4 ms·
I recomment reading Bernard Cornwell's book Agincourt. It has some very interesting (and gruesome) reconstructions of battles with English longbowmen - from th
by nrki 9y ago
I recomment reading Bernard Cornwell's book Agincourt.
It has some very interesting (and gruesome) reconstructions of battles with English longbowmen - from the point-of-view of the longbowmen.
In the actual battle of Agincourt [1], ~5,000 archers and ~1,000 men-at-arms took on ~20-30,000 French infantry.
As the ~5,000 archers could fire ~12 arrows a minute, with 72-100 arrows each, the French would have had 360,000-500,000 arrows hit their lines during the battle - 10 to 20 for each Frenchman.
The article talks about the impossibility of shooting 10-12 arrows-per-minute, however it doesn't talk about how the English trained from childhood to fire a longbow - in fact, it was written into law for hundreds of years.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
- arkades 9y agoI can’t really imagine it’s impossible to shoot 10-12 arrows a minute. I’m an amateur archer, with a preference for traditional, sightless recurve bows. At my entirely-amateur level, I can put an arrow in the target (though not the bulls eye) at 20 yards without pausing to aim - shooting by muscle memory - at a rate of 4-5 per minute. It’s pretty difficult for me to imagine someone with a lifetime of practice couldn’t shoot at least twice as fast as I can, with my roughly one year of practice.
- ghaff 9y agoNote though that the draw weights of medieval bows were way higher than a modern sport recurve bow. Estimates vary but go as high as 150 pounds--so maybe 3x typical bows used today. I don't have an opinion on how quickly trained from childhood archers could fire at the time but there was a lot of force involved.
- megaman22 9y agoAnd you can see the distortions on the musculo-skeletal system that pulling those heavy bows over and over for years inflicted on longbowmen from their remains. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2235150/Elite-archers-drowned-aboard-Henry-VIIIs-flagship-9Mary-Rose-identified-RSI.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2235150/Elite...
- iaw 9y agoWhen I was in Japan at one of their museums they had the leg bones from an early settler out to compare to those of a more recently decease person from Japan. They wanted to highlight that the leg bones took on structural differences in ancient times because of the type of physical work they endured. The only modern humans that get these features now are Olympic athletes.
- Retric 9y agoThey where not trying to hit a 'target', they where trying to hit a field full of moving people. So, volume of fire is more important than accuracy. Mark out a 100 foot by 100 foot target and try to see how fast you can go.
- overcast 9y agoRight, which just further reinforces the statement. That volume of fire should be sustainable without concern for absolute accuracy. Spray and pray method.
- goldenkey 9y agoYou do realize that an English longbow's pull force is probably 5 to 10 times the bow you are using? I don't disagree though, these archers were farmers first, which builds massive strength, and archers second -- which again, builds massive strength. People today, even hobbyists, aren't training for life and death battles. Even daily training won't compare to being a commissioned soldier.
- gadders 9y agoI remember seeing a medieval stylised drawing of an archer (not sure if from the Bayeux Tapestry or elsewhere) but the archer's upper body was basically a diamond shape, showing massive lat and traps development. In an era where I would guess people were stronger anyway due to manual work, they stood out as particularly muscular.
- walshemj 9y agoActually Longbow men were well paid mercenaries
- pmlnr 9y agoI'm a Pa-Kua[^1] student, one of the archery exercises is fast-shooting; 6 arrows in 30 seconds is achievable with a 2 hours/week class over a few years, so I don't see problems with 10-12/minute for someone who spends hours every day on archery. [^1]: http://www.pakua.com/ http://www.pakua.com/
- cfontes 9y agoon a heavy bow, you have to take that into account.
- jfoutz 9y agowith a medieval diet.
- metalliqaz 9y agoBeer, with a daily potato and lamb shank once a week?
- mcguire 9y agoWhat's your draw weight?
- arkades 9y ago65 lbs. As others have mentioned, well under 150 lbs. Then again, I’m a sedentary white collar that shoots for an hour a week.
- mohaine 9y agoI'm guessing you are pulling less than 80 lbs. Probably closer to 40. The article mentions that 20 a minute wouldn't be an issue at this weight but the longbows in question where over 100 lbs and often 150 lbs pull. This is what they are saying is impossible to sustain at a rate of 10-12 per minute. You might be good the first minute but would drop off quickly after that. For those not used to the sport, most untrained adult men have issues pulling back 70 lbs more than once. With a little practice this becomes "easy" but there is definitely and learning and strength curve.
- Fifer82 9y agoAn enjoyable quick history lesson showing tactics for anyone interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDnKciXrmnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDnKciXrmnc