I am looking for the Longbow itself being the decisive weapon, not the Longbow men, as was the case in Agincourt. This could mean some significant disadvantages to the enemy, including things like: the Longbows inflicted a high number of casualties or the Longbows being a strong force multiplier that it helped the English army win.

I didn't include Agincourt because the Longbow was not the decisive factor IMO; it was the mud and the battlefield as a whole.

  • The Battle of Hastings had bowmen, but it wasn't decisively affected by them. – CGCampbell Aug 24 '14 at 1:16
  • 1
    Actually, most of the battles of the Hundred Years War had longbowmen involved, and they affected each skirmish to a lesser or greater amount. The named battles are the ones usually identified as they were the largest conflicts where the use of longbow archers had the most effect on the outcomes. – CGCampbell Aug 24 '14 at 18:13

The Battle of Falkirk (1298) saw the Welsh longbowmen of Edward I decisively defeat the shiltrons (spearmen) of William Wallace.

The use of the longbow was new to the Scots:

His army also brought a devastating new weapon - the English longbow - and a host of English and Welsh archers.

Regarding the significance of the longbow in this battle, History Magazine said it was

the first time it played a major role



I disagree with your contention that mud was the difference. You don't wipe out the other side when performing a static defense because of mud and forest on the side. Somebody has to do the killing.

  • "I am looking for the Longbow itself being the decisive weapon, not the Longbow men" - the longbowmen did the killing, not the longbow. – Evil Washing Machine Aug 26 '14 at 9:42
  • This is special pleading. They dispatched the wounded that they crippled with the longbow with their daggers. This by no means can be used to state that daggers were the decisive weapon. – Oldcat Aug 26 '14 at 16:39
  • Are you saying that the longbow inflicted the most casualties at Agincourt? Most contemporaries seem to say otherwise, because the advancing French battle lines were the cream of the nobility and were equipped with plate armor, which is something the Longbow can't penetrate very well. – Evil Washing Machine Aug 26 '14 at 17:01
  • Most of the deaths were caused by the prisoners being killed after surrender. They didn't surrender for no reason. – Oldcat Aug 26 '14 at 17:03
  • So you're saying wounds inflicted by Longbows/Psychological impact of the weapon were the reason for their surrender? – Evil Washing Machine Aug 26 '14 at 17:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.