Editing English longbow (section)

== Use and performance ==

=== Training ===

Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving [[armour]] of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least {{convert|360|N|lb-f|lk=on|abbr=off|order=flip}} and possibly more than {{convert|600|N|lb-f|lk=off|abbr=on|order=flip}}. Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. [[Skeleton]]s of longbow archers are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often [[osteophyte]]s on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.<ref>Dr. A.J. Stirland. Raising the Dead: the Skeleton Crew of Henry VIII's Great Ship the Mary Rose. (Chichester 2002) As cited in {{harvnb|Strickland|Hardy|2005|p={{Page needed|date=June 2010}} }}</ref>

It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the [[Assize of Arms of 1252]] and [[Edward III of England]]'s declaration of 1363:

{{quote|Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery.<ref>{{cite book | title=Readings in English Social History: From Pre-Roman Days to AD 1837 | publisher=Cambridge University Press | page=150 | year=2014 | orig-year=1st pub. 1923 | editor-last=Morgan | editor-first=R.B.| isbn=978-1-107-65556-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-hmTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA150 | access-date=2018-01-16}}</ref>}}

If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the king to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars.{{or|date=June 2023}} Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by [[musketeer]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Davies |first=Jonathan |date=2002 |title='A Combersome Tying Weapon in a Throng of Men': The Decline of the Longbow in Elizabethan England |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/44230774 |journal=Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research |volume=80 |issue=321 |pages=16–31 |jstor=44230774 |issn=0037-9700}}</ref>

=== Range ===

The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with much depending on both the bow and the type of arrow. It has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach {{convert|400|yd|m|abbr=on}}.{{sfn|Oakeshott|1960|p=297}} The longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of [[Finsbury Fields]] in the 16th century was {{convert|345|yd|m|abbr=on}}.{{sfn|Loades|2013|p=32}}  In 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of {{convert|220|yd|m|abbr=on}}; ranges below this had to be shot with heavy arrows.{{sfn|Loades|2013|p=33}} Modern experiments broadly concur with these historical ranges. A {{cvt|667|N|lbf|order=flip|adj=on}} ''Mary Rose'' replica longbow was able to shoot a {{convert|53.6|g|oz|abbr=on|order=flip}} arrow {{convert|328|m|yd|abbr=on|order=flip}} and a {{convert|95.9|g|oz|abbr=on|order=flip}} a distance of {{convert|249.9|m|yd|abbr=on|order=flip}}.<ref name=Strickland-18>{{harvnb|Strickland|Hardy|2005|p=18}}, Appendix 408–418</ref> In 2012, Joe Gibbs shot a {{convert|2.25|oz|g|abbr=on}} livery arrow {{convert|292|yd|m|abbr=on}} with a {{cvt|170|lbf|N}} yew bow.{{sfn|Loades|2013|p=65}} The effective combat range of longbowmen was generally lower than what could be achieved on the practice range as sustained shooting was tiring and the rigors of campaigning would sap soldiers' strength. Writing thirty years after the ''Mary Rose'' sank, Barnabe Rich estimated that if a thousand English archers were mustered, after one week only one hundred of them would be able to shoot farther than two hundred paces ({{convert|167|yd|m|abbr=on}}), and two hundred of the others would not be able to shoot farther than 180 paces.<ref name="bowvsmusket.com"/> In 2017, Hungarian master archer József Mónus set a new flight world record with a traditional English Longbow of {{convert|412.82|m|yd|order=flip}}.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://worldarchery.sport/world-records?category=English%20Longbow%20Unlimited%20Men&discipline=Flight%20Archery|title=World Records}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVkTlu0C-Ks|title = 412.82 m English Longbow Flight shooting World Record – Mónus|website = [[YouTube]]| date=29 November 2017 }}</ref>

=== Armour penetration ===

==== Modern testing ====

In an early modern test by [[Saxton Pope]], a direct hit from a steel [[bodkin point]] penetrated Damascus [[mail (armour)|mail]] armour.{{sfn|Pope|2003|loc=[http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=30&fk_files=17210 Chapter IV.--Archery in general, p.30]}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads |title=Royal Armouries: 6. Armour-piercing arrowheads |access-date=28 September 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160324192153/https://royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/research/analytical-projects/armour-piercing-arrowheads |archive-date=24 March 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

A 2006 test was made by Matheus Bane using a {{convert|75|lbf|abbr=on}} draw (at {{cvt|28|in|cm}}) bow, shooting at {{convert|10|yd|m}}; according to Bane's calculations, this would be approximately equivalent to a {{convert|110|lbf|abbr=on}} bow at {{convert|250|yd|m}}.{{sfn|Bane|2006}} Measured against a replica of the thinnest contemporary [[gambeson]] (padded jacket) armour, a {{convert|905|gr|g}} needle bodkin and a 935 grain curved broadhead penetrated over {{convert|3.5|in|mm}}. (gambeson armour could be up to twice as thick as the coat tested; in Bane's opinion such a thick coat would have stopped bodkin arrows but not the cutting force of broadhead arrows.) Against "high quality riveted [[mail (armour)|maille]]", the needle bodkin and curved broadhead penetrated {{cvt|2.8|in|mm}}. Against a [[coat of plates]], the needle bodkin achieved {{cvt|0.3|in|mm}} penetration. The curved broadhead did not penetrate but caused 0.3&nbsp;in of deformation of the metal. Results against [[plate armour]] of "minimum thickness" ({{cvt|1.2|mm|in|order=flip}}) were similar to the coat of plates, in that the needle bodkin penetrated to a shallow depth, the other arrows not at all. In Bane's view, the plate armour would have kept out all the arrows if thicker or worn with more padding.

Other modern tests described by Bane include those by Williams (which concluded that longbows could ''not'' penetrate mail, but in Bane's view did not use a realistic arrow tip), [[Robert Hardy]]'s tests (which achieved broadly similar results to Bane), and a ''Primitive Archer'' test which demonstrated that a longbow '''could''' penetrate a plate armour breastplate. However, the ''Primitive Archer'' test used a {{convert|160|lbf|abbr=on}} longbow at very short range, generating 160 joules (vs. 73 for Bane and 80 for Williams), so probably not representative of battles of the time.

Tests conducted by Mark Stretton{{sfn|Soar|Gibbs|Jury|Stretton|2010|pages=127–151<!-- this page range needs breaking down to march the paragraphs -->}} examined the effects of heavier war shafts (as opposed to lighter hunting or distance-shooting 'flight arrows'). The quarrel-like {{cvt|102|g|oz|adj=on|order=flip}} arrow from a yew 'self bow' (with a draw weight of {{cvt|144|lbf|N}} at {{cvt|32|in|cm}}) while travelling at {{cvt|47.23|m/s|ft/s}} yielded 113.76&nbsp;joules, more [[Kinetic energy penetrator|kinetic energy]] than the lighter broad-heads while achieving 90% of the range. The short, heavy [[Quarrel (projectile)|quarrel]]-form bodkin could penetrate a replica [[brigandine]] at up to 40° from perpendicular.{{sfn|Soar|Gibbs|Jury|Stretton|2010|pages=127–151<!-- this page range needs breaking down to march the paragraphs -->}}

In 2011, [[Mike Loades]] conducted an experiment in which short bodkin arrows were shot at a range of {{convert|10|yd|m|abbr=on}} by bows of {{convert|140|lbf|abbr=on}} – powerful bows at less than normal battlefield range. The target was covered in a riveted mail over a fabric armour of deerskin over 24 linen layers. While most arrows went through the mail layer, none fully penetrated the textile armour.{{sfn|Loades|2013|pp=72–73}}

Other research has also concluded that later medieval armour, such as that of the Italian city-state mercenary companies, was effective at stopping contemporary arrows.{{sfn|Kaiser|2003}}

Computer analysis by Warsaw University of Technology in 2017 has estimated that heavy [[bodkin point]] arrows could penetrate typical [[plate armour]] of the time at up to {{convert|225|m|ft|order=flip}}. However, the depth of penetration would be slight at that range, a mere {{cvt|14|mm|in|order=flip}} on average; penetration increased as the range closed or against armour lesser than the best quality available at the time, but stopped at {{cvt|24|mm|in|order=flip}}, the highest penetration depth estimated at {{cvt|25|m|ft|order=flip}} range, it was unlikely to be deadly.{{sfn|Magier|Nowak|Tomasz|Zochowski|2017|pp=73, 77, 81, 84}}

In August 2019, the Blacksmith [[YouTube]] channel 'Tod's Workshop', together with historian Dr [[Tobias Capwell]] (curator at the [[Wallace collection]]), Joe Gibbs (archer), Will Sherman (fletcher) and Kevin Legg (armourer) ran a practical test using as close a recreation of 15th century plate armour (made with materials and techniques fitting to the time period) over a chainmail and gambeson against a {{cvt|160|lbf|N|adj=on}} longbow. They shot a variety of arrows at the target and the results showed that the arrows shot by a 160&nbsp;lb longbow were unable to penetrate the front of the armour at any range, but the arrow that struck below the harness went right through the underlying protection.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE|title = ARROWS vs ARMOUR – Medieval Myth Busting|website = [[YouTube]]| date=29 August 2019 }}</ref>

==== Contemporary accounts ====
[[File:Battle-poitiers(1356).jpg|right|thumb|Archers at the [[Battle of Poitiers]], 1356]]
Against massed men in armour, massed longbows were murderously effective on many battlefields.<ref name="academia.edu">[https://www.academia.edu/13146838/_The_Efficacy_of_the_Medieval_Longbow_A_Reply_to_Kelly_DeVries_War_in_History_5_no._2_1998_233-42 "The Efficacy of the Medieval Longbow: A Reply to Kelly DeVries"], ''War in History'' 5, no. 2 (1998): 233–42; idem, "The Battle of Agincourt", ''The Hundred Years War (Part II): Different Vistas'', ed. L. J. Andrew Villalon and Donald J. Kagay (Leiden: Brill, 2008): 37–132.</ref>

Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of {{convert|240|yd|m}}, heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the ''Mary Rose'' bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows".{{sfn|Strickland|Hardy|2005|pp=272–278}}

Archery was described by contemporaries as ineffective against steel [[plate armour]] in the [[Battle of Neville's Cross]] (1346), the siege of [[Battle of Bergerac|Bergerac]] (1345), and the [[Battle of Poitiers]] (1356); such armour became available to European knights and men at arms of fairly modest means by the middle of the 14th century, although never to all soldiers in any army. Longbowmen were, however, effective at Poitiers, and this success stimulated changes in armour manufacture partly intended to make armoured men less vulnerable to archery. Nevertheless, at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and for some decades thereafter, English longbowmen continued to be an effective battlefield force.<ref name="academia.edu"/>

==== Shields ====

Following the [[Battle of Crécy]], the longbow did not always prove as effective. For example, at the [[Battle of Poitiers]] (1356), the French men-at-arms formed a shield wall with which Geoffrey le Baker recounts "protecting their bodies with joined shields, [and] turned their faces away from the missiles. So the archers emptied their quivers in vain".<ref>Loades 2013, p. 10.</ref>

==== Summary ====

Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows. However, this did not necessarily make the longbow ineffective; thousands of longbowmen were deployed in the English victory at Agincourt against plate armoured French knights in 1415. Clifford Rogers has argued that while longbows might not have been able to penetrate steel breastplates at Agincourt they could still penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs. Most of the French knights advanced on foot but, exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour enduring a "terrifying hail of arrow shot", they were overwhelmed in the melee.<ref>{{cite news |last=Curry |first=Anne |date=October 2015 |title=Agincourt: medieval England's finest hour? |url=https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/agincourt-medieval-englands-finest-hour/ |work=History Extra |access-date=2021-03-23}}</ref>

Less heavily armoured soldiers were more vulnerable than knights. For example, enemy crossbowmen were forced to retreat at Crécy when deployed without their protecting [[pavise]]s. Horses were generally less well protected than the knights themselves; shooting the French knights' horses from the side (where they were less well armoured) is described by contemporary accounts of the [[Battle of Poitiers]] (1356), and at Agincourt [[John Keegan]] has argued that the main effect of the longbow would have been in injuring the horses of the mounted French knights.<ref name="Longbow Archers">{{cite web |title=AGINCOURT – 25 Oct 1415 |url=https://www.longbow-archers.com/historyagincourt.html |website=Longbow Archers |access-date=27 July 2021}}</ref>

=== Shooting rate ===

A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle. Most archers would not shoot arrows at the maximum rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. "With the heaviest bows [a modern war bow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."{{sfn|Strickland|Hardy|2005|p=31}} Not only do the arms and shoulder muscles tire from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of shooting in combat would vary considerably. Ranged [[volley fire|volleys]] at the beginning of the battle would differ markedly from the closer, aimed shots as the battle progressed and the enemy neared. On the battlefield English archers stored their arrows stabbed upright into the ground at their feet, reducing the time it took to nock, draw and loose. Massed longbowmen could produce a "storm" of arrows.{{sfn|Kaiser|1980}}

Arrows were not unlimited, so archers and their commanders took every effort to ration their use to the situation at hand.  Nonetheless, resupply during battle was available. Young boys were often employed to run additional arrows to longbow archers while in their positions on the battlefield.<ref>{{harvnb|Barker|2006|loc=|pp=86-88}}</ref> 

In tests against a moving target simulating a [[galloping]] knight{{sfn|Soar|Gibbs|Jury|Stretton|2010|pages=127–151<!-- this page range needs breaking down to march the paragraphs -->}} it took some approximately seven seconds to draw, aim and loose an armour-piercing heavy arrow using a replica war bow. It was found that in the seven seconds between the first and second shots the target advanced {{convert|70|yd|m}} and that the second shot occurred at such close range that, if it was a realistic contest, running away was the only option.

A Tudor English author expects eight shots from a longbow in the same time as five from a musket.<ref name="bowvsmusket.com">''A right exelent and pleasaunt dialogue, betwene Mercury and an English souldier contayning his supplication to Mars: bevvtified with sundry worthy histories, rare inuentions, and politike deuises.'' wrytten by B. Rich: gen. 1574. Published 1574 by J. Day. These bookes are to be sold [by H. Disle] at the corner shop, at the South west doore of Paules church in London.
https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/07/14/barnabe-rich-a-right-exelent-and-pleasaunt-dialouge-1574/ accessed 21 April 2016</ref> He points out that the musket also shoots at a flatter trajectory, so is more likely to hit its target and its shot is likely to be more damaging in the event of a hit. The advantage of early firearms lay in the lower training requirements, the opportunity to take cover while shooting, flatter trajectory,<ref name="bowvsmusket.com"/> and greater penetration.<ref>"The mean depth of arrow wounds, for example, was an inch and a half, that of gunshot wounds six inches, not counting balls that went right through the body or head" {{harv|Gunn|Gromelski|2012|pp=1222–1223}}.</ref>

=== Treating arrow wounds ===
Specialised medical tools designed for arrow wounds have existed since ancient times: [[Diocles of Carystus|Diocles]] (successor of [[Hippocrates]]) devised the graphiscos, a form of [[cannula]] with hooks, and the duck-billed forceps (allegedly invented by Heras of [[Cappadocia]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wilson |first=Thomas |date=1901 |title=Arrow Wounds |jstor=659204 |journal=American Anthropologist |issue=3 |pages=513–531 |volume=3 |doi=10.1525/aa.1901.3.3.02a00070 |issn=1548-1433 |doi-access=free}}</ref>) was employed during the medieval period to extract arrows. While armour-piercing "bodkin" points were relatively easy (if painful) to remove, barbed points required the flesh to be cut or pulled aside. An arrow would be pushed through and taken out the other side of the body only in the worst cases, as this would cause even more tissue damage and risk cutting through major blood vessels.

Henry, Prince of Wales, later [[Henry V of England|Henry V]], was wounded in the face by an arrow at the [[Battle of Shrewsbury]] (1403). The royal physician [[John Bradmore]] had a tool made that consisted of a pair of smooth tongs. Once carefully inserted into the socket of the arrowhead, the tongs screwed apart until they gripped its walls and allowed the head to be extracted from the wound. Prior to the extraction, the hole made by the arrow shaft was widened by inserting larger and larger dowels of [[Elderberry|elder]] [[pith]] wrapped in linen down into the entry wound. The dowels were soaked in [[honey]], now known to have [[antiseptic]] properties.<ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Israili |first1 = ZH |s2cid = 23337250 |year = 2014| title = Antimicrobial Properties of Honey |journal = Am J Ther |volume =21 |issue = 4 |pages =  304–23 |pmid = 23782759 |doi=10.1097/MJT.0b013e318293b09b}}</ref> The wound was then dressed with a [[poultice]] of [[barley]] and honey mixed in [[turpentine]] (pre-dating [[Ambroise Paré]] but whose therapeutic use of turpentine was inspired by Roman medical texts that may have been familiar to Bradmore). After 20 days, the wound was free of infection.{{sfn|Cummins|2006}}<!-- This paragraph was inserted by a revision as of 00:56, 9 September 2004. It may have been a quote PBS cannot remember -->