[David Ruff]

[Chad Arnow]

[Glen A Cleeton]

Hi David,

One instance that I can think of that showed the worth of archers is the aftermath of the battle of Shrewsbury. I can't cite the exact source at the moment but could probably dig it up.

The rebels opposing the crown were by and large slain, or heavily penalized. All except the surviving archers, who were drafted into the royal army. This shows at least some thought of worth.

This is an interesting battle for the archers on both sides as they were reported to have been deployed at the fronts of their perspective lines. It seemed more a matter of obtaining the most range, as opposed to putting the less worthy out front.

I had though the pluck yew story had long ago been plucked apart but I will defer to the real scholars of archery here.


``````````````````
Misc rambling

One problem I see with discussing some of these topics is that folk are wont to juggle many centuries of context in a debate. Certainly some tactics and issues are almost universal but if Roman scutum are being discussed in the same context as a Norman, or later, kite; something seems out of whack (to me anyway).

Cheers

GC

[Jean Thibodeau]

A class of fighters can be feared and respected for the damage they can do but it doesn't mean they will be loved or appreciated by the ones on the receiving end. Even their masters may have " class issues " with them.

The occasional noble might well use a bow or crossbow if he develops impressive skill with one: Mostly for hunting, maybe, and if really scary good it might even be something he would see as an enhancement to his reputation and prowess. ( A mediocre noble archer would avoid using a bow and might just sneer even more at the cowardice of not fighting man to man and close up. )

Just a more recent example would be the modern sniper: During WWI snipers were developed and used with great skill and similarly during WWII, but in the years between I read that the skills were undervalued and skills developed in one war had to be retrained for the following one. A small number of skilled specialist may have been still active but their use not valued by the Officer Corp. ( Going from memory here based on a few books on the history of snipping I have read. )

Also, if I remember correctly, snipers were often, illegally summarily executed when captured in battle by common soldiers who had just lost their best friends to accurate and deadly fire: Many snipers would ditch they rifles and grab a regular issue one to hide their status when they could.

Another problem is that snipers give other soldiers the " willies ", while the average soldier may well kill other soldiers, a sniper is seen as slowly and deliberately choosing a target and coldly executing them, not only fighting for their lives in the heat of the action.

So, although they are very effective snipers are not " loved " or appreciated in any way by the enemy and maybe a little feared and despised by some on their own side, unfairly so in my opinion. ( Exception made for their fellow soldiers who may owe their lives to " THEIR " sniper taking out an enemy sniper or a support weapons crew. )

In civilian life they may be looked at unfavourably also ( A KILLER ! ) I doubt that flame thrower operators would get much tender treatment if captured after BBQing a bunch of your buddies.

Different period, different weapons but the same human nature reacting to the handlers of the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield that is perceived as being " unfairly effective " and just plain scary.

Hope, not too off topic but I think related to how archers and crossbowmen may have been valued and hated at the same time.

[David Ruff]

Onto the suject at hand - shields and missiles......


I am wishing i had the halberds here today for this as i would have taken a poke at this board as well.


Test -

Peircing 7/8" thick (i call it 3/4" thick. Ash board.... distance - 35 yards.

Hand bow - 107lb at 28" draw longbow - made by me. It is a osage with hickory. It is backed (no booms here). Its not a traditional longbow par se being that it is not a true self one piece yew bow... but it slings arrows.

Arrow used - 30" tip to tip. 250gr bodkin tip - 4 sided. Arrow weight - somewhere around 950grains.


Crossbow -

650lb (guessing as thats what the prod maker tested it at) crossbow - pulling 6" draw. Crank bow - took two of us to cock it using two belt hooks (i do not have a windlass)

Bolt - 3.6oz wood shafted - bodkin tipped. Bodkin is like period examples however i had to make it myself. 4 sided tip.


Shooting range 35 yards.


Results.....

Arrow - pierced 17.5" into the 3/4" thick ash. I had to put the tip back on the arrow as it came off and was 10 yards behind the target. I thought it would be cute to leave it off - but then would start a debate if a tipless shaft can do this.

Bolt - blow through. The bolt shattered coming out. As it sprayed splinters on the other side - bodkin kept going into the woods. There was a faint buzzing sound meaning it keyholed on the other side.

[David Ruff]

Not sure how to attach multi pics - sorry

[David Ruff]

last one

Top hole is the bolt hole, wood was splayed more then it shows as i set the board down on the side to reattach the bodkin on the arrow. This matted some of the blow thru down.

[Rod Parsons]

The only recorded example of a Euopean noble using a crossbow outside of a hunting context that springs to mind would be that of Richard the Lionheart, who seemed to have a rather "sporting" attitude to his own use of the crossbow, and it did ultimately get him killed.
Rod.

[David Ruff]

[Rod Parsons]

It is a popular myth, but it really is more likely to be a bit of "spin" based upon Forest Law. The only written example I have come across is in fiction. (Conan Doyles' "The White Company").
Rod.

[David Ruff]

[Rod Parsons]

David,
The Yale University Press "English Monarchs" series of paperbacks give a good overview of individual reigns.
The list is not complete, but contains some of the more important Anglo Norman/English mediaeval kings.
Some part of the reason for the growth in the organised use of the longbow from the reign of Longshanks onwards was no doubt the greater expense of hiring companies of mercenary crossbowmen as compared to the cost of using archers with a feudatory obligation.
Rod.

[Glen A Cleeton]

Two quick references for the pluck yew

This from Snopes
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_268b.html
Perhaps a simple but pertinent part of that article is that one doesn't pluck yew but a bow string


On the F word (no mention of archers, sorry)
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_268b.html

The two plates I have of Maximillian hunting are in a title "Hunting Weapons" by Howard Blackmore isbn 0-486-40961-9

He spends about 45 pages on crossbows.

In one scene, Maximillian is on foot hunting chamois, in the other on horseback shooting a forked bolt (crescent) Both plates are from Der Weisskunig (1526) Apparently, Maximillian was fond of horn composite construction and did not trust steel prods but won a contest while using a steel prod for a chamois kill at over 200 yards.

Also here is an anecdote of two fueding brothers, Hans and Urlich of Frundsberg. Hans was taken out by a crossbow shot his brother Urlich, fired from his own castle some 450-500 yards away.

Nothing here about armour but one more reference to early steel problems. John Pastor, writing to his brother in 1469 while in defense of a castle.

Also syr, we pore sanz deners of Caster have brook iii or iiii stelle bowys; wherfor we beseche yow, and ther be eny maker of steelle bowys in London whycheis verry kunnyng, that ye wyll send me woord, and I shall send yow the bowys that be brokyn whyche be your owne greet bowe, and Robert Jaksonys bowe, and Johon Pampyng[ys]bowe. These iii have cast so many calvys (lost so many parts?) that they shall never cast qwarellys tyll they be new mad
````````
Also of interest in this chapter is the reference to steel prods in the early 14th century. His footnote reads; Gay (Glossaire, Vol I, p.42)
gives a reference in 1313 to 'une arbaleste d'acier dorée.

~~~~
I happened to be going through the title for something entirely different but browsed some of the crossbow chapter while I was there.

Cheers

GC

[David Ruff]

[Rod Parsons]

[David Ruff]

Well so far i am finding the orgin of it was written by a man that could not have been at the battle - he was dead already... So i will continue to look.


Good read nathan, I to am reading it supposedly took place at Agincourt against the french, however your link makes A LOT of sense... altho it also speaks to the archers place in things - or lack there of like i was saying earlier.


David

[Nathan Robinson]

[David Ruff]

[Rod Parsons]

As far as I can recall, it arises from reports that Henry V made this suggestion about what the French might do with defeated archers in a speech designed to motivate his troops.
Somewhat redundant when the Oriflamme is raised by the French, signifying "no quarter".
But since there is no supporting evidence that the French had ever done this or seriously declared the intention of doing so as a matter of policy.
Since it was just the sort of extreme treatment that accorded with the popular view of Forest Law and the enforcement of it, and the fact that the idea was embraced by certain authors, the myth of the cutting off of fingers by the French has now become an accepted and popular part of the mythology.
Which in turn was not damaged by Churchills use of the Victory V, a reversal of the common insult which is in fact a variant on "giving the finger".
Rod.

[Rod Parsons]