Posted on 07/30/2015 11:19:03 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
During the Hundred Years' War, England had a centralized, state-controlled organization for manufacturing arrows in bulk. These were then issued as required to the soldiers on campaign.
In June 1413, for example, Henry V appointed Nicholas Mynot to be “keeper of the king's arrows,” based in the Tower of London. Mynot was responsible for making arrows, but the royal fletchers alone could not supply the total need, so additional orders were placed with outside suppliers. In August 1413, for example, London-based fletcher Stephen Seler was paid for 12,000 arrows.
We have some total figures available. In 1418, Henry V's government purchased 150,000 arrows; in 1421, it acquired nearly 500,000. Several years' supply would be stockpiled for a major campaign. Half a century earlier in 1360, Edward III's accounts reveal that 566,400 arrows (and 11,000 bows) were stored in the Tower of London alone.
It's possible some archers brought their own arrows. People who were foresters or hunters (or bandits) in civilian life would be accustomed to supplying their own needs and might prefer arrows whose length and weight was better suited to the draw weight of their bow than the standard government-issue arrows. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
During Battle of Towton (1461), the Yorkists advanced to
bowshot range of the Lnacasterians
A blizzard was blowing into the faes of the Lancasterians
The Yorkists unleashed several volleys of arrows and retreated back out of range
The Lancasterians unleashed arrow storm against where thought Yorkists were
The arrows fell short because of the wind, Yorkists advanced back and picked up spent arrows and shot back at Lancasterians Their arrows aided by wind devastated Lancasterian side
Bkmk
dear brad,
re: ‘Just gather up and shoot the enemy’s arrows back at him.’
The English used longbows, usually of six foot lengths.
The French used **crossbow bolts**, which were shorter in length, than the draw length of an English warbow, somewhere around 33-35 inches from foreknuckle of bow hand to just before the ear of the archer.
Those that hunted and were bowyers, would mark the distance from foreknuckle to the corner of their mouth, as touched by their 3-finger string grasp with their middle finger.
Which is where that salute came from ... the French, when capturing English bowmen, would cut ‘that’ finger off, as a means of ‘disarming’ the English archer. So... as a thumb in the eye, ‘that finger’ salute to French crossbowmen captured, became what it is today.
IBTZ
[Strangely, the Romans were not much into archery or bows - missile troops tended to be drawn from auxilliaries from conquered provinces, client states or even mercenary formations.]
Slingers were used by the Romans with great effect. The Balearic Island slingers, trained with the sling since childhood, slung stones weighing a pound or more. The stones didn’t pierce armour but the impact imparted enough kinetic energy to sometimes cause fatal injuries.
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
(Balearic Islanders). . .were famous for their skill with the sling. As slingers, they served as mercenaries, first under the Carthaginians, and afterwards under the Romans. They went into battle ungirt, with only a small buckler, and a javelin burnt at the end, and in some cases tipped with a small iron point; but their effective weapons were their slings, of which each man carried three, wound round his head (Strabo p. 168; Eustath.), or, as seen in other sources, one round the head, one round the body, and one in the hand. (Diodorus) The three slings were of different lengths, for stones of different sizes; the largest they hurled with as much force as if it were flung from a catapult; and they seldom missed their mark. To this exercise they were trained from infancy, in order to earn their livelihood as mercenary soldiers. It is said that the mothers allowed their children to eat bread only when they had struck it off a post with the sling.[12]
The French knights did not allow their archers more than perhaps one volley; they wanted all the glory for defeating the English themselves. It escalated quickly.
Why would you think this thread could be zotted?
““Real Archers” disagree. One of many rebuttals:”
I already posted a video of Lars Andersen. Did you not know I was referring to his video in my post?
I remember the old PRINCE VALIANT comic strip in which he had arrows with narrower knocks made for his men and narrower bow strings so in an upcoming battle the enemy could not shoot the arrows of VALIANT back at them, but they could still shoot arrows from the enemy.
**The arrows were designed to be armor-piercing with a heavier than normal warhead***
Henry VIII ordered his troops to coat the tips of arrows with goose grease to make them go through enemy armor better.
And to think, our modern anti gunners went ballistic over teflon coated bullets designed to protect the bore of the pistols rather than increase armored vest penetration.
Er, I believe that was the 300 Spartans. However, you get shade where you can.
Won’t work. Hunting tips were fixed to the arrow shaft and had no barbs. They could be pulled out.
War arrows were simply stuck on the end with the shaft in the funnel of the tip, and they were barbed.
Pulling an arrow out would leave the head in the wound and could not be removed without cutting open the dead person.
All you would end up with was a shaft with no tip.
***units of archers could have played a role on the 1860’s battlefield.***
Ben Franklin came to the same conclusion in the Revolutionary War.
Romans leans towards darts (closer to lawn darts than pub darts) and javelins for range weapons. Roman legions weren’t built around individual skill, they were built around a lot of people working together. Infantry men could throw darts and javelins until the enemy closed to hand distance and just drop what they hadn’t thrown on the ground. That way you didn’t have a big chunk of your force useless during different parts of the battle.
Thanks. I found this:
Franklin’s reasons for recommending the longbow over the musket are difficult to refute in an eighteenth century context. Those reasons were essentially the following:
*The bow was often more accurate.
*A man could shoot four arrows in the time it takes to fire and reload a musket.
*No gunsmoke, thus no problems in field vision.
*An incoming flight of arrows is rather disconcerting to the enemy.
*An arrow stuck to a man essentially immobilizes him, until extracted.
*Bows and arrows are more easily provided than muskets and ammunition.
http://americanfounding.blogspot.com/2010/05/guns-and-bows-and-arrows-what-if.html
Henry VIII’s palace guards carried circular shields which had a breechloading gun in the center.
And yet he is remembered mostly as the original host of “Queen For A Day”.
;^)
Is that an unladen European Swallow?
“I shot an arrow in the air
where it lands, I do not care;
I get my arrows wholesale.”
Love, Curley
Sometimes they couldn’t.
One study showed that the French archers at Agincourt were actually shooting loaves of French Bread at the British.
The aerodynamics wouldn’t work for croissants, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.