European Archery/ Agincourt/crecy/etc

VANDOO · 24th July 2012, 02:32 AM

A INTERESTING READ IS "THE ARCHERS TALE" BY BERNARD CORNWELL. IT IS HISTORICAL FICTION BUT HAS A LOT OF REAL RESEARCHED INFORMATION AND IS A GOOD STORY IF YOU LIKE TO READ.
THE BOW IS A SERIOUS WEAPON AS WELL AS A VERY GOOD HUNTING WEAPON. SOCIETYS WHO USED THEM A LOT FOR HUNTING USUALLY HAD COMPETICIAN AMONG THE TRIBE SO OFTEN GOT VERY GOOD WITH THEM.
THE PERSIAN EMPIRE HAD ARCHERS FROM SOME ETHINIC GROUP WHO MADE THEM VERY SUCESSFUL. THE ENGLISH LONGBOW WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . THE CHINESE USED THEM IN MASS AS THE PERSIANS DID.
BUT ARCHERY FROM HORSEBACK IT WAS EITHER THE MONGOLS OR THE AMERICAN INDIANS WHO WERE THE MASTERS. THE JAPANESE ALSO DO A GOOD JOB FROM HORSEBACK AS WELL.

trenchwarfare · 24th July 2012, 06:06 AM

Most of the "English" bowmen, were actually Welsh. They started at the age of five. Once they reached manhood, the usual practice range was 200 yards. Their arrows, were a "clotheyard" long, and drawn fully to the ear. Reportedly, they were known to penetrate through a 4" oak door. As late as WWI, it was argued as to whether issue rifles, or longbows. And, early in WWII, longbows were issued to Homeguard personnel, to hunt for possible German invaders. Or, so I have read.

ashoka · 24th July 2012, 08:34 AM

Yep those oak doors didn't stand a chance on the battlefield..

kronckew · 24th July 2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashoka

Yep those oak doors didn't stand a chance on the battlefield..

castles had oak doors. and wood shutters on windows & crenelations.

if they could get thru 4in. of oak, i wonder how effective they were against a crossbowman's pavise (below). crossbows while powerful in the short ranges had an abysmal rate of fire. the french hired milanese crossbowmen to counter the english archers, then never deployed them effectively, in fact tending to dismiss them and even trampling them in their eagerness to charge the english peasant trash who dared try to fight their superiors, the elite french aristocrats. the battle of poitiers was another example. the english feigned retreat on one flank, then when the french charged, they showered them with arrows. they reported arrows glancing off the improved armour of the french, so they shot the horses instead, their armour being thinner on the horses flanks. even the french cavalry themselves had soft spots in the armour at joints & visor openings, and the bowmen were good enough to hit them at closer ranges.

p.s. - i did initially mention the welsh

wales is about 10 miles west of where i live.

RDGAC · 24th July 2012, 10:45 AM

As Timo said, firearms are easy (ish) to use, and don't depend upon the muscular strength and/or dexterity of the operator, at least not to the same degree. The arquebus was, moreover, much cheaper to make and operate once the supply of powder was reliable in Europe and the art of producing small-arms had begun to stabilise a bit. Arquebusiers didn't require constant practice and training to remain proficient, or at least, not to the same extent as did bowmen. In addition, the supply of suitable wood for producing the Welsh longbow (which, of course, was taken from one piece of tree, often yew) was rather less than the supplies of suitable wood and metal for making small-arms.

The longbow was one hell of a weapon, but it was ultimately a technological dead-end. Firearms freed armies from reliance upon muscle power for the majority of their firepower, and made it possible to raise large armies of fairly quickly trained infantry who could still reach further than could any armed for hand-to-hand battle.

katana · 24th July 2012, 02:15 PM

Indeed an interesting subject..... skeletons of ancient archers are easily identified due to the 'abnormal' and unequal development of the bones of the left arm (if right handed). Demonstrating the dedication and specialisation of these individuals.

Here's more about longbows....

"Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between!

Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards.

Another aspect of the Longbow was the archers themselves. Archers began training at a very early age, traditionally at the age of seven. Training at long ranges was mandatory, complete with fines for violations. Local tournaments were held regularly, and the best archers were chosen for military duty. As these were all hand-picked troops from among the best archers in England, the archer units were an elite group of infantry. These were no base peasant levies; they were all hand-picked craftsmen who well knew their worth in battle.

The average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man-sized target at a minimum of 200 yards. The maximum range was about 400 yards with flight arrows. An archer could not even consider himself skilled at his art if he could not shoot 10 arrows a minute! Note: From our own experiences at faire, we know that 10 aimed shots per minute at a man-sized target at half that range is quite a feat!......."

http://www.archers.org/default.asp?s...y&page=longbow

All the best
David

RDGAC · 24th July 2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between!

Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards.

Bloody hell! I think that sort of penetration wasn't really approached until the very heavy "Spanish" musket made its appearance on the battlefield (though that'd be Michael's hobby-horse I think!), and curiously enough, even that seems to have performed much the same for penetration. I seem to remember a tale in which a ball fired from a large musket (presumably something around .90 - 1" bore and long-barrelled) went straight through the breastplate of one cavalier and into the poor fellow behind him, embedding itself in the latter's chest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Another aspect of the Longbow was the archers themselves. Archers began training at a very early age, traditionally at the age of seven. Training at long ranges was mandatory, complete with fines for violations. Local tournaments were held regularly, and the best archers were chosen for military duty. As these were all hand-picked troops from among the best archers in England, the archer units were an elite group of infantry. These were no base peasant levies; they were all hand-picked craftsmen who well knew their worth in battle.

Wherein, I suppose, lies the problem; the size of your army (and, by extension, the number of places it can be in useful strength) is governed by your supply of strong men with very well-honed right arms!

Best start working out I think!

Meredydd

Atlantia · 25th July 2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

castles had oak doors. and wood shutters on windows & crenelations.

if they could get thru 4in. of oak, i wonder how effective they were against a crossbowman's pavise (below). crossbows while powerful in the short ranges had an abysmal rate of fire. the french hired milanese crossbowmen to counter the english archers, then never deployed them effectively, in fact tending to dismiss them and even trampling them in their eagerness to charge the english peasant trash who dared try to fight their superiors, the elite french aristocrats. the battle of poitiers was another example. the english feigned retreat on one flank, then when the french charged, they showered them with arrows. they reported arrows glancing off the improved armour of the french, so they shot the horses instead, their armour being thinner on the horses flanks. even the french cavalry themselves had soft spots in the armour at joints & visor openings, and the bowmen were good enough to hit them at closer ranges.

p.s. - i did initially mention the welsh

wales is about 10 miles west of where i live.

Absolutely.
A horse is a nice big target and even the best trained horse isn't running anywhere with a couple of yard long arrows stuck in it.
And nice heavy 'improved' armour is great when you are on horseback, not so great when you are trying to roll clear as the horse falls or as you try to struggle to your feet and move through a muddy field.

kronckew · 25th July 2012, 03:37 PM

yes, eddie 5 picked his ground well (it was not an accident like it seemed in the clip posted above) and deployed his troops well. the french, secure in their hubris, wined and dined the night before, knowing their superior forces would win the next day. the clip also mentions the killing of the french captives, but never mentioned the french attack on the english baggage area and their slaughter of the women and children there which did not make ed any less likely to kill the prisoners.

the english also chose their ground and deployment well at crecy and poitiers, so it was not mere chance. even as far back as the romans, they knew how to defeat a superior numbered force. look what Suetonius did to boudica at their last battle, 10,000 romans slaughtered 80,000 battle hardened iceni warriors by again funnelling them with the choice of the battlefield and his deployment to the point their mass of warriors couldn't find room to move their arms, and further complicated by the brits leaving their baggage and women/children across their line of retreat, where they again bunched up and were further slaughtered. the romans supposedly only lost 400.

heavily armoured troops charging a prepared defensive line uphill will tire them out and put them at a disadvantage. a fact well known then and eons before.

another factor not mentioned was the english army did not breeze thru harfleur, it was a tough siege where many died of the flux (dysentery) and most of the english suffered from the bad water and food and were in pretty bad shape at the time of the battle. he might have gone to france with 6000, but a goodly portion died at harfleur and the march to agincourt without getting near a battle.

the french could have won without a battle just by continuing to deflect them off course from le harve and blocking them from any food and clean water.

it's not superior weapons that win battles, it's how they are used and where and under what conditions. strategy, logistics, tactics, and good leaders wins - with a bit of luck thrown in.

a logistical tid-bit, Edward 5th ordered two million arrows a few years before his expedition to france. he was pretty good at planning ahead.

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 25th July 2012, 04:14 PM

Salaams all ~ Im told that the English used goose grease on their arrows which greatly cut down the air resistance and thus increased their impact on target speed enabling an armour piercing effect (in addition to the felling of French knights in heavy armour thus tripping and bringing down several others and adding to the mayhem at Agincourt) Interestingly the Turkish foot-bow was capable of ranges well in excess of the English / Welsh (Portuguese Yew) cruising out to ranges of 700 plus metres.. but the two systems never actually coming into combat contact with each other.
Anyone got any pictures of the Turkish gear?

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Atlantia · 25th July 2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trenchwarfare

Most of the "English" bowmen, were actually Welsh. They started at the age of five. Once they reached manhood, the usual practice range was 200 yards. Their arrows, were a "clotheyard" long, and drawn fully to the ear. Reportedly, they were known to penetrate through a 4" oak door. As late as WWI, it was argued as to whether issue rifles, or longbows. And, early in WWII, longbows were issued to Homeguard personnel, to hunt for possible German invaders. Or, so I have read.

I have a friend who is really into traditional archery. Solid little treetrunk of a chap, about 5'5" looks just like Gimli from LOTR. He says that at about that range he expects to be able hit a bail of hay sized target, with luck a torso sized one.
OK, thats a stationary target, but it shows how with some judgement these guys would quickly cause pandemonium amongst the ranks of their attackers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24th July 2012, 02:32 AM	#1
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	A INTERESTING READ IS "THE ARCHERS TALE" BY BERNARD CORNWELL. IT IS HISTORICAL FICTION BUT HAS A LOT OF REAL RESEARCHED INFORMATION AND IS A GOOD STORY IF YOU LIKE TO READ. THE BOW IS A SERIOUS WEAPON AS WELL AS A VERY GOOD HUNTING WEAPON. SOCIETYS WHO USED THEM A LOT FOR HUNTING USUALLY HAD COMPETICIAN AMONG THE TRIBE SO OFTEN GOT VERY GOOD WITH THEM. THE PERSIAN EMPIRE HAD ARCHERS FROM SOME ETHINIC GROUP WHO MADE THEM VERY SUCESSFUL. THE ENGLISH LONGBOW WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE . THE CHINESE USED THEM IN MASS AS THE PERSIANS DID. BUT ARCHERY FROM HORSEBACK IT WAS EITHER THE MONGOLS OR THE AMERICAN INDIANS WHO WERE THE MASTERS. THE JAPANESE ALSO DO A GOOD JOB FROM HORSEBACK AS WELL.

24th July 2012, 06:06 AM	#2
trenchwarfare Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 385	Most of the "English" bowmen, were actually Welsh. They started at the age of five. Once they reached manhood, the usual practice range was 200 yards. Their arrows, were a "clotheyard" long, and drawn fully to the ear. Reportedly, they were known to penetrate through a 4" oak door. As late as WWI, it was argued as to whether issue rifles, or longbows. And, early in WWII, longbows were issued to Homeguard personnel, to hunt for possible German invaders. Or, so I have read.

24th July 2012, 08:34 AM	#3
ashoka Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 61	Yep those oak doors didn't stand a chance on the battlefield..

24th July 2012, 10:45 AM	#5
RDGAC Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: York, UK Posts: 167	As Timo said, firearms are easy (ish) to use, and don't depend upon the muscular strength and/or dexterity of the operator, at least not to the same degree. The arquebus was, moreover, much cheaper to make and operate once the supply of powder was reliable in Europe and the art of producing small-arms had begun to stabilise a bit. Arquebusiers didn't require constant practice and training to remain proficient, or at least, not to the same extent as did bowmen. In addition, the supply of suitable wood for producing the Welsh longbow (which, of course, was taken from one piece of tree, often yew) was rather less than the supplies of suitable wood and metal for making small-arms. The longbow was one hell of a weapon, but it was ultimately a technological dead-end. Firearms freed armies from reliance upon muscle power for the majority of their firepower, and made it possible to raise large armies of fairly quickly trained infantry who could still reach further than could any armed for hand-to-hand battle.

24th July 2012, 02:15 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Indeed an interesting subject..... skeletons of ancient archers are easily identified due to the 'abnormal' and unequal development of the bones of the left arm (if right handed). Demonstrating the dedication and specialisation of these individuals. Here's more about longbows.... "Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between! Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards. Another aspect of the Longbow was the archers themselves. Archers began training at a very early age, traditionally at the age of seven. Training at long ranges was mandatory, complete with fines for violations. Local tournaments were held regularly, and the best archers were chosen for military duty. As these were all hand-picked troops from among the best archers in England, the archer units were an elite group of infantry. These were no base peasant levies; they were all hand-picked craftsmen who well knew their worth in battle. The average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man-sized target at a minimum of 200 yards. The maximum range was about 400 yards with flight arrows. An archer could not even consider himself skilled at his art if he could not shoot 10 arrows a minute! Note: From our own experiences at faire, we know that 10 aimed shots per minute at a man-sized target at half that range is quite a feat!......." http://www.archers.org/default.asp?s...y&page=longbow All the best David

25th July 2012, 03:37 PM	#9
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,276	yes, eddie 5 picked his ground well (it was not an accident like it seemed in the clip posted above) and deployed his troops well. the french, secure in their hubris, wined and dined the night before, knowing their superior forces would win the next day. the clip also mentions the killing of the french captives, but never mentioned the french attack on the english baggage area and their slaughter of the women and children there which did not make ed any less likely to kill the prisoners. the english also chose their ground and deployment well at crecy and poitiers, so it was not mere chance. even as far back as the romans, they knew how to defeat a superior numbered force. look what Suetonius did to boudica at their last battle, 10,000 romans slaughtered 80,000 battle hardened iceni warriors by again funnelling them with the choice of the battlefield and his deployment to the point their mass of warriors couldn't find room to move their arms, and further complicated by the brits leaving their baggage and women/children across their line of retreat, where they again bunched up and were further slaughtered. the romans supposedly only lost 400. heavily armoured troops charging a prepared defensive line uphill will tire them out and put them at a disadvantage. a fact well known then and eons before. another factor not mentioned was the english army did not breeze thru harfleur, it was a tough siege where many died of the flux (dysentery) and most of the english suffered from the bad water and food and were in pretty bad shape at the time of the battle. he might have gone to france with 6000, but a goodly portion died at harfleur and the march to agincourt without getting near a battle. the french could have won without a battle just by continuing to deflect them off course from le harve and blocking them from any food and clean water. it's not superior weapons that win battles, it's how they are used and where and under what conditions. strategy, logistics, tactics, and good leaders wins - with a bit of luck thrown in. a logistical tid-bit, Edward 5th ordered two million arrows a few years before his expedition to france. he was pretty good at planning ahead.

25th July 2012, 04:14 PM	#10
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	Salaams all ~ Im told that the English used goose grease on their arrows which greatly cut down the air resistance and thus increased their impact on target speed enabling an armour piercing effect (in addition to the felling of French knights in heavy armour thus tripping and bringing down several others and adding to the mayhem at Agincourt) Interestingly the Turkish foot-bow was capable of ranges well in excess of the English / Welsh (Portuguese Yew) cruising out to ranges of 700 plus metres.. but the two systems never actually coming into combat contact with each other. Anyone got any pictures of the Turkish gear? Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi.