"The Effective Archery Debate" Topic

"If the MR bows were finished ready for shooting AND imported from spain, then there is a logical disconnect. Where are the longbowmen of spain?"

Imported from Spain? Who said anything about finished bows being imported from Spain? The MR was a warship. It certainly would NOT be used to import anything.

"What you miss, mike, is that I amde assumptions, that is what all of us do."

No, didn't miss it. I make assumptions too. It's just that I think some of your assumptions are misguided.

"Unlike you, I tested the assumptions. I started with older sources, and tested the points. Found them plausable."

OK which older sources did you start with? I started with the primary source material on WOTR battles can't get much older than that. I tested my assumptions by playing my game to see if ity generated battle results that corresponded to the historical accounts. Don't need to be an archer to do that.

"Now, the thread has split again about your assumptions of our game design approached, and which are approved. Different discussion. I would offer that if you start top down, but produce engagement ranges that are impossible for the details of the individual weapons, then your assumption of "top down" being proper are flawed."

Who said anything about assuming engagement ranges that are impossible? One of the assumptions I made was that effective archery range is ~250m. You say it is ~220yds. Near enough thesame as makes no difference.

However, although I agree with you effective archery range, your mate Doug then goes on to claim that this proves the use of a 70lb bow! You possibly don't agree with him …

"Surviving arrows, again, you show a lot of bow ignorance. Even casual reading will reveal that archers in the HYW carred three arrows for combat."

In my "casual reading" I found that archers carried a sheaf of 24 arrows as "ready ammunition". What's that then, 8 of each type?

"It has to do with using the right tool for the job. Unarmored targets are best engaged with heavy broadheads. Produces maximum effect against people and horse. Armored targest are best engaged with various anti-armor points. Somtimes these are referred to as "bodkin". Then there are "flight arrows". That your reading hasn't exposed you to this just indicates a limit in your reading."

Yeah knew all about the different arrow heads. But you were implying that different arrows meant different RANGES – which I dispute. Nothing to do with the type of arrow head.

"You are correct, I didn't spend a lot of time correcting Doug's misunderstandings of things."

Perhaps you oughta. He seems woefully confused.

"As this trivial point was irrelevent to the discussion, I saw no reason to address it."

Don't know why you mentioned it then.

"The implication is that your choices in your game make no assumptions at all."

Wrong. Naturally in my game design I made several assumptions. You can't design a game for this period without doing so. But like Saxton Pope's son, they are not pertinent to the discussion.

The difference is that my assumptions are based on a reading of historical documents, whereas yours appear to be your own personal bias. (e.g. 70lb was the "de facto" standard draw weight)

"You have suggested we did everything wrong without being honest about what your choices were."

Not being honest? I haven't stated any assumptions until this post. How can that be dishonest? "without being honest" implies that I am lying. I challenge that.

"Again, there is a lot of heat here. No light."

That's probably because you and Doug are making statements that you claim to be historical fact without backing them up from primary sources. Until you shed some light on this we flounder about with no direction.

Mike, I get you now. Sorry for misunderstanding your use of "bottom up" game design.

Okay. What Rocky said about the individual weapons being a useful benchmark is true. Knowing what the weapons can do points out errors in rules design. I remember "God's Acre" limiting horsed archers to very short range only (10" iirc). That's a good example of designing in a gimmicky game mechanic to get an affect, that has zero application in the real world. That is top down design too, as you define it. The error was instantly patent to me, because I knew that horsed archers did not suffer a range limitation whatsoever; and in fact usually out-ranged their non Steppes foes' own archery capabilities. I knew this because of personal experience with shooting, and knowing what Rocky's research and testing had taught me about Steppes bow design.

Now, the "history" of my own game design is simple enough. I had this entrenched interest in the period 1066 through the crusades (it's expanded before and after that since, but not much :)). I started out abstracting Feudal (the 3M boardgame); got in touch with John McEwan's group in the day and liked his rules, mostly. But I was dissatisfied with some "top down" mechanics that produced effects that I increasingly disagreed with, on the basis of what I was reading. So this other guy and I broke away and wrote up our own version, including most of what we liked about McEwan's rules, modified by what we assumed we "knew better". (I remember at that stage assuming that "Steppes bow", which we called a "composite bow", was good but inferior to both longbow and crossbow in range and damaging effect.) That went on for a few years. Rocky moved away to Denver and we started collaborating on our medieval/ancients rules project; because by then I had worked up a set of rules including all the system changes that I felt addressed my prejudices adequately (for the time). Most of my assumptions were either malleable to Rocky's differences, or required breaking down: on some things we already agreed. On the archery thing: Rocky's first revelation was that the longbow was NOT the most powerful or efficient bow in the known world. To an Anglo-file, such as myself, this was near heresy. He produced the tables, we shot bow together a few times; we shot bow and crossbow apart and shared our experiences, etc. He did the math calculations and the final tables were given to me to play with. They worked. They have not changed in 30 years.

That sounds like good "top down" game designing to me.

"Again, there is a lot of heat here. No light."

That's probably because you and Doug are making statements that you claim to be historical fact without backing them up from primary sources. Until you shed some light on this we flounder about with no direction.

We may talk around each other, without purpose, when you make general statements like that. Exactly which statements are you doubting? That archers shot at 250 yards into men at arms? You said that your rules do that, so that must not be your objection. The long range, "shoot as long as possible dictum?" If your rules allow for long range shooting, why do you insist that archers waited until the target was closer?

To cite a new seminal source that makes copious use of the original sources: Anne Curry on p. 202 of her book (Agincourt: A New History) says, "The Gesta adds that the archers kept up their firing into the enemy's flanks without pause until their arrows were used up. Henry's opening tactic was therefore to use the archers for as long as possible against the advancing French, in order to disrupt their attack on his men-at-arms. What better than to damage the French as much as possible before they were able to engage in hand-to-hand fighting? The archers were therefore used like artillery in later centuries, to weaken the enemy at a distance so that their hand-to-hand onslaught would be diminished."

Sure sounds to me like shooting was engaged in just as soon as arrows could reach the target. John Keegan also interprets the opening distance between the two armies as 250 to 300 yards, with the flanking wings of archers (those opposite the French cavalry) closer than this and any archers in the woods closer still. Shooting began, as soon as the archers' stakes were replanted. Then the cavalry attacked. The archers did not advance to a closer range and then run back behind their stakes and resume shooting!

I doubt that any original or primary source talks directly to any long-range dictum to keep the enemy under fire as long as possible. Like most details that we game designers put into our rules, we rely heavily on the seminal sources interpreting the original sources.

Doug Larson: "You see, it is a simple fact that arrows do not drop at a high impact angle until shot at quite a long range. Longbows would impact almost perpendicularly into a vertical surface even outside of 100 yards. This is because at the top of the arc, the arrow is point-high. Unless it is traveling at a high trajectory, for a long-range shot, the arrow does not have time to drop into an extreme point-down position. The heavy war arrow would impact with the ground at something like 56 degrees when shot at c. 43 degrees of elevation. So inside "effective range" (150 yards) the arrow is going to be impacting almost straight on. The armor testing is relatively the easiest part; you shoot replicated bodkins and the like into steel sheet with various backing materials, and you do this at all the ranges to which the arrow can reach."

Doug, the problem I see is that your description of bow fire does not agree with the sources for Agincourt. It was pretty much unanimous the arrows fell like "rain." This suggests a more vertical descent than perpendicular. It would be more point-low than point-high. This fact alone would throw off you penetration estimates. This also means that draw weight of the bow was immaterial. All an archer had to do was use a steep enough arch so that when the arrows were descending they were descending with the point down.

This was necessary tactically against mounted men-at-arms because it was important to strike the horses where they were most vulnerable. The weakest part of an armored horse is where the armor from each side meets at the top of the horse's back, and elsewhere where armor meets. Poitiers showed arrows could not pierce horse armor when fired head-on and perpendicular.

With the French foot, it was important to disrupt the knights before they reached the English men-at-arms. This would give the English an advantage. Think of the archers curving around like horns on a bull. The French are 250 files wide and 20 ranks deep. It is not enough to simply fire on the flanks of the French. The arrows had to strike deep within the French mass. Again, the arrows are coming in point-down seeking out the weakest points on a knights armor. However, by the time of Agincourt, there were not many weak points in a knights armor. The bow fire did not stop the French. They did, however, force the French mass into an ever tighter mass (as they closed in on each other for protection) till they could hardly swing their weapons.

With regards to the bows on the Mary Rose bow staves, as has been already pointed out, there is no evidence that these kinds of bows were used 100 years earlier at Agincourt. The ship was built in 1511 and sunk in 1545. This is interesting because around this time the French marshal Monluc and his men had an encounter with English bowmen. They rounded a corner of a building and found they were facing one another. I don't know the range but it was probably point-blank. The archers, presumably, were using the same type of bow found on the Mary Rose. Monluc recounts how the arrows just bounced off the French armor. The archers then took off at a dead run with Monluc in hot pursuit.

There seems to be a continual disconnect between what people claim for the longbow and the descriptions of it in action in the past. For one thing, they seem to consistently underestimate the strength of French armor, especially with regards to the type of fire encountered on the battlefield.

Rocky, here is your assignment. Build 5,000 replica French men-at-arms in late medieval armor. Put them into a formation 250 files wide and 20 ranks deep. Gather up 6,000 of your closest friends (armed with longbows and arrows). Curve the archers around the mannequins like the horns of a bull. Have them fire high enough into the air so that when the arrows begins their descent they are coming down point-low. Report back your estimation of damage.

Rich

"Doug, the problem I see is that your description of bow fire does not agree with the sources for Agincourt. It was pretty much unanimous the arrows fell like "rain.""

I would suggest that this is referring to the density of the arrow "storm" and not describing vertically dropping arrows. A couple of original details will support this: theGesta says that, "…the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets…" This would, of course, be impossible if the archers were shooting high into the air to have the arrows drop "like rain", i.e. vertically as you suggest. Such a tactic would also reduce the longbow's energy a great deal; because all of that energy would first be sucked away by gravity, the arrow would tip over and drop and the only energy regained would be from gravity, a considerably lesser force than even a 70 lb bow could impart directly into a perpendicular target. There would be nothing gained by shooting into the flanks of an approaching enemy column if you were merely dropping arrows on their heads and shoulders (especially since those areas constituted some of the most reinforced areas of the helmet and suit of plate). And lastly: arrows dropping vertically would waste many more missiles than arrows driving directly into, or dropping across, ranks of men: effectively, a vertically dropping arrow only has one rank of possible targets before it strikes the ground: but an arrow driving straight into many ranks, or down into them at a shallow dropping angle of attack, if it misses the first or second rank, still has other ranks behind to possibly strike: i.e. a vertically dropping arrow volley only has a fraction of the "beaten zone" that a virtually horizontally traveling volley does.

"With regards to the bows on the Mary Rose bow staves, as has been already pointed out, there is no evidence that these kinds of bows were used 100 years earlier at Agincourt."

I am confident that they were exactly the same weapon. There is no evidence throughout the middle ages, to modern times, that the "longbow" ever underwent any radical or effect changes in its efficiency.

The only arguement on this thread (a duplicate of several earlier rounds on the same topic) is the draw weight employed by the units of yeomen in battle: Mike, et al. the believers in H&S, claim the 100+ lb draw weight was the norm: Rocky and I hold to 70 or 75 lbs as the norm.

The MR bows are a single find all matched for service on a special ship and are likely not typical of thousands of longbow on a battlefield; that's my theory and I am sticking to it.

The earlier bow fragments back to Viking times are very similar to the later English longbow, both as to dimensions and estimated draw weight, i.e. 100 lbs assumed by most researchers. I maintain that their very existence is evidence for their rarity rather than commonality: that the more accessible bows got used and broken, the far more rare 100+ lb bows simply didn't get used enough to break them, so more of them survived. In any case, the finds are so paltry so far, and controversial in their fragmentary condition, that we cannot make any definite assessments on what was an "average" warbow (as to draw weight) based on such meager evidence: it is to be hoped that more enlightening finds will surface in the near future.

The French armor in the mid 16th century was far more arrow proof than at Agincourt. Unless a hit was made on the face, neck or some other non covered part of the body, there would be no real chance of penetration at all: armor by then was supposed to be "bullet proof" after all! Your annecdote sounds like a single non aimed snap shooting followed by a skedaddle. Hardly similar to examining Agincourt!

"Knowing what the weapons can do points out errors in rules design. I remember "God's Acre" limiting horsed archers to very short range only (10" iirc). That's a good example of designing in a gimmicky game mechanic to get an affect, that has zero application in the real world. That is top down design too, as you define it."

No, it isn't. I'll try to explain again, "top-down" design is looking at the mechanics of a battle as a whole and then designing a game that reflects those mechanics. Your example of a short range for horse archers is incomplete. Without knowing the ground scale of the game in question, I cannot possibly comment as to whether a 10" range is too short or not.

"The error was instantly patent to me, because I knew that horsed archers did not suffer a range limitation whatsoever; and in fact usually out-ranged their non Steppes foes' own archery capabilities. I knew this because of personal experience with shooting, and knowing what Rocky's research and testing had taught me about Steppes bow design."

You have a genuine Steppes bow? I'm impressed.

"Now, the "history" of my own game design is simple enough. … But I was dissatisfied with some "top down" mechanics that produced effects that I increasingly disagreed with, on the basis of what I was reading."

You don't say what these mechanics were so again I cannot comment. Besides if the assumptions are wrong then the game will be wrong regardless of design approach.

"On the archery thing: Rocky's first revelation was that the longbow was NOT the most powerful or efficient bow in the known world. To an Anglo-file, such as myself, this was near heresy. He produced the tables, we shot bow together a few times; we shot bow and crossbow apart and shared our experiences, etc. He did the math calculations and the final tables were given to me to play with. They worked. They have not changed in 30 years.

That sounds like good "top down" game designing to me."

No, it isn't. You are starting from a single archer with a single bow and then extrapolating up to derive an effectiveness for a large formation of archers. That is "bottom up" design.

"We may talk around each other, without purpose, when you make general statements like that. Exactly which statements are you doubting? That archers shot at 250 yards into men at arms? You said that your rules do that, so that must not be your objection."

Correct, I agree with that.

"The long range, "shoot as long as possible dictum?" If your rules allow for long range shooting, why do you insist that archers waited until the target was closer?"

I am not insisting that archers waited until the target was closer. However, your emphasis on the engagement range at Agincourt being 220yds and then saying that this therefore proves the use of a 70lb bow is a statement that you claim to be historical fact which you have so far not backed up from primary sources.

"Anne Curry on p. 202 of her book (Agincourt: A New History) says, "The Gesta adds that the archers kept up their firing into the enemy's flanks without pause until their arrows were used up."

Excellent! This certainly indicates the "fire as long as we have ammunition" for the case of Agincourt. Now let's see if there is evidence that this was normal practice in the HYW and WOTR or not.

"Like most details that we game designers put into our rules, we rely heavily on the seminal sources interpreting the original sources."

Er, no. I much prefer to look at the primary sources myself directly. I will then compare my understanding with that of other writers in order to come to a consensus view.

"With regards to the bows on the Mary Rose bow staves, as has been already pointed out, there is no evidence that these kinds of bows were used 100 years earlier at Agincourt."

"I am confident that they were exactly the same weapon. There is no evidence throughout the middle ages, to modern times, that the "longbow" ever underwent any radical or effect changes in its efficiency."

The only argument on this thread (a duplicate of several earlier rounds on the same topic) is the draw weight employed by the units of yeomen in battle: Mike, et al. the believers in H&S, claim the 100+ lb draw weight was the norm: Rocky and I hold to 70 or 75 lbs as the norm.

The MR bows are a single find all matched for service on a special ship and are likely not typical of thousands of longbow on a battlefield; that's my theory and I am sticking to it."

But, sir, you contradict yourself! On the one hand you say "I am confident that they were exactly the same weapon." and then you say "The MR bows are a single find all matched for service on a special ship and are likely not typical"

Sorry, you can't have it both ways!!

"The earlier bow fragments back to Viking times are very similar to the later English longbow, both as to dimensions and estimated draw weight, i.e. 100 lbs assumed by most researchers."

Hmm … interesting that. Earlier bows are very similar to later English longbows and MOST researchers estimate their draw weight at 100lbs.

"I maintain that their very existence is evidence for their rarity rather than commonality: that the more accessible bows got used and broken, the far more rare 100+ lb bows simply didn't get used enough to break them, so more of them survived."

This is a very odd statement. You are arguing from a LACK of evidence to support your theory. As it is, even the existence of 70lb bows (which according to you were used in their thousands at Agincourt and elsewhere) is not proven by ANY archaeological find. Produce even ONE account of a longbow dating from the period or before with an estimated draw weight of ~70lb and I might change my mind. At the moment, as you yourself have said, the only longbows that have been found are all of the ~100lb category.

"In any case, the finds are so paltry so far, and controversial in their fragmentary condition"

Paltry? 138 bows were recovered from the MR, most of them complete and undamaged.

I'll try to explain again, "top-down" design is looking at the mechanics of a battle as a whole and then designing a game that reflects those mechanics. Your example of a short range for horse archers is incomplete. Without knowing the ground scale of the game in question, I cannot possibly comment as to whether a 10" range is too short or not.

I should have been more clear. Iirc, the horsearcher bow range was less than half the infantry bow and crossbow range, so the ground scale is immaterial (if it even bothered with stipulating such, some/many rules do not). It is "top down" design: the designer obviously believed that to be actually effective in piercing Western armor the horsearchers had to get in really close, so this was designed into the rules. All skirmish shooting at longer ranges was discounted as worthy of inclusion in the game mechanics and became "assumed" but not bothered with. I can see why: the contemporary descriptions of crusaders trudging along with up to a dozen arrows sticking out of their armor from long range horsearcher arrows makes factoring for insignificant casualties a needless trifle. But in fact, this example of "top down" game design shows it to be fallacious; because long range arrows could injure armored men at considerably longer ranges than less than half the infantry bow and crossbow maximum ranges: and there were other targets for horsearchers than just fully-armored men, who would be vulnerable at the longest shots a horsearcher could make.

You have a genuine Steppes bow? I'm impressed.

No. But because of Klopsteg, Nagler, et al. the physicists studying bow efficiency, Rocky has been able to determine that a given bow efficiency return produces range at a given draw weight with a given weight of missile. He has stated it to me many times, and put it in writing, that a modern fibreglass recurve has very similar properties in returned energy as a Steppes composite bow. My glass and wood composite recurve Howatt Hunter at 55 lbs is very similar to a composite recurve's efficiency of that same era and draw weight: my field tests showed his predicted numbers to be correct. So a modern bow can closely replicate medieval bows, once you know what the energy efficiency of a modern bow is, compared to the efficiency numbers given out by the researchers of the original bows: longbows of a given weight today are the same as longbows of Renaissance and medieval times; and we still have Steppes bows being made, the same way they have been made for hundreds or thousands of years; we even have extant examples surviving from the medieval period (few and expensive though they be: Pope tested one, iirc).

Besides if the assumptions are wrong then the game will be wrong regardless of design approach.

Perhaps this is the most appropos point so far that has been brought up. What are your and our incorrect assumptions? Even laying assumptions on the "back burner" and testing everything to verify what is true can still result in mistaken assumptions. A false premise in the testing method or the math employed can result in mistaken statistics which create a false assumption!

The rules I alluded to were essentially similar in combat mechanics to the rules that Rocky and I have played with for over 30 years since our initial collaboration. We liked the mechanics because we like individual combat "feel." So we retained that. The assumptions that I disagreed with the most were mainly to do with too much of a good thing: we toned down the game a lot. One egregious example, that I remember arguing at the time, was how cavalry could impact with a target enemy unit, and as long as the individual figures kept winning each combat roll, they could roll again! This resulted, on one memorable occasion, in a half dozen heavy cavalry catching a mass of half a hundred Vikings with a charge, and cutting their way entirely through the formation while the rest of the players stood and watched, waiting for the turn to end. My contention was: "Split that effect up across several turns. It is happening too fast." The rules had several quirks like that, that nobody wanted to change. So I went (we went) and made the corrections for ourselves. (thus do gaming groups fragment along "fault" lines)

That sounds like good "top down" game designing to me."

No, it isn't. You are starting from a single archer with a single bow and then extrapolating up to derive an effectiveness for a large formation of archers. That is "bottom up" design.

No. We are confirming what the weapons can do, to make sure that we get the ranges right when we read "effective range" in the seminal writers. We are eliminating or minimizing guesswork. The massed effects of volley fire must match what the original writers described, or something is wrong with the rest of the mechanic design approach being used. That's what play-testing historical battles as written is all about: you have to get the historical result or the game mechanic design is wrong.

Excellent! This certainly indicates the "fire as long as we have ammunition" for the case of Agincourt. Now let's see if there is evidence that this was normal practice in the HYW and WOTR or not.

Rather, I should think, it is reasonable to assume that prior to and after Agincourt, that the very same kind of troops (longbowmen) are being employed the same way; unless or until we have evidence to the contrary: otherwise, what will you assume and make up to replace the description of Agincourt? Homildon hill is another example of shooting rapidly until the enemy drops; in that case, the largely unarmored Scots didn't even make it to melee range before being destroyed by the enfilading arrow storm.

"Like most details that we game designers put into our rules, we rely heavily on the seminal sources interpreting the original sources."

Er, no. I much prefer to look at the primary sources myself directly. I will then compare my understanding with that of other writers in order to come to a consensus view.

What a fortunate fellow you must be! You have immediate access to the originals in their original lingo, and you can translate them into the modern vernacular meaning. I can't duplicate that, and, alack and alas, I must continue to ready Curry, Contamine, Verbrugen, Oman, et al.

But, sir, you contradict yourself! On the one hand you say "I am confident that they were exactly the same weapon." and then you say "The MR bows are a single find all matched for service on a special ship and are likely not typical"

Sorry, you can't have it both ways!!

Eh? "Very same weapon" throughout the "longbow period", i.e. talking about massed archery on the pitched battlefield: not archery aboard the king's flagship; not bow fragments few and far between spanning centuries. I read the Gesta by an eyewitness stationed immediately behind the king's formation at Agincourt, and writing a few years after the battle: and I expect my wargame of Agincourt as written to match what he said (barring flukes in the dice, of course). Agincourt must be won be the English combining all the described influences and affects on the battlefield. The English don't have to win all the time or even most of the time, just enough times to show that Hal V was lucky that day: and the win must come the historical way he won it.

The strengths of the bows used in Rich's Monluc annecdote are completely unknown without IDing the bowmen themselves: were they the rustic yeomen of a squire from the country, or a squad of the king's Yeomen of the Guard? If the former, then most of the bows would be assumed to be average; if the latter, then the pick of the pick would indicate the strongest bows around.

Paltry? 138 bows were recovered from the MR, most of them complete and undamaged.

Yes, a SINGLE FIND. If in the future, archeologists unearth Bill Gates' exotic sports car collection, numbering "138", how would that be typical of car owners? See what I mean? MR is a single, unique example; the number of matched bows in her only proves that bows within units WERE matched to the same draw weight: their actual draw weight does not prove anything about longbows in their many thousands on a battlefield. Finding a single bow in fragments here or there, spanning centuries between, only proves that (estimated) 100 lb bows existed. The other evidence, outside of the bow fragments and complete MR bows, is the rest of the world and their archery practices. If claims for the English yeomen and their "average" strength stand alone, i.e. are not duplicated anywhere else, then I feel confident in saying that the conclusion that they pulled 100+ lb bows is mistaken, since it stands solely upon the very few finds that we have to date: and ignores the effects of other research tools such as physics studies and effects demonstrated/duplicated in the field tests; supported by the effects that the original sources describe for us at Agincourt (a comparatively copiously described battle). As a result of those other methods of research, the outside evidence suggests that 100 lb longbows are too powerful in their effects to replicate Agincourt on the wargame table. If it were not for that, I too would go with the only physical evidence we have so far, the estimated 100 lb draw weights and the complete MR bows. But they are not our most reliable empirical evidence. Their existence is fascinating and fortunate, but in no way can trump the weight of all the rest of the outside evidence. The bow fragments and complete MR bows are all on one side, alone; the rest of the evidence -- the physics and field studies, the eyewtiness descriptions of the course of the battle(s), the rest of the world's archery practices -- are all on the other side, the side of the 70 lb longbow being "the great warbow" of England.

"What a fortunate fellow you must be! You have immediate access to the originals in their original lingo, and you can translate them into the modern vernacular meaning. I can't duplicate that, and, alack and alas, I must continue to ready Curry, Contamine, Verbrugen, Oman, et al."

er … yeah. We were able to track down most of the original sources. For the WOTR many are written in old English which is decipherable with a bit of effort by us 21st century Brits. The medieval French was a bit tricky (it's more like Guernsey patois than modern French) but one of our team managed to translate it. The ones we had problems with were Abbot Whetehamstede's accounts of 1st and 2nd St Albans. They were (of course) written in medieval Latin. Eventually we found a friend at the university in Toronto (although actually a Brit) who translated them for us.

"Eh? "Very same weapon" throughout the "longbow period", i.e. talking about massed archery on the pitched battlefield: not archery aboard the king's flagship"

Sorry, this makes no sense. You previously equated the MR bows with the bows used at Agincourt as the "very same weapon". Now you draw a difference between massed archery on the battlefield and archery aboard the MR, implying that the bows were somehow different. Please make your mind up.

"If the former, then most of the bows would be assumed to be average; if the latter, then the pick of the pick would indicate the strongest bows around."

This is still an assumption that the best guys would use bows much heavier than everyone else. I repeat (although this is getting tiresome) what evidence can you offer to support this hypothesis?

"Finding a single bow in fragments here or there, spanning centuries between, only proves that (estimated) 100 lb bows existed."

Which is more than you can prove for the parallel existence of 70lb bows.

"The other evidence, outside of the bow fragments and complete MR bows, is the rest of the world and their archery practices. If claims for the English yeomen and their "average" strength stand alone, i.e. are not duplicated anywhere else, then I feel confident in saying that the conclusion that they pulled 100+ lb bows is mistaken, since it stands solely upon the very few finds that we have to date:"

This statement is laughable. It has been widely established that other bows from around the world did not compare with the 100lb+ English longbow. Uniqueness according to you is impossible? That's a bit like saying the Roman army could not possibly have been as effective as it was because their tactics were unique!

"and ignores the effects of other research tools such as physics studies and effects demonstrated/duplicated in the field tests; supported by the effects that the original sources describe for us at Agincourt (a comparatively copiously described battle). As a result of those other methods of research, the outside evidence suggests that 100 lb longbows are too powerful in their effects to replicate Agincourt on the wargame table."

Here we are back again with your thesis:
"100lb bows could not possibly have been used at Agincourt because our tests and our wargame rules prove it".

As yet you have not demonstrated a logical deductive process leading to your conclusion. Until you do so I have no choice but to consider it a flawed argument.

"Their existence is fascinating and fortunate, but in no way can trump the weight of all the rest of the outside evidence. The bow fragments and complete MR bows are all on one side, alone; the rest of the evidence -- the physics and field studies, the eyewtiness descriptions of the course of the battle(s),"

You seem to be saying, "let's ignore the archaeology because it doesn't fit our theory.". I really don't think a professor of medieval history would be too happy with that attitude!! Let's get into a little more detail here to try and get you to explain your deductive reasoning. You claim the eyewitness descriptions support your view of the 70lb bow. Please explain exactly how and why.

Oh and another example of uniqueness in military history. The Baker rifle. Only the British had this weapon in the Napoleonic wars. Assuming all we had to go on was a handful of such weapons from archaeological excavations, then according to you we would have to discount them because they had not been found anywhere else!

Hi

Well, you might assume that only YOU read the original sources then came to conclusions, or that WE did as well. The problem is that "dueling sources" might have problems.

YOur "250yards, close enough" and "2-3- 8 of each" just indicates that you cannot do the math. Which is my basic point. I was NOT suggesting that doing math in isolation was my approach. I looked at the sources, and knowing what I know about the physics of the bow and arrow, I concluded that the average bow was ca 75#.

Why?

Well, it starts with arrowstorm. Arrows NEVER fall vertically unless fired near vertically. Maximum range is done with launching at 43degrees and the arrow, slowing with range, produces an arc that ends with a 56degree impact angle.

Thus, reading the sources needs to be modified by understanding the tool.

THEN we have the 100pound bow. "fligh arrows" weigh ca one oz. Broad head and bodkings weigh in the range you assume. A 100# bow will not produce a 300yard shot with a 3 oz arrow. This is really simple, a 100# draw weight bow will return about 52# to the arrow, applied to a one oz arrow, you can get 270yds. Applied to a 3 oz arrow, you get about 125 130.

I assume that a sheef consists of a single arrow type. It isn't a streach to understand that since they are shuttling up sheefs from the rear, that they reserve the heavier arrows for closer.

"around the corner" doesn't address what arrows were being carried. Broadheads would produce that effect. Sources without the details don't work.

"like artillery" Actually we are in agreement. I observed back in the day that there was a french source who recorded where the famous fell. Plotted it on the map and concluded that it looked very much like an 19th century round involving a shot round at range. And plotted our tables based on that.

So, Mike read sources and came to conclusions. As an archer, I read the same sources, tested my observations and came to conclusions. Not dissimilar conclusions.

Rich, you have given me a task to test. This implies that you have tested same, give details.

I admit that I shot at range at a manikin with various bits of shield and armor I made myself, using an assortment of weapons, broadheads, flight, bodkins, and various other impliments like martiobarbuli, francesca, pilum, javelins, rocks, slings, sherikin, And other toys.

With an arrow, if the arrow arrives with about 30# of energy and at an impact angle less than 40degrees, it will usually penetrate. Meaning that armored troops CAN die.

At agincourt, various guesstimates involve 200,000 arrows into a few thousands of french. And the armor guys have a problem with the idea that there were 3000 or so effective hits.

Curiously, in a similar situation if it were 5000 musket firing 200,000 rounds into a column of french, and only getting 3000 hits, no one would blink an eye.

Mark, Rich, you realize the disconnect here?

I think the real test isn't "proof" but "plausable". I would suggest that you both go to your local archery range. You will run into people who own longbow and shoot same, and they will be glad to show off.

Rocky

"Eh? "Very same weapon" throughout the "longbow period", i.e. talking about massed archery on the pitched battlefield: not archery aboard the king's flagship"

Sorry, this makes no sense. You previously equated the MR bows with the bows used at Agincourt as the "very same weapon". Now you draw a difference between massed archery on the battlefield and archery aboard the MR, implying that the bows were somehow different. Please make your mind up.

I was responding directly to Rich's questioning if longbows in Hal VIII's day would even be the same as in Hal V's day: I was saying, yes they are the very same. I was not directing my response specifically to the MR bows: my other comments should have been clear enough on that point, since I have continually harped on the MR bows being a unique and not typical example of massed battlefield application of the weapon.

"If the former, then most of the bows would be assumed to be average; if the latter, then the pick of the pick would indicate the strongest bows around."

This is still an assumption that the best guys would use bows much heavier than everyone else. I repeat (although this is getting tiresome) what evidence can you offer to support this hypothesis?

Other than the MR and some scattered fragments, what evidence can you provide to make a special case for the yeomen of England being superior in strength to the archers of all other nations? As I said, all the outside evidence refutes that notion.

Uniqueness according to you is impossible?

Improbable and suspicious if assumed on the thin basis of the MR and some scattered frags of other bows that might have some connection to longbow construction.

Your Roman example is a non sequitur, since Romans were domonstrably the world's greatest copycat fighters, adapting the weapons of their enemies to their own use.

You claim the eyewitness descriptions support your view of the 70lb bow. Please explain exactly how and why.

I said that I call the longbow at Agincourt a 70 lb weapon because Rocky told me that is what it is. I also said, that without Rocky's math, and my experience verifying what he told me my 55 lb composite recurve was ("Bow 3"), and my crossbows ("Crossbow 2" and "Crossbow 3"), I would go with the MR and frags as 100 lbs for "the great warbow" of England. The missile table in my mind would be "Longbow = c. 100 lbs": and the effect in the game would be exactly the same because it would be the same effects table but under a different name. We play Agincourt and it works. Rocky calls the weapon "70 lbs", and I can't see an argument against that. The only dissenting evidence is a unique ship find and a few frags of older bows: and the interpretation placed on them by other writers who are evidently in ignorance of earlier physics studies rendering such an hypothesis/conclusion untenable, in light of that more fulsome outside evidence.

"YOur "250yards, close enough" and "2-3- 8 of each" just indicates that you cannot do the math."

I beg your pardon? Which bit of maths (I hate the Americanism "math") did I not get right?

"THEN we have the 100pound bow. "flight arrows" weigh ca one oz. Broad head and bodkins weigh in the range you assume. A 100# bow will not produce a 300yard shot with a 3 oz arrow. This is really simple, a 100# draw weight bow will return about 52# to the arrow, applied to a one oz arrow, you can get 270yds. Applied to a 3 oz arrow, you get about 125 130."

This is very interesting. I have access to some similar data derived from shooting a 150lb bow with arrows of various weights (Note it was not I that did the shooting, the data is recorded in an academic text).

A 1.9oz arrow achieved ranges of 344 to 360yds
A 2.0oz arrow achieved ranges of 317 to 329yds
A 3.0oz arrow achieved ranges of 251 to 260yds
A 3.3oz arrow achieved ranges of 250 to 272yds

Not only does this disagree with your calculations, but it also shows my 250yds figure is, if anything, on the conservative side.

"If the former, then most of the bows would be assumed to be average; if the latter, then the pick of the pick would indicate the strongest bows around."

This is still an assumption that the best guys would use bows much heavier than everyone else. I repeat (although this is getting tiresome) what evidence can you offer to support this hypothesis?

But I am not avoiding the question. It is evidential, that given equal accuracy through training, that the archers in the king's royal archers would be the strongest men pulling the strongest bows. That's what "best" means: the pick of accurate, strong archers. It is an assumption and a reasonable one. (there is, somewhere, that Roger Ascham quote, about only one in ten archers in England being strong enough to pull the heavier bows)

Rocky's probably done for the day on his 'puter and won't respond any earlier than tomorrow morning.

Not only does this disagree with your calculations, but it also shows my 250yds figure is, if anything, on the conservative side.

I think that he's going with "iirc" from old numbers in the ballpark in his head: this mathematic approach was crunched into our bow tables decades ago! And I don't think he's been back to it since.

Anyway, note that he said 100 lb, not 150 lb. There's most of your difference right there. I seem to recall his 3-4 oz missile reaching to near 200 yards, so I think his "iirc" is probably off at the moment. That range under 150 yards would be for the 70 lb bow, not the 100 lb.

Incidently, the maximum range for our "Bow 3" is 250 yards. "Bow 4" (the 100 lb longbow) maxs at 300 yards. Of course the only targets that have any conceivable chance of being effectively wounded at those ranges are unarmored ones; the heavier the armor, the shorter the effective range of the weapons. Bow 3 can only start effectively wounding "plate" targets at 100 yards; Bow 4 at 150 yards. Here's the URL to a PDF table of our whole combat reference sheet, so you can compare. PDF link

"But I am not avoiding the question. It is evidential, that given equal accuracy through training, that the archers in the king's royal archers would be the strongest men pulling the strongest bows. … It is an assumption and a reasonable one."

It would be a reasonable assumption if these "king's royal archers" existed. However, I am not aware of any mention of such an "elite" force in the primary sources. Perhaps you can point me to the reference?

"Anyway, note that he said 100 lb, not 150 lb. There's most of your difference right there. I seem to recall his 3-4 oz missile reaching to near 200 yards, so I think his "iirc" is probably off at the moment. That range under 150 yards would be for the 70 lb bow, not the 100 lb."

Yeah, it was a 150lb bow not a 100lb bow. So since these figures show that a 150lb bow shooting a 3.3oz sheaf arrow could engage the enemy at an effective range of 220 – 250yds (it is impossible of course to be more precise than that) then this clearly demonstrates that not only can the heavier bows achieve the required "Agincourt range" but that conversely, the 70lb bow could not achieve the same with a similar weight of arrow.

Your idea that they used the lighter flight arrows at longer ranges and then switched to the heavier arrows as the range decreased of course doesn't make sense in this context either. If you need a heavy arrow to inflict damage at shorter ranges then a lighter arrow fired further will have lost more kinetic energy by the time it reaches the target and be totally ineffective.

"That range under 150 yards would be for the 70 lb bow, not the 100 lb."

Um, a bit short of the 220yds needed for Agincourt isn't it?

"Here's the URL to a PDF table of our whole combat reference sheet, so you can compare."

Without further explanation your combat reference sheet is just meaningless numbers. Fr'instance, I assume that "0-5" 6-10" etc are ranges in inches. But without knowing the ground scale I cannot interpret them. Equally, the numbers for each target type (I assume UN etc. is the level of armour) at each range are meaningless without knowing how those numbers are used to calculate casualties. I could go on …

"I was responding directly to Rich's questioning if longbows in Hal VIII's day would even be the same as in Hal V's day: I was saying, yes they are the very same. I was not directing my response specifically to the MR bows: my other comments should have been clear enough on that point, since I have continually harped on the MR bows being a unique and not typical example of massed battlefield application of the weapon."

You have continually harped on about it, but you still have not provided any evidence to support your theory. It is logically unsound to regard the MR bows as unique and untypical when they are de facto the ONLY ones we have. For such a theory to stand analysis you would have to:

a) prove the existence of lighter weapons
b) show that examples of the lighter weapons are more common than the heavier ones.

"Other than the MR and some scattered fragments, what evidence can you provide to make a special case for the yeomen of England being superior in strength to the archers of all other nations? As I said, all the outside evidence refutes that notion."

Since the MR bows and "scattered fragments" (although I am not sure what scattered fragments you are referring to) are all we have, all I can prove FROM THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is that at least some of the English archers were indeed superior in strength to the archers of all other nations (or at least in the specific strength and training required to pull a heavy longbow). If that were not the case these bows would simply not exist.

"Your Roman example is a non sequitur, since Romans were demonstrably the world's greatest copycat fighters, adapting the weapons of their enemies to their own use."

Um … so who did the Romans copy the manipular system from?
(Note in the case of the Romans I was talking tactics, not weapons)

"I said that I call the longbow at Agincourt a 70 lb weapon because Rocky told me that is what it is."

And you clearly believe him.

"The only dissenting evidence is a unique ship find and a few frags of older bows:"

So you admit that you are prepared to ignore actual archaeological evidence because it doesn't fit your theory.

"and the interpretation placed on them by other writers who are evidently in ignorance of earlier physics studies rendering such an hypothesis/conclusion untenable, in light of that more fulsome outside evidence."

No they are not in ignorance of physics studies as I have described above.

It would be a reasonable assumption if these "king's royal archers" existed. However, I am not aware of any mention of such an "elite" force in the primary sources. Perhaps you can point me to the reference?

::blinks:: Well…. Dang, where do I find THAT? And no time either, must dash in a bit. I am sure Hal VIII had them. A quick Google has this: link

"In any case, Cheney's command of the royal archers who arrested Cromwell and made an inventory of his goods in 1540 hardly suggests a warm relationship between the two."

I'll get to the rest later….

"In any case, Cheney's command of the royal archers who arrested Cromwell and made an inventory of his goods in 1540 hardly suggests a warm relationship between the two."

OK, we have Sir Thomas Cheney commanding the royal archers in 1540. That is well into the reign of Henry VIII. By that time, the ONLY army was the royal army. In order to avoid a re-occurrence of the circumstances that led to to the WOTR the practice of allowing great lords to have what amounted to their own private army was discouraged under H VII. The term "royal archers" in the reference you cite (it is a pity that the reference is not properly cited, so I must assume it is found in one of the sources listed at the bottom of the page) merely indicates that the body of archers under Cheney's command were in direct service to the king. There is no indication or implication of them having any "elite" status.

Doug Larsen: "I would suggest that this is referring to the density of the arrow "storm" and not describing vertically dropping arrows. … This would, of course, be impossible if the archers were shooting high into the air to have the arrows drop "like rain", i.e. vertically as you suggest."

It's not me suggesting it; it's the primary sources for the battle. Here are the quotes: "rain down upon them", "dense as a hailstorm, obscured the sky", "rained down on our men a terrifying hail of arrow shot", "archers, with their strong and numerous volleys, darkening the air, shedding as a cloud laden with a shower", "but the shower of arrows fell upon them so thickly." The metaphors clearing indicate vertical falling objects. Rain descends from above not from the side (unless you're in a hurricane). Hail falls downward not sideways. The next quote uses rain and hail together. The next uses clouds and showers. Clouds don't come at you sideways. The last uses showers combined with falling arrows. Showers come from above as do falling arrows. So your objection is wrong. They clearly describe "vertically falling arrows."

Doug Larsen: "Such a tactic would also reduce the longbow's energy a great deal; because all of that energy would first be sucked away by gravity, the arrow would tip over and drop and the only energy regained would be from gravity, a considerably lesser force than even a 70 lb bow could impart directly into a perpendicular target."

That's not an objection Doug, it's the point. They are firing high angle shots to insure arrows are impacting the center of mass of Frenchmen. This mass is 250-300 yards wide.

Doug Larsen: "a vertically dropping arrow volley only has a fraction of the "beaten zone" that a virtually horizontally traveling volley does."

True but when there are 6,000 falling arrows it kind of broadens the "beaten zone."

The sources are clear. The arrows were falling vertically. Now, I'm not suggesting that this was absolute vertical but rather vertical at an angle with points pointing downward. That's your starting point in understanding the effects of archery on the battlefields of the HYW. Next, you take the technology and match it's use to the testimony of the sources. Your description fails to match the sources. How you thought they used the bow, evidently, was not how they actually used the bow.

Doug Larsen: "The only argument on this thread (…) is the draw weight employed by the units of yeomen in battle: Mike, et al. the believers in H&S, claim the 100+ lb draw weight was the norm: Rocky and I hold to 70 or 75 lbs as the norm."

What I'm saying is the argument doesn't have much merit because the draw of the bow is immaterial. It was gravity, not bow draw, which imparted energy to the arrow. This also means that without archeological evidence, your issue can't be decided.

Rocky: "Rich, you have given me a task to test. This implies that you have tested same, give details."

No it doesn't. No way. There is not a single implication in my challenge. I've looked at it from both sides now and no implications. It is implication free. It is a no implication zone. So, when can you report back to us?

Rich

Here's a good page yeomenoftheguard.com which certainly indicates that fairly early on, the king's guard were marksmen, first corssbowmen and later longbowmen. Hal V had a guard of archers. "Elite" is arguable. But what other criteria other than expertise would qualify a man for being the king's guardsman?

"That range under 150 yards would be for the 70 lb bow, not the 100 lb."

Um, a bit short of the 220yds needed for Agincourt isn't it?

Yes, it would be. But I have always understood Rocky to agree that the archers had the mixed arrows they needed to hand: this is the first time that I have seen him assert that entire sheafs were the same arrow. I'm not thinking that this changes anything essential in the theory: that archers picked the shafts for the job: light for harrassing at long range, heavy for penetration in closer, broadheads for unarmoed targets, etc. I've never imagined the heavy armor penetrator arrowheads as attaining long-range shots.

"Here's the URL to a PDF table of our whole combat reference sheet, so you can compare."

Without further explanation your combat reference sheet is just meaningless numbers.

You are correct that the number bands at the top are range in inches (1" = 10 yards, see how 30" equals 300 yards for Bow 4). The abbreviations on the left side are the five armor classes: Unarmored, Light, Medium, Heavy and Cataphract/plate. The corresponding number between the two is the number or higher needed on 2d6 to eliminate the same number of enemy targets as shooters: e.g. a 100 men longbow company that gets a "hit" removes 100 enemy of that armor class.

It is logically unsound to regard the MR bows as unique and untypical when they are de facto the ONLY ones we have. For such a theory to stand analysis you would have to:

a) prove the existence of lighter weapons
b) show that examples of the lighter weapons are more common than the heavier ones.

I've already listed the outside evidence that makes a slavish adherence to only the physical artifacts (the 100+ lb bows) as "typical" an unsound propostion, imho.

And in any case, the MY is unique, both as the only find of longbows still in preservation, and at the same time, as Hal VIII's flagship it is automatically unique, i.e. not typical either. Because of my assumptions on this, I of course see the existence of all those 100 lb longbows as strong evidence that the "king's archers" were indeed a segment of Roger Ascham's "one in ten" archers who could pull the stonger bow.

Since the MR bows and "scattered fragments" (although I am not sure what scattered fragments you are referring to) are all we have, all I can prove FROM THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is that at least some of the English archers were indeed superior in strength to the archers of all other nations (or at least in the specific strength and training required to pull a heavy longbow). If that were not the case these bows would simply not exist.

I have only come across very occasional mention of fragmentary "longbow" finds dating to earlier periods (righ tback to the Norman conquest period and somewhat earlier). I don't have any links at the moment, sorry.

Of course there were "brewster beefcakes" archers in England. The MR proves that! As well, there were the c. proportion of beefy Steppes archers: these use "Bow 5" in our rules. For some reason never known to me, none of the other armies of bowmen get a 10% higher (more powerful) bow; e.g. the Saracens of Sicily get Bow 2 and Bow 3, because of the mixture of inferior and better bow conscruction side by side: but no Bow 4 guys. This could very well be an inconsistency in our armies lists. But I know for a fact, that when playing Agincourt, Rocky never included the 20% Bow 4 allowed in the English HYW army list (assuming a doubling of the natural number of stronger archers, in such a hand-picked army for campaigning over-sea). He doesn't think the English need them. But then, we also experiment with the proportion of fully plated armoed French in the first battle: I tend to make them pretty close to 100% plate, and Rocky tends to include a sizeable proportion of heavy. There really isn't any way to finalize these kinds of details except through experimentation.

so who did the Romans copy the manipular system from?
(Note in the case of the Romans I was talking tactics, not weapons)

The weapons dictate the tactics a lot. When the Romans endorsed the "double pre contact" use of two pila upon engaging for melee, I rather think that their earlier tactical order allowing the three lines of princepi, hastati and triari, evolved into the "checkerboard" of reliving lines, each allowing a fresh showering of heavy javelins into the enemy. The three lines of combatants of the earlier period was an "Italian" method shared by Etruscans, Samnites and others, iirc (this is not "my" period). In any case, such a thing is hardly in the same class as physical strength, which is shared in common with men everywhere. I want more evidence before I will believe that the yeomen of England were special specimens of physical prowess over other mortals.

Must dash again. More later….

*MY = MR (sheesh)

------------

"The only dissenting evidence is a unique ship find and a few frags of older bows:"

So you admit that you are prepared to ignore actual archaeological evidence because it doesn't fit your theory.

Of course not. I just consider everything that I know of. I don't place the MR and other bow finds above the mass of other evidence and experience.

Rich, the original sources share in graphic metaphor. Like "shield wall", it isn't a wall in any sense of the meaning of the word, yet that's the popular metaphor. "Rain" or "deadly hail": the latter is Wm of Poitiers' description of the English hand missiles sent into the Norman archers and crossbow men at Hastings: hail falls vertically too, but we certainly are not going to assume that the English tossed their hand missiles as high into the air as possible in order to achieve a vertical drop?!

You cut out my point from the Gesta about piercing the visors and sides of the helmets. That is a key detail. Don't ignore it.

Your description fails to match the sources. How you thought they used the bow, evidently, was not how they actually used the bow.

Here's where being an archer helps a lot. What you suggest doesn't make any sense for getting the power out of the bow. Lobbing shots to come down vertically decreases the possible total hits by a factor of as many times as there are ranks of enemy: because vertically falling shots cannot take advantage of the depth of a line of close order men: a vertically falling miss is a clean miss into the ground: and the arrows that do hit must strike into some of the thickest parts of the armor. Finally, such shooting would so reduce the maximum range at which bows could reach an enemy as to render all talk of "effective range" meaningless. It makes no sense at all.

The training exercises of the archers included clout shooting in groups/vollies, and at the mark, i.e. individual marksmanship. In close, under 100 yards, only the front two to four ranks would be shooting directly into the enemy as they closed: at Agincourt and Homildon hill, this included flank-on shooting as well: with the archers shooting aimed shots as fast as they could draw aim and loose, i.e. at least double the rate of volley fire. It would be insane to shoot straight up in order to drop vertical arrows when the power of the bow actually pierces the armor, especially from the sides (I remind you, the Gesta specifically says the arrows pierced the sides of the French helmets).

The rear ranks would quite possibly be engaging in the kind of dropping "hail" that you are advocating, over the heads of the front ranks of longbow men: so both kinds of shooting would be done up close, direct by the front ranks, and indirect by those behind who cannot see the enemy but know by experience how to volley into a beaten zone. (Incidentally, this is the only way that screened archers/crossbow men can volley into enemy that are close: high angled shooting and a virtually vertical drop: unless, of course, the screening spearmen kneel down to expose the enemy to clear view. Obviously, longbowmen arranged 8 to 16 ranks deep, cannot do any such thing when shooting; so the rear ranks -- the bulk of the unit -- must do the high lob, vertical drop, kind of shooting or none at all, into enemy units that have approached close.)

"Hal V had a guard of archers."

Sigh. Please support such statements by citing references.

" "Elite" is arguable. But what other criteria other than expertise would qualify a man for being the king's guardsman?"

Height maybe? Even today there is a minimum height requirement in order to join a British Guards unit.

"I've already listed the outside evidence that makes a slavish adherence to only the physical artifacts (the 100+ lb bows) as "typical" an unsound propostion, imho."

Um … no, you haven't. Cast an eye back over this (rather long now) thread and you will see that every time I have asked to back up your "outside evidence" with references you have failed to do so. Slavish adherence to only the physical artefacts is I have said possibly unsound, but unless you can prove the existence of the lighter type and further more that they were more common, the physical artefacts are all we have.

"And in any case, the MY is unique, both as the only find of longbows still in preservation, and at the same time, as Hal VIII's flagship it is automatically unique, i.e. not typical either."

Um … no, the MR was not Henry VIII's flagship. It had been intended as such when it was first built, but at the time of the battle in 1545 in which the MR was sunk, the Henry Grace a Dieu was the flagship:
"That night, Henry dined on the flagship, Henry Grace a Dieu, with the admiral, Viscount Lisle, as well as Sir George Carew, the newly appointed vice-admiral, and his senior captains."
link

"There really isn't any way to finalize these kinds of details except through experimentation."

I hazard to suggest that even experimentation will not provide conclusive proof. There are just far too many unknowns.

"Of course not. I just consider everything that I know of. I don't place the MR and other bow finds above the mass of other evidence and experience."

As we have tried to demonstrate the "other evidence and experience" you keep referring to does not have the weight of actual finds when analysing history. The existence of the MR bows (your so-called "dissenting evidence") proves that some archers of the period could use heavy bows. To extrapolate a conclusion that these were unusual or even unique is unsound.

"Rich, the original sources share in graphic metaphor. Like "shield wall", it isn't a wall in any sense of the meaning of the word, yet that's the popular metaphor."

Oh, come on! A wall is a barrier. Do you mean to tell me that the Saxons at Hastings did not constitute a formidable barrier to the Normans, one that couldn't initially defeat? A shield wall is exactly that – a barrier.

"Obviously, longbowmen arranged 8 to 16 ranks deep, cannot do any such thing when shooting; so the rear ranks -- the bulk of the unit -- must do the high lob, vertical drop, kind of shooting or none at all, into enemy units that have approached close.)"

Here we go again. References please for such deep formations of archers?

Doug Larsen: "Here's where being an archer helps a lot. What you suggest doesn't make any sense for getting the power out of the bow."

Doug this is where being a 21st-century archer is a disability. You are thinking penetrating power. I submit that the 15th-century archers were thinking disruption power. And, tactically it makes a lot of sense. Their job was to disrupt the French advance thereby making it easier for their men-at-arms to fight the French. A result of the bow fire is that the French massed together so tightly, so they would not receive arrow wounds, that they could hardly wield their weapons. There is a reason why the shoulders and helmet were "some of the thickest parts of the armor."

"Their vanguard, composed of about 5,000 men, found itself at first so tightly packed that those who were in the third rank could scarcely use their swords."

The author does not refer to the archery fire at this time; but this would be the effect as men huddled together for protection. If the French were so huddled together they had difficulty in wielding their swords, this would give the English men-at-arms a great advantage. So, there is a sound tactical reason for the archers to send plunging fire into the French.

And now to the Gesta. At no point did the writer say this actually happened on the battlefield. What did happen is the French, who had been advancing, suddenly stopped and divided into three columns. The writer is musing as to why the French did this. He suggests that EITHER the French were afraid of the power of the missile fire OR this was a maneuver to pierce the English line. We know the latter was true which makes the former untrue. The French were not afraid that the sides and visors of their helmets would be pierced. You see, this was all hypothetical for the writer. Here is the quote:

"But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grips with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets, or in order the sooner to break through our strongest points and reach the standards, divided into three columns, attacking our line of battle at the three places where the standards were."

Rich

Hi

"My assumptions can beat up your assumptions" is the basis of the above posts.

Mike, your proving that the mass of the arrow is irrelevent to range sort of flies in the face of that silly thing we refer to as "physics". If the magic 150# bow applies 150# of force to an arrow, the ligher one will go further. Try shoving someone your size versus a kid. That the source got these results casts a bit of doubt.

As for alternate arrows, well perhaps the english were stupid. I mean I have read and assumed they did, but not the issue as this falls into the catagory of "my sources can beat up your sources". So, we know that the turks and arabs and everyone else would go to battle with quivers of broadheads for unarmored targets, armor piercing arrows for armor, flight arrows for long range harassment. And if you had actually shot arrows at things, you might realize that these differnt arrows produce different results. (I am ignoring line cutters, signalling arrow and other minor things).

And rich is making the assumption that the british man at arms is a super hero. 1500 MAA versus 5000 and while arrow fire was annoying but not deadly, they crowded together out of annoyance.

Old argument.

I will repeat, again, for both of you. Go to your local archery shop and have someone shoot an arrow for you in such a way as it will fall straight down like rain. Actually doing things might illustrate something you don't believe in.

R

"Mike, your proving that the mass of the arrow is irrelevent to range sort of flies in the face of that silly thing we refer to as "physics". If the magic 150# bow applies 150# of force to an arrow, the ligher one will go further. Try shoving someone your size versus a kid. That the source got these results casts a bit of doubt."

The data I quoted was not theoretical but was from an actual shoot. Physics, as I am sure you will agree, is proved by experiment. Did you actually read the data I provided? For your benefit, I will quote it again:

"A 1.9oz arrow achieved ranges of 344 to 360yds
A 2.0oz arrow achieved ranges of 317 to 329yds
A 3.0oz arrow achieved ranges of 251 to 260yds
A 3.3oz arrow achieved ranges of 250 to 272yds"

So, you are quite correct, the lighter arrow did go further. So, no, I am not proving that the mass of the arrow is irrelevant to range. What I am saying is that a heavy war bow can shoot a sheaf arrow to the distance required by the "Agincourt engagement distance" – something which you continually dispute.

"And rich is making the assumption that the british man at arms is a super hero. 1500 MAA versus 5000 and while arrow fire was annoying but not deadly, they crowded together out of annoyance."

Did you actually read what Rich wrote? Again, I'll quote it for your benefit:
"The writer is musing as to why the French did this. He suggests that EITHER the French were afraid of the power of the missile fire OR this was a maneuver to pierce the English line. We know the latter was true which makes the former untrue."

The crowding together was a tactical manoeuvre not a reaction to the archery fire.

"I will repeat, again, for both of you. Go to your local archery shop and have someone shoot an arrow for you in such a way as it will fall straight down like rain. Actually doing things might illustrate something you don't believe in."

I never claimed that the arrows storm came down vertically, and if you read what Rich said carefully, neither did he. As for actually doing things, the data quoted above was generated by "actually doing things", but you still seem happy to dismiss it because it doesn't fit your theory.

"And rich is making the assumption that the british man at arms is a super hero. 1500 MAA versus 5000 and while arrow fire was annoying but not deadly, they crowded together out of annoyance."

Yet the fact remains that 1000 men-at-arms (aided by 5000 archers) DID defeat 8000 men-at-arms. That is hardly an assumption. Were they super heroes? Depends on your definition of super hero …

Mike:

I hazard to suggest that even experimentation will not provide conclusive proof. There are just far too many unknowns.

I quite agree. But we do the best we can. And, I restate: we get a historical outcome for Agincourt with our rules, which was the whole point to the research and experimentation in the first place. At least for me.

As we have tried to demonstrate the "other evidence and experience" you keep referring to does not have the weight of actual finds when analysing history. The existence of the MR bows (your so-called "dissenting evidence") proves that some archers of the period could use heavy bows. To extrapolate a conclusion that these were unusual or even unique is unsound.

That's just it: we have polar opposite views on the significance of the MR bows, and H&S's interpretation of them as applying to the yeomen of England in their entirety. (I can't comment much on H&S's position, since I am only getting it secondhand from you, et al., others who have read and believe. But also, you can't comment on field testing experience. I rather imagine that my lack is easier to rectify than yours!)

"I've already listed the outside evidence that makes a slavish adherence to only the physical artifacts (the 100+ lb bows) as "typical" an unsound propostion, imho."

Um … no, you haven't. Cast an eye back over this (rather long now) thread and you will see that every time I have asked to back up your "outside evidence" with references you have failed to do so.

You've missed it then. You want references: I have cited the original source descriptions of Agincourt, and stated that 100 lb longbows in our rules are too powerful to replicate a historical Agincourt outcome: segue to the sources that Rocky referrenced and validated through experimentation and field testing and replication, which all point to a 70 lb bow, not a 100 lb bow: segue further to the outside evidence which totally lacks a duplication of the claim that all the "warbows" were 100+ lbs. We admit that they were there, but that the MR is not representative of thousands of longbow in the field. You want other sources than the physics studies, the outside original sources on archery elsewhere for comparison, the field testing and replication results? Sorry, that's it. It's actually quite a lot, but you don't see that.

…the MR was not Henry VIII's flagship.

That's interesting. I didn't know that fact. Unless or until we get more physical artifacts we won't be able to confirm that the 70 lb longbow was the norm on a set piece battlefield -- or not, depending….

A shield wall is exactly that – a barrier.

And arrows falling like hail or rain must always fall vertically, even in an arrow "storm"? A wind lashed hail or rain would feel like it was smacking into your face. But Rich (and you?) can't seem to accept that interpretation of the metaphor; despite the clear, counter evidence that such a metaphor cannot mean that the arrows were all shot to come down vertically.

Here we go again. References please for such deep formations of archers?

Do the math (as was done in earlier threads on this topic). The frontage limits at Agincourt imply deep lines of longbowmen, yes, even up to as deep as 16 ranks. Homildon hill is another deep archer formation battle.

Rich:

There is a reason why the shoulders and helmet were "some of the thickest parts of the armor."

Yes, that is the area where most of the heavy blows in hand to hand combat fall.

Rich, quoting the passage from the Gesta just proves the point: both conditions were allowed to have happened. Helmets were pierced frontally and from the sides (the effect of direct, pointblank shooting from the flanks), and, the French were evidently intent on attacking the men at arms, not the archers. The writer (eyewitness) can be excused not knowing which motivation was the greater in causing the French to bunch into three attack columns. Obviously, from appearances, it looked like the French division into three super-packed columns could have occurred involuntarily, the closer they got inside the English enfilading missile fire, and suffered increasing casualties therefrom.

You keep discarding points I have made that contradict your single picture of how the bows were employed: this direct piercing being one (clearly described as actually happening, not assumed: the man was there, seeing it all as it happened, not trying to make sense out of what someone else told him), the long range shooting as the enemy closed, the other reference to "hail" which clearly cannot have meant vertically dropping missiles, the training exercises longbow men practised for accuracy and long range volley fire….

Rocky:

I will repeat, again, for both of you. Go to your local archery shop and have someone shoot an arrow for you in such a way as it will fall straight down like rain. Actually doing things might illustrate something you don't believe in.

I recall talking to Rocky about this: a kid's dare-devil trick done by both himself (and friends) and even a variant of it by me (and friends): Rocky and friends would shoot arrows c. vertically, trying to hit each other with vertically falling arrows: and the task of the target was to watch the arrow descending, and catch it rather than move or get hit by it. Our variant was to just make the kid move out of the way: if you moved, you lost. Obviously, the more insane kids in Rocky's neighborhood figured that they were quick enough to reach out and catch the arrows as they fell. But this palrty amount of kinetic energy isn't even going to make a fully-armed man at arms blink. He'll just mostly ignore it.

Mike:

…What I am saying is that a heavy war bow can shoot a sheaf arrow to the distance required by the "Agincourt engagement distance" – something which you continually dispute.

Not so. Our dispute is that the 100 lb bows were typical of Hal V's 5K to 7K archers: not that such powerful bows can shoot the armor piercer that far. The reasons why the 100 lb bow is disputed by us are more numerous than a set of values from a single find: the rest of the outside evidence has to add up to 100 lb longbows, or that premise is mistaken. All you have is MR 100+ lb weapons, that's it. We allow that c. a tenth of England's archers could pull bows like that draw weight, but that in massed formations of thousands they all pulled the 70 lb bows (with the possible, theoretical exception of "king's archers" or somesuch "elite" companies which were all equipped to shoot their heavier wepons together, like from the decks of the best warships). All the rest of the evidence, except the assumptions based on the MR, support and even require that the 70 lb bows be there.

I never claimed that the arrows storm came down vertically, and if you read what Rich said carefully, neither did he.

Hooboy. That's exactly what Rich has been saying since he chimed in: vertical, "like rain falling."

As for actually doing things, the data quoted above was generated by "actually doing things", but you still seem happy to dismiss it because it doesn't fit your theory.

I confess, I can't see any contradiction with Rocky's position affected by those shooting field tests, Mike. A 150 lb longbow would get that kind of range, as far as I can tell. I already explained, that I saw a discrepency in Rocky's last throwing out of numbers: that he might have goofed about the "one sheaf one kind of arrow" thing: the point is we don't know how they arranged their different arrow types: we know for certain that they had them, capped, broadhead and bodkin/armor piercers; so they had them to hand as needed. The long range shooting on our bow tables (in our rules) are all broadhead and capped flight arrow ranges. The bodkins kick in at around 150 yards, longer for the 100 lb longbow; and as your quoted stats show, even longer for 150 lbs. The increasing ranges as the bows are more powerful seem even and expected to me….

"I can't comment much on H&S's position, since I am only getting it secondhand from you, et al., others who have read and believe."

You make it sound like some religious leap of faith! I happen to think that the professionals know what they are talking about whereas you and Rocky do not fall into the same league. Given a choice between "believing" the work of professional archaeologists and historians compared to a couple of blokes who have shot a few arrows and drawn their conclusions, I think my position is obvious. I notice also that no-one else has sprung to your defence on this thread.

"But also, you can't comment on field testing experience"

Ah, but I have, or did you miss the significance of the range data I quoted above?

"You've missed it then. You want references: I have cited the original source descriptions of Agincourt,"

Yes, I am not disputing those, but of themselves, they do not support your hypothesis.

"and stated that 100 lb longbows in our rules are too powerful to replicate a historical Agincourt outcome:"

You cannot use your rules to prove anything for the obvious reasons I have stated repeatedly before (but which you seem to want to ignore).

"the sources that Rocky referrenced and validated through experimentation and field testing and replication, which all point to a 70 lb bow, not a 100 lb bow:"

Yeah, I missed them, what were they again?

"the outside evidence which totally lacks a duplication of the claim that all the "warbows" were 100+ lbs. We admit that they were there, but that the MR is not representative of thousands of longbow in the field."

So to satisfy you, there would have to be "outside evidence"
(I still do not really understand what you mean by "outside" – outside of what?) that heavy warbows were used elsewhere than by the English in the 14th and 15th centuries?

By the same token, you would have to satisfy me by producing evidence that the 70lb bow was the "norm".

"And arrows falling like hail or rain must always fall vertically, even in an arrow "storm"? "

I repeat (again) that I do not claim that falling like rain means falling vertically. rain rarely falls exactly vertically, but equally, it does not come at you at an angle of less than 45 degrees.

"Do the math (as was done in earlier threads on this topic). The frontage limits at Agincourt imply deep lines of longbowmen, yes, even up to as deep as 16 ranks. Homildon hill is another deep archer formation battle."

OK, I'll do the mathS. 6,000 men on a frontage of 950 yds gives a figure of 6.3 men per yard. That's about 6 ranks then. If you angle the archers on the flanks you can extend the total length of the line a bit more reducing the number of men per yard even more.

"We allow that c. a tenth of England's archers could pull bows like that draw weight, but that in massed formations of thousands they all pulled the 70 lb bows (with the possible, theoretical exception of "king's archers" or somesuch "elite" companies which were all equipped to shoot their heavier wepons together, like from the decks of the best warships)."

You have not provided one shred of viable evidence to support any of what you say above. It's an interesting theory but without supporting evidence it is just that, a theory.

"I confess, I can't see any contradiction with Rocky's position affected by those shooting field tests, "

OK, I'll have to spell it out for you. Assuming that the 5,000 archers at Agincourt were all armed with heavy 100lb+ bows (and no, I cannot prove that, although I think that the weight of evidence points that way)) then the point is that they could shoot at the engagement range of 220yds with the heavier sheaf arrows. This has two tactical advantages (which I thought were obvious, but apparently not):
1. The sheaf arrow if it hits, is more likely to cause damage than the lighter flight arrow, so why shoot the light arrows if the heavier will not only reach the target but potentially cause casualties?
2. The use of a single type of arrow (i.e. armour piercing because they are shooting at an armoured target) makes resupply simpler thus enabling the arrow storm to be maintained for longer.

I happen to think that the professionals know what they are talking about whereas you and Rocky do not fall into the same league.

That's a perfectly sensible position to take. We've kept on talking for a while, though, and that is also sensible, and, at least from my end, enjoyable and informative.

I notice also that no-one else has sprung to your defence on this thread.

No one else has entered into this much at all. Either they are bored by it ("not again"), or they don't hold an opinion, or they are lurking and drawing their own conclusions.

"the sources that Rocky referrenced and validated through experimentation and field testing and replication, which all point to a 70 lb bow, not a 100 lb bow:"

Yeah, I missed them, what were they again?

His study of Pope, Klopsteg, et al., then his own mathematical checking of their claims, covered by field testing, including building weapons and various missiles. Unless he publishes this in any comprehensive way, it remains interesting talk (probably hot wind to you!).

I take a lot of what Rocky says that he put to the test on "faith", just like you do with H&S, et al: you haven't verified their claims either. You have a book or books to read through, and the reaction of other scholars/researchers, and you've come away impressed and with "faith." I have my own field tests to validate Rocky's definitions and missile tables: and my satisfaction with historical wargames such as Agincourt and Hastings, how they turn out victories that match the written accounts of those battles. (this is possibly known as "the proof is in the pudding")

So to satisfy you, there would have to be "outside evidence" (I still do not really understand what you mean by "outside" – outside of what?) that heavy warbows were used elsewhere than by the English in the 14th and 15th centuries?

Yes, outside of England, archery does not demonstrate greater than c. 10% heavier bow usage. In warbows the average, according to the physics studies and verification, is 70 lbs, not 100 lbs. Often, 50 lbs is common, but with better bow construction technology: 100 lbs is not common! As I said: Rocky told me what my bow and crossbows were, according to his game nomenclature: I doubted: so I went into the field and shot for range and effects, and was convinced that he was right: he knew what he was doing in defining what a "Bow 3", "Bow 4" and so forth, are.

The process of defining which weapons fall into what categories is not limited to the 14th and 15th centuries by any means: the process can be applied to any bow and missile where the draw weight, missile weight and efficiency of returned energy is known. As Agincourt is an "easy" battle to test against, the results on the tabletop confirm what a "Bow 3" is in a historical simulation. You can thereby assume an effect/result for other Bow 3-using troops employing comparative tactics (this is one of the geeky things we enjoy doing! TMP link ).

By the same token, you would have to satisfy me by producing evidence that the 70lb bow was the "norm".

You could try gaming our rules, or not, depending….:)

I doubt that I would believe either, except that I went through a process of skepticism and testing, both my own weapons that Rocky told me before the fact were supposed to fit into his weapon definitions, and that proved to be true: and testing the game rules till I was convinced that we had achieved the match, or as close as we are likely to get.

OK, I'll do the mathS. 6,000 men on a frontage of 950 yds gives a figure of 6.3 men per yard. That's about 6 ranks then. If you angle the archers on the flanks you can extend the total length of the line a bit more reducing the number of men per yard even more.

To refine that a bit: 950 yards, with the men at arms in four ranks (as the Gesta says clearly): c. 900 men at arms takes 225 yards, leaving us with 725 yards for archers (it could easily be much less than that, if there were more men at arms, or if they were mustered beside billmen who are not specifically mentioned, but no matter, we go with the smallest number of men at arms allowed for). That's really close to 7 ranks of archers: but this is the minimum depth we have: the archers in numbers closer to 7,000 (Anne Curry's estimate, based on an exhaustive research of the muster rolls and other records) puts the depth over nine ranks of archers. And as the frontage could easily have been much less (considered estimates are as narrow as four or five hundred yards) back then, you can see how the depth of the archers goes way up. A frontage of 600 yards, for instance, stacks the archers over 18 deep. It doesn't take much narrowing to add on quite a few more ranks of depth.

The obvious conclusion is that greater archer formation depth is very easy to arrive at: assuming thin lines (e.g. no more than four ranks deep, as many like to go with) is actually very hard to work out on the Agincourt battlefield.

"We allow that c. a tenth of England's archers could pull bows like that draw weight, but that in massed formations of thousands they all pulled the 70 lb bows (with the possible, theoretical exception of "king's archers" or somesuch "elite" companies which were all equipped to shoot their heavier wepons together, like from the decks of the best warships)."

You have not provided one shred of viable evidence to support any of what you say above. It's an interesting theory but without supporting evidence it is just that, a theory.

To do so would require that you allow the "outside evidence" of other archery sources. The Taybugha book for instance. Again, Rocky's pet subject, not mine. I haven't seen anything, anywhere, in over 30 years of reading and cruising about "the period" which suggests that anyone else, no matter how accomplished (including the world's most deadly archery army, the Mongols), ever produced men who were across the board such forces of nature that they all drew 100 lb bows. So rather than assume England as some amazing exception to that rule (established for lack of evidence to the contrary), the conclusion rather is that MR forms a specific exception, and a very small and believable one at that: a major warship with a picked force of archers on board. C. 10% of a nation's archers draw the stronger bow. That, Rocky tells me, is a given; it is according to nature's gifts to homosapiens who use the bow and arrow. To say otherwise requires very convincing evidence: such as, surviving written and physical evidence to the contrary.

1. The sheaf arrow if it hits, is more likely to cause damage than the lighter flight arrow, so why shoot the light arrows if the heavier will not only reach the target but potentially cause casualties?
2. The use of a single type of arrow (i.e. armour piercing because they are shooting at an armoured target) makes resupply simpler thus enabling the arrow storm to be maintained for longer.

Granted, as soon as the target enters armor piercing range, that is your arrow of choice. Outside of that, should you ignore the enemy entirely, because your chances of injury are much less with lighter arrow heads? Not at all. You make full use of the bow's reaching capabilities, and you harrass and goad the enemy with galling vollies just the instant he comes within extreme range. That's what the archers did at Agincourt. It's what they took full advantage of at Crecy against the Genoese crossbow men; shooting them, wounding and disrupting them outside of crossbow extreme range. Not with "sheaf" arrows, but with the lighter ones that would reach to the bow's fullest range capacity.

The opening range at Agincourt, if 100+ lb bows had been employed, would, according to your quoted field test numbers, have been well outside of 300 yards.

They didn't use a single arrow type, ever. If that were the case, it would have been armor piercers that over-whelmingly survive as artifacts. But in fact all kinds of arrow heads survive; proof of their widespread use.

Resupply is moot in any case: Agincourt used up all the available 24 to 48 arrows each man had; then the yeomen entered the melee. Had there been time to resupply before the French army was defeated, I don't doubt that each sheaf was either pre-arranged with the proportion of arrow types that were considered (ahead of time) to be standard, or, as Rocky said recently, each sheaf was marked as entirely of this or that type and sent forward accordingly. Each archer arranged his arrows around himself according to familiarity, so that he knew where his flight arrows, broadheads and bodkins were with no more than a glance down.

Rocky: "And rich is making the assumption that the British man at arms is a super hero. 1500 MAA versus 5000 and while arrow fire was annoying but not deadly, they crowded together out of annoyance."

This is a distortion of what I said. I expect better than that from you Rocky. Mike answered it quite well.

* Rocky: "Go to your local archery shop and have someone shoot an arrow for you in such a way as it will fall straight down like rain."

* Mike: "I never claimed that the arrows storm came down vertically, and if you read what Rich said carefully, neither did he."

* Doug: "Hooboy. That's exactly what Rich has been saying since he chimed in: vertical, "like rain falling."

Now we will read an actual quote from Rich:

"Now, I'm not suggesting that this was absolute vertical but rather vertical at an angle with points pointing downward."

Thank you Rich. That was excellent.

Doug: "Rich, quoting the passage from the Gesta just proves the point: both conditions were allowed to have happened."

The writer of the Gesta is trying to get into the heads of French to see why they stopped. He's guessing as to their motivation. Clearly he was wrong with the arrow in the helmet guess. In an either/or statement the true statement makes the other statement false. Now, was that a possibility on the battlefields of the HYW? Perhaps, but we have no evidence of such a feat. Remember, this is a guess from a cleric who was 900-1,000 yards in the rear and his own army was blocking any sight of the French.

Nevertheless, you are in the position of saying that this possibility, dreamed up by some cleric who couldn't even see the action, is proof that archers fired perpendicular at Agincourt. And, you claim this despite what numerous primary sources said. It is much more reasonable to simply accept what the sources said; especially since there was a sound tactical reason for this plunging fire.

I realize none of this is going to change your position. You and Rocky have a lot of time and energy invested in this position. Unfortunately, you don't have the slightest bit of historical evidence that how you think the bowmen fired were actually how they fired. But in the end it doesn't matter. What matters is your game is fun to play.

Rich

Clearly he was wrong with the arrow in the helmet guess. In an either/or statement the true statement makes the other statement false….

Guess? You are saying the best and most immediate eyewitness to the battle was guessing, when he could see?

…Remember, this is a guess from a cleric who was 900-1,000 yards in the rear and his own army was blocking any sight of the French.

You are mistaken. Read it again carefully:

"And so [the king] decided to move against them sending for the army baggage in order to have it at the rear of the engagement…"

(What does baggage in the rear of the engagement suggest to you? Why move it at all?)

"… lest it should fall as booty into the hands of the enemy. (He had previously arranged that this baggage, together with the priests who were to celebrate the divine office and make fervent prayer for him and his men, should await him in the aforesaid hamlet and closes, where he had been the night before, until the fighting was over.) And at that time French pillagers were watching it from almost every side, intending to make an attack upon it immediately they saw both armies engage; in fact, directly battle was joined they fell upon the tail end of it, where, owing to the negligence of the royal servants, the king's own baggage was, seizing on royal treasure of great value, a sword and a crown among other precious objects, as well as all the bedding.

"But once, however, the king thought that almost all this baggage had reached his rear, in the name of Jesus (to whom is bowed every knee, of those in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth) and of the Glorious Virgin and of St George, he advanced towards the enemy, and the enemy, too, advanced towards him.

"But then, indeed and for as long as the conflict lasted, I, who am now writing this and was then sitting on a horse among the baggage at the rear of the battle, and the other priests…."

Note: the king's baggage was originally intended to be left at the camp site of the night before in the hamlet. But Henry ordered it brought up so as to be in the rear of his army, when he upstaked and moved away from the hamlet: in other words, the baggage was moved to keep in contact with the army, and saying that it was "1,000 yards in the rear" has no basis in fact.

The writer was on a horse with the other priests and non combatants who had arrived in the army's rear {the "rear of the engagement": how can "1,000 yards to the rear" be in the rear of the engagement?) with "almost all the baggage." It was only the "tail end of it", as it was being moved, which was in fact attacked and plundered: if the writer had been where the plundering had occurred, he would be expected to have made mention of what he saw, not what he heard later. Clearly, his position, behind the king's line, with a horse to elevate his view, was excellent to see and soon afterward describe, what he was witness to.

"But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grips with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets, or in order the sooner to break through our strongest points and reach the standards, divided into three columns, attacking our line of battle at the three places where the standards were."

The piercing was a fact occurring, Rich. He doesn't surmise IF this was happening, but states it as a fact.

Where the writer/eyewitness is surmising is whether this fact was what caused the French to head in three separate attacks for the English men at arms. He did not know if it was fear of the missiles' penetrating effects, or premeditated tactics ("to break through our strongest points and reach the standards"), which caused the three columns to form. There was not a question that the missiles were actually doing what he described.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this was absolute vertical but rather vertical at an angle with points pointing downward.

"Rather vertical" is close enough to the point you were making: that the archers deliberately shot up to let the arrows fall down on the heads and shoulders of the French battle, rather than directly into them with aimed shooting.

Why are you quibbling over your own semantics and meaning? Whatever degree you imagine for "pointing downwards", it isn't how the Gesta eyewitness describes what the arrows were doing to the French armor. And yet we do have "like rain" too: so far, you are ignoring the former and assuming the latter only. And ignoring (still) the training of aimed shooting that longbowmen did, and the long range clout shooting, which is impossible to achieve if you raise the bow higher than 45 degrees.

And furthermore, scattered eyewitness descriptions of the penetrative effects of crossbow and longbow missiles: the famous 12th century description of a Welsh arrow transfixing a knight's mailed thigh and saddle and penetrating to the fletching right into the body of the horse, pinning him to his mount. Such detailed annecdotes clearly indicate that the power of bows and crossbows was their paramount quality, not treating them as some kind of machine to throw missile high into the air so that they can fall "like rain" to harrass: their purpose was to maim and kill as much as possible.

But in the end it doesn't matter. What matters is your game is fun to play.

It is fun to play, Rich, among the reasons being because it works historically.

As an archer, I know that what you describe is a preconception and misconception: the Gesta alone shows us what the longbows were doing. The "arrows like rain" metaphor is real as well, but has nothing to do with describing the angle as "near vertical", but rather as a "storm", like one that throws the rain or hail in your face.

Hi the name is Paul
I'm new to this site & must say how interesting this discussion is. I have only been interested in this period for a couple of years but also I have a bit of knowledge of weaponry. (Was an armourer in H.M Army and also a range master for many years?)

I cannot believe that anyone could say that they have the answer to a theory because they played on a table top, using 'math' which says that the French would be cut to pieces if a 100lb+ bow was used, but just right if a 70lb+ bow was used is this because of the range, i.e. they would be a longer time under the rain of arrows, if so I would ask Mr Larsen to read his history which will tell you that almost every encounter that included a "small-arms"/ missile exchange between two armies have been at ranges of 100 to 300 yards. Even though a NATO round can kill at two miles distant, a M16 or a SA80 (m.v:9400f.p.s) are ranged from 100 to 300yards/Metres, this is because these are the best 'effective' distances and have always been the best distances, but you still need power to kill or traumatise and it was no different on that miserable October day 1415. The rule would still be the same even if the pull of the bow was 1000lb.

Have you taken into account the chances of multiple hits, the misses, fatal, non fatal, wounding, hit with no effect, the list of probabilities goes on and on. Nothing is cut & dry in battle. A weapon can have the potential to devastate but does'nt mean it will.

Those men in Henry V Army were supreme men, not supermen. They had galloping dysentery, half starved, cold and wet, and standing in rags not to forget that they were facing a army that outnumbered them by 4-6 to 1, all French, fresh, well fed and just itching for a fight.

How do you know how many deep the archers were when there is no documented evidence of the dimensions of the ground that was contested, all we do know is that both flanks were covered by trees and shrubs & perhaps a few hovels, even the battle formation is open to debate, or have you cracked that little problem too, if so, could you please announce this to the world, I'm sure Curry & Barker would like to know.

The War bowman of the period was a specialist of his mode of warfare, he trained from an early age the technique to use his bow and also later to practise a form of combat with other weapons such as mallets, daggers, falchions etc, your ordinary Joe stayed at home to service the wench or sow his oats etc, etc.

To finish I would just like to say that I believe (And this is only my belief) that the great majority of bows in use were 100lb+ but not all. The arrows were mainly bodkin type with the heavy shaft though not all, that is what I think, not what my war games soldiers tell me is fact. Also I am fed-up with the "military history would be fun without those pesky English", or "Lets debunk that English military history" people who can't get around the fact that"British" military history is the most dramatic period of the last thousand years & in which that nation comes out on top in most encounters.(that really rankles the Anglophobes amongst us)

Paul

Have you taken into account the chances of multiple hits, the misses, fatal, non fatal, wounding, hit with no effect, the list of probabilities goes on and on. Nothing is cut & dry in battle. A weapon can have the potential to devastate but doesn't mean it will.

Of course. "Defender eliminated" means effectively taken out of combat, not dead only.

Frontally, a cap-a-pie suit if Milanese plate still retains no less than c. 5% unprotected areas (and in any case, in 1415 the typical suit of armor was mail with plate added on, not the newest full plate, so it was even more vulnerable than the armor becoming typical by the end of the HYW); this goes up two to three times that from the flanks and rear, especially considering that plate armor gets to be under 1mm thick toward the edges, i.e. the sides and rear margins of any piece. The Gesta graphically supports this reality by describing how arrows pierced the "sides" of the helmets.

When you consider up to 200K arrows shot into 5K to 8K French men at arms, a formation up to 20 ranks deep (as the French bunched) is going to produce a high percentage of impacts: if we count only 5% of these hit areas which are potentially vulnerable that is 10K potentially effective (wounding, maiming, killing) hits!

Of course, it is much more complex than this: at longer ranges the percentage of hits goes down while the number of hits goes up: because volleying is wasteful at the same time that it saturates the area like an artillery barrage.

But in close (under 100 yards), the marksmanship comes into play: the front two ranks (at least) are shooting directly into a mass of men many ranks deep: there are almost no misses with a bow at pointblank range: any archer knows this: it isn't like blazing away with a smooth bore musket and hoping that the ball misses to the left or right and not over their heads or into the ground: there isn't that kind of inevitable variability to aimed archery!

The point being, that inside 100 yards, the French front ranks were getting impacted by upwards of 1,500 arrows every five seconds, all aimed, direct, impacts by arrows that could now "pierce visors and the sides of helmets", and any other thinner or uncovered parts of the armor exposed to side-on, enfilading shots.

You do the math(s), the range from best to worst: all of it is bad to horrible for the French. This is not "harassing, disrupting" missile attack: it shocks, wounds, maims and kills.

It was primarily the outer ranks which got exposed to this direct, lethal missile attack. With each exposed man at arms receiving multiple impacts continuously: with each impact having no less than a 5% to 10% chance of striking into exposed or weaker areas of the harness: how many seconds do you think it would take to drop the outer ranks? The Gesta clearly describes how the front ranks were down, and the inner pressure caused the next ranks up to stumble over the downed men and fall, creating an actual "wall" of the fallen over which the French attack could no longer pass: it stalled completely. With no less than 1,500 arrows every five seconds impacting into no more than 400 or 500 exposed French men at arms, how long do you suppose it took to put them all on the ground?

(If anyone wishes to point out that this is mentioned AFTER the melee got started, i.e. it was hand to hand fighting which dropped the French and not multiple arrow impacts, I would point out the earlier arguments apropos of kinetic energy "shock" being much greater with firearms but hardly noticeable with sharp arrow points, thus blood loss is what tends to take down victims of arrow wounds: this plays directly into the Gesta description of the entire front ranks of ALL THREE attacks going down like a wall or heap of bodies over which the French interior masses could no longer pass: the implication is obvious: extreme wounding with arrows right up to the moment of melee contact rendered the French so vitiated as to fulfill the Gesta's description: "…the very pick and most sturdy of warriors had offered opposition so lacking in vigour, and so confused and faint-hearted, or so unmanly." Boy Howdy! with several or many clothyard shafts sticking in your body you might be "lacking in vigour." Clearly it was the effect of the arrows immediately before closing which rendered the French so weakened that they were all dropped in a wall or heap of bodies during the first moments of the melee, a phenomenon noticed by historians ever since as the crucial factor which destroyed all chance of the French attack continuing and allowed the English to go over to the offensive.)

The other point which you seem to have not caught is that playing Agincourt with replicated 100 lb longbows makes the above deadliness "overkill." The wargame sims don't work out. They do work out with simulated 70 lb longbows. Range of initial engagement is actually a side issue; it only relates to how long the French are inside effective range: i.e. the 100 lb bows not only impact with greater damage, but also for a longer period of time, than 70 lb bows can.

Those men in Henry V Army were supreme men, not supermen. They had galloping dysentery, half starved, cold and wet, and standing in rags not to forget that they were facing a army that outnumbered them by 4-6 to 1, all French, fresh, well fed and just itching for a fight.

You've just unintentionally advocated for 70 lb bows! Even if a yeoman could pull a 150 lb longbow accurately, he would have to be in the peak of health to do this long enough to stand in the ranks all day and resume rapid shooting at a moment's notice. A dysentery riddled fighter isn't going to have the strength to pull such a draw weight. Knowing this through experience, it would only make sense to train with heavy bows and use lighter bows in a campaign, well within the reduced strength of a half-starved, sick archer. Every campaign produced the high risk or actual reality of such fighting conditions: to not plan for such likelihood would be hubris. Hal V was not one of those, and neither were his military advisors. The English armies of the HYW were not of that type: they were pragmatic about the realities of war, preparing to meet the worst and to win in spite of it.

Btw, a premise of our theory (Rocky's actually), is that the archers taken across the Channel during the HYW were actually picked from the upper "third" of the entire available "pool" of longbow men. A lifetime of shooting produced the "supreme" segment that you recognize; and it was from that segment that the indentures drew their soldiers. The middling, average archers remained at home. During the WotR, bodies of thousands of mustered archers get only 10% "Bow 4" (100 lb), 25% "Bow 3" (70 lb) and the balance are "Bow 2" (50 lb). (If an assumed training with heavier bows was the reality; then the 70 lb bows we claim are the common "warbow" in its thousands are the "step down" that archers pulling 100 lbs would use in war, and the 100 lb bows allowed would be archers who pulled 150 lbs or more in training!)

How do you know how many deep the archers were when there is no documented evidence of the dimensions of the ground that was contested, all we do know is that both flanks were covered by trees and shrubs & perhaps a few hovels, even the battle formation is open to debate, or have you cracked that little problem too, if so, could you please announce this to the world, I'm sure Curry & Barker would like to know.

Agincourt: 400 to 950 yards wide (the modern field is losing the trees). Le Fevre and Waurin – both eyewitnesses – later state, "The site was narrow and very advantageous for the English and the very opposite for the French." Anything approaching 1000 yards isn't going to look narrow to an army of barely 5,000 men, and barely adequate to an army of c. 8,000. To entice French attack, they placed their men at arms in as thin a line as practical to be able to fight hand to hand at all; four ranks is specifically stated as the depth for the men at arms (a yard of frontage for each man in close order is standard). On the widest estimated frontage that leaves c. seven ranks of 5,000 archers deep: they simply get deeper than that the narrower the field actually was (and with more archers, as advanced by Curry). Did you read my post above on this?

The arrows were mainly bodkin type with the heavy shaft though not all,…

The shaft remains the same, as it must to be matched to the bow's draw weight: the difference in weight is entirely in the type of point: capped lightest, then broadhead and finally "bodkin" or similar long, heavy, armor piercers.

Also I am fed-up with the "military history would be fun without those pesky English", or "Lets debunk that English military history" people who can't get around the fact that "British" military history is the most dramatic period of the last thousand years & in which that nation comes out on top in most encounters.(that really rankles the Anglophobes amongst us)

Well, we seem on board together at least, although our concepts differ apparently.

The longbow was a killer, not a "rain storm" simulator, not a harassment weapon. But the mistaken notion about WHICH longbow, is what has fueled this thread and earlier ones.

Hi

For the discussion, I didn't quibble with Mike's sources, I try not to get into "dueling sources". It is common in acadamia to argue by cherry picking sources and deriving proofs to "win" the discussion without actually learning anything.

Mike:
A 1.9oz arrow achieved ranges of 344 to 360yds
A 2.0oz arrow achieved ranges of 317 to 329yds
A 3.0oz arrow achieved ranges of 251 to 260yds
A 3.3oz arrow achieved ranges of 250 to 272yds

EXCEPT…your assumption is that 150# is average. In some of your disagreements you insist I prove in original souces my points, where is your source that every or even most longbowmen pulled a 150# bow? And where are the ranges indicating how common H's 100# are? And what are those ranges.

This is a basic bow physics thing for you. The more energy into the arrow, the further it goes. HOWEVER, in a self bow, the higher the draw weight, the thicker the stave, the more internal losses in the wood AND the more losses from the energy used to move the bow into position.

I didn't say there were not 100# bows, or 150# bows. But usual is 70. Much of this discussion is akin to reading about an american scout/sniper using a barret at 2000m, and then leaping to the conclusion that all marines use Barrets at 2000m. When the standard M4 in 556 is a 300m weapon.

Mike also defends rich and attacks my statement about vertical arrows:"The metaphors clearing indicate vertical falling objects. Rain descends from above not from the side (unless you're in a hurricane). "

Arrows don't fall vertically unless loosed vertically.

I think there is a romance involved in this, and Paul buys into it. English history dramatic, no question. And primarily being english speakers, we have far better access to the english version of things. Let me put it this way. I assume(see the word), that british boyers in the 15th century were at least as good as Saxton Pope, or me, or any of hundreds of modern boyers who have made pre modern bows. the 100plus bow being the average would extend the engagement range, and it doesn't show up in the time.

In essence, you all want 100, and I assser that they are 70s of good efficiency. The engagement range is still ca 220 with a flight arrow, and ca 125 for serious armor work.

The essence of your various complaints are simple. I seem to hold the boyers in better regard than you do.

Both insisting on super performance and then bashing me for not insisting on supermen.

Oh, Paul, just as a side note. As far as targeting goes. Much of the reason the average trooper NOW is a short range fighter has a lot of variables. One variable that doesn't apply to the 15th century is feedback. You or I shoot now at range, and after a shot, we stop, look through the scope and SEE where we hit. An archer can SEE the round all through the entire flight to the target. Follow up shots actually give the advantage in learning to the obsolete weapon.

Rocky

Sorry, guys, no time to respond in detail now. Will do so in a couple of days.

First of all I would like to apologise about the rant (though not the sentiment) about the "English" military history debunkers, if you read the other historical TPM sites you will understand why I'm a bit miffed.

Oh, Paul, just as a side note. As far as targeting goes. Much of the reason the average trooper NOW is a short range fighter has a lot of variables. One variable that doesn't apply to the 15th century is feedback. You or I shoot now at range, and after a shot, we stop, look through the scope and SEE where we hit. An archer can SEE the round all through the entire flight to the target. Follow up shots actually give the advantage in learning to the obsolete weapon.

Rocky
I will say again that engagement ranges have virtually always been between 100 & 300 yards/Metres. I am not meaning an individual person practising marksmanship skills on a range, sniping, or an archer loosing at a mark/target. What I am saying is a trained unit of 4-5000 Archers/Infantrymen (pre modern) would lay down a direct, mass of arrows/rounds at a large moving mass of enemy, individual targeting goes out of the window until and if the ranges close to under 100 yards or the battle becomes more personalised, but the ultimate outcome is to break up the attack, disorganise it, or totally destroy it.
I don't want to repeat myself again but I am afraid here I go again, no matter the power, range or accuracy of a military weapon, in combat it is used as a collective weapon at optimum range which in combat law (throughout the ages) has been between 100 to 300 yards/Metres or even paces, the reason for this phenomenon isn't hard to see, just go outside and look at a crowd of people even at 100 yards and you will realise that it is no easy target. It is practicality not power that determines battle ranges.

Agincourt: 400 to 950 yards wide (the modern field is losing the trees). Le Fevre and Waurin – both eyewitnesses – later state, "The site was narrow and very advantageous for the English and the very opposite for the French." Anything approaching 1000 yards isn't going to look narrow to an army of barely 5,000 men, and barely adequate to an army of c. 8,000. To entice French attack, they placed their men at arms in as thin a line as practical to be able to fight hand to hand at all; four ranks is specifically stated as the depth for the men at arms (a yard of frontage for each man in close order is standard). On the widest estimated frontage that leaves c. seven ranks of 5,000 archers deep: they simply get deeper than that the narrower the field actually was (and with more archers, as advanced by Curry). Did you read my post above on this?

Doug
Do you see the obvious, 400-950 yards wide! Until & if a full archaeological dig is undertaken I can't see how anyone can say with certain where the fighting actually was, and who can say how the two armies were drawn up apart from possibly the men at arms of Henry's contingent.
How do you know what the rate of arrows used (1 every 5 seconds) was, for how long? And how many archers (1500 you say) were loosing off. Remember the initial 'salvo's' for want of a better word may have been high, but after that would have got less & also arrow rationing would have come in to play. Archers would start to take individual aimed 'shots' which is a longer, deliberate process, and also start to get 'stuck in' in hand to hand combat.
You see, no one has or will predict what would happen in a battle, they expected thousands of coalition troops to die in the first gulf war. You can re-fight the battle of Waterloo as a wargamer and wonder how the hell Napoleon lost. How come the Zulu destroy a British column of 1000 men armed with modern Martini Henry rifles, whilst the Zulus just had their assegai, knobkerries, & animal shields as protection, then not far away the Zulus 4-5000 strong with captured Martini Henry rifles, failed & was defeated by a company (about 100 men) of 'Welshmen' some of them sick, some native police, and a few levies. YOU CAN'T PREDICT WARS AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T PREDICT A BATTLE OR CASUALTY RATES, IF YOU COULD IT WOULD BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF THE ART OF WAR.
PS
Though I think that most bows were 100lb+ I do find it hard to believe the 150lb+ bow as semi standard. My personal weights are between about 90 & 120lb.

Paul

Someone mentioned earlier "why didn't all european armies then train to use the longbow, or hire English bowmen to train their troops"
Not such an easy proposition, training to reach the proficiency of the English takes about half a generation, from scratch. Much easier to do what the european armies did and hire English archers as mercenaries.
Having read all of the above posts,I'm afraid I'm with the 100lb+ boys on this one, the 70lb+ arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny. You can't ignore artifacts/archaelogy just because it doesn't suit.
Incidentally in the rules we play, (our own), English longbows have a longer range than other longbows (early welsh etc), which have a slightly longer range than say ancient Indian longbows and so on. English longbows acheive a penetration of one armour class better than other bows at all ranges, and at short range disregard armour altogether.
Just my 6d worth
Paul F

Doug
Do you see the obvious, 400-950 yards wide! Until & if a full archaeological dig is undertaken I can't see how anyone can say with certain where the fighting actually was, and who can say how the two armies were drawn up apart from possibly the men at arms of Henry's contingent.

It's not a problem with this one. Tramecourt and Agincourt are still exactly where they were in 1415. The field between with the flanking woods is still there much as it was back then. The only argument is how much closer together the woods might have been. And that isn't the issue either: it only produces a range of possible frontage. The widest possible frontage is c. 1,000 yards (you have to leave room for woods, after all, a specifically mentioned feature on both flanks of the battlefield). And the issue is depth of longbow men ranks: the numbers involved require no less than 6, and it goes up from there.

How do you know what the rate of arrows used (1 every 5 seconds) was, for how long?

An expert archer shooting quickly and aiming can get off 12 arrows per minute: for the last c. 100 yards of the French advance. How long was that? Two minutes? Three? Less? In any case, the number of rounds the front (outer) ranks received was horrendous.

And how many archers (1500 you say) were loosing off. Remember the initial 'salvo's' for want of a better word may have been high, but after that would have got less & also arrow rationing would have come in to play. Archers would start to take individual aimed 'shots' which is a longer, deliberate process, and also start to get 'stuck in' in hand to hand combat.

1,500 archers is two ranks of c. 750, i.e. the front two ranks, just to illustrate the volume of pointblank shooting that likely happened. It could have been more or less 1,500 longbow marksmen (the pick of the best would be in the front).

Individual, aimed shots into the mass would not be slower, but much quicker than volley shooting, which tends to be one volley every ten seconds or so: that's what the clout shooting practice was all about, establishing a rhythm for shooting in large groups all together into the same space, like artillery. As the companies ran out of arrows, they would all run out more or less at the same time. Thus you would not see individual archers running out from behind the stakes to join the melee, but entire companies and units. Once that started, the shooting would pretty much stop altogether.

YOU CAN'T PREDICT WARS AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T PREDICT A BATTLE OR CASUALTY RATES, IF YOU COULD IT WOULD BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF THE ART OF WAR.

(Please don't shout.)

Nobody's predicting anything. We are simulating an already known outcome. If our rules get it historically as written, then, as I say, we might be onto something here. (and if we are, then what you deny might be possible: set up hypothetical situations and run them exhaustively to see what happens, then plan accordingly)

Having read all of the above posts,I'm afraid I'm with the 100lb+ boys on this one, the 70lb+ arguments just don't hold up to scrutiny. You can't ignore artifacts/archaelogy just because it doesn't suit.

We are not ignoring artifacts/archeology. Quite the opposite. But the popular interpretation of the MR bows is mistaken: if, because of it, we are to assume that all longbow men shot 100 to 150 lb weapons in war time. Knowing that there was a stratification of best to poorest (that nature demands this in everything human beings practice), it is obvious that a small unit such as an elite ship crew of archers could and probably would be selected from the cream of the archer crop. But instead, H&S assume that ALL archers in the battles we know of were shooting that extremely stiff bow: they, et al., don't even allude to a stratification of archer abilities: which defacto produces the impression that ALL longbow men were "supreme" compared to archers of other nations. H&S, et al., don't even compare to that outside evidence, so far as I can tell from what others say about their work. That is a flaw, because it is ignoring far more copious evidence of the physical limitations of archery than you can get from keeping your study to English longbow men alone.

Incidentally in the rules we play, (our own), English longbows have a longer range than other longbows (early welsh etc), which have a slightly longer range than say ancient Indian longbows and so on. English longbows acheive a penetration of one armour class better than other bows at all ranges, and at short range disregard armour altogether.
Just my 6d worth
Paul F

Well, I have to say that your rules sound like "fan boy" rules to me :). "Disregard armor altogether?" Wow! I'll step back and let you take all the heat at this point (that is, if any longbow critics are listening).

Hi

Paul. Doug and I are different in our approaches. And one of our shared traits is that we like learning from people, and respect that other people DO have expertise. Part of the discussion with Mike and Rich is that they aren't the only "experts" we know. Everyone, if they live long enough, reads the same sources, and part of the discussion revolves around how you want to approach things. With respect, reasonable people can make differnt choices without anyone being clearly wrong or right.

With engagement range. You are entierly correct about 300m engagment range…mostly. But you misunderstand that while we did our rules with a skirmish type feel for "flavor"(I hate tidy rules where huge masses of troops throw a die and are removed). The actual way we treat things are a little different.

In the case of the bow fire. I was reading 30 odd years ago some sources translated from the french side that I linked to out of S&T magazine that suggested where people died and when during the advance. It drove me crazy, I had seen the pattern before. Realized that what I was seeing was napoleonic patterns for artillery firing musket balls indirectly into a column. Thus, our choice, it may not be yours, was to treat volley fire as artillery in this instance. My prejudice.

And there is another place where my prejudice differs from yours. Back in WW2, Col.Dupuy concluded that he could analize fights to work out a way to predict future combat. The US government, short version of the story, liked the work, formed a group that still does predicte battles today. I have worked with these people holding forth on aricraft, weapons and weapon delivery. THUS, my prejudice is that one CAN know these things and produce good results.

Doug's prejudice on game design is to read copious sources and argue from them like biblical prophets obsessing on every word. MY prejudice is to look at the details and decide which arent important; and to decide which factors make the sources sound like nonsense. Or as our mutual buddy "the Crazy Ranger" termed them "the 'no $%^%&, there I was" stories.

If the bow were 150# then the battlefield isn't long enought for the story line involving the longbow marching some 40 or 50 paces beyond the stakes to fire harassing fire to get the french to attack. If the bow were 100#, same story. OR, my assumption that boyers then were as good as boyers now,and their 100 was the equivilent of a modern boyer building a long bow at 70.

Now, we are all adults here and can have differeing prejudices. I clearly express my apporach. And Mike clearly indicated he didn't belive me, but does believe his own. The rest of the discussion is just fluff. The guy asking the question at the beginning hasn't learned a thing except that mediveal discussions can look like the napoleonic board.

Rocky

Doug
Sorry about the capitals, I was'nt shouting at you. It was because I typed it out that way & could'nt be arsed to change it. (very rude of me)
Paul

Rocy/Lucky General
I would just like to say that I have read books on the battle by such people as Hibbert, Jacob, and the latest authors of Curry & Barker. If you read the latter two you will see how conflicting they both are. For instance, Barker says the 'English' were 6,000 of which 900 were Men-at-Arms, Curry says it was 8,732 of which 1,593 were Men-at-Arms. Of the French, Curry says about 12,000 all arms & Barker gives a 'possible' number of 24,000.
When it comes to formations, size of battlefield, casualties, and even the length of time that the ruck lasted, you will find conflicting or vague interpretations. Believe me when I say that all the modern day histories on the battle are at Quite some variance to each other and knowing the pull weight of the English/Welsh warbow is the least of the wargamers problems.
I will not comment on this anymore, I stand by what I said and thank you all for this lively debate.
Paul

Paul, I am with you on the "battling historians" thing. I wouldn't say that the weight of bow used is the "least of [our] problems" though, as wargamers. It is actually the single-most essential thing to get right: since there are so many longbow men! Can we get it right? That depends on the rest of the effects in the rules by which you replay Agincourt.

Now, you can approach these kinds of situations as "one recipe" for each battle: or you can attempt to come up with a set of game mechanics that simulate all the weapons in all periods accurately, and thereby avoid all the headache of having to tweak the "recipe" for Agincourt until it finally works out. The other ingredients, of course, for Agincourt are: the muddy ground, the lack of command control with the French, their purblind arrogance in disregarding the archers and insisting on attacking only the men at arms (or conversely, their flinching/bunching in reaction to the arrow storm), the natural crowding that took place in any case due to the lie of the land (was it that critical or has it been exaggerated?), and of course the level of effective defense of armor in 1415.

Hi

The head of the anthro department when i was a lad in school was named Dibble, and he took me up as his "project" as an interesed athro/archeologist. Seeing your name triggered interesting memories!

I don't understand how you can both enjoy the lively debate and then insist that you stand on your point and will no longer educate us about that point. Lively debate is….errrr…..Lively!

yes there are conflicting debates, but that doesnt tell me which you belive and why. And it denies me the change to learn about your approach and wisdom!

As I said, I don't claim there is only "TRUTH" writ large. I explained my approach from the prejudices of the dupuy group. (Check out "Numbers, Predictions and War").

Tell me what you know.

R

Rocky

I cast a fairly large net when it comes to military history, & though my two main interests are Medieval & Napoleonic eras, I still have time for dipping into other histories from Alexander to Genghis Khan, & from Maximilian I to Saddam Hussein.
Today's (last 50 years) battles are easier to predict, that is helped heavily by military & supporting technological advances. But if you look back in history you will find that in many battles armies had won against all the odds. Tactical, strategic, total, & Pyrrhic victories could be attained, and trying to predict how a certain general or warlord would perform in battle (pre modern) on any given day (how many generals won all there battles) was impossible, and to get a accurate casualty list
Is well' if I may say, even more so.
The thing is that we are discussing a battle that lasted between 30 minutes & 4 hours and that the 'English' beat the French with disputed numbers, on a disputed battlefield, using disputed tactics & weapons potential. So how you can get a right result using one pull-weight & devastation with another is well' perplexing, and also damn impossible to predict.

Dibble is a nickname I acquired when I was 12 whilst attending a boarding school west of London.

You ask
Yes there are conflicting debates, but that doesn't tell me which you believe and why. And it denies me the change to learn about your approach and wisdom!

My approach and wisdom comes from the fact that I read more than one account of a certain battle and come to a certain Conclusion which is personal to me.
Some facts are known, which I adhere too, if facts are disputed, I keep an open mind, but that dispute must have some validity to it. It is also important to study the social and political history of the era, to get a feel of the types of societies you are dealing with; after all it is they that went/go to war.
Apart from all that, even I am perplexed as to how I stand when it comes to history, maybe its because out there amongst the great historical tomes, there are a few which instead of advancing knowledge, only end up thickening the mists of time.

You say
I don't understand how you can both enjoy the lively debate and then insist that you stand on your point and will no longer educate us about that point. Lively debate is….errrr…..Lively!

As I said, I don't claim there is only "TRUTH" writ large. I explained my approach from the prejudices of the dupuy group. (Check out "Numbers, Predictions and War").

Tell me what you know. (I know many things)

As you see I have contradicted myself by replying to both you and Doug on the Agincourt/pull-weight issue.
Of course I can enjoy a debate and still stand by what I said, just as in the same way I can have my views changed by 'lively debate' or does it mean that in debating is to agree. Also enjoying a 'lively debate' doesn't mean you have to have your say.
What do you mean by "TRUTH"? The only real issue I have with you is that of battle ranges.
I have answered your question on numbers & predictions and the reason that, where historical battles (pre-modern) are concerned, it falls flat on its face. In any case they are all passé tense.
If I have miss-understood your questions please try to re-phrase them.
I am not trying to educate anyone; just giving an opinion and a bit of information.
Paul

Doug
I have already laid out the problems with this battle in the above reply to Rocky. Also I see that you yourself can see the problems facing you and the more you study, the more of a headache it becomes. I think that the only way to go about re-fighting this battle is to use as many scenarios and as many re-fights as possible using all the variables (which there are very many) as you can put together. You are right the bow pull-weights, are important, but what is more important is that you enjoy your hobby.
Paul