English Horse Archers?

[MikeNice808]

Stop playing...there are no such things as English horse archers...english muffins yes....english horse archers no...stop stealing everything from the Ukrainians!!! Damn...

[Nzg]

stop stealing everything from the Ukrainians!!! Damn...

Well, that's interesting considering there was no such country as Ukraine in medieval times

I can believe in english mouted archers, but not english mounted logbowmen. It's possible that mounted archers were used in medieval England, but longbow is another thing.

On the topic of mounted infantry: do you seriously believe it would be efficient to ridie to a designated point, unmount, place yourself, attack? When orders come, mount, ride, repeat? Not considering the risks of beeing overrun during the change of placement, think about the real effectivness of such actions. The actual time spent on changing the position etc. would be uneffective in battle.

[Dantman40]

When an all cavalry army marches, it still has a bagage train. We are not talking about performing these manuvers 300 yards from the enemy line, during the battle, but before the battle. Although in the 17th and 18th centuries, dragoons did just that. The idea is to create a more balanced mixed arms force, but one that can move faster and further than a force encumbered by slow moving infantry. Like the all cavalry stacks we create in the game, that can move deep into enemy territory, or react quickly to a threat.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Stop playing...there are no such things as English horse archers...english muffins yes....english horse archers no...stop stealing everything from the Ukrainians!!! Damn...

I would happily go along with the English muffins.

No for $100 a litre I would not ride a car unless I was stinking rich - and if my car was worth anything I would leave it safely at a parking lot just before picking a fight with someone.

Since only two of us are archers, let's look at this in a mathematical way: If someone spent years to learn to use a longbow, then spent another few years to learn to ride a war horse, maybe even a few years to train it, unless that was all they did with their lives, and even then, they'd be too few of them to fight that way or too old to fight when the time came. The Scythians, etc lived on horseback all their lives, they never got off a horse unless they really had to.

[lax15]

Well I never thought I would start a rage war on the forum but here we are. I did a little more research into the matter and it seems that that the mounted archers in an open battle would dismount and fight alongside the foot knights. So in this case, the mounted archer was indeed more of a scouting force and one used to keep up with the mounted knights so they could deploy quickly. However, there is some evidence in paintings from the time of the Hundred Years War from the Battle of Blanchetaque, when the English crossed the Somme under fire from Genoese Crossbows, that the mounted archers stayed mounted and fended off the crossbows and the militia on the other side of the river.

[Used2BRoz]

Unless someone can provide a single historical example of English longbowmen actually using their longbows in a battle whilst on horseback, I think we can safely assume that the term mounted longbowmen simply refers to the fact that some longbowmen were wealthy enough as yeoman farmers, to provide themselves with a horse whilst on campaign. They dismounted to use their longbows. They could be used as light cavalry for scouting purposes and for running down routing troops.

[+Marius+]

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.

You cannot aim a 100 pound longbow?
Cannot fire a recurve longbow from a saddle?

Longbows reached from 80 to 135 pounds of draw weight in their top notch and were fired with extreme precision in both battles and sieges, both firing at groups and individuals.
You are not an archer.

http://www.theborderers.info/riderswithbows.jpg
These men, however...are.

Stop playing...there are no such things as English horse archers...english muffins yes....english horse archers no...stop stealing everything from the Ukrainians!!! Damn...

What the actual does Ukraine have to do with this thread?

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

Debunked?
Where? By whom?
Did you do it in your own imagination land or?
Cite the historical research that proves your point or your arguments are invalid.

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.

Dragoon style?
Holy mother of God.

When an all cavalry army marches, it still has a bagage train. We are not talking about performing these manuvers 300 yards from the enemy line, during the battle, but before the battle. Although in the 17th and 18th centuries, dragoons did just that. The idea is to create a more balanced mixed arms force, but one that can move faster and further than a force encumbered by slow moving infantry. Like the all cavalry stacks we create in the game, that can move deep into enemy territory, or react quickly to a threat.

You are jumping centuries across the timeline in a desperate attempt to hide that you know nothing about the subject and that you are just talking from the wrong orifice, and yet even then you fail to hide that you do not know anything since everything you just said is completely wrong.

More books, less movies and video games will fix your problem of not knowing anything about history and yet having a very high opinion about your own authority when it comes to historical knowledge.

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.

I have had enough of you amateurs not even having the decency of googleing stuff before you post textual garbage;

"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."

They had 7000 longbowmen and an ADDITIONAL 3,250 mounted archers and hobelars that had nothing to do with the already existing longbow corpse on foot. This is very well historically documented and just because you have not seen it in hollywood movies or video games does not make it a lie for f(l)ucking sakes.

"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."

1. You never drew a longbow in your life, I have 2 of my own.
2. Longbows came in different sizes, strength and shapes

Unless someone can provide a single historical example of English longbowmen actually using their longbows in a battle whilst on horseback, I think we can safely assume that the term mounted longbowmen simply refers to the fact that some longbowmen were wealthy enough as yeoman farmers, to provide themselves with a horse whilst on campaign. They dismounted to use their longbows. They could be used as light cavalry for scouting purposes and for running down routing troops.

Why? Why would they pay such a high upkeep for a horse and risk it dying on the march on in battle if they would just use it so they don't have to walk around on foot?!
WHY?


This is my last response here regarding all arguments that do not bring a valid standpoint or a citation that could bring about an actual humane conversation.
I will not respond to people that draw historical knowledge and conclusions out of their own ass.

No hard feelings,
good day.

[Dantman40]

You cannot aim a 100 pound longbow?
Cannot fire a recurve longbow from a saddle?

Longbows reached from 80 to 135 pounds of draw weight in their top notch and were fired with extreme precision in both battles and sieges, both firing at groups and individuals.
You are not an archer.

http://www.theborderers.info/riderswithbows.jpg
These men, however...are.



What the actual does Ukraine have to do with this thread?



Debunked?
Where? By whom?
Did you do it in your own imagination land or?
Cite the historical research that proves your point or your arguments are invalid.




Dragoon style?
Holy mother of God.





You are jumping centuries across the timeline in a desperate attempt to hide that you know nothing about the subject and that you are just talking from the wrong orifice, and yet even then you fail to hide that you do not know anything since everything you just said is completely wrong.

More books, less movies and video games will fix your problem of not knowing anything about history and yet having a very high opinion about your own authority when it comes to historical knowledge.

I have had enough of you amateurs not even having the decency of googleing stuff before you post textual garbage;

"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."

They had 7000 longbowmen and an ADDITIONAL 3,250 mounted archers and hobelars that had nothing to do with the already existing longbow corpse on foot. This is very well historically documented and just because you have not seen it in hollywood movies or video games does not make it a lie for f(l)ucking sakes.

"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."

1. You never drew a longbow in your life, I have 2 of my own.
2. Longbows came in different sizes, strength and shapes



Why? Why would they pay such a high upkeep for a horse and risk it dying on the march on in battle if they would just use it so they don't have to walk around on foot?!
WHY?

This is my last response here regarding all arguments that do not bring a valid standpoint or a citation that could bring about an actual humane conversation.
I will not respond to people that draw historical knowledge and conclusions out of their own ass.

No hard feelings,
good day.

This tells us all we have to know. Someone whose "Points" are based on personal attacks has said everything they need to about the validity of their position, beleifs, and knowledge. It must be nice to know everything.

[Navajo Joe]

Marius,

Firstly as SS Forum Moderator, TW T.O.S is that you can attack a post, but not a poster and also that should not be using bad language, please refrain from this in future.

I am indeed an archer, have been for 4 years shooting with a recurve bow, I do field archery not targets. I do not have a Longbow,perhaps one day.

I had a long discussion with a Longbowman at Warwick Castle at a medieval fair, he is a member of English Warbow Society, his words were that you cannot aim at an individual as its too powerful to keep still. Therefore, all they did was fire into a mass of oncoming foes.

I have watched may historical documentaries, never ever as a reference been made horse archers, as I am sure you know that the English army by the 14th/15th century focused on Infantry and Archers, i.e The Battle of Pilleth 1402. Why did the English dispense with Cavarly, simply the Welsh shot the horses from under them.

[+Marius+]

Marius,

Firstly as SS Forum Moderator, TW T.O.S is that you can attack a post, but not a poster and also that should not be using bad language, please refrain from this in future.

Meh, I had a bad day

Won't happen again.

I am indeed an archer, have been for 4 years shooting with a recurve bow, I do field archery not targets. I do not have a Longbow,perhaps one day.
I had a long discussion with a Longbowman at Warwick Castle at a medieval fair, he is a member of English Warbow Society, his words were that you cannot aim at an individual as its too powerful to keep still. Therefore, all they did was fire into a mass of oncoming foes.

All this tells me is that the archer you spoke to has a weak body so he told you his personal experience with the bow.
Aiming with a longbow(my second one is 135 pounds draw weight) is extremely easy if you have a strong set of muscles(I personally am a sturdy balkan build 190 cm height and 98kg weight), let alone if you trained archery since your childhood which was commonplace at the time.

Sorry, but not being in the possibility of aiming a bow that the Welsh invented for skirmishing and ambush seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I have watched may historical documentaries, never ever as a reference been made horse archers, as I am sure you know that the English army by the 14th/15th century focused on Infantry and Archers, i.e The Battle of Pilleth 1402. Why did the English dispense with Cavarly, simply the Welsh shot the horses from under them.

It is because they never played a decisive role in any battle...
...and because documentaries are for the most part complete rubbish run by extremely knowledgeable and intelligent historians that know absolutely nothing about weapons, armor and warfare, have never held anything heavier than their own coat and should stick to analyzing renaissance poems and Avarian underwear fabric.

[lax15]

@Navajo Joe,
Check out Weapons that Made Britain: Longbow. Its on youtube and horse archers are mentioned several times.

[sixwings]

If they didn't play a decisive role in ANY battle... what conclusions can you draw from that?

[Used2BRoz]

Why? Why would they pay such a high upkeep for a horse and risk it dying on the march on in battle if they would just use it so they don't have to walk around on foot?!
WHY?

If it was there own horse they'd have to pay the upkeep anyway.
Given a choice most people would rather ride than walk.
They were often mustered as mounted longbowmen - eg : in 1480-81the City of York mustered 120 mounted longbowmen for the Scottish campaign, reduced to 100 for the 1482 campaign.
Clive Bartlett "The English Longbowman 1330-1515" p.5 (accessed via Google Books)
In battle when fighting dismounted, the horses would be lead away to the rear to be kept away from harm.

[+Marius+]

My argument was not that they never fought on foot, but that they also fought while on horseback.

If it was there own horse they'd have to pay the upkeep anyway.

Um...yeah, so why not actually use the horse's potential in battle instead of just using it to slowly gallop along a moving army?

Given a choice most people would rather ride than walk.

If a liter of gas for your car costed 100$, would you walk or ride?
If there was a high risk of that car, owned and payed by you, being destroyed because of a wide variety of silly and often occurring reasons, would you ride or walk?

Seems like to me they must have had a more important reason to be mounted than pure lazyness.
Either that or I am just missing something in this strange picture.

[Dantman40]

Originally posted by Marius Marich

My argument was not that they never fought on foot, but that they also fought while on horseback.

Um...yeah, so why not actually use the horse's potential in battle instead of just using it to slowly gallop along a moving army?

When you use a horse to provide strategic or tactical mobility, you ARE using its potential. Especially when something important is to be gained by being able to move with the cavalry, not just the infantry.

If a liter of gas for your car costed 100$, would you walk or ride?

When the outcome of a battle, and more importantly your very life depend on it, it is not the time to pinch pennies.

If there was a high risk of that car, owned and payed by you, being destroyed because of a wide variety of silly and often occurring reasons, would you ride or walk?

Then why risk the pack horses, the wagon horse, or even the War horses? For that matter why bring your expensive armor to battle? After all, it could be damaged. Obviously, common sense says that resources are useless unless you actually use them. They all serve an important purpose, and anything in a War zone is faced with risks.

Seems like to me they must have had a more important reason to be mounted than pure lazyness.

Mobility is not laziness, it is a Military asset. Do you think modern armies move troops in vehicles out of "laziness"?

Either that or I am just missing something in this strange picture.

You might consider trying manners and respect.

[InsaneAbacus]

Not every horse is usable for a hour(s) lasting fight or any fight at all. I ve read the noblemen had severals; horses to ride around and horses to figh in battle. I dont guess longbow archers could afford more as one.

[+Marius+]

No for $100 a litre I would not ride a car unless I was stinking rich - and if my car was worth anything I would leave it safely at a parking lot just before picking a fight with someone.

Sigh,
im not getting through to you am I?
What I was saying is that the upkeep for the horse is very high considering the low payment that he is getting, which is 8-9 pennies a day for a mounted longbowman.
That is the reason why I believe that the horses alongside their longbow riders were also used in battle for various purposes.
Its just to expensive to be a motive for transportation if the longbowman cannot exceed the movement of the regular infantry that is vital for his protection.
It makes no sense to me because they could have just walked and end up with a third or even half amount of money more that when paying an upkeep for a horse, which is a lot of money for a chap like that.

When you use a horse to provide strategic or tactical mobility, you ARE using its potential. Especially when something important is to be gained by being able to move with the cavalry, not just the infantry.

Strategic or tactical mobility?

This isn't battlefield 4.

They cannot remove themselves from the shadow of the infantry line because they will be massacred if they do, so tell me...what strategic or tactical mobility are you talking about?
Please give us a single mention of mounted longbowmen moving with the cavalry in formation and then dismounting...that makes literally 0 sense.

When the outcome of a battle, and more importantly your very life depend on it, it is not the time to pinch pennies.
Then why risk the pack horses, the wagon horse, or even the War horses? For that matter why bring your expensive armor to battle? After all, it could be damaged. Obviously, common sense says that resources are useless unless you actually use them. They all serve an important purpose, and anything in a War zone is faced with risks.
Mobility is not laziness, it is a Military asset. Do you think modern armies move troops in vehicles out of "laziness"?

Read some of these;

http://www.amazon.com/European-Medie...dieval+tactics
http://www.amazon.com/The-Medieval-W...dieval+tactics
http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warfa...dieval+tactics
http://www.amazon.com/Longbowmens-Ma...rds=longbowmen
http://www.amazon.com/English-Longbo...rds=longbowmen
http://www.amazon.com/Forces-Hanseat...entury+warfare

then get back to me,
this is pointless.

Sorry for being dick earlier.
Cheers

[YourStepDad]

I just stumbled upon this thread by sheer accident, and have decided to read it all purely out of having nothing better to do. I have to say - regardless of whether what you claim about mounted longbowmen is true or not, and whether others are in the wrong, Marius Marich, you get your opinions across in a very nasty way. Devaluating opinions of others with anything but evidence and counter arguments is not how you debate.

As someone on this thread has stated once already - learn some manners.

[Navajo Joe]

Thread closed, its ran its course, its now heading in a negative direction