AHC/PC: French Longbow?

Under what circumstances could France obtain a class of master laymen longbow archers in time for Henry V's campaign in Normandy?
Is this even possible, given the historical dominance of heavy calvary for several hundred years prior to Agincourt?
 
To have skilled longbowmen, there needs to be a class of people that can't afford to be cavalry, yet have the time and to practice--AND that won't have reason to get rid of the nobles.
 
The French OTL had longbowmen, and plenty of them. This included the "Franc archers", a sort of reserve army where each parish was expected to recruit and equip an archer, as well as large numbers of mounted archers in the standing ordonnance companies. These longbowmen actually outnumbered the men-at-arms. However, this was only in the latest stages of the war.
Before that, they had 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard at Agincourt, though they were ineffective due to being deployed behind the main body, and their lack of armour.
They also made extensive use of Genoese and Spanish crossbow mercenaries, who if equipped with pavises to cover them while they reloaded could have been much more effective. At Crecy, where they were infamously slaughtered, they were forced to advance with wet strings and no pavises.

To have skilled longbowmen, there needs to be a class of people that can't afford to be cavalry, yet have the time and to practice--AND that won't have reason to get rid of the nobles.
Plenty of archers, both English and French, had horses and could serve as light cavalry if need be. Indeed, the French mounted archers were often minor nobles who couldn't afford the extensive equipment of a full man-at-arms.
Basically, what you need to change with the hundred years war French is not the equipment, but the tactics. They had a very formidable military system that was often used in a moronic way.
 
The French OTL had longbowmen, and plenty of them. This included the "Franc archers", a sort of reserve army where each parish was expected to recruit and equip an archer, as well as large numbers of mounted archers in the standing ordonnance companies. These longbowmen actually outnumbered the men-at-arms. However, this was only in the latest stages of the war.
Before that, they had 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard at Agincourt, though they were ineffective due to being deployed behind the main body, and their lack of armour.
They also made extensive use of Genoese and Spanish crossbow mercenaries, who if equipped with pavises to cover them while they reloaded could have been much more effective. At Crecy, where they were infamously slaughtered, they were forced to advance with wet strings and no pavises.


Plenty of archers, both English and French, had horses and could serve as light cavalry if need be. Indeed, the French mounted archers were often minor nobles who couldn't afford the extensive equipment of a full man-at-arms.
Basically, what you need to change with the hundred years war French is not the equipment, but the tactics. They had a very formidable military system that was often used in a moronic way.

There's a huge difference between 'archers' in general, and English longbowmen. The English practiced so much with such strong bows that their skeletons were deformed. I have never heard of any archæological evidence for that occurring in France.
 
There's a huge difference between 'archers' in general, and English longbowmen. The English practiced so much with such strong bows that their skeletons were deformed. I have never heard of any archæological evidence for that occurring in France.
The English were noted by contemporaries for pulling larger bows than their neighbours, and used a different drawing technique. However, they were still considered fundamentally the same, just better trained and more numerous, than their continental counterparts. The word longbow didn't even exist until the 16th century.

As to skeletons, the skeletal finds of English longbowmen were at Towton and the Mary Rose. To the best of my knowledge, there are no similar archaeological finds of large numbers of well preserved French soldiers to compare them to. Similar skeletal injuries were found on a study of Canadian sports archers pulling 45 IB bows. It's not down to the strength of the bow, but the constant training and having to shoot dozens of times a day in competition or combat.
See here for a more detailed explanation.
 
Top