>>52376
I can understand what he is saying and he isn't strictly wrong but what he is talking about refers more to cavalry archers than to Long-bowmen. Off the top of my head I can't really recall a battle that Longbowmen won by harassing a defending enemy to make them charge.

Whether Longbows or even crossbows were a weapon to kill or a weapon to harass is complicated given that the damage they both can do varies overtime as armour gets better and as crossbows get better and even as Longbows increase in draw weight. But most test have shown that neither can punch through plate armour. But the main advantage of the Longbow was that it shot the horses out from under enemy cavalry which caused a lot of chaos. Yes, shooting a longbow is exhausting, people like Mike Loades think that it would be a very fast but short and exhausting kind of event, they also don't think they would be shooting in volleys but instead each archer would be shooting as fast as he himself could. And that makes sense because there isn't much of a window for archers to shoot at an oncoming cavalry charge.

>Umm, those skirmishes barely larger than the clashes of football firms of '80s are don't count. I don't even know how are they part of military history at all.
There are some pretty major campaigns and wars as well, like wars against Scotland as mentioned but also the war of the roses and wars in Portugal and stuff. An English royal also brought an army that included many Longbowmen crusading alongside the Teutonic order and they did fairly well.