Wow, I missed quite a discussion here. There have been alot of interesting and very good arguements made here. Anyone really interested in this should look up The Great Warbow. It's a very good book on the Longbow and includes sections detailing the English longbow from it's earliest useage until it was finally outlawed for use in the English Army. Doing 16th century reenacting, I am constantly asked why the matchlock replaced the longbow as the primary shotte weapon for English armies and the short answer is laziness of the English. The longbow had many advantages over the crossbow and musket, but it also had some severe disadvantages. There was a saying that if you wanted a good archer, start with his father. It took many years to develope the strength and skill to use a warbow effectively. A person could be taught to use a crossbow or musket effectively in as little as a few hours and could become highly proficient with them in a few weeks of practice. Longows also were very expensive to make, as were crossbows, while muskets were relatively cheap to make, at least in the 16th century. Muskets are slower to fire than the longbow, and most crossbows of great power were even slower to load and fire than the matchlock, but a wounded or weak soldier (either from disease or malnutrution which were ever present on campaign) could load and fire either much more easily and for a longer time, than the longbow. The effective range of the longbow is only slightly further than that of the musket and crossbows were made with strengths that could shoot even further, although most of those were really intended as siege weapons. At close range, a musket ball has greater penetration power than an arrow, even a bodkin point, but at longer ranges the musket ball looses some of that penetration power. In England during the 16th century, the old Statute of Winchester which had made longbow ownership and practice mandatory, was frequently reissued but ignored by the citizens. It is that decline that is directly attributed to the proponents of the longbow losing the arguement as to which was better, longbow or matchlock, and the eventual removal of the longbow as a suitable weapon to bring to muster. By the 1580s there are only a handful of counties in all of England which are allowed to muster longbowman as a part of the Shotte and most of these are destined for service in Ireland or Scotland. The bows on the Mary Rose are typical of those from the 16th century. I have heard some arguements that earlier longbows may have been more powerfull but the English were losing interest in archery and thus the bows themselves were already in decline. I have not heard of any examples prior to the period of the Mary Rose being found, so this is only conjecture. 16th century plate armor was commonly proofed against musketry and such armors would certainly have been proof to arrows at the same range. Of course, inside of that proof range it would be a different story, ie an armor proofed at 50 yards might not stop that ball or arrow at 40 and even if it did, they padding being worn then was not as thick as the earlier gambeson so the shot might very well produce a very painfull bruise. I think their must have been a high degree of doubt in the mind of earlier knights that their mail would stop arrows and other weapons and it is this that lead to the use of additional protection like coat of plate and splinted armor over mail. I have heard at least one account, although I can not remember where it came from, of a Knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that had penetrated his armor, his leg, the armor on the other side and the horse to embed itself up to the fletching. Now, is this an exageration to exult the longbow more, was this a "lucky shot", or was this armor poor quality. Maybe this is a complete fabrication by the author too, it's hard to say. This is an arguement that reenactor and history buffs have been rehashing for years and will likely continue to do so for years to come.
