English Longbows ruled the Medieval battlefield?

[@kevingray3550]

Longbows were only fired aimlessly into the air at the opposition in the movies . In reality they were aimed horizontally for maximum power and impact. Any oncoming force would therefore be confronted with a wall not a hail of arrows. The English longbowmen practiced for years to fire arrows very rapidly at a closing body of enemy troops . If their arrows did not penetrate the armour a longbow at close range could knock a man off his feet making him a hazard for the charging body of men following him. At Agincourt many of the French were killed in the weight of the crush of their own charge at the English lines.

[@theprancingprussian]

The weight of a falling arrow could barely even splinter They were almost never shot near 40 degrees unless in sport Volleys too, hard to wait for the command to loose when you have a 140-165lb bow drawn, the longbowmen were hunters often and tried to rely on instinct to aim when they were ready for heads, joints or the sides Commands were more general in this time Also fire is a gunpowder command which would be rarely used until the late 1500s

[@minhducnguyen5438]

Longbowmen requires 3 conditions to win : prepared positions (sharpened stakes, terrain...), favorable battlefield conditions (muddy terrain, narrow corridors allowing less room for manoeuvering...), and good leadership with prepared position, as demostrated in Crecy and Agincourt. Yet in a battle of manoeuver or with the element of surprise the English cannot stand against the much superior mobility and armor of French knights as demonstrated in the battle of Patay where 2,500 longbowmen were massacred in just a few hours, surprised by French cavalry. With France's employment of artillery later in the war, the advantage of longbows where largely negated, culminated in the Battle of Castillon in 1453 in which the French victory definitely end the war in France's favour.

[@onmysecondjourney5510]

No foot soldier can stand against armoured cavalry. In 1400s Knights on horseback were immuned to arrows. Their armour, horse and polearm with longer reach were the conditions favouring them. Both knights and longbowman were formidable soldiers. Just like archers couldn't fight unprepared (nobody can) or without pike barricades, Similarly armored cavalry can't fight unprepared i.e without proper plan and equipments or on a hilly terrain.

[@onmysecondjourney5510]

Fighting with archers or foot soldiers with heavy armoured cavalry is not a fair fight, it's butchery.

[@oldlifter530]

Look up Hawkwoods battle in Renassaise Italy used longbow to protect vulnerable flank and to force enemy to attack his line where he wanted longbows may not penetrate armour as we think but enemy does not like going against them test have shown that splintering shafts where getting into visors and getting hit by a cloth yard arrow was probably like getting hit with a hammer painful and unnerving

[@jack.charlesc4750]

Please AZINCOuRT not agincourt please 😰

[@jack.charlesc4750]

J M you are so funny........ being English doesn’t t change the way it is written and said and a G is not a Z It s a French place and it s just for your knockledge we do not say water toilette but Waterloo And as I can see French are not the only one to be arrogant 🤣🤣🤣

[@OriginalGazGoose]

When you mastered how to use vaegir marksmen

[@geoffdecorator7150]

Longbows were made where i was born ,Broughton in Salford uk .We have streets etc named after all things longbow related .

[@imohamme5]

Look at the friendly fire tho 😂😂

[@bobwallace9814]

Here's the real deal on these bowmen. This went back another 1000 years prior to these guys. The bowman were picked as children to ply this trade. They trained their entire lives for this highly sought after skilled trade. When they were taken prisoner, they would more than likely have their middle two fingers on the strong hand lopped off, making them useless as a bowman. Back in those times, armies would stand only short distances from each other and throw shade at each other. The bowman raised their hands and gave the others the finger showing they were able and ready. This is where "flipping someone the finger" we all know came from. Another tidbit, they held the bow close and pushed it forward with their other hand to shoot. They did not draw it back with a hand.

[@leemurray7240]

Two fingers.

[@rivertonhigh-v4t]

So it was the French who invented or popularized the "middle-finger" and, or Victory sign.

[@theprancingprussian]

Cutting off bowmens fingers was rare or a myth, if that was it's origin it was a rumor to encourage them

[@thibskywalker4450]

The English archers ended up being destroyed in 1429 during the battle of Patay: - The 180 knights of the French avant garde led by captains La Hire, Ambroise de Loré, Jean Poton de Xaintrailles and Constable Arthur de Richemont, attacked the archers from the flanks which were not protected. These quickly disbanded. Then the first massive use of field artillery in a battle, created by the brothers Gaspard and Jean Bureau, completed them in 1453 at the Battle of Castillon. Suddenly, the Archers worked for a while, but the Kingdom of France ended up adapting.

[@thibskywalker4450]

@J M Overall, France has always been attached to its traditions. It was more difficult for the Kingdom of France to take the tangent when combat tactics began to change during the 14th century. There was a greater tradition of chivalry than in the Kingdom of England, knowing that at that time, the English chivalry was of Franco-Norman origin. The Dantesque Cavalry Charges which involved more courage and close combat worked before. The noblest way of fighting according to the Knights. This is why the Kingdom has taken time to adapt. But when it did, it was radical. There was not only the Battle of La Brossinière in 1423 or the Battle of Patay in 1429, but also the Battle of Formigny in 1451 and the Battle of Castillon in 1453, where the invention of the Field Artillery of Bureau brothers put the Plantagenets out of harm's way.

[@mrdarren1045]

Only because they were taken by surprise. At patay the French didn't even face the archers.

[@alexius23]

We few we happy few we Band of Brothers...

[@goblin-sightingdnd1037]

where were the longbows in the second clip?

[@toothpick4649]

Saw a guy 6ft 3 built like a brick shithouse saying he could not draw an English war longbow only a hunting long bow. they must have been bloody strong back then

[@hugdeeznuttz3458]

150 to 170 pound draw weight was the average. Archers had to pace themselves or they would grow tired. Also when viewing the skelotons of English Longbowmen they had more developed back, arm, and shoulder muscles than the average man at that time

[@cymro6537]

They started pulling bows as boys - and increased the poundage over the years ,so a decade or so of drawing would've made a bowman freakishly strong - and I dare say physically distinctive.

[@oldlifter530]

Tests done by re enactors showed that the longbow could not penetrate period knightly armour I think this shows that these battles where more complicated than we have been led to believe The English archer had an impact in battles across Europe but what was it?? They won engagements and battles but how??? The craftsman are there to recreate in historic detail arms and armour reenactors know the practical military archaeologists can find many hidden realities and details

[@bruced1429]

It depended on the arrow point used, there were ones designed to penetrate the known armour of the time.

[@bruced1429]

also they were deadly on the horses of the knights and often were instructed to aim for the horses of the cavalry but they were most effective on the foot soldiers as the English long bow had an accurate range of 200 yards, fired in mass volleys of 20 arrows per man per minute was an incredible feat.

[@oldlifter530]

@@bruced1429 hi look up Tods workshop on ytube they used the skilled people to make test reasonable accurate arrow head design and metal made no difference no penetration of armour

[@oldlifter530]

Thanks for responding Teds workshop is always fun because their always making stuff and trying it out

[@oldlifter530]

@@bruced1429 thanks for responding

[@mrtecsom6951]

Assuming this is Agincourt , none of the English or Welsh fought on horse Even Harry fought on foot

[@mrdarren1045]

Yep

[@staffattorney]

Mongolian steppe bow ruled the battlefields then.

[@EzraMerr]

Na , only in East Europe, but the terrain turned cold and damp for the Mongolians, you forget that 7 invasions attempts were made against West Europe. The english long bow division could send over 35,000 arrows per minute. The Europeans knew how to defeat the Mongolians after learning of their tactics in Poland and Hungary, the invasion of Damascus was without information on strategies used by the mongols. The Europeans have accounts of the mongols strategies in notes of scripture, they laugh at the mere fact that if the mongol bowmen on horse are cut off from infantry lines, they are easy to defeat. The Mongols moved in straight formation at angles and returned behind their infantry lines to then strike again. This repetition proved to be a fatal mistake in many battles against western Europe

[@marcdedouvan]

so inacurate reconstitution: no helmet no plate armor english horses english shooting in the melee with english fighting wrong weapons (should be anti knights poleaxes, war hammers, daggers and bills for the English which did the real job here!) my god!

[@victoryoneable]

If they wear helmets the audience can't tell which characters they are.

[@commissargab6181]

@@victoryoneable thats a stupid reason....

[@victoryoneable]

@@commissargab6181 So tell me your reason, oh smart one.

[@commissargab6181]

@@victoryoneable thanks my boi

[@marcdedouvan]

@@victoryoneable TO PROTECT THE HEAD OF COURSE, IMBECILE!

[@marcalleman3066]

Oui il y a eu Crécy et Azincourt ...mais en 1429 les chevaliers de Jeanne d' Arc ( la sainte cramée par les anglais ) ont massacrés et hachés menus les archers anglais , la défaite a été telle que plus jamais l 'Angleterre ne put reformer ce corps de vils soldats qui tuaient à distance , pas de quoi être fiers !

[@britishpatriot7386]

OK little Frenchman now do as the EU tells you please and stop crying.

[@danilsmith7292]

longbows DID rule the battle field

[@EazySDJ]

They were actually Welsh longbowmen.

[@longbowenjoyer2154]

Not all were welsh the English saw the advantage of the longbow and started producing their own and soon English archers started using them but welsh archers were still employed in armies

[@mrdarren1045]

No they weren't. A lot of archers came from Cheshire and Lancashire. That Welsh thing is a myth. Plus the Welsh longbow was made of Wych elm not yew, so an entirely different technique.

[@dadventuretv2538]

Im so confused by this whole thing. Why is no one wearing a helmet? Why are there like 150 years of armor represented in one scene? Why are the archers shooting into a melee? So confused. I do like the brutality of the combat though.

[@endtimestraveller7716]

So what's with these idiots of leaders who do not wear helmets in battle?

[@ciscoterres717]

arrows sure are noisy

[@PODSMPSG1]

Those arrows are going at 90 MPH.

[@koreancowboy42]

Longbows did not ruled the battlefield but rather it was the footknights or Knights on horseback. Archers are great. But with bad leadership and planning and bad positioning of an whole army. Every could be ruined in an instant. If archers were to rule the battlefield they'd need alot of things in their favor. Also best tactics for the archers is not just raining down arrows. But rather forcing the enemy to make an error. For example a certain anime called Berserk. Watching the battle for (whatever fortress is was called) the general in charge ordered the second line of heavy cavalry to charge while positioning archers on both flanks and forcing the enemy to not be able to maneuver their light cavalry to by pass their heavy cavalry (cataphract horses) Along side having archers on the flanks rather than the traditional front lines and back lines would put extra pressure for the enemy being attacked or surrounded and been let loose upon by a hail of Arrows while their in combat. The saw goes for the crossbowmen. You ain't gonna deploy crossbowmen on open field and expect them to win the battle for you. But rather their meant for slowing down enemy cavalry with the heavy bolts and better crossbows that are made of steel. It had more punching power, but as the creation of armor got better bows and crossbows were becoming useless. Then came matchlocks. Even then armor was still used the breastplates, gauntlets, helmets during the wars of gunpowder weapons.

[@RaderJam]

who the heck beside Brittish army, are they fighting against ?? France ?? Scotland ?? oh they just spoked German ?? wth ??

[@badguy1481]

But strangely enough...a detailed study of the battle of Agincourt, between the English and the French indicated the English Long Bow was NOT as effective as previously thought in giving the battle to the English. Reason: The tips of the arrows were made very cheaply, because of the large number required, and the integrity and strength of the metal was inferior. As a result, the arrows were not able to penetrate the much superior armor of the French cavalry during the initial charges against the British line. What REALLY produced the English victory against the French was due to TWO main reasons: FIRST: The battle field was very muddy and the horses and riders bogged down and many riders fell off and were forced to fight hand to hand in the sticky mud. SECOND: After the cavalry charge was halted, the archers dropped their bows and picked up mallets and axes. They then waded into the fray and began bludgeoning the heavily armored and mud encumbered French knights to pieces.

[@MahsaKaerra]

By 1415 when the battle of Agincourt took place the French were well aware of the threat posed by the longbow, the battle of Crécy where the weapon was first used in France to such great effect had occurred 69 years before. For much of the time leading up to and during the battle of Agincourt the French were content to just sit at their end of the field and wait for their numbers to be bolstered and for the English to run out of food supplies. It was when the English moved their position forwards so that the French were within range that the French had to choose between moving away to remain out of range or to charge in. By the time the commander was aware of it several units had already geared up to charge. Furthermore, the English were well aware of both the weaknesses of their favoured weapon and that the French too were aware, they were actually trying to retreat Calais, then an English owned territory and would remain so until Henry 8th was on the throne. Their decision to engage in battle was one of desperation rather than exploiting an advantage, as a second French army was moving up from behind them to engage in a coordinated attack on two fronts. After the battle the English promptly retreated to Calais. Another fun fact about archers compared to men-at-arms or cavalry, the more 'conventional' fighting units of the day, is that archers were paid less.

[@georgiamule]

BADGUY 1 The arrows brought down the horses, forcing the heavily armored nobles to fight on foot, in that heavy armor. They were wounded pigeons. The French noble class hasn’t recovered to this day. Agincourt depleted the gene pool.

Yea. I don't care how much fanboys insist plate armor was quite light. If your entire body, including your eye area, is encased in a big metal suit, ur gonna be bogged down and have less awareness of your surroundings, especially in thick mud.

[@badguy1481]

@@MahsaKaerra Another fun fact: At that time nobility did NOT expect to be killed in battle. They expected to be taken prisoner and later ransomed for huge amounts of wealth. Unfortunately, for them, at least on THIS day, the English fighters either did not KNOW the "rules of combat"...or...didn't care...or...thought that they were not high enough on the social ladder to conduct such ransom negotiations. As a result they just waded into the armored, mud soaked, French nobility...and TORE THEM TO PIECES.

[@badguy1481]

@@georgiamule Could be...but remember at that time, it was customary for the horses to ALSO wear armor.

[@dagsledada1835]

Battle of patay 2000 english( bowman in majority) and 3 french dead 😎, you must protect ur bowman against cavalery

[@onmysecondjourney5510]

Surprised and unprepared. Would be the same if the English attacked unprepared French. An armoured knight on horseback could kill an elephant in 1400s. Longbowmen were still human.Not a fair fight. There is no hope when your arrows bounce off the superior armour and the knight charges at you with a long polearm. I guess most of them died of being trampled by horses and others by polearms.

[@giacomo8875]

What Is a fair fight?

[@thecornfieldiii2069]

I wish the french could hold onto paris as easily as they act smug

[@lahire4943]

@@onmysecondjourney5510 Lol "Earlier, the English longbowmen had inadvertently disclosed the position of the English army to French scouts when a lone stag wandered onto a nearby field and the archers raised a hunting cry. With the threat of an ambush dealt with, the French knights were soon joined by the rest of the vanguard of about 1,300 mounted men-at-arms. They then charged at the English positions on the flanks, which were left unprotected by sharpened stakes. Fastolf's unit attempted to join up with the English vanguard but the latter fled, forcing Fastolf to follow suit."

[@mrdarren1045]

Yeah 2000 sleeping archers. Brilliant fighting

[@armandoalejandro7209]

How many times r they going to show the same guy dying they could of payed for a few less horse and gotten another death scene

[@nannunbgd]

In you isle,yes! But what you doing against tartars,Mongols or Otromans who shot with bow on riding horses?

[@williamponsonby4235]

Where are your Tartars and Mongols and Ottomans now??

[@williamponsonby4235]

@ Saving your soul

[@danielwood9332]

@ so where are you from lol. Lets be fair and ridicule your background lol.

[@danielwood9332]

@ so come on then lol. Answer me lol

[@danielwood9332]

@ hahaha! Sounds like a yeoman mugged you once while he was out on a chevaucche

[@kevingray3550]

Why would you fire clouds of arrows up in to the sky at a very long range? The power of the shot would decrease over distance - the shot could not be targeted and as it came down at an angle the arrow is more likely to be deflected by plate armour or a shield. Wouldn't it have been more logical to fire arrows horizontally at a marked target at a much shorter range when their power an accuracy would have a greater effect? English bowmen were renowned for the speed at which they could release successive arrows which would have been necessary if the enemy force was closing from a relatively short distance to the archers own line. But then I suppose that clouds of arrows fired up in to the air looks much more dramatic in the movies .

[@jamesburden6807]

They were volley firing at a large target. They would continue to fire - eventually horizontally when the targets were in range.

[@kleinjahr]

But we in it shall be rememberèd- We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

[@ilyasalquezar177]

what the name film

[@jt387]

Longbows wasnt used by france because it was not loyal and see as cowards, it doesnt see to be a big problem for the english.. THE ENGAYLISH !!

[@mikedalley4202]

What's with the stupid sound effects when the arrows are in flight .

[@hughgrection4205]

The English unleashed 30,000 arrows in the first minute. Now you tell me just what you think that sounded like.

[@mikedalley4202]

@@hughgrection4205 couldn't tell you. I wasn't there at the time.

[@malcigloe]

Imperor Maximilian?

[@ilyasalquezar177]

the name film what

[@silentbob7984]

ezee Ezra; I was replying to a comment someone made about Spanish weapons.

[@malcigloe]

Landsknechte Vs Knights

[@tyfon4429]

Anno ?

[@thesnoopmeistersnoops5167]

Devil take order

[@OrbitRex6215]

Do you think the world was only England and perhaps France? Go learn about medieval Spain and the battles fought there, including the mother of all medieval battles, Navas de Tolosa battle. No skirmishes but real large scale battles with all types of weapons.

[@silentbob7984]

You are right, there were many different types of weapons, however the English longbow had more power and could shoot farther than any other bow. They could be used on the battlefield, or on the sea with absolutely devastating effect. The battle of Agincourt, is the best example of this. One of the most important variables in war, in ancient times, in medieval times and today is choosing the ground to be fought on.

[@ezeeeza6046]

Are you upset that spain isn't being mentioned ? . Maybe because it's about english archers and french knights ( it's in the title) Why watch the video and then comment about spain not being mentioned are you stupid ?

[@ezeeeza6046]

Bottom line is the ENGLISH LONGBOW / WAR BOW was the superior weapon for awhile and spain has got absolutely fuck all to do with it . France and England 1 Spain 0 THE END or EL FIN

[@mrdarren1045]

Oh like the Spanish armada. Yeah really pro those Spanish guys. All the gear and no idea.

[@marcdedouvan]

REMEMBER PATAY!

[@marcdedouvan]

@J M GO BACK IN YOUR PIGSTY JON SNOW!

[@mccuffi]

Remember these 🖕

[@marcdedouvan]

@@mccuffi FRENCH WON 100 YEARS WAR. AT CASTILLON, ENGLISH RECEIVED "LA PATEE" (CRUSHING VICTORY=ALL ENEMIES DEAD OR PRISONERS OR FLEEING WHILE ALMOST NO LOSS), ONCE AND FOR ALL. XD

[@bethjohnson8353]

Hey bad guy who doesn’t know the French fought on a Badly thought out position, uphill in the mud? But the arrows would still be effective against most of the cavalry as they were not completely armored. And the idiot French didn’t have to follow up in multiple failed attacks,they could simply of waited for English supplies to run dry and fight when in a better advantageous position.

[@gengis737]

To wait instead of charging was not in knight mentality. They needed to get recognition from their pairs, and an horse is an offensive weapon, you cannot stay receiving arrows without moving forward.

[@mikep.541]

What a tremendous waste of my time.

[@peterroberts5565]

Ive never understood what killing someone proves. That men are mortal?

[@pactumexcello9308]

if your life is just about proving something, then I guess you still live w your mama after graduating High School

[@ofands]

Lancer hey buddy you said that you would never tell anybody about that! I swear I was jus helping that sheep over the fence!

[@ofands]

No.. it means that after one kills another he then owns and controls all his toys..

[@markguardiana600]

@@ofands thats a crusaders prize

[@taliesinhalliday]

it means i dont have to listen to the other guy anymore. it proves i am better because he is dead. everything he owned is now mine and when i walk you get out of my way. i also get the best women and my family is safe because other men dont want to die. the laws you follow are there because better men than you took what they wanted and the reason you are safe in safe land is because better men than you fought for it. if you want to see what happens when men dont fight just look at the middle-east. all their men have run away and isis is running the show, women are being raped and sold as slaves, children are raped and sold as slaves and any men left are murdered. its natural law and cannot be changed or argued with. you have been allowed to grow weak and have ideas such as "what does it prove?" because other men killed for it. nature doesnt care about your feelings.

[@gigilaco]

The English long bow is overhyped. It was terribly inefficient when compared to other bows of the time and even those of Ancient Greece and Rome.

[@onmysecondjourney5510]

It's efficient enough. But it met with the finest armour in 1400s, which is why it became useless. Even 1000 lbs crossbows were ineffective against post 1400 armours.

[@mrdarren1045]

Pfft haha. Say that to the French at crecy and agincourt.

[@mrdarren1045]

Inefficient? Oh how so?

[@theprancingprussian]

It is efficient logistically England was very forrested England and Wales especially had a culture containing longbows By law or recommendation everyone capable was to train at least once a week An expensive bow like a Mongolian composite bow is less reliable in some temperatures and conditions and more costly to make, especially when longbowmen were usually barely above peasants

[@cakomiguel4442]

Top