English Horse Archers?

[lax15]

I heard somewhere that the English had horse archers (at least by the 13th and 14th centuries) and were quite important in the days before the Battle of Crecy especially when trying to stave off attack when crossing a river. If were important parts of the English army how come they don't make an appearance in SS or any other mod that I've seen?

[MikeNice808]

Never have...never will be...unless that ugly ass K/T and his hamster loving friend disagree...but buck em till they dead...ridah oh dihah if ye yendustanye ye old yingleish...

[Basileus of Byzantium]

I don't believe they ever had horse archers. Think about how the English made their bows; the English Long Bow is almost the size of a full grown man and it wouldn't be practical to carry such a huge bow on horseback unless you're Japanese cause for some reason they were able to make use of long bows on horseback . Smaller bows could work but wouldn't be as effective as an eastern composite bow or a crossbow and horse archers can easily be countered by massed infantry volleys. Also I'm not an expert on English or Western European terrain but I'm pretty sure they didn't have large flat plains. The English were situated in an area that didn't require them to have horse archers in order to effectively fight or counter their enemies. Also what's with the hate against K/T?

[Dantman40]

I am pretty sure that the English did experiment with mounted longbowmen, largely to be able to keep up with and support Cavalry forces. But they were mounted infantry who fought on foot.

The only reason that the Japanese were able to use long bows from horseback is that they used bows with asymetrical limbs. The top half of the bow was much longer than the lower half. This created its own set of problems, throwing off the draw and point of aim. This required much extra training to compensate, and limited the power and effective range. Japanese bows were short range weapons compared to European and Middle Eastern Bows.

[Basileus of Byzantium]

Actually nevermind. I did some more specific searching on google and I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcpHB-flwJQ
So English mounted Longbowmen may not be outside the realm of possibility. Still it doesn't seem like they were used all that often.

[+Marius+]

Never have...never will be...unless that ugly ass K/T and his hamster loving friend disagree...but buck em till they dead...ridah oh dihah if ye yendustanye ye old yingleish...

I don't believe they ever had horse archers. Think about how the English made their bows; the English Long Bow is almost the size of a full grown man and it wouldn't be practical to carry such a huge bow on horseback unless you're Japanese cause for some reason they were able to make use of long bows on horseback . Smaller bows could work but wouldn't be as effective as an eastern composite bow or a crossbow and horse archers can easily be countered by massed infantry volleys. Also I'm not an expert on English or Western European terrain but I'm pretty sure they didn't have large flat plains. The English were situated in an area that didn't require them to have horse archers in order to effectively fight or counter their enemies. Also what's with the hate against K/T?

If you don't know anything about a subject in history, don't discuss it then or even argue since your arguments will be based only on your opinions which are for the most part(everyone's opinions, including mine) complete .

The English had mounted archers and they had thousands of them, in the battle of Crecy they had 3,250 mounted archers and hobilars and out of those 3250 about 2400-2600 were mounted archers(longbowmen).

You can shoot a longbow from horseback easily if you learn the skill, you just need to use it in a different way than the composite bow(they used a recurve version of the longbow), example use it slightly sideways when shooting frontally...aaaand thats pretty much it since using it any other way is exactly the same as with the composite bow since drawing it sideways or in the Parthian shot will not intrude on the horse in any way

[Dantman40]

If you don't know anything about a subject in history, don't discuss it then or even argue since your arguments will be based only on your opinions which are for the most part(everyone's opinions, including mine) complete .

The English had mounted archers and they had thousands of them, in the battle of Crecy they had 3,250 mounted archers and hobilars and out of those 3250 about 2400-2600 were mounted archers(longbowmen).

You can shoot a longbow from horseback easily if you learn the skill, you just need to use it in a different way than the composite bow(they used a recurve version of the longbow), example use it slightly sideways when shooting frontally...aaaand thats pretty much it since using it any other way is exactly the same as with the composite bow since drawing it sideways or in the Parthian shot will not intrude on the horse in any way

So Medieval England was in fact a Horse Archer based Military, like the Mongols, Huns, Parthians, or Sarmatians? Wow, that is amazing. Even more so that every Historian in the World has managed to completely miss this Phenomena. Or is involved in a massive conspiracy to cover it up. Please, share with us the true stories of the Medieval English Armies Steppe Horse Archer tactics. Refer us to the accounts of the victories won by Englands Hun and Mongol like forces. I am sure they were able to teach the Magyars and Turks how it was REALLY done.

[lax15]

Obviously that isn't the point we are trying to make. The point is that England did have men who were competent with this skill and perhaps it would make for a more accurate army composition if there was a unit to represent this part of their army. Nothing was ever said that it was the basis for their army or that they could field tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of horse archers as the empires that you mention. They were probably used as scouts with the added bonus of possibly being used as skirmishers.

[Dantman40]

Obviously that isn't the point we are trying to make. The point is that England did have men who were competent with this skill and perhaps it would make for a more accurate army composition if there was a unit to represent this part of their army. Nothing was ever said that it was the basis for their army or that they could field tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of horse archers as the empires that you mention. They were probably used as scouts with the added bonus of possibly being used as skirmishers.

You are right that the English mounted some Longbowmen. Since the original Post I have looked it up more, and I was right that they were mounted infantry, intended to keep up with cavalry forces on a strategic level. The poster I have made fun of does seem to be implying that these troops were akin to Steppe horse archers. And is attempting to support this beleif.

[Dantman40]

If you don't know anything about a subject in history, don't discuss it then or even argue since your arguments will be based only on your opinions which are for the most part(everyone's opinions, including mine) complete .

The English had mounted archers and they had thousands of them, in the battle of Crecy they had 3,250 mounted archers and hobilars and out of those 3250 about 2400-2600 were mounted archers(longbowmen).

You can shoot a longbow from horseback easily if you learn the skill, you just need to use it in a different way than the composite bow(they used a recurve version of the longbow), example use it slightly sideways when shooting frontally...aaaand thats pretty much it since using it any other way is exactly the same as with the composite bow since drawing it sideways or in the Parthian shot will not intrude on the horse in any way

Are you telling us that 2400 to 2600 mounted archers fought MOUNTED at the battle of Crecy? The English longbowmen of the Hundred Years War were Cavalry units? That actually engaged in battle and shot their arrows from horseback? All of the desciptions of Longbowmen on foot, in wedge formations behind rows of planted stakes, are false? Because they were actually on horseback while they fought?

Or maybe they rode to the battlefield, and then dismounted to fight. That would have made them Mounted Infantry. Who could keep up with the cavalry on the Strategic level.

The idea of mounted infantry was exclusive to the minds of Charles Martel and charlemagne, and was incomprehensible to anyone else? Oh, wait a minute, for some reason it was impossible for a man of the 14th. or 15th century to get on or off of a horse, and the idea certainly could not have occurred to them.

And if a man had the added cabability of mobility, by means of owning a horse, common sense says that would make him more valuable than a strictly foot bound soldier. He IS useing his horse to get to battle, as a cavalry support unit. Which would easily cover the expense. I beleive most of their horses would be captured plunder anyway. I have never watched the Youtube clip you are refering to, so I have no idea what conclusions you are referring to.

[Duck of Death]

The English had mounted archers and they had thousands of them, in the battle of Crecy they had 3,250 mounted archers and hobilars and out of those 3250 about 2400-2600 were mounted archers(longbowmen).You can shoot a longbow from horseback easily if you learn the skill, you just need to use it in a different way than the composite bow(they used a recurve version of the longbow), example use it slightly sideways when shooting frontally...aaaand thats pretty much it since using it any other way is exactly the same as with the composite bow since drawing it sideways or in the Parthian shot will not intrude on the horse in any way

No.This is wrong.England (back in those times) never had 2400 horse archers, let alone all in the same battle.Maybe out of 2400 archers, 5-10 of them had imported recurves or crossbows or something their rich daddys bought them.And you cant fire a longbow from horseback with any kind of power. Drawing it sideways, you can only draw it to under your armpit... thats not even to the chest... thats why the eastern horse archers made their bows smaller.If youve seen a longbow fired properly, they draw it back right to their nose (sometimes even further). Trying that from a horse (with a bow thats 6 feet long) is rediculously impractical. They might as well just throw their bows at the enemy.

[lax15]

As I said, they usually dismount for battle but at the Battle of Blanchetaque they remained mounted and drove off the Genoese Crossbows that were making pincushions out of the English who were almost chest deep in the river. Go to google images and type in "Battle of Blanchetaque" and look at the third image.

[lax15]

Ok so someone is seeing the same thing that I am haha. I think it would be a really interesting addition to the English roster especially considering the lack of horse archers in Western Europe.

[stevietheconquer]

first time i heard about england is specialist with horsearchers,like they got more horses then france,crazy.

[Dantman40]

I heard somewhere that the English had horse archers (at least by the 13th and 14th centuries) and were quite important in the days before the Battle of Crecy especially when trying to stave off attack when crossing a river. If were important parts of the English army how come they don't make an appearance in SS or any other mod that I've seen?

I would think that it is because the game engine does not allow for dismounting mounted units. I suppose one might try something like having the unit be cavalry on the strategic map but then appear as an infantry unit on the battle map. At least it would allow them to move with the cavalry, as they were historicaly. It would be limiting on the battle map.

[+Marius+]

So Medieval England was in fact a Horse Archer based Military, like the Mongols, Huns, Parthians, or Sarmatians? Wow, that is amazing. Even more so that every Historian in the World has managed to completely miss this Phenomena. Or is involved in a massive conspiracy to cover it up. Please, share with us the true stories of the Medieval English Armies Steppe Horse Archer tactics. Refer us to the accounts of the victories won by Englands Hun and Mongol like forces. I am sure they were able to teach the Magyars and Turks how it was REALLY done.

Um, nowhere in my post did i even mentioned the word "steppe" let alone compare the English to the horse archers of the eastern steppes.
Actually, i did not even compare them to anything, or even descriptively comment on them in any way or regard.
What is wrong with you?

I merely stated that they did have mounted longbowmen, not only that, but they had a huge number of them considering their entire longbow corpse never exceeded 10000 and yet we have numbers of 1500-2500 of them on horse back which is a significant percentage.

You are right that the English mounted some Longbowmen. Since the original Post I have looked it up more, and I was right that they were mounted infantry, intended to keep up with cavalry forces on a strategic level. The poster I have made fun of does seem to be implying that these troops were akin to Steppe horse archers. And is attempting to support this beleif.

Oh, now i realize from where you draw your conclusions;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTn7xtVsE6U




Mounted infantry?
In the 14th-15th century?
What have you been smoking? Or have the armies of the Martels and Charlemagne found a way to time travel and reintroduce that concept to their island brethren?

Why on earth would a longbowman with a pay of six(probably slightly more for the mounted folk) pennies a day spend loads of income on upkeeping his horse if he will not use it in battle? Did they all have bad knees from college football so they had to get an easier way of transportation?

[+Marius+]

Are you telling us that 2400 to 2600 mounted archers fought MOUNTED at the battle of Crecy? The English longbowmen of the Hundred Years War were Cavalry units? That actually engaged in battle and shot their arrows from horseback? All of the desciptions of Longbowmen on foot, in wedge formations behind rows of planted stakes, are false? Because they were actually on horseback while they fought?

Or maybe they rode to the battlefield, and then dismounted to fight. That would have made them Mounted Infantry. Who could keep up with the cavalry on the Strategic level.

The idea of mounted infantry was exclusive to the minds of Charles Martel and charlemagne, and was incomprehensible to anyone else? Oh, wait a minute, for some reason it was impossible for a man of the 14th. or 15th century to get on or off of a horse, and the idea certainly could not have occurred to them.

And if a man had the added cabability of mobility, by means of owning a horse, common sense says that would make him more valuable than a strictly foot bound soldier. He IS useing his horse to get to battle, as a cavalry support unit. Which would easily cover the expense. I beleive most of their horses would be captured plunder anyway. I have never watched the Youtube clip you are refering to, so I have no idea what conclusions you are referring to.

I am not telling you, I am merely stating a few historical facts.

For your information;
http://historyplanet.files.wordpress...nche-taque.jpg

like 3 seconds of googleing.

Even the bloody Normans had horse archers;
http://asianmil.typepad.com/.a/6a00d...1f86246970b-pi

On the mounted infantry;

The charging lance was not invented until the 11th-12th century so cavalry did not have shock value before that and was used mainly for skirmishing and trampling scattered units.
Because of that the usage of mounted infantry was common at the time since well equipped soldiers were far better trained in fighting as a cohesive infantry unit then a cavalry unit(including the nobles).
This of course, completely ended once the charging knights took the lance as their primary weapon and cavalry tactics improved to include anyone that could afford a horse.
Because of that, all soldiers that were on horseback were used almost exclusively as cavalry units unless the battle situation required the complete dismounting and fighting on foot.
Thus, the usage of mounted infantry was obsolete and useless since a mounted soldier could be far more useful considering the improvements in cavalry usage on the battlefield.


"That would have made them Mounted Infantry. Who could keep up with the cavalry on the Strategic level."

What does this even mean?
What strategic level?
The cavalry moved alongside the infantry right until the charge that lasted about 20-40 seconds until they bashed into the enemy line, what use would longbowmen be following around a cavalry unit that can charge an enemy before the archers can even dismount and prepare to fire a single volley?
Who would guard the 1000-2000 horses while the longbowmen dismount and fire?
Would they just leave them to run around?
Why would they even risk their horses to enemy fire or even a cavalry charge?
If you even think of the argument that they dismounted before the battle, then why in the name of God wouldn't they just go on foot like the rest of the gang and save about half their income?

Im not saying that they did not fight on foot, surely they dismounted when the situation required them to, however, i believe that it is complete rubbish to remove all chances of them being used as complete mounted archer cavalry since we have many accounts of them being used in such manner.

[Dantman40]

I am not telling you, I am merely stating a few historical facts.

For your information;
http://historyplanet.files.wordpress...nche-taque.jpg

Medieval illustrations were often known for gross inaccuracies. They wereusually done by artists with no first hand knowledge of their subject.

like 3 seconds of googleing.

Even the bloody Normans had horse archers;
http://asianmil.typepad.com/.a/6a00d...1f86246970b-pi

Even if illustration is accurate, the Normans used Norse style wooden short bows, not long bows.

On the mounted infantry;

The charging lance was not invented until the 11th-12th century so cavalry did not have shock value before that and was used mainly for skirmishing and trampling scattered units.
Because of that the usage of mounted infantry was common at the time since well equipped soldiers were far better trained in fighting as a cohesive infantry unit then a cavalry unit(including the nobles).
This of course, completely ended once the charging knights took the lance as their primary weapon and cavalry tactics improved to include anyone that could afford a horse.
Because of that, all soldiers that were on horseback were used almost exclusively as cavalry units unless the battle situation required the complete dismounting and fighting on foot.
Thus, the usage of mounted infantry was obsolete and useless since a mounted soldier could be far more useful considering the improvements in cavalry usage on the battlefield.


"That would have made them Mounted Infantry. Who could keep up with the cavalry on the Strategic level."

What does this even mean?
What strategic level?
The cavalry moved alongside the infantry right until the charge that lasted about 20-40 seconds until they bashed into the enemy line, what use would longbowmen be following around a cavalry unit that can charge an enemy before the archers can even dismount and prepare to fire a single volley?
Who would guard the 1000-2000 horses while the longbowmen dismount and fire?
Would they just leave them to run around?

In the Game we create all cavalry armies so they can move faster and further on the Campaign map. This corresponds to reality, where all cavalry armies moved faster and farther than armies slowed by the presence of infantry, raiding or seizing important locations. That is the "Strategic" level.

Why would they even risk their horses to enemy fire or even a cavalry charge?
If you even think of the argument that they dismounted before the battle, then why in the name of God wouldn't they just go on foot like the rest of the gang and save about half their income?

Because they were part of the "Strategic" fast moving mounted forces.

Im not saying that they did not fight on foot, surely they dismounted when the situation required them to, however, i believe that it is complete rubbish to remove all chances of them being used as complete mounted archer cavalry since we have many accounts of them being used in such manner.

They could not have been used as mounted archer cavalry because the use of the longbow from horseback has been repeatedly debunked. Dragoon style mounted infantry is the only realistic option.

[Navajo Joe]

An interesting debate going on here gentleman, I have been on SS for six years shortly and the English Longbow has been debated many times. I am an Archer, is it not possible that each archer would have more than one bow. Bows do suffer from stress eventually and will break. If they had ridden, the horses would be left with the baggage train. Another key point is the draw weight of circa 100 pounds, means that you cannot aim a Longbow, you fire the arrow into a mass of foes, some arrows will hit, others will miss. I cannot see how a Longbow can be fired from the saddle, they are too big and powerful and placing the arrow would be difficult.

[Dantman40]

An interesting debate going on here gentleman, I have been on SS for six years shortly and the English Longbow has been debated many times. I am an Archer, is it not possible that each archer would have more than one bow. Bows do suffer from stress eventually and will break. If they had ridden, the horses would be left with the baggage train. Another key point is the draw weight of circa 100 pounds, means that you cannot aim a Longbow, you fire the arrow into a mass of foes, some arrows will hit, others will miss. I cannot see how a Longbow can be fired from the saddle, they are too big and powerful and placing the arrow would be difficult.

Exactly. Countless times the notion that Longbows can be used from horseback has been debunked.