The other comments cover the broad point - longbowmen were a hell of an investment, and weren't a war-winning instrument alone - but I don't think they go far enough. The best book on this is probably Sumption's series on the Hundred Years War, and he makes the point that (1) longbowmen as used in the English army were invariably mounted and armored, and represented an investment broadly analogous to that of a armored man-at-arms; essentially, the English and French armies both had proper knights (far more french) and then a significant number of men-at-arms, and the English essentially stopped having traditional cavalry man-at-arms in favour of what are better imagined as primitive dragoons, and (2) the war winning instrument was less longbowmen and more reliable polearm infantry in compact blocks with field defenses. The role of longbows was important, but even without them the English army was incredibly lethal, as were other armies - e.g. the Flemish. Basically, the age of the knight was really coming to an end either way. It dominated the field against unreliable levy forces, but against forces who stand and fight and are professional enough to build consistent field defenses and not get caught out of position on a big field, it was always a somewhat non-viable strategy.
But! On your broader point, of war as being a fun adventure... the interesting thing is that it very much was viewed as that in this period... but by the English. Edward III was the archetypal chivalrous king, and people from all over Europe showed up to his campaigns against the French and the Scots. The English force was smaller (than the French - much larger than the scots) and much more professionalised, and the main feature of the first few decades of the hundred years war was English chevauchées into France, which tended to be lucrative and highly individual, and often very local - literally the earl of such and such and his friends and a bunch of men from the local towns and villages. I think it's an interesting but very understandable error to match up that image of war-as-adventure with the French knights, when you actually should have that image, but matched with the well equipped mounted longbowmen.
Where are you thinking of in particular? I'm struggling to think of an option, unless we mean, like, the Washington defenses, which I think would be pushing out the definition of front line a lot. Maybe around Charleston?
p
The other comments cover the broad point - longbowmen were a hell of an investment, and weren't a war-winning instrument alone - but I don't think they go far enough. The best book on this is probably Sumption's series on the Hundred Years War, and he makes the point that (1) longbowmen as used in the English army were invariably mounted and armored, and represented an investment broadly analogous to that of a armored man-at-arms; essentially, the English and French armies both had proper knights (far more french) and then a significant number of men-at-arms, and the English essentially stopped having traditional cavalry man-at-arms in favour of what are better imagined as primitive dragoons, and (2) the war winning instrument was less longbowmen and more reliable polearm infantry in compact blocks with field defenses. The role of longbows was important, but even without them the English army was incredibly lethal, as were other armies - e.g. the Flemish. Basically, the age of the knight was really coming to an end either way. It dominated the field against unreliable levy forces, but against forces who stand and fight and are professional enough to build consistent field defenses and not get caught out of position on a big field, it was always a somewhat non-viable strategy.
But! On your broader point, of war as being a fun adventure... the interesting thing is that it very much was viewed as that in this period... but by the English. Edward III was the archetypal chivalrous king, and people from all over Europe showed up to his campaigns against the French and the Scots. The English force was smaller (than the French - much larger than the scots) and much more professionalised, and the main feature of the first few decades of the hundred years war was English chevauchées into France, which tended to be lucrative and highly individual, and often very local - literally the earl of such and such and his friends and a bunch of men from the local towns and villages. I think it's an interesting but very understandable error to match up that image of war-as-adventure with the French knights, when you actually should have that image, but matched with the well equipped mounted longbowmen.
More options
Context Copy link