European Archers

[edyzmedieval]

We've all argued about the importance of the English Longbow, the example of Agincourt in 1415 being the pinnacle and eventual downfall in the use of a strong ranged weapon. But while we all know about the Yeoman Longbowmen of King Henry the Vth, what do we know about other types of archers in the medieval period?

Eastern Europeans used the bow quite extensively and their proficiency in the use of the weapon is well known but I am referring here to the Western European archery.

Did the Spanish kingdoms have extensive archery contingents? The French duchies? German lords? (I recall seeing Thuringian Archers depicted in an Osprey plate)
Perhaps the Italian cities can be included here too but their penchant for crossbows and arbalests is well known.

[Cute Wolf]

talking statistically from all "historically accurate" mods of medieval periods arround here:

the only "good" archery faction in western europe is English, if more details is involved, English and Welsh factions, and that was usually because of longbowmen.

generally, Western European archers, outside English areas, are the worst in game, completely outclassed by near eastern and east european (steppe!) archers

[edyzmedieval]

Historically accurate mods aside, there had to be at least specialised units of Western European archers that could wreak havoc. I'm not to convinced with the Scots Guard of the French in M2TW, but I'm talking about the idea of trained European archers like the English Yeomen.

[Kagemusha]

If i recall corectly Scandinavians used atleast during viking age also a "long bow" basically a self bow which was large. Dont know though if it was made from yew.

[Arjos]

If you see Magyars as european that's one :P
But even before them, the whole area had a lot of contacts with the steppe and developed high quality archery, same story for the baltic region...
Rest of Europe (except England) either employed Arabs or used crossbows afaik...

[edyzmedieval]

If i recall corectly Scandinavians used atleast during viking age also a "long bow" basically a self bow which was large. Dont know though if it was made from yew.

What I recall about the Scandinavians was rather a short bow and not too efficient (perhaps because of the cold?), hence their focus on infantrymen supported by only a few bowmen and few cavalry.

[Kagemusha]

Here is some information that seems to support my recollections about the issue:~;)

http://www.archery-interchange.net/f16/english-longbow-vs-viking-longbow-6509/

[Watchman]

Medieval Swedish laws required militiamen to have, besides the usual spear, shield and whatnot, a bow and a bunch of arrows. And Viking sagas speak highly of skilled archers. (IIRC one wintertime 16th-century Russian invasion attempt along the Karelian ishtmus also got shot to pieces by bow-toting local irregulars on skis. Must've been Steppe Russians to get pwnd so hard in snowy woods, as Forest Russians live in the same climate and terrain.) The ability to draw a bow was actually used as an official measure of maturity at least until the 16th century... So yeah. AFAIK Scandinavian and other "northern" archers tended to use a design known as flatbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatbow) for the rather sound reason that an effective one can be made from rather more numerous types of timber than is the case with the D-profiled "longbow" design - yew for which flat out isn't found in the north. (We may recall that the English had to import a lot of the stuff from the south, too.)

Making a powerful bow isn't particularly difficult for any bowyer worth the name. The main stumbling block was that in much of Europe the peasantry wasn't allowed to hunt and hence had no opportunity to develop their archery skills (the English got around this by *obliging* the yeomanry to practice regularly, but actually enforcing this proved problematic since peasants frankly had better things to do); hence strong "woodsman" traditions and the associated light-infantry skills were primarily to be found in the relatively sparsely populated parts where there plain was too much wilderness for the farmers to convert into farmland and the aristocracy to monopolise the rest as their hunting preserves, such as Scandinavia and East-Central Europe.

Military-wise, however, at least as important as *having* a pool of capable archers to begin with is *how* they are employed. There's a very real tactical difference between a cloud of open-order skirmishers or "double skilled" troops who can set aside their spear and grab a bow if the situation warrants, and a dedicated archer regiment in (relatively) close order firing massed volleys in coordinated fashion. The fact that the latter form seems to have been almost unheard-of in the "forest belt" zone (despite the commoners there being routinely proficient archers) is rather interesting, and would seem to suggest the technique is only suited to regions where comparatively open battlefields are readily available. It's worth noting here that in heavily forested Scandinavia and at least northern Germany knights and other mounted elite warriors, too, tended to operate differently than in the more open lands of Western and Southern Europe, operating more often as elite mounted infantry than "classic" shock cavalry. (AFAIK during the Crusades German knights were observed to be better fighters on foot than mounted, for example.)

TL;DR - geographic context strongly influences tactics and fighting techniques. Big duh.

[edyzmedieval]

Very comprehensive post Watchman, thank you. :bow:

Your post brings up a point - if there were regular archer units, how did they practice their craft? I don't quite envisage Yeoman English longbowmen practicing 12 hours a day how to shoot a longbow when after an hour or two your arms grow tired and weary.

[Fisherking]

In England in the middle ages, Sundays were the practice days for everyone and all men were expected to show up and shoot. It was actually a popular event. Even in the cities the popularity of the sport brought people who otherwise had no need of hunting skills.

Aiming the longbow, the way that it is drawn, is a skill that takes a lot of time to master. Also developing the strength do draw those bows was no small task.

Earlier on (13th Century) the English did rely on crossbows and mercenary archers but the Welsh showed them that their longbows could also pierce armor and that the massed effect at long range was good against cavalry.

Crossbows were as deadly or more so than the longbows and took less time to master. The drawback was the slow rate of fire.

Countries other than England continued to rely on the crossbow mercenaries and the actual Hay Day of the Longbow lasted only a little over 100 years. Better techniques of armor manufacture put an end to its effectiveness.

Also supplies of suitable yew was used up.

Oddly enough, when archery fell out of favor with the lower social tiers it became very popular with the upper classes, but with the weaker bows that we see today. (about 30 to 50 lbs pull weights)

It remained popular with them through the Victorian Age.

Compound and recurved bows were known of course. (compound bows at that time were bows made of more than one material, horn or bone with wood backed by sinew and glued together)

They were easier to aim but could require like strength. The trouble was that they were very unsuitable in the damp climates of England and most of northern and western Europe.

[Watchman]

From what I know of it - based on what my brother told of the archery hobby he picked up for a while - learning to shoot a bow reasonably accurately isn't very difficult or time-consuming. The clincher for military archery was the amount of regular practice needed to develop the physique and stamina necessary to draw a war-strenght bow time and again, which IIRC what I've read of the Mary Rose wreck was in fact enough to cause skeletal deformations in the longbowmen. (This is also another advantage of crossbows, at least when drawn with mechanical assists, and firearms.)

It's worth emphasizing that "yeomen", the class required by the royal proclamations to regularly practice archery, were specifically landowning peasantry - which would make them relatively prosperous in their socioeconomic context. I'm not too familiar with Medieval English rural economics, but at least where I live the equivalent freeholder peasantry quite routinely had varying numbers of paid labourers in their household and depending on the extent of their holdings might well rent out parts of it to assorted landless small farmers.
All of which would suggest the ability to spare comparatively large amounts of time from agrarian pursuits to weapons training - which is why comparable "rural middle class" has pretty universally been the backbone of decent peasant militias. As AFAIK the Crown also saw to the supply of the actual war-bows (in no small part due to the need to import the yew for them and the rather specialised nature of the craftsmanship involved, given the lack of hunting opportunities for commoners in the realm, and for quality-control reasons) when these men were mustered for service this would have lifted a fair bit of the economic hurdles too...

As for composite bows, ehhhh. Do recall that horn-composite staves became pretty mcuh the "industry standard" for fighting crossbows early into the Crusades (AFAIK nobody really knows if seeing the "eastern" reflex bow up close had anything to do with this) - it was the proliferation of this type that prompted the Pope to try (predictably quite unsuccesfully) banning their use against fellow Christians - and seem to have worked well enough everywhere south of Scandinavia, where the rather nastier winters AFAIK play havoc on the glues. (The later steel-stave crossbow worked just fine, though, and after its introduction remained an ubiquitous peasant hunting arm into the 1800s.) Waterproofing bowstaves isn't AFAIK terribly difficult and was done quite routinely - and it's not like the Eurasian steppes, the very home of the composite bow, are either dry or particularly warm year round...

AFAIK the main reason the composite bow never saw much use in Europe beyond the Mediterranean and the Central European steppe interface zone was actually the availability of suitable horn - or rather lack thereof - combined with the relative unimportance of long-rance archery in the context of the "typical" European battlefield (which tended to be rather cramped; this is also why European cavalry tactics evolved into such extremely linear frontal-assault forms, compared to the more fluid and maneuverable Eurasian norm). Plus, since the main point of composite bows is to add draw weight without the kind of unwieldy added stave lenght you get with stronger self-bows, which is mostly of concern for horse-archers (and before them chariot warriors) who as we know were an irrelevant concern in most European warfare (again to no small degree due to geographical reasons), it's hard to see what incentive European bowyers would have had to adopt such a complex, intricate and duly price-hiking construction patterns.
Doubly so as for the most part there was no shortage of suitable woods, unlike in the comparatively treeless steppe and arid Mediterranean/Middle Eastern latitudes.

[Brandy Blue]

Most of the attention on this thread seems to be going to specialist archer types (longbows, crossbows, etc.) so I may as well say a word about ordinary plain simple bows.

AFAIK the ordinary garden variety archer was around throughout the middle ages and throughout Western Europe except perhaps where displaced by the better weapons (crossbows, longbows, and eventually firearms). They were often very useful, for example at breaking up heavy infantry formations so the cavalry could attack (at Hastings, for example) and in seiges,and of course were cheap and readily available. In Carolingian times even knights often carried bows as a back up weapon, but I don't know under what circumstances they used them. (Seiges would seem logical.) With that exception, they were really a peasant weapon of limited power and lowly status that could not keep up with the armor improvement that came later in the period.

Since the first post raised the question of Spanish/French/German archer units, I'll say the very little I know. The Spanish had a reputation for using slingers IIRC, but they may have used bows too for all I know. The French did try raising archer units to counter the English bowmen, and the kings (starting in the 15th century?) had Scots archers in their bodyguard. However, the French don't seem to have had much sucess with bowmen. As for the Germans and Italians, AFAIK they hired English mercinary longbowmen if they felt the need for effective bowmen, or used crossbowmen.

That's the best I can do off the top of my head.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The Spanish had a reputation for using slingers IIRC, but they may have used bows too for all I know.

I can't think of any famous Spanish archers either, but in addition to slingers the Iberians also used javelins quite effectively. So at the very least skirmishing was important to the kingdom of Spain, but as far as archery goes I can't recall anything to suggest they had effective archers as well. (Perhaps Andalusian mercenaries?)

Sicily hired Greek and Muslim soldiers, weren't some of those soldiers good bowmen? I'm certain Sicily had good bowmen drawn from their auxiliaries.

[edyzmedieval]

Sicily hired Greek and Muslim soldiers, weren't some of those soldiers good bowmen? I'm certain Sicily had good bowmen drawn from their auxiliaries.

Siculo-Muslim archers, as outlined in M2TW as well, were quite capable bowmen. Sort of an anvil and hammer if I'm not mistaken in Sicilian tactics, the use of effective bowmen and the impact of their armoured knights, both mounted and on foot.

Which is quite surprising considering the Kingdom of Sicily was not such a rich and prosperous state compared to the other military powerhouses of the era.

[Nowake]

Throughout the 12th century, the Norman kingdom of Sicily was, in fact, the most prosperous state of the Mediterranean basin.
After the Hohenstaufen interlude, it established itself as the main power in the Mediterranean in the 13th century, under Charles of Anjou.
The only reason it did not press on with a very carefully planned expedition aiming to conquer Constantinople was the last minute ferocious Sicilian revolt largely funded by the Byzantine and Aragonese rulers, a last desperate move to stave off the expedition - successful move, as aside from conquering the island in around a month, it destroyed at anchor the huge Sicilian fleet meant to transport the troops.


Steven Runciman's The Sicilian Vespres (http://www.amazon.com/Sicilian-Vespers-Runciman/dp/0521286522) is the most erudite work focusing on the Sicilian state between the 11th and 13th centuries.

[Brandy Blue]

If this guy has it straight, then there were some French nobles who were archers late in the period and he gives more information about those Scottish archers:

"Eventually the French began to require that some of the nobles summoned by the ban and arrière-ban
serve as archers. I have not yet discovered when this requirement was first imposed, nor is it clear what
motivated the French to try this specific change. It was probably after 1415. To bolster the depleted French
army after Agincourt, Charles VII hired an army from his Scottish allies. The Scots Guards, as they came to be
called, arrived in France in 1419, and in one form or another remained part of the French army throughout
our period of interest. The Scots Guards incorporated companies of Scots archers, and this might have been
a model (see page 45). The kings of France might have felt the need for better-disciplined archers, and for
archers who were mounted and thus able to travel more rapidly (Strickland 330). Both of these factors would
have led them to look to their nobility. A set of regulations from Brittany in 1450 is the earliest found so far
mentioning a requirement for archers from the nobility"

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/prescotj/data/archery/frenchnoblearchers.pdf

edit: Could be a translation issue here. He also says: "The remainder [nobility below the rank of knight] were the lesser nobility, sometimes called the gentry. " So it looks like his "noble archers" might be something closer to the rank gentleman than what we would normally call "noble." (He admits that Medieval French is not his strong point and mistranslations are to be expected.) I'll post more if I find anything else of interest he wrote, when I can find time to finish reading.

[Brandy Blue]

And here it is:
"Not surprisingly, there is no indication that any of the greater nobility went to war as archers. All the examples that I’ve seen so far are from the lesser nobility, plus a very small number of knights."

I should have been more patient and read the whole thing before I posted. The guy wrote a whole article to prove that there were "noble archers" and what it boils down to is that a few knights used bows. His "lesser nobility" (below knights) would not normally be considered nobles at all, as we use the term in English.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

They should have utlized it and made full use of the archers,like the chinese did.

[edyzmedieval]

A little thread necromancy - did anyone else apart from the English, and to an extent, the French, use the longbow?

[The Lurker Below]

the japanese yumi - very long, very effective

[Brandy Blue]

A little thread necromancy - did anyone else apart from the English, and to an extent, the French, use the longbow?

Go back to post #8 on this thread for use of longbows (not of the English type) in Scandinavia. Also, the Welsh used longbows. No one else that I know of.

[Tuuvi]

A little thread necromancy - did anyone else apart from the English, and to an extent, the French, use the longbow?

Yes. A longbow is just a man-tall selfbow, while it's one of the best bow designs, there's nothing special or unique about it. Pre-historic Europeans, Eastern Woodland Indians, East Indians, Amazonian Indians, Papua New Guineans, all used or use longbows.

[Madae]

Yes. A longbow is just a man-tall selfbow, while it's one of the best bow designs, there's nothing special or unique about it. Pre-historic Europeans, Eastern Woodland Indians, East Indians, Amazonian Indians, Papua New Guineans, all used or use longbows.

There is quite a difference that must be noted. Here is the wiki article that best describes the point;


Traditional English longbows are self bows made from yew wood. The bowstave is cut from the radius of the tree so that the sapwood (on the outside of the tree) becomes the back two thirds and the belly, the remaining one third, is heartwood. Yew sapwood is good only in tension, while the heartwood is good in compression. However, compromises must be made when making a yew longbow, as it is difficult to find perfect unblemished yew. The demand for yew bowstaves was such that by the late 16th century mature yew trees were almost extinct in northern Europe.

...

Longbows, because of their narrow limbs and rounded cross-section (which does not spread out stress within the wood as evenly as a flatbow’s rectangular cross section), need to be less powerful, longer or of more elastic wood than an equivalent flatbow. In Europe the last approach was used, with yew being the wood of choice, because of its high compressive strength, light weight and elasticity. Yew is the only widespread European timber that will make good self longbows, and has been the main wood used in European bows since Neolithic times. More common and cheaper hard woods, including elm, oak, ash, hazel and maple, are good for flatbows. A narrow longbow with high draw-weight can be made from these woods, but it is likely to take a permanent bend (known as "set" or "following the string") and would probably be outshot by an equivalent made of yew.

In other words; not all longbows were good.

I'm also going to disagree with longbows being some super-weapon that saved the english - though I understand no one really said that, but it seems the consensus is that longbows were a great weapon that decided many battles. On the contrary, look at when longbows were actually relevant, or at least pointed out to have been a deciding factor;

Halidon Hill (1333), Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415).

I doubt those were the only battles in a 80 year period that longbows took part in, but they're the few that are mentioned. This is only 4 battles in a 200 year span of when longbows were supposedly the dominant ranged weapon. I mean, no one is talking about swords or axes or maces being the dominant melee weapon for more than a thousand years, and I would bet that even if there were, there are more than 4 battles to look back on and say "yup, it was decided because their swords were sharper" or whatever.

My argument is not so much that longbows weren't great weapons, it's more or less that a lot of people put a lot of stock in them being the weapon that dominated the field of battle for 200 years, which is not necessarily so - only the english were known for fielding large amounts of longbowman, and again; only 4 battles are actually pointed out in history as them having been the deciding factor. Truth is, they were capable of firing at a long range, but were only accurate and effective at shorter ranges, and even then, they still had a difficult time piercing plate armor which started being used more frequently after 1350.

On another note; Agincourt is easy to look at and say "yeah, english longbows won the battle", and not so easy to look at and say "the french lost because of ineffectual commanders and a unled charge through a muddy forest that slipped up and slowed their men and left them prey to volley after volley of arrows". Agincourt had more to do with the placement of armies and the people in command then it did with longbows, but no one really looks at it that way - Henry was dug in and ready for the charge. To see what happens when they don't have the nice advantage of fortifying their position, look at the battle of Verneuil (1424) and Patay (1429). I suppose the the other side of the argument (in favor of longbows) would be; it took people that long to figure out how to fight a group of longbowman. I'd say it had more to do with pride, though, that really only got beat into their thick skulls after so many losses.

In short, the longbow is given too much credit. It's just a weapon that when used effectively (like any other weapon) could produce great results.

[gaelic cowboy]

There is quite a difference that must be noted. Here is the wiki article that best describes the point;



In other words; not all longbows were good.

I'm also going to disagree with longbows being some super-weapon that saved the english - though I understand no one really said that, but it seems the consensus is that longbows were a great weapon that decided many battles. On the contrary, look at when longbows were actually relevant, or at least pointed out to have been a deciding factor;

Halidon Hill (1333), Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415).

I doubt those were the only battles in a 80 year period that longbows took part in, but they're the few that are mentioned. This is only 4 battles in a 200 year span of when longbows were supposedly the dominant ranged weapon. I mean, no one is talking about swords or axes or maces being the dominant melee weapon for more than a thousand years, and I would bet that even if there were, there are more than 4 battles to look back on and say "yup, it was decided because their swords were sharper" or whatever.

My argument is not so much that longbows weren't great weapons, it's more or less that a lot of people put a lot of stock in them being the weapon that dominated the field of battle for 200 years, which is not necessarily so - only the english were known for fielding large amounts of longbowman, and again; only 4 battles are actually pointed out in history as them having been the deciding factor. Truth is, they were capable of firing at a long range, but were only accurate and effective at shorter ranges, and even then, they still had a difficult time piercing plate armor which started being used more frequently after 1350.

On another note; Agincourt is easy to look at and say "yeah, english longbows won the battle", and not so easy to look at and say "the french lost because of ineffectual commanders and a unled charge through a muddy forest that slipped up and slowed their men and left them prey to volley after volley of arrows". Agincourt had more to do with the placement of armies and the people in command then it did with longbows, but no one really looks at it that way - Henry was dug in and ready for the charge. To see what happens when they don't have the nice advantage of fortifying their position, look at the battle of Verneuil (1424) and Patay (1429). I suppose the the other side of the argument (in favor of longbows) would be; it took people that long to figure out how to fight a group of longbowman. I'd say it had more to do with pride, though, that really only got beat into their thick skulls after so many losses.

In short, the longbow is given too much credit. It's just a weapon that when used effectively (like any other weapon) could produce great results.

Is it not cheaper though than a crowd of costly men at arms?? thats prob the real advantage.

I remember my brother once made the point that Rome must have had an enourmous advantage economically having standard weapons. One could make the case that the English just hit on plan with more bang for it's buck quite literally, cheaper yeomen who can concentrate fire on an enemy a fair bit away.

[Madae]

Is it not cheaper though than a crowd of costly men at arms?? thats prob the real advantage.

I remember my brother once made the point that Rome must have had an enourmous advantage economically having standard weapons. One could make the case that the English just hit on plan with more bang for it's buck quite literally, cheaper yeomen who can concentrate fire on an enemy a fair bit away.

Not that it proves a point effectively (cause it's a movie), but one of my favorite lines from Braveheart was when the captain told Longshanks the archers were ready to fire, and he says "Not the archers. My scouts tell me their archers are miles away and no threat to us. Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish - the dead cost nothing".

And I suppose it depends on how much they're getting paid, and whether it was before or after the battle. Trained archers were expensive to hire, because it took years of practice to be good at it, and develop the muscle tone necessary to excel. That's actually part of the reason longbows started to fall out of favor - the french started removing the fingers (the middle and index finger, likely) of archers they captured. They started falling out of disuse because there were very few people skilled enough to use a Longbow at some point in history (but also due to firearms making an appearance and being overall cheaper to train someone to use a gun).

I would also argue that Rome did so well because they were one of the first (if not the first) to have a standard, and disciplined, army that freely, and frequently, adapted better technology from the people they fought (like the Gladius)... I wouldn't rule out the better equipment argument, though. It's probably true that they were better equipped than most, especially at the later periods.

[gaelic cowboy]

I still would feel even though an Archer was not free they were cheaper than a man at arms.

[CBR]

Is it not cheaper though than a crowd of costly men at arms?? thats prob the real advantage.

I remember my brother once made the point that Rome must have had an enourmous advantage economically having standard weapons. One could make the case that the English just hit on plan with more bang for it's buck quite literally, cheaper yeomen who can concentrate fire on an enemy a fair bit away.
The Roman army did not use standard weapons and armor nor did they have the machines to make it standardized in a modern sense.

English kings hired foreign knights for domestic campaigns and even tried, unsuccessfully, to increase the numbers of men-at-arms from the local lords. They also tried to build up a force of heavy infantry with little success. If we look at late 13th to early 14th century we see several campaigns using enormous amounts of infantry, something that was never repeated later on as it seems the poor quality and low mobility was not worth the hassle. It is after that we see a stronger focus on archers as the main infantry, and even a lot of mounted archers even though they cost more.

English kings does not seem to have had many options left but to focus on archers to increase the strength of their armies. That does not mean they were bad, only that cost is just one of several reasons as to what troops were used.

[Madae]

I still would feel even though an Archer was not free they were cheaper than a man at arms.

You may be right. I found some info;


The social stratification of men who served as men-at-arms is illustrated by their rates of pay on campaign, in the mid 1340s a knight was paid 2 shillings a day, an ordinary man-at-arms was paid half this amount; for comparison a foot archer received 2 or 3 pence (12 pennies to the shilling). A man-at-arms was also recompensed differentially according to the quality of his principal war-horse, if the horse was to die or was killed in battle. An ordinary esquire might own a war-horse worth only 5 pounds whilst a great nobleman might own a horse worth up to 100 pounds.

...

Such men could serve for pay or through a feudal obligation.

Yahoo question about longbowmen;

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100818105442AASvndN

I guess it would be fair to say that it really depended on the man doing the hiring, and then also on the success of the campaign. I also don't know the difference between pence, pennies, or shillings. There is some conflicting information between the two articles (2-3 pence vs. 6?).

[gaelic cowboy]

I guess it would be fair to say that it really depended on the man doing the hiring, and then also on the success of the campaign. I also don't know the difference between pence, pennies, or shillings. There is some conflicting information between the two articles (2-3 pence vs. 6?).

here is all the info you will ever need on pre decimal currency these would also count for Ireland even after indepence. (http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/moneyold.htm)

Another site this time with a bit more structure to it and proper pronuciation too (http://home.clara.net/brianp/money.html)

Imagine also if you have five separate one penny coins then you say you have 5 pence or you can say I have 5 penny coins it's just another way to say the smaller divisible units. You would never generally say I have two thrupenny bits instead you would say I have six pence but neither is wrong, it's just that people used it merely cos it's easier in daily life.

[Tuuvi]

There is quite a difference that must be noted. Here is the wiki article that best describes the point;

In other words; not all longbows were good.

Hm The Traditional Bowyer's Bible says otherwise. Yew is one of the best bow woods to be sure, but you can make a good selfbow out of many different species of wood. AFAIK Yew bows can take a set as well, and in other wood species set can be mitigated with the right design and if the bow is well-made. Differences in wood performance aside, my original point still stands. Making a man-tall bow is not a novel concept, in fact it's pretty common.

[Madae]

Hm The Traditional Bowyer's Bible says otherwise. Yew is one of the best bow woods to be sure, but you can make a good selfbow out of many different species of wood. AFAIK Yew bows can take a set as well, and in other wood species set can be mitigated with the right design and if the bow is well-made. Differences in wood performance aside, my original point still stands. Making a man-tall bow is not a novel concept, in fact it's pretty common.

You can, but should you? I'm not going to say other countries didn't use Longbows - I"m sure they did, and the concept is pretty simple to understand - but I'm gonna post this again;


Yew is the only widespread European timber that will make good self longbows, and has been the main wood used in European bows since Neolithic times. More common and cheaper hard woods, including elm, oak, ash, hazel and maple, are good for flatbows. A narrow longbow with high draw-weight can be made from these woods, but it is likely to take a permanent bend (known as "set" or "following the string") and would probably be outshot by an equivalent made of yew.

I think if good Longbows were easy enough to replicate, then the rest of Europe would have been using them too, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that Yew was a northern wood, and almost extinct in their area because of the English "farming them" for bows. If it was so easy to create a good Longbow like the English, I imagine that would have spread rapidly around Europe just like the firearm and cannons did.

But then again, I'm not an archer/bowyer, so I couldn't really say one way or the other. I'm inclined to think it was not as easy as it sounds.

Also, the fact that they didn't spread rapidly around Europe like guns, and mostly stayed in English hands, kind of proves that other countries perceived them as the situational weapon that they were, and not necessarily a game-breaking win whenever they fought in a battle - the few battles having been pointed out where a Longbow contributed heavily notwithstanding.

[Tuuvi]

You can, but should you? I'm not going to say other countries didn't use Longbows - I"m sure they did, and the concept is pretty simple to understand - but I'm gonna post this again;



I think if good Longbows were easy enough to replicate, then the rest of Europe would have been using them too, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that Yew was a northern wood, and almost extinct in their area because of the English "farming them" for bows. If it was so easy to create a good Longbow like the English, I imagine that would have spread rapidly around Europe just like the firearm and cannons did.

But then again, I'm not an archer/bowyer, so I couldn't really say one way or the other. I'm inclined to think it was not as easy as it sounds.

Also, the fact that they didn't spread rapidly around Europe like guns, and mostly stayed in English hands, kind of proves that other countries perceived them as the situational weapon that they were, and not necessarily a game-breaking win whenever they fought in a battle - the few battles having been pointed out where a Longbow contributed heavily notwithstanding.

That wiki article really overstates the effects of set on performance. In a well made bow that only takes a little set, the set will only drop arrow speed by a few fps. Also I'm pretty sure yew bows take set as well. I have more to write I'll get back to this later.

[Madae]

Wouldn't a few feet per second be important if the target you're trying to penetrate is wearing full plate? That's the thing about Agincourt. Even though the longbowman cut down a vast majority of the first french charge, it was still up to many men at arms to deliver the final blow to exhausted knights in plate.

I'll concede that a longbow of any type could kill just about anyone at any distance if they aren't wearing any armor, or at least light armor, but the farther the arrow goes and the heavier the armor, the more strength there needs to be behind that arrow, and a longbow made with inferior wood is going to start becoming a problem.

This page says it takes 65lbs to penetrate large game; http://bowsite.com/bowsite/features/practical_bowhunter/penetration/index.cfm

Now I'm wondering how much weight it takes to penetrate steel... Another article I read said that a bodkin arrow could only penetrate chain at nearly point blank range.

If we could get accurate examples of the weight of an arrow, and the draw strength of a yew english longbow (or any other wood), and how much force it takes to penetrate steel, we could use that above page to find out how worthy a longbow is... Or we could just send a mail to Myth Busters and have them do all the work. Heh.

[Tuuvi]

I think if good Longbows were easy enough to replicate, then the rest of Europe would have been using them too, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that Yew was a northern wood, and almost extinct in their area because of the English "farming them" for bows. If it was so easy to create a good Longbow like the English, I imagine that would have spread rapidly around Europe just like the firearm and cannons did.

But then again, I'm not an archer/bowyer, so I couldn't really say one way or the other. I'm inclined to think it was not as easy as it sounds.

Also, the fact that they didn't spread rapidly around Europe like guns, and mostly stayed in English hands, kind of proves that other countries perceived them as the situational weapon that they were, and not necessarily a game-breaking win whenever they fought in a battle - the few battles having been pointed out where a Longbow contributed heavily notwithstanding.

It's pretty easy to make a good bow out of woods other than yew, as a matter of fact hardwood bows are pretty popular among bowyers today. Also a lot of neolithic bow finds are longbows made out of woods like elm.


Wouldn't a few feet per second be important if the target you're trying to penetrate is wearing full plate? That's the thing about Agincourt. Even though the longbowman cut down a vast majority of the first french charge, it was still up to many men at arms to deliver the final blow to exhausted knights in plate.

I'll concede that a longbow of any type could kill just about anyone at any distance if they aren't wearing any armor, or at least light armor, but the farther the arrow goes and the heavier the armor, the more strength there needs to be behind that arrow, and a longbow made with inferior wood is going to start becoming a problem.

The idea that woods other than yew are inferior is outdated. I think the accuracy of that wiki article you posted is dubious and you should ignore it. All bows take set, even if they are made out of yew. Also wood quality is highly variable within a species so it's possible for a bow made out of hickory to be made out of better wood than one made out of yew.

I'm talking in general terms here, and not about medieval warfare specifically, I don't know how much of a difference a few feet per second would make in penetrating steel armor, but I think it wouldn't be much. And like I said earlier, yew bows take set as well, and just because a bow is made out of yew doesn't automatically make it better.

[Madae]

The idea that woods other than yew are inferior is outdated. I think the accuracy of that wiki article you posted is dubious and you should ignore it. All bows take set, even if they are made out of yew. Also wood quality is highly variable within a species so it's possible for a bow made out of hickory to be made out of better wood than one made out of yew.

That wiki article that is "dubious and I should ignore it" actually posted references (one of which was the one you posted earlier; "The Traditional Bowyers Bible"). Where are yours?


I'm talking in general terms here, and not about medieval warfare specifically

But that's what I'm talking about.


I don't know how much of a difference a few feet per second would make in penetrating steel armor, but I think it wouldn't be much. And like I said earlier, yew bows take set as well, and just because a bow is made out of yew doesn't automatically make it better.

No offense, man, but you're making a lot of claims and not backing any of them up. If you can show me something that argues in your favor, cool, but I'm going to trust what I've read over you until then. And seriously, keep in mind that we're talking about 15th century Europe and materials available to them. I don't really care if a comparable bow can be made today out of whatever type of wood (Hickory is not a native European wood). My question is almost solely whether or not what they had to use back then could penetrate steel, and at what distance. If it was easy to create a good longbow (consistency is key), then you would think more countries would have used them, especially if they were such a domineering force. A few FPS sounds like a big deal to me when you're attempting to shoot an arrow through metal, which is what that article pointed out; "would probably be outshot by an equivalent made of yew.".

[Vladimir]

You guys may like this:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/gizmodo-bow-arrow-takeover/#more-77829

[Tuuvi]

That wiki article that is "dubious and I should ignore it" actually posted references (one of which was the one you posted earlier; "The Traditional Bowyers Bible"). Where are yours?

If that is the case then the wiki article is contradicting it's own sources, which is why I have a problem with it. I stated my source from the very beginning, like you just said.


But that's what I'm talking about.

Well I'm a little confused then. I know this thread has mostly been about medieval warfare, but when edyzmedieval asked if there were other countries that used the longbow, he didn't specify if he was still only talking about medieval Europe or not. Maybe I took his question out of context. Anyways I replied yes and I provided examples of cultures around the world that used longbows. Then you replied to me saying that not all longbows are equal because of the wood they're made out of, and I disagreed. I thought this is what the debate has been about.


No offense, man, but you're making a lot of claims and not backing any of them up. If you can show me something that argues in your favor, cool, but I'm going to trust what I've read over you until then. And seriously, keep in mind that we're talking about 15th century Europe and materials available to them. I don't really care if a comparable bow can be made today out of whatever type of wood (Hickory is not a native European wood). My question is almost solely whether or not what they had to use back then could penetrate steel, and at what distance. If it was easy to create a good longbow (consistency is key), then you would think more countries would have used them, especially if they were such a domineering force. A few FPS sounds like a big deal to me when you're attempting to shoot an arrow through metal, which is what that article pointed out; "would probably be outshot by an equivalent made of yew."

I've only been trying to debate your first point about not all longbows being good, which was a response to a post of mine that included examples of longbows worldwide and in different time periods. Not your second one about whether or not the English longbow was really that effective in combat or not. When I wrote "I don't know how much of a difference a few feet per second would make in penetrating steel armor, but I think it wouldn't be much." I was trying to make it clear I didn't know and was only making a guess. Even though it's not what I'm arguing about I just found this and I think you might find it interesting: http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

As for the rest, I do know what I'm talking about and I'll quote some passages from the "Traditional Bowyer's Bible" so maybe you'll finally believe me :sweatdrop:


No mystical capacity for arrow speed resides in any particular wood, fiber-glass, sinew or horn. There is little difference in recovery speed or efficiency between various bowmaking materials. Virtually all such magic resides in a bow's profile. When making wood bows, proper design and craftmanship are far more important than wood type. I have many birch, ash, hickory, elm, etc. bows which pound for pound out-shoot many of my yew and Osage bows. But only because they were better designed and crafted - the same reason some yew and Osage bows will out-shoot other yew and Osage bows.


Different woods have different bending strengths, breaking strength, and degree of elasticity. For bows made of "inferior" wood to take the same set, and therefore shoot as fast as bows made of "superior" wood, their limbs must be made wider. Wider in proportion to differences in strength and elasticity.
Wider, thinner (therefore more flexible) weak-wood limbs can do the work of narrower, strong-wood limbs in the same way that a wider line of weaker men can lift as much weight as a narrower line of stronger men.
Wider limbs contain more wood, which would normally raise limb mass, which would normally slow the bow, but this wider wood is lighter wood, so limb mass remains about the same.

[edyzmedieval]

Looking over the Traditional Bowyer's Bible, what makes a wood inferior and what's superior? Cutting a bowstave from a single piece of wood makes it superior?

[Tuuvi]

When comparing species, what it basically comes down to is the average density and strength of the wood. With weaker woods the amount of draw weight that you can have without the bow breaking or taking a massive set is limited.

If your comparing the quality of wood within a species, what you want to look for is the ratio of early growth to late growth, or in other words, the thickness of the dark growth rings compared to the light ones. Late growth is denser and less porous than early growth, so if a stave has more late growth you can make a stronger bow out of it. (This is for hardwoods, I can't remember if it's the same for softwoods like yew or juniper).

[RollingWave]

Siculo-Muslim archers, as outlined in M2TW as well, were quite capable bowmen. Sort of an anvil and hammer if I'm not mistaken in Sicilian tactics, the use of effective bowmen and the impact of their armoured knights, both mounted and on foot.

Which is quite surprising considering the Kingdom of Sicily was not such a rich and prosperous state compared to the other military powerhouses of the era.

During the Norman Kingdom of Sicily era Sicily was a very prosperous state... much more so than say... England at the same stage, as it had the advantage of both being in a vital trade lane, good agricultural base and viberant urban centers as well as being a significant sized kingdom, pretty much no one else had this combination in Catholic Europe. They were basically the only kingdom during this span that can launch long distance campaigns outside of Crusades.

Siciliy's decline came later on, as the merger with the HRE under Fredrick the II set the seed for their destruction, which eventually led to the Sicilian Vesper troubles, the level of setback suffered by Sicily during this period is tough to imagine, as it was said that afterwards HUNTING became the main Sicilian Industry , which is absurd given that the island was one of the most heavily populated area on the map before that. Sicily was basically ruined and never recovered, and became a borderline area that the Aragoneese adn French fought each otehr fort.

As for archers.. the knightly class were actually usually quite skilled in archery themself, but almost never uses it in battle except for some rare occasions. the single biggest factor for Archery's limited use in pre-100 years war Europe was probably the limitation of the peasantry in partaking in war, as war became the busniess of nobility it means that most fighting were not only done with rather limited numbers, but also pretty much everyone was horsed and had decent armour and often a really big shield. this made
archery rather unuseful, not to meantion that the predominent infantry tactic when they are deployed involved locking up a lot of big shields which also made archery rather unattractive.

Iberia was not particularly well known for archery either, though the Berbers dynasties appear to have used a fairly significant amount of them as did their Catholic counter part, but the primary style of war was similar to antiquity style peltest where loose group of men fire at each otehr (or cavalries) and then run when chased. there are merits to this style and the more open and rugged terrain of Iberia was quite suitable for it. a lot of foreign knights that came to Iberia for personal Crusades had a great deal of trouble dealing with such tactics since they would end up chasing the Moorish skrimishers ... get seperated from the rest of the forces and then mobbed. so while those folks did use bows, they often used it in conjunction with slings and javelins (and later on crossbows too) as well.

[edyzmedieval]

But in the case of the Sicilian archers, they weren't using traditional European bows? Their Muslim influence must have accounted for some composite materials to build their bows, otherwise I couldn't explain their efficiency.

[CBR]

http://web.archive.org/web/20110605024610/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/saracen_archers.htm

From that article is seems very likely that they used composite bows. Apparently not enough to give them any great effect in battles...

[RollingWave]

One should note that Archery in itself, no matter the bows quality, were almost never enough to win battles in themself during the Medieval era. The Turkish strategy against the Crusaders often involved shooting at them for DAYS , made only possible by the fact that they were mounted and could outrun the much heavily armoured crusaders .

The Islamic archers were pretty prized as mercenaries in Italy until the communities was largely wiped out after the Sicilian Vesper, that should say much on their effectiveness... at least relative to other local archers. But remember that even the so called victories of the bows such as Agincourt saw very few knights actually being killed by Arrows. most were unhorsed with a combination of stake / mud / arrow and if they were killed it was mostly in the insuing melee in the mud while their armour actually became a disadvantage.

The best odds of a bow actually defeating good armour is shooting it at pointblank range, it dosen't take a physicist to figure that out, though the only people that might be able to rely on that as a staple strategy are mounted archers, and in many cases they still choose to go the Turkish route of instead just spending a long time shooting and ware the shite out of their target, however Nomadic horsemens such as the Mongols and Cumans were much more noted for actually comming up to point blank range and shoot, and at that range it is quite possible to defeat armour, espeically since at that range there is a reasonablly good chance the archer can aim for weakpoints in the armour anyway. (visors, or uncovered parts, or joints)/

Foot archers however obviously can not rely on that sort of strategy, especially against mounted opponents. a couple volley on a group of mounted knights is at best an annoyance, maybe a few really unlucky bastard might get killed by lucky shots and some horse disabled, but it's unlikely to seriously take out the group effectively. unless they just stand there and let you shoot at them all day.

Though remember that battles in Italy during the medieval times tend to feature much less cavalry than elsewhere in Europe. armies were largely still dominated by infantries, espeically the armies of the Communes would often only have 10% or less of their forces mounted in battle. and if the enemy have a lot of lightly armored spearmens / infantries then the usefulness of superior foot archers becomes much more apparent.

[Orda Khan]

Wouldn't a few feet per second be important if the target you're trying to penetrate is wearing full plate?
On the contrary, probably more mass and therefore a slower arrow would be required, much in the same way as Qing bows and arrows compare with earlier examples in Eastern Asia.

A few FPS sounds like a big deal to me when you're attempting to shoot an arrow through metal,
You use the same argument again and yet again you are quite incorrect. FPS is determined as much by how light the arrow is as it is by the strength of the bow. FPS is not what you are looking for in a projectile that has to punch through armour, FPS is what you need to achieve distance.

[Sarmatian]

On the contrary, probably more mass and therefore a slower arrow would be required, much in the same way as Qing bows and arrows compare with earlier examples in Eastern Asia.

You use the same argument again and yet again you are quite incorrect. FPS is determined as much by how light the arrow is as it is by the strength of the bow. FPS is not what you are looking for in a projectile that has to punch through armour, FPS is what you need to achieve distance.

Haven't seen you post in a very long time.

[fenir]

The main stumbling block was that in much of Europe the peasantry wasn't allowed to hunt and hence had no opportunity to develop their archery skills (the English got around this by *obliging* the yeomanry to practice regularly, but actually enforcing this proved problematic since peasants frankly had better things to do);

To honest, european nobles wouldn't give their people bows. To quote several germans and the french king. It's akin to legalised regiced.

The english were different, in that laws gave rights the king couldn't get around, and by having an armed people they held the power of government in check. Hence the 2nd amendment in the USA is a direct take off the Magna Carta.
It also meant that the english had a huge reserve of trained fighters, who had the duty to defend the land and it's people and king. Doesn't sound much today, but huge in those days. Europeans openly mocked the English because they trained ordinary people.
And peasants didn't exist in England, not since before AD1066. All men were free, unless you were bonded, which meant you couldn't pay your debts. They where called Villians.

All freemen in England had to learn the longbow. The most famous: Longbowman from Kent, Surrey and Sussex. In the Middle ages the longbow was even in england called the English Longbow. Not welsh.

Training an archer takes years. Modern bows no more than air guns used by children. And the people that use then weak by comparison.
The Power to draw a proper longbow is huge, and I can tell you from experiance, I have not met many people that can draw my bow.
The First recorded use of the Longbow that is known, was in the early 1100's, Battle of the Standard AD1138. First law to train with the longbow, AD1153. Again in AD1186 and so on.
Longbow from existing ones, 1.87 to 2.11 m with an average length of 1.98 m in lenght.
Nearly all modern longbows are 60lb draw weight, and very few can draw them. Yet estimates from those recovered from the HMS Mary Rose based on the arrow lenght, is 150-160lb to a max of 185lbs draw. 440–820 Newtons. So easy? Hell no.
Maximin distance for Longbow is record as 400 yards regularly for the Kings' Longbowman. My record is about 310 Meters.

The English also drew their bows different to other archers, they also did what others didn't, organised them, drilled them in Butts huge sunday events after church. Where a poor man could win a years wages in one afternoon and get offered a job as a full time archer of a lords retinue. Un heard off in Europe.
What eventually killed the longbow, was the gun. easy to mass produce, and mass train.

Crossbows where easier to learn, and powerful at close range, but very slow. Hence the Longbow is very deadly at half draw close range.


It's worth emphasizing that "yeomen", the class required by the royal proclamations to regularly practice archery, were specifically landowning peasantry
Actually no. All freemen.
Which means you made the bow, you used the bow, all local lords were required to provide use of a bowyer to all freemen. The Crown made sure bows were available, they imported wood from the Italian Alps. That long time english ally, Savoy.

Of course English Longbowman were also in high demand from Europe in Free companies. And the most highly paid until gun powered weapons.



but at least where I live the equivalent freeholder peasantry quite routinely had varying numbers of paid labourers in their household and depending on the extent of their holdings might well rent out parts of it to assorted landless small farmers.
Freeman, Farmer, Labourer, Potter, Woodworker....anyone not beholden to debt and having free standing amongst their fellows



Waterproofing bowstaves Bees wax.


given the lack of hunting opportunities for commoners in the realm
Commoners could hunt, just not the King's deer.


composite bows Another story.


A little thread necromancy - did anyone else apart from the English, and to an extent, the French, use the longbow?
No one else used such a big bow as an organised organic compontent of battle. French tried it once, they got scared of their own people and disarmed them 2 months later.
And I quote: It is not right that the common man should have strenght to harm his betters.

Alot of people claim others used the longbow, but it isn't so by historical record. Most other written accounts say longbow to mean something bigger than usual, whereas the english used a huge bow.


only 4 battles are actually pointed out in history as them having been the deciding factor. Truth is, they were capable of firing at a long range, but were only accurate and effective at shorter ranges, and even then, they still had a difficult time piercing plate armor which started being used more frequently after 1350

I can point to over 20 battles off the top of my head. Ask the scots. And at long range you volley fired mass ranks of archers. Plunging bobkin headed arrows.
Did you know, a longbow will go through a sandbag, but a bullet can't. Againcourt AD1415. They went through armour then, the french tell us that.


But remember that even the so called victories of the bows such as Agincourt saw very few knights actually being killed by Arrows. most were unhorsed with a combination of stake / mud / arrow and if they were killed it was mostly in the insuing melee in the mud while their armour actually became a disadvantage.
Actually lots of French Knights where cut down by Longbows. But you also have to remember, 1 arrow of sword wound wont always kill. Same as a bullet wont always kill.

As the Reports of the french say, once down, their heavily armoured knights became easy pickings for pole axe armed men with light armour (chain & Leather).

Also see Poiters/Crecy, where the Longbow tore apart the Knights and Men at Arms on Foot.

Whatever our debates, it was a powerful weapon in it's day, used in conjunction with Discpline, Organisation. It did it's bit and then some.

From what I remember, the perferred wood for a longbow was Italian Alps yew. That was shipped from Savoy mainly.

Sincerely


fenir

[Orda Khan]

Hello Sarmatian, how are you? You are right, I've not been around for a few years. CA introduced Steam and some modern ideas that weren't for me I'm afraid so I kinda faded into the past. Probably the best place for a relic, eh?

Hello Fenir,
What poundage is your bow? My son in law had one of 120lbs. I say 'had' because I watched it explode at full (32") draw about 2 years ago. That was interesting.
I agree also, composite bows are another story. In fact, low poundage hornbows (ie modern archery weights) are not necessarily any better, performance wise, than same poundage self bows, they come into their own at higher poundages. Military draw weights tended to be higher end, even ancient Scythian bows, when reproduced using the same construction (unbelievably complex) prove that finds considered 'grave goods' were in fact high poundage, working bows of possibly 100lbs+.
Considering this, English Longbow weights begin to sound a little less incredible.

[edyzmedieval]

Italian Alps yew? So the raw materials for the famous English longbows were in fact imported? Interesting.

[Orda Khan]

Italian Alps yew? So the raw materials for the famous English longbows were in fact imported? Interesting.
Generally, Yew in the British Isles is poor quality. The raw materials were imported but not entirely from high altitude Italian sources.

[edyzmedieval]

Yew was imported, but what about the proportion of raw materials for the other archers in the medieval English army? Longbowmen used rather expensive materials, the rest of the archers had to get their wood from somewhere. (timber for British ships was of good quality, I'm curious about the wood for the archers)

[fenir]

Hello Orda Khan,


What poundage is your bow? My son in law had one of 120lbs. I say 'had' because I watched it explode at full (32") draw about 2 years ago. That was interesting.

My Bow, which I haven't drawn in nearly 18 years or so, is 2.1 Meters tall, and I never measured the lb's draw weight back in the day, had no way of doing so. Consistant range was 280-310 max. So mathmatically, over 160lbs.
Myself and two of my 3 brothers had longbows growing up, Yew trees in high country New Zealand, over 1500 meters; That was what we used to make them.
Made the strings from NZ flax from down in the swamps. Got bees wax from the bee keeper down the road....that means 20km away. Can't remember the rest.


Military draw weights tended to be higher end, even ancient Scythian bows, when reproduced using the same construction (unbelievably complex) prove that finds considered 'grave goods' were in fact high poundage, working bows of possibly 100lbs+.
Considering this, English Longbow weights begin to sound a little less incredible.

Yeah most people who make bows today, are not relying on them saving their life. Hence not the same skill level.
But many different bows have quite high lb draws from what I have read. But the one common mistake most make, is equating draw lb's to effectiveness.
Just doesnt work that way. For example: with out getting to heavy into it, the Horse archer bow is entirely useless if you choose to use it like a longbow. And the reverse is also true. There is also no way in hell you can draw a longbow from the saddle. I've tried thousands of times.
But our little bows, no problem. Also horse archers usually raced in close to their target before shooting, 20-50 meters.
Of course the first longbowman they encountered made them stop that.




Hello Edyz,


Italian Alps yew? So the raw materials for the famous English longbows were in fact imported? Interesting.
Yes mostly, because there was never enough in Britian. Keep in mind though, importing yew belonged to those that could afford it. Mostly ordinary people made them from English yew. But King's longbows after AD1250 were mainly imported. Wood imported then made into Longbow staves.
Kew gardens has lots of records of imports.
And when the English weren't at war with the french ( the odd Monday), the french also supplied yew.

Keep in mind, most longbowman had 2 staves, sometimes 3 or 4 each. So 6,000 Longbowman = about 18,000 to 20,000 staves. Plus all those left at home.
Hence the need to import.



Sincerely

fenir

[Orda Khan]

For example: with out getting to heavy into it, the Horse archer bow is entirely useless if you choose to use it like a longbow.

Which 'horse archer bow' are you referring to? Used like a longbow? In ranks on foot? Plenty of examples of composite bows used this way, most notably Ottoman Turks, Qing and Koryo in both siege and field, the Koreans, into the 19thC. Not all 'horse archer bows' were specifically used from the saddle.


Also horse archers usually raced in close to their target before shooting, 20-50 meters.
Of course the first longbowman they encountered made them stop that.

Really? When was that?

[fenir]

Orda,


Fenir: For example: with out getting to heavy into it, the Horse archer bow is entirely useless if you choose to use it like a longbow.

Orda: Which 'horse archer bow' are you referring to? Used like a longbow? In ranks on foot? Plenty of examples of composite bows used this way, most notably Ottoman Turks, Qing and Koryo in both siege and field, the Koreans, into the 19thC. Not all 'horse archer bows' were specifically used from the saddle.

Most groups who used composite bow horse archers used specific bows, designed for the purpose.
Fast firing, light, close in attack. Whereas I have never read them being anything other than a pest in plunge fire. See East Romans, (Byzantine period), Crusades. Many a report of annoying horse archers making Knights and serjeants look like porcupines without ever doing any damage. But they are great for soft skinned targets of support.
The entire purpose of Horse archers is harrassment and picking off.
I dont know enough of the quig to make a judgement. My knowledge ends at Persia and Mongols as far as going east.
One of the accepted reasons why shields became smaller and discarded in the west, was the ineffectiviness of smaller bows. Whereas in the east and lavent shields remained larger to cope with lighter armoured troops suspectibility to light bows.


Whereas the Longbow is specfically for taking on heavily armoured foes, it's primary design feature is penetration at range. Something the light bows are not designed for in anything I have ever seen, or read. Which makes sense, eastern armour is much lighter than western armour. West never had to cover large distances for a fight.
And as stated before, the physics dont add up. Basics, lb's draw, of weight = velocity. Peneration = weight + velocity. Excluding type. Why have a 5.56 x 45mmm 65 grain? When you can use a 7.62 x 51mm 144 grain? The first is smaller than a .22 bullet. You will probably survive a 5.56 better than a 7.62. The 5.56 can't hurt you after 300 meters. A 7.62 will kill at 1,000 meters. Same arrows? Different Bows? We wear body armour and use a light bullet. Our oppoents tend to use no body armour and a heavy bullet.
We change to suit enviros. Experiance, Climate, Expense, Avilability. For the most part light bows work because they very rarely encountered heavily armoured oppoents. When they did, it was old fashion blood and guts.

The same was sort of true of Europe. Most nations used small bows every where. But they were never supposed to be used against heavily armoured oppoents. The were used to take on the peasants that most world armies used as arrow folder.
Think about how the American Indians used their bows in attacking buffalo, close in and many arrows. For a little wee cow? :)

In every instance of horse archer usage, I have never seen light bows used as anything other than short range penetrators.




Fenir: Also horse archers usually raced in close to their target before shooting, 20-50 meters.
Of course the first longbowman they encountered made them stop that.


Orda: Really? When was that?

First Longbowman, King Richard crusade, it was noted how the English army relied more on it's Archers than other western types, and that they were very effective, enough so to keep the horse archers from doing anything other than shadowing the army and the harrassing of foragers. They call them Archers with big bows. Not longbowman.
As for Horse archer modus operandi is to race in fire arrows and get away before your target can react.

I have to admit, I looked for 3 days trying to find that information, and I haven't yet. I know I have it.

Anyway, we will argue till the cows come home, which is why I didn't want to get into the time honoured longbow vs composite bow.


Sincerely

fenir

[Orda Khan]

Richard was an advocate of the crossbow, supposedly his favourite weapon and it was crossbowmen that he used to cover his exposed flank.
But you keep referring to 'light bows' when you talk about composite bows, which is what I don't understand. I don't consider bows in excess of 100lb to be light by any means. At Carrhae there are reports of shields pinned to arms by Parthian arrows, a feat hardly achievable with light bows. They also achieved something a little more than nuisance value.

Bodkin heads were also used by the Turks, so in theory, they could have drawn up into similar lines.

I'm not really interested in 'longbow v composite' either since both were effective weapons. My point was that composite bows were not exclusively horse archer bows and by no means light.

[RollingWave]

Richard was an advocate of the crossbow, supposedly his favourite weapon and it was crossbowmen that he used to cover his exposed flank.
But you keep referring to 'light bows' when you talk about composite bows, which is what I don't understand. I don't consider bows in excess of 100lb to be light by any means. At Carrhae there are reports of shields pinned to arms by Parthian arrows, a feat hardly achievable with light bows. They also achieved something a little more than nuisance value.

Bodkin heads were also used by the Turks, so in theory, they could have drawn up into similar lines.

I'm not really interested in 'longbow v composite' either since both were effective weapons. My point was that composite bows were not exclusively horse archer bows and by no means light.

Individual parts of Fenir's comments are true, but he puts it together wrong.

Horse archers did often close up to shoot, it was mostly against heavily armored foes , for the obvious reason that no matter the bow, the closer you are the more powerful the shot. also that at a close distance a good archer will not merely be aiming at a person or area, but actually aim at potential openings in their armor / shield what not, even full plate armor men if they get shot through the visor would be instantly killed, that is obvious.


However, this sort of tactic is bad against crossbowmen, at least those with sufficent pavise or good large shields in general. as early as 200 AD we have example of Chinese fighting using percisely this sort of tactic and annihilating horse archers up close, and similar tactics using large wagon as covers existed even earlier.

So this sort of tactic against Western European army was risky , at least against a good crossbow commander like Richard, but against others it worked to wonderous effect such as the battle of Adrianople 1204 where most of the 4th Crusade was annihilated by the Bulgarians and their Cuman allies.

But I've seen no example of longbowmen being able to do the same, and we know for a fact that longbowmens didn't wear anything close to heavy armor, common armor would generally be short chain or leather or gamberson (heavy cloth armor basically) or later on brigadine. and most of their limbs were unarmored anyway.

Longbows were not recorded to have been in significant use at Richard I 's time, it only became more common by the late 13th C and the complusory training that made a significant use of them possible only began under Edward III, AFTER Crecy. (though there was a law as early as 1250s that required land owner to have bows and arrow. which still is some 70+ years after Richard).

The Turks were known to have used a particular type of light arrow that can achieve insane distance (like 800 yards) but no penetration capability what so ever, however it is silly to assume that would be the only arrow they used in battle, they may have used it to unsettle / confuse enemy on why they're getting hit from so far away etc... but certainly it wasn't the main battle arrow.

Bows wasn't the only consideration in a shot of course, arrow is often just as important. when the horse archers close up for shots they will often use much bigger / heavier arrows that of course, doesn't really give a damn about range but simply going all out for potential power, I've seen a Qing dynasty China arrow of that type, and it was basically large enough to be thrown as a javelin.

Any bow that can be used on horseback can be used on foot, though the reverse is also technically true, the reason why people don't typically use that sort of bow on horse is because their range of motion becomes very limited by the long shaft.

Again, I feel that the longbow is often misunderstood, it as not the bow that made them, it was the organization, most European armies at this time were largely limited to a small caste of noble and their retinues, the longbowmen represented one of the few example of this time where a much larger of the population were effective warriors.

Likewise, it was not the composite bows that made the nomads dangerous, it was the fact that they were using it and riding horses basically on the day they were born.

[edyzmedieval]

I agree with almost everything you mentioned RollingWave, except for the last bit - the power of the bow is still crucial, simple hunting bows cannot ever match the power and accuracy of a composite bow. Simply put, the whole package was important, and it was the composite bow that made them dangerous, coupled with their experience and skill.

But even so, an inexperienced, averaged-skilled rider could still provide good firepower with a composite bow.

[edyzmedieval]

On the topic of European archers, does anyone have any information on the specifics of the Byzantine bow?

The Byzantine bow is a composite bow, similar to the Eastern bows, but it's slightly different in the sense that it has different draw characteristics and construction. Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Sp4]

I know the original post happened years ago but were arrows even that effective at Agincourt with everyone that had arrows shot at them running (or walking rather) around in plate armour? I'm no expert but I think a volley of arrows from a long distance away doesn't really do much to a bunch of people wearing the sort of armour they had at the time.

[Secura]

I think there's main two factors which answer your question about Agincourt.

Firstly, not every French soldier wore the finest plate armour, many were garbed in poorly-crafter wrought iron armour that didn't offer the same resilience to arrowheads, particularly as the French drew closer into melee range. The French did not see fit to outfit everyone as such both for monetary reasons (someone has to be arrow fodder!) and because they largely underestimated the English force, which was both smaller in number and a little worse-for-wear. In short, they expected a rout.

Secondly, the field of battle was a horrid combination of recently ploughed soil and heavy rain prior to combat. Naturally this limited the mobility of the heavily-armoured French knights, who had to focus on navigating the treacherous ground and the corpses of their comrades in addition to defending themselves, which made for easier targets for the English archers.

[edyzmedieval]

There's significant debate with regards to the effectiveness of the longbowmen at Agincourt, since a sizeable portion of the heavy knights the French used were trampled and imprisoned in the horrible mud of the battleground.

[Sp4]

Yes, I think the reason Agincourt was a massacre for the French was because of the horrible condition of the battlefield and the fact that they underestimated the English and more or less charged at them in three waves, the second and third wave both unable to see the failure of the one before. By the time they did realise, they were hemmed in by their own 'reserves' and the terrain. The reason the archers were so effective in this wasn't because they had bows and arrows but because they had hatchets and mallets to use against heavily armoured knights once they could not move under the weight of their own numbers.

[Arjos]

One more factor in play would've been the suction suffered by the armour plated French troops, contra the relatively better condition for the English archers wearing cloth. So not only the French were overcrowded and weighted down, but were also badly "stuck in" the mud and the archers could've teamed up on each knight in turn, dealing with them as easily as sticking a knife in the few open spaces of the armours...

Add in there horses falling and kicking everywhere trying to get up, I'd be surprised if the arrows weren't just aimed at them in the first place...

[Secura]

Add in there horses falling and kicking everywhere trying to get up, I'd be surprised if the arrows weren't just aimed at them in the first place...

This is a very good point. I imagine the English longbowmen aimed at the French horses specifically for this reason, to force the French knights into a situation where maintaining their defensive posture would have been physically impossible given the muddy terrain.

I also recall hearing that the English used galling arrows on the French men-at arms to great effect, with the shots designed to disorientate and heighten French confusion in the melee, making for even easier targets at close range. This was supposedly seen as unchivalrous by the French, perhaps because the English appeared to be making 'sport' of the battle and should have instead put the bogged-down French out of their misery. The English naturally saw it as "needs must", a strategy ultimately vital to their victory.

[edyzmedieval]

But aiming at horses, that wouldn't be too effective on a sizeable portion of the knights either. The French knights had their horses armoured or protected in some way anyhow, so the impact of bodkin arrows would still be lower.

So in this case, it's still the muddy terrain giving them the decisive advantage. Henry's longbowmen were still top notch marksmen.