Pike and Shot suggestions
Moderators: rbodleyscott, Slitherine Core, Gothic Labs
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
English longbowmen required several years of training, and a high protein diet, much like body builders of today, in order to draw a 100-180 lb bow.
Since the time of Henry VIII, archers had been in decline due to lack of practice/poor diet and even a shortage of good quality yew for bowmaking.
The men who you call archers in the 17th century would not have passed muster to be king's archers in their heyday. The standard range for archery training was 240 yards. Any man who could not hit a target at that range was not entitled to their two pence, later four pence per day.
As for lethality, please inquire of the French at Crecy or Agincourt about how ineffective they found the English longbow.
Indeed, Benjamin Franklin was to advocate the use of longbowmen in the American Revolution.
And I do hear tales of how the American Indians were wont to be a tad dangerous with their primitive bows well into the 19th century.
FYI, an Englishman in WWII was to make longbow kills.
I do believe you are mistaken. As an archer, I have seen both bears and moose taken with bows. They are considerably larger than a man.
Since the time of Henry VIII, archers had been in decline due to lack of practice/poor diet and even a shortage of good quality yew for bowmaking.
The men who you call archers in the 17th century would not have passed muster to be king's archers in their heyday. The standard range for archery training was 240 yards. Any man who could not hit a target at that range was not entitled to their two pence, later four pence per day.
As for lethality, please inquire of the French at Crecy or Agincourt about how ineffective they found the English longbow.
Indeed, Benjamin Franklin was to advocate the use of longbowmen in the American Revolution.
And I do hear tales of how the American Indians were wont to be a tad dangerous with their primitive bows well into the 19th century.
FYI, an Englishman in WWII was to make longbow kills.
I do believe you are mistaken. As an archer, I have seen both bears and moose taken with bows. They are considerably larger than a man.
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:31 am
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I personally think it's unlikely that the English archer was a superman who surpassed all others in the world. No decline in the availability of archers or bows is need to explain his downfall. His situation was not unique. Bows were used, and abandoned in favor of the musket, by far more countries than England. Notably, the Turks and Japanese were both bow cultures who eagerly embraced firearms.
Roger Williams does complain that most archers weren't able to draw their bows after a few months in the field.
I have seen others besides you say that English archery was declining by the time it the bow was retired from the Trained Bands, but I have seen no actual evidence that was the case, except a few complaints by contemporary partisans of the bow.
The military writers of the time were very clear on why they wanted England to give up the bow, which was as Sir Roger Williams described, "The Worst Shot Still Used in These Days". Faster training was not one of the reasons. In fact, Barwick is emphatic that musketeers must be well-trained in order to do good execution:
http://the-norseman.livejournal.com/13230.html
The bow was not very lethal at Crecy or Agincourt. It mostly served to annoy the horses of the French knights:
https://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/06 ... e-longbow/
Benjamin Franklin was not a military man, and fortunately for the Continental Army nobody took his suggestion seriously. Marbot's memoirs describe what happens when men with bows fight men with muskets and sabers:
https://archive.org/details/memoirsofbaronde00marbrich
The American Indians replaced their bows with firearms whenever they could get them.
There also were people in WW2 killed with rocks and bamboo sticks, but neither is superior to a musket.
There was an invention by William Neade which he called the "double armed man", a bow fastened to a pike, which would allow a weak man to draw a strong bow. This had the advantage of making use of the pikemen who were otherwise standing around not doing much of anything. It was actually adopted and used in battle a few times by the Royalists. Apparently it didn't accomplish much, since nobody else saw fit to copy the design.
Roger Williams does complain that most archers weren't able to draw their bows after a few months in the field.
I have seen others besides you say that English archery was declining by the time it the bow was retired from the Trained Bands, but I have seen no actual evidence that was the case, except a few complaints by contemporary partisans of the bow.
The military writers of the time were very clear on why they wanted England to give up the bow, which was as Sir Roger Williams described, "The Worst Shot Still Used in These Days". Faster training was not one of the reasons. In fact, Barwick is emphatic that musketeers must be well-trained in order to do good execution:
http://the-norseman.livejournal.com/13230.html
The bow was not very lethal at Crecy or Agincourt. It mostly served to annoy the horses of the French knights:
https://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/06 ... e-longbow/
Benjamin Franklin was not a military man, and fortunately for the Continental Army nobody took his suggestion seriously. Marbot's memoirs describe what happens when men with bows fight men with muskets and sabers:
https://archive.org/details/memoirsofbaronde00marbrich
The American Indians replaced their bows with firearms whenever they could get them.
There also were people in WW2 killed with rocks and bamboo sticks, but neither is superior to a musket.
There was an invention by William Neade which he called the "double armed man", a bow fastened to a pike, which would allow a weak man to draw a strong bow. This had the advantage of making use of the pikemen who were otherwise standing around not doing much of anything. It was actually adopted and used in battle a few times by the Royalists. Apparently it didn't accomplish much, since nobody else saw fit to copy the design.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14501
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I agree with a lot of what you are saying about why the arquebus and musket eventually surpassed the longbow, but your statement above goes a bit too far, I think. Although the longbow was not very effective against knights wearing the very best armour of the time (in terms of killing them outright, I mean), it could still cause a lot of damage to the enemy, particularly to unarmoured soldiers (e.g. the Scots were mostly unarmoured).KateMicucci wrote:The bow was not very lethal at Crecy or Agincourt. It mostly served to annoy the horses of the French knights.
At Crecy the French attacked first with Genoese crossbowmen in an effort to soften up the English line. They were repulsed with dreadful casualties so that when the French knights attacked the English line was still virtually intact. Then, a combination of the longbow arrow storm and the effect of the carefully prepared defensive position (ditches, caltrops etc) meant that the French knights could not breakthrough. Many of their horses were killed or wounded so that many knights then had to try and fight uphill on foot. So the longbow was decisive in this particular battle.
At Agincourt, the English were deployed in a semi-circular sort of position and the effect of the arrow storm here, delivered into the flanks of the French army, was to make the French bunch up in the middle of their formation. Most of the French knights were on foot and ended up floundering about in the mud where they were more easily killed by English men-at-arms and archers using hand-held weapons. So again, the longbow was decisive in this battle.
What I think you can say is that the longbow was very effective for English armies after about 1325 until well into the 15th C against the French and the Scots, provided the English could take up strong defensive positions in good time before the battle started (if they were caught unprepared in the open then they had had it). Longbowmen continued to be used by the English during the War of the Roses (1455-1487) but they tended to cancel each other out as both sides (Yorkists and Lancastrians) deployed them in similar numbers - and English armies at Flodden (1513) and Pinkie Cleuch (1547) still deployed contingents of archers that made some useful contribution to these later English victories.
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I agree, Pete. And we should not forget that the longbow archers also shot at the battle chargers bearing the knights. There were no barded knights at Crecy or Agincourt, afaik. Once the horse fell, the knight toppled and was either knocked unconscious or simply could not get up easily again due to the weight of the armor. It would seem that, considering that factor, it would be easier to bring down a mounted knight than a dismounted one.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28284
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
Which is why, in Pike & Shot, bows are far more effective against mounted than against foot.ZeaBed wrote:I agree, Pete. And we should not forget that the longbow archers also shot at the battle chargers bearing the knights. There were no barded knights at Crecy or Agincourt, afaik. Once the horse fell, the knight toppled and was either knocked unconscious or simply could not get up easily again due to the weight of the armor. It would seem that, considering that factor, it would be easier to bring down a mounted knight than a dismounted one.
Richard Bodley Scott


-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:59 pm
- Location: The California Central Coast Wine Country
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I don't think we should be able to see the casualties inflicted on an enemy unit.
This would not be available to a general....
But the strength of the flag would be a reasonable general indication of an enemy's losses
Danny Weitz
This would not be available to a general....
But the strength of the flag would be a reasonable general indication of an enemy's losses
Danny Weitz
What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5286
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I 5 ink you can tell from the pile of dead bodies and the possibly shrunken frontage of an enemy how many casualties, roughly, it's taken
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
Interesting comments here, but I think I tend to generally agree with KateMiccuci synopsis
Also, I have a hard time beleiveing the lack readily available mutton chops contributed to the decline of the logbow. Many other cultures and regions subsist on relaively low protein diets and do just fine in producing warrior cultures. ( an example would be republican roman soldiers whose diet was barley, oil and whatever cheese and small amounts of legumes, perhaps fish they could get their hands on.
One thing missing is armour penetration. We probobly need to accept that bows and even crossbows had a difficult time penetrating plate(solid or multiple smaller plates) and even mail, backed ( as it always would be) by padding. During the crusades, turkish archery ( again we need to asume the steppe bow was at least as powerful as the longbow) failed to make much impression on crusader foot men armoured in padded cloth Witnesses at Arsouf?, i beleive, even commenting that the xbowmen, although looking like porcupines w all the arrows sticking out of em, continued to load and fire their weapons.
Even the primitive "hand gonnes" had enough energy to pop thru quality plate of the time. By the time the long bow was regarded as obsolete by ordinance, as well as practice, arquebuses had already been supplemented with double muskets, half muskets calivers etc etc. and no man strength powered weapon could compete.
Since Henry the 8th never was able to conclude any major pitched battles, we'll never know excaxtly how the massed bill and bow "battle"s would have faired againt the more modern french pike and shot units or even some tercios
Which is why we need th expansion to hit the shelves asap!
Also, I have a hard time beleiveing the lack readily available mutton chops contributed to the decline of the logbow. Many other cultures and regions subsist on relaively low protein diets and do just fine in producing warrior cultures. ( an example would be republican roman soldiers whose diet was barley, oil and whatever cheese and small amounts of legumes, perhaps fish they could get their hands on.
One thing missing is armour penetration. We probobly need to accept that bows and even crossbows had a difficult time penetrating plate(solid or multiple smaller plates) and even mail, backed ( as it always would be) by padding. During the crusades, turkish archery ( again we need to asume the steppe bow was at least as powerful as the longbow) failed to make much impression on crusader foot men armoured in padded cloth Witnesses at Arsouf?, i beleive, even commenting that the xbowmen, although looking like porcupines w all the arrows sticking out of em, continued to load and fire their weapons.
Even the primitive "hand gonnes" had enough energy to pop thru quality plate of the time. By the time the long bow was regarded as obsolete by ordinance, as well as practice, arquebuses had already been supplemented with double muskets, half muskets calivers etc etc. and no man strength powered weapon could compete.
Since Henry the 8th never was able to conclude any major pitched battles, we'll never know excaxtly how the massed bill and bow "battle"s would have faired againt the more modern french pike and shot units or even some tercios

Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
Back to the original topic.
BA2 now has some campaigns with Unit Carry-over.
BA2 now has some campaigns with Unit Carry-over.

Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I am afraid all this is far removed from the historical reality. The word archer in the muster rolls is basically an administrative term, it means a person entitled to perceive the salary of an "archer". He could be a real archer, a billmen, a cook, a servant, whatever the indentured lord could manage to get. And it is the same for man-at-arms, most were simply servants or family members of the indentured lord with nothing else to recommend them.shawkhan2 wrote:English longbowmen required several years of training, and a high protein diet, much like body builders of today, in order to draw a 100-180 lb bow.
Since the time of Henry VIII, archers had been in decline due to lack of practice/poor diet and even a shortage of good quality yew for bowmaking.
The men who you call archers in the 17th century would not have passed muster to be king's archers in their heyday. The standard range for archery training was 240 yards. Any man who could not hit a target at that range was not entitled to their two pence, later four pence per day.
As for lethality, please inquire of the French at Crecy or Agincourt about how ineffective they found the English longbow.
As for lethality, that is not relevant in a battle, and in any case it is always very low, battles are about breking the enemy, his will to fight, fatal casaualties in a battle usually were fairly balanced, it was through prisoners and deserters that the defeated army was broken.
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:19 pm
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
This discussion of archery is very interesting, but I think it would be greatly enhanced by a little source citation. It's not my period, so I don't know where the 240 yards/paces comes from.
I can't tell from what I'm reading here how much is modernist interpretation (which may or may not be misguided) and how much comes from period sources (which usually need commentary to understand correctly in context).
It's been years since I read Oman, and I'm fully aware that he is hardly the ultimate source. Things that you were sure are gospel and have assumed most of your life often turn out to be based on some 19th century popular writer's misinterpretation of a secondary source that leaked into something you read as an adolescent.
On casualties in battle, I couldn't help thinking of classical Greek battle results which tended to have wildly asymmetrical body counts according to the ancient sources. In the post-Hanson world we believe that this is because there were almost no casualties during the actual collision of the phalanxes, but that most casualties (on both sides) were suffered during the pursuit after one side's morale cracked and the losers broke formation.
That type of warfare probably doesn't have much bearing on the 17th century (though people were reading Asclepiodotus et al. and trying to use upated phalanx formations).
I can't tell from what I'm reading here how much is modernist interpretation (which may or may not be misguided) and how much comes from period sources (which usually need commentary to understand correctly in context).
It's been years since I read Oman, and I'm fully aware that he is hardly the ultimate source. Things that you were sure are gospel and have assumed most of your life often turn out to be based on some 19th century popular writer's misinterpretation of a secondary source that leaked into something you read as an adolescent.
On casualties in battle, I couldn't help thinking of classical Greek battle results which tended to have wildly asymmetrical body counts according to the ancient sources. In the post-Hanson world we believe that this is because there were almost no casualties during the actual collision of the phalanxes, but that most casualties (on both sides) were suffered during the pursuit after one side's morale cracked and the losers broke formation.
That type of warfare probably doesn't have much bearing on the 17th century (though people were reading Asclepiodotus et al. and trying to use upated phalanx formations).
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:19 pm
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I just took a quick look at the HPS Renaissance game to compare the Seminara scenarios, and noticed that Renaissance has vivandieres, puttane, and what look very much like camp locations.
Any chance of incorporating anything like this into the game?
Camp followers make for great chrome, and an army would certainly suffer a morale hit if its camp were looted.
Any chance of incorporating anything like this into the game?
Camp followers make for great chrome, and an army would certainly suffer a morale hit if its camp were looted.
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I do not really feel like belaboring the effectiveness of archery vis a vis the English longbowmen.
If anyone is actually interested in some facts, Frank Hardy has written some fascinating books on archery, both Longbow and Warbow.
For some fascinating information on the physical conditioning of English archers as evidenced by their actual remains you can google information on the sinking of the Mary Rose, a warship of Henry VIII, found incredibly well-preserved, with hundreds of longbows and thousands of arrows, along with the skeletons of English archers, featuring enlarged bones and actual bone spurs in their drawing hands, evidence of considerable strength training over the course of years. Yes, in a way, they Were Supermen.
Old suits of armor found with holes in them, have been re-examined. What was once thought to be bullet holes, have often found to have been made with arrows. Just looking at the physics of being struck with an arrow, it has been found that the strike from a 3 ounce arrow of an English warbow was almost identical in force to being hit with an 8 pound sledgehammer. Even w/o armor penetration, the armor was usually dented and the occupant thereof knew he had been hit, to put it mildly. Ribs were broken, necks, legs and arms were broken, lots of grotesque injuries inflicted by non-penetrating strikes. There have been descriptions written by contemporary authors of the devastation caused by longbows. I particularly like the one about the knight shot in the thigh who had the arrow penetrate his leg armor on both sides, then pass through the saddle armor and kill his horse. That one happened in Wales.
There is a man named Byron Ferguson who shoots a modern longbow. He can hit thrown aspirin tablets mid-air. So much for longbows being inaccurate. Not to mention the millions of deer and other game taken by longbow over the years. Animals up to the size of elephants have been killed by longbows.
For people interested, various English kings from Edward I on wrote rules on how archery was to be practiced, including set ranges. There were archery standards for acceptance into the king's army.
Do not mean to confuse anyone with facts. Feel free to do your own research,unless of course you prefer your own pre-conceived opinion.
But I do not really feel like belaboring the point, since it makes little difference in the game.
If anyone is actually interested in some facts, Frank Hardy has written some fascinating books on archery, both Longbow and Warbow.
For some fascinating information on the physical conditioning of English archers as evidenced by their actual remains you can google information on the sinking of the Mary Rose, a warship of Henry VIII, found incredibly well-preserved, with hundreds of longbows and thousands of arrows, along with the skeletons of English archers, featuring enlarged bones and actual bone spurs in their drawing hands, evidence of considerable strength training over the course of years. Yes, in a way, they Were Supermen.
Old suits of armor found with holes in them, have been re-examined. What was once thought to be bullet holes, have often found to have been made with arrows. Just looking at the physics of being struck with an arrow, it has been found that the strike from a 3 ounce arrow of an English warbow was almost identical in force to being hit with an 8 pound sledgehammer. Even w/o armor penetration, the armor was usually dented and the occupant thereof knew he had been hit, to put it mildly. Ribs were broken, necks, legs and arms were broken, lots of grotesque injuries inflicted by non-penetrating strikes. There have been descriptions written by contemporary authors of the devastation caused by longbows. I particularly like the one about the knight shot in the thigh who had the arrow penetrate his leg armor on both sides, then pass through the saddle armor and kill his horse. That one happened in Wales.
There is a man named Byron Ferguson who shoots a modern longbow. He can hit thrown aspirin tablets mid-air. So much for longbows being inaccurate. Not to mention the millions of deer and other game taken by longbow over the years. Animals up to the size of elephants have been killed by longbows.
For people interested, various English kings from Edward I on wrote rules on how archery was to be practiced, including set ranges. There were archery standards for acceptance into the king's army.
Do not mean to confuse anyone with facts. Feel free to do your own research,unless of course you prefer your own pre-conceived opinion.

But I do not really feel like belaboring the point, since it makes little difference in the game.
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
My japanese mod will have a camp but it can fight back in my case.Philippe_at_bay wrote:I just took a quick look at the HPS Renaissance game to compare the Seminara scenarios, and noticed that Renaissance has vivandieres, puttane, and what look very much like camp locations.
Any chance of incorporating anything like this into the game?
Camp followers make for great chrome, and an army would certainly suffer a morale hit if its camp were looted.

-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
Some of the landsnecte wives/girlfriends looked like they could be just as dangerous as the actual troops!jomni wrote:My japanese mod will have a camp but it can fight back in my case.Philippe_at_bay wrote:I just took a quick look at the HPS Renaissance game to compare the Seminara scenarios, and noticed that Renaissance has vivandieres, puttane, and what look very much like camp locations.
Any chance of incorporating anything like this into the game?
Camp followers make for great chrome, and an army would certainly suffer a morale hit if its camp were looted.
-
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
Thats laying it on a little thick.shawkhan2 wrote:
Do not mean to confuse anyone with facts. Feel free to do your own research,unless of course you prefer your own pre-conceived opinion.![]()
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:31 am
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
It's not fair, either. I've been researching the specific subject of bows vs. muskets off and on for the last three years and I went into it with no pre-conceived opinion.
The Mary Rose sank in 1545. The proportion of firearms in the English army was already steadily increasing by then. If the longbow was more effective than firearms, and its downfall was just a matter of training, we would still expect to at least see elite units still using the bow in the 17th century. Instead, when we see bows being used in the 17th century and later, it is usually because there aren't enough firearms for everyone. Or, the soldiers are palace guards or some other ceremonial role that's about as likely to see combat as a halberd-armed Swiss Guard.
There's nothing wrong with being a fan of the longbow, but stories of its capabilities are exaggerated by a mix of English jingoism and katana-folded-a-million-times syndrome. Historians also tend to go too far with the hyperbole when describing the limitations of muskets. There was a certain award winning (!) historian who seriously believed that a musket couldn't hit a man further than 9-12 yards away.
The Mary Rose sank in 1545. The proportion of firearms in the English army was already steadily increasing by then. If the longbow was more effective than firearms, and its downfall was just a matter of training, we would still expect to at least see elite units still using the bow in the 17th century. Instead, when we see bows being used in the 17th century and later, it is usually because there aren't enough firearms for everyone. Or, the soldiers are palace guards or some other ceremonial role that's about as likely to see combat as a halberd-armed Swiss Guard.
There's nothing wrong with being a fan of the longbow, but stories of its capabilities are exaggerated by a mix of English jingoism and katana-folded-a-million-times syndrome. Historians also tend to go too far with the hyperbole when describing the limitations of muskets. There was a certain award winning (!) historian who seriously believed that a musket couldn't hit a man further than 9-12 yards away.
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
I found this article quite convincing. The truth is probably somewhere in-between.
http://warbowwales.com/#/decline-of-archery/4560037042
The Longbow was never a "super weapon" capable of winning battles on its own, but was a very effective part of the English military system. By Elizabeth's reign both that system and society had changed and the Longbow did not fit into the new system. The English struggled to find ways to use it effectively in defence of large squares of pike. Before they abandoned the longbow completely they first declared that they should be organised in separate units. The article also makes a slightly more sophisticated argument about the changing nature of military recruits and societal changes, rather than just worse nutrition due to enclosures. The argument that it was solely the effectiveness of armour to me doesn't really seem to hold water. Most troops in most armies were not heavily armoured, and by the time the English abandoned the longbow armies were already reducing the amount of armour worn. The late fifteenth early sixteenth century was probably the period of peak armour. Why did the longbow not succeed in finding a place alongside the arquebus and musket if armour was the only problem? Neither does the effectiveness and "superiority" of early firearms seem that convincing to me either. They seem to have been most effective in exactly the same conditions that the longbow had been effective. Used from well protected defences that could not be easily overrun by cavalry or pike. The increasing importance of siege warfare and fortifications and the fact that firearms were more effective in this kind of warfare was probably also a factor.
http://warbowwales.com/#/decline-of-archery/4560037042
The Longbow was never a "super weapon" capable of winning battles on its own, but was a very effective part of the English military system. By Elizabeth's reign both that system and society had changed and the Longbow did not fit into the new system. The English struggled to find ways to use it effectively in defence of large squares of pike. Before they abandoned the longbow completely they first declared that they should be organised in separate units. The article also makes a slightly more sophisticated argument about the changing nature of military recruits and societal changes, rather than just worse nutrition due to enclosures. The argument that it was solely the effectiveness of armour to me doesn't really seem to hold water. Most troops in most armies were not heavily armoured, and by the time the English abandoned the longbow armies were already reducing the amount of armour worn. The late fifteenth early sixteenth century was probably the period of peak armour. Why did the longbow not succeed in finding a place alongside the arquebus and musket if armour was the only problem? Neither does the effectiveness and "superiority" of early firearms seem that convincing to me either. They seem to have been most effective in exactly the same conditions that the longbow had been effective. Used from well protected defences that could not be easily overrun by cavalry or pike. The increasing importance of siege warfare and fortifications and the fact that firearms were more effective in this kind of warfare was probably also a factor.
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
It is generally simplistic to point to just one factor for the changes in warfare and equipment used.
One of the more interesting features many people are not aware of, is the simple psychological fact that firearms made smoke and noise, thus intimidating the opposition. Even in primitive warfare, the opposing sides would usually engage in a shouting match prior to combat, trying to intimidate the other side before engaging.
Call it heckling if you will, but it is a significant factor. The side making the loudest noise had a significant advantage.
You did not need to be in good physical condition to use a firearm. You could be trained to use one in a matter of a couple months, rather than the years required for archery. Warfare is inherently wasteful, and being able to quickly replace losses is decisive. Everyone's health would gradually decline while on campaign, and good health was critical to the use of the longbow, while even troops with dysentary could still fire muskets.
It is a little-known fact that finding the wood for longbows was getting harder and harder. English kings would require merchants to furnish so many yew blanks for each tunne(ton) of cargo brought into the country, in an effort to maintain a supply of this vital resource. The supplying of yew actually had great political significance and was a frequent matter for international diplomacy at the time.
As French society did not allow the development of the longbow during medieval times, the changing society of England, mainly enforced urbanization due to the growth of the wool industry, destroyed the yeomen of the peasantry who made up the bulk of archers.
There were periods in the 1600's when various people would propose the use of archers, but qualified longbowmen no longer existed in the numbers required for military purposes, and the necessary infrastructure for manufactoring arrows and bows in quantity was no longer around.
As late as the Napoleonic wars, the English would continue to think of what archery could do to the by-then unarmored soldiers of the enemy, but it was an impossible dream.
One of the more interesting features many people are not aware of, is the simple psychological fact that firearms made smoke and noise, thus intimidating the opposition. Even in primitive warfare, the opposing sides would usually engage in a shouting match prior to combat, trying to intimidate the other side before engaging.
Call it heckling if you will, but it is a significant factor. The side making the loudest noise had a significant advantage.
You did not need to be in good physical condition to use a firearm. You could be trained to use one in a matter of a couple months, rather than the years required for archery. Warfare is inherently wasteful, and being able to quickly replace losses is decisive. Everyone's health would gradually decline while on campaign, and good health was critical to the use of the longbow, while even troops with dysentary could still fire muskets.
It is a little-known fact that finding the wood for longbows was getting harder and harder. English kings would require merchants to furnish so many yew blanks for each tunne(ton) of cargo brought into the country, in an effort to maintain a supply of this vital resource. The supplying of yew actually had great political significance and was a frequent matter for international diplomacy at the time.
As French society did not allow the development of the longbow during medieval times, the changing society of England, mainly enforced urbanization due to the growth of the wool industry, destroyed the yeomen of the peasantry who made up the bulk of archers.
There were periods in the 1600's when various people would propose the use of archers, but qualified longbowmen no longer existed in the numbers required for military purposes, and the necessary infrastructure for manufactoring arrows and bows in quantity was no longer around.
As late as the Napoleonic wars, the English would continue to think of what archery could do to the by-then unarmored soldiers of the enemy, but it was an impossible dream.
Re: Pike and Shot suggestions
Interesting discussion.
On the subject of the demise of the English longbow, one thing that's rarely mentioned is the difficulty of ammunition supply. To keep the 14th and 15th century English armies in France supplied with arrows firstly required a huge agricultural, manufacturing and logistical effort to make the arrows in the first place. Suitable wood had to be grown and available in quantity, cut and transported. Then made into shafts, heads forged, fletching added etc. Then the arrows have to be transported. Which meant bundling arrows by pushing them through pierced leather discs to keep the fletching from catching on anything, then packing the bundle in a barrel or other suitable waterproof container.
One arrow may not weigh much, but 10,000 arrows packed in barrels are both bulky and heavy. And a few thousand English archers could go through a lot of arrows in a day's battle or a siege. Shot and powder might weigh as much, but it's much less bulky and shot at least can probably be obtained locally (if all else fails, steal the lead off the church roof....). Damp powder can be dried out and there's a pretty good chance that unless saturated it will work well enough. Damp wooden shafts have a tendency to warp and can't be straightened again and fletching held on with medieval hide glues probably wouldn't like getting damp either.
Overall, it seems to me that shot has a logistical edge over bows sufficient to at least partly account for the demise of the bow across most cultures that used it once something better came along. The kings and generals of entire continents generally don't spend a fortune replacing one weapons system with an inferior one. "Worse" doesn't have to mean less effective at stopping the enemy either, there's no point in having a superior weapon if ammunition supplies can't be maintained or cost more than the exchequer can afford.
Even the most powerful crossbows were replaced by arquebuses despite the crossbow suffering no obvious disadvantage in loading time, hitting power or accuracy (it's quite some years since I fired either, but if anything a good crossbow would be more accurate than a smoothbore arquebus above a few tens of yards). Though if the other side used massed shot the resulting smoke screen would provide them a very effective protection against aimed archery. Shot seem to have worked by leveling their pieces at the flashes in the smoke that show where the enemy is, pulling the trigger and hoping for the best. Smoke drifts as well, so aimed long range shooting once battle had been joined may rapidly have become almost impossible. Smoke was the principle reason American Civil War infantry often engaged at little more than Napoleonic ranges despite having rifles that in skilled hands were very accurate out to a few hundred yards.
Then there's the effect of advances in armour. By the late 16th century armour for the joust or field had reached its' highest development. Armour that could keep out pistol balls at point blank was probably not going to be pierced by arrows either. When considering examples of plate pierced by longbow, composite bow or crossbow we have to consider the range involved. Effective range is always much shorter than maximum range with the weapons of the period and I'd be interested to know at what range armour penetration could be achieved by bows. The longbow could still do significant damage to a Scot's schiltron but stopping a professional body of better armoured landsknechts screened by shot might have been a different matter.
Finally, shoulder arms have a huge advantage over bows for use from fortifications, either permanent stonework or the field fortifications that Cordoba set the fashion for in Spain and Italy. An archer has to expose much more of himself, and arrow slits are bigger targets than loopholes for guns.
On the subject of the demise of the English longbow, one thing that's rarely mentioned is the difficulty of ammunition supply. To keep the 14th and 15th century English armies in France supplied with arrows firstly required a huge agricultural, manufacturing and logistical effort to make the arrows in the first place. Suitable wood had to be grown and available in quantity, cut and transported. Then made into shafts, heads forged, fletching added etc. Then the arrows have to be transported. Which meant bundling arrows by pushing them through pierced leather discs to keep the fletching from catching on anything, then packing the bundle in a barrel or other suitable waterproof container.
One arrow may not weigh much, but 10,000 arrows packed in barrels are both bulky and heavy. And a few thousand English archers could go through a lot of arrows in a day's battle or a siege. Shot and powder might weigh as much, but it's much less bulky and shot at least can probably be obtained locally (if all else fails, steal the lead off the church roof....). Damp powder can be dried out and there's a pretty good chance that unless saturated it will work well enough. Damp wooden shafts have a tendency to warp and can't be straightened again and fletching held on with medieval hide glues probably wouldn't like getting damp either.
Overall, it seems to me that shot has a logistical edge over bows sufficient to at least partly account for the demise of the bow across most cultures that used it once something better came along. The kings and generals of entire continents generally don't spend a fortune replacing one weapons system with an inferior one. "Worse" doesn't have to mean less effective at stopping the enemy either, there's no point in having a superior weapon if ammunition supplies can't be maintained or cost more than the exchequer can afford.
Even the most powerful crossbows were replaced by arquebuses despite the crossbow suffering no obvious disadvantage in loading time, hitting power or accuracy (it's quite some years since I fired either, but if anything a good crossbow would be more accurate than a smoothbore arquebus above a few tens of yards). Though if the other side used massed shot the resulting smoke screen would provide them a very effective protection against aimed archery. Shot seem to have worked by leveling their pieces at the flashes in the smoke that show where the enemy is, pulling the trigger and hoping for the best. Smoke drifts as well, so aimed long range shooting once battle had been joined may rapidly have become almost impossible. Smoke was the principle reason American Civil War infantry often engaged at little more than Napoleonic ranges despite having rifles that in skilled hands were very accurate out to a few hundred yards.
Then there's the effect of advances in armour. By the late 16th century armour for the joust or field had reached its' highest development. Armour that could keep out pistol balls at point blank was probably not going to be pierced by arrows either. When considering examples of plate pierced by longbow, composite bow or crossbow we have to consider the range involved. Effective range is always much shorter than maximum range with the weapons of the period and I'd be interested to know at what range armour penetration could be achieved by bows. The longbow could still do significant damage to a Scot's schiltron but stopping a professional body of better armoured landsknechts screened by shot might have been a different matter.
Finally, shoulder arms have a huge advantage over bows for use from fortifications, either permanent stonework or the field fortifications that Cordoba set the fashion for in Spain and Italy. An archer has to expose much more of himself, and arrow slits are bigger targets than loopholes for guns.