Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

peterleeson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 180 posts

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#21

Post by masklinn »

widdershins wrote: post #13

I've only read the abstract, so I'm not sure if this is covered, but the longbow requires huge amounts of practice from a young age to be effective. You had to be incredibly strong just to draw the string. A crossbow, by contrast, was easier to draw, and men could be trained to use it in a far shorter time. English Kings had constant problems with procuring enough men capable of using a longbow, passing all sorts of…

> I'm not sure if this is covered, but the longbow requires huge amounts of practice from a young age to be effective.

It is covered, the paper lists a number of measure the English crown took to force people to train with the longbow in their spare time.

> the French simply couldn't find enough trained men?

The French could have taken the same measures of mandating longbow ownership and strongly "encouraging" longbow training (by setting up tournaments and forbidding other types of leisure)

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#23

Post by chernevik »

gobbo wrote: post #17
educationcto wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper does address exactly that point. The longbow required sustained central support over many years which prevented rebellious nobles from quickly adopting it: "These features of longbow technology had two important implications for those interested in adopting it. First, centralized efforts were necessary to create a culture of archery. As shown above, these efforts in England consisted of laws supporting bow…

Yes, I read that, and of course it is possible. Nevertheless the fact that the centralized government was unstable and news would not travel too fast makes me think that it is a bit strange nobody tried it in 150 years. The maps of France they present also shows that lots of territories would not recognize the French crown for long time. Those could have developed the technology and either take over the throne or giv…

The various French barons probably saw more advantage in maintaining their ability to repress their own people than deeper alliance with them to defeat others. Being King of France sounds nifty, but there wasn't actually much that King could do against the more powerful or remote barons. One of those barons might have had more power over the others by training archers, but the real power would be with the _archers_, and the baron would access that power by their acknowledgement of his authority. This makes it difficult for the baron to tax the bejesus out of the serfs and take their daughters. All of which was the really fun part of being a baron, and never mind about being King.

When your political status depends on your ability to beat the crap out the people around you, and that ability depends on you having expensive armor that they don't have, you have no interest in teaching them to kill you at 150 yards with a piece of wood.

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#24

Post by arethuza »

masklinn wrote: post #20
wuschel wrote: post #19

Interesting read of the introduction - and very good points. Perhaps yew was also way too hard to come by / expensive for the Scottish? Also, it does make sense that training long term military personel was reserved to the ruling feudal class. Still, producing a longbow compatible population (of strong, loyal) men might have had other costs then political ones. Precision wise, a longbow is not a real tournament weapo…

> Perhaps yew was also way too hard to come by / expensive for the Scottish? One of the first point the paper makes is that the domestic supply of english yew was of poor quality and way outstripped by the demand, and the country imported yew from throughout continental Europe. So while yew availability may have been an explanation for Scottland, it definitely wasn't for France. > Still, producing a longbow compatibl…

Golf and football were actually forbidden in Scotland for a time in the 15th century to try and encourage archery practice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_in_Scotland#Etymology

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#25

Post by chernevik »

It's an interesting paper but "politically stable" isn't the right term.

A population able to defeat the infantry technology of the time requires a different social and legal position than one that doesn't have that ability. That is, the government needs more cooperation and consent of the governed. That government is stronger than other governments, because it can kill their armies. But it is more dependent on that population and so cannot abuse it in the same manner as those other, "weaker" governments.

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#26

Post by arethuza »

dozzie wrote: post #2

I don't know, maybe because bow is a peasants' weapon, and France had knigts ? Western Europe had its share of stupidity, like kings leading charges instead of commanding battles on a tactical level.

Not sure there was much option at that time - to get to be a King, or keep your position, quite often required being a direct hands-on stupendous badass.

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#27

Post by ezzaf »

gobbo wrote: post #17
educationcto wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper does address exactly that point. The longbow required sustained central support over many years which prevented rebellious nobles from quickly adopting it: "These features of longbow technology had two important implications for those interested in adopting it. First, centralized efforts were necessary to create a culture of archery. As shown above, these efforts in England consisted of laws supporting bow…

Yes, I read that, and of course it is possible. Nevertheless the fact that the centralized government was unstable and news would not travel too fast makes me think that it is a bit strange nobody tried it in 150 years. The maps of France they present also shows that lots of territories would not recognize the French crown for long time. Those could have developed the technology and either take over the throne or giv…

One of the notes does actually address this point:

23 At the battle of Courtrai, for instance, the small principality of Flanders was able to muster an army of archers larger than the army of the entire kingdom of France, which consisted of knights and men-at-arms (Rogers 1993, p. 252). In this sense, a weapon like the longbow allows for the military enfranchisement of commoners, which institutionally constrains the ruler

It doesn't go on to discuss this further, but it shows that while maintaining a large force of archers required a population widely practiced in archery, where a region could muster enough longbows it enabled them to effectively combat the central control of their country.

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#28

Post by mhd »

The intro still assumes that the battles won by the English in the Hundred Years War were due the longbow (alone), which AFAIK is quite debatable (at least outside of England, where Agincourt is a bit of a national myth, even more than e.g. the Black Legend).

And never mind instability, the French also weren't as geographically isolated as the English and thus it was easier to hire mercenaries. Genoese crossbowman being a particular example.

The penetrative ability of the longbow is also greatly exaggerated, citing a book that did some pretty shoddy testing (flat sheets of poor quality metal used as targets, but hardened bodkins as penetrators, 10m distance, no padding).

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#29

Post by ezzaf »

msh wrote: post #11

I fail to see their references to support the claim that france or scotland was more politically unstable. Also how about the rest of european powers, I am not certain there is support that england was the only politically stable entity is europe during the middle ages.

Pages 699-702 address this in detail:

“The land (France) was divided into loose and shifting territories that owed little or no allegiance to any central authority, ruled across large swathes by noblemen who were little more than warlords”

and

"Flanders, too, had great autonomy from the French monarch and strong ties to Germany and England (Sumption 1990, p. 35). In 1384 Flanders united with Burgundy to create a principality in France that fell in and out of French control for over a century."

and

"Most critically, (Scotland) was bitterly divided into three warring parts: the English- speaking southeast, the Gaelic-speaking northwest, and the lands that fell between"

There's a bunch more detail there along with references to the papers they draw those conclusions from. I'd say they support that part of their argument soundly.

Re: Why didn't France adopt the longbow like England did?

#30

Post by zhte415 »

tl;dr:

The abstract does a wonderful job. It is will worth reading.

Longbow was cheap and technically superior, but required training. Crossbow more expensive, required less training. Rulers of England less worried about rebellion, OK to invest in training. Rulers of France/Scotland not so happy because of fear to give potential of overthrow to the people (Scotland not in title, but in article along with France).

Perhaps an analogy could be painted with companies today. Those that churn, and those that nurture skills.

Post reply on HN