posted 03-07-1999 06:53 AM               

Fo instance, at Crecy the mounted man at arms was extremely vulnerable to longbow fire, as a great deal of his defences were mail, and his horse caprison was usually nothing more than a cloth trapper. (but even at this battle where the longbow proved so devestating, the primary employment of it was to break up cavalry formations at long range with flight arrows, making the horses completely unmanagable - not pinpoint, accurate sniping.)

By Agincourt, your average French Man-at-arms was encased head to toe in plate & mail weighing in at 80+ lbs. The plates of late 14th - early 15th c. armour were of a necessity thicker than what made up a "gothic" harness, because the art of case-hardening plate was in it's infancy. Most of them lost whatever fighting efficiency they had trudging long distance across muddy fields to close with the English battle line. Heat exhaustian, and lack of short-range field of vision made those who reached the English battle-line in disorganised clumps easy meat for rested men-at-arms and, agile, active, angry, unencumbered longbowmen - who set to cracking them open with mauls and dispatching them with knives, like so many lobsters at an obscene clam bake.

Apparently, by the 1440's, advances in metalurgy itself, and in the skill of armourers, reduced the weight of a field harness to 50 - 70 lbs (depending on size of client, and completeness of protection desired.

By the Wars of the Roses (for lack of a better term), those who were able to fight in full harness, were to a degree, somewhat invulnerable to employed longbows. Limbs were still vulnerable - but most of those men-at-arms killed by archery directly seemed to have removed vital pieces of harness (i.e. bevors and helmets), to catch their breath, take a drink, ect... .

The less forunate footsoldiers remained extremely vulnerable to the effects of the longbow. By the by, longbowmen in England apparently died a slow, drawn - out death as a fighting machine due to expense and rarity of suitable bowstaves (most were foriegn imports), inability of the government to enforce nation-wide practice, as well as the general introduction of hand held firearms to England. (they didn't become accepted or popular to the English mindset untill the 16th century). Hope this helps get the ball rolling discussion-wise. :-)

posted 03-13-1999 04:01 PM               

I'd like to elaborate on part of Bob's response -- i.e., the effect of a clothyard shaft against early armour. The effectiveness of an arrow against any sort of protection is a function of three factors: (1) the type of protection, (2) the power of the bow, and (3)the design of the arrowhead.

(1) Soft armour, hardened leather, and mail are relatively good at stopping a cut from a sword or a similar weapon, but they're less effective at preventing penetration by a sharply pointed object -- e.g., swords of types XV or XVII, which taper to an acute point -- especially when it has sufficient force behind it. A lance point with the full weight of a Percheron and an armoured rider, multiplied by their accumulated momentum, will do for a mail-clad opponent. Ditto a bodkin-pointed arrow with the force of a heavy bow behind it.

(2) As we've learned from the finds on the wonderful wessel MARY ROSE, medieval warbows had draw weights of 120, 140, even 160 pounds, so they were incredible missile launchers. There's no doubt that bodkin-pointed arrows fired from these portable catapults could penetrate armour at combat ranges. An incident recorded by Geraldus Cambrensis, ca. 1182, gives ample proof of this fact: an English knight fighting in Wales was struck in the thigh by a Welsh arrow which penetrated his mail, passed through his leg, penetrated the inner layer of mail, and pinned him to the saddle. As he turned his horse, he was struck in exactly the same manner in his other thigh.

(3) Bodkin points came in several designs, but the long, acutely tapered points seem to have been the most common for use against mail. The shorter, diamond-headed bodkins or "pile" points evolved as plate became more commonplace on the battlefield. In any event, a 100+-pound warbow could launch a bodkin-pointed arrow with devastating effect against man or beast.

And, yes, the archers often deliberately aimed for the horses, "galling" them to make them unmanageable. It seems to have been an effective tactic. In more than one battle, the French responded by dismounting, thus increasing the length of time they would have to endure the withering hail of arrows -- 10 to 15 per archer/per minute of the battle as long as their supply held out. Though many modern writers concede the lethal effect of the longbow & clothyard shaft, few speculate on the psychological effect of such an incredible barrage on a warrior encased in steel that somehow suddenly doesn't seem to be quite thick enough or, for that matter, in the right county.

posted 03-13-1999 05:58 PM               

The only problem with using Geraldus Cambresis as a comparison of longbow effectiveness with English deployment on the battlefield in the 14th - 15th centuries, is that the employment on the battlefield was different.

In my reading, I undersand that the Welsh (Cymri, really - it was the Saxons who were "strangers" in Wales) generally employed the weapon at close ranges, and from ambush - their general and sensible tactic against a more heavily armoured and armed foe. In reading "The Welsh Wars of Edward I", it is my impression that the engagement would begin with the poor English trudging along some track in some abomidable terrain. The Welsh would then hit them like lightning with spears, bows being used like sniping weapons to bring down leaders, and sow confusion. They then melted away into the hills if they met with strong resistance, or picked the corpses of the dead English, and then melting into the hills if succesfull. I may be wrong, but the famous shot(s) that pinned the English knight to his horse - through armour, thighs and saddle - first on one side, and then on the other when the poor blighter turned his horse - were fired at between 30 - 50 yrds. Utterly devastating !

The English employment of longbowmen involved thousands of them, using indirect fire, firing for effect at the space the enemy were occupying, not at individual targets. The ensuing deadly shower would be less effective than normal because the arrows were plunging, striking at an angle (still would go clean through mail!). at that range, bodkin points would not be employed, rather lighter and longer-ranged flight arrows. Bodkins would be employed inside 100-120 yrds, in a less drastic arc of fire - but they weren't humming in at a flat trajectory. It's my understanding that most penetration tests are conducted at 50 yrds or less, and the arrows are on a nearly level flight. The tests I know of (on 15th c. stuff - I think it would be neat if an archer out there would post some results! I want to learn more, and I am not an archer.), breastplates and helmets were not sucsessfully penetrated, but limb armor was - not to a depth to be disableing though.

That said, 90% of the people engaged on any field did not have the comprehensive armour required for any kind of secure protection, and they would suffer greatly. It is my understanding that English armies engaged against each other in The Wars of the Roses, would know who was going to win the battle within 5 or 6 flights of arrows exchanged. The losers were often galled into engaging their foe in hand-to-hand combat at a disadvantage to bring a halt to the devestating exchange of arrows (it was actualy a relief to risk getting your brains dashed out with a poll-axe or bill !)

In the 14th c. with more primitive armour, the longbow was a devestating killer - as Kartaphilos points out very well indeed. The stuff available was about as effective as wearing a raincoat to keep out a bullet. Truly, it was the longbow that forced the armourer to try to come up with some kind of counter to the deadly hail - it took them quite a while to do it !

Thats my view of the situation - I may well be wrong on some points, I'm no expert - especially on the fine technical points ! As to the psycological effect of the longbow - devestating ! Those who had _some_ degree of immunity (Few and far between - and no one before, say 1390), must have felt their morale plunge to see their retinue shot to pieces around them !

This is a very interesting topic (to me, anyway). Thanks Kartaphilos - I'm much sketchier on the earlier stuff. I was thinking more in 15th c. terms, because thats my primary area of interest. Do you know how effective the archers of "The White Company" were in Italy in the 14th c. ? It must have been a total unpleasant revelation to the poor Italian civic millitia and Condottieri!

posted 03-19-1999 05:48 PM               

It’s always seemed to me that there’s been a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the English longbow. Most of it seems to stem from its role in three important battles of the Hundred Years War; Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. We may be able to gain a more realistic understanding of the weapon and it’s abilities if we take a realistic look at the battle of Crecy, first of the great battles that gained the longbow the fame and glory it enjoys even today:

At Crecy, English king Edward III's force, maybe 20,000 (which is very large for a medieval army), is top-heavy with archers, who numbered either 10,000 or as many as 15,000. French King Philip VI may or may not have a smaller force then Edward, but he does have many more knights. So despite the fact that reinforcements from Gascony are marching quickly to his aid, he is confident he can defeat the English and chooses not to wait.

Edward forms a defensive line of battle based on two brilliant tactical decisions:

First, he places his forces on a hill parallel to the road the French are traveling up to meet him. His right flank is protected by dense sloping forest, which also serves to block the French from a clear view of his forces until they reach a point directly across from the English line. Ideally, once they reach this point, the French forces in the vanguard will halt and form a battle line across from the English, and wait for the remaining forces still marching up the road to catch up and form a line behind. When all the French forces are thus drawn up for battle, they will attack. But Edward knows the knightly temperament, and counts on the first French forces to reach the point where they can actually see the English to charge immediately, without waiting for the remaining forces behind them.

Second, Edward orders his Knights to dismount. He must have known through experience that dismounted archers will break and run in the face of a mounted charge, usually before they can get off more than a few anxious long-distance shots and certainly before the range decreases to the point that their arrows actually begin to tell. But by placing his Knights on foot among the archers he bolsters the archers’ courage. They now know that the knights will not be galloping away if the battle should turn against them (as is their habit). But most important they know that if the French charge gets to within striking range they only have to retreat back a few paces and they will be safe behind the iron wall of the English knights and spearmen.

Edward also seems to have lined his archers up into five rows. The back three rows can only fire arching distance shots. But Edward has set his line on the hill in such a way that the French will have to attack his left flank as they charge up the hill, so he has staggered the first two lines of archers in such a way that they can both fire direct shots simultaneously at the front and sides of the approaching French knights.

As soon as the French vanguard spot the English, Philip begins to lose control of his forces. He sends up his crossbowmen, but they have no luck and retreat. The first line of French knights lose patience and attack. Then the second group of knights moves up the road and into position where they form up and charge. Then the third. Then the fourth. In the end there have been either fifteen or sixteen uphill charges of small groups of French knights, each group finding itself the focus of thousands of English archers. From the moment they enter the farthest effective range of the longbows, to the point they enter the more powerful flat trajectory ranges of the first two rows of archers, each individual French knight would have found himself the direct target of literally hundreds of war arrows. The few who actually made contact with the English line found themselves in the point-blank range of the archers nearest, at least until they were enveloped and cut down by the English knights and spearmen.

I’ll offer some highly unscientific calculations. First of all, the French lost roughly 2,000 armored cavalry killed, if you include the famous personalities, bannerets and common knights. If we assume the high number of 16 French charges, and the low number of 10,000 English archers, we are left with 125 French armored horsemen per charge, which means 80 English archers for each individual French horseman. This means 48 English archers in the back three lines firing arching shots for each French armored horseman, and more importantly 32 English archers in the front two lines firing aimed, full power flat trajectory shots for each French armored horseman.

These numbers are obviously highly problematic, besides being rough averages. Among other things it does not account for the wounded French who survive, or those taken captive. Many other factors are also not taken into consideration. For instance, a few archers would have been wounded, and some would have broken their bows or strings, or needed more arrows. We can assume that those in the back, that is bows, arrows, or the archers themselves, would have replaced losses in the more critical front positions, which the English no doubt wanted to keep up to strength.

The most important factor not taken into account by the above calculations is the fact that each French horseman who fell would “free up” a large number of English archers to concentrate on existing targets. If by attrition a particular French charge had been reduced to, say, 50 men, each of those 50 individual French cavalrymen, once out of the range of fire of the back three rows of English archers, would have found himself facing the more powerful, far more accurate fire of no less than 80 English archers.

How many arrows each French horseman could have been potentially struck by is impossible to calculate, though it must have been a considerable amount. I don’t know the exact distance from the beginning of the French charges to the beginning of the English left flank, but the French had to charge uphill to get there, so let's blindly guess at least a minute traveling time. If you accept a firing rate for the English archer of 10 - 15 arrows per minute you begin to get into ridiculous numbers of arrows. If we assume that the 4,000 archers in the front two lines maintain a constant rate of fire for roughly one minute, we’re talking 40,000 - 60,000 arrows. If the back three lines were only able to fire for 30 seconds, we would still be adding another 30,000 to 45,000 more arrows, for a total of 70,000 to 105,000 arrows per 125 charging French cavalrymen.
Though I’m truly god-awful at math, and while there are obviously too many assumptions and way too much random guessing for these numbers to be anything like accurate (i.e. if each archer maintained the above rate of fire for all sixteen French charges, they would have discharged between one million one-hundred twenty-three thousand and one million six-hundred eighty thousand arrows), they do help give some idea what the French were up against on that late summer afternoon.

But what does this tell us about the English Longbow and its effects on armor? Quite a lot, actually.

It’s clear from the historical accounts that despite their advance into an unimaginable blizzard of longbow arrows, plus their own slow rate of charge, a number of the French actually made it to the English line. The fact is, if the English longbow was near as powerful as some of the above assertions tend to paint it, this would be quite literally impossible. As was pointed out above, the armor of the 14th century did not offer nearly the protection as that of later years. I think Bob R makes the comparison to a raincoat against a bullet. But if the armor of the 14th century offered so little protection, then how did these men survive? Sure they were tough, but let’s get real. And I don’t accept the “Charge of El Cid” argument (that they were DOA) either. That some of the French made it through the arrows in good enough shape to attack the English cannot be questioned. In fact, at one point an attack on the English left, commanded by the young Black Prince, became enough of a threat that Edward had to send twenty knights from the center to turn the tide of battle.

But, again, how can this be? I think it is due to two things. First, the English longbow is simply not as powerful a weapon as is often asserted (an argument I won’t get into right now), and second, that 14th century armor is not as weak. Unfortunately, accurate armor tests are very difficult to perform, and too much tainted information is floating around passing itself off as historically accurate. For instance, I’ve encountered no less than three tests of arrows-versus-chainmail performed by amateurs (not to mention so-called experts), one of them in the home page of a longbow-centered historical recreation group. All three of these tests assert the power of bows against mail by hanging up mail vests and shooting arrows through them. None of them featured the data necessary (type bow, pound draw, type arrow and arrow head, distance from target, type iron in mail, size rings, butted stamped or riveted rings, etc., etc.) to lend their tests any credence, and all came to conflicting conclusions. And none of them were aware that, due to the particular qualities of chainmail, an arrow that will pass through a suit of mail hung up on a rod will not penetrate a suit of mail worn by a man with the proper padding beneath. The amount of force the mail and the padding beneath it will absorb before it pierces the man beneath, and the final amount of damage to the man once this force has been absorbed, can only be tested by firing arrows at someone wearing accurate reproduction mail with the proper padding beneath, and checking the results. So far this is a level of historical accuracy even the most fervent re-enactor has yet to reach for. This same problem does not exist with plate armor, and I should think it could be tested without human participation. But it still leaves many similar problems, like for instance the quality of iron in a 14th century breastplate versus the iron in a reproduction breastplate. You can build a reproduction 14th century breastplate to museum specs in size and thickness, but if you build it out of stainless steel any tests would be useless.

That armor, both plate and mail, can be pierced to a depth necessary to incapacitate a man by arrows fired from a powerful enough bow is not in question. But in the case of Crecy the question, it seems to me, remains open. The huge numbers of arrows fired by the English would have found any chink, or weak spot, or unarmored area on the French knights, and certainly account for why some of them fell. But the sources make clear that many, I would guess the majority (and possibly all) of the French knights were killed as they lay wounded or stunned on the ground by the dismounted English knights, spearmen, archers, and Welsh auxiliaries. We must therefore face the possibility that many, perhaps all, of the French knights fell only because the arrows fired at them were, generally, also fired at their entirely unarmored horses.

It seems pretty clear to me that, considering all the factors working for the English and against the French, particularly the huge number of English archers, the results of this battle would have been the same even if the English archers had been equipped with the standard shorter self bows used by the armies of the continent (Hell, with 10,000 men they could have just chucked rocks they’d picked up off the ground at the French and the end result probably would have been the same). It’s also clear that had the French waited for their full compliment of knights to arrive and form into line of battle, their charge would have destroyed the English (a possibility Edward may have considered since he first made sure he had a clear escape route North before he stopped his march and positioned his forces for battle).

If this gets posted (and I understand if it doesn’t) I hope it stirs further debate. I’ve always found this a particularly fascinating subject.

posted 03-19-1999 06:39 PM               

Coherent, balanced and entertaining. Gregg, have you ever considered writing for a professional (e.g. paying) market? Try expanding that post to maybe three times its size and sending it to something like "Military History" magazine.

Just in this topic alone, between you and Bob I hear comforting echoes of Oakeshott's "Knight" children's books -- and that's not an insult! (I'm waiting like a cat on hot bricks for Dufour to publish the last of them next month.)

There's something about this Forum (maybe that the format allows longer posts) which seems to bring out a remarkable quality of writing. Maybe a little more work with the spell-checker is needed in some places but even so, I'm impressed.

Okay, so it's not a response to the topic, but it's 02.45 here, I've just landed from part of a tour in an Imperial DeepFleet frigate (don't ask!) and I'm tired. Tomorrow, longbows. Tonight, sleep.

When I've read all the other new messages, that is!

posted 03-19-1999 10:21 PM               

OK, I'm no expert on 14th c. warfare (or 15th c., for that matter), but some of the assertions made don't jive with what I've read - regarging the power of the bow, and the effectiveness of harness of the 14th c. in keeping out the arrowstorm.

You are absolutely right about the piecemeal commitment of the French army, having to do with command and controll difficulties inherent in a 14th c. feudal host, the piecemeal arrival and commitment of the French host, and the influence of the tactics of the conroi, which was designed to keep up pressure on an opposing cavalry battline, by successive charges of small groups of fresh cavalry commited en-hay (which I understand to be , looking at the cavalryman himself as a sort of primitive projectile, as a sort of rippling fire from a battle line). Each succsessive wave charging would theoretically reform behind the rear - wave, re-grouping for the next potential charge. The en-hay formation is, I believe, supposed to be three lines of cavalry of no great depth. The English deployment caused further confusion by constricting and funneling the French charges.

10,000 English psoloi (sic), chucking rocks, at best, 30 yrds range, would have been ridden down like so much sheep by French heavy cavalry. The impetus of the charge - delivered as near to a gallop as possible over the last 30 yrds would have allowed for one rock to be discharged inside effective range by the theoretical rock armed unfortunate infantry, before the French chivalry would have turned them into piles of steaming (and screaming ! :-) ) goo. It's a silly assertation that even if they were throwing rocks, they could have stopped them.

The only surviving specimens of medieval English longbows are those off of the Mary Rose. They actually strung them (some of them), and subjected them to stress tests - they figured them to have averaged a 100-120 lb pull. The only reliable (imoho) tests of the effectiveness of mail and padded jacks against arrows was published some 12 yrs ago in "Millitary Illustrated". The author of the artical had taken an extant piece of medieval riveted mail in good condition, and extant 15th c. bodkin points, re-shafted them, made a linen jack (using descriptions out of the Howard Household accounts), put them over a manequin, and fired using a 70 lb longbow re-construction.

The results were that inside of 50 yrds, the bodkin point penetrated the mail, and usually the jack below - poping the rivets every time. Shots that hit the jack alone, on the other hand, often bounced off. I believe that the mail caught - and channeled the force of the projectile. IMO, that's why we see iconographic evidence of padded gambesons and jupons being worn over all kinds of harness between the 1370's and 90's, by all classes of soldiers.

The harness worn by the French chivalry in the 1340's was mostly mail - worn with cuirbolli breastplates, coats of plates, and the occasional breastplate. Limb defences tended to be cuirbolli, cuirbolli re-enforced with strips of metal, and metal (iron, steel, or latten)cops or rondels attached to knees & elbows, or hanging over the vulnerable armpits. Helmets were mostly cevelliers worn under greathelms, proto-bascinets - with or without visors, and kettlehats. Almost no harness survives from this period, but God know's, there's plenty of evidence in the form of brasses, miniatures, and the occasional inventory of castle armouries and wills.

This may well have been very effective at keeping out flight arrows over 100 yrds away, especially being worn over a gambeson. I maintain that inside 100 yrds ( a cantering or galloping horse will cover this distance in seconds), a bodkin point would be devestating, even with a weak bow of 70lbs pull. The "stripe", and ballistic effect of a bodkin point would very likely pass into the body of a man if it hit a primarily mail covered area. I don't think anyone has done a historically accurate reconstruction of a cuirbolli breastplate, and tested it against a longbow - I would think it would prove to be fairly effective against a sword-cut, but nearly useless against a bodkin point inside 50 yrds. I think the Wisby style coat of plates would prove effective, or at least reasonable protection against arrows, and I think a globular iron or steel breastplate would not be able to penetrated to a killing or disabling depth by a bodkin point, if tests against later plate are any indication of effectiveness.

That being said, the early to mid 14th c. warhorse was extremely vulnerable to the longbow at greater range than the man. The horse armour of the day (none exists today that I know of), would at best be mail - very rare and costly for a horse-bard, quilted material (probably much more effective, but how common ? ), and possibly cuir bolli - I don't know of any references to this being used in the 1340's - if anyone knows about this subject, please _tell us_ :-). I think most of the French war-horses employed were armoured with nothing more than brightly colored heraldic trappers, and good wishes.

I think that Greg is quite right about most of the French men-at-arms killed being dispached on the ground, with spears, knives and staff-weapons, after having their vulnerable horses shot out from under them - ever have a horse fall under you and pin your leg ? Not me, but I've seen it happen to other people - it 'ain't' pretty - and would certainly disable someone long enough for some gleeful psycho to finish them off.

With a rate of fire being 10-15 rnds a minute for a longbow, and a sheaf of arrows consisting of 20 - two-thirds of them being flight arrows shot at ranges of over 100 yrds, and two sheafs of arrows being the usual allotment carried on hand by the English (still mostly Welsh, at this early date) archer - how long would it be for an archer to shoot off his amunition allotment? My count, two minutes and a half to three minutes - I know, probably double that number for every man is carried in wagons and carts, but it takes time to fetch them. IMOHO, I think that only the bodkins are recoverable by the firing line - the rest of the ammo being too far away to recover effectivly while threatend by the enemy. I think this would slow the effective rate of fire over the course of the battle, and by eliminating the long-range ammunition, would shorten the range of later vollys. I think this helps account for the 15-16 seperate charges by the French. Also, every arrow shot within recoverable range by the archers is not always recoverable - arrows snap, heads are lost in victims, ect.

I would put forth the proposition that it is possible were the longbow not as horrificaly devestating a weapon as it was at close range against transitional armour, the French would probably have been the victors at Crecy.

Boy this is a great topic. Thanks Greg ! Youv'e made me think about possibilities that I hadn't considered before. :-)

posted 03-20-1999 05:31 AM               

Again on beeswax (carried by every archer to waterproof his bowstring): part two of the same vague memory is suggesting that a blob of wax was sometimes smeared on the point (presumably of a bodkin) to give sufficient momentary purchase against (plate?) armour. (Surprisingly sticky stuff, beeswax, especially when it isn't intended for candles or furniture polish and still has a reasonable proportion of honey in the matrix.)

The intent was to allow the momentum (or is that "moment of inertia") of the arrow's mass and speed to remain concentrated on the point for a microsecond longer, to give a better chance of penetration. If this technique was used (and effective) then it must have required knowledge of the strong and weak points of a given style of armour (I've read that knights studied up on the subject, the better to make snap IDs of how to attack their opponents in tourney.) That suggests it must have been a technique restricted to archers in a nobleman's personal mesnie, those with an opportunity to look over the harnesses current among potential opponents (to give an idea of the dozy state of my mind, I keep thinking of "Jane's All Europe's Armour", new from Master Caxton. Sheesh.)

It would be further restricted to close-range flat-trajectory sniping by the most skilled archers, rather than arrow-storm volley fire; wand-splitting shooters who could nominate an eye and thread an arrow through it at fifty yards. At Crécy, that would include the eyeslits of a pig-faced bascinet, or if the knight was foolish enough to look up, the little space under its visor between lower lip and aventail. Later on, a T-faced barbute or a sallet without its bevor would have been a real invitation to "Try your skill, three shots for a groat!"

Can anyone throw further light on these two theories, or dismiss them as just speculation and muddy recollection to the file marked "Use in Fantasy Novels Only"?

posted 03-20-1999 06:18 AM               

I honestly don't think that they had pigfaced visors at Crecy, or in the 1340's. The beeswax technique might have been relatively effective against an early klappenvisor, or against a visored great helm - both with relatively flat surfaces in comparison.

IMOHO, I think that pig-faced, or bycocket bascinets developed directly from sad experience gained at Crecy and Poitiers. An archer in a retinue might well have been able to develop "technique" with aiming at specific weaknesses - but considering the movement of horse and rider together at speed, nevermind the difficulty of aiming at a moveing target coming directly at you, I doubt a skilled archer would want to be put in the position to try the shot.

As to the later stuff, Men-at-Arms with raised visors, or bevors off againt longbowmen were early experiments in social Darwinisim - the imperitive that the stupid will kill themselves. there is your three for a groat shot ! :-)

posted 03-21-1999 03:19 PM               

I should point out that my area of greatest interest and research is in fact Classical military history, particularly the period of the Roman Republic and Imperial Roman Empire. But my research into weapons, particularly the use and effects of missile weapons, has led to greater research into later systems. My knowledge of the weapons, and particularly the armor, of the Medieval era is very limited, primarily to general reference works, so I hope you don't mind if I generally avoid detailed discussion of armor (though I am very fortunate to have some excellent works on many of the more important battles of the period).

These posts have been very informative and thought provoking. Some of the references are entirely new to me. I have been very fortunate to come across some very good information regarding the English longbow (as opposed to the Asian composite bow, my primary interest), some of which you guys might find interesting.

There was more I wanted to say in that last post, but it was my first, plus I figured it was way too long as it was (I had originally intended detailed studies of Poitier and Agincourt as well as Crecy). One thing I should have mentioned as a possible evidence for the idea that the Longbow at Crecy may have not been as effective as is often asserted is the possibility that bodkin type warheads may not have been used at Crecy and Poitier. I am basing this on the fact that Froissart describes the arrowheads used by the Black Prince as "Bearded," or broadheads. This argument is given some weight by the fact that the oldest existing medieval arrow (the famous Chapter House arrow now at Westminster Abbey library) is armed with a typical medieval broadhead and has been dated to the second half of the Hundred Years War. It is possible, therefore, that the bodkin head was only introduced (or re-introduced) in response to the heavier armor that began to show up before Agincourt.

My research on bows has lead to some very interesting details regarding the history of the English longbow. For instance, the bow is almost certainly not of Welsh origin. No less than seven bows almost identical to the typical English longbow have been discovered in 1st - 4th century AD graves in parts of Scandinavia known to be the territory of either the Saxons or the Angles. The bows are roughly six feet long, made of yew, with the standard D section, and one has a horn knock. On top of this, another bow was found in a Viking grave less than twenty years ago. Again a typical longbow except the wooden staves are reinforced with iron.
This has lead at least one scholar to suggest that the longbow was introduced to England during the Viking invasions and settlements, though my own opinion is that the longbow was introduced to England during the invasion of the Angles and Saxons shortly after the collapse of Roman power on that island.

The belief that the bow encountered by the Normans in Wales was the famous longbow is due to a mistranslation of Cambrensis. A more recent translation indicates the bow used by the Welsh Venta was not a yew bow, but an elm bow. Also, at no point does Cambrensis mention the bow as being particularly or abnormally long. He also makes it clear that the Welsh bow is "not calculated to shoot an arrow to a great distance, but to inflict very severe wounds in a close fight." Thus it would seem far more logical to assume the Welsh bow encountered by the Normans was simply a particularly powerful short bow. The current theory seems to be that it wasn't until encountering the powerful Welsh short bow that the English decided they needed something with the Welsh bow's power at short range, but with the ability to fire at long ranges, this decision coming possibly around the reign of Edward I. Such a weapon already existed in the kingdom, having been introduced by the invading Angles and Saxons, and possibly reintroduced by Danish Viking invaders.

As to the actual power of the longbow, this is obviously a point of some contention. This question has been aided by the 0retrieval of a number of bows from the Mary Rose over the years, particularly the more thorough recent excavations. However it may not be as well known that there are in fact no less than three other Medieval longbows in existence. The first is now in the possession of the Royal Scottish Archers, and is traditionally dated to the battle of Flodden. The second, known as the Hedgeley Moor bow, by tradition dates to the battle of Hedgeley Moor during the Wars of the Roses. The third, known as the Mendlesham bow, dates to the reign of Henry VIII, like the bows recovered from the Mary Rose.

All three are standard yew longbows, roughly six feet in length, formed from the typical center and sap woods. Captain George Burnet of the Royal Scottish Archers estimates the draw weight of the Flodden bow to be between 80 and 90 lbs. The Hedgeley Moor bow is estimated to possess a 50 lb. draw. It also has marks at the handle that suggest chronic overdrawing of a bodkin head, perhaps to make up for the bows’ lack of strength. Measurements of the Mendlesham bow suggest a draw weight of 80 lbs. at 28 inches.

I have no data on recent artifacts excavated from the Mary Rose, but at least two bows were recovered from the wreck in 1836. Until recently they were kept in the Armouries in the Tower of London. They were estimated by Horace Ford in his 1887 book The Theory and Practice of Archery to possess a draw weight of between 65 and 70 lbs.

In 1980 the Recorder of the British Long Bow Society estimated the Medieval Longbow to possess a draw of between 90 and 110 lbs. W.F. Paterson, then Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries claimed a more realistic maximum draw of between 80 and 90 lbs. The two also estimate an effective maximum range of 180 – 200 yards.

It is difficult to reconcile these figures with claims that the Longbow drew over 100 lbs. However, I may have one explanation:

One very important and common misconception about the English longbow is the length of the English war arrow, the famed “clothyard shaft.” Many otherwise well-informed scholars have mistaken this arrow to be a modern yard in length, or roughly three feet. This is not the case. To quote Robert E. Kaiser, “The term comes from the reign of Edward III, when he introduced Flemish weavers into England. The weavers brought their own system of measurement with them. Known as the “clothyard”, “clothier’s yard”, “ell”, or “Flemish yard”, it was 27 4/10 inches long.” This is confirmed by the Chapter House war arrow, which is a 27 inch shaft with a socketed broadhead. Measurements of the arrow staves recently retrieved from the Mary Rose confirm this standard length did not alter during the period of the bow’s preeminence.

Without having seen the data, it would seem therefore logical to assume that these large draw estimates come from a misunderstanding of the war arrow, and therefore the actual draw length of the English longbow. If the maximum draw of the longbow was never intended to be over twenty-eight inches, then any tests that forced the bow to draw to thirty-six inches would result in considerable stacking, thus explaining claimed draw weights of 110, 130, or even 150 lbs.

Hope you guys found this informative, and I very much welcome any supporting or contradicting data.

posted 03-21-1999 05:32 PM               

I got my information on draw weights (I am not an archer!)from the latest edition (1993) of "Longbow", by Robert Hardy, which contains an entire new chapter on testing the Mary Rose bows.

Five of the Mary Rose bows (the originals) were strung and draw weight weighed -#'s A3952,A1654,A1648,A3975,A1607. A1654's target draw lenght was 30 inches. at 29 1/2 inches with a tip deflection of 14 inches the load was calculated at 79 lbs. The elastic modulus of three of the complete bows was measured, and found to be 50% lower than expected from degradation, exposure to salt water ect - so they made modern approximations. MRA1 produced 102.4 lbs at a 30 inch draw.

Any archers familiar with Hardy's chapter 11 -"Forward into the past" who would like to comment ? I'm more than a little out of my element, but the tests seem to be on the level to me.

In regard to the Welsh bow - it was indeed a rough elm bow from my reading - although I am not sure how short it was. You are certainly right about the "longbow" existing very early on - I think it's neolithic in origen. What makes it a uniquely English weapon is in it's tactical battlefield employment en masse. Clout shooting at long range.

I can't comment as to wether the bodkin was in use at Cressy, but if barbed broadheads were used in their place, they would have had a similar range and stripe, if not an exact armour penetrating capability - only flight arrows would reach out to the extreme range of the bow.

I wonder, is it possible that the broadhead might well have been effective against re-enforced mail - which may have spurred armour development - forcing the introduction of the bodkin, further spurring on the development of plate ? Might there well have been a technology race between attack and defence throughout the 14th and into the 15th c. ? Some interesting points to ponder. :-)

posted 03-21-1999 06:54 PM               

I know that some of the arrows discovered with the 1st - 4th Cent. A.D. bows had bodkin heads identical to those used later by the English, just smaller in size. It was almost certainly used to pierce armor. I suppose the later English bodkin point was either simply re-introduced or re-created as a logical evolution to the problem of piercing mail.

posted 03-21-1999 08:28 PM               

I wouldn't have picked the Hardy book up if it wasn't for the Mary Rose chapter - I'm not a bowman, but I can't resist archeology in any form (well, maybe I can when it comes to digging out gardrobes ! )

I don't know about the crossbow impelling armour development by itself. I read an interesting article in the last copy of "Millitary Illustrated" that examined in depth the development, or more properly experimentation with armour forms over the 14th c. in Italy. Iconographic evidence from tomb memorials seems to have them mucking about with cuirbolli and whatnot for a much longer time frame (seems about 20 yrs longer) than in Northern Europe.

Italy was of course one of the formost users of the crossbow. I know the early ones were much weaker, but the trend seemed to continue even after the introduction of the steel stave crossbow. Maybe that had more to do with the tactical deployment of the crossbow by the civic millitia. I still think it was the arrow-storm that made the nobility demand more from the armourer.

Remember, armour on the battlefield lasted far longer than was warented after the introducton of the gun. I have photographs of rather silly looking French cuirassiers trotting off to the front in 1914.

posted 03-22-1999 08:32 AM               

A few other comments on the analyses of Crecy, et all:

1. One piece of protection that many seem to forget is the shield. So long as the primary armor was mail, the shield was standard equipment. A mail-clad knight charging at Crecy would have had his shield presented to the front, and it would have taken quite a few of the arrows. A shield alone might not have stopped a clothyard shaft, but as the first of a series of defenses (followed by mail, followed by the jack, etc.) it probably made a big difference.

2. You don't need a super weapon to hold a strong defensive position against someone fool enough to try a direct frontal assault. What happened at Crecy happened to other medieval armies who attacked strong positions that were defended by pikes, crossbows, etc. Conversely, the longbow could be defeated by mounted knights under the right conditions. The Breton knight du Guesclin (did I spell that name right?) was consistantly able to beat English forces which included longbowmen.

3. The crossbow was a pretty good weapon in its own right, and it got better through the Middle Ages. It was always considered superior to the longbow for siege work (both attack and defense), when rate of fire was not an issue. Richard I was a big proponent of crossbows, and used it very well at Jaffa, during the Third Crusade. Ironically, he was killed by a crossbow bolt during a minor siege. I think that the Italian preference for the crossbow may have stemmed from the prevalance of castles/walled towns (thus, many more sieges than field battles), and the existance of communities of fine craftsmen who could produce a fairly complicated weapon.

posted 03-22-1999 08:43 PM               

You got me thinking about crossbows Bob, and though I know a bit about their history, I have never fired one, and know very little of their physics. We can agree they were very powerful, and were used to great advantage in the siege (the Romans utilized many different sizes, ranging up to a two ton model). Though the crossbow seems to have elicited great fear and horror when first introduced, probably at it's potential to stop a heavily armored man on horseback, it never achieved this threat, certainly not like gunpowder. In fact, it obviously never replaced the bow (even the basic self bow). Though I must admit the history of the crossbow is all tangled up and confused (to me at least) with the odd apearence and disapearence of the bow throughout the early middle ages. Certainly it is rarely seen in the west from Hastings, where it is used to great advantage, to the introduction of the longbow, where it suddenly becomes preeminant again. I won't get into why this happened, but it certainly apears the crossbow was not the revolutionary weapon many felt it would be. I would guess that medieval armies discovered early on that the crossbow afforded very little advantage on the field, especially in relation to their ponderous size, slow rate of fire, and relative expense. I would guess that fielding the number of crossbowmen necessary to stop an armored charge was fantastically expensive, and in the face of a charge I doubt the crossbowman could get off more than one shot before running in panic. At least a group of standard bowmen could get off a few shots before having to run for their lives.
We all know the English longbowmen had quite a few advantages over other bowmen. His bow was more powerful than any other self bow, they were fielded in much larger numbers, and they usually had the protection of dismounted knights, so they could fire for a much longer period, up to the point of contact.
But why did the crossbow show so poorly against the longbow? At Crecy, for example, the crossbowmen were sent up by the French king first off, but retreated immediatly. From what I understand about the crossbow at the time, it was certainly more powerful.
I'm only guessing, and I certainly bow to anyone with better knowledge, but I think it has to do with what each was designed to do. The longbow was very powerful, and could project a good heavy arrow with great force and good accuracy a short distance. But it's length also allowed it to fire to great distances, not as accuratly but with good effect. A mass of such archers were therefore very effective at both long and short distances. The crossbow, on the other hand, is built for relative high accuracy and great power. It's short heavy bolt could maintain a flat, accurate trajectory a great distance. BUT (and here I'm really starting to guess), I'm guessing it could not fire an arching shot at all (one hears of the arrow storm in reference to English Longbowmen and asian horse archers, but never crossbowmen). If the crossbow could fire an arching shot I'm sure they never would have come close to the extreme range of the longbows. Thus either the bolts of the Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy couldn't reach their English opponants, who had the advantage of distance if not power, or they found themselves standing amidst a hail of longbow arrows before they could fire or before they could reload.
It would make sense that the use of the longbow spurred on the development of heavier armor, but I don't know enough of it's later history to be certain. For instance, who besides the French and Italians found themselves on the business end of massed longbowmen? From what I understand the Germans were coming up with pretty heavy armor, as, I think, were the Spanish. But then again, I recall that professional knights would travel across Europe from war to war, so I guess that argument doesn't make sense.

posted 03-22-1999 09:36 PM               

Shields were certanly in use throughout the 14th c. by armoured knights. I am out of the era (15th c.) of specific knowledge I've been researching - so anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt - if anyone is more expert, please comment if I am far off the mark.

to my understanding, shields of 14th c. Western Europe, were of the "heater" variety. They were made of several layers of laminated wood, with a gentle curve in cross section. I understand they were not very thick - like the planks of a viking "battle board", or a pavise. They were covered in hide, or gessoed canvas, The interior had 2-3 straps, to secure the arm, and give a grip for the hand. A arm-pad was usually present, and a guige strap was common, and used to "sling the shield on ones back when not in use. The few surviving examples do not to my knowledge have any metal boarder - I think the shield mey have been used to trap or twist an opponents blade out of his grasp if it got caught in the edge.

The shield got smaller over the course of the 14th c. , as armour became more effective. Eventually, specialized shapes, like the "bouche" - which had a lance rest cut into the upper corner of the lance side, to help guide it in combat or tournament. (I personally think this refinement passed out of fashion, as the arret was introduced to the breastplate, and became effective.)

As to the Genoese being routed so easily at Crecy - it was due to the weather as much as anything else. The Genoese, expecting to go into action at the end of the march had marched with their crossbows strung (stringing a crossbow being a much more difficult and time-consuming endevor than the longbow). There was a brief shower that wetted their strings - loosened them, reducing their range.

The English apparently were in the habit of keeping extra strings under their headgear, so as to keep them dry. They got to change their bowstrings, and play havoc with the crossbows (who's bows were probably at less than 50 % effeciency). The crossbow (composite and steel staved) under normal circumstances certainly outranges the longbow, but this time, the Genoese were shot to pieces before they could discharge a volly within effective range.