Longbows in the Penisular campaign

[Neala]

During the Napoleonic Wars, the Duke of Wellington asked for a Corps of Longbows to provide rapid fire support for his Army. He was informed that no such body of men existed anymore

But

WI they did? What would the effect be on the Napoleonic Wars if the British were able to field troops who could rain arrows on the enemy at a rate and range which they couldn't match? To give you some idea, the muskets of the day had a maximum effective range of about 100m and could be fired 2 to 4 times a minute depending on the training of the soldier. A trained Archer however could fire somewhere between 10 and 20 shots a minute to a range of 165m

Now it's unlikely that you could have more than a regiment of longbows, the social strain is to great in training them, hence the replacement of longbows by firearms that were in many ways inferior, although easier to learn to use.

But this regiment could have a dramatic effect. Infantry tactics of the day called for dense blocks of unarmoured infantry to march to within range (often to within 50m) of the opposing forces and after a number of volleys, to bayonet charge them. Any standard infantry trying this against a regiment of archers would be massacred.

It would also be easier for the regiment to be cut loose from its' supply chain as it doesn't need gunpowder. any reasonable competent carpenter can make arrows.

This scenario could be considered ASB, but there would have been definite advantages to retaining some longbow equipped forces until the dawn of effective mass-produced rifles. They could survive for instance as a mainly ceremonial unit that's been kept for historical reasons (Henry V and all that) but turns out to be really quite effective

thoughts?

 

[Thande]

Longbowmen have to be raised practically from birth to build up the muscles, and often ended up with spine defects. As Edward III said, "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather." It's perfectly true that they could have out-shot a British Army force using muskets in the 1810s, but the reason why muskets (or arquebuses) were introduced in the first place is that they can be fired adequately after a couple of days' worth of training, whereas shooting a longbow takes a lifetime of practice.

So while this is not ASB, it would have to have started earlier - say George III, upon becoming king in 1760, decides to emphasise his Englishness (he was the first Hanoverian to declare he was British rather than German) revives the Agincourt spirit and has some of his household troops trained in the longbow, initially for show - then a generation or two later, there's a sizeable corps for Wellington to use.

 

[Neala]

Longbowmen have to be raised practically from birth to build up the muscles, and often ended up with spine defects. As Edward III said, "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather." It's perfectly true that they could have out-shot a British Army force using muskets in the 1810s, but the reason why muskets (or arquebuses) were introduced in the first place is that they can be fired adequately after a couple of days' worth of training, whereas shooting a longbow takes a lifetime of practice.

So while this is not ASB, it would have to have started earlier - say George III, upon becoming king in 1760, decides to emphasise his Englishness (he was the first Hanoverian to declare he was British rather than German) revives the Agincourt spirit and has some of his household troops trained in the longbow, initially for show - then a generation or two later, there's a sizeable corps for Wellington to use.

True, and if they're initially for show it's unlikely to butterfly much. Also, it should be noted that medieval bows only grew so powerful in response to the improved amour of the time. Against unarmoured infantry they wouldn't need to be as powerful and hence archers wouldn't need to train as much to be able to draw them

And besides. I like longbows. In fact I think all the British Army's Apaches Longbows should be renamed simply as Longbows. Watch the people quake as they learn the Brits are going to deploy longbows against them! Then watch when they realise that we mean helicopter gunships . Hey, the Israelis call their tanks Chariots

 

[Colonelgoth]

Well you could have the Royal Company of Archers be less of a ceremonial unit/amateur club and more of a working, fighting regiment. they only became the Scottish Sovereign Bodyguard in 1822 so they must've had a good standing before then. and 10/20 years isn't too much of a stretch.

 

[Thande]

Well you could have the Royal Company of Archers be less of a ceremonial unit/amateur club and more of a working, fighting regiment. they only became the Scottish Sovereign Bodyguard in 1822 so they must've had a good standing before then. and 10/20 years isn't too much of a stretch.

Excellent idea.

 

[Tyr]

I'm having the strangest sence of dej-vu here.

As a ceremonial unit kept on is a good idea, the only trouble is the tudors and co were rather tight with money and not big on ceremony, that sort of thing didnät become a big deal until later on...

 

[Thande]

I'm having the strangest sence of dej-vu here.

As a ceremonial unit kept on is a good idea, the only trouble is the tudors and co were rather tight with money and not big on ceremony, that sort of thing didnät become a big deal until later on...

I think keeping it on as a continuous tradition from the days when it was actually used as a frontline weapon is probably not possible - I'm talking about the Georgians reviving it as a nostalgic thing. Of course, they might not be as good as the original English longbowmen without the skills being passed down through families, but still.

 

[RCTFI]

This does seem to have such a potential for a coolness factor - and, I can just see the sops who get all romantic about the Middle Ages looking back fondly on the longbow men shooting the crap out of the French collumns... it'd be ridiculous, of course, but just so right...

Of course, the problems do remain, of how to train up such a unit to anything approaching reasonable standards. In a way, the fact that longbows that could still outshoot the muskets that were being used in the early 1800s were superseeded to a large degree by even less accurate and less reliable guns as far back as the 1600s shows how better tactics, in this case the tactics of a mass army of commoners armed with weapons they can learn to use quite easily, can counter better equippment or troop quality.

Think about it - one for one the highly trained elite longbow men would shoot the crap out of any crossbowmen or men with arquebii stupid enough to face them if all things were equal. But they weren't equal - there could be more of the peasants with their inferior weapons fielded for the same cost, and indeed those numbers could be a whole lot greater, meaning that even if the longbowmen were shooting the crap out of the enemy, the enemy would still get in and kill them. And it would be a more than fair exchange, because a longbowman, well, as Thande said he had to be trained more or less from birth, while with his enemy all you needed was a strong young commoner and a few months to whip him into shape. There was actually an interesting little thing on this, to the effect that a soldier or ship with twice the firepower of another soldier or ship was not worth twice that soldier or ship, but rather - and here some guy did an interesting calculation - the square root of twice the inferior soldier or ship. Because, you see, it can be killer just as easily in principal. Interesting stuff, realy.

Of course, to make the whole human-wave tactic work to destroy the longbowmen requires that you be able to get your soldiers well enough trained that they can face the longbowmen and not run like scared little girls.

But even beyond the battlefield, the real advantage to fielding such forces, with greater numbers and less training and investment in the individual soldier involved is that you can field more on the strategic level - so that, if you have a force of 3,000 soldiers with crossbows to face their 1,000 longbowmen, you can threaten something that they need to defend with 2,000 of your men or so, and thereby make them have to sit tight to protect it, while your other 1,000 men can be off burning villages or doing something else to piss off the enemy and make him wish he'd never messed with you.

Of course, that sort of set-up would require communications, but that sort of thing can be arranged. It's fascinating, realy - as communications and supply systems became more advanced and complex, mass armies of less well trained soldiers became more and more practical, pretty much from the end of the Middle Ages on until the next paradigm shift occured with the rifle and so on during the Napoleonic Wars.

Of course, one can bring up the issue of artillery and so on - and there is a good point there. Gunners do need some special skills. But the artillery used before the advent of gunpowder etc. was still very skill intensive, so there wasn't much of a change. What did change was that more stuff needed to be carted around, and that there was more capability for the armies to do that carting around of supplies. Which went together... it's actually kind of interesting - while the average infantry soldier in the Napoleonic Wars was nowhere near being able to stand up to a longbowman, the artillery had definitely improved. As had the engineering etc., which is realy another issue.

Well, those are just my thoughts, brought out by both my tendency to ramble on and on and the fact that it's very late where I am and resultantly I am a bit tired. Thoughts?

 

[Flocculencio]

I pretty much agree with much of what is said regarding the money and time that needs to be invested in training longbowmen not just for service but as replacements. The trouble is that you just need one covering unit to fumble and hey presto the flank is turned, lancers get in among the longbow men and the First Battalion of the Longbow Regiment is torn to pieces. And unlike a musket or Rifle battalion, each one of those men is going to be hard to replace, if we're talking about them being drawn from a Georgian ceremonial regiment. What you need is that critical mass of potential longbowmen which was present in the mediaeval yeomanry but not in Georgian times.

Longbowmen are all well and good, gentleman, but in the end I believe in only three things. Wellington, the Baker Rifle and the ability of the English chav to stand under fire

 

[The Dean]

the ability of the English chav to stand under fire

Oh yes we have been noted for our stupidity for centuries.

 

[Neala]

Oh yes we have been noted for our stupidity for centuries.

Or possibly the ability to get drunk and then take anyone looking at you in any way what so ever as an insult and hence start a fight about it.

 

[Neala]

This does seem to have such a potential for a coolness factor - and, I can just see the sops who get all romantic about the Middle Ages looking back fondly on the longbow men shooting the crap out of the French collumns... it'd be ridiculous, of course, but just so right...

and longbows beat the french....again

A Georgian ceremonial unit could do a lot of damage, at first, even with mediocre archers, archers rely on weight of fire too. The archers could also use hunting arrowheads as they wouldn't be facing armour, these do more damage than bodkins.

I was also thinking of having the archers in addition to the standard musket armed infantry, not instead off. You could deploy them in between 2 blocks of the standard infantry to help ward off cavalry or a concerted infantry attack

Or you could position them hidden on the flanks to ambush the french as the attack the main force.

I suppose if it was decided for some obscure reason to enforce laws saying that the only sport you could do on sunday as archery (tradition dammit! We must ensure people uphold the traditions that made this country great! ) after 20 years or so you would begin to have a reasonably able pool of archers

But yes, it wouldn't take too long for the French to develop countermeasures to the archers, but until they did it would be so cool

 

[Redbeard]

The French did meet archers in the Napoleonic wars - Russian Bashkirs with composite bows and on horseback. At least according to Marbot they were called "le Cupids" and "the least dangerous soldiers of the world".

For the Bashkirs this also owed to their very crude tactics, but it must also be remembered that bows, even longbows, only had a fraction of the penetration power of a musket, and the musket with a bayonet was an effective close combat weapon - bows weren't.

Musket armed infantry could deliver a very destructive defensive volley of fire and a few seconds after charge with the bayonet. In this context a longbow unit would rather be a short range artillery weapon needing battlefield protection against enemy infantry and cavalry.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Neala]

but it must also be remembered that bows, even longbows, only had a fraction of the penetration power of a musket, and the musket with a bayonet was an effective close combat weapon - bows weren't.

Musket armed infantry could deliver a very destructive defensive volley of fire and a few seconds after charge with the bayonet. In this context a longbow unit would rather be a short range artillery weapon needing battlefield protection against enemy infantry and cavalry.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Well yes, but penetration power is less important against unarmoured, or largely unarmoured targets such as those in the Napoleonic wars, even most cavalry at the time only really war breastplates and helmets, and the horses were totally unprotected.

You're right in that the archers would need protection on the battlefield, but they could still play an important tactical role as a long ranged rapid fire weapon, and in close country they could be quite effective if used by guerillas.

Oh, an not forgetting, the question would be, would the enemy musket armed troops hold their discipline long enough to get within range to deliver a volley and bayonet charge? That could be the deciding point of a battle, and indeed where the new-old weapon gets defeated finally

The days of the longbow were over, but still, it would be nice for them to go out in a blaze of glory

 

[Redbeard]

Well yes, but penetration power is less important against unarmoured, or largely unarmoured targets such as those in the Napoleonic wars, even most cavalry at the time only really war breastplates and helmets, and the horses were totally unprotected.

You're right in that the archers would need protection on the battlefield, but they could still play an important tactical role as a long ranged rapid fire weapon, and in close country they could be quite effective if used by guerillas.

Oh, an not forgetting, the question would be, would the enemy musket armed troops hold their discipline long enough to get within range to deliver a volley and bayonet charge? That could be the deciding point of a battle, and indeed where the new-old weapon gets defeated finally

The days of the longbow were over, but still, it would be nice for them to go out in a blaze of glory

An arrow will become a "spent missile" much before a musket ball and the inflicted wounds in general less serious - at least short term. All in all "long range" is doubtful compared to musket volley firing, and the very swift moving of Napoleonic units (compared to medieval) would probably make "dodging" arrow volleys possible.

A longbow unit would be especially vulnerable to light infantry tactics - in which the French excelled. So before the infantry charge presses home the longbowmen probably are decimated and on the brink of dissolving - just like ordinary infantry breaking just before the charge reaches them. The successful countertactic would be your own light infantry winning the skirmish game so that your main line can be intact and in good (firing) order and spirit when the charge commence - and here a musket volley delivered at the decisive moment will do the trick at least as good as a bow unit - but the musket infantry have a distinct advantage in the follow-up counter charge - which usually decided the matter.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Steffen]

Longbowmen are all well and good, gentleman, but in the end I believe in only three things. Wellington, the Baker Rifle and the ability of the English chav to stand under fire

And the professionalism of the King´s German Legion.
Our *four*...no... *Amongst* the things I believe in.... Amongst the things I believe in...are such elements as Wellington, the Baker Rifele, ... I'll come in again

And Flocc goes out, to return with the next jarring chord.

 

[Jason]

And the professionalism of the King´s German Legion.
Our *four*...no... *Amongst* the things I believe in.... Amongst the things I believe in...are such elements as Wellington, the Baker Rifele, ... I'll come in again

And Flocc goes out, to return with the next jarring chord.

Why's there a dead bird in the corner of this thread?

Ok, seriously, whilst in a straight combat role I'm not sure of the use of the longbow in Peninsular; how about its use by a speical corps of soldiers assisting the Spanish resistance? Possibly in isolated passes or as a 'silent' weapon for taking out gate guards, etc before an assault on an isolated garrison?

I can just see Sharpe now, with a longbow

 

[Tony Jones]

I think crossbows might be better than longbows for this sort of thing...

 

[Jason]

I think crossbows might be better than longbows for this sort of thing...

Possibly but there is the issue of time to reload and also they are harder to maintain.

 

[burmafrd]

I think some forget just how innacurate smooth bore muskets are. And Matchlocks and earlier weapons were incredibly prone to misfires as well.

And frankly this buiness about training archers is forgetting that there were no professional armies back when the longbow was used. Villages were required to have their men practice but that was spotty.

There is no reason a fit man cannot learn to use a longbow well in a few months of hard training. You just need a good system and training regimen.

A good longbow has much more effective range then a smooth bore musket. On an order of around twice the distance. And the rate of fire- like more then TEN TIMES as much. A good metal tipped well fletched arrow will get the job done pretty darn well.
Frankly I think it was pretty stupid for the longbow to be dropped as early as it was. Remember how well the american indians did with arrows for so long- and their bows were nowhere near as powerfull.