THE ENGLISH LONG BOW.

[Peter Hudson]

Reference
A http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22826&highlight=ancient+arms+armour


Incredibly this weapon which comprises of two bits of wood and a length of string was like a machine gun when unleashed en masse on an enemy formation on land or aboard ships and was faster to reload and more devastating untill well after the advent of gunpowder.

I have designed this thread with a short starter as I have some interesting material to add as it rolls out to allow maximum input from members.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[fernando]

This weapon is actually not essentially an invention of the English, but of a neighboring people, the Welsh. In the 13th century, King Edward I (1239-1307) of England conquers Wales, accepts that some Welsh people join his army and, in this way, the bow begins to be adopted militarily. In fact, initially, the weapon was simply called a 'bow'. The oldest use of the expression 'long bow' appears in texts from the 15th century and served to differentiate it from the crossbow. Later, with its popularization in English society, it became known as the 'English Longbow archers', specialists in shooting the longbow (the Welsh longbow): the projectiles were not particularly strong, nor the range very long. It increased if the bows were fired into the air. But after describing a parabola, they fell precipitously on the targets at a speed that made them deadly. These well-trained archers achieved a rate of fire that is almost unbelievable for us today: João Gouveia Monteiro recalls that a good archer managed to shoot his fourth arrow when the first three were still flying through the air. In July 1385, loaded vessels arrived in Portugal with English fighters, mainly archers, but also pikemen, after two Portuguese ambassadors had been authorized to recruit in England, by King Richard II, as mercenaries – in a total of six to seven hundred.
In the famous battle of Aljubarrota (August 14, 1385), where the Portuguese king managed to maintain the country's independence, such men have been fundamental in contributing to the battle victory.
These English archers (mostly Welsh, in fact) were positioned in two wings (one on each side), slightly ahead of the vanguard lines and organized together with Portuguese crossbowmen.



.

[Peter Hudson]

I understand and to some extent sympathise with your belief in the English adoption of the Long Bow from the Welsh...however the weapon originates in paleolithic times . I do however think that the Longbow was taken to a much higher level so although it may have been inspired by Welsh performance it was in the English hands that it was perfected..Anyway it is still often called The Welsh Longbow.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery

I QUOTE"Origins and ancient archery
The oldest known evidence of the bow and arrow comes from South African sites such as Sibudu Cave, where the remains of bone and stone arrowheads have been found dating approximately 72,000 to 60,000 years ago.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Based on indirect evidence, the bow also seems to have appeared or reappeared later in Eurasia, near the transition from the Upper Paleolithic to the Mesolithic. The earliest definite remains of bow and arrow from Europe are possible fragments from Germany found at Mannheim-Vogelstang dated 17,500 to 18,000 years ago, and at Stellmoor dated 11,000 years ago. Azilian points found in Grotte du Bichon, Switzerland, alongside the remains of both a bear and a hunter, with flint fragments found in the bear's third vertebra, suggest the use of arrows at 13,500 years ago.[10] Other signs of its use in Europe come from the Stellmoor [de] in the Ahrensburg valley [de] north of Hamburg, Germany and dates from the late Paleolithic, about 10,000–9000 BC. The arrows were made of pine and consisted of a main shaft and a 15–20-centimetre-long (5+7⁄8–7+7⁄8 in) fore shaft with a flint point. There are no definite earlier bows; previous pointed shafts are known, but may have been launched by spear-throwers rather than bows. The oldest bows known so far comes from the Holmegård swamp in Denmark. At the site of Nataruk in Turkana County, Kenya, obsidian bladelets found embedded in a skull and within the thoracic cavity of another skeleton, suggest the use of stone-tipped arrows as weapons about 10,000 years ago.[11] Bows eventually replaced the spear-thrower as the predominant means for launching shafted projectiles, on every continent except Australasia, though spear-throwers persisted alongside the bow in parts of the Americas, notably Mexico and among the Inuit.

Bows and arrows have been present in Egyptian and neighboring Nubian culture since its respective predynastic and Pre-Kerma origins. In the Levant, artifacts that could be arrow-shaft straighteners are known from the Natufian culture, (c. 10,800–8,300 BC) onwards. The Khiamian and PPN A shouldered Khiam-points may well be arrowheads.

Classical civilizations, notably the Assyrians, Greeks, Armenians, Persians, Parthians, Romans, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese fielded large numbers of archers in their armies. Akkadians were the first to use composite bows in war according to the victory stele of Naram-Sin of Akkad.[12] Egyptians referred to Nubia as "Ta-Seti," or "The Land of the Bow," since the Nubians were known to be expert archers, and by the 16th Century BC Egyptians were using the composite bow in warfare.[13] The Bronze Age Aegean Cultures were able to deploy a number of state-owned specialized bow makers for warfare and hunting purposes already from the 15th century BC.[14] The Welsh longbow proved its worth for the first time in Continental warfare at the Battle of Crécy.[15] In the Americas archery was widespread at European contact.[16]

Archery was highly developed in Asia. The Sanskrit term for archery, dhanurveda, came to refer to martial arts in general. In East Asia, Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea was well known for its regiments of exceptionally skilled archers.[17][18]"UNQUOTE.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Worth recording some artwork here...and in the next post I will describe the effect of armour after being hit by hard tipped arrows...

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Worth recording some artwork here...

[Victrix]

Worth mentioning that it took a lot of training and required important skill to be an effective longbow archer. Their training affected the physical composure of their bodies to the extent that their remains show signs of their training. The crossbow was an innovation in that it required less training and strength to use.

[fernando]

...however the weapon originates in paleolithic times ...
Maybe my bad; i was only focusing on the thread topic, the English (or Welch) long bow and its influence in (low) Medieval warfare, not paleolithic bows.


.

[fernando]

... The crossbow was an innovation in that it required less training and strength to use.Infinitely much less training indeed. However crossbow bolts departed with a rather higher power strenght; some armour could be perforated with them.Their handicap was the time they took to re-arm.



.

[werecow]

Have you guys been following Tod Cutler's bit of experimental archeology regarding longbows versus armor? That guy is having a ton of fun with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZotewSan_k&list=PLIUWkznLJcsEFvEZdYExu7ffW2Hf5s32k

[Radboud]

Have you guys been following Tod Cutler's bit of experimental archeology regarding longbows versus armor? That guy is having a ton of fun with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZotewSan_k&list=PLIUWkznLJcsEFvEZdYExu7ffW2Hf5s32k

Tod’s material on the use of longbows and crossbows has really opened my eyes to some of the misconceptions on these weapons. By no means concise, but it is a fantastic body of work, that’s been well presented.

[fernando]

I wonder if the illustration of the various types of arrows shown in post #4 reflect the type's used in Long Bow arrows.
It is written that, those were mostly the Bodkin type, of heavy pointy square cross section, with great perforation power. Therefore, this type of arrow was used against heavy infantry or short-range cavalry. It is said that, these arrows were very effective against chainmail, however, they could bounce off plate armor if they didn't land perpendicular to the surface. They were relatively 'standardized' and mass produced; between 400,000 and 800,000 arrows were needed for a campaign.
The 3,500 arrows found in the wreckage of the Mary Rose measure between 61 and 81 cm (76 cm on average) and are cut from poplar or ash.



.

[fernando]

The Long Bow in action in Shrewsbury (1403) and the skills of John Bradmore.


.

[kai]

Of course, the Asian compound bow also needs to be mentioned as a highly advanced distance weapon for military use.

Also the ancient method of javelin/"dart" plus "spear" thrower tends to be overlooked as an extremely efficient long-range projectile!

Regards,
Kai

[Peter Hudson]

Of course, the Asian compound bow also needs to be mentioned as a highly advanced distance weapon for military use.

Hello Kai, Indeed my bow is a Korean Short Bow and I have that in mind as well as Turkish and others. Im not sure about darts and Javelins etc and that could be another subject...although Border Rievers carried a Latch which was a small crossbow that fired a small arrow like a dart almost...
Regards Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

I wonder if the illustration of the various types of arrows shown in post #4 reflect the type's used in Long Bow arrows.
It is written that, those were mostly the Bodkin type, of heavy pointy square cross section, with great perforation power. Therefore, this type of arrow was used against heavy infantry or short-range cavalry. It is said that, these arrows were very effective against chainmail, however, they could bounce off plate armor if they didn't land perpendicular to the surface. They were relatively 'standardized' and mass produced; between 400,000 and 800,000 arrows were needed for a campaign.
The 3,500 arrows found in the wreckage of the Mary Rose measure between 61 and 81 cm (76 cm on average) and are cut from poplar or ash.



.

Indeed the Bodkin ... Probably the least expensive and best overall performer seen here in the English box below with 8 other variants and in the bigger box European variants. Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

The question a lot of people ask is what is the furthest an arrow can be fired... The answer is that the Turkish Footbow appears to have that record... and this can be viewed at https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-longest-range-bow-in-history-medieval-times

The weapon fires an extraordinary arrow which has no feathers and is much thicker in the middle ... rather like an aircraft fusilage and a remarkable and aerodynamic design for its day.

[Peter Hudson]

Purely by coincidence a separate and up to now unexplored effect on piercing armour with arrows...on page 109 of The Reivers by Alistair Moffat "2017" Incoming arrows from English and Welsh bowmen at Agincourt while only slightly piercing the armour caused such agony as to force the French Knights to dismount and tear off the breast plate armour in the heat of battle...

This must have had a disastrous effect and a virtual pile up amidst deep muddy terrain and bang in front of the English line of defence.. in the killing zone.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

At Crecy another disaster for The French... This was probably inspired by the speed of the draw which for the English and or Welsh Bow men was about 20 a minute...five times faster than the French.

I am reminded that English Archers stuck their arrows in the ground ready to fire and here is another reminder of the lethality of the weapon...the point covered in earth was thus full of bacteria and made the damage to the enemy far worse.

[fernando]

The question a lot of people ask is what is the furthest an arrow can be fired... The answer is that the Turkish Footbow appears to have that record... and this can be viewed at https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-longest-range-bow-in-history-medieval-times

The weapon fires an extraordinary arrow which has no feathers and is much thicker in the middle ... rather like an aircraft fusilage and a remarkable and aerodynamic design for its day.
I realize that, to reach such extraordinary distances, an arrow requires a bow of dimensions greater than the one in the (quora) picture, even being the Turkish type.
Speaking of foot bows, i wonder whether the South American variant has connections with the Asian counterpart.
And speaking of long bows as per the term, remember the variant used by the Sirionó people of Eastern Colombia. Varying in size, depending upon the hunter, are all long, perhaps the longest in the world. On the average they range between 7 and 9 feet in length, although one was seen that measured 9 feet 7 inches. The Indians themselves have no explanation of why they use such a long bow, other than to say they were taught to do so by their fathers. They assert, however, that a short bow is no good. The explanation is probably to be sought in the manner in which the Sirionó use the bow in shooting. It is bent to the maximum distance allowed by the arms before the arrow is released. If a short bow were used, it is likely that the wood could not withstand the strain of the pull or that the hunter would not have sufficient strength to bend it to the desired degree.


.

[werecow]

Indeed the Bodkin ... Probably the least expensive and best overall performer seen here in the English box below with 8 other variants and in the bigger box European variants. Peter Hudson.

Interesting that the English variants seem to have "innies" whereas continental ones have "outies", i.e. with tangs.

[fernando]

I have actually got the wrong impression of the recurved footbow, mostly due to the size of the picture.
Some of these beasts can be very heavy (200 pounds plus) and are used primarily today for flight shooting. A sort of Olympic sport, so to say. Notwithstanding this technique is based on historical inspiration


.

[Peter Hudson]

In searching for more detail on Korean Bows I discovered a stone age find of a set of arrowheads in stone... and each almost 20 centimetres long .

Seev https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/relic/represent/view?relicId=2043

[fernando]

In searching for more detail on Korean Bows I discovered a stone age find of a set of arrowheads in stone... and each almost 20 centimetres long .

Seev https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/relic/represent/view?relicId=2043
That reminds me i have a few examples from American natives in my curiosities collection.
(Age certified by an archeologist).

.

[Peter Hudson]

Please see https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+arrows+for+english+longbows&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB999GB999&oq=fire+arrows+for+english+longbows&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.15969j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:50d371cd,vid:X6sr0HlSmVY

Just to re align with my original post on THE ENGLISH LONGBOW....
Regards Peter Hudson

[Peter Hudson]

This is the war head on an arrow for fire. Its the right hand one ...below.

[Peter Hudson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D1GkX1T6gQ is an interesting Video covering nearly everything about the English Longbow and a few other forms ...

Regards Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

I have always wondered what the effect is when arrows are greased before firing? Something tells me that the speed is either maintained better or increases the hitting power when goosegrease is put on the arrows...somehow preventing friction thus increasing delivery speed to the target...suggesting it was better for armour penetration... but I have no direct evidence to quote ...it being something someone said once? Can anyone throw some light upon this ?

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[fernando]

If you don't have goosegrease at hand, do it with beeswax (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ixmd97/is_there_any_historical_evidence_of_medieval/) ;).

[kronckew]

I seem to recall Tod tested a few greased arrows at some point. He also tested the thinner armour used for the appendages and side armours. He also tested glancing arrows coming off the breastplate, along with the helmets above, some shattered and splinters went in thru the eye slits, which would have put a knight out of action (unless maybe he wore safety goggles ;)) Later helmets had narrower eye slits and snout breathing holes, decreasing their effectiveness at seeing, hearing, and breathing to where knights often raised their face covering when they thought they were out of range . Breastplates developed a diversionary V raised area or rib to redirect splinters. didn't always work. Early pate armour had thick mail around the neck at the front to stop arrows. It also didn't work all the time - plus the force behind even a stopped arrow hitting them there would smart. Later armour changed to articulated neck plates.


In any case, Tod did a few more video on arrows vs. plate, best to watch them all if interested. He even developed an arrow thrower device so he didn't need a 160 lb. draw bowman and could shoot arrows consistently ad infinitum.


Experimental arcaeology at its best. (I love his series on his trebuchet, and he makes more. I liked his rondel dagger vs. mail & plate armour as well, and got him to make me one!)



TWS Playlist (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIUWkznLJcsEFvEZdYExu7ffW2Hf5s32k) <-linky

[Teisani]

I have always wondered what the effect is when arrows are greased before firing? Something tells me that the speed is either maintained better or increases the hitting power when goosegrease is put on the arrows...somehow preventing friction thus increasing delivery speed to the target...suggesting it was better for armour penetration... but I have no direct evidence to quote ...it being something someone said once? Can anyone throw some light upon this ?

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

Making a suface greasy or non-stick doesn't necessarily reduce it's friction drag (viscous drag). If it did we would coat airplanes with teflon and save a lot of money in kerosene. So any improvement that you would see will not be due to drag reduction.

Aerodynamic drag in the low subsonic speed range that arrows travel in, is due to 2 reasons: viscosity of the air and longitudinal pressure distribution over the arrow.
The viscous part is due to the air sticking to the exposed surface of the arrow. So to reduce viscous drag you need to reduce this wetted area in ratio to the arrow's mass. Or change the material to a higher density. Like kinetic armour piercing rounds APFSDS for tanks use depleted uranium or tungsten due to their high density. Of course you will need to use a stronger bow to maintain initial velocity. Coating with a lubricant will not work.
The pressure drag is due to high pressure in the front, and a low pressure wake developing in the rear. For an example of a optimized shape, look at a symmetric airfoil. Blunt in the front (required for wings but not for arrows) and long gently tapering back (always a necessity).

So, for a medieval archer to improve, I strongly recommend a research and development programme in the field of computational fluid dynamics and material science, towards the development of depleted uranium arrows of an optimized cross-section distribution. Oh, and to train more, so he can chuck the damn things with gusto. I don't know... maybe hit the gym.

[Peter Hudson]

Seems like more to it...and I dont actually know but I suspect it may not be grease on the arrows that makes the difference... Rethinking this perhaps its nothing to do with the speed of the arrow and only connected to the warhead... Thus I rewrite the question as ... Does greasing the warhead improve armour penetration?

Peter Hudson

[Teisani]

Does greasing the warhead improve armour penetration?

On soft wood shields, greasing the shaft, Tod suggests it does help by reducing friction beteeen the shaft and shield https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=56ijR7aPy3U
On steel armor, I doubt it gives any noticeable improvements. But until somebody tests it we won't know.

[Peter Hudson]

Yes I read yesterday about this and was about to reply to Forum having watched every video available ...Tod did a couple of them and when he was about to fire and compare greased shafts onto armour the whole computer system crashed..Now its back up ... maybe we shall see the result... I knew about this vaguelly a decade ago and the rumour was it was Goosegrease ... although no one knew for sure... Against the wooden shield bonkin arrows go in twice the penetration of ungreased war heads... so it looks very promising. I recall Tod mentioning that they used beef fat ... although it was said just as a passing remark about arrows not part of a concentrated study... Now he is on to a proper study we should see a result...

Peter Hudson

[Peter Hudson]

Specifically on the English Longbow regarding Bodkin and Needle Bodkin arrows.

Reference http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15881&highlight=goose+grease the same question was raised ...at #25 thus here it is again

Does greasing the warhead improve armour penetration?

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

The Long Bow in action in Shrewsbury (1403) and the skills of John Bradmore.


.

Yes interesting bit of kit... Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LYeyO3Oa8o for a video covering the mediaeval surgical removal of arrowheads.

Peter Hudson.

[urbanspaceman]

This is a fascinating and much overlooked subject Peter, well-done for establishing this thread.
I am slowly working my way through the various links posted... thank-you.

[Peter Hudson]

This is a fascinating and much overlooked subject Peter, well-done for establishing this thread.
I am slowly working my way through the various links posted... thank-you.



Hello Kieth, Yes it is fascinating... and if you get a spare moment look at how Lars Anderson sees the Archery game. See https://www.google.com/search?q=archery+by+lars&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB999GB999&oq=archery+by+lars&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30i625j0i390l4.8084j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Essentially he throws away the rule book and goes back to basic principles ... Regards Peter.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello all, It does seem that greasing the arrow shaft has some effect on arrow penetration. Tod goes on to experiment with arrows against various shields ... I should try to download one of his excellent video demonstrations on this subject.

Peter Hudson.

[Edward C.]

Were the bodkin points hardened ? As a amateur metal worker I would think that would be key to getting an initial "bite" on plate armor, so it would not skid off on an oblique impact.

[kronckew]

Were the bodkin points hardened ? As a amateur metalworker I would think that would be key to getting an initial "bite" on plate armor, so it would not skid off on an oblique impact.
Tod mentions in one of his videos that they may have case-hardened them, but found examples have corroded so much that the hardened layer is gone. Some royal orders mention 'Iron' points, probably mild steel, but some mention 'Steel'. Might have been hardened.

He tried mild steel, high carbon steel (heat treated) and case-hardened. Recently, he made a video where they tested various arrows on a full suit of typical period armour. Arrows didn't make it thru the cuirass or helmets with any point types. Armour features did try to deflect any skidders from skidding up into the face areas. Most arrows splintered, tho some splinters went thru eye slits designed to stop arrow points from entering - which would ruin a knight's day. Some arrows DID penetrate thinner arm/leg/mail sections (i.e. Mail bevoirs) or bent joint pieces from impact. He also has made a video on leather covered wooden shields & arrows where the leather was glued on with some sand mixed in that made them much less penetrable.


Good experimental archaeology & worth watching.
(He's also done some on roman Pila, including one that had a pilum penetrate a helmet - an Olympic javelin thrower did the throwing - he reached 77 yards with one if I recall correctly.


One Note: 'Modern' sloped composite tank armour is touted as 'new', it isn't they used it in the hundred years war armour was shaped to deflect arrows, had layered armour (steel backed with mail, and padded gambesons).

[Peter Hudson]

I think this proves the point of greasing the shafts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ijR7aPy3U

The penetration was massive on this experiment...end of.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

You are all invited to see the following set of superb Archery by Lars Anderson; a legend in this specialisation...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Longbow+Videos+by+Lars+Anderson&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB999GB999&oq=Longbow+Videos+by+Lars+Anderson&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIR igAdIBCTE5Nzg4ajFqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1


You will be confronted by rather a lot of Archery Videos on that page but look for those by LARS ANDERSON... Here is a good starter by Lars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk



Regards, Peter Hudson.

[urbanspaceman]

Almost impossible to believe; thanks Peter, I am suitably impressed.

[werecow]

You are all invited to see the following set of superb Archery by Lars Anderson; a legend in this specialisation...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Longbow+Videos+by+Lars+Anderson&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB999GB999&oq=Longbow+Videos+by+Lars+Anderson&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIR igAdIBCTE5Nzg4ajFqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1


You will be confronted by rather a lot of Archery Videos on that page but look for those by LARS ANDERSON... Here is a good starter by Lars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk



Regards, Peter Hudson.


As a habitual contrarian :D I feel the need to add this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4

[Peter Hudson]

I neither agree nor do I disagree with your reply... There are scores of videos on the subject of Archery; either specialised stuff or Archery in general. I enjoy static standard Archery but at the same time its interesting to see some of the trick shooters perform.... Actually what the Archer said in her video was pretty good and I quite enjoyed that as well...
I have just seen a great rendition of Arab Archery on another video presentation and that was also very interesting...
As a weapons system the bow and arrow is quite an amazing piece of kit as in fact, in its most basic form is a deadly weapon comprising two bits of wood and a piece of string...
I hope it fits in well since until gunpowder came along this was the way battles went ...especially in this country.

..however, the reason for posting the Lars Anderson detail was only to inspire people to show interest and even to respond... which I am glad you have done...Thank you for your input.

Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

I have included this to broaden the base of understanding about Archery.

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA5irRU6xSM

Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Were the bodkin points hardened ? As a amateur metal worker I would think that would be key to getting an initial "bite" on plate armor, so it would not skid off on an oblique impact.

Yes they may have done that although it seems that wooden arrows had the habit of snapping since they didnt exactly fly absolutely straight thus on impact were unstable and could break ... Interestingly had the arrows been made of metal they would probably have sailed straight through the armour...Anyway it does seem that greasing the shafts did enable much better penetration of shields and armour not to mention the damage to horses.

Armoured Knights at Agincourt thrown off their horses because they ...the horses ...had been hit by arrows...causing their riders to be ejected into the muddy battlefield would have been in a bad way and likely to have both been either badly injured and possibly trampled by those just behind them. This would have been bad enough had it only affected a few of the cavalry however, scores were dropped which must have caused mayhem and chaoss......The storm of arrows was enough to make the Knights turn their heads away so there was less chance of getting an arrow through their visors...

Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Making a suface greasy or non-stick doesn't necessarily reduce it's friction drag (viscous drag). If it did we would coat airplanes with teflon and save a lot of money in kerosene. So any improvement that you would see will not be due to drag reduction.

Aerodynamic drag in the low subsonic speed range that arrows travel in, is due to 2 reasons: viscosity of the air and longitudinal pressure distribution over the arrow.
The viscous part is due to the air sticking to the exposed surface of the arrow. So to reduce viscous drag you need to reduce this wetted area in ratio to the arrow's mass. Or change the material to a higher density. Like kinetic armour piercing rounds APFSDS for tanks use depleted uranium or tungsten due to their high density. Of course you will need to use a stronger bow to maintain initial velocity. Coating with a lubricant will not work.
The pressure drag is due to high pressure in the front, and a low pressure wake developing in the rear. For an example of a optimized shape, look at a symmetric airfoil. Blunt in the front (required for wings but not for arrows) and long gently tapering back (always a necessity).

So, for a medieval archer to improve, I strongly recommend a research and development programme in the field of computational fluid dynamics and material science, towards the development of depleted uranium arrows of an optimized cross-section distribution. Oh, and to train more, so he can chuck the damn things with gusto. I don't know... maybe hit the gym.

Thanks for the reply; I do recall reading about a Turkish Footbow that fired arrows that had no flights but the shafts were tapered i.e. thicker in the middle and pointed at both ends like an aeroplane fusilage today... and achieving incredible distance far better than any other bows...

Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Triarii]

Yes they may have done that although it seems that wooden arrows had the habit of snapping since they didnt exactly fly absolutely straight thus on impact were unstable and could break ... Interestingly had the arrows been made of metal they would probably have sailed straight through the armour...Anyway it does seem that greasing the shafts did enable much better penetration of shields and armour not to mention the damage to horses.

Armoured Knights at Agincourt thrown off their horses because they ...the horses ...had been hit by arrows...causing their riders to be ejected into the muddy battlefield would have been in a bad way and likely to have both been either badly injured and possibly trampled by those just behind them. This would have been bad enough had it only affected a few of the cavalry however, scores were dropped which must have caused mayhem and chaoss......The storm of arrows was enough to make the Knights turn their heads away so there was less chance of getting an arrow through their visors...

Regards, Peter Hudson.

Good point about chaos. Firepower v melee infantry or cavalry discussions usually don't cover the impact on the attackers of the disruption caused by people and horses falling or shying as they are hit. It'd become a significant obstacle, slowing progress very quickly.

[Peter Hudson]

See https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Schola_Gladiatoria

....for some detail on Matt Easton who not only gets very involved in Swords and Armour but other weapons ...Archery is one of his favourites.

Peter Hudson

[Peter Hudson]

English archers are often thought of firing their bows at a high angle but that is not the case . Here they are in direct close quarter battle range using the flat trajectory of their long bows. Note their outfits...since they were also armed like normal soldiers ready to finish off an opponent. See their head dress... armoured helmets some with the visor up some down. It can be seen that with such powerful Longbows the archers have to almost climb into their bows.

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1dFzFwgrfE which is a superb discussion with Tod and Tobias at the Wallace Collection in London. Actually there are two videos the second is a brilliant talk on some of the best Armour at the Wallace....

The first video considers myths and facts focussed on Agincourt the battle. Towards the end of the Agincourt session mention is given to the use of beeswax being used on arrows. Later in a separate video this method of improving penetration is tested out by Tod on one of his workshops...

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Please see https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrirpyzkSlloGsERI.e3olQ?p=BASKET+HILT +FROM+THE+MARY+ROSE&hsimp=yhs-2461&hspart=fc&type=fc_AC934C13286_s58_g_e_d032823_n9998_c999&fr=yhs-fc-2461&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Ai%2Cm%3Apivot#id=43&vid=92335fd562ce19f69df2578930747437&action=view

A video of the artefacts . including English Longbows and arrows recovered from the Mary Rose ...

[kronckew]

Peter, I think the metallurgy of the period would not have allowed for making all-metal arrows light enough to be fired at the velocities required to penetrate their armour. Some experimental archaeology may be required.



Waxing the arrows could also have prevented them absorbing water in the rain & warping. They are occasionally varnished to make them more weather resistant.



Turkish flight arrows were indeed an aerodynamic shape & minimal flights. Some has grooves in the rear portion in lieu of flights to assist stabilization. Their composite recurved bows were more efficient at allowing long draws with shorter bows, but were more prone to weather damage and warping from mishandling as they are unwaxed/varnished to save weight. And they took a lot longer to make properly. They would have bone knocks and points for lightness. They were generally shorter than normal target or war arrows, and generally used with an overdraw device.

[kronckew]

Just for interest, Metal arrows:


See this re:Lars & 'anyone can shoot thru armour'


Metatron mythbusting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xde7jwzOXN0)

[urbanspaceman]

All this talk about penetrating armour has made me realise I have absolutely no idea what percentage of the enemy had plate armour, and also, as has already been mentioned, mounts skewered with arrows dropping themselves and their riders into the melee would have left plenty of opportunity to shoot into un-armoured areas of the body, as I'm assuming virtually no-one had full body armour in the grand scheme of things.
I do realise we have an interesting, academic discussion here on the forum, but some of these videos are rather over-dramatised, are they not?

[Peter Hudson]

All this talk about penetrating armour has made me realise I have absolutely no idea what percentage of the enemy had plate armour, and also, as has already been mentioned, mounts skewered with arrows dropping themselves and their riders into the melee would have left plenty of opportunity to shoot into un-armoured areas of the body, as I'm assuming virtually no-one had full body armour in the grand scheme of things.
I do realise we have an interesting, academic discussion here on the forum, but some of these videos are rather over-dramatised, are they not?

Agreed Keith ... Essentially much damage to the attacking French Cavalry would have been caused by horses dropping under their riders...Once they were thrown off I imagine the Knights were in something of a crush with horses behind them crashing into the melee and knee deep in bloodied mud...plus weighted down in full suits of armour.. The archers were also in the business of taking prisoners for bounty money and were armed like soldiers ...
Amazingly the French seem to have been goaded into the attack and failed to deal with the flanking English archery lines. ...The lines of archers on the English flanks thus had a very successful day. The French also had archers however, they didn't use them...
The video is only an aid to instruction/knowledge and some may be a bit much ...or over the top. I use them a lot but hope readers can fit the good parts into my equation. Regards, Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Peter, I think the metallurgy of the period would not have allowed for making all-metal arrows light enough to be fired at the velocities required to penetrate their armour. Some experimental archaeology may be required.



Waxing the arrows could also have prevented them absorbing water in the rain & warping. They are occasionally varnished to make them more weather resistant.



Turkish flight arrows were indeed an aerodynamic shape & minimal flights. Some has grooves in the rear portion in lieu of flights to assist stabilization. Their composite recurved bows were more efficient at allowing long draws with shorter bows, but were more prone to weather damage and warping from mishandling as they are unwaxed/varnished to save weight. And they took a lot longer to make properly. They would have bone knocks and points for lightness. They were generally shorter than normal target or war arrows, and generally used with an overdraw device.

Thanks for the excellent drawing of the bolt/arrow and it is interesting that they also had grooves in their arrows.. The Comanche arrow also has grooves...three in fact, so it is something they knew about centuries ago...I noted from my own archery practice how an arrow snakes toward a target and how it develops spin similar to a bullet. I noticed how the arrow bends itself around the bow then wobbles its way onto the target... with further twist being done by the flights. In a three finger draw it also causes the string to twist and in slow motion it shows how the arrow performs on its way to the target. Peter Hudson.

[thinreadline]

Reference
A http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22826&highlight=ancient+arms+armour


Incredibly this weapon which comprises of two bits of wood and a length of string was like a machine gun when unleashed en masse on an enemy formation on land or aboard ships and was faster to reload and more devastating untill well after the advent of gunpowder.

I have designed this thread with a short starter as I have some interesting material to add as it rolls out to allow maximum input from members.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

What do you mean by your statement that the english longbow 'comprises TWO bits of wood' ?

[urbanspaceman]

Quote:
What do you mean by your statement that the english longbow 'comprises TWO bits of wood' ?
Answer:
A bow AND an arrow

[Peter Hudson]

Dont forget the piece of string!! ..

231109

[Peter Hudson]

Matt Easton looks at most details on the Longbow arrow. Please see https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-fc-2461&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-2461&hspart=fc&param1=7&param2=eJwti8sOgjAQRX9llpoQmD4pZesXuCUuCq3YUChRDMa vd4zmbs59jdF37eV8YojcoO6Ky0K%2BaRpD%2BK1QcMMFmeGXE 8WVkDtEy8VgrKwVWumRWe4ls7XSygrfSyuFvNJ8DJn2Y0%2F4d ERzfseUXKVKhMMeF5%2F3BywbMCyxBQq0bOGl5RHcuqawh36KW 6VEXQoNh%2Bm2zamAFKcAYximfIThds9zqBgzJX4FD3d19%2Fi %2FfAC5QkHO&p=English+Longbows&type=fc_AC934C13286_s58_g_e_d032823_n9998_c999#id= 2&vid=05d5f3ddf31a80c26916c3dbc3fd01cc&action=view

[Peter Hudson]

These were produced in India...I wonder how effective these were on the battlefield?