Wednesday Weapons – The Longbow

Time for a bit of history. Let’s look at one of the most devastating weapons on the battlefield until the invention of gunpowder. The English Longbow.

In 1346 at the Battle of Crecy over a third of the French aristocracy was wiped out in one afternoon and largely by the Archers using the Longbow. From Wikipedia

Crécy was a battle in which an English army of 12,000 to 16,000 (depending on source), commanded by Edward III of England and heavily outnumbered by Philip VI of France’s force of 35,000 to 100,000 (depending on source), was victorious as a result of superior weaponry and tactics, demonstrating the importance of the modern military concept of fire power. The effectiveness of the English longbow, used en masse, was proven against armoured knights, contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day which held that archers would be ineffective and be butchered when the armoured units closed in.

The thing was that not anyone could pick up a bow and become effective. It was actually the English feudal system that developed the skills with the Longbow enabling the English Army and only the English Army yo filed Longbows. In order to even pull the string back required immense strength. Strength that could only come from years of practice from an early age. Skeletons of Archers that have been exhumed show clearly enlarged upper body from constant bow use. Draw weights for Longbows varied between 100 to 185 lbf. In order to maintain a steady supply of trained archers King Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307), banned all sports but archery at the butts on Sundays, to make sure Englishmen practised with the longbow. As a result, the English during this period as a whole became very effective with the longbow. Later supplies of Yew for the bows were difficult to come by and so by the Statute of Westminster in 1472, every ship coming to an English port had to bring four bowstaves for every tun. Richard III of England increased this to ten for every tun.

One eccentric English officer Lieutenant Colonel John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming “Jack” Churchill, DSO & Bar, MC & Bar who was nicknamed “Fighting Jack Churchill” and “Mad Jack”, was an English soldier who fought throughout World War II armed with a bow, arrows and a claymore. He once said “any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed.”

In May 1940, Churchill and his unit, the Manchester Regiment, ambushed a German patrol near l’Epinette, France. Churchill gave the signal to attack by cutting down the enemy Feldwebel (sergeant) with his barbed arrows, becoming the only known British soldier to have felled an enemy with a longbow in the course of the war.

Now for some video of this serious man-killer.

How to shoot a medieval Longbow

Distance Shooting with an English Warbow

Armour Piercing with Medieval Arrows

The LongBow had a short reign on the Battle field but in the Hundred Years War categorically proved itself against Crossbows and Armoured Knights. Between Crecy, Agincourt and Poitier the majority of French nobility were slaughtered by essentially peasant troops. Before the 100 years war was the age of chivalry, knight against knight, and the Longbow destroyed that in three afternoons.

  • http://gotcha.co.nz Barnsley Bill

    The French threatened to cut off the first two fingers of any longbowman they captured at Agincourt. Upon winning, the triumphant english bowmen raised two fingers to the fleeing CESM's in defiance and there is the original two fingured salute.

  • Pedro

    you have an interesting article like this… contrasted with your article about the red headed girl. How about leaving other peoples kids alone?

  • coge

    The Genoese crossbowmen, among the very best professional mercenarys of the time, were effectively made redundant by the english longbow.

  • Colinxy

    The comment isn't strictly true. The longbow, while integral to the victory at Crecy in 1346, did not wipe out a third of the French aristocracy. The basic formation of the English army (at Crecy) was pike blocks in the middle, and archers on the wings. The archers forced the French knights onto the pike blocks by their arrows in more of a 'harassing nature' (basically herding them). The pike blocks and the impending fighting therein that did the bulk of the killing; once the cavalry charge is stopped the advantage of the horse is nullified. The pikes stopped the charge. The bills knocked the knights off the horses and the carnage started.

    The basic tactic had been learned decades earlier, notably starting with the 1302 victory of the Flemish (Belgiums) at the Battle of Coutrai. And for the English especially at the Battle of Bannockburn. In these two cases (there are plenty more) they used trenches (suck eggs Belich) to herd the cavalry charge onto fixed pike blocks. Once there the knights were at a severe disadvantage.

    The English innovation was using bows. The bow took over from trench warfare as a mobile way of causing the cavalry charge to be limited into a desired location. After all Edward III was having trouble getting King John the Good (of France) to commit to any battle, and did not have the luxury of being able to dictate any battlefield (i.e. force a fight). The archers simply allowed Edward III to engage in a battle to his advantage in fairly rapid order.

    The longbow was quintessential for victory, but its place has been misappropriated.

  • Johnboy

    The mud was a pretty good weapon too.

    http://www.aginc.net/battle/ops.html

  • Doug

    Poor Phil Goff has tried to resurrect the longbow but keeps shooting himself in the foot.

  • Jack

    How would the English have gone against Genghis's mounted warriors with their composite bows, Whale?
    The Mongols were good archers and loosed their arrows at speed.

    A bit like comparing tank gunnery with artillery, eh?

    Some archery expert might be able to tells us how the Mongol's composite bows' performance compared with the English longbows and later crossbows.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Whaleoil Whaleoil

      That is an excellent point, unfortunately we will never know, but the Mongol ability to ride standing in the stirrups and fire 4-5 arrows per minute was astounding.

      I suspect that the Mongols would have won due to their ability to move fast, travel light for hundreds of kilometres and strike quickly.

      The Mongol tactics of the Horns and feinting withdrawal also helped them. I think it was Jelme with his tuman retreated over 100's of kilometres tiring the enemy and stretching their lines before turning and attacking and rolling up the enemy column.

      • Harold

        In Terry Jones "The Crusades" he suggests some interesting outcomes when heavily armoured European knights went against much larger numbers of Saracen (akin to the Mongols in some matters of weapons and tactics) yet appear against all odds to have put the Saracen to flight. Terry suggested the European stallions being called upon to attack a large number of mares on heat (the preferred choice of the Saracens apparently – I'm going from memory here, so I am prepared to be told I don't know what I am blathering about) put a whole new dynamic to the battles, and the riders may not have had much say in the matter. Just a thought. I'd put my fiver on the Mongols too.

        I believe the longbow was originally a Welsh weapon (something Shakespeare alludes to in Henry V ("I'll eat this leek" or somesuch) and was used with disproportionate effect against the legions of Rome – causing the Romans to get seriously pissed off. The Welsh never got their act together to use longbows en masse, but they've probably maintained the ability to piss people off!