Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Warbows, Crossbows, & Shields Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next 
Author Message
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:22 pm    Post subject: Re: The myth about the fingers         Reply with quote

Rod Parsons wrote:
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, added to which it was just the sort of extreme treatment that accorded with the popular view of Forest Law, and the fact that the idea was embraced by certain authors it is now become an accepted and popular part of the mythology.
Rod.



Rod,

Could it be that the "peace sign" the two fingers were used to show defiance to the french and that they could fire a bow? and maybe somewhere in there the pluck yew thing stuck? I'm asking as there is referance to the hundred year war. The two fingers are english born and a sign of defience. Maybe they stories crossed?


I mean you are right - you do not pluck you - you pluck the string. You Have to have your pointer and middle fingers to draw a war bow and those where the ones that were "threatened if captured". I can see where the solo middle finger and meaning would come from an amercan standpoint. But the two fingers up (to my knowledge) is a british thing.


yes? no?


As far as source - none as i wrote. the only source i do have on a first hand account comes from a siege in the hundred year war. Supposedly it was Agincounrt, but the guy was dead.

David
View user's profile Send e-mail
Glen A Cleeton




Location: Nipmuc USA
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 1,968

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David,

RE: The brothers fueding.

The reference the author gives for that is a writer of articles for periodicals around 1900, so it may be fanciful without knowing that writers source was. Supposedly the killing shot was through a window the victim happened to be standing at. W.A. Baille-Grohman 'Ancient Weapons Of The Chase' Burlington MAgazine (1903), p.189

This is the same source for the Maximillian vs a Yorg Purgkhardt (who was shooting a handgun) contest. W.A. B-G, 'Sport in the Alps' (London, 1896), p.8

You might enjoy the book. Several photographs of archived crossbows, some great text and several other illlustrations/plates. A good bow section as well

Hunting Weapons
Howard L. Blackmore
isbn 0-486-40961-9
First published 1971

I grabbed this 2000 edition on sale at the Higgins Armory for five bucks but I'll bet it's in a lot of libraries.

Cheers

GC
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

For a decent, if dated, account of Agincourt that utilises the most reliable of the contemporary sources I'd recommend Keegan's "Face of Battle". English longbowmen certainly were responsible for the majority of French casualties, but with hand weapons, not longbows.

BTW we're still waiting for a reference to a collection that has a steel prod crossbow dated to the 14th century. Which document uses the phrase une arbaleste d'acier dorée and could someone provide a literal translation?


Last edited by Dan Howard on Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Glen A Cleeton wrote:
David,

RE: The brothers fueding.

The reference the author gives for that is a writer of articles for periodicals around 1900, so it may be fanciful without knowing that writers source was. Supposedly the killing shot was through a window the victim happened to be standing at. W.A. Baille-Grohman 'Ancient Weapons Of The Chase' Burlington MAgazine (1903), p.189

This is the same source for the Maximillian vs a Yorg Purgkhardt (who was shooting a handgun) contest. W.A. B-G, 'Sport in the Alps' (London, 1896), p.8

You might enjoy the book. Several photographs of archived crossbows, some great text and several other illlustrations/plates. A good bow section as well

Hunting Weapons
Howard L. Blackmore
isbn 0-486-40961-9
First published 1971

I grabbed this 2000 edition on sale at the Higgins Armory for five bucks but I'll bet it's in a lot of libraries.

Cheers

GC



Thanks for the info....

Yeah thinking about it more a 450 to 500 yard shot on a bow is a WAY long shot for a single target - was either luck OR not correct? I don't want to make any judgements on it however as i have limited experiance on heavy seige bows and do not know the capabilities of them so i will refrain from making judgment on it until i have played with some of the upper weights that were known to have exsisted or rather are in collections and can me measured and reproduced in the measurments to draw a conclussion of possible weights.


Again thank you!!!!! i will be looking up some of those books. I have several that cover crossbows from collections and parts and peices of crossbows i base my period reproductions off of. More books and referances are ALWAYS welcome Happy


David
View user's profile Send e-mail
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Which document uses the phrase une arbaleste d'acier dorée and could someone provide a literal translation?


The literal translation is "a steel arbaleste gilded." What part was steel isn't clear, of course.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
David Ruff




Location: Denton TX
Joined: 18 May 2006

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
For a decent, if dated, account of Agincourt that utilises the most reliable of the contemporary sources I'd recommend Keegan's "Face of Battle". English longbowmen certainly were responsible for the majority of French casualties, but with hand weapons, not longbows.

BTW we're still waiting for a reference to a collection that has a steel prod crossbow dated to the 14th century. Which document uses the phrase une arbaleste d'acier dorée and could someone provide a literal translation?




Dan It was covered last page - your asking for a translation. The book states a steel prod in 1313, it gave the book name, the volume, the page and qoute.... which loosely means a gold crossbow of steel if my translator is correct....

or do we need 2 or 3 different books, chapters, volumes and pages?? Set the standard here so when i have issues with what you quote i can play by your rules....


Or are we not on the same team with a mutual love of the middle ages?



David
View user's profile Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 6:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:
Which document uses the phrase une arbaleste d'acier dorée and could someone provide a literal translation?


The literal translation is "a steel arbaleste gilded." What part was steel isn't clear, of course.


Thanks Chad. Although the phrase is ambiguous it certainly could be used as supporting evidence if there are other documents from the same time mentioning steel crossbow prods.
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Thanks Chad. Although the phrase is ambiguous it certainly could be used as supporting evidence if there are other documents from the same time mentioning steel crossbow prods.


Don't thank me, thank http://babelfish.altavista.com/ . Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 2:12 am    Post subject: The literal origins of the myth of the fingers.         Reply with quote

According to the French herald Jean leFevre, who was with the English army at Agincourt (in 1415) , KING HENRY TOLD HIS MEN on the day of battle "THAT THE FRENCH HAD BOASTED that if any English archers..." etc.

The essential distinction missed by so many is that the French herald is reporting the allegation made by Henry in his motivational speech.
But he is NOT reporting what the French had said.

Thomas of Walsingham reports that before the battle "the French published abroad that they wished no-one to be spared except certain named lords and the king himself. They announced that the rest would be killed or have their limbs horribly mutiliated ".

In other words, the usual rhetoric given that the Oriflamme was raised, signifying "no quarter", but with something of a concession to the upper echelon.

At Valmont (Ouainville) in March of 1416, the French commander the Count of Armagnac gave Dorset the option of surrendering his outnumbered raiding force, under the terms that the men at arms could be ransomed, but that the archers would have their right hands cut off.
These terms were rejected, as was no doubt the intent of the terms. The French force was then first evaded and then defeated, ultimately with the aid of a sally by the garrison at Harfleur.

Of course it is not unlikely that such rhetoric led to the growth of a popular belief about French treatment of captured archers, but this is not evidence of actual French treatment of archers even if misread and misrepresented in careless repetition across the web and elsewhere.

See Strickland "The Great Warbow" p.217 and references therein.

Rod.


Last edited by Rod Parsons on Tue 04 Jul, 2006 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 3:24 am    Post subject: On hardening heads         Reply with quote

A recent email response from Hector Cole gives the opinion that heads so far tested have been shown to be of a phosphoric iron which can be made sufficiently hard by heat treatment (case hardening?).
I will pursue this question further with him.

Also shooting/penetration tests have been made under the auspices of an organisation that I have never heard of before and a video featuring Mark Stretton is on offer at the SPTA website.
This purports to be a definitive test, but without knowing the specifics, judgement must be reserved.
I am unlikely to shell out £'s for a video tape of unknown value since I don't own a video player and would prefer to see the results and standards in the test published in detail.

For a link to SPTA see the links page on my website www.englishlongbowevents.com

Rod.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Carl Scholer





Joined: 14 Jun 2006

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 10:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The SPTA test looks promising. If Hector can vouch that the heads are hardened iron instead of modern steel thats great. They said they were using a charcoal iron plate on one of the tests which is also great. In any case they have a picture on their website of a 140lbs longbow being fired at a 2mm charcoal iron plate and an after picture with several arrows sticking out of the said plate. Interestingly enough the success of the longbow against the iron plate is consistent with Alan Williams test who estimates that it would take 70J to punch through a 2mm iron plate, with a 152lbs longbow being recorded as being capable of 101J (60g arrow) in a separate test.

However I hope they don't punch through a 2mm plate and leave it at that. Hopefully they would go to the trouble of finding the failure point for the longbow against armour by experimenting with angles, thickness, and hardness and comparing this to what was historically available. All in all it looks pretty interesting. Still, as you voiced, I'm reserving judgement until I get more data.
View user's profile Send private message
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 11:00 am    Post subject: Re: Test         Reply with quote

Since it is Mark Stretton doing the shooting it is most likely that he will have used a "Towton" head of his own making.
The Towton head is a good compromise for a heavy head with sufficient length in the point, but not so much as to weaken it. I am still interested in the role of point geometry and that of different types of padding in combination with plate.
To convince everyone there will need to be a more scrupulously complete set of data than is usually available with these tests.
Rod.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 2:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On this business of archery being disreputable or dishonorable, we should rmind ourselves that Henry VIII was a very notable longbowman himself -

"He was a longbow man, and with his great stature and strength could outshoot his own archers of the guard. "No man drew the great English bow with more strength than the king, nor shot further, nor with truer aim." At the enormous pageant in France, the Field of the Cloth of Gold, Henry shot alone before the great of the assembled armies and 'repeatedly shot into the centre of the white at twelve score yards.' " Hardy, Longbow

If the king was proud of his skill and showed it off to foreigners, it is not likely the practice of archery was seen as demeaning.
View user's profile Send private message
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 2:33 pm    Post subject: Re:         Reply with quote

The indulgence of Henry VIII in sporting archery does not reflect social attitudes towards archers current in the previous centuries, particularly the attitudes of those on the receiving end.
As for his reputed skill in the bow, whom, whose fortunes relied upon the King's goodwill would be so foolish as to contradict or best him?
Rod.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 3:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is a Spotlight Topic. In an attempt to keep it as a valuable conversation, I've split off the last few posts of bickering. There are plenty of other examples of bickering still in this topic for those needing more in their lives.

I'll delete this "head's up" note in a couple days, too.

Carry on without the bickering...

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 3:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Regardless of his actual skills, Henry chose to display them in public, at a formal conference with a foreign king and notables of both realms. This argues that whatever he was doing was considered admireable. He did not show off skills in hog calling, spitting, kicking a football or tossing cowpats.

The king is also the apex of society; usually this means his choices (are supposed to ) reflect the highest social values. This is usually true at what was the equivalent of a White House - Kremlin summit (with each side bringing an army along for company) - that is what the Field of the Cloth of Gold was.

We should remember that Henry was immensely popular in his youth - young, athletic, handsome, a talented musician (some of his works are still in the repetoire), and appointed Defender of the Faith by the Pope. We tend to dwell on his later life and the six wives.
View user's profile Send private message
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 3:42 pm    Post subject: Henry VIII         Reply with quote

Felix,
His shooting in the bow was formative in the beginnings of archery as a sport for gentlemen, outside of hunting use.
But his conceit was such that only a very bold man would even think of risking his displeasure by besting him in shooting at marks, the more so since such an archer would be so below him in the social order that his fortunes were entirely subject to the least whim of the King.
Where Henry V took pride in the strength and skill of his archers, Henry VIII took pride in the illusion that he was the best man with a bow in the kingdom and he was an incompetent general to boot.
But this has no bearing upon the attitudes of those being shot at or indeed upon the general distinction between those who had the protection of chivalric conventions and those who did not.
The distinction between English and French attitudes is another topic and is very much based upon the Anglo Norman kings' adoption of much of Anglo Saxon law and custom, which was at root behind much of how English affinities might be raised and the social context which gave them birth and tactical coherence.
Rod.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 3:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I take it you have evidence that he was a poor bowman? Pray produce it.

You can't have it both ways. If the chroniclers of the day were trying to flatter him, why would they mention his skills at archery if archery was ignoble?
Either archery was demeaning, in which case Henry was being a buffoon - again, this requires some evidence - at a summit meeting (very heavily armed, by the way) with his greatest rival;

or he was displaying one of a number of accepted martial skills, such as jousting was. He did actually propose a friendly bout with pollaxes between himself and Francis I. We know beyond a doubt that the pollaxe bout was a knightly practice. Francis declined on the grounds that there was no way to adequately protect the hands of the the bouters.

see http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/cloth-gold.htm
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/field_...f_gold.htm
View user's profile Send private message
Rod Parsons




Location: UK
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Reading list: 11 books

Posts: 154

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 4:09 pm    Post subject: Re:         Reply with quote

Felix,
I have no intention of being drawn into a bickering over the prowess of Henry VIII as an archer. There is no doubt that he was physically strong and skilled at arms at least in a tourney, but acquaintance with the history of his reign and his character can leave little doubt that in a nation of strong archers any claim that he was the best archer should be seen as what it was. Flattery of an unpredictable and conceited monarch.
While it is true that his practice of shooting in the bow was instrumental in lending some respectability to a common mans weapon previously not much taken up by the nobility, the crossbow being the chosen hunting bow of the gentry, his attachment to the bow was no doubt motivated by wishing to associate himself with past glories and to stroke his own ego, as well as a having positive interest in wishing to preserve the practice of strong shooting.
Rod.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jul, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The point of Felix's post was to demonstrate that archers were not considered "lowly and cowardly" by the nobility as some here seem to think. Henry's actual prowess with this weapon is largely irrelevant. The very fact that he chose to openly demonstrate his skill with the longbow at such an important event is the relevant point.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Warbows, Crossbows, & Shields
Page 6 of 11 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum