[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

You can't vary the drawing of the bow and still have it work the way it is suppose to work. They wouldn't have been able to shoot over that wall at any distance within their range. For example if they were close they couldn't just give the arrow a little tug to scoot over. Bows have to be shot full powered. It's simply the mechanics of how they work. Read my post and I'm talking about absolute arcing all the time. They obviously can do so when in a position that allows them in accordance with the power of their weapon but not in the way you see in these games where the crossbow is forced to shoot straight and the bow has all this extra magical flexibility. You can ,and they did, lob high angle shots with a crossbow too. However that isn't arching whenever is it? That is my point if I was not clear.

I haven't seen longbows used in the way you describe, in games or in movies. What games are you talking about, and what, exactly, is this magical aiming effect?

At least to me, your original mention of arcing seemed to ignore the fact that the archers have more options than "straight" and "arc of X degrees". Changing the angle the arrows are fired at will also affect the place where they come down, obviously. While it can't be used always, it would allow for some flexibility. The constant force is also a limit for crossbows, also used in similar manner.

They were massed because they could be because they were cheap enough for the populace to snag them up. They wouldn't be able to sub in another competing range weapon because they did not have the pimpin' money rolls to do it with. There was no mystical English hoodoo going on and restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

I think you missed Agema's point here. He also said that the English didn't have other range weapons to sub in. Money was a big part of this.

Longbows are cheaper than crossbows, and a trained man can load a longbow faster than he can a crossbow. If your goal is to fire as many arrows/bolts into the enemy army fast, longbows do it better than crossbows, both because their rate of fire is better and because they are cheaper, ergo you can afford more longbowmen.


As far as I know, there was no other cheap ranged weapon that could fire at a comparable distance, in the time period we are talking about. If longbow is the only such weapon, then the English couldn't have used the tactic of massed archers with anything but the longbow. I can't see anything wrong with this logic. Unless you know something I don't, that means longbows really were the superior choice, for this single instance.

...restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

We are not talking about longbows and crossbows in this game, but about their historical usage. Since we're talking about how the English used their longbows, we should talk about the time and place they used the longbows in.

And the crossbow is not as "slow" as you think it is. For one you have to realize the inherent advantages of a missile weapon held in such a manner allowed a greater frontage. The man in front can lower his profile giving the men behind clear sight. This also allows multiple ranks to take turns ensuring a continuous and more cohesive stream of missiles.

This sounds more like something from the period when firearms and rank-fighting were in use. To my knowledge, crossbows were never used like this, but I could be wrong. Can you post any example? It's an intriguing image, and I'd be interested in reading more about it.

So how is the guy gonna get around his buddy? If the target is too close and he aims up a little bit he'll over shoot. If he trys to go way high up he is likely to miss. And not to mention he's doing this without being able to see past his buddy's pumpkin head. So he can't even get a rough idea on how to adjust following shots. Combine this with what I've said before and the rate of shooting of the longbow is no where near the kind of efficacy that you think it is.

Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.

I don't know how longbowmen were stationed in the battlefield, but of course they couldn't be stationed so close to each other that they wouldn't have space to fire or aim. However, since the weapon has rather long range, it isn't necessary. It would make defending an army or longbowmen more difficult than an army of crossbowmen, since the longbowmen would cover a larger area. However, as I said above, crossbows couldn't be massed (by English) in such numbers any way.

Producing many archers has been done before. Again there is nothing special about the Welsh/English longbow comparative bows are found elsewhere in Europe there is no extra power that it has.

There have been other armies that used huge amounts of archers, and longbows have been used by specialized hunters (and the like) in other places. The proper question is, has anyone else ever trained an army of longbowmen?

It is an interesting question, for two reasons:
1) If longbows are so useful, why didn't anyone else do it?
2) If they aren't superior weapons, why did the English do it?

I think the second question has been answered in this thread: for the English, it was cheaper and/or more efficient to mass longbows than other similar weapons, like crossbows.

Now the question becomes, why did they need so many archers? I found someone who thought it was because archers were good against CAVALRY, not infantry. Arrows would kill and/or wound unarmored horses, and the presence of longbowmen would force the French to dismount. It was just one person and he didn't cite any sources, so make of that what you will.