The English Longbow

[Brandy Blue]

When it comes to wages then crossbowmen were not paid less. There was a difference between foot and mounted archers and same thing with crossbowmen. AFAIK missile armed soldiers apparently had higher wages than basic infantry although their wages could vary too: Edward II was willing to pay 4d for the best-armed spearmen, 3d for half-armed and 2d for the rest and that was when foot archers would be getting 2-3d.

Thanks, CBR. That's the kind of information I wanted to dig up but don't have time to. In my opinion its more important than whether or not longbow arrows could penetrate white armor. It gives a general feel for how useful the troops were from the viewpoint of their paymaster.

[Fisherking]

The info I saw stated that foot archers at the time of Crecy were paid 4d per day and that mounted archers were paid 6d.

The Genoways Crossbowmen were paid more but they fought as part of a 3 or 4 man crew. The extra men handled the shields and cocked other bows for the archer. They out ranged the longbows and had greater accuracy.

We know that the best armor was proof against longbow arrows. We see that as early as Poitiers but it still did its work more than 50 years later at Agincourt. But Verneuil once again showed the power of good armor when the bowmen on one flank were swept from the field by Lombard mercenaries. Here we are told the arrows bounced off the armor of the horses.

The crossbow was always superior to the longbow in range and armor penetration and common bows could also produce an arrow storm of almost equal effect on unarmored opponents but we don’t find them in use. By the end we have the arbalest, a steel prod crossbow that can shoot 900 meters.

A 70 lbs. bow will not even penetrate good quality mail at 10 meters, from the tests I have seen, so it must be the high draw weight bows that were the key to the effectiveness.

The 150 lbs bow tested still doesn’t measure up to the lower tier of the bows we know of and we can not replicate the metals used at the time. Iron has not been produced in the developed world since 1963. What we call Iron is steel with an admixture of slag and would still have more hardness than pure iron. We can see that even then that the 150 lbs. bow will pierce untempered steel but not the tempered and case hardened steel, to significant effect. Also the alloying agents make a significant difference over pure iron or simple steel of only Iron and 0.2% carbon.

Only armor coming from Augsburg or Milan, and made from some of the Austrian iron ores would have been close to the metals we take for granted today.

My difficulty is more with the validity of the tests.

Minute changes in carbon content make a huge difference in the way the metal performs, as would perhaps another 10 to 30 lbs of the draw weight of the bow.

[CBR]

We see that as early as early as Poitiers but it still did its work more than 50 years later at Agincourt.

Yeah sure, archers did something but even an English source (Gesta) only mentions arrows penetrating visors and the side of helmets.

Crossbows came in different types. One of the more widespread types seems to have been using a belt claw or hook and IIRC estimates vary from 330 to maybe 400 pounds, give or take a few, and comparable in power to strong warbows.

Genoese crossbowmen might generally have been using a heavier type that used a windlass. Not sure where you get a 900 meters range from. One test with a 1200 pound steel type managed 460 yards with bolts of around 85 grams.

Metallurgical tests of historical armour has come a long way, so it certainly is possible to get something close to what they made back then. A lot of tests have problems regarding metal quality though, and that is with the arrow heads as they are too hard. I don't think I have encountered any who complained about the armour being too good in the various tests I have seen.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The 150 lbs bow tested still doesn’t measure up to the lower tier of the bows we know of" Of the 130+ bows found in Mary Rose the average draw weight was around 140 or 150 pounds and the largest bow was at first estimated to be 180 pounds at 30 inches draw but as one expert judged it would break at such a long draw, it was reduced to 172 pounds at 28 inch draw. So why worry about a few extra pounds in draw weight when it is at the extreme end?

[gaelic cowboy]

Lately I have seen several programs debunking its ability to pierce armor. This flies in the face of a great deal of contemporary accounts. What is more, is it means that the English spent a lot of time and effort on something that didn't work in the first place.

I bet it had more to do with a growing cost to the agricultural economy of ensuring one had masses of archers, far easier to just stick a gun in the fellas hands and just point in a general direction. More bang for the kings bucks (pun intended)

[Fisherking]

I have seen nothing on the cocking method used for the Genoese crossbows. Only statements saying they were the best of the time but they must not have been too extraordinary because they fell within longbow range when firing up the hill at Crecy.

The arbalest was the final development in the crossbows of the time. The most powerful of them are said to have a 900m range. It also said that there were draw weights in excess of 1500 lbs. It dose sound long to me but if you see some of the current archery records for arrow flight in excess of 2000 yards...you think they must have been shooting from an aircraft in a hurricane.

The data I saw on the Mary Roses bows was that they ranged from a low of 160 lbs to a high of 180 lbs and that the majority were in the 180 lbs. range. Therefore I drew the conclusion that that was not the extreme end of the scale. Arrow lengths were of 30 and 32 inches and we know they were taught to draw the full length of the arrow all the way up to the point. Speaking of 28 inch draw lengths without 28 inch arrow is just someone speculating. It goes against the things we do know.

I don’t think any of the tests concerned themselves with the metallurgical properties of the metal used for the armor but more with the historical heat treatment of the pieces, which would indeed impart more hardness. None were detailed to any great degree.

There is conflicting information, of course, and that is just the point. Most is stated from our current world view and of what we today think, we are reaching conclusions while we disregard firm evidence and speculate to fill gaps.

I am sure they would have tested a 180 lbs. bow if they had had one and someone who could pull it.

As to the replacement by firearms, it would seem that the lack of yew was more the cause than the benefits of firearms. There just was no timber left.

If it were only a matter of ease of use and training them the English would have changed to crossbows early on. Crossbows had a higher rate of fire than handguns of the 16th century and much better accuracy. The difference was armor penetration. This brings us down to musket and pike.

[CBR]

I have seen nothing on the cocking method used for the Genoese crossbows. Only statements saying they were the best of the time but they must not have been too extraordinary because they fell within longbow range when firing up the hill at Crecy.

It is indeed not clear what they were armed with. Mid 15th century illustration have them using windlass crossbows but since that is nearly 100 years after the actual battle it could be anachronistic. Burgundian records from 1384 have a "Genoese fashion" crossbow with iron bands (most likely the stuff reinforcing the stock on either side of the lock) cost the same as a two-foot crossbow 1). But even if heavy crossbows (for that era) were used it does not mean any real range advantage over a strong warbow. They also had to shoot uphill nor would max range bring any good accuracy nor penetration.

The arbalest was the final development in the crossbows of the time. The most powerful of them are said to have a 900m range. It also said that there were draw weights in excess of 1500 lbs. It dose sound long to me but if you see some of the current archery records for arrow flight in excess of 2000 yards...you think they must have been shooting from an aircraft in a hurricane.

Some of the heaviest might have had 2000 pound draw weight. The problem is that is that it is always possible to make a stronger crossbow. It just gets heavier and heavier and starts to be siege/rampart crossbows. The 1200 pound I mentioned weigh 8kg compared to 3 or 4kg for the lighter crossbows.2)

I really do not know where you get 900 meters range for crossbows from? The best Turkish record using recurve bows and special short and very light flight arrows is 930 yards 3)

The data I saw on the Mary Roses bows was that they ranged from a low of 160 lbs to a high of 180 lbs and that the majority were in the 180 lbs. range. Therefore I drew the conclusion that that was not the extreme end of the scale.

The lowest is actually something like 100 pound. The largest group of the bows recovered are within the 150-160 pound range.4)

Arrow lengths were of 30 and 32 inches and we know they were taught to draw the full length of the arrow all the way up to the point. Speaking of 28 inch draw lengths without 28 inch arrow is just someone speculating. It goes against the things we do know.

Average arrow length was 30 inches. Then the need to insert it into the arrow head which would anywhere between 3/4 to 1 3/4 inches.

The 28 inch draw was for the most powerful of the bows and was the estimation of someone who should know more about bows than most. It does not mean 28 inch was normal for all bows, just for that bow.

Max draw length depends on strength and arm length of archers. Some of the best today can pull 33 inches and I'm sure some could do that back then too.

I am sure they would have tested a 180 lbs. bow if they had had one and someone who could pull it.

A guy like Simon Stanley can pull a 190 pound bow although he does not like it. But again why focus on so heavy bows when all evidence shows that it would be the absolute max power for bows with a small minority being able to handle them?

As to the replacement by firearms, it would seem that the lack of yew was more the cause than the benefits of firearms. There just was no timber left.

If some English sources are to be trusted then it because the English nation had become more urban and lazy or whatever. Part of that was true but also not something new as IIRC some were already complaining about poor training in the 14th century. The new thing of course was that England no longer were involved in warfare in the same degree as in the HYW, so there was no large pool of experienced archers plus the improvements of guns and armour.

In 1569 they forbade trained archers in learning the use of firearms so no lack of wood at that point. 5)

If it were only a matter of ease of use and training them the English would have changed to crossbows early on.

But it was precisely because of ease of use and training that England used bows. If you want a large proportion of the population training with a weapon, you want something that is easy and cheap to make. Crossbow production and maintenance was much more specialized and more costly.

England was not a very populous country, yet English Kings managed to gather some impressive numbers of archers and seems to have always been able to outnumber the missile troops in French armies. That shows the power of focusing on an archery culture.

1) European Crossbows: A Survey by Josef Alm
2) The Book of the Crossbow by Ralph Payne-Gallwey
3) http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Perform...rkish_bows.htm
4) The Great Warbow by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy
5) http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/decline/

[Orda Khan]

Unless both armour and arrowhead can be produced to the exact specification, using the exact same processes all tests and theories are worthless.
There are many arrowhead designs, each has a particular use. The bodkin (not the needle variety which was designed for use against mail) is hardly the first shape to spring to mind if we are trying to pierce a man's flesh. It was intended to work like a dot punch; it stands to reason it was intended for use against plate.
There are many nay sayers these days, the bow has been reduced to mere nuisance value and the archers to peasant rabble.

To each nay sayer I suggest they put on a fairly decent suit of armour and test for themselves. My daughter's boyfriend has a nice full compass warbow, only 115 lbs, I'm sure a few livery arrows out of that will do.