.
That means the force in joules upon impact is not dissimilar.
Other factors make up a more significant difference in penetrating power.
Were there any repercussions to the French actions against the Genoese in Crécy? To my surprise, the Genoese kept serving under French after that battle...
They were mercenaries. It's a tough job, for exactly such reasons.
Genoese Luigi Giribetto (Louis Giribaut) invented rotating carriages to better maneuver culverins, really helping Jean Bureau in creating the poweful french artillery which won french war (despite the french vile massacre of genoese crossbowmen).
France: "I never said thank you".
Genoa: "And you'll never have to" (proceeds jumping into the void to defend Constantinople and discover America) 😎🏴
It was mentioned that the Genoese leaders there were not in good standing with their families at home. So I imagine they just said 'good riddance'.
As for mercs coming in... well work is work.
No one mentions the effing cannons lol
Armour penetration isn't the thing, at least plate armour, vs chain and gambesons maybe. When shot, even biggest ones with pulleys are about as strong as warbows, most of the power goes to the steel bow of the system, not the shot, even if the power needed to pull it is a lot bigger than the warbow. Also the bolts are generally lighter than the arrows, so the momentum of the bolt vs the arrow were about the same when comparing the strongest ones. The "armour piercing" thing comes mostly from role playing games, and if a crossbow bolts are characterized armour piercing, so should the warbow arrows.
The short limbs of crossbow limit the acceleration given to the bolt
They probably still hit harder than most selfbows in use by armies tho. And at the time, plate armour was not really much of a thing until around the 14th century. Before that, it was mail and stuff.
> thousands of examples of crossbows piercing armor and shields
Lmao, the youtube comments get dumber every year.
Just look info about the Hussite War Wagons if you want to see hundreds of knights with the best late medieval plate armor getting pierced by crossbowmen.
If you made a video on military tents, I would watch it.
Being considered a valuable enough soldier that I'm allowed to run away any time the enemy gets near enough to threaten me, sounds pretty good to me!
Ah yes the bane if every archer in the early game of M2TW. the pavise genoese crossbowmen.
knights, they're the meme of fighting a battle to lose the war. ignore commands, need a squad's upkeep, mutiny's and tantrum prone, insufferably pompous, and stupid. they're lucky they were in the same hierarchy as the guys writing to give them hype and downplay their losses.
I agree with all of that, and yet, when they were good, they were really good. I think of the Normans conquering Southern Italy with often sub 1000 knights in their armies, more like 200-300. Even going to far as to invade the Byzantine Empire. And knights in the Crusades made an outsized difference, in limited numbers.
If they could act rationally and pragmatically, then they were a force multiplier that could decide battles on their own. IF... :D
Patay, Ascalon, Antioch, Cerami, Mohi, Kressenbrunn, and many other battles saw the devastating effects of a heavy shock charges by knights. It's rather ridiculous to say that the finest troops in medieval Europe and the closest thing they had to a professional soldier was somehow ineffective... these tactics were so common because of how successful they were.
As a fellow man at arms in Mordhau I can confirm what was stated by Urban II, crossbowmen has no honor.
The theory about rain-resistant crossbow strings assumes two things: A) all their strings were in ideal condition, B) the crossbowmen trained in the rain to compensate for the deviations caused by wet strings.
You couldn't have the Common Man piercing the armor of a Noble Knight.
These Mercenaries were well drill and I think it would surprise us how efficient they were.
But it shouldn't.
The Human mind is a deadly weapon
Me: S…see your honor, I’ve always been into medieval stuff…
Concerned Family Members: Uh huh
Me: And, watching this AND hiring Genoese Crossbowmen to besiege our noisy neighbor is just a natural progression of my interest
Concerned Family Members: what
most interesting about them for me is the fact that they fought for the Golden Horde
In case people don't realize, it takes actual years to train a longbow user, a crossbow has a much more simply point and shoot mechanism which takes up some of the work the actual archer would do. You don't have to hold a drawn bowstring, your front arm or supporting arm can be stabilized such as resting the elbow along the top of a wall which helps increase accuracy. You have a much more direct flight which means less aiming vertically and more bolts on target since you have an easier time working out your drop and that also presents less time in the air for the arrows or bolts to be shifted off course. War bows are cool and have had some great success but let's not turn smooth brains here are start screaming how amazing a longbow is. It's not even the best of the war bows. What made the English longbow (not actually English) so useful was the fact that the English started cultural trends around how archery was a gentlemens sport which got more English men into practicing consistently with the longbow. Besides 3 to 6 months of training vs 2 years at minimum and you can see how good crossbows actually are as weapons. Though I suspect that maintaining them was probably a bit more stressful than a bow. I mean the catholics ban crossbows and so did a few kingdoms because 6 month trained crossbow men can kill a knight pretty easy and losing a knight who spent years of training to a farmer simply because of the weapon made many high ranking people worried.
this longbow needs training is a myth. An adult male can learn to shoot a bow reasonably well in just a few hours. Try it
This goes for pretty much any other physical endeavor. You're saying it takes 6 months to train to use a crossbow? Are you out of your mind? Assuming you train 8 hours a day, in 6 months a person could learn to juggle 5+ objects, obtain brown-black belts in every martial art, learn to swim/rollerblade/iceskate/skate/ski/snowboard/etc, learn to play sports like snooker/ping pong/bowling at a proficient level, and after all of that still have ample time to do something else
And yet you're saying that someone has to constantly load and shoot a crossbow 8 hours a day, for half a year, to learn to use it? You have very dim faith in humans' intellect. Unless someone has an IQ of less than 70, learning to shoot a crossbow or a bow should take a couple hours, and probably around 50 hours to become proficient and develop a subconscious muscle memory. Shooting half a year for 8 hours a day is for those who want to shoot with their feet in a circus and win the olympics
@@artyomarty391 and any idiot can point a rifle. It still takes a few years at most to learn about humidity and its affects on your shots, wind and its affects on your shots. Terrain because that could affect your shots. The basic idea can be trained in a few hours. Actual proficiency takes years. A crossbow would take month to hit a basic proficiency. That means smooth and timely reloading, consistent shots on target. Proper maintenance and understanding of your weapon platform. You are a meth addict if you think even half of that can be learned and turned into experience in a few hours.
@@artyomarty391 whoa I never said 6 hours a day, I stuck with England's time-line. Once a week typically a few hours a day at most. That's because you have muscle fatigue, some days you can't go shooting cause it's raining. Some days you actually have to do bow maintenance. The rest of the week was filled with sun up to sun down work. Stop mixing things we have days like a free 8 hours a day that we can train with, they never had that. Work and taking care of the home was an all day affair. Want to see what years of training looked like go look at the steppe horse Archers. You can see a clear difference between 1 years worth of training vs a lifetimes.
@@artyomarty391 BTW a longbow is a type of war bow which typically had a draw of over 90 pounds. That shit is hard to draw without training the muscles and drawing technique, in fact it's impossible without the right technique. It takes a long time to 1 get that technique down not a few hours, like months. You are talking using the bow for muscle training cause they did not have a gym where they could go train these muscles. Then learning the technique to draw and to learn to do that smoothly and learn how to release correctly and develop the smoothness to keep your arrows on target. Neither of which is needed for a crossbow. Major muscles groups are used to draw a crossbow and you don't need to practice how to release the bolt. You literally point and pull a release. You put in zero effort to actually think about the subject before you responded to me. Please for the love of God, at least do minimal research on the subject. Hell go learn how to shoot a war bow, that would make you realize how off you were or even go look up historians on TH-cam that have and examine war bows. Shadiversity is a wonderful channel that would help you gain more knowledge on the subject.
@@mattiOTX for the love of God please ask historians on the subject. Go watch some TH-cam videos. Get acquainted with the subject
I used to be like you, believed this myth for 15 years, then went to an archery range and watched some historians on youtube
elite genoese crossbowman
Great video
4:44 Pope Innocent II presided over the ban in 1193. Urban II (the First Crusade guy) died in 1099.