Quote Originally Posted by tanker View Post
What is your source for that? Everything I've read puts a medieval longbow's draw weight at 80 lbs on the low end, 120 lbs on the high end and most somewhere in between. Even so, that's an extremely powerful bow. Primary sources from the Middle Ages, such as Frousart's Chronicals, are full of testimony of bodkin arrows piercing armor, especially chainmail. I'll stipulate that it was unlikely for an arrow to penetrate the center of a steel breastplate, especially the very advanced armors in the later period. But the battles weren't characterised by one shot on one knight - it was showers of arrows fired enmass. Arrows were likely to hit joints, faces, slits in visors, spaces between armor plates, and especially (mostly unarmored) horses. Still, the effect was the same -knights were just as neutralized in combat effectiveness as if they had been struck straight through the heart.
The great Warbow is an excellent source, and pretty much sets up that a war bow isn't going to take out a Man-at-arms in a coat-of-plates/hauberk. Additional tests with bodkin arrows have discovered that bodkins don't really penetrate that well(at the low velocities of muscle-powered weapons, mass accounts for much more than velocity, hence using heavy broadheads, rather than lightweight bodkins). Bows simply cannot kill knights at distances of more than 50yds. Hell, even mail armor will work VERY effectively. There's plenty of contradictory contemporary reports that the bows would punch through armor, or that an armored man could resist arrow fire almost indefinite. Mark Stratton, the greatest modern archer with the warbow, who uses something like a #150 bow, is on the record stating his doubts as to the effectiveness of the bow against armored men. Even a thick jupon, aketon or the like will protect against most arrowfire beyond 50yds.

Does this mean that the bow is ineffective? Nope. Lowering one's visor to provide facial protection reduces one's situational awareness, as well as reducing airflow and stifling the breath, increasing fatigue. Soldiers under fire by archers would lean their heads forward to provide additional protection, perhaps covering their faces with their shields. This would reduce their ability to maintain unit cohesion, unless the group tighter together, which reduces their capability to fight. By showering the approaching lines with arrows, you force them into a tight clump that is less effective in close combat and you cause greater fatigue.

And horses, well, only the richest knights could afford to armor their horses. And even then, there's a contemporary account of english archers being order to the flank to strike the weaker armor of the engaged french: so it seems pretty clear that the strength of the longbow is entirely over rated in Medieval. They should not have the AP value: their base attack is high enough to get through heavy mail(ARM 6 or 7 in the game), and plate armor should largely be proof against arrows.



... At Crecy, the English position was not particularly advantagous...
The english were deployed on a hill, with their flanks protected by terrain. That's pretty dern advantageous.

The Pope banned the crossbow at a time when the crossbow not only upset the balance of power on the battlefield, but the social order of Europe.
The pope banned the crossbow, not because of any sense of humanitarianism, but because his allies were primarily bow-using, and his opponents were primarily using crossbows. Nothing more or less than that.

The English success stories were largely a result of centuries of freeholding men being part of the military, expected to bear arms and trained in the use of those arms. Continental societies, in general(excluding the Swiss and Netherlands) did not allow for the lower classes to bear arms or participate in warfare, and as such they did not have a body of skilled men to call upon, nor a system to cover the payment of such men in the field. Oh, and the fact that the most skilled professional soldiers were often not part of the higher command circle, and their admonitions against stupid and fool-hardy tactics were ignored.