Longbow Muppet

[Point Blank]

I was just listening to this podcast on Youtube about the English Longbow:
https://youtu.be/eSku3Yp8P3Q

Now, bear in mind that the guest on the show had just obtaained his Masters degree in Military History, with a thesis on the Longbow and its impact on military developments in Europe.

Most of his talk is in the first ten minutes and, while he manages to get a few things right, much of it is just outright wrong. How he managed to get so many so many things incorrect and still get his degree is a bit beyond me, I can only assume his thesis supervisors knew even less than he seems to. The things he gets wrong betray a clear lack of understanding at a very basic level on this subject.

Anyway, here are the comments I posted on Youtube:
A few points:
As compared to a composite bow, the longbow was about 20% inferior in converting the potential energy stored in the draw into kinetic energy imparted to the arrow
Draw weights were not typically in the 80-120lb range, but more like 120-150lb, as in the bows found on the Mary Rose
Longbow size was around 5’8”-6’ in the 14-15th centuries and closer to 6’6” in the 16th, not 7'
Average arrow length was closer to 30” than 36”, despite the term ‘Clothyard Shaft”
15 shots per minute sustained for 10 minutes? Sorry but no. 12 for very short periods of time, with a sustained rate of closer to 6. Just how many arrows do you think they carried? 150 is over 6 sheafs
A high rate of shots-per-minute would be only with relatively low accuracy, if given an approximate estimate of range by the Serjeant-in-Command, hence creating an ‘arrow shower’ at that distance
Aimed shots would be at a lower rate still
They were not ‘goading the French to attack them’ in the case of Agincourt. They did everything they could to avoid a pitched engagement, because the French had a larger army and the English were extremely tired and hungry
The story of an arrow being ahot by a longbow penetrating an armored man and going right through to his horse is completely apocryphal
The Papacy said no crossbow use, unless vs non-Christians
When deprived of defenses such as stakes and ditches, Longbowmen were extremely vulnerable. In later battles of the Hundred Years War, such as Patay, when deprived of these advantages they were often swept from the field by French cavalry

He is lucky I wasn’t grading him lol.

[k/t]

The "English" longbow is the katana of Europe - it will always attract chumps with its magic powers.

[Dekhatres]

i heard very often about the english provoking the french at agincourt, are there sources claiming they didnt ? or it wasnt their intention ? what were the english hoping to achieve then with those early arrow volleys ?

[Strategos Autokrator]

They were not ‘goading the French to attack them’ in the case of Agincourt. They did everything they could to avoid a pitched engagement, because the French had a larger army and the English were extremely tired and hungry

First, Henry V wanted a battle because his religious outlook demanded it. He had come to France to put God's will to the test, and that could only properly be done by a conflict in which he might lose his life.

Secondly, he came with and army too large for just a siege. It was an army designed to fight a pitched battle.

Third, he was determined to follow a path previously trodden by Edward III's army to Blanchetaque, a point at which the river Somme could be forded. Edward III's march, which culminated in the battle of Crécy had been chosen specifically to encourage the French to attack the English at Ponthieu. (for further information see War Cruel and Sharp by Rogers)

Henry, having sent Raoul de Gaucourt with William Bruges to deliver the challenge to single combat to the dauphin, knew that the dauphin would have learned from Gaucourt that the English were marching to Calais. He had even told him roughly the time he was going to depart - after eight days. Telling all 260 gentlemen prisoners from Harfleur to meet him in Calais was similarly a guarantee that the French would know where he was going. He was thus encouraging the French to come after him and attack him. In his instructions to the 260 prisoners from Harfleur he even referred overtly to the likelihood of a battle. For more information, read Henry's year of Glory by Mortimer. p. 385

The sources also state that the English army moved down from their strong position to the north-west of Maisoncelle and into the valley we now call Morival (death valley). Here they replanted their stakes and started to shoot at the French army. The English army initiated the attack.

Draw weights were not typically in the 80-120lb range, but more like 120-150lb, as in the bows found on the Mary Rose

Draw weight on the Mary Rose bows have been estimated to be from 140-160 lb predominately, with one bow going as high as 185 lb. Here is what Kooi did.

The elastic stiffness of small specimen of yew goes from approximately 8 GN/m^2 to 12 GN/m^2 when the density is 0.53 to 0.76 g/cc. When you take a whole bow with knots this drop down to between 6 and 9 GN/m^2. This is the most important measurement, because it's the scaling factor by which all other factors must be multiplied. He then made a computer model based on bow 79A0812, one of the smaller bows in terms of volume. At first he probably used 9 GN/m2 or higher in his calculation (I'm not sure here). The result was 144 lb! Then Roy King made a replica of this bow, MRA1. This bow was measured to 7.6 GN/m^2. He then applied this number to his calculation. His computer model bow now had a draw weight of 102.4 lb at 30" after tillering. The actual MR1 had a draw weight of 102.8 lb at 30" when tested. This is right on the money. As I understand it he didn't know about this beforehand.

Now they extrapolated this information to other bows. They also made replicas of other bows and created computer models of them. With this information and 7.6 GN/m^2 he calculated the draw weight of the smallest bow. This turned out to be 98 lb. If it was made of the worst quality yew, It might have been lower in draw weight. This, however, is highly unlikely, taken into account the draw weight of the other bows on that ship. If it was made of the absolute best quality wood, it might have had a draw weight of upwards to 130 lb! Taken into account that Henry IIIV imported at least 70,000 high Alpine yew bow staves from Venice/Italy, this might in fact be the case.

Kooi have made a scale of the bows from 90-170 lb. This is a calculation with far below average elastic stiffness. The average is 7.5 GN/m^2. This was probably done to be sure he was within acceptable parameters on the lower end of the scale. But it's highly likely that many of these bows had a draw weight 15-20 lb higher. Theoretically some might have been 30 lb higher and more.

Reproduction of bows also confirms this. Reproductions of the smallest bow often have a draw weight far beyond 100 lb. Some times 120+ lb. It's almost certain that the bows on MR didn't have a draw weight of 80 lb. For that to be the case the smallest bow must have had an elastic stiffness just over 6 GN/m^2. Highly unlikely.

The Papacy said no crossbow use, unless vs non-Christians

The papacy didn't say no crossbow use. The ban was ranged weapons in general.

[Slaytaninc]

Was this bump really necessary? The comment isn't even on the video anymore.