Longbows in the Penisular campaign

[Mongo]

Modern longbows typically have a draw weight of around 60 pound, which is what was typically found in hunting bows back in the Medieval Ages. I suppose that's telling.

I am guessing that since medieval hunting bows were much more widely distributed among the general population than warbows were, they were built to a draw weight that most adult males of the time could handle. Modern longbows are presumably built to a similar draw weight for the same reason.

I should point out that to my knowledge, given a proper training regime of calisthenics (and some isometrics), it is possible for a healthy adult male to reach the point of routine multiple sets of one-armed pullups and one-armed handstand pushups within a couple of years of the start of training, provided that the regime is followed diligently (of course very few people are willing to spend the time and effort this would require). This in itself is not sufficient to be proficient at the warbow, but it's a good start on the physical side.

 

[RGB]

Once you're strong enough to do the physical feat repeatedly, you'll have to start learning to hold the aim before you fire if you want any degree of accuracy. That's by far the hardest part about shooting a bow.

 

[Cryptic]

I should point out that to my knowledge, given a proper training regime of calisthenics (and some isometrics), it is possible for a healthy adult male to reach the point of routine multiple sets of one-armed pullups and one-armed handstand pushups within a couple of years of the start of training, provided that the regime is followed diligently

Maybe....

Revive the sling in time for the Napoleonic wars. Like longbow archers, expert slingers trained since youth. Unlike long bowmen, slingers did not need to be dedicated strength atheletes.

I bet Bealric Island level slingers could easily out perform the muskets of the early 1800s. Then factor in unarmoured opponents....

 

[ahunter951]

Longbow as a 19th Century weapon of war at Waterloo

The longbow as a battlefield weapon against massed columns of infantry or closely packed cavalry could still provide an effective punch as an area weapon even on the battlefield at Waterloo. However there are several limitations with the weapon that made its practical application virtually unusable. Firstly the longbow man was probably the most skilled fighter on the medieval battlefield (arguably on a par with a trained professional mounted knight). Years of practice required to draw the bow repeatedly and accurately. Britain had a very small standing army (compared to European countries). Longbow men have always required support of other arms on the battlefield. Stakes or pikemen against cavalry, men at arms to fight against heavy infantry. By 1815 field artillery deployed by Napoleon was able to sweep the forward slopes of a battlefield of infantry. The Longbow regiment (say 1,000 archers) would have required to be cited in one of the fortified farmhouses on the battlefield or ideally on the reverse slope to be protected from artillery fire. Wellington and any other commander with such a force would need to protect them in the way Napoleon did with the Old Guard. To maximise effectiveness they would need to engage french columns before they deployed which would be at the 75-175m range. Below 100m they would become susceptible to massed musket fire or light infantry skirmishers. If you could deploy them immediately behind an infantry regiment that had deployed into line to meet a french column then their range and particularly rate of fire would make them devastating. The arrow itself causes the ideal type of casualty. It is a lethal projectile capable of penetrating all but dual tempered heavy plate armour, injures the target with sharp and blunt trauma and most importantly because the arrow will have been stuck in the ground for rapid firing by the archer deliver secondary infection to the victim who, without access to antibiotics is likely to sucumb to fever and death a few days following the battle whether they win or lose. The achilles heel of this unit type (archer) is Battlefield casualty replacement. If Wellington had taken a 1,000 archers to Spain with him in 1809 he could not reasonably expect replacements due to the training time needed for the whole campaign. Finally the biggest killer in warfare in 1815 was still disease. An army that stopped moving in mainland Europe in the 19th Century started to die within a few days from dysentry and the likes. Without replacements this would have killed the archers far more effectively than Napoleons columns. A general understanding all these limitations and still wishing to deploy archers would need to treat them with kid gloves to ensure they were available when required on the battlefield. This would no doubt bring resentment from "ordinary" infantry regiments who would see the archer as even more of a prima donna than the cavalry. They may also resent having to bear the brunt of enemy fire whilst archers stood behind firing in the indirect fire role. That said 12,000 arrows hitting a french column in 60 seconds would be similar to the effects the maxim machine gun had on troops in the open in Belgium 100 years later

 

[historyfool]

The proponents of the longbow seem not to understand that it is irrelevant if the longbow is more effective as a weapon. This may be the case or not but the other problems outweigh this by far:
Even with downsized bows the training lasts many times longer than normal infantry - even longer than light units like the riflemen. therefore you cant replace losses as easily.
The supply is much more difficult: to make a bow takes more time and is more expensive not to speak of the arrows. You need more bows for they do not last as long as a musket especially in bad weather. And you cant use captured ammo supplies for your own weapons, which by this time is still important for most campaigns.
This points and other similar ones have been made before so I will not repeat all of them. A bow may give you a tactical benefit but a good tactic can win only battles. The strategic advantages of the napoleonic weapons will win the war. In the end the bow could only have a rather small role in warfare. And on this scale it would not justify the costs

 

[Cash]

So much of the longbow debate seems to be focused on heavy warbows fired accurately at individual targets. But accuracy doesn't have to be the point the way it was at Crecy. The Brown Bess musket was commonly fired in battle from 50 yards away by massed ranks of infantry, although it was capable of hitting man-sized targets at 175-200 yards.

So suppose the longbow is used as an area suppression weapon instead. You don't need highly trained bowmen who have spent years developing the muscles and technique required for the bowmen of yore. You just need a thousand or so strong country boys equipped with 60-80 pound bows and the minimum training required to understand at what angle to aim the arrow for a particular range. "Nock arrow. HAR!" "Position 2, HAR!" (The angle required for a 100-yard flight at full draw.) "Release!"

In use against massed ranks of enemy infantry, flights of arrows would be falling not just on the forward line but also the ranks behind them. Without shields or armor for protection, the experience would be unnerving, to say the least. The rear ranks couldn't even count on the bodies of the men in front of them for protection from injury or death, the way they could from gunfire.

There have been many comments, both here and on similar threads in the past, to the effect that a constant rate of fire would be impossible physically. Just for the heck of it, my brother and I went to a field on his farm last fall with his hunting bow and some practice arrows. At the time, I was 60 years old and in what I considered fair shape for my age, meaning I went to the gym three or four times a week and alternated cardio with light weights. We measured the bow at 70 pounds.

I am not a bowhunter. I haven't pulled a bow since I was a teenager. I made two or three practice shots to get the angle right, then I put 20 arrows at the far end of the field, about 110 yards, in a leisurely four minutes without undue stress. I had no doubt I could have kept going for at least a few minutes more. My brother, younger (early 50s) and stronger and more experienced, did the same in under three minutes and didn't break a sweat. We weren't trying for pinpoint accuracy, just speed and putting the arrows in the same general area. He was of course much better at that than I was. In fact, we lost two of the arrows I fired when I overshot into the trees at the edge of the field.

ETA:I absolutely felt the strain of the experience the next day in my back muscles and triceps. I would probably spend some more time in the gym before trying to repeat the experiment.

 

[abc123]

Excellent idea.

I agree. Longbows in 19th Century, that's a coolest idea I heard in long time...