Live data from Hacker News

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

peterleeson.com

151–160 of 180 posts

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

#151
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, I have wondered how universally true this was. For instance, did the USAF recognize a similar issue during this period?

Remember they had reorganized to wage nuclear war. Many people thought that conventional fighting was dead, and that the Air Force of the future would be intercepting bombers with nuclear rockets. A conflict like Vietnam was seen as a sideshow from a 1950s point of view, and wasn't really planned for.

So, the generals actually planned for the _next_ war, but ended up fighting the last war again, while the next one never came?

Wow, didn't expect the saying to be so wrong.

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

#152

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…

"Huge, flat battlefieds" were a norm everywhere. Medieval battles were ONLY possible on flat surfaces, as the main force of the time - heavy cavalry - requires that. Besides, Mongols completely plundered Rus' and the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, and most of those lands were and are forests/lakes/swamps. For example, they used rivers in winters to travel through the countryside. Also, after conquering China they also ha…

I wonder if that's why we have the term "battlefield" today.

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

#153
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…

The Mongols lacked siege engines when they first rolled into China, but they quickly conscripted Chinese siege engineers from conquered areas and used them. The Mongols were very good at recognizing who would be useful among conquered peoples and conscripting them. If the conscriptees did good work for the Mongols, they would be rewarded.

China was full of stone fortifications at the time. Fortresses and fortified cities were common in China and the siege engineers were among the best in the world.

After the Mongols begin expanding elsewhere, they took their siege engineers with them. Central Asia, the Middle East, Russia, and Europe. Fortifications weren't a problem for them.

The Mongols weren't bothered much by a lack of plains. Their horses were hardy and could survive on what was available.

The Mongols strength wasn't that their warriors were so much better individually. An individual European knight was much harder to beat than an individual Mongol. It was that they worked very well together. Their teamwork and discipline was unprecedented, and their lack of a supply train, their excellent mobility, and their incredibly good coordination allowed them to attack from multiple directions simultaneously. They struck where they weren't expected and could ride circles around other armies.

Their ability to divide and conquer their enemy was also very good. They'd take advantage of divisions in their enemy and exploit them. They turned the Hungarian people against the Cuman horseman who had fled to Hungary, depriving Hungary of large numbers of steppe horsemen.

The Mongols drove deep into Europe during their conquests, devastating Poland and Hungary, and making it as far as eastern Germany. The only thing that ended up saving Europe wasn't Europe's political system, fortresses, knights, or feudalism. It was the simple fact that the Mongol khan had died and the Mongols turned around and went back home. Europe would have been toast otherwise. The Mongols had far larger military forces at their disposal and the brutality to keep their conquered peoples in line.

They never made a concerted effort to conquer Europe again, although they dominated Russia (including the heavily forested areas) for centuries. They used conscripted Russians against each other as well, so often the Mongols themselves didn't even need to get involved to keep their lands.

Interestingly, at the Battle of Mohi, the Hungarian army managed to hold on against the Mongols for a while when they were both fighting at close quarters across a bridge. With fighting like that, the Mongols were at a disadvantage.

The Mongols got tricky and attacked the bridge during the night, and bombarded the Hungarians with all sorts of artillery. There were explosive devices used that night, and some historians speculate that there could have been gunpowder used in that battle. It also could have been just burning pots filled with flammable material. The Chinese did have gunpowder at the time, although it wasn't being used for guns, so the Chinese engineers may have used it.

At any rate, that whole attack was just a diversion. The Mongols had also crossed the river during the night, and when morning arrived, the Hungarians were surrounded. The Mongols left an escape path purposely, prompting the Hungarians to start to panic and run through the gap in the Mongol lines. Then it was easy to chase them down and kill them. European knights are a lot easier to beat when they have flung away their armor and a fleeing in panic.

The Mongols may not have been the toughest individual warriors around, but their trickiness, teamwork, brutality, and ability to make up for their weaknesses with skilled conscripts got them very good results. The army that wins isn't always the toughest one, but the one that doesn't panic and run.

If anyone's interested in the Mongols, I recommend listening to some older episodes of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. He had five two-hour episodes about the Mongols that were very interesting and well researched.

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

#154
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…

Actually one of the points made in the book Guns, Germs and Steel is that technology and inventions aren't developed because there is a need for them. Rather inventions pop up and disappear all the time through history in different cultures. But what makes the technology stay around is that it ends up getting used. E.g. South America did invent wheels, but since there was no ox or horse to pull the invention had not…

Surely Llamas could have pulled some cargo. This says that an adult llama can pull cart loads of up to 200lbs: http://workingllamas.com/?id=93

That's significantly less than a draft horse, but probably roughly the same as a pony.

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

#155
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…

Actually one of the points made in the book Guns, Germs and Steel is that technology and inventions aren't developed because there is a need for them. Rather inventions pop up and disappear all the time through history in different cultures. But what makes the technology stay around is that it ends up getting used. E.g. South America did invent wheels, but since there was no ox or horse to pull the invention had not…

The Saturn V's F1 engine was just 3D scanned and reverse engineered by NASA and is the base for the new F1b engine coming online in the next year or so to power the new Space Launch System series or rockets.

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

#156
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…

> 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 fam…

Re: roads under the Roman Empire

Apparently, in France, when they tried to build some of the high-speed train lines, they discovered some Roman roads which were forgotten/buried.

The reason they found them was that they were trying to make the lines as straight as possible between the cities they were supposed to link. The Romans had actually done the same and with great precision several hundred years earlier !

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

#157
post #70
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.

The problem with kings leading charges is that there's nobody to command the battlefield, not that they were skilled or not. Eastern Europe had that much better.

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

#158
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…

> 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.

Just noting that these claims are highly speculative and not widely accepted by historians.

> European heavy cavalry was not useless against mongols...

Agreed. The mongol skirmishers were not the superhero units some people make them out to be but otoh they were experts at inducing their opponents into favorable engagements.

> Apparently the mongols beat the Hungarians initially but when they came back and the Hungarians had built lots of castles, they were soundly beaten. The sieges dragged on and they would get harassed by Hungarian forces which could always retreat back to castles while mongols starved.

This is basically correct but I'm skeptical the larger conclusion is proper. The Hungarians learned something from the first Mongol invasion that had success in the second. Some people's takeaway from this is that stone castles were some kind trump card against the mongols generally but given experience in China and elsewhere it's more likely just a weakness of that specific invading army. The mongols showed up in Russia/Eastern Europe with Chinese siege technology which was enough to beat most everyone they faced ... until it wasn't (2nd invasion of hungary, etc.). They ran into the same problem in China, personified by the Siege of Xiangyang but over years the mongols learned lessons too and increased their siege technology with Arab trebuchets and then every fortified city they faced afterwords in China fell like sand castles. Presumably the same pattern would have repeated in an extended invasion of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang#Aftermath

> My understanding is that the Mongols managed to conquer the more hilly southern China by using conscripted Chinese soldiers. So they were not really using standard Mongolian tactics there.

They used all sorts of troops and tactics including lots of Mongolians.

> Duplicating this in Europe would have been difficult because unlike China Europe did not have the same kind of central government which would have allow the conquest of a few cities to gain huge tracts of land and extra manpower. They would have had to conquer huge numbers of castles which would have dragged out in time.

I find this unconvincing, letting the mongols take you apart a small kingdom/castle/city state at a time was not a successful strategy anywhere as even if you had equal or superior troops the mongols could bring overwhelming numbers to bear on you. This is basically what happened to Russia and most of central Asia. Also Song China had tons of fortified outposts.

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Romans really were awesome engineers. They were even more awesome when you realize that they were completely hamstrung by the utterly idiotic Roman numeral system! Can you imagine doing complex calculations in that?

I guess they also might had some math tricks that made it easy, tricks that you may now count as another "art" lost. But then would you try to rediscover some art about how some people dealt with something imperfect (because they had to) or you would rather look for something better that doesn't require clever tricks in the first place? Now I come to think that (at least) some loses present opportunity value in thems…

I'm pretty sure Roman Numerals arithmetic algorithms weren't lost, I looking for the source but in the meanwhile here's some of them: http://turner.faculty.swau.edu/mathematics/materialslibrary/...

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

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sharpe author Bernard Cornwell wrote a couple of novels set in / around Agincourt and from memory there are a few extras to throw in - but I love your last sentence's conclusion 1. The extra training was enormous - thik of an army of a thousand Arnold Schwarzeneggers - these guys cold deliver hundreds of foot pounds from their arms. Robin Hood would have been built like The Rock, not Kevin Costner. 2. The "cheap"…

> 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…

> I wonder if the advantages of a democracy - political stability and a (usually) advanced economy - also translate into the modern battlefield.

There are many, many, many examples throughout history of this happening. In WWII, the British kept the European theatre alive until the Americans finally showed up. I learned in a Quora thread that opposing soldiers thought the British incredibly disciplined and reliable, while the Americans were absolutely nuts, making up in sheer bravado what they lacked in training.

People will fight very, very hard to save their political system when they are personally invested in it.

In the French Revolutionary wars, the generals led from the front of the army. Absolutely fearless, total badasses, fighting for the glory of the French Republic. Things changed of course after Napoleon grabbed the brass ring, but Napoleon did not make the army himself, it was the efforts of his revolutionary predecessors that forged the army that Napoleon commanded.

Strongly democratic nations enjoy virtual invulnerability in battle, particularly when defending.

The political stability is important when creating a national army that could conceivably be usurped by internal threats. The economy is essential for that oft-overlooked aspect of conducting a war, managing the supply train. Unless you're the Mongols, everything you use to wage war has to be maintained, and fed. Democratic countries simply do this better than autocratic ones.

Post reply on HN