European Archers

[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.

[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...8105442AASvndN

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?).

[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.

[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/...tion/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.