Why Did the English Use Longbows Rather Than Recurves? (battle, tactics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dunno about that Dutchie. I haven't worked out the physics but at first glance (pun intended) it's hard to believe an arrow would strike with more force than a 9mm or .45 pistol bullet.
And the Spanish in the New World were quite well protected by their helmets from Indian darts, arrows and slingstones.
But in many cases, such as Cortez's troop did, they had to discard armor and use heavy cotton padding...and at they end they only a heavy layer of cotton capable of padding hits with those sort of baseball bats with obsidian crystals, arrows with obsidian tips, etc.
They nly had 14 firearms and 15 horses, what was more determinant were swords, peaks, horses and dogs.
This thread seems to have become rather dismissive of the power and effectiveness of the bow.Perhaps we should go back to the beginning;an arrow from an English longbow of the 13th-15th centuries could and did pierce armor,and most surely it could kill.
vs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dadeguy
it's a myth that the english archers were anything other than an annoyance at agincourt.
And the possible middle road:
- English archers using a variety of bow sizes, and using a variety of arrow heads shot at French knights.
- The knights were shot at from a variety of ranges and from a variety of angles (point blank to high plunging).
- These individual knights were wearing a variety of armour from chain mail to partial plate to full plate of the finest quality.
The result was a varying degree of lethality ranging from "annoying" to "very lethal" and everywhere in between. After the battle, both sides got into propaganda mode:
English- Our wonder weapon makes us invincible
French- We were not beaten by the English, we were beaten only by the weather.
- English archers using a variety of bow sizes, and using a variety of arrow heads shot at French knights.
- The knights were shot at from a variety of ranges and from a variety of angles (point blank to high plunging).
- These individual knights were wearing a variety of armour from chain mail to partial plate to full plate of the finest quality.
The result was a varying degree of lethality ranging from "annoying" to "very lethal" and everywhere in between. After the battle, both sides got into propaganda mode:
English- Our wonder weapon makes us invincible
French- We were not beaten by the English, we were beaten only by the weather.
Surely 'the weather' was the same for both sides no? Perhaps it was bad tactics by the French brought on by their arrogance? Whatever it was the French got a REAL bad beating, don't forget the French were also hammered at Crecy by the English so I guess that the longbows obviously did something!
Because they're cheap and effective. They could afford to bring large numbers of archers to the battlefield, which often had devastating consequences for their opponents. Agincourt is probably the most famous example of how effective longbows were, even in the late medieval period.
Archers are not cheap. Truly mastering the longbow and gaining the ability to stop armoured knights took many years of daily practice.
This practice time was subsidized by the local lords. These lords often complained of the expense associated with this training- and also hinted that the weapon not only had the potential to pierce the armour of French elites, but English as well.
Archers are not cheap. Truly mastering the longbow and gaining the ability to stop armoured knights took many years of daily practice.
This practice time was subsidized by the local lords. These lords often complained of the expense associated with this training- and also hinted that the weapon not only had the potential to pierce the armour of French elites, but English as well.
I'm talking about the longbows themselves, they were a lot more cost effective than most of the alternatives at the time. That being said, you are right because the actual archers themselves weren't cheap commodities. I'm sure anyone who's tried archery will appreciate how difficult a skill it is, men like that were difficult to come by.
I'm talking about the longbows themselves, they were a lot more cost effective than most of the alternatives at the time.
What about the bows as well?
I am guessing that to really maximize archers, one needs to match expert archers with expertly crafted bows and arrows. This would seem that neither the bows nor the arrows could be mass produced. Rather, they had to be crafted in small numbers by skilled people (costly).
Also, can bows become "shot out" by too much use and thus another bow needs to be provided? If so, how long does a bow last with hours of daily practice?
What about the bows as well? I am guessing that to really maximize archers, one needs to match expert archers with expertly crafted bows and arrows. This would seem that neither the bows nor the arrows could be mass produced. Rather, they had to be crafted in small numbers by skilled people.
The bows needed to be well made, but compared to a crossbow for instance, they were cheaper. Although the advantage with crossbows is that they require less skill to use. Ultimately a contingent of skilled longbowmen were a greater asset than a contingent of crossbowmen. The longbows from this period were devastatingly powerful.
EDIT: After a bit of research I've learned that longbows were in fact more expensive. They were preferred simply because of their power. Crossbows were a better choice for deploying ranged fighters en masse.
The bows needed to be well made, but compared to a crossbow for instance, they were cheaper. Although the advantage with crossbows is that they require less skill to use. Ultimately a contingent of skilled longbowmen were a greater asset than a contingent of crossbowmen.
As a side note, another weapon that is individually cheap, deadly effective (well, perhaps not against fully armoured knights), but needs years of practice to master is the humble sling.
In the end, the sling had the same problem as the long bow in that producing expert users to really maximize the weapon's potential was just too difficult. As a result, slings were also on the wrong side of the crossbow to gun practice time / lethality ratio.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
