| Author |
Message |
|
Kurt Scholz
|
 Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 7:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Every culture has accounts of men who could shoot powerful bows, but has anyone other than the English ever managed to put together enough of these individuals to deploy the weapon en masse and developed specific tactics for it? |
The ancient Chinese managed that sometimes and all Central Eurasian powers.
In China from time to time armed border peasant militias were allowed, who also provided the army with the much sought after archers. Because bow-archers were often not enough, a large portion could additionally have a crossbow stock to make operating the same bow easier. Finding out the exact composition from the sources is difficult, but in practice the crossbows were more relevant. Massed crossbow formations are known from Scandinavia and far easier to get than massed bows.
Korea during the Imjin War seemingly had massed archery, but not with the outstanding strength requiring tools the British deployed.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kurt Scholz wrote:
| Quote: | | Massed crossbow formations are known from Scandinavia and far easier to get than massed bows. |
Scanadanavians made great use of the bow prior to their use of the Crossbow. Their were known for the effectiveness of their archery, and used bows from the few finds we have similar in length and draweight to longbows.
One difference though is they seem to have been incorporated in the infantry formation, either in the rear or moving within the ranks as tactics dictated. Unfortunately we do not have real good spedifics on their deployment, but they would certainly have a fair amount of archers in a formation.
Dan Howard wrote:
| Quote: | | Is there a study that concludes that a typical bow in these armies was 120+ lbs? |
I'm not sure of far eastern armies, but even with steppe/turkish types we really do not know what draw weight bows they were using. They well could have been 120 pounds on average - or not.
One thing that is important though - due to a few factors, a composite recurve would be roughly about 20% more efficient than a longbow - of course thereby meaning that a 100 pound draw composite recurve stores similar energy to a 100 pound longbow.
The "average" longbow has a slightly higher drawlength - but this is off set by a few factors, the primary one being the physics of a recurve bow as opposed to a non recurve.
And, taking into account the lighter arrows used by the composite, a composite that transmits the same energy as a longbow will actually have more kinetic energy at short ranges - though the heavier lonbow arrow will retain more energy at range. Throw in the fact that the composite arrow should outrange the longbow, and you have a bit of an oxymoron.
Unfortunatley we know little of draw eights of various bows - and with those we do know the draweights of, we don't have enough of a sample base to determine a true "average".
For instance, we know the elite archers of the flagship of the English King in 1545 used bows of a draw weight of about 150 pounds - but that is all we really know. Other found longbows from this time period have substantially lesser draws - but they may have been hunting weapons, again we don't know, other than one was purportedly used by English archers at Flodden.
If I remember correctly, aside from being slightly deformed, the English archers on the Mary Rose were also taller than the average Englander of the time. This would perhaps point to "elite status" for these archers, perhaps higher draw eights as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gary, a couple of points you make need correction IMHO:
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | The "average" longbow has a slightly higher drawlength |
Draw length is simply dictated by how long someone's arms are and the method of drawing. Bows themselves do not have different draw lengths and a person will generally draw very slightly further with a thumb ring than with a finger draw.
| Quote: | | And, taking into account the lighter arrows used by the composite |
Again, the arrow weight is not necessarily connected to the bow type. Any bow can shoot a heavy arrow, if it is powerful enough.
| Quote: | | For instance, we know the elite archers of the flagship of the English King in 1545 used bows of a draw weight of about 150 pounds - but that is all we really know. |
We don't know that actually. Various experts have guessed various weight ranges for the Mary Rose bows, most authors seeming to settle at a range of 120-180lbs, but it is essentially impossible to measure what the draw weight of a piece of salt-water saturated yew from nearly 500 years ago was, because such things are dependent on so many factors, such as grain density. Two modern replica yew warbows can look the same size and thickness and yet draw quite different weights.
| Quote: | | Other found longbows from this time period have substantially lesser draws |
Which other longbows from this period? The 'Flodden' bow and?... There are essentially no parallels. We are incredibly lucky to have the Mary Rose bows and they are our only real material source, except for arguably the surviving arrow fragments from various sites.
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
  |
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Matt Easton Wrote:
| Quote: | | Draw length is simply dictated by how long someone's arms are and the method of drawing. Bows themselves do not have different draw lengths and a person will generally draw very slightly further with a thumb ring than with a finger draw. |
Well, what I stated was an oversimplification. Bows do indeed have designed drawlengths where they are most efficient, though of course you can draw it shorter, and in some cases further, but by drawing a bow further than it is designed for you face a few problems, stacking is one where you get little additional stored kinetic energy for the additional draw. The other problem is weakening or even worse breaking the bow.
So while the bows do not come with an owners manual that stipulates drawlength, there are reasons why bows were drawn to certain lengths. And to get an idea of the customary drawlength of a bow, look at arrow lengths. The length of the arrow, minus a few inches is the customary drawlength of the bow. An arrow does indeed define the drawlength, at least the maximum draw, unless using a sipher, though I am talking about war arrows, not flight arrows, which makes the sipher somewhat irrelevant.
And found longbow arrows (at least those from the Mary Rose) are a bit longer than those associated with tradional eastern archery. However, if English Longbows of the 13th-15th centuries were shorter than those of the 16th, they could, but would not be required to, have shorter draw lengths than the bows of the Mary Rose.
| Quote: | | Again, the arrow weight is not necessarily connected to the bow type. Any bow can shoot a heavy arrow, if it is powerful enough. |
No, the arrow weight is not a requirement of bow type. But we are talking about the standard archery practices of western vs. Middle Eastern/Steppe types. And the longbow platform loosed a heavier arrow basing it upon traditional eastern archery practices. I am not talking about theoretical abilities of bow/arrow combinations, but of what was used in practice.
| Quote: | | We don't know that actually. Various experts have guessed various weight ranges for the Mary Rose bows, most authors seeming to settle at a range of 120-180lbs, but it is essentially impossible to measure what the draw weight of a piece of salt-water saturated yew from nearly 500 years ago was, because such things are dependent on so many factors, such as grain density. |
Well -
| Quote: | | Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N) .[9] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[10] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose |
Yes indeed they are estimates. But I am rather comfortable with these estimates, though there is of course room for variance. These are the best estimates we have, and I as well as most feel Hardy's estimated are the closest to accurate. Your 120-180 is a bit high.
The only area I question on Hardy's estimate - the draw length is I beleve from the string to the outwards (target facing) part of the stave. With a 30 inch arrow, the head would have to rest against the stave with a 30" draw. This would not be feasible for a broadhead, and probably not the best for even a bodkin (short, not needle bodkins were the most common arrowhead on the Mary Rose). I would think the standard draw should be figured closer to 28-29", not 30". That allows the wood of the arrow to be even with the front of the bow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
But we are talking about the standard archery practices of western vs. Middle Eastern/Steppe types. And the longbow platform loosed a heavier arrow basing it upon traditional eastern archery practices.
|
That certainly is what you are talking about, but perhaps not everyone. are there no text on the use and manufacture of the longbow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | are there no text on the use and manufacture of the longbow? |
Plenty of them, but finding one that is truly accurate is the issue. Unless you mean period texts, and there does not seem to be any "Longbow Owner's manual" that I am aware of, just bits and pieces of various texts.
You can look out there, and half the stuff you see alsways seems to have the "and could penetrate chainmail easily at a distance of 300 yards like a hot knife through butter" 
But the most accurate way to determine things like drawlength and draw weight are through archaeological finds, such as the Mary Rose. Of course, one has to realize this is merely a snapshot of one ship in the mid 16th century.
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Addressing Tod's question, it seems like there could be sociological explanations for the sudden prominence of archery. This is pure speculation, of course. It seems that the more stable a society is, the more time people have for leisure--e.g., drawing the bow on a Sunday. To whatever degree feudalism stabilized, stratified and organized society, it might also have created the conditions for using the bow regularly in peacetime and also deploying it in war. Part of that would include census-taking to know who owed what service to whom, where they could be found, what skills and equipment they had, etc.
IIRC, Strickland and Hardy provide economic and sociological as well as technological and strategic explanations for the decline of the war bow. All I remember about their origins chapter is that they conclude that there was no "short bow". There was something else about a Welsh archer with one shoe and bad haircut....
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Is there a study that concludes that a typical bow in these armies was 120+ lbs? |
For the Chinese case, we have the official examination standards, which specify the draw weights the candidates use. How these compare to the bows actually carried by the soldiers, who can tell?
Exam draw weights from Stephen Selby, "Chinese archery":
Tang, infantry: 76kg
Tang, cavalry, 42kg
Song, infantry, 73kg (67kg for bottom rank performance)
Song, cavalry, 54kg (47kg for bottom rank performance)
Standard Qing exam bows were 71kg, 59kg, 47kg (and 77-88kg bows were available to candidates). But these are stronger than the military bows. Surviving late Qing bows are supposedly often about 30kg. But these are 19th century, when military archery was in decline, and the Qing army was in decline (in terms of training, readiness, equipment, etc.).
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 05 Jun, 2012 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | But these are 19th century, when military archery was in decline, and the Qing army was in decline (in terms of training, readiness, equipment, etc.). |
And perhaps the lack of need of as strong of a bow with the decline of armour perhaps as well.
| Quote: | | Addressing Tod's question, it seems like there could be sociological explanations for the sudden prominence of archery. This is pure speculation, of course. It seems that the more stable a society is, the more time people have for leisure--e.g., drawing the bow on a Sunday. |
I don't know if this makes 100% sense, only because in England the longbow achieved prominence - other European countries it never achieved the same prominence, and I do not think theses other countires were that more stable than England.
And in Viking times, the Scandanavians were known for the use of a bow (surviving examples of which are very similar to Mary Rose bows, a hair shorter and perhaps a tad bit lighter draw), and their society was not overly stable either.
Perhaps much credit should go to the foresight of English monarchs, who understood the need for competent trained bowmen and made edicts to keep these men in ready supply, this theory was suggested earlier in the thread.
Perhaps a bit of blind luck and economics - English Kings used archers because they could field an army less expensively, and since they had some sucess this furthered the interest in archers.
But this does not really explain the heavy interest in Self Bows in England, with the rest of europe more predominantly using the crossbow.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | The weapon itself hasn't changed since the Neolithic period. |
Correction. Apparently the earliest yew longbows date to the Mesolithic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | But these are 19th century, when military archery was in decline, and the Qing army was in decline (in terms of training, readiness, equipment, etc.). |
And perhaps the lack of need of as strong of a bow with the decline of armour perhaps as well.
| Quote: | | Addressing Tod's question, it seems like there could be sociological explanations for the sudden prominence of archery. This is pure speculation, of course. It seems that the more stable a society is, the more time people have for leisure--e.g., drawing the bow on a Sunday. |
I don't know if this makes 100% sense, only because in England the longbow achieved prominence - other European countries it never achieved the same prominence, and I do not think theses other countires were that more stable than England.
And in Viking times, the Scandanavians were known for the use of a bow (surviving examples of which are very similar to Mary Rose bows, a hair shorter and perhaps a tad bit lighter draw), and their society was not overly stable either.
Perhaps much credit should go to the foresight of English monarchs, who understood the need for competent trained bowmen and made edicts to keep these men in ready supply, this theory was suggested earlier in the thread.
Perhaps a bit of blind luck and economics - English Kings used archers because they could field an army less expensively, and since they had some sucess this furthered the interest in archers.
But this does not really explain the heavy interest in Self Bows in England, with the rest of europe more predominantly using the crossbow. |
part of it might have been based around the english experiences against the welsh. the welsh were, as i understand, prominant users of the longbow. and if i understand correctly, edward I used them in his scottish campaigns but this might have given the english a taste for the potential effectiveness of massed archery
its also worth noting that the legislative changes banning football and mandating archery were made during the reign of edward I, who also was the reigning monarch duuing he time of he wars against the welsh.
i might be oversimplifying things but it looks, on the srface anyway, like edward saw how effectiv the welsh bowmen could be, and adapted this.
however on the flipside
During the reign of Henry III the Assize of Arms of 1252 required that all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed.The poorest of them were expected to have a halberd and a knife, and a bow if they owned land worth more than £2. This made it easier for the King to raise an army, but also meant that the bow was a weapon commonly used by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt. From the time that the yeoman class of England became proficient with the longbow, the nobility in England had to be careful not to push them into open rebellion. This was a check on the power of the nobility of England which did not exist on the European continent.
also it could be due to manufcturing and mainainence costs my understanding is that attiliators were paid a fair bit compared to most tradesmen.
do we have the figures for how much it cost to manufacue a longbow, compared to a crossbow?
as for maintainence, this guy sums things up decently well http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/crossbow.html
i mean while one might disagree with SOME things this guys said, for example we know that a 150lb bow gets you more power than a 120 lb bow, so clearly 120lb isnt the limit by any means. its a good picture in general.
one of the cons of crossbow in his opinion....
'If the string gets wet, the power of the crossbow is greatly diminished, and to put a new dry string on requires a visit to a workshop with vices. An archer could carry a few spare dry strings in a little rain-proof pouch, and change the string in the field. ' (though he says nothing of the potential consequences of the bow stave itself geting wet...)
could i be that the longbow was a cheaper weapon to make and equip people with, and something you can get them all to just shoot clouds of arrows.
|
|
 |
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are correct in attributing the development of English archery tactics to the wars in Wales and Scotland (though some argue that it happened even earlier, as Richard I and others had used archers quite extensively).
The Southern Welsh were traditionally archers, whilst the Northern Welsh were traditionally spearmen, like the Highland Scots. The Southern Welsh fought alongside the English quite early on, both against the Northern Welsh and the Scots and of course archery was the remedy against the Scottish shiltrons in the game of rock, paper, scissors, between cavalry, pike blocks and missle fire (which continued even until the 19thC in various forms). I think the conventional point of view is that English armies under Edward I and II combined the massed archery they used against the Scots with some of the ground-holding pike-block tactics used by the Scots and ended up with the sort of tactics that were used at Crecy in 1346 (picking a defendable position on a hill, dismounting and fighting on foot, with lots of archers on the wings). In other words, English armies picked the best bits of their defeated foes and used them. Much like most successful armies.
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt this story of special warfare capability of peasants in Britain connected to one type of weapon. You could have the same result with a different armaments like long spears, massed crossbows, halberds or javelins. We have for each of these armaments units with successes similar to the English with the longbow against heavy cavalry.
The difference is rather in the wide socio-economic scissor of a very limited nobility versus a large group of non-nobles in England, while other countries had many more nobles per non-noble that sapped of resources without being able to economically compensate because of noble status and the resulting requirements. They were in a way more Spartan than the British islands that retained a more level field except for a few.
For this reason England imported knights and other regions exported them, or even had more non-noble sergeants with the same function than noble knights in her armies. France hardly ever imported a knight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kurt Scholz wrote:
| Quote: | | part of it might have been based around the english experiences against the welsh. the welsh were, as i understand, prominant users of the longbow. and if i understand correctly, edward I used them in his scottish campaigns but this might have given the english a taste for the potential effectiveness of massed archery |
Matt is right, the southern welsh were known more as archers, the northern Welsh favored a long spear. Though there were archers in the North anf spear users in the south, so this may have just meant the south were thought of as better archers, or were more often bow armed.
IIRC, most of the stand up fights we have record of were against the Northern Welsh - both welsh groups seemed to favor raids and guerilla type war against the English though as opposed to field battles.
I'm not sure if there was much use of massed archery by the Welsh anything like what was seen in the 100 years war, so I really cannot say that they evolved their tactics from the Welsh, though I would think they learned respect for the weapon.
Another thing too about the welsh bow - I think our only description of the bow itself is from Giraldus of Wales, who describes it as being a rough uncouth weapon made of elm, about 4 feet in length. There have also been finds in Ireland of bows at a Norman site that were of about this length, but classic "D" shaped longbow construction. Are these bows of Welsh mercenaries? Irish? even Norman? Or even children or hunting weapons? Tough to say.
But it's indeed possible the Welsh bow was shorter than the later longbow by a good margin, even shorter than the earlier Viking bows.
My thoughts on the issue - The Norman were of Danish descent. The certainly a decent amount of archers at Hastings. I would think they never abandoned their heritage of Danish archery, there are certailny reports of English archery after Hastings and before the classical "longbow" period. Maybe as time went by, the English relaized the effectiveness of the wepaon they had and emphasized archery more, with the edicts of practicing. Perhaps combat with the Welsh kept their interest in archery high.
At Orewin Bridge (1282) and Maes Moydog (1295) the Welsh spearman were shot to pieces by English archery according to the records we have, much as the Scots were at Falkirk. Ironic, as the Welsh were supposed to be the ones with the archery superiority.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless of their origin, English archers did themselves become famed throughout Europe - various non-English sources of the time describe them and they hired themselves out as merceneries across Europe (in Italy and in Prussia for example). Archery in England was legally enforced and other sports made illegal - that was a very unusual strategy and it obviously paid off.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the English crown also made it a tax requirement for Italian merchants to supply yew bow staves when they were importing goods into England. If they did not supply the requisite number of bow staves then they had to pay an extra tax. There are hundreds of records showing that this enforced import of yew bow staves was complied with. So, not only was the English government legally enforcing the practice of archery, but it was also legally enforcing the import of the best quality yew bows, and at least under Henry V even the quality of arrow heads was legally enforced. This was a unique situation in Europe. Other nations had archers of course, but no other European nation invested so much in their archers at this time, except perhaps Turkey.
Matt
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This was a unique situation in Europe. Other nations had archers of course, but no other European nation invested so much in their archers at this time, except perhaps Turkey |
I'd agree here. Engish monarchs and government realized the advantage of a force of well trained archers.
Of course the Egyptians realized this fact well before this time
But the 100 years war is always looked at as the war the longbow won, but it also glossed over that the English actually lost.
There were a few battles, Agincourt perhaps the most noteworthy, where the tactics and battlefield came together perfectly for an advantage to a force that had a advantage in archery.
But in other cases, without the tactical requirments to make for a "longbow" victory, the English were beaten.
Maybe a hair off topic, but IMO relevant, this brief excerpt points out that it was not the myth of knightly nobility vs bow wielding peasants -
| Quote: | At this time, many of the landowners in England were non-noble and were known as franklins (yeoman of a latter period). Investigations into several counties showed franklins were on the same financial level as squires. This meant men-at-arms would have been raised from franklin estates as from estates of the squirarchy. As such, men-at-arms were composed of both groups: non-nobles and minor nobles. To equate men-at-arms with knights is an error. To describe them as knights is to falsify reality.
To return to longbowmen, they were peasants only in the sense they were farmers. Specifically, they were property owning franklins. Franklins who owned property but not enough to warrant supplying a man-at-arms had to supply an archer on horseback. Franklins supplied both men-at-arms as well as archers. The only difference is the amount of property owned by a particular franklin. As a result archers and men-at-arms were as likely as not to came from the same property owning group. To superimpose a social order which had no relevance to the military reality is to fail to understand the military social realities of the times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: |
one of the cons of crossbow in his opinion....
'If the string gets wet, the power of the crossbow is greatly diminished, and to put a new dry string on requires a visit to a workshop with vices. An archer could carry a few spare dry strings in a little rain-proof pouch, and change the string in the field. ' (though he says nothing of the potential consequences of the bow stave itself geting wet...)
could i be that the longbow was a cheaper weapon to make and equip people with, and something you can get them all to just shoot clouds of arrows. |
The crossbow has at least two strings, one much longer for pre-spanning the bow in order to be able to attach the shorter shooting string. As long as you can span a crossbow, you can switch strings any time on short notice. The crossbow strings were heavily waxed (beekeepers had a strong connection with this weapon because they had wax and problems with bears.
Honey exporting regions like the Baltic for example also had a strong crossbow tradition replacing the cheaper lower status self-bows of the natives.
While the price for buying a crossbow is likely higher, but can be quite little, depending on the model, time is money, so how much time do you need before you can earn money with that tool and is it more suitable for earning money/food by hunting than the bow? Warfare might have played a much reduced role except for burghers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kurt Scholz wrote:
| Quote: | | could i be that the longbow was a cheaper weapon to make and equip people with, and something you can get them all to just shoot clouds of arrows. |
I just saw this. One common misconception with longbowmen or bowmen is general was that they were merely trained peasants or serfs.
As indicated in my quote above, English Longbowmen were from a fairly decent "caste" in society, far from a serf.
The big issue here is that throughout antiquity, it seemed that men generally fought to maintain their current way of life - if they did not muster when required, they could be fined or stripped of lands. If an invader wins, the social system as it existed would go away, and there social status significantly reduced, such as Saxon Huscarls who apparently en masse went to Byzantium to find employment in the guard vs staying home at a great reduction in social status.
But if you had very little status, you had little to fight for, which is gnenerally why true peasant militia was not very useful.
Things like being mercenaries could change this, as with the Routiers, who from what I read were fairly low status but gained a new status as warriors, and did not react well to commands to disband and return to their pre war way of life.
But in general, the better the social status the better the soldier, as they strove to maintain the social status quo.
So a group uf peasants trianed as longbowmen but with true "peasantry" as their primary occupation would likely not be very effective.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Easton
Location: Surrey, UK. Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Incidentally, any discussion about successful English tactics of this time should not only consider Crecy, Agincourt etc, but also Verneuil (1424), which in its own time (before Shakespeare made Agincourt into an unrivalled legend) was seen as a miraculous 'second Agincourt'. Even English sources could not quite figure out why the outcome was so one-sided (as with Agincourt). At Verneuil over 7000 French and Scots perished, whilst only around 1500 English died. Also note that at Verneuil there were French AND Scottish archers, yet for a host of reasons it was another overwhelming English victory.
It is worth noting, I think, that the French and Scots seem to have gone to great lengths to try and remove the threat of the English archers - at both Agincourt and Verneuil with dedicated cavalry charges aimed at the archers as an opener to the attack (ie. they were bothered about the archers). At Bauge it seems that the Franco-Scot army used the town to shield itself from English archers and at Patay (1429) the French cavalry managed to get to the English archers before they had deployed stakes and pits (again, this seems to have been a tactical priority for the French). In other words, French victories were often defined by negating the effectiveness of the archers and French defeats were often defined by failing to deal with the entrenched archers. So I would say that English archers, whatever the specific effectiveness of their arrows were, were very important in defining the character of Anglo-French warfare at this time.
Schola Gladiatoria - www.swordfightinglondon.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria
Antique Swords: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jun, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Another thing too about the welsh bow - I think our only description of the bow itself is from Giraldus of Wales, who describes it as being a rough uncouth weapon made of elm, about 4 feet in length. |
I don't have the passage to hand but I'm almost positive that the original latin doesn't mention length at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic