Bows in the Dark Ages

[Jagger]

So did the Irish use bows in the Dark Ages for combat or not? I am sure all groups of people must have used bows for hunting. Why didn't the Irish use bows for warfare?

Also I have read a couple of books on the battle of Hastings. It seems the Saxons didn't use bows at the battle either. I did read one description indicating that the Normans were met by a "hail of throwing axes, javelings, etc." but not arrows. So why didn't the Saxons use bows for combat at Hastings or the previous battle against the Vikings?

[Leet Eriksson]

well i heard the saxons are of norse(viking,norwegian)origin,who throw axes instead of arrows http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif that explains them getting the Huscarle unit.

[Nowake]

At Hastings they needed to hold their ground. Plus, they had no acces to the gaelic bow or whatsoever, so they would have been pretty ineffective when using them.

[Hakonarson]

The saxons did use archers, but only in relatively small numbers.

It's not known whether or not they had any at Hastings, but htey did have some at Stamford Bridge just a couple of weeks earlier - Harald Hardrada was killed by an arrow to the throat and the accounts mention arrows weakening the shield wall.

Unfortunately the only informatoin I have on hte Irish is fairly sketchy, and doesn't mention archers.

I do have a couple of army lists that do give the Irish very small numbers of archers and slingers but I wouldn't want to rely upon those as evidence

[Jagger]

I just read about the arrow in the throat business with Hardrada a few days after my post. So apparantly the Saxons did have some archers.

But finding information on archer use in the Dark Ages is pretty tough. They aren't mentioned much among the Saxons. The Normans, Vikings and Welsh definitely used archers. Although I am not sure if the Norman archers were mercenaries or not. I wonder if there was some sort of psychological "macho" prohibition against the wholesale use of archers amonst the Anglo-Saxons. Or maybe some sort of prohibition against the bow by the ruling classes similiar to the crossbow. I just don't know either way.

One thing I have discovered is that javalins were much more extensively used than as shown in the Viking game. I think the Saxons and Welsh used light javelin skirmishers similiar to the Kerns. I don't know about the Mercians, Scots or Picts but they probably used them as well. Although I suspect they were used more by the Celtic peoples than the lowland Anglo-Saxons.

I also found several references to horsemen hurling javelins. I am thinking of adding a Jinette type unit but am not sure what factions would be most likely to use them.

[BDC]

I think they were just used as light skirmishers. Certainly it was centuries before the longbow and crossbow became masters of the battlefield. In one book I read it said the Norman archers used such weak bows that the arrows didn't even penetrate leather armour, although I don't know if that is accurate or not.

[Hakonarson]

I think javelins were not so much used by skirmishers as by heavy infantry - most heavy infantry would carry 1 or 2 short spears that could be thrown or retained for H-H - Saxon Fyrd, Viking Leidang and Bondi, etc - all fought like this in shieldwalls, while Welsh and some other spearmen who charged hard would also throw javelins just before contact in much the same way Roman legionaries threw pila.

In areas without so much heavy infantry javelin skirmishers were more popular - Scotland, Ireland, Wales for example.

Norman archers were not mercenaries - although their spearmen were occasionally.

Most horsemen at this time were javelin-throwers capable of charging home if the enemy appeared disordered - much as cavalry had always done.

Hard charging horse were known to various German tribes - Goths & Vandals, but none of htem appear in the game AFAIK.

[deejayvee]

From Anglo-Saxon Weapons and Warfare by Richard Underwood:

"Finds of archery equipment are rare in England. A bow and arrows were found at Chessel Down on the Isle of Wight and traces of the wood of the bow stave on the soil are occasionally identified. Iron arrowheads survive more frequently and are found in about one percent of graves. It is often assumed that the scarcity of finds indicates that archery equipment was deposited in graves only infrequently, however, it should be recognised that neither bow staves nor arrows are likely to survive in English soil and the actual frequency with which they were deposited may have been much higher...
...Bows appear to have been used more frequently in war than the grave evidence would suggest. They are referred to in literature and also depicted in art...
...The Bayeux tapestry shows no less than 29 archers, six in the main scene and 23 in the border...
...Most men would have learnt how to use a bow for hunting, since game would be an important supplement to the table, however, its use in war appears to have been limited to a few specialists. It is not clear why this is so, but it may be simply that to be effective an archer could not afford to be encumbered with the additional weapons with which to engage in hand-to-hand combat."

[DojoRat]

Quote[/b] (Jagger @ June 12 2003,09:22)]So did the Irish use bows in the Dark Ages for combat or not? I am sure all groups of people must have used bows for hunting. Why didn't the Irish use bows for warfare?

I wonder if the bow was used that much for hunting? Maybe for small game but you need a powerful bow to bring down a buck and then you still might have to follow the blood trail. Woods covered most of N Europe then, so maybe a throwing spear was just as effective considering a forest's limited line of sight, it certainly was cheaper and easier to use.

I don't recall any Celtic tales about bows in combat but then again they're not exactly a champion's weapon. Tales are sung about the big man with the sword not the backing chorus with the missle weapons. And like the article quoted above said bows don't survive in a damp climate. It seems though that bows just didn't have that big of a role in the warrior culture of N Europe.

[Hakonarson]

Bows do survive in damp climates - it is composite bows made up of multiple materials and normally glued with animal glues that suffer.

Arrows of any size are unlikely to kill big game outright - they only do so if you get a perfect shot to the brain or heart. If you hit anywhere else you'll be following a wounded animal waiting for it to bleed to death - same with humans and horses - arrows are just not instantly lethal.

[DemonArchangel]

well, unless your name is hannibal lecter (if you're wondering what i'm talking about, read the novel Hannibal)

[hrvojej]

This makes me wonder why don't we have any axe throwers included in MTW and/or VI. Were they so rare as well?

[DojoRat]

I recall reading that the Franks were axe throwers. Maybe axes became less effective as the armor level of the warrior increased.

[Hakonarson]

Franks used a throwing axe called a Francisca - IIRC their name is derived from it. Ir was supposed to be able to split a shield with a good hit.

More likely the skills required to consistently achive good hits with such a weapon were in short supply - spears are much easier to throw and use generally, and they also had aa heavy throwing spear called an "angon".