Solving the "Longbow Puzzle"

[sandbender]

I thought this might interest some...

"...England adopted the longbow as a common military weapon; the Scots and French stuck with the inferior crossbow for nearly a century, why?

A paper published in The Journal of Law and Economics that proposes a solution..."

"...The authors hypothesise that the French and Scottish monarchy were too afraid of being overthrown to allow their citizenry to possess and train with longbows, while the relative social stability in England gave the state the confidence to adopt the weapon..."

More here.

http://boingboing.net/2016/01/20/solving-the-longbow-puzzle.html

 

[Dogoak]

Thanks for the link, timely post as I was only thinking about dusting off the bow the other day. Interesting theory, makes sense to me, but then my knowledge of European political history of the time is pretty limited.

 

[Toddy]

Eh ?

The Scots at Bannockburn used archers with longbows, they also used crossbows, and later King James banned 'fut ball" (that's James the 1st of Scotland in 1424) while James 1I in 1457 banned both football and golf so that the menfolks would use the archery butts.

I hope Edwin sees this thread; it'd be interesting to hear his take on it

M

 

[Harvestman]

Interesting. My very limited knowledge of the subject was that the thing about crossbows was that anyone could pick one up and use it with reasonable accuracy with miniml training, but a longbow required years of training. Therefore, whilst possibly an inferior weapon in terms of range and power, the crossbow was far easier to supply to an army and almost as effective. So maybe the longbow in England was more of a social thing than a reflection of the weapon's power.

But my knowledge of the subject is very thin indeed, so I will defer to more knowledgable folk.

 

[Drain Bamaged]

I thought it was simply a case of the crossbow being more suitable for a Scotsman because of his very short arms.

D.B.

 

[sandbender]

"...The Scots at Bannockburn used archers with longbows, they also used crossbows..."

I knew that, the full article is paywalled so we can't see the detail, I'd be curious to know more.

Whereas I'd well believe that England provided a more 'stable' environment where a ruling class would perhaps not fear being overthrown, there was surely enough minor warfare and brigandry around the country to keep them on edge. I recall reading about a Tudor who's castle was stormed by an angry populace in the 1300s?

 

[petrochemicals]

I think it's the same short-sightedness and arrogance that is aparrent in so many things military. Military thinking runs along the lines of true and tested, and anything else is rubbish.

Gengis Kahn conquered his empire due to the horse back archers. Nothing new or revolutionary in a horse or an archer, but the cobination of the two proved devistating in the 13 century (?) yet the technology was avaliable well before the roman empire, and would have proved Rome severley lacking. To prove how unimaginative or consciously opposed to change the military psyche is, the us government undertook projects to change this by employing people like science fiction writer Philip K Dick I believe t dream up to missile defense system. Also seen in conflicts such as WW1 and the repeated sending of men against machineguns.

So the question is I believe why did England (and Wales) take up the long bow? Us the dutch the French the Spanish all took up trade because we where sea faring nations, so maybe there is something cultural that made us predisposed to the use of the bow?

 

[rorymax]

I thought it was simply a case of the crossbow being more suitable for a Scotsman because of his very short arms.

D.B.

Afraid not, it was because the crossbow did not impede our sight when using night vision goggles, simples.

 

[Toddy]

Maybe the English weren't so happy with the armour punching power of the crossbow in ordinary folks hands ?
There's also the whole 'standing army' type thing though.

Hear ? I found a good site for Scottish History for children
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk...sofindependence/battleofbannockburn/index.asp

M

 

[dewi]

Isn't it more about money?

What I mean is, the English army was well financed and could afford not only to equip men for battle, but pre-battle in order for them to train with the longbow.

The Scots didn't have that luxury (arguably because of the English) so used what they could get their hands on that didn't require training.

As far as the French were concerned, why bother training with a bow when you could just purchase a small amount of white cloth and wave it from a pole?

 

[Joonsy]

i'd have thought being beaten in battle by the English would have been more of a concern than being overthrown by their own citizens, so I can't see that being the reason, but I am no educated historian.

 

[bobnewboy]

I was under the impression that the Scots and Welsh were more than proficient with the longbow, but a number of crossbow shooters were present as overseas mercenaries on the Scots side in many battles.

 

[dewi]

The Welsh bowmen were part of the English army that went up against the Scots.

 

[boatman]

About the revolver and tinned baked beans that won the West- "there was better shooting and better eating but nothing so handy or well priced". One reason for the bow was that it could be manufactured to equip the whole, able, male population and its ammunition could be supplied in massive quantities. And it worked. There was no need to do as Archbishop did to start using the bow when very young and have one's poor father buy bows according to your strength as you grew up. Given the physical work involved in medieval life and employment a bowman could be trained very quickly but of course weekly practice with your mates honed your skill and, most importantly built up an esprit de corps which could be parleyed into hundred, county and national armies.It is their pride that was remarked on, for example, in Spain where they didn't have the fiery pride of the Hidalgo but a certainty that they were the best. Hands and arms like iron helped which was good when the arrows were gone and close quarter gutter fighting was called for.

It is interesting that, like all weapons, it achieved it finest form as in the Mary Rose bows while undergoing the process of obsolescence. Great eaters and drinkers when available but they could march and fight on a few hazelnuts and swamp water.There is a great passage in The Archer's Craft by A E Hodgkin that pictures the English bowman settling down to sleep after Agincourt who dreams forward in time to see a battlefield in Normandy where the weapons might have been unfamiliar "he sees Englishmen once again in Normandy, ...be sure he has found himself among friends . A little strangeness of tongue perhaps and unfamiliar new hand guns, but the same ideas, the old rough humour, the same courage and endurance. Then he will turn himself in his sleep, and settle himself more comfortably, knowing that faith has been kept."Of course there were French and Gascon archers and no nation has a monopoly on courage but I thought our old Yeomen deserved a mention.