Michael
Apr 19th 2010, 10:19 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg
Image is the Battle of Crecy by Froissart.
One of the most remarkable weapons in the history of warfare has to be the [so-called] English Longbow. The origin is in fact Welsh, but it was in the hands of the English of the 14th century that showed just how powerful that weapon could be.
If you ever wondered how England could have waged war against France for over a hundred years straight back in the 14th/15th century, given that France was about eight times as populous and considerably more wealthy by every measure - the answer is the longbow.
With little more than a few thousand expert longbows, almost any position could be held in the face of the most overwhelming odds, against far superior numbers of opponents. Time and time again, the cream of French chivalry charged the English lines to their death. Battle after battle, the results are repeated. The only thing that stopped the English from conquering the whole of France was the fact that the longbow wasn't very effective as an offensive weapon. In defense though, it was unsurpassed.
Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt are the 'big three' most famous battles where massive and superior French armies were utterly destroyed when they charged against comparatively smaller numbers of English troops - armed with longbows.
Anyway, the one really truly and interesting fact about the English Longbow is that it wasn't until the Napoleonic era that gunpowder muskets achieved sufficient firepower to out-shoot the old English Longbow. Theoretically speaking, the Brits could have ignored the expensive use of muskets and instead relied upon the longbow for defense against the musket-armed opponents of the 16th/17th and 18th century!
I remember the first time I read about that - it really freaked me out - why didn't Britain keep using the longbow given that it was so much cheaper (and more powerful) than muskets and gunpowder? It was a rather similar weapon. Or alternatively, why didn't the French equip their own battalions of longbows to counter the threat of the English? Its not like the technology was a secret or anything!
Anyway, it took me many years of study to figure out the answer. The key fact of the longbow is that it is only as powerful as a weapon if you devote half your life to using it. With the English, one particular social class adopted the weapon - the yeomanry. This is always the most important military class in classical society as I have long argued in respect of ancient Greek and Roman history. Of course in a feudal society, the yeomanry is a very small class to begin with. It is in fact a measure of the liberty and advancement of the English political economy that they had such a social class at all at that late feudal time period when almost all land was 'owned' by the King, nobles or the church.
Anyway, I think this social class is the reason that this weapon didn't really catch on anywhere else other than in Britain. Nobody else had much of a yeoman class at all at that time. The alleged French reply to the question of the longbow in the 14th century was that they'd be horrified (and stupid) to give that kind of a weapon to their peasants. That just underscores the point that the English Longbow was not a 'peasant' weapon. It took years of hard work, training and practice to become proficient with this weapon. And one had to keep up one's practice regularly for years or you'd lose it. Peasants didn't have the leisure time to devote to that kind of military specialization.
Even still, I think the British aristocracy was more than a little afraid of the longbow-armed yeoman class and that they weren't too keen on pushing to keep it in use. Firearms are much better weapons because they are expensive and that means they were hard for peasants to use against the government or the nobility.
Anyway, I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this particularly interesting weapon. :)
Here's the Wiki page for the English Longbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow)
Image is the Battle of Crecy by Froissart.
One of the most remarkable weapons in the history of warfare has to be the [so-called] English Longbow. The origin is in fact Welsh, but it was in the hands of the English of the 14th century that showed just how powerful that weapon could be.
If you ever wondered how England could have waged war against France for over a hundred years straight back in the 14th/15th century, given that France was about eight times as populous and considerably more wealthy by every measure - the answer is the longbow.
With little more than a few thousand expert longbows, almost any position could be held in the face of the most overwhelming odds, against far superior numbers of opponents. Time and time again, the cream of French chivalry charged the English lines to their death. Battle after battle, the results are repeated. The only thing that stopped the English from conquering the whole of France was the fact that the longbow wasn't very effective as an offensive weapon. In defense though, it was unsurpassed.
Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt are the 'big three' most famous battles where massive and superior French armies were utterly destroyed when they charged against comparatively smaller numbers of English troops - armed with longbows.
Anyway, the one really truly and interesting fact about the English Longbow is that it wasn't until the Napoleonic era that gunpowder muskets achieved sufficient firepower to out-shoot the old English Longbow. Theoretically speaking, the Brits could have ignored the expensive use of muskets and instead relied upon the longbow for defense against the musket-armed opponents of the 16th/17th and 18th century!
I remember the first time I read about that - it really freaked me out - why didn't Britain keep using the longbow given that it was so much cheaper (and more powerful) than muskets and gunpowder? It was a rather similar weapon. Or alternatively, why didn't the French equip their own battalions of longbows to counter the threat of the English? Its not like the technology was a secret or anything!
Anyway, it took me many years of study to figure out the answer. The key fact of the longbow is that it is only as powerful as a weapon if you devote half your life to using it. With the English, one particular social class adopted the weapon - the yeomanry. This is always the most important military class in classical society as I have long argued in respect of ancient Greek and Roman history. Of course in a feudal society, the yeomanry is a very small class to begin with. It is in fact a measure of the liberty and advancement of the English political economy that they had such a social class at all at that late feudal time period when almost all land was 'owned' by the King, nobles or the church.
Anyway, I think this social class is the reason that this weapon didn't really catch on anywhere else other than in Britain. Nobody else had much of a yeoman class at all at that time. The alleged French reply to the question of the longbow in the 14th century was that they'd be horrified (and stupid) to give that kind of a weapon to their peasants. That just underscores the point that the English Longbow was not a 'peasant' weapon. It took years of hard work, training and practice to become proficient with this weapon. And one had to keep up one's practice regularly for years or you'd lose it. Peasants didn't have the leisure time to devote to that kind of military specialization.
Even still, I think the British aristocracy was more than a little afraid of the longbow-armed yeoman class and that they weren't too keen on pushing to keep it in use. Firearms are much better weapons because they are expensive and that means they were hard for peasants to use against the government or the nobility.
Anyway, I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this particularly interesting weapon. :)
Here's the Wiki page for the English Longbow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow)