Re: Longbow vs. armour

    You cannot be as stupid as you pretend. Therefore I can only assume it is
deliberate.

So you are now saying that documented usage within Roman times is
outside the charter that you've never read. Interesting. No, I put it
to you that since you're slagging off the Roman references that you
don't give a f.ck about the charter or indeed any research, that your
sole concern is continuing to attack those you dislike for no reason
beyond your dislike of them.

    Your idea of ancient times is NOT a subject for this newsgroup.

    If you wish to bring up some usage of either that is within the charter
limits you can do so without any hassle. In fact if you find a written mention
of either within the time frame described in the charter of this newsgroup you
will have done some interesting research. I am unaware of any.

No, that might be in the context of the thread, the post you replied
to was in the context of you claiming it was impossible for longbows
to have existed in ancient times. I've shown that they not only
existed but pre-existed whatever timeframe you're wanting to define as
ancient. How can it be impossible for long bows (4000 BC) to be used
against chainmail (500 BC) in ancient times? Curious minds want you to
answer your own challenge. Of course, you can't (and won't) - you're
much much too interested in being an arsehole.

    Yes.

There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately troll-free) on
the merits of longbows versus chainmail and platemail. I discovered
some interesting Youtube demonstrations on research done on this topic
that might be of interest.

Did I say in the above reference that it was in the context of
chainmail? No? Then I repeat that you are clearly incapable of
reading.

http://www.helium.com/items/1112513-history-of-chainmail

Chainmail was invented around 500 BC. Same region as the longbow,
curiously enough. So it's still ancient, even within your restrictive
definition (and you can bloody well use Google to look it up - get up
off your lazy arse and do something for a change, don't wait for us to
spoonfeed you information). So clearly I'm not lying, and since this
is stuff you already know (since the Romans acquired chainmail from
the Celts), it can only follow that you are attempting to slander me
because you know the data is sound and can't avoid it this time.
You've simply no possible escape, your pathetic need to attack has
caused you to overreach yourself and you know it.

    In the context of chain mail you are quite obviously lying.

Read the charter. Oops, forgot you can't read. (Otherwise, you'd have
seen the post where I note longbows are 6,000+ years old.)

Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T.

Find a native English speaker and ask them
what it means.

The Vikings had longbows and chainmail (and weren't the inventors of
either) by the 9th C AD, well within the remit of the group, so you're
obviously not referring to the discussion. You must be referring to
the presence of trolls, then. Glad to see you're finally admitting you
are one.

Impossible. At least in an ANCIENT history newsgroup.

There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately troll-free) on
the merits of longbows versus chainmail and platemail. I discovered
some interesting Youtube demonstrations on research done on this topic
that might be of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4gPgHyaG1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtTyOf8OCKg