New Unit: Scots Guard

[screwtype]

The Scots Guard certainly did exist and certainly did use longbows.

I'm not suggesting the unit didn't exist. What I'm questioning is the portrayal of this particular unit as, essentially, a heavily armoured knight who is armed with a longbow.

I am extremely sceptical that anyone wearing heavy armour could adequately fire any kind of bow, let alone a longbow which required great strength and agility. It's one thing to swing a sword or an axe while wearing heavy armour, quite another to aim and fire a bow. Bowmen are typically lightly armoured in my opinion for very good reason - they need considerable freedom of movement, which armour is obviously going to restrict.

This unit may have worn armour ceremonially but as you say it's not known what they wore into battle. I would suggest that either they were relatively lightly armoured in battle in order to fire their longbows, or else that they were heavily armoured and their longbows were largely a ceremonial arm.

[econ21]

I'm not suggesting the unit didn't exist. What I'm questioning is the portrayal of this particular unit as, essentially, a heavily armoured knight who is armed with a longbow.

The portrayal is not far from what we know from history:

http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.c..._ecossaise.htm

The Scots Guard apparently were a genuine hybrid unit - they were highly skilled bowmen, who took their bows to battle, but they were also the King's guard, so they were equipped to fight at hand to hand and be a match for armoured knights. My source says they also had glaives and large shields - if CA portrayed that as well, they would be a real uber unit in the game!

I am extremely sceptical that anyone wearing heavy armour could adequately fire any kind of bow, let alone a longbow which required great strength and agility. It's one thing to swing a sword or an axe while wearing heavy armour, quite another to aim and fire a bow.

I'm not convinced by this. I suspect armour is more encumbering when fighting in melee than with archery - melee is so much more exhausting. I saw a TV program where a medieval history student (a big strong lad) was kitted out in full plate and had to duel alternate enemies - he was exhausted after 20 seconds.

[Furious Mental]

History is littered with examples of heavily armoured cavalrymen fighting with bows. Obviously wearing heavy armour did not make it impossible or even terribly difficult to use a bow. Heavily armoured bowmen fighting on foot would seem to be much less common but arguably that is because they were generally not required to also fight in a melee. If these Scottish soldiers were, however, required both to fight at a distance and in a melee it arguably makes sense for them to be heavily armoured and carry a longbow. In any case if you examine the unit you will see that their arms are not fully armoured.

[Orb]

I think the Mamluks are my favourite example of cavalry hybrids...

[highlanddave]

by furious mental

History is littered with examples of heavily armoured cavalrymen fighting with bows. Obviously wearing heavy armour did not make it impossible or even terribly difficult to use a bow

yes, definitely. i knowing in original medieval total war the kataphracts were only melee. i another game rule set i have for minatures the kataphracts also had bows. it seems to me i remember rome total war had persian heavies with bows as well. it made good tactical sense to arm heavy cavalry with bows as there was no good option for some infantry. if one stood off, they knocked ya down with archery. if you close with them, they charge.

[screwtype]

The portrayal is not far from what we know from history:

http://perso.orange.fr/jean-claude.c..._ecossaise.htm

That site's in French. I haven't done French since high school.

However, there is a picture there of an armoured guy with a longbow, I'll grant you that. But I still have to wonder just how practical that combination would have been.

Let me put it this way - if armour was compatible with archery, why wasn't every melee unit in medieval times armed with a bow as well a melee weapon? I suggest it was simply because the combination is impractical.

I'm not saying you couldn't fire a bow with a suit of armour, just that you probably couldn't do it very quickly or with much in the way of accuracy. Just my opinion.

I suspect armour is more encumbering when fighting in melee than with archery - melee is so much more exhausting. I saw a TV program where a medieval history student (a big strong lad) was kitted out in full plate and had to duel alternate enemies - he was exhausted after 20 seconds.

Yes, melee is very exhausting if you're not used to it and if you don't know how to pace yourself. They didn't practice melee for hours on end for no reason I'm sure.

I still remember the first time I went to fight a bushfire. I was given a wet sack to hit the flames with, I was a pretty fit young man, and envisaged myself heroically putting out large swathes of fireline. After about two minutes slapping flames with the sack I was totally exhausted! You've got to know how to pace yourself, and not to allow yourself to get over-excited.

Experienced Roman soldiers could melee for 15-20 minutes at a time, after which they would rotate to the rear while a fresh centurion took up the fight. So even hardened veterans could best fight in relatively short bursts.

.

[Randarkmaan]

Longbows were inferior to composite bows? I don't believe it.

A composite bows construction gives it a draw weight and therefore a strength and range of a bow of simple construction that is many sizes larger. However i do think that the English longbow (originally the Welsh) were constructed a little differently, actually the usual bow in nearly the entire world was a longbow it's simply that; a long bow(it had to be long to have a decent strength and range), heck Nubians also used longbows. The English also used their special bodkin arrows which were quite heavy which helped them punch through armour (also remember that the effective killing range of a longbow was only a little over 50 meters and to penetrate armour they had to be closer).

Anyway to make all this really short... Why would anyone use a bow on a wide scale that is much harder to construct if a bow of simple construction is more effective? Also you know who were regared as the best archers in Europe for quite some time? Sicilian Arabs using composite bows... they were widely utilized by the Normans.

[screwtype]

A composite bows construction gives it a draw weight and therefore a strength and range of a bow of simple construction that is many sizes larger. However i do think that the English longbow (originally the Welsh) were constructed a little differently, actually the usual bow in nearly the entire world was a longbow it's simply that; a long bow(it had to be long to have a decent strength and range), heck Nubians also used longbows. The English also used their special bodkin arrows which were quite heavy which helped them punch through armour (also remember that the effective killing range of a longbow was only a little over 50 meters and to penetrate armour they had to be closer).

Admittedly I'm no scholar of medieval warfare, but I don't believe your claim that "nearly the entire world" used some type of longbow. From what I've read, the longbow was unique amongst bows. And what made it unique was not just its size and the strength required to draw it, but the fact that it had to be drawn right back to the shoulder rather than simply the eye as with a normal bow.

Drawing a bow back to the shoulder means you cannot get your eye directly behind the arrow to aim it - which in effect means it takes years to learn to fire the bow accurately. This is why longbow training was made compulsory for young Britons in its heyday - years of practice were required to make an effective longbowman.

I don't know of any other bow that had the unique features of the longbow, but then as I say I'm not really a student of the era so I might be wrong. But I doubt it.

And BTW, I don't accept your estimate of the bow's lethal range to be just 50 meters either. I think even an ordinary bow would have a lethal range greater than that. A modern study done some years ago determined that a longbow can penetrate four inches of solid oak! You need a lot of velocity to do that...

Edit: Yes, I thought so, you are way out. From a webpage on the longbow:

The two current authorities both agree the weapon was much stronger than our present day bows. Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimates the bows of the Medieval period drew between 90 and 110 pounds, maximum.9 Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believes the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80 to 90 pounds.10

A bow of the strength described by Stayner and Paterson would project a war arrow a long distance. But here again, no one is sure how far: Stayner believes the war arrow had an effective range of 180 yards;11 Paterson maintains a slightly further distance of 200 yards;12 and Bartelot estimates a useful range of 249 yards.13 Captain George Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, notes that the members of the Queen's Body Guard for Scotland, who still shoot, use six foot long self yew bows of 55 to 60 pounds draw weight. The range of these modern bows is 180-200 yards shooting light target shafts.14

http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/...w/longbow.html

The typical longbow was "as tall or taller" than the man using it. Many longbows have been found or been recorded as in excess of six feet long. Do you know of any other bow in history anywhere near as large as that? I certainly don't.

[AussieGiant]

Hi Guy's,

After studying history at university for 6 years I'd like to make some statements regarding Longbow's.

Due to the fact that information is based on the study of history there is never going to be quantifiable evidence but there is more than enough information to determine the accuracy of the following;

The Welsh/English Longbow was unique.

It was around 165 to 190 cms long and usually the height of its user if not a little longer.

Due to its dual wood construction in which one piece was made of very, very hard wood and the other made of very flexible wood the design was unique to the the British Isle's. (The hard inner wood and soft outer wood gave the power). This wood combination was found in th British Isles predominantly. Yew was the main wood type if I remember correctly.

Draw weights were enormous. Between 85 and 110lbs. Some reports have mentioned 120 to 140 lbs. Don't be fooled. You can draw this weight back to your eye a few time when you are a strong person. But please note that these men would draw this weight back many times in 1 minute and the difference between drawing the weight to your eye as apposed to your shoulder is huge (thanks screwtype ).

So, in order to pull this weight and do it so frequently the users of this weapon were on average large men and hugely strong through the chest, arms and shoulders.

It took a long time to develop this strength and the skill to master this weapon. To solve that the English culture basically "institutionalised" its use in the population so that a large pool of men could be drawn into the army and be able to use the weapon effectively.

All in all gentlemen it was specific to the Welsh and English due to the above mentioned skills and characteristics.

Effective range was out to 300 yards when used en mass and still out to 200 yards or greater when used individually.

Effective range mean that if you were hit by this weapon (arrow) you may not die, but equally, you will no longer be taking an active part in the battle after a successful hit.

Please note that as an effective fighting force men encased in Full Plate (French knights) being hit repeatedly by Bodkin tipped arrows WILL NOT be able to fight.

Steel rain will break bones and inflict internal concussion injuries to the soldier and render their mount unusable in a short period of time. At 50 yards (well before the charge signal is given to heavy cavalry, meaning that are trotting or still walking) this weapon will start to penetrate even Full Plate armour. The time spent receiving fire by English Longbows therefore mean huge numbers of arrows are being release. No fighting force could withstand this, and at the time this technology was the equivalent of the machines gun developed in WWI.

Arrow types were broken down into two main types. Normal or Bodkin. Normal heads were excellent against lightly armoured opponents. As armour developed the Bodkin head was develop as a counter and allowed the weapon to remain relevant for a long period of time.

This is all from memory so please don't quote me. I will say that I spent over 6 months studying warfare and that include this weapon.

Composite Bows are a valid option but the draw weights were not as large as English Longbows in general. Composite Bows were used by physically smaller people on average. In many cases it was used from horse back which took advantage of the "Recurve" technology which made the draw weight good and the bow short in length.

I hope I have shed some light and understanding on this topic.

Have a good weekend everyone.

[Spino]

It seems to me the biggest problem with the composite bow was its complex construction. Thanks to its many parts and the organic glue that held it together I imagine the composite bow didn't fare as well as the longbow in adverse weather conditions (I wonder how those Mongol bows fared in Vietnam's sultry, jungle rot inducing climate) and I'm guessing it didn't take well to being mishandled or banged around. In contrast a longbow was remarkably simple in its construction as it was made from a single piece of wood with only a few extra bits used for the nocks. Not that the longbow was an all-weather wonder but it's single piece construction seems to naturally endow it with greater constitution and longevity.

After reading the link provided by econ21 I was surprised to learn that keeping bowstrings dry wasn't nearly the pain in the rear we've been led to believe...

Bow strings were of two materials: in the sixteenth century, strings were made of "good hempe...(but, earlier, strings were made of)...fine Flaxe or Sylk".47 A waterproof glue was used to preserve the Renaissance bow string and it was reinforced by a whipping of fine thread.48 The strings were attached to nocks made of bone or horn.49

[CBR]

Admittedly I'm no scholar of medieval warfare, but I don't believe your claim that "nearly the entire world" used some type of longbow. From what I've read, the longbow was unique amongst bows. And what made it unique was not just its size and the strength required to draw it, but the fact that it had to be drawn right back to the shoulder rather than simply the eye as with a normal bow.

Drawing to the ear is not unique as that has been used by archers throughout history. Archeological evidence shows bows of similar length and design like the English bow. The myth of longer bows really comes from late 19th century historians like Oman, who tried to explain the rise of English archery by longer bows and drawing to the ear.

And BTW, I don't accept your estimate of the bow's lethal range to be just 50 meters either. I think even an ordinary bow would have a lethal range greater than that. A modern study done some years ago determined that a longbow can penetrate four inches of solid oak! You need a lot of velocity to do that...

Arrows will certainly be lethal further away than 50 meters. The 4 inches of oak is quoted lots of places and is from an old story and AFAIK that is even wrong as the text says 4 fingers thick which is 3 inches. If that is a realistic claim I cant say.

The typical longbow was "as tall or taller" than the man using it. Many longbows have been found or been recorded as in excess of six feet long. Do you know of any other bow in history anywhere near as large as that? I certainly don't

The Nydam bows (dating from AD 400 iirc) were 197, 182 and 178 cm. And there are many more examples.

Apparently bows of elm, yew and pine needs to be 5+ feet long to prevent breakage so its not surprising to find bows of such lengths.


CBR

[Watchman]

The Indian infantry archers Alexander encountered back in the day reputedly carried seriously huge bows (the Indian charioteers presumably had composite bows; maybe even of the non-recurve Late Bronze Age type). 'Course, they were made of something like cane; I've no idea how that acts as bow-shaft material. The Japanese daikyu was also rather large, but asymmetrical for mounted use (and not, contrary to what is occasionally claimed, "composite" in the meaning normally relevant to military archery).

AFAIK the English longbow was very much a self-bow, that is to say, made out of a single piece of wood. The bowyers would of course make them so that parts of the wood of desirable characteristics went to the suitable parts (I don't quite recall the details, and don't really feel like checking my literature right now) basically in a pale imitation of the effect composite bows achieved with sinew and horn, but that's as far as it went.

Put this way: the longbows always had serious issues dealing with heavy armour. Out in "the East" where composite bows had been used since God knows when (an early type was around at least as early as the first war chariots) layered armour setups longbows would cower before were widely employed (by those who could afford them, and despite the often punishing climate) for a long long time partly no doubt to counter a composite bow a man could carry in a belt case, plus a few spare unstrung ones suspended from the saddle.

[screwtype]

Drawing to the ear is not unique as that has been used by archers throughout history. Archeological evidence shows bows of similar length and design like the English bow. The myth of longer bows really comes from late 19th century historians like Oman, who tried to explain the rise of English archery by longer bows and drawing to the ear.

I didn't say drawn to the ear, I said drawn to the shoulder. There's quite a difference, as the strength required increases greatly the further back the bow is drawn.

The Nydam bows (dating from AD 400 iirc) were 197, 182 and 178 cm. And there are many more examples.

Apparently bows of elm, yew and pine needs to be 5+ feet long to prevent breakage so its not surprising to find bows of such lengths.

Yes, I was wrong to suppose that longbows were unique to Britain, apparently they were used by a variety of cultures.

The unique feature of the English longbow was not the length of the bow but its overall robustness, which required very heavy draw weights - of as much as 200lbf, which is apparently four to eight times the draw weight of a modern bow.

Wiki has a good article on the English longbow. A couple of quotes:

Longbows were difficult to master because the force required to draw the bow was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 36 kgf (360 N, 80 lbf) and possibly more than 65 kgf (650 N, 143 lbf). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat fire required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers....The range of the medieval weapon is unknown [but] a 150 lb Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.89 oz) arrow 328.0 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd).

...In peacetime, in some regions, carrying chisel points was a hanging offence, because it was thought to threaten noblemen or they were taken as evidence that one was a highwayman...The effects of a longbow are illustrated by this 12th century account by Gerald of Wales:

...in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. (Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

[econ21]

Let me put it this way - if armour was compatible with archery, why wasn't every melee unit in medieval times armed with a bow as well a melee weapon? I suggest it was simply because the combination is impractical.

Armour is compatible with archery - the example of kataphracts and other eastern cavalry has been raised (the Mongols par excellence); Samurai would be another.

There were often hybrid melee/bow infantry - for example, a lot of Ottoman infantry and ancient Persian infantry too.

In the West, it is true, that such hybrid troops were not common. I suspect part of the reason is that the climate and terrain favoured close order armoured melee combat more. Eastern styles of fighting seem to have relied more on skirmishing, often between mounted forces. A bow quite soon becomes irrelevant to the front line in a close quarter battle. A longbowman would be lucky to get off three shots before a mounted knight was on him. In such a situation, there's an advantage to specialisation. The skilled archers stay back and shoot; the more armoured troops hold the front. Saves on armour and on training costs; there's also a danger that hybrids do neither task well (the mentality of the archer and the shock trooper are rather different).

But no doubt there were also considerations of propriety too - witness the disdain of the French knights for the Genovese crossbowmen (or English longbowmen).

I also think the bow was starting to decline in importance in the West during the medieval period. Armour was gradually becoming proof against it. The English longbowmen stand out as an exception. I don't think there would have been a great benefit from sticking a bow on every knight and man-at-arms.

[ShadesWolf]

Kraxis and longbows

[Ulstan]

"but is it a french or scottish unit?"

It's a french unit composed of scotsmen. The two were frequent allies against the English, so I wouldn't be surprised (or disappointed) if this unit was one that could be raised in france, not just scotland, representing emigrating/mercenary scotsmen come over to france to help fight the english.

The reason we don't see more armored bowmen is the same reason we don't see more armored melee troops - cost. The presence of unarmored melee troops does not show that armor is incompataible with melee anymore than the presence of unarmored missile troops shows armor is incompatible with archery.

Any armor that wouldn't let a bowman draw a bow would almost certainly be so cumbersome as to be instant death for anyone unfortunate enough to be caught in a melee with it (where the required range of motions is far greater).

[Dr_Who_Regen#4]

I would imagine it was a question of cost as many have said (in regardrs to archers and armor).

Of course I am no expert, but I believe the variance in horse, armor, weapons used by the soldier/or knight etc during the period had to do almost completely with the wealth of the individual who was taking the field. Bascially if you were some type of freeman then you afforded some type of light armor and weapons. Children of lesser nobility made up the knights and if you were just a conscript your lord just gave you a spear and shoved you out in the field to die.

[Kraxis]

Kraxis and longbows

???