Were Medieval ENGLISH ARCHERS Actually USELESS?

▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:

▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:

▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:

▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:

▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:

#medieval #archers #longbows

[chehalem]

I think the best argument for the efficacy of English archers is the developments of tactics and equipment to counter them.

[markkodryk]

- Robin, don’t go to Nottingham. It’s a trap.
- What? I’m not going to Nottingham.
- Thanks God. I thought you would go, when you hear about the archery contest.
- What? An archery contest?

[dogmaticpyrrhonist]

The argument that they're useless because they won't penetrate the thickest parts of the best armour would also suggest swords, spears, etc were also useless.

[vedymin]

No one would invest in them if they were, just like armor. There, the end.🐸

[steffenjespersen]

yea it is like saying machine guns are useless because of tanks.
Your tanks just like the Knights will need support and bows and machine guns works well on those.

[RVered]

The most straightforward rebuttal to these claims is that English longbows wouldn't have been used if they were useless. It reminds me of the absurd YouTube video "Ways Medieval Armor Was More Dangerous Than Wearing Nothing." People must be reminded that some guy on Reddit isn't smarter than the millions who entrusted their lives to said technology, weapon, or tool.

[reeyees]

Archers were multipurpose units. They could dig trenches, make fortifications, carry equiptment, double as improvised melee units.

[NUSensei]

The same mentality is being applied to tanks in modern warfare. Sure, they might be vulnerable to anti-tank missiles, but the fact that you have to invest heavily into anti-tank missiles clearly shows that they are very effective.

[hypothalapotamus]

I think battles are overemphasized. The vast majority of the time was spent either raiding or in sieges. A significant portion of English archers were listed as archers on horse. The expense of having the horse (despite fighting on foot) implies that they were used for raiding and scouting in a way that foot archers could not. In this context, they would not have been facing the cream of the French Nobility, but likely a hastily assembled local defense force that could be shot full of arrows.

[awilk]

It is an endless cycle of over correction. Medieval armor is too heavy to move in becomes Medieval armor weighs nothing and isn’t restrictive at all. The katana can cut through diamond to the katana is a worthless hunk of metal. English longbows were mowing down French knights like machine guns to English longbows actually just tickled them. On and on and on.

[Zantar]

Kevin Hicks (thehistorysquad) here on youtube has a couple an interesting little series called 'Medieval Logistics' and there are two videos on the huge industry of making and supplying arrows to the English Army.
They wouldn't have wasted all that time and resources on keeping them running if they were ineffective.

[DuxBrit-]

Matt: You forgot to mention what I call the 'hailstone effect' i.e. where the arrow storm would drive the French man-at-arms closer together causing confusion & restricting the amount of space they would eventually have to wield their weapons effectively.

[randalthor]

Anyone who says that English (or Welsh) archers with longbows were almost useless is an idiot, pure and simple.

1. There's no such thing as completely arrow-proof armour. There's always a chance that a lucky shot will hit a gap between plates or hit one of the thinner plates at the correct angle to penetrate. The heavier & more advanced the armour, the less likely this becomes, but it's always a possibility. Mind you, an arrow that actually penetrates plate armour or goes through a gap between plates isn't likely to kill, but it will injure and reduce the fighting ability of the man hit.
2. Arrows that hit plate armour but don't penetrate will still hit with enough force to dent it and make the person feel the hit. If you just get hit once, it's not going to have much effect, but if you're being pelted by a hail of arrows, even if they don't penetrate it's going to ring your bell, slow you down, and make you bunch up together with the rest of the men-at-arms, which makes maneuvering and coordinating a charge much more difficult. Not only that, but it's demoralizing to be pummeled by arrows without being able to do anything about it. Why did the French (and others) have so much trouble keeping their men-at-arms from breaking formation to charge ahead too early? Well, there were lots of reasons, but getting frustrated and hot-headed because of impacts from arrows is one of those reasons.
3. Armour is always a trade-off between protection, mobility, and awareness/ability to communicate. If your men-at-arms are wearing armour protective enough to make them unlikely to be injured by longbow arrows, then they have to deal with reduced mobility (which isn't necessarily that big of a problem if you're on the back of a warhorse riding straight towards the enemy), and reduced awareness/ability to communicate due to the need to have your face fully enclosed to avoid getting shot in the face. Reduced awareness and ability to communicate makes coordinating any maneuvers significantly more difficult, restricting the tactics that the men-at-arms could effectively use.
4. Fully armoured men-at-arms aren't the only combatants on the battlefield. Less well armoured men (opposing archers/crossbowmen, billmen, etc.) are going to take significant casualties from volleys of arrows.
5. Horses were often unbarded or had relatively light barding that could potentially be penetrated by longbow arrows. You're not likely to actually kill a horse with arrows (not without a lot of arrows, anyway), but even a well trained warhorse is going to be more difficult to control if it's in pain from being hit with arrows, and could even stumble and/or throw its rider.
6. Archers weren't the only combatants on the field, they were used as part of a combined arms approach with heavily armoured men-at-arms, and whenever possible were deployed behind some form of fortification, such as ditches and wooden stakes to help reduce the momentum of a cavalry charge. Archers were frequently used to funnel enemy men-at-arms towards English men-at-arms while pummeling them with arrows from the front and sides, before the archers themselves would fight in melee once the enemy men-at-arms had engaged the English men-at-arms.

English archers with longbows weren't some sort of magic "I win" button, slaughtering knights and men-at-arms left and right, but as long as they were used correctly, they were tactically highly effective compared to the cost of raising them, and caused major headaches for the French or whoever else they fought against.

[thefatefulforce]

In my own experiments on my channel, I have demonstrated that a moderately powerful bow 75-100lb (55-90j ke)is more than sufficient to penetrate NON plate armours.

(gambeson, mail and gambeson with mail combo)

The effectiveness is of course varied based on arrow heads used as well, but it really highlights that warbows were very dangerous

What is also important is that even when facing an army with plate there are gaps in the armour that may be protected by the above non plate armour types

When you have thousands of archers on a battlefield loosing hundreds of thousands of arrows down range, it is statistically inevitable that many arrows will find these gaps.

Rough Math;
Even if only 1% of arrows find a vulnerability out of 100, 000 arrows that is still 1000 casualties.

And we have to remember that not all forces were fully plated.

Accounts of the battle of Flodden documented the English Archers decimating the Scottish highlander division that was only lightly armoured.

[popcorngenerator]

The Rock Paper Scissors some people look at historical and even modern warfare with can be exhausting sometimes. It’s just not as simple as x thing is legendary or useless

[Cahirable]

The French were perfectly charging through English archers and men-at-arms and didn't need Italians to do it - and they did so at Valmomt in 1416, where they charged through the English lines despite there being stakes in front of the archers and the English men-at-arms kneeling with their lances extended to receive them.

Of course, the English won that battle too, and not just because of their men-at-arms. I don't think the Gesta Henrici specifies, but I'm pretty sure that - like Agincourt and other battles of the HYW - the archers simply fought hand to hand when the French came too close. Their ability to fight at range and up close - coupled with their relatively cheapness and availability - made them incredibly versatile and valuable soldiers.

[malusvir]

People say that "plate armor counters longbows" as if you could easily outfit every soldier in your army with plate armor (and train them how to fight in it).

[ac]

I imagine that archers aren’t only important for fighting the men at arms and the ones that you typically think of as near fully armored or protected from arrows, but also perhaps levies, which may not be quite as protected. Also during the time cataclysmic decisive battles usually don’t happen as much as skirmishing does, and you only need to defeat maybe a few percent to cause a route, So even if the arrows aren’t bullet like deadly against armor, the culmination of factors probably means it’s worth having archers.

[DaveAinsworth-yh]

It was English and Cymraen(Welsh) archers used the Cymraen Longbow. Edward I took the weapon from Cymru to England .

[brothersliutgeryitzchakjea]

I’ve been planning on doing a long form video about how the English archers were successful against the French.
Everyone is hyper focused on the arrows, but their ability to construct field fortifications like wattle fencing or trenches is overly ignored, and when it does come up, sadly it is only even the subject of the stakes, ignoring the context of the stakes being for wattle. Honestly with all the aspects someone should do a long format series breaking it all down. I just don’t have the time, or funding to put together something like the arrows vs armor series for every aspect.