"Why no longbow during Napoleonic wars?" Topic

Why no longbows were used during Napoleonic wars?

Range is better than musket, rate of fire is better and cost is probably lower. Would it be the training of bowmen that took too long?

Additional question. Who would win between a roman legion and a Napoleonic era infantry division? My money of the romans…

Thoughts?

Two cannon shots and the Romans would run – having no experience of firearms the morale effect would be overwhelming.

The effectiveness and accuracy of longbows used en-masse by untrained men would probably be less than that of musketry. Training a true longbowman took a LONG time and they were already declining even in Tudor times.

Length or training was probably the key. One is always told that you have to be brought up to manage a longbow, though with a professional army you would think that training wouldn't be such an issue.
Making a sufficient number of arrows would have been a challenge I suspect.

Gildas, I know what you are saying, but I think the experience of troops that faced both arrow and musket-ball was that the arrows – which you could see coming at you – were the more frightening. And the Romans would have learnt: their next army wouldn't have been so frightened. Or perhaps the one after that.

Asian Bashkirs and Kalmuks were deployed against Napoleon in 1812 but were so ineffective the French derisively referred to them as "les cupides".

Not long bows of course.

Why no longbows were used during Napoleonic wars?

No pool of trained longbowmen available. Back in the day, yeomen had to practice every week or be fined. This was relaxed when gunpowder allowed the King to keep control of most missile troops.

No trained bowmen, no effective longbows. Professional longbowmen had a right arm thicker than the left. You couldn't just find these people on the street. Becoming a good bowman required building up muscle and skill. Becoming a proficient musketeer required time and practice, but no muscle development.

I don't think Roman shields would be much protection from musket balls and cannon shot

I do recall reading that Wellington actually asked for a battalion of archers, but there were to few people with the requisite skill to call upon. I forget where I read that though.

Certainly on paper a longbow looks good compared to the musket in terms of range and ROF. Armour penetration not so much of an issue in that period.

Its the 16 years of training as opposed to 2 weeks thats the issue.

The noise, flash, and smoke of muskets are far more terrifying than the sight of arrows. (Which in reality would be sporadic and barely visible, unlike the unrealistically dense hyper-volleys of arrows that Hollywood likes so much.)

As for putting Romans up against a Napoleonic Army…. I would refer the honourable gentleman to the fate of any close order melee troops who chose to tangle with guys with lots of fairly reliable firearms.

Now and again, they win. Most of the time, they get shot down in droves and run away. Napoleonic cavalry would also utterly trash the rag bag of horsemen the Romans liked to drag along. What are they going to do when their are horse artillery batteries firing grape into their flanks and rear?

Napoleonic Armies were also considerably larger than Roman ones. A single Legion would be chump change at Leipzig, and even a large Roman army only amounted to a Corps or Two.

As Clausewitz observed, Napoleonic battles were won (in the main) by whoever could bring more troops to bear. And for all the much touted ability of the Romans to dust themselves off and find another army, so could all the major Napoleonic combatants.

GildasFacit

"Two cannon shots and the Romans would run – having no experience of firearms the morale effect would be overwhelming."

If you mean that the warbowmen would have run, I would turn your attention to the fact that there were, for example, cannons at Crecy.

But the only real way that the warbow would have been of use was if a time machine had transported the well trained warbowmen forward.

But if such a scenario of '5,000' could be put together, then a couple of thousand bowmen would have slaughtered D'Erlon's corps from behind their stakes. And Ney's great cavalry charge would have been just that 'a charge' and would be as doomed with the other three thousand Warbowmen 'clearing them off'

Lomgbowmen start their training as youths and it takes many, many years before they are put on the line.

Musketeers/Line infantrymen are trained to shoot when they enter training camp. It takes about 8 weeks before they are put on the line.

I'll let you infer "why" from that.

IvanDBA

"unlike the unrealistically dense hyper-volleys of arrows that Hollywood likes so much."

So how do you think warbowmen shot their bows?

The warbowmen shot in volleys (at ranges approaching 300 yards down to 100, then chose individual targets) and also whilst the preceding ones were still in the air.

PS. The '5,000' in my last post replaces the same amount of line infantry in Wellingtons army

Guns were at Crecy. True. However, 200 of them? I think that With the technical and tactical innovations of 400 something years of military history. Also Jean D'Ark found guns quite fine a weapon against longbowmen.

Your 5000 long bowmen, would had been bombed to hell by a massed battery.

The Romans would had lost the first 2-3 battles, and then would had copied the technology and tactics of their enemies.

There is a reason why most pre-industrial societies that came into contact with European tactics and weapons, started imitating them us fast as possible.

But yeah, the main reason is speed of training, and thus numbers of men that is brought to battle.

KTravlos

"Your 5000 long bowmen, would had been bombed to hell by a massed battery"

and who's regiments in reality were bombed to hell before or during D'Erlon's attack? What they do before the attack, is like all the rest….They lay down

And no milling cavalry, no squares needed and no French close artillery support.

And, as advocate implied, manufacturing, transporting, and storing arrows likely would have been much more costly than doing likewise for powder and shot…

Arrows were transported on campaign how? Arrows were stored how? Powder and shot was transported and stored how?

The real expence would have been in the manufacture of the arrows, but then again, (unlike all the rest) Britain could well afford it. And unlike most munitions, could easily be recovered from the battlefield

Paul :)

The British tried.
It was found that not enough people could be found that could use it. And training people up for it took too long.
It fired faster true but that meant they expended ammunition quicker. You would struggle to find enough fletchers to produce enough as well.

And the time it took to train a competent bowman your enemy has trained up a full battalions worth of men with muskets.

Is somebody planning on a game with WRG rules?

IF I am not mistaken, one of the "La Bataille" games came out with a freebie supplement in one of K. Zucker's magazines and it had a "What if" army of Alexander the Great to face off w/Nappy (and/or Welly).

Again, fuzzy on the details, but I did have the rules and counters for a few years.

In the 100yw england was full of people who knew to make bows, arrows, and how to use them. Literally, you couldn't move for the s. They covered every street and every building in the land like pigeons. Therefore not hard to take a few thousand to france to upset the locals, and not hard to supply them with arrows (I gather there is not a single account of the English ever running out of arrows).

400 years later you could count the number of trained fletchers on the fingers of one elbow. Which means the handful of archers you did find would run out of arrows very quickly. And then just stand around with some useless sticks with bits of string on…

5000 bowmen bombed to hell by cannon, that would happen if bow armed or musket armed if you stood there, parliament did have a debate due to a members bill re the Longbow being returned but thank god it was de bunked.
The main difference in longbow is strength anyone can fire a musket with a days training and a sick man can fire a musket, but you had to be strong practise for years to be proficient with a longbow

cost is probably lower

A good bow required good quality wood (and in late middle ages England actually imported wood from continental Europe specifically for making bow shafts), and a fair amount of work from a skilled bow-maker, so maybe not quite as cheap as one would think.

However, as some have mentioned before, there is a big difference when it comes to munitions. Gunpowder could be produced in bulk (and was required in large amounts for artillery anyway), while the shot could be easily cast from lead once moulds were done.

For arrows, you would need craftsmen to produce arrowheads (iron or steel), shafts (good quality wood) and fletching (feathers) as well as glue to stick the parts together. And on campaign there is also need for a supply of fresh bow-string.

Also, from a tactical perspective it is not very practical to mount a bayonet on a bow, so you would need to provide the archers with something else for defending themselves in melee.

Ah yes! But this is a what if/fantasy scenario. If the 5,000 each brought 5 sheathes with them (300,000) + the same reserve amount in carts. then they would have had enough. Then you add in the retrieval rate too, of say 1in3 arrows.

Griefbringer

"Also, from a tactical perspective it is not very practical to mount a bayonet on a bow, so you would need to provide the archers with something else for defending themselves in melee."

The myth was that the Warbowman was ineffective after he had used up all his arrows. He was not. he was quite as adept in close quater battle as any man at arms and would be much better than any of nappys 'run of the mill' hoards. He used the bastard, falclion, maul, hand axe and bollock knife. Anyway, the French would be mercilessly cut down before they got within 60 paces and having line battalions and houshold/union cavalry in reserve would well keep them safe.

marmont1814

"5000 bowmen bombed to hell by cannon, that would happen if bow armed or musket armed if you stood there,"

So! Please tell me when French artillery bombed hell out of the British/allied regiments before an attack? Both during the Waterloo campaign, or in Portugal/Spain?

The obvious order to 'Lay down' was given and the reverse slope or dead ground was utilised.

Paul :)

The myth was that the Warbowman was ineffective after he had used up all his arrows. He was not. he was quite as adept in close quater battle as any man at arms and would be much better than any of nappys 'run of the mill' hoards. He used the bastard, falclion, maul, hand axe and bollock knife.

Yes, I am aware of that was the case in jolly old 15th century. However, if the said archers had to be recruited from amongst the manpower available in Europe ca. 1800 (rather than transported by time machine and then convinced to fight for free), then the suitable weapons would need to be first bought and then the men trained in their usage, so that they would have something at hand eg. when storming (or manning) fortified positions. Back in the 17th century, before bayonet was invented, it was common practice to arm musketeers and pikemen with cheap swords as sidearms.

Such swords might not be massively more expensive than the bayonets, but it is still an expense, and they provide less reach versus cavalry. Of course the archers can be provided with stakes, axes, mauls, spades etc. to protect themselves from cavalry, but so can musketeers – and then the unit is only protected as long as they stay on that position.

In the end, all of the expenses to train, equip and maintain a combatant on field add up. And in the Napoleonic era all the equipment tended to be provided by the crown (or republic), that always tended to have limited pockets.

It's all been said above about training a longbowman. There is however, a reference to a company or two of Longbow men fielded by a regiment of the London Trained Bands for a Western Campaign IIRC. A purchase order was found to account for lots of arrows loaded on the baggage train. So even in 1640's there were a few trained in the art.

The musketeer gains favour as the training period required was less than a pikeman.

Romans – versus a Napoleonic army, let's say the British. So would the Napoleonic light cavalry out scout and even outflank the Romans before we even get to the battlefield? How many ranks are the Romans stacked up in? Ballista, versus artillery batteries – I know who my money is on. Then the riflemen start to pick off the officers at 300 yards at which point the guns start firing shrapnel and case shot.

I wonder what a round shot would do to a testudo since the shock wave can also kill as well as the ball itself.

If the Romans can get in close enough quickly enough they are still at an initial disadvantage with the Gladius against the bayonet. Get in really close then they have an advantage. However, I don't see them ever getting that close.

As a tactic against massed columns it would appear to be a sound one. If it had ever been tried out in tests i guess the unit would have been made up of musket armed men in the first 2 ranks to blast the front while rear ranks would be the bow armed men to target the centre of the column. I see no reason why a composite bow rather than a longbow couldn't be used.

As far as producing large numbers of arrows is concerned i think the entrepreneurs of the Industrial revolution would find a way if it turned a profit.

Griefbringer

But in my case, we have them being brought forward in a time machine….whatif fantasy.

Putting my Hundred years War 5,000 warbowmen as a replacement to an equal amount of line infantry in the Dukes army would destroy D'Erlon's corps and Ney's mass cavalry.

dibble

You appear to take as gospel the fairytale longbowmen as described by Shakespeare and later Hollywood. Do bear in mind that their greatest victories were rarely achieved without considerable supporting factors and sometimes stupid enemies.

The other point is that the English combo of longbows and foot billmen was only really at its best in defence. A Napoleonic division could stand off and bombard them.

The sound and range of cannon most certainly did cause panic when they first appeared on the battlefield. At Crecy both sides had seen them before – our fictional Romans would not have done.

Not sure how a "Warbowman" is different from an "archer".

Anyway, arrows likely can't be packed as densely as powder and shot.

One of the most pointless debates on TMP I've read, don't mix up different periods of history.

Frustrating that we went through this a year or two ago….went to over 100 posts….but, trying to search now…no luck.

There was a huge response about rates of fire/ weather etc….search engine is still not great here.

I understand the training aspect. In regard of the effectiveness of the longbow, or a short bow for the matter, it still seems to me a more potent weapon than the musket of the period.

As of Roman legion vs infantry division, notwithstanding the novelty of guns, in close combat, the legionaries seem more disciplined and better trained at close quarter melee. My understanding is that during Napoleonic wars, infantry would break before the actual hand combat would occur. Shields would have provided protection against musket fire.

As for artillery, it could be indeed a deciding factor.

Asian Bashkirs and Kalmuks were deployed against Napoleon in 1812 but were so ineffective the French derisively referred to them as "les cupides".

not the cupides=greedy but the «cupidons» the innocents angels of love with their arrows, but yes, totally seen as cupides/greedy

Kalmuks, Bashkirs, twenty others barbarians nations coming from the Caucasus and the borders of China to take part in the plunder of France with their quivers, arrows (…) their faces of Huns, Tatars and Mandchus (…)

these looters weren't feared, a group of 20 men was enough to impose on thousands of these canailles. I remember that a band came to throw us arrows that we received with bursts of laughter, ten rifle shots make them run

Capitaine Jean Viennet 2nd Marine Artillery Regiment, German Campaign of 1813

Just thinking out loud here: it seems to me that Napoleonic longbows and Romans vs. Napoleonics are exactly the kind of "what if" situations that could be explored with a wargame. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would read the AARs with interest.

- Ix

You can read tons more of this stuff here: TMP link

The Persians and some of their subject / allied peoples included some men equipped with bows as mounted combatants vs Russia and the Ottomans.

Many had other weapons as well, some perhaps also with firearms. But the trend was for firearms to replace bows when the soldiers had familiarity with them and access to them.

I found one Persian illustration C.1806-10 of foot archers shooting at Russian cavalry. It's not clear in what context the illustration should fit – I speculated that it could easily be dismounted cavalry.

Regards

David F Brown

Out of idle curiosity, was there a Napoleonic equivalent of Mad Jack Churchill?

link

Are there not instances of black powder troops fighting troops with bows during some of the colonial squabbles?

I suppose we could extrapolate from that, unless we're using the wargaming "english get +1" approach ;)

Hiya

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the Romans can get in close enough quickly enough they are still at an initial disadvantage with the Gladius against the bayonet. Get in really close then they have an advantage. However, I don't see them ever getting that close.

>>>>>>>>>>

The Romans proved pretty good at getting the job done vs shielded and possibly armoured Masso pikemen with their much longer weapons and deeper formations.

An unshielded unarmoured man with a blade on a stick would be an easy victim for a Roman Legion. Yes, the 'boom' part of the stick is the imponderable.

David F Brown

As to Romans versus a Napoleonic division, you might look at Arther Ferrill's The Origins of War, From The Stone Age To Alexander The Great (1986) where, in the final chapter, he has Alexander facing off with British at Waterloo. He suspends, as I recall, the issue of black powder and the Macedonians to test the Macedonians in the Napoleonic environment. I will need to reread that chapter…

This is fun

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Napoleonic cavalry would also utterly trash the rag bag of horsemen the Romans liked to drag along. What are they going to do when their are horse artillery batteries firing grape into their flanks and rear

>>>>>>>>>>>

European Napoleonic cavalry did not trash non-European cavalry easily and the usual take is that individually the non-European with lances, shields, bits of armour and centuries of tradition in the saddle would win.

But the European's discipline in formation fighting would prove too much for swarming individuals.

I reckon a decent unit of Roman cataphracts would defeat a similar unit of cuirassiers.

If you're going to bring up horse artillery the Roman might counter it with a swarm of Numidians, Huns or similar to foil these with hit and run tactics and shooting at the gunners.

Shields would have provided protection against musket fire.

That's an amusing statement, to say the least. What makes you say that?

I would have thought that the energy would disperse on the shield? Distance being sufficient, musketry fire would have been much less effective than on a man "armored" with his tunique…

At 50 to 100 yards a musket ball would smash through a plywood shield.

GildasFacit

You appear to take as gospel the fairytale longbowmen as described by Shakespeare and later Hollywood. Do bear in mind that their greatest victories were rarely achieved without considerable supporting factors and sometimes stupid enemies.

I do believe that it's you who needs to read up on the subject. As for Hollywood, there are not many things they got right but the arrowstorm (A term I personally don't like) was real and did occur against the Scots, the 'French' and other British, so Shakespear was right too.

The other point is that the English combo of longbows and foot billmen was only really at its best in defence. A Napoleonic division could stand off and bombard them.

Like I said at least twice before. Show me a case where Nappy's artillery have stood off and bombarded the British with any success. The warbowmen would do like what the rest of the line did, and that was lay down behind their natural defences of reverse slopes and dead-ground.

D'Erlon's corps attacked, Ney's mass cavalry attacked and what did Jerome do? So the warbowmen 'along with the rest of the army', would be on the defensive.

.The sound and range of cannon most certainly did cause panic when they first appeared on the battlefield. At Crecy both sides had seen them before – our fictional Romans would not have done.

My interest is in the warbowmen, not Hastati.

PS.

victories were rarely achieved without considerable supporting factors and sometimes stupid enemies

How stupid were the formations of D'Erlon? Ney's throwing away his cavalry unsupported? and Jerome throwing good after failure at Hougoumont?

I reckon a decent unit of Roman cataphracts would defeat a similar unit of cuirassiers.

Didn't the Romans lack stirrups? Might be a tougher fight than expected though wearing armour would certainly help.

Man, the Codex-creep on these Warbows is off the hook! Do you think I can use my 6th Edition Longbows as proxies?

Seriously, I don't think anyone here doubts that English longbowmen, at their height, were very effective. But the reality is the longbow was long-extinct in Europe by the Napoleonic wars. So, either everyone in Europe from 1500 onwards was a fool, or there were some good reasons the longbow was abandoned. I submit that several of those good reasons are already listed in this thread.

Just answer this question:
If bows were such a super-weapon, why did everyone replace them with muskets as soon as they could?
Training is part of the answer, so is supply (musket balls and powder are a lot easier to make and supply than arrows).
Also, an arrow can be stopped by a shield or armour, and if you are hit by an arrow, you may survive. If you are hit by a musket ball, the battle is over for you.