WI Celtic in Britain had longbows.

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?
 
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?
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.
 

longsword14

Banned
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.
 
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.
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.

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 ;)
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.
A lot of the tests on longbows effectiveness are quite dubious-crappy armour, weak bows, etc. etc.
 
As said above, it wasn't the technology of the English warbow that had the impact, it was its tactical use. I cannot see Iron Age Celts having the needed skills.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
Yes and its also important to note that knights falling off shot horses did as much damage as anything else.
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.
Shields don't have to block everything, they just have to minimize damage until the Romans can close the distance.
 
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?
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
Romans during this period use mail armour,but you may be right in regards to the tortoise.

Well, if you use massed archers alone, yes. 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. Being in a testudo severely limits mobility and awareness.
 
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.
 
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.

Quite right, but the archery isn't much use without massing, so that assumes a certain level of cohesion/discipline if they are to be effective. The Romans certainly have the discipline to counter the flanking maneuver...if they notice it. Massed archery to keep them buttoned up is to assist that
 
No doubt that the English used the bow very effectively in the late middle ages, but those battles always happened the same way: the English occupied defensible grounds of advantage and waited for the enemy to attack them. Once weapons that outrange bows come into the picture this doesn't work anymore. Muskets and artillery could attack bowmen from outside their range, and the bowmen would be forced to leave their defensive position to fight back. This happened at Formigny, for example, where the English left their hill to attack the French artillery and then got flanked and cut to pieces. Caesar did not have guns, but he did have primitive artillery that would be able to outrange archers.
 
The English military longbow has a performance easily exceeded in many ways by an assortment of ancient and more complex means of bow types. The sheer mass of slow moving wood limits the velocity of it's shafts. But what it is good at is launching a heavy shaft with little loss of speed against a lighter one. This has been expressed as 'being designed to launch a telegraph pole'. In the battle between armour and projectile the English military longbow found a place when plate armour began to become commonplace and the arrow needed both the mass of a heavy shaft and the relative stiffness of the heavier shaft to crack and split it's way through plate armour. This became linked to English preponderance of professional soldiers in disciplined formations subject to command and control. The Celts military warrior style prevents control and direction of archers no matter how skilled and well armed.

There is nothing in an English military longbow that could not be readily made by any competent bow smith and a neolithic one would only be surprised by the iron head so there is no reason they could not make ones identical to the medieval english ones but I can see no reason to think that they could find a use for them. However, and noting the OP, if they had the organisation, logistics and command and control of an English Hundred Year War army then they would employ them in the same way. I suggest that reworking the military and social systems of British Celtic society would be a huge step over generations. It soon reappeared after the Romans left and was compatible in kind to the Germanic ways of the English when they colonised England.
 
Although the Britons developing 100YW style tactics without radical changes in their society is borderline ASB, they could still develop an archery tradition and use warbows in other ways. For example, they could give chariot archery a new lease on life, or use Welsh tactics.
 
To make good use of long bow the britons need to reform their society, state and military views in ways that will render the longbow almost a superfluous thing. Why? Because the longbow is better suited to be used alongside infantry and/or cavalry to support the bowmen, wich probably will show to the britons that heavy infantry or cavalry are already better backbones to the army. The other possible option to make good use of the longbow in the battlefield is to lure the enemy to prepared positions or make use of fortifications, but those are defensive or last resort tactics, not something that would make me confident to base my army upon against a high tech and maleable enemy like Rome.
 
Top