The longbow was a battle winning weapon because it was a force multiplier: it enabled a small number of men to create a kinetic effect far greater than their number. Whilst Agincourt is the most famous example of the Longbow's effect (thanks to Bill "Shakey" Shakespeare), the outcomes of the battles of Crecy and Poitiers prove that a well disciplined force of longbowmen was a devastating force on the medieval battlefield. So much so that it influenced British military doctrine for nearly 4 centuries.

On a point of order, the longbow, culverin and arbalest hardly classify as ancient weapons, being medieval in their origin. There is also a world of difference between "badass" weapons and decisive weapons: the former are to be considered cool, the latter can be considered to wield a strategic effect.

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
The longbow was a battle winning weapon because it was a force multiplier: it enabled a small number of men to create a kinetic effect far greater than their number. Whilst Agincourt is the most famous example of the Longbow's effect (thanks to Bill "Shakey" Shakespeare), the outcomes of the battles of Crecy and Poitiers prove that a well disciplined force of longbowmen was a devastating force on the medieval battlefield. So much so that it influenced British military doctrine for nearly 4 centuries.

Yes... But then again, so is knights. I mean, technically, what is better: 10,000 heavily armoured knights or 10,000 longbowmen when you use them as "force multipliers"? I'd take the knights any day... Except when they cant manouver. Just counting "force multipliers" and ignoring battlefield conditions, I think the French should technically have won at Agincourt by a longshot

Keep in mind, we're not even taking into account other soldiers. The French lost because the English employed "modern" (as in 16-18th century) warfare methods of protecting the men shooting (be it with a musket or longbow).

So ideal combat situations (open field), the longbow is effective when the archer using it doesnt have a horse running over him due to infantry (spearmen) protecting him.

Awaiting the inevitable rebuttal

[edit on 19-2-2008 by merka]

10k of knights vs. longbowmen argument is ok, but you have to take into account that mustering 10k knights is much more difficult than mustering 10k peasant archers

I've always had a fondness for the falx. It's a meaty looking weapon, if ever i saw one.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
10k of knights vs. longbowmen argument is ok, but you have to take into account that mustering 10k knights is much more difficult than mustering 10k peasant archers

Not really. The king just said "give me 10k kniggits, stat!" and the nobles had to give it to him. Its of course more expensive to field such an army. In terms of experience though the longbowmen, while they may be peasants, wasnt exactly gathered on random and handed a bow. I'm guessing when push comes to show, the English longbowman had the weapon experience rivaling a knight.

In practice, I actually think that 10k English longbowmen was considerably harder to dig up than 10k French knights. This isnt based on any historical proof though, just thinking.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by merka]

No, it was not easier to generate a force of knights than longbowmen.

10k mounted knitghts (heavy cavalry) versus 10k longbowmen on open ground in good weather would be a walkover, but the point about force multiplication is that the longbowmen would inflict far greater damage on the enemy then 10k footsoldiers. In medieval England it was more difficult to find longbowmen than heavy or light cavalry, men at arms, pikeman, billmen or any other soldier; longbowmen take much longer to train and longbows take a long time to manufacture by comparison, hence the introduction of mandatory archery for the medieval English and why the musket was adopted so readily in the longbow's stead.

By all rights the French should have won Agincourt, but they attacked too soon, in the wrong conditions and were poorly organised. Had they split their force and maintained discipline they could have outflanked Henry on the march and avoided fighting a pitched battle altogether. Their decision to fight early and failure to develop an effective plan nearly resulted in the loss of the French throne, Henry V died only two months before he would have claimed it.

[edit on 20/2/08 by Naboo the Enigma]

You have to take into account that the French knights didn't have proper armor protection against longbows untill the very late medieval times. They infact had to hire 2000k italian mercenaries who had proper plate to combat longbowmen.
I highly recommend a series called 'weapons that made britain'. It has 5 parts: sword, longbow, lance, shield and armor.

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
but the point about force multiplication is that the longbowmen would inflict far greater damage on the enemy then 10k footsoldiers.

Aye, that is a good point, though it assumes an army in addition to the longbowmen (except in unique conditions). The problem here with "greater damage" is that it sort of depend on the success of the enemy, heh. Even if just 5k of those footsoldiers would reach the longbowman line (at the time, 5k losses to nil sounds good!), they still have a decent chance of routing the longbowmen.

No matter the scenario, the archer in general assumes that you chase the enemy away for it to be effective (or destroy them completely, but AFAIK this is rare in ancient battles, unless we're talking killing prisoners).

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
No, it was not easier to generate a force of knights than longbowmen.

"Generate" how? I assume the forces is there, not planning to hire and train them from birth.

In that case, its quite obvious that knights are much easier to "generate" than longbowmen if you go by the numbers seen in battle. Neither France nor England had a standing army at the time, so the numbers are quite literally about how many men you can muster.

Until recent times, all English men had to perform archery training on Sundays (may have been Sat actually). This shows that while knights were the feudal lords who actually owned the land, longbowmen were conscripted from the peasantry.

This obviously means that you will have far more men who fulfill the criteria of longbowman than knight. As a longbowman has less physical requirements than a knight (a lack of full plate and trained warhorse are a good start) you can afford to field a much higher percentage than you can the costly knights.

However, 300 knights would route 1000 archers with no problem at all.

Not all archers were peasants. There are records of land owners who were more wealthy and were conscripted as archers. They were so wealthy that they could afford to take their horse with them and in 100 year war they numbered in thousands in some records. The Battle of Blanchetaque is a good example of english mounted archers saving the day (by popular theory). Paintings of this engagement also show that it is possible that the mounted archers were wealthy enough to have a proper armor.
As for 300 knights vs. 1000 longbowmen, I disagree, the situation would have to be very advantageous for knights to win. They would have to have late medieval period armor too which is light and hard enough to protect against arrows.

2024 BC, Enlil's son Ninurta attacked the Sinai. "The first terror weapon [a missile called One Without Rival] from the skys Ninurta let loose; the top of Mount Mashu with a flash it sliced off, the mount’s innards in an instant it melted. Above the Place of the Celestial Chariots the second weapon [called Blazing Flame] he unleashed, with a brilliance of seven suns the plain’s rocks into a gushing wound were made, the Earth shook and crumbled, the heavens after the brilliance were darkened; with burnt and crushed stones was the plain of the chariots covered, of all the forests that the plain had surrounded, only tree stems were left standing."

This has to be the best ancient weapon by a mile.

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by PsykoOps
10k of knights vs. longbowmen argument is ok, but you have to take into account that mustering 10k knights is much more difficult than mustering 10k peasant archers

Not really. The king just said "give me 10k kniggits, stat!" and the nobles had to give it to him. Its of course more expensive to field such an army. In terms of experience though the longbowmen, while they may be peasants, wasnt exactly gathered on random and handed a bow. I'm guessing when push comes to show, the English longbowman had the weapon experience rivaling a knight.

In practice, I actually think that 10k English longbowmen was considerably harder to dig up than 10k French knights. This isnt based on any historical proof though, just thinking.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by merka]

Coming from first hand experience I can say with all confidence that a Medieval longbowman did Not have the weapon experience of a Knight!
Knights trained from childhood to use the sword and sheild, an archer could be trained in 30 days, while a Knight, well he did not get that title for nothing! Knights trained for years! Weilding a sword effectively is much more difficult that it looks! Besides no one has mentioned the re-curve bow used by the Barbarian Hunns! It's a much more effective bow than the English longbow! And the Norse Axe! what about that weapon?

I disagree, the english went to quite the extreme to have everyone well trained with the longbow. They even made it illegal to play sports like football cause that distracted youth from their longbow training and increased risk of injury that would prevent shooting a bow.
If you train an archer in 30 days you have a guy who can shoot a bow, hit nothing and knock it slowly. Knocking is one of the most important parts of war archery.