The English and Welsh Longbow

[Montero]

Didn't King William Rufus die from an arrow shot at him from someone in hiding, while he was out hunting?

I wonder if the difference in arming tactics, was also the different sizes of population - compared to France we were short on disposable bodies, so training them made a lot of sense, despite the potentially rebellious down side.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It does appear that William II was killed in a hunting accident, as the man who 'accidentally' shot him fled to France. But it was an example of how even the most well defended person could be felled by a bowman. If this could happen, and the perpetrator escape, why not an overzealous tax collector or despised land owner?

I'm far from an expert on 14th Century France, but my understanding is that at this point in time it was more like an amalgamation of states than a unified country. England had holdings in France; in fact the English monarch claimed France as part of his territory, and was one of the main reasons for the 'Hundred Years War'.

In a country that is divided, and with no laws that everyone could/would abide by, the last thing you need is bands of armed peasants destabilising the situation even further. England was much more stable during this period (although that soon changed with the 'Wars of the Roses') and it was much easier to quell any rebellious uprising.

 

[svalbard]

Didn't King William Rufus die from an arrow shot at him from someone in hiding, while he was out hunting?

I wonder if the difference in arming tactics, was also the different sizes of population - compared to France we were short on disposable bodies, so training them made a lot of sense, despite the potentially rebellious down side.

Walter Tirel or Tyrell fired the fateful shot. Interestingly Rufus's brother and successor never sought Walter out. Although the knight did flee to France. However his lands in England remained in the family.

His grandson Hugh Tyrell took part in the Norman Conquest of Ireland.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Walter Tirel or Tyrell fired the fateful shot. Interestingly Rufus's brother and successor never sought Walter out. Although the knight did flee to France. However his lands in England remained in the family.

His grandson Hugh Tyrell took part in the Norman Conquest of Ireland.

It seems to have been assumed that it was an accident. You're firing arrows in woodland (not like the cultivated woodland of today), and people will get hurt. The fact that the he was dead, and the one who benefitted most being the new king - people are unlikely to point too many fingers.

Even in the case of an accident, killing a king can have pretty nasty repercussions.

Apparently the crossbowman (or boy) who shot (and subsequently killed) Richard I was pardoned by the king before he died. The pardon lasting until about 30 seconds after he passed on, when pretty nasty things happened to him. You especially don't kill a king if you are a peasant.

 

[svalbard]

Henry I was a fairly unscrupulous and rather nasty individual. You would have imagined if there was any doubt Walter would have been sorted out one or the other. Of course there is the suspicion that Henry organised it. But again that would mean no witnesses. On that premise I tend towards the accident theory.

 

[Bowler1]

The two fingers salute of the English is supposed to be from English archers. See there, I still have my fingers to shoot my bow and arrow at you. The inference being, if caught by the French simply chopping off two fingers made using bow impossible so the ex-archer could be sent on his way. I'm not so sure of the truth to this, but I think this group chat may be able to bottom this one out for me.

 

[hitmouse]

It seems to have been assumed that it was an accident. You're firing arrows in woodland (not like the cultivated woodland of today), and people will get hurt. The fact that the he was dead, and the one who benefitted most being the new king - people are unlikely to point too many fingers.

Even in the case of an accident, killing a king can have pretty nasty repercussions.

Apparently the crossbowman (or boy) who shot (and subsequently killed) Richard I was pardoned by the king before he died. The pardon lasting until about 30 seconds after he passed on, when pretty nasty things happened to him. You especially don't kill a king if you are a peasant.

The Rufus Stone, which marks the supposed spot where William Rufus died, is (currently) in heathland. There are a few trees about, but nothing dense. In fact the New Forest is a bit of a misnomer since it contains large tracts of open heath.

 

[svalbard]

Yes. The New Forest fell under the called Forest Laws. It denoted an area where the King and his nobles had sole right to hunt. It could be any type of land.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Yes, forest was simply somewhere where animals could be kept so that they could be hunted by rich nobles.

It was effectively Normans saying 'this land is for us now.'

Presumably for Rufus to be 'accidentally hit, it kust have been in wooded land, although accounts are disputed.

What isn't disputed is that upon the death of his brother, Henry I abandoned his brother's body and rushed off to secure the treasury and get himself crowned.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The two fingers salute of the English is supposed to be from English archers. See there, I still have my fingers to shoot my bow and arrow at you. The inference being, if caught by the French simply chopping off two fingers made using bow impossible so the ex-archer could be sent on his way. I'm not so sure of the truth to this, but I think this group chat may be able to bottom this one out for me.

This supposedly is an anachronism. Did the English/British wave two fingers defiantly at the French? Did the French sever those two digits from the hands of captured bowmen? Probably not. But it is a good story, and makes sense... so maybe it did happen at some point.

 

[JimC]

"fire high in the air and the arrow would acquire extra momentum through gravity"

What about the momentum lost due to gravity on the way up?

 

[Alex The G and T]

... or "Terminal Velocity." Mythbusters did an episode on firing bullets straight up into the air and the result was a weakened return to earth.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'm assuming it's more to do with a greater impact over a longer distance. Firing an arrow 'straight' will mean it will have greater impact at short range, but much less as inertia slows it down, whereas one fired at an angle will travel further and as it descends gain inertia to hit a further off target with an increasing - rather than decreasing - rate of impact.

The same principle applies today; handguns fire straight, artillery fires in an arc.

Of course the other reason why artillery/archers would fire up rather than straight is to ensure they don't hit their own troops stationed in front of them!

 

[THX1138]

Another thing too was that the English Long Bow tended to have a much heavier draw (80-110lbs) then your typical French or Germanic bow(45-60lbs). This needed a stouter, thicker and longer arrow to handle the energy transferred to it. Remember, the arrow is not flung for a bow but springs from it. The arrow cannot be stiff (short flight) nor too flexible (shorter flight if not breaks). It needs to be balanced to the resonance of the bow as a whole.
So having your conscripts all shoot the same (comparable) bow in size and draw weight, means your peasants can mass produce arrows of the same length, thickness and fletching. Most with a triangle field point, and some with bodkin or broad heads for CQB on more heavily armored Knights and horses.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Arrows would also be plucked out of the ground/bodies after a battle for their next use. Making them more effective next time around due to contamination from bacteria.

 

[THX1138]

I was going to say that too, PM! But decided to stop short.
Recycling was/is the way of life in warfare form any time period. Weapons, armor, arrows, sling bullets/stones, dead horses. It was all re-used by the advancing army. Or scavenged afterwards. Advancement of technology, in a way.

 

[svalbard]

"Sticking with the longbow until 1960, it was actually illegal not to carry out at least two hours of longbow practice a week according to the Unlawful Games Act 1541 which required every Englishman between the ages of 17 and 60 to own a longbow and practice archery."

The above is something I had heard about a number of years back and just googled it to verify.

Also the story that you could lawfully kill a Welshman with a longbow after midnight in Hereford and Chester is urban myth.

 

[Bowler1]

Skeletons of English bowmen have showed long-term damage from extensive use of the longbow. The heavy draw of the bow shows in the bones, which is quite something.

I'm going to ignore Svalbard on shooting Welshmen after midnight, and especially during the Six Nations and Twickenham games. That might make them think twice when crossing the Severn Bridge.

 

[svalbard]

That could be a contest for the Wooden Spoon next year

 

[Venusian Broon]

Question about longbows for all you history buffs..

I was taught that longbow training formed a part of the medieval peasant's life. They had compulsory practice most Sundays to both develop their strength and accuracy.
My question is, how was all this managed?

Did some soldiers come out from the local lord's castle to supervise this practice?
Did someone keep records so they'd know if some peasant was skiving off?
What was the practice criteria, did they have to fire a certain amount of arrows during the session or hit a number of targets?
Was it a roughly standardised training all around the English villages, so when the call to arms happened the king would know his archers were of a similar skill?

Off the top of my head, I'm sure there were a few 'sticks' used to ensure that the King had enough archers, such as famous laws as mentioned in the thread, and perhaps enforcing them on reluctant footballers (which I think was banned at the time...)

But there was also the 'carrot', namely that a peasant archer would be given a chance on campaigns to enrich himself, via booty and stealing, perhaps get noticed by the higher ups for actions and get moved up in status, or just have a bit of a holiday in another part of the world. A chance perhaps to move out of the peasantry?

Of course that came with downsides and risks: dysentery, people trying to hack your head off etc. but there is always a bit of risk for reward.

I'm sure plenty of people had no problem practicing as they waited for opportunities like a nice walk and fight in France to appear.