The long bow

Wasnt it because of the wood that was used to make the longbow, is native to the UK. I cant remember the name of the tree, but i think it had some elastic properties that other wood did not. Thus the longbows made in England were more effective

 

Its the "yew" tree (havent a clue how to spell it, Pronounced *U*)

 

It is also a matter of national politics. The English made regular Archery training mandatory for all males of fighting age. This was the beginnings of a professionally trained army.
Other countries stayed with the gather the peasants when required method so they used bows simpler to use in untrained hands.
Most other weapoins in use at the same are just modified farm implements, only the knights and seasoned soldiers would have carried swords, the majority of infantry carried bill hooks and other similar long reach farm implements.

The argument of what is better a large untrained army or a small trained army has gone back and forth ever since.You still see it in the British Army which is very small but highly effective versus most other nations where they still have national service. but when it comes to long extended campaigns we are seriously over stretched.

 

It was the combination of Yew and Ash as a laminate that gave the English long bow it's amazing capabilities.
most other nations used single wood bows but could not get the spring and strength from a single type of wood.
I think Yew qives spring and Ash gives strength.

 

Surely the bow originated in Mezolithoic times and was traded across the world. By the time the english perfected the long bow, they had a few thousand years of bow development and lots of ideas from invading/trading nations.

 

Today, we think of archers and conjure images of sharp-shooters, but that is not the case. Archers using the long-bow and arrows with solid conical-shaped tips were volley weapons, able to lay down withering fire of armor-piecing projectiles. Individual accuracy was not as important as the ability to draw, hold, and release on command. Those bows were very powerful and would have been hard to hold at full draw without practice and good physical conditioning.

 

I wouldnt agree with that, the long bow was very accurate in comparison to other weapons around. It was supposedly the most accurate weapon ever used, up until American invented the rifle with a twisted barrel.

 

I did not say that the long bow was not an accurate weapon. In the hands of experts, it certainly was. Its tactical value on a battlefield was that heavy volleys of arrows could be fired on massed infantry and cavalry, and archers could be moved around very quickly, since their weaponry and gear were relatively light. In such a situation, the archers were not engaged in discretionary shooting, but would fire volleys against masses of troops on command.

Until the Revolutionary War, musketeers were used in this manner, as well. Many of the Colonists had learned the tactics of the Rangers during the French and Indian Wars, however, and had learned to take cover and engage in discretionary fire instead of volleys. In such situations, the accuracy of the militia man and his firearm were critical to success. During the Civil War, both sides took this tactic to another level and used snipers to take out high-value targets, such as officers. The Federal snipers were often equipped with Berdans, while the Confederates used the far superior British Whitworth rifle with a polygonal bore, often fitted with a Davidson scope. Still, the average infantryman was usually equipped with a smoothbore musket. Not very accurate, but effective in volley firing (still the predominant form of assault), especially when loaded with "buck and ball" instead of a single projectile.

Regarding rifled barrels on firearms, the Europeans had experimented with rifling barrels for centuries before us Yanks found ways to automate their manufacture and put them into widespread service. Until that time, rifling was a tedious process requiring much skill and patience, so the cost and low production numbers made rifles impractical for warfare.

 

OK I bow to your superior knowledge
Nice post very informative. I think I misunderstood what you were initially saying. Honestly I always thought (never really researched it tho) that you Americans first invented the rifled barrel. Not us meager Europeans :)

 

I didn't mean to pontificate on warfare, sorry. I used to coordinate auctions of high-end militaria, and when you rub elbows with collectors for years, you can't help but learn stuff about weapons and the tactical and practical forces that drove their development. These collectors are generally VERY knowledgeable about the eras in which their collecting interests lie, and they love to talk about their collections, so I would just ask a few questions when they had time to talk to me, and get a free education.

 

I would also like to point out that the Welsh were the first in Britain to really take tactical advantage of the longbow, using it to quite good effect against the Anglo-Norman invaders. I think it was Edward I who really recognized the possibilities and added it to the English army -- perhaps another way to appease the Welsh along with naming his son Prince of Wales? It's why Bowen or Bowman are such prominent names in Wales and those of Welsh heritage today.

 

Interestingly, the medieval Japanese long-bows (asymmetrical with a upper limb much longer than the lower limb) were laminated, with mulberry interiors and faces of bamboo. They were protected from water/weather by many layers of lacquer.