I'm totally with you there, the horses I forgot, but they were just as important.
Still the fallacy is to think of the longbow being inherently superiour to armored knights, especially their armour. When Longshanks went to war with the Welsh, he had many archers, as the Welsh were themselves archer-heavy and without heavy armour. Against the Scots, he came with knights.
The longbows merits were long range and rate of fire, not penetration. Those were giving military commanders additional tactical options, which could win a battle, if circumstances allowed. Henry V or Eduard III used those tactical advantages masterfully, accompanied by tactical blunder(s) on the french side.
As a source I can give thumbs up for this jouyous read:
Delbrück, Hans (1920): History of the Art of War, University of Nebraska Press; Reprint edition, 1990. Translated by Walter, J. Renfroe. 4 Volumes.
EDIT: Oman was priour to Delbrück, and Delbrück refers to him in quite some detail. if you want, I could look up what he wrote on Oman's archer chapter.