Archive for Archers Rest Archers rest is a new place for archers of all kinds to come and have a natter about anything archery or anything else, please feel free to browse the forums and join in the fun, go on sign up today, you know you want to :-)
|
Robin Hood
|
Longbow HistoryThe Longbow at War
A lecture given by Mr Chris Gravett from the Royal Armouries, at the Tower of London was held at the end of February in the delightful surroundings of the Honourable Artillery Company.
The lecture took us through the history of the longbow from its development and use in the 12th Century to its eventual demise as a weapon of war in the 16th century.
The longbow in its day gave the English such an advantage in battle that the French considered it to be an unchivalrous weapon. They considered it to be a mediaeval weapon of mass destruction and as such wanted an agreement to ban it from the battlefield.
Longbow facts
Such was the power of the Longbow that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow shot from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak.
The average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man-sized target at a minimum of 200 yards. The maximum range was about 400 yards.
The longbow is drawn to the ear, rather than to the chest as with shorter bows.
A longbow is nearly six foot long (normally the full height of the archer) and is typically made of yew.
Whilst plate armour was solid enough to withstand an arrow shot from a longbow, it would easily slice through leather or padded armour or clothing, and was also effective against chainmail.
It was mandatory for many English citizens to practice shooting their longbows on Sundays.
The traditional "two-finger salute" dates back to the taunts of English archers against the French during the Hundred Years' War. The act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew"). Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English having won a major upset at Agincourt, began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, "See, we can still pluck yew! "PLUCK YEW!"
Over the years some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows for the longbow), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird".
Key Dates
1252 Longbow was accepted as a formal military weapon.
c.1280 Longbow adopted by Edward I during the Welsh campaigns after seeing how effectively the Welsh used the bow.
1298 Edward I fought the Scots. Having defeated the Scottish cavalry, the English cavalry found themselves unable to attack the Scottish spear blocks, however the archers weakened their ranks with a barrage of arrows. They were weakened so that the cavalry could sweep in and mop up the remaining spearmen.
1332 In the reign of Edward Ill, in another battle against the Scots the English archers were able to rain arrows down on the attacking army killing most of them before they could reach their defensive position.
1337-1453 The Hundred Years' War with France: During this time, the English and Welsh longbowmen were the most prominent part of the English army, sometimes outnumbering the Men-at-Arms by as much as 10:1. The average was a ratio of about 3:1.
1346 The Battle of Crecy. Crecy was one of history's most decisive battles. Edward III decided to halt near Crecy in Normandy and to prepare for battle the next day. However, the French who outnumbered the English 5:1, made contact and started to attack without the benefit of a plan. The French made as many as 15 attacks and the English checked each one in turn mainly because of the English longbowmen. At the end, the French were decimated and the English had a decisive victory.
1356 The Battle of Poiters: Edward III, The Black Prince of Wales, with 6,000-8,000 men defeated a French army 3 times as large.
1415 The Battle of Agincourt was perhaps the greatest victory of the Hundred Years War and the most spectacular for the longbow. Ten thousand of the French army were killed, whereas the much smaller English force survived with very minimal casualties possibly less than a couple of hundred.
1461 During the civil war in England the longbow was used on both sides at Towton Heath, inflicting massive casualties, an estimated 25,000 killed or wounded. The archers shot all of their arrows, then fired the enemy's arrows back until finally the remains of the two armies crashed together.
1513 Flodden: The last battle at which the longbow made a significant difference was once again the English against the Scots.
1588 Longbow replaced by firearms during the Spanish Armada War.
1595 Longbow finally retired from military service.
|
JimN
|
Very interesting, although I must say I'm not convinced by the 'two-fingered salute' etymology. What's the source of this text?
|
JimN
|
Re: Longbow History | Robin Hood wrote: |
...
1337-1453 The Hundred Years' War with France: During this time, the English and Welsh longbowmen were the most prominent part of the English army, sometimes outnumbering the Men-at-Arms by as much as 10:1. The average was a ratio of about 3:1.
1346 The Battle of Crecy. Crecy was one of history's most decisive battles. Edward III decided to halt near Crecy in Normandy and to prepare for battle the next day. However, the French who outnumbered the English 5:1, made contact and started to attack without the benefit of a plan. The French made as many as 15 attacks and the English checked each one in turn mainly because of the English longbowmen. At the end, the French were decimated and the English had a decisive victory.
1356 The Battle of Poiters: Edward III, The Black Prince of Wales, with 6,000-8,000 men defeated a French army 3 times as large.
1415 The Battle of Agincourt was perhaps the greatest victory of the Hundred Years War and the most spectacular for the longbow. Ten thousand of the French army were killed, whereas the much smaller English force survived with very minimal casualties possibly less than a couple of hundred.
...
|
You'd have though the French should have learned something here, does anybody know what the historical use of bows in France is?
|
segolden
|
Very nice summary, but...One question: At the ranges that the English longbow was generally used in warfare, what is considered "effective"? Mail armor varied widely in its quality and makeup, from soft iron and bronze rings loosely woven, to tempered steel riveted in very tight patterns. Assuming that even a bodkin point could penetrate the latter armor deeply enough to cause a severe wound may be taking the legendary power of the ELB a bit far, especially at 200-yard ranges (I have some reservations about a 400-yard max range as well, unless it means using light non-combat arrows). Has anyone seriously tested this, besides those ridiculous revisionist-style TV history shows? I have no problem with the longbow's power at direct-fire distances, but perhaps we need to step back and reassess certain things instead of just repeating the same "facts" over and over again. Just a thought, no heresy meant.
|
Haywain
|
Re: Longbow History | JimN wrote: | | You'd have though the French should have learned something here, does anybody know what the historical use of bows in France is? |
I find it hard to believe that the French can actually learn anything of significance when it comes to matters military..... a proving point here
"Go to Google....type the words - French military victories - into the search box BUT instead of hitting the Google search button, click on the "I'm feeling lucky" button. See what you get and click on the link. Enjoy the read."
|
Haywain
|
Re: Very nice summary, but... | segolden wrote: | | One question: At the ranges that the English longbow was generally used in warfare, what is considered "effective"? Mail armor varied widely in its quality and makeup, from soft iron and bronze rings loosely woven, to tempered steel riveted in very tight patterns. Assuming that even a bodkin point could penetrate the latter armor deeply enough to cause a severe wound may be taking the legendary power of the ELB a bit far, especially at 200-yard ranges (I have some reservations about a 400-yard max range as well, unless it means using light non-combat arrows). Has anyone seriously tested this, besides those ridiculous revisionist-style TV history shows? I have no problem with the longbow's power at direct-fire distances, but perhaps we need to step back and reassess certain things instead of just repeating the same "facts" over and over again. Just a thought, no heresy meant. |
From what I've learned, the 400 yard max range was the maximum range of the arrow and not an effective range for a kill. Not every archer could reach these distances. I would imagine it would be used for something along the lines of a warning.
As to penetrating power of the bow and arrows itself, I have some video footage of Mark Stretton firing various arrows into different types and thicknesses of armour from a war bow. It certainly opens your eyes to see what they can do, but also that unless they hit dead on, the arrows would glance off the armour.
I have a very old history book on the longbow, in which it has the following facts:
Practice was regulated by law and all males over the age of 12 had to practice for two hours every Sunday.
Children started at six, learning to hold a bow at arms length until it hurt.
When they could hold a bow steady, they were taught to shoot and were only considered proficient when they could take a squirrel at 150yards+.
Lifting your visor in battle was a dangerous thing to do againt the English archers. More than one would aim for the face and without the protection, the arrow could do significant damage.
Given the size of the average UK squirrel (smaller than those grey things we have here now) that would mean that your average English archer could pick out the joints, and chinks in armour at 150yards.
Also if you have a tightly packed group of horsemen coming towards you. and you had 2000 archers firing 12-15 arrows a minute at them, you can bet your life the odds of surviving were not good.
|
Robin Hood
|
JimN this the source of the text it comes from Mr Chris Gravett from the Royal Armouries, at the Tower of London. When the French captureed english longbowmen they cut the index and middel finger of so they couldnt use there bows. this is sopposely(sp) where the two fingered salute came from this comes from the the text of King Henery the 5 at the battle of Azincourt- Agincourt from his scriptures.
Segolden the max range of the longbow is 400yards from a good shooter useally most would shoot between 300-350 yards anywhere from 100-150 pound bows. the effect of the longow was 350 yards was for lined up soilders in masses and the bowmen would just volley into the pack a good bowmen could pick of a man at 150-200 yards. at 400yards this info come from when they fought the scot/celts which they wore only leather or no armour at all. at azincout the french men at arm wore only leather but the horse man wore plate, but the bowmen didn't shoot them because half of them couldnt make it through the mud so they finished them off with knives and billhooks. these distances have been tested by bowmen in the UK pulling the 150 pounds they set up dead pigs dressed up in chain mail, plate and leather armour and tested all the distances the most effictive was 300 yards but there was only 12 bowmen and they had been shooting for about 10 -15 years when back in the day a exellent bowen had been shooting for 30-40 years.
sorry to go on like this but yeah hpe it answears your questions.
|
Steve B
|
Interesting thread guys..... I do enjoy this stuff very much, apart from the educational aspects... 
|
segolden
|
Glad to know that somebody's done the research...and I appreciate your having "gone on", Robin Hood, as I'm always interested in the finer details. From your post, I'm assuming that the heavy "cloth-yard" war arrows were used in the tests. Didn't realize the darned things could shoot that far, ouch! Going to have to pick up a stickbow eventually and try it out, but there ain't no way in perdition that I'm going to try 150-lbs. Got pins in my wrist that limit my pull to 50# and under, so I'll let you die-hards try the long-range stuff. I figure I'm doing good to hit the bale at 60-yds. Yeah I know, wimpy colonial. Heh.
|
Steve B
|
Us "old" blokes need to know our limitations segolden.....
we have a saying here in Oz with people that shoot heavy poundage.. it goes "I aint real clever but I can lift heavy weights".....
I know that at my tender age of just over 50  that 55# is about my limit
|
Robin Hood
|
segolden they even used the appoirate heads for the shootings eg the needle bodkin point for the plate
standard bodkn for mail
and what we now broadhead a blade used for leather
they also cut ropes using the sailors head and theres a few other ones.
|
JimN
|
| Robin Hood wrote: | | JimN this the source of the text it comes from Mr Chris Gravett from the Royal Armouries, at the Tower of London. When the French captureed english longbowmen they cut the index and middel finger of so they couldnt use there bows. this is sopposely(sp) where the two fingered salute came from this comes from the the text of King Henery the 5 at the battle of Azincourt- Agincourt from his scriptures. |
You see, there's my problem; I can't see any advantage to the French to cut of the relevant fingers and (presumably) release them back to the English. It's not a debilitating wound so the ex-archer would still be able to wield a pikestaff/club/etc. and I can imagine they would be looking for revenge. It is also my understanding that this mutilation would go against all the laws of chivalry that they abided by in that day and age. If combatant had been captured then they would be ransomed back to their own side, but archers were so far down the 'pecking-order' they weren't worth much and would be worth nothing without the relevant fingers.
Saying that, I have not heard about the Henry V scriptures from Agincourt before so may go and do a bit more digging.
|
Robin Hood
|
well why would you release the english archers they did have prisonor exchange, heres a bit more info the english used to cut the one ear of every 10th french-man.The laws of chivalry only applied to knights, people with ranks and any normal soilder who wanted to follow the "rules of war" so the lower class men would be doing the dirty work.
|
JimN
|
So they chop off their fingers and then keep them, feed them, guard them? Nope, still not convinced.
|
Robin Hood
|
its prisonor exchange say your the frence jim and i'm the english if i have ten of your men say Knights and you have 5 of my longbowers and we want to exchange, hey thats not a fair trade is it, so you get back at me by cutting the fingers of my 5 men so it evens up the odds do you get it? like a French knight is worth more that a longbower because they command their own men if hes not their on the french side his men dont have to fight so there worth more than an longbower, a longbower is just a man who gets paid to fight, dosnt command any men now.
hope thats helps.
|
Haywain
|
I have a very old book which gives accounts from those who took part in the 100 years war, specifically Agincourt. The original text was written by a Frenchman and later translated into English and re-printed in the 1930's.
I'm at work at the moment so the exact wording escapes me, but they did not just cut the fingers off the archers if they caught them, that was only part of it:
They also cut off their most precious bits and stuffed them in their mouths and then they hung them, usually with their own bow string somewhere they could be seen by any one passing nearby and quite often from the walls of the towns that were being besieged by the English.
As has been mentioned, the laws of chivalry only applied to Knights and Men at Arms. In those days it mattered not that you had 100 of my archers fingerless or not...if I captured a Knight that Knight either paid a nice ransom in money I could spend, by begging to friends and family, or I kept him as a prisoner. Any ransom paid normally ruined the Knight through bankruptcy.
|
Liam
|
I know very little of the Longbows military history, so following this thread with great interest, thanks guys 
|
segolden
|
Now we're getting the reasons for the so-called laws of war.With the rise of the national state to replace the fractionalized feudal economic and governmental systems, more and more "commoners" became involved with each country's military, while the system of of mercenary hirelings began to wain after the destructive Thirty-Years War. The plague essentially took out the Middle Class yeomanry, who made up the majority of specialized soldiers (particularly the English Longbowmen), forcing more peasantry into the armies. enforcing Chivalric rules upon such a rowdy mass wasn't going to work, as anytime the "serfs" came upon a royal or upper-class knight of the opposition, they'd take out their frustrations on them. With the exception of the Swiss, no royal in his right mind would hand a sophisticated weapon system (crossbow, musket, cannon and the like) to the bulk of his army. Specialized units with above-average training began to appear, with emphasis upon extreme loyalty to the crown and the national government instead of the feudal baronies. In order for the new leadership to survive on the battlefield even in defeat, national governments began to make treaties involving conduct, and ultimately banned the use of non-uniformed soldiery so that they could make their individual troops responsible for their own actions. What we are seeing today is a breakdown of that system, where proxy armies, financed and trained by outside national governments with agendas of their own, are doing the fighting under cover of civilian political/religious movements. We're going backward in social convention to the age of the great religious conquests, even as the technology of war grows in its power to destroy.
|
Robin Hood
|
ah but Haywain your reading from a french text and i'm reading from a english text. and we dont know what "lies" have been written down do we, it like a word of mouth story it get bigger by the person, i'm not saying they didn't hang the longbowmen, but on two accounts that longbowmen were echanged for french-men at the battles of Poiters and Crecy where the black prince demanded prisonors be taken by the french or if not the black prince would kill french prisonors himself so they both agreed and prisonor exchange happened and they used it at azincourt/agincourt as well and thats the earliest proof i can find that the french cut of the fingers befor releasing them
|
Haywain
|
Good point. Perhaps those two battles were an exception? I don't think the full truth will ever come out. But it's good to have a natter about it either way.
|
segolden
|
What is more scary?......the fact that we have somewhat differing accounts of historical events, or the possibility that those accounts might be true in their actual descriptions? Individual perspective can radically alter eyewitness reports of major crimes, while individual prejudices can alter what is chosen to be recorded in those same reports. History is no different in that sense, but the details related in it may still be absolute fact.
My own study of military history shows that major battles are indeed exceptional events. Most wars have been settled, at least temporarily, by only or two big confrontations, with long campaigns over years being the rarest form of warfare: total war against an enemy, the object of which is to completely wipe out your opponent's ability to ever come back against you. The Roman/Carthaginian wars were good examples of the latter, while the Medieval European conflicts were generally localized territorial disputes that grew out of familial arguments.
|
Glennan_Carnie
|
| Quote: | The traditional "two-finger salute" dates back to the taunts of English archers against the French during the Hundred Years' War. The act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew"). Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English having won a major upset at Agincourt, began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, "See, we can still pluck yew! "PLUCK YEW!"
Over the years some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows for the longbow), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird". |
Oh please, will this one never die? This has been floating around on the Internet for years. And it's still rubbish (despite whoever's website it may appear on - you know who you are)
I believe this particular version comes down to an American misundenderstanding British colloquial gestures and then interpreting them in a way that made sense - to them. Or, in a less charitable light, I might say this is an attempt for the Americans to try and tie their culture back to European roots.
First: There is little, or no, canonical evidence for the 'archer's salute'. It is thought to date to the early Hundred Year's War. The waving of the first two fingers as a taunt makes sense since the English archers only used a two-finger loose (unlike the three-finger meditteranean loose used by most archers today). The French, upon capturing an archer, would cut off the first two fingers on each hand therefore preventing the archer from ever drawing a bow again. But I very much doubt they just patted them on the head, told them not to be so naughty in future, and that was that. I suspect the de-fingering was just a prelude to a rather nasty death.
Variations of this story have just the middle finger removed. Why? A bowman could still draw a bow with the remaining fingers! That just makes no sense. Of course, it must be noted that the two-finger salute has no meaning as an insult in America; whereas displaying the middle finger does. Hmmmm....
Interestingly, 'the bird' as a gesture can be dated back to Roman times.
As to 'plucking yew'. At this point I just hang my head in sorrow. Oh dear. Again, there is no canonical evidence of English archers using the phrase 'to pluck yew' meaning to draw the bow. In all the records of the time a bow is either 'drawn' or 'shot', never 'plucked' (roses and chickens are plucked, not bows) I suspect the phrase "I can still pluck yew!" was chosen by our anonymous web author because it sounded like the more familiar "f**k you". There is no evidence for what the archers shouted at the French to taunt them. In fact the earliest recorded use of the word 'f**k' was in the early 16thC (so that little piece of 'knowledge' didn't come from the chronicles of the time, did it?) The word 'f**k' is found back as far as the 13thC. I doubt our bowmen were above using the good ol' "f**k YOU!" as a perfectly good insult (remember, the English archers were the football hooligans of their day!). Why on earth would thousands of illiterate, xenophobic fighting men, who knew they could die a grisly death, start coming up with puns on the battlefield? Once more, this makes no sense.
This is a lovely fable (when told correctly) but I suspect it has little to do with reality. All I ask is that you stick to the British two-fingered 'salute' and be proud of that uniquely British gesture.
|
JimN
|
Thank-you Glennan, I thought it was just me fighting against this fluff & urban myth.
|
|