Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: bluewillow on March 29, 2021, 06:36:06 PM

Title: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: bluewillow on March 29, 2021, 06:36:06 PM
A interesting article by Todd Cutler and Dr Tobias Capwell doing a practical test of a 200 pd longbow at 30 feet vs a typical French breastplate of the 100 years war......

more details here

https://stormandconquest.blogspot.com/2021/03/longbow-vs-armour-1418.html (https://stormandconquest.blogspot.com/2021/03/longbow-vs-armour-1418.html)

cheers
Matt
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on March 29, 2021, 07:37:46 PM
A interesting article by Todd Cutler and Dr Tobias Capwell doing a practical test of a 200 pd longbow at 30 feet vs a typical French breastplate of the 100 years war......

more details here

https://stormandconquest.blogspot.com/2021/03/longbow-vs-armour-1418.html (https://stormandconquest.blogspot.com/2021/03/longbow-vs-armour-1418.html)

cheers
Matt

I think the vid with Tobias Capwell and Joe Gibbs is well over a year old now(?) but well worth a watch. They are very honest about what they know and what they don't.

Highly recommended  8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Well worth subscribing to Tod's Workshop on YouTube. His enquiring mind is constantly trying out experiment after experiment with the weapons of the Medieval period. From Sub Rome to the Late Middle Ages.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Blackwolf on March 29, 2021, 07:42:52 PM
Interesting Matt . To my mind it was always the horses that were the target, though this seems rarely mentioned  .
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on March 29, 2021, 09:02:41 PM
Interesting Matt . To my mind it was always the horses that were the target, though this seems rarely mentioned  .

Depends on the battle. The French were not always obliging enough to charge pell mell mounted towards the English lines.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: jeffreythancock on March 30, 2021, 02:50:57 AM
Or through the mud?

Depends on the battle. The French were not always obliging enough to charge pell mell mounted towards the English lines.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: carlos marighela on March 30, 2021, 06:26:15 AM
And yet the longbow defeated foes at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Flodden etc, etc, etc....

Scientific modelling conducted by the Warsaw University of Technology certainly suggests the longbow was capable of penetrating armour 70 years prior to Agincourt.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320288999_NUMERICAL_ANALYSIS_OF_ENGLISH_BOWS_USED_IN_BATTLE_OF_CRECY

Whether or not a bodkin tipped arrow could or could not penetrate a breast plate, whether it was blunt force trauma, concussive effect or simply the effect of masses of projectiles finding more vulnerable spots or horseflesh, the facts are that the longbow remained an effective enough weapon to carry two centuries on from Agincourt.

Not quite sure what myth has been busted here. From a gaming perspective I’m not sure the longbow’s worth has really been called into question.



Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Dolnikan on March 30, 2021, 07:12:45 AM
It only makes sense that a longbow arrow couldn't pierce a breastplate, the strongest part of the armour. After all, if it could do that with relative ease, people would have skipped out on the pretty expensive armour. But not being able to go right through the hardest parts of the armour doesn't make a weapon completely useless. Or useless in any way really. There still are weak spots that can be hit and pierced after all. And there would also have been plenty of guys wearing lower quality stuff. After all, surviving armour will show a bias towards the higher end stuff.

The longbow was a capable weapon, there is no denying that. But it also wasn't absolutely decisive like some people portray it. It was merely a part of armies and had a good showing in a few field battles (which were very far from the mainstay of the wars being fought and there were other factors at work as well).
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on March 30, 2021, 10:33:11 AM
And yet the longbow defeated foes at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Flodden etc, etc, etc....

In the case of Flodden the Scots were defeated by the superior English Cannon fire and the difficult ground.

Scientific modelling conducted by the Warsaw University of Technology certainly suggests the longbow was capable of penetrating armour 70 years prior to Agincourt.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320288999_NUMERICAL_ANALYSIS_OF_ENGLISH_BOWS_USED_IN_BATTLE_OF_CRECY

True. But one has to balance out that statement with the premise that throughout the so called Hundred Years War there was an arms race going on. Armours at the start of the Dynastic struggles between the House of Valois and the House of Plantagenet were dramatically different in terms of design and the ability of deflect/impede penetration of an bodkin at the start of the conflict than that say in 1415. It worked both ways. The best armours would defeat penetration, the best archers would defeat "munintion" grade armours. A long drawn out arms race.

Whether or not a bodkin tipped arrow could or could not penetrate a breast plate, whether it was blunt force trauma, concussive effect or simply the effect of masses of projectiles finding more vulnerable spots or horseflesh, the facts are that the longbow remained an effective enough weapon to carry two centuries on from Agincourt.

Not quite sure what myth has been busted here. From a gaming perspective I’m not sure the longbow’s worth has really been called into question.

I know quite a few rulesets that fail miserable at modelling the effect of the Warbow used en masse. In fact there are very few that get close IMHO.

Back OT. I think Tod Todeschini, Joe Gibbs and Tobias Capwell are more interested in getting somewhere close to what sort of penetration and blunt force trauma were possible. If you watch the whole gamut of Tod Todeschini's YouTube videos you will see that he is very considered and measured in his experiments.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Charlie_ on March 30, 2021, 11:30:02 AM
Also we'll worth watching the videos Matt Easton did on his scholagladiatora YouTube channel a few years ago with Toby Capwell at the Wallace collection. Great to hear anything Dr Capwell has to say about armour, arrows and agincourt.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Diablo Jon on March 30, 2021, 12:54:15 PM
If you are doing large battle games does it really matter what type of damage the longbows are doing? only that they clearly had an effect on the French and your rules need to represent that in some abstract way. If you are doing small skirmish games then the whole arrow Vs armour debate becomes a much bigger deal.

I think wargamers and wargames rules get quite hung up on the supposed advantages ( and disadvantages) of certain weapons ( and armour) when it really only matters at the lowest level of skirmish game. Generally in larger battle games morale, discipline and manoeuvre and probably far more relevant in the outcomes of battles, than the weapons, unless the technological gap is huge ( IE machines gun Vs spears)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on March 30, 2021, 01:00:12 PM
Also we'll worth watching the videos Matt Easton did on his scholagladiatora YouTube channel a few years ago with Toby Capwell at the Wallace collection. Great to hear anything Dr Capwell has to say about armour, arrows and agincourt.

Indeed. Dr Capwell is a top class academic when it comes to the 15th CE and the warfare of the period.

I haven't seen the Matt Easton YouTube vids but will check them out ASAP so thanks for the pointer Charlie  :)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: SteveBurt on March 31, 2021, 08:44:14 AM
Whether or not the longbow could penetrate armour, dismounted knights made it into contact at Agincourt and Poitiers through an arrow storm. But they were badly disordered in the process; so that is the dynamic that the rules need to represent. Also at Formigny (less mentioned in English circles for some reason) we see what would have happened had the attacking knights not been disordered. Longbows had a disruptive effect on attackers, but they didn’t stop them dead (unless they were mounted as at Crecy)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Harry Faversham on March 31, 2021, 09:32:26 AM
I remember seeing one documentary where a dismounted Knight was making his way through a field studded with arrows, hundreds of 'em. The camera was inside his helm and he could see bugger all and kept tripping over the shafts, going all his  length a couple of times.
As Steve says, you get where yer going winded, knackered and disorientated. The bloke stood patiently waiting for you and twiddling his thumbs... then knocks you for six!

:?
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on March 31, 2021, 09:45:22 AM
Whether or not the longbow could penetrate armour, dismounted knights made it into contact at Agincourt and Poitiers through an arrow storm. But they were badly disordered in the process; so that is the dynamic that the rules need to represent. Also at Formigny (less mentioned in English circles for some reason) we see what would have happened had the attacking knights not been disordered. Longbows had a disruptive effect on attackers, but they didn’t stop them dead (unless they were mounted as at Crecy)

This has always been an ongoing gripe of mine in attempting to find rules for the Late Medieval period. I have never been able to find a set that adequately represents the disruptive effect of the Warbow. Or for that matter early gunpowder weapons when used en masse such as Castillion.

There is an interesting set in development at present which, without being overly complicated, is attempting to address this issue. I can't really say more because i/ I have promised to keep the confidence of the rules writers and ii/ I'm not involved in the playtesting via a vis I'm not qualified to comment.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Hu Rhu on March 31, 2021, 10:37:09 AM
This has always been an ongoing gripe of mine in attempting to find rules for the Late Medieval period. I have never been able to find a set that adequately represents the disruptive effect of the Warbow. Or for that matter early gunpowder weapons when used en masse such as Castillion.

Surely a local rule could help here.  For example in Hail Caesar you could simply roll for disorganisation every time a Longbow/handgun unit scores a hit.  1-3 on foot 1-4 on horse causes disorganisation.  This prevents the unit from advancing until it regains its cohesion. With mounted French Knights rate them as Elite and give them a chance to rally off disorganisation as per the original rules. That would balance out the effects of the shooting but still give the French the chance to close with the enemy. I'd have to test it out to see whether the game becomes unbalanced but in theory it would work.

I am sure that similar modifications can be applied to any good rule set.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on March 31, 2021, 04:10:45 PM
Surely a local rule could help here.  For example in Hail Caesar you could simply roll for disorganisation every time a Longbow/handgun unit scores a hit.  1-3 on foot 1-4 on horse causes disorganisation.  This prevents the unit from advancing until it regains its cohesion. With mounted French Knights rate them as Elite and give them a chance to rally off disorganisation as per the original rules. That would balance out the effects of the shooting but still give the French the chance to close with the enemy. I'd have to test it out to see whether the game becomes unbalanced but in theory it would work.

I would certainly be interested in seeing how you get on :)

I am sure that similar modifications can be applied to any good rule set.

I'm happy to be bide my time for the moment for the rules I mentioned above to be released :)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Patrice on March 31, 2021, 04:47:39 PM
you could simply roll for disorganisation every time a Longbow/handgun unit scores a hit.  1-3 on foot 1-4 on horse causes disorganisation.  This prevents the unit from advancing until it regains its cohesion.

Problem is, in these battles it did not prevent them from advancing disorganised? But with a much lesser effect on impact.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Charlie_ on March 31, 2021, 06:30:34 PM
To be honest, I prefer a much simpler and more abstract approach to massed archery and other missile weapons.

My homebrew rules are in some ways based on concepts from Hail Caesar, whilst in others they differ considerably.

Units take 'casualties' from shooting until they become 'shaken'. The casualties can represent the disorder from massed arrows raining on them just as easily as actual men killed. A large unit will typically have between 6 and 8 stamina points, it can take this number of casualties before becoming shaken.
In a scenario where large numbers of English archers are shooting the advancing enemy, there is a good chance some of the enemy units will take enough casualties to become shaken. Once shaken they can still move and fight, but need to take tests to advance, so some of the units might fall behind or fail to make contact, breaking up the battle line. Once in combat, being shaken they will be fighting with some disadvantages and will be more easy to break.
And that works fine for me! It can represent whatever you want really. The enemy advance into the arrow storm, take lots of casualties / disorder / etc, and when they make contact with the English they are sufficiently weakened to level the playing field.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on March 31, 2021, 10:35:08 PM
That's a rather selective list of battles. Besides the Battle of Formigny mentioned above, there were battles like Patay, and also even battles where the French lost, but heavy cavalry still routed longbowmen, like Verneuil.
As usual for any weapon, what mattered was how the longbow was used, especially in conjunction with other arms, rather than as some superweapon by itself.

And yet the longbow defeated foes at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Flodden etc, etc, etc....
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on March 31, 2021, 10:44:06 PM
LOL!
The Battle of Patay is even less mentioned than Formigny in English circles. :)

Also at Formigny (less mentioned in English circles for some reason) we see what would have happened had the attacking knights not been disordered. Longbows had a disruptive effect on attackers, but they didn’t stop them dead (unless they were mounted as at Crecy)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: FierceKitty on April 01, 2021, 02:14:30 AM
Most English don't seem to remember who actually won the HYW.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: carlos marighela on April 01, 2021, 06:21:07 AM
I suspect most people who have any realisation that there was a Hundred Year War know that France won it. Even those of us whose education was on an ancient model most closely resembling 1066 And All That. They are probably also aware that the win/loss ratio didn’t really favour the French for the following five centuries.  ;)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 01, 2021, 11:36:56 AM
Most English don't seem to remember who actually won the HYW.

With all due respect, I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement. Not quite accurate IMHO as "nationalism" as we know it simply didn't exist in any modern contemporary (recognisable) form during the Valois and Plantagenet dynastic struggles of the so called Hundred Years War.

I think most historical wargamers, certainly most Late Medieval wargamers, know enough to know that the "French" were the eventual "winners" of the HYW

Problem is, in these battles it did not prevent them from advancing disorganised? But with a much lesser effect on impact.

I'm with you on that point Patrice. Disorder and exhaustion were the key in general key to who would come out on top.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Otto1485 on April 05, 2021, 09:45:47 AM
Whether it would penetrate an armour breastplate is a bit of a moot point to be honest - the kinetics of impact are still likely to cause injury or discomfort (at least) and the problem with HYW armour (all armour actually) is that it has weak points and wouldn't always hit the obvious places.

The longbow (or warbow if you prefer) was not a new weapon, the method of utilisation in the HYW and Scots Wars was, using massed archers to create an arrow storm, it was less effective in the WOTR where both sides were equipped with longbows with archery only seeming to play a decisive part in a couple of battles (Towton and Tewkesbury).

Frankly, even wearing armour I wouldn't want to be hit by one of these (from my own collection - modern target arrow is the bottom one and modern tips as well)

Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 05, 2021, 10:32:28 AM
Whether it would penetrate an armour breastplate is a bit of a moot point to be honest - the kinetics of impact are still likely to cause injury or discomfort (at least) and the problem with HYW armour (all armour actually) is that it has weak points and wouldn't always hit the obvious places.

The longbow (or warbow if you prefer) was not a new weapon, the method of utilisation in the HYW and Scots Wars was, using massed archers to create an arrow storm, it was less effective in the WOTR where both sides were equipped with archery only seeming to play a decisive part in a couple of battles (Towton and Tewkesbury).

Frankly, even wearing armour I wouldn't want to be hit by one of these (from my own collection - modern target arrow is the bottom one and modern tips as well)

I think the kinetic energy imparted by various arrow heads and shafts via a via the damage done are discussed in some detail on another one of Todd's videos.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on April 05, 2021, 06:14:37 PM
With all due respect, I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement. Not quite accurate IMHO as "nationalism" as we know it simply didn't exist in any modern contemporary (recognisable) form during the Valois and Plantagenet dynastic struggles of the so called Hundred Years War.
I don't think the nationalism here is with people in the Medieval era...
While that comment was rather too pithy, it is true that there is a tendency in the English-speaking wargame world to only focus on the battles where the English won, i.e. Crecy, Poitier, Agincourt, leaving players scratching their heads about how they lost the war in the first place. This also leads to an over-estimation of the longbow as some sort of super weapon, since the battles showing its weaknesses are not played.

Quote
I think most historical wargamers, certainly most Late Medieval wargamers, know enough to know that the "French" were the eventual "winners" of the HYW

I'm with you on that point Patrice. Disorder and exhaustion were the key in general key to who would come out on top.
This is they key here. A good rule set for this era should definitely model disorder and exhaustion. Historically we see archers, even the mighty longbowmen, come to grief when they have to face fresh heavy cavalry.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 05, 2021, 06:37:06 PM
I don't think the nationalism here is with people in the Medieval era...
Quote

That was exactly my point. It doesn't make any sense to think of Nation States and "nationalism" in the 1300-1500CE.

While that comment was rather too pithy, it is true that there is a tendency in the English-speaking wargame world to only focus on the battles where the English won, i.e. Crecy, Poitier, Agincourt, leaving players scratching their heads about how they lost the war in the first place. This also leads to an over-estimation of the longbow as some sort of super weapon, since the battles showing its weaknesses are not played.
This is they key here. A good rule set for this era should definitely model disorder and exhaustion. Historically we see archers, even the mighty longbowmen, come to grief when they have to face fresh heavy cavalry.

As a general trope yes, it is probably true. But it largely depends on the wargamer at the end of the day and also, if we're being honest, how much research they have put into their projects. :)

EDIT: Dunno why my quote is within a quote  ???
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: SteveBurt on April 07, 2021, 02:05:42 PM
I don't think the nationalism here is with people in the Medieval era...
While that comment was rather too pithy, it is true that there is a tendency in the English-speaking wargame world to only focus on the battles where the English won, i.e. Crecy, Poitier, Agincourt, leaving players scratching their heads about how they lost the war in the first place. This also leads to an over-estimation of the longbow as some sort of super weapon, since the battles showing its weaknesses are not played.
This is they key here. A good rule set for this era should definitely model disorder and exhaustion. Historically we see archers, even the mighty longbowmen, come to grief when they have to face fresh heavy cavalry.
Also, firing a bow with a 120lb draw is very tiring. Archers, too should suffer fatigue after a number of shots.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 07, 2021, 03:03:26 PM
Also, firing a bow with a 120lb draw is very tiring. Archers, too should suffer fatigue after a number of shots.

I see your point I would postulate that using any weapon would be tiring during the 1300-1500 CE. Medieval battles were by definition exhausting affairs which is why the Warbow was so successful vis a vis disrupting charges/advances prior to melee.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: fantasticlegions on April 11, 2021, 09:27:12 PM
To be honest, I prefer a much simpler and more abstract approach to massed archery and other missile weapons.

My homebrew rules are in some ways based on concepts from Hail Caesar, whilst in others they differ considerably.

Units take 'casualties' from shooting until they become 'shaken'. The casualties can represent the disorder from massed arrows raining on them just as easily as actual men killed. A large unit will typically have between 6 and 8 stamina points, it can take this number of casualties before becoming shaken.
In a scenario where large numbers of English archers are shooting the advancing enemy, there is a good chance some of the enemy units will take enough casualties to become shaken. Once shaken they can still move and fight, but need to take tests to advance, so some of the units might fall behind or fail to make contact, breaking up the battle line. Once in combat, being shaken they will be fighting with some disadvantages and will be more easy to break.
And that works fine for me! It can represent whatever you want really. The enemy advance into the arrow storm, take lots of casualties / disorder / etc, and when they make contact with the English they are sufficiently weakened to level the playing field.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  Unfortunately, too many rulesets focus on casualties rather than other factors that, at least to my read of history, seem to be more significant.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: FierceKitty on April 12, 2021, 06:52:02 AM
I rationalise it by saying 75% of casualties represent fatigue, loss of confidence, broken weapons, and reduced control as NCOs buy a farm. Anything rather than rewrite all my rules!
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: commissarmoody on April 19, 2021, 11:10:49 PM
And too add more fuel to the fire. ..
https://youtu.be/v3QqdEX_ka8
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: carlos marighela on April 20, 2021, 06:31:39 AM
Some poor bugger will need to sculpt new French casualty figures. lol
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: commissarmoody on April 20, 2021, 08:42:59 AM
Some poor bugger will need to sculpt new French casualty figures. lol
  ;)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 20, 2021, 09:03:35 AM
I'm really looking forward to seeing what round two of the Capwell, Gibbs and Cutler come up with this year re: lWarbow vs armours
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on April 20, 2021, 08:32:59 PM
Interesting that it went into what looks like a "shot trap" ridge. In the previous videos the arrows tended to glance off the breastplates.
Definitely looking forward to more videos from them.
The thing is, armour was never completely invulnerable, just tough enough that charging cavalry or infantry can make it to the enemy line in enough numbers. That happened in successful battles against longbows, while in unsuccessful battles the attackers were slowed down enough so they were too few or too exhausted when they reached the enemy line.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 21, 2021, 06:59:13 AM
The thing is, armour was never completely invulnerable, just tough enough that charging cavalry or infantry can make it to the enemy line in enough numbers. That happened in successful battles against longbows, while in unsuccessful battles the attackers were slowed down enough so they were too few or too exhausted when they reached the enemy line.

Which is exactly what I have been pointing out earlier in the thread. Please see former posts :)

That is why the Warbow was so successful, though not always as consistently as the mythology suggests.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on April 22, 2021, 11:33:01 PM
Which is exactly what I have been pointing out earlier in the thread. Please see former posts :)

That is why the Warbow was so successful, though not always as consistently as the mythology suggests.
I generally agree with you here, although once the French realized the weaknesses of English armies, they were able to exploit that and win.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 23, 2021, 07:03:51 AM
I generally agree with you here, although once the French realized the weaknesses of English armies, they were able to exploit that and win.

I think the majority of people reading this would agree with you. As do I. But, that is not really the point of the thread which was about armour penetration and blunt force trauma. :)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Unlucky General on April 23, 2021, 08:17:23 AM
I do wonder what medieval commanders would make of these sorts of modern conversations. Armour effectiveness, penetration of certain ranged weapons, debates over conditions of specific battles to back-up or argue against this persons theory or that.
Consider that by the fifteenth century the jury was in and the verdict unanimous - massed archery vie longbow was extremely effective. Every army during the English civil wars (let's call them the Wars of the Roses) had longbows in vast numbers for a reason. AND it's not becasue they were cheap - they weren't. The bows, the ammo and the men to shoot them were far from cheap or expendable - they were vital becasue they were extremely effective.
All this discussion is modern people trying to agree on what people in the middle ages all accepted as fact. But even superb armour can't cover all the gaps and an arrow storm (as someone previously quite rightly identified it as) can hit the beaten zone like running water and water will find the gap.
Always amusing to see the English national pride and it's detractors come into play. Consider that the UK or Britain is Britain largely becasue the English lost their continental possessions. National identity today is forged from historical outcomes. The aggression of the English crown came to nothing becasue in the end their foothold in what was to become France was never adequately supported by the locals who ended up identifying as French. Bit like the same bloody wars and mistakes in the American wars of the eighteenth century. Consider, what would the Brexit vote have looked like if half the country was still the other side of the Channel?
History tends to work out in the end. 
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on April 24, 2021, 08:30:13 PM
I think the majority of people reading this would agree with you. As do I. But, that is not really the point of the thread which was about armour penetration and blunt force trauma. :)
Well, the original video showed arrows generally unable to penetrate armour, which does tie in to the weaknesses of the longbow. If they can't reliably penetrate, that has a significant effect on tactics, which the Fench managed to exploit later.
I also wonder if Medieval commanders would have been so obsessed with armour penetration, etc., but in a different direction. It seems to me they would have done analyses no different from ancient commanders, the educated or at least well-informed ones anyhow, that light troops like archers get scattered by cavalry, but are better in poor terrain and are good at whittling down and disrupting enemy heavy troops. I doubt they would have worried about specific models of weapons, which is a rather modern obsession. Again, the French experience (to reiterate once more, they *won* the war) showed the ancient analysis still worked. That timely heavy cavalry charges in good terrain will destroy archers, and the key is to not allow the archer+heavy infantry combination enough time to prepare defensive positions. The original video in this thread shows why that view makes sense.
The English overwhelmingly used longbowmen and billmen in the War of the Roses because that's what they had. In French "civil wars" (and I'm including things like the War of Burgundian Succession) they used gendarmes, pikes, and various mercenaries, because that's what they had.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 24, 2021, 08:59:45 PM
Just thought it with mentioning, to anyone interested in reading more about the Warbow, there are a few very good books on the subject that I would personally recommend.

i/ Mike Loades, Warbows, a study not just of the European Warbow but the the Crossbow, the Composite bow and the Japanese bow to boot.

ii/ Robert Hardy CBE, Matthew Strickland, The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose An excellent and in depth study of the Warbow. Hardy's "enthusiasm" is brilliantly tempered Matthew Strickland's more measured approach.

iii/ Richard Wadge, Arrowstorm Largely a study of the economics of fielding the weapon in large numbers but with an important emphasis on the professional nature of "English" armies during the wars.

For an overall history of the dynastic struggles, then Jonathan Sumption's, Hundred Years War Vol 1, Trial by Battle, Hundred Years War Vol 2: Trial By Fire, Hundred Years War Vol 3: Divided Houses and Hundred Years War Vol 4: Cursed Kings are absolutely essential reading. Warning; they are very heavy going largely due to the vast quantity and quality on information.

EDIT: I hope Lord Sumption lives long enough to complete the final chapter in his masterful pentalogy!
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Patrice on April 24, 2021, 09:14:26 PM
Consider that the UK or Britain is Britain largely becasue the English lost their continental possessions (...) Consider, what would the Brexit vote have looked like if half the country was still the other side of the Channel

Would it have lasted? The Tudors were from Wales, and later a king James was from Scotland, and they moved to London. Attraction of the richest place. If an English king had won the HYW he would perhaps have found Paris more attractive. In any case, there would have been unhappy people on one side of the Channel or the other, leading to more wars of independance from one side or the other, later(?)

the French experience (to reiterate once more, they *won* the war)

There were many periods in the war... the result in each period was significant about weapons and tactic, the final result was perhaps not, depending on other factors too.
(...and I'm a Breton, our Duke arrived one day too late at Agincourt, on purpose, he probably told the French king he had an excuse from his mum or whatever)  lol
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Charlie_ on April 24, 2021, 09:25:46 PM
The English overwhelmingly used longbowmen and billmen in the War of the Roses because that's what they had. In French "civil wars" (and I'm including things like the War of Burgundian Succession) they used gendarmes, pikes, and various mercenaries, because that's what they had.

Let me just add that the French also used longbows in large quantities in the latter half of the 15th century, as did the Burgundians. It's true that we don't really have any sources talking about the effectiveness or even role of these European longbowmen in this period - perhaps because everyone used them they weren't considered noteworthy? Perhaps the French and Burgundians never made the most of them tactically, or if every army in these conflicts featured large numbers of longbowmen they sort of cancelled eachother out.
I've been researching the War of Burgundian Succession you mentioned, where both the French and Burgundian sides used longbows. I haven't come across any reference to them doing anything special. The Burgundians also used English archers, and there are a few references to actions they took part in, but again no real reference to massed archery being an important factor. Does this mean they weren't utilised as well as in past decades, or does it mean they did what they were supposed to do effectively and it just wasn't noteworthy enough to talk about? I don't know.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: sukhe_bator on April 25, 2021, 08:27:51 AM
The same intense debate has been going on for years about the actual effectiveness in battle of black powder weapons like the brown bess. In the case of the musket, individually it is a pretty mediocre weapon compared to an equivalent matchlock or rifled hunting weapon of the period. Used collectively though it is more than the sum of its parts. The psychological effect of such weapons used in large numbers is often not appreciated. The musket is loud, and when combined with the sulphurous gunsmoke and the seemingly indiscriminate bone smashing and maiming hits, fearsome. By contrast the almost silent rain of shafts, all seemingly aimed at you and intent on finding any chink in your armour can be equally unnerving. Flinching from or avoiding such armed bodies of men can often be as effective in battle as the cumulative effect of the actual damage they do.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on April 25, 2021, 08:53:05 PM
Atheling, thank you for the bibliography. It's always good to add to the to-read pile.
There were many periods in the war... the result in each period was significant about weapons and tactic, the final result was perhaps not, depending on other factors too.
(...and I'm a Breton, our Duke arrived one day too late at Agincourt, on purpose, he probably told the French king he had an excuse from his mum or whatever)  lol
I'm thinking of something like the Loire Valley Campaign, which was basically the beginning of the end. To me, that epitomized the French side finally "getting it" on strategy and tactics. They actually used their strengths to their advantage.
Let me just add that the French also used longbows in large quantities in the latter half of the 15th century, as did the Burgundians...
Yes, that's the "various mercenaries" part of what I wrote. Duke Charles the Bold of course was well known for actual English longbows within his ordonnance companies. However, like you said, there seems to be no record of any significant contribution they had to any of the battles. That's especially interesting in wars against the Swiss, which you'd think they would be very well suited, especially with a regular place in Duke Charles' organization. The Burgundian army kept getting surprised and out-maneuvred in the Swiss wars though, so another data point about their proper use.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 26, 2021, 06:07:18 AM
Atheling, thank you for the bibliography. It's always good to add to the to-read pile.

Not a problem at all. All the books are well worth a read and all have their own merits as well as angles when looking at the Warbow.

Duke Charles the Bold of course was well known for actual English longbows within his ordonnance companies. However, like you said, there seems to be no record of any significant contribution they had to any of the battles. That's especially interesting in wars against the Swiss, which you'd think they would be very well suited, especially with a regular place in Duke Charles' organization. The Burgundian army kept getting surprised and out-maneuvred in the Swiss wars though, so another data point about their proper use.

I think if you just take the figures for one of the Ordonnance:

"CIharles's army, finally, contained a Ducal Household of over 2,000 men, which eventually consisted of, firstly, eight 50-lance companies of men-at-arms, four being of the bodyguard, four of the Court; secondly, their corresponding archers, all English, about 800 strong; thirdly, eight 100-man companies of Household infantry (half ordinary, half extraordinary); and fourthly, a company of 40 Gentlemen of the Chamber, guarding the Duke's standard.

As might be expected in this early period, figures for the overall strength of the Burgundian army are rather conflicting, but shortly before the disastrous defeat of Morat, 1476, his army consisted of: 1,741 men-at-arms (including 500 of the Household); 4,062 mounted archers (including 1,377 English; probably also mounted crossbowmen); and 4,445 infantry: 10,248 total. However, Burgundian feudal levies and Savoyards would bring this up to something between 12 and 15,000 altogether.

In addition to horse and foot, Charles brought into the field a great quantity of artilleryCharles's army, finally, contained a Ducal Household of over 2,000 men, which eventually consisted of, firstly, eight 50-lance companies of men-at-arms, four being of the bodyguard, four of the Court; secondly, their corresponding archers, all English, about 800 strong; thirdly, eight 100-man companies of Household infantry (half ordinary, half extraordinary); and fourthly, a company of 40 Gentlemen of the Chamber, guarding the Duke's standard.

As might be expected in this early period, figures for the overall strength of the Burgundian army are rather conflicting, but shortly before the disastrous defeat of Morat, 1476, his army consisted of: 1,741 men-at-arms (including 500 of the Household); 4,062 mounted archers (including 1,377 English; probably also mounted crossbowmen); and 4,445 infantry: 10,248 total. However, Burgundian feudal levies and Savoyards would bring this up to something between 12 and 15,000 altogether.

In addition to horse and foot, Charles brought into the field a great quantity of artillery.", Gush


It is clear that a great deal of experimentation is going on. I could be wrong but I think the disparate nature of his army veered away from the essential esprit de corps achieved from hiring from professional localised retinues loyal to certain captains, indentured together, that kept "English" armies cohesive and that more then anything lead to his defeats (and yes, I'm including his mediocre strategist and tactician here!).

I once had a long conversation with Alex Buchel of Saga fame, at Warhammer World at one of the WAB Weekend Campaigns, who had just written the HYW supplement for WAB (sadly never to be published as GW folded very shortly afterwards) and we must have spent at least an hour making just that point. The absolute essential "ingredient"  n "English" armies were the extraordinary esprit de corps combined with the training since youth of not just the nobility but the Yeomanry. These two factors being consequential in the success of said "English" armies. Of course, such armies were not always successful. Leadership and luck always come into play.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: gregmita on April 29, 2021, 09:45:33 PM
I think you are definitely correct on the cohesion thing. The Burgundian Ordonnance may look like the wargamer's dream, with a combined arms army that contained all the best troop types of the time, but if they couldn't work together, the different arms are a liability, especially combined with poor leadership.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Patrice on April 30, 2021, 10:27:06 AM
The absolute essential "ingredient"  n "English" armies were the extraordinary esprit de corps combined with the training since youth of not just the nobility but the Yeomanry. These two factors being consequential in the success of said "English" armies.

Yes I entirely agree.

English troops in foreign armies (Burgundian, but also Breton in 1488, etc.) would have lacked this esprit de corps, and the foreign commanders probably did not use them properly.
And longbows used by foreign archers (others than English or Welsh) lacked the necessary training which explains they were not so effective.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on April 30, 2021, 12:34:34 PM
Yes I entirely agree.

English troops in foreign armies (Burgundian, but also Breton in 1488, etc.) would have lacked this esprit de corps, and the foreign commanders probably did not use them properly.
And longbows used by foreign archers (others than English or Welsh) lacked the necessary training which explains they were not so effective.

I am certainly with you on that one Patrice :)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Cubs on May 05, 2021, 04:01:08 PM
I thought I'd let the hornet's nest settle down a little before giving it another kick. Always more fun that way.

I think the esprit de corps angle is a good one, often overlooked. Funny how vital morale is for a soldier and how it's often seen as an afterthought or a lesser ingredient by us gamers. I see it as the most vital component of any army. After all, the whole purpose of war is to destroy the enemy's capacity or will to fight and you can often achieve that just by sticking around longer than they do.

on the physical side of things  the way I've always seen it, from what I've read and my own (very limited) experience of using a bow, is that the bow itself is half of the equation, the archer is what makes the other half. A crossbow will deliver the same power whether fired by a veteran or a rookie, which is why they were so popular. The longbow (great bow, English/Welsh/Scots bow, whatever, we know what we're talking about) was powered by the man firing, and because the cultural landscape in Britain and the Isles included bigger, thicker bows, then the longbowman tended to be bigger and stronger through using them, something that contemporary commentators made note of (no doubt linked to morale again - it's easy to be confident if you're stronger than the other guy and opposite is also true). I have heard that one reason for this was the popularity of deer hunting (and poaching) which used a large and powerful bow, whereas on the continent bows were mostly used for birds and rabbits, but I don't know how much truth is in that.

Yup, you could get a big bow in continental Europe, powered by a big man, firing big arrows. You could also get a small bow in Britain, powered by a small man, firing small arrows. But we're dealing with cultural norms that generated longbow experts from a good percentage of the population, who had literally grown their bodies around the weapons and were no doubt capable of feats of accuracy, strength, speed and endurance that we normal humans fathom and that a less experienced soldier could not attain. Look at any professional gymnast or athlete today to see what heights of performance the human body can reach with years of application.

But, if you use it wrong, it's not gonna work. Poor tactics or bad luck will always lead somewhere bad, no matter how good your troops. Plus, you're not always going to get the cream of the crop. Sometimes a commander will have to pad out the numbers with less well trained bowmen - smaller bows perhaps? Or perhaps big bows, but with men not able to fire them with the same accuracy, power or speed?

So how good was the longbow? Potentially devastating if you make the bow and the man big and experienced enough. But it was one weapon, one tool in the box and not a magic wand that could take the place of good generalship. I do feel that it was a unique weapon - the man and the bow - in terms of the sheer power it could generate, the rate of fire, the accuracy of delivery, the size and craftsmanship of the arrows themselves that peaked by the mid 15th century, at a time just before (the best) armour managed to catch up with it and go beyond the bow's capability to cause such problems. It was still a very useful weapon of course for a long time after that, but a combination of technical and tactical advances gradually pushed it into obscurity.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Johnp4000 on May 06, 2021, 09:24:51 AM
When you look at army lists, English longbowmen seemed to have hired out their services to several other foreign armies, obviously in smaller numbers but does anyone know of any non HYW battle accounts where there are any details to see whether their contribution was effective or otherwise?
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on May 06, 2021, 11:39:15 AM
Off the top of my head, specifically English Archers, the booklet is a great place to start....

The Burgundian Army of Charles the Bold, Pat McGill, Armand Pacou & Rod E. Riddell

Available from the Lance and Longbow Society here:
https://lanceandlongbow.com/shop.php (https://lanceandlongbow.com/shop.php)

There were others. Montlhery 1465 is a very good example. Get googling :) There's a great book on the battle in French available on amazon here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128]https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128]https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128)
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Johnp4000 on May 06, 2021, 05:02:15 PM
Off the top of my head, specifically English Archers, the booklet is a great place to start....

The Burgundian Army of Charles the Bold, Pat McGill, Armand Pacou & Rod E. Riddell

Available from the Lance and Longbow Society here:
https://lanceandlongbow.com/shop.php (https://lanceandlongbow.com/shop.php)

There were others. Montlhery 1465 is a very good example. Get googling :) There's a great book on the battle in French available on amazon here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128]https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128]https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/bataille-Montlh%C3%A9ry-16-juillet-1465/dp/2912994128)


Thanks, Atherling,I know they also served in Portugal and Italy where I assumed they would have been faced down by lots of crossbowmen? Have you read any details of these theatres?
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on May 06, 2021, 06:36:45 PM
Anything good military history of Hawkwood would be a good place to start in Italy.

Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Patrice on May 06, 2021, 08:12:50 PM
A few hundreds from the Isle of Wight were on the Breton side at St-Aubin-du-Cormier 1488.

I don't think we know much of what they did - they fought bravely; we know that they were there, and also that many Breton archers were given a red cross too (instead of a black one as worn by all Breton troops) it was believed it would impress the French. But in fact, wearing a red cross meant slaughter for those who were caught in the ensuing rout.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: WuZhuiQiu on May 08, 2021, 12:54:45 AM
I thought I'd let the hornet's nest settle down a little before giving it another kick. Always more fun that way.

...

on the physical side of things  the way I've always seen it, from what I've read and my own (very limited) experience of using a bow, is that the bow itself is half of the equation, the archer is what makes the other half. A crossbow will deliver the same power whether fired by a veteran or a rookie, which is why they were so popular. The longbow (great bow, English/Welsh/Scots bow, whatever, we know what we're talking about) was powered by the man firing, and because the cultural landscape in Britain and the Isles included bigger, thicker bows, then the longbowman tended to be bigger and stronger through using them, something that contemporary commentators made note of (no doubt linked to morale again - it's easy to be confident if you're stronger than the other guy and opposite is also true). I have heard that one reason for this was the popularity of deer hunting (and poaching) which used a large and powerful bow, whereas on the continent bows were mostly used for birds and rabbits, but I don't know how much truth is in that.

Yup, you could get a big bow in continental Europe, powered by a big man, firing big arrows. You could also get a small bow in Britain, powered by a small man, firing small arrows. But we're dealing with cultural norms that generated longbow experts from a good percentage of the population, who had literally grown their bodies around the weapons and were no doubt capable of feats of accuracy, strength, speed and endurance that we normal humans fathom and that a less experienced soldier could not attain. Look at any professional gymnast or athlete today to see what heights of performance the human body can reach with years of application.

...


Also, more experience in training and usage would likely have translated into the ability to use longbows having greater draw weights, and to draw (and release) them more often before becoming tired.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on May 08, 2021, 06:51:29 AM
Also, more experience in training and usage would likely have translated into the ability to use longbows having greater draw weights, and to draw (and release) them more often before becoming tired.

Yes, strength and stamina would be essential.

It is important to note that, as I have said in s previous post, the same goes for most Medieval weapons to some degree. This is often overlooked.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Patrice on May 08, 2021, 08:08:32 AM
Yes, strength and stamina would be essential.

It is important to note that, as I have said in s previous post, the same goes for most Medieval weapons to some degree. This is often overlooked.

Yes, certainly.  ::) I'm working to resolve the fact that the rules I use for Dark Ages spear-armed cavarly cannot work exactly the same for Napoleonic lancers...  :?  lol
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Cubs on May 08, 2021, 08:59:10 AM
Also, more experience in training and usage would likely have translated into the ability to use longbows having greater draw weights, and to draw (and release) them more often before becoming tired.

Yup, 100%.
Title: Re: English Longbow Myth busted....
Post by: Atheling on May 08, 2021, 09:20:08 AM
Yes, certainly.  ::) I'm working to resolve the fact that the rules I use for Dark Ages spear-armed cavarly cannot work exactly the same for Napoleonic lancers...  :?  lol

I find that this is the very problem we face when we abbreviate and abstract our rules too much. It's about finding that balance. Unfortunately, after 30 years, I am still on the hunt for a good set for the Late Medieval period! There are some very decent sets, but nothing that *I* feel hits the spot.

I'm drifting OT so I'll bow out for now. :)