Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?

[WillS]

I have to respectfully disagree with that stuff!  Firstly, the Mary Rose wasn't already in battle.  It was going towards the battle, still in sight of the shore when it turned heavily and, weighed down by the extra men added to the roster last minute along with open gun ports in preparation, leaned too much and flooded, resulting in the sinking.

The cases of bows were found at various locations within the ship.  The way the wreck was discovered meant that half the ship was found just as it was when it sank.  Everything was found where it would have been, so point 5 doesn't quite work I'm afraid!

Points 1 and 3 are kinda in the same vein, and neither work out, as nothing was really lost.  Items right down to shoes, leather thongs, buttons, jewelry etcetc were all recovered so if hundreds of bows that weren't in the crates had been onboard, they would have been found too.  Some of the bows were actually found loose and not in crates, so perhaps they were being carried by archers towards the upper deck? 

I think most of your points are based on the fact that the ship was already engaged in battle, which according to most accounts it wasn't.  In fact Henry VIII was watching from the castle when the ship simply turned to tack into the wind and just sank.  Hope that clears it up a bit?

[WillS]

Gotcha.  Makes sense.  I guess that's why the heads assumed to be arming the MR arrows were small Tudor bodkins (as found at Portchester Castle) rather than the massive plate cutters used during the 100 Years War.  Sailors and ship-bound soldiers won't be wearing heavy plate armor, so without having to change the entire design of both bow and arrow from earlier periods, just changing the heavy head to something lighter and more efficient for the situation is the best option.

Interestingly, Mike Loades has a very similar opinion about the actual use of the warbow being almost flat trajectory at close range as compared to the more commonly seen use today, of extreme distance at 45 degrees.  I guess it's the historically romantic "arrow storm" or volley that has led to most warbow archers shooting straight up.  Plus it's damn hard to be accurate with unspined arrows and massive bows, so normal target shooting is fairly pointless. 

[llkinak]

The sinking of the Mary Rose is the event for which the ship is best known. On 19 July 1545 Mary Rose was part of an English fleet that sailed out of Portsmouth to engage the French. She fired a broadside at the enemy and was turning to fire the other broadside when water flooded into her open gun ports and the ship suddenly capsized in full view of Henry VIII watching from the shore. It is not certain what caused Mary Rose to capsize; she was overloaded with extra soldiers and may have been caught by a gust of wind, which made the ship heel over.

The above quote is from the following link:  http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/About-the-Royal-Navy/Organisation/Life-in-the-Royal-Navy/History/Historic-Ships/Mary-Rose-1511

There are other sources which claim the ship was already engaged when she sank as well.   If this is true, then the questions about why the cases of bows were below deck from where they would be used still stand.

I'm also not sure we can say with much certainty what was or was not lost from the ship.  Maybe a great deal, maybe very little.  We do strongly suspect we have around 167 heavy bows (Going from memory), and thousands of arrows. 

[llkinak]

Gotcha.  Makes sense.  I guess that's why the heads assumed to be arming the MR arrows were small Tudor bodkins (as found at Portchester Castle) rather than the massive plate cutters used during the 100 Years War.  Sailors and ship-bound soldiers won't be wearing heavy plate armor, so without having to change the entire design of both bow and arrow from earlier periods, just changing the heavy head to something lighter and more efficient for the situation is the best option.

Seems like a broadhead or type 16 might be the best option for shooting at unarmored sailors or soldiers.

[Atlatlista]

Interestingly, Mike Loades has a very similar opinion about the actual use of the warbow being almost flat trajectory at close range as compared to the more commonly seen use today, of extreme distance at 45 degrees.  I guess it's the historically romantic "arrow storm" or volley that has led to most warbow archers shooting straight up.  Plus it's damn hard to be accurate with unspined arrows and massive bows, so normal target shooting is fairly pointless.

I think there has been a bit of a shift in that direction for years now.  For me, I am primarily a target longbow archer, but my interest in pursuing high level target archery with traditional equipment is to learn what kind of accuracy can be expected from ancient and medieval archers in a warfare context.  I can currently, using historically correct bows of about 50-55 pounds draw weight, hit man-sized targets out to 80 yards a very high percentage of the time.  However, the problem with shooting much father than that is that eventually your gaps get so big that it's almost impossible to make the minute adjustments necessary to hit the target.  It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.

[WillS]

Well, I can safely say that's the first time I've read that it was already engaged.  The staff of the Mary Rose Museum are pretty damn sure it wasn't even near enough to an enemy ship to fire at them.  I think (and this is from memory I have to admit, but I remember hearing it from somewhere/somebody) that it was one of the last ships to leave the port, and the rest of the fleet were about to engage when the MR went down.  Not sure on that though.

Another mystery haha!

[WillS]

It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.

Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties!  Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.

[WillS]

Seems like a broadhead or type 16 might be the best option for shooting at unarmored sailors or soldiers.

Yeah possibly! Certainly would cause more problems than a Tudor bodkin!

[WillS]

what kind of accuracy can be expected from ancient and medieval archers in a warfare context.  I can currently, using historically correct bows of about 50-55 pounds draw weight, hit man-sized targets out to 80 yards a very high percentage of the time

The guy you wanna look at is Simon Stanley.  He's probably the closest anybody could get to a medieval archer, having shot very heavy warbows/longbows since he was young.  He still shoots and wins competitions with the FRAS using heavy bows.

[Atlatlista]

It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.

Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties!  Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.

Sort of.  I ran a gap calculator out once, to figure out this kind of thing, and I found that when you use a warbow out to 150 yards (forget 240), an error in range estimation of 5 yards results in the arrows missing the target by about ten to fifteen feet.  Compare that with shooting on the flat end of the trajectory, where if you aim for twenty instead of twenty-five you hit the guy in the belly instead of the chest.  There is a risk, out to 240 yards of missing an entire formation, let alone an individual man.

Also, if you look at the sources and the battles themselves, the English were awfully careful to position their longbow archers where the enemy would not be able to close with them, but where the archers were still reasonably close to the action - herce formations, stakes, use of hedgerows and swamps, river crossings, etc.  It seems like the archery was taking place at reasonably close range (by that I mean less than 100 yards).

[WillS]

Hmm yeah, I see what you're saying!

Perhaps "bowshot" was the maximum range for a bow (of a given weight) and perhaps there were a select few "snipers" who could actually use a bow at that range, but the vast majority were more likely to be used as you say, when the action is within 100 yards, where not only the accuracy was far more realistic and effective, but also the chance of armour penetration and maximum damage is achieved, unlike at 240 yards!

Again, I think it's typical of the romance of "the longbow" that gives us the image of a hardy English yeoman shooting a 160lb bow and slotting an arrow through the visor of a Clanky 200 yards away.  Lovely thought, almost ridiculous however.

How close are ships usually, during a sea battle?

[llkinak]

It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.

Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties!  Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.

Sort of.  I ran a gap calculator out once, to figure out this kind of thing, and I found that when you use a warbow out to 150 yards (forget 240), an error in range estimation of 5 yards results in the arrows missing the target by about ten to fifteen feet.  Compare that with shooting on the flat end of the trajectory, where if you aim for twenty instead of twenty-five you hit the guy in the belly instead of the chest.  There is a risk, out to 240 yards of missing an entire formation, let alone an individual man.

Also, if you look at the sources and the battles themselves, the English were awfully careful to position their longbow archers where the enemy would not be able to close with them, but where the archers were still reasonably close to the action - herce formations, stakes, use of hedgerows and swamps, river crossings, etc.  It seems like the archery was taking place at reasonably close range (by that I mean less than 100 yards).

If I recall correctly about Agincourt, however (and I might not) the English initially advanced from their first position to close within long range of the French...Since the French had refused to oblige them by coming closer on their own accord.  They then loosed a volley or two at long range, which provoked a French cavalry charge that started the fracas.  I suppose, though, the entire intent of this was to get the French into a more effective range of the bows on hand where they could at least inflict some damage.  However, if I also recall Keegan and Barker correctly, the lion's share of the killing at Agincourt was not done by arrows, despite how many were used. 

[Atlatlista]

I agree with that.  You also see the same thing at Towton in regards to long-range harassing fire provoking a charge.  Like I said, I think it was certainly part of the arsenal of options to shoot at long range, but I think if you want military efficacy in terms of killing and wounding a large number of enemies, you're going to be looking at closer ranges on the whole, and a lot less of the firing at high compass that's so popular in films and other dramatic depictions.

[WillS]

I think a large part of the Azincourt victory was the simple fact that the French nobility were just stunned that the English were so unchivalrous.  They were expecting great tournament-style glory as they fought hand to hand with the English king and his trained bodyguards, and yet no matter their rank, status or expensive armour they were dropped by arrows regardless.  That was enough to send shock waves and morale loss through the French.  The arrows as you say weren't responsible for the win, they were a catalyst to the French losing heart and being taken by surprise. 

Plus the fact that by the time the French had trudged through the muddy quagmire (Giggity), stepped over the dying, screaming, kicking horses and bodies, fighting constantly against a hail of arrows and finally reached the English lines, they were already losing.

I think the EWBS NZ Bearing Arrow is probably the closest to what was actually used at Azincourt.  Irritating and harassing from long range, enough to provoke a charge into the enemy's upper hand.

[llkinak]

I agree with that.  You also see the same thing at Towton in regards to long-range harassing fire provoking a charge.  Like I said, I think it was certainly part of the arsenal of options to shoot at long range, but I think if you want military efficacy in terms of killing and wounding a large number of enemies, you're going to be looking at closer ranges on the whole, and a lot less of the firing at high compass that's so popular in films and other dramatic depictions.

That makes complete sense to me.  Especially when considering the angles of impact involved and the ability of various types of armor to absorb or deflect arrows.