Live data from Hacker News

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

peterleeson.com

131–140 of 180 posts

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

#131
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly (and I'm still looking for a better source than this[1]), the Duke Of Wellington had requested a corps of longbowmen be made ready for use against the French in the Napoleonic wars, but was advised that no one with the skill needed to train them still existed (the training being the most difficult part of the technology). The last use of trained english longbowmen seemed to have been by some o…

Who paid for the training? Rememeber that you didn't have national armies in those days. If the sponsors of the training became unwilling or unable to fund it, it would just go away. Lots of modern examples exist. We build unneeded submarines specifically to maintain production capability for some advanced welding techniques.

No one, that's the beauty of it.

Commoners trained themselves, in times of war, sample bias of the soldiers returning home loaded with treasure was incentive enough to put a generation of kids to practices for hours. In times of peace, the nobility subtly encouraged their people to participate by the way of organizing archery contests with prizes.

It was very popular, in a sort of proto sport way. I read once that an early version of football was banned by the English crown because it distracted the peasants from their archery practice.

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

#132
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to compare Mongols to Europeans. The composite bows rely on animal-based adhesives, which are great in cold and dry climates, but fall apart in humid and warmer climates. Also, light cavalry armies are useless against castles and fortified cities as the ones found in most of Europe, specially when you don't have huge, flat battlefields that allow light cavalry to circle any target. In other words, Mongol wa…

Re: "light cavalry armies are useless against castles and fortified cities as the ones found in most of Europe" Not true, as the Chinese cities at the time were much more fortified than Europe. The Mongols were able to plunder the surrounding lands. Also, despite Europe's fortifications, a scouting party led by Subutai of 20,000 horse archers, widely wiped out a much more significant force of Central Europe soldiers,…

"Not true, as the Chinese cities at the time were much more fortified than Europe. The Mongols were able to plunder the surrounding lands."

That's a bit of an oversimplification. China was much closer to the Mongols' logistical base. By the 1240s, as the Horde pushed into Central Europe, they were experiencing rebellions in Asia that threatened their supply lines. So extended sieges were not feasible.

It's telling that the limit of their incursions pretty closely adheres to the boundary of stone fortification diffusion in Central Europe at that time. Polish and Russian nobles still favored wood fortifications, though Western Europeans had brought back defensive masonry techniques from the Crusades and rapidly developed stone castle infrastructure in their home regions. Stone fortifications increased the time required for a siege and increased the cost in men and material, even with the Mongols' relatively effective siege tactics. The Mongols could not afford to conduct such sieges so far from their logistical base on the steppes, especially not while maintaining control of their often fractious conquests in Central Asia and Russia.

So it's a confluence of factors that limited the Mongol advance, including the relatively challenging terrain of Central European mountains and forests and the increasing frequency of heavily fortified stone-walled fortifications as they pushed farther west.

That said, outside the particular example of the 13th century Mongols, the effectiveness of steppe light cavalry against fortified European cities is at best questionable. The Avars and Hungarians were defeated by western nations once they attempted to push into fortified territory, despite the lack of stone fortifications in 9th and 10th century Europe. And, as you say, it was the incorporation of Chinese siege tactics that permitted the Mongols to succeed against fortified cities, not their prowess as light cavalry archers.

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

#133
post #10

Kevin Hicks is a great resource on the longbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvKJcxa8x_g He is also very knowledgeable about all things from this period of history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUYd6pNy6QU There is also some more detail regarding the make up of the "English" army bowmen here: http://www.bowyers.com/bowyery_longbowOrigins.php Sidenote: - Bowyer: Makes the bow - Fletcher: Makes the arrow - String…

Ah, that thing of some names being derived from areas of work / professions. Taylor, Fletcher, Smith, Carpenter, ... It's there in other countries than European ones too. Wonder if there is a list of such names anywhere. Would be interesting to read.

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

#134
post #132
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: "light cavalry armies are useless against castles and fortified cities as the ones found in most of Europe" Not true, as the Chinese cities at the time were much more fortified than Europe. The Mongols were able to plunder the surrounding lands. Also, despite Europe's fortifications, a scouting party led by Subutai of 20,000 horse archers, widely wiped out a much more significant force of Central Europe soldiers,…

"Not true, as the Chinese cities at the time were much more fortified than Europe. The Mongols were able to plunder the surrounding lands." That's a bit of an oversimplification. China was much closer to the Mongols' logistical base. By the 1240s, as the Horde pushed into Central Europe, they were experiencing rebellions in Asia that threatened their supply lines. So extended sieges were not feasible. It's telling th…

Just a note: there was no such state as "Russia" back then. The whole region was a number a big and small duchies left after the fall of the older feudal state, Kievan Rus'.

Later, by the end of the 15-th century, most of them were reunited under the rule of either the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the Grand Duchy of Vladimir and Moscow (which would, two centuries later, become what we know today as Russian Empire, or Russia).

Anyway, Mongols had no problems crashing both quite a few times between 13-16 centuries. :-) Every state there was in the region back then had to paid the Horde.

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

#135
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly (and I'm still looking for a better source than this[1]), the Duke Of Wellington had requested a corps of longbowmen be made ready for use against the French in the Napoleonic wars, but was advised that no one with the skill needed to train them still existed (the training being the most difficult part of the technology). The last use of trained english longbowmen seemed to have been by some o…

Who paid for the training? Rememeber that you didn't have national armies in those days. If the sponsors of the training became unwilling or unable to fund it, it would just go away. Lots of modern examples exist. We build unneeded submarines specifically to maintain production capability for some advanced welding techniques.

The paper mentions laws banning leisure activities that weren't longbow practice. Worth reading.

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

#136
post #50
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…

If I remember correctly (and I'm still looking for a better source than this[1]), the Duke Of Wellington had requested a corps of longbowmen be made ready for use against the French in the Napoleonic wars, but was advised that no one with the skill needed to train them still existed (the training being the most difficult part of the technology). The last use of trained english longbowmen seemed to have been by some o…

> It's hard for me to imagine a pivotal art or technology being lost like that, but I'm willing to bet its not at all uncommon if we look across history.

This has happened quite a bit throughout history, actually. Complete social collapse, as has happened many times throughout history, can have a really bad effect on technological innovation. Focusing specifically on the Roman empire (because that's what I'm more familiar with), here are three off the top of my head:

* The various methods to making various different kinds of concrete have been lost and rediscovered several times [0]. Early concrete-like materials were used as far back as 6500BC by the Nabataeans. In both Roman and Egyptian times it was re-discovered that adding volcanic ash to the mix allowed it to set underwater. The Roman methods for making concrete were lost again following the collapse of the Western empire and were not rediscovered in Europe until the 1400s.

* Roman roads were extremely well engineered [1], to the point that some are still around today. While this wasn't "lost" per se (we could always go dig up a Roman road and see how it was made), the Roman road system in Europe deteriorated because of lack of resources and skills to maintain them. [2]

* The Romans made extensive use of plumbing [3], but much of that was again lost in Europe after the fall of the Western empire. The Roman Empire had indoor plumbing, meaning a system of aqueducts and pipes that terminated in homes (at least of wealthy people) and at public wells and fountains for people to use. [4] Lead pipe was used (okay, so maybe that part wasn't so great), and there were sewer systems [5]. Even the word "plumbing" derives from the Latin word plumbum for lead. Following the fall of the Roman Empire, plumbing development virtually ceased for centuries except for isolated cases of plumbing installed in palaces and castles.

These three things are so integral to the modern world we probably don't even think about them much, just assume they were always there. But not too long ago (at least on the scale of human civilization), they weren't.

TL;DR the Romans were awesome engineers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete#History

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads#Construction_and_e...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_in_ancient_Rome

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sa...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tap_water#Pipe_materials

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

#137
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: "light cavalry armies are useless against castles and fortified cities as the ones found in most of Europe" Not true, as the Chinese cities at the time were much more fortified than Europe. The Mongols were able to plunder the surrounding lands. Also, despite Europe's fortifications, a scouting party led by Subutai of 20,000 horse archers, widely wiped out a much more significant force of Central Europe soldiers,…

I read a long discussion about this on Quora. What I could gather from that was there were far more castles in Europe than China. Also Europe has too little plains to be able to support a mongol army very long. They each had something like 5 horses. There isn't enough grass for a large mongol army like that. One the debaters claimed e.g. that European castles were very well supplied for long sieges and would run out…

5 horses is quite a bit of food to feed the army... the more the army eats the more grass you have left for the horses... so when the castle is running out of food you have 1 good well fed horse and 1 good well fed soldier who has to win or he doesnt have enough horses to go home

i think that wins

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

#138
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The composite bows rely on animal-based adhesives, which are great in cold and dry climates, but fall apart in humid and warmer climates What kind of glue bound the layers of wood together on a longbow?

Don't know if you're sarcastic, but a longbow doesn't have layers of wood to glue together. That's the difference between a simple bow and a composite bow.

Not quite. As the article explains, the longbow is composite, but made from a single piece of wood:

"Figure 1 illustrates a yew trunk cross section and how a longbow stave was carved out of the tree to incorporate both its sapwood and heartwood components. The former was used on the bow’s back, which faced away from the archer, taking advantage of the fact that flexible sapwood performs well under tension. The latter was used on the bow’s belly, which faced the archer, taking advantage of the fact that hard heartwood performs well under compression. Together the two types of wood created a natural composite bow that, when made from a long and thick stave, was remarkably powerful."

So, nature glued the parts together.

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

#139
Plain BS.

I learnt "canne d'arme and baton d'arme" the "fencing of the i-gnobles".

From feudality to absolute monarchy the raise of monarchy has been made at the costs of "Jaqueries". Peasant revolts of the "non nobles" "ignobles" in latin derived french.

The central control brought by the carolingien and then the bourbon as resulted in strong traditions: knights and nobility are also a force to squalsh revolts.

This and the dissolution of Lances towards "regular armies" after azincourt defeat (longbow involved) has been used to cut the fraternity at arms between feuds members. (Lances were like organic units of versatile men at arms doing their best to bring everyone alive the local feud included).

The strength of the knight were enforced like in feodal japan, by preventing the crowd to gain power.

For this, metal was considered the weapons of only knights.

Which means that when using the old franc laws for something as rude as sullying a women in a church out of the accepted "traditions", the divine judgement could be called ... a duel.

Needless to say peasants were not authorized to have metal ... officially.

So with all the jaqueries going on, you don't really want the peasants to have weired ideas about efficient wooden weapons.

And still monarchy was a vast joke at this time and era, cousins of the royal families were lending each others money, and were often tight by blood.

England had no interest to destroy the french society.

French kings had no real interest in defeating england. They were mainly aiming for weakening the local suzerain. The feuds.

Of course it backfired. Louis XIV almost get killed during the "fronde".

Post reply on HN