Battle of Hastings

[bobthebandit]

I was watching the battle on Channel 4 tonight. Why didnt the English have any archers?

[Lil O'lady]

I'm sure in reality the English did have archers. The number of them and the amount of ammo may have been depleted by their recent rumpus at Fulford and Stamford bridge, and by volunteers decamping on the forced march to Hastings.

[Lil O'lady]

I really did try watching this middle-earth re-enactorfest froth but nearly upchucked during the 'handfasting ceremony''. Watched Road Wars instead.

[Scarramouch]

there is evidence of archery being practised in europe and on these isles dating back thousands of years. Archery was practised in egypt as far back as 5000 years. It's origins for warfare lie here and the rest of the middle and far east. However in europe it was primarily used in hunting. An archer was normally paid less than a regular soldier. He was recruited from the peasant class. This was due to the expense to kit out a soldier with a sword and armour as compared to a bow made of wood. Basically most of europe,until the normans,failed to see the tactical importance of archery and archers were generally looked down upon. The english first effectively utilised archery in warfare during the 100 year war (1337-1453).

[Ankou]

There were a few, but not enough. Archers were available to the Saxons at Hastings. While present at Stamford Bridge, the lightning rush south meant that few made it to the battle. Even in the latter Middle Ages when the English archer ruled supreme, they were rarely wealthy with access to horses. In his haste to meet William in battle, Harold was forced to leave them behind and didn't delay in London long enough for others to be raised. As a result, the Normans were strongest where the Saxons were weakest, in mobile cavalry and archers.

[bobthebandit]

Thank you for your previous informative answers. Im sure if the English had better weaponry, such as archers, at the battle we would have won.