"lethality of longbowmen in skirmishes?" Topic

as ever, please excuse my poor english

I am making my own rules for medieval skirmishes, and some time ago, I was read heretic from bernard cornwell, and I was very surprised, when I readed a little skirmish in the book, that the protagonist could engage individual targets with his longbow at a so extremely fast rate.

So...

I know that english longbowmen fire so fast (at least when they werenīt tired) because they performed a kind of "indirect fire" or area fire against a massed unit of men.

but when you are engaging an individual target (human size) can you really draw a arrow, aim it and fire it every six seconds? I would like to know if you can do it with any bow (as my rules are intended to cover any bow type).

How difficult is to hit an human size target with a bow to short or medium range (whenever they are) with a historical bow and say, under stress and not to many time to aim?

As I have never fired a bow, I am clueless...

by the way, can an arrowīs wound in a non-vital area (a leg, or limb) take down a man?

thanks in advance

If I recall, the average longbow arrow is around 1 yard long and 1 inch thick. It can certainly bring down a man even if it hits a leg or arm.

The longbow's strengths rely on the sheer power of the bow (@80 lbs. + draw), the massive arrow and the volley (massed bowfire).

One shot per six seconds? Probably not the average and I'd imagine, exhausting...

...not too mention that if the longbow dude is out skirmishing, he'll run out of arrows quickly. If firing them at once every six seconds, that's ten a minute. If he's carrying 30 arrows, he'll exaust his supply in three minutes and have to run back for more.

Actually six a minute probably was a fast rate of fire. And, exhausting to the archer....

Lethality? Much debate on that point. Probably has to do with range. Yeah, the LB could fire at ranges greater than 200 yards, but it's accuracy and lethality probably dropped off quite a bit after 100 yards; 200 would still be manageable and somewhat accurate, but beyond that, it lost much of its effectiveness. Still...a matter of considerable debate.

My own view is that longbows tend to be greatly over rated in wargames; the "machine gun" of the 14th and 15th centuries it was not. A very interesting view on Agincourt is given by John Keegan in "The Face of Battle."

John

I used to shoot competition Archery with a Recurve.

A Good Archer might be able to do one shot every 6 seconds for the first 4 or 5 shots, then you would slow down dramatically. I used a 65lb pull Bear Recurve and a 60 lb Recurve take-down (broke into 3 pieces

There's a difference in tactics and situations that's being overlooked here.

When one is refering to Agincourt and the English archers' rapid rate of fire, one must realize that they are in essence laying down saturation fire. Not too dissimilar to what an AC-130 gunship is doing when playing "crowd control". In such cases, you're trying to basically put as many arrows into an area as possible. You're not aiming when you do this. Yes, you are using your skill to put an arrow within a general area but you're also hoping that your enemy will oblige you by putting a body in the same space at the same time. Again, using Agincourt as an example, the French knights got bunched up by the terrain thereby providing a "target-rich environment." When fighting such a battle, the archers are assembled in prepared positions - in this case, behind sharpened wood stakes. Large quantities of arrows (more than a quiver-full) are given to each archer who puts them point-first into the ground for rapid reloading. The theory being that the archers can expend these arrows before the enemy closes with friendly forces and makes further shooting impossible for fear of "friendly fire."

For a skirmish, accuracy matters over rate of fire. And even then, its a dicey proposition given that one of your guys can suddenly move to get in a better shot at the guy you're shooting at and get nailed himself. Rate of fire for shooting into a melee would be 1 or 2 per minute, if that. It should only be done if the archer unit is flanking or behind the enemy unit and has a clean shot otherwise most archers wouldn't even try it - save to use a foeman who's seperated from his unit as target practice. A modifier should be applied for accuracy to reflect the confused nature of a melee. Friendly units in said fracas should also have morale modifiers if a friendly unit gets hit by an arrow as well.

Wyatt

I got a great book by Don Featherstone called 'The Bowmen of England'. Its a great book. Everything you want to know about the English Longbow.

An excerpt....although the archer could discharge twelve or fifteen arrows while the musketeer was going through the lengthy operation of loading his peice. The longbow could be aimed more accurately and its effective range of 200-240 yards was greater; the hitting-power of a war-arrow, weighing about two ounces, was far greater than that of a musket-ball, weighing from one-third to half an ounce. Archers could be lined up as many as ten deep and shoot together over each other's heads to put down an almost impassable barrage; and it was a terrifying barrage that could be seen descending. It is not out-side the bounds of possibility to claim that the musket used at Waterloo in 1815 was inferior to the longbow used at Agincourt in 1415, both in range and accuracy.

The problem with the longbow, is it required years of training to learn to use it effectivly. I suspect it required a weekly training regimen akin to our modern day weight lifting or aerobics program, which most of us today are not want to do. And the English of the 16th century wheren't keen on doing either.

Another excerpt....

The crossbowman, impatient at such slow and methodical actions, drew his moulinet from his girdle and, fixing it to the windlass, draws back the powerful double cord until it clicked into the catch. Then from his quiver he drew a short thick quarrel, which he placed with the utmost care upon the groove. Before he could fire at the nominated mark, a large grey stork flapped heavily into view with a peregrine falcon poised over its head, awaiting its opportunity of darting down on its clumsy victim. When the pair were a hundred paces from them the crossbowman raised his weapon to the sky and there came the short, deep twang of his powerful string. His bolt struck the stork just where its wing meets the body, and the bird whirled aloft in a last convulsive flutter before falling wounded and flapping to the earth. At the instant that the bolt struck its mark, the old archer, hitherto standing listless with arrow on string, bent his bow and sped a shaft through the body of the falcon. Whipping another arrow from his girdle, he sent it skimming a few feet from the earth to strike and transfix the stork for a second time before it could touch the ground.

So ya, I would say that the well trained English longbowman could aim his arrows pretty good, even at a moving target.

It would be odd seeing a longbowman "skirmish"...

run, run, *trip*, umph *fracken bow*, run, poink!

The lethality of the famed English longbowmen was gained on the battlefield. As noted already, training to do massed fire (volley fire on command) into an area (saturation fire) is where the English excelled.

Now, in a skirmish game, a longbow is not so unique; first of all, it's only a self-bow, just larger. It no-way shot any arrow c. 1" thick, ever. The arrows were indeed a "yard" long (the legendary "clothyard shaft"); but so were most other arrows too: it wasn't a matter of long arrows for a longbow, but arrows made to the draw length of the archer.

Again, the English excelled in the logistics of providing ample, standard issue arrows for their archers: the trick was to select all the archers who could draw a c. 70# bow without getting tired. In other words, the best of the best (no more than 25% of the total longbow pool available). These guys could shoot all day - or until the arrows gave out, which, even with English ingenuity providing reloads, occured in more than one battle, e.g. Poitiers 1356, where the longbowmen went into hand to hand combat against the last French division, because they arrows had largely given out.

For massed volley fire, the rate of fire is on the order of an arrow per man every ten seconds. An order of "fire at will" would allow the front ranks to shoot as fast as possible, and every six seconds is possible and practical. But this would not occur except as the enemy was getting very close, prohibiting the back ranks of archers from shooting overhead at all: thus the front four ranks who could directly see the enemy (at point blank range) would shoot individually at aimed targets, as fast as they could. The rate of arrow fire would thus remain about the same as for the whole unit when volleying: but again, for a limited time only (as noted already, this would be exhausting soon, to the archer, even before his arrow supply would most likely give out).

But the difference in skirmish gaming between a longbow and any other selfbow is minimal: the pounds of pull are the main factor in figuring damage; secondarily, the type of point used: a broadhead is deadlier than a bodkin (armor piercing) point, IF it can penetrate: the bodkin was invented to punch through shields and mail and got even stouter/narrower when plate was invented: but it only produces a small hole and minimal laceration of tissue: a broadhead will produce a lot of bleeding, again IF it can penetrate or reach an unprotected body part.

Those are the factors to consider in skirmish gaming, where equipment is concerned. Depending on how detailed you want to go, you can figure different competency ratings for the archers: extremely skilled bowmen (veterans) would shoot faster and have a better selection of arrowheads to choose from; rustics would have their hunting weapon, usually of lesser draw weight, and having broadhead arrows only.

MtM

thanks for your answers..

The problem itīs that although I own the osprey book about the english longbowmen, and I know that they were layed down a saturation fire, as wyatt the od has stated, but I donīt know anything about selecting individual targets.

My question its not so about the longbow as about the bowmen (no matter which bow is using). Because in the scene I haved readed in the book, the protagonist taked down a lot of french soldiers in just a minute, firing one arrow every few seconds. Please take in account that he was firing against a group of men in loose order, thatīs, no kind of saturation fire here. As one of you has posted before, a trained bowmen (no matter what bow uses) itīs like a medieval machinegun...

I was searching the books for suitable scenarios for skirmishes but there werenīt as near any skirmish combat has a little group of english archers taking down an enemy every few seconds (every archer). So If in a skirmish you have twenty minis each side, a couple of archers could kill all the enemy in a few rounds...

By the way, Only warlock, thanks for your information. You say that:

A Good Archer might be able to do one shot every 6 seconds for the first 4 or 5 shots

should he be able of doing that hitting with every shot? what I want to say, is... could you engage and hit four of five different targets (human size) in just 24 or 30 seconds?

So my question was mainly about the chances of hitting individual targets so fast, without any failed shot. Just think about it; if this kind of weapon mastery was really posible firing individual targets instead of massed targets, any reallistic skirmish tabletop game whith some archers would be like a WWI game.. XD

Merlin the mad, thanks for your advices. I hadnīt thinked about allow skilled bowmen shoot faster. I have thinked about putting penalties to bowmen who are under fire from enemy archers (even if they fail) or who see enemy charging them... as in "men under fire" from jim webster..

thankyou very much to all you

@ SpectralWraith: Mind you, that account is the exception - that's why it got written. But yeah, most archers learned "on the job" as they hunted to provide a little meat for the table and a rabbit or bird makes a challenging target. The difference is that if you miss, you've only wasted an arrow, not the son of the noble you owe fealty to. That WILL affect your aim in a fracas.

As Merlin pointed out, at close range, a bow is a bow. Recurve, Long-, Short- or otherwise, the RoF is probably going to be the same - and not 6 rounds per minute.

If a bowman is in a skirmish he's either going to be 10 to 30 feet from the action or he's going to be a poorly trained, unarmored swordsman. Shooting into a melee ALWAYS invokes a penalty - because excrement occurs.

Good rule of thumb is to consider how the SCA handles combat archery. Unless the archer is fully armored, if a swordjock gets within 6ft, archer is considered to be dead. Been there, shot that.

Wyatt

I'd say two to three rounds max would be permitted per minute, except at short range, e.g. 50 yds. or less. Then, maybe you want to double the rate of fire, for brief periods.

Since he couldn't carry too many arrows while moving to stay away from enemy forces, the archer would probably wait to see if he hit his target first, and if so, how effectively, prior to firing again. That way, he wouldn't be wasting any arrows.

At 50 yards or less, he would probably try to fire at a maximum rate, to keep his enemies away from him.

My guess is that most archers could easily hit a man-sized target at 50 yards, most of the time. Beyond that, accuracy would diminish, based upon the movement of the target, and any crosswinds occurring.

Not having a scientific, or even archery accuracy background, I would guess that the following might be reasonable, if using a six-sided die (which I dislike mainly, but it will work for this example):

Option 1 Option 2
-------- --------

0 - 50 yards 5 or less 6 or less

51 - 100 yds. 4 or less 5 or less

101 - 150 yds. 3 or less 4 or less

151 - 200 yds. 2 or less 3 or less

201 - 250 yds. 1 or less 2 or less

251 - 300 yds. Only hits 1 or less
on a 1, if
firing on
a group of
4, or more
troops.

Can also hit
a single person
if rolling a
one first, and
then re-rolling
a one, or two.

Option 1 - reduce the range by one band, if the target is not moving. If unable to shift up one band, e.g. 0 - 50 yds., it is an automatic hit. No adjustment for partial cover, if standing still. Increase the range band by one, if behind hard cover, as defined below.

Option 2 - subtract one if the target is moving, or in partial cover. Subtract two if in heavy cover (e.g. hard cover - behind a wall, pallisade, etc.)

Layout didn't quite work as anticipated, but hopefully you get the idea. Option one is listed to the left, and option two to the far right.

And remember that the protagonist of Cornwell's books is a hero - he's not just an archer, he's one of the best archers in the one of the best armies of archers in history. His capabilities should be judged by what the best archers could manage not by what a typical archer could manage.

Does he have some luck and dramatic license on his side as well? Of course he does (though 'luck' is relative considering everything that happens to him in the second volume).

How long will your game last in terms of game time? If it’s going to represent a time of 3-4 minutes then firing arrows quickly will be possible and can be kept up the whole battle. You will have to compare it to other things in the rules and make sure there is some balance. If I can swing a 45lbs war hammer or flail around my head once per turn then I should be able to shoot some arrows in that time. Will an arrow put a man down – not worth discussing what is important is can I keep fighting effectively with an arrow sticking out of me? Personally I am incapacitated by a sliver in my foot so if hit by an arrow I am calling time out really loud.

PJ

Here's an excerpt from another post on longbows that I wrote regarding a show about Agincourt. It has some interesting points that might help in your game design:

Q: The English longbow did not affect the French at Agincourt 1415.

A: The program did not assert this point. In fact, it asserted that the longbow "reaked havoc on the mounted French Knights that were assigned to charge the longbowmen on the flanks of the English line."

Q: The firing rate (8-10 arrows a minute per archer) of the English was 44,000-55,000 arrows a minute if the 5500 archers/1500 heavy infantry figures are to be used. In fact, versus the armor of the French, it was completely useless. Apparently, every knight of the French was head-to-toe covered with the best plate steel you could buy. Anyway, the horses may have been ripped into, but the knights are impervious because the Bodkin tip of the English arrows were inferior grade iron incapable of penetrating steel plate.

A: The program actually stated that the longbow arrows caused disorder and "chaos" in the French lines from the beginning, adding to the difficulties that they faced in their advance towards the English line.

The tests performed on 2mm "mild" (closer to medieval steel) steel showed that with a strength of 38 joules (37.9 meters/second) the bodkin arrow tip buckles when hitting the steel. The show employed Dr. Alan Williams an Archeo-Metalurgist from the Wallace Collection to perform the tests and analyze the actual armor from the period.

While the program makes a leap in a sense when the experts analyze a single ornate spur to determine the types of armor worn by the French, it can be safely stated that a majority of the French knights were probably very well armored in plate.

Dr. Anne Curry of the University of Reading analyzed the actual contracts and muster rolls for the English army and determined that the English had about 7000 men, of which about 5500 were longbowmen. She also had access to French documents and concluded that they had about 20,000 men.

Dr. David Sim, an archaeologist, also from Reading, discussed the Bodkin point and concluded that "popular myth" was incorrect. The bodkin poinjt could not penetrate the steel armor of the period, as arrows were not made out of the best steel available (taken from actual analysis of bodkin points found from the period)."

John

Remember:
a) If the target is STATIONARY you can rapid-fire for a short time accurately. I used to do it all the time up to 75m.

b) Shooting a moving target is a VERY different proposition

Great stuff all. My opinion has always been that archers and missile weapons in general are under powered in games.

Even the traditional trade off of close combat prowess to ranged seems a little silly.

My guess is that many professional archers in armies were lightly armed and armored. But not all. Being that the vast majority of soldiers who fought all these historical battles had no swords or armor a archer would be just as effective as any lightly armed un armored soldiers in close combat.

In RPGs its common for a foe to absorb 4-6 arrows before being disabled, or 4-6 sword blows, or 4-6 punches in the face etc etc.

Wargames also shy away from moral rules that if a little more realistic would have giant chunks of armies fleeing the field almost immediately after receiving any damage.

For skirmish it seems a lot would hinge on the intended skill level of the archers, but tactically if someone advances across a football field towards a archer who is aware of them, has arrows, and can use his bow, then it seems unlikely that the advancer would ever make it across.

There was a huge debate about this some time ago on the ancient/medieval web chat goup of the SOA on YAHOO. This one on for a long time and should be easy to look up. I read the story about the crossbow vs. the longbow in a novel The White Company, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, did he get it from historicle sources?

Wyatt...."@ SpectralWraith: Mind you, that account is the exception - that's why it got written. But yeah, most archers learned "on the job" as they hunted to provide a little meat for the table and a rabbit or bird makes a challenging target".

Actully in England, the training programs were in direct response to the wish for the bowman to not hunt in the Kings 'hunting grounds'.

Another excerpt....

"Let every man refrain from my hunting grounds on pain of death. A nearby tree would form a ready gallows, his own bowstring the halter by which they strangled him like a hound.

Realising that the necessary skill with the longbow could only be reached with constant and unremitting practice, the strictest means were taken to ensure that every able-bodied man got in his hours of practice shooting. Peers and churchmen were privileged by law, but no other persons, aliens excepted, could absent themselves from the public exercise ground without incurring what was then considered a serious penalty. So the independent franklin, the wealthy yeoman, the rude peasant and the unwashed artisan all congregated, distinction of rank lost sight of for the time, and adroitness alone giving title to superiority. The ancient public butts were so thronged with archers, particularly at holiday times, that they raked up the surrounding turf by the very arrows that missed, in such a manner that the grass would not grow again in the same spots. The continual tramping of feet as the bowment circulated about the marks also contributed to destroy the turf and vegetation. In the the vicinity of the large and populous towns the concourse must have been enormous and for this reason the archer used but a single arrow when practising. Besides the impossibility of getting in a second shot amid such confusion, he found it necessary to hurry away to the opposite butt in order to catch up his shaft before it was stolen or trodden under foot...."

Another excerpt about aiming....

First a poem....

'Setting his left foot somewhat forth before, His arrow with his right hand nocking sure, Not stooping, nor yet standing straight upright, Then, with his left hand little 'bove his sight, Stretching his arm out, with an easy strength, To draw an arrow of a yard in length'

Excerpt....

The English longbowmen might well have appeared to aim instinctively because it was quicker, but they really took careful aim, using their judgment to determine the height of their aim. Over the course of hundreds of years it has been proven that the best manner of using a bow is to use the same force for every shot regardless of whether the target is close or far away. This is exactly what the English archer did--he used the full power of his bow every time, never instinctively using more or less of it in order to reach his mark.....The more expert the archer, the shorter the period of holding; and it was always the same length of time--every fraction of a second over his normal holding period, with the bow held at full draw, took something away from the cast of the bow andd caused the arrow to fall short....The action of shooting was not hurried, the same time was taken with each arrow; the English archer acquired a regular rhythm. He would rather come down and start again if he were not satisfied--better that than to take a chance with what he knew to be a bad arrow....To learn to shoot with a dropping shaft was essential; an arrow will go a certain distance up into the air before it falls toward its mark--when an arrow has its point directly on the target to be hit there is only one distance at which the arrow will fall on to the mark itself. This is 'pointblank' range and for an average man drawing a bow of, say, forty-two-pound draw-weight (under half that of the old English archer) that distance will be somewhere between 80 and 100 yards.... there are many modern archers who can emulate and best the reputed feats of Robin Hood and his men! For a weary and sick army of less than 6000 men to defeat over 25000 French at Agincourt must idicate that the archers could notch with a shaft every crevice and joint of a man-at-arms harness, from the clasp of his bascinet to the hinge of his greave. With that in mind, can we calmly discount the story of the Genoan crossbowman who raised his arm over his mantlet and shook his fist at the English, a hundred paces from him? Twenty of the English bowmen emmediately loosed shafts at him, and when the man was afterwards slain, it was found that he had taken eighteen shafts through his forearm. Or, the account of the two English archers firing at the hempen anchor-cord of the captured English cog Christopher held in Calais harbour--at 200 paces the archers in four shots had cut every strand of the cord so that the boat went on to the rocks!....

Excerpts from Don Featherstones 'The Bowmen of England'

The Samurai shot their long bows with aim and in the skirmish manner exclusivly.

Agincourt - other thoughts.

While I won't attempt to dispute the ability of the bodkin to penetrate plate armor, since the explanation sounds relatively plausible, my guess is that most of the horses of the period were not fully armored.

I can imagine the reaction of a horse when it is hit with several arrows at once. It probably isn't pretty, and I imagine that even the best armored knight or man at arms would be quickly thrown from the terrified animal. So I think it entirely possible that the archers were able to easily break up an attack on their units.

From the few medieval war movies I have seen, seeing arrows being fired all at once from large numbers of troops, to shower down upon the enemy like deadly rain, must at least be a little intimidating, even if it can't penetrate their armor. Further, once unhorsed, the heavily laden troops would be shaken, and disorganized, making them an easy target for disciplined foot soldiers.

Condo pasted--The English longbow did not affect the French at Agincourt 1415.

Yup, and curveballs don't curve, it's all an optical illusion according to some physicists. If that is the case, why did the French, throughout the Hundred Years War, why did the French generally avoid combat rather than face archer laden armies until the latter part of the conflict when they seemed to have found a counter? One must ask themselves, if the English had not had archers at Crecy or Agincourt would they have won those battles? I think not.

Kevin

Signor Kevin,

THat was the question presented, thus the "Q:".... My response was preceeded by an "A:"...sorry if I didn't make that clear. The discussion on that other thread some time ago centered upon a show about Agincourt. One of the posters was asserting that the show claimed that the longbow had no effect on the French at Agincourt. I corrected his view of the show with my response. (Went back and watched the show again with his critique in mind~~ah the wonders of TiVo!).

John

"I can imagine the reaction of a horse when it is hit with several arrows at once. It probably isn't pretty, and I imagine that even the best armored knight or man at arms would be quickly thrown from the terrified animal."

In the case of the Battle of Agincourt, the majority of the French knights were on foot. The flanks were still mounted.

Long range archery during this period was generally not too lethal. It's effectiveness was in its ability to disorganize and to goad an enemy into attacking across unfavorable grounds. Afterall, as Monluc said, it is better to be attacke, then to attack, because the movement of a unit tends to disorganize them and the well ordered troops had the advantage. So, lots of arrows disrupted, no doubt, the French and "encouraged" them to attack.

John

The thing to bear in mind is that the French knights at Agincourt probably weren't in a position to say, "Aha, the tensile strength of my plate armour is sufficient to cause the the soft iron of these English bodkin arrows to buckle at any range: therefore I am invulnerable."

They were probably very disconcerted by being shot at and this is what caused their defeat.

The problem with these modern scientific analyses is that they tend to come up with eminently feasible conclusions which are at complete odds with the result.

According to the physics of ballistics, the French should have survived the hail of arrows, walked up to the archers and hacked them to bits. As Napoleon said "the morale is to the physical as 3 is to 1", hence the French defeat.

Just a couple of unrelated thoughts....

First: Modern bow hunters, depending of course of personal skill and conditions, fire on targets (animals) at ranges of only 20-30 yards. Even the most skilled hunter almost never takes shots at ranges greater than 40 yards.

They are of course looking to kill the target outright, or inflict a wound that leads to very quick death. In combat a serious wound is often more than sufficient, and in some cases more desirable.

There are many other differences as well, BUT I don't think you can overestimate the impact "pucker factor" has on accuracy, when shooting at a target that can (and will) kill you if given the opportunity.

The very nature of a skirmish means that you would be shooting at man sized targets advancing from unpredictable and often surprising directions, moving towards you at a run over hilly uneven ground (which is basically all the ground not inside a house) while in constant fear for your life.

I've never done this myself, but it sounds kinda hard.

Second: I saw a post here on TMP a few weeks (months?) ago where someone, I believe it was a re-enactor or historian, made the point that falling the 10-12 feet (the distance your head is from the ground) to the rocky ground below you, from a horse moving at 10-15mph wearing 40+ pounds of armor and clothing would be similar to a very very serious traffic accident.

As Mako13 pointed out the horses were not nearly as well armored as the Knights riding them, even if they were not killed outright they must have become impossible to ride.

Bill AKA yettie..."Otis"

thanks very much for your answers...

I was thinking of a game where every mini show a man and with a time scale of rounds of ten or five seconds. Like a RPG

One thing to think about is that all armour is not the same. During the 100 years war armour and metal technology improved so by the end of the period the armour was far better made than at the start. Also armour depends on fit as well quality - if you nicked a bit off the battle field you are going to have gaps - if you had it custom made - bespoke from the best Italian sources you were in far better shape!

John,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks for further illustrating your point.

Kevin

"The very nature of a skirmish means that you would be shooting at man sized targets advancing from unpredictable and often surprising directions, moving towards you at a run over hilly uneven ground (which is basically all the ground not inside a house) while in constant fear for your life."

Also, there are other factors affecting the accuracy and visibility, like rain, direction sun is shining from, wind, fog and such. Not to mention that in addition to being afraid, the archer could be in less than perfect condition physically - perhaps tired and exhausted, or perhaps he hasn't been eating well lately, or perhaps suffering from some light injury or disease.

Real battlefields are not like shooting at static targets on a firing range.

Griefbringer

...and one last point from me then I'll be quiet (maybe).

At longer ranges, the arrows trajectory will be such that it will fall onto the target from above, rather than directly. The penetration ability of the arrow would be greatly reduced against an armored target. Arrows might glance off of helmets, shields raised in defense, etc.

At Agincourt (going back to that example again for a moment), the rain of arrows shot at a rate of 6 per minute (maybe an average) by 5500 archers, even at long range, has to have a serious impact on the order of the target units. 33,000 arrows landing each minute in and about the target units must have caused considerable havoc and some may have hit their mark (e.g., lucky shots hitting between armor plates, faces, joints, etc.). So, the longbow in massed combat most certainly had a major impact at longer ranges, even if it had limited "killing power."

In the context of a skirmish game, short ranges should probably be the limit for firing a longbow with any hope of actually causing a wound, unless the target is unarmored.

John

I think when people debate the effectiveness of armour vs longbows they tend to concertrate on the bow and give little thought to the armour. Between the 12th and 16th centuries armour varied greatly. Country to country in medieval Europe differing forging techniques were used. Unlike today there was no mass produced steel so the quality varied greatly and was influence by the skills of the smelter the smith bought his steel from. There was the quality smith, thermometres didn't exist then so correctly tempering the armour was a highly skilled job and took a lot of experience. Finally the technology of smith due to the demand of armour greatly increased throughout the whole period. In other words no two suits of armour were equal.

A couple of contempory examples from history,

This is an eyewitness account of the battle of Browershaven in 1426, between Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester against Philip the good of Burgundy.

"English discipline apparently impressed and possibly dismayed the Dutch. For the English advanced marching in step, ignored a brief salvo fired at them by a cannoneer from Dordrecht, and then suddenly emitted a frightening yell and a fanfare of trumpets and bugles. Holding their fire till the armies were well within range, the Dutch shot simultaneoiusly at the English with over a thousand crossbows. But these did about as much harm as a shower of rotten apples:' they returned fire with their deadly longbows and drove the Dutch back in disorder – However, arrows could make no impression on Philip and his heavily armed knigthts, who now arrived on the scene. Andrieu de Valines was killed by an arrow in the eye because he was not wearing a helmet. Duke Philip was their in person, his banner carried by the lord l'Isle Adam, whose armour, and the shaft of the banner he was carrying, were soon festooned with the numerous arrows that had lodged in them: and arrows dented or damaged many a cuirasse. Eventually the English were driven back onto, and then along a , where the Dutchmen slaughtered them mercilessly, so that scarce a single one escapped. 'The poor English archers lept into the diches, and were either drowned, or else were cut down as they tried to clamber out of them."

The account clearly shows the longbows were unable to penetrate the knights armour.

However,

A description of Joan of Arc's armour is interesting reading. It was made at Tours, by an med Colin de Montbazon the Dauphan's personal armourer. It cost 100 livres-tournois, it was tailored for her individual measure. It was a full suit entirely made of plates, presenting a reflective "white" surface of steel uninterrupted by any duller sections of chain mail.

The knight Jean d'Aulon was appointed her personal bodyguard and he gives his account,

"It was this proximity to the fighting which allowed her prediction to come to pass: just as she was helping to raise a scaling ladder against the redoubt,at some point an English archer found his mark. The arrow penetrated her flesh between the neck and shoulder, to a depth of half a foot, so that the arrow came out her back. She was flung backwards by the impact; when she felt herself wounded, she was afraid and wept."

Here is a clear example of the armour of one of the finest makers in France being penetrated. Yet the prior example shows armour of common knights being arrow proof.

Confused? The reason lies purely in the method the armour was made. Joan was wearing a suit of armour made in France, the Duke of Burgundy had equipped his knights in Milanese armour.

The meturlegical proof lies here,

oakeshott.org/metal.html

In truth the longbow is a deadly weapon, yet, only when it is faced against the right enemy. The battle of acingcort(excuse my spelling) was famed for its english longbow men, yet science and modern testing has proved that the bodkin tipped arrows did not normaly pierce the 2mm thick steel of the French knights.

I shoot a traditional recurve. It is about 50 pounds and has a light pull obviously. Firing about 6 seconds is about correct as someone previously stated for the first few shots.

Excuse my cutting short. So to balance it perhaps think of the armour of the targets, if it is a small skirmish. Also if you are actually aiming it will take any where from 8 to 13 seconds I would say, for a solid shot.

Also I aim without any guides or aim help, all free eye. If the archer is experienced, as they would be if they were hiered sholdiers, then it would be reasonable to make them hit on a fair scale, yet if it is an untrained and a peasnt or militia you may want to make them less deadly.

CeAcatl: remember also that the arrow that hit Jean d'Arc was probably fired from a very close range - from an archer atop the wall she was assaulting.

Griefbringer

Hi

My own tests were driven by works such as Saxton Pope's "A Study of Bow and Arrow" and P.E.Klopstag's "The Physics of Bow and Arrow".

I had no problem penetrating armor with armor piercing points. Bow armies usually use a variety. And too often, by mixing between various battles and situations, you are comparing vary different things.

Lets start with Cornwall....his heroic longbow IS heroic and fiction. And he clearly knows nothing about crossbow.

One way to THINK about crossbow is this, treat it like a a carbine shooting a pistol round, say a Winchester in 44/40 and then you have a better idea. Requires little training to be deadly at 100yds. Even with armor.

A good longbow is actually MORE expensive than a crossbow. For this reason. Crossbow is predicated on massive inefficiencies, but ease of production and use. Any carpenter can make a crossbow. However, Boyers are specialists. The exception to this is medieval italian states importing Turks to make bow staves for their crossbows thus increasing efficeincy.

Now, guns are a totally different thing. Anyone can shoot a gun and any village smithy can make one. They are individually poor weapons but only compared to a well trained archer. But notice how armies suddenly field more people when guns are around. Peter the Great's musketers were spanked badly by crimean tarters due to the longer range of their comp bows.

bow shooting and accuracy...there is no effective difference between an "aimed" and snap shot THEN. These days using compound mechanisms, one draws a bow to the let off point and THEN aims. In their day, this did not happen. One draws to the cheek and Release. One smooth movement. There are no sights, no looking across the top of the arrow or whatever, you draw/release one movement.

Armor versus arrow:armore reduces the CHANCE of penetration, but does not make one invulnerable. This is not "robocop" armor. A lot depends on the incidental impact angle of the point. The beauty of the bodkin is that it tends to tilt a little on impact to straighten out to the FACE of the armor and try to defeat it, rather than deflect. Most armor/bow calculations are focused on what we call in shooting as the "wadcutter" approach. Which does not actually apply to arrows. Think of it this way, when you approach a cut of steak...you could STAB the meet with an unsharpend pencil and dent it, or cut through it with a knive EDGE and POINT. Arrows work slowly like a knife, not near instantly as if done with an impact hammer. Different results.

R

"CeAcatl: remember also that the arrow that hit Jean d'Arc was probably fired from a very close range - from an archer atop the wall she was assaulting.

Griefbringer"

I think that unless the armour is made of especially poor quality steel all shots that penetrate would have to be pretty close, even on the battlefield.

When the military bolistics labs did tests on them, they put out the maximum range they could successfully penetrate a breastplate to be around 20m only.

RockyRusso, you say they did not aim, but there you are wrong. They even had tournoments when there were jousts, I have studied it in depth.

I use no compound bows or sights or anything like that and a second to aim can make a diffrence, sure if you are volleying or dispatching your arrows in a general direction you don't aim.

Say an archer has ten arrows and kills 5 men, I say that he aims, it seems pretty unlikely that from lets say 30 yards away that those arrows were all luck.

Hi

Like you, I am an archer using a recurve and no modern bits. And I expect we have both read the original sources by Turks and Zen masters on shooting.

]Wether target shooting or hitting a running rabbit, you hit more consistantly by doing the same motions each time. Drawing a heavy bow, for me this is 75# at a 32" draw, repeatedly, one picks the target, draws, lifts and shoots in a smooth motion. "aiming" as I do with a crossbow or gun, invites muscle tremor...especially after the 20th shot.

Luck has nothing to do with anything. However, when doing mass infantry fire saturating a target, say at Agincourt, this IS luck. But the guy who started the thread wanted skirmish information.

None of my opinions are really academic..just some 50 years of shooting.

Rocky

So how would you describe a humbug to a Yank?

There are many valid observations here, esp. when we get away from fiction, romanticized post-facto popular history like Featherstone's, and RPG comparisons!

The salient point is probably the word "skirmish". This implies a completely different context than large-unit action, where massed missile fire is possible to greater effect. Skirmishes are essentially hunts/brawls between individuals. A bowman in these circumstances is basically a hunter trying to bring down prey. If you take this apporach, you'll get more realistic results, I think. There will not be rapid fire (not accurate rapid fire, anyway); there will not be indirect fire; it will be important to be as close as possible to the target to hit it; the damage if hit will likely be severe as a result of bleeding, shock, incapacity of limbs, etc.; ammunition supplies may be limited; movement of all parties will be rapid and perhaps unpredictable; and close-quarters melee is still likely to occur (why else did all medieval archers carry melee weapons?).

I don't see bows being as effective in skirmish action as in largeer engagements, except in certain circumstances (say, firing at stationary targets in the open, or defending from a fixed position). However, their effect could be disconcerting to their opponents. being subjected to bowfire , even inaccurate, is likely to be disconcerting to the target. The *threat* of being hit should perhaps have as great an effect as actually being hit. Perhaps you should look at a mechanism whereby firgures subjected to missile fire have to check morale, or involuntarily take cover or move away or otherwise react in some alarm? This ralistically, to me, reflects the ability of hostile fire to pin or disorder or panic enemies even without inflicting hits.

After all, even modern arfare is like this — a lot of ammunition is expended for every round that hits a target, and troops seek cover or have their movements disrupted almost immediately when they draw fire.

I don't see bows being as effective in skirmish action as in largeer engagements, except in certain circumstances (say, firing at stationary targets in the open, or defending from a fixed position). However, their effect could be disconcerting to their opponents. being subjected to bowfire , even inaccurate, is likely to be disconcerting to the target. The *threat* of being hit should perhaps have as great an effect as actually being hit.

I agree. From personal experience (though only once!), I can say that being worried about being targetted by an archer is very disconcerting and distracting. At TFBO ("the first big one"), where we put on a diminutive battle of Hastings – link – we had ONE archer, just one. And he was good enough that if he wasn't on my side I was worried that he was targetting me AGAIN. After being shot out of the melee a couple of times, I was really wanting to know where he was. Just knowing that he was lurking over there somewhere was enough to make me pay attention. Check out the little video clips that link to my page, and you can see Dave Hall ("Sigurd Drum") plying his craft. And, you get to see moi getting shot; the pic quality is rather smallish, but when I bend down and pick up the arrow which had just bounced off my brisket, that shows you the one fight where I learned to keep my eyes open for the bowman. If there had been more of them, it would have been a lot worse distraction I am sure.

Hi

As a long time archer, and having grown up in a bad neighborhood and involved in gang fights…..

I know from personal experience that I would rather be loosing arrows at you from a hundred yard away while you try to close, and MISS a lot(arrows are cheap and reusable) versus standing toe to toe and swapping strokes. Course if I can kill a running rabbit at 40 yds, as I have, I can probably hit YOU!

Rocky