Well they found one with the Iceman, and he is from 3000BC so not too hard for them to develop in the Celtic lands of Britannia.So WI by luck or the work of some kind of genius, the British Celts have Longbows and the skill and cooperation to use them as the English used them in Battle of Agincourt by the time Julius Caesar comes knocking. How does this effect the Roman conquest of Britain?
Bows of decent capabilities have been used worldwide. Longbows are not game-wreckers that many imagine them to be. Longbows or in fact any implements are not of importance, the Celts would have problems related to organisation and politics, no tool can transform that.So WI by luck or the work of some kind of genius, the British Celts have Longbows and the skill and cooperation to use them as the English used them in Battle of Agincourt by the time Julius Caesar comes knocking. How does this effect the Roman conquest of Britain?
Roman shields were vulnerable to getting pierced by powerful missile weapons like Parthian composite bows. They'd be at least somewhat vulnerable to longbow archers. They found british light cavalry with javelins to be a massive pain, and the Celts had a tradition of using chariots as mounted infantry transports. The Celts, if they can develop a tradition of massed archery(which is a big if), could develop a weird sort of take on chariot archery.The armour penetrating power of the English longbow is commonly massively overstated, I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans turtles up behind shields got in close and slaughtered the Celts all the same.
Although large yew bows were relatively common in parts of Europe, that doesn't mean getting thousands of archers proficient in the use of 100+ pound bows is easy. Otzi's bow was probably a hunting bow, not a heavy warbow.Well they found one with the Iceman, and he is from 3000BC so not too hard for them to develop in the Celtic lands of Britannia.
Secondly, they can pierce Mail armour by at least 3 inches, and plate armour by an Inch so it will significantly boost the Celtic attack.
Maybe we'd instead be talking of Julius the Pierced-Hearted![]()
The armour penetrating power of the English longbow is commonly massively overstated, I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans turtles up behind shields got in close and slaughtered the Celts all the same.
Yes and its also important to note that knights falling off shot horses did as much damage as anything else.It has to be overestimated, because people also commonly massively overstate how heavily armored the knights they beat were. They also ignore the battles where the knights won, but that's another issue.
Shields don't have to block everything, they just have to minimize damage until the Romans can close the distance.Roman shields were vulnerable to getting pierced by powerful missile weapons like Parthian composite bows. They'd be at least somewhat vulnerable to longbow archers. They found british light cavalry with javelins to be a massive pain, and the Celts had a tradition of using chariots as mounted infantry transports. The Celts, if they can develop a tradition of massed archery(which is a big if), could develop a weird sort of take on chariot archery.
The French were heavily armored, definitely far more heavily armored in comparison to a Roman legionaire. Whether or not the longbow was the decisive factor is another matter.It has to be overestimated, because people also commonly massively overstate how heavily armored the knights they beat were. They also ignore the battles where the knights won, but that's another issue.
They were for the time but plenty of people cite that battle when they claim the longbow could penetrate later full plate like gothic or white Italian armour.Did 100-pound and higher draw weight bows even exist back then? Not to mention, it would take a pretty longbow-centric culture to raise warriors capable of pulling those weights in the first place. Also, were bodkin arrowheads even around at that point?
The French were heavily armored, definitely far more heavily armored in comparison to a Roman legionaire. Whether or not the longbow was the decisive factor is another matter.
Which is still a problem, since the Roman's probably can't outrun the archers, especially after being forced into a testudo. It'd be like Wales a thousand years early.Yes and its also important to note that knights falling off shot horses did as much damage as anything else.
Shields don't have to block everything, they just have to minimize damage until the Romans can close the distance.
Romans during this period use mail armour,but you may be right in regards to the tortoise.The armour penetrating power of the English longbow is commonly massively overstated, I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans turtles up behind shields got in close and slaughtered the Celts all the same.
Romans during this period use mail armour,but you may be right in regards to the tortoise.
What the Celts would want to do use use the massed archers to get the Romans to testudo up, and then send in a flank attack on the formation from other forces.
It would take a lot of discipline to make such a move, in fact a kind of roman level of discipline. OTOH the romans probably had the discipline to counter this flanking tactic too.