[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

[Dan Howard]

[Randall Moffett]

Ahmad,

Edward I employed lots and lots of English archers in his wars. I have read through the three major royal records from Henry III on to Henry VII and can promise the idea that Edward I was employing only Welsh or even majority Welsh archers in his wars is incorrect. In fact recent work has shown that even in Wales much of the south was not even really Welsh, at least how most people would think of them. This is important as Edward relied on his marcher lords and their men in much of his Wales campaigns. While many of these men perhaps thought of themselves as Welsh in some sense, they had long sense adopted much of English military culture.

Now the reason why he and following English kings draw men in large numbers from northern Wales after Edward I takes over is simple. They, or their family, are now the direct feudal lords of the area. Truth be told thousands of English archers are drawn up around the same time as well. The idea that England early on did not have just as many if not more archers than Wales just is not born out by the historic records we have. Sure they use the Welsh, just as they use any other part of their realm, England, Gascony, Ireland and Wales- Heck Edward I and Edward III try employing the Scots even but that does not really work. It goes back to romanticizing national identities. Literally the Patent Rolls are full of general levies then commissions of arrays all over England for archers during Edward I's reign. Population wise Wales could never compete with England, just like England in the end could not compete with France's recruitment base for archers in the 1440s.

I see no reason to think the English warbow developed from the Welsh but think maybe influenced by the Welsh might work in some ways but I am not convinced. They were using English archers in England by at least Henry I's reign. The Great Warbow has loads of pre-Edward I references to the use of English archers in large forces. The difference between this earlier use and Edward I perhaps but more so Edward III is the percentage of them in the total army- going from a group of limited numbers to making up 50% or more. For this reason to me I am not sure it is developed or influenced from as Edward III had little to nothing of Welsh archery experience. If the real change had been in Edward I's reign maybe but I am not sure that is the case. What happens in Edward I's reign is an updating of the old and crumbling general levy for service outside the home county to the Commission of Array. This gives the king clear and direct power to raise men to do military service outside their home counties, something that earlier was often contested, in addition to ineffective.


RPM

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

[Ahmad Al-Tabari]

Thats really interesting. I guess the Anglicised Welshmen might have considered themselves as Englishmen. but its also possible that despite their assimilation into English culture they retained a seperate "school" of archery.

I am sure English Archers played an important role before Edward I, as they were instrumental in replulsing the French Invasion of 1216. But somehow I cant help but feel that there is a correlation between military contact with Wales and the increase of Importance of archery in English armies. Assuming that the English did not adopt elements of Welsh archery, it can still be argued that after fighting the Welsh the English developed an increased respect for the longbow as they saw how the welsh used it to deadly effect.

But then again thats all speculation

[Dan Howard]

[Elling Polden]

The development of the english warbow is probably a result of the practice of drafting bowmen, rather than the other way around.
In the high middle ages, light infantry where seen as unsuitable for melee combat. As a result, some juridistictions, notably England, leavied the lowest ranks of society as archers instead.
As these showed themselves usefull, they where required by law to train for war, shooting volley fire at distant targets, prompting heavier bows than those use for hunting.

It could be held to support this theory that the english longbow regiments where replaced by pikemen in short order during the 16th c, when pike leavies showed themselves effective.

[Randall Moffett]

Elling,

hard to say if they replaced bowmen. Seems more like they are replacing men at arms and armed men than bowmen to my understanding of the trends in the 16th.

RPM

[Jean Thibodeau]

During the Third Crusade Richard the Lionhearted seems to have made a great deal of use of crossbowmen but little is mentioned about archers, at least as far as I know ?

If archers where used in Richard's time it may have been in small select numbers and I would guess in that case used as snipers/marksman targeting specific high value targets rather than massed volleys of arrows ? But then in this kind of usage the slow firing crossbow can do the same jobs ( Relatively slow to the bow, but not so slow with the early crossbows using a foot stirrup and/or belt hooks compared with the heavier and later pulley and very slow to load crossbows ).

So when mass volleys where seen to be useful I would also guess that archers would become very desirable and more and more numerous.

Sort of the chicken versus the egg question: Did the usefulness of mass volleys cause the use of great numbers of archers or did a slow increase in the number of archers reach a tipping point where their usefulness in volley fire ( loosing of arrows ) became very obvious ? I would guess that before being used in the thousands in large battles smaller skirmishes involving only a few score of archers would create minie volleys in proportion to only a few hundred fighters: I guess 50 archers in a small fight would have the effect of mass volleys at least in scale. From there I think the idea might take off.

On the other hand, archers in large numbers where used by others like the Byzantines, both foot and horse archers and having a cased bow part of the backup equipment of even their heavy cavalry.

The idea of mass volleys would never have been completely " new " but maybe at the time of Richard the advantages of the crossbow was effective enough and the power of the longbow not fully appreciated ?

[Luka Borscak]

I think it may be because most of Richard's crossbowmen weren't native English but rather Italian or other mercenaries.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Gary Teuscher]

Dredging up an old topic.....

I hope I am a bit better at evaluating testing than I was before, bit I'm going to make some statements about this test, that seems to be the rallying point for those believing in the longbow as a superweapon:

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/...esting.pdf

A few arrors -

1) The calculations went through by Bane don't seem to match up with the numbers Hardy came up with for loss of enrgy by an arrow through distance. based on Hardy's result, the enrgy produced by Bane's longbow . This would more seem to simulate a 110 lb longbow at 150 yards, not 240 yards.

2) The mail - hard to doubt or question without true knowledge of how it was made, but I would agree, Schmid's mail would be a better choice, or at least a more respected better known choice.

3) The Padding - What I have read, padding was usually 17+ layers of linen. Doe the 2 layers of linen and 1 inch of batted cotton relfect the true period padding worn?

4) The Bow - He makes no comments about period string. The string used very well could have been modern how string, which can add 5-10% to the effectiveness. A similar test was done for turkish bows, and the tester used instead of modern bowstring a dacron fiber that was to mimic the tensile properties of silk, used as string for these bows.

5) The taughtness and small materials used for mail - would this not aid in an arrow penetrating, and not be indicative of true battlefield condidtions?

6) The arrows - They seem to be made of materials designed to mimic the C. 1545 Mary Rose Arrows. Were these not later technology, and not indicative of C. 1400 arrows? I knew plate got harder during this time. And what's worse, the steely construction of the arrow heads was also used for the needle nose bodkins, and from what I understand these have always been found in an unhardened condition?

7) The plate - aside from any questions on the hardness of the plate, it's 1.2 mm thick. This thickness was what you will most often be seen in Limb armour, or in the earlier period, worn in addition tomail and padding. Breastplates designed to be worn without mail were almost neve this thin. I guess to truly test the effectiveness of C 1400 plate, this should be used over the mail and padding.

[Ahmad Tabari]

The wire gauge they used for the mail was too light relative to the internal diameter. If they wish to use 18 gauge (1 mm) wire then the internal diameter of the ring should be no more than 6 mm.

[Randall Moffett]

Gary,

Why would you dredge this up..... I can see the earth trembling and smoking already.

I do not know if any one familiar with the evidence thinks that the war bow is a super weapon. Clearly it was effective, very effective, but as everything has limitations.

On to your points-
1- Yes but not as big of an issue. 150 yards on foot is still a long walk for a guy on foot, especially not fully armoured. It must have been a hellish experience to march forward under such an arrow storm. Recent work has improved on this work.

2) Mail, yep not many would argue that using more correct replicas would not be better. That said every one trying to select one type, size, design of mail is missing the fact that mail was not one single size, shape or thickness so results vary. I am sure some arrows would be repelled by mail. I am also sure some mail will will not. A million factors are vital to this as well. One would have to make a range of mail, same as with plate, to get it right.

3) Not sure where you got this idea for padding but to my mind not supported by evidence. There is no evidence that anything besides a padded garment was used prior to the 1360s. Before this the only evidence is for two layers of linen with cotton wool. With Charles's gambeson we have a multilayered garment with padding. I know of little evidence till the mid 15th that has anything close to 17 layers of anything without padding, nor does it appear to have superseded the padded types which continued on in use for some time.

4)Not a big issue really. The 5%, even 10% difference really would still leave a large amount of possible success. As well our understanding of and manufacture of similar products may or may not be representative to what was then part of a well and strictly governed trade.

5)see 2)

6)Actually we have a few arrows likely from the 15th and they are surprisingly similar to some of the MR arrows. Appears technology was fairly similar. As far as armour hardness it seems to be a minority of armour so while a factor it is hardly representative as a whole. Yes the long bodkins have 0 evidence of being hardened steel but there are two varieties of heads that show some were hard. This was mentioned before in the 7 previous pages here.

7) Not quite. Limb armour perhaps as an average could be around this 1-1.2mm but parts of many places on armour were this thin or thinner. As well some armour on a whole is thinner. Since no one has done a really comprehensive study on armour thickness it is harder to hazard a guess but having looked at a fair number of originals I can tell you I have seen helmets and breastplates with a fairly large surface area that was around this range (1.2mm).

The truth of the matter is both sides are likely wrong- to an extent, the superweapon and the armour invincibility crowd. Once people get to grips with this the issue actually is a lot easier to deal with. Yes armour often repelled arrows under given factors and on occasion it was compromised.

So many factors, so little time...

RPM

[T. Arndt]

[Randall Moffett]

T.,

The issue is torso armour is not uniform. I am sure depending on where it hits is a major factor as the further from the center the thinner most breastplates are. As well some COP plates are only .8mm-1mm. So I'd not be that confident in the torso armours layers, point blank I'd think you'd be in a very high danger level. That said 50-100 yards out I'd assume it would be near impossible to put an arrow through. I am not sue any one would be safe point blank without more than standard armour. Same goes with helmets, sides and bottom, often visors are drastically thinner material than the top front.

I figure square in the chest you have by far the best chance of survival but once again I'd not be confident with point blank shots. If I had to fight armour likely increases such a chance of survival drastically but I do not think any armour made or makes a soldier have a 0% chance of casualties.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

The armour thickness Randall, I am referencing this info: