[Carl Scholer]

During the third crusade knights who had lost their horses in battle took up crossbows during the battle of Arsuf. It was considered by the chroniclers of the times to be very heroic. The archers were also singled out as acting with great bravery and heroism during the battle.

I believe the banning of bowmen from firing on christians by the pope had some specific political agenda behind it.

Hercules was an archer and used the bow in battle. The famous Viking warrior Gunner, who said to be able to throw two spears at once and wield a sword so fast that it looked as tho he had three swords at once, was also an archer.

In knightly epics archers are usually given more respect than ordinary footmen. Also, it was only considered more honorable to kill an animal in hunting with a sword because it was the most dangerous way to hunt.

[Elling Polden]

A distinct posibility is that the english longbowmen where detested more for their practice of looting, burning and raping, in random order, anything they came across.
As low born, lightly equiped troops, they would be used to forage, and be particularly inclined to loot, as their income and fortunes where generally low...
The swis, and other mercenaries, enjoyed similar reputations.

[Randall Moffett]

It has been a while since I have read Keegan's book but in other primary accounts deaths by archers by arrows is recorded in both french and english versions so while indeed many fatalities did result from the archers rushing in 'lightly' and killing the encumbered men at arms at Agincourt I do not think the claim most or the majority is accurate or something that can firmly be backed up. The problem is they do not give accounts like.... 656 were killed by arrows in the head, 456 in the chest, 300, etc killed by hand to hand combat in medieval sources but small piecemeal tidbits of info, usually listing big names being killed. Also when men are being killed by archers it is not always by bows either, that point that Dan was making should be noted. I think keegan while a great military writer perhaps is more used to more modern material, (while his part of the mental scene of battle is fantasitc from what I remember). Just my cation on that interpretation.

One example from and English source (The Brut)

'Our archers shot no arrows off target; all caused death and brought to the ground both men and horses.'

Propaganda, you bet. Accuracy. I see no reason to have 1-10 or 1-20 archers men at arms if not. I do not see why three other countries began employing thousands of the long bows either if it did not have some effect either.

Randall

[Rod Parsons]

Set piece battles were less commonplace during the Hundred Years War than one might imagine and the character of archers and the English and Gascon soldiers in particular may well, in the view of the French, have been more formed by the use of the chevauchee as a means of damaging the French king's tax base and thereby reducing his ability to wage war.
The Free Companies in particular were a very effective way for the English kings to wage war on the cheap, but one of the consequences was a lack of direct control of these forces.
During periods when treaties were in force prohibiting aggression and ordering the return of fortified places, it was not unknown for agents of the king to have to reduce and forcibly eject or buy out the companies holding such locations.
Much of the Hundred Years War was waged in this less formal fashion, resembling brigandage more than the model of chivalric confrontation on the field of honour.
Rod.

[Glen A Cleeton]

Still sidetracking from missles vs shields but related to this tangent. There was a thread elsewhere in which the subject of ransoming of less than nobles came up

An example from the UK online history site from a search for ransom

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?c...ery=ransom

Use find to go directly to the case concerning ransom. Late 14th century, a woman concerned about her husband who had been captured by the French.

[Rod Parsons]

[Glen A Cleeton]

From an account of battle during the first crusade. This pertaining to crossbows, shields, helmets, etc. This from some reading on this page.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad10.html

[Felix Wang]

from: http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17123/446/2

"When you know what a hero he now shows himself, how wisely he behaves, what a lover he is of justice and goodness, what affection he bears to the learned, I will venture that you will need no wings to make you fly to behold this new and auspicious star. If you could see how all the world here is rejoicing in the possession of so great a Prince, how his life is all their desire, you could not contain your tears of joy. The heavens laugh, the earth exults, all things are full of milk, of honey, of nectar. Avarice is expelled the country. Liberality scatters wealth with bounteous hand. Our King does not desire gold or gems or precious metals, but virtue, glory and immortality." Mountjoy to Erasmus on the ascension of Henry VIII

"His Majesty is the handsomest potentate I ever set eyes on; above the usual height, with an extremely fine calf to his leg, his complexion very fair and bright, with auburn hair combed straight and short, in the French fashion, his throat being rather long and thick. He was born on the 28th of June, 1491, so he will enter his twenty-fifth year the month after next. He speaks French, English, and Latin, and a little Italian, plays well on the lute and harpsichord, sings from book at sight, draws the bow with greater strength than any man in England, and jousts marvelously. Believe me, he is in every respect a most accomplished Prince; and I, who have now seen all the sovereigns in Christendom, and last of all these two of France and England in such great state, might well rest content." Venetian ambassador to Henry's court

Neither message was intended to be seen by the king; the first is a private message, the second is the official report of the Venetian ambassador to his government. Henry was indeed well thought of in his youth. The Venetian ambassador tells his Doge that the king is a great archer. Note that the Venetian does not think archery is a dishonorable skill - he ranks it with languages, music, and jousting. And he is a foreigner, not an Englishman.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Yes, Anna Comnena an account or two of arrows piercing shields and armor, but she was extremely prone to hyperbole.

Here's another one:

[Jean Thibodeau]

Glen;

Very interesting quote, I wonder what she meant by:

" In the middle of the string is a socket, a cylindrical kind of cup fitted to the string itself, and about as long as an arrow of considerable size which reaches from the string to the very middle of the bow; and through this arrows of many sorts are shot out. "

Can't figure that out in the context of what one normally sees on crossbow ? Translation problems ? Cylindrical cup could be the lock NUT ( If that is the right word ? ) or some sort of bolt holder / guide used at that time that we don't know anything about ?

Oh, as a side note about period descriptions and their reliability using a current example: A few days a go a British reporter in a news story about being personally caught in a firefight quoted a soldier telling her that the muzzle blast of a .50 machinegun can kill you even if the projectile doesn't even touch you ? So how close does the enemy have to be to the muzzle for this to happen ? Now, I can believe that any wound by a .50 bullet might kill you even if it hit you in some normally survivable place ! So, if someone uses this news story a thousand years from now as a primary source they might get a very bizarre idea about what a .50 machine gun can do or not do.

So, side note aside, the quote is very informative but like all " witness accounts " there can be errors or exaggerations as well as reliable information. ( Just a general observation, and nothing critical specific to this quote or Glen's post, just something that I was thinking about anyway. )

[Glen A Cleeton]

Hi Jean,

I constantly read between the lines of ancient chroniclers and the translations of their work. Their individual style does still tend to survive in many cases but many translations themselves show error in transcription.

While some of the written and drawn evidence can be used to fill in some gaps, it is the physical evidence that seems to win debate.
What is odd at times is that some will often summarily dismiss the written and art, yet embrace it if it speaks for their case.

I had started a thread in off-topic about reading such chronicles for the pleasure of sharing a writers style but wishing the ability to be able to translate them from first hand observation. We are left with the work others have shared of these.

As to the build of the crossbow written about, I'm somewhat at a loss as well except to think that the socket might be more of a slotted tube (ie. not attached to the string), as described of other bows. Blackmore, although he includes the same quote from the crusades, does not explain the bow further.

Benjamin,

Yes, absolutely she has a style. I find very few truly technical and objective writings, outside of stuff like the other pages I've posted of UK history records. I'm sure other countries have similar (like the U.S. Library of Congress page) but I spend more time on the UK site. Older documents are out there online and even the UK stuff can be challenging because of the changes in language. Lath instead of prod, French being the language of the court, stuff like that.

Cheers

GC

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Glen A Cleeton]

I think some of it is bad translation, some of it third or fourth hand description. It is not unlike Walsingham rewriting earlier history and his own clerical/political bent when writing contemporary accounts. What I've read of Froissart translations comes off a little tabloid as well.
Compare Froissart and Walsingham discussing the last decades of the 14th century:lol:

Even with all of that, it's surely not all entirely fiction and fancy.
That's when two, or more perspectives of the same incidents can be really helpful.

Cheers

GC

[Rod Parsons]

[quote="Jean Thibodeau"]

[Carl Scholer]

On the archer stigma thing, I almost forgot to add that in the battle for a castle at Joppa during the third crusade King Richard the 1st wielded a crossbow against the Turks while storming the beaches with his men. His use of the crossbow was considered heroic by the chronicler.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Alexis Bataille]

i am writing a game.
I need a % of success for an action.
a warrior with a shield (80 cm diameter) running against an archer while knowing he must protect from one arrow.
The archer is good and trained and he try to lose a arrow in head, legs or whatever is going out of shield.
what is the chance of success of the archer ?
I know this question seems stupid and there is many things to take account, light, morale, slope on hill or flat etc, let's ignore all of that plzz
Just tell me what is on you mind
have a good day !

[Dan Howard]

Realistically, the chance of taking out the attacker before he gets to you is practically nil. A single arrow, even if it hits, is unlikely to drop the attacker before he gets in hand-to-hand range. Even a mortal arrow wound often takes several minutes to incapacitate. Your arrow would need to hit a place that can incapacitate immediately like the eye or throat. There is a reason why archers were grouped in close formations and shot in volleys, there is a reason why they were protected by men with spears, and there is a reason why they all carried back up weapons. If the attacker is already close enough that you only have enough time to shoot one arrow then you have just enough time to drop your bow and draw your hand weapon. The odds are too low to risk shooting one last arrow.

Out of all the games I've read, GURPS has the most realistic treatment of weapons and armour without being unplayable. Get a hold of Low-Tech and Martial Arts if you want some ideas.
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/martialarts/
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/low-tech/