European Archery/ Agincourt/crecy/etc

[Chris Evans]

the gravity powered device used in the video to impact a soft iron bodkin onto a flat steel armour plate backed by what appears to be an inflexible hard backing layer may be an over simplification of the terminal ballistics. tests with actual arrows show penetration of breastplates, tho the points were usually stopped in the padded undergarment (but would have been uncomfortable to any wearer).

Tend to agree with your observations.

The reason that video caught my attention is that it pointed out that there was more to that epic battle than what the more popular renditions would have us believe.

Cheers
Chris

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

The reason that video caught my attention is that it pointed out that there was more to that epic battle than what the more popular renditions would have us believe.

An interesting exercise on the effectiveness of the English longbow is to (a) write down the best estimate of the number of men-at-arms killed on the French side ("men-at-arms" = "armoured soldiers", so knights and other well-armoured soldiers), (b) write down the best estimate of the number of English archers. Then calculate (a)/(b), which is the maximum possible average number of men-at-arms killed per archer. Some French men-at-arms were killed by things other than arrows - at Agincourt, many (most?) of the French men-at-arms killed were killed when Henry V ordered the prisoners to be killed.

Compare this result with outcomes expected if the more extreme propaganda of arrows slicing almost unimpeded through enemy armour was true.

Clearly, the longbow, and English archery in general, was effective (at least often enough to justify the investment). Perhaps not the superweapon it is sometimes claimed to be. Better to appreciate the weapon for the reality, rather than the fiction.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Timo,

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Clearly, the longbow, and English archery in general, was effective (at least often enough to justify the investment). Perhaps not the superweapon it is sometimes claimed to be. Better to appreciate the weapon for the reality, rather than the fiction.

At one stage of my life I played around with bows and crossbows and even owned a real English long bow. Based on my experiences, my suspicion was that as a weapon of war it was probably more effective against slowly advancing armoured infantry, rather than heavy cavalry. Galloping horses at 20mph (30ft/sec) can close the range of a bow, say 900ft in around 30sec or thereabouts, not giving all that much time to shower them with arrows, but foot soldiers would have allowed for much more time.

But, as always, troop dispositions, coordination, battlefield terrain and so on were far more important than weaponry.

Cheers
Chris

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

At one stage of my life I played around with bows and crossbows and even owned a real English long bow. Based on my experiences, my suspicion was that as a weapon of war it was probably more effective against slowly advancing armoured infantry, rather than heavy cavalry. Galloping horses at 20mph (30ft/sec) can close the range of a bow, say 900ft in around 30sec or thereabouts, not giving all that much time to shower them with arrows, but foot soldiers would have allowed for much more time.

This leads to two interesting points: charging attackers are on the receiving end of more energy. A war arrow might be moving at 40-50m/s. A 10m/s charging speed of an attacker can transform an arrow energy of, say, 125J into an effective energy of 180J. That's a lot of extra free energy for the archer.

Second, since they're going to close quickly, save that last arrow for in close, when you'll have more energy, and won't miss. One Japanese writer wrote that the whole point of military archery is putting arrows through armour at 15m.

Soar's "Secrets of the English War Bow" has a chapter on shooting at charging enemies. Reports experimental tests of shooting at a moving armoured target. The target speed does help. And you don't get many shots. One at long range, and one at very short range.

Obstacles and field fortifications will help. Also your own spearmen, to stop attackers and let you shoot at them.

[Chris Evans]

Timo,

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

ose quickly, save that last arrow for in close, wThis leads to two interesting points: charging attackers are on the receiving end of more energy. A war arrow might might moving at 40-50m/s. A 10m/s charging speed of an attacker can transform an arrow energy of, say, 125J into an effective energy of 180J. That's a lot of extra free energy for the archer.

An excellent observation of an often overlooked fact.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

Here is an interesting video on how a longbow may have been made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAMNN6ryZeg

Ironically, it is in French, though it must be said that self bows were known all over Europe, but only the English managed to field large enough numbers of archers to make a difference.

Cheers
Chris