Longbows are no good

[dopp]

As far the game goes i have found the longbow in large scale battles to be awesome.I just dont think the 1 V 1 in a custom battles shows them in a good light.
Regardless of history i'd take a balanced game over a historically accurate one every time.

I think that about sums up my feelings as well.

[CaptainSolo]

Well said Darkmoor_Dragon. I think we have had enough armchair history mildly interesting it was..but it has now become a technical argument.

I agree the focus should be on their implementation in the game and one of unit balance issues...

Please no more England V France Wikipedia stuff! lol

Agreed Barry,

Whilst Darkmoor's assumptions,presumably about me,are somewhat wide of the mark i do agree with the sentiment of his post.

I'll now graciously bow out of this discussion having said my piece.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Back on target! lol

If you look at the stats for both longbows and crossbows..they seem perfectly reasonable...akak longbows do less damage..more range..vice versa.

In practise...if you look at the longbowman animation...there is a long delay 7/8 seconds with the bow drawn..and nothing..then fire...too long IMO...

Also the crossbowmen seem rather casual on reloads..no hurry lads....take your time..

Despite the stats suggesting longbows are "long range" IMHO..they are not long range enough in the game.

So to CA...speed up longbowmen firing a bit..and increase the range a bit more..and sorted....

No desire to be a slave to historical facts...this is a game..but something "near" to the truth would be nice. CA have always been a bit coy about getting things factual..but IMO this is exactly the direction they need to head into...it need not put off more casual gamers...

[CBR]

Crossbow bolts were not thinner. What makes you think that? Bolt weights vary a lot as there were lots of variance in crossbow draw weights. 60-80+ grams appear to be common and most likely thats for the smaller hook and belt crossbows as they were most common. There are also lighter bolts like the Dale bolt used used in Sweden in later 15th century of 35-45 grams. AFAIK some bolt heads have been found that had a weight of around 70 grams, so that would be a 100-110+ gram projectile.

Its actually impossible for bolts to be thinner than arrows, especially for the real heavy crossbow as the bolt would splinter when shot. Bolts generally need to be strong and sturdy.

...Longbow HAD to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than crossbows in the way the English used them, or they would have switched to Crossbows as they don't require the lifetime training.

Just remember that crossbows and bolts cost 3-4 times more than bows and required mechanical skills to produce and maintain. In general crossbows can be considered a weapon for city militias as cities had the skills and industry for such weapons. Crossbows required training too and from all what I have read they trained whenever they could. One example is a Swedish town where they practised every sunday and holy day (IIRC a total of 80+ days a year)

When France built up there own missile troops instead of just relying on mercs they ended up with both crossbows and archers. If we are to believe one Agincourt source they had 4000 archers and 1500 crossbows at that battle. The armies of Burgundy also had both missile types and actually started having many handguns too already back in 1420-30s IIRC.


When I heard about the new recruitment system used in M2TW I actually thought it would be done in a way so England had access to lots of archers. But it appears the available numbers are the same as crossbows and archers for other factions. In MTW archer reload were nearly 4 times faster than crossbows so it certainly felt very different than M2TW. MTW also had different armour penetration for each missile type whereas M2TW AP is an on/off effect AFAIK.

Personally I would remove the AP but increase their ROF and let higher skill/range be the main difference between the best longbows and normal archers.


CBR

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

Agreed Barry,

Whilst Darkmoor's assumptions,presumably about me,are somewhat wide of the mark i do agree with the sentiment of his post.

I'll now graciously bow out of this discussion having said my piece.

To be honest Cap' I didn't really read the thread (didn't need to, its all been said before: as soon as you see the multiple "quotes" you know what's being said and what's going on), I just skimmed a few posts: so it wasn't directed toward anybody in specific.

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

In game terms:

Increase longbow range by 15%
Increase rate of fire 20%
Increase ammo by 40%

Obviously one might want to scale those by unit type, so that their is a range upwards from the basic unit up to retinue longbow men.

I'm not familiar with the "eastern" archer units but the longbow shouldn't out range the better (non-peasant) infantry based composite bow units. (I'd have to leave any idea of game balance on mounted eastern archers to Orda)

Although its all rather a moot point only until the patch is out as it's difficult to fully access current balance right now.

[Carl]

Crossbow bolts were not thinner. What makes you think that? Bolt weights vary a lot as there were lots of variance in crossbow draw weights. 60-80+ grams appear to be common and most likely thats for the smaller hook and belt crossbows as they were most common. There are also lighter bolts like the Dale bolt used used in Sweden in later 15th century of 35-45 grams. AFAIK some bolt heads have been found that had a weight of around 70 grams, so that would be a 100-110+ gram projectile.

Generally I’m going of TV evidence as the royal Armouries at Leeds don't have much in the way of actual ammo for the missile weapons, (probably a safeguard in case someone tries nicking anything). They just look thinner on TV.

My main point of contention on this though was that a Longbow arrow is a LOT longer than a crossbow bolt and also has a chunk of metal at the front, this usually looks much bigger than the comparable pieces on Crossbow Quarrels, (at least to me, you might know a bit better). Thus, it follows that the Longbow arrow should really be heavier, (IMHO). Even if it isn’t thinner.

Knowing a bit about ballistics (not much mind, and certainly not the formula), from reading discussions on it on the web and in books i know a Heavy projectile will carry better, (in both max range and penetrating power), for the same momentum, than a lighter one.

Of course a Crossbow can and will make up for this somewhat with it's much better power. Indeed a sufficiently powerful Crossbow could well outstrip a longbow in terms of max range and penetrating power at the longbows max range. The power required would be pretty hefty to do it mind though, and really would take far too long to reload as it would have to be a hefty winch job for sure.

In effect I just don't believe any Crossbow able to match a Longbow in lethatality at that range would be a practical battlefield weapon due to the reload time being so great that a lower range, lower draw crossbow would be able to get more volleys in despite it's shorter range.

Your point about Crossbow manufacture and training is well made, but at the same time, if the Crossbow was really better than the longbow in overall killing ability, they would have switched, the very fact that they didn't tells us they felt the crossbow was inferior. Of course that would have required a switch in manufacturing centres, but so too did muskets so...

As an aside, am I the only one who thinks gunpowder weapons are too long ranged, (considering they couldn't hit the broadside of a barn at 100 yards in the American civil war, I doubt they could at the time periods represented here).

p.s. I'm not saying you ARE wrong, it just seems odd when I try and look at things in the light of logic and science, thats all.

[resonantblue]

Rate-of-fire.

Longbows outperform when killing enemy troops (as opposed to dedicated anti-range enemy troops).

[Raxxius]

Gunpowder units are overpowerful in this game.

I doubt longbows are underpowerd, as have been stated several times, the crossbow is a much eaiser weapon to use, thus needing less training. English Longbows were very very highly trained.

I've used longbows to decimate enemy formations and given that they can fight somewhat in H2H they can make backup shock troops to plug any hole that the enemy might be forming.

Only thing for me is, I feel the Longbow unit should be a City based one, with the more elite (Yeoman and Retinue) as Castle based.

Retinue in 1 v 1 have for me, beaten every other missile (not gunpowder) based unit in the sandbox. Hardly uneffective.

[Slicendice]

I hope some of you weren't hoping this game would reflect reality in some way?

Xbows and Longbows are balanced. Longbows have wall of stakes and xbows have a shield which will slow them down when the English Cavalry comes.

Sounds fair to me.

You weren't playing the game without using a variety of troops were you?

[Grifman]

Hmm, CaptainSolo, why were the English kicked out of France, leaving them only with Calais after 1453, when they had the uber-longbow arms ready? Why were they reduced to small parts of France during du Guesclins war after 1360? Why were they defeated in the Battle of Bannockburn which saved Scotlands independence for several hundreds of years? Such arguments are not very convincing.

You're right, your argument is unconvincing. There's a lot more that goes into victory or defeat in war than one weapon. The English lost in France for a number of reasons - lack of resources (2 million Englishmen vs. 14 million Frenchmen for one example), French avoiding English strengths on the battlefield by making the war one of sieges, etc. One could argue that the English were only able to do what they did because of their proficiency with the long bow.

And if the longbow wasn't so great there's alot you have to explain. Why the ratio of longbow men to men-at-arms was 3 to 1 up to 5 to 1. Why the French sought their own longbowmen, why the English won so many battles, why the French started dismounting their knights, etc.

It is very difficult to count a victory in battle to a special weapon. When you read about Crecy, Poitiers or Agincourt you see that a lot of fighting took place at close quarters. So the men-at-arms took the brunt of the attack and fought it out in good defensive positions.

But why did the outnumbered English armies win, especially since so many of their men were longbowmen? That means their men-at-arms were even more outnumbered! Why did the French seek out to create their own longbow companies? Why copy such an ineffective concept if English longbowmen weren't all that great?

What dopp told about performance of arrows against plate I can confirm. We tested it with a 500 lbs crossbow and an 80 lbs bow. Later tests were also made with a 750 lbs crossbow. All were bad performers.

Tests were made from 20 m distance. Below that distance the arrow has not stopped its initial bending and is not able to get reliable penetration power.

Crossbow and bow were relatively weak (although most modern people including me wouldn't be able to shoot with an 80 lbs bow ). But: penetration power doesn't grow with the power of the crossbow/bow in a direct relation. A 160 lbs bow gives not double power and energy to an arrow compared with an 80 lbs bow. And the stronger the draw power the greater other disadvantages for the user of the weapon (speed, burden etc.)

The actual draw power of English bows is a matter of debate. Mostly it seems to be estimated to be in a normal range from 80 lbs to 120 lbs. 160 lbs would be awful to shoot. One argument in the late 16th century debate in England about the abandoning of bows as weapons was that performance of archers under the conditons of war (exhaustion, hunger, disease etc.) was not very impressive and decreased much faster than that of arquebusiers.

The most impressive experiences from testing for me were: First how easily an arrow or bolt was deflected by plate armour. Only if it hits near 90 degree there was even a chance to punch a hole. Second that neither arrows nor bolts could punch through a gambeson made of over 20 layers of linen cloth. That form of armour was frequently used among the more simple soldiers and may have done a very good job against missiles.

There are a number of problems here. If xbows and longbows were so ineffective, then why were they used? People don't use weapons that don't work - that gets people killed. English armies consistently had 3 to 4 times the number of longbowmen to men-at-arms. Why if longbows weren't effective? And how did very badly English men-at-arms win with a bunch of useless longbows doing nothing at their flanks?

Secondly, to what extent was plate amour used during the Hundred Years War? And what was it's quality? And what protection did non-noble men-at-arms have - probably not nearly as much plate as the nobles/knights had. Sure plate armor was at least somewhat effective against armor - but obviously at Agincourt the French were worried, because they attacked head/shoulders down, presenting the thickest and roundest part of their armor to the longbowmen - could it be that they knew something we don't?

Lastly, what you are missing is sheer volume. 6,000 longbowmen with 30 arrows means 180,000 arrows coming at you. That volume/rate of fire is going to produce hits - throw visors, weak points in armor, joints, etc. Even a 5% rate means 9.000 hits - either wounds or death. That's nothing to be ignored.

Here's a link to an interesting article disputing your position regarding the longbow:

http://wih.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/5/2/233

If that doesn't work, then search for "The Efficacy of the Longbow" as that is the title of the article.

[Orda Khan]

(all historians are armchair theorists, you mean armchair generals surely)

No I don't. Too many 'historians' write accounts based on hearsay

......Orda

[todorp]

I'm not talkig about sitting ducks.I'm talkig abut distruption in the force.LB fire much faster (historicly) pierce almost like Xbow.But now they are slow have same range as Xbows and they have less damage.This is not a shock troop as should be.Need some balancing.

Absolutely! LB has to have 3 times higher rate of fire, when in MTW2 bows have the same rate of fire as crossbows :(. How it can be adjusted?

[Kobal2fr]

You're right, your argument is unconvincing. There's a lot more that goes into victory or defeat in war than one weapon. The English lost in France for a number of reasons - lack of resources (2 million Englishmen vs. 14 million Frenchmen for one example), French avoiding English strengths on the battlefield by making the war one of sieges, etc. One could argue that the English were only able to do what they did because of their proficiency with the long bow.

So... when the English lose, it's not a proof that the longbow is an average weapon and you have to see the big picture and all of these other considerations, but Azincourt and Crecy alone prove it's outstanding and that it and only it won the day ? Pschaw.

Azincourt and Crecy prove jack diddly. If anything, they prove that a fortified, missile-heavy defensive position on high ground defeats a head-on, undisciplined assault. Gee, what a surprise ! Must be them longbows !

I stand by what I said : the way it went down the English could have fired slingshots and still won.

Like dopp said, whenever the English did not have such flagrant terrain advantages, and did not have time to fortify their archers' positions (with stakes, ditches etc...), the French rode their ultimate longbows down without a hitch.

Victories or losses have little to do with the weapons used, and everything to do with the way the commanders make use of the relative strengths and capacities of their forces viz the strengths and capacities of their enemy. Thinking "it's all in the longbow !", that's shoddy, easy thinking.

Take WW2 for example : The RAF won with planes that were strictly inferior to the German ones. No, it wasn't the Spitfire. The Afrika Korps was bested by somewhat inferior British tanks and absolutely crummy American ones. No, it wasn't the Challenger. And so on, and so forth.

And if the longbow wasn't so great there's alot you have to explain. Why the ratio of longbow men to men-at-arms was 3 to 1 up to 5 to 1. Why the French sought their own longbowmen, why the English won so many battles, why the French started dismounting their knights, etc.

You're thinking backwards. The English didn't field huge numbers of longbows because those won battles, the English won battles because they fielded huge numbers of longbows, and used them in an atypical fashion.

And they didn't switch to crossbows because England had a strong archery tradition, and tradition means : we do what we have always done, because we have always done things that way. Doesn't mean it's the absolute best way.

I'll say it again : the tactic of using large numbers of missile units to kill superior knights is what is important to consider.
And it was a shock tactic too, one that the French really had a hard time getting to grips with. It went against the whole social system, and totally clashed with their beliefs. Which is also probably why they took so long to change their tactics too : they stubbornly wanted to prove that the feudal system wasn't broken, that knights and chivalry still held the military power, hence the political one as well. If military power was in the hands of the mob, why would the mob need knights in the first place ?

And yes, I don't care what a yeoman is, to the French nobility, longbowmen were "the mob", "rabble". They were footmen, using dishonourable weapons anonymously, without armour etc... They didn't fight fair, and they were nameless. Plus, they weren't nobility, so they didn't have the social "right" to kill nobles.

There are a number of problems here. If xbows and longbows were so ineffective, then why were they used? People don't use weapons that don't work - that gets people killed. English armies consistently had 3 to 4 times the number of longbowmen to men-at-arms. Why if longbows weren't effective? And how did very badly English men-at-arms win with a bunch of useless longbows doing nothing at their flanks?

Nobody said longbows were ineffective and useless. They weren't instant killquicks either.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Kobal2fr...maybe time to let it rest a bit.

This England v France thing is getting out of hand...

I am Neutral on this...( non anglo saxon english! lol)

So back to the game lol!

[Marquis of Roland]

Crossbows can fire in an arc in the game, but does far less damage when it is fired this way. Sure, a pavise crossbow unit can kill a longbowmen unit 1 on 1, but that never happens in the game or in real life for that matter. In practicality, I rather have a long range unit protected by an infantry line than have them stand in front.

SMZ made a good point; mongol composite bows may outrange longbows by up to 20% of the longbow's max range. I really want to fight the mongols and timurids with long range missiles; does anyone know how to change the mongol units to have long range missile capability?

[CaptainSolo]

Honestly Kobal2Fr your'e just making yourself look a bit daft with all these nonsensical posts to be honest me old fruit.I'm not trying to be nasty or anything but some of the stuff your writing is hilarious.

Azincourt and Crecy prove jack diddly. If anything, they prove that a fortified, missile-heavy defensive position on high ground defeats a head-on, undisciplined assault. Gee, what a surprise ! Must be them longbows !

Agincourt and Crecy prove Jack Diddly? .... Yet they prove that..ok read the rest.
Must be the longbows? Well considering that was the main weapon they used on those days theres a pretty good chance it was.

Take WW2 for example : The RAF won with planes that were strictly inferior to the German ones. No, it wasn't the Spitfire. The Afrika Korps was bested by somewhat inferior British tanks and absolutely crummy American ones. No, it wasn't the Challenger. And so on, and so forth.

Were those the same Spitfires that were faster and had a much tighter turning circle than the ME109's?
The Afrika Korps were bested due to the fact they were starved of supplies and material.Rommel being sent home due to illness also didnt help.After El Alamein the Germans were so heavily outnumbered in terms of manpower and armour there was only ever going to be one winner.Look at the opposing forces arrayed against each other for operation lightfoot.

I think you mean the Sherman..If Wavell or Montgomerie had had challenger in WW2 they would have only needed a couple to rout every bit of armour the Germans possessed.

You're thinking backwards. The English didn't field huge numbers of longbows because those won battles, the English won battles because they fielded huge numbers of longbows,

Sorry but thats hilarious.


For the love of Jesus someone close this thread,it's going to go on for an eternity.My sides are splitting,i cant take any more

[Kobal2fr]

@Barry : What, you think I'm biased ?

It's not a France vs England thing. If it is, I don't know who's playing France . It's a common sense vs myth thing. I was just trying to plant a seed of doubt in a rather dogmatic vision of history, just as I was trying to knock down the silly yet prevalent dogma that a crossbow cannot be dangerous when fired in an arc before. Doubt is always good .

I'm not being judgemental or a nationalistic idiot when I say the French nobles considered English archers as rabble, the French nobles were.

I myself honestly don't give a rodent's bottom about France's pride or The Greatness Of French Military History (capital letters sold separately :]) or any of that silly flagthink. Or English pride for that matter. The French military minds were by and large self-deluded, full of themselves morons back then if you ask me. Most still are to this day.

Besides, I would have thought saying "it's not the bow, it's the English military savvy" wouldn't be construed as English-bashing.

Going back to the game, I really believe that longbows are modelled OK. You can certainly re-do Azincourt with them - the stakes are a very, very nice addition, go a long way into making them superior archers, and allow for proper, 4-to-1 stacks (as opposed to MTW). They cut the French to shreds allright .

[CBR]

They just look thinner on TV.

The numbers I have seen for arrows are 10-12mm in diameter (55-95 gram weight) Bolts are of 12-16mm.

In effect I just don't believe any Crossbow able to match a Longbow in lethatality at that range would be a practical battlefield weapon due to the reload time being so great that a lower range, lower draw crossbow would be able to get more volleys in despite it's shorter range.

Actual battlefield performance(rate of fire in particular) of missile weapons is of course a bit difficult to get a really good estimate of. But one simple way of looking at it as the heavier draw weight the slower overall rate of fire.

Its interesting to note that one of the guys who actually can use these 170+ pound monster longbows, doesnt like to shoot more than 6 shots/minute. Then compare to experienced archers who can do 20+ shots/minute with 50-60 pound bows or whatever they are using. Not that such fast shooting is very accurate, but nonetheless from what I understand its not that difficult to achieve such fast ROF. Although the ROF is very different both archers would actually be delivering about same amount of energy in one minute.

Your point about Crossbow manufacture and training is well made, but at the same time, if the Crossbow was really better than the longbow in overall killing ability, they would have switched, the very fact that they didn't tells us they felt the crossbow was inferior. Of course that would have required a switch in manufacturing centres, but so too did muskets so...

Yes but remember that an arquebus/musket was cheaper to make than a crossbow.

Im not saying that crossbows were superior weapons but why do we see crossbows used so much other places. I see the bow as a cheap weapon for the masses, a weapon that could not be replaced with crossbows as the masses didnt have the money, nor did kings have the money to buy replacement weapons and bolts for so many men. It took more wealthy cities and towns for production and use of crossbows.

The heavy draw weight longbows seem to be comparable in power to strong belt and hook crossbows and Im not so sure such longbows had that much greater ROF compared to these lighter crossbows that afterall was the most commenly used crossbows. Maybe the ROF of long range AP longbows in M2TW, compared to crossbows, is more true to history afterall heh


CBR

[Kobal2fr]

@Solo : No, the Sherman is the absolutely crummy American one :) but you're right, I was mixing up Challenger with Crusader, sorry.

[dopp]

Why not everyone check out the test thread on longbow vs pavise crossbow?

Buck naked basic longbowmen with significantly poorer (on paper) stats score quite a few more kills than pavise crossbowmen with high attack, heavy mail and big shields. And that's allowing the crossbows to shoot off all their ammo long after the bows have finished their supply. Anything more than that unbalances the game. The OP's premise is a little unfounded.

[Reapz]

Originally posted by Sonny WiFiHr
Longbows are no good

Oh yes they are

[Orda Khan]

The numbers I have seen for arrows are 10-12mm in diameter (55-95 gram weight) Bolts are of 12-16mm.

What arrows are you talking about, CBR? Some shafts for those heavy War bows were more like 15mm

Nobody can complain about the range of any archer in this game, incuding HA. I was quite shocked when I saw the range that archers start firing. What I would complain about is the range of Javelin units, now that IS extreme

......Orda

[pevergreen]

Don't just spend your time looking for the Magical Unit of Ultimate Smashing +5.

Someone's a fellow D&D player...

[Carl]

@CBR: Thanks for the reply and you raise many good points, (I though winch drawn crossbows where more common later on TBH, but I’ll take your word on it). I'm also surprised at Muskets being more expensive to manufacture as they both use steel and wood, except that the Musket used more metal. Again I’ll take your word on it, but it does sound weird again.

Your right on similar draw Crossbows having similar fire rates, maybe a bit lower due to the awkward nature of pulling them back compared to a bow. However as noted before, I’m not convinced the shorter quarrel would have been as heavy, which would have reduced range.

On top of that a Crossbow typically has a shorter distance backwards draw, this actually cuts power as well, (it's a bit complex why, I can explain it if you want).

@Everyone (Especially Kobal2fr): I strongly suggest you read the PDF linked to in this here. It never claims Longbows where Uber Weapons (and they weren’t), but at the same time it makes clear they where nasty and did a lot of damage, it uses quotes from the time period to back it up, and some of these come from neutral or enemy sides of the story (i.e. no interest in promoting England). This makes it actually quite believable,. as apposed to the fantasy claims some people spout about it being an uber weapon that can kill a moder tank at 5 miles .

Finally, for me this is NOT a France vs. England argument. For me it's just an interesting discussion that giving me something to do.

@Orda Khan: Many thanks for taking the time to reply, you clearly know what your talking about.

[Shahed]

So... when the English lose, it's not a proof that the longbow is an average weapon and you have to see the big picture and all of these other considerations, but Azincourt and Crecy alone prove it's outstanding and that it and .......

Very nice... myth bustin there.

[CBR]

What arrows are you talking about, CBR? Some shafts for those heavy War bows were more like 15mm

......Orda

The arrows tested in "The Great Warbow"

110+ gram arrows would have a bigger diameter and 15mm might have been what they were using.


CBR

[CaptainSolo]

[QUOTE=Sinan]Very nice... myth bustin there. [/QUOTE

Hardly,Grifman was pointing out the fact that the Longbow as a wepaon was decisive in the battles he mentions but were not the reason the English failed in the 'campaign as a whole' in France,where there were so many other reasons for their eventual loss.I thought he was quite clear about that.
The French eventually did learn to cope much better with the Longbow but to say it was the only factor is a bit daft really.
It's like saying the only reason the Germans lost to the Russians on the Eastern front was due to the Russians learning to cope with the German Armour whilst taking no account of supply,manpower,morale,air superiority.

[Kraxis]

CaptainSolo, now you are just being contrary.

You agree that longbows were the main weapon right? Good. It was the main weapon in victories and losses alike? Good.

Now how can it be that the losses do not count? So the French adapted? Well, they left their horses and began to use arty. That was about it. If you really want to, you can also include attackign the English when they were unprepared, but that can hardly be called adapting, that is just common sense.

So when the Englsish didn't have time to use their stakes and good prepared defensive positions, it was a hard struggle. They won at times anyway (bravo!), and seemingly won in melee (as the stakes and unprepared longbowmen leaves little other option).
So how can it be the longbow itself that is the victor, and not the tactics and strength of men-at-arms? I'm not saying that these things were what solely won it, but I think the longbow has been far overrated.

Seemingly on an even battlefield the English didn't pwn the French. They won and they lost. If the longbow had been such a wonderweapon the French would have lost decidedly regardless.

Besides he wasn't claiming that longbow was the reason for the English losses, just that it wasn't anything more than most other weapons. I do not agree with that, but I still think the longbow has been overrated.
Placement, tactics, training and a predictable enemy gave them the needed time and room to get their smaller difference to tell. In war it is often the little difference that does the most difference in the end, and I think that applies here.

[Kobal2fr]

Pfew, thank you Kraxis, I was beginning to think I was just being my usual unclear self and nobody understood what I was trying to say .

And to clarify things even more, and even though I know I've been playing devil's advocate a fair bit here (I like to believe I didn't go as far as trolling, may be wrong), I really do believe longbows were exceptionnal bows, and English yeomen were indeed very good soldiers as well. But they were still mere bows, and mere men, which is what I've been saying all along.

What frankly bothers me in that kind of "it's machine X" thinking (which applies to many, if not all other fields of history as well) is that it's devaluating, sometimes even downright insulting the men behind them, and the individuals who made them succeed.
Plus it opens the door to the horrible horrible metaphysical concept that history went down the way it did because there wasn't any other way it could have gone, that winners won because they couldn't have lost and victory proves the winner was superior and, basically, that luck, individual value & beliefs, individuals themselves mean nothing.
So, at last, brave Romans, I'll say this : predestination can kiss my bum : warriors make their own destiny ! CHAAAAAARGE !