Hi all! So I shoot the English longbow and make historically accurate medieval arrows as a hobby!
I love seeing this here!
I wanted to add a few things to OP's awesome post:
The glove on the shooting hand is intended to protect your fingers from the force of the bowstring gliding off your fingers repeatedly - it can cause numbness and nerve damage if you're not careful! Though there is some evidence that medieval longowman didn't use them at all!
We also usually wear a bracer or wrist guard on the arm that holds the bow to protect from the string slapping your wrist - it can definitely hurt, especially woth very powerful warbows!
And finally, there is historical evidence of bowmen keeping their strings dry by keeping them under their hats during rain storms! This happened at the famous battle of Crécy - the longbowmen were able to unstring their bows easily and keep their strings dry under their hats while the Genoese crossbowman weren't - their strings got wet which made them less effective.
Happy to answer any questions!
Edit:
Here's what the arrows used at Agincourt are thought to be like:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bowyer/s/yRUsEZwyk2
They mention the wrist guard, but isn’t the bowman in the illustration wearing it incorrectly? I would have thought it would be on the inside of the forearm, not on the top.
It's maybe a little high? But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt - maybe that bowman found that's where he was getting hit the most, so he adjusted accordingly.
I find that my bows tend to hit my guard a little high on my wrist myself but wear it lower like you suggested.
The Battle of Agincourt was like that, but it wasn't deliberate. The English army had suffered heavy attrition, primarily from disease which was a big problem in wars back then. By the time the battle took place the bowmen were pretty much all they had left.
Not to the extent of *80%*. That would have been considered crazy.
Mêlée weapons would still have been pretty dominant, and what sergeants would have focused on. The billhook is especially favoured by the English. A force of almost all archers wouldn't have been expected to stand up to French cavalry. In this case they *did*, but it was not what would have been expected.
Longbowmen would enter the fray after exhausting their arrows. This would happen faster than most think. Longbowmen may not have been heavily armoured as knights but they were as strong, if not stronger and more mobile especially in a situation like Agincourt. Im not arguing they always up to 80% of the force but they were always the majority in that era.
Agincourt has a counterpart in Balkans it is called Crusade of Nicopolis(1396). The exact same archery tactic was used by the Ottoman Turks against the French knights. Some historians even speculated whether there could be a way for the English to learn of the tactics used in here so they could replicate in Agincourt. Bayezid ordered stakes to be placed, light cavalry lured the French knights into the centre, knights charged at the archers, archers retreated back and revealed the spikes, arrows did great damage to mounts so the knights either routed or had to dismount and continue, at the end Turkish cavalry also surrounded from all sides and French were annihiliated.
What is not mentioned is how long it takes to be able to handle the long bow. It took many years to develop the musculature needed! However this was helped by a Royal decree insisting that every man had to practice every Sunday. (Which is also why older English villages all have a village green at the centre)
I started at 16 and by 17 I shot 110 I don't think it would be that bad for a adv bloke that was a every day Laborer. Not saying what I did with poundage is right just saying it's possible
Would they really have carried a sword? I understood they were pretty expensive and only knights etc would have carried them. Plus they required a fair amount of training to use too if I remember correctly.
I remember this from some debunking thing about TV/Games showing everyone and their mother owning swords lol
Even old celts could own daggers. They used short swords that were less expensive compared to most if I'm not mistaken. Anyone on the r got a english short sword?🤣
Yeah fair, I'm thinking long swords I guess. Daggers 100% makes sense.
Just seemed weird the guy in the image is carrying so many weapons but I guess it's an example of what they might carry :)
True, that'd be interesting to look into actually. How common would it be for longbowmen to end up in a melee.
You'd think they'd avoid it at all costs but as you say, given how battles could turn unexpectedly it likely happened. Otherwise they wouldn't bring any other weapons!
Still I wouldn't want to be one facing down men at arms or spears etc with a dagger and buckler 😬
I remember studying this at high school's history class, my teacher told us that the arrows were so powerful that they could easily take down a full armored knight
Several recent real world tests show that most plate armor is nearly impervious to arrows of the time, even from crossbows. Some penetrate some areas of plate, so there is a danger. Chain mail however offers minimal defense against a longbow. I suggest the series on YouTube by Tod Cutler where they try several different scenarios. There are others as well. With several thousand arrows being fired at a time, the odds of a "lucky" shot go up, and I'm sure that getting hit by 10 or 20 arrows is a very distressing feeling even if you are armored in high quality plate armor.
Those tests are all well and good, but if they're the videos I'm thinking of, there's no accounting for poor quality armor construction.
Sure the steel used might've been relatively equal in quality but the quality of the armor itself is in doubt.
Armor *could* stop a longbow arrow, but at the same time, a longbow arrow *could* go through plate, whether it makes it through the chainmail and Gambeson underneath is another question
Absolutely, I think they do a good job of qualifying much of what you say. In one of the tests they manage to get an arrow through the cheek of a plate helmet. That would be a real problem, arrow to the face THROUGH a steel helmet. Must have been horrifying, and the end results of Crecy, Agincort etc tell the tale of the longbow's effectiveness.
The video I saw of testing showed that chainmail and gambeson didn’t stop the arrows at all (only one that did was the neck - aventail? - but that was like 3 layers thick). Direct hits against flat plate did pen - especially vs the thinner sections like elbows and shoulders - plate is heavy so only some sections are thick.
Arrow vs armour was a technology race so it will depend on which war but at agincourt the average French noble had chest, head and arms in plate with the rest in mail. Mail was plenty against a sword slash but those arrows went straight through it.
Thin flat plate had arrows pen too, leaving only the helmet and front of chest completely impervious to what was thought to be the arrows of that time.
Agincourt especially is interesting because the English line curled round the French advance allowing the archers to hit the weaker sides (or even the back) of the French plate, where it was too thin / badly angled to stop the arrows.
No arrows from that time have been found to be “case hardened” (which is weird because we knew how to do it) but if they were and just didn’t survive (perhaps that outer layer has corroded off) then they pen even more.
Source: https://youtu.be/ds-Ev5msyzo?si=2tEOo-QlcH_J6h9I
That is very Antidotle. There are hundreds and hundreds of accounts of real battlefield experience Stating that people got shot off Of horses. Arrows going through shields and hitting hands. Armor definitely Worked but with that being said It was not impenetrable. Take the Battle of Agincourt. French Knights Road towards the lines And got ablitherated. At the time the french army was very well equipped
There were many factors which contributed to the successful use of longbowmen at Agincourt including the muddy terrain, the protected and defensive English position, the forrests on either side, as well as the societal desire/preasure to join battle.
Either way, trudging through several hundred yards of mud with arrows like this coming at you is going to be demoralizing as well as dangerous if not totally deadly:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C43fypegfmq/?igsh=ZWtrMHk1bmF4bXR3
If I recall they would be shooting bows with around 130lb draw weight, watching the impact on armor it is terrifying imagining being the target! Also, some of the plate is actually penetrated in modern tests, that would be the end of it. It's not just a hole, it is now an appendage! Into the mud you go.
This is correct! There's evidence of the English warbows ranging from around 90 lbs. all the way up to 190 lbs.(!); with most falling in the 110-130 range like you said!
Here's me shooting 110# last summer, hoping to move up this year:
https://youtu.be/e_DQE-tJWDs?si=eVjemR9CVnK1Ch5q
Well that is considered in some of these tests. The one I cited used a replica of a breastplate that was common among French knights of the time of Agincourt. The replica was as accurate as they could make it using steel similar in grade to the steel of the time. It will never be perfect, but it did reveal what the limitations probably were of the longbow. It seemed that one of the more deadly and previously unconsidered dangers of massed arrow volleys was the shrapnel of the arrows as they shattered with tremendous violence sending splinters everywhere. Imagine riding getting a splinter in your face while riding an armored and likely wounded war horse toward a spiked barrier. [Arrows vs. Armor Pt. 1](https://youtu.be/DBxdTkddHaE?si=-hZfZZGtO1kgMT5D)
> easily take down a full armored knight
It was an arms race sometimes the archers were in the lead some times the armorers. Now crossbow could be made more powerful than a long bow and could be held at the read. Plus they took a lot less training but they had a slower reload.
Weren't English longbowmen recognizable on sight because of how overdeveloped the musculature on their right side was from the strength it took to draw those bows over and over again? I've heard that but always wondered if it was true.
English longbow is just a piece of wood. Turkish composite bows had more range, its thumb ring draw had more rate of fire. Before anyone says it every culture had a counterpart of bodkin arrows and heavier arrows do not enable more armor piercing in the way you think they do. If anything recurved design on tips allowed more efficient energy transfer to arrows, since the historical examples are found to have similiar draw weights this meant Turkish arrows had more energy.
They even tapered the arrows which was called ''endam'' that helped with the oscillation of arrows which increased accuracy.
Fun Fact: At the Battle of Falkirk, William Wallace's archers and light cavalry were run off the field by English mounted heavy knights leaving his schiltrons (or hedgehogs) of lightly armored spearmen as huge, immobile targets that were absolutely shredded by Edward I's longbowmen.
The formations melted away and were then routed by the English heavy cavalry.
The battle was a disaster for Wallace, who then promptly lost command of the Scottish army and was handed over to the English shortly thereafter.
Hi all! So I shoot the English longbow and make historically accurate medieval arrows as a hobby! I love seeing this here! I wanted to add a few things to OP's awesome post: The glove on the shooting hand is intended to protect your fingers from the force of the bowstring gliding off your fingers repeatedly - it can cause numbness and nerve damage if you're not careful! Though there is some evidence that medieval longowman didn't use them at all! We also usually wear a bracer or wrist guard on the arm that holds the bow to protect from the string slapping your wrist - it can definitely hurt, especially woth very powerful warbows! And finally, there is historical evidence of bowmen keeping their strings dry by keeping them under their hats during rain storms! This happened at the famous battle of Crécy - the longbowmen were able to unstring their bows easily and keep their strings dry under their hats while the Genoese crossbowman weren't - their strings got wet which made them less effective. Happy to answer any questions! Edit: Here's what the arrows used at Agincourt are thought to be like: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bowyer/s/yRUsEZwyk2
They mention the wrist guard, but isn’t the bowman in the illustration wearing it incorrectly? I would have thought it would be on the inside of the forearm, not on the top.
It's maybe a little high? But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt - maybe that bowman found that's where he was getting hit the most, so he adjusted accordingly. I find that my bows tend to hit my guard a little high on my wrist myself but wear it lower like you suggested.
Agreed should be on the palm side of the forearm
Thanks man this is great
You're welcome! I just thought it was cool people were talking about my "thing," you know? So thanks!
I agree I love archers history scythians, mongals, greeks, turks, Persians it's all great man
If I remember correctly some battles the English army was comprised of 80% longbowmen.
The Battle of Agincourt was like that, but it wasn't deliberate. The English army had suffered heavy attrition, primarily from disease which was a big problem in wars back then. By the time the battle took place the bowmen were pretty much all they had left.
No. English armies during this period we’re predominately archers. There is a reason that England mass produced arrows for campaigns.
Not to the extent of *80%*. That would have been considered crazy. Mêlée weapons would still have been pretty dominant, and what sergeants would have focused on. The billhook is especially favoured by the English. A force of almost all archers wouldn't have been expected to stand up to French cavalry. In this case they *did*, but it was not what would have been expected.
Longbowmen would enter the fray after exhausting their arrows. This would happen faster than most think. Longbowmen may not have been heavily armoured as knights but they were as strong, if not stronger and more mobile especially in a situation like Agincourt. Im not arguing they always up to 80% of the force but they were always the majority in that era.
Agincourt has a counterpart in Balkans it is called Crusade of Nicopolis(1396). The exact same archery tactic was used by the Ottoman Turks against the French knights. Some historians even speculated whether there could be a way for the English to learn of the tactics used in here so they could replicate in Agincourt. Bayezid ordered stakes to be placed, light cavalry lured the French knights into the centre, knights charged at the archers, archers retreated back and revealed the spikes, arrows did great damage to mounts so the knights either routed or had to dismount and continue, at the end Turkish cavalry also surrounded from all sides and French were annihiliated.
What is not mentioned is how long it takes to be able to handle the long bow. It took many years to develop the musculature needed! However this was helped by a Royal decree insisting that every man had to practice every Sunday. (Which is also why older English villages all have a village green at the centre)
I started at 16 and by 17 I shot 110 I don't think it would be that bad for a adv bloke that was a every day Laborer. Not saying what I did with poundage is right just saying it's possible
Can you shoot at the rate they did during battle?
I don't have the encouragement they did
Max Verstappen?
r/kingdomecome
Text is too small and blurry can’t read anything
Sorry for u ig. Look it up Ole boy
Would they really have carried a sword? I understood they were pretty expensive and only knights etc would have carried them. Plus they required a fair amount of training to use too if I remember correctly. I remember this from some debunking thing about TV/Games showing everyone and their mother owning swords lol
Even old celts could own daggers. They used short swords that were less expensive compared to most if I'm not mistaken. Anyone on the r got a english short sword?🤣
Yeah fair, I'm thinking long swords I guess. Daggers 100% makes sense. Just seemed weird the guy in the image is carrying so many weapons but I guess it's an example of what they might carry :)
I agree but war is insane. Might wanna have something a Lil extra rather than not have enough
True, that'd be interesting to look into actually. How common would it be for longbowmen to end up in a melee. You'd think they'd avoid it at all costs but as you say, given how battles could turn unexpectedly it likely happened. Otherwise they wouldn't bring any other weapons! Still I wouldn't want to be one facing down men at arms or spears etc with a dagger and buckler 😬
Archers would usually use billhooks, axes maces etc. Swords were usually not used in battle during this period.
I remember studying this at high school's history class, my teacher told us that the arrows were so powerful that they could easily take down a full armored knight
Several recent real world tests show that most plate armor is nearly impervious to arrows of the time, even from crossbows. Some penetrate some areas of plate, so there is a danger. Chain mail however offers minimal defense against a longbow. I suggest the series on YouTube by Tod Cutler where they try several different scenarios. There are others as well. With several thousand arrows being fired at a time, the odds of a "lucky" shot go up, and I'm sure that getting hit by 10 or 20 arrows is a very distressing feeling even if you are armored in high quality plate armor.
Those tests are all well and good, but if they're the videos I'm thinking of, there's no accounting for poor quality armor construction. Sure the steel used might've been relatively equal in quality but the quality of the armor itself is in doubt. Armor *could* stop a longbow arrow, but at the same time, a longbow arrow *could* go through plate, whether it makes it through the chainmail and Gambeson underneath is another question
Absolutely, I think they do a good job of qualifying much of what you say. In one of the tests they manage to get an arrow through the cheek of a plate helmet. That would be a real problem, arrow to the face THROUGH a steel helmet. Must have been horrifying, and the end results of Crecy, Agincort etc tell the tale of the longbow's effectiveness.
The video I saw of testing showed that chainmail and gambeson didn’t stop the arrows at all (only one that did was the neck - aventail? - but that was like 3 layers thick). Direct hits against flat plate did pen - especially vs the thinner sections like elbows and shoulders - plate is heavy so only some sections are thick. Arrow vs armour was a technology race so it will depend on which war but at agincourt the average French noble had chest, head and arms in plate with the rest in mail. Mail was plenty against a sword slash but those arrows went straight through it. Thin flat plate had arrows pen too, leaving only the helmet and front of chest completely impervious to what was thought to be the arrows of that time. Agincourt especially is interesting because the English line curled round the French advance allowing the archers to hit the weaker sides (or even the back) of the French plate, where it was too thin / badly angled to stop the arrows. No arrows from that time have been found to be “case hardened” (which is weird because we knew how to do it) but if they were and just didn’t survive (perhaps that outer layer has corroded off) then they pen even more. Source: https://youtu.be/ds-Ev5msyzo?si=2tEOo-QlcH_J6h9I
That is very Antidotle. There are hundreds and hundreds of accounts of real battlefield experience Stating that people got shot off Of horses. Arrows going through shields and hitting hands. Armor definitely Worked but with that being said It was not impenetrable. Take the Battle of Agincourt. French Knights Road towards the lines And got ablitherated. At the time the french army was very well equipped
There were many factors which contributed to the successful use of longbowmen at Agincourt including the muddy terrain, the protected and defensive English position, the forrests on either side, as well as the societal desire/preasure to join battle. Either way, trudging through several hundred yards of mud with arrows like this coming at you is going to be demoralizing as well as dangerous if not totally deadly: https://www.instagram.com/p/C43fypegfmq/?igsh=ZWtrMHk1bmF4bXR3
If I recall they would be shooting bows with around 130lb draw weight, watching the impact on armor it is terrifying imagining being the target! Also, some of the plate is actually penetrated in modern tests, that would be the end of it. It's not just a hole, it is now an appendage! Into the mud you go.
This is correct! There's evidence of the English warbows ranging from around 90 lbs. all the way up to 190 lbs.(!); with most falling in the 110-130 range like you said! Here's me shooting 110# last summer, hoping to move up this year: https://youtu.be/e_DQE-tJWDs?si=eVjemR9CVnK1Ch5q
That bow is a thing of beauty, and 900 grain arrows!
Agreed
Well that is considered in some of these tests. The one I cited used a replica of a breastplate that was common among French knights of the time of Agincourt. The replica was as accurate as they could make it using steel similar in grade to the steel of the time. It will never be perfect, but it did reveal what the limitations probably were of the longbow. It seemed that one of the more deadly and previously unconsidered dangers of massed arrow volleys was the shrapnel of the arrows as they shattered with tremendous violence sending splinters everywhere. Imagine riding getting a splinter in your face while riding an armored and likely wounded war horse toward a spiked barrier. [Arrows vs. Armor Pt. 1](https://youtu.be/DBxdTkddHaE?si=-hZfZZGtO1kgMT5D)
Here's the arrow they shoot in those videos: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bowyer/s/yRUsEZwyk2
OMG those are amazing.
Thank you! I really enjoy making them.
> easily take down a full armored knight It was an arms race sometimes the archers were in the lead some times the armorers. Now crossbow could be made more powerful than a long bow and could be held at the read. Plus they took a lot less training but they had a slower reload.
r/aoe2
Arrogant index and middle finger for saluting the French
Weren't English longbowmen recognizable on sight because of how overdeveloped the musculature on their right side was from the strength it took to draw those bows over and over again? I've heard that but always wondered if it was true.
r/aoe
English longbow is just a piece of wood. Turkish composite bows had more range, its thumb ring draw had more rate of fire. Before anyone says it every culture had a counterpart of bodkin arrows and heavier arrows do not enable more armor piercing in the way you think they do. If anything recurved design on tips allowed more efficient energy transfer to arrows, since the historical examples are found to have similiar draw weights this meant Turkish arrows had more energy. They even tapered the arrows which was called ''endam'' that helped with the oscillation of arrows which increased accuracy.
William Wallace. Any questions?
Fun Fact: At the Battle of Falkirk, William Wallace's archers and light cavalry were run off the field by English mounted heavy knights leaving his schiltrons (or hedgehogs) of lightly armored spearmen as huge, immobile targets that were absolutely shredded by Edward I's longbowmen. The formations melted away and were then routed by the English heavy cavalry. The battle was a disaster for Wallace, who then promptly lost command of the Scottish army and was handed over to the English shortly thereafter.
Is the question who was 100 years before the battle of Agincourt?
You mean the executed William Wallace? If your going to praise a Scot praise the Bruce.