English longbow

Self-yew English longbow, 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) long, 470 N (105 lbf) draw force.
A period illustration of the Battle of Crécy. Anglo-Welsh longbowmen figure prominently in the foreground on the right, where they are driving away Italian mercenary crossbowmen.

The English longbow, also called the Welsh longbow, is a powerful type of medieval longbow (a tall bow for archery) about 6 ft (1.8 m) long used by the English and Welsh for hunting and as a weapon in medieval warfare. English use of longbows was effective against the French during the Hundred Years' War, particularly at the start of the war in the battles of Sluys (1340), Crécy (1346), and Poitiers (1356), and perhaps most famously at the Battle of Agincourt (1415). They were less successful after this, with longbowmen having their lines broken at the Battle of Verneuil (1424), and being completely routed at the Battle of Patay (1429) when they were charged before they had set up their defensive position.

The earliest longbow known from England, found at Ashcott Heath, Somerset, is dated to 2665 BC,[1] but no longbows survive from the period when the longbow was dominant (c. 1250–1450 AD),[2] probably because bows became weaker, broke and were replaced, rather than being handed down through generations.[3] More than 130 bows survive from the Renaissance period, however. More than 3,500 arrows and 137 whole longbows were recovered from the Mary Rose, a ship of Henry VIII's navy that sank at Portsmouth in 1545.

Description

Length

A longbow must be long enough to allow its user to draw the string to a point on the face or body, and the length therefore varies with the user. In continental Europe it was generally seen as any bow longer than 1.2 m (3.9 ft). The Society of Antiquaries says it is of 5 or 6 feet (1.5 or 1.8 metres) in length.[4] Richard Bartelot, of the Royal Artillery Institution, said that the bow was of yew, 6 feet (1.8 m) long, with a 3-foot (910 mm) arrow.[5] Gaston Phoebus, in 1388, wrote that a longbow should be "of yew or boxwood, seventy inches [1.8 m] between the points of attachment for the cord".[6] Historian Jim Bradbury said they were an average of about 5 feet and 8 inches.[7] All but the last estimate were made before the excavation of the Mary Rose, where bows were found ranging in length from 1.87 to 2.11 m (6 ft 2 in to 6 ft 11 in) with an average length of 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in).[8]

Draw weights

Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.[10][11][12]

A record of how boys and men trained to use the bows with high draw weights survives from the reign of Henry VII.

"[My yeoman father] taught me how to draw, how to lay my body in my bow ... not to draw with strength of arms as divers other nations do ... I had my bows bought me according to my age and strength, as I increased in them, so my bows were made bigger and bigger. For men shall never shoot well unless they be brought up to it."
— Hugh Latimer.[13]

What Latimer meant when he describes laying his body into the bow was described thus:

the Englishman did not keep his left hand steady, and draw his bow with his right; but keeping his right at rest upon the nerve, he pressed the whole weight of his body into the horns of his bow. Hence probably arose the phrase "bending the bow," and the French of "drawing" one.
— W. Gilpin.[14]

Construction and materials

The bowstave

Self (bottom) and laminated (top) bows for comparison

The preferred material to make the longbow was yew, although ash, elm and other woods were also used. Giraldus Cambrensis, Gerald of Wales, speaking of the bows used by the Welsh men of Gwent, says: "They are made neither of horn, ash nor yew, but of elm; ugly unfinished-looking weapons, but astonishingly stiff, large and strong, and equally capable of use for long or short shooting".[15] The traditional construction of a longbow consists of drying the yew wood for 1 to 2 years, then slowly working the wood into shape, with the entire process taking up to four years. (This can be done far more quickly by working the wood down when wet, as a thinner piece of wood will dry much faster.) The bow stave is shaped into a D-section. The outer "back" of sapwood, approximately flat, follows the natural growth rings; modern bowyers often thin the sapwood, while in the Mary Rose bows the back of the bow was the natural surface of the wood, only the bark being removed. The inner side ("belly") of the bow stave consists of rounded heartwood. The heartwood resists compression and the outer sapwood performs better in tension. This combination in a single piece of wood (a self bow) forms a natural "laminate", somewhat similar in effect to the construction of a composite bow. Longbows will last a long time if protected with a water-resistant coating, traditionally of "wax, resin and fine tallow".

The trade of yew wood to England for longbows was such that it depleted the stocks of yew over a huge area. The first documented import of yew bowstaves to England was in 1294. In 1350 there was a serious shortage, and Henry IV of England ordered his royal bowyer to enter private land and cut yew and other woods. In 1470 compulsory practice was renewed, and hazel, ash, and laburnum were specifically allowed for practice bows. Supplies still proved insufficient, until by the Statute of Westminster in 1472, every ship coming to an English port had to bring four bowstaves for every tun.[16] Richard III of England increased this to ten for every tun. This stimulated a vast network of extraction and supply, which formed part of royal monopolies in southern Germany and Austria. In 1483, the price of bowstaves rose from two to eight pounds per hundred, and in 1510 the Venetians obtained sixteen pounds per hundred. In 1507 the Holy Roman Emperor asked the Duke of Bavaria to stop cutting yew, but the trade was profitable, and in 1532 the royal monopoly was granted for the usual quantity "if there are that many". In 1562, the Bavarian government sent a long plea to the Holy Roman Emperor asking him to stop the cutting of yew, and outlining the damage done to the forests by its selective extraction, which broke the canopy and allowed wind to destroy neighbouring trees. In 1568, despite a request from Saxony, no royal monopoly was granted because there was no yew to cut, and the next year Bavaria and Austria similarly failed to produce enough yew to justify a royal monopoly. Forestry records in this area in the 17th century do not mention yew, and it seems that no mature trees were to be had. The English tried to obtain supplies from the Baltic, but at this period bows were being replaced by guns in any case.[17]

The string

Bow strings were, and still are, made of hemp, flax or silk, and attached to the wood via horn "nocks" that fit onto the end of the bow. Modern synthetic materials (often Dacron) are now commonly used for strings.

The arrow

A wide variety of arrows were shot from the English longbow. Variations in length, fletchings and heads are all recorded. Perhaps the greatest diversity lies in hunting arrows, with varieties like broad-arrow, wolf-arrow, dog-arrow, Welsh arrow and Scottish arrow being recorded.[18] War arrows were ordered in the thousands for medieval armies and navies, supplied in sheaves normally of 24 arrows.[19] For example, between 1341 and 1359 the English crown is known to have obtained 51,350 sheaves (1,232,400 arrows).[20]

Only one significant group of arrows, from the Mary Rose, has survived. Over 3500 arrows were found, mainly made of poplar but also of ash, beech and hazel. Analysis of the intact specimens shows their length to vary from 61 to 83 centimetres (24–33 in), with an average length of 76 centimetres (30 in).[21] Because of the preservation conditions of the Mary Rose no arrowheads survived. However, many heads have survived in other places, which has allowed typologies of arrow heads to be produced, the most modern being the Jessop typology.[22] The most common arrowheads in military use were the short bodkin (Jessop M10) and a small barbed arrow (Jessop M4).[23]

Use and performance

Training

Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognisably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24]

It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.

Range

The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with much depending on both the power of the bow and the type of arrow. It has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd (370 m)[25] but the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345 yd (315 m).[26] In 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of 220 yd (200 m); ranges below this had to be shot with heavy arrows.[27] Modern experiments broadly concur with these historical ranges. A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.89 oz) arrow 328 m (359 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.38 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (273.3 yd).[28] In 2012, Joe Gibbs shot a 2.25 oz (64 g) livery arrow 292 yd (267 m) with a 170 lbf yew bow.[29] The effective combat range of longbowmen was generally lower than what could be achieved on the practice range as sustained shooting was tiring and the rigors of campaigning would sap soldiers' strength. Writing 30 years after the Mary Rose sank, Barnabe Rich estimated that if 1000 English archers were mustered then after one week only 100 of them would be able to shoot farther than 200 paces, while 200 would not be able to shoot farther than 180 paces.[30]

Armour penetration

Modern testing

In an early modern test by Saxton Pope, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus mail armour.[31][32]

A 2006 test was made by Matheus Bane using a 75 lbf (330 N) draw (at 28") bow, shooting at 10 yards; according to Bane's calculations, this would be approximately equivalent to a 110 lbf (490 N) bow at 250 yards.[33] Measured against a replica of the thinnest contemporary "Jack coat" armour, a 905 grain needle bodkin and a 935 grain curved broadhead penetrated over 3.5 inches (89 mm). ("Jack coat" armour could be up to twice as thick as the coat tested; in Bane's opinion such a thick coat would have stopped bodkin arrows but not the cutting force of broadhead arrows.) Against "high quality riveted maille", the needle bodkin and curved broadhead penetrated 2.8". Against a coat of plates, the needle bodkin achieved 0.3" penetration. The curved broadhead did not penetrate but caused 0.3" of deformation of the metal. Results against plate armour of "minimum thickness" (1.2mm) were similar to the coat of plates, in that the needle bodkin penetrated to a shallow depth, the other arrows not at all. In Bane's view, the plate armour would have kept out all the arrows if thicker or worn with more padding.

Other modern tests described by Bane include those by Williams (which concluded that longbows could not penetrate mail, but in Bane's view did not use a realistic arrow tip), Robert Hardy's tests (which achieved broadly similar results to Bane), and a Primitive Archer test which demonstrated that a longbow could penetrate a plate armour breastplate. However, the Primitive Archer test used a 160 lbf (710 N) longbow at very short range, generating 160 joules (vs. 73 for Bane and 80 for Williams), so probably not representative of battles of the time.

Tests conducted by Mark Stretton[34] circa 2006 focussed on heavier war shafts (as opposed to lighter hunting or distance-shooting 'flights') mated to a variety of heads indicate that the adoption of the heavy bodkin head - similar in form to contemporaneous crossbow warheads - was not merely fashionable imitation: Stretton's findings (based on experimentation using a variety of bows, arrows and heads based on historical examples but the results interpreted in the light of modern knowledge of the effects of blunt force trauma, via the good offices of Cranfield university) show the quarrel-like armour piercing shaft from a yew 'self bow' (with a draw weight of 144lbs at 32 inches) while travelling at 134 feet per second achieved 90% of the range of lighter broad heads while being 45% heavier and thus delivering more kinetic energy.

When translated these figures (102 grams moving at 47.23 metres per second) yield 113.76 joules, comfortably surpassing the 80 joule threshold at which a strike to a vital area is hazardous. (In fact all of the test arrows, fired from test bows, surpassed this potentially mortal limit). In tests Stretton addressed not merely depth of penetration against representative targets but strike angle and discovered that the short, heavy quarrel-form bodkin could penetrate a replica brigandine at up to 40° from perpendicular, and further, when fired at such a target mounted on a travelling rig at 20 miles per hour and thus appropriate to a war horse at the charge, the added forward momentum of the target added a full inch of penetration.

If not sufficient to kill a man in plate armour outright - so long as he is protected by thick and substantial energy-absorbing intermediate layers - would have a severe, possibly fatal, blunt trauma effect. (As Stretton acutely observes, if the purpose of the war bow and war shaft was to neutralise opponents as combatants precisely the same logic holds as on a modern battlefield: a wounded man demoralises his fellows and absorbs resources that might otherwise contribute to the battle and, as is still the case today, survivors tend to be those best protected and thus more profitable when taken alive and held hostage or for ransom.)

While obviously arguable Stretton's tests conducted with other arrowhead forms, notably the crescent and long-bodkin, seem indicate that these were far more versatile than some catalogues assume, being far from single-purpose projectiles: the long (circa eight inch) bodkin point mounted on a slender 'flight' arrowshaft could be most effectively against the majority of targets (excepting only plate armour) yet is so well-adapted for use with an incendiary sachet there is no benefit to creating a single-purpose special arrowhead and shaft; similarly the crescent form, while historically used for hunting (the Roman Emperor Commodus was alleged to have used them to decapitate running ostriches and managed to decapitate them[35]) that is demonstrably less destructive than broadheads when directed at small game can also demonstrably part a stressed line or split sailcloth[34] (with the proviso the shooter is as expert in the appropriate application of bow, arrow and arrowhead as in matters of range and marksmanship).

In 2011, Mike Loades conducted an experiment in which short bodkin arrows were shot at a range of 10 yd (9.1 m) by bows of 140 pounds-force (620 N). The target was covered in a riveted mail over a fabric armour of deerskin over 24 linen layers. While most arrows went through the mail layer, none fully penetrated the textile armour. The experimenters, however, concluded that a long bodkin arrow would have penetrated through this armour combination. Even so, Loades cautions that this experiment did not reflect normal combat ranges and used powerful bows, so may not be typical of battlefield performance.[36]

Other research has also concluded that later medieval armour, such as that of the Italian city state mercenary companies, was effective at stopping contemporary arrows.[37]

Contemporary accounts

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

... [I]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 chausses, 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.[38][39]

Against massed men in armour, massed longbows were murderously effective on many battlefields.[40]

Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows".[41]

Archery was described by contemporaries as ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 14th century, though never to all soldiers in any army. Longbowmen were however effective at Poitiers, and this success stimulated changes in armour manufacture partly intended to make armoured men less vulnerable to archery. Nevertheless, at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and for some decades thereafter, English longbowmen continued to be an effective battlefield force.[40]

Summary

Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows. However this did not necessarily make the longbow ineffective; thousands of longbowmen were deployed in the English victory at Agincourt against plate armoured French knights in 1415. Clifford Rogers has argued that while longbows might not have been able to penetrate steel breastplates at Agincourt they could still penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs. Most of the French knights advanced on foot but, exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour enduring a "terrifying hail of arrow shot", they were overwhelmed in the melee.

Less heavily armoured soldiers were more vulnerable than knights. For example, enemy crossbowmen were forced to retreat at Crecy when deployed without their protecting pavises. Horses were generally less well protected than the knights themselves; shooting the French knights' horses from the side (where they were less well armoured) is described by contemporary accounts of the Battle of Poitiers, and at Agincourt John Keegan has argued that the main effect of the longbow would have been in injuring the horses of the mounted French knights.

Shooting rate

A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle. Most archers would not shoot arrows at maximum rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. "With the heaviest bows [a modern war bow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."[42] Not only do the arms and shoulder muscles tire from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of shooting in combat would vary considerably. Ranged volleys at the beginning of the battle would differ markedly from the closer, aimed shots as the battle progressed and the enemy neared. On the battlefield English archers stored their arrows stabbed upright into the ground at their feet, reducing the time it took to nock, draw and loose.

Arrows were not unlimited, so archers and their commanders took every effort to ration their use to the situation at hand. Nonetheless, resupply during battle was available. Young boys were often employed to run additional arrows to longbow archers while in their positions on the battlefield.[43] "The longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages: accurate, deadly, possessed of a long range and rapid rate of fire, the flight of its missiles was likened to a storm".[2]

In tests against a moving target simulating a charging knight[34] it took some approximately seven seconds to draw, aim and loose an armour-piercing heavy arrow using a replica war bow, that in the seven seconds between the first and second shots the target advanced 70 yards and that the second shot occurred at such close range that, if it was a realistic contest, running away was the only option. This rate of shooting was nearly twice what a Tudor English author expects from a "ready shooter" with the musket,.[44] The advantage of early firearms lay in the lower training requirements, the opportunity to take cover while shooting, flatter trajectory,[44] and greater penetration.[45]

Treating arrow wounds

The only way to remove an arrow cleanly was to tie a piece of cloth soaked in water to the end of it and push it through the victim's wound and out the other side — this was extremely painful. Specialised tools have existed since ancient times: Diocles (successor of Hippocates) devised the graphiscos, a form of cannula with hooks, and the duck-billed forceps (allegedly invented by Heras of Cappadocia[46]) employed during the medieval period to extract arrows from places where bone prevented the arrow being pushed through.

Henry, Prince of Wales, later Henry V, was wounded in the face by an arrow at the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403). The royal physician John Bradmore had such a tool made, which consisted of a pair of smooth tongs. Once carefully inserted into the socket of the arrowhead, the tongs screwed apart till they gripped its walls and allowed the head to be extracted from the wound. Prior to the extraction, the hole made by the arrow shaft had been widened by inserting larger and larger dowels of elder pith wrapped in linen down the entry wound. The dowels were soaked in honey, now known to have antiseptic properties.[47] The wound was then dressed with a poultice of barley and honey mixed in turpentine (pre-dating Ambroise Paré but whose therapeutic use of turpentine was inspired by Roman medical texts that may have been familiar to Bradmore). After 20 days the wound was free of infection.[48]

History

Etymology

The first recorded use of the term 'longbow', as distinct from simply 'bow', occurs in a Paston Letter of the 15th century.

Origins

The origins of the English longbow are disputed. While it is hard to assess the significance of military archery in pre-Norman Conquest Anglo-Saxon warfare, it is clear that archery played a prominent role under the Normans, as the story of the Battle of Hastings shows. Their Anglo-Norman descendants also made use of military archery, as exemplified by their victory at the Battle of the Standard in 1138. During the Anglo-Norman invasions of Wales, Welsh bowmen took a heavy toll of the invaders and Welsh archers would feature in English armies from this point on. However, historians dispute whether this archery used a different kind of bow to the later English Longbow.[49] Traditionally it has been argued that prior to the beginning of the 14th century, the weapon was a self bow between four and five feet in length, known since the 19th century as the shortbow. This weapon, drawn to the chest rather than the ear, was much weaker. However, in 1985, Jim Bradbury reclassified this weapon as the ordinary wooden bow, reserving the term shortbow for short composite bows and arguing that longbows were a developed form of this ordinary bow.[50] Strickland and Hardy in 2005 took this argument further, suggesting that the shortbow was a myth and all early English bows were a form of longbow.[51] In 2011, Clifford Rogers forcefully restated the traditional case based upon a variety of evidence, including a large scale iconographic survey.[52] In 2012, Richard Wadge added to the debate with an extensive survey of record, iconographic and archaeological evidence, concluding that longbows co-existed with shorter self-wood bows in England in the period between the Norman conquest and the reign of Edward III, but that powerful longbows shooting heavy arrows were a rarity until the later 13th century.[53] Whether or not there was a technological revolution at the end of the 13th century therefore remains in dispute. What is agreed, however, is that the English longbow as an effective weapon system evolved in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.

Fourteenth and fifteenth century

The longbow decided many medieval battles fought by the English and Welsh, the most significant of which were the Battle of Crécy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415), during the Hundred Years' War and followed earlier successes, notably at the Battle of Falkirk (1298) and the Battle of Halidon Hill (1333) during the Wars of Scottish Independence.

The longbow was also used against the English by their Welsh neighbours. The Welsh used the longbow mostly in a different manner than the English. In many early period English campaigns, the Welsh used the longbow in ambushes, often at point blank range that allowed their missiles to penetrate armour and generally do a lot of damage.[54]

Although longbows were much faster and more accurate than the black-powder weapons which replaced them, longbowmen always took a long time to train because of the years of practice necessary before a war longbow could be used effectively (examples of longbows from the Mary Rose typically had draws greater than 637 N (143 lbf)). In an era in which warfare was usually seasonal, and non-noble soldiers spent part of the year working at farms, the year-round training required for the effective use of the longbow was a challenge. A standing army was an expensive proposition to a medieval ruler. Mainland European armies seldom trained a significant longbow corps. Due to their specialized training, English longbowmen were sought as mercenaries in other European countries, most notably in the Italian city-states and in Spain. The White Company,[55] comprising men-at-arms and longbowmen and commanded by Sir John Hawkwood, is the best known English Free Company of the 14th century. The powerful Hungarian king, Louis the Great, is an example of someone who used longbowmen in his Italian campaigns.

Sixteenth century and later

Longbows remained in use until around the 16th century, when advances in firearms made gunpowder weapons a significant factor in warfare and such units as arquebusiers and grenadiers began appearing. Despite this, the English Crown made numerous efforts to continue to promote archery practice by banning other sports and fining people for not possessing bows.[56] Indeed, just before the English Civil War, a pamphlet by William Neade entitled The Double-Armed Man advocated that soldiers be trained in both the longbow and pike; albeit this advice was followed only by a few town militias. The last recorded use of bows in an English battle seems to have been a skirmish at Bridgnorth, in October 1642, during the Civil War, when an impromptu town militia proved effective against un-armoured musketeers.[57] Longbowmen remained a feature of the Royalist Army, but were not used by the Roundheads.

Longbows have been in continuous production and use for sport and for hunting to the present day, but since 1642 they have been a minority interest, and very few have had the high draw weights of the medieval weapons. Other differences include the use of a stiffened non-bending centre section, rather than a continuous bend.

Serious military interest in the longbow faded after the seventeenth century but occasionally schemes to resurrect its military use were proposed. Benjamin Franklin was a proponent in the 1770s; the Honourable Artillery Company had an archer company between 1784 and 1794; and a man named Richard Mason wrote a book proposing the arming of militia with pike and longbow in 1798.[58] Donald Featherstone also records a Lt. Col. Richard Lee of 44th Foot advocated the military use of the longbow in 1792.[59] There is a record of the use of the longbow in action as late as WWII, when Jack Churchill is credited with a longbow kill in France in 1940.[60] The weapon was certainly considered for use by Commandos during the war but it is not known whether it was used in action.[61]

Tactics

Battle formations

The idea that there was a standard formation for English longbow armies was argued by Alfred Byrne in his influential work on the battles of the Hundred Years' War, The Crecy War.[62] This view was challenged by Jim Bradbury in his book The Medieval Archer[63] and more modern works are more ready to accept a variety of formations.[64]

In summary, however, the usual English deployment in the 14th and 15th centuries was as follows:

In the 16th century, these formations evolved in line with new technologies and techniques from the continent. Formations with a central core of pikes and bills were flanked by companies of "shot" made up of a mixture of archers and arquebusiers, sometimes with a skirmish screen of archers and arquebusiers in front.[65]

Surviving bows and arrows

More than 3,500 arrows and 137 whole longbows were recovered from the Mary Rose, a ship of Henry VIII's navy that capsized and sank at Portsmouth in 1545. It is an important source for the history of the longbow, as the bows, archery implements and the skeletons of archers have been preserved. The bows range in length from 1.87 to 2.11 m (6 ft 2 in to 6 ft 11 in) with an average length of 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in).[8] The majority of the arrows were made of poplar, others were made of beech, ash and hazel. Draw lengths of the arrows varied between 61 and 81 centimetres (24 and 32 in) with the majority having a draw length of 76 centimetres (30 in).[21] The head would add 5–15 cm depending on type, though some 2–4.5 cm must be allowed for the insertion of the shaft into the socket.[66]

The longbows on the Mary Rose were in excellent finished condition. There were enough bows to test some to destruction which resulted in draw forces of 450 N (100 lbf) on average. However, analysis of the wood indicated that they had degraded significantly in the seawater and mud, which had weakened their draw forces. Replicas were made and when tested had draw forces of from 445 N to 823 N (100 to 185 lbf).[9]

In 1980, before the finds from the Mary Rose, Robert E. Kaiser published a paper stating that there were five known surviving longbows:[2]

Social importance

The importance of the longbow in English culture can be seen in the legends of Robin Hood, which increasingly depicted him as a master archer, and also in the "Song of the Bow", a poem from The White Company by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.[73]

During the reign of Henry III the Assize of Arms of 1252 required that all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed.[74] The poorest of them were expected to have a halberd and a knife, and a bow if they owned land worth more than £2.[75] This made it easier for the King to raise an army, but also meant that the bow was a weapon commonly used by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt. From the time that the yeoman class of England became proficient with the longbow, the nobility in England had to be careful not to push them into open rebellion.[76][77]

It has been conjectured that yew trees were commonly planted in English churchyards to have readily available longbow wood.[78]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Bacon 1971, p. 16.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Kaiser 1980.
  3. ↑ Levick 1992
  4. ↑ Kaiser 1980 footnote 5, citing "The Berkhamsted Bow", Antiquaries Journal 11 (London), p. 423
  5. ↑ Kaiser 1980 footnote 6, citing Major Richard G. Bartelot, Assistant Historical Secretary, Royal Artillery Institution, Old Military Academy, Woolwich, England. Letter, 16 February 1976
  6. ↑ Longman & Walrond 1967, p. 132.
  7. ↑ Bradbury 1985
  8. 1 2 Staff 2007, p. 6.
  9. 1 2 Strickland & Hardy 2005, p. 17
  10. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, pp. 13,18.
  11. ↑ A review of The Great Warbow "The power of a bow is measured in its draw-weight, and these days few men can pull a bow above 80lb... and skeletons retrieved from the wreck show spinal distortions, indicating just what it took to be a proper archer" (Cohu 2005).
  12. ↑ In the English language there is the expression that someone "was not pulling their weight". This is thought to infer that someone was using a longbow that had a draw weight that was less than that person's body weight.
  13. ↑ Trevelyan 2008, pp. 18,88.
  14. ↑ Trevelyan 2008, p. 18 quoting W. Gilpin (1791) Forest Scenery
  15. ↑ Oakeshott 1960, p. 294.
  16. ↑ Statutes at Large 3, 1762, p. 408, ...because that our sovereign lord the King, by a petition delivered to him in the said parliament, by the commons of the same, hath perceived That the great scarcity of bowstaves is now in this realm, and the bowstaves that be in this realm be sold as an excessive price...
  17. ↑ Hageneder 2007, p. .
  18. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, p. 42.
  19. ↑ War arrows were often described as being a "cloth yard" in length - the cloth yard being the slightly longer physical measure from the finger tips to the nose, but with the head turned away from the finger tips. At the time of the Hundred Years' War archers drew the arrow back to the ear rather than to the chin.
  20. ↑ Wadge 2007, pp. 160–161.
  21. 1 2 Staff 2007, p. 7.
  22. ↑ Jessop, Oliver. "A New Artefact Typology for the Study of Medieval Arrowheads" (PDF).
  23. ↑ Wadge 2007, pp. 184–185.
  24. ↑ Dr. A.J. Stirland. Raising the Dead: the Skeleton Crew of Henry VIII's Great Ship the Mary Rose. (Chichester 2002) As cited in Strickland & Hardy 2005, p. 
  25. ↑ Oakeshott 1960, p. 297.
  26. ↑ Loades 2013, p. 32.
  27. ↑ Loades 2013, p. 33.
  28. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, p. 18, Appendix 408–418
  29. ↑ Loades 2013, p. 65.
  30. ↑ Rich, Barnabe (1574). A right exelent and pleasaunt dialogue
  31. ↑ Pope 2003, Chapter IV.--Archery in general, p.30.
  32. ↑ "Royal Armouries: 6. Armour-piercing arrowheads".
  33. ↑ Bane 2006.
  34. 1 2 3 Soar, Hugh; Gibbs, Joseph; Jury, Christopher; Stretton, Mark (2010). Secrets of the English War Bow. Westholme. pp. 127–151. ISBN 9781594161261.
  35. ↑ Matthews, Rupert (2003). The Age of the Gladiators. Capella. ISBN 9781841931852.
  36. ↑ Loades 2013, pp. 72-73.
  37. ↑ Kaiser 2003.
  38. ↑ Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191)
  39. ↑ 12 At the time, 1191, this would be mail chausses, and the story is that having had one leg shot through and pinned to the saddle by an arrow, the knight wheeled his horse around, only to receive a second arrow, which nailed the other leg in the same fashion. Osprey - Weapon 030 - The Longbow, 66 page
  40. 1 2 "The Efficacy of the Medieval Longbow: A Reply to Kelly DeVries," War in History 5, no. 2 (1998): 233-42; idem, "The Battle of Agincourt", The Hundred Years War (Part II): Different Vistas, ed. L. J. Andrew Villalon and Donald J. Kagay (Leiden: Brill, 2008): 37–132.
  41. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, pp. 272–278.
  42. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, p. 31.
  43. ↑ The statistics on rates of shot are taken from Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England (Barker 2006).
  44. 1 2 A right exelent and pleasaunt dialogue, betwene Mercury and an English souldier contayning his supplication to Mars: bevvtified with sundry worthy histories, rare inuentions, and politike deuises. wrytten by B. Rich: gen. 1574. Published 1574 by J. Day. These bookes are to be sold [by H. Disle] at the corner shop, at the South west doore of Paules church in London. https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/07/14/barnabe-rich-a-right-exelent-and-pleasaunt-dialouge-1574/ accessed 21 April 2016
  45. ↑ Gunn, Steven; Gromelski, Tomasz (2012). "For whom the bell tolls: accidental deaths in Tudor England". The Lancet 380 (9849): 1222–1223. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61702-4. "The mean depth of arrow wounds, for example, was an inch and a half, that of gunshot wounds six inches, not counting balls that went right through the body or head"
  46. ↑ Wilson, Thomas (1901). "Arrow Wounds". American Anthropologist (3 ed.) 3. ISSN 1548-1433. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
  47. ↑ Israili, ZH. "Antimicrobial Properties of Honey". Am J Ther 21: 304–23. doi:10.1097/MJT.0b013e318293b09b. PMID 23782759.
  48. ↑ Cummins 2006.
  49. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, pp. 34-48.
  50. ↑ Bradbury 1985, pp. 14-15.
  51. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, pp. 37-38, 48.
  52. ↑ Rogers 2011.
  53. ↑ Wadge 2012, pp. 211–212.
  54. ↑ Rothero 1984, 4:The Welsh Wars 1277–1282 "one arrow could pierce a mail hauberk, breeches and saddle of an armoured knight and pin him by the thigh to his horse's flank. The Welsh fought [in] a well-planned ambush".
  55. ↑ Conan Doyle 1997.
  56. ↑ Steven Gunn, 'Archery Practice in Early Tudor England', Past and Present, (2010) Vol. 209 (1): 53-81. doi:10.1093/pastj/gtq029
  57. ↑ John Norton, letter dated 5 October 1642. As printed in The Garrisons of Shropshire during the Civil War, Leake and Evans publishers, Shrewsbury, 1867, page 32. "every man from 16 to 50 and upwards, gott himself into such armes as they could presently attaine, or could imagine be conduceable for the defence of the towne". "some companies of foote.. with their musketts... began to wade foarde, which being descried, we, with our bowes and arrows did so gaule them (being unarmed men) that with their utmost speed they did retreate" https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=4HBMAAAAMAAJ&rdid=book-4HBMAAAAMAAJ&rdot=1 accessed 7 August 2012
  58. ↑ Heath 1980, pp. 208-9.
  59. ↑ Featherstone 1973, p. 154.
  60. ↑ Featherstone 1973, pp. 157–158.
  61. ↑ Heath 1980, pp. 215-216.
  62. ↑ Burne 1991, pp. 37–39.
  63. ↑ Bradbury 1985, pp. 95–98.
  64. ↑ Bennett 1994, p. 1–20.
  65. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, p. 403.
  66. ↑ Strickland & Hardy 2005, p. 6.
  67. ↑ Kaiser 1980 cites: Gordon, Henry; Webb, Alf (1972). "The Hedgeley Moor Bow at Alnwick Castle". Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 15: 8, 9.
  68. ↑ Heath ??, p. 134
  69. ↑ Kaiser 1980 cites: Gordon, Paul H. (1939). The New Archery. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. p. 183.
  70. ↑ Kaiser 1980 cites: Ford, Horace (1887). The Theory and Practice of Archery. London: Longman Green and Co. p. 3..
  71. ↑ Kaiser 1980 cites: McKee, Alexander (1974). King Henry VIII's Mary Rose. New York: Stein and Day. p. 103.
  72. ↑ Kaiser 1980 cites: W.F. Paterson, Chairman, Society of Archer-Antiquaries. Letters, 5 May 1976.
  73. ↑ Conan Doyle 1997
  74. ↑ Kruschke 1985, p. 31
  75. ↑ The right to keep and bear arms: report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, U.S. G.P.O., 1982 p. 46 (see also: David T. Hardy, Partner in the Law Firm Sando & Hardy Historical Bases of the Right To Keep and Bear Arms)
  76. ↑ Andrzejewski 2003, p. 65 "It is surely not accidental that the only peasant revolt in England which succeeded took place at the time of the predominance of the long bow".
  77. ↑ Trevelyan 2008, p. 18 "The good yeoman archer 'whose limbs were made in England' was not a retrospective fancy of Shakespeare, but an unpleasant reality for French and Scots, and a formidable consideration for bailiffs and Justices trying to enforce servile dues or statutory rates of wages in the name of Law, which no one high or low, regarded with any great respect".
  78. ↑ "Yew Trees in Churchyards". Internet Sacred Texts Archive. Retrieved 17 August 2014.

References

Journals
Other

Further reading

Books
Journals
Other
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, April 22, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.