Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
Yes - but bayonets became available only in the 18'th century ( if I'm remember well ). Until then the muskets was to heavy and hard to maneuvre ...
In fact apparition of bayonets resulted in elimination of pikemans.
Regards
English Military Mistake- Longbow
- Thread starter Ozz
- Start date
Yes - but bayonets became available only in the 18'th century ( if I'm remember well ). Until then the muskets was to heavy and hard to maneuvre ...
In fact apparition of bayonets resulted in elimination of pikemans.
Regards
Close, Three ranks Pikemen with light artillery (Leather guns -Grapeshot/ Brass Naval Swivel Guns- grapeshot) backed up by one rank of muskets, one of longbows. (I'd go 2 longbow and skip the muskets, but longbowmen are hard to find)
Prior to bayonets musketmen were protected by Pikemen from
Cavalry and other Pikemen. Longbowmen were protected by
Iron tipped stakes carried by them and implanted in front of their formations, as well as LIGHT Infantry who could move through
the line of stakes. Missile infantry until the bayonet needed protection.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
If you're worried about cavalry, why not just mix pikes in with the bows? Like the swiss and spanish did with their useless arquebussiers.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Ozz, do you know that you were born some 480 years too late! (this is a compliment by the way, not an insult....please read on....)
The military formation you discribe is almost the same as that used by Henry VIII's army in the 1520's. Military experts of those days tried to find ways of incorporaing the new harquebus or 'hand-gun' with the older traditional longbow and pikeman, and they came up with almost EXACTLY the same formation as the one you discribe; 50% pikemen, 25% longbows, 25% firearms and some light early cannon. This is also the same proportions used in the famous Spanish Tercio and the Swiss pike formations of the Renaissance (except they used crossbows instead of longbows). I am impressed
Nonetheless, by the time of the English Civil War between Charles I and Parliament in the 1640's the longbow was concidered an archaic weapon, no longer fit for the 'modern' battlefield. I don't think that it was a mistake by the English. After all, the soldiers of that period had to live, fight and die with these weapons, and if they thought that the new firelock musket was superior to the longbow, then I am inclined to believe them (they knew much more than we in the 21st century will ever know of the 17th century battlefield).
EDIT: Damn! This time Richard III got a post in while I was writing this ("you'll just have to learn to type faster Kryten!").
The military formation you discribe is almost the same as that used by Henry VIII's army in the 1520's. Military experts of those days tried to find ways of incorporaing the new harquebus or 'hand-gun' with the older traditional longbow and pikeman, and they came up with almost EXACTLY the same formation as the one you discribe; 50% pikemen, 25% longbows, 25% firearms and some light early cannon. This is also the same proportions used in the famous Spanish Tercio and the Swiss pike formations of the Renaissance (except they used crossbows instead of longbows). I am impressed
Nonetheless, by the time of the English Civil War between Charles I and Parliament in the 1640's the longbow was concidered an archaic weapon, no longer fit for the 'modern' battlefield. I don't think that it was a mistake by the English. After all, the soldiers of that period had to live, fight and die with these weapons, and if they thought that the new firelock musket was superior to the longbow, then I am inclined to believe them (they knew much more than we in the 21st century will ever know of the 17th century battlefield).
EDIT: Damn! This time Richard III got a post in while I was writing this ("you'll just have to learn to type faster Kryten!").
Kryten
You certainly have style, first you compliment me. Then you
delivery the Coupe' de Grace' with the most telling argument
yet for the demise of the longbow.
Oh well, If i had be born 480 years ago I would be arguing
the demise of the sling. (cheap, special ammo not necessary,
unaffected by rain) over the highly expensive longbows &
Muskets.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Sorry...
A good discussion though :arrow:
A good discussion though :arrow:
Yeah, I really enjoyed it too.
I knew I was on a slippery slope when I started
the Thread despite Chruchill's support (or was it
because of Chruchills support
). Still 1360 to 1640 The Longbow is
The English didn't abandon it, it just took
300 years to develop a musket to match it.
there was also political and social reasons for not having the longbow.
the longbow was available to anyone being cheap and durable, allowing anyone practice with it. in england the longbowmen become a well trained and potentially dangerous figure, able to kill a well trained and wealthly aristocrate i.e. a knight(who considered themselves better men). thus longbowmen were a professional force with potential political influence, dangerous as well as positive. Countries on the Continent were scared off this potential risk (persan revolts) and chose to call up mercenary crossbowmen.
with the development of guns the longbow was an archaic weapon. most armies up to the early 19th were the kings property, battles were fought between these kings. armies were therefore a visional representation of pride, wealth and power to equitment your soldiers in the lastest military weapons etc. and the most expensive. it could be a embrassing to send an army of longbow (even unmanilly) to send an army just of longbowsmen. Battles were small affairs not total annilation.
the gun was expensive and thus stoping pesans learning to use the longbow stopped any potential dangers
the longbow was available to anyone being cheap and durable, allowing anyone practice with it. in england the longbowmen become a well trained and potentially dangerous figure, able to kill a well trained and wealthly aristocrate i.e. a knight(who considered themselves better men). thus longbowmen were a professional force with potential political influence, dangerous as well as positive. Countries on the Continent were scared off this potential risk (persan revolts) and chose to call up mercenary crossbowmen.
with the development of guns the longbow was an archaic weapon. most armies up to the early 19th were the kings property, battles were fought between these kings. armies were therefore a visional representation of pride, wealth and power to equitment your soldiers in the lastest military weapons etc. and the most expensive. it could be a embrassing to send an army of longbow (even unmanilly) to send an army just of longbowsmen. Battles were small affairs not total annilation.
the gun was expensive and thus stoping pesans learning to use the longbow stopped any potential dangers
