English bowmen vs Swiss pikemen.

[Riain]

I recently read a book about the art of war in the middle ages. It stated that the Swiss pike hedgehog and the English longbow yeomen were responsible for the ending of the feudal way of warfare.

Both of these forces could defeat superior numbers of feudal heavy cavalry, but how would they fare against each other?

[CaptainAmerica]

english longbows would destroy the Swiss pikemen.... they both were good against Calvary but long bow would be able to pick them off over time

[Susano]

Terrain, terrain... its all about terrain.

The Swiss (and Landsknecht) battle formation wasnt just pikemen. It was a carefulyl arranged squares of pikemen outwards and crossbowmen inside. If theres an open field, longbows have of course by far a longer shooting range. Then again, its far easier to raise such formations then to train longbowmen, so while a troop of longbowmen will most likely destroy the swiss formations, the latter is still superior...

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

It took ten years for someone to become proficient with a longbow. Archers would often begin training as young the age of seven or eight, and a large percentage of the male population of England and Wales shared in the practice. If the Swiss Pikemen were defending their homeland, supposing the English ever wanted to invade Switzerland, they would like as not be successful.

If a brigade of Pikemen and Landsknecht fought for the French in their country during the Hundred Years War, they better choose their battles. And even then, there are far more archers in England and Wales than the Swiss can spare soldiers.

[Tyr]

Longbowmen.
Even assuming the pikemen make range a pike isn't much use against a footman, it would come down to their secondary weapons anyway. But of course thats unlikely to happen.

[Dave Howery]

well, if it's longbowmen alone vs. pikemen alone, then yeah, the archers are going to win... they shoot, move, and can outrun those pikemen anytime. Of course, neither group ever fought all alone, they were part of armies. So, what you really should ask is how an English army circa the 100 Years War would do vs. a Swiss army at the time of the classical Swiss pike blocks were formed (not sure what time frame that was). I really don't know how that would turn out. The Swiss pike formations were designed specifically to take down the Imperial cavalry, and the English were never shy about dismounting their cavalry and fighting on foot... so, how would English longbowmen/swordsmen/etc. do vs. Swiss pikes and crossbows?

[Jasen777]

Both of these forces could defeat superior numbers of feudal heavy cavalry, but how would they fare against each other?

They did not take out superior numbers of heavy cavalry except under very ideal conditions, and even then they needed help from dismounted knights (for the long bowmen), or archers of some type (for the pikemen).

[Atreus]

One thing to consider is that the english armies didn't always handle blocks of pikemen in the best way possible.

I think the english experiences against the scottish and french illustrate this point well. In france, the english cavalry could never have matched the french in numbers or quality. So the english heavy horse dismounted, and fought as heavy infantry along with real infantry to cover the longbows. This worked to stunning effect. Against the scots, however, the opposite happened. English knights had a habit of charging scottish schiltrons, and getting mauled for their trouble. The archers, while potentially decisive, were left to their own devices and forgotten.

[Earling]

One thing to consider is that the english armies didn't always handle blocks of pikemen in the best way possible.

I think the english experiences against the scottish and french illustrate this point well. In france, the english cavalry could never have matched the french in numbers or quality. So the english heavy horse dismounted, and fought as heavy infantry along with real infantry to cover the longbows. This worked to stunning effect. Against the scots, however, the opposite happened. English knights had a habit of charging scottish schiltrons, and getting mauled for their trouble. The archers, while potentially decisive, were left to their own devices and forgotten.

Kind of getting the timing wrong here. Indeed it can be argued that it was the experiences against the Scottish that formed the English strategy used in the Hundreds Year war.

It comes down to generalship, terrain, weather and ultimately fortune. If the English can carry out their prefered plan, that is establish a defensive position and hold it against an attack, then they will probably win. If however they are forced to attack the Swiss they are likely to struggle and if they are caught by surprise in bad terrain/weather they are likely to be massacred.

[Riain]

The English seemed to conjure up favourable battle conditions often enough to overcome serious mismatches. The Swiss from what I've read, were very mobile, moreso that armoured horsemen, I think they could advance through country that cavalry couldn't. So the English may not have been able to conjure up such favourable battle conditions against the Swiss.

[Dave Howery]

One thing to consider is that the english armies didn't always handle blocks of pikemen in the best way possible.

I think the english experiences against the scottish and french illustrate this point well. In france, the english cavalry could never have matched the french in numbers or quality. So the english heavy horse dismounted, and fought as heavy infantry along with real infantry to cover the longbows. This worked to stunning effect. Against the scots, however, the opposite happened. English knights had a habit of charging scottish schiltrons, and getting mauled for their trouble. The archers, while potentially decisive, were left to their own devices and forgotten.

which is odd, because, according to one of my books on medieval warfare, the rest of Europe was figuring out how to take down the pikemen by using sword and shield men; they'd use the shields to get past the pike heads, and the swords to kill the pikemen who couldn't strike back. But this was all right before guns put an end to pikes and bows and all that. Still, if that actually worked, you'd think the English would have figured it out...

[Riain]

Perhaps the dismounted English knights/men-at-arms could do what the Spanish sword and buckler men did in later times.

[Archdevil]

Armies containing both types of units fought during the wars of Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy. His army contained English longbowmen and went up against Swiss armies. The Swiss won every battle.

Maybe that's not so surprising. The heydey of the longbowmen was in the early and middle part of the Hundred Year's War, but by the end, French armies generally consisting of Italian mercenaries and regular troops and not the impetious noble knights that could not follow a battle plan if their lives depended on it, and that's literally. This new type of army, also supported by early artillery, made short work of English armies in the latter part of the war.

The Swiss pikemen on the other hand, would experience at least another century of dominace in European warfare.

[Wozza]

well, if it's longbowmen alone vs. pikemen alone, then yeah, the archers are going to win... they shoot, move, and can outrun those pikemen anytime. Of course, neither group ever fought all alone, they were part of armies. So, what you really should ask is how an English army circa the 100 Years War would do vs. a Swiss army at the time of the classical Swiss pike blocks were formed (not sure what time frame that was). I really don't know how that would turn out. The Swiss pike formations were designed specifically to take down the Imperial cavalry, and the English were never shy about dismounting their cavalry and fighting on foot... so, how would English longbowmen/swordsmen/etc. do vs. Swiss pikes and crossbows?


Sir John Hawkwood passed through Switzerland on the way to Italy. I think he went pretty much where he pleased and nobody was able to stop him.

Is this thread a reference to Charles Oman's books? Great work of course but there is more up to date material out there.

[Riain]

Yeah, I came across it last week. He has a lot of good things to say about the Byzantines, so of course I couldn't help but like him, I'm easily led. He did take in a broad look, something that is rare these days as exports learn more and more about less and less.

[trajen777]

The English longbow was mostly used in a defensive arangment with unhorsed cavalary in as the stiffening factor. Under this arrangement it was very powerful, the French made this very effective by blindly attcking on a narrow front head on.

The pike was used by the Swiss as an offensive force. So the wepon system that was incorporterated with these AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WAS LEADERSHIP.

AS stated above Charles the Bold had a very good concept, combined arms - Pike - Arqubus - cannon - long bow - Horse. The problem is he did not cope with the speed or elan of the Swiss.

[fhaessig]

It comes down to generalship, terrain, weather and ultimately fortune. If the English can carry out their prefered plan, that is establish a defensive position and hold it against an attack, then they will probably win. .

Yet the English didn't always win when they followed that tactics, even against the french. Exemples of that are Cocherel and Patay, where the english ( well, english-Navarre army, but with English bowmen in the first case ), were crushed by the french, despite trying to use exactly the tactic you describe. There are other cases.

Toward the end of the 100y war, the french had devellopped ways to deal successfully with the english bowmen ( if not, the english would have won ). That didn't work against Swiss pikemen.

[Earling]

Yet the English didn't always win when they followed that tactics, even against the french. Exemples of that are Cocherel and Patay, where the english ( well, english-Navarre army, but with English bowmen in the first case ), were crushed by the french, despite trying to use exactly the tactic you describe. There are other cases.

Toward the end of the 100y war, the french had devellopped ways to deal successfully with the english bowmen ( if not, the english would have won ). That didn't work against Swiss pikemen.

I don't know about the battle of Cocherel, but I struggle to see how you can conclude that about Patay. The entire premise being that in that instance the English archers did not get sufficient time to establish their defensive position and upon being attacked unprepared were routed and slaughtered. As I said above, generalship is ultimately what counts, so its quite possible the English had a bad leader at Cocherel. The key to all medieval warfare is forcing the opponent to rout, and it is there that you will truely gain a victory. I certainly think the case can be made the English suffered a want of leadership (and thus moral) in the later portion of the 100 years war. It might also be said that once armies started having reasonable levels of artillery defending lines of stakes in depth with archers was no longer a terribly viable strategy.

Regardless, the English were becoming increasingly shambolic with civil disorder rather undermining the capacity for the king to be active abroad. In part I think this was due to a decline in the quality of kings, with few living up to the standard of Edward III. Henry V might have gone on to be great, but he died to soon.

[fhaessig]

I don't know about the battle of Cocherel, but I struggle to see how you can conclude that about Patay. The entire premise being that in that instance the English archers did not get sufficient time to establish their defensive position and upon being attacked unprepared were routed and slaughtered. As I said above, generalship is ultimately what counts, so its quite possible the English had a bad leader at Cocherel.

AT Cocherel? Captal de Buch.

The English were lured out of their defences by a feigned retreat. ( shades of Hastings? )

AT Patay, the point is that the french didn't give the English the time to finish establishing their defence, by forcing the english to manauver and then attack before the english had readied a new position ( with just the foreguard, that was enough ).

You can also look at Formigny, if you want.

The point is the french devellopped ways to deal with english bowmen. It just didn't involved rushing headlong into massive arrowflights launched from fortifications on hilltops.

Your PoV is that the English had bad leadership by the end of the 100 y war. Mine is that the french had only execrable ones BEFORE Bertrand Dugueslin and that as soon as the french had decent leadership, the english archers were not a sure battle winner.

[jacobus]

Because the longbow is a distance weapon, the Welsh longbowmen would have the advantage over the Swiss pikemen, I think.
I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but has anyone else ever wondered why Europeans never really mastered mounted archery, the way other cultures did?

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Because Asian cavalry had composite bows, which are shorter but more powerful than yew-made longbows,which were best used while one was standing on solid ground. Composite bows were made of horn, sinew, hide glue, with the centre made from carved wood. Silk and hickory, and in some cases bamboo, have also been cited as possible materials in the bow's construction. These bows individually took years to make, and even today there are specialists in China and Mongolia who follow a family tradition in regard to the bow's manufacture. Reasons that they weren't adopted in Europe, was that the generally wet climate could cause rapid deterioration, and perhaps certain materials may not have been readily available in Europe. So if say the Mongols had actually tried to invade Europe beyond Hungary, they might have had to send word back to Mongolia on a regular basis for replacement bows, which may exceed the Asian bowyers normal output.

Yew-made Longbows may not be as powerful as the Asian bow, but the availability of the material, and the shorter time needed to make them gives them a homefield advantage.

[Redbeard]

I only have superficial knowledge of medieval warfare, so please excuse me if this appear a tad simplyfied, but it appears to me like the big overriding example of the excellence of the longbow is Agincourt - that battle is again and again put forward. Not necessarily on this board, but more in general.

But from my knowledge of Agincourt, the result would not have been much different, if the English line had only been armed with beer mugs and cutlery. The main problem of the French was extreme congestion and difficult (muddy) terrain, which the English utilised for a coup d'grace on the immobilised knights in the mud. Cutlery would have been just fine here - I don't know what to use the beer mugs for, but at least they are consistent with my image of English in numbers abroad :D

I can sure see how a body of (very) well-trained and fast-shooting men with longbows would be handy in any army, but also how vulnerable they would be if an enemy is allowed, perhaps due to terrain, to close in. Next longbows seem to precondition a defensive tactical deployment. What if the enemy needs to be dislodged front some point and understand some basic principles of active defense (like preparing the option of counterattacking in the flank a long bow force sent forward to put his main force/bait under fire)?

All in all the long bow appear excellent in some situations and mediocre to bad in others, while the swiss pikemen perhaps would be more jacks of all trades.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[The Dean]

I don't know what to use the beer mugs for, but at least they are consistent with my image of English in numbers abroad :D

You should see the ingenious ways a beer mug can be used as a weapon.:cool:

[stevep]

Because Asian cavalry had composite bows, which are shorter but more powerful than yew-made longbows,which were best used while one was standing on solid ground. Composite bows were made of horn, sinew, hide glue, with the centre made from carved wood. Silk and hickory, and in some cases bamboo, have also been cited as possible materials in the bow's construction. These bows individually took years to make, and even today there are specialists in China and Mongolia who follow a family tradition in regard to the bow's manufacture. Reasons that they weren't adopted in Europe, was that the generally wet climate could cause rapid deterioration, and perhaps certain materials may not have been readily available in Europe. So if say the Mongols had actually tried to invade Europe beyond Hungary, they might have had to send word back to Mongolia on a regular basis for replacement bows, which may exceed the Asian bowyers normal output.

Yew-made Longbows may not be as powerful as the Asian bow, but the availability of the material, and the shorter time needed to make them gives them a homefield advantage.

Lysandros

Is the longbow actually less powerful than the composite bow? Surely the propulsive power in the arrow comes from the archer not the bow? The composite bow might be more efficient in storing the energy, enabling a smaller bow being used but it seems odd more it to be more powerful. Especially considered how deformed some of the latter English archers were with their upper body strength and the fact they could brace themselves while the horse archer could only use his upper body strength while also having to concentrate on handling his mount?

Or am I mis-understanding things totally?

Steve

[Nikephoros]

-snip-

Another factor is the English Knights. During that campaign, the English Knights were forced to fight on foot. They would certainly have carried equipment that would be good against Cavalry.

Also, archers were used in European armies mostly for the purpose of harassment. While Welsh/English longbows had WAY more power than a regular bow, I imagine that they had a similar use.

Just my two cents, and my knowledge of medieval warfare isn't that great either.

[Nikephoros]

Lysandros

Is the longbow actually less powerful than the composite bow? Surely the propulsive power in the arrow comes from the archer not the bow? The composite bow might be more efficient in storing the energy, enabling a smaller bow being used but it seems odd more it to be more powerful. Especially considered how deformed some of the latter English archers were with their upper body strength and the fact they could brace themselves while the horse archer could only use his upper body strength while also having to concentrate on handling his mount?

Or am I mis-understanding things totally?

Steve

I am not sure, but I remember reading somewhere that most tests showed that the Mongol bows were superior to longbows.

[Tyr]

Lysandros

Is the longbow actually less powerful than the composite bow? Surely the propulsive power in the arrow comes from the archer not the bow? The composite bow might be more efficient in storing the energy, enabling a smaller bow being used but it seems odd more it to be more powerful. Especially considered how deformed some of the latter English archers were with their upper body strength and the fact they could brace themselves while the horse archer could only use his upper body strength while also having to concentrate on handling his mount?

Or am I mis-understanding things totally?

Steve

I'd imagine there's something in that, you can certainly put more power behind your arrow if thats all you're concentrating on.
But then to consider is that the bowman on the horse will already be travelling at a high speed which will be added to the arrow....
WE NEED A PHYSICIST STAT :P

[OneUp]

I thought we concluded this already...that in a well balanced army swiss win...

[Riain]

There is more than one way to fight a medival war, no matter what sort of army you command. It was the willingness of the French chivalry to accept battle with the English whose defensive tactics were well suited to desrtoying such charges that was the problem. Apparently after a few such floggings the French forted up and left the English without battle, thus without the chance for victory. After a while the French forgot about their earlier floggings and come out again, so we have Agincourt.

IIRC this was similar to the Swiss, but the Swiss could force a battle more readily since they weren't so dependent on terrain etc to funnel knights into a killing feild as the English, and were more mobile in battle formation.

[Susano]

Well, I think the definitive argument is the comparision between how widespread teh Landsknecht formation became in the early modern age, and how the long bow died out ;)

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Lysandros

Is the longbow actually less powerful than the composite bow? Surely the propulsive power in the arrow comes from the archer not the bow? The composite bow might be more efficient in storing the energy, enabling a smaller bow being used but it seems odd more it to be more powerful. Especially considered how deformed some of the latter English archers were with their upper body strength and the fact they could brace themselves while the horse archer could only use his upper body strength while also having to concentrate on handling his mount?

Or am I mis-understanding things totally?

Steve

The Longbow is a type of "self bow" meaning that its constructed from a single piece of wood.

The Composite Bow, so called because its constructed from different materials, is often curved inward with the edges tapered outward. It's recurved design makes it easier to use on horseback, and it's greater weight in comparison to the yew longbow gives it greater drawing power, while the Longbowmen have to use most of their strengh to draw the arrow and string back. The recurved bow's greater drawing power, and that they are best employed when on horseback, means that it can often outrange the arrows drawn from a yew-made longbow.

However, composite bows are vulnerable to moisture, and were often protected by bark wrap, leather, silk, and even shark-skin.

[OneUp]

The Japanese had Composite-Longbows :p

[larpsidekick]

Probably the best comparison would be wars of the roses, where longbows were used on both sides along with infantry wielding pole weapons. Only in very rare circumstances (Totown) was archery the decisive factor in the battle. Probably bad news for the archers against the pikemen.

[larpsidekick]

Another factor is the English Knights. During that campaign, the English Knights were forced to fight on foot. They would certainly have carried equipment that would be good against Cavalry.

Also, archers were used in European armies mostly for the purpose of harassment. While Welsh/English longbows had WAY more power than a regular bow, I imagine that they had a similar use.

Just my two cents, and my knowledge of medieval warfare isn't that great either.

The longbow was the battle winning weapon in the armies of England throughout the reigns of Edward III, IV, Richard II and Henry V, with ratios of between 3:1 and 6:1 of archers to men at arms - the closest you got to harassement was towards the end of the period where the best armour could keep out a longbow arrow, and the key affect of the massed archers was to force an enemy force together through the force of the arrow storm hitting them - possibly 60,000 arrows per minute at Agincourt - so hindering their ability to easily fight the men at arms and archers in close combat. The men at arms (what most people think of as knights) did play a key part in the battles, but the archers were what allowed smaller English forces to defeat larger continental ones.

[carlton_bach]

The Longbow is a type of "self bow" meaning that its constructed from a single piece of wood.

The Composite Bow, so called because its constructed from different materials, is often curved inward with the edges tapered outward. It's recurved design makes it easier to use on horseback, and it's greater weight in comparison to the yew longbow gives it greater drawing power, while the Longbowmen have to use most of their strengh to draw the arrow and string back. The recurved bow's greater drawing power, and that they are best employed when on horseback, means that it can often outrange the arrows drawn from a yew-made longbow.

However, composite bows are vulnerable to moisture, and were often protected by bark wrap, leather, silk, and even shark-skin.

It's not so much to do with the power as the size you can get it out of. Composite bows can have greater punch than self bows, but it only becomes relevant at strengths no human can draw. You can make a longbow pulling hundreds of pounds with no problem, except that it would be unuseable.

the big advantage of composite bows is that you can put the strength into a shorter bow. I suck at ASCII art, so I'll try to explain. basically, draw length is a constant. Your arrow goes from the outstretched hand to your body. The differences (drawing to the chest, the chin, the ear or the off shoulder) are fairly trivial. That means your bow has to flex far enough to accommodate that length. A selfbow of great draw weight needs to become longer because it is stiff. A long bow can accommodate an arrow length despite the short distance its ends bend. A composite bow can be built to be more deeply curved from the start (you could technically do that with a selfbow, too, but good luck finding heartwood that grows like that). It can also be given inflexible 'ears' at the ends that provide leverage to aid the draw and give the string extra draw length, so the flexible parts of the bow can be short and still accommodate a full arrow length. As a result, a reasonable say 60lb-80lb selfbow isn't easy to handle on horseback.

None of that explains why Western Europe didn't develop a mountzed archery tradition, though. You can shoot a longbow from the saddle, it just takes practice. Japanese bows have the same problem as European ones, and the solution they adopted was developing a 'lopsided' longbow of unequal top and bottom arm length - that's possible, too (though very Japanese since it takes effort to ridiculous lengths). And Europeans knew how to make composite bows (Eastern Europe had a native tradition of horse archery using them). They just never made it to any great extent in the West.

[Earling]

I have always been slightly suspect on the statement that smaller cavalry bows could outrange longbows. It gets put out enough so I assume someone somewhere has infact tested it, but on the otherhand its the internet so who knows. It just seems to contradict common sense.

Why the west never adopted horse cavalry to any great extent is an interesting question. I suspect its a cultural and cost thing, akin to why longbows were not more prevalent. You need people not only to train at archery, which is relatively intensive, but also at riding, which means you need plenty of horses, and then you need enough people to have had enough with this training to be able to have a significant number on a battlefield.

At the danger of being wrong, I would be tempted to offer a theory that in truth archery, whether on foot or on horse, just wasn't that effective. By effective I mean it didn't actually kill that many people. Certainly the bulk of the casualties incurred by the French in the three big English victories (Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt) were taken in hand to hand followed by those suffered in the rout (which it seems is where a good 75% of all medieval casualties come from, if the other side is not put to flight then casualties are usually much lower). With horse cavalry it seems usually a case of tiring out or luring a force out of position, only to ambush and slaughter it in a rout.

[carlton_bach]

I have always been slightly suspect on the statement that smaller cavalry bows could outrange longbows. It gets put out enough so I assume someone somewhere has infact tested it, but on the otherhand its the internet so who knows. It just seems to contradict common sense.


The data is pretty good, actually. Archery range contests were a common Ottoman pastime, and the equipment optimised for range pushed the half-mile point. Longbows, on the other hand, never got more than half that even when going for range. Of course, that doesn't apply to the standard war arrow in either case, but that's another story. Horse archery isn't optimised for range but for speed. Neither are longbows, they seem to have been primarly designed for punch. About actual engagement ranges we know very little, but it appears from a Mamluk manuscript that hitting a 'normal' (presumably something like torso-sized) target at 80 yards reliably was considered minimum competence to be a useful archer while English sources repeat the tale of hitting a 'reed' at 200 yards as the skill level required for admission to the archer guards (which presumably were the most highly skilled). We need to be very cautious about the longbow stories since most of the sources come from after the weapon fell out of use and were collected by those who deplored that development.


Why the west never adopted horse cavalry to any great extent is an interesting question. I suspect its a cultural and cost thing, akin to why longbows were not more prevalent. You need people not only to train at archery, which is relatively intensive, but also at riding, which means you need plenty of horses, and then you need enough people to have had enough with this training to be able to have a significant number on a battlefield.

At the danger of being wrong, I would be tempted to offer a theory that in truth archery, whether on foot or on horse, just wasn't that effective. By effective I mean it didn't actually kill that many people. Certainly the bulk of the casualties incurred by the French in the three big English victories (Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt) were taken in hand to hand followed by those suffered in the rout (which it seems is where a good 75% of all medieval casualties come from, if the other side is not put to flight then casualties are usually much lower). With horse cavalry it seems usually a case of tiring out or luring a force out of position, only to ambush and slaughter it in a rout.

It's the kind of question that roleplaying forums thrive on, and I've been in it more times than I care to admit. My theory is that Europe didn't have a ready source of men trained in this skill and the only reserve of men who could invest in military training to the required degree - the military aristocracy - were unwilling for social reasons to train as horse archers. Note, though, that its effectiveness seems to be acknowledged by most contemporaries. As late as the 14th century, German princes (whoi had the choice of crossbowmen, foot archers and gunners) hired Cuman horse archers as mercenaries. that left Europe with a native tradition of foot archery (which was used in war heavily) and an eternal quest to solve the problem of combining mobility and firepower. The Islamic world took a different approach by adopting horse archery as a core element of military training after 1000. There's no technical reason Europe couldn't have done the same.

[Flocculencio]

Well, I think the definitive argument is the comparision between how widespread teh Landsknecht formation became in the early modern age, and how the long bow died out ;)

That's surely more of an ease of training factor, though? If my pikemen get slaughtered I can always go train up some more but if a longbowman dies, it takes years to grow a new one.

[Susano]

That's surely more of an ease of training factor, though? If my pikemen get slaughtered I can always go train up some more but if a longbowman dies, it takes years to grow a new one.

Of course. But surely that IS a strength of the Swiss system, isnt it?

[larpsidekick]

I have always been slightly suspect on the statement that smaller cavalry bows could outrange longbows. It gets put out enough so I assume someone somewhere has infact tested it, but on the otherhand its the internet so who knows. It just seems to contradict common sense.

Why the west never adopted horse cavalry to any great extent is an interesting question. I suspect its a cultural and cost thing, akin to why longbows were not more prevalent. You need people not only to train at archery, which is relatively intensive, but also at riding, which means you need plenty of horses, and then you need enough people to have had enough with this training to be able to have a significant number on a battlefield.

At the danger of being wrong, I would be tempted to offer a theory that in truth archery, whether on foot or on horse, just wasn't that effective. By effective I mean it didn't actually kill that many people. Certainly the bulk of the casualties incurred by the French in the three big English victories (Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt) were taken in hand to hand followed by those suffered in the rout (which it seems is where a good 75% of all medieval casualties come from, if the other side is not put to flight then casualties are usually much lower). With horse cavalry it seems usually a case of tiring out or luring a force out of position, only to ambush and slaughter it in a rout.

That the casualties are caused in the rout means you have to cause the enemy to rout - the archers were vital in this. While the bow casused more casualties in the early battles (due to poorer armour), it forced the enemy into a formation that was inefficient in combat - thus allowing the numericaaly inferior English to triumph. In each battle (and in many others of the C14th and early C15th), the longbow was the only reason the English won. Sounds pretty effective to me.

[The Lurker]

I think it would in large part depend on terrain and leadership.... you have to pick your battles based on the troops you have. Leadership and quality matters too- good pikemen under a good leader might win in a situation where you would expect the archers to prevail. Lousy archers under a lousy leader could probably lose on a winning hand.

In an open field with clear shooting and no way to outflank the archers-- say like Agincourt-- the English would certainly inflict severe losses on the Swiss, but it's an open question on whether that would actually stop the Swiss like it did the French, who were less mobile, less organized, and poorly-led. After all, the Swiss plowed right through a lot of Burgundian firepower (archers, crossbows and artillery) at Morat and went on to rout the Burgundian army. EVen when heavily outnumbered and under heavy missile fire, like Arbedo and St. Jacob an der Birs, the Swiss took a lot of work to kill.

In different terrain and a different tactical environment-- for example, Formigny, Castillion, or Laupen. Agincourt, Crecy, etc. were pretty much perfect tactical situations from an archer's point of view-- not much to do but shoot straight from prepared positions. If you ask archers to attack an enemy's prepared position (e.g. Castillion, which the English lost), or expect them to react to a surprise attack while on the move or fight in hilly terrain (Laupen, where the Swiss ambushed the Habsburgs), you get different results.

At Grandson, for example, Charles the Bold was trying much what the English managed against the Scots at Falkirk and Pinkie-- use charging horsemen to keep the pikemen in a static defensive position while the missile troops got in their shooting at a stationary target. The difference is, the Burgundians couldn't pull it off.

The other thing is, most of the 'vs' examples here are pitched battles-- consider also how the same troops would have performed in chevauchees, skirmishes, or sieges. The Swiss troops weren't just pikemen-- they included lots of archers, crossbowmen, handgunners, etc.

On a man-for-man basis, the Swiss were probably more of a bargain-- easier to train, equip, and so on.

FWIW, Oman's stuff is quite outdated by now. Check out Kelly DeVries' "Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century" or John Keegan's "The Face of Battle" for something more recent.

Also, I think the whole pikes-and-bows-destroyed-cavalry thing is a bit exaggerated. The first major victory with longbows was in the late 1200s. The first big victory involving pikes was in 1302 (Courtrai). Two hundred years after Courtrai, armored horsemen were still the most important part of an army.

[Nikephoros]

Also, I remember a discussion about the Macedonian phalanx, and it said that a wall of spears is pretty effective against missiles.

[The Lurker]

Also, I remember a discussion about the Macedonian phalanx, and it said that a wall of spears is pretty effective against missiles.

Yeah, something to do with the pikeshafts deflecting missiles coming in from above.

[Exscolari]

I recently read a book about the art of war in the middle ages. It stated that the Swiss pike hedgehog and the English longbow yeomen were responsible for the ending of the feudal way of warfare.

Both of these forces could defeat superior numbers of feudal heavy cavalry, but how would they fare against each other?...


Sir John Hawkwood passed through Switzerland on the way to Italy. I think he went pretty much where he pleased and nobody was able to stop him.


The Swiss never attempted to block Hawkwood’s path, presumably because they never assembled a large enough force in time to engage him; he didn’t linger. However, I remember, as a boy in Switzerland; being shown the ‘Hill of the English’. This was allegedly the spot on which a smaller company of English Free Companions, who had invaded the valley to plunder, was brought to bay and slaughtered by the Swiss.

This of course, was a small engagement. The only larger battle where the two systems clashed head on was at Stoke Field 16 June 1487. Here the forces of Henry VII destroyed those of Lambert Simnel a pretender to the throne. Henry’s forces were typical of English armies at the end of the Wars of the Roses; a mix of knights, longbowmen and billmen. Simnel’s force had at its centre, 4,000 Continental Mercenaries, including Germans, Flemings and Swiss, led by Martin Schwarz a renowned Mercenary Captain.

The best accounts of the battle I have found are at:
http://www.richard111.com/stoke1.htm (http://www.richard111.com/stoke1.htm)
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/the_battle_of_stoke.htm (http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/the_battle_of_stoke.htm)

[RGB]

Epic resurrection.

I'd also agree that the longbow by itself is nothing magical. Depolyed right, it beat Simnel and the Scots, deployed wrong, it got slaughtered by the Swiss.

Deployment and the state of the army as a whole matters a lot more.

[Flubber]

The Swiss never attempted to block Hawkwood’s path...

They blocked his path because he never went through Switzerland.

Hawkwood was elected to command of the White Company after it had already been in Italy for years. The company had been raised by a German from the usual odds and sods floating around Europe thanks to the nearly endemic warfare of the period. After accepting command, Hawkwood only worked in Italy.

Wow... nearly 4 years... I guess CalBear will be locking this one once he spots it.

[Exscolari]

They blocked his path because he never went through Switzerland.

[/FONT][/SIZE]

I think the point about Stoke Field is that the longbows failed to stop the pikes. The only mention of them in battle is that they slaughtered the Irish kerns, who made up the main contingent of the ‘Yorkist’ army. The kerns were largely unarmoured and easy meat for the longbowmen; Martin Schwarz mercenaries on the other hand, were well equipped and heavily armoured. The Royalist casualties, at over 2,000 men attest to the fact that the mercenaries came to hand blows with the King’s vanguard under Oxford and were only driven back when the main body came up to support them. Schwarz and Lincoln, the senior Yorkist commander were both killed in the battle.

By this time the longbow was not the major arm of English Armies, they were a combined arms force of Knights and Men at Arms, bill men and archers. The longbow was declining in importance and popularity, due to its failure to penetrate steel armour, which was becoming increasingly the norm.

I acknowledge the point about Hawkwood, I only recall that I had no memory of him fighting anyone in Switzerland.