English Longbow Myth busted....

[Atheling]

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

[Patrice]

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.

[Charlie_]

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.

[gregmita]

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....

[gregmita]

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)

[FierceKitty]

Most English don't seem to remember who actually won the HYW.

[carlos marighela]

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. 

[Atheling]

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.

[Otto1485]

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)

[Atheling]

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.

[gregmita]

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.

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.

[Atheling]

I don't think the nationalism here is with people in the Medieval era...

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 

[SteveBurt]

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.

[Atheling]

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.

[fantasticlegions]

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.