Longbows: Piercing Medieval Armor

The effectiveness of the longbow against armour is a highly debated topic. While it is generally accepted that longbows could not penetrate full steel plate armour, they could penetrate other types of armour, such as mail and coats of plates. The effectiveness of the longbow also depended on various factors, including the range, the type of arrow used, and the skill of the archer. At close range, arrows could get stuck in plate armour, and while they may not have penetrated, they could still injure or hamper the movement of the person wearing the armour. In addition, arrows could penetrate the armour of horses, which were generally less armoured than their riders, causing them to fall and create chaos for the opposing infantry.

The effectiveness of longbows against armour depended on the armour's quality and distance of the shot

The effectiveness of longbows against armour depended on the armour's quality and the distance of the shot.

The English longbow was one of the few bows that had enough power to do any damage to plate armour. However, it was unlikely to penetrate full steel plate armour. The arrow would need to hit at the right angle and the armour would need to be of inferior quality. For example, the armour may be made of wrought iron or mix-and-match armour from different craftsmen, which would decrease its effectiveness.

The range of the shot is also a factor. Longbows were most effective at a range of 220-300 yards, with their effectiveness decreasing drastically beyond that. At close range, longbows were more likely to penetrate armour, but this was not a safe distance for the archer.

The type of arrowhead used also made a difference. Needle-like bodkin arrowheads were poor at penetrating plate armour but very effective against mail armour. Lozenge-shaped arrowheads, on the other hand, were most effective against plate armour but less so against mail.

Longbows were more effective against foot soldiers than mounted knights due to the prohibitive cost of full steel plate armour

The English longbow was a powerful weapon in the Middle Ages, with a range of up to 270 yards and a rate of fire of up to 20 aimed shots per minute. It was used to great effect against the French during the Hundred Years' War, particularly at the battles of Sluys, Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. The longbow was less successful later in the war, with longbowmen being routed at the Battle of Patay in 1429.

The longbow was effective against mounted knights due to the prohibitive cost of full steel plate armour. While French armour at the time was extremely well-manufactured, high-quality steel was expensive, and many soldiers, especially foot soldiers, could not afford it. Foot soldiers often wore wrought iron armour or mismatched pieces from different craftsmen, which decreased the overall effectiveness of the armour and left certain parts, especially limbs, relatively unprotected.

Longbows were also effective against mounted knights because horses were generally less armoured than their riders. Shooting arrows at the horses of the charging knights was an effective way of eliminating the combat effectiveness of mounted knights. At the Battle of Poitiers, for example, English archers responded to the invulnerability of the French cavalry by moving to their flanks and shooting at their unprotected sides and the horses in the ranks behind.

Longbows were effective in disrupting the attack strategies of French footmen by lodging in their armour and making it harder to swing weapons

The effectiveness of the longbow against armour has been the subject of much historical debate. While it is generally accepted that longbows could not penetrate the plate armour worn by French chevaliers at Poitiers and Agincourt, they were still effective in disrupting the attack strategies of French footmen.

Firstly, it is important to note that not all French soldiers wore full steel plate armour. Due to the high cost of high-quality steel, many foot soldiers wore wrought iron armour or armour that had been mixed and matched from different craftsmen. This type of armour was less effective at stopping arrows than full steel plate, and certain parts of the armour, such as limb armour, were particularly vulnerable.

In addition, the weight of plate armour (50-80 pounds) made foot soldiers easy targets, and the time required to produce and don this armour slowed their advance, giving longbowmen more time to fire at the French line.

Furthermore, the English longbow was particularly effective at targeting the horses of the French cavalry. As horses were generally less armoured than their riders, they were vulnerable to arrows. A horse wounded by an arrow could fall and trap or crush its rider, or cause chaos by tripping up the horses behind it.

While longbows may not have been able to penetrate full steel plate armour, they were still effective in disrupting the attack strategies of French foot soldiers by lodging in their armour and making it harder to swing weapons. They could also cause fatigue, heat exhaustion, and slow the advance by forcing soldiers to step over fallen comrades.

Longbows were used to target horses, which were less armoured than knights

At the Battle of Poitiers, the English archers responded to the French cavalry's immunity to arrows by moving to the sides of the oncoming horses and shooting at their more vulnerable flanks. This tactic also allowed the archers to target any unprotected horses in the ranks behind. The same tactic was attempted at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, but the archers were ridden down by Scottish cavalry.

At Agincourt, wounded horses stampeded through the French infantry's lines, wreaking havoc. A more serious wound could cause a horse to fall, trapping or crushing its rider. Horses were generally less armoured than knights, and metal barding was comparatively unusual due to its expense. Horses were typically protected by a cloth caparison or trapper, sometimes over a quilted gambeson.

The English longbow was one of the few bows that had enough power to do damage to plate armour. However, it was more effective when used against horses, which were generally unarmoured or armoured only on the front.

Longbows were a tactical weapon for long-range engagement, not a weapon to kill individuals

At the Battle of Poitiers, the French cavalry was invulnerable to English arrows as the horses in the front ranks wore metal barding. However, the English archers responded by moving to the sides of the oncoming cavalry and shooting at their flanks, which offered less protection. This tactic was also used at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, though the archers were ridden down by Scottish cavalry.

At the Battle of Agincourt, the English archers were again faced with armoured French cavalry. Though the arrows could not penetrate the plate armour, they could still injure the knights and hamper their ability to fight. Arrows could get stuck in the armour, weighing them down and making it more difficult to swing a weapon. The arrows could also injure the horses, causing them to fall and trap or crush their riders.

The longbow was also used to great effect against infantry. At Agincourt, the English archers rained arrows on the French foot soldiers, causing fatigue, heat exhaustion, and chaos in the French ranks as they tried to step over their fallen comrades. The arrows could penetrate the armour of lower-ranking foot soldiers, who could not afford full steel plate armour.

The longbow was a powerful weapon, but it was not solely used to kill individuals. Its effectiveness depended on the tactical skill of the archers in using it to disrupt and confuse the enemy.

Frequently asked questions