WI A European power in the age of Napoleon brought back longbow men?

[Mitchell Hundred]

This along with bringing back pikes was bandied about at that time. However what if one of major powers was serious enough to reincorporate longbow/archers into their forces. Not as full blow replacement for musket or rifle men but more to supplement as light infantry perhaps. Would there have been no benefit for the relatively faster shoot rate and lower sound impact?

Training would be more intense of course however the expectation would likely be these men were highly trained and skilled soldiers in their roles regardless of weapon. What impacts would have been had?

https://imgur.com/ZvEcWeu

 

[Triune Kingdom]

If longbows were better, or had some sort of decisive advantage over muskets one would think they would use them. They did not.
Look, there is even some videos talking about it. Here is a decent one, and if you really want to get into more (oh, God so much more) detail, there is this too.

 

[AlanL]

light infantry ... the expectation would likely be these men were highly trained and skilled soldiers in their roles regardless of weapon.

One of the main factors in early French successes was using mass armies of barely trained levies to overwhelm eighteenth century style highly trained professional armies.

Using a heavy draw warbow effectively requires years of training and muscular development, ideally starting in adolescence, and definitely isn't something you can do at short notice with conscripts or other wartime emergency recruits. You'd have to be planning and starting your training programme at least ten years ahead of time. The English elite professional light infantry used rifles.

 

[TRH]

If longbows were better, or had some sort of decisive advantage over muskets one would think they would use them. They did not.
Look, there is even some videos talking about it. Here is a decent one, and if you really want to get into more (oh, God so much more) detail, there is this too.

Honestly, the more I read the more I'm convinced the bow is the most overrated weapon in history. There's a reason infantry armies didn't become entirely composed of ranged weapon users until guns were good enough to fill the role.

 

[Triune Kingdom]

Honestly, the more I read the more I'm convinced the bow is the most overrated weapon in history. There's a reason infantry armies didn't become entirely composed of ranged weapon users until guns were good enough to fill the role.

Exactly.
Its not like longbow (if we have to differentiate) was something exclusive to a single place, people or timeperiod, since it really was not.
And even with guns (muskets, calivers, whatever) it took until early 18th century for Pikes to leave service for good, that is roughly quarter of a millienia of use, if we take Swiss revival of it as a start.

 

[iddt3]

Isn't there a potentially apocryphal account that Wellington asked for a corps of longbowmen and was told that no such body existed? I think the other relevant quote here is something along the lines of "to train a longbowmen, start with his grandfather".

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Here's an interesting comment by Blaise de Montluc, the 16th-century Marshal of France:

I had retain’d something of the Camisado of Bullen, and of the business of Oye; and therefore said one day to Mousieur de Tais, that I would discover to him the mystery of the English, and wherefore they were reputed so hardy: which was, that they all carried arms of little reach, and therefore were necessitated to come up close to us to loose their arrows, which otherwise would do no execution; whereas we who were accustomed to fire our Harquebuzes at a great distance, seeing the Enemy use another manner of sight, thought these near approaches of theirs very strange, imputing their running on at this confident rate to absolute bravery: but I will lay them an Ambuscado, and then you shall see if I am in the right or no, and whether a Gascon be not as good as an English-man.

Source: https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/07/01/...essire-blaize-de-montluc-mareschal-of-france/

So not only did English longbows not have as great an effective range as French arquebuses, but the difference was apparently so great that the French thought the English must be crazy brave to advance close enough to use their bows.

(I'd recommend poking around that blog, BTW, it has some good primary sources on bow vs. gun matchups. Spoiler alert: the side with handguns pretty much always ends up winning.)

 

[kholieken]

Honestly, the more I read the more I'm convinced the bow is the most overrated weapon in history.

Its British propaganda, glorifying their victory on crecy and poitiers. The fact that british lost that war get kind of forgotten. Dominance of british empire in 19th century and us in 20th century reinforced british-view of history and entertainment. Plus, alternatehistory.com is english speaking sites. At least nobody in asoiaf use longbows considering how english asoiaf is..

 

[kholieken]

Honestly, the more I read the more I'm convinced the bow is the most overrated weapon in history.

Its British propaganda, glorifying their victory on crecy and poitiers. The fact that british lost that war get kind of forgotten. Dominance of british empire in 19th century and us in 20th century reinforced british-view of history and entertainment. Plus, alternatehistory.com is english speaking sites. At least nobody in asoiaf use longbows considering how english asoiaf is..

 

[Atterdag]

Isn't there a potentially apocryphal account that Wellington asked for a corps of longbowmen and was told that no such body existed? I think the other relevant quote here is something along the lines of "to train a longbowmen, start with his grandfather".

The English obsession with longbows goes a long way back. There were ideas to bring it back on a large scale (small scale it still saw use) in the English civil war as well, I.e the twice-armed man.

Its British propaganda, glorifying their victory on crecy and poitiers. The fact that british lost that war get kind of forgotten. Dominance of british empire in 19th century and us in 20th century reinforced british-view of history and entertainment.

And in the age of industrialism the British liked to think they had always been technological innovators, not least in the field of war, hence the focus on the weapon itself as a reason for English success in battle.

 

[Diego]

And in the age of industrialism the British liked to think they had always been technological innovators, not least in the field of war, hence the focus on the weapon itself as a reason for English success in battle.

Yeah, even though the longbow is a technology that was used even by the European Hunter Gatheres and American Natives.

 

[AlanL]

Yeah, even though the longbow is a technology that was used even by the European Hunter Gatheres and American Natives.

The self bow yes. The term "longbow" is generally used to refer to the 100lb+ draw military version, not to generic hunting bows. But technically yes, it's just a bigger version of the same thing.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The English obsession with longbows goes a long way back. There were ideas to bring it back on a large scale (small scale it still saw use) in the English civil war as well, I.e the twice-armed man.

The twice-armed man was just one eccentric guy's idea, I think it's a bit unfair to describe it as an "obsession" for anyone except its originator.

 

[Nivek]

Archebus killed the longbow, muskets would have a field day with anyone bringing arrows to a firefight

 

[TheCataphract]

So the real issue with longbows isn't that they aren't effective. A longbow would reasonably effective if you could get a regiment to use them, the issue is maintaining a body of troops capable of wielding them.

This was difficult to maintain even in the Longbow's best time. The English crown had to outlaw other sports, and promote competitions to try to keep the population of men trained in their use. You can't decide to pick up a longbow one day and learn to use it in a few years' time. It's a lifetime of work with someone already proficient in it's use (especially since there was no way to look up videos on how to do it, or widely available books on the art.)

Even pulling a few thousand longbowmen together was a gargantuan task for the English state.

Meanwhile, once firearms become sufficiently available, you can train a decent soldier in a few months, less if all you need them to do is man a wall.

Suddenly you don't have to work so hard to maintain traditions of a niche skill, you can field huge armies on relatively short notice, and soldiers are individually much cheaper.

Could a niche role for longbowmen be found? Maybe, but you can't train longbowmen when you raise the army, they have to already exist, and all the men that historically would have been skilled archers, such as hunters and woodsmen, are using firearms.

Those sorts of men are still valuable for the army, and typically form the core of light infantry skirmisher units because they can be trusted with a degree of independent action and are skilled marksmen, but the longbow tradition no longer exists in significant numbers.

 

[Elfwine]

Even if they were available, and even if they were effective enough to compare to muskets...

I'd say no appreciable benefit compared to the other alternatives. The area you'd want to use them for low sound impact, that they fire quickly isn't as useful, and the areas you'd want that they fire quickly, a regiment or two of light infantry is not a war changing force anyway to oversimplify.

Not to say best case is useless, just best case isn't that big a deal.

 

[iddt3]

So the real issue with longbows isn't that they aren't effective. A longbow would reasonably effective if you could get a regiment to use them, the issue is maintaining a body of troops capable of wielding them.

This was difficult to maintain even in the Longbow's best time. The English crown had to outlaw other sports, and promote competitions to try to keep the population of men trained in their use. You can't decide to pick up a longbow one day and learn to use it in a few years' time. It's a lifetime of work with someone already proficient in it's use (especially since there was no way to look up videos on how to do it, or widely available books on the art.)

Even pulling a few thousand longbowmen together was a gargantuan task for the English state.

Meanwhile, once firearms become sufficiently available, you can train a decent soldier in a few months, less if all you need them to do is man a wall.

Suddenly you don't have to work so hard to maintain traditions of a niche skill, you can field huge armies on relatively short notice, and soldiers are individually much cheaper.

Could a niche role for longbowmen be found? Maybe, but you can't train longbowmen when you raise the army, they have to already exist, and all the men that historically would have been skilled archers, such as hunters and woodsmen, are using firearms.

Those sorts of men are still valuable for the army, and typically form the core of light infantry skirmisher units because they can be trusted with a degree of independent action and are skilled marksmen, but the longbow tradition no longer exists in significant numbers.

Timeline is a bit messed up. The Longbow mandatory laws were put into place as it's use began to decline among the gentry, and was not successful in fully arresting the decline. But yeah, inexplicably, for a couple of generations, the English gentry obsessively trained in using Longbows after importing the hobbey from Wales. This briefly gave the English a moderate advantage in trained military manpower and some tactical flexibility.

But yeah, I agree.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

If you want mass usage, a crossbow would be a more sensible option as training is much easier than with a bow. Still, there is now a need to have a supply chain for crossbows and bolts and specialist units.
On a campaign you can collect lead shot from a battlefield to melt down for reuse and all the peer opponents use gunpowder, lead shot, muskets/handguns etc so you can use captured supplies.
Then how does weight and portability of crossbows - and overall soldier-proofness - compare with muskets?
Many of these issues are minimised when defending fortifications, so if there were real benefits of crossbows for range, accuracy or rate of fire or from lack of smoke and sound (and effectiveness against armour for some periods), I'd expect evidence of mixed use persisting for a while.

 

[Jürgen]

The English obsession with longbows goes a long way back. There were ideas to bring it back on a large scale (small scale it still saw use) in the English civil war as well, I.e the twice-armed man.

And in the age of industrialism the British liked to think they had always been technological innovators, not least in the field of war, hence the focus on the weapon itself as a reason for English success in battle.

Yes, it’s like when people get the idea that Scandinavia was always the one of richer part of Europe, rather than one of the most poor and backward parts until the 18th century.

 

[Jürgen]

If you want mass usage, a crossbow would be a more sensible option as training is much easier than with a bow. Still, there is now a need to have a supply chain for crossbows and bolts and specialist units.
On a campaign you can collect lead shot from a battlefield to melt down for reuse and all the peer opponents use gunpowder, lead shot, muskets/handguns etc so you can use captured supplies.
Then how does weight and portability of crossbows - and overall soldier-proofness - compare with muskets?
Many of these issues are minimised when defending fortifications, so if there were real benefits of crossbows for range, accuracy or rate of fire or from lack of smoke and sound (and effectiveness against armour for some periods), I'd expect evidence of mixed use persisting for a while.

Gun are pretty much superior in range, force and deadliness. In OTL there was a primitive weapon making a comeback in the late 17th century; the spear/pike, which got a few decades of success until the socket bayonet came into use. The reason why crossbow and bow and arrow were’t readopted was because they were inferior weapons.