Were longbows as deadly as videogames and shows make them to be ?

[sarahtasher]

Disclaimer : obviously longbows were very potent weapons, just not as ''awesome'' as depicted.

An example would be the second major English victory during the Hundred Years War, Poitiers. Despite very favorable circumstances, actual fatalities from arrows seems to have been low amongst humans (not so much amongst horses). Even what should have been a deadly scenario, two small groups of French knights (300ish in total) charging separately at archers lines, resulted in extensive melee combat

[Aeula]

Longbows are great against unarmored targets. That’s about it. Plate or chain mail would stop them flat. The really good arrows cost an arm and a leg to buy and so saw minimal usage.

At least that’s what I’ve heard.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

i think the deadliness of the bow and arrow comes from its silence. a light weapon, with silent shots. and anyone who practices with one is pretty damn accurate with it too.

granted, hollywood does make the bow seem overly badass sometimes.

[sarahtasher]

Longbows are great against unarmored targets. That’s about it. Plate or chain mail would stop them flat. The really good arrows cost an arm and a leg to buy and so saw minimal usage.

At least that’s what I’ve heard.

No money-minding captain would have invested a lot in armor-piercing arrows. If the count of A... is pincushioned, it's a waste as you can't ransom dead people.

[Ghostpanther]

Disclaimer : obviously longbows were very potent weapons, just not as ''awesome'' as depicted.

An example would be the second major English victory during the Hundred Years War, Poitiers. Despite very favorable circumstances, actual fatalities from arrows seems to have been low amongst humans (not so much amongst horses). Even what should have been a deadly scenario, two small groups of French knights (300ish in total) charging separately at archers lines, resulted in extensive melee combat

At the time when they first appeared in warfare, absolutely. They made heavy armored mounted knights less of a threat. They needed to be protected however. having them upfront with no melee protection was a failure on the leaders if they did. Anyone who has played the total war games, knows this and even if those are games, it still reflects the need to protect them.

[Independent voter]

I've watched a few Youtube videos where they try to pierce plate mail with long bows. It didn't work or had minimal success. And at range, like with an arrow barrage, arrows would have even less penetration.

I think the power of the long bow has been exaggerated. I bet they penetrate chain mail pretty well, but plate, not so much.

[Lindon]

Longbows are great against unarmored targets. That’s about it. Plate or chain mail would stop them flat. The really good arrows cost an arm and a leg to buy and so saw minimal usage.

At least that’s what I’ve heard.

You're right about platemail. Neither sword nor arrow will actually pierce it in the real world but arrows can pierce chainmail.

[Ghostpanther]

Longbows are great against unarmored targets. That’s about it. Plate or chain mail would stop them flat. The really good arrows cost an arm and a leg to buy and so saw minimal usage.

At least that’s what I’ve heard.

I liked this guy's quote on the subject;

The english/welsh longbow has passed into folklore as the most decisive weapon of its era, with victories at Crecy and Agincourt being attributed to its armour piercing capability. At Crecy this was no doubt true, but plate armour had not been developed to its true potential at this time. It is worth remembering that padded bodkins were worn beneath body armour and as armour thickness increased so the effectiveness of the longbow diminished. Even at Potiers arrows were seen to bounce off and only when targeting was switched to the horses was the French charge halted in its tracks.

Certainly mail armour was ineffective at stopping arrows fired from longbows at medium to short ranges, and the rate of fire from longbows was imprerssive. an army of 5000 archers could sustain a firepower of 40000 rounds a minute for some time and thats enough to put the wind up anyone.

[Itori]

I would say no, video games tend to make everything seem way more badass than it is. Not saying longbows are weak, but youre not gonna shoot anyones arm off or drop a dragon from the sky if they existed xD

[cuafpr]

Longbows are great against unarmored targets. That’s about it. Plate or chain mail would stop them flat. The really good arrows cost an arm and a leg to buy and so saw minimal usage.

At least that’s what I’ve heard.

a proper English long bow with a reinforced steel arrow head could get penetration on even plate armor. Its one reason why you will see armor have dips and ridges to try and prevent a direct hit. Also most footmen had thinner cheaper armor than a higher ranking/status knight so that varies as well.

Heck 1 longbow was 1 used by one soldier in WWII

[Puupi]

Heck 1 longbow was 1 used by one soldier in WWII

...and no one was wearing plate armor.

[sarahtasher]

I liked this guy's quote on the subject;

The english/welsh longbow has passed into folklore as the most decisive weapon of its era, with victories at Crecy and Agincourt being attributed to its armour piercing capability. At Crecy this was no doubt true, but plate armour had not been developed to its true potential at this time. It is worth remembering that padded bodkins were worn beneath body armour and as armour thickness increased so the effectiveness of the longbow diminished. Even at Potiers arrows were seen to bounce off and only when targeting was switched to the horses was the French charge halted in its tracks.

Certainly mail armour was ineffective at stopping arrows fired from longbows at medium to short ranges, and the rate of fire from longbows was imprerssive. an army of 5000 archers could sustain a firepower of 40000 rounds a minute for some time and thats enough to put the wind up anyone.

Chroniclers make it obvious that at Poitiers, barbed arrows were used.

Then the battle began on all parts, and the battles of the marshals of France approached, and they set forth that were appointed to break the array of the archers. They entered a-horseback into the way where the great hedges were on both sides set full of archers. As soon as the men of arms entered, the archers began to shoot on both sides and did slay and hurt horses and knights, so that the horses when they felt the sharp arrows they would in no wise go forward, but drew aback and flang and took on so fiercely, that many of them fell on their masters, so that for press they could not rise again; insomuch that the marshals' battle could never come at the prince. Certain knights and squires that were well horsed passed through the archers and thought to approach to the prince, but they could not. The lord James Audley with his four squires was in the front of that battle and there did marvels in arms, and by great prowess he came and fought with sir Arnold d'Audrehem under his own banner, and there they fought long together and sir Arnold was there sore handled. The battle of the marshals began to disorder by reason of the shot of the archers with the aid of the men of arms, who came in among them and slew of them and did what they list, and there was the lord Arnold d'Audrehem taken prisoner by other men than by sir James Audley or by his four squires; for that day he never took prisoner, but always fought and went on his enemies.

[Ghostpanther]

Chroniclers make it obvious that at Poitiers, barbed arrows were used.

Then the battle began on all parts, and the battles of the marshals of France approached, and they set forth that were appointed to break the array of the archers. They entered a-horseback into the way where the great hedges were on both sides set full of archers. As soon as the men of arms entered, the archers began to shoot on both sides and did slay and hurt horses and knights, so that the horses when they felt the sharp arrows they would in no wise go forward, but drew aback and flang and took on so fiercely, that many of them fell on their masters, so that for press they could not rise again; insomuch that the marshals' battle could never come at the prince. Certain knights and squires that were well horsed passed through the archers and thought to approach to the prince, but they could not. The lord James Audley with his four squires was in the front of that battle and there did marvels in arms, and by great prowess he came and fought with sir Arnold d'Audrehem under his own banner, and there they fought long together and sir Arnold was there sore handled. The battle of the marshals began to disorder by reason of the shot of the archers with the aid of the men of arms, who came in among them and slew of them and did what they list, and there was the lord Arnold d'Audrehem taken prisoner by other men than by sir James Audley or by his four squires; for that day he never took prisoner, but always fought and went on his enemies.

That is a good point. The type of projectile used in bows, makes a huge difference. One reason arrow tips used for hunting deer, have razor sharpened multiple edges.

[Zelk]

Longbows were very useful, but the key difference between french and english archers was the training. The french used crossbows, which were far less effective than the longbow but were very easy to use, making the conscription of nearby peasants trivial. English archers meanwhile required a lifetime of training to be able to properly use a longbow, which meant the introduction of laws and torunaments specifically designed to ensure there was always a ready body of expert archers. The effectiveness of the longbows in the periods of English ascension during the hundred years war is fairly obvious. Whenever the English managed to properly utilise their archers they won, whenever they failed to do so they were defeated. In truth the longbow isn't some magic killing machine, the key difference between it and other bows was the archers themselves and the years of training they had.

To counter what the OP specifically said, most of medieval warfare (and actually most warfare bar WWI and II) didn't have great losses on either side. Battles were fought to win control of an area, not to kill all of the other sides soldiers. There's a reason decimate is used to describe a destruction of a force despite it's actual meaning is the loss of 1 in every ten men. Losing 10% of your forces was a disaster. On the specific point about longbows killing more horses than men, that was very much by design. Knights on horses were terrifying, and by far the most dangerous part of an enemies forces. One of the major tactical points of the English was to use their archers to dismount as many french knights as possible.

[Aeula]

You're right about platemail. Neither sword nor arrow will actually pierce it in the real world but arrows can pierce chainmail.

I figured chainmail's links would absorb the bulk of the impact by catching the arrow tip through the holes. But I'm no expert on the subject.

[kasuke06]

a proper English long bow with a reinforced steel arrow head could get penetration on even plate armor. Its one reason why you will see armor have dips and ridges to try and prevent a direct hit. Also most footmen had thinner cheaper armor than a higher ranking/status knight so that varies as well.

Heck 1 longbow was 1 used by one soldier in WWII

As much as I love the longbow... You're talking about Fightin' Mad Jack Churchill, the mad who bastard took a town with a sack of grenades and his SMG, a bunker at swordpoint, and yes, did get the only confirmed longbow kill in a modern conflict. Dude brought bagpipes to normandy. Basically he's England's Audie Murphy, men so badass, they'd have to tone down the biopics because it wouldn't be believable if they included all the crazy shit.

[Jastall]

The longbow had both a great strength and weakness: it required an extreme amount of training and preparation to use. This means that English archers were the best in their business and very effective when brought to bear; no, they didn't fire wooden lasers or anything, but their fire rate and stopping power was impressive nevertheless, and being unable to pierce plate armor is less of a concern when you have enough accuracy and volume to likely kill the mount of the guy using it if he's dumb enough to blindly charge at you.

But it also meant it took decades to train a good archer and each loss was difficult to retrain, which means that crossbowmen or "lesser" types of bows were logistically superior as they could be replaced far more easily. Having a great weapon in a vacuum is only a very small part of winning an actual war.

[NED funded]

Nerf Hanzo pls.

[Easo]

I figured chainmail's links would absorb the bulk of the impact by catching the arrow tip through the holes. But I'm no expert on the subject.

It heavily depends on the chainmail, the type of arrow and bow and corresponding time periods.
There are quite literally hundreds of variations for this.

[Stormspark]

The longbow had both a great strength and weakness: it required an extreme amount of training and preparation to use. This means that English archers were the best in their business and very effective when brought to bear; no, they didn't fire wooden lasers or anything, but their fire rate and stopping power was impressive nevertheless, and being unable to pierce plate armor is less of a concern when you have enough accuracy and volume to likely kill the mount of the guy using it if he's dumb enough to blindly charge at you.

But it also meant it took decades to train a good archer and each loss was difficult to retrain, which means that crossbowmen or "lesser" types of bows were logistically superior as they could be replaced far more easily. Having a great weapon in a vacuum is only a very small part of winning an actual war.

When they say it takes extreme training, it's an understatement. Longbow wielders had to begin training in childhood, to develop the necessary muscles. If you started too late, you wouldn't be able to do it. And yes, training took decades.

That's why firearms became so widely used. Because you can train any idiot to fire a gun in a short amount of time. Of course, nowadays with modern technology, we have things like crossbows and compound bows that don't require a huge amount of strength in the right places to wield, but they are still a lot more difficult than a gun, and modern firearms have orders of magnitude more penetrating power than even the best bows.

Something like this takes a massive amount of training and muscles in the right areas (which have to be developed over a long period). Deadly in the right hands, but if you give one to someone that hasn't had extensive training they will probably just hurt themself.



Something like this takes much less, but it's still a lot harder to effctively use than a firearm. Modern materials like aluminum and carbon fiber can make the bow itself much stronger, and much easier to draw and shoot.



And then these, even more power and even easier to use, but still not as effective as a firearm.