I’m watching a program on the the Battle of Crecy and they talked about how expensive the arrows were. After a battle, did the archers go into the field and recycle the arrows that had missed or even all arrows?
Yes, definitely. In fact intact arrows fired by the other side would be gathered and shot back.
I do remember hearing about an army who deliberately used thinner bowstrings and narrower nocks in their arrows so the other side couldn’t use their arrows but they could still use the other side’s … as this would limit the range of the bows it’s doubtful to me that this is true.
There is the interesting case of how General Zhu Geliang got to recycle the arrows of the enemy… before the armies fought!
I can hear the Guiness guys now:
“Brilliant!”
If you’re interested in the subject, Bernard Cornwell {author of the Sharpe novels} has an excellent trilogy of historical novels, the Grail Quest series {don’t be put off by the title: there are no fantasy elements}, which depicts in scrupulously researched detail the life of an English archer during the Hundred Years War, including how longbows and arrows were made and used.
This sounds interesting. I’m going to have to pick them up.
IIRC, some arrows were made so that the heads were attached with bees wax and pulling them out of a body would pull out only the shaft.
From memory, the titles are Vagabond, Heretic and Harlequin: the Grail does feature, but it’s really a McGuffin so that an English archer can wander around France in a desultory search for it. Again, highly recommended: Cornwell always does his homework thoroughly, and you get a real feel for just how nasty high medieval warfare was - although his stuff never feels over-researched, like a lot of novels about military history - but he never forgets to actually write a story.
I’ve heard something similar about the Mongol invasion of Europe. The Mongols used a recurve bow which normally fired shorter arrows than those used with the European longbow (it was designed for shooting from horseback, while European archers were on foot). It put the Europeans at a distinct disadvantage - the Mongols could shoot the long European arrows from their bows, but the Europeans could not use the short Mongolian arrows in theirs.
It’s important to distinguish between continental bows and the English longbows, which were, well, longer: up to 6 feet compared with European bows which were around 4 feet, and hence more accurate, powerful, and with greater range.
The English, of course, never fought the Mongols, and the longbow as a tactical weapon was introduced much later, but it certainly gave a huge advantage at Crecy, which the OP mentioned. The French crossbowmen {who were actually Genoese} simply lacked the range and swift “reloading” of the English bows: they suffered also from bowstrings wet with rain {the English archers simply unstrung their bows and tucked the strings in their helmets}.
This is an excellent site for information on the English longbow, and while I’m recommending books, Barbara Tuchmann’s A Distant Mirror is a classic and highly readable work on the 14th century and the Hundred Years War. It deals in detail with how warfare was waged then, and as an overall introduction to the period it can’t be beat.
On the other hand, this link might actually work…