Talk:English longbow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Longbows between 16th and 20th centuries[edit]

With the removal of the poorly referenced Wellington comment, we have rather a gap. Obviously sporting archery continued during this period, which we may wish to reflect. In military terms, Heath and Featherstone both quote schemes to recreate military archery in the late 18th/ early 19th century. Heath records Ben Franklin was a proponent in the 1770s, that the Honourable Artillery Company had an archer company between 1784 and 1794 and a man named Richard Mason wrote a book proposing the arming of militia with pike and longbow in 1798. Featherstone records one Lt. Col. Richard Lee of 44th Foot advocated the military use of the longbow in 1792. Now, I have the bare references to these which could be dropped into the text but does anyone have more detail which would make a better job? Monstrelet (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot more material than I would be able to contribute! I'd be surprised if there were a great number of sources which have substantial material on the period after the last significant use of the English longbow in battle. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

welsh longbows[edit]

on a visit to the national library of Wales I came across a book, the title of which eludes me which refered to a welsh bow that could easily penetrate steel armour as it was so strong that the only way to use it with great effect was to lay down on one's back, place both feet on the wood of the bow then draw back the string by using both hands. If I remember correctly the poundage was in excess of 400lb — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds more like a crossbow to me, where later medieval examples had enormous draw weights. I believe the method you describe could be used to cock a heavy crossbow, although some sort of crank (i.e. windlass) was more common. I find it hard to believe you could ever use that method to draw a longbow; if you need your legs to draw it, how are you going to actually fire it? The method works with a crossbow because once you cock it the force is taken by the crossbow itself. With a longbow, unless you are proposing to fire it from between your legs, then you somehow have to take the strain using your arms and chest and then hold it long enough to at least vaguely aim at something. If such a weapon existed I find it hard to believe it would have been very effective. In any case, we need a proper reference before we could consider adding something to the article. --Merlinme (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
In Conan Doyle's book The White Company a plucky longbowman beats a dastardly foreign crossbowman in a shooting competition using this technique (it is a distance shooting contest). Even Conan Doyle thought this was a trick shot. I have not seen a suggestion that the battlefields of the Middle Ages were full of Welshmen shooting from a prone position, however.Monstrelet (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reordering sections prior to adding new content[edit]

I intend to add a few comments from Mike Loades new book "Longbow", mainly around modern experiments. However, when I came to consider how best to do this, I concluded that the current structure of the text was somewhat confused. I've therefore done a bit of preparatory work in advance and will try to add a few pieces of information down the week.Monstrelet (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have completed the bits of editing I intended although, having worked on the armour penetration section, I have some concerns (below)Monstrelet (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Revising armour penetration section[edit]

I have given the experimental sub-section a bit of a make over but both contemporary evidence and summary sections lack a developed argument. Both are weak on cited sources and the summary section comes across as a bit OR to me. If anyone thinks they could make these sections better, it would greatly improve the article. Monstrelet (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I wrote most of that section some years ago (although I didn't give it the heading "Summary", which makes it sound more definitive than I perhaps meant). I'd write it differently now, with more references for a start. I've just rewritten the Summary to be less OR, although it still needs the references.
The rest is not incredibly straightforward as a lot of the most recent research is not in widely available reliable sources. I think Bane's stuff is fine as far as it goes, especially his summary of other people's research, but it's not a published book. Strickland and Hardy is probably the most authoritative, but it is a little out of date. Having said that, they came to fairly similar conclusions to later writers, if you ignore the outlying Primitive Archer test. Rogers' stuff looking at armour thickness on the limbs is also interesting, but again, it's in an appendix of another work. I might have a go at seeing if I can pull it all together when I have time. --Merlinme (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)