of bows and arrows...

[VAE VICTUS]

i read this book that said that longbows had a range of only 60yrds.

my little cousin has this bow with arrow, and he is 10,so its not very powerful. the pull is a joke it is so easy to pull back, well i wanted to see how far i could shoot it so i aimed up some and released, and the thing went at least 100yrds, over the field and into the treeline. so how much more powerful were the mongol bows or the longbow?
it would seem that they would have much more powerful.

[matteus the inbred]

Since it's been established that longbows built to cover all the argued ranges of draw weight and construction thought reasonable by experts (and i have myself fired a reconstruction 50lb draw weight longbow well over 60 yards, and i'm a wimp) had an effective range of up to 200 yards (crossbows could do 350-400) what was the name of this highly misguided book? Or rather, how did the author arrive at this odd conclusion?

There's one account of the Battle of Formigny in 1450 where a particularly large archer fires his bow at well over that range by sitting down and using his feet to draw it, but obviously this was unusual behaviour!

[Red Peasant]

Maybe 60 yards was a reduced distance at which it could penetrate certain heavy armours developed in a mainly forlorn attempt to neutralise its effectiveness. I seem to remember something to that effect.

[Incongruous]

The really interesting thing about English Longbowmen is that they pussed foreward on the bow. Interesting...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

200+ yards range, 90-120lb pull firing a 1 and1/4lb war arrow. The bow as usually 6 feet long, at least. The pull of the weapon was such that it caused physical deformity when used extensively from a young age.

Against iron plate the arrow will penetrate at 60 yards, at 20 yards the arrow will penetrate steel plate. At, I think, 100+ yards the arrow will kill a man wearing chainmail or kevlar.

[Watchman]

You sure about that ? Historical accounts of the things and thorough analyses thereof suggest somewhat different. Besides, always remember one thing: the longbow was among the things plate armoure was developed against, and the longbow disappeared from field duty a lot sooner than the heavy crossbow or the solid steel plate...

If you could kill a mail-clad man with a puny longbow at hundred paces the First Crusade would have been slaughtered by the first large group of horse-archers they ran into. Those reflex composite bows make longbows weep in envy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have seen a bodkin arrow go through steel plate at twenty paces and severely dent it at 60. I mean a dent bad enough to make breathing difficult. The important thing about the longbow is the arrow. IIRC arab arrows of the period were broad headed or barbed, not to mention lighter than the monster 28 inch war arrow used by the English. The bodkin head was developed to go between the links of mail and is deadly unless you wear plate, at any range really. It will go between the fibres in Kevlar as well.

Remember a lot of tests are done with lower limit bows, 60-90lb, rather than the real thing, 90-120lb.

Use of the Longbow was a lifetime commitment.

[English assassin]

I can't pretend to be an expert in these things but IIRC the reason the lognbow disappeared was not that it was an ineffective weapon (although against later suits of armour the crossbow would have the advantage) but that to use it effectively required years and years of practice. So to get 100 longbowmen you have to find 100 people who have been practicing since their teens, whereas to get 100 crossbowmen you need to pressgang the nearest pub.

As for a "range" of 60 yards, modern reconstructions, not to mention the battle of Agincourt, show that must be way off. Possibly they meant a lethal range against armour plate, I could easily believe that that might be only 60 yards or so. But then you don't need a lethal hit to take the target out of nthe battle, and if he's mounted you don't even need to hit the rider at all.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

You must remember though that the longbowman was aiming for the horses of the mounted Knight. Yes, the arrow probably couldn't penertrate the armour but it sure as hell bring down a horse, with the Knight being weighed down and the weight of the horse on top of him it would only be a matter of time when they would be dispatched by a English man at arms.

The great warbows (Longbow is only a modern day term,) were used en masse to disrupt a cavalry charge, not to halt or turn back one. Even so at fifty-sixty yards a arrow could punch through most armour

The effective range for the longbow was around 220 yards (the range is much greater but lacks any penertrating power) and with an normal archer lossing 8-10 per minute they could weather a storm of arrows (Veterans could loose up to 18-20 a minute and could often let loose an arrow, then another and loose a third before the first had hit the ground)

At Agincourt nearly 30-40,000 arrows were fired a minute and with the mounted knight, who took 15-20 seconds to cover 200 and a dismounted man around 80-90 that is a hell alot of arrows to contend with and that sheer number is demoralsing enough let alone walking through the storm of death

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yep, although with all this one should mention that every bow was different and customised to the user and that the Yew used affected quality. Apparently Spanish Yew was the best because the thiner soil made the grain tighter, the English were more worried about importing Yew than wine!

[Orda Khan]

The claim is utter nonsense to be quite frank. There have also been claims that the Longbow rarely exceded 88 lbs draw weight, which is again not true. Modern 'Victorian design' Longbows (more D shaped than ) shaped) average around 30 - 50 lbs and easily cope in Clout shoots of 180 yards or so. I forget the current flight record but it is well over 400 yards, albeit with a light, flight arrow. I have heard the 60 yard argument applied to lethality and I am not sure if I agree with it. I too have seen plate pierced by an arrow with bodkin head and that was from a 66 lb bow and the arrow was a 11/32 modern spine.
With regards to armour piercing arrowheads.....There were two types of bodkin head.
The Needle bodkin, as the name suggests was a long, thin, square section head. The fine point could pierce the rings of chain mail and the square section edges would cut/force apart the mail, allowing the arrow to pass through. This head was useless against plate as the fine point would simply bend.
This was overcome by using short bodkin heads which look almost blunt by comparison. They worked in a similar way to a dot punch tool, again the edges of the square section would cut early plate. Imagine an X shaped cut, the arrow velocity would then push the four triangular pieces of plate inward.
I am a little on the fence about their actual ability. People argue that they were not as effective as is generally thought, however if this was the case surely English armies would have employed far less Longbowmen than they did and these men would not have been granted the rights that were bestowed on them for services rendered.
The Asiatic Composite versus Longbow debate has raged for a long time. I shoot a Hun bow made by Csaba Grozer and another Hun from Kassai Lajos and at 40 lbs draw, these bows easily out perform a Longbow of similar poundage. I was recently speaking with a 19 year old girl who was visiting our club for British Squad training. She asked a few questions about my bow since her club had been in touch with Grozer, asking for support for one of their shows and she had the good fortune to win the bow he donated...a Hun of 50 lbs draw weight. When I asked if she was able to draw it she explained that she was only able to draw to approximately armpit level of her bow arm. Aiming at a 50 metre target, she missed.....and found her arrow embedded in a fence at 110!!! My wife has a 25 lb Hun and she has fired ordinary field arrows uphill, into a strong headwind and achieved a nice group at over 120 yards.
The assymetrical limbs of the Hun absorb and dissipate handshock to the point that it is hardly noticeable and I have found that it even out performs my old Mongol bow. The Longbow is another story, those long, heavy limbs can send a shock up to your elbow and care must be taken that the bow is 'warmed up' because failure is quite common. I witnessed one go a few years ago during one of our Field Tournaments.....not nice. Two local bowyers/archers recently made a Longbow of 120 lbs and trained to use it at a Flight Tournament. They achieved a distance of 380 metres with normal (not flight) arrows

.........Orda

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I forgot to mention the two types of bodkin head. I believe that 250 yards would probably the the maximum effective range for a warbow with war arrows, which are 1 1/4lbs each. By comparison modern arrows are very light. I belive the reason the longbow went out of service was its difficulty of use. Learning the bow was something of a vocation. By contrast crossbows took weeks to learn.

After the Black death hit I think there were a lack of yoemen with the skills and this was when guns became more prevelant. When you think about it the longbow out performed muskets until the early 19th Century and the Baker rifle.

[Harald Den BlåToth]

here's some scientific stuff about bows...no figures though...just equations...The area under the curve is the energy as a function of force and draw

http://www.unifi.it/unifi/surfchem/s.../modelingbows/

[Watchman]

Just for the record, I kind of categorically refuse to believe people who had been shooting at heavily armoured enemies with composite bows for millenia, such as the Middle Easterners and the various horse nomads, would have failed to produce all the special-purpose arrow and -head designs they ever needed and then some.

Or that the cataphract principle would have been developed and remained highly popular in a region lousy with such bows, archers and arrows if all you needed to take down even a heavily-armoured man was a good archer, bow and arrow. A skilled archer with a good bow on horseback was something of a military backbone in the whole region, after all.

As for the longbow, well, let's put it this way: the French always seemed quite capable of getting through the arrow-storms in enough numbers to give the English heavy troops a serious fights. In many instances they were able to make several such attempts. To my knowledge the longbowmen were never able to defend their positions with firepower alone, period. The normal technique seems to have simply been deployed out of the way of the main thrust (and they could provide enfilading fire from the flanks this way too), and use terrain and whatever field fortifications could be readied to help blunt advances against them.

And this even early on in the HYW when armour was still mail plus reinforcements.

AFAIK its killing power was secondary to the sheer distruptive effect the constant rain of arrows had on even the best protected men (hapless soldiers in less-than-topnotch armour naturally died a lot easier, although that didn't seem to keep the Genoese at Grecy from being able to get some shots of their own off before they broke). All those nasty whizzing things bouncing off your armour are going to seriously unnerve most people, all the more so as every now and then one hits an opening or weak spot by chance and does some real damage. All that and the reactions it naturally elicits from its victims result in some seriously messed-up formations, and the Medieval ones weren't exactly the best drilled and coordinated to begin with. The longbowmen weren't battle-winning troops by themselves. They were support troops that enabled the English to win battles with far smaller numbers of the hideously expensive heavy shock troops than would otherwise have been necessary - by the time the enemy's shock troops could get to grips with their waiting (and hence fully rested) English colleagues their formations would be in tatters and hence the whole bunch was far easier to deal with, all the more so as they were getting arrows to their flanks all the time too.

[Atilius]

As for the longbow, well, let's put it this way: the French always seemed quite capable of getting through the arrow-storms in enough numbers to give the English heavy troops a serious fights. In many instances they were able to make several such attempts. To my knowledge the longbowmen were never able to defend their positions with firepower alone, period. The normal technique seems to have simply been deployed out of the way of the main thrust (and they could provide enfilading fire from the flanks this way too),
...its killing power was secondary to the sheer distruptive effect the constant rain of arrows had on even the best protected men ... All those nasty whizzing things bouncing off your armour are going to seriously unnerve most people... The longbowmen weren't battle-winning troops by themselves. They were support troops that enabled the English to win battles with far smaller numbers of the hideously expensive heavy shock troops...

I agree with most of your points here, but not with your conclusion that longbowmen weren't absolutely deadly. And I don't agree with your description of longbowmen as support troops. Of course they couldn't stand up to men-at-arms alone, but the English armies that fought at Crecy and Agincourt could fairly be described as longbow armies.

At Crecy, Edward III had an army in which archers predominated: from Froissart I get 2300 men-at-arms, 5200 archers, and 1000 Welsh (knifemen?). Other sources give similar proportions and numbers. They were opposed by an army of at least 30,000 French consisting mostly of men-at-arms. The battle was a massacre in which the French lost 1,500 knights and lords alone (well over 10,000 in total), as against perhaps 100 English. The Duke of Lorraine, the archbishop of Rouen, and at least 10 Counts were killed. Even King Phillip was struck by an arrow and had a horse killed beneath him.

Henry's army at Agincourt consisted of about 5000 archers and just 1000 men-at-arms: even more bow-heavy than Edward's at Crecy, and even more heavily outnumbered by the French. The result was the same though, and the butchery so severe that the third French line was too demoralized to engage. The Constable d'Albret, 3 Dukes, 7 Counts, and perhaps 10,000 men were among the dead, and Marshal Boucicault was captured. About 300 English were killed.

In both cases the English had the benefit of high ground and the ad-hoc French armies showed appallingly poor discipline. But the sheer disparity in the numbers of the dead (including nobles) indicate that relatively few of the French reached the English line. This was indeed enough to give the English men-at-arms a serious fight - at Agincourt the Duke of Alencon beat Henry to his knees - but this is just a reflection of the small number of heavily armed and armored Englishmen. It must be that a majority of the French were killed by the English longbowmen.

[matteus the inbred]

agreed Atilius, great summary!...similar proportions appears in English armies v Scots...at Homildon Hill in 1402 chroniclers specifically mention the effect of arrows, and hardly any of the (admittedly more lightly armoured) Scots made it into combat. English armies only really appear to have been vulnerable if they could be surprised and engaged in melee without deploying archers (Baugé, Formigny), and when the French began to make heavier use of artillery and disciplined troops.

It's worth pointing out that Poitiers was a very hard scrap, hand-to-hand predominating, Froissart gives a great account of it, especially the confusion surrounding the capture of King John. Wikipedia has this to say -
'Right at the beginning of the battle, the English simulated flight on their left wing. This provoked a hasty charge by the French knights against the archers. However, they were expecting this and quickly attacked the enemy, especially the horses, with a shower of arrows. Froissart writes that the French knight's armour was invulnerable to the English arrows, that the arrowheads either skid off the armour or shattered on impact. The armour on the horses, however, was weak on the sides and back, so the English archers moved to the sides of the cavalry and shot the horses in the flanks. The results were devastating.'
Following this the dismounted English, stiffened by elite mercenaries, dealt with the French in a succession of melees, aided by confusion in the French lines. It's also worth noting that John had dismissed most of his lower quality foot to catch the Black Prince, and therefore numbers were fairly even.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think longbows are generally a little overrated by fiction and seriously underrated by some scholars. Don't forget some of these "experts" will tell you a longsword weighs 20lbs and was used to batter armour.

Agincourt is probably the best example. The English were out numbered eight to one, not counting crossbowmen, with inferior hand to hand troops and with disease in the camp they were already bellow the 6,000 odd they had when they crossed the channel. Despite this 10,000 French Knights, 1/4 of their force were killed.

Admittedly Henry exicuted the prisoners, but still.

[Gealai]

Harald, nice graphs however the first one is about the compound not the composite bow. The comp. drawing curve is the mirrored curve of the short bow, with the curve/line of the longbow as axis.

As area (under the graph) equals work, a good composite can, with the same draw. wheigt easily outperform the longbow. A composite bow was due to his lighter and shorter design also more energyefficient in transferring it's power to the arrow, especially when shooting light arrows. When using heavy ones, the relative difference in energyefficiency due to wheigt becomes less and less --> this combined with the low rate of missile troops among the english enemies let to the use of relative heavy arrows with good penetration.

The great archers of the east also faced great archers and had to vary far more between light longranged ones of various design and very heavy closeranged ones with other design.

--> Watchman:

In fact it is not just mine believe that the Catas became so heavily armored because they had to face excellent archery. In fact already the Assyrian cavalry did use horsearmor - in a time were the Scythians started raiding heavily...

Gealai

[Orda Khan]

I kind of categorically refuse to believe people who had been shooting at heavily armoured enemies with composite bows for millenia, such as the Middle Easterners and the various horse nomads, would have failed to produce all the special-purpose arrow and -head designs they ever needed

The Horse archer nations had many arrowhead variants

...........Orda

[CBR]

But the sheer disparity in the numbers of the dead (including nobles) indicate that relatively few of the French reached the English line. This was indeed enough to give the English men-at-arms a serious fight - at Agincourt the Duke of Alencon beat Henry to his knees - but this is just a reflection of the small number of heavily armed and armored Englishmen. It must be that a majority of the French were killed by the English longbowmen.

In general battles always had big differences in losses between loser and winner, and a majority of the Agincourt sources would disagree with your conclusion too. The archers did indeed kill some, although we dont know if they caused the majority of the French losses, but that was when they moved forward to engage the French in the flanks.

Factors like mud, arrows, routing cavalry hitting their own men and bad French leadership turned the dismounted attack into a tired compressed mob that got slaughtered.


I have read about several tests of longbow v plate and one them done by Royal Military College of Science Testing Grounds found that "a bodkin-tipped arrow would dent the armour at 80m (260ft), puncture it at 30m (98ft) and penetrate right through plate and underlying doublet coat to the flesh at 20m (65ft)" But everything depends on getting it all right to make the test useful, and some I have seen described just used some cheap soft steel for the armour which is not very authentic.

Orda:

I am a little on the fence about their actual ability. People argue that they were not as effective as is generally thought, however if this was the case surely English armies would have employed far less Longbowmen than they did and these men would not have been granted the rights that were bestowed on them for services rendered.

If you wanted to use archers to disrupt heavily armoured enemies you needed a lot of them to have any effect. If you didnt have many then they would best be employed like skirmishers way up front, and the main purpose would then be to keep enemy archers at a distance to protect main army.

English kings were pretty limited in what troops they could get. They had their men-at-arms and commoners to recruit and most of the commoners could not afford much more than a shield and spear or a bow.

England was a well organised but not very populous country, so the kings had enough money to more or less get all the willing men-at-arm and still be inferior in numbers. Only way to increase his armies would be mercs or regular use of commoners. Mercs could not always be relied on because of shifting politics but Gascon and Flemish knights were used on several occasions though, and of course the Welsh.

Later on when the numbers of men-at-arms dwindled, the use of Billmen became more dominant, although archers might already have been supported by spear/billmen in the earlier years of HYW but I dont think there is much specific data for the earlier years.

All my books are packed away as Im moving soon but IIRC the English did try and establish a large force of armoured spearmen during the later half of the 14th century but apparently it failed. Releasing prisoners and hiring lowlife scum and give them a bow instead turned out to be easier to do


CBR

[Incongruous]

As I said before on the bbc they had some massive Cornish bloke who at 66-70 yrds fired the short bodkin arrow at a piece of steele plate at a perpendicular angle and it went over an inch through. At Agincourt the English archers were what one might consider elite for Henry had been training them for months.

[matteus the inbred]

Indeed, it was famously illegal for English men to play football or other sports on a Sunday, they had to practice archery instead...!
I recall that there was this Yorkshire bloke called Robrt Hardy(?) who was a professional longbowman and appeared on TV, his arms and shoulders were huge.
He comments in his book
Archers started their training while children, to build their bodies and their capabilities to a fine degree. Training was compulsory, every Sunday, and that law is still on the books!
A good bowmen could shoot (not 'fire' - that only refers to guns) 15 arrows per minute at ranges of around 300+ yards.
The 'arrowstorm' was a term which fitted the scene well. 5000 archers could lay 75,000 deadly arrows on the enemy in a single minute.
At the battle of Towton in 1461 - Britain's bloodiest battle - the Yorkist faction had as many as 20,000 archers. At 15 arrows per minute that's 300,000 arrows per minute - 5000 arrows per second. 28,000 died. Nothing came close to this killing score until the First World War.

[Watchman]

Just a little reminder, but even if disproportionate amount of the effective fighting power rested on the armoured shoulders of the men-at-arms, the vast majority of troops in Medieval armies were invariably of far lesser calibre of training and armament. Archery might not cause too many outright casualties amongst the elite heavies, but it sure could do a number on their lighter support troops. And when you consider the detail that such lesser troops were employed in as large numbers as possible and unhesitantly thrown into the thick of battle side-by-side with the heavies, this would obviously be of some notable tactical significance.

It's sort of like how in RTW you usually don't concentrate your archery on the few units of nearly arrow-proof Urban Cohorts, but instead decimate the more vulnerable troops wathicng their flanks so that the Urbans will have to face your melee line unsupported.

[CBR]

As I said before on the bbc they had some massive Cornish bloke who at 66-70 yrds fired the short bodkin arrow at a piece of steele plate at a perpendicular angle and it went over an inch through. At Agincourt the English archers were what one might consider elite for Henry had been training them for months.

What was the thickness of the steel plate and what type of steel? Was it just a plate or did it have any type of backing behind it? What type of steel was the bodkin made of?

AFAIK in another BBC show "Arms in action" longbows had big problems penetrating a steel plate. Its all a matter of how the test is set up.

Archers started their training while children, to build their bodies and their capabilities to a fine degree. Training was compulsory, every Sunday, and that law is still on the books!

And training once a week would make people very familiar with bows but experts no. Some recruiters complained about archers who not only didnt bring along a bow but couldnt even draw a bow.

The 'arrowstorm' was a term which fitted the scene well. 5000 archers could lay 75,000 deadly arrows on the enemy in a single minute.
At the battle of Towton in 1461 - Britain's bloodiest battle - the Yorkist faction had as many as 20,000 archers. At 15 arrows per minute that's 300,000 arrows per minute - 5000 arrows per second. 28,000 died. Nothing came close to this killing score until the First World War.

Towton is one of the largest battles ever fought in Britain. Both sides agreed to give no quarter. The fighting is described to be very violent and lasted a long time. In the rout we hear of bridges collapsing from the weight of men and of course there is the Bloody Meadow, where it was said that men could cross the river by walking on the bodies.

There were other battles during War of the Roses that wasnt as bloody but both sides would still have used lots of bows. Arrows would have caused casualties but it would be stretching it too far to conclude they caused most of the losses.

The number of arrows shot in a battle is, although the number sounds impressive, by itself meaningless as we have to figure out what the actual effect was from all those arrows.

If archers had such high rate of fire, if armour wasnt very effective against arrows and if archers were so accurate then how come the melee always were so dominant in ancient and medieval battles? How come we only see drastic changes in infantry tactics in the era of muskets?

We can look at the numbers for comparison:

A typical archers rate of fire would be around 6-9 shots/minute and that would be 2-3 times faster than a standard belthook crossbow and 4-6 times faster than a early 19th century musket. Im not familiar with how close a formation such archers would be in, but I guess they could be standing 2 feet apart which is similar to Napoleonic infantry but maybe they would be in a slightly looser formation.

Even if we assume that only the first rank of archers could shoot at very short ranges, that would still make it twice as many missiles shot at the enemy than from muskets. And muskets would have to wait for just one short range salvo while archers could have started shooting from much further away to soften up the enemy and with more ranks that could shoot too.

It just doesnt add up. If muskets made frontal assaults very difficult if not impossible without softening up the defender first, then how could anyone even reach a line of archers? Something must not have been as effective as muskets, accuracy and/or chance of penetrating armour/shield.


If there is one thing that makes English archers stand out compared to say some merc crossbowman it would be that they were quite willing to fight in melee too. There were not some specialist that would run away when they were out of ammo.

That archers were nice for disrupting an enemy and produce some losses is without a doubt, but they were still just a support weapon for the melee element of the army.


CBR

[CBR]

Just a little reminder, but even if disproportionate amount of the effective fighting power rested on the armoured shoulders of the men-at-arms, the vast majority of troops in Medieval armies were invariably of far lesser calibre of training and armament. Archery might not cause too many outright casualties amongst the elite heavies, but it sure could do a number on their lighter support troops. And when you consider the detail that such lesser troops were employed in as large numbers as possible and unhesitantly thrown into the thick of battle side-by-side with the heavies, this would obviously be of some notable tactical significance.

True but it also varied a lot depending on what era and army. The first French line at Agincourt were made up of men-at-arms. Even relative cheap armour like brigandine was quite effective against missiles. Such armour is what you would expect a city militia to wear.

Troops had to equip themselves according to what their income level was. IIRC in England it was something like a bow (earlier shield and spear) then bow and sword and then bow, sword and armour. The higher income the better was required. Later in the 15th century armour became even more widespread/cheaper. The Flemish city militias fighting the French in early 14th century was well armoured as the region was very wealthy.


CBR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Watchman]Just a little reminder, but even if disproportionate amount of the effective fighting power rested on the armoured shoulders of the men-at-arms, the vast majority of troops in Medieval armies were invariably of far lesser calibre of training and armament. Archery might not cause too many outright casualties amongst the elite heavies, but it sure could do a number on their lighter support troops. And when you consider the detail that such lesser troops were employed in as large numbers as possible and unhesitantly thrown into the thick of battle side-by-side with the heavies, this would obviously be of some notable tactical significance.[QUOTE]

When the French fought the English the French used almost exclusivly knights or very high level men-at-arms.

CBR, at Naysbey in the English Civil War it came down to the melee, even when the troops were less than a hundred feet apart. Muskets weren't that effective but they were demoralising. You can't get out of the way, you don't see it coming, it is loud and smoky and it knocks people off their feet. IIRC armour was rated against musket fire, often you'll see breastplates with a dent from amusket ball in, that was a proof of quality.

[matteus the inbred]

There were other battles during War of the Roses that wasnt as bloody but both sides would still have used lots of bows. Arrows would have caused casualties but it would be stretching it too far to conclude they caused most of the losses.

He said it, not me! I agree, the mere number of arrows tells us nothing other than supporting the statement that longbowmen could shoot fast and therefore probably practiced a lot. They were pretty effective at fighting up close too, given how even French victories like Formigny often involved hard fighting to beat archers in hand to hand combat.
Another good example would be Blore Heath, where some sources support the view that Yorkist longbows once again decimated an army containing mainly knights and their immediate professional retinues. Other sources state the archery to be inconclusive...so possibly even medieval witnesses were not sure how effective longbows were. My own conclusion, based on the amazing amount of evidence posted on this thread, is that longbows, used effectively, could decimate lightly armed troops (with subsequent poor morale being a factor), could obviously disrupt cavalry and kill horses, and were a danger to armoured troops but not capable of stopping armoured charges. After all, Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt all involved intense hand to hand combat in which the English leader was required to participate. Weather and the longbowmen's use of temporary barriers (stakes) all played a part too.
Two of the stories related to Towton are the deaths of Lord Dacres and Lord Clifford...allegedly both were shot in the throat after removing their helmets for a drink, which implies that had they not done so, their armour might have stopped the arrows.

[Kagemusha]

Why are we arguing whether the longbow could penetrate plate armour or not becouse the main target of the longbowmen was the horses not the men.I havent seen anywhere any evedence that the armour of the horses could have stopped the bodkin arrows.If in a classic charge you are able to shoot down lots of horses or wound them,which might have even worse results to the attackers it will disrupt the charge,like in Agincourt where the main body of the attacking army was in very tight formation in a muddy ground.Also we have to remember that the other part of the English tactic was that their knights fought on foot protecting the archers.So if the enemy knights are bogged down with arrow fire and are too heavy to attack on foot.The French man at arms had to attack against the English Knights who were superior to the French men at arms.So English beated the French becouse of the same thing that many other Knight armies lost.All the French had to do in Agincourt to win the English was not to charge,but starve them out.
The ill dicipline of the French armies combined to new tactics of the English cost lots of blood to the french in the early part of the hundred years war.

[CBR]

CBR, at Naysbey in the English Civil War it came down to the melee, even when the troops were less than a hundred feet apart. Muskets weren't that effective but they were demoralising. You can't get out of the way, you don't see it coming, it is loud and smoky and it knocks people off their feet. IIRC armour was rated against musket fire, often you'll see breastplates with a dent from amusket ball in, that was a proof of quality.

Oh yes it was still in the pike and shot era with matchlock muskets. Tactics had certainly changed but pikes still had a melee role and not just for defending against cavalry. In the first half of 17th century (and actually already starting in the 16th century) we see the role of pikes becoming less dominant and pikemen also lost their armour. Wealthy nobles could still get some nice but expensive armour that would give some protection against shot. But it would be a heavy cavalrymans armour and it wouldnt be what ordinary pikemen had AFAIK.

He said it, not me!

I didnt have any intention of making my post to sound like it was against you or anything.

Two of the stories related to Towton are the deaths of Lord Dacres and Lord Clifford...allegedly both were shot in the throat after removing their helmets for a drink, which implies that had they not done so, their armour might have stopped the arrows.

Yes and IIRC there are several examples like that in other battles too. Later 15th century knights with armoured horses doesnt appear to have that much to fear from missile weapons.


CBR

[Orda Khan]

I am really not interested in tests and reconstructions. Most things are different these days and trying to reproduce results in a test environment tells me nothing to be honest. A line of men-at-arms means nothing unless someone here was present at the scene and can tell me exactly what each man was wearing. Why should I believe that each and every man-at-arms resembled Robocop? I am sure that armour and its amount varied considerably, even amongst the wealthiest. Plate armour did not completely cover the body and limbs and it is more than reasonable when we consider the amount of arrows, that many suffered injury or death as a direct result. I still maintain that a 4-1 ratio of archers tells a different story than the 'English could not afford anything else' argument. The Freemen of Llantrisant are descendants of Welsh Longbowmen and they still hold rights over the land that was allotted to those who featured so prominantly at Crecy. Am I to believe that this treatment was the norm for a bunch of worthless peasants?

........Orda