Comments on: Longbow vs. Armor

By: Andrew Miller

Andrew Miller — Fri, 26 May 2017 09:40:09 +0000

Medieval armor was created to prevent you from being stabbed by small blades not longbows.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:22:03 +0000

Guys! This topic has been examined in exhaustive detail online. The bows were more likely to average 140lbs, but shaped plate was even more effective at shedding arrows than the flat test plate used here.

It seems that the longbow simply made the cavalry charge redundant, because sufficiently armored horses would be too ponderous to be effective; this turned the conflict into an infantry battle, in which more lightly armored, but more mobile and more effectively armed, men at arms, had the advantage.

The English archers were also incredibly strong men who were extremely formidable with the hammer, the mace and the bollock dagger, and they fought to kill, not to capture, or win glory.

By: TWS

TWS — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 17:56:04 +0000

I used to shoot a 90# yew long bow. I am large and strong and have been shooting bows since I was three.

It was hell on my shoulder. I traded down to a 65# recurve. I could possibly have pulled a 200# bow but it takes a special guy to do that all day.

By: Brent

Brent — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:30:28 +0000

When the British ship the Mary Rose from the Era of Henry VIII was excavated they found that, unbelievably enough, British archers of the period were pulling longbows of up to 200lbs. That would weigh the calculation here much more in the archer’s favor.

By: Kaue

Kaue — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:56:35 +0000

Assuming the calculations are correct, what about a 140-lb-draw bow at the same distance (250 yards)? Would it pierce in a lethal way? Or, even worse, at only 120 yards, would it be lethal?

By: Toddy Cat

Toddy Cat — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 19:53:18 +0000

Henry V was smart enough to choose his battlefield very carefully. There were plenty of situations where armored cavalry could have defeated longbowmen. Henry was careful not to fight the French under those conditions. As we demonstrated in Vietnam, good weapons and good troops are unavailing without good leadership at the top. As we found out, it’s possible to win every battle and still lose the war. Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what happened to the English in the Hundred Years War, after Henry died…

By: Chris C.

Chris C. — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 19:13:11 +0000

Just like with real estate, in battles success may depend on location, location, location. IIRC, Sun Tsu may have noted this as well.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:27:34 +0000

A month after Crecy, the French caught a battalion of English archers moving supplies. The English got behind some hedgerows. The French doubled their shields and walked slowly up to the hedge, chopped the hedge, chopped the English. Froissart’s first book.

By: Bob Brazeau

Bob Brazeau — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:33:16 +0000

The test was a 75 pound bow replicating a war bow at 250 yards? Rereading the books of the battle, someone needs to do a test with a true war bow at say, 50 feet? The battle was fought close, not 2.5 football fields away.

And this:

Then he calculated that an arrow shot from a 75-lb-draw bow would have the same velocity at point-blank range as an authentic 110-lb-draw bow would have at 250 yards, so he shot his bow at just 10 yards.

I need to see the math.

By: Matt Marino

Matt Marino — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 20:16:51 +0000

I just want to know where [he] got the bow. I’ve been looking for one for years. Best I could find was #65.