The English Longbow

[Fisherking]

The Longbow was a mainstay of English battle tactics for about 200 years and served a role in battle for something over 300 years.

Lately I have seen several programs debunking its ability to pierce armor. This flies in the face of a great deal of contemporary accounts. What is more, is it means that the English spent a lot of time and effort on something that didn't work in the first place.

One early account that sticks in my mind said that a Welch bowman shot a knight in the upper thigh sending the arrow through cuisse, chain, leather, leg, saddle, and into the horse deep enough to kill it.

In any event the Welsh bowmen were dangerous enough to inspire Edward I to bring them into his army, order that yew trees be planted in every churchyard in his kingdom, and outlaw every sport except archery on Sundays. Once it was known that English Yew was not as good for bows as that found on the continent laws were enacted that required each ship docking at an English port to bring 4 bow staves for each tun (a shipping barrel) of other goods. This was later increased to 6.

Seemingly the longbow fell out of use more because of the lack of suitable wood than because of the prominence of firearms. Europe, it would seem, was devoid of usable timber for English bow staves.

That is a tremendous amount of effort over a deficient weapons system. Not to mention all of the various arrow points they developed.

The main point I would like to make is that in both of the programs I watched they were not actually using longbows for the tests. One of them did have what could be, today, termed a longbow, in that it was almost 6 feet long, neither had a draw weight in excess of 70 lbs. The one with the more powerful bow did manage to break several links of chain mail with a broad head arrow at 10 meters but the bodkins failed to penetrate.

I found this a bit odd. As an a side, I once had a project to install top security booths for a government installation. I found that while there was bullet proof glass that could withstand point blank machinegun fire it was not proof against bodkin arrow points.

I believe that I read something of British scientists studying the remains of several archers and they found that they were somewhat deformed in the shoulders. It would seem that the skeletons studied had tremendous muscle mass in those areas which accounted for the deformities. Coupled with that are the bows found in the wreck of the Mary Rose, from the tail end of the period. Those bows had draw weights from 160 to 180 lbs. at a 30 inch draw, with them most being at the higher end of draw weights.

We hear time and again from those writing at the time, that bowmen took years to develop their talent. We also read that they had a range of around 275 yards with their standard arrows.
Their rate of fire is given as only 6 per minute where as someone shooting a 50 lb. bow has no trouble shooting 12 per minute with a bit of practice. Furthermore, the same guy with a 50 lb. bow can be reasonably assured of hitting a 30 yard target within a few weeks and not take years to develop his skills.

So, what do you think? Are we the victims of 700 years of English propaganda or are the debunkers making some sort of errors in their testing?

[CBR]

So, what do you think? Are we the victims of 700 years of English propaganda or are the debunkers making some sort of errors in their testing?

Short answer is more like 3-400 years and yes a lot of the test on TV are bollox. Arrows shot at soft steel is not a good test either so one can find bad tests proving anything.

This flies in the face of a great deal of contemporary accounts.

There are also lots of accounts that says armour protected quite well against arrows. We are talking about several types and different quality of armour throughout 200+ years plus range and angle lowering the ability to penetrate. So it is not a question of always penetrate versus never penetrate.

What is more, is it means that the English spent a lot of time and effort on something that didn't work in the first place

Not really. All it means is that the warbow was not some wonder weapon that some like to think.

In the early 13th century English kings were forced to drop the use of mercs (which also meant pretty much all crossbowmen) in England. After that point we see an increased interest in enlarging the already existing force of archers.

In any event the Welsh bowmen were dangerous enough to inspire Edward I to bring them into his army,...

They were also cheaper than English archers and perhaps more willing to fight for money. And it might even have been wise to take a chunk of restless Welshmen with you instead of leaving them back home when you are going abroad.

We hear time and again from those writing at the time, that bowmen took years to develop their talent.

Yes when one trains a bit every Sunday it takes a lot of Sundays to develop a reasonable skill.

We also read that they had a range of around 275 yards with their standard arrows.

For the real heavy draw weight warbows (150+ pounds), max range would be from 350+ yards for flight arrows to less than 250 yards for the heavy arrows. Not sure how many actually could pull such heavy bows though. Mary Rose was the flagship of the English fleet IIRC so maybe, just maybe, the archers were above average.

Here is one test that at least seems to be reasonable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQfoKg8ZgQ

And even that test does not deal with different angles of impact.

It is interesting to go a bit further and look at armour development in the 16th and 17th century. There we see even thicker chest plates as they were trying to protect against short range pistol shots.

If late Medieval plate armour did not give an OK protection, at least at longer ranges, then why did they not go for thicker chest plate?

As an a side, I once had a project to install top security booths for a government installation. I found that while there was bullet proof glass that could withstand point blank machinegun fire it was not proof against bodkin arrow points

Armour penetration is a rather complex thing that involves, kinetic energy, momentum, hardness and shape of projectile etc. The hard glass is meant to deform the bullet which is possible as a bullet is made of lead. It is also generally very thick so a bullet will have to spend a lot of energy moving through the layers while deforming. So a hard/sharp point on an arrow should give it some kind of advantage. AFAIK basic kevlar does not protect against knives either.

Their rate of fire is given as only 6 per minute where as someone shooting a 50 lb. bow has no trouble shooting 12 per minute with a bit of practice.

AFAIK it is possible to even get 20 shots/minute with some practice. But it is all done with low draw weight longbows. 6 shots/minute seems fair for the strong warbows. Since archers never carried more than 24-36 arrows on them it would not make much sense to shoot fast either. If they had more it would be in wagons behind the line and would take time to load up again.

The classic English way of fighting was to be on the defense and let a disordered enemy come at them. Imagine Poitiers or Crécy without any English missile troops. Defending does not make much sense unless one has a way to keep the enemy at bay.

Ruining the day for cavalry (at least if they had unprotected horses) was also quite nice. If one could disorder the incoming infantry attack even more than it already was or even make the wings compress into the center as happened to the Scots in one battle, then what is there not to like by having lots of archers in the army.


CBR

[Prince Cobra]

A wonderful topic, Fisherking. You filled my soul with joy whilst reading it.

[al Roumi]

Two further points spring to my mind:

1) I thought the danger Archers posed to cavalry was more about the horse than the rider - an unhorsed rider in cavalry armour would not fare so well on foot and horses are harder(more costly) to armour.

2) The vast majority of troops were not as well armoured as knights -only a fraction of a contemporary army would have worn "white" armour, most of the troops would have had far less protection (quantity and quality).

These would mean that the fascination with longbows being a medieval/renaissance wonder-weapon are somewhat beside the point. The analysis of armour penetration etc should instead focus on the defense provided by horse armour or the more common human armour types -never mind realistic angles of attack.

[Prince Cobra]

Two further points spring to my mind:

I thought the danger Archers posed to cavalry was more about the horse than the rider - an unhorsed rider in cavalry armour would not fare so well on foot and horses are harder(more costly) to armour.

Yes. The Saracens were the first to find this weakness of the knights (well, this and the hot weather). With the English bow I simply imagine what could happen if we combine the power of the longbow (dead horse) and some mud (near river, after rainy day)...

[CBR]

2) The vast majority of troops were not as well armoured as knights -only a fraction of a contemporary army would have worn "white" armour, most of the troops would have had far less protection (quantity and quality).

Depends who the enemy was but if facing a classic French army of the HYW then the main component would be men-at-arms. Commoners would be missile troops and some could indeed have little armour. In the early stages the French king still called out the militia but their quality (motivation, training and equipment) was so poor that later on they were not used. So the majority was well armoured.

[Tellos Athenaios]

One of the main reasons why the English preferred longbows had to do with costs. You get people to fight for you at the fraction of the cost of knights or even men at arms, and they double as capable light infantry. EDIT: And numbers are important: it takes some work doing to loot as much of France as possible to turn a profit on the campaign.

[al Roumi]

Depends who the enemy was but if facing a classic French army of the HYW then the main component would be men-at-arms. Commoners would be missile troops and some could indeed have little armour. In the early stages the French king still called out the militia but their quality (motivation, training and equipment) was so poor that later on they were not used. So the majority was well armoured.

I had a quick (unsuccessful) look around last night for details on what might have been the standard/most used equipment in the HYW. Regardless, whether or not the Longbow was effective on an army as a whole would depend on how many troops were specificaly wearing white (plate) armour. Some stuff on wikipedia suggests the French got wise to Longbow strategy and took measures to counter them -charging with their elite (and therefore well armoured) cavalry and/or before the bowmen could set up.

If you (or anyone else) have some info on what typical HYW's army make up was and their equipment, that'd help!