Longbows are no good

[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.