Longbows in the Penisular campaign

[Fellatio Nelson]

Much the same reason why only a small % of the British Army carried the Baker Rifle, even though it was far more accurate.

i) They were (relatively) expensive to build.

ii) The training required was more extensive, if they were to use them effectively.

iii) They were far slower to reload and more prone to fouling after a few shots.

Battles were won and lost by large numbers of men at close quarters where muskets were best and the key benefit of the Baker (range and accuracy) would've counted for very little.

 

[Petike]

I'm really happy, that this topic was brought up in this thread. I read an interesting article a few years ago about the history of the longbow, which included some musings on it's possible use during the Napoleonic era - it was generally very close to what all of you mentioned up till now. The bottom line of the whole thought experiment sounded something like this :

Longbows would be useful mainly after the enemy troops fired a musket volley and needed to reload (which took at least 15 - 30 seconds at the time).

Because musket volleys of the time created large clouds of smoke, the longbow would also be useful for barraging the adversary with arrows, if the smoke would have reduced the visibility of the battlefield for both friendly and enemy riflemen and made them unable to aim.


All in all, I agree with most of you on the fact, that the artillery of the day and more specialized irregular-warfare riflemen would have been the biggest threat for the resurrected British longbowmen. The number of these archer troops would have to be high enough as well, so they could possibly deal any significant damage to the reloading enemy musketeers.

 

[Petike]

Which, again adds even more training time to your troops since the pikemen now have to be drilled in very precise maneuvers to cover the longbowmen. As Fell points out, the advantage of musketmen is that they may not be as great at ranged fire as longbowmen, nor as impenetrable on defence as a line of pikes but they can do both jobs well enough without the problems of crosstraining differently armed people to work in precision with each other.

Basically, your idea just adds more potential for people to screw up- usually it's the simplest ideas which work the best. Quality certainly matters but simplicity matters more. If the pikes are caught wrong-footed and the French lancers come howling out of the smoke on the other flank your mixed formation is buggered where a musket battalion would have a fighting chance.

Wouldn't it be easier to use musketeers with bayonets as a simple substitute for the pikemen guarding the archers ?

 

[Flocculencio]

Wouldn't it be easier to use musketeers with bayonets as a simple substitute for the pikemen guarding the archers ?

That's a good point but it still means that said musketeers will be tied down babysitting longbowmen and going through complex maneuvers with them.

Basically my point is that while longbowmen could be dangerous on the battlefield their advantages are outweighed by their expense and, more importantly, there's no way to train them en masse.

 

[corditeman]

Very intrigued, but think there may be a practical possibility if foot-bow archers were used. In effect, turning themselves (lying down) into a massive crossbow powered by the leg-muscles. A mile in three flights was possible. It would be like a corps of Roman carroballistae, able to shoot through several at a go. Remember that the Greenjackets (Riflemen) used to fire and reload from a prone position.

 

[RCTFI]

Very intrigued, but think there may be a practical possibility if foot-bow archers were used. In effect, turning themselves (lying down) into a massive crossbow powered by the leg-muscles. A mile in three flights was possible. It would be like a corps of Roman carroballistae, able to shoot through several at a go. Remember that the Greenjackets (Riflemen) used to fire and reload from a prone position.

My God, that image is just... so very, very, right. Excellent!

I can just see the (tightly packed, perfect target) French collumn advancing, only to find itself under fire from a few dozen of those... hm, I just had a thought, something about the idea of having those belly-bows mounted on horsep-drawn carts, used in a role like the horse artillery, perhaps protected by cavalry. A few dozen, fighting with hit-and-run tactics... totally impractical, of course, but the concept just seemed so cool when it came to me from the blue.

(Actually, now that I think about it, I think that the mobile ballistaii from Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion had something to do with my sudden mental image, come to think of it.)

 

[burmafrd]

I think you are making it more complicated then it needs to be. Flocculencio. You talk about precise maneuvers- the kind of actions needed were no more complicated then the standard movements of the time. So what if they need another month or so of drilling- which is all you would need. I recall that many of your comments were used at the same time as Cromwell was building his new model army (too complicated, too much chance for confusion, etc).

 

[67th Tigers]

I think you are making it more complicated then it needs to be. Flocculencio. You talk about precise maneuvers- the kind of actions needed were no more complicated then the standard movements of the time. So what if they need another month or so of drilling- which is all you would need. I recall that many of your comments were used at the same time as Cromwell was building his new model army (too complicated, too much chance for confusion, etc).

It took two years to produce a green soldier for the rank and file under the British system of training. That's with muskets. Add years on for longbow training....

 

[Broz]

the constant problem with longbows is the manny times mentioned time and energy it takes to train a good longbowmen, as oposed to crosbowmen or musketeer

but i dont understand why concentrate on longbows, longbows were the equivalent of high calibre rifles, desined to take out heawily armoured horsemen, send arrows trough plates of steal at ower a hundred meters, using them on unarmoured napoleonic era troops would be like shooting rabbits with 12.4 calibre machinegun

there are bows, short bows, composite bows, surely the combined carpenters, metalurgists and chemists of the 1800eds could develop a cheap and effective composite bow, that, while lacking the force of the longbow, could still penetrate cloth and flesh
ewen with a range equal to the contemporary musket it could compete simply by superior volume of fire, not to mention arrows could be treated chemically to increase effect, or wrapped in cloth and oil and set on fire, or ewen have small explosive devices atached
another plus is they could shoot arrows in arc, so they could hit behind obstacles or ower friendly formations

this could be a specialised unit, trained in concentrated fire, they wouldnt even have to be specially trained in acuracy, it would be enough they send all the arrows in the same 10 meters square area
they could be affective as support for standard units

and to train someone to use a composite bow cannot take more than a couple of months, drilling people to move in formations and discipline would probbably take more time

still it seems more practical to equip a smaller unit of specially trained troops with composite bows and poison arrows to use on night raids in hit and run tactics, to take out the enemy officers and ruin moral

but it wouldnt be so strange to actually find a record of such or similar units existing, or bows being generaly used in these times, crossbows were used, as well as slings, and special units existed armed with airguns

 

[Tobit]

Why not just introduce Mongolian Horse Archers to napoleonic warfare? The common knowledge suggests that they were like a modern army interms of mobility and organization. Wouldn't they just pound a napoleonic army?

Now of course this cannot be entirely true, this is a bit tounge in cheek. If we are asking about longbowmen what other ancient military techniques could be applied?

resurrected elephant corps? spartans?!? Greek Fire? testudo? sling armed skirmishers?

 

[kellineil]

Greek fire would be good, but then what we know of it suggests it was a primitive form of Napalm

Maybe we could equip fighters with lances in WW1? knights of the air and all that

or am i just getting absurd now?

 

[Broz]

all this still does not explain why some form of bow was not used
in anny function, as a silent weapon, nightime guerrila attacks, a way to confuse formations, support for friendly units...

it just seems so simple and efective, get 50 disposable men with composite bows along with some 30/40 iregural troops with muskets against a formation of even a few hundred, they can pump them full of arrows before the officers even figure out whats happening and order concentrated fire, wich hits maybe 10 people, then pump them full of arrows again before they reload, then gett the hell out of range

they dont do much damage in terms of kills, but they confuse, scare, divert fire, take out at least a few dosen men with serious wounds to arms, legs and face, and if the arrows are treated with some toxin, not even necesarily lethal, enough that it just makes life seriously unplesant for the next 24 hours, they can have great effect on enemy moral, as well as take more soldiers out of the fight, at least for some time (im guessing its hard to reload a musket when the skin on your arm feels like its burning)
but afcourse hat would be considered impolite i guess

probbably you could get a similar effect with firearms, like the chausers, pandurs and other units specialised in hit and run used to do, but this way you can get it cheaper, and simply fire more arrows than you could fire bullets at the same time

olnly thing that might plausably explain the complete absence of bows is calvary
bowmen dont realy stand well against calvary

 

[Redbeard]

Why not just introduce Mongolian Horse Archers to napoleonic warfare? The common knowledge suggests that they were like a modern army interms of mobility and organization. Wouldn't they just pound a napoleonic army?

Now of course this cannot be entirely true, this is a bit tounge in cheek. If we are asking about longbowmen what other ancient military techniques could be applied?

resurrected elephant corps? spartans?!? Greek Fire? testudo? sling armed skirmishers?

Tha Bashkirs used by the Russians were not far from Mongolian Horsearchers - and made little impression on the French. The Bashkirs probably were tactically much more primitive than the Mongolians, but typical light cavalry from the Napoleonic area would be a very dangeous adversary for any horsearchers, and the horsearchers wouldn't offer much that the already obsolete caracole cavalry couldn't offer.

Next training a good horsearcher will take at least as long as a longbowman.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[arctic warrior]

It took two years to produce a green soldier for the rank and file under the British system of training. That's with muskets. Add years on for longbow training....

Being trained to handle a musket might take a few weeks I guess - being trained a soldier able to understand commands and do the required stuff the right way takes a lot longer.
With the elaborate formations used pre-French conscript army a two year training period is understandable.

As I read conscription forced the French army to rely on column and ordre-mixte formations as those was easier for green recruits to handle.

 

[67th Tigers]

Being trained to handle a musket might take a few weeks I guess - being trained a soldier able to understand commands and do the required stuff the right way takes a lot longer.
With the elaborate formations used pre-French conscript army a two year training period is understandable.

As I read conscription forced the French army to rely on column and ordre-mixte formations as those was easier for green recruits to handle.

Actually, the training period for the British was about 6 months, it was however reckoned that it took 2 years to make him a valuable soldier, and even then Wellington reckoned these two year men were worth less than half a soldier who'd seen a single campaign.

The French prettymuch didn't do any training at all. Recruits were gathered up in compagnies de marche and simply taken to their new units without any real training at all. In fact the main reason for Napoleons success in 1805-7 is that his Army of England/ Army of the Danube/ Army of the Rhine/ Grand Army had been mercilessly drilled at the camp of Bologne, and was of very high quality.

 

[Redbeard]

all this still does not explain why some form of bow was not used
in anny function, as a silent weapon, nightime guerrila attacks, a way to confuse formations, support for friendly units...

it just seems so simple and efective, get 50 disposable men with composite bows along with some 30/40 iregural troops with muskets against a formation of even a few hundred, they can pump them full of arrows before the officers even figure out whats happening and order concentrated fire, wich hits maybe 10 people, then pump them full of arrows again before they reload, then gett the hell out of range

they dont do much damage in terms of kills, but they confuse, scare, divert fire, take out at least a few dosen men with serious wounds to arms, legs and face, and if the arrows are treated with some toxin, not even necesarily lethal, enough that it just makes life seriously unplesant for the next 24 hours, they can have great effect on enemy moral, as well as take more soldiers out of the fight, at least for some time (im guessing its hard to reload a musket when the skin on your arm feels like its burning)
but afcourse hat would be considered impolite i guess

probbably you could get a similar effect with firearms, like the chausers, pandurs and other units specialised in hit and run used to do, but this way you can get it cheaper, and simply fire more arrows than you could fire bullets at the same time

olnly thing that might plausably explain the complete absence of bows is calvary
bowmen dont realy stand well against calvary

Yes it does - archers cost too much to train - and for the same effort you can get much more with muskets and/or cold steel.

That is not changed by using your costly archers in behind the lines operations, which usuallly will have a higher attrition rate than line service.

Next hit and run tactics by nature does not alllow a prolonged fire fight, where the faster rate of fire from a bow might be useful. For this I would much more prefer irregular and expendable types like Cossacks, or if in the exclusive class, mounted riflemen.

The allies in the Napoleonic war had considerable succes in using Cossacks, light cavalry and even horse artillery in Streifkorps harassing French communications - especially in the 1813 Autumn campaign. Replacing any of these with horse archers would only have increased the cost and made the Streifkorps more vulnerable to French light cavalry or infantry.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Condottiero]

Yes it does - archers cost too much to train - and for the same effort you can get much more with muskets and/or cold steel.

That is not changed by using your costly archers in behind the lines operations, which usuallly will have a higher attrition rate than line service.

Next hit and run tactics by nature does not alllow a prolonged fire fight, where the faster rate of fire from a bow might be useful. For this I would much more prefer irregular and expendable types like Cossacks, or if in the exclusive class, mounted riflemen.

The allies in the Napoleonic war had considerable succes in using Cossacks, light cavalry and even horse artillery in Streifkorps harassing French communications - especially in the 1813 Autumn campaign. Replacing any of these with horse archers would only have increased the cost and made the Streifkorps more vulnerable to French light cavalry or infantry.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

In that role you had the spanish guerillas, almost 80% of the French Army in Spain had to deal with garrisoning, protecting communications and convoys.

 

[Dave Howery]

about the only way I can see that archers would be useful in a Napoleonic battle would be to have them all behind several ranks of musket troops, and generally on higher ground so they could see the battlefield; thus, the musketeers still have their bayonets if needed, and the archers could send volleys over their heads at the enemy. The big question is: would it be worth the effort to do all that training for a tactical situation that wouldn't arise all that often?

 

[67th Tigers]

In that role you had the spanish guerillas, almost 80% of the French Army in Spain had to deal with garrisoning, protecting communications and convoys.

No, this myth has been shattered. The partistas did not force the French to disperse, or indeed had any major impact on French operations for the mostpart (although they did a lot of damage to the Spanish citizenry). The French dispersed because Spain was an agriculturally poor country and they needed to feed themselves.

See Esdaile:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peninsular-War-New-History/dp/0140273700 etc.

 

[Petike]

about the only way I can see that archers would be useful in a Napoleonic battle would be to have them all behind several ranks of musket troops, and generally on higher ground so they could see the battlefield; thus, the musketeers still have their bayonets if needed, and the archers could send volleys over their heads at the enemy. The big question is: would it be worth the effort to do all that training for a tactical situation that wouldn't arise all that often?

Now this is a realistic depictment of how it would probably work...