"The Effective Archery Debate" Topic

Okay everyone …

I've read so many differing accounts and seen so many opposing documentaries concerning the effectiveness of the English longbow as historians and would be historians attempt to explain, unravel or revisit medieval history and seemingly impossible superiority of English arms throughout the 100 years war.

Why is it so difficult for the effectivenes of the English longbow to be credited on the battlefield – or have I been reading and watching dodgey material?

What I have never seen, nor have I ever read, is a discussion on the effect of saturation. Simply put, with literally thousands or archers putting multiple arrows in the air before the first one hits the mark, we are talking about tens of thousands of arrows falling in a concentrated area, time after time after time. Even in full plate armour on a fully barded horse, men-at-arms and their mounts must have been struck many, many times from considerable ranges, being hit more and more often with increasing likelihood of severe penetration as the range closed. It only takes one arrow to find a man's joint or bone or an eye to render him inoperative in the combat zone – to say nothing of the horse – you cannot bard a fetlock! Every vent, visor, eye slot and joint would have had a better than average chance of being penetrated.

Any mathematicians out there? We could probably make up some stats.

I *think* (although I'm not a period specialist by any means) that the detractors of the damage a Longbow can do have pretty much been proven wrong.

There's a blacksmith chap who is able to pull a full drawweight bow, and I believe he debunked the myth that a bodkin arrow wouldn't pierce plate. That's not taking into account your statistics regarding chances of a arrow penetrating a gap etc.

On that subject, I think you're last sentence is pretty right, we could "make up" some stats, but I don't think we're ever going to have anything near conclusive or even representative since the angle the arrow is fired at would vary over distance, opening and closing a static gap. Of course, the gap wouldn't be static either, and the model to dig into this would be nigh on impossible I shouldn't wonder.

Ask the Medieval Scots about the effectiveness of the longbow.

Or ask the French

Longbow showering enemy troops probably didn't pull their bows full strength relying on the disruptive effect of the mass of arrows, rather than fire- err drawing-power.

They would probably shift to high powered shots at short range by which time they might themselves come under fire from enemy troops.

You certainly didn't hear about the Wars of the Roses battles always ending in an Agincourt-style massacre of anybody wearing plate.

So the reality might probably be somewhere halfway. Yes you could shoot a knight with a longbow, but it didn't always happen.

Armour did improve during the period; so did tactics, the occasional slaughter like Agincourt helping to re-enforce the lesson.

What truely amazes me is how persistant the "a frontal assault will work" meme is, given the evidence against it.

I suspect you are on to the right track, which is why most knights fought dismounted during the later stages of the HYW.

Horses are difficult to control under ideal circumstances, so trying to do so while they are being pelted with arrows would be almost impossible, and most men could not afford the armor to protect them, even if you could try to cover most vulnerable points with it.

I imagine with that many arrows being fired, a lot of damage would be done to the opposing troops.

"Why is it so difficult for the effectivenes of the English longbow to be credited on the battlefield – or have I been reading and watching dodgey material?"

I believe the issue is really the notion that there is more to the story than the effectiveness of the longbow. That is, even a very effective weapon, such as the longbow, could not produce the results recorded without other factors weighing heavily in the famous battles, such as poor tactics (frontal assaults as mentioned above), overcrowding, archers armed with lethal sidearms, vulnerable horses, etc.

link

and there's a bunch more ..

And what about the logistics?
In theory an archer could loose up to say 5-7 arrows per minute creating the "shower"-effect.
In order to obtain the right effect and disrupt a charge, this "showering" would have to be uphold for say 5-10 minutes.
This again would put the amount of arrows fired per archer in the "shower"-period to between 25 and 70 arrows – and not to mention the physical strain such a shooting rate would have on the archers and his equipment. Having say 1000 archers would mean that for one attack 25.000 to 70.000 arrows would be spend. And that is just for 10 minutes of effective combat!
Lets say that the army had to provide for 10-20 of these shooting scenarios, which would bring the total needed arrows up to 250.000-1.400.000. And that brings me to my question regarding the transportation of all these arrows and how to supply the archers during battle.
I am just speculating… but maybe the logical issues plays a major role here.

regards
Thomas

Mind it that the barrage or arrows from English longbowmen was not usually enough to stop a mounted French charge. To stop it, they needed a protective barrier of stakes in front of their line.

Griefbringer

"This again would put the amount of arrows fired per archer in the "shower"-period to between 25 and 70 arrows"

An English archer typically carried a sheaf, that is 24 arrows. And that was just his "ready ammunition".

"Having say 1000 archers would mean that for one attack 25.000 to 70.000 arrows would be spent. And that is just for 10 minutes of effective combat!"

Yup. In 1359, William de Rothewell, Keeper of the Wardrobe was ordered to buy (amongst other things) 10,000 sheaves of good arrows – that is 240,000.

Holy, cow. And here we go again. Last time, it was "Henry V's longbow versus Wellington's Redcoats" (do a TMP search), one of the longest threads in TMP history.

Short version: cap-a-pie plate armor (by no means the most common at Agincourt) still leaves anywhere from 5% to 15% of the body exposed to damage by penetration. Taking 3 to 5 minutes to arrive at melee range, all the while exposed to vollies of over 5,000 arrows every c. 10 seconds, amounts to such a saturation of the "beaten zone" that, as the OP surmises, the chances of being hit in a vulnerable spot become very high -- for the men exposed on the outer edges. However, the main mass are protected in the center, and they are the pressure which drove the French assault forward even when the leading ranks went down and caused the "tumbling effect" so clearly described by eyewitnesses to Agincourt. While outright deaths and incapacitating wounds would have been in the minority, the total effects of being beaten on by countless arrows had a thoroughly disruptive effect on the French, even in full armor. The eyewitnesses indicate that the effects of the arrow storm even stopped the French line before it finally pushed on to make melee contact: which is to be expected, if the line was to arrive in anything like a cohesive mass as intended. Keeping eyes down during the advance would be an imperative, and the lack of vision, the jostling and compressing as men went down, etc., would cause the formation to come to pieces rather inevitably and quickly; thus the need to "redress" the line would be rendered difficult if almost impossible under such a "storm" as 5,000+ longbowmen would produce.

The physical effects of the clothyard shaft have been argued endlessly it seems. The short version is: yes at closer ranges (starting at c. 100 yards) the tips used can pierce armor, especially the thinner parts toward the edges of the plate pieces. Most of the tests denigrating the longbow are shot against full 3mm thickness, which is only found on the thicker, forward facing parts of the breastplate and helmet, etc. The rest of plate armor is under 1mm thick.

The arguments on what was the average draw weight of the longbow are not resolved, as far as I know: Rocky Russo and I ascribe to 70 to 80 lbs as the draw weight, and "bow porn" advocates believe in the 100 lbs+ draw weights as the average, based on the Mary Rose staves mainly. But these are, we maintain, unfinished bow staves (Saxton Pope early last century, hand finished a Mary Rose bow stave and it was c. 85 lbs when he was done; he killed a bear outside 100 yards with it.) The evident ranges of the killing ground at Agincourt indicate c. 70 lb bows, not 100+ lbs. And other bow-using nations have the same draw weights as their common warbows.

War of the Roses is different because both sides, being bow armed, tended to close for melee rather than shoot themselves up by exchanging arrows for a long time. Also, the bow quality was not as good over all, because the non "cat's whiskers" segment of the bowmen were also included (those who were always left at home when an army was recruited for over-seas, i.e. those pulling less than the desired weight).

The Scots were an entirely different target than the French, being largely unarmored. At Homildon Hill they were shot down entirely before even reaching melee range.

The mounted attacks against a longbow line could work. After Agincourt, at Verneuil, the French (actually Milanese) mounted men at arms rode right through the English longbowmen before they could afix their stakes. The one or two vollies they were able to get off before contact utterly failed to stop the swiftly closing cavalry.

I think one of the most telling pieces of information I have read is about the funneling effect of the HYW archers. Even dismounted knights in plate tended to shy away from the longbowmen and get funneled into over crowded areas where the English men at arms could have their way with them. To me that is enough to prove the effectiveness of the longbow. The draw weights of the bows themselves, if one takes the bows found on the Mary Rose as an example, averaged about 150-160# draw weight. Couple that with a heavy 1/4 pound arrow, and it's not to hard to imagine their lethality.

At some point the weight of the armor also becomes a hindrance. To protect against the power of the longbow, plate armor became heavier, which in turn tires and slows the wearer, especially in muddy or rough terrain, making them easy pickings for lightly armored longbowmen dashing around with giant ice picks.

Then of course there is the stupidity of the unsupported frontal charges and the fractured chain of command and infighting which led to the stupidity of the frontal charges.

David

"Saxton Pope early last century, hand finished a Mary Rose bow stave and it was c. 85 lbs when he was done; he killed a bear outside 100 yards with it."

How did he manage that since the Mary Rose was not raised until 1982!

I am not going to get into another discussion with you, Doug about draw weights as we have done so before, but I really would urge you to read Hardy and Strickland's book before coming to any conclusions.

In rebuttle to Mr. Larsons argument above. The range of the longbow should have nothing to do with the draw weight of the bow, because range is a function of both the bow and the weight of the arrow. As armor got heavier, arrows needed to get heavier as well to penetrate the heavier armor, thus negating any range benefit that a heavier draw weight might provide. Mr. Strickland provides a very compelling argument for the very heavy draw weights he proposes for the HYW era longbow. I can pull a 60 to 70 # draw weight bow and I am just an occasional archer and my technique not at all refined. It is not hard to imagine a "professional" archer being able to handle the draw weight proposed by Mr. Strickland in "the Great Warbow".

"Bow porn" makes out the English archer to be on average some kind of superior athlete. Only the hand-picked forces that fought in the continental armies were anywhere near that image. I would down-rate any such image on the basis of modern cross-training NOT producing an average 70 lb bow shooter, ever. Maybe 25% of all archers can pull bows in the 70 to 80 lb range, such has been my limited experience at archery ranges. I met maybe two or three archers who were strong enough to regularly pull over 100 lbs. And it is "warbow" weights we are talking about: pulling "all day" without getting exhausted, not pulling the maximum that you can pull maybe a couple dozen times and then you're too tired to continue. Units of archers never pulled bows that they could show off with.

Photocrinch, the arrows don't get heavier unless the bow draw weight gets heavier. Arrow spine requires matching to the draw weight of the bow to work accurately.

Mike, I don't know how Pope got a Mary Rose bow stave. The wreck was apparantly known for generations before it was eventually raised. Someone can weigh in here, Rocky perhaps, as I am merely repeating what I have been told. He's got Pope's book on his tests of bows and I am a parrot, having not read it through myself. I do know that heavier bows than 80 lbs were used in war, and as I have said previously, it seems like a good hypothesis to assume the pick of the pick of archers on Hal's flagship! Thus the heavier weights onboard the M.R. But this always winds up in the realm of fun speculation. It doesn't really matter: since longbow denigration specifically attacks the 100+ lb draw weight as "ineffective", and Rocky and I are on the side of the 70 to 80 lb longbow being the warbow of the English archer, not the 100+ lb bow! That means we are saying that effective shooting was ocurring with the lesser bow, forget about the 100+ lbs. (and my monitor just had an aneurism, I can hardly see anything on this screen now; off to the 'puter shop for a new flat screen, I guess, later guyz….)

Hi

Yup, this comes up every couple months. tired of it.

I have Hardy and Strickland and have done lectures in the same circles on the same subjects. Like all enthusiasts, the focus on the extraordinary, not the real.

It is like the scene in the movie where the hero talks about a 1000 yard shot in a high crosswind, and everyone nods.

The Mary Rose was raised in the 80s. HOWEVER, not everything went down with the boat. Wood floats, and the brits recovered a number of staves and had them on display in Pope's time. As an academic, he was allowed to examine, use or copy surviving bow staves. Not only the surviving Mary rose stuff, but things like amazonian ironwood bows. And shoot them at surviving bits of armor!

I also shoot a 70# bow. The issue isn't the 70# or that one can do 150, as I have. The issue is marching for a few weeks in the mud with dysentary and bad food and water and fighting at the end of it! And the issue is shooting 6 rounds a minute for 10 minutes straight.

At agincourt, as a side note, it is recorded that the supplied included several wagons with 100,000 arrows each.

And the the instance of passing up the sheefs to the archers.

With bow physics being what it is, the simple fact is that the engagement range at Agincourt, with the 6000 select archers of the land, is consistant with a 70# draw weight bow.

Hardy et al, in essence, discuss "annie oakley" instead of field service shooters. A great many things can be done when showing off that will not happen in a fight.

I am betting, for instance, that every ex football player in the army could do a hundred meter sprint in 11 seconds or so, but he ain't doing it in iraq!

Rocky

Of the documentaries I have seen, English Longbows could pierce armor at short range. That is something like 50 yards or closer. Given that in the test video (link above), the archer was firing on a very straight line (from what I could tell anyway, he was probably at a similar range.

On the documentaries I have sen, a Long bowman could fire an aimed shot every 5 seconds. That is a fire at will scenario. He does not wait for a command to fire.

If you are waiting for a command, it is probably something like 7-10 seconds while the leader waits for everyone to ready.

So, at a minimum, the 1000 archers would get 1000 arrows away every 7 seconds. Lets say that it would take a formation of knights 1 minute to cover the ground. Thats probably 9 rounds of arrows per man or…9000 arrows expended in the attack. As the cavalry will likely cover the last 50 yards in a few seconds (the actual C"charge"), only 1 shot will be capable of piercing the knight's armor. By "only" I mean 1000 rounds of longbow will be capable of piercing a knights white harness by a well trained archer. That's pretty disruptive and demoralizing.

Horses will almost certainly be killed or wounded all along the attack route as they are largely unarmored through much of the 100 years war. Depending on speed, this may or may not kill or injure the rider.

Well defended as in at Crecy, Poitiers or Agiancourt, the English army was almost unstoppable. Take another fight like Patay, or any number of engagements around Orleans, where you mitigate the advantages of the longbow, and you get a much different story. It seems that adding your own archers, cannon and a larger number of dismounted heavy infantry was the key. Also, with the close run fight at Verneuil where the Lombards actually broke one flank of the English army but chose to try to loot the camp rather than attack the English from the rear, you also outline that the English Archer was quite vulnerable in the open. The could not stop a determined attack without strong defenses.

Part of the debate comes from our human obsession with simplifying. What happened at Agincourt? Longbows stopped the knights. Great, a nice simple answer that gives us the feeling of understanding. Until someone comes along and doubts it, and the argument starts.

Were longbows effective? Boy howdy yes.

Did they cause the victory at Agincourt? No, of course not.

Longbows, stakes, mud from rain the night before, and if memory serves the English chose a spot that channeled the French attack to counteract the difference in numbers, and the French fell for it.

Don't forget that part of that day the English thought there were losing and started to follow standard "we're losing" procedures to get themselves out of there. And a lot of knights were killed on the ground, trapped under horses.

When we try to simplify these weapons into a tight story or three numerical stats we make a compromises with reality, and then someone comes along and points out the resulting contradictions and, well, we've seen it with muskets, slings, elephants, you name it.

Probably the best popular example is the common understanding that the Continental Army won the American War of Independence because they were smart enough to shoot from behind trees and the redcoats all stood in a nice tight line. Its accurate facts assembled into an easy to understand story that's wrong.

Its simplifications about the effectiveness of the longbow that make people doubt the whole story. History is pretty clear.

Andrew

Of the documentaries I have seen, English Longbows could pierce armor at short range. That is something like 50 yards or closer.

Notice that the chance of penetration can vary a lot depending on the type of the arrow, angle of impact, draw of the bow, quality of the plate used and the thickness of the plate used. Vary those variables sufficiently, and you can get almost any sort of a film as a result.

Horses will almost certainly be killed or wounded all along the attack route as they are largely unarmored through much of the 100 years war.

Even if unarmoured, from what I have heard, killing a horse with a frontal hit with an arrow is not exactly trivial (since the actual vital area is relatively low, and on the chest you need to penetrate deep to get there). Haven't seen any detailed diagrams of horse anatomy yet, though.

However, the horses probably do not like arrow hits, which would cause certain amount of disorder.

Griefbringer

"I have Hardy and Strickland and have done lectures in the same circles on the same subjects. Like all enthusiasts, the focus on the extraordinary, not the real."

I'm not sure you have read the same book as I have then. The whole point of their argument in the book I have read is that this was NOT extraordinary but all too real. Also while Robert Hardy could conceivably be labelled an enthusiast, I doubt the same epithet could be applied to Dr. Matthew Strickland. He is Professor of Medieval History at the University of Glasgow and his specific areas of interest are not the warbow but rather:
* chivalric society and the conduct of war in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries
* castles, fortifications and medieval warfare
* political culture, kingship and rebellion in the Anglo-Norman and Angevin realms

"The issue is marching for a few weeks in the mud with dysentery and bad food and water and fighting at the end of it! And the issue is shooting 6 rounds a minute for 10 minutes straight."

It's called training. You could make a similar argument about the British in the Peninsular, yet they still beat the French time and again.

If the longbow wasn't particularly effective against armor, why did they keep using it?

There were many conditions that were less than ideal for archery on the battlefield. Wind, rain, night (poor visibility). You wouldn't always face archers on the field, so to shuck your armour and leave yourself defenceless against other weapons doesn't make sense.

Because thats what they had!

Doug,
You wrote:
"Photocrinch, the arrows don't get heavier unless the bow draw weight gets heavier. Arrow spine requires matching to the draw weight of the bow to work accurately."

That was exactly my point, so I don't really understand why you would then argue range being indicative of the draw weight of the bow. The draw weight increased similtaneously with the weight of the arrow. The heavier weight of the arrow increases penetration, but decreases the range, hence the combination of a heavier arrow with a more powerful bow means range would remain essentially unchanged. More powerful bow + heavier arrow = same range.

It's been a while since I read Strickland, but if memory serves, there are very few arrow shafts in existence from this period. The one/ones that do still exist are monstrous 4oz shafts which he argues, would require equally massive draw weights to propel it a reasonable range.

David

Maybe they've been playing a lot of 40K and think 'well, choppa > lasrifle so pointy metal stick > longbow plus these dudes are *shiny*.'

If the longbow wasn't particularly effective against armor, why did they keep using it?

Not everybody in the 15th century battlefield had full plate armour. So whether the longbow had armour penetrative capabilities that were totally übersome, impressive or plain mediocre, there would always be many vulnerable targets around.

And as demonstrated in Agincourt, ranged weapons will force your enemy to either advance or to retreat – few folks like to stand still on the open when they come under missile fire.

Griefbringer

Surely if the longbow had been such a superweapon as some like to see it today, then its use would have spread across Europe? The various princes of the day must have seen the performance of the english longbow on the battlefield, but still no one decided to raise their own longbowmen.

I am venturing into raher unfamiliar terretory here, but wasn't the 'English' bowman taken fro the farming and other communities where a 'simple' bow would have been a relatively cheap alternative to the crossbow, for example, and that the regular use was due to the 'farming' communities having to keep down animals and other raiders?

in other words, the English used what was in common knowledge and use, and simply adapted the tactics in time of war?

I think that research suggests that the strength of the 'average' yeoman was much higher than today – due in part to the rigors of the life they led – so being able to march, and fight, is not so unlikely a scenario.

Were not English armies usually built up largely of conscripts in time of war, with a modest 'Standing army'? So using the skills of the local population seems sensible. The English used bowmen extensively because they were easy to raise, and cheap to arm. I can imagine that 250,000 shafts are considerable cheaper than 1000 fully armed 'Knights'.

Just my thoughts, and apologies if I sound a bit naive.

But it it spread across Europe- unless France and the Low Countries don't count- as well as Scottish attempts.

And they all seemed to find it difficult to get the same level of men.

PS- Does anyone have anything on how effective French Ordinance archers where?

Yes yes yes…all good points and fine arguments…but the real question at hand is:

"what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"

Happy 4th of July Mates…

Is that an European or African swallow?

Quote: "At Agincourt, as a side note, it is recorded that the supplied included several wagons with 100,000 arrows each."

100,000 arrows per wagon?
How much do an arrow weight? Between 50 and 100 grams?
That would put the payload of arrows in the range of 5 to 10 tons per wagon.
Can oxen or horses actually pull such a heavy load over rough ground?
I know from a fact that a heavy horse wagon designed for military purposes and used in both WW1 and WW2 where drawn by two to four horses and could carry a payload of about 1,000 kg (1 ton)
Again I am just speculating about the logistics of transporting so many arrows as described for effective and continued use of longbow units in great numbers.

regards
Thomas

Most wagons in medieval times would AFAIK be drawn by oxen, which were slower but stronger than horses.

Archers were not the only ones needing supplies, also handgunners, crossbowmen and cannons needed to have something carted for them to shoot at the enemy. And those were only a small part of the supply train, which would also need to stock food, beer, wine, tents, tools, hides, field forges, and all other sorts of supplies.

While at it, I could quote from page 63 of Gerry Ambleton's book Medieval Military Costume (Europe Militaria Special No 8), which happens to describe a small contingent that went from Regensburg in 1431 to fight Hussites. This force consisted of commander, chaplain, 73 horsemen, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners and unspecified amount of supporting personnel (various craftsmen, servants etc.).

For transportation, this force had 41 wagons, which transported 6 cannons, unspecified amount of powder and shot, 60000 crossbow bolts and arrows, 300 fire arrows, six weeks worth of food, and various other supplies.

Griefbringer

Hi

Hmmm. See, mike, the usual way this develops is that since I think H and S do "bow porn", the usual response is I must fall into the "bow is usless agains…." BS.

To repeat. I have been an archer since I was little. I love archery. But it isn't magic.

First, ranges. Nope, heavier arrows don't follow heavier draw weights therefore producinging no change. Actually, there are two different things lumped together. "heavy" to a flectcher means the stiffnes or "spine" of the arrow. The thing with shooting an arrow is that it must flex AROUND, the bow stave if you are going to hit anything. Thus, a trip to your local archery store will expose you to arrows being sold according to draw weight(assuming you are looking for wood for a longbow as opposed to modern carbon fibre/compound bows). but they are NOT heavier.

In the era, the weight is a matter of the HEAD. A long range flight arrow will weigh about an oz, a specialzed armor piercing or broad head approaches the weights mentioned above. But that is fixed regardless of drawweight.

H&S sift their facts to "prove" to no purpose I can see except to impress the audience that 150# draw weight was the norm. And in their enthusiasm they ignore the discouraging words. it is simple, there are actual refrences out there on bow physics. And given the engagement range of the shooting at agincourt, the bow at that battle were 70# or so. (ref. P.E.Klopstag "the Physics of Bow and Arrow")

I have built bows, built arrows, built armor, and penetrated same at range. The problem I have with the linked documentaries is each started off with an agenda. What is referred to in science as "observer bias", they do their tests looking to prove their pre-concived results. Hardy does this, as do the people who "prove" that no arrow could ever hurt plate armor.

Neither extreme is true. Everytime this argument comes up, however, each side calle me names for not just agreeing without question with either extreme. They ASSUME that if I disagree with Hardy, i must be a "longbow denier" and vicea versa.

R

African….

AppleMak 04 Jul 2008 2:58 a.m. PST
I am venturing into raher unfamiliar terretory here, but wasn't the 'English' bowman taken fro the farming and other communities where a 'simple' bow would have been a relatively cheap alternative to the crossbow, for example, and that the regular use was due to the 'farming' communities having to keep down animals and other raiders?

Actually, the longbow gets introduced into England via several sources: the Viking used a bow that was essentially a "long" bow. The Norman invasion of England -- the Norman infantry were primarily archers with "longbows", according to such few archeological finds we have to date. The Welsh retained a longbow throughout the medieval period. And the Assizes of Arms of Henry III specifically commanded that the poorer sort of levied soldier be armed with the longbow, and further stipulated regular practice with it. From this pool of national archers, the famous yeomen of England of the HYW were hand-picked, i.e. the best of the lot.

in other words, the English used what was in common knowledge and use, and simply adapted the tactics in time of war?

That is essentially correct. By the mid to late 13th century, the longbow was very common in England and her kings simply made use of the most available weapon, making it in essence the national weapon of the common man.

I think that research suggests that the strength of the 'average' yeoman was much higher than today – due in part to the rigors of the life they led – so being able to march, and fight, is not so unlikely a scenario.

I have not seen any convincing research which shows medieval english yeomen to be superior physical specimens compared to today's athletes; quite the opposite, modern cross-training and knowledge of proper nutrition makes today's athletes superior to any earlier epoch's. (I allow, that the average non athlete today is a poor comparison to the average working man of medieval England, in physical strength and stamina; but otherwise, even our sedentary over-fed populace is more healthy and lives far longer than any earlier period.)

The idea Rocky was elucidating is that campaign conditions weaken any man. So his "warbow" must be considerably less in draw weight than the favorite bow that he shows off with on the village green back home: it must, in other words, be well within his less than ideal strength to pull for long combat periods without fatiguing. Hardy and Strickland's picture of the English yeoman as a deformed skeletal force of nature pulling godawful (legendary) draw weights is not within the realm of provenance much less observable reality.

Were not English armies usually built up largely of conscripts in time of war, with a modest 'Standing army'

No. England's tradition has always been "no standing army." In such limited periods where a monarch did put together a standing army, e.g. king John, the nobility rebeled against the very idea. The English armies of the HYW were recruited from among the best of the "levy" of England. They were paid daily wages. They were in no sense of the word conscripts, but rather volunteers.

So using the skills of the local population seems sensible. The English used bowmen extensively because they were easy to raise, and cheap to arm. I can imagine that 250,000 shafts are considerable cheaper than 1000 fully armed 'Knights'.

True! But a good archer was still paid about half the daily wage of a fully-armed mounted man at arms (both commoners, btw; knights, iirc, were paid four or five times more than a common man at arms). The archer's equipment was much cheaper, but by no means inexpensive: bowyers and fletchers were highly skilled craftsmen whose wages were not insignificant taken in total. England built up an entire infrastructure of bow making and supplying. The end of the HYW, and finally the WotR, caused a break in that momentum of supply and demand. By the time of Henry VIII, the level of archery in England was in irreversible decline. The training of more bowyers and fletchers, and the raising of the quality of those still in existence, was not possible in the new age of gunpowder weapons, the cheapest weapons and easiest to use of all.

lutonjames 04 Jul 2008 3:04 a.m. PST
But it it spread across Europe- unless France and the Low Countries don't count- as well as Scottish attempts.

And they all seemed to find it difficult to get the same level of men.

PS- Does anyone have anything on how effective French Ordinance archers where?

It is my understanding that only these royal units had any appreciable effectiveness with the longbow, but they were also not numerous.

France simply sat on the fence where the longbow was concerned: they wanted their cake and to eat it too: they wanted an effective corps of archers to shoot it out with the English, yet the French nobility did not want an armed, effective peasantry. So they were constantly trying to get them to take up the bow and not keep it at the same time!

(DHing material follows, if any hissy-fitter wants to push the "panic button")

Only freedom to keep and bear arms, as the yeomen of England had (ironically, were not free to ignore as a duty), produces an effective militia in time of war. A militia, composed of the common men, must have their own weapons and train in their profficient use, or else there can be no effective militia at all in the hour of need.

France in the HYW is a lesson to that effect. A lesson which today is just as real. A militia of commen men in the USA would be a usable arm of defense or aggression, owning and keeping their own weapons and being therefore familiar with weapons generally: whereas, in much of Europe and elsewhere, where weapons are heavily curtailed in private hands, or forbidden altogether, such an unarmed populace would not compare to a militia bringing their own privately owned weapons to the battlefield. The HYW, therefore, forms a clear example of the difference of both mindsets in the rulers of the Land: the free yeomanry with their own weapons, and the peasantry disarmed. There is no comparison, then or now….

I have not seen any convincing research which shows medieval english yeomen to be superior physical specimens compared to today's athletes; quite the opposite, modern cross-training and knowledge of proper nutrition makes today's athletes superior to any earlier epoch's. (I allow, that the average non athlete today is a poor comparison to the average working man of medieval England, in physical strength and stamina; but otherwise, even our sedentary over-fed populace is more healthy and lives far longer than any earlier period.)

One might also want to keep in mind that due to the nutrition and level of medical care, a medieval farmer was somewhat shorter in stature than his equivalent nowadays.

Griefbringer

Only freedom to keep and bear arms, as the yeomen of England had (ironically, were not free to ignore as a duty), produces an effective militia in time of war.

It is perhaps a bit difficult to call as a freedom from the modern sense a system where you are required to arm yourself on your own account, and to train regularly on your own time.

And the general opinion seems to be that this training – organised, regular training on every Sunday, with all the men of the village – was what produced archers that were capable of performing well in the battlefield. Without any direct costs for the crown, neither for training nor for the basic armament.

However, the presence of armed and trained commoners surely meant that the nobility could not easily run the risk of a commoner uprising.

Griefbringer

A militia of commen men in the USA would be a usable arm of defense

I have visions of turning out America's Yeomanry today. You would need at least 2 1/2 foot frontage per man to give room for the beer gut and pickups for anyone who had to march more than a football field. And I just don't think there are enough beer trucks to provide a supply train ;)

Mikhail, you are forgetting that, as couch potatoes, many of the modern Yank militia would only operate on the defensive, from behind an open order line of sofas. This would naturally require transportation to the battlefield also. So your logistical concerns are only addressing a fraction of the problem. Hal V's challenge to transport enough arrows is insignificant by comparison….

Those sofas could be used to build a fearsome barricade, like the stake obstacles formed by the medievals. In emergency, also the empty fridges and beer barrels could be used.

Which reminds me that in one of the battles of HYW, an English convoy transporting wagons loaded with barrels of herring was stopped by the French, who cunningly started shooting it with cannons – things went well until the Scots who were part of the French force messed up things by deciding to charge instead of letting the bombardment further damage the defenders.

Still, I think that the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of modern militias might be better discussed on the modern discussion boards.

(Bringing a few barrels of herring to a modern con would make sure that nobody would anymore bother to complain about the aroma of the con-visitors, though.)

Griefbringer

Hi

I was about to relate a conversation I had with a russian officer 25 years ago, but that risked being modern politics.

how about this? I was reading a british history of the Boxer Rebellion over 100 years ago (my grand dad was part of the relief). British commander at Peking (55 days and all that) made the observation that when it was accurate sniping and long range shooting, he always called on the americans, whom he reported, seemed to have grown up shooting and out shot any properly trained soldier in his command.

Rocky

Are we talking African sofas or European?

"H&S sift their facts to "prove" to no purpose I can see except to impress the audience that 150# draw weight was the norm."

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree. I think they make a very reasoned case for the 150lb darw weight. Not only that but as far as I am aware their view has not been challenged by any other academic in then the field.

"And in their enthusiasm they ignore the discouraging words. it is simple, there are actual refrences out there on bow physics."

What discouraging words?

"And given the engagement range of the shooting at agincourt, the bow at that battle were 70# or so. (ref. P.E.Klopstag "the Physics of Bow and Arrow")"

On what evidence do you base your view of the Agincourt engagement range? As far as I am aware, the Agincourt site has not been subject to a rigorous battlefield archaeological survey.

"First, ranges. Nope, heavier arrows don't follow heavier draw weights therefore producinging no change. Actually, there are two different things lumped together. "heavy" to a flectcher means the stiffnes or "spine" of the arrow. The thing with shooting an arrow is that it must flex AROUND, the bow stave if you are going to hit anything. Thus, a trip to your local archery store will expose you to arrows being sold according to draw weight(assuming you are looking for wood for a longbow as opposed to modern carbon fibre/compound bows). but they are NOT heavier."

Once again you miss the point that I was making based on Stricklands argument. Modern arrows are produced for aimed shots at a target or deer. And modern hunting arrows (at least the carbon variety) are heavier and larger than the itty bitty target arrows. For the penetration of a medieval arrow shot indirectly to increase, it must be physically heavier. If you shoot a ranged shot, ie high in the air to achieve maximum range, what determines penetration is not the draw weight of the bow, It's gravity. F=MA Once an arrow reaches its maximum height, it's the mass of the arrow in combination with gravity (which provides the acceleration component)that give it the ability to penetrate. Arrows were heavier, physically heavier, for that reason.

The whole range argument you make is indeed specious, as Mike points out. How can we really know at what range the troops engaged each other? We can't, and as I have pointed out, the argument doesn't hold water anyway.

Just glad to be sitting here and not in an arrow storm,

David

photocrinch, you forget that even in the peak of the arc the arrow maintains vertical velocity. On the downward part of the arc, the acceleration caused by gravity gives it horizontal velocity. The total velocity can be counted as a combination of these two velocity vectors.

Notice that the arrow never has more kinetic energy than the bow imparted to it (except if the target is at lower level).

Griefbringer

I think that this debate is ineffective.

Oh well.

The engagement range at Agincourt is generally accepted to be at maximum range for longbows. Somewhere between 200 and 300 yards. What difference does that make?

I've said this before: if the bows at Agincourt were 100 lbs draw weight, the French men at arms don't have enough men left standing to make a fight when they reach the English line: I know this because I have played out Agincourt both ways, with the heavier bows and with the 70 lb bows (this according to the physics studies Rocky Russo has indicated, crunched into our two longbow tables: "Bow 3" and "Bow 4", 70 lb and 100 lb bows respectively). The amount of time to shoot and the effectiveness of 70 lb bows matches the original source descriptions of a stiff fight remaining after the French advanced to melee. If we use 100 lb bows, the French are too shot up to melee as described.

1066.us