 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / May 2004Crossbow Range
Yes, you have it right. _Caeteris paribus_, crossbows have greater range than longbows. _Au contraire_, you seem to have bollixed what Colonel Burne writes. Look at your second paragraph below -- it's gibberish. A longbow flight arrow [weighing 16.2 grams] loosed from a 70 pound longbow by a good archer can achieve a range of 300-310 yards or so. By comparison, a flight arrow released from a powerful crossbow can clearly fly much further -- say 500-515 yards or so. Anyone who is not an ignorant raggedy-arsed rampant pogue should understand and appreciate those facts. It is also far easier and quicker to train a man in becoming a proficient archer using a CROSSBOW than with a longbow. In the above I'm just talking about the FLIGHT of the arrow -- nothing to do with ACCURACY in hitting a given, small target. _Au contraire_, our United States Marine snipers in Fallujah are KILLING terrorists at ranges of 1,000 yards with bolt-action rifles. Reassuring.... Semper Fidelis. Deus Vult. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor "Dick Wisan" <wisanr@catskill.net> wrote in message news:c73ab603vr@news1.newsguy.com... | I've been under the impression, reinforced now and then by remarks | around here, that a crossbow would normally be expected to throw | further (effectively?) than a longbow. Sounds reasonable to me, | since a longbow is pulled by the unaided hand and a crossbow may | be pulled with the help of a lever or even a windlass. | | But, I've just read Lt-Col Alfred H Burne's "The Crecy War", in | the "Wordsworth Militarty [sic] Library" series; ISBN 1 84022 210 7, | 1st pub Eyre & Spottiswoode 1955. This is a piece of purely military | history, (explicitly denying broader questions like how the armies | were raised). In it, he remarks, apparently taking it that everyone | knows this, that crossbows outranged longbows. He mentions it in | several places, and explicitly when discussing the defeat of the | Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy. | | I'd appreciate comment from the learned on this point and generally | on this book and this series. To an amateur, this looks like a | solid but readable book, with (what he presents as) the interesting | view that Edward III was not merely a good tactician but also a | master strategist, indeed the inventor of traditional British | strategy, making widely spaced multiple attacks using external | lines of communication made possible by dominating the sea.. | | -- | R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wisanr@catskill.net | - Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, | U.S.A. | - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax > Yes, you have it right. _Caeteris paribus_, crossbows have greater > range than longbows. [and a lot of other irrelevancies] Let us rather focus on the relevant question, which is: What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? cMAD <- and conveniently answered at http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/ [followup set to prevent further spreading of Hines crosspost] > > Yes, you have it right. _Caeteris paribus_, crossbows have greater > > range than longbows. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [followup set to prevent further spreading of Hines crosspost] He doesn't know anything about the unlimited footbows evidently but then its not surprising British Longbows were a LOT stronger than 70 lbs (seem to recall 100-150lbs). However, not everyone could use one, and they took lots of training to use properly. > Yes, you have it right. _Caeteris paribus_, crossbows have greater > range than longbows. [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > | U.S.A. > | - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax <headers snipped to maintain sanity and frustrate Hines> > British Longbows were a LOT stronger than 70 lbs (seem to recall > 100-150lbs). However, not everyone could use one, and they took lots of > training to use properly. I'm not aware of any exemption to the laws requiring archery practice on the grounds of 'not everyone can pull one'. I'd love a reference.  SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > <headers snipped to maintain sanity and frustrate Hines> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'd love a reference. Nor (as far as I know) was there a WD approved standard issue English warbow... yew, long, French and Scotsmen for the killing of. It stands to reason that each man would use the bow he could handle best, and I expect there was much rivalry and competitiveness along the 'mine's bigger than yours' and 'mine's harder to pull than yours' line. Cheers Martin > I expect > there was much rivalry and competitiveness along the 'mine's bigger than > yours' and 'mine's harder to pull than yours' line. This doesn't seem to be the case. The targets seem to have been at set distances and were accuracy based rather than distance or power. It's a bit like pistol shooting. Lots of people used to shoot great big heavy S&W revolvers, including myself, but for serious competition you shot light loads. For example in a .357 S&W Magnum I always shot a .38 S&W Special full wadcutter cartridge as it is more accurate and leaves a nice big hole in the paper. However for range fun days it was full power loads and lots of big bangs. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > Yes, you have it right. _Caeteris paribus_, crossbows have greater > range than longbows. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Reassuring.... Reassuring indeed that you never used anything more dangerous than a staple machine or pencil sharpener 'in action' during your military service David. The range is rather immaterial, as neither weapon can be fired with much accuracy at extreme range (the limitations of the human eye alone would make it somewhat unlikely any moving target could be reliably hit at more than 100 to 200 yards I'd have thought? The lethality of both weapons also falls off sharply at long range. The rate of fire of the longbow was the reason for its success, rather than range or accuracy (and the quality of the troops who shot with them). AFAIK, no body of crossbowmen ever overcame longbowmen on the battlefield because of this - sheer weight of broadside per minute. Cheers Martin. > The range is rather immaterial, as neither weapon can be fired with much > accuracy at extreme range (the limitations of the human eye alone would make > it somewhat unlikely any moving target could be reliably hit at more than 100 > to 200 yards I'd have thought? The lethality of both weapons also falls off > sharply at long range. I hate to do this as it's Hines you're getting at, but you're wrong. Longbows shot at 200 yards can hit a reasonably large target, the requirement for a 'King's Archer' was to be able to hit a shield laid on the ground at a furlong distance seven times out of ten. Something like a quarter of the archers at Agincourt seem to have been 'King's Archers'. At 300 yards you can hit a small body of men and with plunging arrows, and the terminal velocity is considerable. It's not armour piercing force, but I imagine you could put a body of cavalry to considerable embarrassment. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > The range is rather immaterial, as neither weapon can be fired with much > > accuracy at extreme range (the limitations of the human eye alone would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I hate to do this as it's Hines you're getting at, but you're wrong. Oh, no problem - I daresay I am, yet only through our mistakes do we learn etc. etc, extra pi-jaw snipped..... > Longbows shot at 200 yards can hit a reasonably large target, the > requirement for a 'King's Archer' was to be able to hit a shield laid on the > ground at a furlong distance seven times out of ten. Something like a > quarter of the archers at Agincourt seem to have been 'King's Archers'. I did say 'moving target', but that is remarkable accuracy. I have seen rare feats of accuracy done over the years - one notably where the target was all but out of sight (by an American, tut tut!), but the thought of perhaps a thousand or two men so capable firing at once is truly frightening. Which they indeed were, it makes one proud to be English.... > At 300 yards you can hit a small body of men and with plunging arrows, and > the terminal velocity is considerable. It's not armour piercing force, but > I imagine you could put a body of cavalry to considerable embarrassment. As I've suspected for a long time, the effect on the horses was the key to it, which was why they were all but abandoned during the Wars of the Roses. Bloody murder really.... > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > is no basis for a system of government Maybe, but they seemed to have more 'interesting' leaders back then? Cheers Martin > > Longbows shot at 200 yards can hit a reasonably large target, the > > requirement for a 'King's Archer' was to be able to hit a shield laid on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > thousand or two men so capable firing at once is truly frightening. Which they > indeed were, it makes one proud to be English.... I stood in a line of about 250 and shot down into the Valley of the Clerks at Crecy on the 650th aniversary of the battle. A very odd experience, and all paid for by the French government... > > At 300 yards you can hit a small body of men and with plunging arrows, and > > the terminal velocity is considerable. It's not armour piercing force, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which was why they were all but abandoned during the Wars of the Roses. Bloody > murder really.... After Crecy everybody who mattered essentially gave up horses as part of a military weapon system intil the 'demi lancer' came in, which is why the reports of cavalry charges at Agincourt are a bit odd, most of the French bodies were piled on top of each other, suffocated... > > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > > is no basis for a system of government > > Maybe, but they seemed to have more 'interesting' leaders back then? Ah yes, but the important things is... You've got to be able to sack the bastards. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > > Longbows shot at 200 yards can hit a reasonably large target, the > > > requirement for a 'King's Archer' was to be able to hit a shield laid on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I stood in a line of about 250 and shot down into the Valley of the Clerks > at Crecy on the 650th aniversary of the battle. I hope they were French clerks! > A very odd experience, and all paid for by the French government... Of course, all forgiven and forgotten now, long, long time ago, no bad feelings, best of friends (cont.P98) > > > At 300 yards you can hit a small body of men and with plunging arrows, > and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > reports of cavalry charges at Agincourt are a bit odd, most of the French > bodies were piled on top of each other, suffocated... I always thought a good indication of how the longbow worked best against cavalry was the enormous numbers of prisoners taken at Agincourt. Their armour saved their lives, but.... It makes you wonder how well Cromwell or Prince Rupert's cavalry would have fared against longbowmen - very badly indeed I suspect, as would any cavalry up to Waterloo and the Crimean War. Cavalry charges only came back in when the longbow was replaced by the musket - all down to rate of fire. > > > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > > > is no basis for a system of government [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You've got to be able to sack the bastards. Still have to wait for years though. I rather liked the method of sacking them by killing them - it encouraged a certain 'respect' for the populace sometimes.... Cheers Martin >It makes you wonder how well Cromwell or Prince Rupert's cavalry would have >fared against longbowmen - very badly indeed I suspect, as would any cavalry >up to Waterloo and the Crimean War. Cavalry charges only came back in when the >longbow was replaced by the musket - all down to rate of fire. Someone did calculate that Wellington would have done better in the Peninsular War with Henry V's archers. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL >>It makes you wonder how well Cromwell or Prince Rupert's cavalry would have >>fared against longbowmen - very badly indeed I suspect, as would any cavalry [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Someone did calculate that Wellington would have done better in the >Peninsular War with Henry V's archers. Can't replace them fast enough to cover the losses to cannon, unfortunately - that's the advantage of muskets, it's a lot easier to learn a firelock than to become properly proficient with a powerful bow. SignatureWhen you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk > >>It makes you wonder how well Cromwell or Prince Rupert's cavalry would have > >>fared against longbowmen - very badly indeed I suspect, as would any cavalry [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > unfortunately - that's the advantage of muskets, it's a lot easier to > learn a firelock than to become properly proficient with a powerful bow. Agreed. That is an element that isn't as apparent on the surface, but is very true. In fact, the resurgence of cavalry seems to have been a result of the other changes in arms and tactics - notably the disappearance of heavy armor for men and horses. Plus, once people could hire firelock shooters, they (as you said) didn't need to preserve large numbers of trained archers, who trained for years to get that good, in strength as well as skill. There is a similar discipline with the firelock which evolved, into today's snipers or top riflemen. Of course stabilizing the bullet through spin was the thing that took that to the current level, the arrow had been finned for millenia.... > -- > When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. > W S Churchill > > Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk > Agincourt. Their armour saved their lives, but.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only came back in when the longbow was replaced by the musket - all > down to rate of fire. Tell this to Gustav Adolph who restored the cavalrys importance on the battlefield in the early 17th c. http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_022100_gustavusiiad.htm Cheers Soren Larsen > > Agincourt. Their armour saved their lives, but.... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Tell this to Gustav Adolph who restored the cavalrys importance on the > battlefield in the early 17th c. I'm with you on that one. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > Tell this to Gustav Adolph who restored the cavalrys importance on the > battlefield in the early 17th c. Speaking of whom, read "1632", "1633", and "1634". Alternate history with Gustav Adolph. Very entertaining, very interesting. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > > Tell this to Gustav Adolph who restored the cavalrys importance on the > > battlefield in the early 17th c. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mary Ah! Read the first two; must get the third. > > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > > I stood in a line of about 250 and shot down into the Valley of the Clerks > > at Crecy on the 650th aniversary of the battle. > > I hope they were French clerks! It's called that because so many of them were needed to record the French dead. It's a reasonably horrible place. The ground is steep and the soil extremely heavy with the slope shelving as you get up on top of Windmill Hill. Going up it is hell, shooting down into it is easy. The poor French didn't really have a chance. > > A very odd experience, and all paid for by the French government... > > Of course, all forgiven and forgotten now, long, long time ago, no bad > feelings, best of friends (cont.P98) Not exactly. The French 'spin' is that the stupid French aristos charged against the clever English who were bright enough to mobilise their working class/peasantry as archers. The implication being that if the French leadership had been bright enough to get their own peasants on their side instead of being essentially neutral they'd have had a chance. > It makes you wonder how well Cromwell or Prince Rupert's cavalry would have > fared against longbowmen - very badly indeed I suspect, as would any cavalry > up to Waterloo and the Crimean War. Cavalry charges only came back in when the > longbow was replaced by the musket - all down to rate of fire. I think you're probably wrong again. The army at Agincourt was 6,000 strong, Cromwell's New Model was four times as big and about a third was horsed, and they were disciplined troops with pistols and carbines trained to charge home and reform after charging. However Rupert's bunch of over-bred popinjays probably would come to grief, but then again, when they met some decent troops they did didn't they... > > You've got to be able to sack the bastards. > > Still have to wait for years though. I rather liked the method of sacking them > by killing them - it encouraged a certain 'respect' for the populace > sometimes.... The problem with charismatic medieval psychopaths is that they take an awful lot of killing. See also Richard III, Edward IV and all the other Plantagenets who by rights should have been in the same loony bin Henry VI so richly deserved to be incarcerated in. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > as big and about a third was horsed, and they were disciplined troops with > pistols and carbines trained to charge home and reform after charging. Still, a daunting prospect, getting off a couple of shots at point blank after charging through several hundred yards of arrow storm on an unarmoured horse, then trying to retreat and reload. My money's on the archers... > However Rupert's bunch of over-bred popinjays probably would come to grief, > but then again, when they met some decent troops they did didn't they... Yes, but they were so much more picturesque I always thought? > > > You've got to be able to sack the bastards. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The problem with charismatic medieval psychopaths is that they take an awful > lot of killing. Once was enough, even so. Perhaps a thread on 'pointless, avoidable medieval deaths through carelessness' might be appropriate actually? I nominate William I, Richard I, James IV of Scotland, Henry V and Richard III for starters. > See also Richard III, Edward IV and all the other Plantagenets who by > rights should have been in the same loony bin Henry VI so richly deserved to > be incarcerated in. Poor old Henry was for much of his life really. I don't agree about the other two though, and I strongly suspect Edward IV didn't just die from 'a cold caught on a fishing trip' somehow - sounds like the sort of illness that carried off Soviet Presidents so frequently in the past? Same goes for 'surfeits of lampreys' and whatever carried off King John.... Best to avoid fish in those days I think. Cheers Martin William Black black_william@hotmail.com says... >The army at Agincourt was 6,000 strong, Cromwell's New Model was four >times as big and about a third was horsed, and they were disciplined >troops with pistols and carbines trained to charge home and reform >after charging. Were they trained to act as pistoleers? I'm thinking of the abrupt stop at the pointed sticks. SignatureR. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wisanr@catskill.net - Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A. - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax. > William Black black_william@hotmail.com says... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Were they trained to act as pistoleers? I'm thinking of the abrupt > stop at the pointed sticks. At about seventy yards they discharged their carbines and charged, discharging their pistols at about twenty yards they then threw them at the people being charged, drew their swords and charged home. Each man fires three shots and throws two pistols, each weighting three or four pounds. The idea is that you disrupt the line to the extent that it breaks up and allows the cavalryman to get in amongst the line of infantry. The second charge by Cromwell's cavalry at Marston Moor against the rear of the royalist infantry seems to show that it worked. The first charge showed it worked against Rupert's cavalry... Post Gustavus Adolphus decent cavalry was trained to charge home. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > William Black black_william@hotmail.com says... > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > is no basis for a system of government They actually threw their kits into the opposing ranks? Sheesh, I would never have reckoned on that. They must have been the first public financed soldiers since the Romans. I had always thought the kit was worth more than the poor critter who was given it. > They actually threw their kits into the opposing ranks? Sheesh, I > would never have reckoned on that. They must have been the first > public financed soldiers since the Romans. I had always thought the > kit was worth more than the poor critter who was given it. Yes, but if the tactic works and you win the battle, you can always pick the kit up afterwards. SignatureNik Simpson > They actually threw their kits into the opposing ranks? Sheesh, I would > never have reckoned on that. They must have been the first public financed > soldiers since the Romans. I had always thought the kit was worth more than > the poor critter who was given it. All armies are public financed. They were the first 'regular' soldiers since the Romans, and the first modern uniformed soldiers and probably the first with a modern form of 'esprit de corps'. If you're backed by a stores system that worked and a tactical system that has won battles for you you'd throw your pistols into the enemy. In fact you'd probably have regimental pistol throwing competitions with grizzled old sergeants saying things like 'Nice height, missed the pike and right at eye level'. Somewhere I've read accounts about men wanting to keep their old leather buff coats because it was the best coat they ever had. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government >>They actually threw their kits into the opposing ranks? Sheesh, I would >>never have reckoned on that. They must have been the first public financed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > All armies are public financed. In modern times, possibly. But in the past, no. Many of my ancestors raised their own armies at their own expense for various expeditions. And they weren't alone. Why do you think the peerage evolved? Renia > > They actually threw their kits into the opposing ranks? Sheesh, I would > > never have reckoned on that. They must have been the first public financed [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Somewhere I've read accounts about men wanting to keep their old leather > buff coats because it was the best coat they ever had. Cromwell's letters and papers are worth a read - it seems he spent an awful lot of time on campaign seeking supplies, begging and eventually threatening Parliament for money to keep his army in shape. The desperation and even despair is clear in some of them, where did you find several thousand pairs of boots and shoes in those days, all at once? Made me realise what a busy man he was, and how far his responsibilities as a general stretched... Cheers Martin "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in message > "Martin Reboul" wrote in message > > "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The poor French didn't really have a chance. > > Of course, all forgiven and forgotten now, long, long time ago > The French 'spin' is that the stupid French aristos charged against the > clever English who were bright enough to mobilise their working > class/peasantry as archers. > The implication being that if French leadership had been bright enough > to get their own peasants on their side instead of being essentially > neutral they'd have had a chance. Excuse me, I have limited knowledge of this, and probably no dog in this fight, but: What is so wrong with this "French 'spin'"? Just seems to me, and my way of thinking, that a large 'citizen army' that is skilled and efficent (in at least one area of combat arms) is quite effective. Certainly besides being an effective way of winning battles, also set the stage for citizen empowerment, and thus in various ways, democracy. And again, I am very thankful for the contributions of both the British and French to democracy in the world. > "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > "Martin Reboul" wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > battles, also set the stage for citizen empowerment, > and thus in various ways, democracy. Except the English were about 6,000 strong, about 5,000 archers and about 1,000 men at arms, the French were about 30,000... The issue of 'citizen empowerment' and the longbow is a very interesting one. It corresponds with the rise of a strong central kingship in England and the fall of the 'overmighty subjects'. It has been suggested that personal empowerment is the key, because if Much the Miller can drop you stone dead at 200 yards you tend not to be able to rape his daughter with impunity. However, suggesting that Edward Longshanks is the father the ancient English freedoms isn't what you'd call popular in Scotland or Wales. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > "Martin Reboul" wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > However, suggesting that Edward Longshanks is the father the ancient > English freedoms isn't what you'd call popular in Scotland or Wales. Who would you put your money on William. Much the Miller's Longbow or Eddie the Hammers, War Wolf? Jamie > Who would you put your money on William. > Much the Miller's Longbow or Eddie the Hammers, War Wolf? That's rather the opposite of the point. Long Tall Eddie and Much the Miller (and his mates) are gonna kick the sh.t out of anyone who wants a fight. The scrap people want to see is between Much the Miller and Sir Tarquin Ormesby-Gore. Sir Tarquin reigns back his highly strung horse and charges from about 200 yards. Much pulls back his highly strung bow and drops said horse dead it it's tracks at about 120 yards. Sir Tarquin flies about twenty five yards without the benefit of horse, if he's lucky he only breaks his shoulder, and maybe a leg or two. Much saunters over and sees if that really nice ballock dagger really will fit through the eyeslot. If Tarquin gets up he gets shot at at least four times before he arrives. Assuming he can still run he now has to face a fit guy who isn't tired at all, but who has got a lead bound mace on the end of a three foot pole to hit him on the head with. However, what actually seems to have happened most of the time was: Before the fight Tarquin goes along and watches the weekly archery practice held in the village before church every Sunday. He does some thinking. He decided he's not daft enough to fight against an archer and in future decides to: 1. Not to upset his tenants 2. To fight on foot SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > The scrap people want to see is between Much the Miller and Sir Tarquin > Ormesby-Gore........................... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1. Not to upset his tenants > 2. To fight on foot William Black Wonderfully entertaining story William. Thank you. I am glad now I posted. It was also quite supportive of my beliefs. The touching of wood for luck comes from English archers who touched the wood of their bows before battle as their lives depended upon them. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL >The touching of wood for luck comes from English archers who touched >the wood of their bows before battle as their lives depended upon >them. Spanish folk do say that in touching wood three times they're invoking Endebelico, an Iberian deity who lives in wood - Seems plausible, as this was vouchsafed by a surgeon from Jaen, who had no axe to grind. Probably, like Nov 5th. and other things, this has origins way back - > > Who would you put your money on William. > > Much the Miller's Longbow or Eddie the Hammers, War Wolf? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 1. Not to upset his tenants > 2. To fight on foot In the real world William, Much works for Tarquin as his enforcer, if Much can't cut the mustard, i.e. the peasants get too uppity, Eddie turns up with his Hammer. There was a bit of a power struggle going on in the Archers Union during the War of the Roses presumably. Jamie > In the real world William, Much works for Tarquin as his enforcer, if > Much can't cut the mustard, i.e. the peasants get too uppity, Eddie > turns up with his Hammer. Without a doubt. However we're talking about 'empowerment' in modern terms. The armed peasantry as a mob is a threat to the 'body politic'. The armed peasant as an individual is an individual threat to the lord, but only if he's provoked in some way. The issue of social change and personal weaponry in early societies is one that is in need of more research. > There was a bit of a power struggle going on in the Archers Union during > the War of the Roses presumably. Nope, just inbred psycho aristos throwing their money about to no good purpose as usual. Well not exactly 'no good purpose'. At least they killed off all those bloody Platagenates SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in > > "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > "Martin Reboul" wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > battles, also set the stage for citizen empowerment, > > and thus in various ways, democracy. Snip & rearrange - hopefully not distorted > The issue of 'citizen empowerment' and the longbow is a > very interesting one. ---It has been suggested that personal > empowerment is the key, because if Much the Miller can > drop you stone dead at 200 yards you tend not to be able to > rape his daughter with impunity. > It corresponds with the rise of a strong central kingship in England Thanks for your indulgence before (Great Story), and I admit I have not studied English (esp. pre 1935) history for many decades. But, although this seems paradoxical, can it not logicly flow as related? (more powerful archers & more powerful kings?) As the common man and merchant class became more empowered (militarily and economically) then the smarter rulers understood this. And then realizing that exercising 'petty whims' (previously done at minimal or whatever costs) could now have seriously BAD CONSEQUENCES: thus more thought about decisions and consequences before edicts. This 'limiting' of power, then caused greater vetting of kings/queens choices and responsibilities. Better decisions were then made, and generally accepted, and these then increased the power of "the central kingship." Sometimes everyone needs to realize, "we are all in this together. Lets create Win-win, instead of Win-Lose." Or as you earlier indicated 'better to keep the tenant happy and productive, than enjoy forcing myself on his daughter one night'. And so it goes, the unending search for the proper happy medium (that can never be perfectly found because it keeps shifting): 1. Split the pie more fairly into more even shares, or 2. Concentrate on making more pies. > and the fall of the 'overmighty subjects'. I just did not understand the above line. > Except the English were about 6,000 strong, about 5,000 archers + > 1,000 men at arms, the French were about 30,000... So the error in the 'spin' is implying more men would have helped. The reality was proper mix of arms, tactics, situation, and leadership was crucal. And I think we agree, having the common citizen on your side can be very helpful (especially when properly armed and trained). > "William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in > Snip & rearrange - hopefully not distorted > > The issue of 'citizen empowerment' and the longbow is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But, although this seems paradoxical, can it not logicly flow > as related? (more powerful archers & more powerful kings?) Because the bow is the new military superweapon, and it's not an 'aristocratic weapon'. Read Mallory, archers are lower class and not a threat to a man on a horse. The archers you read about in Mort d'Arthur are just low class churls hunting in aforest and they hurt a knight only by an extreme accident. Read history and they're slaughtering horsed men-at-arms all over Europe with an ease that seems almost casual. The king needs archers, and he needs them to practice with military class weapons every week or he knows he'll loose their edge. This is like having everyone in your town/village having a machine gun at home and a couple of belts of ammo and getting to practice every week because the king wants it. Oppressive overbearing local magnates who go around turning widows out of their houses and generally oppressing the populace wouldn't last long. The result is a local aristocracy who behaves themselves or gets loads of practice at dodging arrows. > > and the fall of the 'overmighty subjects'. > > I just did not understand the above line. France has an aristocracy that goes and makes itself independent every so often. The Burgundian dukes and the English kings being the best examples. The king of France can't control these autocrats and has to tempt them back to his court. In England, until the fall of the longbow and the rise of the cannon, any military power if essentially in the hands of the king (the obvious exception being the Percy family for obvious reasons) because military power is archers who want cash and not horsed and armoured men who want land. Kings can pay cash, lords can only offer land if they win 'sometime real soon now'. > > Except the English were about 6,000 strong, about 5,000 archers + > > 1,000 men at arms, the French were about 30,000... > > So the error in the 'spin' is implying more men would have > helped. The reality was proper mix of arms, tactics, situation, > and leadership was crucal. Not quite. The implication is that the French were too stupid to realise that ordinary people could beat aristocrats. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government >Read Mallory, archers are lower class and not a threat to a man on a horse. >The archers you read about in Mort d'Arthur are just low class churls >hunting in aforest and they hurt a knight only by an extreme accident. Which French lord was shot whilst on the privy without leaving a mark by a peasant using a bow from outside the castle? Lords certainly don't wear armour all the time. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL > > > > Longbows shot at 200 yards can hit a reasonably large target, the > > > > requirement for a 'King's Archer' was to be able to hit a shield laid on [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > up to Waterloo and the Crimean War. Cavalry charges only came back in when the > longbow was replaced by the musket - all down to rate of fire. Pikes worked quite well in Ireland until as late as 1798. The issue as you have pointed out is the rate of fire versus the pike being longer than the rifle. The ancient has the upper hand when the modern advantage is safely expended. > > > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > rifle. The ancient has the upper hand when the modern advantage is safely > expended. Pikes still work well against cavalry, even blunt, improvised ones - witness the miners' strike and poll tax riots. Had there been a little more discipline in the ranks, and a few archers, well.... I expect that the best thing a pikeman could hope for in the civil war was heavy rain (assuming he had good footwear) - must have played hell with muskets? Or did it (William?) - IIRC there was rain at Marston Moor...? Cheers Martin > I expect that the best thing a pikeman could hope for in the civil war was > heavy rain (assuming he had good footwear) - must have played hell with > muskets? Or did it (William?) - IIRC there was rain at Marston Moor...? It takes a reasonably large amount of water to stop a matchlock working. There's a lot of powder in the pan and it's a reasonably large piece of glowing rope being plunged into it. We use unglazed powder because it's cheaper and weather in the UK has never stopped a display, but it means your misfire rate can go as high as 50% (in really extreme conditions, a cloudburst or snow) from the normal 10%. Of course powder today, even unglazed, is much better than in the seventeenth century. Pikemen had higher social status than musketeers in the ECW, it was 'gentlemen of the pike, but the musketeers were 'mere mechanics', Essex at Edgehill took up a pike to 'die like a gentleman' when he thought his army was loosing, although he didn't, it was a draw... Oh, and pike seems to have been used exclusively as a defensive weapon to protect the musketeers against horsed troops, no record exists of any English Civil War pikeman killing another pikeman. Stuart Reid's 'Gunpowder Triumphant' is worth a read, because he shows that gunpowder wasn't triumphant when musket only armed troops met with pike and musket armed men, in the ECW anyway. It seems you really do need bayonets... SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > I expect that the best thing a pikeman could hope for in the civil war was > > heavy rain (assuming he had good footwear) - must have played hell with [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > musket armed men, in the ECW anyway. It seems you really do need > bayonets... Thanks for that William. A 50% misfire rate sounds 'alarming', but I suppose if both sides were affected.... After a misfire, I presume you merely reprime the pan, blow on the match and try again? What if the match was hit by rain though... use it as a club? I seem to remember seeing a picture somewhere of a musketeer with several burning matches in his hatband and another with them poking from his jacket (alarmingly close to the charges of powder dangling on strings from some sort of bandolier). Stupid observation here perhaps, but is the musketeers frequent choice of broad brimmed hat - of which I have seen steel versions - anything to do with providing 'shelter' from the rain whilst loading and (particularly) priming? Cheers Martin > Thanks for that William. A 50% misfire rate sounds 'alarming', but I suppose > if both sides were affected.... Exactly, and 50% is in extreme conditions > After a misfire, I presume you merely reprime the pan, blow on the match and > try again? Yes, clean it with a twist of the thumb, reprime and try again. > What if the match was hit by rain though... use it as a club? I > seem to remember seeing a picture somewhere of a musketeer with several > burning matches in his hatband and another with them poking from his jacket > (alarmingly close to the charges of powder dangling on strings from some sort > of bandolier). You light both ends of the match, and the drill means you have both ends between your fingers when loading. However in about 1650 at Dunkirk New Model Army musketeers attacked French Gendarms (aristicratic cavalry) with 'the butt ends of their muskets' and rolled over five regiments. But that was probably because the Gendarmes may have discounted the posibility of any lowly foot troops haveing the temerity to attack such wonderfully mounted and equipped people. Later in the same campaign the English offered to storm a town and the Dutch? commander said 'OK, go ahead, You'll all be killed but there aren't enough of you to matter anyway'. The English stormed forward, over the wall, and took the place. Mind you their habbit of lighting their pipes from alter candles in Catholic churches tended to upset the local clergy, but the New Model soldiers didn't understand, they just assumed the churches encouraged smoking... > Stupid observation here perhaps, but is the musketeers frequent choice of > broad brimmed hat - of which I have seen steel versions - anything to do with > providing 'shelter' from the rain whilst loading and (particularly) priming? Well the bandolier boxes have lids, and you carry spare match, but you only light the piece you're using. Firth in 'Cromwell's Army' goes on at some length about the amount of match used. Only one musketeer in a file of six is lit at any one time unless you think action is in the offing. In a battle the New Model Army burned tonnes of the stuff and was well known for looting a whole town full of bed cords to make the stuff. One of our displays at Living History events is a match cord maker. sions Loading the things in the rain can be done, and is easier if you have a 'cassok' which is a bit like a 'Three Musketeers' tabard but made of wool with a high collar and can be buttoned up as either a riding cloak or a jacket. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > Thanks for that William. A 50% misfire rate sounds 'alarming', but I > suppose [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > cord maker. > sions I used to make mine by soaking string in 'refined' sodium chlorate weedkiller. Quite effective and remarkably perdictable, if a little poisonous. > Loading the things in the rain can be done, and is easier if you have a > 'cassok' which is a bit like a 'Three Musketeers' tabard but made of wool > with a high collar and can be buttoned up as either a riding cloak or a > jacket. Thanks William - you do realise you are giving away military secrets to at least one dangerous maniac I hope? Never mind... Any good events coming up in the near future? I'm keen to attend a few re-enactments for dubious 'commercial' reasons, especially anything medieval... Cheers Martin > Any good events coming up in the near future? I'm keen to attend a few > re-enactments for dubious 'commercial' reasons, especially anything > medieval... I've not done any medieval re-enactment for a couple of years now due to a higher commitment to ECW because I'm part of the hierarchy now. Also, people doing medieval events are getting a bit sick of being used in videos without either a credit or payment. I'm sure you'd pay and give a credit Michael, however it happened to me at Middleham ten years ago and it still rankles. The performance of myself and the society doing the show was in a cheap educational video within a month and when we contacted the people who'd made it we got told to push off, they'd paid EH for their entry and any film they shot was theirs. It makes you understand why the NT charge several hundred pounds for a licence to take pics, still or video, at their sites. On the other hand, have you tried EH for their Special Events programme, and there's a Medieval re-enactment web ring out there somewhere. And I am prepared to bet there will be at least one big battle at both Bosworth and Tewkesbury this year. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > Any good events coming up in the near future? I'm keen to attend a few > > re-enactments for dubious 'commercial' reasons, especially anything > > medieval... > > I've not done any medieval re-enactment for a couple of years now due to a > higher commitment to ECW because I'm part of the hierarchy now. Congratulations! > Also, people doing medieval events are getting a bit sick of being used in > videos without either a credit or payment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it we got told to push off, they'd paid EH for their entry and any film > they shot was theirs. Whoa. I had always wondered how stuff like that worked, hadn't heard of it being like that. All the re-enactors, etc. that appear in US shows, movies, commercials, etc. There really should be some sort of agreement or contract. It isn't like it wouldn't be well spent, given the preservation of heritage and the common interest of producers and re-enactors. > It makes you understand why the NT charge several hundred pounds for a > licence to take pics, still or video, at their sites. Nod.... > On the other hand, have you tried EH for their Special Events programme, > and there's a Medieval re-enactment web ring out there somewhere. > > And I am prepared to bet there will be at least one big battle at both > Bosworth and Tewkesbury this year. It sounds nice, sort of like the US where we have our own re-enactors and societies. I was wondering where there might be any information on matchlock weaponry makers, and whether any ship to the US? I would guess that the cost of a good weapon is "up there" given the specialty market and the craftwork involved. > -- > William Black > ------------------ > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > is no basis for a system of government For some reason I have a vision of some black powder shooter with one of those little mini fan things mounted on the end of their barrel so they can see better with the smoke ;+) > > "Martin Reboul" <martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in > message > > news:c978vq$v0f$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... > Whoa. I had always wondered how stuff like that worked, hadn't heard of > it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wouldn't be well spent, given the preservation of heritage and the common > interest of producers and re-enactors. I was surprised when I heard that Ted Turner just paid expenses for the miniseries "Gettysburg," but also by the reaction of the cast and crew. There were interviews with some of the lead actors where they said they had an almost spiritual experience working with the reenactors -- that after seeing their involvement, they felt a moral obligation to throw themselves into the role, to _be_ the character. I remember the interview with Jeff Daniels, who played Chamberlain, and watching him play the part. Daniels, in the interview, said the role became something of a holy experience for him. > Whoa. I had always wondered how stuff like that worked, hadn't heard of it > being like that. All the re-enactors, etc. that appear in US shows, movies, > commercials, etc. As a general rule decent commercial companies pay cash money, the BBC give you coffee and food and pay your society. > It sounds nice, sort of like the US where we have our own re-enactors and > societies. I was wondering where there might be any information on matchlock > weaponry makers, and whether any ship to the US? I would guess that the cost > of a good weapon is "up there" given the specialty market and the craftwork > involved. There are a number of musket makers producing matchlock muskets. Because of the size of the market (several thousand) it is very competitive and you get what you pay for. Henry Krank in Leeds do a nice matchlock and are about the biggest black powder gun maker/shop in the North of England. There are any number of small gunsmiths making matchlocks for the UK re-enactment market, and you can get most of their details from a mag called 'Call to Arms' where most of them are listed. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > I expect that the best thing a pikeman could hope for in the civil war was > > heavy rain (assuming he had good footwear) - must have played hell with [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > is no basis for a system of government Muskets had the same social stigma as crossbows had in earlier times. When firearms came into greater popularity it was virtually impossible to meet anybody nice on the battlefield who was not riding a horse. > Muskets had the same social stigma as crossbows had in earlier times. When > firearms came into greater popularity it was virtually impossible to meet > anybody nice on the battlefield who was not riding a horse. Rubbish English Civil War/Thirty Years War generals often fought on foot, see an earlier reply I gave in this thread about the Earl of Essex taking up a pike 'to die like a gentleman'. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > > Muskets had the same social stigma as crossbows had in earlier times. When > > firearms came into greater popularity it was virtually impossible to meet [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > is no basis for a system of government I thought musketeers were at the bottom of the social hierarchy? Crossbowers were also a fairly lowly lot. The equestrian comment BTW was glib. Many military horsemen were the motorbike couriers of their day. > I thought musketeers were at the bottom of the social hierarchy? Crossbowers > were also a fairly lowly lot. The equestrian comment BTW was glib. Many > military horsemen were the motorbike couriers of their day. Well strictly speaking 'caliver men' were at the bottom, a caliver being a smaller version of a musket carried by men who couldn't carry a full sized 48" barrel musket. 'Dragoons' (in the early seventeenth century, mounted infantry on horses unfit for cavalry use) often came next, but their status went up after the ECW because they got used as cops during the Interregnum. Mainly because the could move reasonably quickly and be utilised without the attendant civilian deaths when anyone is stupid enough to use cavalry against the populace. After them come the true musketeers, who are considered 'mechanics' rather than gentlemen, and above them the pike men who were gentleman and considered 'honourable' because they had the courage to use and face edged weapons which musketeers didn't. All the status stuff seems to have been true in 1642 when the ECW started, and seems to have lapsed by 1660 when the restoration took place. SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government > I thought musketeers were at the bottom of the social hierarchy? Crossbowers > were also a fairly lowly lot. The equestrian comment BTW was glib. Many > military horsemen were the motorbike couriers of their day. Isn't that what the modern pentathlons emulates? A courier carrying a message across country on horseback while having to shoot it out with the bad guys, then fence with them, swim across a raging river, and run cross-country after being unhorsed, as I recall. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com > > I thought musketeers were at the bottom of the social hierarchy? > > Crossbowers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the bad guys, then fence with them, swim across a raging river, and > run cross-country after being unhorsed, as I recall. Wonder what the modernized modern pentathlon events should be? 1. Courier takes message from multinational force commander and has to translate it. 2. Courier takes new message to communications station, finds the new crypto keys haven't been issued, and forces his way into the vault, overpowering the defenders and getting around the self-destructs, so he can key the message. 3. Takes crypto keys and message to Windows based workstation. Event scored in time needed to recover from Blue Screen of Death, remove the latest worm, and send the message. 4. After the workstation crashes after the message is sent, gets on low-bandwidth digital secure voice and attempts to speak and hear clearly enough to get an acknowledgement. 5. Final timed event is to double acknowledge the message by finding it on a blog after confirming CNN thought Martha Stewart was more important. > > > I thought musketeers were at the bottom of the social hierarchy? > > > Crossbowers [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > it on a blog after confirming CNN thought Martha Stewart was more > important. Or: (1) Dodges question from Japanese journalist about Rumsfeld's favourite colour. (2) Responds to LA Times about trauma the guard dogs suffered at Abu Ghraib. (3) Deals with New York Post query why French mineral water is being provided in the press center. (4) Completely ducks one from the Guardian about a pile of bodies. (5) Leaves press conference without tripping up. (6) Goes to phone to arrange for two Arab journalists to be arrested. > [...] > Rubbish > [...] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords > is no basis for a system of government While we don't object too much about a civilized [measured by usenet standards, anyway] discussion cross posted to groups where it doesn't really belong, I think it is appropriate to warn you that this might eventually lead to a consultation of the Book of Armaments, or a Taunting. cMAD [posting from alt.books.tom-clancy] <- Fetchez la vache! > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > cMAD [posting from alt.books.tom-clancy] <- Fetchez la vache! I thought Tom was rather keen on crossbows? Martin Reboul martin@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk says... >>"cMAD" <cmad@freenet.de> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I thought Tom was rather keen on crossbows. On the model of a pistol duel, I suppose crossbow duel, begins with the crossbow loaded drawn and cocked, or do you have to load and wind it after the start? SignatureR. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wisanr@catskill.net - Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A. - Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax. "Martin Reboul" wrote in message Guys, there was no 'longbow' with firing tables. Each bow was individual and made to the strength, height, and skill of the bowman and intended use with the result that they differed widely in power and capacity. The bog finds in Denmark have unearthed no two bows the same *or* the same two arrows. Arrows too differed widely in weight, length, and type of head. Some had shafts up to half an inch in diameter which, when longer, made of a dense hardwood, and fired from a powerful bow, would have had tremendous short range penetration. 'Flight' arrows were lighter but could be shot further. There is no doubt that the longbow made the better weapon for war because of its capacity for rapid fire except for the training needed to use it. -the Troll > > The range is rather immaterial, as neither weapon can be fired with much > > accuracy at extreme range (the limitations of the human eye alone would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the terminal velocity is considerable. It's not armour piercing force, but > I imagine you could put a body of cavalry to considerable embarrassment. Yup. The target (in this instant (now)A cloth laid on the ground) is called a 'clout'. Most modern sports/competition range archery is 30-90m. Inner 5s get scarce at 90m :-) Longbows The bow - any bow - is basically a spring. The archer does work on this spring as he draws the bow, storing potential energy in the elastically deformed bowstave. When he releases the string, some of this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of the arrow, through the action of the tension in the bowstring accelerating the arrow, the arrow leaves the bow at high speed and wings its way towards its target. Its orientation is stabilised by three fletchings at the rear of the arrow. It was a powerful weapon, but it took great strength to pull and years of practice to master. The training adopted by the English was rigorous. All sports were banned on Sundays and men between 12 and 65 were expected to practice their archery. Every man with an income of over ￡2 a year was required to own a bow. The best longbows were made of yew. The staves were cut in winter when no sap was running, from the junction of the inner heartwood and the outer sapwood. The staves were seasoned and worked on gradually over a period of three to four years. with a drawing pull of 75-150lbs. The arrows were between 27-36in. long. A trained archer could shoot 8-12 arrows a minute, but some sources say that the most skilled archers could fire twice this number. The arrow could wound at 250 yards, kill at 100 yards and penetrate armour at 60 yards. Henry had approximately 5,000 archers at Agincourt, and a stock of about 400,000 arrows. Each archer could shoot about ten arrows a minute, so the army only had enough ammunition for about eight minutes of shooting at maximum fire power. However, this fire power would have been devastating. Fifty thousand arrows a minute - over 800 a second - would have hissed down on the French cavalry, killing hundreds of men a minute and wounding many more. >The best longbows were made of yew. The staves were cut in winter when no >sap was running, from the junction of the inner heartwood and the outer >sapwood. The staves were seasoned and worked on gradually over a period of >three to four years. I remember seeing an interview with a Japanese bow maker who entered the competitions the Japanese have of riding a horse at full pelt letting off arrows left and right at targets as they go. He used the wood that his father had laid down and he was laying down the wood for his son. > with a drawing pull of 75-150lbs. The arrows were between 27-36in. long. A >trained archer could shoot 8-12 arrows a minute, but some sources say that >the most skilled archers could fire twice this number. The arrow could wound >at 250 yards, kill at 100 yards and penetrate armour at 60 yards. When the armoured knights get to 60 yards, a change of doublet and hose is probably required. -- Julian Richards medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse with people that you would never want in your house. THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL > >The best longbows were made of yew. The staves were cut in winter when no > >sap was running, from the junction of the inner heartwood and the outer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wood that his father had laid down and he was laying down the wood for > his son. Really! My bows are boughstaves (from a 'Agincourt forest' planted by Henry V) cut in autumn and made into a bow the next spring. They'll shoot 250 yards and make decent sized holes in people at that range if I shoot sharps, and leave a nasty bruise if I shoot blunts. Yew selfbows don't last long, only a couple of seasons maximum. They need skilled people to make them, but not that much time. It's an ammunition quality weapon, not a collectors piece. And suddenly we're back at decadent oriental military arts nobody killed anyone with in over three hundred years... How many times do I have to say something like this: 'The Japanese made a religion out of making and demonstrating this stuff, but they didn't actually kill people with them, it's an artform and about as relevant to military archery as 'free pistol' is to duelling". SignatureWilliam Black ------------------ Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government >>>>> "William" == William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> writes: William> How many times do I have to say something like this: William> 'The Japanese made a religion out of making and William> demonstrating this stuff, but they didn't actually kill William> people with them, it's an artform and about as relevant William> to military archery as 'free pistol' is to duelling". Result maybe the same, but they didn't make a religion out of these things: if you did not perform your assigned role in life to the best ability (and after several hundred years there existed explicit ratings) and keep all the rituals perfectly, you were going to be a head shorter, along with your close family and possibly extended. Morality is equated with behaviour and actions in that part of the globe. SignatureG Hassenpflug RASC, Kyoto University [snip] > When the armoured knights get to 60 yards, a change of doublet and > hose is probably required. Whose? The knights? Well, sure because by that time they'd be bloody and torn. Seriously though, if given time archers took precautions against horsed opponents. The intended purpose of the stake mauls used to womp many of the French upside the head at Agincourt wasn't to bust heads you know. IBM |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.