Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

How or why did the English become a bow culture?

<< < (9/14) > >>

ChrisD:
I think Lens point is a very fair one and gets close to the heart of the matter. Its true that lots of cultures used the bow at the time for hunting or warfare but I don't think any of them fielded armies with ratios of 5 or six archers to one man at arms. From the time of Edward the First, the longbow in England became a defining component of the society, in a way that I don't think it was in other bow using cultures. The longbow became central to its warfare and the capacity to be more successful than other societies of the time where it came to conflict. Thats the reason that Hardy's first book 'Longbow' is subtitled 'A social and military history'. Part of the the success at Agincourt, for example, was attributed to the pragmatism of putting a really powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary folk and letting them get on with it, whereas French society at the time abhorred that concept, and lacked the conviction to give their poorer folk a central role for fear of upsetting the social order. Much good it did them - the revolution came anyway, although much later.

ChrisD

Dane:

--- Quote from: ChrisD on July 02, 2007, 06:55:22 pm ---I think Lens point is a very fair one and gets close to the heart of the matter. Its true that lots of cultures used the bow at the time for hunting or warfare but I don't think any of them fielded armies with ratios of 5 or six archers to one man at arms. From the time of Edward the First, the longbow in England became a defining component of the society, in a way that I don't think it was in other bow using cultures. The longbow became central to its warfare and the capacity to be more successful than other societies of the time where it came to conflict. Thats the reason that Hardy's first book 'Longbow' is subtitled 'A social and military history'. Part of the the success at Agincourt, for example, was attributed to the pragmatism of putting a really powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary folk and letting them get on with it, whereas French society at the time abhorred that concept, and lacked the conviction to give their poorer folk a central role for fear of upsetting the social order. Much good it did them - the revolution came anyway, although much later.

ChrisD

--- End quote ---

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, guys.

A thought came to me (thinking is dangerous eh? :) ) about the various Asian and nomadic peoples who fielded archers and bows so different and, it can I think be safely argued, superior to the self bow in many ways. Yeah, I know, climate, culture, etc. all factor in as well, but what about those bow cultures? I heard, true or false, that in some cultures (Turkish?) a bowyer would be beheaded if a bow he crafted failed in battle. Perhaps those armies of conquest used the bow in a much more central way than the English did during the war bow heyday?

axel:

--- Quote from: Len on July 02, 2007, 06:31:28 pm ---Hi guys, I think its worth noting that in England nearly the whole society was involved in some way with archery. The amount of archery related production is staggering, for example, in 1359 ( a year of peace) 850,000 arrows, 20,000 bows and50,000 bowstrings were collected and sent to the Tower of London. And still today there are people with the surname Fletcher for example to remind us of how many people must have been needed to keep the archer armies in the field.

--- End quote ---

I won't argue on this since i don't have much information on this. Im sure this is correct.

One thought, I know Swedish forces used the crossbow in this way, a lots of crossbows rain arrows on the enemies(the danish) and not shot in the more traditional way-horisontal. The swedish masses consisting of "real people" and the danish forces foreign mercenarys. Im sure the bow was used in this way too. Wasn't the famous english army made with concripts among people rather than proffesional soldiers like the french? A  conection perhaps. or maybe the swedish learned from the english. Im guessing here !

Loki:
Bowyer too is not a uncommon surname.


--- Quote ---Wasn't the famous english army made with concripts among people rather than proffesional soldiers like the french? A  conection perhaps. or maybe the swedish learned from the english. Im guessing here !

--- End quote ---
?
Are you saying the' famous English army' was made up of French conscripted Bowmen  ;D,or are you saying the French army was professional and the 'Famous English Army' was made of conscripted Bowmen? ;D.
Either way your wrong i'm afraid Axel,Edward I used conscripted Welsh men for a time but the 'Famous English Army' was made up of very professional English archers,sorry to dissapoint you but allthough most men in England could use a Bow only the best were taken to war.Some of them may of been the scum of the earth but they were still good archers  ;D.

axel:
Im not saying amateur or poor archers, but were they professional all of them?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page