The Longbow is over-rated
I read most of the book, “The Crooked Stock” by D H Soar. The book is about the history of the longbow. The English longbow which helped English armies win spectacular victories against more numerous French knights has a ardent following in the English speaking world and is viewed with pride by the English. The author obviously loves his subject and even devoted several paragraphs discussing whether it was the English or the Welsh who invented the longbow.
This struck me as a little silly because the longbow is just a bow that is extra long. The bow has been around since at least Paleolithic times and nobody knows who invented the bow. As the book said, the bow used by the Vikings had a draw weight of about 50 to 60 pounds. This was adequate for hunting and for war. At that time, the typical armor consisted of a helmet and shield.
But as armor improved, so must the power of the bow. Thus in an ancient arms race between armorers and bowyers, the bow grew more powerful and hence longer. By the time of the Hundred Years' War, the bow grew to a length of six feet and hence was called the longbow.
Personally, I think the longbow is over-rated. Firstly, it was really outdated technology even by the standards of the time. The Romans, Huns, Mongols and others used the Composite bow centuries earlier. The composite bow is a lamination of different materials to take advantage of the different tensile and compressive strength of each material. Inch for inch of bow height, the Composite bow was more powerful. This allowed the Composite bow to be used on horseback since it was shorter.
Though English archers rode to battle on horses, they had to dismount to shoot their arrows. The Mongol warrior had to shoot on a horse galloping at 40 miles per hour. This required greater skill than shooting with two feet planted on the ground. Though the draw-weights of both both bows were comparable, the Mongol bow could shoot much further. The range of the Mongol bow was about 300 to 350 yards while the English longbow was about 200 to 250 yards.
This is because the reflex/recurved design of the Mongol bow allows the bow to store more energy and is able to convert that potential energy more efficiently to kinetic energy in the arrow. Had the two armies met, I think the Mongol bow would have won the day. All they had to do would be to stay out of range of the English long bowmen and rained arrows on them.
While the longbow was rightfully credited for defeating larger French armies at Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415), the long bowmen were defeated at Patay (1429), Formigny (1450) and Castilon (1453).
Thus the longbow dominated the battlefield for less than a hundred years. The French by the time that Patay was fought had learned to counter the English archers and ultimately won the Hundred Years' War.
This struck me as a little silly because the longbow is just a bow that is extra long. The bow has been around since at least Paleolithic times and nobody knows who invented the bow. As the book said, the bow used by the Vikings had a draw weight of about 50 to 60 pounds. This was adequate for hunting and for war. At that time, the typical armor consisted of a helmet and shield.
But as armor improved, so must the power of the bow. Thus in an ancient arms race between armorers and bowyers, the bow grew more powerful and hence longer. By the time of the Hundred Years' War, the bow grew to a length of six feet and hence was called the longbow.
Personally, I think the longbow is over-rated. Firstly, it was really outdated technology even by the standards of the time. The Romans, Huns, Mongols and others used the Composite bow centuries earlier. The composite bow is a lamination of different materials to take advantage of the different tensile and compressive strength of each material. Inch for inch of bow height, the Composite bow was more powerful. This allowed the Composite bow to be used on horseback since it was shorter.
Though English archers rode to battle on horses, they had to dismount to shoot their arrows. The Mongol warrior had to shoot on a horse galloping at 40 miles per hour. This required greater skill than shooting with two feet planted on the ground. Though the draw-weights of both both bows were comparable, the Mongol bow could shoot much further. The range of the Mongol bow was about 300 to 350 yards while the English longbow was about 200 to 250 yards.
This is because the reflex/recurved design of the Mongol bow allows the bow to store more energy and is able to convert that potential energy more efficiently to kinetic energy in the arrow. Had the two armies met, I think the Mongol bow would have won the day. All they had to do would be to stay out of range of the English long bowmen and rained arrows on them.
While the longbow was rightfully credited for defeating larger French armies at Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415), the long bowmen were defeated at Patay (1429), Formigny (1450) and Castilon (1453).
Thus the longbow dominated the battlefield for less than a hundred years. The French by the time that Patay was fought had learned to counter the English archers and ultimately won the Hundred Years' War.
posted by Ohmyrus at
3:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home