"Longbows for the French?" Topic

After reading quite a few books on the Hundred years war and from comments in the site from people who seem to be experts one thing i could not understand was why the French ,after they lost in Crecy and Poitiers and the devastating (as its been said) effect of the English Longbow,Did not use this weapon for their own benefit?
Was it because of different strategy or because maybe the Effect of the Longbow is over exaggerated?
Also i have read that some type of Archers where in the French side in various battles with no effect.
The reason was the quality of the soldiers or the strategy of the French armies?

It takes many years to train a longbowman.
Without a society geared to training bowmen up from childhood, you can't just add them to your army.

Contrast that with a musket – a few weeks training and anyone can be a musketeer.

Hi Nicholas,

One of the reasons was the poor quality of the called Franc Archers raised later on, after the english longbowmen and I guess the long time that takes to train decent longbowman, english ones were taught from almost their childhood.

Probably our fellow TMPers will give you more and precise information on the topic.
I take the occasion to ask, apologies I don't want hijack the thread, what was the key factor(s) in the field for the french armies that help them to reverse the situation and win at the end?

Cheers

Alberto

You beat me Dexter

Given that an effective longbowman had to be trained from an early age, I would think that differences in the structure of medieval society in England and France probably holds your answer.

Alberto – Why did the French win in the end? Politics and money….

Hi Alberto

Please fill free to ask anything you want!
Actually that is a very good question!
In my opinion the French in the later part of the Hundred years war had expert artillery men and thus could Disorder the English army outside the Longbow range.
Also in many late battles like The battle of Patay the French knights got the English archers before they could properly deploy.
i my humble opinion

Regards
Nicholas

Cerdic,

I agree …
Internal situation in England was an important factor I guess too, but any hint how they made it on the field? How they succeed to overcome the bills&longbows.
Clever tactics prior the battles? No more rash charges? Did the fire weapons, field bombards have a decisive impact?

Thanks Nicholas!

Shame on me I just made quick research on Google, and precisely read the Patay Wiki Article on Patay and Formigny.
Maybe this informations have to be taken cautiously but it seems to go along with what you say Nicolas.

Better reconnaissance, don't allow the english longbowmen to deploy properly and catch them in the flanks.What I don't see clearly, is how the artillery could out-range the longbow? My believing was that bombard and primitives culverins were pretty range limited.

Any data on this?

What I read also, is what made the strenght of the english armies, long trained longbowmen, was also their weakness, once they were defeated and lost, those were hard to replace.
And since by the end of the war the french took the initiative, there was more sieges where the french artillery train took the advantage.

Is this a generalisation? Can someone give more precisions on this?

Many thanks

What I read also, is what made the strenght of the english armies, long trained longbowmen, was also their weakness, once they were defeated and lost, those were hard to replace.

This is a misunderstanding of the casualty rates of medieval battles. The losers would perhaps suffer 10% casualties at the most. So you would still have 90% of your archers left. Not only that but the English armies sent to France during the HYW were only a small propotion of the total available pool of trained archers

After the end of the HYW, England was "awash" with trained archers looking for employment which is one of the reasons why nobles were able to raise large private armies (retinues) which saw service in the WOTR.

What I don't see clearly, is how the artillery could out-range the longbow? My believing was that bombard and primitives culverins were pretty range limited.

The effective range of a longbow was 220yds or thereabouts. The range of early artillery was almost certainly more than that.

The English were finally defeated in the HYW because of the effective use by the French of a fortified artillery encampment (e.g. at Castillon in 1453). So much so that English armies in the WOTR attempted to mimic such encampments on more than one occasion, although with varying success (2nd St Albans and Northampton for example).

Hi Major B

Good point, that's the kind of in depth informations that I'm curious about.

Nicholas, are you planning to play the period?

Coming back to the original topic, when the french started to mimic the use of the longbow?

Perhaps a better question than the OP asked is why the English had them in the first place.
They were certainly not an "ordinary" troop type.

when the french started to mimic the use of the longbow?

France initially used Scottish mercenary archers. From 1448 training in archery was made compulsory in France and the French fielded several units of Francs-archers in later battles of the HYW.

Perhaps a better question than the OP asked is why the English had them in the first .place.

link

They were certainly not an "ordinary" troop type.

Depends what you mean by "ordinary".

yes Alberto

i am playing this period for quite a while (6 years) i have managed to complete two big armies around 850 miniatures but outside war gaming i read a lot about the Hundred Years War. i like it as a period i find it very interesting and this question was always in my mind..
why the French did not follow the English example..?
i think we got some very good answers today.
also i am trying to discover the perfect rules for this period by reading about battle and how units reacted how the moved the command structure etc

I remember that a system of levie archers was indeed introduced in parts of France, with peasants being obliged to train with bows. That system was later abandonded because it gave too much power into the "wrong" hands. That comes from distant memory, though.

Well that is another good question Major B…why they did not have the min the first place..maybe their military calture did not allow this to develop if you think the most of the nobles in France where the fighters and most of the low classes where left behind..

Population. France's medieval population was on the order of four to six times England's. Knowing that France was a BIG country played into the social mindset of nobility in England. Making the idea of fielding ignoble manpower a suitable adaptation when facing France in war.

Already, Anglo-Saxon (Dane) social structures allowed for a "free peasantry". The yeoman was the successor to the "freeman" of pre-Conquest times. There were a lot of yeomen. Henry II's assizes stipulated bows and arrows for a certain level of wealth which included a lot of men (I don't recall the numbers at my fingertips). And some scholars hypothesize that the archery tradition in England really got its establishment with the Norman Conquest, archers being such a large part of William's army (and the duchy of Normandy?). Added to the south Welsh propensity for the bow (from Viking times?), and over the next couple of centuries England's already established archery traditions evolved into widespread use of the longbow.

France had no such segment of society. Serfdom prevailed there, unarmed and unwelcomed on the battlefield. So France waged war with a small manpower pool of nobles and their even less numerous mercenaries. Along comes England fielding armies that are the reverse: predominantly ignoble, the yeoman class massed in their thousands, shooting hundreds of thousands of arrows per battle and never suffering a single heavy defeat in the entire HYW (vis-à-vis loss of life).

France's nobility could not adapt to the notion of a free peasantry, armed and dangerous. That is why French archery stunk compared to English archery….

Interesting approach Great war Ace,

Knowing the behaviour of french nobility this make sense, during the same period they faced several peasant uprising.

Nicholas, which scale did you use? And at the moment wich rules are the "most satisfying?

Lots of interesting answers here.

Why did France eventually win 100YW- simple answer was that Henry VI was not a military leader, nor indeed any sort of leader.

25-28mm.
I have miniatures from many different makers..Black tree design-Games foundry-Essex-Front Rank-Perry.
i used to play with impetus but after a 3-4 years i wanted a change
I enjoyed the rules but i wanted something new..what?is a big question.
i have 2 new rules sets i have not read yet and another 2-3 old i have never played..so i think i will start reading very soon..

Why did France eventually win 100YW- simple answer was that Henry VI was not a military leader, nor indeed any sort of leader.

Although Henry VI is certainly a contributable factor, I think there is a lot more to it than that…

Population. Then logistics. Then shifting politics. The parts of France which had been under English control began to be peeled away. Once England stopped holding what they had (much less expanding) the writing was on the wall. All the tactical considerations are very minor, in fact have nothing to do with losing the war. Right up to the end, English armies were capable of seeing off French armies, if Frenchmen insisted on attacking "the same old way". But starting with Bertrand Du Guesclin, French armies began to stop attacking "the same old way", and looked for ways to catch the English at a disadvantage, e.g. on the march, or before they were fully arrayed (e.g. Verneuil), anything to neutralize the tactical advantage of massed longbowmen waiting to be attacked. This was all well and good on the battlefield, like two armies "fencing", as it were. But the HYW was not won and lost on the battlefield….

Speaking of the end of HYW, for some reason nobody has yet mentioned the establishment of the French ordonnance forces.

Didn't the French start retaking castles from the English (using cannons?) which would obviously impact their ability to control territory? And as the English basically ravished the countryside for generations, they did not engender affection from the locals. I don't think the field battles were as important as the loss of castles and friendly land.

Also, until the 15thC lordship (magnate class anyway) was more significant in France (and, indeed, everywhere else) than in England – English earls were not regional officers in the way of other countries due to the structures put in place after the conquest.
Essentially French people started to look more to the king as the locus of power and less to the magnates. A lot of the men who served in English campaigns were in fact French people who owed military service to their lord, who also happened to be the king of England.