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!

[CBR]

Well I don't think one should focus too much about white armour as such. IIRC brigandine armour was good enough to stop light crossbows and arrows, at least in early 15th century. The actual quality and level of armour might not be easy to say but AFAIK Italian armourers were spitting out lots of plate for export so it cannot have been that rare among the men-at-arms. The war horse generally cost more than standard armour anyway so if a man-at-arm could afford a horse then one should expect reasonable armour too.

Wealthy towns like the Flemish towns produced some well protected militia AFAIK. My guess would be that towns like Paris, which did end up with large forces of militia, also had well protected soldiers.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...s/bennett2.htm for an article on tactics in the HYW.

If we look at the French force at Agincourt then (based on Anne Curry) something like 2/3 were men-at-arms and the rest mainly missile armed infantry with a majority of these being archers.

Burgundian armies seems to have gone more the "English way" with lots of missile power and near the end of the HYW the French were doing the same thing with their compagnies d'ordonnance supported by Francs-Archers.

In the early part of the HYW the French were also pretty top heavy in their make up but having mercs handling the missile part. And of course occasionally using their low quality militia levy. Numbers would vary so would have to look it up for specific numbers, if there are any proper numbers for the militia at all.

[Kagemusha]

This is only my opinion, but i believe that the major advantage of massed longbow was when used against a a cavalry charge or any charge in that case.If one had a weapon that could confuse a charge before the actual impact severely, it must have been a formidable weapon. If not killing men so much then atleast killing and wounding lot of horses. I would also like to see tests conducted with bows having the draw weights the ones in Mary Rose had. The question concerning armour penetration is very interesting as currently there seems to be a trend going on that discredits bows from their armour penetration abilities, not just longbow. It would be very interesting to see bit more high quality tests to be made.

[Vladimir]

Someone in a previous thread about this included the weight of each arrow. I forget how much it was but getting your bell, or helmet, rung by a few of them and penetration doesn't matter. Plus, longbows firing from the "V" formation were able to cover a large area with fire.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pah!


I bet not even one hundred of these flea-infested English peasants with their little bow-and-arrows are a match for the fighting prowess of even a single armoured French knight.


'Raymond! Call together our finest knights! Send them to charge those two hundred insolent peasants! No, no need for supporting units, the Englishman will run before the valiance of our finest and best armoured!'

[CBR]

... but i believe that the major advantage of massed longbow was when used against a a cavalry charge or any charge in that case.

Yes but we should not think they were that great at it though. Cavalry managed to connect with archers on several occasions. And then add the holes and ditches they dug in front of their formation or the later use of stakes or the Burgundians who used pikemen in front of their missile troops. I don't know, one could get the impression that missile troops didn't expect their bows would do all the work

It would be very interesting to see bit more high quality tests to be made.

Indeed. In "The Great Warbow" several tests are mentioned but still each has their limits in setup like too weak bows or flat instead of curved armour and no padding. Nonetheless the conclusion so far is that good quality armour could protect quite well and that such armour did exist in mid 14th century, and makes sense with the battle of Poitiers where English archers had to move into the flank of the some French cavalry before they could hurt them.

Someone in a previous thread about this included the weight of each arrow. I forget how much it was but getting your bell, or helmet, rung by a few of them and penetration doesn't matter.

Heavy arrows would be about 100-110 grams max and velocity 55-40 m/s depending on range and bow. That is similar if not less momentum than from a baseball thrown by some major league pitcher. Now I have no experience in being hit by neither a baseball nor an arrow but FWIW I'd say as long as the arrow didn't penetrate and the target was not scared by the sound of impact he would be fine.

Plus, longbows firing from the "V" formation were able to cover a large area with fire.

V formation as the wedge? There is really no evidence of such a specific formation and it all boils down to the use of the word "Herce". Other sources for that battle (Crécy) mentions the archers on the wings, so as to stay clear of the men-at-arms. Of course things can never be easy because another source says the archers were behind the English and Welsh infantry...duh

[Raz]

It is not simply armour penetration that determines effectiveness.

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/art...ry-Testing.pdf

A test I read a few weeks back, interesting read. 4 different arrows tested each against different types of armour.

Too long, didn't read (still pretty long summary though :D):
The guy uses a 75lb bow at point-blank range (10 yards for safety), however this simulates a 110lb bow being used at 250 yards (maximum effective range).
He tests for not just armour penetration, but also tests the depth of the wound that the arrow would have reached as well as body deformation (blunt force trauma).

What he was looking for is [sic] "Can an average longbow, (average draw weight and average arrow weight) at range, defeat the armour that [he] tested."

The tester came to the conclusion that regardless of what a soldier was wearing, he would be at risk of lethal injury on the battlefield from an average longbowman. Steel mail was still either penetrated or deformed enough to cause a lethal wound by all four arrows that were tested at the equivalent of 250 yards. Heck, even with plate armour and padding, an average longbow at it's maximum range with a needle-bodkin arrow could penetrate the armour enough to cause a lethal wound.

Using this as a basis, I personally would believe that the longbow was indeed the formidable weapon of the era that the propaganda suggests.

EDIT: Of course, that's the weapon itself which is formidable, but the years required for proficiency and strain it placed on the body both long-term and short-term (incredibly exhausting during battle with a low rate-of-fire), I'm left to assume that longbowmen were a rather "profit-neutral" investment, with only a tactical edge (albeit a very strong tactical edge).

[CBR]

The best thing to do about that test is to delete the pdf from your computer and try to forget you ever read it, seriously. He manages to get the Type 7 needle bodkin to be the best penetrator against plate! That just shows something is up with the type of steel plate he uses as it would have to be soft steel and therefore such a test shows absolutely nothing.

[al Roumi]

I have to agree with CBR... While the test methodology seems reasonable, there is precious little about anything to with the armour tested -all the blurb is about the longbow and arrows. The images of the coat of plates and plate armour don't look at all authentic, the metal just looks like rolled steel -it is in no way representative of what contemporary armour was like. Such a flat sheet of steel almost makes a mockery of what plate armour really was.

[Brandy Blue]

One consideration is how much longbowmen were paid. I haven't found what I wanted - a comparison of how much longbowmen and crossbowmen were paid by the same employer at roughly the same time in the same general area for the same duty (garrison, escort, offensive campaign or whatever.) The coin used to pay is important too, since the value of a denier (French penny) would not necessarily be the same as an English penny.

Well, I couldn't find data like that, but I did pull up a couple of things on the web.

Apparently, longbowmen were paid 2 to 6 pence per day until the price was standardized at the beginning of the 15th century at 6 pence, except garrison archers in England who only got 4 pence. (English longbowman, 1330-1515 by Clive Bartlett - page 9.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=P21...page&q&f=false

Crossbowmen got paid from 3 pence at Dover but as high as 4-6 pence "in other places". (Daily life in medieval Europe by Jeffrey L. Singman - page 123)

http://books.google.com/books?id=SOd...20paid&f=false

So on the face of it, longbowmen started off with comparable, sometimes lower pay, than crossbowmen, but later on the situation was reversed and it was the crossbowmen who sometimes got less. Unfortunately, the numbers are not really comparable because Singman appears to be talking about the 1260's (its not altogether clear) and probably about garrison crossbowmen only (The title of the chapter was "Castle Life") who may not have had the same rate as crossbowmen in offensive campaigns.

Okay, so these numbers don't really let us make a good comparison of how much crossbowmen and longbowmen were paid, but as far as I can tell the difference in range of rates of pay was not huge, whereas Singman says ( page 124) that the "ordinary soldier" got 2 pence a day. As we've seen, crossbowmen and longbowmen might make two or three times as much. This suggests that both longbowmen and crossbowmen were quite effective. Otherwise they would not have been paid so well. That does not directly answer how effective longbows were against various kinds of armor, but it does provide some perspective.

I've run across a couple of websites that claim that crossbowmen were paid more than longbowmen and so must have been "better." However, these sites either don't tell how much they were paid or use over simplistic comparisons (Not all crossbowmen were paid 3 pence and not all longbowmen were paid 2 pence, so you can't make a sweeping statement that crossbowmen were paid a penny more.)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Heavy arrows would be about 100-110 grams max and velocity 55-40 m/s depending on range and bow. That is similar if not less momentum than from a baseball thrown by some major league pitcher. Now I have no experience in being hit by neither a baseball nor an arrow but FWIW I'd say as long as the arrow didn't penetrate and the target was not scared by the sound of impact he would be fine.

Getting hit by a baseball by a major league pitcher hurts. A blow to an unprotected head (if the pitcher was hurling their best stuff) could easily kill you. I would think that your helmet would be knocked back and it would make a nice sound, if it didn't penetrate.

[edyzmedieval]

I don't know about you folks but I would rather focus on the power draw of the longbowman and the force of the longbow itself... Holding and firing a 2m yew longbow would need some MASSIVE arms and the amount of damage it can make from close quarters is something to look upon.

I fired a carbon fibre bow that took me around thirty seconds to fully pull, from 15m out. The arrow shot through 15cms of polyurethane and smashed through a 2.5cm thick wood plank. The arrow just shot right through the target and the wooden support and there was around 3.5cms between the tip of the arrow and the wooden planking, that's how much it penetrated.

Imagine the power of a longbow, which needed three or four times the amount of strength. Bodkin arrows from 200 metres can pierce armour. That's why Agincourt turned out that way.

[CBR]

Getting hit by a baseball by a major league pitcher hurts. A blow to an unprotected head (if the pitcher was hurling their best stuff) could easily kill you. I would think that your helmet would be knocked back and it would make a nice sound, if it didn't penetrate.

Sure it can kill you and has happened IIRC but the momentum is by itself not something that will knock people over. Depending on type of armour and energy of the impact there could be blunt trauma of course.

When it comes to wages then crossbowmen were not paid less. There was a difference between foot and mounted archers and same thing with crossbowmen. AFAIK missile armed soldiers apparently had higher wages than basic infantry although their wages could vary too: Edward II was willing to pay 4d for the best-armed spearmen, 3d for half-armed and 2d for the rest and that was when foot archers would be getting 2-3d.

[al Roumi]

Getting hit by a baseball by a major league pitcher hurts. A blow to an unprotected head (if the pitcher was hurling their best stuff) could easily kill you. I would think that your helmet would be knocked back and it would make a nice sound, if it didn't penetrate.

But the point (aha) of an arrow is that the impact surface area is much smaller -hence the importance of different arrow-head types. So whatever impact force a baseball has (given its comparatively large contact area during impact), would equate to a greater impact force by an arrow head.

Different gemoetric profiles will have different penetration/trauma effects depending on the armour material -that much IS verfied by the test Raz provided. In theory, a needle bodkin would have the greatest force per contact area -but that alone is absolutely not enough to say it would have the best penetration, as the armour material (and how it reacts to different load types) is just as important as the arrow-head.

[CBR]

The needle bodkin should be seen as something used for flight arrows. AFAIK uncovered arrow heads of this type have so far been only unhardened iron, therefore as cheap as they come and meant more for quantity and range than penetration or damage.

[Brenus]

“That's why Agincourt turned out that way.” I would not be so sure of this. Azincourt turned out this way because the French Nobility just ignored the Plan.

The 3 main example of the success of the Long Bow are Crecy, Poitiers and Azincourt. Each time the English Kings or Generals turned the geography at their advantage At Crecy, the top of the hill and the ditches that will break the French charge, in Poitiers top of the hills and natural obstacles, in Azincout the bottleneck configuration and the mud, all this combined with a rain of arrows.
The French re-conquest will be to deny this advantage (in building castles), and then turned the Long Bow required tactic against the English by the use of artillery.
To be efficient, the Archers have to be able to shoot a massive amount of arrows, and they need to be gathered. So they became vulnerable to the slow but long-range canons. If they spread or are unprepared, they become easy picking for the French Cavalry (as in the battle of Patay, and use of artillery for Formigny, Castillon)…

[Brandy Blue]

When it comes to wages then crossbowmen were not paid less. There was a difference between foot and mounted archers and same thing with crossbowmen. AFAIK missile armed soldiers apparently had higher wages than basic infantry although their wages could vary too: Edward II was willing to pay 4d for the best-armed spearmen, 3d for half-armed and 2d for the rest and that was when foot archers would be getting 2-3d.

Thanks, CBR. That's the kind of information I wanted to dig up but don't have time to. In my opinion its more important than whether or not longbow arrows could penetrate white armor. It gives a general feel for how useful the troops were from the viewpoint of their paymaster.

[Fisherking]

The info I saw stated that foot archers at the time of Crecy were paid 4d per day and that mounted archers were paid 6d.

The Genoways Crossbowmen were paid more but they fought as part of a 3 or 4 man crew. The extra men handled the shields and cocked other bows for the archer. They out ranged the longbows and had greater accuracy.

We know that the best armor was proof against longbow arrows. We see that as early as Poitiers but it still did its work more than 50 years later at Agincourt. But Verneuil once again showed the power of good armor when the bowmen on one flank were swept from the field by Lombard mercenaries. Here we are told the arrows bounced off the armor of the horses.

The crossbow was always superior to the longbow in range and armor penetration and common bows could also produce an arrow storm of almost equal effect on unarmored opponents but we don’t find them in use. By the end we have the arbalest, a steel prod crossbow that can shoot 900 meters.

A 70 lbs. bow will not even penetrate good quality mail at 10 meters, from the tests I have seen, so it must be the high draw weight bows that were the key to the effectiveness.

The 150 lbs bow tested still doesn’t measure up to the lower tier of the bows we know of and we can not replicate the metals used at the time. Iron has not been produced in the developed world since 1963. What we call Iron is steel with an admixture of slag and would still have more hardness than pure iron. We can see that even then that the 150 lbs. bow will pierce untempered steel but not the tempered and case hardened steel, to significant effect. Also the alloying agents make a significant difference over pure iron or simple steel of only Iron and 0.2% carbon.

Only armor coming from Augsburg or Milan, and made from some of the Austrian iron ores would have been close to the metals we take for granted today.

My difficulty is more with the validity of the tests.

Minute changes in carbon content make a huge difference in the way the metal performs, as would perhaps another 10 to 30 lbs of the draw weight of the bow.

[CBR]

We see that as early as early as Poitiers but it still did its work more than 50 years later at Agincourt.

Yeah sure, archers did something but even an English source (Gesta) only mentions arrows penetrating visors and the side of helmets.

Crossbows came in different types. One of the more widespread types seems to have been using a belt claw or hook and IIRC estimates vary from 330 to maybe 400 pounds, give or take a few, and comparable in power to strong warbows.

Genoese crossbowmen might generally have been using a heavier type that used a windlass. Not sure where you get a 900 meters range from. One test with a 1200 pound steel type managed 460 yards with bolts of around 85 grams.

Metallurgical tests of historical armour has come a long way, so it certainly is possible to get something close to what they made back then. A lot of tests have problems regarding metal quality though, and that is with the arrow heads as they are too hard. I don't think I have encountered any who complained about the armour being too good in the various tests I have seen.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The 150 lbs bow tested still doesn’t measure up to the lower tier of the bows we know of" Of the 130+ bows found in Mary Rose the average draw weight was around 140 or 150 pounds and the largest bow was at first estimated to be 180 pounds at 30 inches draw but as one expert judged it would break at such a long draw, it was reduced to 172 pounds at 28 inch draw. So why worry about a few extra pounds in draw weight when it is at the extreme end?

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

I bet it had more to do with a growing cost to the agricultural economy of ensuring one had masses of archers, far easier to just stick a gun in the fellas hands and just point in a general direction. More bang for the kings bucks (pun intended)

[Fisherking]

I have seen nothing on the cocking method used for the Genoese crossbows. Only statements saying they were the best of the time but they must not have been too extraordinary because they fell within longbow range when firing up the hill at Crecy.

The arbalest was the final development in the crossbows of the time. The most powerful of them are said to have a 900m range. It also said that there were draw weights in excess of 1500 lbs. It dose sound long to me but if you see some of the current archery records for arrow flight in excess of 2000 yards...you think they must have been shooting from an aircraft in a hurricane.

The data I saw on the Mary Roses bows was that they ranged from a low of 160 lbs to a high of 180 lbs and that the majority were in the 180 lbs. range. Therefore I drew the conclusion that that was not the extreme end of the scale. Arrow lengths were of 30 and 32 inches and we know they were taught to draw the full length of the arrow all the way up to the point. Speaking of 28 inch draw lengths without 28 inch arrow is just someone speculating. It goes against the things we do know.

I don’t think any of the tests concerned themselves with the metallurgical properties of the metal used for the armor but more with the historical heat treatment of the pieces, which would indeed impart more hardness. None were detailed to any great degree.

There is conflicting information, of course, and that is just the point. Most is stated from our current world view and of what we today think, we are reaching conclusions while we disregard firm evidence and speculate to fill gaps.

I am sure they would have tested a 180 lbs. bow if they had had one and someone who could pull it.

As to the replacement by firearms, it would seem that the lack of yew was more the cause than the benefits of firearms. There just was no timber left.

If it were only a matter of ease of use and training them the English would have changed to crossbows early on. Crossbows had a higher rate of fire than handguns of the 16th century and much better accuracy. The difference was armor penetration. This brings us down to musket and pike.

[CBR]

I have seen nothing on the cocking method used for the Genoese crossbows. Only statements saying they were the best of the time but they must not have been too extraordinary because they fell within longbow range when firing up the hill at Crecy.

It is indeed not clear what they were armed with. Mid 15th century illustration have them using windlass crossbows but since that is nearly 100 years after the actual battle it could be anachronistic. Burgundian records from 1384 have a "Genoese fashion" crossbow with iron bands (most likely the stuff reinforcing the stock on either side of the lock) cost the same as a two-foot crossbow 1). But even if heavy crossbows (for that era) were used it does not mean any real range advantage over a strong warbow. They also had to shoot uphill nor would max range bring any good accuracy nor penetration.

The arbalest was the final development in the crossbows of the time. The most powerful of them are said to have a 900m range. It also said that there were draw weights in excess of 1500 lbs. It dose sound long to me but if you see some of the current archery records for arrow flight in excess of 2000 yards...you think they must have been shooting from an aircraft in a hurricane.

Some of the heaviest might have had 2000 pound draw weight. The problem is that is that it is always possible to make a stronger crossbow. It just gets heavier and heavier and starts to be siege/rampart crossbows. The 1200 pound I mentioned weigh 8kg compared to 3 or 4kg for the lighter crossbows.2)

I really do not know where you get 900 meters range for crossbows from? The best Turkish record using recurve bows and special short and very light flight arrows is 930 yards 3)

The data I saw on the Mary Roses bows was that they ranged from a low of 160 lbs to a high of 180 lbs and that the majority were in the 180 lbs. range. Therefore I drew the conclusion that that was not the extreme end of the scale.

The lowest is actually something like 100 pound. The largest group of the bows recovered are within the 150-160 pound range.4)

Arrow lengths were of 30 and 32 inches and we know they were taught to draw the full length of the arrow all the way up to the point. Speaking of 28 inch draw lengths without 28 inch arrow is just someone speculating. It goes against the things we do know.

Average arrow length was 30 inches. Then the need to insert it into the arrow head which would anywhere between 3/4 to 1 3/4 inches.

The 28 inch draw was for the most powerful of the bows and was the estimation of someone who should know more about bows than most. It does not mean 28 inch was normal for all bows, just for that bow.

Max draw length depends on strength and arm length of archers. Some of the best today can pull 33 inches and I'm sure some could do that back then too.

I am sure they would have tested a 180 lbs. bow if they had had one and someone who could pull it.

A guy like Simon Stanley can pull a 190 pound bow although he does not like it. But again why focus on so heavy bows when all evidence shows that it would be the absolute max power for bows with a small minority being able to handle them?

As to the replacement by firearms, it would seem that the lack of yew was more the cause than the benefits of firearms. There just was no timber left.

If some English sources are to be trusted then it because the English nation had become more urban and lazy or whatever. Part of that was true but also not something new as IIRC some were already complaining about poor training in the 14th century. The new thing of course was that England no longer were involved in warfare in the same degree as in the HYW, so there was no large pool of experienced archers plus the improvements of guns and armour.

In 1569 they forbade trained archers in learning the use of firearms so no lack of wood at that point. 5)

If it were only a matter of ease of use and training them the English would have changed to crossbows early on.

But it was precisely because of ease of use and training that England used bows. If you want a large proportion of the population training with a weapon, you want something that is easy and cheap to make. Crossbow production and maintenance was much more specialized and more costly.

England was not a very populous country, yet English Kings managed to gather some impressive numbers of archers and seems to have always been able to outnumber the missile troops in French armies. That shows the power of focusing on an archery culture.

1) European Crossbows: A Survey by Josef Alm
2) The Book of the Crossbow by Ralph Payne-Gallwey
3) http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Perform...rkish_bows.htm
4) The Great Warbow by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy
5) http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/decline/

[Orda Khan]

Unless both armour and arrowhead can be produced to the exact specification, using the exact same processes all tests and theories are worthless.
There are many arrowhead designs, each has a particular use. The bodkin (not the needle variety which was designed for use against mail) is hardly the first shape to spring to mind if we are trying to pierce a man's flesh. It was intended to work like a dot punch; it stands to reason it was intended for use against plate.
There are many nay sayers these days, the bow has been reduced to mere nuisance value and the archers to peasant rabble.

To each nay sayer I suggest they put on a fairly decent suit of armour and test for themselves. My daughter's boyfriend has a nice full compass warbow, only 115 lbs, I'm sure a few livery arrows out of that will do.