Welsh/English longbow question

[Palatinus Germanicus]

Or longbows in general, but I'm mainly thinking about the medieval period, when the longbows of the English armies were revolutionizing warfare. So I've learned that longbows are actually the most powerful bow, even more powerful than composite bows... provided the bowman is strong enough. I.e., the power of the longbow is limited only by the strength of it's user.

Well, my question is about manpower allocation. Because before, you would use your strong men for melee roles, and essentially all the weaklings would take the role of archers. NOW you're telling me, we have these awesome longbows, but they need to be operated by strong men, in order to really get maximum effect from them. So what am I supposed to do w/ my manpower?

I only have a certain number of men... some are strong, many are not. Some are downright weaklings. So we really need strong men for melee combat (obviously), but now we also need strong men for archery, as well. So what is the solution? Or more specifically, what did they do historically? I.e., did this innovation begin to change the attributes of the rank & file within the army? Did the balance of weak-archers on one side & strong-melee troops on the other... begin to level out? How did the need for strong archers change the status quo of manpower allocation?

 

[Kovax]

You need a certain amount of strength in either case, but reflexes are a different matter. The young, fast, agile guys go on the line where quick reactions can save their lives, and the slower and less agile guys are trained with the bow. Besides, the muscles needed are different, and aiming is another factor to consider, so some will be better at one thing than the other.

Ultimately, the limiting factors are able-bodied manpower and the money and materials to arm them. If you can't afford the cost of labor and metal for armor, weapons, and shields to equip more men, a bow is less of an investment. Your weaker guys make the armor, bows, and other implements of war for the stronger guys to use, or else tend the fields to feed them.

Another point would be that you can levy a bunch of guys, give them a few weeks or couple months of training, and they'll make themselves somewhat useful on the field against other semi-trained peasant levies. Training to use a bow effectively is a long-term investment in time and effort, so you've got to start training them many months, or years, in advance.

 

[gagenater]

Success with a longbow requires strength, but the strength required is VERY specific. So specific that the only realistic way to develop it is to devote considerable time to practice shooting with a longbow.

However the equipment required is pretty cheap. The arms and armor to be an effective infantryman in that era are pretty expensive. So you get what you had historically:

Able bodied commoners were bowmen. Nobles were mounted knights with full armor and they equipped their retainers as properly armored infantry.

Actual # of men was never much of an issue. Medieval armies were infinitesimally small compared to the size of the populations they were drawn from. The limiting factors on army size were money and logistics and they were much much more of a constraint than the # of able bodied capable men.

 

[Henry IX]

As a general rule the limiting factor for the number of longbowmen was money. They were paid as professionals (at least by the time the 100 years war started) often costing a similar amount to a non-knightly cavalryman and about a quarter of a armoured knight.

The longbowmen were also armoured with a brigandine, helmet and sometimes other armour. They generally carried hand weapons and could be relied on to engage in melee when necessary. It is notable that at Agincourt the English longbowmen won the battle by charging the flanks of the main French body, rather than by shooting it to pieces like they did at Crecy.

As had been noted, training longbowmen required a massive investiture of time and was only possible due to the popularity of archery as a sport in England. It was reckoned that you had to start training to use a longbow by the age of 12 or you would never develop the ability to use a full poundage weapon. In addition, the relatively good diet of the English yeoman at this time lead to a sizable population of young men who had the physical characteristics required to use the longbow. There are numerous accounts from this time period that comment on the large amount of meat the English eat (and the large amount of beer they drink). The English crown passed numerous ordinances demanding that yeomen train regularly 'at the butts' but ultimately the combination of the declining popularity of archery as a sport and the increasing effectiveness of firearms led to the decline of the longbow as a weapon.

 

[DoomBunny]

Or longbows in general, but I'm mainly thinking about the medieval period, when the longbows of the English armies were revolutionizing warfare. So I've learned that longbows are actually the most powerful bow, even more powerful than composite bows... provided the bowman is strong enough. I.e., the power of the longbow is limited only by the strength of it's user.

Well, my question is about manpower allocation. Because before, you would use your strong men for melee roles, and essentially all the weaklings would take the role of archers.

The whole archers = weak thing is a movie/video/RP game myth. Even a 60lb bow or something (I believe the modern record is 200lb, but we have old models above that) will require effort to pull. In comparison, something like a spear is relatively light.

NOW you're telling me, we have these awesome longbows, but they need to be operated by strong men, in order to really get maximum effect from them. So what am I supposed to do w/ my manpower?

I only have a certain number of men... some are strong, many are not. Some are downright weaklings. So we really need strong men for melee combat (obviously), but now we also need strong men for archery, as well. So what is the solution? Or more specifically, what did they do historically? I.e., did this innovation begin to change the attributes of the rank & file within the army? Did the balance of weak-archers on one side & strong-melee troops on the other... begin to level out? How did the need for strong archers change the status quo of manpower allocation?

Basically, you get all your peasants, and tell them "Practice every weekend or I'll beat you". Then they build muscle mass.

 

[Pyoro]

Basically, you get all your peasants, and tell them "Practice every weekend or I'll beat you". Then they build muscle mass.

With typical work of those days - chopping wood, plowing fields, beating up children, carrying supplies to/from markets etc. your peasants (unless too starved or sick) should be in some physical shape you can work with either way.

 

[Premu]

The whole archers = weak thing is a movie/video/RP game myth. Even a 60lb bow or something (I believe the modern record is 200lb, but we have old models above that) will require effort to pull. In comparison, something like a spear is relatively light.

There is a good explanation in this video what kind of weapons are ideal for women (as those are physical weaker in average)

Contrary to the common trope he actually advises for two-handed swords for people who are weaker. Definetly not bows.

Basically, you get all your peasants, and tell them "Practice every weekend or I'll beat you". Then they build muscle mass.

This was the secret of the Welsh longbowmen as far as I know. Welsh boys were obliged to train archery every week. Once they were old enough they turned out to be excellent archers who outclassed any other ranged troops. But the investment is obviously pretty high.

 

[gagenater]

The whole archers = weak thing is a movie/video/RP game myth. Even a 60lb bow or something (I believe the modern record is 200lb, but we have old models above that) will require effort to pull. In comparison, something like a spear is relatively light.



Basically, you get all your peasants, and tell them "Practice every weekend or I'll beat you". Then they build muscle mass.

More typically the motivations were prizes of various sorts - prizes at county fairs and various scheduled competitions. There were compulsory training at times also, but the lure of prize money and good pay if/when called into the field was usually more effective, and cheaper for the state in the long run than attempting coercion, which would have required a law enforcement mechanism and personnel to maintain.

 

[Zinegata]

Or longbows in general, but I'm mainly thinking about the medieval period, when the longbows of the English armies were revolutionizing warfare. So I've learned that longbows are actually the most powerful bow, even more powerful than composite bows... provided the bowman is strong enough. I.e., the power of the longbow is limited only by the strength of it's user.

Well, my question is about manpower allocation. Because before, you would use your strong men for melee roles, and essentially all the weaklings would take the role of archers. NOW you're telling me, we have these awesome longbows, but they need to be operated by strong men, in order to really get maximum effect from them. So what am I supposed to do w/ my manpower?

I only have a certain number of men... some are strong, many are not. Some are downright weaklings. So we really need strong men for melee combat (obviously), but now we also need strong men for archery, as well. So what is the solution? Or more specifically, what did they do historically? I.e., did this innovation begin to change the attributes of the rank & file within the army? Did the balance of weak-archers on one side & strong-melee troops on the other... begin to level out? How did the need for strong archers change the status quo of manpower allocation?

Well, first of all - Men are not potatoes, to be allocated at whim. This is especially true during the Medieval period when central control was weak and census basically did not exist.

The reality of Medieval Armies is that they were instead very large armed gangs - motivated by favors (in the form of land grants for knights) and money - which gather together for a limited campaign season. You can't really "allocate" men to be melee troops or longbowmen. Rather the king would call for an army, and then wait for people to show up bringing whatever weapons and skills they already have with them. The army the stays together and fights based on how the component parts are used to fighting (sometimes to disastrous results) until money, good fortune, or the promise of plunder dries up.

That longbowmen became a prominent portion of the English army therefore did not happen overnight. The Welsh by most accounts developed them first (to use against each other or the English), and were employed by the English against the Scots for many years before seeing their heyday during the Hundred Years War. In both cases, they proved so effective that peasants were encouraged to become longbowmen - as it was relatively cheap for a longbowman to acquire a longbow (arrows however might have been a different matter) and regular training was encouraged through prize money.

Success in these wars also likely encouraged even more men to try and become longbowmen - because success tended to bring in plunder which would encourage others from the same locality to practice and try to become longbowmen.

The problem is when the war starts turning against the country's favor. Longbowmen who are killed in a campaign will take years to "replace", and there will be fewer people willing to train up to be a soldier when it's likely they wouldn't be able to return home with plunder. Indeed, it was this unreliability and inconsistency of Medieval Armies that eventually inspired the French to start raising permanent fighting formation and to do away with the decentralized feudal system altogether.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

The whole archers = weak thing is a movie/video/RP game myth. Even a 60lb bow or something (I believe the modern record is 200lb, but we have old models above that) will require effort to pull. In comparison, something like a spear is relatively light.

Yes, it was the X-Bow who suddenly allowed a boy to kill a knight.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

To the Op, the longbow is a very overated weapon in the internet. Its the mediaval Panther tank.

It had its merrits but only for a short time and it dissapeard quick after a brief bow renaisance. Despite popular myth Longbows had troubles to penetrate plate even with bodkin heads beyond 20m and almost no chance if the guy also carried a shield to the plate.


The English proffessional infantry was outstanding and remarkable in the 100 years war, not their archers.
Also their skilled ultralight cavalry.

 

[Klausewitz]

What Graf Zeppelin said.
There is a reason why the longbow never left the British Isles and why nobody was in any hurry to adopt or felt especially threatened by it.
200 meters is, in the grand schemes of things, not that much.
In essence the English longbowmen were a cheap version of the knightly class, e.g. a class of warriors requiring lots of training, quite substantial outlays in money for the equipment (England ran out of wood for the bows) and who would, ultimately, only ever be available in relatively small numbers ("To train a longbow man start with his grandfather!").

The true revolution was the crossbow.
Everybody could wield one, considerations of strength or skill were much less important than with the longbow; a crossbow once cranked could be wielded by a child, a woman or the wounded and all of them would have had a reasonable chance of doing damage while longbows got so powerful that they damaged the longbow man's skeleton and constant training was required to retain accuracy.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Albeit there is a huge difference between bows and X-Bows, Bows are saturation weapons and the Longbow is very good at that. Another big drawback was that you cant collect enemy arrows with longbows. Vice verca you can fire longbow arrows with a normal warbow in a pinch.

 

[DoomBunny]

To the Op, the longbow is a very overated weapon in the internet. Its the mediaval Panther tank.

It had its merrits but only for a short time and it dissapeard quick after a brief bow renaisance. Despite popular myth Longbows had troubles to penetrate plate even with bodkin heads beyond 20m and almost no chance if the guy also carried a shield to the plate.

The English proffessional infantry was outstanding and remarkable in the 100 years war, not their archers.
Also their skilled ultralight cavalry.

I will raise a couple points re: longbow effectiveness, not necessarily disagreeing with you so much as stating some theories. It is true that the effect is popularly overstated; these were not armour piercing machine guns, and if they were, then one could be forgiven for asking just how much lead-based face powder contemporary generals were using for not equipping all their men with them.

However, there is a trend perhaps too much in the opposite direction, which denigrates the longbow's effectiveness too much. Whilst it is true that even a bodkin wont necessarily penetrate plate armour except at close range, a few things must be remembered:

- Not everyone is wearing plate armour; even rich lords are likely to have some gaps, whilst lesser nobility are likely only using partial plate armour, and the rank and file are lucky to have even a bit; that means that there are gaps in the armour which an arrow may find (either intentionally or by chance)

- In the case of horses, one has even more unarmoured area, a creature not famed for its durability, and the additional problem that once a horse goes down its rider may be either trampled by other horses, pinned in place, or both

- Even where plate armour is the thing the arrow hits, this doesn't mean it is harmless; an arrow propelled with such force is going to hurt, even if it doesn't go through; it could quite possibly prompt a man to pause, lose heart, or stumble (particularly if the ground is muddy or he is in a densely packed moving formation, this may cause him to fall over and be trampled)

- Similarly, even those last 20m can take a toll on attacking forces in plate armour, particularly if they have discarded visors; these losses are unlikely to be catastrophic, but every little helps as the saying goes

- On many occasions, longbowmen may be engaging an already committed foe, firing from his flank; in more than a few battles the infantry met each other head on and the longbowmen then formed the arms of a crescent, effectively peppering the flanks with arrows; being shot in the side is obviously not conducive to winning in a melee, for reasons of fatality, general harassment, and morale; this intertwines with the 20m point above, as an existing melee allows the longbowmen to engage from closer range

I think this all adds up to longbows being an effective weapon of war, but not the medieval machine guns popular culture makes them out to be.

As a further point, I think the above elements intertwine well with what we know about Agincourt; famously during the battle, longbowmen are supposed to have rushed forward during lulls to massacre the French nobles lying wounded in front of their lines. This suggests to me that you are looking at a lot of arrow wounds or arrow prompted tramplings, as opposed to a lot of men killed outright. It is also possible that the nobility in particular is slaughtered in this manner because they were likely to survive the initial shot, whilst non-nobles were not; it is however fully possible that the nobles are specifically mentioned because noone gave a toss about the peasants.

 

[Kovax]

I think DoomBunny raises a valid point, that the longbow had its good points, but was not "overpowered". He also shows how little we really know from the accounts: were a few rather important details omitted because they were obvious, or because they didn't happen?

The times when the longbow really stood out were when the opposing forces were held in check by terrain or melee, and used in a combined-arms approach as a flank attack with bows/arrows or knives while the main opposing forces were pinned to the front (either in melee or the imminent threat of one).

In many or most battles, "full plate" (if it was available at all) was replaced by "field plate", usually with significant areas of the arms and legs less heavily protected, and increased use of open visors. There were vulnerable areas for an arrow to hit, particularly one designed to penetrate lighter armor. This wasn't a case of "tournament" or "parade" armor, where maneuverability and fatigue weren't important issues compared to protection from accidental injury or a display of "invulnerability" for prestige purposes. Real combat entailed using practical equipment, which involved a small amount of risk for the knights; the archer's job was to significantly increase that risk.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I will raise a couple points re: longbow effectiveness, not necessarily disagreeing with you so much as stating some theories. It is true that the effect is popularly overstated; these were not armour piercing machine guns, and if they were, then one could be forgiven for asking just how much lead-based face powder contemporary generals were using for not equipping all their men with them.

However, there is a trend perhaps too much in the opposite direction, which denigrates the longbow's effectiveness too much. Whilst it is true that even a bodkin wont necessarily penetrate plate armour except at close range, a few things must be remembered:

- Not everyone is wearing plate armour; even rich lords are likely to have some gaps, whilst lesser nobility are likely only using partial plate armour, and the rank and file are lucky to have even a bit; that means that there are gaps in the armour which an arrow may find (either intentionally or by chance)

- In the case of horses, one has even more unarmoured area, a creature not famed for its durability, and the additional problem that once a horse goes down its rider may be either trampled by other horses, pinned in place, or both

- Even where plate armour is the thing the arrow hits, this doesn't mean it is harmless; an arrow propelled with such force is going to hurt, even if it doesn't go through; it could quite possibly prompt a man to pause, lose heart, or stumble (particularly if the ground is muddy or he is in a densely packed moving formation, this may cause him to fall over and be trampled)

- Similarly, even those last 20m can take a toll on attacking forces in plate armour, particularly if they have discarded visors; these losses are unlikely to be catastrophic, but every little helps as the saying goes

- On many occasions, longbowmen may be engaging an already committed foe, firing from his flank; in more than a few battles the infantry met each other head on and the longbowmen then formed the arms of a crescent, effectively peppering the flanks with arrows; being shot in the side is obviously not conducive to winning in a melee, for reasons of fatality, general harassment, and morale; this intertwines with the 20m point above, as an existing melee allows the longbowmen to engage from closer range

I think this all adds up to longbows being an effective weapon of war, but not the medieval machine guns popular culture makes them out to be.

As a further point, I think the above elements intertwine well with what we know about Agincourt; famously during the battle, longbowmen are supposed to have rushed forward during lulls to massacre the French nobles lying wounded in front of their lines. This suggests to me that you are looking at a lot of arrow wounds or arrow prompted tramplings, as opposed to a lot of men killed outright. It is also possible that the nobility in particular is slaughtered in this manner because they were likely to survive the initial shot, whilst non-nobles were not; it is however fully possible that the nobles are specifically mentioned because noone gave a toss about the peasants.

Yes good post.

 

[Henry IX]

I think this all adds up to longbows being an effective weapon of war, but not the medieval machine guns popular culture makes them out to be.

I'm going to go hyper-geek and say the analogy of longbows as the machineguns of the medieval era is surprisingly accurate. Machineguns demanded changes of tactics and equipment (as did longbows) and just like longbows they are enormously over rated in pop-history. Fused artillery shells are the great killer of 20th century wars and it is artillery that prevents manoeuvre in the open rather than machineguns.

Longbows were sufficiently effective that both armour and tactics were altered to face them (mail was replaced with plate and knights began attacking on foot). Many European states went to significant lengths to either train their own or hire mercenaries who could use them. However, the peculiar set of conditions that gave rise to the English longbowmen proved very hard to promote (or even maintain in England) and so they were never available in large numbers outside of English armies in a fairly specific period of time. Crossbows are useful, but nothing like as effective as longbows in a field battle and were very much an auxiliary weapon.

The thing that killed longbows as a weapon of war was the handgonne which, in spite of its huge flaws, could drop an armoured man at considerable range. The ball from a late medieval handgonne often had calibres in excess of 0.5 - 0.7 and carried nearly an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy (at least with good powder). There are a series of disputes from the reign of Henry VIII about whether they should be equipped with shot or bows that which ended with the English army of Elizabeth being largely identical to its continental counterparts.

 

[DoomBunny]

I'm going to go hyper-geek and say the analogy of longbows as the machineguns of the medieval era is surprisingly accurate. Machineguns demanded changes of tactics and equipment (as did longbows) and just like longbows they are enormously over rated in pop-history. Fused artillery shells are the great killer of 20th century wars and it is artillery that prevents manoeuvre in the open rather than machineguns.

Longbows were sufficiently effective that both armour and tactics were altered to face them (mail was replaced with plate and knights began attacking on foot). Many European states went to significant lengths to either train their own or hire mercenaries who could use them. However, the peculiar set of conditions that gave rise to the English longbowmen proved very hard to promote (or even maintain in England) and so they were never available in large numbers outside of English armies in a fairly specific period of time. Crossbows are useful, but nothing like as effective as longbows in a field battle and were very much an auxiliary weapon.

The thing that killed longbows as a weapon of war was the handgonne which, in spite of its huge flaws, could drop an armoured man at considerable range. The ball from a late medieval handgonne often had calibres in excess of 0.5 - 0.7 and carried nearly an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy (at least with good powder). There are a series of disputes from the reign of Henry VIII about whether they should be equipped with shot or bows that which ended with the English army of Elizabeth being largely identical to its continental counterparts.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I'm going to go hyper-geek and say the analogy of longbows as the machineguns of the medieval era is surprisingly accurate. Machineguns demanded changes of tactics and equipment (as did longbows) and just like longbows they are enormously over rated in pop-history. Fused artillery shells are the great killer of 20th century wars and it is artillery that prevents manoeuvre in the open rather than machineguns.

Longbows were sufficiently effective that both armour and tactics were altered to face them (mail was replaced with plate and knights began attacking on foot). Many European states went to significant lengths to either train their own or hire mercenaries who could use them. However, the peculiar set of conditions that gave rise to the English longbowmen proved very hard to promote (or even maintain in England) and so they were never available in large numbers outside of English armies in a fairly specific period of time. Crossbows are useful, but nothing like as effective as longbows in a field battle and were very much an auxiliary weapon.

The thing that killed longbows as a weapon of war was the handgonne which, in spite of its huge flaws, could drop an armoured man at considerable range. The ball from a late medieval handgonne often had calibres in excess of 0.5 - 0.7 and carried nearly an order of magnitude greater kinetic energy (at least with good powder). There are a series of disputes from the reign of Henry VIII about whether they should be equipped with shot or bows that which ended with the English army of Elizabeth being largely identical to its continental counterparts.

Expanding on this a little bit, the individual Longbow itself was not the epitome of mediaeval warfare.Rather, It was the employment of the weapon that was important. The English used it as a weapon of massed firepower which had the effect of either pinning an adversary into a static position, or channelling him into a particular course of action. This gave the smaller English (but very disciplined and we'll trained) melee forces to move into a position to affect an outcome. The shock of having a force appear where they should not have appeared was often enough to instill panic and win the engagement. It was the combination of an effective weapon, with skilled operators and massed to produce a movement crippling firepower that made the 'English Longbow' so effective.

 

[demanvanwezel]

I've once heard the quote: If you want to make a longbowman start with his grandfather

adding to that longbowman skeletons are inmediatly recognisable due to them being "misformed" by the power that using one puts upon the human body and you're likely to have a highly specialised deadly unit
which is less then ideal when you're against another weapon which might be less accurate and have horrible firerate but that you can train someone to use in about an hour

longbowmen are like knights and they dissapeared for largely the same reason