Welsh archers
Mary M Anderson
I need information regarding the approximate (!) number of Welsh archers
at Agincourt. Can anyone help, please?
My thanks,
Mary A
I have read somewhere that the longbow was originally a Welsh weapon. Is
this true?
David Brewer
In article <6mh9c4$hr7$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>
mary.a...@virgin.net "Mary M Anderson" writes:
> I need information regarding the approximate (!) number of Welsh archers
> at Agincourt. Can anyone help, please?
No idea, personally, although I understand that enough written
evidence abounds for the English army that someone is bound to
have a non-approximate answer. It's numbering the French army that
causes great consternation...
> I have read somewhere that the longbow was originally a Welsh weapon. Is
> this true?
No.
[This is going to fun! A "longbow" thread! Watch this space...]
There is, essentially, no such thing as a "longbow" that differs
from whatever other non-crossbows were around in Western Europe.
There is no remarkable "longbow" technology that was new, or
Welsh.
It is the case that English kings used archers from Wales in wars
against Scotland and eventually made statutes requiring that the
better sorts of common Englishmen own and use bows. This was
abnormal in comparison with the rest of Europe where the better
sorts of footmen had taken to shooting with crossbows.
There are no "longbows", only bows. Some may be stiffer and more
powerful, some made of better wood, like (Mediterranean, not
British) yew. The term is basically post-medieval. I know of no
latin term used for "longbow".
There are no "longbowmen", only archers.
There are no "shortbows".
See, for elaboration, J. Bradbury's "Medieval Archer".
--
David Brewer
"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every dog
that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600
Jgissw
>From: da...@westmore.demon.co.uk (David Brewer)
>Date: Sat, 20 Jun 98 23:47:09 GMT
>It is the case that English kings used archers from Wales in wars
>against Scotland and eventually made statutes requiring that the
>better sorts of common Englishmen own and use bows.
Richard II used archers from Chester, simply because he trusted the area
better as being under his more direct control.
Regards
John GW
John Edgerton
David Brewer (da...@westmore.demon.co.uk) wrote:
Misc deleted
: [This is going to fun! A "longbow" thread! Watch this space...]
: There is, essentially, no such thing as a "longbow" that differs
: from whatever other non-crossbows were around in Western Europe.
: There is no remarkable "longbow" technology that was new, or
: Welsh.
: It is the case that English kings used archers from Wales in wars
: against Scotland and eventually made statutes requiring that the
: better sorts of common Englishmen own and use bows. This was
: abnormal in comparison with the rest of Europe where the better
: sorts of footmen had taken to shooting with crossbows.
: There are no "longbows", only bows. Some may be stiffer and more
: powerful, some made of better wood, like (Mediterranean, not
: British) yew. The term is basically post-medieval. I know of no
: latin term used for "longbow".
: There are no "longbowmen", only archers.
: There are no "shortbows".
: See, for elaboration, J. Bradbury's "Medieval Archer".
: --
: David Brewer
: "It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every dog
: that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600
I have had a runnng argument with a friend that holds that the medieval
hand bow was not able to pierce mail and the pading worn under it, at
least not to the extent that it could kill, until the 1400's when
heavier pull / more efficent bows were developed. He uses the
example of the Arab archers during the Cusades being unable to pierce the
mail and felt pading of the Cusaders as his proof for this.
I believe that the lack of penertration was due to the lighter weight of
the Arab reed arrows and that the heavier shafts shot by the European
bows would have had the enegery to pass through and either kill or cause a
major wound.
Can anyone suggest sources that can settle this argument?
Thank you for any help you can give.
John R. Edgerton
Newark, California
Wayne B. Hewitt
>On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:19:31 GMT, sir...@netcom.com
>John Edgerton wrote:
>>I have had a runnng argument with a friend that holds that the medieval
>>hand bow was not able to pierce mail and the pading worn under it, at
>>least not to the extent that it could kill, until the 1400's when
>>heavier pull / more efficent bows were developed. [ ... ]
>
>In article <358d97a4....@news.dot.net.au>, wil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Being at work, I cannot name sources, although from memory it was
>in "History of Crusades, Pt 2 by Stephen Runciman".
>
>He refers to William of Tyre (again from memory) recounting a story
>of crusader foot still happily marching along with 10 arrows stuck in
>their armour.
>
>However, the suggested reason for this is that the Muslim horse
>archers were so wary of the crusader crossbows, that they would
>shoot most of their arrows from maximum range; at such distances
>the arrows would not penetrate any armour very far.
[ ... ]
One must also consider the arrowhead. If one is hunting fowl, the
arrowhead is a wooden knob that stuns the bird on the rare hits; on the
more common misses, they are easier to retrieve (they don't get stuck up
in trees), they are less dangerous to your arrow recovering churl, and
they float, like some golf balls.
If one is hunting game, one should use a broadhead as a hit will insure
the greatest amount of bleeding, killing the King's deer (or the King)
more quickly. One type of modern arrowhead is the 'serpentine' point which
will core you like an apple.
If one is gigging Frogs, a bodkin point is best. Shaped like a
blacksmith's diamond point chisel (cf. Sears Tool Catalog) it has the best
combination of mass, slimness, and sharpness for penetrating cold steel.
The shape is seen today in high velocity fin stabilized discarding sabot
anti-tank ammunition.
--
________________________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a_____________________;^{>
Caution! Use MoJo Reply Power! M-T NewsWatcher 2.4.4 &
Remove the Evil Spirits from: 'Saving Face' Header Icon Maker
<whe...@badjuju.ucsd.edu> Courtesy of Simon Fraser:
Delete the badjuju. to reply. <http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr>
wil...@hotmail.com
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:19:31 GMT, sir...@netcom.com (John Edgerton)
wrote:
>
>David Brewer (da...@westmore.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>Misc deleted
>
>: [This is going to fun! A "longbow" thread! Watch this space...]
>
>: There is, essentially, no such thing as a "longbow" that differs
>: from whatever other non-crossbows were around in Western Europe.
>: There is no remarkable "longbow" technology that was new, or
>: Welsh.
>
>: It is the case that English kings used archers from Wales in wars
>: against Scotland and eventually made statutes requiring that the
>: better sorts of common Englishmen own and use bows. This was
>: abnormal in comparison with the rest of Europe where the better
>: sorts of footmen had taken to shooting with crossbows.
>
>: There are no "longbows", only bows. Some may be stiffer and more
>: powerful, some made of better wood, like (Mediterranean, not
>: British) yew. The term is basically post-medieval. I know of no
>: latin term used for "longbow".
>
>: There are no "longbowmen", only archers.
>
>: There are no "shortbows".
>
>: See, for elaboration, J. Bradbury's "Medieval Archer".
>
>: --
>: David Brewer
>
>: "It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every dog
>: that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600
>
>I have had a runnng argument with a friend that holds that the medieval
>hand bow was not able to pierce mail and the pading worn under it, at
>least not to the extent that it could kill, until the 1400's when
>heavier pull / more efficent bows were developed. He uses the
>example of the Arab archers during the Cusades being unable to pierce the
>mail and felt pading of the Cusaders as his proof for this.
>
>I believe that the lack of penertration was due to the lighter weight of
>the Arab reed arrows and that the heavier shafts shot by the European
>bows would have had the enegery to pass through and either kill or cause a
>major wound.
>
>Can anyone suggest sources that can settle this argument?
>
>Thank you for any help you can give.
>
>John R. Edgerton
>Newark, California
>
Being at work, I cannot name sources, although from memory it was
in "History of Crusades, Pt 2 by Stephen Runciman".
He refers to William of Tyre (again from memory) recounting a story
of crusader foot still happily marching along with 10 arrows stuck in
their armour.
However, the suggested reason for this is that the Muslim horse
archers were so wary of the crusader crossbows, that they would
shoot most of their arrows from maximum range; at such distances
the arrows would not penetrate any armour very far.
From close range, howver, the muslim arrows did a resonable
job of penertrating quilt & mail. They used horn & sinew bows
& crossbows, by most counts superior to the Frankish equivelant.
(King John of Englands crossbow maker was a bloke called "Peter the
Saracen)
As for longbows, I feel that a recognition of the place of massed
lower class bowmen, starting officially with Henry 2nds "Assize of
Arms" in 1181 led to the increase of skill, confidence & techniques
used by such units.(This contrasts with light, skirmish style bowmen
alsao used at the time)
The effectivness of the English bowmen at Crecy (15??) was
enhanced by the fact that the upper class French knights & also
the middle class men-at-arms/billmen did not wish to attack them,
there being no honour in killing peasants!!!
Serge
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:15:29 GMT, wil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>Being at work, I cannot name sources, although from memory it was
>in "History of Crusades, Pt 2 by Stephen Runciman".
>
>He refers to William of Tyre (again from memory) recounting a story
>of crusader foot still happily marching along with 10 arrows stuck in
>their armour.
>
>However, the suggested reason for this is that the Muslim horse
>archers were so wary of the crusader crossbows, that they would
>shoot most of their arrows from maximum range; at such distances
>the arrows would not penetrate any armour very far.
>
>From close range, howver, the muslim arrows did a resonable
>job of penertrating quilt & mail. They used horn & sinew bows
>& crossbows, by most counts superior to the Frankish equivelant.
>
>(King John of Englands crossbow maker was a bloke called "Peter the
>Saracen)
>
>As for longbows, I feel that a recognition of the place of massed
>lower class bowmen, starting officially with Henry 2nds "Assize of
>Arms" in 1181 led to the increase of skill, confidence & techniques
>used by such units.(This contrasts with light, skirmish style bowmen
>alsao used at the time)
I agree with your statement right up to this last paragraph, which I
think you need to clarify. It is generally accepted that the longbow
originated in Wales. Therefore, when you mention "increase of skill,
confidence & techniques", you obviously have in mind the English
units and not the Welsh ones.
Serge.
John Edgerton
wil...@hotmail.com wrote:
: Being at work, I cannot name sources, although from memory it was
: in "History of Crusades, Pt 2 by Stephen Runciman".
: He refers to William of Tyre (again from memory) recounting a story
: of crusader foot still happily marching along with 10 arrows stuck in
: their armour.
: However, the suggested reason for this is that the Muslim horse
: archers were so wary of the crusader crossbows, that they would
: shoot most of their arrows from maximum range; at such distances
: the arrows would not penetrate any armour very far.
: From close range, howver, the muslim arrows did a resonable
: job of penertrating quilt & mail. They used horn & sinew bows
: & crossbows, by most counts superior to the Frankish equivelant.
: (King John of Englands crossbow maker was a bloke called "Peter the
: Saracen)
: As for longbows, I feel that a recognition of the place of massed
: lower class bowmen, starting officially with Henry 2nds "Assize of
: Arms" in 1181 led to the increase of skill, confidence & techniques
: used by such units.(This contrasts with light, skirmish style bowmen
: alsao used at the time)
: The effectivness of the English bowmen at Crecy (15??) was
: enhanced by the fact that the upper class French knights & also
: the middle class men-at-arms/billmen did not wish to attack them,
: there being no honour in killing peasants!!!
Can anyone give any sources for damage, or lack thereof, of Western
European war arrows shot from "war" bows. Did the mail and padding that
was worn before plate armor was common stop the arrows in use at the time?
Thanks for any help you can give.
btoney
Mary .. im gatting my info from the Ospey Campaign book on Agincourt ..
these are the campaign forces that fought at Agincourt .. and these are
approx . numbers ..mounted archers ..4128 and foot archers ..3771 ..this
book list 3073 at the battle but does not specify mounted or foot , and as
to welsh archers .. by this time they are considered english archers ..
whales was " part of england " but yes this style of bow was used
prodominantly in whales first in western europe..
Paul J. Gans
Good grief. Here we go again.
Can we have at least two weeks to assemble the troops?
And will you pay for the loss of any horses?
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
John M. Atkinson
On 23 Jun 1998 20:10:10 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>Good grief. Here we go again.
>
>Can we have at least two weeks to assemble the troops?
>And will you pay for the loss of any horses?
And I don't care what anyone else says, after the first forty days, I
and my retinue will either get paid in good cash or go home!
John M. Atkinson
"When you send a man out with a gun, you create a policymaker.
When his ass is on the line, he will do whatever he needs to do.
"And if the implications of that bother you, the time to do
something about it is before you decide to send him out."
---David Drake,
nort...@pop.mpls.uswest.net
btoney wrote:
> Mary .. im gatting my info from the Ospey Campaign book on Agincourt ..
> these are the campaign forces that fought at Agincourt .. and these are
> approx . numbers ..mounted archers ..4128 and foot archers ..3771 ..this
> book list 3073 at the battle but does not specify mounted or foot , and as
> to welsh archers .. by this time they are considered english archers ..
> whales was " part of england " but yes this style of bow was used
> prodominantly in whales first in western europe..
=======
Too lazy to find the exact reference, but I do remember reading that at Crecy
the Welsh troops were exceptionally skilled at going into the field and
finishing off the wounded or dismounted with knives. Believe by then all of
England was under orders to pracice bownmanship weekly.
Chet
Rube Lloyd
btoney
According to the Osprey Campaign book on Agincourt .. there were approx .
4,128 mounted archers and 3,771 foot archers in the campaign but they list
only 3,073 archers total at the battle for the english , they do not specify
foot or mounted .. and as far a welsh archers .. at this time whales was
controlled by Engand and i believe they took over use of the bow throughout
england so the archers would be considered english .. though yes this bow
was originally used in whales as far as western europe is concerned ..
btoney
In the Ospey Campaign book for Agincourt it list Approx. 4,128 mounted
archers and 3,771 foot archers for the english for the campaign , but only
3,073 fought at Agincourt ,, does not specify foot or mounted .. and i
believe at this time they were English archers using a previously welsh
weapon .. the english used this weapon throughout the 100 years war ...
btoney
Mary .i hope this will help ..
Paul J. Gans
John M. Atkinson (jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com) wrote:
>On 23 Jun 1998 20:10:10 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>Good grief. Here we go again.
>>
>>Can we have at least two weeks to assemble the troops?
>>And will you pay for the loss of any horses?
>And I don't care what anyone else says, after the first forty days, I
>and my retinue will either get paid in good cash or go home!
John, you are on to something here. We should be
excessively feudal. 40 days for a thread and that's
it.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Curt Emanuel
Hey, if Agincourt pops up again, I'll pretend to be Hugo FitzHeyr.
Curt Emanuel
(For those who are wondering, Hugo's terms of service to Edward I
were to follow tht king to war with a bow and arrow. As soon as the
enemy showed up, he shot the arrow, turned around and went home)
Serge
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 12:12:01 -0400 (EDT), Rube...@webtv.net (Rube
Lloyd) wrote:
>The Welsh Longbow, was a Welsh invention! It was made of Yew, It was
>to be custom made as long as the archer using it was tall. Poundage
>ranged from
>70 to 100 pounds pull. The Welsh archer could penitrate a Knight's
>armour from 60 yards. The secrets of the longbow was given to the
>English, by a trecherous Lord Rhys. A Welsh Lord, despised til his
>death and beyond by all Welshmen!!
>
>This from a Welsh Archer: Ruberd M.Lloyd
Can you please provide your sources for the "70 to 100 pounds pull"?
Serge.
David Brewer
In article <23856-35...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Rube...@webtv.net "Rube Lloyd" writes:
> The Welsh Longbow, was a Welsh invention! It was made of Yew,
Nope.
Gerald of Wales, a Norman with a Welsh parent, specifically
remarks that Welsh bows were *not* made of Yew, which he knew to
be the best wood for bows.
Yew, clearly, was introduced by the Normans. This part of the
Longbow Myth should be laid to rest. The use of Yew for bows is
not a British invention.
> The secrets of the longbow was given to the
> English, by a trecherous Lord Rhys.
What secrets? What distinguished a Welsh bow from any other, and
what technology would not be obvious from picking the bow up and
observing it?
It's a bent stick... it has string.
John M. Atkinson
On 24 Jun 1998 20:12:03 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>John, you are on to something here. We should be
>excessively feudal. 40 days for a thread and that's
>it.
Sounds good to me. Unless of course someone starts paying the group
cash in order to maintain it for the rest of the summer.
Charlie Anderson
At the risk of arousing ire in posting to what has been an exhaustive
discussion in the past, could I suggest "The bowmen of England", by
Donald Featherstone. If it doesn't suffice, the book does contain an
extensive bibliography which may give you the answers you are looking
for.
Charlie Anderson, Vancouver.
Alex Milman
Curt Emanuel wrote:
> (For those who are wondering, Hugo's terms of service to Edward I
> were to follow tht king to war with a bow and arrow. As soon as the
> enemy showed up, he shot the arrow, turned around and went home)
Wow! There definitely had been smart people during MA.
And Edward used lousy lawers when this particular contract had been
drawn.
Liz Broadwell
: >John, you are on to something here. We should be
: >excessively feudal. 40 days for a thread and that's
: >it.
: Sounds good to me. Unless of course someone starts paying the group
: cash in order to maintain it for the rest of the summer.
Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
persons who shall remain nameless ... )
Peace,
Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "Betsy sends her Love to you, says she
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | designd to have kissed you before you went
English Department | away, but you made no advances, and she
Bennett Hall | never haveing been guilty of such an
University of Pennsylvania | action, knew not how to attempt it."
Philadelphia, PA | -- Abigail Smith to John Adams, 4/12/1764
Alex Milman
Liz Broadwell wrote:
> John M. Atkinson (jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com) wrote:
> : On 24 Jun 1998 20:12:03 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>
> : >John, you are on to something here. We should be
> : >excessively feudal. 40 days for a thread and that's
> : >it.
>
> : Sounds good to me. Unless of course someone starts paying the group
> : cash in order to maintain it for the rest of the summer.
>
> Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
> pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
> persons who shall remain nameless ... )
>
Should we limit our activities to a simple pillage or can we also kill at
leastsome of them?
> Peace,
Goes well with the rest of your post. But if we kill them, there will be
a peace afterwards :)
Jgissw
>From: da...@westmore.demon.co.uk (David Brewer)
>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 98 02:04:23 GMT
> The use of Yew for bows is
>not a British invention.
IIRC, the Iceman's bow was yew - he was rather a long way from Wales.
Regards
John GW
Liz Broadwell
Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
: Liz Broadwell wrote:
: > Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
: > pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
: > persons who shall remain nameless ... )
: Should we limit our activities to a simple pillage or can we also kill at
: leastsome of them?
You kill 'em, I'll strip the corpses of anything valuable, and we split
the take 50-50. Fair enough?
: > Peace,
: Goes well with the rest of your post. But if we kill them, there will be
: a peace afterwards :)
Hey, all I want is enough food and plunder to keep me going through this
stupid summer campaign. If the rest of soc.* doesn't resist, they won't
get themselves killed. :-)
Peace (and I do mean it, really),
Liz
Alex Milman
Liz Broadwell wrote:
> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
> : Liz Broadwell wrote:
> : > Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
> : > pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
> : > persons who shall remain nameless ... )
>
> : Should we limit our activities to a simple pillage or can we also kill at
> : leastsome of them?
>
> You kill 'em, I'll strip the corpses of anything valuable, and we split
> the take 50-50. Fair enough?
>
Who would I know that I did get 50%? And how would you know thatI did not steal
anything during the killing? Oh, well, I have a practical
proposal below.
> : > Peace,
>
> : Goes well with the rest of your post. But if we kill them, there will be
> : a peace afterwards :)
>
> Hey, all I want is enough food and plunder to keep me going through this
> stupid summer campaign.
I have a practical proposal. Rather than doing a dirty work ourself, let's
tell each of the quarelling parties that another got a greater piece of the
"historic inheritance". After they kill each other, we can plunder without
any problem.
> If the rest of soc.* doesn't resist, they won't
> get themselves killed. :-)
>
Why would we care about _that_ ?
John M. Atkinson
On 25 Jun 1998 13:33:39 GMT, ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Liz
Broadwell) wrote:
>Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
>pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
>persons who shall remain nameless ... )
Sounds good to me!
>Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
>knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
Remember, Rape first, THEN Burn!
Captain Wolf
John M. Atkinson wrote:<snip>
> Remember, Rape first, THEN Burn!
Hey John,
I thought that it was:
"First you pillage, then you rape, THEN you burn."
--
Captain Wolf
Bard
*******************************************************************
** St Vidicon of Cathode protect me from Murphy!! **
** ----------------------------------------------------------- **
** Bless you C. Stasheff for giving us St Vidicon of Cathode **
*******************************************************************
Alex Milman
John M. Atkinson wrote:
> On 25 Jun 1998 13:33:39 GMT, ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Liz
> Broadwell) wrote:
>
> >Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
> >pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
> >persons who shall remain nameless ... )
>
> Sounds good to me!
>
> >Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
> >knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
>
> Remember, Rape first, THEN Burn!
Yes, Sir! The only question remains where killing fits in this schema?1-st
rape, THEN kill or other way around? We don't want to have it
in a wrong order.
John M. Atkinson
>"First you pillage, then you rape, THEN you burn."
What's wrong with raping then pillaging?
John M. Atkinson
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:17:31 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>Yes, Sir! The only question remains where killing fits in this schema?1-st
>rape, THEN kill or other way around? We don't want to have it
>in a wrong order.
I've noticed it smells a lot worse if you kill then rape.
Liz Broadwell
Er, I'm becoming a little uncomfortable with all the rape jokes --
possibly hypocritically, since I did participate in this thread and
haven't found the pillaging/killing ones particularly disturbing. Time to
introspect again, I s'pose. :-)
ObMedievalMilitary (a subject about which I know very little): I assume
that a distinction is drawn between pillaging as a tactic and pillaging as
an extracurricular activity. I'm also assuming that the distinction
between the two could get blurred. Do we have anyone recorded worrying
about this, or any incidents that brought it up for discussion? How were
the boundaries policed?
Peace,
David C. Pugh
Liz Broadwell wrote in message <6mu7po$ij$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>Er, I'm becoming a little uncomfortable with all the rape jokes --
>possibly hypocritically, since I did participate in this thread and
>haven't found the pillaging/killing ones particularly disturbing. Time to
>introspect again, I s'pose. :-)
>
Well, the following isn't meant as a joke, Liz; but since we're on the
subject I would like people's opinions on this quote, from Fulcher of
Chartres:
"When their women were found in the tents, the Franks did nothing evil to
them except pierce their bellies with their lances."
I've always wondered whether this meant:
1. They killed them without raping them,or
2. They raped them without killing them.
Which are they supposed to be grateful for? I think No. 1, but I'm not sure.
>ObMedievalMilitary (a subject about which I know very little):
My God! I thought I was the only one! :-)
I assume
>that a distinction is drawn between pillaging as a tactic and pillaging as
>an extracurricular activity. I'm also assuming that the distinction
>between the two could get blurred. Do we have anyone recorded worrying
>about this, or any incidents that brought it up for discussion? How were
>the boundaries policed?
>
Couple of quotes:
Also from Fulcher:
"After this great massacre, they entered the homes of the citizens,
seeking whatever they found in them. It was done systematically, so that
whoever had entered the home first, whether he was rich or poor, was not
to be harmed by anyone else in any way. He was to have and to hold the
house or palace and whatever he had found in it entirely as his own.
Since they mutually agreed to maintain this rule, many poor men became
rich."
Villehardouin:
"The Count of St. Paul hung one of his knights, who had kept back certain
spoils, with his shield to his neck.
But those very men who were supposed to guard the booty stole it. Each of
the powerful men took gold objects, or silken cloth embroidered with gold
thread, or whatever else he wanted, and stole away with it. So it happened
that these men began to steal the treasure, and the booty was never shared
out among the common soliders and poor knights who had helped to capture
it. All they ever received was some of the plain silver, such as the
silver jugs which the women of the city used to carry to the baths."
It's out of period, but I remember reading how Gustav Adolf prevented his
men pillaging so that the calculated effect (Schrecklichkeit) would be the
greater when he finally turned them loose - as at Magdeburg.
David
Gareth
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> On 25 Jun 1998 13:33:39 GMT, ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Liz
> Broadwell) wrote:
>
> >Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
> >pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
> >persons who shall remain nameless ... )
>
> Sounds good to me!
>
Right then, where first ? Anybody for soc.history.ancient ? Or how about
a quick pillage in sci.archaeology.moderated ?
____ ____
{ }------------------------------------------------{ }
{ }Gareth Marklew, G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk { }
{ } { }
{ } http://www.dur.ac.uk/~d511kx/ { }
{____}------------------------------------------------{____}
Laura Blanchard
John M. Atkinson wrote:
>
> What's wrong with raping then pillaging?
>
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Rube Lloyd
John M. Atkinson
>> What's wrong with raping then pillaging?
>>
>All the valuable stuff gets taken by others and all you got is laid.
Good point! Pillage first, then rape, then kill, then burn. Are we
together now?
John M. Atkinson
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:09:00 +0100, Gareth <G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Right then, where first ? Anybody for soc.history.ancient ? Or how about
>a quick pillage in sci.archaeology.moderated ?
Umm. Is there anything but dusty potsherds in
sci.archaeology.moderated? I mean, when I pillage I want the good
stuff--you know, gold plates, silver crucifixes, anything with
jewelry.
Wayne B. Hewitt
In article <3592BC...@pobox.upenn.edu>, lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu wrote:
>John M. Atkinson wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong with raping then pillaging?
>>
>All the valuable stuff gets taken by others and all you got is laid.
>
>
>Regards,
>Laura Blanchard
>lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Just remember to burn LAST!
--
________________________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a_____________________;^{>
Caution! Use MoJo Reply Power! M-T NewsWatcher 2.4.4 &
Remove the Evil Spirits from: 'Saving Face' Header Icon Maker
<whe...@badjuju.ucsd.edu> Courtesy of Simon Fraser:
Delete the badjuju. to reply. <http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr>
Paul J. Gans
Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
>John M. Atkinson (jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com) wrote:
>: On 24 Jun 1998 20:12:03 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>: >John, you are on to something here. We should be
>: >excessively feudal. 40 days for a thread and that's
>: >it.
>: Sounds good to me. Unless of course someone starts paying the group
>: cash in order to maintain it for the rest of the summer.
>Hmm. If we don't get paid, can we wander Usenet's soc.* hierarchy
>pillaging other groups? (Hey, that might explain the behavior of certain
>persons who shall remain nameless ... )
Yup.
>Peace,
>Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
>knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
Uh, um, oh, harumph... Liz, I suspect that it is easier
to first plunder the gold and *then* burn the houses...
Paul J. Gans
Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
>Er, I'm becoming a little uncomfortable with all the rape jokes --
>possibly hypocritically, since I did participate in this thread and
>haven't found the pillaging/killing ones particularly disturbing. Time to
>introspect again, I s'pose. :-)
>ObMedievalMilitary (a subject about which I know very little): I assume
>that a distinction is drawn between pillaging as a tactic and pillaging as
>an extracurricular activity. I'm also assuming that the distinction
>between the two could get blurred. Do we have anyone recorded worrying
>about this, or any incidents that brought it up for discussion? How were
>the boundaries policed?
Yes. There was a problem. Pillaging was often used in
the countryside to impoverish someone else's territory.
I'm sure that other things went on as well, but nobody
seems to have cared much.
On the other hand, when marching through one's own
lands (or, as the English did during the Hundred Years
War, lands one claimed) one took special pains to
make sure that *your* peasants were not harmed.
In towns the situation was very difficult. If there was
a siege, troops, who had often risked their lives in
very difficult situations, *expected* to be allowed
to rampage. I recall one town in France captured by
the English that was claimed by the English, the troops
were limited to one day of rampage.
On the other hand, in towns that did not resist or which
gave only nominal resistance, the troops were often
restrained.
However, there are many stories of inability to restrain
troops. Excess was not uncommon, but was worried about.
Pillage in a town that offered no resistance would often
encourage other towns to resist as their fate would be
no worse.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul J. Gans
David C. Pugh (davi...@online.no) wrote:
>Liz Broadwell wrote in message <6mu7po$ij$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>>Er, I'm becoming a little uncomfortable with all the rape jokes --
>>possibly hypocritically, since I did participate in this thread and
>>haven't found the pillaging/killing ones particularly disturbing. Time to
>>introspect again, I s'pose. :-)
>>
>Well, the following isn't meant as a joke, Liz; but since we're on the
>subject I would like people's opinions on this quote, from Fulcher of
>Chartres:
>"When their women were found in the tents, the Franks did nothing evil to
>them except pierce their bellies with their lances."
>I've always wondered whether this meant:
>1. They killed them without raping them,or
>2. They raped them without killing them.
>Which are they supposed to be grateful for? I think No. 1, but I'm not sure.
I suspect it could be read either way. Wiser head than
mine will know, as "pierce their bellies with their lances"
could easily be a euphemism.
However, my *guess* would be that the women were simply
killed, as dying was not seen as evil.
Curt Emanuel
According to Prestwich, FitzHeyr volunteered.
Sign me up.
Curt Emanuel
Stephen Trenholme
David Brewer wrote in message <898386...@westmore.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <6mh9c4$hr7$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>
> mary.a...@virgin.net "Mary M Anderson" writes:
>
>> I need information regarding the approximate (!) number of Welsh
archers
>> at Agincourt. Can anyone help, please?
>
>No idea, personally, although I understand that enough written
>evidence abounds for the English army that someone is bound to
>have a non-approximate answer. It's numbering the French army that
>causes great consternation...
>
>> I have read somewhere that the longbow was originally a Welsh weapon. Is
>> this true?
>
>No.
As far as I know yes it was.
>[This is going to fun! A "longbow" thread! Watch this space...]
>
>There is, essentially, no such thing as a "longbow" that differs
>from whatever other non-crossbows were around in Western Europe.
>There is no remarkable "longbow" technology that was new, or
>Welsh.
Sorry I can't remmember where I read it. But originaly the war bow was just
a standard hunting bow. When the Welsh Longbow was intoduced archers found
that the greater length allowed for an easyer draw at higher poundage.
<snip>
>There are no "shortbows".
Just hunting bows
>David Brewer
>
>"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every dog
>that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600
Use a Daneaxe instead!
Stephen Trenholme
AKA. Stefan
Dahrg de Belne
Northants, U.K.
Jan Halek
In article <3591BB...@accs.net>, Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net>
writes
>Hey, if Agincourt pops up again, I'll pretend to be Hugo FitzHeyr.
>
>(For those who are wondering, Hugo's terms of service to Edward I
>were to follow tht king to war with a bow and arrow. As soon as the
>enemy showed up, he shot the arrow, turned around and went home)
Sounds like my kind of guy.
--
Jan Halek
SkunkDML
>"When their women were found in the tents, the Franks did nothing evil to
>them except pierce their bellies with their lances."
>
>I've always wondered whether this meant:
>1. They killed them without raping them,or
Considering the St. Augestine wrote in the CITY OF GOD, that the women in Rome
who were raped and lived would have been better off if they had been killed, in
the eyes of God, I am assuming that the answer is number 1.
DEBORAH LEDGERWOOD, KNOXVILLE, TN
SKUN...@AOL.COM
Liz Broadwell
Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
: Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
: >Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
: >knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
: Uh, um, oh, harumph... Liz, I suspect that it is easier
: to first plunder the gold and *then* burn the houses...
Hey, don't blame me -- that's Gary Larson's version, IIRC. :-)
Alex Milman
David C. Pugh wrote:
> Couple of quotes:
>
> Also from Fulcher:
> "After this great massacre, they entered the homes of the citizens,
> seeking whatever they found in them. It was done systematically, so that
> whoever had entered the home first, whether he was rich or poor, was not
> to be harmed by anyone else in any way. He was to have and to hold the
> house or palace and whatever he had found in it entirely as his own.
> Since they mutually agreed to maintain this rule, many poor men became
> rich."
>
> Villehardouin:
> "The Count of St. Paul hung one of his knights, who had kept back certain
> spoils, with his shield to his neck.
> But those very men who were supposed to guard the booty stole it. Each of
> the powerful men took gold objects, or silken cloth embroidered with gold
> thread, or whatever else he wanted, and stole away with it. So it happened
> that these men began to steal the treasure, and the booty was never shared
> out among the common soliders and poor knights who had helped to capture
> it. All they ever received was some of the plain silver, such as the
> silver jugs which the women of the city used to carry to the baths."
>
Which means that an average pirat crew had higher moral standards (or simply
abetter organization) than crusaders. They had a chapter which explicitly
defined
principles on which spoils will be divided. And I suspect that it would be
extremely unhealthy for a captain to cheat on his crew.
Besides the situation described in your quote, the "powerful people", including,
IIRC,
author himself, got nice palaces in an near Constantinople, lands, etc. Common
soldiers
and simple knights got nothing.
What surprises me is an absense of a long-term planning mentality on the top.
The
only thing they had been interested in was an immediate personal loot. I suspect
that
quite a few soldiers left because they had been dissapointed. IIRC, Latin Empire
very soon found itself with a lot of the high-titled rulers (like Duke of
Athens, Duke of
Epir, etc.) but with a very few soldiers: initial "crusaders" did not settle
here and
there were no loyal resources.
> It's out of period, but I remember reading how Gustav Adolf prevented his
> men pillaging so that the calculated effect (Schrecklichkeit) would be the
> greater when he finally turned them loose - as at Magdeburg.
>
Gustav understood that, besides religious, there also are more mundane
reasonsfor soldier to fight. But he was a great general, not an armed and titled
hooligan.
Jgissw
>From: Alex Milman <am...@gte.com>
>Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 07:41:12 -0400
>Which means that an average pirat crew had higher moral standards (or simply
>abetter organization) than crusaders. They had a chapter which explicitly
>defined
>principles on which spoils will be divided.
As did David. Also, either under Joshua or Moses, someone who held out
spoils got the chop. I'm too lazy to look in my concordance, since it's off
topic anyhow.
I've been trying to remember the details of this English commander who
raided a nunnery, and took the nuns and resident gentlewomen as lemans for his
fleet. When he got caught in a storm, tossed them overboard. When he was
shipwrecked and drowned anyhow, it was widely believed that God had got him for
this. Can anyone give a reference on that?
Regards
John GW
Mary M Anderson
My thanks to everyone who helped with information re Welsh archers at
Agincourt. I learned a lot!
I am told that archers from Llantrisant were honoured for their prowess
(either at Agincourt or Crecy ) and that to this day an annual dinner is
held attended by anyone residing in the area who can use a bow.
Being Welsh I am well aware that we use any excuse for a rave-up!
Diolch yn fawr,
Mary
Stephen Trenholme
Mary M Anderson wrote in message
<6n0tt9$rbs$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>My thanks to everyone who helped with information re Welsh archers at
>Agincourt. I learned a lot!
What is that it? The end of the thread and no mention of nockers or piles
and not even a cock (feather that is) in sight. :-)
>I am told that archers from Llantrisant were honoured for their prowess
>(either at Agincourt or Crecy ) and that to this day an annual dinner is
>held attended by anyone residing in the area who can use a bow.
>
> Being Welsh I am well aware that we use any excuse for a rave-up!
The singing can't be so bad you need bowmen to stop them. Can it?
<GRIN>
> Diolch yn fawr,
> Mary
Stephen Trenholme
Northants, U.K
Abercjohn
In article <9jqDhDAr...@beldame.demon.co.uk>, Jan Halek
<j...@beldame.demon.co.uk> writes:
>ubject: Welsh archers
>From: Jan Halek <j...@beldame.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 18:32:27 +0100
Why couldn't they all be like that?
Regards
abercjohn
John G Harrison
Joseph Askew
Wayne B. Hewitt (whe...@ucsd.edu) wrote:
: >> What's wrong with raping then pillaging?
: >All the valuable stuff gets taken by others and all you got is laid.
: Just remember to burn LAST!
Hey, you play your games and I'll play mine. OK?
Besides everyone knows you have to burn first. Then all the
peasants grab whatever it valuable whereapon you kill them
and take it. Unless they are pretty in which case they are
likely to be disoriented and have no one to defend them as
their menfolk will have taken to the hills with the good silver.
Geez it is just so hard to organise a decent pillage these days.
Young 'uns, they just don't know a thing.
Joseph
--
DCGuerra
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Welsh archers
>From: "Stephen Trenholme" <ste...@geofft.globalnet.co.uk>
>Date: Thu, Jun 25, 1998 16:14 EDT
>Message-id: <6mve29$ng6$1...@heliodor.xara.net>
>
>
>David Brewer wrote in message <898386...@westmore.demon.co.uk>...
>>In article <6mh9c4$hr7$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>
>> mary.a...@virgin.net "Mary M Anderson" writes:
>>
>>
>>> I have read somewhere that the longbow was originally a Welsh weapon. Is
>>> this true?
>>
>>No.
>
>
>As far as I know yes it was.
>
Also using an Osprey source_The Scottish and Welsh Wars, 1250-1400_, I find:
page 23: "Throughout the second half of the 13th century the longbow became an
increasingly significant weapon, its true value being discovered by the English
during the protracted wars fought against the Welsh."
>As far as I know yes it was.
>
>>[This is going to fun! A "longbow" thread! Watch this space...]
>>
>>There is, essentially, no such thing as a "longbow" that differs
>>from whatever other non-crossbows were around in Western Europe.
>>There is no remarkable "longbow" technology that was new, or
>>Welsh.
>
>
>
>Sorry I can't remmember where I read it. But originaly the war bow was just
>a standard hunting bow. When the Welsh Longbow was intoduced archers found
>that the greater length allowed for an easyer draw at higher poundage.
>
Osprey goes on to state: "After 1280 Edward I always used large bodies of
archers in his army, trained to fire volleys of arrows en masse: before this
the longbow had generally been used as a weapon of ambush and skirmish.
Continental crossbowmen were often emplyed in English armies until about the
reign of Edward III. The early crossbow could be spanned by hand, but as the
bowstave developed greater strength it required the crosbowman to span it by
attaching the string to a hood on the front of his belt. To hold the bow in
position while it was being spanned, the crossbowman place his foot in a metal
stirrup mounted on the front end of the stock, and pulled back the string by
straightening his body."
>>There are no "shortbows".
>
>
>Just hunting bow
As Osprey stated in the previous paragraph: "The common infantry used pole
weapons. Spears of various lengths were widely used thorughout the period.
More rudimentary weapons were based on agricultural implements such as
hayforks, flails and hedging bills."
And further: "By the mid-14th century the English army had firmly adopted the
longbow, and the pracitce of combining archers and dismounted men-at-arms in
the tactical plan."
********************************
(BTW the longbow business was central in my play about Edward I and the
Countess of Buchan. I think I'll go and post the review.)
Donata Guerra
playwright/screenwriter
Edward I: "Lady, there is coming a day when chain mail -- so unbecoming on
your female form -- will become chains."
Countess of Buchan(provacatively): So much more "becoming" for your sight
then, monarch.
(Stage direction: Edward, discomforted, exits.)
--- "Caged" copyright Donata Guerra
Donata Guerra
Stephen Trenholme
DCGuerra wrote in message
<199806280345...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Welsh archers
>>From: "Stephen Trenholme" <ste...@geofft.globalnet.co.uk>
>>Date: Thu, Jun 25, 1998 16:14 EDT
>>Message-id: <6mve29$ng6$1...@heliodor.xara.net>
>>
>>
>>David Brewer wrote in message <898386...@westmore.demon.co.uk>...
>>>In article <6mh9c4$hr7$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>
>>> mary.a...@virgin.net "Mary M Anderson" writes:
>>>
<snip>
>
>Osprey goes on to state: "After 1280 Edward I always used large bodies of
>archers in his army, trained to fire volleys of arrows en masse: before
this
>the longbow had generally been used as a weapon of ambush and skirmish.
Yes but before the longbow was adopted as the main military bow smaller
shorter hunting bows would have been the main weapon for archers with bone,
hide and/or sinew as a backing to increase the poundage, give a flatter
flight on release and reduce the risk of the wood splitting.
For longbows if Yew or Ash was used no backing was required if heart and sap
wood was used. But most other woods required a backing of some form
normally another wood. Being made totaly of wood they could be made 'on the
march' from any trees near the encampment.
<snip>
Stephen Trenholme
Northants, U.K
member of Dahrg de Belne and Wicken Archery Club
Marcabru
Serge wrote in message <6mke58$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:15:29 GMT, wil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Being at work, I cannot name sources, although from memory it was
>>in "History of Crusades, Pt 2 by Stephen Runciman".
>>
>>He refers to William of Tyre (again from memory) recounting a story
>>of crusader foot still happily marching along with 10 arrows stuck in
>>their armour.
>>
>>However, the suggested reason for this is that the Muslim horse
>>archers were so wary of the crusader crossbows, that they would
>>shoot most of their arrows from maximum range; at such distances
>>the arrows would not penetrate any armour very far.
I think there is a very strong argument for maintaining that the reason the
Turks kept their distance was because their tactics depended on keeping all
their options flexible, right down to the wire. They rarely closed with the
Franks until late in the assault. See Smail.
>>From close range, howver, the muslim arrows did a resonable
>>job of penertrating quilt & mail. They used horn & sinew bows
>>& crossbows, by most counts superior to the Frankish equivelant.
The famous composite refurve bow . A great talk was given by Chuck Bowlus
(Arkansas) on this at the Clermont conference (nonocentenary of Urban's call
to Crusade), and can be found at C Bowlus, `Tactical and strategic
weaknesses of horse archers on the eve of the first crusade', Autour de la
première croisade, publications de la Sorbonne, 1996, pp. 159-167.
Yours
Marcabru
David Brewer
In article <6n55k0$2r0$1...@heliodor.xara.net>
ste...@geofft.globalnet.co.uk "Stephen Trenholme" writes:
> Yes but before the longbow was adopted as the main military bow smaller
> shorter hunting bows would have been the main weapon for archers with bone,
> hide and/or sinew as a backing to increase the poundage, give a flatter
> flight on release and reduce the risk of the wood splitting.
That's an interesting statement. From where did you learn this? I
would like to investigate.
--
Paul J. Gans
Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
>Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
>: Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: >Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
>: >knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
>: Uh, um, oh, harumph... Liz, I suspect that it is easier
>: to first plunder the gold and *then* burn the houses...
>Hey, don't blame me -- that's Gary Larson's version, IIRC. :-)
I stand corrected by a superior source.
Michael L. Siemon
In article <6n6uql$9...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
+Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
+>Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
+>: Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
+>: >Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
+>: >knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
+
+>: Uh, um, oh, harumph... Liz, I suspect that it is easier
+>: to first plunder the gold and *then* burn the houses...
+
+>Hey, don't blame me -- that's Gary Larson's version, IIRC. :-)
+
+I stand corrected by a superior source.
Way back when [i.e., when I was associated with the SCA in the SF Bay
Area)] a subgroup of neo-Vikings I hung out with betimes started each
day of a tourney with a group rally in which they exorted themselves
(and reminded themselves) "*first* you pillage, *then* you burn!"
Pyromania (as most who have been small boys can tell you) runs very deep!
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"Green is the night, green kindled and apparelled.
It is she that walks among astronomers."
-- Wallace Stevens
Paul J. Gans
David Brewer (da...@westmore.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>In article <6n55k0$2r0$1...@heliodor.xara.net>
> ste...@geofft.globalnet.co.uk "Stephen Trenholme" writes:
>> Yes but before the longbow was adopted as the main military bow smaller
>> shorter hunting bows would have been the main weapon for archers with bone,
>> hide and/or sinew as a backing to increase the poundage, give a flatter
>> flight on release and reduce the risk of the wood splitting.
>That's an interesting statement. From where did you learn this? I
>would like to investigate.
If I recall correctly, Bradbury, in _The Medieval Archer_ says
that composite bows were not used in western Europe during
the high Middle Ages. Further, Bradbury makes the point, often
made here, that there is no real difference between a "longbow"
and a "bow". They are made in the same way out of the same
materials. Bows seem always to have varied in length to suit
the size and needs of the archer. According to Bradbury (I'm
citing from memory and may not be totally accurate) a given
group of archers would have bows varying in size from what we'd
call "long" to what we'd call "ordinary".
-------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
wil...@hotmail.com
>
>DCGuerra wrote in message
><199806280345...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Welsh archers
>>>From: "Stephen Trenholme" <ste...@geofft.globalnet.co.uk>
>>>Date: Thu, Jun 25, 1998 16:14 EDT
>>>Message-id: <6mve29$ng6$1...@heliodor.xara.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>David Brewer wrote in message <898386...@westmore.demon.co.uk>...
>>>>In article <6mh9c4$hr7$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>
>>>> mary.a...@virgin.net "Mary M Anderson" writes:
>>>>
><snip>
>>
>>Osprey goes on to state: "After 1280 Edward I always used large bodies of
>>archers in his army, trained to fire volleys of arrows en masse: before
>this
>>the longbow had generally been used as a weapon of ambush and skirmish.
>
>Yes but before the longbow was adopted as the main military bow smaller
>shorter hunting bows would have been the main weapon for archers with bone,
>hide and/or sinew as a backing to increase the poundage, give a flatter
>flight on release and reduce the risk of the wood splitting.
>
>For longbows if Yew or Ash was used no backing was required if heart and sap
>wood was used. But most other woods required a backing of some form
>normally another wood. Being made totaly of wood they could be made 'on the
>march' from any trees near the encampment.
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>Stephen Trenholme
>Northants, U.K
>
>member of Dahrg de Belne and Wicken Archery Club
>
>
>
Composite bows made in Europe, before fine tuning of Yew bow
into whats known as a "longbow"?
As far as I was aware, the techniques for making composite bows
did not reach Europe until crusaders came back from the Holy Land,
they having encounterd a few Turkish/Arab archers over there.
(eg) King John of England (Richards Lionhearts nasty little brother)
who reigned briefly in 1190's, & then again after Richard died, had
a crossbow(composite) maker called Peter the Saracen.
Alex Milman
Joseph Askew wrote:
Your scenario is basically good but there is one flaw in it.As existing
experience demonstrated, those peasants are sly enough
to hide most of their valuables _before_ you came to their village
with your program of a wealth redistribution (you'll still have most
of the animals unless they had time to hide them in the neareast
forest). IMHO, your scenario would do just fine for Mongols
(fast marches did not give locals time enough to hide things) but
not for the slower european armies.
I'd say that program described in "Simplicissimus", was more productive
(for Europe) than yours. Soldiers take village. Some of them start
torturing
men while other are raping the women (probably they are divided
in shifts so that everybody gets his share of fan). When males
told everything about the hiding places (book describes some
effective and unexpensive methods of persuasion which can be applied
even by a relative amateur and don't use any extra equipment) and
all women in age group between 7 and 70 are raped, soldiers have
an option to kill the population and burn the village (if they are in a
playful mood) or, if their leaders capable of a long term planning,
leave the village so that it can be robbed again later (scenario played
in "Seven Samurais").
>
Alex Milman
Michael L. Siemon wrote:
> In article <6n6uql$9...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>
> +Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
> +>Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
> +>: Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
> +>: >Liz "'Okay: kill the townsfolk, burn the houses, plunder the gold. You
> +>: >knuckleheads think you can handle all that?'" B.
> +
> +>: Uh, um, oh, harumph... Liz, I suspect that it is easier
> +>: to first plunder the gold and *then* burn the houses...
> +
> +>Hey, don't blame me -- that's Gary Larson's version, IIRC. :-)
> +
> +I stand corrected by a superior source.
>
> Way back when [i.e., when I was associated with the SCA in the SF Bay
> Area)] a subgroup of neo-Vikings I hung out with betimes started each
> day of a tourney with a group rally in which they exorted themselves
> (and reminded themselves) "*first* you pillage, *then* you burn!"
>
> Pyromania (as most who have been small boys can tell you) runs very deep!
Not only pyromania. I suspect that there was a deeper and more noble reason
for burning afterwards. Think carefully about scenario. They came, killed locals,
looted, raped (sequence is not important yet). When these activities are over,
you have quite a few dead bodies. Let's assume that you already burned the
village.
You have the following options:
1. Leave corpses where they are. This is a simplest solution but not a smart one
if you are intended to stay in the area: corpses will rot, there will be stench
and
a potential of an epidemics.
2. Dig the graves (you should do this because all natives are either dead or
hiding). A lot of physical work after you are already exhausted by all previous
activities. It's cruel not to give soldiers any rest.
3. Burn the corpses. But if you already burned the village, you are forced to
ride to a neareast forest, cut the trees, use your (or captured horses) to carry
the wood
to the place, collect the corpses, make a fire (again!!!)
OTOH, if you did not burn a village yet, simply do it now. No extra work and
you addressed the sanitation issues.
Stephen Trenholme
wil...@hotmail.com wrote in message
>Composite bows made in Europe, before fine tuning of Yew bow
>into whats known as a "longbow"?
>
>As far as I was aware, the techniques for making composite bows
>did not reach Europe until crusaders came back from the Holy Land,
>they having encounterd a few Turkish/Arab archers over there.
>
Look up about the bows found in Birka they are short, composite bows of horn
and sinew.
Also the works of Giraldus states
‘the bows these Welshmen use are not made of horn, or ivory, or yew but of
wild elm, and not beautifully formed or polished, quite the opposite; they
are rough and lumpy, but stout and strong nonetheless, not only able to
shoot an arrow a long way, but also to inflict very severe wounds.’
This tells us much about the bows in use by the mid twelfth century, and
probably those in use in the eleventh. The reference to horn and ivory show
that composite bows were known.
Stephen Trenholme
Northants, U.K
Paul J. Gans
Stephen Trenholme (ste...@geofft.globalnet.co.uk) wrote:
>wil...@hotmail.com wrote in message
>Stephen Trenholme
>Northants, U.K
The interpretation of evidence is very difficult. I quote
Bradbury (Jim Bradbury, _The Medieval Archer_, Boydell and
Brewer, 1985), page 12:
"The only evidence for [composite bows] in the west comes
from manuscript illustrations. They required great skill
in manufacture and in use. The likelihood is that they
were very rare in the west. They were common in the east,
and the crusaders encountered them in the hands of their
Saracen foes, who were noted horse archers. Nevertheless,
[composite bows] certainly do appear in western manuscripts,
easily detected by their distinctive curly shape. They are
to be seen, for example, on a series of Frankish manuscripts.
Perhaps the explanation is not that [composite bows] were
normal in the west at the time, but that the manuscripts
illustrations were based on Byzantine or eastern originals,
for even dated manscripts must not be taken as literal
evidence of the form of arms and armour."
He then goes on to note that it is clear that the composite
bow was known in Spain.
Bradbury makes another very important point. In the east
the archer, especially the horse archer wielding a composite
bow, was a member of the upper echelons of warriors. In
the west however, the archer was a member of the lowest caste
of warriors. He was typically a peasant or, at any rate,
low born. Archers in the east would have been able to afford
a composite bow. Those in the west would not.
As for the reference to Gerald of Wales, it is very likely
that *he* knew of composite bows. That doesn't imply that
they were in wide use. The knowledge of composite bows
would have become common in western European military
circles with the return of the first crusaders.
Serge
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:26:29 GMT, wil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Composite bows made in Europe, before fine tuning of Yew bow
>into whats known as a "longbow"?
>
>As far as I was aware, the techniques for making composite bows
>did not reach Europe until crusaders came back from the Holy Land,
>they having encounterd a few Turkish/Arab archers over there.
Correct. Although, one can look at the yew longbow as the nature's
composite bow - sapwood over heartwood (50-50).
>(eg) King John of England (Richards Lionhearts nasty little brother)
>who reigned briefly in 1190's, & then again after Richard died, had
>a crossbow(composite) maker called Peter the Saracen.
This is not entirely on the subject, but why would you call King John
nasty? Inept and short-sighted, stupid even, but nasty?
Serge.
Joseph Askew
Jgissw (jgi...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Which means that an average pirat crew had higher moral standards (or simply
: >abetter organization) than crusaders. They had a chapter which explicitly
: >defined
: >principles on which spoils will be divided.
: As did David. Also, either under Joshua or Moses, someone who held out
: spoils got the chop. I'm too lazy to look in my concordance, since it's off
: topic anyhow.
As did Genghis Khan. Who seriously punished people who stepped ot
of line and took to looting earlier. Harder for a Mongol of course
because most of the loot is highly mobile and if you don't grab
that sheep soon it'll be gone.
Joseph
--
"Snowgum thermals are made from Polypropylene, a fabric consisting
exclusively of carbon and hydrogen -- elements found naturally"
-- An Advert run in _Wild_
Ib Therkelsen
Mary M Anderson wrote:
>
> I need information regarding the approximate (!) number of Welsh archers
> at Agincourt. Can anyone help, please?
>
> Mary A
>
> I have read somewhere that the longbow was originally a Welsh weapon. Is
> this true?
Check out these sites:
http://grognard.com/reviews/agincour.txt
http://www.isp.pitt.edu/~young/longbow/story.html
Kind regards
Ib Therkelsen
Mail: i...@nmr.ku.dk
Web: http://nmr.imbg.ku.dk/~ib
eril...@trashspamwin.bright.net
Du meine Gute! Someone else who has read it!
> I'd say that program described in "Simplicissimus", was more productive
> (for Europe) than yours. Soldiers take village. Some of them start
> torturing
> men while other are raping the women (probably they are divided
> in shifts so that everybody gets his share of fan). When males
> told everything about the hiding places (book describes some
> effective and unexpensive methods of persuasion which can be applied
> even by a relative amateur and don't use any extra equipment) and
> all women in age group between 7 and 70 are raped, soldiers have
> an option to kill the population and burn the village (if they are in a
> playful mood) or, if their leaders capable of a long term planning,
> leave the village so that it can be robbed again later (scenario played
> in "Seven Samurais").
>
> >
--
Mechthild zur Drachenhoehle, erilar
|\ /|\ | |\ |\ |\
| \/ |/ | | |\ |/
| |\ | | | |\
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.win.bright.net/~erilarlo
eril...@trashspamwin.bright.net
In article <6n72ql$d...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> If I recall correctly, Bradbury, in _The Medieval Archer_ says
> that composite bows were not used in western Europe during
> the high Middle Ages.
What about the Magyars and the Huns? Didn't anyone notice theirs were different?
Mary
Paul J. Gans
eril...@TRASHSPAMwin.bright.net wrote:
>In article <6n72ql$d...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>> If I recall correctly, Bradbury, in _The Medieval Archer_ says
>> that composite bows were not used in western Europe during
>> the high Middle Ages.
>What about the Magyars and the Huns? Didn't anyone notice theirs were different?
> Mary
Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
mounted cavalry never caught on in the West.
John M. Atkinson
On 2 Jul 1998 15:07:19 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
>in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
>mounted cavalry never caught on in the West.
^^^^^^
Funny way of spelling "archers" you've got there, Paul. Must be a New
York thing. :)
John M. Atkinson
Four things greater than all things are,--
Women and Horses and Power and War.
--Rudyard Kipling
Paul J. Gans
John M. Atkinson (jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com) wrote:
>On 2 Jul 1998 15:07:19 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
>>in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
>>mounted cavalry never caught on in the West.
> ^^^^^^
>Funny way of spelling "archers" you've got there, Paul. Must be a New
>York thing. :)
Yup. The phrase "mounted cavalry" should read "mounted archers".
It's not NewYorkees. If it were the words would be "archas" and
"caaavlry".
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
John M. Atkinson
On 2 Jul 1998 23:12:01 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>Yup. The phrase "mounted cavalry" should read "mounted archers".
>
>It's not NewYorkees. If it were the words would be "archas" and
>"caaavlry".
At least you didn't spell Cavalry "Calvary". Second most common
military-related spelling error on Usenet. First being
ordnance/ordinance, of course.
Paul J. Gans
>>Yup. The phrase "mounted cavalry" should read "mounted archers".
>>
>>It's not NewYorkees. If it were the words would be "archas" and
>>"caaavlry".
>At least you didn't spell Cavalry "Calvary". Second most common
>military-related spelling error on Usenet. First being
>ordnance/ordinance, of course.
Are gun laws ordnance ordinances? And if there are
special ones are the rest of them ordinary ordnance
ordinances?
David C. Pugh
Paul Gans wrote:
>Are gun laws ordnance ordinances? And if there are
>special ones are the rest of them ordinary ordnance
>ordinances?
Only if the Ordinary is a canon.
Alex Milman
Paul J. Gans wrote:
> eril...@TRASHSPAMwin.bright.net wrote:
> >In article <6n72ql$d...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> >> If I recall correctly, Bradbury, in _The Medieval Archer_ says
> >> that composite bows were not used in western Europe during
> >> the high Middle Ages.
>
> >What about the Magyars and the Huns? Didn't anyone notice theirs were different?
> > Mary
>
> Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
> in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
> mounted cavalry never caught on in the West.
Reason is obvious. Horses had been more expensive in the West andthey used dismounted
cavalry: horses had been sitting on the shoulders
of their owners (it's well known that at Agincourt, French knights fell under
the weight of their own horses).
Paul J. Gans
Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>Paul J. Gans wrote:
I think this is actually correct. The land in the west is
not normally suitable to the tactics of mounted archers.
And horses *were* expensive.
And yes, the French were very chivalrous where their horses
were concerned. ;-)
Alex Milman
Paul J. Gans wrote:
This effectively closes an old argument abouth "how and why" did ithappen at Agincourt.
Glad that we finally came to a mutual agreement. :-)
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
I hate to spoil the love-fest but it seems to me that since all the
French were knights (thus the creme-de-le-creme in physical prowess)
and well rested, and since the horses of the middle ages were significantly
smaller than today's that it is really quite unlikely that
the knights would have collapsed under the wt. of their horses.
Robert
Alex Milman
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
> >Paul J. Gans wrote:
> >> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
> >> >Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
> >> >> Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
> >> >> in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
> >> >> mounted cavalry never caught on in the West.
>
> >> >Reason is obvious. Horses had been more expensive in the West and
> >> >they used dismounted cavalry: horses had been sitting on the shoulders
> >> >of their owners (it's well known that at Agincourt, French knights fell
> >> >under the weight of their own horses).
> >>
> >> I think this is actually correct. The land in the west is
> >> not normally suitable to the tactics of mounted archers.
> >> And horses *were* expensive.
> >>
> >> And yes, the French were very chivalrous where their horses
> >> were concerned. ;-)
> >>
> >
> >This effectively closes an old argument abouth "how and why" did it
> >happen at Agincourt. Glad that we finally came to a mutual agreement. :-)
>
> I hate to spoil the love-fest
Then don't do it!
> but it seems to me that since all the
> French were knights (thus the creme-de-le-creme in physical prowess)
> and well rested,
Questionable. They also had a hard march under the rain (OTOH, in allhistories
it was raining only over English army) and there are definite
references to the fact that some knights bogged down in the mud and did
not reach a battlefield at all. Keagan wrote that a lot of them had been
celebrating somebody's birthday and only a single Duke out of this
lot had been sober enough to arrive at place in time. Even he was
so drunk that he lost his horse somewhere, and run on foot into the English
formations asking about a location of the nearest bar (and had been killed,
probably English had been short of booze themself)
> and since the horses of the middle ages were significantly
> smaller
Again questionable. AFAIK, destreyers still had been heavy brutes.
> than today's that it is really quite unlikely that
> the knights would have collapsed under the wt. of their horses.
>
Did you ever try to run with even a pony on your back?Besides, don't forget
that French knights had to cross a freshly
ploughed field (of cornflakes?) with horses sitting idle on their backs
and probably making smart personal remarks, pointing to the fastest
knights (and making unflattering comparisons with their owners),
giving advices, etc. Personally, I'd refuse to fight under these conditions.
French knights had been very patient to carry these useless brutes
over the field. Some of them had been smart enough to get rid of
this burden but mounted ones mixed everything with their horses
screaming and kicking at everybody.
Serge
>Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>
>
>>Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
>>> eril...@TRASHSPAMwin.bright.net wrote:
>>> >In article <6n72ql$d...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>> >> If I recall correctly, Bradbury, in _The Medieval Archer_ says
>>> >> that composite bows were not used in western Europe during
>>> >> the high Middle Ages.
>>>
>>> >What about the Magyars and the Huns? Didn't anyone notice theirs were different?
>>> > Mary
>>>
>>> Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
>>> in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
>>> mounted cavalry never caught on in the West.
>
>>Reason is obvious. Horses had been more expensive in the West andthey used dismounted
>>cavalry: horses had been sitting on the shoulders
>>of their owners (it's well known that at Agincourt, French knights fell under
>>the weight of their own horses).
>
>
>I think this is actually correct. The land in the west is
>not normally suitable to the tactics of mounted archers.
>And horses *were* expensive.
>
>And yes, the French were very chivalrous where their horses
>were concerned. ;-)
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>
You are obviously making an assumption that composite bows were
predominantly used in mounted warfare and also that this type of
warfare is uniquely suited to open plains.
American Indians (Plains regions and the Pacific Northwest) used
composite bows long before horses were introduced into the new world.
Also, contrary to the popular belief, much of the area the Mongols
came from has a lot of hills and forests. As to their tactics, they
were quite successful in Russia and Poland, so there is no reason
their tactics wouldn't have worked in France, or as you say "the land
in the West". All you need for that is an open field and there were
plenty of those in "the land in the West".
Serge.
Alex Milman
Serge wrote:
Without going _that_ far, AFAIK, Ottoman Turks used composite bows,Janissares had been an
infantry and prefered to fight not on the open plain,
especially against cavalry (like at Varna and Nicopol). So plain and even
horses were not a prerequisite for use of a composite bow.
BTW, IIRC, ancient Greek pictures show Heracles with a composite
bow. He definitely was not a cavalryman and Greece is not a typical
"open plain" country (AFAIK)
> Also, contrary to the popular belief, much of the area the Mongols
> came from has a lot of hills and forests. As to their tactics, they
> were quite successful in Russia and Poland, so there is no reason
> their tactics wouldn't have worked in France, or as you say "the land
> in the West".
> All you need for that is an open field
Not even this. Ambush was one of Mongolian favorites and it's mucheasier to ambush enemy in
the areas with a limited visibility than on an
"ideal" plain.
> and there were
> plenty of those in "the land in the West".
True. Probably knights cavalry was more "demanding" in this area.They definitely needed an
open space.
>
>
> Serge.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>>>Paul J. Gans wrote:
>>>> eril...@TRASHSPAMwin.bright.net wrote:
>>>> >ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>>> >> If I recall correctly, Bradbury, in _The Medieval Archer_ says
>>>> >> that composite bows were not used in western Europe during
>>>> >> the high Middle Ages.
>>>> >What about the Magyars and the Huns? Didn't anyone notice theirs
>>>> >were different?
>>>> > Mary
>>>> Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
>>>> in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
>>>> mounted [archery] never caught on in the West.
>>I think this is actually correct. The land in the west is
>>not normally suitable to the tactics of mounted archers.
>>And horses *were* expensive.
>> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>You are obviously making an assumption that composite bows were
>predominantly used in mounted warfare and also that this type of
>warfare is uniquely suited to open plains.
Advantages of composite bows:
shorter, thus usable horseback
do not require long pieces of good wood
more efficient (more energy transfered to arrow for a given draw wt
and arrow wt.)
Disadvantages
more succeptable to damage due to moisture
more skill, time and effort to make.
If you want horse archery, or don't have readily available staves of
the appropriate type of wood then you will go with composite bows.
If you experience lots of fog :) have plenty of good wood available
and don't develop horse archery you probably won't.
Robert
Serge
>dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net (Serge ) writes:
>>You are obviously making an assumption that composite bows were
>>predominantly used in mounted warfare and also that this type of
>>warfare is uniquely suited to open plains.
>
> Advantages of composite bows:
>shorter, thus usable horseback
>do not require long pieces of good wood
>more efficient (more energy transfered to arrow for a given draw wt
> and arrow wt.)
>
> Disadvantages
>more succeptable to damage due to moisture
>more skill, time and effort to make.
>
>If you want horse archery, or don't have readily available staves of
>the appropriate type of wood then you will go with composite bows.
>
>If you experience lots of fog :) have plenty of good wood available
>and don't develop horse archery you probably won't.
>
>Robert
Well, there is a reason why I used the Pacific Northwest Indians as an
example. These people inhabited thickly wooded areas with a lots fog
and used composite bows long before horses were introduced in the New
World.
Although, I do not disagree with what you said in your post, there are
obviously other advantages that composite bows have over self bows.
Serge.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>On 8 Jul 1998 14:48:02 GMT, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>>dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net (Serge ) writes:
>> Advantages of composite bows:
>>shorter, thus usable horseback
>>do not require long pieces of good wood
>>more efficient (more energy transfered to arrow for a given draw wt
>> and arrow wt.)
>>
>> Disadvantages
>>more succeptable to damage due to moisture
>>more skill, time and effort to make.
>Well, there is a reason why I used the Pacific Northwest Indians as an
>example. These people inhabited thickly wooded areas with a lots fog
>and used composite bows long before horses were introduced in the New
>World.
I did notice that (believe it or not :).
A bit off-topic but...
Is there a lot of evidence for the composite bows (could the examples
have been left by travelers?) What are the dates on the bows? (composite
bows were used in Scandinavia during the ice age when there were few
trees, I have no clue if similar conditions ever existed in the P. NW.)
>Although, I do not disagree with what you said in your post, there are
>obviously other advantages that composite bows have over self bows.
I have never hunted, but I wonder if the shorter length of the bow
makes it easier to get through the woods. It may also be that
since they were always on foot the shorter length made travel, even in
cleared areas, easier.
Interesting.
>Serge.
Paul J. Gans
>On 6 Jul 1998 13:25:40 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul J. Gans wrote:
>>
>>>> eril...@TRASHSPAMwin.bright.net wrote:
>>>> >In article <6n72ql$d...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>>> >> If I recall correctly, Bradbury, in _The Medieval Archer_ says
>>>> >> that composite bows were not used in western Europe during
>>>> >> the high Middle Ages.
>>>>
>>>> >What about the Magyars and the Huns? Didn't anyone notice theirs were different?
>>>> > Mary
>>>>
>>>> Oh, the westerners *knew* about composite bows. They'd seen them
>>>> in various places. They just didn't use them. For some reason
>>>> mounted cavalry never caught on in the West.
>>
>>>Reason is obvious. Horses had been more expensive in the West andthey used dismounted
>>>cavalry: horses had been sitting on the shoulders
>>>of their owners (it's well known that at Agincourt, French knights fell under
>>>the weight of their own horses).
>>
>>
>>I think this is actually correct. The land in the west is
>>not normally suitable to the tactics of mounted archers.
>>And horses *were* expensive.
>>
>>And yes, the French were very chivalrous where their horses
>>were concerned. ;-)
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>>
>You are obviously making an assumption that composite bows were
>predominantly used in mounted warfare and also that this type of
>warfare is uniquely suited to open plains.
>American Indians (Plains regions and the Pacific Northwest) used
>composite bows long before horses were introduced into the new world.
>Also, contrary to the popular belief, much of the area the Mongols
>came from has a lot of hills and forests. As to their tactics, they
>were quite successful in Russia and Poland, so there is no reason
>their tactics wouldn't have worked in France, or as you say "the land
>in the West". All you need for that is an open field and there were
>plenty of those in "the land in the West".
This isn't the time to get into a long discussion of horse
archery tactics -- I suspect that the Mongols having been
brought into this will result in a spate of other postings
as well.
Both in the steppes and in the Middle East, the predominant
use of archers by non-Western forces was from horseback. The
second most common use was from fixed fortified positions.
The composite bow does not have much advantage over the
crossbow. But the crossbow can't be used on horseback while
the composite bow can. Thus one would expect that if the
West was to adopt the composite bow it would do so in the
context of horse archery. But clearly they did not adopt
this technology. It is not illogical to assume that this is
because they saw no real use for horse archers in the west.
Western armies tended not to fight in large open areas. Instead
they fought in areas where the flanks could be anchored against
woods or rivers -- to keep the enemy horse from encircling them.
Thus there was little need seen to have mounted archers just
trotting back and forth across the battle front as they would
not be more effective than crossbowmen on foot and would
(because of their horses) be more vulnerable than crossbowmen.
Or so it seems to me. Others will no doubt disagree.
John M. Atkinson
>crossbow. But the crossbow can't be used on horseback while
More than a few Germans would be rather surprised to hear they weren't
possible. Skirmishing crossbow-armed cavalry did indeed exist. I
imagine it was sort of a 'run in, shoot, run away to reload' sort of
thing rather than the sustained fire a composite bow-armed cavalry
could do.
Serge
>>American Indians (Plains regions and the Pacific Northwest) used
>>composite bows long before horses were introduced into the new world.
>
>>Also, contrary to the popular belief, much of the area the Mongols
>>came from has a lot of hills and forests. As to their tactics, they
>>were quite successful in Russia and Poland, so there is no reason
>>their tactics wouldn't have worked in France, or as you say "the land
>>in the West". All you need for that is an open field and there were
>>plenty of those in "the land in the West".
>
>This isn't the time to get into a long discussion of horse
>archery tactics -- I suspect that the Mongols having been
>brought into this will result in a spate of other postings
>as well.
>
>Both in the steppes and in the Middle East, the predominant
>use of archers by non-Western forces was from horseback. The
>second most common use was from fixed fortified positions.
>The composite bow does not have much advantage over the
>crossbow. But the crossbow can't be used on horseback while
>the composite bow can. Thus one would expect that if the
>West was to adopt the composite bow it would do so in the
>context of horse archery. But clearly they did not adopt
>this technology. It is not illogical to assume that this is
>because they saw no real use for horse archers in the west.
>
>Western armies tended not to fight in large open areas. Instead
>they fought in areas where the flanks could be anchored against
>woods or rivers -- to keep the enemy horse from encircling them.
>Thus there was little need seen to have mounted archers just
>trotting back and forth across the battle front as they would
>not be more effective than crossbowmen on foot and would
>(because of their horses) be more vulnerable than crossbowmen.
>
>Or so it seems to me. Others will no doubt disagree.
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul, you normally are doing OK, when you are staying away from the
military matters.
Let me repeat my point. American Indians in the Pacific Northwest,
forest dwelling peoples with few open spaces and no horses, used
composite bows since ancient times. Clearly, they developed these
weapons for their other good qualities which have nothing to do with
"open spaces" and "horses". And so to say that somehow, the West did
not adopt or developed composite bows because they had no tradition of
mounted archery or not enough open spaces is oversimplification.
Also, there is no reason not to " get into a long discussion of horse
archery tactics". The first question you need to answer is :
were the cultures using mounted archers originally horsemen that
adopted bows, or the other way around?
Serge.
Paul J. Gans
>>crossbow. But the crossbow can't be used on horseback while
>More than a few Germans would be rather surprised to hear they weren't
>possible. Skirmishing crossbow-armed cavalry did indeed exist. I
>imagine it was sort of a 'run in, shoot, run away to reload' sort of
>thing rather than the sustained fire a composite bow-armed cavalry
>could do.
I suspect that my meaning was clear. You've only re-inforced
my argument.
Paul J. Gans
>On 8 Jul 1998 16:47:13 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>>>American Indians (Plains regions and the Pacific Northwest) used
>>>composite bows long before horses were introduced into the new world.
>>
>>>Also, contrary to the popular belief, much of the area the Mongols
>>>came from has a lot of hills and forests. As to their tactics, they
>>>were quite successful in Russia and Poland, so there is no reason
>>>their tactics wouldn't have worked in France, or as you say "the land
>>>in the West". All you need for that is an open field and there were
>>>plenty of those in "the land in the West".
>>
>>This isn't the time to get into a long discussion of horse
>>archery tactics -- I suspect that the Mongols having been
>>brought into this will result in a spate of other postings
>>as well.
>>
>>Both in the steppes and in the Middle East, the predominant
>>use of archers by non-Western forces was from horseback. The
>>second most common use was from fixed fortified positions.
>>The composite bow does not have much advantage over the
>>crossbow. But the crossbow can't be used on horseback while
>>the composite bow can. Thus one would expect that if the
>>West was to adopt the composite bow it would do so in the
>>context of horse archery. But clearly they did not adopt
>>this technology. It is not illogical to assume that this is
>>because they saw no real use for horse archers in the west.
>>
>>Western armies tended not to fight in large open areas. Instead
>>they fought in areas where the flanks could be anchored against
>>woods or rivers -- to keep the enemy horse from encircling them.
>>Thus there was little need seen to have mounted archers just
>>trotting back and forth across the battle front as they would
>>not be more effective than crossbowmen on foot and would
>>(because of their horses) be more vulnerable than crossbowmen.
>>
>>Or so it seems to me. Others will no doubt disagree.
>>
>> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>Paul, you normally are doing OK, when you are staying away from the
>military matters.
>Let me repeat my point. American Indians in the Pacific Northwest,
>forest dwelling peoples with few open spaces and no horses, used
>composite bows since ancient times. Clearly, they developed these
>weapons for their other good qualities which have nothing to do with
>"open spaces" and "horses". And so to say that somehow, the West did
>not adopt or developed composite bows because they had no tradition of
>mounted archery or not enough open spaces is oversimplification.
>Also, there is no reason not to " get into a long discussion of horse
>archery tactics". The first question you need to answer is :
>were the cultures using mounted archers originally horsemen that
>adopted bows, or the other way around?
Gee Serge, that's an interesting question. But it is another
topic. The question I was (and am) dealing with is why the
composite bow wasn't used in the west. While the Indian
experience is interesting, and the origins of the Asiatic
horse archers fascinating, both are irrelevent to the
question here.
In Eurasia, compound bows tended to exist where good wood
for bows was absent. The compound bow is more complex to
make than the "ordinary" bow and requires greater care.
The ordinary bow is relatively cheap. There are many
exceptions to this, but it is true enough for Western
Europe, which is what I was (and am) talking about.
Nobody in the west was stupid. The compound bow was known
in the west. The question is: why wasn't it used? My
answer is plausible. Goodd wood for bows abounded and the
crossbow was well-known. The only advantage a compound
bow would have over these would be ease of use on
horseback. Clearly the West knew about its being used
on horseback -- they ran into it often enough.
But they didn't use it in the West. Conclusion: they
saw no advantage in mounted archers (i.e. folks who
*fought* as archers on horseback). There were plenty
of archers in the west who rode to battle, but who
dismounted to fight. Why? An ordinary bow can be
used on horseback, yet it wasn't. Again, why?
My conclusion is that no military advantage was seen
in using mounted archers.
I'm sure that there are some arguments against my
conclusion. I'm open to hearing them.
Serge
>dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net (Serge ) writes:
>>On 8 Jul 1998 14:48:02 GMT, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>>>dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net (Serge ) writes:
>
>>> Advantages of composite bows:
>>>shorter, thus usable horseback
>>>do not require long pieces of good wood
>>>more efficient (more energy transfered to arrow for a given draw wt
>>> and arrow wt.)
>>>
>>> Disadvantages
>>>more succeptable to damage due to moisture
>>>more skill, time and effort to make.
>
>>Well, there is a reason why I used the Pacific Northwest Indians as an
>>example. These people inhabited thickly wooded areas with a lots fog
>>and used composite bows long before horses were introduced in the New
>>World.
>
>I did notice that (believe it or not :).
>
>A bit off-topic but...
>Is there a lot of evidence for the composite bows (could the examples
>have been left by travelers?) What are the dates on the bows? (composite
>bows were used in Scandinavia during the ice age when there were few
>trees, I have no clue if similar conditions ever existed in the P. NW.)
Yes. These bows were manufactured right into the early 20th century.
Made of wood core they were backed with glue made of salmon skin and
sinew. The manufacturing process was as long and tedious as that of
the composite bows manufactured in the East cultures of Asia,
although, I understand they were not comparable in quality.
>>Although, I do not disagree with what you said in your post, there are
>>obviously other advantages that composite bows have over self bows.
>
>I have never hunted, but I wonder if the shorter length of the bow
>makes it easier to get through the woods. It may also be that
>since they were always on foot the shorter length made travel, even in
>cleared areas, easier.
Possible. Yew trees are readily available in that area, but I do not
believe they were ever used by the Indians to make bows. To make a
good Yew bow, one has to use heartwood with sapwood (50/50) from the
tree trunk center. It appears that the Indians never did discover this
manufacturing method, which appears to have been used only in Wales
and England. This is not to say that Yew was not used for bow making
elsewhere. I believe a 9th or 10th century flatbow was discovered on
one of the Danish wrecks.
>
>Interesting.
>
>>Serge.
John M. Atkinson
>Nobody in the west was stupid. The compound bow was known
I'm sure if you really tried you could think of *somebody*.
I nominate the French commander at Courtrai.
David Read
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>Gee Serge, that's an interesting question. But it is another
>topic. The question I was (and am) dealing with is why the
>composite bow wasn't used in the west. While the Indian
>experience is interesting, and the origins of the Asiatic
>horse archers fascinating, both are irrelevent to the
>question here.
>
>In Eurasia, compound bows tended to exist where good wood
>for bows was absent. The compound bow is more complex to
>make than the "ordinary" bow and requires greater care.
>The ordinary bow is relatively cheap. There are many
>exceptions to this, but it is true enough for Western
>Europe, which is what I was (and am) talking about.
>
>Nobody in the west was stupid. The compound bow was known
>in the west. The question is: why wasn't it used? My
>answer is plausible. Goodd wood for bows abounded and the
>crossbow was well-known. The only advantage a compound
>bow would have over these would be ease of use on
>horseback. Clearly the West knew about its being used
>on horseback -- they ran into it often enough.
>
>But they didn't use it in the West. Conclusion: they
>saw no advantage in mounted archers (i.e. folks who
>*fought* as archers on horseback). There were plenty
>of archers in the west who rode to battle, but who
>dismounted to fight. Why? An ordinary bow can be
>used on horseback, yet it wasn't. Again, why?
>
>My conclusion is that no military advantage was seen
>in using mounted archers.
>
>I'm sure that there are some arguments against my
>conclusion. I'm open to hearing them.
Whether this is an argument against your conclusion I'm not sure, but
the Romans made extensive and increasing use of foot archers throughout
the Empire. They used composite bows, and there is even evidence for the
manufacture of such bows in Roman Britain.
On the other hand, the presence of Roman horse archers was
comparitively much rarer in western Europe than it was in other parts of
the empire.
cheers,
--
David Read
Mary Gentle
(Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> Serge (dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net) wrote:
<snipped drastically>
>
> >Paul, you normally are doing OK, when you are staying
away from the> >military matters.
> >Let me repeat my point. American Indians in the Pacific
Northwest,> >forest dwelling peoples with few open spaces
and no horses, used> >composite bows since ancient times.
Clearly, they developed these> >weapons for their other good
qualities which have nothing to do with> >"open spaces" and
"horses". And so to say that somehow, the West did> >not
adopt or developed composite bows because they had no
tradition of> >mounted archery or not enough open spaces is
oversimplification.
Did they develop them for military use first, or for
hunting? When they had them, what military use did they
make of them?
I know absolutely zip about American Indians in the Pacific
Northwest, so feel free to start with the obvious.
>
> >Also, there is no reason not to " get into a long
discussion of horse> >archery tactics". The first question
you need to answer is :> >were the cultures using mounted
archers originally horsemen that> >adopted bows, or the
other way around?>
>
> Gee Serge, that's an interesting question. But it is
another> topic. The question I was (and am) dealing with is
why the > composite bow wasn't used in the west. While the
Indian > experience is interesting, and the origins of the
Asiatic> horse archers fascinating, both are irrelevent to
the > question here.
>
> In Eurasia, compound bows tended to exist where good wood
> for bows was absent. The compound bow is more complex to
> make than the "ordinary" bow and requires greater care.
This is not necessarily the case, I think. I'm relying on
some old Tower of London lectures here, but I remember them
saying that both forms of bows were made in a 'factory'
process, so that you'd have all the different parts of the
production process - soaking and seasoning the wood, etc -
going on simultaneously.
And although the lamination (is that the right term for what
you do with compound bows?) is complex, I was watching a
bowyer make longbow staves a couple of years back, and that
seemed very skilled, too.
> The ordinary bow is relatively cheap.
And this is what I suspect is *the* defining factor.
Especially if you're prone to planting yew trees en masse.
>There are many
> exceptions to this, but it is true enough for Western
> Europe, which is what I was (and am) talking about.
I'm probably restricting myself to England, as regards the
ordinary bow, since I don't know too much about the
continent. Although I did shoot a replica Burgundian reflex
bow [1] once, which packed a punch.
[1] (15th century)
>
> Nobody in the west was stupid.
You may want to re-think that phrase. <g>
>The compound bow was known
> in the west. The question is: why wasn't it used? My
> answer is plausible. Goodd wood for bows abounded and the
> crossbow was well-known. The only advantage a compound
> bow would have over these would be ease of use on
> horseback.
Certainly in the later medieval period, the crossbow was
well-known and extremely popular (especially for sieges).
The advantage of the crossbow over the longbow is ease of
use, and shorter training time. The compound bow *doesn't*
have similar advantages over the longbow, I don't think; so
wouldn't tend to be adopted over what was already in use.
>Clearly the West knew about its being used
> on horseback -- they ran into it often enough.
No, no; you're supposed to run *away* from it...
>
> But they didn't use it in the West. Conclusion: they
> saw no advantage in mounted archers (i.e. folks who
> *fought* as archers on horseback). There were plenty
> of archers in the west who rode to battle, but who
> dismounted to fight. Why?
Is this related to the habit of mounted knights learning to
get off their horses and get stuck in?
What is the main tactical advantage of a mounted archer -
speed and maneuverability, I guess. This would involve
extra training. So is this why it didn't happen?
>An ordinary bow can be
> used on horseback, yet it wasn't. Again, why?
Actually, it's difficult to use an ordinary bow on
horseback, especially if it's the dimensions of a longbow.
However, the Japanese got around this by devising the
asymmetric bow - no reason why Europeans shouldn't have done
this too, but they didn't. There's another 'why' for you.
>
> My conclusion is that no military advantage was seen
> in using mounted archers.
It might be that there was a visible military advantage (as
seen in the Crusades), but that it didn't outweigh setting
up production of new kit and training men and horses in
additional tactics.
New things usually get adopted only when there's a much
greater advantage under one of those headings; sometimes
even when they're militarily far less effective in the
initial stages. (E.g. the arquebus vs the longbow.)
>
> I'm sure that there are some arguments against my
> conclusion. I'm open to hearing them.
You will, Oscar, you will... <g>
John M. Atkinson
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>What is the main tactical advantage of a mounted archer -
>speed and maneuverability, I guess. This would involve
>extra training. So is this why it didn't happen?
To be really, really good at it, it helps to be born essentially in
the saddle, and spend your entire childhood there, with a bow, herding
sheep. You learn to ride, shoot, and do both at the same time.
Anyone who decides to learn these skills upon coming of age and
joining the Army will be at a decided disadvantage. I note that the
only culture which adopted mounted archers without either being
pastoral nomads or having them overrun their country (I think--I'll
add the caveat that I'm not sure what the pre-Mongol Russians did in
the way of cavalry tactics. They may be the exception) was the
Byzantines, which also was the only nation at this time which had a
standing army, which they could afford to hold together on a long-term
basis for standardized training. And even they eventually gave it up
and hired "Scythians", primarily Cumans.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>On 8 Jul 1998 20:07:47 GMT, mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>Yes. These bows were manufactured right into the early 20th century.
>Made of wood core they were backed with glue made of salmon skin and
>sinew. The manufacturing process was as long and tedious as that of
>the composite bows manufactured in the East cultures of Asia,
>although, I understand they were not comparable in quality.
>>I have never hunted, but I wonder if the shorter length of the bow
>>makes it easier to get through the woods. It may also be that
>>since they were always on foot the shorter length made travel, even in
>>cleared areas, easier.
>Possible. Yew trees are readily available in that area, but I do not
>believe they were ever used by the Indians to make bows.
As I said before:
>>Interesting.
Thanks,
Robert
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>(Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>> Serge (dure...@worldnet.NOSPAMatt.net) wrote:
>Certainly in the later medieval period, the crossbow was
>well-known and extremely popular (especially for sieges).
>The advantage of the crossbow over the longbow is ease of
>use, and shorter training time. The compound bow *doesn't*
>have similar advantages over the longbow, I don't think; so
>wouldn't tend to be adopted over what was already in use.
>
>>Clearly the West knew about its being used
>> on horseback -- they ran into it often enough.
>> But they didn't use it in the West. Conclusion: they
>> saw no advantage in mounted archers (i.e. folks who
>> *fought* as archers on horseback). There were plenty
>> of archers in the west who rode to battle, but who
>> dismounted to fight. Why?
>What is the main tactical advantage of a mounted archer -
>speed and maneuverability, I guess. This would involve
>extra training. So is this why it didn't happen?
>Actually, it's difficult to use an ordinary bow on
>horseback, especially if it's the dimensions of a longbow.
>However, the Japanese got around this by devising the
>asymmetric bow - no reason why Europeans shouldn't have done
>this too, but they didn't. There's another 'why' for you.
I thought the Japanese horse bow was a composite?
>> My conclusion is that no military advantage was seen
>> in using mounted archers.
>It might be that there was a visible military advantage (as
>seen in the Crusades), but that it didn't outweigh setting
>up production of new kit and training men and horses in
>additional tactics.
>New things usually get adopted only when there's a much
>greater advantage under one of those headings; sometimes
>even when they're militarily far less effective in the
>initial stages. (E.g. the arquebus vs the longbow.)
All good points.
Another point touched on elsewhere (in this thread or perhaps another)
is the cost and availability of horses, the Mongols were nomads and
had a large source of horses to begin with. Good, quick horses
were in short supply in much of Europe. The Western Europeans
were farmers, their immediate supply of horses were cart and plow horses.
Developing a large horse archer contingent probably would have required
a substantial investment in raising the horses as well as training
the archers (and horses).
Remember only the English developed a large non-crossbow archer
division and I think that has been attributed to social structure
so I rather suspect that the failure to develop a composite bow
is due to a large number of factors.
Robert