| Author |
Message |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
 Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 12:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | a) English longbows of 14c are reletively really powerfull, |
Hard to say this, at least with any specifics. We have no English bows from this time period.
I am of an opinion that the "longbow" was brought to England by the Normans, but was not used in large numbers until the late 13th century.
I also believe the Bows used by the Normans were similar to the Viking bows that have been found - these are a bit shorter and a bit lower in draw weight than the Mary Rose Bows.
As to how these went from 6' bows with 100+ bows to 6'6" average length and 150 draw weights I am not sure.
Possibly the bows on the Mary Rose were a bit longer and heavier as that was an elite ship. The other longbow finds in England from this time period point to a shorter (6') and lighter draw bow. examples of this aqre the Flodden bow.
Possibly the longbow became longer and heavier sometime between 1000AD and 1545AD.
Without more evidence, it's hard to say. Would be nice to find a "Mary Rose" from the 14th century, and even the 11th Century.
ETA - thought this would be appropriate to add regarding illustrative evidence of short bows -
| Quote: | | Manuscript drawings and stone carvings invariably show archers using bows of almost their own height or larger which again suggests the use of longbows rather than shortbows. The Bayeux Tapestry is often quoted as a source to back up the argument for bows of the period being shortbows, however those doing so often do not look at all the information this work gives us. If the pictorial evidence of the tapestry is to be taken as truthful in any way, then some of the archers had longer bows than others and the longest bows, in proportion to their users, are longbows. In general the tapestry makers have taken great care to be accurate about the proportions of men and weapons, and men and horses. All the archers in the main panel appear to be using shortbows and this is the evidence that is often used to support the shortbow theory. However, this does not take into account the further 23 archers shown in the lower border. Of these archers most appear to be using longbows. There are currently two schools of thought to explain this; the first is that the Norman archers in the main picture are far better equipped than those in the border so it may be these are meant to be professional soldiers rather than the general levy. If this is so it is quite possible they are mercenary bowmen from eastern Europe, and these archers are known to have used horn and sinew shortbows. They are also known to have sometimes used their bows from horseback as one of them is shown doing towards the end of the tapestry. The other explanation is that the artist is drawing from eyewitness accounts where the fact that a bow is canted over in combat makes it appear shorter from a distance. Until we have more sources we cannot be certain. |
http://www.regia.org/SaxonArchery.htm
|
|
  |
 |
|
Jan Boucký
Location: Czech Republic Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | a) English longbows of 14c are reletively really powerfull, |
Hard to say this, at least with any specifics. We have no English bows from this time period.
I am of an opinion that the "longbow" was brought to England by the Normans, but was not used in large numbers until the late 13th century.
I also believe the Bows used by the Normans were similar to the Viking bows that have been found - these are a bit shorter and a bit lower in draw weight than the Mary Rose Bows.
As to how these went from 6' bows with 100+ bows to 6'6" average length and 150 draw weights I am not sure.
Possibly the bows on the Mary Rose were a bit longer and heavier as that was an elite ship. The other longbow finds in England from this time period point to a shorter (6') and lighter draw bow. examples of this aqre the Flodden bow.
Possibly the longbow became longer and heavier sometime between 1000AD and 1545AD.
Without more evidence, it's hard to say. Would be nice to find a "Mary Rose" from the 14th century, and even the 11th Century. |
Garry...from one side I understand you, but on the other hand I feel that there is something contradictory in your comment....my opinion is thete had to be some tradition of "longer bows" i.e higher draught" bows....question is if it was Viking based or not.....in fact it does not matter.....bow tradition survived and transfomed into long-bow...that is all... 
|
|
 |
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you feel is contradictory, Jan?
I am trying to make allowances for various possibilities, as nothing is very certain about this.
Heck, I think it's even possible that the Normans indeed used a 54" or so bow. It's not as likley I think as other possibilities, but we really do not know based on the evidence (or lack of) at hand.
There was a 13th century French treatise on hunting I found and read at one time. It said that the desired bow would be as tall as the man who used it. I wish I could find that again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
| Quote: | | (the ones about 24" found in Ireland, and the one 3/4 of a yard [27"] used to murder Simon de Skeffington on 22 march 1297 [from a bow 1.5 yards long, yew, with a circumference of six inches], and the other one also 3/4 of a yard long in the Robert de Esnyngton murder indictment of 1313. |
Well, 27 inches is certainly not a short arrow by any means. The most common length of Mary Rose arrow was 29.5 inches. |
The Mary Rose 29.5 is just the arrow shafts, so likely would have allowed draws of c. 30". 14th century records refer to arrows (including the heads) of 36", for a draw of a good 32". The 3/4 yard is stated to be the length of the arrow (not just the arrow-shaft), suggesting a draw of no more than 26" and probably less. The difference between a 26" draw and a 30" draw is very substantial because of the nature of the power curves.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
The 24" arrows in Ireland - are those from the same Waterford find? If so, this makes me think that in likelyhood the bows and arrows found were Irish, as they are abut the shortest arrows found, and combined with this:
| Quote: | | how does it make sense that the Irish were using 4' bows in the twelfth century (as archaeological evidence shows) |
as well as a later Irsh traditon of a "short" bow is why I think they are more likley Irish weapons. |
I miss-stated. I should have said "4' bows were being used in Ireland in the twelfth century.'" Yes, I was referring again to the Waterford finds.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
Where does the "quite effective against mailed enemies" come from? And we really don't know to my knowledge that these self bows were that much less effective. I do think however the amount of archers deployed in an english army changed, and having many more archers makes the archery more effective. |
See pp. 326-332 of my _Journal of Medieval History_ 37 (2011) article, which was mentioned above. Also "The Efficacy of the English Longbow: A Reply to Kelly DeVries," in _War in History_, which can be found reprinted in my _Essays on Medieval Military History_
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
For that matter, we have Gerald of Wales late 12th Century of an Welsh arrow passing through an armoured leg of a knight and linning him to his horse - which would not be possible without a bow that was very capable of penetrating armour. This also makes it questionable if the welsh had the same archery tradition as the Irish. |
Gerald is a teller of tall tales, e.g. that beavers castrate themselves to avoid being hunted for their testicles. His testimony on this subject, unsupported by other evidence, is not worth much.
The only evidence we have of the length of Welsh bows is (1) the Waterford finds if they are Welsh; (2) 2 drawings in the Littere Wallie (showing short bows, but by a not-skilled artist); (3) a marginal drawing in Matthew Paris's chronicle (without a human figure but, relative to the shield also shown, quite a short bow... though of low evidentiary value as it may have been purely symbolic.) I.e. not much-- but what little there is, points towards short bows not long bows. BTW that also applies to the Scots before 1300-- they are shown in drawings with short bows (e.g. in the initial of Carlisle's charter), and the bow on William Wallace's seal looks like a shortbow.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Aug, 2012 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | There was a 13th century French treatise on hunting I found and read at one time. It said that the desired bow would be as tall as the man who used it. I wish I could find that again. |
You are probably thinking of the fourteenth-century Henri de Ferrières, Le Livre du roy Modus et de la royne Racio, ed. Elzéar Blaze (Paris, 1839), dated 1354-77
or (even later c14):
Gaston Phébus, The hunting book
of Gaston Phébus. Manuscrit français 616. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale. Facsimile, intro. Marcel Thomas and François Avril,
commentary by Wilhelm Schlag (London, 1998)
If I interpret them correctly, the former does call for a bow the length of the archer; the latter calls for one two hands-breadths shorter. But those are for hunting bows and both treatises specify they should be on the weak side so that a steady draw can be held for a sustained period. C15 English archers in Ireland were supposed, by statute, to have bow measured between the knocks at the very least the height of the archer plus a "fistmele" [probably a fist].
See p. 336 of the JMH article for more details.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2012 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's probably a mindset problem that English languages discussions about the crossbow are about the English longbow. Perhaps we should open another thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Parker
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2012 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll agree with Kurt here, as much as I like talking about the English longbow, I would prefer if we kept that discussion squarely in reference to the crossbow. I may have begun with a battle in which the English fought, but I wanted to hear people's knowledge and ideas about the crossbowmen who in the hundred years' war are so often introduced to readers as "the guys who showed up and lost" at Crecy and then hardly spoken of again.
"This is a sharp medicine, but it is a physician for all diseases and miseries."
-Sir Walter Raleigh, upon being allowed to see the ax that would behead him, 29 October 1618
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2012 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | | It's probably a mindset problem that English languages discussions about the crossbow are about the English longbow. Perhaps we should open another thread? |
Sorry. My bad.
Cliff
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Parker
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Aug, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's okay Cliff. Sooner or latter we all get carried away with something.
"This is a sharp medicine, but it is a physician for all diseases and miseries."
-Sir Walter Raleigh, upon being allowed to see the ax that would behead him, 29 October 1618
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Aug, 2012 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: |
For example we have billmen and archers - were they intermingled? Did the archers fill the front ranks and prior to hand to hand the billmen moved to the front? |
See Boardman, _The Medieval Soldier in the War of the Roses_, 113, for "a bow and a bill at his back" as the standard battle array.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Aug, 2012 6:26 am Post subject: Re: Genoese Crossbowmen and crossbow tactics |
|
|
| Michael Parker wrote: | Genoese Crossbowmen were supposed to have been among the best troops in Christendom, and the sources seem to have taken pains to explain how they were routed so quickly at the battle of Crecy. That it was such a one-sided engagement surprised everybody. Which weapon is "better" is a pretty old controversy which on Youtube can degenerate into a mud-slinging contest between self-appointed experts, but let's revisit it anyway. A longbowman can reliably shoot more arrows in a minute than a crossbowman, but a test on Weapons that Made Britain using a guy with a belt and claw suggested that with considerable effort a crossbowman could shoot as many as 8 bolts per minute to the longbow's 12-18. The Genoese as I understand it used some kind of relay system behind cover to keep up a steady rate of fire, so the margin by which they were out-volleyed may not have been so great. Certainly 1-2 bolts per minute is way too low an estimate. Each side's missile troops were the best in the world with their weapons of choice. It seems the greater rate of the longbow wasn't enough to yield such a lopsided battle on its own, so the extenuating circumstances were considered important. If anyone wants to make comments on the draw weights or firing rates of longbows and crossbows feel free to do that too.
The reason that the Genoese crossbowmen were so quickly routed by the longbows at the battle of Crecy in 1346 has been explained many different ways and yet I haven't yet seen it put to rest for good exactly what factor or combination of factors it was. Some of the most commonly cited reasons that come from the primary sources (as I've heard them cited, since I haven't yet read the reports of Froissart or Villanni etc.) are as follows:
A) Their crossbow strings were dampened by the storm before the battle, while the longbowmen unstrung their bows and kept the strings safe and dry under their helmets
B)Their Pavises were left in the baggage train during the march and they could not retrieve them before they were rushed into battle by the impatient knights
C) They were frightened by the English cannons.
I don't know what to think about A. It seems clear enough that a longbow can be quickly strung and unstrung, but what about crossbows? Do people who are experienced with crossbows think that in a quick storm the Genoese could have protected their bowstrings somehow, or is it really possible that their strings got ruined in the rain?
I thought that B seemed likely considering that according to Lt Col. Burne the French were surprised to find the English at Crecy, having poor scouting information, and decided to give battle with little preparation after a long, exhausting march. It seems logical to me that the pavises would be in the wagons and that in the confusion of the French preparations the Genoese were made to attack without them.
This is in addition to the fact that they were forced into battle by the French lords behind them after a long march with no chance to prepare, that their deployment was constrained by the terrain and the jostling French army, and that the valee au clercs might have been rather muddy. Is it true also that the sun was in their eyes? It seems pretty clear that in more ways than one it was a royal mess that the Genoese were made to take part in. Certainly they were poorly directed by the French knights who misused and wasted some of Europe's crack troops.
It seems like any one or two of the factors listed could have been disastrous, and it seems unlikely to me that all of these claims are true. Why don't you all lend me your arguments for which combination of factors was most important, and which you think were unlikely or can be dismissed. It would be great to be linked or redirected to other threads or resources on this discussion topic. I would like to know where the latest debate on this subject is taking place. And of course, am I missing anything obvious? |
To make up for my earlier digression
1. Villani, whose informants clearly included Italian crossbowmen from the battle, says the English rate of fire was triple that of the crossbowmen. Combine that with more archers (maybe 2-3 times as many > 6-9x as many missiles).
2. The longbow is much more accurate at long range than the crossbow. (Legally mandated minimum target range in Tudor times 220 yards.)
3. A lot more arrows fired with much greater accuracy > of course the Genoese will be badly out-shot.
Froissart refers to: [Oeuvres, 5:52] "these [English] arrows, which pierced their [the Genoese's] arms [bras: limbs, not weapons/armor] and breasts and fell into their faces from longer than they could shoot."
It also seems to be true that the Genoese were forced to deploy without their pavises; several chroniclers criticize Philip for his "undue haste" in starting the battle.
The cannon were pretty clearly not a major factor, since the majority of chronicles don't even bother mentioning them, and because a few cannon in that period would have had only a trivial effect compared to thousands of longbows. (Nonetheless, it is true that Villani writes of the Genoese that they were "wounded by the arrows of the archers and by the bombards, by which many were wounded and killed." [It's unclear if the "by which" includes both the arrows and the bombards, or refers only to the bombards.]
The whole rain thing is debatable, but my own thinking is that it was not a major factor, just an excuse. Bottom line: rain or no rain, 10,250 English longbowmen vs. 4,000 vs 6,000 crossbowmen without pavises, on an open field, is a very uneven fight that will naturally result in the quick defeat of the crossbowmen.
For another perspective on this question, emphasizing the importance of the pavises and the morale impact of being ordered to fight without them, See Russell Mitchell: "The Longbow-Crossbow Shootout at Crecy (1346): Has the 'Rate of Fire' Commonplace" Been Overrated," in _The Hundred Years War (Part II)_, ed. Kagay and Villalon.
Cliff
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Aug, 2012 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Jan Boucký"] | William P wrote: | | historical military literature/manuals starting from for example book of Czech condortierre Václav Vlček z Čenova (cca 1425-1502) ........ |
I'm not familiar with this book (or this condottiere) and a google search returned only results in Czech. Can you tell me more about it? Sounds very interesting.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samuel Bena
Location: Slovakia Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Aug, 2012 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clifford Rogers wrote: |
I'm not familiar with this book (or this condottiere) and a google search returned only results in Czech. Can you tell me more about it? Sounds very interesting. |
Although I am not Jan I'll reply to the question. Václav Vlček from Čenov was a Bohemian commander who made himself famous during the Bohemian-Hungarian wars with Matthias Corvinus. He left a short military text on arraying troops in battle (being similar in style to German texts like that of P.von Seldeneck). I plan to do an English translation in near future. (hopefully)
Best,
Samuel
P.S: Are you by chance THE Clifford Rogers - aka US military historian?
|
|
 |
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Sun 12 Aug, 2012 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Samuel Bena wrote: | | Clifford Rogers wrote: |
I'm not familiar with this book (or this condottiere) and a google search returned only results in Czech. Can you tell me more about it? Sounds very interesting. |
Although I am not Jan I'll reply to the question. Václav Vlček from Čenov was a Bohemian commander who made himself famous during the Bohemian-Hungarian wars with Matthias Corvinus. He left a short military text on arraying troops in battle (being similar in style to German texts like that of P.von Seldeneck). I plan to do an English translation in near future. (hopefully)
Best,
Samuel
P.S: Are you by chance THE Clifford Rogers - aka US military historian? |
Samuel,
I guess I am, though usually I'm introduced with just a "Doctor" or "Professor" rather than a THE . :-)
The text sounds very interesting. I've never seen it referred to in the literature. How short is it? If it's not book-length, a good place to publish an (annotated) translation would be the _Journal of Medieval Military History_.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Boucký
Location: Czech Republic Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Mon 13 Aug, 2012 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Samuel Bena wrote: | | Clifford Rogers wrote: |
I'm not familiar with this book (or this condottiere) and a google search returned only results in Czech. Can you tell me more about it? Sounds very interesting. |
Although I am not Jan I'll reply to the question. Václav Vlček from Čenov was a Bohemian commander who made himself famous during the Bohemian-Hungarian wars with Matthias Corvinus. He left a short military text on arraying troops in battle (being similar in style to German texts like that of P.von Seldeneck). I plan to do an English translation in near future. (hopefully)
Best,
Samuel
P.S: Are you by chance THE Clifford Rogers - aka US military historian? |
Just a short comment - Václav Vlček z Čenova (Minic) cca 1425 - 1501 was a condotierre (general) of Czech origin fighting in services of Jiří z Poděbrad anf after his death he was in service with Ladislaus II, he participated in the number od battles and sieges of Bohemian - Hungarian warsa nd had also battle experiences in battles with Ottomans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Mon 13 Aug, 2012 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a bit at a loss, where can I find the section Villani devoted to Crécy?
The bows shooting triple as fast as the crossbows is a slight surprise as it would mean being 6-9:1 outshot, add the mentioned accuracy problem and you get a situation where crossbowmenwould be put out of action rapidly (see Lanchester's square law). It would make the archers like a kind of burst mode for projectile weapons in comparison to the crossbowmen.
He has a section in his Nuova Cronica mentioning something that can be considered combined arms with crossbows by describing the "military" action being done in (the usual armament with close combat equipment) arms with crossbows in book 8, section 8 and 96
http://wadsworth.com/history_d/special_featur...llani.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samuel Bena
Location: Slovakia Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Mon 13 Aug, 2012 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clifford Rogers wrote: |
Samuel,
I guess I am, though usually I'm introduced with just a "Doctor" or "Professor" rather than a THE . :-)
|
My apologies, the excitement got the better of me
| Clifford Rogers wrote: |
The text sounds very interesting. I've never seen it referred to in the literature. How short is it? If it's not book-length, a good place to publish an (annotated) translation would be the _Journal of Medieval Military History_. |
That's actually the plan 
The text is a couple of pages long and as Jan points out Vlček had a lot of "hands on" experience. It seems to be quite unknown further West so I"ll give it a shot and see if you'll like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Rogers
|
| Posted: Mon 13 Aug, 2012 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | | I'm a bit at a loss, where can I find the section Villani devoted to Crécy? |
Giovanni Villani, _Cronica_ in Roberto Palmarocchi, _Cronisti del Trecento_ Milan: Rizzoli, 1935, p. 397.
A rough translation:
when the Genoese fired one quarrel from a crossbow, they fired three arrows, that seemed in the air like a cloud, and then did not fall in vain without wounding men or horses,
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | | The bows shooting triple as fast as the crossbows is a slight surprise as it would mean being 6-9:1 outshot, add the mentioned accuracy problem and you get a situation where crossbowmenwould be put out of action rapidly (see Lanchester's square law). It would make the archers like a kind of burst mode for projectile weapons in comparison to the crossbowmen. |
Right. Which is what happened. But BTW Lanchester's square law is not well borne out by empirical observation.
Clifford J. Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Mon 13 Aug, 2012 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ok, I 'll have to check that. Thanks for the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 13 Aug, 2012 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "these [English] arrows, which pierced their [the Genoese's] arms [bras: limbs, not weapons/armor] and breasts and fell into their faces from longer than they could shoot." |
This is the one part of this chronicle that to me gives credence to the crossbows being more adversley effected by the wet weather. Based on stored energy, a crossbow bolt should not be outranged by a longbow.
Of course, the range issue may have been a problem due to the English being uphill of the French, or perhaps both the moisture and being uphill both contributed.
But, the French had enough going bad for them even without the moisture issue. Being downhill, outnumbered by the longbowmen, a slower rate of fire and having no pavises is a recipe for disaster all by itself.
The only thing that may have been going in the crossbowmen's favor is that according to illustrations it was more common for a crossbowman to be armoured - though I don't think we really know the specifics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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