Military Review

English bow - "machine gun of the Middle Ages"

95
“And I saw that the Lamb took off the first of the seven seals, and I heard one of four animals, speaking in a thunderous voice: go and see. I looked, and behold, a white horse, and on it a horseman who has a bow, and a crown was given to him; and he came out as victorious, and to conquer. "
(Revelation of John the Divine 6: 1-2)



Completely randomly on the pages of VO, the theme of English onions arose. And who knows the English bows better than the British themselves? No one! Therefore, it probably makes sense to turn to English sources, which tell the following about English bows: English bow, also called Welsh bow, is a powerful medieval weapons about 6 feet (1,8 m) in length, which was used by the English and Welsh shooters for hunting and as a weapon in medieval wars. The English bow was effective against the French during the Hundred Years War, and it showed itself particularly well in the battle of Sluis (1340), Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), and possibly in the most famous battle of Azincourt (1415). Less successful was its use in the Battle of Or rather (1424) and in the Battle of Pat (1429). The term “English” or “Welsh onion” is a modern way to distinguish these bows from other bows, although in fact identical bows were used in both northern and western Europe.

The earliest onion, famous in England, was found in Ashkot Heath, Somerset and dates from 2665 BC. More 130 bows have come down to us from the Renaissance. More than 3500 arrows and 137 whole bows were removed from the water along with the ship Mary Rose, the flagship of Henry VIII, which sank in Portsmouth in 1545 year.

English onions are also called “big onions” and this is true because its length exceeded the height of a person, that is, it was 1,5 or 1,8 meters in length. Richard Bartlot of the Royal Artillery Institute describes a typical English bow as a weapon of yew, 6 feet (1,8 m) in length, with 3 feet (910 mm) arrows. Gaston Phoebus in 1388 wrote that the bow should be “from a yew or boxwood, seventy inches [1,8 m] between the attachment points for the bowstring.” On Mary Rose, bows were found in lengths from 1,87 to 2,11 m, medium length 1,98 m (6 feet 6 inches).

English bow - "machine gun of the Middle Ages"

Archers, crossbowmen and cooler printers are fighting near the walls of New Orleans. Miniature from the Chronicles of Jean Froissart. National Library of France.

The tension force of the bow of the medieval period is estimated at 120-150 N. Historically, hunting bows usually had the power of 60-80 H, and the fighting were stronger. To date, there are several modern bows with power 240-250 N.

Here is a description of how English boys were taught to bow during the reign of Henry VII:
“[My father] taught me,” wrote one Hugh Latimer, “how to hold a bow correctly and where to draw an arrow ... I had a bow that my father bought me according to my age and strength, and then my bows were more and more . A man will never shoot well unless he constantly trains with a suitable bow. ”

The preferred material for onions was yew, although ash, elm and other types of wood were also used. Giraldus Cumbrian of Wales wrote that traditional onion manufacturing technology consists of drying yew wood for a period from 1 to 2 years, and then its slow processing. So the whole process of making onions takes up to four years. On Mary Rose, the bows had a flat exterior. The inner side ("belly") of the onion had a rounded shape. Bows can be stored for a long time, if protected by a moisture-resistant coating, traditionally of "wax, resin and fat."

The British quickly izvest stocks yew in England and began to buy it abroad. The first documentary mention of the import of yew in England refers to the 1294 year. In 1350, there was a serious shortage of yew, and Henry IV ordered the introduction of private property on the land where the yew will be divorced. The Westminster Statute of 1472, each ship returning from the Russian ports, had to bring four bundles of yew for bows. Richard III increased this number to ten. In 1483, the price of such blanks increased from two to eight pounds. In 1507, the Roman emperor asked the Duke of Bavaria to stop the destruction of the yew, but the trade was very profitable, and the duke, of course, did not listen to him, so that by the XVII century almost all the yew in Europe had been exterminated!

English bow string is traditionally made from hemp. War arrows are ordered with 24 bundles of arrows in a bundle. For example, between 1341 and 1359, the English crown was known to have received 51 350 of such bundles or 1 232 400 arrows!

On Mary Rose, they found 3500 arrows made from poplar, ash, beech and hazel. Their length ranged from 61 to 83 centimeters (24-33 inches), with an average length of 76 centimeters (30 inches). The tips were mostly armor-piercing and wide, often moon-shaped, in order to “cut down” the ship's gear.

Learning to shoot archery well was difficult. Therefore, shooting training was encouraged by the monarchs. So King Edward III in 1363 indicated: “While the people of our kingdom, the rich and the poor, used to shoot a bow in their games earlier ... With God's help, it is well known that honor and profit will not come to us just like that in order to have an advantage in our warlike enterprises ... every person in this country, if he is able to work, is obliged to use bow and arrows in his games on holidays ... and so practice archery. " At first, the boy was given a stone in his left hand and was forced to stand like this, holding him up in the air. The stone grew heavier with time, and the time - more! On the battlefield, the English archers learned to stick their arrows vertically into the ground at their feet, reducing the time it took to reach and shoot them. That is why they used quivers only for carrying them. The dirt on the tip made it more likely to cause an infection.

English historians have suggested that the range of the arrow at a professional archer of Edward III’s time could reach 400 yards (370 m), but the farthest shot at the London Finsbury training range in the 16th century was 345 yards (320 m). In 1542, Henry VIII set the minimum shooting distance for adults at 220 yards (200 m). Modern experiments with analogs of bows with Mery Rose have shown that one can easily shoot 328 m (360 yards) with a light arrow, and a heavy one, weighing 95,9 g, at a distance 249,9 m (270 yards).

In 2006, Matthew Bane, using a bow with a power of 330 H, shot him 250 yards. The shooting was carried out on the type of brigandine armor, while the tip penetrated into the barrier to 3,5 inches (89 mm). Moon-shaped tips do not penetrate into the armor, but they are capable of causing deformation of the metal. The results of firing on the plate armor were as follows: with the “minimum thickness” of steel (1,2 mm), the tips penetrated the barrier very slightly and not always. Bane concluded that thicker armor (2-3 mm) or additional padded armor would have been able to stop any boom.

In 2011, Mike Loades conducted an experiment in which a shot at armor was made from 10 yards (9,1 m) from a bow with a 60 H power. The goal was “armor” from 24 linen layers glued to each other. None of the arrows in the end "textile armor" did not break through! The experimenter, however, came to the conclusion that a long awl-shaped tip would penetrate this barrier.

Gerald of Wales described the use of Welsh onions in the 12th century:
“... [In] the war against the Welsh one of the men was struck by the Welsh arrow. She went straight through his thigh, high up where it was protected outside by his armor, and then through his leather tunic; then it penetrated that part of the saddle, which is called the alva or the seat; and, finally, hit the horse so deeply that it killed the animal. ”

Archery has been described by contemporaries as ineffective against lamellae in the battle of Neville Cross (1346), during the siege of Bergerac (1345) and in the battle of Poitiers (1356); however, such armor was not available to European knights until the end of the XIV century. D. Nicole, in his study on the Hundred Years War, wrote that it was enough for a knight to bow his head so that the arrows would bounce off his helmet and shoulder pads, but could hit him in the thigh. But they hit knightly horses in the croup and in the neck, and they could not run and just lay down on the ground.

Also, the enemy crossbowmen in the Battle of Crecy were forced to retreat under a hail of arrows, since they did not have Paves shields. Historian John Keegan bluntly states that the bow was a weapon not against people, but against the horses of the French knights.

It should be noted that each archer had 60 - 72 arrows during the battle. At first they fired volleys on a hinged trajectory to hit the riders and their horses from above. When the latter were in close proximity (50-25 m), the archers fired independently and with maximum speed. That is why a number of English historians call the bow "machine gun of the Middle Ages."

If the arrow stuck in the wound, then the only way to remove it was to smear the shaft with water or oil and push it so that the tip came out on the other side, which was an extremely painful task. There were specialized tools used in the medieval period. storiesto extract arrows if they are stuck in the victim's body. Prince Hal, later Henry V, was wounded in the face with an arrow in the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403). The court physician John Bradmore took the arrow from the wound, stitched it up and covered it with honey, which is known to have antiseptic properties. Then poultices of barley and honey mixed with turpentine were made on the wound. After 20 days, the wound was free from infection and began to heal.


Training English archers. Thumbnail from Psalter Lattrell. OK. 1330-1340 Painting on parchment. 36 x 25 see British Museum Library, London.

Were there shorter bows in England? In 2012, Richard Wajad, taking into account the analysis of extensive iconographic material and archaeological evidence, concluded that short bows coexisted with longer ones between the Norman conquest and the rule of Edward III, but powerful bows that shot heavy arrows were rare until the end of the XIII century. The Welsh themselves used their bows in ambush, often shooting them point-blank, which allowed their arrows to pierce any armor and in general caused much harm to the British.

Bows remained in service until the 16th century, when progress in the development of firearms led to a change in battle tactics. The last recorded example of the use of bows in battle in England took place during an exchange of fire in Bridgnorth in October 1642 during the civil war, when the city police, armed with bows, proved effective against unarmored musketeers. Archers were used in the royalist army, but were not used by the "round-headed".

Subsequently, many advocated the return of the bow to the army, but it was only Jack Churchill who managed to use it in France in 1940, when he landed there with his commandos.

The tactics used by the English archers during the Hundred Years War was as follows: the infantry (usually dismounted knights and soldiers in armor, armed with pollaks — battle axes with hammers on a long pole), became in the center of the position.


Modern English archers.

Archers deployed primarily on the flanks, sometimes in front of the infantry under the cover of pointed stakes. The cavalry stood either on the flanks or in the center in reserve to attack any of the broken flanks. In the 16th century, cooler arrows were added to the archers, which frightened their horses with shots.

In addition to the bows with "Mary Rose", five bows of the 15th century have reached our time, which allowed English researchers to study them well.

Bow entered the traditional English culture, as evidenced by the legends of Robin Hood, where he is portrayed as the “main archer of the country”, as well as “Song of the Bow” - a poem by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle from his novel “The White Squad”.

It was even suggested that the yews were specially planted in English cemeteries in order to always have wood for the bows.


Typical English yew onion, 6 ft. 6 (2 m) in length.
Author:
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn April 11 2016 06: 44
    +3
    . 3500 arrows made of poplar, ash, beech and hazel were found on Mary Rose.

    What is interesting yew did not spend on arrows, cherished valuable wood without letting it on consumables?
    1. kalibr
      April 11 2016 07: 11
      +5
      No, of course, why translate "strategic material" into the subject of one-time use ?!
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn April 11 2016 08: 28
        +4
        And the bow is really impressive, the meter-long arrow is almost a dart, right KPVT of the Middle Ages.
      2. AK64
        AK64 April 11 2016 09: 36
        +3
        Yes and heavy yew for arrows
      3. Amurets
        Amurets April 11 2016 15: 58
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        No, of course, why translate "strategic material" into the subject of one-time use ?!

        Several years ago in the magazine "Popular Mechanics" there was a series of articles on the manufacture of composite bows. There was also a review of English bows. The author has everything for sure. For this a plus. I just want to add that the PM had a remark that archers who were captured, cut off the fingers of their hands so that they could not shoot from a bow later.
        1. Jackking
          Jackking April 12 2016 22: 00
          0
          No matter how many articles I read in the PM, there are very, very few sensible ones.
  2. Waltasar
    Waltasar April 11 2016 07: 14
    +2
    I also heard the name "Long", longbow.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri April 11 2016 08: 59
      +6
      Long bow. He himself is.
      1. yehat
        yehat April 11 2016 09: 37
        +2
        the Mongols and the Japanese had composite bows - at least not weaker than the English.
        and the Japanese equestrian bow was definitely more powerful
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 11 2016 09: 46
          +5
          Quote: yehat
          among the Mongols and the Japanese

          Yes, oriental bows are more powerful. And much more difficult to manufacture. It was such bows that were in ancient Russia.
          1. Butchcassidy
            Butchcassidy April 11 2016 11: 42
            +3
            in the picture, by the way, Alyosha Popovich’s compound bow.
  3. Gunxnumx
    Gunxnumx April 11 2016 07: 28
    +6
    Write pzh about bows of nomads. They say there was a serious weapon too
    1. Butchcassidy
      Butchcassidy April 11 2016 08: 45
      +9
      Nomad archers were often composite (from different materials) and they were used for different tactics than English bows.

      However, the fact that the bows of the nomads were a terrible weapon is a fact. As far as I know, the last time in Russia they were used by Bashkir troops in the Patriotic War against Napoleon's troops. By that time, French doctors had lost their skills in treating wounds from arrows, as a result of which the "flying" detachments of the Bashkirs inflicted very significant damage on the enemy.
      1. Zymran
        Zymran April 11 2016 10: 32
        -3
        This is a myth in fact. The bow turned out to be an ineffective weapon in that war. There seems to be even one killed from a bow turned out to be only one.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. RUSS
          RUSS April 11 2016 11: 19
          +20
          Quote: Zymran
          This is a myth in fact. The bow turned out to be an ineffective weapon in that war. There seems to be even one killed from a bow turned out to be only one.

          It is believed that composite recursive Mongolian bows made from different materials were the most effective in battle (many nomadic peoples used compound bows, not just Mongols). Such bows were smaller than the English longbow, but more powerful and more convenient for shooting from a horse.

          The last major battle involving the Mongolian bows was the battle of Leipzig 1813 yearswhen, as part of the Russian army, Napoleon was opposed Bashkir archers. Stunned by the French, seeing such a rarity, they nicknamed them "cupids."

          In 1812, Colonel Robert wrote to his friend:

          “The Russians fought a horde of Mongols against us! It seems that all ages have taken up arms against us! These people in skins and furs know neither fear nor mercy. Amazing is their nature of warfare. They screech wildly and climb through the crowd. They are mowed by multiple nuclei, but they are not afraid. You will be pretty surprised, but in their weapons they use bows and arrows, which are ruthlessly smashed by our gunners. Captain Clemenceau's cocked hat is pierced by a Mongol arrow, and the arrow flew from a barely visible point in the field! Our soldiers, encountering these exotic warriors still, flee the battlefield, barely hearing these wild multiple cries. It is inconceivable that hordes of Khan Genghis have risen from the ashes. ”
          The French colonel Robert, in his ignorance, wrote about the Bashkir horse regiments, which were formed and rushed to the aid of the Russian army, barely knew about Napoleon’s attack on Russia.

          In total, about 30 Bashkir and Tatar regiments were formed, with 500 ordinary horsemen in each. The command structure of these military units included 30 people: the regiment commander, foreman, 5 Yesaul, 5 centurions, 5 coronets, 1 quartermaster, 1 to 2 clerks and 10 Pentecostals. In addition, a mullah was constantly located on each shelf. Warriors from the South Urals had traditional weapons for them and 2 horses (drill and pack). The regiments arrived at the front in full gear, purchased at the expense of donations from fellow villagers, with their own food and fodder.

          Describing a strong skirmish with the French cavalry, the English officer R. Wilson notes the "personal courage" of the Bashkirs, who, having just arrived in the army, rushed at the French along with other Cossacks by swimming across the Aller River. Bashkir horsemen, shooting from bows, "with great effect attacked enemy units, capturing prisoners ”. R. Wilson more than once emphasized the courage and fearlessness of the Bashkir horsemen in the fight against such a strong regular army as the French.
          The Bashkir combat cavalry deployed in lava acted especially strongly on the enemy. With wild cries, sending forward clouds of arrows, the horsemen did not know mercy, struck with the peaks and sabers of the Frenchmen who were gape on the battlefield. Often, the French units immediately retreated, barely learning that the mounted Bashkir regiments, along with the Cossack hundreds, were being built against them.

          The news that “merciless Mongols in hides and furs” invaded Europe flew at a wind speed ahead of the Russian avant-garde, spreading panic among Polish and German citizens. Some city governors surrendered their cities without a fight, if only they were not stormed by hordes of "savages". However, later, the inhabitants of Europe stated with surprise that “archers from the Middle Ages” do not kill civilians, but rather treat them with sympathy and good nature.
          1. Zymran
            Zymran April 11 2016 11: 30
            +1
            So the text is visible?

            1. dmikras
              dmikras April 12 2016 08: 11
              0
              It is seen
              please tell me what kind of book
              1. Zymran
                Zymran April 12 2016 11: 44
                0
                Orenburgers in the wars of 1812 of the year.

                http://www.nlrk.kz/data11/result/ebook_367/index.html#ps








          2. Chiropractor
            Chiropractor April 12 2016 12: 45
            0
            Quote: RUSS
            The Russians fought a horde of Mongols against us!


            In the explanatory dictionary of Dahl there is no word Mongol.
            So initially in 1812 the term was different.
        3. kalibr
          April 11 2016 12: 11
          +1
          No, not one, but how many died from blood poisoning ...
  4. parusnik
    parusnik April 11 2016 07: 32
    +2
    the duke, of course, did not listen to him, so that by the XNUMXth century almost the entire yew in Europe had worn out!... There was no "green" party then ... Thank you, Vyacheslav!
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 11 2016 16: 19
      +1
      There was a case ... I once read an article where it was stated that for large English bows, the yew was considered the best, growing precisely in England. The yew purchased by the British "from outside" was considered less valuable for making bows. That is why there was a ban on " export of "English yew.
  5. Mik13
    Mik13 April 11 2016 08: 23
    +3
    The tension force of the bow of the medieval period is estimated at 120-150 N. Historically, hunting bows usually had the power of 60-80 H, and the fighting were stronger. To date, there are several modern bows with power 240-250 N.

    This simply cannot be. Even if we make the assumption that the "acceleration path" of the boom is 1 meter (actually less), and the tension force is constant (which is also not at all true), then even in such conditions we will get the "muzzle" energy of the arrow 120-150 J. This is not enough ... This is not just a little - it is unacceptably small. The lower limit for firearms is considered to be 80 J (PM - 300 J), but these are high-speed projectiles, and their interaction with the target is somewhat different.
    To defeat the body in armor, this will be categorically insufficient.

    As for the hunting bow with energy 80 J ... it's a squirrel, probably.

    The real longbow had a pull force of 150 - 200 pounds. (that is, the order of 680 - 900 N.) And he himself weighed more than 40 pounds.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni April 11 2016 09: 12
      +9
      Let's approach the problem from the other side. The real (measured at the training ground very accurately) arrow speed for a recursive bow is 60-70 m / s (more than a recursive bow will not allow to give out even theoretically because the arrow cannot fly faster than the shoulders are unbent. For an English bow it is about 60 m / s) taking into account the weight of the arrow in 100g. (I'm not greedy, although it’s rather the weight of a crossbow bolt) and recalling the formula from the school course of physics for kinetic energy, we get 0.1 * 60 * 60/2 = 180 J.
      The pulling force of the English bow was actually about 30 kg. It's not for nothing that this bow is called "seventy-pound".
      And high mortality was achieved due to the more barbaric nature of the wound and the high mass of the shell.
      he weighed more than 40 pounds.
      surround yourself. Xnumx pounds is almost an xnumx kilo. If you hold this mass on your outstretched arm for a minute - I’ll take off my hat
      The real longbow had a pull force of 150 to 200 pounds. (i.e., about 680 - 900 N.)
      You must be Mr. Olympia if you are able to pull a 68-90 kg dumbbell with one hand :-)
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 April 11 2016 10: 20
        +1
        Quote: tchoni
        The pulling force of the English bow was actually about 30 kg. It's not for nothing that this bow is called "seventy-pound".
        Give proof.

        But bows with Mary Rose, according to the calculations of the researchers, had tension from 100 to 180 pounds with a length of tension of 30 inches. Even replicas were made.
        By the way, Mark Strenton from England shoots from the 200-pound longbow.
        Do not forget that the English archer studied and trained all his life. And there was a system for selecting and preparing the best.
        proof: http://ludota.ru/anglijskij-dlinnyj-luk-smert-i-slava-1.html

        Quote: tchoni
        surround yourself. Xnumx pounds is almost an xnumx kilo. If you hold this mass on your outstretched arm for a minute - I’ll take off my hat

        As for weight - from memory. Have the opportunity to refute - I do not limit you in the search for material.
        By the way, I doubt that it is possible to hold PKM on an outstretched arm for a minute - and nevertheless it is very actively used. I saw it myself, and not only.

        Yes, how do you imagine archery? How athletic?
        Nobody with stretched onions heal in an ikebana pose.
        Here is a video of archery at 170 pounds.
        1. tchoni
          tchoni April 11 2016 10: 38
          +3
          Quote: Mik13
          By the way, I doubt that it is possible to hold the RMB on an outstretched arm for a minute - and nevertheless it is very actively used

          For firing from RMB it is NECESSARY to hold it in an outstretched hand. They shoot from it from the bipod. A rare machine gunner can shoot accurately while standing. And it weighs with a stopatron box all 12 kilos.
          Conduct an experiment: Take a bottle of water (1.5 kg) and hold it in your outstretched hand for a minute (standard exercise is a stand-arrow). I assure you seven pots will come off this minute. (by the way, the author cites a similar exercise in the article as a starting point in preparing the archer) And now, do the same with at least a bucket of water (it weighs only a kilogram of 10-12 against the ones you specified 18-20)
          Something like vidyuha is not visible. And there is a MEASUREMENT of the tension of the bowstring?
          And, one more experiment: Go to the gym, wax a 60-kilo dumbbell and try to pull the belt with one hand of this dumbbell. At least a couple of times with chittengom and other crap. Then you can upload the video ..
          And then, try to do this exercise 30 times in three minutes.
          1. Mik13
            Mik13 April 11 2016 10: 52
            +1
            Quote: tchoni
            Quote: Mik13
            By the way, I doubt that it is possible to hold the RMB on an outstretched arm for a minute - and nevertheless it is very actively used

            For firing from RMB it is NECESSARY to hold it in an outstretched hand. They shoot from it from the bipod. A rare machine gunner can shoot accurately while standing. And it weighs with a stopatron box all 12 kilos.
            Conduct an experiment: Take a bottle of water (1.5 kg) and hold it in your outstretched hand for a minute (standard exercise is a stand-arrow). I assure you seven pots will come off this minute. (by the way, the author cites a similar exercise in the article as a starting point in preparing the archer) And now, do the same with at least a bucket of water (it weighs only a kilogram of 10-12 against the ones you specified 18-20)

            Did you shoot from a bow? Not from a sports one, but from a replica of a combat one?
            Because archery is far farther from sports than booth shooting is from combat use of PKM.

            There is no need to hold a combat bow for a long time in an outstretched hand. A stretched bow is actually held with two hands. But the actual shot (with stretching) takes a second - no more .. Aiming is instinctive, much like throwing a knife.

            If you have any confirmation of your words about the weight of the onion (except for your opinion and dubious speculative installations with bottles and dumbbells) I will consider them. If not - do not breed flood.

            Quote: tchoni
            Something like vidyuha is not visible. And there is a MEASUREMENT of the tension of the bowstring?
            Yes there is. Look at YouTube - for some reason, the site does not open.
            proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY&feature=player_embedded
            Moreover, on YouTube there is a full video of shooting from 200 lbs of bow. Only need to search in English. So there is nothing supernatural in such parameters.
            1. tchoni
              tchoni April 11 2016 12: 20
              +7
              Quote: Mik13
              If you have any confirmation of your words about the weight of the onion (except for your opinion and dubious speculative installations with bottles and dumbbells) I will consider them. If not - do not breed flood.

              Elementary physics is my friend. A tree weighs a little less than 1 kg per dm. cube We accept that the weight of this dm is 1 kg. Then the onion weighing 40 pounds (18 kg) has a volume of 18 cubic dm. (this is a cube with a side of 10 cm). If we take a bow length of 180 cm, it turns out that it should be a bead of 100x100 millimeters or a log with a diameter of 12 cm somewhere. Are you such bows wherever you see?
              My dear, please read less about fantastic sites. And less often, bring them as an argument.
              I have no doubt that you can make a 200 pound bow and even find a person who will shoot from it. But this will not be the rule .. It will not even be effective shooting - and so, well done fun. Not every newcomer to the hall pulls 90 kg in deadlift, even after six months of power, aimed specifically at increasing weight.
        2. Cro-Magnon
          Cro-Magnon April 11 2016 15: 53
          +2
          I have a regular sports crossbow, the pull and throwing force is strictly according to the law ... 45 kg! That is 110 pounds ... I pull it with my foot in TWO arms! So do not confuse the maximum possible bow bending force (before its physical fracture) with the shooter's effort!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. Pitot
    Pitot April 11 2016 09: 13
    0
    And what are the performance characteristics of these bows? And then I read (you can kick me in the stomach with your feet) that much that is said about the English archers (and indeed about the archers of that time) is banal bullshit. By the way, the crossbow was more convenient and reliable. Only those crossbows that were pulled only by hand. Then they came up with this garbage - an interference with a collar or "chicken paw". It is clear that due to the increase in power, but this only made it worse.
    1. yehat
      yehat April 11 2016 09: 42
      +6
      conventional crossbow inferior to bow in rate of 3 times
      siege, which was usually used in the defense of the fortress, every 4-5.
      with mass training in bow shooting, there was no problem with the complexity of its use
      at a long distance, the bow lends itself better to aiming and hits more precisely
      the large bow was almost inferior in range to the crossbow.

      an exception - some designs of mechanized self-arrows or automatic crossbows as in the Chinese. They were more effective than onions.
      the main advantage of the crossbow is armor piercing, especially up to 200m.
      But it began to be decided from the 16th century, and at that time firearms began to actively develop.
      1. AK64
        AK64 April 12 2016 11: 53
        +1
        the usual crossbow was inferior to the bow in the rate of fire 3. times a siege, which was usually used to defend the fortress, 4-5 times.

        How many times do you pull on one arm? And on two fingers? Say, 20 times, and then a break to relax, and then again 15.
        The exact numbers are not important, but archery required tremendous effort, and the archer was tired of the banal.
        Arbaletchik tired much less, and calmly and with a lower rate of fire he could fire the same 60 arrows per hour as the archer.

        with mass training in bow shooting, there was no problem with the complexity of its use

        Well, it was not like that: "with the mass training in gymnastics, there was no problem with pulling up on one arm."

        at a long distance, the bow lends itself better to a tip and hits more accurately.
        It's like "at a long distance, a pistol beats more precisely than a sniper rifle."
        By the way, look on the web for a photo of traditional shooting competitions at the Mongols / Buryats: estimate the size of the targets.

        the large bow was almost inferior in range to the crossbow.

        Everyone says that he was inferior and strongly, and it is clear why he was inferior, but the top thief is certainly more visible to the participants.

        the main advantage of the crossbow is armor piercing, especially up to 200m.

        Surprisingly, you clearly do not see a contradiction in your words.

        But it began to decide from the 16th century,

        Until the 16th century, armor was not worn?
        1. yehat
          yehat April 14 2016 16: 07
          0
          1. I don’t know about you, but in an hour I can shoot 200 arrows out of a powerful bow
          I strongly suspect that the newcomer in comparison with the British of that period
          already checked. and a light arrow from his bow could fire 300 meters.
          2. about pulling write complete nonsense.
          3. Unlike a crossbow, an experienced archer shoots along a hinged path. But at the same time it better controls the course of the arrow, the tension force and other little things. The crossbow will not give you any of this. Therefore, an experienced archer will be more accurate than an arbalester, and an inexperienced one will be much more oblique.
          4. How much can you personally aim without an optical sight, only honestly?
          most people target a watermelon can aim no further than 200 meters. This distance for the bow is nonsense.
          5. empty chatter
          6. 16th century - the technological revolution in the manufacture of armor and the mass use of them took place. The resistance to penetration by arrows sharply increased, while the crossbow from 100 meters continued to pierce almost any armor and most shields.
  7. tchoni
    tchoni April 11 2016 09: 25
    +2
    And, in general, I would call the longbow "the Kalashnikov of the Middle Ages." Why? - Easy to manufacture (compared to compound bows) and to operate (only lubricate from time to time and do not urinate the string.
  8. Pitot
    Pitot April 11 2016 10: 34
    +1
    Some kind of evil people - immediately minus. Minus members, then explain to me why, since the time of the so-called Petrovsky, all soldiers have been canceled protection against knives? There were no chain mail, bracers, the rest of the defense, the same shield. After all, they still chopped cold steel. And the protection was canceled. Look at the cold steel of those times - the garbage bullshit (form), then generally went without guards, the so-called herrings. So with the bows. Bullshit is written about him, but people have seen enough about the bandit Robin Hood and a mustache, no cooler bow. Do you even think sometimes.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn April 11 2016 11: 56
      +3
      Because from "Peter's times" cannons and muskets became the main weapons, hand-to-hand was, but all the guns were decisive.
      1. Jagermeister
        Jagermeister April 11 2016 14: 12
        +1
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Because from "Peter's times" cannons and muskets became the main weapons, hand-to-hand was, but all the guns were decisive.

        "Guns - the last argument of kings"
      2. AK64
        AK64 April 11 2016 15: 37
        0
        but all guns decided


        Guns in any commercial quantities are already Napoleonic wars.
        And before that they were too heavy to be an effective weapon on the battlefield.
        Check on wars how many guns on the battlefield (not under siege, namely on the fields) in the wars of the 18th century

        Weight decreased only when the channels of the trunks began to drill, this is the end of the 18th century.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn April 11 2016 18: 55
          +1
          And recall why the Polish army did not reach Moscow during the time of troubles? Ah, she lost her artillery ah ah ah ... No artillery, no victory, the Poles judged and went home. So I didn’t decide.
          1. AK64
            AK64 April 11 2016 20: 05
            0
            And recall why the Polish army did not reach Moscow during the time of troubles? Ah, she lost her artillery ah ah ah ... No artillery, no victory, the Poles judged and went home. So I didn’t decide.


            You would also have told about Susanin: he brought somewhere, damned old man.

            Well, about artillery: so I noted that we are talking about field work. About field, not about siege. Look at the 18th century, everything is already there exactly, without the Susanins: how many field cannons are there in the armies?
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn April 12 2016 08: 29
              0
              If you read about the defense of Smolensk, you would understand that you are mistaken, educate yourself.
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 12 2016 11: 16
                +1
                Y-yes ...
                Amazing people ...
                It is said twice about "field" and "siege", but to make the obvious, that is, just look at the number of guns in, for example, the army of Frederick, in terms of a thousand people, and compare with Napoleonics, they cannot.

                And the lack of guns until the end of the 18th century was their weight, limiting mobility on the battlefield.
                And with what is there to argue, I do not understand?
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 12 2016 11: 57
                  0
                  just look at the number of guns in, for example, the army of Frederick, in terms of a thousand people, and compare with Napoleonics,


                  I emphasize once again: FIELD cannons. Exactly field it would be necessary to compare.

                  PS: one of the advantages of Russian unicorns is their relatively low weight, which allows more or less maneuvering on the battlefield.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  9. vadimtt
    vadimtt April 11 2016 11: 07
    +4
    The article is interesting, but I don’t understand - are pounds and newtons mixed up in it?
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn April 11 2016 12: 18
      +2
      Re-read, everywhere the bowstring tension is indicated in Newtons, no pounds.
      Although this looks dubious, especially if Newtons are converted into kilograms of force:
      .In 2011, Mike Loades conducted an experiment in which a shot on armor was fired from 10 yards (9,1 m) from a bow with a capacity of 60 Н
  10. Amestigon
    Amestigon April 11 2016 12: 00
    +2
    Quote: Mik13
    As for weight - from memory. Have the opportunity to refute - I do not limit you in the search for material.

    But just did not try to count? A yew club with a diameter of 5 cm and a length of 180 cm (which is obviously thicker than the finished onion) has a volume of 2,5 x 2,5 x 3,14 x 180 = 3532,5 cc. The yew density is 0,6 g / cc. Total weight of this club is m = ρV or 0,6 x 3532,5 = 2199,5 g or 2,200 kg. Once again - two kilograms. Where to get another 18 big question.
    Quote: anodonta
    The only question I could not find an answer in the article: how do English authors explain the fact that in mainland Europe the bow, as a military weapon, is not widespread?

    Everything is very simple. The war at that time was the lot of nobles. And the nobles are heavily armed riders. The knights. They prevailed on the battlefield. The militia was armed with crossbows due to the rapid training in firing from these weapons. Moreover, crossbowmen, as a rule, were hired. In England, everything was somewhat different.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 11 2016 15: 28
      0
      Everything is very simple. The war at that time was the lot of nobles. And the nobles are heavily armed riders. The knights. They prevailed on the battlefield. The militia was armed with crossbows due to the rapid training in firing from these weapons. Moreover, crossbowmen, as a rule, were hired. In England, everything was somewhat different.


      Everything is even simpler: the effectiveness of the English onion is greatly exaggerated.
      The reason for the defeats of the French is not the English bow, but the complete lack of discipline among the French (where everyone imagined himself and did not consider it necessary to obey anyone).

      And with a little discipline, the knightly cavalry instantly crushed the best in the dust.
      1. Dam
        Dam April 11 2016 23: 06
        0
        A rare case when I agree with you. But if you read the history of the battles of Poitiers and Cressy. In both cases, the use of knightly cavalry was limited by the features of the relief and weather. And with discipline in the Middle Ages, it was generally difficult for everyone. An archer outperforms heavy infantry and cavalry if he is in a difficult place.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 12 2016 00: 49
          +1
          And with discipline in the Middle Ages, it was generally difficult for everyone.


          Everyone - but in different ways. In the French chivalrous militia there was no discipline at all. The English, by virtue of a slightly different method of formation, discipline was on a qualitatively different level.
          Wed tiny troops or just individual knights, in a very complex system of hierarchy and subordination, "his vassal is not my vassal", and the English Yemeni companies (where the captain could have broken his teeth for breaking the order).

          This is just an example of why the French squadron will defeat a thousand Mamelukes (despite the fact that one-on-one against Mameluke, not a single Frenchman has the slightest chance)
  11. brn521
    brn521 April 11 2016 12: 01
    +5
    Quote: vadimtt
    are pounds mixed with newtons in it?

    Most likely it is.
    120-150 N. Divide by 9,8 we get the good old kgs. 12-15 kg, I had a similar walnut onion-wood in 12 years.
    60-80 N - this is something from the crafts of primary school age.
    240-250 N is approximately the current standard. When you want to shoot far and powerful, but there is no desire to train until you drop.
    Of course there were and are 50-60 kgf and higher. For trained people, besides having a good hereditary backlog in physical condition. For example, the English at the court had some selected large-format archers over 1,8 m tall. These probably could have squeezed more.
  12. shinobi
    shinobi April 11 2016 13: 56
    +4
    As a rule, noblemen had full-fledged armor, and even then not all. A private infantryman usually wore chain mail with which a heavy armor-piercing arrow at distances of 60-80 m could cope quite successfully. A steel belt of 200 g at the same distance pierced any knightly armor that could worn by a man of that time. This is one of the widespread misconceptions that firearms were the reason for the disappearance of the knights. In fact, by the time of widespread use of firearms, they almost everywhere switched to cuirass and "fish scales". The crossbow began the process, the firearm put an end to the process.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 11 2016 15: 33
      -1
      As a rule, noblemen had full-fledged armor, and even not all of them. The infantryman usually wore chain mail with which a heavy armor-piercing arrow at a distance of 60-80m coped quite successfully.


      Do not exaggerate. These are legends. "Armor-piercing arrow" (from a bow, not from a crossbow) buffalo skin did not pierce the abdomen. How many times have tried - it does not hit.

      Add the fact that the tips are iron, it was not even possible for armor-piercing steel to spread. So that...
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn April 12 2016 08: 33
        +1
        Stop lying:
        http://swordmaster.org/2013/02/06/latnyy-nagrudnik-protiv-strel.html
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 12 2016 11: 15
          0
          Ham sent in an hour.

          In general, modern reconstructions should be treated with caution already because, for example, the material of the cleaver tip is steel.
  13. Jagermeister
    Jagermeister April 11 2016 14: 14
    +5
    The strength of archers is among them. A hail of arrows literally mowed down the ranks of the attackers.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 11 2016 15: 30
      +1
      The strength of archers is among them. A hail of arrows literally mowed down the ranks of the attackers.


      Yes, drop these tales: there are enough memories where latniki stood under the gun for a long time and almost without loss. Well, I didn’t pierce the English bow of armor.
      1. Amestigon
        Amestigon April 11 2016 16: 06
        +1
        Quote: AK64
        Yes, drop these tales: there are a sufficient number of memories where the armored men stood under the gunfire for a long time and practically without losses. Well, I didn’t pierce the English bow of armor.

        I agree. Rather, basically did not break. In general, mortality from distant weapons in the pre-powder era is between 5 and 15 percent. The battle of Crecy is generally an exceptional battle. And the victory in it was brought not so much by the bow as by the tactics of Edward and the self-confidence of the French chivalry. However, it is still worth recognizing that on that day the arrows collected a very significant crop. Horses perished, but knights also perished. Often arrows fell into the joints of armor and still get to vital organs. Yes, and armor is different. The poor knights even at that time still wore chain mail.
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 11 2016 16: 31
          0
          The battle of Crecy is generally an exceptional battle. And the victory in it was brought not so much by the bow as by the tactics of Edward and the self-confidence of the French chivalry.

          The absence of the slightest discipline is more correct to say.
          The most interesting thing is that Philip the 6th did not want to attack that day: time worked for him, and the British would not have gone anywhere from him. The stragglers would have pulled themselves up, the horses would have rested. The earth would finally dry ...

          But this is "noble French chivalry"! To wait for someone? Well, yes, they will ...


          However, it is still worth recognizing that on that day the arrows collected a very significant crop.

          It is completely unknown, and it raises doubts: rain and dampness interfered with crossbowmen - both arches and aunts became damp. But for some reason the British do not?
          1. Amestigon
            Amestigon April 11 2016 16: 55
            +2
            This was written by both Froissart and English sources. The British pulled a bowstring just before the battle. Unlike the Genoese.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 11 2016 17: 20
              +2
              In my opinion, this is an explanation in hindsight: Why would the Genoese be so strange to do?
              1. Amestigon
                Amestigon April 11 2016 17: 50
                +3
                Quote: AK64
                In my opinion, this is an explanation in hindsight: Why would the Genoese be so strange to do?

                According to English sources, it turns out that bows were always without a bowstring in field conditions. In addition, each archer was required to have a spare. On the crossbows, the bowstring was not removed, since the process of removing and putting on the bowstring was much more time-consuming. However, this is a debatable issue. As far as I know, there is no definite answer. There are various versions.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 April 11 2016 18: 18
                  0
                  According to English sources, it turns out that bows were always without a bowstring in field conditions. In addition, each archer was required to have a spare.

                  Naturally: all bows, even English, even Turkish, even Bashkir, were all pulled before the battle. Otherwise, the lek will "get tired" and lose its elasticity. (The English bow already lived for a year or two of intensive work, and then "got tired" and "followed the string"). Nomads pulled the bowstring without slacking off the saddle: they pushed one end under the thigh, rested it against the saddle, and bent the other end with both hands.


                  On the crossbows, the bowstring was not removed, since the process of removing and putting on the bowstring was much more time-consuming.

                  If you do not remove the bow (the one on the crossbow) "get tired".
                  It is clear that the process is more complex, but there is nothing super-natural either.

                  I have a feeling that the French fell under the rain, and he somehow bypassed the British. In general, this moment is incomprehensible to me. In general, I have a feeling that the French there were much less than they usually write: 25 thousand latniks is some kind of absolutely insane figure
          2. Dam
            Dam April 11 2016 23: 15
            +1
            Dampness and dirt prevented the heavy cavalry from accelerating for a strike, they could not climb the hill, and archers shot them up and down with impunity
      2. kalibr
        April 11 2016 16: 08
        +3
        They didn’t shoot at riders. How much to write about it! It is only in novels that arrows fall into the slots of helmets! They shot at a command with volleys in the air. Arrows rose high, and from there fell ... onto the grains of horses. That is why they began to be booked, as well as the neck. The wounded horses lay down and did not go any further, dropping the riders or falling with them. This is all in the chronicles of the same Hundred Years War. Dial Longbow and Osprey and there you will find books by famous British authors, including reenactors, and everything is there. They also had an excellent edition (translation) of a Swedish book about crossbows. Everything is!
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 11 2016 16: 37
          0
          What's the difference? Groups are not groups ....
          Philip generally insisted on an attack on foot in order to save the horses. (It was dirty, after the rain, it was still impossible to accelerate on horseback through the mud.) But can the "noble French knighthood" attack on foot?

          Then they learned of course, and Montaigne even wrote that a noble man would not trust his honor to a stupid animal ...
          1. Amestigon
            Amestigon April 11 2016 16: 58
            +4
            About the fact that Philip insisted on the attack on foot for the first time I hear. But John at the battle of Poitiers insisted. And the French attacked on foot. True, this did not help them much. But the truth is that the battle of Poitiers is tactically very different from the battle of Crecy.
            1. AK64
              AK64 April 11 2016 17: 24
              0
              About the fact that Philip insisted on the attack on foot for the first time I hear.

              And that he didn’t want to attack that day? What tried to transfer the attack the next day? (To at least dry the field after rain)

              But John at the battle of Poitiers insisted. And the French attacked on foot. True, this did not help them much.

              But how can it help if the cavalry rushed into battle without an order anyway?
              They only if all the horses were taken away and taken away in a convoy, unless that was the only way to keep from stupid things.
            2. Dam
              Dam April 11 2016 23: 19
              -1
              And you try to walk in cavalry heavy armor. Very surprised you won’t take ten steps
              1. AK64
                AK64 April 12 2016 00: 39
                0
                And you try to walk in cavalry heavy armor. Very surprised you won’t take ten steps


                When Poitiers arrived.
                And, as I have already said, Montaigne post facto philosophized that it was "worthless to trust the honor of a stupid cattle-horse." Thinks he didn't know?

                In general, the armor that hangs in museums is sports (tournament). And plate armor, as well as shoulder straps, could not be worn for foot combat.
                1. Dam
                  Dam April 12 2016 01: 25
                  +1
                  In museums in France and Spain, I saw many different armors. For foot combat, armor resembled chain mail reinforced with metal plates and a helmet of varying degrees of closure. The rider's plate armor was impenetrable and poorly adapted for anything other than a spear strike. Although I admit that the poorer part of the French noblemen did not have plate armor by poverty. And under Poitiers, how did it all end? Yes, and to break the system of spearmen in heavy armor, rising up, then still happiness.
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 April 12 2016 01: 47
                    +1
                    In museums in France and Spain, I saw many different armors. For foot combat, armor resembled chain mail reinforced with metal plates and a helmet of varying degrees of closure. The rider's plate armor was impenetrable and poorly adapted for anything other than a spear strike. Although I admit that the poorer part of the French noblemen did not have plate armor by poverty.

                    This is not the case: almost all armor in museums is tournament armor. They are fundamentally different: much more expensive and much heavier (calculated for one race, not on the day of battle)


                    And under Poitiers, how did it all end? Yes, and to break the system of spearmen in heavy armor, rising up, then still happiness.

                    Under Poitiers, it is important how it all began: at first, the French cavalry left in reserve did so without permission to rush to the attack. Then, having been ambushed and retreating, the French advancing foot order collapsed. As a result, the French were left without this cavalry and without a reserve, which made it possible to bypass and hit the rear during the last attack.

                    And if the French had this cavalry reserve ak and a detour and attack from the rear would not have been possible --- in the open and when moving from 500 armored men they would have trampled into the ground.

                    In addition, it seems to me that the number of Frenchmen is again healthy and exaggerated: much later, the king could afford to contain, for the whole of France, a dozen or two companies of gendarmes, in which there were only 100 (in the state of 100, and in real life as usual) less.

                    And these companies appeared precisely because of the complete decay of the feudal militia. That is, as you see, the plate cavalry has not ceased to exist. But its organization changed: disciplined regulars replaced the crowd (albeit a plate, but just a crowd) of feudal militias
  14. Amestigon
    Amestigon April 11 2016 17: 42
    0
    Quote: AK64
    And that he didn’t want to attack that day? What tried to transfer the attack the next day? (To at least dry the field after rain)

    This version of events was with Froissart, as far as I know. The truth is not the fact that the way it really was. Perhaps this is a way to remove part of the guilt from the king.
    Quote: AK64
    But how can it help if the cavalry rushed into battle without an order anyway?
    They only if all the horses were taken away and taken away in a convoy, unless that was the only way to keep from stupid things.

    Most of the French troops on foot nevertheless reached the orders of the British and grabbed at hand-to-hand combat. And quite organized came, I must admit. There were a few of these attacks. And the British were already extremely exhausted when they saw how the largest and most disciplined detachment led by the king himself was moving towards them, again on foot. And the British would not have been sweet if it were not for the ingenious castling of the Black Prince. So, it must be admitted, but the defeat at Cresius did teach the French something. Although this experience still did not help them. (This is about Poitiers if that).
  15. Omsk
    Omsk April 11 2016 17: 59
    +1
    Still, no offense to fans of the English bow all the information about its power is in doubt. and to trust the medieval sources ... As they say, the English archers at the Battle of Poitiers, having shot all the arrows, entered the battle in hand-to-hand combat. and this with the knights ?!
    And well, I won’t believe that arrows pierced plate armor. But the French knights were famous for them. True, I do not understand this issue, I simply expressed my doubts.
  16. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 11 2016 18: 08
    +3
    Well, congratulations to Vyacheslav with another wonderful article! and even guess what it was brought to life! wink

    Quote: yehat
    the Mongols and the Japanese had composite bows - at least not weaker than the English. and the Japanese equestrian bow was definitely more powerful

    Let me find out why you got this? The confrontation between the Mongol and Japanese archers did not reveal a clear winner in attempts to invade the Japanese islands.

    And a rare moment - there are such people in Russia, Voguls (modern Mansi Yugra) and Ostyaks (modern Khanty, Kets, etc.) and Komi-Permyaks. So, these nations have traditionally practiced bows exactly like longbow. The truth about this, few people know. And what’s most interesting - they didn’t create a serious problem for the Russian troops as a whole, although there were no particularly fierce wars.

    Quote: Pitot
    By the way, the crossbow was more convenient and reliable. Only those crossbows that were pulled only by hand. This then came up with garbage - an interference with a collar or "chicken. Paw".
    I will say briefly - you are wrong. The tightness with a "chicken paw" and then with a collar and then with a semi-automatic lock - it allowed to strengthen the material from which the horns of the crossbow were made, and, accordingly, the penetrating power and range.

    Quote: yehat
    at a long distance, the bow lends itself better to aiming and hits more precisely the large bow was almost as good as the crossbow in range.
    It is interesting how the arrow fired along an indirect path over a long distance - i.e. with the actual impossibility of aiming, could it be better than a crossbow, from which the arrow flew in a straight line and allowing direct aiming? and firearm and even more so ...

    Quote: anodonta
    And if before the reform not every nobleman could afford the luxury of having a full-fledged metal armor (most wore tegilai and "paper hats"), then dressing soldiers recruited from peasants in armor would not have occurred to any madman in those days.
    This is a separate and big question, let's not discuss it, because there are a lot of completely different factors.
    1. kalibr
      April 11 2016 19: 06
      +1
      I had a doctoral theme - the English-language historiography of knight armament from 1958 to 2008 year. So what they wrote about, I just had to know.
    2. Dam
      Dam April 11 2016 23: 22
      +4
      Warrior, you are mistaken. Read the history of the Chukchi wars. I would say that in the realities they were defeated by vodka, and so they brought a lot of problems to the archers
  17. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 11 2016 23: 48
    +1
    Quote: Damm
    Warrior, you are mistaken. Read the history of the Chukchi wars.
    First, learn to treat in a civilized manner, I’m not your spirit on the parade ground. Secondly, I almost never make mistakes and always give clear and adequate information - because show me, where among the peoples I have indicated are Chukchi Chukotka?
    1. Dam
      Dam April 12 2016 01: 29
      0
      There are no questions if my style of communication does not suit you, I do not impose my society on more.
  18. Denimax
    Denimax April 12 2016 00: 37
    +1
    Once I watched a program where they showed reconstruction of the onions of the ice mummy of Otzi. There was also a rather large bow with a person’s height, which can be compared with English, except for flint tips. As it turned out, it was somewhat composite, i.e. half consisted of wood and resinous core. Surprisingly, this technology was 5000 years ago.
  19. Auditor
    Auditor April 12 2016 01: 06
    +6
    Gentlemen, in my youth, under the impression of the book of the wonderful writer Arthur Conan Doyle "The White Detachment", I was very carried away by the topic of the long bow ... After visiting the library and studying several articles from encyclopedias and other sources on this topic, I started, as it is now fashionable to say, reconstruction. .. in the mid-eighties such words were not yet known, so to the best of my strength and capabilities I made a bow as close as it seemed to me to English. A walnut plate was used as a material, by the way, in the article about this tree, it is not mentioned as a basis, when in other sources, walnut onions are present and quite often ... I made the onion exactly according to my height, that is, 180 cm.nut log successfully found in a barn and dry enough was, in accordance with book recommendations, chopped with wedges so as not to damage the wood fibers from the outside of the bow. Arrows are thin and light, made of carefully dried elderberry, straightened over a fire. It was not possible to find feathers of English geese ... Russian Darevens were used. Five tips were made with a hand saw, a file, a vice and a certain amount of idiomatic expressions, I don’t remember from which piece of iron found in my father’s garage ... The bowstring was woven from 3 millimeter lines.
    And now to the results ... the guy in the vidio from above does not even close to how to draw the bow ... and he also risks shooting without a shield ... after the first shot I could not move my thumb on my left hand, which was swollen and blue for a week ... A wooden garage door sheathed with about millimeter iron from 50 meters makes its way through together in the wing of the Zhiguli standing behind it. I will not say that I had a lot of strength then, but not an aimed shot, approximately directed at an angle of 45 degrees, easily sent an arrow of 200 meters ... which actually caused the tryndulina received from my father and the death of the product, sending an arrow through two standing next to two-storey houses I almost got into the company of my father's companions in the "garages" ... well, with the corresponding consequences, on which my acquaintance with the delights of a long bow ended ... possessed a serious enough power .. And since childhood, a trained archer certainly could do a lot.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 12 2016 01: 19
      0
      Your tip was steel. Hence the opportunity to break through this and that. The British had even armor-piercing tips in real life were iron. (Well, there was nowhere to take so much steel)
  20. Amestigon
    Amestigon April 12 2016 02: 03
    +2
    Quote: AK64
    Your tip was steel. Hence the opportunity to break through this and that. The British had even armor-piercing tips in real life were iron. (Well, there was nowhere to take so much steel)

    I'm afraid you're wrong here. Firstly, pure iron practically does not exist in nature. And steel is if carbon is added to iron. If not mistaken, up to 1,7%. Such a composition could be tempered. So - they knew how to carbonize iron long before the centennial war. And this process was quite simple. Billets were forged in coal. And knew how to temper too. In addition, for the tips there was no need to invent sandwich designs, as for a sword. Due to the shape of the armor-piercing tip, excessive fragility is not afraid of him. Accordingly, the hardness of the tip exceeded both the hardness of the sword and the hardness of the armor.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 12 2016 02: 34
      +1
      I'm afraid you're wrong here.

      Do not be afraid

      Firstly, pure iron practically does not exist in nature.

      This is a sad fact that has nothing to do with what has been said.

      And steel is if carbon is added to iron. If not mistaken, up to 1,7%. Such a composition could be tempered. So - they knew how to carbonize iron long before the centennial war. And this process was quite simple. Billets were forged in coal. And knew how to temper too.

      You are very mistaken.
      Firstly, not the fact that massively someone carbonized the manufactured tips: mass production, consumables, they were needed in pounds and pounds.
      Second, the methods of carburizing were ... often a secret and know-how. At least somewhat later they were "declassified" in smart books.
      Thirdly, it is more important: only a thin surface layer with large gradients is carburized. When making, say, weapons, the process was repeated several times, in which the workpiece was reforged and twisted to "disperse" the carbon over the mass of iron. Or they welded several layers, each of which has carbon on the surface. (Thus, getting an iron-steel composite.) Sorry, but I have doubts that someone fiddled with essentially consumable material - tips. (In which, even the very probability of hitting the carcass is not very high.) At most, they were kept in the enrichment layer of the flame, which gave only a thin carburized layer (which, however, crumpled when hitting an obstacle - the hardness of the entire rod is important here).

      In addition, for the tips there was no need to invent sandwich designs, as for a sword. Due to the shape of the armor-piercing tip, excessive fragility is not afraid of him. Accordingly, the hardness of the tip exceeded both the hardness of the sword and the hardness of the armor.

      This is your speculation, which should be confirmed, for example, by analysis. The tips, of course, are poorly preserved, especially the surface layer has rotted. but those that survived are iron.
  21. Amestigon
    Amestigon April 12 2016 02: 11
    +5
    Quote: Damm
    In museums in France and Spain, I saw many different armors. For foot combat, armor resembled chain mail reinforced with metal plates and a helmet of varying degrees of closure. The rider's plate armor was impenetrable and poorly adapted for anything other than a spear strike. Although I admit that the poorer part of the French noblemen did not have plate armor by poverty.

    The combat armor never exceeded 18-25kg. Though plate, though chain, at least some. Exception tournament armor. And such a weight does not complicate the movement of a trained warrior. By the way, the first stage of the centenary war is the prevalence of armor such as brigantine. Although the armor appeared, only kings could afford it, or, at worst, to some princes. By the way, the weight of good plate armor is less than that of chain mail, and the degree of protection is much higher.
  22. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi April 12 2016 10: 08
    +3
    I apologize, but the battle is not at Patai, but at Patae !!
  23. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 12 2016 11: 03
    +2
    A bit about crossbows and their power of shot.

    The "medium" medieval crossbows had a shot energy of 100-150 J (approximately the same for modern hunting crossbows, for medieval hunting crossbows max 100 J). Is it a lot or a little?

    For example, modern firearms:
    - the muzzle energy of a Makarov combat pistol at an initial speed of 330 m / s bullets weighing 6,3 grams is 343 J.
    - the muzzle energy of the Kalashnikov assault rifle of the AK-74 model at an initial bullet speed of 900 m / s is equal to 1377 J !!!!!

    Now for the distances.
    Usually a crossbow is shot at 50 m (at such a distance, the bend of the trajectory is not more than 23 cm). When shooting at 150 m, the vertical correction will be ... 6,8 m, and for those very 300 m, almost 41 meter!
    If you shoot at zero at 150 m and 300 m, respectively, then the maximum boom lift height on the trajectory is for 150 m - 2,7 m. And for 300 m - 13,5 m!

    TE.NA FAR DISTANCES of more than 300 meters ON THE ESSENTIAL POSSIBILITY WAS SHOOTING ONLY IN LARGE STRUCTURE! single soldiers could be reached almost by accident. AND THIS IS AT BANDBOWS ALLOWING FAST ACCURATE AIM AND HAVING MUCH GREATER MILITARY POWER! BOWS EVERYTHING WORSE!

    In forensics, the average value from this interval is 50 J / cm2 or 0,05 kgm / mm2. According to forensic medicine, when shot in the middle sections of a person’s chest, a projectile with a specific kinetic energy of 6-8 J / cm2 causes abrasions; 14-17 J / cm2 - superficial wounds; 32-36 J / cm2 - non-penetrating wound of the chest, often with sternal fractures; 54-60 J / cm2 - penetrating wounds of the chest; 135-145 J / cm2 - penetrating wounds of the chest with damage to its posterior wall.

    Those. a bow shot hit (on average 30-50 J, for composite specials and longbows it is 60-80 J - T, E. VERY LITTLE ENERGY SHOT IN GENERAL!) A NON-ARMORED person pierced the chest and slightly penetrated into the body. In strong bows, this is "just" a deep penetration of the sternum. The crossbow bolt of even a "medium" crossbow pierced an unarmored person almost through and through!

    So a cheap leather or quilted shell is generally effective protection against arrows from a bow, especially at long distances! but all the same, often the injured received cracks in the ribs or a fracture of the ribs and left the battle. Against the Arablet, it was absolutely useless, as well as leather or light shields ...

    The crossbow, made according to medieval technology with steel shoulders, pierces a steel sheet with a thickness of 3 mm from twenty steps. Twisted chain mail could not stand even a hundred steps. According to historical data, a powerful crossbow from three steps successfully punched 9 centimeters of an oak board, at 120 steps he punched light armor, and two hundred steps easily hit a man behind a leather shield.

    The average weight of the bolt with which the crossbow was loaded was 150 grams, but in powerful models (for "fortress crossbows" - it was from this that Richard the Lionheart was killed) this weight reached 600 grams. Such a mass allowed the crossbow bolt to maintain penetrating power against a warrior in armor up to 400 meters, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH ANY BOW.

    Yes, and a blank shot without an arrow is deadly for a crossbow, as well as for a bow - all the energy goes into arcs and it breaks.
    1. AK64
      AK64 April 12 2016 11: 40
      0
      In connection with this there is an interesting consideration: returning to Cressy and Piatie (and generally to the 100-year war and the English bow). There is a conversation of this type:


      - And why did not play my trump ace?
      - The messenger, my friend!


      So the French had not one but SOME ace trumps --- which for some reason did not play. And the question is - why?

      One of these aces is just a crossbow: according to all descriptions (English!) the number of hired crossbowmen from the French was higher than the archers from the British. According to the rules of the game, crossbowmen in a few hours should have simply shot not only archers, but the entire British army, even without entering the archers' defeat zone: they would have put up their shields and would have shot half the army calmly and leisurely because of the shields.
      (1) The crossbow is more powerful, and the range of the shot is significantly larger
      (2) Crossbow shooting requires much less effort, and the crossbowman is much less tired. With a relatively low rate of fire, he can shoot for several hours, firing a hundred arrows in an hour or two.
      (4) The British are supposedly rather poorly armored.

      However, not under Cresci, not under Poitiers. Trump ace, which in itself would be enough to win, did not play.
      1. kalibr
        April 12 2016 12: 57
        +1
        To use aces you need to be able to play them, and when a person thinks only about how to gain fame and capture prisoners for a ransom, when he never fought, he just fought in a tournament when he was completely socialized - he lived in a castle , in a joint formation did not fight, did not know discipline ... and figs to you!
        1. AK64
          AK64 April 12 2016 13: 38
          +1
          I completely agree, and earlier I said the same thing
    2. brn521
      brn521 April 13 2016 11: 27
      0
      Quote: Warrior2015
      In forensics, the average value from this interval is 50 J / cm2 or 0,05 kGm / mm2. According to forensic medicine, a shell with a specific kinetic energy of 6-8 J / cm2 causes abrasions when shot in the middle sections of a person’s chest ...

      This is all for firearms. For spears, darts, throwing knives and arrows, completely different layouts. Other mechanisms of interaction with the obstacle are low speed, a large transverse load, the presence of a tip or cutting edge. The result is highly dependent on the material and tip geometry. Illustration - at least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MelqA52rGbA. The energy is low, such a bullet is not enough even to break through wood, and even more so steel and bricks. But a good hunting arrow is quite enough. By the way, pay attention to the material and thickness of the shovel in the video and the quality of its material, which can be estimated by the ringing made by it when tapping. I think quite at the level of knightly armor.
      Video, where hunting arrows are sewn right through animals or I will not look for chicken carcasses posted in a row, many have already seen.
      Quote: Warrior2015
      So cheap leather or quilted carapace is generally effective protection against bow arrows, especially over long distances!

      When it comes to arrows without tips. By the way, there is historical evidence telling of the mortal wounds inflicted by such arrows.
  24. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 April 13 2016 11: 02
    0
    Quote: AK64
    while not even entering the archers' defeat zone: they would put up shields, and because of the shields they would calmly and leisurely shoot half of the army.
    (1) The crossbow is more powerful, and the range of the shot is significantly larger
    (2) Crossbow shooting requires much less effort, and the crossbowman is much less tired. With a relatively low rate of fire, he can shoot for several hours, firing a hundred arrows in an hour or two.
    (3) The British are supposedly rather poorly armored.


    About Krecy - all sources clearly say that:
    (Xnumx) Yes, the crossbow was powerful, but apparently the French hired crossbowmen were smaller than the English archers.
    (Xnumx) It was because of the low rate of fire that the Genoese began to suffer terrible losses and began to retreat.
    (Xnumx) The British were reasonably well armored, and it cannot be ruled out that in addition to using a stockade of stakes (although the availability of it at Cresius is in doubt) they could use shields.

    But what really happened - is that the Genoese pavilions were specially left in the wagon train (to facilitate the march) - but the wagon train lagged behind very much and at the time of the battle their arrival was not expected at all - therefore they were thrown into the attack without shields and, accordingly, under the English quick-firing bows.
  25. aleks177
    aleks177 5 May 2016 22: 23
    0
    "Big onion" and this is true, since its length exceeded the height of a person,

    Not certainly in that way. Just this expression appeared in the inventory to distinguish these bows from spare parts for crossbows.

    Combat arrows were ordered in bundles of 24 arrows in a bundle. For example, between the years 1341 and 1359, the English crown, as you know, received 51 such ligaments or 350 arrows!

    Key moment. Where government orders there is corruption. Suppliers saved as much as they could, which is why the tips were attached very poorly to the poles, and it was impossible to pull the arrow out of the wound - the tip fell off.
    More corrupt officials missed archers and military equipment. Ashcott had a quote saying that a certain duke at first did not get boilers and tents for archers, and then in battle sent his cavalry to trample archers so that due to the death of part of their shortage was written off.
  26. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 26 February 2020 20: 32
    +1
    Archers, arbalester and cooleriners are fighting at the walls of New Orleans. Thumbnail from the Chronicle by Jean Froissart. National Library of France

    Yeah. The one in Louisiana laughing