I'm reading once more about longbows and thinking of how best to represent them in wargames. I've done it many times before but this time I'm approaching it through more of a 16th century filter. I couldn't help, however, noticing some online articles as I searched. This article in particular stood out.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-english-longbow-machine.html (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-english-longbow-machine.html)
This is probably one of the most inaccurate mainstream historical articles I've seen on the internet. It's not even it is full of wacky theories, just that the author has assembled all the myths and cliches in one place.
To take a sample sentence from the first para
A six-foot bow made of yew wood (not always), the English longbow had a draw weight of between 80 and 150 pounds (broadly accurate based on the Mary Rose finds), an effective range of up to 350 yards . (define effective - a good archer could shoot an arrow that far but with limited accuracy. Sixteenth century sources (pro and con longbows) put their expectation of an effective archer as able to reach 180-240 yds with a livery arrow) The heavy war arrows used were able to penetrate all but the very best steel plate armor of the medieval period. (probably true but taken with the previous statement, the suggestion is it could do it regularly and at range, which is wrong - in normal battlefield use longbows were poor against armoured targets)
And so it goes. The Welsh origin, Gerald of Wales making the first written reference to longbows (he doesn't mention longbows), Henry 1st making a law about longbows (which would contradict Gerald of Wales in the reign of Henry II making the first reference if it were true) ....
Anyway, maybe one day I'll get so far as to write another article about longbows. In the short term, more likely is a topic on usage and representation for us to chew over.
Please write it Anthony. There has always been a lack of a concise picture of longbow effectiveness from the eleventh century through to the sixteenth. why are longbows so super effective early on and so ineffective at the end of their story. Armouring horses looks to be an effective answer from relatively early on. They are clearly very dangerous to unarmoured Scots and Irish. The longbow, of course and particularly its arrows develops through the period, so presumably does training and tactical deployment and all this is entwined with English nationalism....and it can do with further disentangling and clarification.
Roy
If I were writing a blog, I could probably have a go at setting down the state of my researches. Alas, a properly reasoned article needs a proper marshalling of sources and an explanation of why I give them the weight I do and this is a very big subject. And there are some gaps I'd be interested to fill (anyone know a good detailed monograph on Burgundian military archery 1400-1500?).
Currently, I'm mainly focussed on the sixteenth century English evidence which, for shifts in technology but equally in fashion for military manual writing, gives a lot more detail than earlier works. The trick is to try to see through the evolution of archery in its late period to try to get a handle on earlier practice in our period of interest.
Quote
Alas, a properly reasoned article needs a proper marshalling of sources and an explanation of why I give them the weight I do and this is a very big subject.
True. But while a full reasoned argument would be a lot of work, is there scope for something more like a 'current state of play' type article? Something saying what we do and don't know, and what we think we know that isn't so (like the www article you quote - the baleful role of the www as a massive source of entrenched misinformation is a subject in itself), and what more we would like to know? I know precious little about longbows and my books on the subject are no doubt out of date, so any update, even if it didn't reach any conclusions, would be valuable. I think Ss is a good place to put blog-type articles, and is in part its advantage over heavyweight historical journals.
One of the main issues is steering between the maximalists (e.g. Hardy) and minimalists (e.g. De Vries). I was re-reading Mike Loades' Longbow this morning and I think he does this pretty well. While I disagree with the emphasis he puts on the longbow as a short range weapon (at least in part because it is at odds with the sixteenth century authors, even the anti-longbow ones) I do think he is right to challenge the maximalists over emphasis on range. He is also quite realistic about the weapon's armour-defeating prowess. Anyway, as said, I might offer up some major schools of thought up for a little discussion on the forum and I will consider a bit more of a review on usage further.
I would be very interested to read your thoughts on the subject Anthony. I might be able to add something myself on the use of the bow among the Scots Highlanders ad in the Nine Years War in Ireland.
Quote from: Anton on June 11, 2022, 12:27:38 PM
I would be very interested to read your thoughts on the subject Anthony. I might be able to add something myself on the use of the bow among the Scots Highlanders ad in the Nine Years War in Ireland.
That would be interesting Stephen. There is an interesting question about Highlanders, longbows and the so-called Gaelic bow which might be explored.
Of course there is the semi hypocryfal tale of the arrow through Abergavenny keep door and similar to draw upon should you wish to include
Quote from: Erpingham on June 11, 2022, 12:53:01 PM
Quote from: Anton on June 11, 2022, 12:27:38 PM
I would be very interested to read your thoughts on the subject Anthony. I might be able to add something myself on the use of the bow among the Scots Highlanders ad in the Nine Years War in Ireland.
That would be interesting Stephen. There is an interesting question about Highlanders, longbows and the so-called Gaelic bow which might be explored.
That could be explored. The poems of Ian Lom MacDonald tell us quite a lot about bows and guns. I don't know how much weight to put on "Gaelic" bows, clearly they existed. On the other hand Highlanders clearly used longbows proper too.
Quote from: Anton on June 11, 2022, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 11, 2022, 12:53:01 PM
Quote from: Anton on June 11, 2022, 12:27:38 PM
I would be very interested to read your thoughts on the subject Anthony. I might be able to add something myself on the use of the bow among the Scots Highlanders ad in the Nine Years War in Ireland.
That would be interesting Stephen. There is an interesting question about Highlanders, longbows and the so-called Gaelic bow which might be explored.
There are a set of questions, based on some of the stuff I've seen, on when Highlander and Islemen adopted longbows which I was not aware of until recently. I'd always assumed some long standing use native to the area but I've seen that doubted and the Gaelic bow suggested as the traditional weapon.
That could be explored. The poems of Ian Lom MacDonald tell us quite a lot about bows and guns. I don't know how much weight to put on "Gaelic" bows, clearly they existed. On the other hand Highlanders clearly used longbows proper too.
Just thinking aloud here rather than coming to a firm position.
The Gaelic bow seems to have been rather like the Welsh bow. It's easy to see why that might be. Close connections between Ireland and Wales and at least some of Strongbow's Welsh become assimilated- adopting the Irish surname Breatnach (Briton).
The Highland military tradition owes a fair amount to Scandinavian influence. Bows were part of that. How would we classify the Viking bow?
Betimes the King of Scots made prestige gifts of bows to Highland leaders. These were well received. Presumably they are longbows as that's what Lowland Scots archers used. I could look up Ian Lom's descriptions of bows if I can locate my notes. That might tell us more.
I'm not up to date with the "when Highlanders adopted the bow" debate could you say more?
You've got the basics of the debate right there Stephen as I understand it.
Let us consider the influences in the Highlands and Islands. There were Picts, who used bows (type unknown), there were then Vikings (type of longbow) but the Islemen were very involved in Irish matters and could have come across Welsh-type bows there from 12th century. The gaelic bow was short and powerful. Was it related to the Welsh bow, or another type again? So what were our Highlands and Islands folks armed with, given all these potential types . For the confused, I'm not making this up - real historians have raised these points.
When did the longbow reach the Highlands and Islands? Maybe it was always there. Maybe they adopted it as it became more common in Scotland and Ireland in the 14th century. Or did the emphasis on archery in 15th century Scottish weapon laws really increase the usage? Again, all ideas I've read.
I'm sure Stephen is aware of this but, unlike the English longbow, we do have a surviving medieval Scottish bow. (https://moloneyarchaeology.com/2020/01/16/the-st-andrews-bow-evidence-for-an-archer-in-14th-century-scotland/) It is of yew and similar to the Waterford bows from Medieval Ireland. But is it a typical Scottish bow or even a military bow at all?
Add : for some more bits and pieces on Gaelic archery http://ceathairne.blogspot.com/2012/01/gaelic-archery.html
Quote from: Erpingham on June 11, 2022, 05:35:50 PMThere were Picts, who used bows (type unknown)
How sure are we of this? The "Drosten Stone", St Vigean's no. 1, is probably the best-known depiction of a Pictish missile-user, and is probably the source of Phil Barker's Pictish archer from
AEIR, very influential on figure-manufacturers; but of course this shows a crossbowman (http://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/8949/8917)! (And of course a huntsman, not a warrior.) John Gilbert in the linked article says that "These bows are readily distinguishable from the short bows portrayed on the 7th- or 8th-century Ruthwell Cross and on the 10th-century Sueno's stone"; but of these, the Ruthwell Cross appears to be Anglo-Saxon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthwell_Cross) and Sueno's stone is too late to be strictly Pictish, and certainly late enough that the bows might be the result of Viking influence. Do we have any good evidence for Pictish archers at all?
The Irish word for bow (boga) is a borrowing from Norse so the Gaelic bow is probably of ultimate Norse descent. Given the mixed Norse/Gaelic population of the Isles I suspect the Highland bow originated there- the McDonalds' lands stretched from Ulster to the Great Glen after all.
QuoteDo we have any good evidence for Pictish archers at all?
Oh no! In debunking some myths, I've fallen for another :)
Good question, Duncan. Stephen may have an answer, as I believe he has studied the Picts.
Quote from: Mick Hession on June 11, 2022, 06:07:13 PM
The Irish word for bow (boga) is a borrowing from Norse so the Gaelic bow is probably of ultimate Norse descent. Given the mixed Norse/Gaelic population of the Isles I suspect the Highland bow originated there- the McDonalds' lands stretched from Ulster to the Great Glen after all.
That is a good place to start Mick. The loan word is Norse rather than the Welsh "bw" itself a loan word. All the same we don't have that much evidence of the Irish adopting the military use of the bow in, or immediately post, the Viking Wars. Post Strongbow's incursion some Irish soldiers have done so though not on any grand scale.
For the Isles and Highlands the bow seems to be integral war kit. Something different has happened there. A MacDonald transmission seems a good bet. Presumably from a Norse starting point.
There's always the possibility that the distinct Gaelic bow was an indigenous development in response to exposure to the military archery of others.
I don't think I can add much to our understanding of Pict archery. I know (or don't know) the same as everyone else.
A completely anachronistic and possibly irrelevant comment...
I have recently been reading Paddy Griffiths analysis of ACW Battle Tactics (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Tactics-Civil-Paddy-Griffith/dp/1847977898/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1PO5S45IX5C6N&keywords=battle+tactics+of+the+civil&qid=1655029300&sprefix=battle+tactics+of+the+civil%2Caps%2C71&sr=8-1) that in many cases compares the performance of the armies with those of the Napoleonic era. One chapter deals with infantryman's prime weapon - the rifle.
Griffiths notes that in the earlier conflict, troops almost exclusively used the smoothbore musket and this resulted in exchanges of fire taking place at around 100 yards. 50 years later and most troops had a rifled weapon that was much more accurate up to 400 yards. Yet analysis of various battles indicates musketry exchanges still took place at around 100 yards. Griffiths attributes this to the training regime of the raw soldiers employed by both sides where practically no ammuition was issued for practise and the drills emphasised fire volume over long range accuracy.
Now, applying this to examples of longbows and other types of archery, we all know the English spent every Sunday afternoon at the butts. We also know that whenever the franc-archers reached something like proficiency they tended to raise a rebellion, leading to the situation where practise was often discouraged. One might consider that practice by the user may have been more important than the technical capabilities of the technology.
The joys of absolute range versus effective range versus battlefield range :)
One of the many joys of reading Sir John Smythe's "brusque" commentaries is his dismissal of people who talk about absolute ranges as if they meant anything on a battlefield. Smythe tends to talk about maximum effective ranges and then some cases of ranges in certain tactical circumstances. For interest, his maximum battlefield ranges are:
Longbow 160-220 yds
Arquebus 60-80 yds
Musket 160-240 yds
He also reckons that, for best effect, firearms should retain their fire till cavalry are at 10-12 yards! It would take a hell of a lot of nerve to do that. The reasons are essentially the short accurate range of the weapon and its slow reload speed meant you are only get one shot in, so make it count. Barwicke, Smythe's great adversary and firearm fan, ridicules this and recommends opening fire with muskets in such circumstances at 480 yds!
On the matter of training, it is worth remembering that practising at the butts was a pastime and some took it more seriously than others. By the sixteenth century, musters distinguished men who had a bow from men who were "able" with it. So, yes, men who were practised and in physically good enough shape to bend a livery bow (as opposed to a recreational one) and get livery arrows the required effective ranges were at a premium.
Talking as we were about ranges, these items from a literary dialogue by Barnaby Riche are interesting. At the time of writing, quite early in the bow v gun debate, Rich is pro-gun but not fanatically so
Mercury : Suppose one thousande Archers shoulde be leuyed within two Shiers in Englande let them use no further reagard in the choice then of ordinary they ar accustomted: In the seruice of the Prince, let these Archers be apoynted with such liuery Bowes as the Country generally useth to alow, let these Archers continnewe in the feelde but the space of one weeke, abidynge such fortune of weather, with their Bowes and Arrowes, as in the mene time might happen. I would but demaunde how many of those thowsand men were able at the weeks end to shoote aboue x. score. I dare undertake that if one hundred of those thousande doo shoote aboue ten score, that .ii. hundred of the rest, wyll shoote shorte of .ix. score, and is not this a peece of aduantage thinkest thou? when euery Calyuer that is brought into the feelde wyl carry a shot xviii. score and .xx. score, and euery Musquet .xxiiii, and xxx. score.
< >
Souldier : But let it be that one thowsand Archers and one thowsande shot should meete in the playne feelde where no vantage were to be taken by the ground, & admit they were ioyned in skirmish, within .viii or .ix score where the Archer is able to shutte twice to the others once, wherby the Arrowes comming so thick amonst them, wil so astone them that the contrarye part shall not well know where at to shoote.
a-right-exelent-and-pleasaunt-dialouge-1574
In summary, 80% of archers will achieve above 180 yards in the field, whereas calivers (a arquebus type weapon) will reach 360-400 yds and muskets 480-600 yds. I believe Riche is quoting extreme ranges here for the firearms, not battlefield ranges, though Barwick would later suggest shooting at cavalry at 480 yds with the musket as we have seen. Note the soldier implicitly concedes the range argument but instead talks of shooting combat taking place at 160-180 yds. The rate of fire comparison is also interesting. Although modern sources often stress the huge numbers of arrows archers can shoot in a minute, the pro-archer soldier thinks they can only outshoot firearms 2 shots to 1. Mercury later comes back with it being nearer eight shots to five.
Of course, Jim Bradbury makes a compelling case that the whole concept of the "longbow" is a later, artificial concept, given that there are quite a few bows from late antiquity and the early medieval period (eg Nydam and various Irish finds respectively) that are in the 5'7" to 6' size range, and that of course any bow will need to be sized to its owner for maximum efficiency. He suggests that there might perhaps have been a trend towards bows getting a bit longer as the medieval period progressed, but argues that the idea that there was such a thing as a "longbow" which could be differentiated from a "shortbow" is unfounded, let alone differentiating between a Norman bow, a Welsh bow, a Gaelic bow or an English bow. The real significance is probably the changing emphasis placed on the weapon in contemporary usage - does your knightly class see it as a peasant's weapon to be used by low class scum hiding in trees, or an important part of a combined arms retinue for giving the Frogs a bloody nose?
Strickland and Hardy also see things rather more of a continuum (or rather, I think Matthew Strickland does - I think Hardy was more on the distinctive weapon track). Clifford Rogers, however, has argued the distinction existed . The archaeology supports the existence of longbows similar to later ones going back to the Iron Age (the mesolithic bows many longbow histories start with are of a different type) but most finds of bows and arrowheads aren't longbow-related.
I am, currently at least, quite convinced by Richard Wadge's idea that occassional longbows existed throughout the early Middle Ages, perhaps wielded by particular specialists (he suggests forestry professionals like parkers would have reason to own them, for example) but most common bows for occassional use would have been lighter. Once the military starts taking a serious interest in developing massed archery, the number of people having the required ability to pull a heavy bow increases, while also stimulating the production of things needed in an archery supply chain, like more heavy bows and heavy arrows. So, no discovery of a wonder weapon but a revolution of thinking and rapid technological and organisational evolution to bring the thinking into practice.