Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?
WillS:
Hmm yeah, I see what you're saying!
Perhaps "bowshot" was the maximum range for a bow (of a given weight) and perhaps there were a select few "snipers" who could actually use a bow at that range, but the vast majority were more likely to be used as you say, when the action is within 100 yards, where not only the accuracy was far more realistic and effective, but also the chance of armour penetration and maximum damage is achieved, unlike at 240 yards!
Again, I think it's typical of the romance of "the longbow" that gives us the image of a hardy English yeoman shooting a 160lb bow and slotting an arrow through the visor of a Clanky 200 yards away. Lovely thought, almost ridiculous however.
How close are ships usually, during a sea battle?
llkinak:
--- Quote from: Atlatlista on November 06, 2013, 08:01:07 pm ---
--- Quote from: WillS on November 06, 2013, 07:45:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: Atlatlista --- It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.
--- End quote ---
Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties! Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.
--- End quote ---
Sort of. I ran a gap calculator out once, to figure out this kind of thing, and I found that when you use a warbow out to 150 yards (forget 240), an error in range estimation of 5 yards results in the arrows missing the target by about ten to fifteen feet. Compare that with shooting on the flat end of the trajectory, where if you aim for twenty instead of twenty-five you hit the guy in the belly instead of the chest. There is a risk, out to 240 yards of missing an entire formation, let alone an individual man.
Also, if you look at the sources and the battles themselves, the English were awfully careful to position their longbow archers where the enemy would not be able to close with them, but where the archers were still reasonably close to the action - herce formations, stakes, use of hedgerows and swamps, river crossings, etc. It seems like the archery was taking place at reasonably close range (by that I mean less than 100 yards).
--- End quote ---
If I recall correctly about Agincourt, however (and I might not) the English initially advanced from their first position to close within long range of the French...Since the French had refused to oblige them by coming closer on their own accord. They then loosed a volley or two at long range, which provoked a French cavalry charge that started the fracas. I suppose, though, the entire intent of this was to get the French into a more effective range of the bows on hand where they could at least inflict some damage. However, if I also recall Keegan and Barker correctly, the lion's share of the killing at Agincourt was not done by arrows, despite how many were used.
Atlatlista:
I agree with that. You also see the same thing at Towton in regards to long-range harassing fire provoking a charge. Like I said, I think it was certainly part of the arsenal of options to shoot at long range, but I think if you want military efficacy in terms of killing and wounding a large number of enemies, you're going to be looking at closer ranges on the whole, and a lot less of the firing at high compass that's so popular in films and other dramatic depictions.
WillS:
I think a large part of the Azincourt victory was the simple fact that the French nobility were just stunned that the English were so unchivalrous. They were expecting great tournament-style glory as they fought hand to hand with the English king and his trained bodyguards, and yet no matter their rank, status or expensive armour they were dropped by arrows regardless. That was enough to send shock waves and morale loss through the French. The arrows as you say weren't responsible for the win, they were a catalyst to the French losing heart and being taken by surprise.
Plus the fact that by the time the French had trudged through the muddy quagmire (Giggity), stepped over the dying, screaming, kicking horses and bodies, fighting constantly against a hail of arrows and finally reached the English lines, they were already losing.
I think the EWBS NZ Bearing Arrow is probably the closest to what was actually used at Azincourt. Irritating and harassing from long range, enough to provoke a charge into the enemy's upper hand.
llkinak:
--- Quote from: Atlatlista on November 06, 2013, 08:28:07 pm ---I agree with that. You also see the same thing at Towton in regards to long-range harassing fire provoking a charge. Like I said, I think it was certainly part of the arsenal of options to shoot at long range, but I think if you want military efficacy in terms of killing and wounding a large number of enemies, you're going to be looking at closer ranges on the whole, and a lot less of the firing at high compass that's so popular in films and other dramatic depictions.
--- End quote ---
That makes complete sense to me. Especially when considering the angles of impact involved and the ability of various types of armor to absorb or deflect arrows.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version