the hundred year's war- longbow

8/12/2019 The Hundred Year's War- Longbow

1/7

Tyshawn Morris Should the English Longbow

Have Won the Hundred YearsWar 5/2/2014

Page 1

The Hundred Years War was a conflict between England and France between 1337 and

1453. The origin of this war goes as far back to when England and Normandy in France were

united by William the Conqueror. His grandson Henry II was inherited Anjou by his father

giving him further territory in France; which led to internal conflicts that would provide the

fueling for The Hundred Years War. This led to constant disputes of rights, cumulating to 1337

when King Charles III challenged King Phillips VI right to the throne. This led to many battles,

during which the English longbow was introduced. The longbow is accounted for leading the

English to victory during the first phase of the war, effectively helping the English decimate the

French. Even though the English did not win the war some argue that the longbow was enough to

help the English win the war alone. I and other people do not feel this way because of the basic

rule of adaption. While the longbow was an effective and innovative weapon at the time; it was

not enough to ensure the English victory of the war alone.

The English longbow was a bow crafted of yew and measured around 4-6 feet in length

with arrows that were about 3 feet in length (Kennedy Hickman-Construction).The English

Longbow was a weapon that allowed Archers to shoot at a distance of about 200 meters and

allowed a rapid fire. English archers would unleash volleys of arrows from behind the flank of

the English or behind a fortification (Kennedy Hickman-Tactics).They used a number of

various arrows to decimate specific types of units on the battlefield. These included arrows with

heavy chisel heads which could penetrate chain mail and other light armor. These tactics aided

the English in their skirmishes in the early portion of the war. The French were at the time

equipped with the crossbow, while innovative in its own right was no match to a skilled user of a

longbow. A crossbow could only fire 2-3 shots per minute while a skilled user of a longbow

could fire 20 shots per minute. The crossbow was limited to a horizontal shooting range, while

the long bow could be shot vertically; this allowed for the English archers to bunch closer

together than the French crossbowmen (John J. Mortimer Jr. , p.52-53).While the crossbow

was slower than longbow, it had the advantage of puncturing armor with greater ease. Anotheradvantage of the crossbow is not a lot of training was needed for it to be used effectively,

contrary to a user of the longbow having to train extensively to be effective with it. Though, in

all of its effectiveness the crossbow was much more complex and expensive than the longbow

(John J. Mortimer Jr. p.53). The English was relatively smaller than French when it came to

their army so using advanced tactics was their advantage.


2/7



Page 2

One could argue it is illogical enough to think one could win a war alone with just single

type of tactic. During the war at the battle of Crcy, the English had 9,000 to 10,000 men against

the Frenchs 35,000 to 100,000 men (Ivan CastroBattles of Crecy). The factor that led to this win

was the French having 29,000 knights and men at arms, while the English had 7,000 longbow

men. The English archers were on a higher ground than the French and they rained down arrows

upon them leading to the death of over 12,000 mounted men at arms, 2,300 crossbowmen and

around 50,000 footmen; the English only lost a few hundred soldiers (Ivan CastroBattles of

Crecy). This tactic that once again proved useful at Battle of Poitiers and Agincourt, Where the

English used their longbow men as an advantage to rain down death upon the French. Yet some

factors in this battle do not come up as much as it should. Two factors that led to the defeat of the

French in Crcy was the lack of protection against arrows and the horrible tactical blunders made

by the French leadership. During the battle a storm erupted, creating unfavorable conditions for

the cavalry of the French who needed dry ground to be effective. The counsel of King Phillips IV

advised against a direct assault because of the storm and the fact that their soldiers were

exhausted from a forced march to catch up with the English (John J. Mortimer Jr., p.59). Yet

the king ignored his counsel and ordered the attack. The crossbow men were ordered to charge

forward first but were shot down by the English archers. The next move that proved unwise of

the leadership of the French was the advancement of cavalry. This effectively trapped the

crossbowmen that were falling back. This led to the crossbow men being trampled by the cavalry

who were shot down by the English archers (John J. Mortimer Jr., p.60).

Now itscommon knowledge that having an ineffective leader in battle will aid the

oppositionschances of success. With the French leadership being ineffective it can clearly be

seen why the English won this battle with their longbows. Seeing this, not all the credit for the

victory can be given to the longbow alone. To prove this, look at the Battle of Poitiers, another

battle with a blunder done by the French leadership. During this battle the English set up a

positioning near a road, where they their archers were put on both sides of the road and protected

by undergrowth and hedges. This was done so that one cannot approach to attack the army save

between these rows of archers (John J. Mortimer Jr., p.66). The French, not learning from

their past mistakes, sent in cavalry in an attempt to flank the archers. The English responded to

this by firing at the horses, who in turn attempted to retreat and in the process fell onto their


3/7



Page 3

riders. A new issue for the archers was the strengthening of plate armor, which proved resistant

to the fire of arrows. The English supplemented this by changing position into the flank and

firing at the hind end of the horses, forcing them into a retreat and leading them to trample their

riders (John J. Mortimer Jr., p.66-67). Once again the use of superior tactics of the English and

poor tactics of the French won the battle. The victories would continue into the second part of the

war, but less effectively due to the improvements of armor and the over reliance of the longbow

due to the previous successes (John J. Mortimer Jr., p.68). This once again proves the Frenchs

poor were a major factor in their defeat, and the not the longbow alone was the sole reason for

the victory of the English.

One would wonder if they could keep this up indefinitely, or would it aid to their defeat?

Would the English always have the advantage of their higher terrain and would the French figureout a way to decimate their much smaller and singularly focused adversary? The answer is yes,

the French soon found an effective way to counter the longbow. Prince Charles V changed the

tactics of the French to minimize and eliminate the effectiveness of the longbow (John J.

Mortimer Jr., p.69). The English archers were still effective but they took a loss in terms of

lethality. Until that time the French relied on tactics that were stated to be chivalrous, in other

words having the enemy aware of your location and actually setting the time and the date for

these pitched battles. The English excelled in these pitched battles and King Charles realized

this, throwing away this tactic. King Charles V did not direct his troops on the battlefield himself

but instead left tit to his lieutenant Bertrand du Guesclin. Du Guesclin employed tactics that

relied more on attacking isolated forces with subterfuge. In one instance he hired prostitutes to

enter an English fortification and open the gates at night to allow his men a surprise attack (John

J. Mortimer Jr., p.70). Though his tactics were not chivalrous, they were effective. The French

has learned to overcome the effectiveness of the longbow all they had to do was avoid it.This is

the smartest thing the French could have done. From someone who used to get beaten by bullies

a lot, I know that once you realized how your enemies have power over you the wisest thing you

can do is not put yourself in that position of disadvantage. The weapon that would soon

revolutionilize the war was the gunpowder cannon. The cannon successfully won the French two

battles against the English archers. The English Longbow men were defeated in an open battle.

Forced to dislodge from their traditional defensive positions by a few guns and then overridden


4/7



Page 4

by the French heavy cavalry charge at Formigy (Socit de l'Oriflamme). Even though the

gunpowder cannons were slower and much more complicated than the longbow, it still proved to

be much more of a match for it. The final French victory at Castillon, the last battle of the war in

1453 was the first major field engagement of the war to be decided by gunfire (Maurice Keen-

Armies, battles and weaponry). So it can be seen the tactics of the English could not stand the

test of time indefinitely.

The fault of the English is they put so much focus into their use of the longbow. The

kings of England actively encouraged the use of a longbow to the point it was required by law

that archers practice their skill or be fined. The king also demanded that each shire bring him a

number of archers per year (Chris Trueman). Now it is a sound tactic to put focus into your

greatest asset, but putting all your focus into it is unwise. This leaves you open to your enemyquickly learning how to counter your one great skill and overpowering you due to you not having

focus in other tactics. They began to rely on the longbow and pitched battles to ensure their

victory. Laws were made for traders to go out and get materials specifically for the crafting of

longbows and its arrows. England soon came to a problem when there was a decline of materials

needed for longbows and they found themselves with a lower supply of archers then what they

were demanding. King Edward III saw this as the end of the English longbow and wanted to

enforce the training. He even went as far to ban other sports, sending his sheriffs to Suppress

bowling, quoits, handball, football, club ball, hockey, cockfighting, and other vain games of no

value (John J. Mortimer Jr., p.79). He did this because he saw that England had lost its skill

with the longbow and wanted every man to hone his skill at it forcefully. If you know the French

were finding ways to make your weapon less effective, why would you insist on the need to keep

it? That is an action of a fool who does not learn how to adapt to war. A large main issue with

the longbow came in the crafting of bows and arrows. There was no precise way to make a bow

and it was rather difficult to make arrows. Supplies for bows were low and most were already

damaged. If one bow was damaged it was more functional to make a whole new bow than to

repair the broken one(John J. Mortimer Jr., p. 81). Now if your strongest asset is so hard to

come by and it is very costly and difficult to make, why put so much into it. It is logical to prize

the longbow because of its effect but if it is that difficult to keep up with the demand of it then

you should begin putting your expertise in other areas to make up for it. Also using up your


5/7



Page 5

difficult to craft weapons like it is water is a flawed decision. A large negative factor for the

longbow men was their vulnerability. Archers they typically wore light armor and could easily

be taken at a flank. Typically the English and their archers grouped up to deliver the volley of

arrows to rain down upon the French. While this is a sounds tactic, one does have to question

how wise that was. Having most of your ranged soldiers bunched up allows them to be easily

decimated from a single calculated strike from cavalry if they can advance on them. While the

French used an unwise series of tactics that led to their defeat, they advanced in technology and

tactics. So continuing to employ the same tactics that your enemies learned how lower its

effectiveness, it makes no sense.

Now one could say that expanding upon your greatest weapon and skill when it is helping

you win is a wise decision; that if the English could successfully have won if they could meet the

manpower and material needs of the longbow. A major argument of advocates of the longbow

was that its affect on flesh upon extraction. The Frenchs plate armor may have decreased the

effect of the arrow, but all it took was a well placed wound from an arrow to remove a man from

combat (John J. Mortimer Jr., p. 85). Another argument is that the rifle was much slower than

the bow, firing a single shot when 4-5 shots could be shot from a longbow. To this I say that a

wound from any type of weapon could remove anyone from combat be it from the flesh being

ripped from the extraction of an arrow or a well placed slash of a sword. Cannon could decimate

several soldiers at a moments notice and accuracy was not needed. A man can recover from a

well shot arrow in battle, where as a man struck by a cannonball had little chance of survival.

Another argument for the longbow was it had a psychological effect on those against it. It is said

that people seeing a hail of arrows and hearing if sink into the earth and armor of those around

them was far more demoralizing then the balls fired by cannons (John J. Mortimer Jr., p. 86).

Now in my opinion I would be far more afraid of the sound of explosions firing off and knowing

that there is a speeding metallic ball of death heading towards me so fast it can hardly be seen. I

say that even if the English did have the supply to keep up with the demand of the longbow inmaterials and manpower, they would still eventually fail. At some point I could see the French

adapting to the longbow even further to the point it was ineffective and they overpower the

English due to them being unprofessionally trained in other areas of combat as well as they were

with the longbow.


6/7



Page 6

There is no denying the English longbow was an effective weapon, and that England at

their time had mastered it; it was still it was very incontinent and costly. England relied too much

on the Longbow even though it was difficult to make and the materials needed for it was sparse.They put all of their tactics into the use of the longbow and the French eventually learned how to

overcome it. Overreliance in one tactic to the point where it is your only tactic is illogical. Even

though the longbow both them victories during the first half of the war, they failed to realize the

French was making their tactic ineffective, and they depended on their victories in the past to

ensure them victories in the future. With the information presented it is clear why the longbow

was not enough to buy the English Victory in the Hundred Years War


7/7



Page 7

Work cited

Tactics, Strategy, and Battlefield Formation during the Hundred

Years War: The Role of the Longbow in the Infantry Revolution - John J. Mortimer, Jr.

2013

http://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/2037/John%20J.%20Mortimer,%20Jr.%20(Thesis).pdf?se

quence=1

The Longbow- Chris Trueman

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/longbow.htm

The English Longbow and the Hundred Years' War - Ivan Castro, August, 10, 2010

https://suite.io/ivan-castro/40xt28x

The French cannon in the last phase of the War - Socit de l'Oriflamme, June, 16, 2002

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hyw_fp.htm

Hundreds year war- Maurice Keen, February, 17, 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtml

English longbow - Kennedy Hickman

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/englongbow.htm
http://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/2037/John%20J.%20Mortimer,%20Jr.%20(Thesis).pdf?sequence=1http://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/2037/John%20J.%20Mortimer,%20Jr.%20(Thesis).pdf?sequence=1http://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/2037/John%20J.%20Mortimer,%20Jr.%20(Thesis).pdf?sequence=1http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/longbow.htmhttp://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/longbow.htmhttps://suite.io/ivan-castro/40xt28xhttps://suite.io/ivan-castro/40xt28xhttp://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hyw_fp.htmhttp://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hyw_fp.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtmlhttp://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/englongbow.htmhttp://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/englongbow.htmhttp://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/englongbow.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtmlhttp://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hyw_fp.htmhttps://suite.io/ivan-castro/40xt28xhttp://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/longbow.htmhttp://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/2037/John%20J.%20Mortimer,%20Jr.%20(Thesis).pdf?sequence=1http://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/2037/John%20J.%20Mortimer,%20Jr.%20(Thesis).pdf?sequence=1

the hundred year's war- longbow

Documents