Saracen Horse Archers vs. English Longbowmen

good question
:D

Richard I took archers and crossbowmen to Palestine with him and, while the crossbowmen get the biggest share of the accounts, longbow-men were there. The Black Prince also took his personal military entourage with him on Crusade. There has been some confusion about how early longbow-men were present in English armies and this is addressed in The Great Warbow by Strickland and Hardy where they demolish the theory of the use of "short bows" in England.

The problem on the other side is who were the "Saracen" archers they faced? It is clear from the archery section in Mardi at-Tarsusi's book for Saladin that the full range of composite bows and the associated techniques were known in Egypt and Syria in the twelfth century, but who used which types of bows? The Turkish ghulams of Saladin himself would have been professional horse archers, but the Syrian cavalry described by Usama ibn Munqidh did not use bows and relied on foot archers. Al-Jahiz writing centuries before compared Arab archers to Turkish archers and thought the latter were much more effective. Richard would have faced Turkmen irregular horse archers, Arab infantry archers, some Bedouin horse archers and Saladin's bodyguard of Turkish Mamluk horse archers. The Arab infantry archers and the bodyguard would have been professionals, the others would have been freebooters without formal training but still effective. While both the the Turkmen and the Bedouin were excellent horsemen, only the Turkmen were dedicated horse archers since the Bedouin like th Syrian Arabs preferred the lance to the bow.

Bede, awesome post!

Was there a specific battle though where Crusader longbowmen would have been in at the same time as some of these "Saracen" archer units?

The battle of Arusef. Journal of the Society of Archer Antiquaries.

There's one other aspect to all this that I've been thinking about recently. Many researchers these days are critical of the English longbowman's effectiveness as an archer. This Battle Field detective video brings up the ineffectiveness of bodkin points to penetrate armor at Agincourt since they were made of cheap steel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuVtP_xepU

So I began thinking about the importance of an archer's arrow point. I know some horse archers from central Asia (Huns) were reported to use bone for their arrow points by Ammianus which Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen of course disputes in the 'World of the Huns' bringing up the necessity for cast (quality) arrow heads in order to ensure any type of military/conquest success. However, its sometimes brought up that resources on the steppes can be scarce. So how exactly did the early armies of say Genghis Khan and even the Huns ensure they would have quality arrow heads? Which mines would they exploit in those days to make sure they'd get what they needed?

This is interesting though concerning the prelude to Arsuf:

Keeping close to the seashore, the column marched in a close-knit formation with a screen of infantry and archers protecting its landward side. In the intense heat Saladin's mounted archers constantly harassed them. Squadrons of light horsemen appeared and disappeared in a whirlwind of dust, showering the advancing column with rains of arrows and swarming round the crusaders like mosquitoes around a man's head before just as quickly disappearing again.

Unable to penetrate the knight's armour, the Saracens' arrows would stick out and make the knights appear like porcupines; the infantry, not so well armoured in their leather jackets, fell more easily to these showers of deadly arrows. Hot and dusty, suffering but determined, the men showed enormous discipline. 'Many there were who met their death, struck down by the sun's torrid breath' and it was with great relief that they pitched camp each night. Before they fell asleep a man would often cry out: 'Help, Holy Sepulchre!' and all would echo the crusader's cry.

source: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/sherwoodtimes/battleof.htm

Quite often in contemporary mediaeval references to archers, the historians mix up the terms for bowmen and crossbowmen. It is necessary to look at the original sources to find out what terms were originally used and by comparison find out whether it was a consistent or inconsistent usage.

The battle of Arsuf has several contemporary commentators and luckily at least one from the side of Saladin. Unfortunately, the ones I have been able to examine were not soldiers.

Regarding the quality of arrowheads, two things need to be said, iron broadheads work against cloth and flesh. Steel is not necessary for unarmoured enemies. Steel arrowheads of various hardnesses were made and Taybugha, the Mamluk archer, refers to snipping off the very end of a pointed bodkin to reduce the chance of it breaking because it was so hard (hence brittle). Within any group of archers there would be many types of arrows being carried. One would expect the majority to be for the expected target. Some tests carried out in the last few years have shown bodkins, due to their shape, are not very effective against layered cloth armour while broad heads go straight through it. On the other hand broadheads are not good against mail, but bodkins are very effective. Many knights wore a padded coat (aketon) under their mail to protect themselves both from the abrasion of the rings and the two most likely types of arrows head. It was also good for absorbing the shock of a weapon strike.

It is not unlikely that the frequent references to soldiers looking like hedgehogs with multiple arrows stuck in them but still capable of walking refer to several causes. Firstly, the arrows were shot from too far because the horse archers could not get too close without exposing themselves to the counter charge of the knights. Secondly, bodkin points, intended for the mailed knights were being shot at footmen in padded armour. Thirdly, the tactical purpose of Saladin was initially to restrict the march to the sea shore and prevent incursions inland.

If the archers were actually crossbowmen, the effective range of crossbows with wooden bows would have been less than both longbows and composite bows. If you raise an early mediaeval crossbow to 45 degrees, the stock obscures the target at long range. With a longbow or a composite bow you can use the lower limb to help aiming and you maintain a full view of your target. If the archers were longbow-men, the range at which you could kill an unprotected horse would be a significant fraction of the range of the composite bow. Horses are big targets so you would have to be that accurate. Except for the personal Mamluks of the Sultan, everyone owned their own horse. The result is that the horse archers would stay at a distance except when they could dart in a loose a few more effective arrows. The majority of arrows would be intended to cause random injuries. Faces were always vulnerable to stray shots. This would have worked with harassing tactics, but eventually Saladin's cavalry became careless, got too close and were charged by the knights. Even that was partly an accident, because Richard did not intend there to be a charge at that point. He just took advantage of the circumstances.

What about metallurgical resources in Central Asia? I'm curious about this now in regards to Ammianus vs. Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen.

And how exactly did the longbowmen perform against the horse archers at Arsuf? What do those primary sources suggest?

I don't think a case for the presence of the classic, or pre-classic, English longbowmen at Arsuf can be made.

As for whether English longbows and Asiatic composite bows were used on opposite sides, I can only suggest that a search be made in the histories of 14-15th century wars in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Balkans, and maybe the Baltic regions. It is possible that English mercenary longbowmen were present in those conflicts.[/u]

There are even more problems with the use of longbows in the Middle East. Yew has a reported tendency of softening at high ambient temperatures. This is particularly noted as happening at the grip with modern longbows. When it is taken into account that early longbows up to at least Tudor times did not have a grip, but bent through the handle area, this would be even more prominent.

Regarding longbow men at Arsuf, several factors have to be considered.

1. Richard controlled large areas of France through inheritance from henry of Anjou, his father, and Eleanor of Aquitaine, his mother. he tended to use England as a cash cow to finance his campaigns. But since many Norman nobles had lands in England as well as France, he had contingents from England as well. He himself was a crossbowman, but the Anglo-Normans had developed a good combined arms set of tactics using armoured men and archers arrayed together.

2. As I have written before, there is a lack of precision in the sources about crossbowmen verses archers. While precise terms are used by the writers, there is a tendency to enhance the appearance of one's learning by using synonyms and near synonyms in certain contexts. Unfortunately
this is not something that has died out.

3. The Sources were not precise tactical manuals, but rousing tales to encourage Crusaders and glorify the king or kings. The Byzantines did write tactical manuals, but not about this subject.

The question of how longbow men would have fared against horse archers has more to do about how their commanders would have used them rather than the superiority of one weapon over another. It also has to do with could one transport the archers to the battle field with the required supplies of arrows and food. Richard was very successful in organising a sea borne supply train which enabled his to successfully march down the coast, but he did not advance far inland where the horse archers could have surrounded his army and harassed it from all sides aand also cut off his supplies.