Bow training

[med stud]

This may be a myth, but I think the spines of longbowmen were bent toward the right due to their training. I also saw that one of the drawbacks with longbowmen was that they needed to be fed well and they needed lots of rest compared to other soldiers to to the amount of work involved.

I haven't got a "real" source for the above but I wouldn't be surprised. Pulling 160 lb ten times per minute would be extremely straining even if they just fired for a couple of minutes.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The other reason was that the shape and size of the longbow prevented "aiming" in the classical sense. One could not look down the sights, instead an archer developed a feel for his aim over long years of experience.

I'm not sure how relevant that is though.

Firstly, because most historical longbowmen in battle were volleying arrows (although I stand to be corrected on that by historians who know better!)

Secondly because there are at least two different kinds of sighting used in archery competitions today. Target shooting is the one that people are most familar with, but there is a branch gaining popularity known as field archery, and in field archery you hold the arrow slightly differently and you do sight along the arrow.

The big thing that beginning archers have to learn is to pull with their back rather than their arm. The next thing (if you are trying to shoot a target in the woods at a range of 20-50ft) is that your arrow will kick up a little when you shoot, so you have to aim a little low. Most D&D archery will be much, much closer to the field archery situation both in range and usage. I would think that a months training would get someone very useful with the bow.

The idea about starting with someones grandfather sounds like PR tosh though.

I haven't got a "real" source for the above but I wouldn't be surprised. Pulling 160 lb ten times per minute would be extremely straining even if they just fired for a couple of minutes.

Of course, since longbows were tailored to their user, and giving someone a longbow which is too heavy for them to use effectively would be counterproductive, how many of the longbows were actually 160lb draws? I'd imagine that a lot were less than that.

Cheers

 

[Switchblade]

In order to use the english longbow required years of practice not just to build up muscle and accuracy but also the physical deformity required, needing a start from a young age. Skeletons of archers pulled out of old battle sites (and I think, the Mary Rose) showed them to have a lobsided skeletal structure and some bones were thicker than on non archers. In a lifetime archers would go through many bows, working their way up through larger draw bows until they were an adult. As archers were so time consuming to train it was compulsory to do training every Sunday from a young age (I can't remember exactly, it's been a while since I read all those history books cluttering up my flo... uh shelves) as that was the only way to get adult longbow men. On the continent the crossbow was favoured as it didn't need this investment of time.

(The welsh longbow was used more as an ambush weapon so I suspect it had a somewhat lower draw and didn't cause such lobsided muscle build up and effect on the bones)

I need to reply quicker...

I'm not sure how relevant that is though.

Firstly, because most historical longbowmen in battle were volleying arrows (although I stand to be corrected on that by historians who know better!)

At agincourt there were two arrows used, one was volley fired at long range but the heavier bodkin which could penetrate full harness (plate armour) was only effective at 30 yards or less (it may have been 30 FEET, again, been a while) so more of a flat trajectory and aiming at that point.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Most actual used bows seem to have been 80 to 120lb, not 160lb.

For years it was assumed they was 60 to 80lb draw weights as today's hunting bows are, but archealogy showed much heavier bows were used (thought here's still debate, iirc, on whether those super heavy ones are finished bows, or were a bit lighter in actual pull etc).
better recreation work etc and long practice have shown 80 to 120lb bows can certainly be used.
The longbow's great span, requires less complex bow material and doesn't pinch the fingers in the bow string, so it's an efficient weapon. You can also use longer arrows for "shoulder" firing.

Note I'm a big guy (for my part of the world, not America, lol) and a 60lb bow is a bugger to keep drawn, gah!!! Much rather have a 120 or 150lb crossbow anyday of the week. I was pretty good with a bow, but I know I could hit a target far more precisely with a crossbow...and I could keep it cocked as long as I want, hehe.
30 or 40lb draw wight bow is pleasant to use, for me, and I could cock 120 and 150lb crossbows without a lever no problem.

I can't recall if my crossbow was 120 or 150lb draw weight, now as it was along time ago, but when firing it for a test, it went through an inch thick plank, and through both walls of my Dad's wooden garage, with the point sticking out the back wall...lol.

Also, with bows and sling's too, unless you have innate ability, you're never going to be that great. Practice is a very large part, but it's also down to innate ability as you aren't aiming like with a rifle.

Since archers had ot have a degree of innate skill and long practice, they were "specialists" and thus, very expensive to pay. Crossbowmen were far cheaper, it was their weapons that were very expesnive (since they often needed spring steel bow limbs for the crossbows).

Another advantage of the bow, however, is for "clout" shooting, that is, where as a crossbow fires straight, accurate and hard, bows are great for arcing high fire, that plunges down. Thus it's easy to fire like a mortar, over front line allies, and down into enemies, even those behind cover. Striking from above they'd hit thin armour, skull, shoulder etc.

Also, it has to be realized that the impact energies of these high power crossbow and longbow projectiles didn't just cut flesh, they shattered bone and traumatized the victims. Not as bad as heavy lead slugs (shotguns and the like are horrendous manstoppers), but certainly enough to render you hors de'combat.

Bit off topic, an animation (using the DIVX video codec) I made of Roman light ballista a few years ago, to show another aspect of such things.
http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/movies/ballista_light.avi

 

[rkwoodard]

a very simple reason

Hi,
All of the above are probably right on, but I have a very simple answer as well.

Its hard.

I took one semester of Archery in college. Just shooting at a still target at 75 feet was difficult (at least for hitting the bullseye, I could usually hit the target somewhere). Hitting a moving target, was well beyond me even at the end of the semester (so 3 times a week 1 hour per session).

We were using pretty light bows.

 

[jdrakeh]

Note to self: Don't tick jdrakeh off.

The good news is that I can't hit a thing with larger caliber handguns (no training/practice) and that trick shooting is generally useless for anything else.

 

[JDJblatherings]

What is it about the longbow that required so many years of training that made training peasants to use highly complicated firearms (of the day) seem so much easier?

Because it did indeed take years of training to become good at using a longbow. One had to be able to aim and draw a bow again and again. Their lives and that of their fellow combatants would depend upon it. Training to be competent with a firearm takes about a month. A long bow takes years. Slingers took even longer to become really good at it.

A firearm is not very complicated to use.

 

[Mkhaiwati]

There is a lot of truth to this. I received three years of rudimentary training with a long bow in my youth, and could still only hit a target at 50 feet with roughly 30% accuracy. Wind speed, distance to target, and arc of arrow flight must all be taken into consideration and I've come to believe that a lifetime of practice is required for most people to become familiar with such factors and apply them with any degree of proficiency.

Yep, it is called "instinctive" archery. It is very similar to throwing a ball at someone; you don't have target sights, you just let 'er rip.

Volleys were used at long distances, but for close up shooting, such as hunting or close fighting, an archer had to shoot without thinking about it. Just point and let it go. You could sight along the arrow or have range markings on your bow, but that only helps if the target is at that exact range.

For fun, take a random target (like a 3-D archery target) and place at a random distance and see how many archers can hit the center. Most archery ranges have 20 and 30 yard lines, so that is where most modern-day archers are best at.