Longbow VS plate.

[Casper Bradak]

I think what he means was, knights abhorred them. They were well used due to their effectiveness in some areas, but the knights still despised them, primarily for their greatly offset killing power in relation to personal prowess.
Still, it depends where though. Crossbows were used by the chivalry of spain with no stigma.

[Stacy Clifford]

Exactly, Casper. People who are hung up on class distinctions and their own nobility don't tend to appreciate the idea that they might be brought down by someone of lower station than themselves and their comrades. I thought of it because it was an important plot point in a book I reread recently (Sherwood by Parke Godwin), and human nature being what it is, I can see it happening.

[DavidEvans]

There'sa two fold argument going on about that bow. I can not for the life of me remember all the details but that stave (I think) was only lacking nocks Then again, I might have the wrong details in my head. Another bitch that popped up was draw length. Don't quote me on this cos I can not check sources (being in Iraq makes it hard to check notes and books at home!) But most arrows found are a uniform length. So if most archers draw to the same point just behind the ear then you're going to get massive variations on pull weight. The Abbey finds include a mass of shafts that were checked....BUT most of the details have never been published I think...My source is a chunk of print outs from the Museum of London, tucked neatly aware in a draw in my flat.......Great....War Head finds from the Wars of the Roses have also spawned a bitch fight. Since the sockets vary in size then the shafts must be different.....Good thought...I Think. I might, one day soon (about April!) be able to check my sources so till then...Sorry!

[JeffGentry]

Hey David

In all reality the shaft thickness and length actualy will effect accuracy and power so if you don't mind a few of your archer's not being real accurate or a few who's bow's aren't throwing arrow's as well as they could, you could use a uniform shaft and arrow head, which an army may have done, i don't think it would be a stretch to have a standard bow and arrow setup, accuracy versus a mass of fire, it would be a more reasonable weight that a good majority of the archer's of the day would be able to use, not a bow with a 280 lbs draw weight that seem's a little rediculous.

Jeff

[Stacy Clifford]

It seems pretty reasonable to me that on the battlefield you would probably have a standard-issue arrow. I'm sure archers weren't discouraged from making and bringing their own, but when you have to have several wagonloads filled with 80,000 arrows, I doubt the royal fletchers had much time to customize. I don't know how many arrows an archer could haul into the field with his own kit, but it probably wasn't enough to avoid a visit from the ammo wagon in a prolonged battle.

[JeanryChandler]

If I remember correctly, the manufacture of arrows was one of the first major industrial feats, again, pardon me if I'm wrong about this, but I seem to rememebr that the shafts were made from dowels used in the burgeoning English industry, as the center of bolts of cloth...? Hence the term 'cloth yard shaft'... and this had a lot to do with their ability to manufacture them in such numbers.

JR

[JeffGentry]

hey Guy's

I don't know how many arrows an archer could haul into the field with his own kit, but it probably wasn't enough to avoid a visit from the ammo wagon in a prolonged battle.

I know carring a dozen arrow's in the field to hunt for me is a pain, i would imagine no more than 18 in a quiver or the quiver get's to banging your leg, so they probably had to have arrow's brought up pretty frequently.

Jeff

[Stacy Clifford]

I think I've read somewhere of archers carrying bundles of up to 100 arrows tied together like sticks, something like two bundles per archer. If correct, this was probably not for regular marching (that's what mules are for), but for going out and taking up their positions in the field, so they're not carrying the stuff huge distances. I'm sure this wasn't the best way to pack arrows around since it would mess up the fletchings and such, but if you can fire a dozen or more arrows a minute, your appreciation for mass production and efficient transport and distribution goes way up really fast no doubt.

[DavidEvans]

I have to be honest and say well. I have known people within reenactment circles who took up war bow and shoot very regularly with it. My own expercience got me from 60lb to 80lb to 100lb within 3 months. Weight training and every day at one point. After a year I was pulling 160lbs. I knew 3 people who'd shifted up to 180lbs. Sadly I've not shot for something like 2 years. So life time trained archers...180lbs regularly should be obtainable.

[JeffGentry]

Hey David

So life time trained archers...180lbs regularly should be obtainable.

It is possible it just isn't very accurate you would tire fairly quickly pulling that i'm sure, in volley fire it isn't going to be such a big deal, that is why the skeleton's of archer have the excess bone growth which when they got older was more than likely arthritic, it is not impossible though to draw 180lbs.


this is MO only though, i haven't done any research to support this.

Jeff

[Joe Fults]

Anybody here actually walk any of these battlefields? I Maybe the longbow can or can't penetrate under "normal" circumstances but perhaps slight variations in local conditions tilt the equation?

I watched a show on History Channel about a week ago where they did in fact walk the field at Agincourt. There is an odd terrain feature between the French and English positions. Not sure what to call it, but basically a very high steep natural berm/transition extending across most of the site. Apparently it was there at the time of the battle according to the program (it is still there). The program postulated it would have a severe funneling effect on the French advance (especially horse). Add to that heavy rains. Add to that warm up battlefield mess from the repulsion of crosbowmen by the English. Is it possible then that a good weapon (longbow) becomes a great weapon under these conditions?

Could careful English preparation have made some of these famous engagments less "break the charge" and more "shoot the fish in the barrel" affairs?

[JeffGentry]

Hey Joe

I saw that too, they also had an "expert" on crowd dynamic's or something to do with the movement of mass's of people and they thought that with the funnel efect they may have even trampled each other and gave the archer's free reign to use there sword's once enough had been knocked down and run over they went in went in and killed them on the ground.

i don't know if i believe everything that was said in they said in the program though.

(Believe nothing that you hear and half of what you see)


Jeff

[Joe Fults]

I completely agree about taking that program with a grain of salt.

However I did find their tour of the positions interesting. Wish I could remember what they called the terrain feature (I'll settle for birm). I found it interesting because the birm was not immediately apparent, but substaintial when they got to it. It seemed like it would quickly become a serious obstacle to maintaining order and formation while traversing the field under fire.

Especially after everything got churned into a mud pit.

Guess my point is that maybe the longbow was a good weapon with even greater potential when deployed under favorable conditions (for it). Perhaps its fame stems from right tool with right user in right place more than its innate supiority or inferiority in lab conditions?

[TimSheetz]

I have been to Agincourt. I did not walk the whole battle field and I did not see a berm or a rise - but if it is there and the recon was not as thorough as it should have been it could certainly beena serious hinderance once the troops tried maneuvering without allowing for its presence.

Tim

[Jack Lynn]

Casper said
-----I think what he means was, knights abhorred them. They were well used due to their effectiveness in some areas, but the knights still despised them, primarily for their greatly offset killing power in relation to personal prowess.
Still, it depends where though. Crossbows were used by the chivalry of spain with no stigma. ----

This was partially in response to a post of mine and partially defending that same post. I would like to point out that it was not only knights who abhorred crossbows. I know that the pope banned them at one point in time. I'd say that, where there were exceptions, stigma was the rule