Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[khearn]

Benjamin Franklin once proposed that the US Army should use longbows instead of muskets (or probably in addition to), because even in the late 18th Century the longbow in skilled hands was more effective than a musket. The problem is that little "in skilled hands" qualifier.

I used to shoot English style longbow with a group that did longbow demonstrations at renn faires. In California, all of the groups are named after saints, so naturally we were St. Sebastian's Guild.

Newcomers usually started with a 40 or 50lb bow. After a few years of shooting a couple of hours on two days a week, I was very comfortable with my 70lb bow, and was one of the few in the guild that could shoot the 110lb bow one of the guys had (there were many stringer than I, but technique is better than strength). It takes a lot of shooting over time to build up the muscles used for a longbow.

I also got to the point where I could hit our target (a 1.5m circle) fairly reliably from up to 50 yards or so. Beyond that, I had to arc too much for good accuracy. A heavier bow would have given me more accurate range.

But it took years to get that accuracy. At first I started out as most do, using my arrow point as a sight and learning how much above or below the target I had to line it up for a given yardage. Within a year I was one of the top 5 or so in our guild. Then I did a hunting style competition where we were shooting at foam animal targets at unmarked ranges and I was terrible because I didn't know the range. So I started what is known as "instinctive" shooting. You just look at the target and shoot, range be damned, aim point be damned. You are immediately lousy again. After another year, I was as accurate as I had been before, but I didn't need to know the range. It became like throwing a ball. In baseball, the shortstop doesn't get the ball, look at first base, estimate the range, and decide how high to throw. He just looks and throws, and it just goes to the right place. It just takes thousands and thousands of repetitions to train the mind and body.

After a couple of years, I could hit a 1.5m target at 50 yards, using a 75lb bow. I could probably have shot an 85-90lb bow a little more accurately, but still not much past 75 yards or so. The bows used in combat back in the middle ages were all over 100lbs, and accurate fire well over 100 yards was the norm. So after a couple of years, was still nowhere near their standard.

With a musket on the other hand, you just point it at the enemy and fire. They're so inaccurate that fine aiming is pointless. Beyond 50-70 yards the grouping was so bad that the finest marksman in the world wouldn't have been any better than a rank novice. All you have to do is get strong enough to hold the damn thing up for a few seconds, and any farm boy is probably already that strong. Oh, you also have to learn to load it, but that's not exactly rocket science.

[Eoganachta]

Benjamin Franklin once proposed that the US Army should use longbows instead of muskets (or probably in addition to), because even in the late 18th Century the longbow in skilled hands was more effective than a musket. The problem is that little "in skilled hands" qualifier.

I used to shoot English style longbow with a group that did longbow demonstrations at renn faires. In California, all of the groups are named after saints, so naturally we were St. Sebastian's Guild.

Newcomers usually started with a 40 or 50lb bow. After a few years of shooting a couple of hours on two days a week, I was very comfortable with my 70lb bow, and was one of the few in the guild that could shoot the 110lb bow one of the guys had (there were many stringer than I, but technique is better than strength). It takes a lot of shooting over time to build up the muscles used for a longbow.

I also got to the point where I could hit our target (a 1.5m circle) fairly reliably from up to 50 yards or so. Beyond that, I had to arc too much for good accuracy. A heavier bow would have given me more accurate range.

But it took years to get that accuracy. At first I started out as most do, using my arrow point as a sight and learning how much above or below the target I had to line it up for a given yardage. Within a year I was one of the top 5 or so in our guild. Then I did a hunting style competition where we were shooting at foam animal targets at unmarked ranges and I was terrible because I didn't know the range. So I started what is known as "instinctive" shooting. You just look at the target and shoot, range be damned, aim point be damned. You are immediately lousy again. After another year, I was as accurate as I had been before, but I didn't need to know the range. It became like throwing a ball. In baseball, the shortstop doesn't get the ball, look at first base, estimate the range, and decide how high to throw. He just looks and throws, and it just goes to the right place. It just takes thousands and thousands of repetitions to train the mind and body.

After a couple of years, I could hit a 1.5m target at 50 yards, using a 75lb bow. I could probably have shot an 85-90lb bow a little more accurately, but still not much past 75 yards or so. The bows used in combat back in the middle ages were all over 100lbs, and accurate fire well over 100 yards was the norm. So after a couple of years, was still nowhere near their standard.

With a musket on the other hand, you just point it at the enemy and fire. They're so inaccurate that fine aiming is pointless. Beyond 50-70 yards the grouping was so bad that the finest marksman in the world wouldn't have been any better than a rank novice. All you have to do is get strong enough to hold the damn thing up for a few seconds, and any farm boy is probably already that strong. Oh, you also have to learn to load it, but that's not exactly rocket science.

I'm into re-enactment longbows as well. I personally have a 30 lb and a 60 lb bows. We do target shooting as well as battle re-enactment where the archers shoot blunt arrows (with a rubber head - they fly like 'bricks') at heavies (armoured guys). We only use 30 lb bows (because of both legal and SCA regulations) for this kind of stuff but from personal experiance I know that if your lightly armoured a 30 will still knock the wind out of you.
I think the most recent use of a longbow in wartime was where one guy during world war 1 'sniped' germans from no mans' land with a war bow. Completely silent.

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Jack Churchill, a most dwarfy man, is the only British soldier to have a recorded longbow kill in WWII.  There may have been some civilian who used a longbow but the Cracked article that includes Churchill doesn't have any listed.

[Mitchewawa]

I think the most effective counter to knights before cannons were spearmen and pikes. Knights were fully armoured; arrows generally would not penetrate (but heavy bruising and the occasional breaking of extremities existed), bolts were somewhat effective but too slow and crossbowmen had to be placed up the front of an army to aim properly (with archers your fire rate is high enough to wild-fire volley over your own troops). Horses had armour on top and sides, and their only weakness was a strike from underneath (which won't happen from a rain of arrows).

Spears and pikes were the most effective as they were able to outreach lances, strike the horse from underneath (they couldn't carry armour underneath) and the force of the charge impaling themselves on the small contact area usually pushed the spear through the horse and into the knight. Even if the knight was not stabbed they were usually fastened to the harness and would fall attached to their horses. This would break bones from the sheer speed, and survivors were quickly stabbed with the spears/pikes in their weak zones.

Knights on foot were weak to maces. Warhammers were not common and were kept mostly to specialist squads; they were just too heavy and slow and for the most part useless to be used in conventional warfare.

Knights biggest weakness came from the cannon. Cannon fire was accurate for its time, able to kill entire squads of expensive knights with a well placed shot from a town away. They were also not save in their castles; cannons took those down too. Cannons were too long ranged and too small a target if spread out to be hit effectively by other siege weapons and archers. They would have to move in range of the cannon's army to ever be able to land a shot. In fact, the closest thing to a weakness the cannon had was the light cavalry; if they ever managed to bypass the spearmen.

With the knight rendered useless, lighter, more mobile units more likely to survive a cannon barrage. People could hire armies with half the protection for half the cost. And so they hired armies twice as big; and with the invention of muskets they could levy these inexpensive soldiers to use them to great effect (as muskets were only good en masse).

The cavalry wasn't wiped out however; light cavalry armed with pistols and swords made excellent work of raid-attacks on musket troops and cannon placements.

And that's why hammerlords are not a sick joke.

[FrisianDude]

Just to pick up on the point about Longbows not penetrating plate - as AWdeV points out, it is more todo with the cost to train archers than their battle effectiveness.  Here is a great quote which gives you an idea of the power of a longbow.

Gerald of Wales commented on the power of the Welsh longbow in the 12th century:

    ... n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal

So in the early 14 hundreds, longbows proved very effective vs French Knights (helped by conditions and long marches).  In fact the longbow never really gets out powered - even when Aqubuses come in during the 17th century (English Civil war) - the Longbow could still out fire (6 to one), out range, and out penetrate the aqubuses.  The reason why both Royalists and Parlimentarians used blocks of Aqubuses was because they could be trained on mass, quickly.  Where as longbowmen needed to have been trained since they were 8 years old - and this investment was too much .

I have to call bullshit, by default, to the claim that an arrow would pass through leg armour, leg, leg armour on the other side of the leg, and then kill the horse. I consider this to be mere whimsy and not at all reliable. It is -not- possible to do that and any source claiming it is possible to do that is to be ranked among the same level of 'factual' as tales of Japanese officers in WWII cutting through tank and machine gun barrels with their katana. Heavily exaggerated. That's not to say longbowmen are a bad resource, though, certainly not. It's just that sufficient arrows would make lightly armoured soldiers (and horses!) into bleeding and panicking (and/or dead) pincushions while at the same time making the terrain slightly more difficult to traverse. I think however that a 15th c. plate armoured knight would be able to shrug the arrows off reasonably well and only few of the clouds of them would be able to damage him. By accidentally hitting weak spots and stuff, or causing the horse to bolt. Gerard of Wales may have exaggerated the longbow to make them seem more fearsome. (I assume 'Gerard' to be Norman, and the Normans did not conquer Wales quickly and easily. He may have tried to make them seem more frightening to make himself seem more heroic, much like Caesar did with De Bello Gallico.)

And I rather doubt that horseman wore multiple 'cuirasses'; you may have meant 'cuisses' which is a form of mail armour for the foot and lower leg.

[Vester]

And just in case you're tempted to take it as factual because the "Gerald of Wales" guy was probably from the same period, you should remember that only a century or so later explorers were making the totally factual claims of fearsome cannibals with their heads in their torsos, or real live unicorns.

One thing that a longbow could reliably do was kill or startle lightly armored horses, or wear down an armored man at long range, but not impale his thigh in a single go.

That reminds me of one thing I read in Le Morte d'Arthur, where one of the villain knights somehow manages to wound one of the protagonists by impaling him through both thighs using his spear without actually hitting his horse. Malory was a period writer too, but when compiling his tales he just didn't care about factual accuracy (or logic). Other notable injuries in Le Morte d'Arthur include Sir Gawain and Sir Palomides fighting so hard that their organs are exposed.

[FrisianDude]

That must have been a magical (Elven) spear.

[Jake]

And just in case you're tempted to take it as factual because the "Gerald of Wales" guy was probably from the same period, you should remember that only a century or so later explorers were making the totally factual claims of fearsome cannibals with their heads in their torsos, or real live unicorns.

One thing that a longbow could reliably do was kill or startle lightly armored horses, or wear down an armored man at long range, but not impale his thigh in a single go.

That said, even the best plate armour has joints or other weak spots, and plenty of knights had to make do with kit bought secondhand or from the cheapest bidder. If the archers could put enough shafts in the air fast enough they were bound to get lucky sooner or later.

[Kogut]

post to watch

[FrisianDude]

And just in case you're tempted to take it as factual because the "Gerald of Wales" guy was probably from the same period, you should remember that only a century or so later explorers were making the totally factual claims of fearsome cannibals with their heads in their torsos, or real live unicorns.

One thing that a longbow could reliably do was kill or startle lightly armored horses, or wear down an armored man at long range, but not impale his thigh in a single go.

That said, even the best plate armour has joints or other weak spots, and plenty of knights had to make do with kit bought secondhand or from the cheapest bidder. If the archers could put enough shafts in the air fast enough they were bound to get lucky sooner or later.

Truth, entirely. But usually 'later' might very well be 'aarrgh, too late, they are riding us down as we scream.'

That said, nobles would probably want the best armour anyway. Matter of status, sort of thing. If you're the Duke of Anjou you're probably going to prefer new and shiny over some dead sergeant's mottled and tattered old gear even if the difference in protection is negligble. And status aside, better armour usually gave as much protection at a lower flexibility cost, I'd wager.

[Jake]

Truth, entirely. But usually 'later' might very well be 'aarrgh, too late, they are riding us down as we scream.' [/quote]
Not as often as you might think. The longbow was unsurpassed in rate of fire until metal cartridges came along, and if they'd had time to get a feel for the range and wind direction they could shift their aim faster than a horse could ride.

That said, nobles would probably want the best armour anyway. Matter of status, sort of thing. If you're the Duke of Anjou you're probably going to prefer new and shiny over some dead sergeant's mottled and tattered old gear even if the difference in protection is negligble. And status aside, better armour usually gave as much protection at a lower flexibility cost, I'd wager.

The thing is, most knights weren't actually nobles in the way you mean. They or their ancestors might have been gifted a few acres of land in return for some service rendered to the king, but they weren't usually all that rich, especially second or third sons who needed to shift for themselves instead of inheriting.

[scriver]

I think the most effective counter to knights before cannons were spearmen and pikes. Knights were fully armoured; arrows generally would not penetrate (but heavy bruising and the occasional breaking of extremities existed), bolts were somewhat effective but too slow and crossbowmen had to be placed up the front of an army to aim properly (with archers your fire rate is high enough to wild-fire volley over your own troops). Horses had armour on top and sides, and their only weakness was a strike from underneath (which won't happen from a rain of arrows).

Pikes/Crossbow, OTP.

Knights on foot were weak to maces. Warhammers were not common and were kept mostly to specialist squads; they were just too heavy and slow and for the most part useless to be used in conventional warfare.

I'm not sure you know what a war hammer looks like. They sure aren't "too heavy and slow", and definitely not in comparison to maces. War hammers was what your pikemen regiments used against armoured individuals in close quarters, as well as using pole-arm (long-shafted, whatever the English word is) war hammers as a direct anti-cavalry weapon. If they were beaked, which most of them were, they were just as good at piercing armour as they were at bashing through it.

If your thinking of mauls, that is a whole other type of weapon. And those wasn't used by "specialist squads" either, in Medieval times they were used primarily by soldiers who also needed those giant mallets as tools - archers, for example. They used the mauls to drive defensive spikes into the ground, as well as a last-resort defensive weapon when the enemy got too close.


Also, cannons making nobles obsolete? Early cannons were way to inaccurate and slow to be efficient against any kind of moving target (as you actually said yourself) and were used a siege weapons. By the time they got better and more accurate, the economy and social structure of Europe had already rendered knights obsolete anyway.

[AWdeV]

And just in case you're tempted to take it as factual because the "Gerald of Wales" guy was probably from the same period, you should remember that only a century or so later explorers were making the totally factual claims of fearsome cannibals with their heads in their torsos, or real live unicorns.

One thing that a longbow could reliably do was kill or startle lightly armored horses, or wear down an armored man at long range, but not impale his thigh in a single go.

That said, even the best plate armour has joints or other weak spots, and plenty of knights had to make do with kit bought secondhand or from the cheapest bidder. If the archers could put enough shafts in the air fast enough they were bound to get lucky sooner or later.

Oh sure, but you're going to have trouble hitting anything important at range and you're in a bit of a hassle if they got close enough. Weak spots in armours tended to be on the joints and such so even if you reliably hit those, it doesn't necessarily mean the bastard is out of the fight. Especially not when rondels came in to use. Those were essentially tiny shields held in place over these weak spots. And later plate didn't even bother with these either as advances in metallurgy and armour-smithing meant that they could create plates that curved and overlapped over these weak points.

[Wannazzaki]

One thing a longbow could do is pin a man to concrete if fired at them from an elevated position.

[AWdeV]

I would very much like to see that. Hell, I'd like to see a longbow pin anything to concrete.