English Armies 1300-1400 & Medieval Longbow Discussion

[René Artois]

I was doing some research and couldn't find alot on this subject, so i was wandering whether anyone knew anything about types of infantry and cavalry commonly used. I know its a bit specific, but i know there's alo of incredibly knowledgable people on these forums.

Any useful help will recieve +rep

[Helm]

All the usual medieval kinds of stuff I imagine. They had the English longbow though, that being the equivalent of a stealth bomber back then.

[William the Bastard]

The Longbow really does take center stage for English armies of this period. It's use begins around the battle of Falkirk in 1298 where the Welsh mercenaries hired by Longshanks could show the capabilities of a weapon that didn't have the stage to perform on beforehand. It was used extremely well in skirmishes during the Welsh Wars but the Welsh didn't have the ability to engage in a set piece battle.

After Falkirk the next important battle for the Longbow is Dupplin Moor. Tactically this set battle sets the blue print for all future English success for Edward III. From Crecy to Agincourt the Longbow was the dominant feature of the English army.

Along side the Bow most English infantry used a Bill. However imo most importantly the English knights tended to fight on foot alongside the Billmen and the Archers. This gave the line much needed strength in armour as it was only knights who could afford sophisticated, tempered steel plate.

Steel plate armour became more widespread over the period specified too. most infantry men of the late 13th Century wore mail but mail isn't particularly very good against arrow fire. The Italian and German armourers were the best in the world and eventually they would begin to create suits that covered all possible attack angles and become "arrow proof" from anything but point blank range.

As far as cavalry is concerned it really depends on the campaign. On some chevauchée all men would be mounted for travel and dismount to fight (Poitiers is a good example). There were different types of horses for different roles too. Heavy destriers for the charge with lance to pack ponies to carry baggage. Some archers were specifically mounted too for skirmishing and scouting.

Other than that I can't think of anything else right now. Might have made a few mistakes as I have had a few beers tonight. Hope this helped.

[Irish King]

what william said, you just about nailed the High middle ages English army

[Watchman]

I note a severe shortage on discussing the men-at-arms though, which is curious given how important they were despite their (by period standards) small proportional numbers in period English armies. These guys were what most people think of as "knights" (who strictly speaking were actually MAAs with fancy titles; there was little practical difference between the two in military terms), well armed and armoured and highly trained for hand-to-hand combat both on foot and mounted. They were what formed the "hard outer crust" of English battlelines against which enemies were factually checked and broken (if things now *did* go that way), and the cutting edge of offensive actions.

Such high-end professionals were however commensurately expensive, especially for Continental campaigns (which the English waged with salaried armies), so kings and commanders by preference wielded only as many as they thought were really needed and made up for the lack of numbers above all with the excellent missile support they had in their archer corps (and lesser grades of heavy infantry to back the MAAs up in close combat).

There would also have been all kinds of light infantry and cavalry for diverse campaign and specialist battlefield tasks, but that's a somewhat obscure field I'm not very well versed in.

Also, some interesting reading.

[William the Bastard]

Such high-end professionals were however commensurately expensive

Professional is certainly the keyword. Armies of this kind hadn't really been seen since the fall of Rome. The notion of standing armies was also flowering alongside this professionalism in the form of retainers but wouldn't really take form until later on (especially in France where a standing defensive became especially necessary).

The expense of the armies is always quite interesting as in some ways they paid for themselves with booty/ransom. You just have to look at the nouveau riche the wars were creating in England to see a flow of wealth from campaigning. Only problem with that was that the monarchy lost some of it's power due to an extremely rich nobility. This is partly a cause for the Wars of the Roses later on.

Also, some interesting reading.

Book marked for when I have a little more time. Cheers.

[Manco]

Steel plate armour became more widespread over the period specified too. most infantry men of the late 13th Century wore mail but mail isn't particularly very good against arrow fire

Mail was afaik quite effective protection against arrows, especially considering late period mail was often triple layered.

There are descriptions of crusaders using such mail who after a battle looked like a porcupine with all the arrows sticking out, yet they were not seriously injured nor incapacitated and fully capable of fighting on.
I'd be careful with ascribing longbowmen too much impact on the battle field as well.

By comparing the longbow to the stealth bomber I meant it was ultra cutting edge technology that gave the English the edge over everyone else.

Except that it was hardly new, and used throughout Northern Europe. The difference is that the Welsh and later the English had a large pool of trained longbowmen, and actively promoted (even obligated) training in marksmanship.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

There are descriptions of crusaders using such mail who after a battle looked like a porcupine with all the arrows sticking out, yet they were not seriously injured nor incapacitated and fully capable of fighting on.

That description is from an account of the Battle of Arsuf and the soldiers in question were wearing gambesons - ie padded cloth jerkins, not mail.

[Manco]

That description is from an account of the Battle of Arsuf and the soldiers in question were wearing gambesons - ie padded cloth jerkins, not mail.

My mistake, had no idea gambesons were that effective protection though.

[René Artois]

Thanks for all of the info. I remember reading in a book that the Welsh Longbowmen were conscripted (i.e. a certain number from each village), was this true?

[William the Bastard]

Thanks for all of the info. I remember reading in a book that the Welsh Longbowmen were conscripted (i.e. a certain number from each village), was this true?

Couldn't tell you on that one. I would take a guess that some form of conscription may have been in place as the Welsh were a recently conquered people.

In saying that I would liken it a little to the Scots after Culloden and the clearances where an offer of work and pay/booty is an opportunity some won't want to miss out on. Going on campaign gave them a chance of progression whereas staying at home as a conquered non entity in your own country might not have been as appealing. Not to mention doing something you might be a good at eg Archery.

[René Artois]

Does anyone know what melee weapons Longbowmen would have had? I'm tempted to say knives or mallets but i'm not sure.

[René Artois]

What's AFAIK?

[Watchman]

"As Far As I Know" - pretty standard abbreviation in teh Internets, I would think.

[René Artois]

Welsh Longbow Conscripts (Welsh town unique unit, if possible)- Cheap low morale troops, due to conscription. Very good missile and very weak melee. (Can deploy stakes) (Longbow and knife)

Crossbowmen- High missile, medium morale, fair at melee, expensive but effective. (Crossbow and sword)

Crossbow Militia- Slightly lower missile than Crossbowmen (is it possible to reduce accuracy?), low morale, low melee (crossbow and mallet)

Retinue Longbowmen- Expensive, professional archers, excellent missile, fair at melee and good morale, armour upgrades into the other two periods. (can deploy stakes) (Longbow and sword)

Longbow Militia- Cheap, fair missile, low morale, low melee (Longbow and mallet)

Infantry

(No peasants as this was the time famed for proffesional armies)

Levy Spearmen-

Town Militia-

Bill Militia-

Billmen-

English Men-at-Arms-

Dismounted English Knights-

Cavalry

Hobilars-

Mounted English Men-at-Arms-

English Knights-

Generals Bodyguard-

Is this a realistic unit roster for England 1300-1375?

[Watchman]

Pretty sure that's a neg. Or in any case the list is *severely* faulty on several points.

[René Artois]

Pretty sure that's a neg. Or in any case the list is *severely* faulty on several points.

Which points?

[Watchman]

Well for starters the longbowmen were peasantry. And what has been said concerning the sidearms of the missile troops.

[Helm]

On paper the longbow was still the better weapon. With the disadvantage that it took a lifetime to learn how to use one.

"Range - The longbow was capable of penetrating an inch of solid oak at a range of 200m, and could be accuratey fired at this range. At 100m it wa able to penetrate plate armour. If fired in large volleys, it was capable of providing a huge amount of suppressive fire out to 400m. The musket on the other hand could not be fired accurately at ranges in excess of 50m. Even volley fire at even slightly longer ranges was fairly useless.

Rate of fire - A trained archer with a longbow could fire around 12 accurate arrows per minute. The British infantryman armed with a musket was capable of 3-4 rounds per minute, with the french firing 2-3 rounds per minute.

Training - the longbow took a lifetime to learn. As soon as a child was old enough to lift a small bow, he was expected to train to use it. It required huge amounts of upper body strength to draw the bow to a useful reach. The musket however could be taught in a few weeks."

And it seems the French sucked but that's nothing new.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

On paper the longbow was still the better weapon. With the disadvantage that it took a lifetime to learn how to use one.

"Range - The longbow was capable of penetrating an inch of solid oak at a range of 200m, and could be accuratey fired at this range. At 100m it wa able to penetrate plate armour. If fired in large volleys, it was capable of providing a huge amount of suppressive fire out to 400m. The musket on the other hand could not be fired accurately at ranges in excess of 50m. Even volley fire at even slightly longer ranges was fairly useless.

Rate of fire - A trained archer with a longbow could fire around 12 accurate arrows per minute. The British infantryman armed with a musket was capable of 3-4 rounds per minute, with the french firing 2-3 rounds per minute.

Training - the longbow took a lifetime to learn. As soon as a child was old enough to lift a small bow, he was expected to train to use it. It required huge amounts of upper body strength to draw the bow to a useful reach. The musket however could be taught in a few weeks."

Yeah, trust me mate, I've been following the longbow vs. musket debates for a few years now and I've heard all you're telling me. It just doesn't stand up to evidence. Tests performed with replica 16th c. longbows and ECW muskets proved that the muskets produced 100 times more kinetic energy than the arrows. Similar tests in the Graz armouries on original firearms confirmed this.

This explains why the Scots were impervious to English arrows at Flodden Field whereas the French were blown out of the water at Bicocca: the longbows simply couldn't penetrate the armour. And in fact, it has been shown that by the end of the development of firearms, a suit of armour "proofed" against muskets would have been heavy enough to kill the wearer.

Your argument on ROF is offset by the fact that ammunition is hard to come by, and that the longbowmen cannot maintain the optimum rate of fire you describe indefinitely.

Then comes the icing on the cake, the ultimate longbow fanboy argument: it took a lifetime of training with a sensei on a mountain, and therefore, young grasshopper, the gaijin barbarians with their guns trained in 30 minutes have overwhelmed us.

Bollocks. In fact, the use of muskets led to more training, not less. More drilling was necessary, and soldiers grew to greater standards of professionalism.

Furthermore, you have utterly failed to address one point I made:

The states of modern Europe *bankrupted* themselves equipping their armies with firearms. In fact, the military revolution led to military spending becoming a gianormous part of domestic spending, effectively costing states the equivalent of trillions of pounds.

Why on Earth did the European states choose to bankrupt themselves in order to become somehow "less effective"?

Why on Earth did casualty rates triple?

Why on Earth did the Scots reach the English lines at Flodden Field unharmed?