Long ago I read a book called Harlequin by Bernard Cornwell. At the end of the book he wrote a bit about the role of the English Longbow in history. I found it fascinating, but now, many years later, I wonder if I understood correctly or did I unconsciously fill in my own dramatic flourishes.
I thought I read that the army fielded at that battle (the story was about Crecy but he may have been talking about Agincourt), assuming the opposing army used the same tactics as the French Knights at Agincourt, that English Army could have potentially defeated any army fielded anywhere in any historic battle up until the invention of accurate, long-range rifles.
I believe that would take us up to the American Civil War-era.
Was the English Longbow so effective that technologically the longbow would have been able to defeat any of the early musket armies, such as the Napoleanic-era?
I have to think that the book was only talking about the musket vs. the longbow. Because actually defeating a Napoleonic-era army would seem to leave out advances in artillery, which I would think would make short work of a battalion of longbows.
Archery in English Society
Another interesting longbow "fact" I may have mis-remembered was the social aspect of the bow in that era.
I recall the book saying that in general English society (prior to Agincourt) archery was a popular hobby, even among children. So, for a time, the English Army had access to a natural resource in recruits who were already well-acquainted with the basics of the longbow. I seem to recall the book saying that part of the decline of the longbow's place in the English Army, besides the rise of gunpowder, was that the hobby had simply fallen out of favor, so the Army no longer had access to that natural resource.
Is there any truth to that?
Again, I don't want to put my incorrect words into a book by an esteemed author like Cornwell, I love reading his books and will give this one another read if I can locate it. I take full responsibility for not understanding what he was saying. But I am very interested in learning more and any recommended reading on the subject.
My mind boggles at what might be fiction of my own making. Such a poetic thing that a children's hobby could translate into a global power. It reminds me of a kind-of medieval video-game/UAV drone connection.
I must have missed this thread, so I apologise for the late reply. There are a few assumptions and generalisations which are interesting, but also part of a modern revisionist view on the effectiveness of English archers from the medieval times. Robert Hardy's Longbow: A Military and Social Context provides many historical perspectives of archery, including English writers in the 18th century moaning about how archers would fit into a Napoleonic army, and even Prince Louis Napoleon making claims over how effective archers were. This is generally regarded as fantasy by historians, as the Napoleonic Wars took place nearly 400 years after the peak of medieval English archery. Arguably, this is a similar mindset to traditional riflemen believing that WW1-era bolt-action rifles would be just as effective in today's warfare.
Let's firstly address the historical context of medieval archery.
Archery wasn't simply a "children's hobby". Far from it: it was a nationally mandated practice for the entire population. The Assize of Arms 1252 specified that all able-bodied men and children were to own a bow and a certain number of arrows. The proclamations by Edward III in 1363 required the practice of archery on Sundays and feast days, and this mandatory practice of archery was still in law by 1628, though it was hardly enforced and widely discontinued.
The purpose of this law was to maintain a body of capable archers which could be called upon for campaign. Other kingdoms in Europe did not employ a standing force of archers, due to the cost and difficulty of training them (which could take years), and their archers were either crossbowmen or archers drawn from the mostly untrained peasant stock. In this regard, English archers were somewhat inherently superior, as they were already trained in the use of the bow prior to being recruited, and some were semi-professional in that they received a generous stipend for their service. Compared to other archers in Europe, the English archers could be said to be "elite", as they not only had a higher base level of training, the king's retinue would be the best of this crop.
An effect of this mandatory archery practice was that it essentially indoctrinated the population into a culture of archery games and practice. Laws were passed to ban other sports such as football in order to preserve the effectiveness of archery.
Furthermore, much of England's economy relied on the import of bowstaves, arrows and materials for make these tools, especially in importing yew and other wood from Spain and Italy, as England did not have sufficient resources on its own to manufacture archery equipment on the scale that it required.
Was it really that effective?
England use of the bow, in video game terms, would be like if a player felt that the AI was overpowered with archer units and then decided to spam archers in their armies. When the English fought against the Welsh in the 12th century, they encountered first-hand the power of the Welsh longbow, which led to its adoption into English armies.
Agincourt was but one of many successful and devastating deployments of the longbow. Crecy was a more textbook example against the French, with the archers out-ranging and out-shooting the Genoese crossbows and causing disorder in the charge of the French knights. It was even more deadly against the Scots, with nearly every battle being turned by the English longbowmen: Homildon Hill, Halidon Hill, Falkirk, Neville's Cross, to name a few.
Understanding why they were so effective will shine light on why a medieval archer would not work in an 18th century battle.
For the English archers to be effective, they had to deployed in superior defensive positions, such as on a hill, or behind stakes. The enemy had to be inside their effective range and be relatively immobile (such as the Scottish schiltrons) or goaded into attacking recklessly (as with the French at Crecy and Agincourt). With effectively no answer to the superior ranged weapon, especially in the sheer numbers the English deployed them (up to 4/5ths of the army at Agincourt).
However, outside of the desirable positioning of the English archers, success was far from guaranteed. Verneuil (1424) resulted in Lombard cavalry charging and routing the English archers. At Patay (1429), the English archers were caught out of position and run down by cavalry. At Formigny (1450), and after decades of war and deteriorating quality, the archers were provoked into attacking by French cannon, and were routed in a counterattack.
So...could Wellington have used archers?
Take note of the last battle above, and consider the battlefield of the 18th century. Remember one thing: artillery. In medieval times, the bow as the supreme ranged weapon that effectively acted as artillery in large numbers. With actual artillery, archers would be outranged and utterly useless in opening a battle. Without a complement of men-at-arms, spearmen or even pikemen from the 16th century pike-and-shot era, they would be even more vulnerable against cavalry. And the infantry they supposed would have been effective against would have been just as deadly - if not more - with their muskets in massed volleys. Even if archers could shoot with impunity, the gunsmoke would have made it impossible for accurate shooting.
Such a claim of being a fit in the gunpowder era are the musings of writers who knew little of war.
Further Reading
Mike Loades, The Longbow
Donald Featherstone, The Bowmen of England
Robert Hardy, Longbow: A Military and Social Context
Also, while I'm hardly a reputable source, I covered this topic in a video discussion on my channel.