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

61–70 of 180 posts

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

#61

Post by razzaj »

lambda wrote: post #33

I think that the way this paper discusses on the longbow as being the superior weapon may obscure a key fact here. Man for man, a crossbow is a superior weapon; requires less skill to operate, has longer range, much easier to aim, better penetrating power. The main advantage of a longbow is how simple and cheap it is. Speed of reloading is another advantage the longbow has, but I think this article overstates it. Whi…

In fact http://www.bowyers.com/bowyery_longbowOrigins.php says the contrary to what you are claiming, and in their account of the Cercy battle they clearly mention how the longbow outranged, and out-powered the crossbow (look for paragraph "Crecy 1346: the Longbow's Finest Day").

Excerpt 1: "The crossbowmen had a lethal range of up to about 80 yards, and took up an initial position 100 yards from the English, in line across the field. Unfortunately for them they quickly found out that the longbow now had a lethal range of well over 100 yards. "

Excerpt 2: "They were shocked to find that the longbows could now penetrate French armour, and could also down the horses."

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

#62

Post by vacri »

zhte415 wrote: post #30

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). Per…

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

Those that nurture skills would only be powerful in their own niche, and unable to significantly project power without a cohort of allies?

In the age of the longbow, England dominated the British Isles, whose other denizens were significantly smaller in population and economy. The French, on the other hand, kicked England out of the continent, and were a continental power. The English won some key battles, but at the end of the age of the longbow, the scorecard was in France's favour.

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

#63

Post by ajuc »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #54
ajuc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For over a century the longbow reigned as undisputed king of medieval European missile weapons. Yet only England used the longbow as a mainstay in its military arsenal; France and Scotland clung to the technologically inferior cross- bow. > England alone, for a 150-year window in late medieval Europe, was politically stable enough to render the longbow its rulers’ optimal technology choice. In contrast, in France a…

Yes, I read those, but I still don't see the assumption made. The first more general sentence does not imply that the all the countries mentioned in the second make up the entirety of Europe. It makes sense that the author would make a specific comparison with the countries involved in the war, rather than doing so for all the countries in medieval Europe.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this. It's just that I disagree with both sentences.

Mongol composite bows were superior ranged weapons and were used in Europe since 14th century.

And there were other politicaly stable countries in that period, including Teutonic Order, Poland, Venetian Republic among others.

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

#65

Post by rupellohn »

wtbob wrote: post #55

This seems a good place to post about Mad Jack Churchill, who brought his longbow to France in 1940 and shot a German with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

Thanks for posting this!

my favorite bit:

"He startled train conductors and passengers by throwing his briefcase out of the train window each day on the ride home. He later explained that he was tossing his case into his own back garden so he would not have to carry it from the station"

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

#66

Post by noir-york »

marktangotango wrote: post #53
noir-york wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> finally, crossbows really are the better weapon - once you start factory-making them, your army can be raised and trained faster But the army you raise is less effective; quantity vs quality. A country which did not want or could not afford to train longbow men may have had a deeper flaw: its model. Perhaps the real reason England could beat France had been a long time in the making: a strong economy, and political…

The quote from Stalin comes to mind, quantity has a quality of it's own.

Yep I also thought of that as I wrote that line. I wonder how that sounded to his cannon fodde^H^H^H soldiers...

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

#68

Post by draven »

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…

It's covered:

"The longbow took years of continuous training to master. Not only was there the matter of the physical strength necessary to draw 120-plus pounds with one arm over and over again, but because the longbow arrow was drawn to the ear, aim was largely a matter intuition rather than sight. Thus, if war erupted, it was not possible to recruit a company of men untrained on the longbow and train them to use the weapon quickly. A stock of proficient archers had to already be in place, prepared to serve."

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

#70

Post by vacri »

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.

> stupidity, like kings leading charges instead of commanding battles on a tactical level.

Why exchange one form of stupidity for another? If you're going to ping medieval Europe for military stupidity, then instead suggest that the people commanding the battles should be trained military specialists, as they are today. There's nothing magical about kings that make them better at battle tactics.

Post reply on HN