MILITARY AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF SKILL IN THE USE OF THE BOW.
Commenced at the battle of Hastings.
From the time of the battle of Hastings the English archers began to rise in repute, and in course of time proved themselves, by their achievements in war, both the admiration and terror of their foes, and excelled the exploits of other nations. Achievement lasted through a period of 500 years.The great achievements of the English bowmen which shed lustre upon the annals of the nation, extended over a period of more than five centuries, many years after the invention and use of fire-arms. England had a voluntary army.England, therefore, in those times, possessed a national voluntary militia, of no charge to the Government, ready for the field on a short notice, and well skilled in the use of weapons. Hence sprung the large bodies of efficient troops which at different periods of English history, in an incredibly short time, were found ready for the service of their country. These men were not a rude, undisciplined rabble, but were trained, disciplined men, every one sufficiently master of his weapon to riddle a steel corslet at five or six score paces, or in a body, to act with terrible effect against masses of cavalry; while most of them could bring down a falcon on the wing by a bird-bolt, or with a broad arrow transfix the wild deer in the chase.
Archers defeated men-at-arms.
Before the simple weapon of the British archer, itself but a larger form of the simplest plaything of a child, all the gorgeous display of knighthood, the elaborated panoply of steel, the magnificent war-horse, the serried ranks, the ingenious devices of tacticians and strategists, at once gave way; nothing can withstand the biting storm of the “cloth-yard shaft.” Value in sieges.It was equally efficacious in the field and in the siege. The defender of town or castle could not peep beyond his bretèche or parapet, but an English arrow nailed his cap to his head. In a field, provided the archers were, by marsh, wood or mountain, secured from a flank attack, they would bid defiance to any number of mounted men-at-arms. Their shafts, falling thick as hail among the horses, soon brought them to the ground, or threw them into utter disorder; then the armed footmen advanced and commenced a slaughter which was scarcely stayed but by weariness of slaying; the archers meantime continuing their ravages on the rear of the enemy’s cavalry by a vertical attack, prolonged, when the ordinary supply of their quivers had been exhausted, by withdrawing them arrows from their slain enemies, to be sent forth on new missions of death:—here is encouragement for our modern marksmen who are armed with a far more deadly weapon.
Opinion on English archers by Napoleon III.
The most complete and philosophic digest, which relates to the system of British archery, considered from a military point of view, is that given by the present Emperor of the French in his treatise “Sur le Passé et l’Avenir de l’Artillerie.” That the British victory at Cressy was wholly attributable to the prowess of British archers, is well known; not so well, a circumstance pointed out by the Emperor of the French, that thenceforward, and in consequence of that victory, Destroyed the prestige of cavalry.the prestige of cavalry declined. Now, there is a political, no less than military significance in this lowering of the esteem in which cavalry had previously been held. Horsemen were gentlemen, and infantry men of inferior degree. Whenever and wherever British archery were not brought to bear, horsemen were omnipotent, and infantry of little avail. Estimation of infantry by continental nations.During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries—the golden age of archery in this land, when yeomen or archers were in such high repute,—France and continental nations generally, treated foot soldiers with disdain. The Emperor of the French, in his systematic book just adverted to, mentions several examples where foot soldiers were ruthlessly cut down and ridden over by their own cavalry—the men-at-arms; not that the infantry fought ill, but that they fought too well. They were slaughtered lest the men-at-arms should have no scope for the exercise of their skill.
English men-at-arms never sullied their fame by cruel acts like these; not that they were better at heart: seeing that human nature is everywhere, and under all circumstances, pretty much alike. English infantry, mainly composed of archers, were far too valuable to be thus used. They bore the first brunt of battle, and not unfrequently decided it. At the time when every other foot soldier in Europe was the merest serf, Archer a yeoman.the British archer was a yeoman. He had a fixed heraldic rank; the first of low degree. He was above the handicraftsman, however skilful,—above the merchant—taking his rank immediately after the gentry. Political results.The excellence of British archery, then tended to bring about a political result; helping to establish that middle-class which, ever since its consolidation, has been one of the sheet-anchors of our glorious constitution.