Longbow v crossbow (and handgun) - historical discussion

[MerlintheMad]

"Ripple vollies" is a good, descriptive term. Furthermore, the volleying, after the initial one, would be conducted company by company. So the visual of the entire English line would be rippling vollies launching up here and there randomly, a continuous incoming shot striking the French vanguard with repeated blows of "hail". The anticipation of the targeted men must have been dreadful.

It has been shown that anywhere from 7 to 15% of a cap-a-pie plate harness is not plate but joints and exposed areas. The higher percentage is from the sides; and of course, when a MAA opts for no visor. Freak rebounds (ricochets) off armored surfaces and even held weapons could shoot fragments up into the lowered faces of MAA with open helmets. The rattle and impact of arrows would all by itself be a terrible strain. All the while the risk of getting palpably hit would increase as the range shortened: until the last c. 60 yards would be a maximized ordeal for the facing ranks as they were directly targeted by something close to that "twelve shots per minute" by the entire front two ranks of yeomen, and many in the third and even fourth ranks shooting directly as views to the enemy permitted. This works out at Agincourt to be something like half a dozen arrows per man in that final closing phase, all within the most effective range of the war bow. Some actual penetrations of plate occurred then. While hits on non or very thin plate (edges of 1mm) would be numerous.

The "Gesta" author (the "cleric") specifically mentions the sides of helmets being penetrated; this likely occurred due to the forward projecting "wings" of archers flanking each battle of MAA. (I've raised the debate of one or three English battles of MAAs. So I will state here that I am an advocate for three battles, simply on the basis of a holistic appeal to the original sources, plus common sense dictating that the most archers would be placed to provide the most cover to the MAAs: and that is not accomplished by putting gigantic wings on either side of a single body/battle of MAA; which would result in half or more of the yeomen being out of range of the attacking French vanguard.)

[Atheling]

The "Gesta" author (the "cleric") specifically mentions the sides of helmets being penetrated; this likely occurred due to the forward projecting "wings" of archers flanking each battle of MAA. (I've raised the debate of one or three English battles of MAAs. So I will state here that I am an advocate for three battles, simply on the basis of a holistic appeal to the original sources, plus common sense dictating that the most archers would be placed to provide the most cover to the MAAs: and that is not accomplished by putting gigantic wings on either side of a single body/battle of MAA; which would result in half or more of the yeomen being out of range of the attacking French vanguard.)

It's worth remembering that the anonymous author of the Gesta, being a 'cleric', was confined to the rear of the army, ‘…was then sitting on a horse among the baggage at the rear of the battle’. This would obviously colour his account of the battle, though to what extent it is difficult to ascertain.

The only other English 'witness' we have is Hardyng  and his account is highly dubious. In actual fact there is a lot of debate as to whether he was actually present on the campaign at all.

I think that one of the best accounts, as it's written from a French source by Ghillebert de Lannoy who was in the front ranks, was wounded and left on the field only to be discovered and to become a prisoner and was subsequently taken to England.

Darrell.

[tin shed gamer]

I don't think there's any need to get hung up on armour penetration,These arrows are hitting you with a hell of a thump.Its blunt force trauma and kinetic transference that cause you issues,It's the assault on senses as well. It wears down your core stamina,and both your physical and mental stamina.as its multiple hits from May angles and it repeated again and again before you close.
I've had dead arms and dead legs from being hit to close in full harness(admittedly it wasn't mine so the fit was less than perfect,and I hadn't trained at all ,as it was a last minute thing)with 30lbs draws.
As for hitting the weak spots in armour it's one of those million to one shots that seem to happen every minute.Now I could give you an example of my own experience of this,unfortunately this would totally undermine any illusions of be able to contribute something sensible to this debate  
Another source for you to consider would be the musings of Jack Churchill he has some interesting thoughts on the psychology of the bowman,Although he's a bit of regimental leg end,and his valor is beyond question ,however he is flawed (you could go as far as to call him a Nob, bit of a khaki term,more pc term is a man out of his time)he's lorded in some circles for having the last confirmed kill with a long bow by a British soldier,Amongst professionals there's questions raised as to his desire to use a bow in combat,as there is no military logic to use weapons that have been obsolete for hundreds of years ,when you have full access to a current level of technology. It doesn't sit well.but his auto biography does give an insight (even taking into account the time of writing.
On the conservation of ammunition ,there are no time outs ,a reload is dangerous inconvenience for you,and an advantage for your opponent ,that's been true since the first time we threw anything at anyone or anything that was trying to eat us or kill us.
Mark.

[Atheling]

That though is not really a super weapon.

And that is the case. The warbow was not a super weapon.

It was part of a well oiled English tactical battlefield organisation.

I strongly maintain it was the cumulative disruptive effects of the warbow that won these battles. As I pointed out earlier, if you take the Wars of the Roses as an example, it was usually the side forced to move first, to march/charge the enemy viz literally "suffer the slings and arrows" would arrive at the melee in much worse shape to fight than the guys who were fresh.

Darrell.

[tin shed gamer]

  for me I can only post what I know,or have experienced,The enjoyment for me in this topic is they way it wanders off topic (just a little)and comes back fresh,because when you come back after going of track more often than not you view your destination from a different place and get a whole new perspective ,(as long as you've remembered were you were ment to be heading)
 
I don't like all these armour piecing tests that flood the Internet ,they're always flawed as you just can't represent how armour is flexed by movement ,I don't just mean at the joints. I mean the plates them selves.if it's flexing one way when you hit you get a dent if it's flexing another it'll bounce off .( you can do an over simple example of this with a piece of thin card.) So waffling a side I have no idea how well an arrow went through armour,All I can say is they did because its documented but at what point did armour win the arms race ,For me I'm not sure it ever really did,I think it was more a case of the decline of skilled bowmen and the lack of the big lads to use them.At the same time new weapons and simpler weapons to train on coming in ,which re starts the race which is still going on.There no doubt armour got better and the problems of deflecting impacts was better understood but I don't see these advances filtering down to the rank and file.There are examples of late 15th and 16th century helmets and Breastplate being re used for the civil war.

On being hit by arrows I'm daft but not that daft I've never stood around and let any one shoot anything but a buttoned arrow at me.So all I know is posh flying sticks.With this in mind they do feel very similar when hitting in a rained volley ,to what they do in direct fire ,Until you get to around thirty yards then you really know about it . And less it's pre Planned and practiced the bow shots under this range are normally not allowed.

The whole point of bows and crossbows in displays,is completely at odds with there actual use.Simply there not ment to put a hole in anyone.

But what I do know is bows can put big enough dents in armour to cause its wearer issues with movement and can effect how well the harness functions.

Mark.

[jon_1066]

The way I see it longbows were very effective when used in the right way.  Against lightly armoured troops they were deadly like at the Battle of Falkirk where the Scotts schiltrons saw off the English Cavalry but were shot to bits by the massed longbows and crossbows.

A proto Agincourt at Dupplin Moor also shows the effect of longbows.  How many of the Scotts had full harness?  Presumably not that many.  Hallidon Hill played out similarly.  Terrain favourable to the defense resulted in a massacre due to the Longbow.  If not killing lightly armoured spearmen it also funneled the attack into the center - since who wants to stand on the edge where 2000 archers can shoot you?  That then leads to a crush where many casualties can be caused by your own side.

The English during the Hundred Years war also had many victories when seriously outnumbered.  The losses towards the end were when the longbow tactic failed due to circumstance, was not employed, outflanked or they were simply too heavily outnumbered.

[Atheling]

The English during the Hundred Years war also had many victories when seriously outnumbered.  The losses towards the end were when the longbow tactic failed due to circumstance, was not employed, outflanked or they were simply too heavily outnumbered.

Add to that the lack of finance and political will

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

I strongly maintain it was the cumulative disruptive effects of the warbow that won these battles. As I pointed out earlier, if you take the Wars of the Roses as an example, it was usually the side forced to move first, to march/charge the enemy viz literally "suffer the slings and arrows" would arrive at the melee in much worse shape to fight than the guys who were fresh.

I'd argue that with the inexperienced and hastily raised troops of the WotR, it was moving itself that caused the biggest problem... they just wouldn't be able to keep what passed for a formation together (professionals of the households and riding retinues apart).

As far as we know, there are only three battles where one side suffered more than the other as far as archery went (1st St. Albans one side was totally outnumbered, Towton had one side shooting against the wind and Edgecote where one side had far fewer archers as the army had recruited in archer-poor central Wales), so we can only presume archers were in more or less equal quantities otherwise. 

Although certainly archery against the overall larger numbers of less-well protected men than was usual in the HYW, can't be ignored all the same and must have caused considerable casualties.

[MerlintheMad]

It's worth remembering that the anonymous author of the Gesta, being a 'cleric', was confined to the rear of the army, ‘…was then sitting on a horse among the baggage at the rear of the battle’. This would obviously colour his account of the battle, though to what extent it is difficult to ascertain.

The only other English 'witness' we have is Hardyng  and his account is highly dubious. In actual fact there is a lot of debate as to whether he was actually present on the campaign at all.

I think that one of the best accounts, as it's written from a French source by Ghillebert de Lannoy who was in the front ranks, was wounded and left on the field only to be discovered and to become a prisoner and was subsequently taken to England.

Darrell.

Interesting stuff. De Lannoy is nowhere mentioned in Anne Curry's otherwise copious treatment in 2000 "Agincourt; Sources and Interpretations". Yet she references de Lannoy in her 2005 book on Agincourt. I wonder why that is?

As for "the cleric" author of the "Gesta", it is evident from the text that the baggage train had moved up not far behind the English line. While it was enroute the king's baggage was looted by the attack from the Sire of Agincourt and his peasants. This attack was not witnessed by the "cleric", which is strange if it was "a thousand yards" to the rear as some have asserted. The "tail" of the baggage train was looted, not the part that had already arrived near the army, which is where the "cleric" was. Henry ordered his baggage train brought up to protect it from seizure. This would only be possible if it were close to the rear of the army. I've decided that given the visual details from the "cleric", and the stated intent on moving it up to be protected by the army, that it could not have been further back than two hundred yards.

[Atheling]

Interesting stuff. De Lannoy is nowhere mentioned in Anne Curry's otherwise copious treatment in 2000 "Agincourt; Sources and Interpretations". Yet she references de Lannoy in her 2005 book on Agincourt. I wonder why that is?

As for "the cleric" author of the "Gesta", it is evident from the text that the baggage train had moved up not far behind the English line. While it was enroute the king's baggage was looted by the attack from the Sire of Agincourt and his peasants. This attack was not witnessed by the "cleric", which is strange if it was "a thousand yards" to the rear as some have asserted. The "tail" of the baggage train was looted, not the part that had already arrived near the army, which is where the "cleric" was. Henry ordered his baggage train brought up to protect it from seizure. This would only be possible if it were close to the rear of the army. I've decided that given the visual details from the "cleric", and the stated intent on moving it up to be protected by the army, that it could not have been further back than two hundred yards.

In all honesty I don't think it's possible to place the author of the Gesta at all during the battle if indeed he stayed in the same place. It is mentioned that he was with the baggage and that the baggage was moved up but, Henry had to advance his army to within bowshot, a difficult manoeuvre for any Late Medieval army and it is very unlikely, nay impossib#le that the baggage could have been organised to move up simultaneously IMHO

Darrell.

[Arlequín]

I've not read the source concerned, but how many inquiring minds would stay with the baggage when there's a battle going on to watch? Imagine blogging "A lot of noise from over the rise today" instead of the battle.

Indeed the baggage train would be fairly large, the allocation for the Francs-Archers later on was a wagon per 20 men, so possibly the same for a 'vintaine' of English archers. Captains and knights got one a piece to themselves, more senior folk one or two on top of that. You could be talking 200 wagons or more.

Interesting stuff. De Lannoy is nowhere mentioned in Anne Curry's otherwise copious treatment in 2000 "Agincourt; Sources and Interpretations". Yet she references de Lannoy in her 2005 book on Agincourt. I wonder why that is?

   

I would assume that one was intended for the academic market and the other for mass publication, and needed a bit of 'zing'.

[Atheling]

the problem with eyewitness accounts is being present does not automatically give one a god like view of what is going on. While valuable eyewitness accounts are not watertight.

Precisely. One is more likely to get a very distorted view as an observer can only see what's immediately in front of them, give or take.

Darrell.

[MerlintheMad]

"Our cleric" makes a distinct point of his being on horseback during the battle. Being with the baggage even twenty yards to the rear would be useless if he couldn't SEE. From the back of a horse, or getting up high on a cart, would be a detail worth mentioning in order to give veracity to one's first person account. In addition to that specific, important detail, he says that the king moved the baggage up, and when he deemed that most of it had arrived, he commenced the battle. Very specific details. He moved the baggage, and he commenced the battle in relation to the baggage arriving. I don't know how you can dismiss it, or why you'd want to....

[MerlintheMad]

...
   

I would assume that one was intended for the academic market and the other for mass publication, and needed a bit of 'zing'.

That's just it: de Lannoy is an eyewitness. There are very few of those. So his account, no matter when written later in life, would get included. It's as if Currey didn't even know about de Lannoy before she compiled her "sources and interpretations" book in 2000.

[Arlequín]

While valuable eyewitness accounts are not watertight.

By any means, eyewitness testimony is so unreliable that you will rarely get a conviction from it without other forensic evidence to back it up... or unless the defendant was actually personally known to the witness.

Something like a battle to the uninitiated would be so overwhelming to the senses that I'm surprised he was able to record anything at all from it. Having experienced something akin to a medieval battle, although in the hundreds rather than thousands, your recall is fragmentary. You mentally highlight parts of it and blank others, you remember small details which are often insignificant and only by speaking to others who were there and adding their little bits can you reform the course of events.

I have my doubts therefore that either eyewitness 'witnessed' everything they claim to have and will have added other peoples' accounts to what they could recall of it themselves... fortunately nobody claimed to have seen angels like at the Battle of Mons in 1914.  

That's just it: de Lannoy is an eyewitness. There are very few of those. So his account, no matter when written later in life, would get included. It's as if Currey didn't even know about de Lannoy before she compiled her "sources and interpretations" book in 2000.

Maybe... or she thought the vultures of the academic world would just rip his testimony to shreds and use the remains to beat her over the head. The general public are somewhat less vitriolic and will largely be content to just read and enjoy.

Without tracking back through the decades of academic debate over Agincourt I couldn't say one way or the other... I don't mind guessing though.