Quite my point, hence the "strategically viable" comment - I meant to suggest that it would have a place on the battlefield but would require some arranging to actually happen
Longest continued use of the Longbow possible?
- Thread starter SeanB
- Start date
Quite my point, hence the "strategically viable" comment - I meant to suggest that it would have a place on the battlefield but would require some arranging to actually happen
The difference being, of course, that the archer can put from 8-12 arrows in the air in a minute (depending on how well trained he is) compared to 3 shots per minute for the well-trained musketeer. If it were simply a matter or range or rate of fire, the choice would be easy...the bow wins every time on those categories over a smoothbore musket.
However, its not simply a matter of range or rate of fire. Muskets have other advantages over a short bow, and even over a long-bow.
1) Penetration. As other posters have mentioned, if bows reappear on the battlefield, so does armor. A short bow will not penetrate it, and a long-bow is chancey. On the flip side, of course, if everyone has to wear heavy armor, which is also quite expensive, the size of armies is limited as much, if not more, than the introduction of the longbow itself would have done.
2) Self-Defense. A Musket, once equipped with a bayonet, becomes a short pike. Musketeers can thus replace pikemen on the battlefield, eventually. Bows cannot perform the same function. As long as bows are being used in significant numbers, at least half your army will have to be pikemen, to protect them from cavalry.
mowque
Banned
THIS. It is forgotten so often. Also, remember, guns have the ability to archive faster rates of fire/ greater range/ larger forces of power. Some nations will see this and invest so the longbow will be outclassed eventually anyway.
Flocculencio
Donor
To which I'd add (3) cheapness. Bows take skill to manufacture and more importantly, so do arrows. Fletchers are skilled tradesmen whereas, as I said earlier, any idiot with a block of lead and a mould can cast musket balls in the field once he's shown how.
Quite my point, hence the "strategically viable" comment - I meant to suggest that it would have a place on the battlefield but would require some arranging to actually happen
Ah, fair enough, though you do need to take into account the above comment about armour being reintroduced if bows are.
Stephen
Banned
It is a myth that it takes a life time to become competent with the longbow. Modern reinactors find it only take a few weeks to become acurate even with 160 pound draw weight monsters. The main limiting factor is probably the limited suply of suitable wood making them harder to mass produce. The best yew came from spain which has several times been an enemy of England in history.
Flocculencio
Donor
Modern reenactors with modern nutrition and no need to use said bows under combat conditions. Your average longbowman would be smaller than the average 21st C man and need to use the bow for long periods straight while cold, wet, dirty, hungry and scared.
Armour was being mass-produced in great quantities. It didn't provide complete protection nor was it of great quality, but it was certainly good enough to make archers waste a lot of arrows shooting at long distance. So it may be less limiting than all that. We're not talking knights here, we're talking half-plate and capellin. Plunging fire is not very good at hiting anything not protected by that, for example.
Well I'm largely on your side so I'm not sure why I'm arguing against you, but I'll remind you that English longbowmen were routinely supplied with short pikes to be wedged in the ground, essentially turning the ground around them into a hedgehog. That's why the first time English archers ever got driven off the field of battle during the HYW (before the infantry was, anyway) was with the introduction of cannons.
I watched a longbow demonstration on TV a few years ago. A guy who was the head of a longbow reenactment group failed to fire 12 arrows in one minute into the centre of a butt 20 metres away. He fired 10 arrows and they weren't all very accurate.
Well if that's true then I apologise, but I'm pretty sure the group of longbowmen in 1642 were English and not Scottish - the battle was the Siege of Bridgnorth (reportedly) which is in England, and happened in 1642 which was before the Scots got involved.
The best example is that of Japan. The extremely well-trained samurai archers and swordsmen were easily defeatable by peasant soldiers arned with European muskets. That's why they were banned. They were too disruptive to the social system. The ban worked because of consensus in the ruling class and because Japan is an island. Moral, in a multi-nation war one side will utilize the newer technology and win every time.
Mate, re the 2nd issue- the impact of English arrows fired from longbows had the effect of punching thru the French heavy armour of both knights & horses on the fields of Agincourt & Crecy. So the armour factor isn't too much of an issue as a counter-measure to the longbow IMHO...
Half plate and capellin are all well and good, but leave significant areas of the body unprotected (primarily limbs). A arrow in one of those places may not kill a man, but it will take him out of combat as effectively as if he had been killed.
It is still expensive to produce as well. Any armor made before the industrial revolution and the advent of metal stamping technology is going to be laboriously handmade and will be expensive.
Well, if all you plan to do is adopt a static position and defend it, that might work. However, if both armies adopt static positions and stare at each other from behind hedgehogs, not much fighting will get done. LOL
No, the pikemen will still be required because they provide a mobile hedgehog, and will be necessary to provide cover during offensive movement.
Last edited:
Yes, when the french managed to beat english longbowmen during the 100 year war, it was through use of mobility, either attacking before the english could put an hedgehog together after some movement or luring the english into attacking. ( and in those battles, the longbowmen fared about as well as the french knights in Crecy
)Exactly. A modern reenactor can certainly draw a longbow and fire it accurately for single shots, maybe even for a short burst of 10-12 arrows. The problem comes with actual battlefield conditions, as continuous fire for an extended period of time will be required. Just think...in a 10 minute period, a good archer could be called upon to fire as many as 120 arrows with accuracy. No modern reenactor can do that. Without years of training, one simply cannot draw and fire such a bow both rapidly and accurately over long periods of time. Studies of the skeletons of longbowmen show that there were actually physical changes which occurred in their skeletal and muscular tissues as a result of the strain caused by using these bows continuously for long periods of time.
Well, they didn't, but that doesn't necessarily make the armour point a good one. I'll explain:
Against good plate armour, a bodkin fired from a longbow at any range is going to have trouble penetrating (especially if it's angled stuff). Short ranges, the archer can aim for the weaker spots, and a good longbow wll penetrate. The penetration during Edward IIIs wars was generally because the majority of armour remained chain mail - against an arrow that is just a series of holes...
However, not penetrating does not equal not affecting. An arrow fired from a longbow has significant energy expelled through a small point - enough to cause internal damage, concussion, and knock a man over at long range - and while this won't kill him, it does disrupt the formation, present him with danger of trampling or, in poor conditions (as at Agincourt), suffocation, and additionally impedes his ability to fight as well as the men at arms in the opposing army.
As to numbers of protecting troops - the 50 - 50 split melee and longbow is too high - at least according to contemporary thought. The best English Armies were reckoned to have 1 man at arms to 3 archers - indeed, some of the failures at the end of the HYW have been attributed to this ration falling in favour of the archer ( to 1:6 or more) as English nobles got fed up with fighting in France.
Also, the famous longbow victories relied on at least a couple of things (besides the fact the the armour wasn't nearly the same at all)...the mud, good positioning on the part of the English, and abysmal tactical decisions on the part of the French.
At Crecy they sent in unprepared columns uphill. At Agincourt they did something even worse. In both cases they got into each other's way, trampled their own infantry, and had no plan beyond the charge and retreat.
That, and the majority were riding uprotected horses. A 6-foot fall is more likely to kill or incapacitate you than an arrow delivering the force but failing to penetrate the armour.
By comparison, the longbow still performed very repectably in the 15th and 16th centuries but only as a supporting element. But people who know about Agincourt rarely know about Flodden or Grandson or Morat or Nancy or the campaigns of Nagy Lajos, generally speaking. Or even about Castillon and Patay if one wants to see how undefended longbows fare in battle.
Last edited: