Hi PEOPLES! I was stumbling around on YOU TUBE and there seems be at least one opinion that the "movies" have us believing that the English and French military were hundreds of yards apart and the English were literally raining arrows down on the French soldiers . knights. The dissenting opinion says that the opposing armies were MUCH CLOSER! Practically point blank! Any body have some good sources to check this out??
Crookedstix has done a pile of distance shooting with hunting setups...he would know how far a lethal arrow will fly.
From my experience I have no doubt that the heavy English longbows ( 100-175 #) could reach out to 250-325 metres. That does not seem like a great distance but for the opposition that's a long chunk of ground to cover when it's raining war arrows!
If you can get an arrow going 200 fps then it get about 275 to 300 yards. In one the traditional bowyers bibles i remember reading about an english longbow that shot something like a 1000 grain arrow at 208 fps. The longbow was 130 ot 150 lbs. Thats a pretty heavy arrow to go that fast with serious penetration potential.
I have no doubt, that 250 - 300 yards was quite common for the bows, and arrows they were using.
I am averaging 300 something yards with my 69# bow, and 640 grain arrows.
My rig is 9.27 gpp. Theirs look to have run anywhere from about 6 to 8 gpp, so yeah they could do it.
And, when you figure in the differences from one bow to another in draw weight & arrow gpp, they could blanket a pretty good size area with one volley. I sure wouldn't want to be trying to get out from under it.
Elderly OCR is correct...as the attack began the first group out had to face an ongoing hail of arrows...their fallen bodies and those of their horses (if they were mounted) created a physical and psychological barrier to those advancing behind them.
What was really devastating werr archers up on a castle wall or height of land that worked to increase their lethal distance.
History records that the French assembled on top of a hill, while the English formed a defensive line and drove their wooden spikes into the ground to deter a mounted charge. King Henry V subsequently ordered the army to pull the stakes and move forward to a narrower section of field with woods on each side. The new position was described as being an extreme bow shot from the French. People have long wondered why the French did not flatted the English while they were in disarray. Stakes were reset, the French did not attack, time was against the English. The English loosed a volley or two to start the show. Some of the French reacted and crossed the deep, soft muddy field. The English did with arrows what they always did to the French. Those that reached the English were engaged hand-to-hand.
'Agincourt', Juliet Barker 'Agincourt', Anne Curry 'Agincourt', Christopher Hibbert
'Agincourt', Bernard Cornwell, fiction... terrific depiction of the battle.
P.S. Note that the Greeks defeated Persian arrows, darts, and slung shot with shields at Thermopylae in 500 BC while the French took a beating from arrows 2,000 years later in 1415.
I wish I had been there on October 25th, 2015 for the 600th anniversary gathering. It would still be a highlight of my life to draw a warbow and loose a, well... gray goose shaft to the north. The Normandy beaches are nearby, I ought to do it. Do they still have those 'fund me' sites?
There's few "details" that we need to remember ...
A good quality 120lb wooden Yew longbows with a 1200 grain arrow has a maximum range of around 300 yards. A good horse at a strong canter will cover that distance in under 30 seconds.
I've been to and shot arrows on the Agincourt battlefield several times ...
I did some further looking and it seems that for the MOST part? The English forces made the French Military make most of the moves? Supposedly the battle "field" was very muddy so that the French soldiers were tired by the time that they trekked through the mud?? Just a curiosity of mine. BE SAFE & BLESSED BE!
If you're going to simulate what they did, you need the equipment they used...English longbows and arrows typical of the time. No modern bow is a fair replication in cast.
Remaking the equipment can be done,,i think the strings would be the hard part You'd have to make the liens or catgut or what was used the same way I mean wood is wood and even metal(bodkins)is repeatable i think an exact string would be the kicker as far as harvesting and processing it the way it was done
The first two bows recovered from the 'Mary Rose', in 1841, were carefully measured an guesstimated to weigh about 100#. They were never actually strung and tested. Saxton Pope made a replica from close grained California Yew. as close as he could to the recorded dimensions. His replica weighed in at 65# @ 28" and shot a light flight arrow 225 yds. At 36", it weighed 76# and shot a flight arrow 256 yds. Why would there be a 35# difference between two pieces of Yew, unless the bows from the 'Mary Rose' were over estimated? bvd
The first two bows recovered from the 'Mary Rose', in 1841, were carefully measured an guesstimated to weigh about 100#. They were never actually strung and tested. Saxton Pope made a replica from close grained California Yew. as close as he could to the recorded dimensions. His replica weighed in at 65# @ 28" and shot a light flight arrow 225 yds. At 36", it weighed 76# and shot a flight arrow 256 yds. Why would there be a 35# difference between two pieces of Yew, unless the bows from the 'Mary Rose' were over estimated? bvd
There's few "details" that we need to remember ... A good quality 120lb wooden Yew longbows with a 1200 grain arrow has a maximum range of around 300 yards. A good horse at a strong canter will cover that distance in under 30 seconds. I've been to and shot arrows on the Agincourt battlefield several time
IN the mud?
Exactly ...that's a part of the story that keeps getting left out . The ground the French advanced across would've been awful as it had been recently plowed and it had rained . That sucks walking across solo in knee high rubber boots. Now add armor, lots and lots of your closest friends, horses , etcc. Forget about it.
Obviously this is an archery site. We are interested in the role the bow played in the battle, but the weapons are not the half of it. We could argue all day about the simulations of armor busting with the longbow. My guess is it was a close range deal against the best armored knights. Men at arms with leather or ring armor would be another matter.
The more important item, both at Agincourt and at Crecy, is the battlefield itself. In both cases, the English chose a strong defensive position that dictated the terms of the engagement. In both instances, the French could not bring their entire force to bear on the English position at once. They were funneled by the terrain into a kill zone. Once the initial charge is decimated, remaining French troops now find their way littered with the carcasses of dead and dying horses and men. As the day goes on, it only gets worse.
The comments about the first two Mary Rose Bows may be meaningless today, but it is all they had to go on back then. It still does not explain a 35# difference of weight between the actual (Pope} and the estimated (Mary Rose). The bows were 6'4-3/4" long. Usually bows were made to the height of the archer. So, those bows could have been piked to gain more weight. bvd
Phil, curious as to what your opinion was as to the weight attained on those bows. Saxton Pope tried replicating them from information on their make and came up to about 65 to 80 pounds on his heaviest if I remember correctly. He wasn't privy to the bows on the ship itself though.
George, I've been fortunate to see the Mary Rose bows at first hand plus I was privileged to have know and spoken to at great length with the late Roy King who made the replica bows that feature in both books by the late Robert Hardy (who was also a friend.
All of the Mary Rose copies made by Roy were made for european Yew and came out at draw weights between 100lb and 120lbs.
Wonder if any of these bows have been subjected to X-Ray, Cat-scan or MRI to examine the bows in GREAT DETAIL to see if replicas can be made to simulate the originals???
After doing a little reading, I think I can answer my question above as to why Pope's approximation bow was lighter than the estimated weight of the Tower bows.
Prior to 1992, Richard Galloway made an approximation of the same Tower bows which weighed over 100# @ 28" draw. Either Pope's stave was not as Stiff as Galloway's or more likely , since it did not break at 36" draw, his bow was thinner. The thickness of the bow is very important because the strength varies with the cube of the thickness. A small increase in thickness gives a large increase in strength.
According to Hardy, Roy King made his approximation bows from the best staves of Oregon yew that could be obtained.
The MRA closely examined the cross section of broken bows. bvd
The various French factions argued among themselves as to who would lead the charge. The Nobles put their 8000 archers and crosssbowmen to the rear, rendering them useless. After the battle many bows and sheaves of arrows were found in the French baggage wagons that were never unpacked.
At one time Spanish yew was considered to be the best available but, it is hard to come by now days. Whether true or not, it was rumored that the King of Spain had all of the yew trees cut down when they were at war with England. He could not see supplying the English with the very weapons that would be used against them. The best available yew today comes from Oregon. bvd
Phil. I'm not gonna test the theory. The Conquistadores found that the SA native "bows" (probably atl-atl and darts) penetrated armor. With stone points. English war bows with clothyard shafts and bodkin points were probably comparable in energy and potential penetration with the advantage of a less brittle/more durable point
