History Where Did the Longbow Originate and How Does It Compare to Mongol Bows?

[wolram]

http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html

Did it originate from Scandinavia? if it did or not it sure won the battles of Crecy and Agincourt.

 

[Astronuc]

Here is an interesting article if one can find it - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8129(192903)44%3A1%3C217%3ATOOTL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V. I could sware that we have discussed this before.

Here is another interesting source - The English Bowman by T. Roberts, 1801.
http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/english_bowman/index.html


The British army: its origin, progress, and equipment A digitized copy of an old book. Chapter III is on English archers. It attributes the introduction of the bow in England to the Normans. Ostensibly the English then perfected the long bow.

 

[wolram]

To my mind there are still questions to ask, ie why did only the English
adopt the long bow, i know it took years of training to use one, but when
the advantage of there use was obvious other countries could catch up,
it is not as if there use and manufacture was a secret known only to the English.

 

[Anttech]

Wasnt it because of the wood that was used to make the longbow, is native to the UK. I can't 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

 

[Anttech]

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

 

[Panda]

To my mind there are still questions to ask, ie why did only the English
adopt the long bow, i know it took years of training to use one, but when
the advantage of there use was obvious other countries could catch up,
it is not as if there use and manufacture was a secret known only to the English.

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.

 

[Panda]

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

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.

 

[wolram]

Wasnt it because of the wood that was used to make the longbow, is native to the UK. I can't 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

No, in the first article it states that, the best Yew came from Spain or Italy.

 

[Astronuc]

My post above mentions that bows were believed to be introduced to Britain by the Normans (after 1066), however I just watched a program on the Saxons who drove the Britons westward during the 5th century.

A king (mythical?) Ambrosius Aurelianus made a stand at Mount Badon (Mons Badonicus) near what is now Bath, and one his warriors was supposedly Arthur (who may be the basis of the legendary Arthur). Anyway, the program showed the Britons using bows and arrows - 600 years before the Normans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mons_Badonicus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath,_Somerset#Post-Roman_and_Saxon

The Britons apparently learned archery from the Romans.

Or did each invading tribe introduce its own version of archery.

Now it's interesting that the Romans and Greeks knew archery, and the Huns also were excellent archers. Other tribes tended to favor spears, clubs/maces, hammers, or swords. I am starting to think that northern tribes (surrounded by coniferous forests) seem to have favored spears, hammers or swords, whereas southern tribes (surrounded by deciduous trees) employed bow and arrow, in addition to sword and spear.

On the other hand, I could be totally wrong on this -

The Romans owed much of their military superiority to armies of skilled archers, but at the beginning of the medieval period they were in turn defeated by the more highly skilled archers of the Goths, Huns, and Vandals.

During the Middle Ages the most notable European archers were the English. Medieval ballads celebrate their feats with the longbow in hunting, fighting, and, for the first time in recorded history, sport. Outside Europe, in the same period, peoples of the Middle East excelled in archery. Accounts of European travelers during the Renaissance indicate that the bow and arrow was the most important weapon used throughout the Far East, the Americas, Central Africa, and the Arctic regions.

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=201396

The Romans were certainly in Briton before the Saxons.

So did the Celts bring archery to England?


Hmmmm.

Anyway - this is interesting - http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm
The Scythian bow is like that of the Huns - with the ends folded away from the archer which required a shorter draw. The Huns didn't have to stand braced on the ground, but could rapidly fire from horseback which gave them a tactical advantage in battle.

 

[wolram]

Astro, it may be that the bow originated in china, (so many things did), but maybe the English were the first to use of it for mass slaughter in warfare.

 

[Astronuc]

Astro, it may be that the bow originated in china, (so many things did), but maybe the English were the first to use of it for mass slaughter in warfare.

Well that's an interesting idea, wolram. I just found this -
Archery - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551756/Archery.html - before I found your post.

Some authorities date the origin of archery as early as the Aurignacian period, about 25,000 years before the modern era. The earliest people known to have used the bow and arrow were the ancient Egyptians, who adopted the weapon at least 5000 years ago. . . . . The Assyrians and Babylonians depended on the weapon, and the Old Testament refers several times to archery as a characteristic skill of the ancient Hebrews. In China, archery dates back to the Shang dynasty (1570?-1045? bc). . . . .

No citations are provided.

I think the Chinese used archery in full scale warfare - particularly in the period of Warring States - http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/warringstates.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_Period
http://www.cic.sfu.ca/nacrp/articles/leihaizong/leihaitsung.html (some reasonably good background here)

The state of Zhao adopted horse archery and Hu dresses from their Xiongnu neighbors; eventually, cavalry accounted for a significant portion of the troops of Zhao.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Zhao

Now the Huns were a problem, even in 500-400BC, and they practice horse archery (on horseback).

There are some really good references out there, but they required subscriptions or visit to certain libraries.

I also have several texts on Chinese history and culture I could consult.

 

[Panda]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Anttech]

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 wouldn't 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.

 

[turbo]

I wouldn't 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.

 

[Anttech]

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 :)

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Heidijr]

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.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Two points:
I.
The Maxwell Museum of Anthropology in Albuquerque has New World bows that date near to the time of the demise of the atlatl the Four Corners region. That's about 2500 years ago, according to the plaque. SW Native American bows are short with a long draw. They never used long bows AFAIK. It would be safe to assume that the bow arose in Asia Minor at least before Egyptian tomb paintings that date to 1800BC.

II.
The old long bows I have seen are not made from two woods, but they do look like it.
The lath is cut along the boundary of heartwood and sapwood from Taxus baccata (European Yew) wood. The dark heartwood has different physical characteristcs from the sapwood, as well as being a different color. Heartwood is in the thick "handle", inside, toward the archer and is removed from the arms of the bow. This does not mean this is how all long bows were made. Just what I happened to see.
---

Almost any "long bow" you find now, except in museums and collections, probably bears little resemblence to what was in use at Agincourt. I would look askance at any laminated, two wood long bow. It is probably bogus. There was no such thing as waterproof glue in 1350.

What happens when it rains or you ford a river in 1350? You don't engage the enemy? You carry the bow in your airplane? Animal (protein) glues all absorb water and debond when wet.

The first really good waterproof glues were created by a chemist, James Nevin, in 1934. That is the point in time where exterior and marine grade plywoods became available. Marine plywood absolutely requires waterproof glue.

http://www.apawood.org/plywoodpioneers/history.htm

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[jim mcnamara]

You are correct, the Japanese had lacquers that were very water-resistant.

Urushi lacquer comes from Rhus vernicflua sap- it has pigments added and it polymerizes on exposure to moist air. It usually is applied in many very thinn coats. Urushi ware can be washed. It's also very pretty IMO.

I thought I was responding to the ash/yew comment and the battle of Agincourt. As you said earlier the Chinese/Japanese invented lots of things and used them long before they came to Europe. The folks in Europe in 1350 had the really fun stuff like black plague, 100 Years War, and ergotism instead.

 

[turbo]

My aside was not meant as a negation of your remark about the difficulty in making laminated bows, just as an illustration of how the Japanese overcame the moisture problem with their lacquers. The also made laminated steel swords that were pretty good.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the Mongol bows might have been as good if not better than the long bows.

I wonder how the durability of the Mongolian bow compares with the Welsh/English long bows?