English Longbow Myth busted....

[bluewillow]

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

cheers
Matt

[Atheling]

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

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 

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.

[Blackwolf]

Interesting Matt . To my mind it was always the horses that were the target, though this seems rarely mentioned  .

[Atheling]

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.

[jeffreythancock]

Or through the mud?

Depends on the battle. The French were not always obliging enough to charge pell mell mounted towards the English lines.

[carlos marighela]

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.

[Dolnikan]

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).

[Atheling]

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.

[Charlie_]

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.

[Diablo Jon]

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)

[Atheling]

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 

[SteveBurt]

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)

[Harry Faversham]

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!

[Atheling]

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.

[Hu Rhu]

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.