Longbow v crossbow (and handgun) - historical discussion

[Arlequín]

I didn't discount the cleric, just urged caution. When you bear in mind he assessed the English as being outnumbered thirty to one, possibly reduced the size of the English army in another section and then blatantly reduced the numbers of English dead, I don't think that's unwarranted. I expect some embellishment but determining what is in fact accurate and what is not is open to interpretation and indeed error.

I understand that another 'eyewitness', Hardyng, appears on no muster roll, despite naming the man in whose retinue he served... so in that case the distinct possibility that he was a 'wannabe' can't be disregarded.     

[Atheling]

While not disputing the Cleric specifically, nor indeed claiming he wasn't an eyewitness... In 1995 there were 1.7m surviving U.S. Veterans of Vietnam according to the U.S. Census, but there were 9.49 million who claimed to have served there.

So I suggest either that:

He was there and everything he says was true, he was there and some of what he says was true - but was padded by other peoples' experiences, he was there but stayed out of harm's way and constructed his account second hand, or he wasn't actually there at all.

That applies to all eyewitnesses in more or less equal measure however. However even if he wasn't there, there is some value in that he was alive at the time.  Compare that to the modern historian who is basing his perception on contemporary source material and/or allowing the prejudices and opinions of the intervening 500 years to inform his judgement.

Apply that not only to longbows, but to 'skirmishers', light cavalry or any other questions we have about the era. 

Well put  .

Darrell

[Atheling]

I didn't discount the cleric, just urged caution. When you bear in mind he assessed the English as being outnumbered thirty to one, possibly reduced the size of the English army in another section and then blatantly reduced the numbers of English dead, I don't think that's unwarranted. I expect some embellishment but determining what is in fact accurate and what is not is open to interpretation and indeed error.

I understand that another 'eyewitness', Hardyng, appears on no muster roll, despite naming the man in whose retinue he served... so in that case the distinct possibility that he was a 'wannabe' can't be disregarded.    

Of whome I cautioned any potential readers about his credibility (or even existence!) earlier

Darrell.

[tin shed gamer]

I tend to view his writing as being something akin to a tabloid news papers Sunday edition dramatic account stitched together from eye witnesses interviews,with a patriotic under tone. rather than an embedded reporter giving a first hand account.
Any body who's coming at you with the intention of making you history feels seven feet tall and built like a brick out house,and they don't shrink until they in turn are history,and grow again in the re-counting. I suspect its always been the case.
I've no doubt standing against the on coming  French felt like a really bad idea,and did feel like your out numbered thirty to one especially in the re telling and sprinkle in a little patriotic embellishment to reinforce how great the victory was.Then your getting closer to understanding the account.
As for records and documents I always view them as flawed often laced with hidden agenda's wether its balanced books to avoid a closer inspection,or mis direction .or more commonly simple human error.
Wether its German U boats that never left the drawing board sitting on the bottom of Norwegian fjords.or ww1 lee enfields seeing active service in Normandy.
In short every account should included a pinch of salt ,because there's three sides to every story,and someone shouting louder for one than the other.
Mark.

[Arlequín]

Of course, certainly my aforementioned housebrick has grown with successive tellings over the years... I suspect it was just probably a quarter of one at the time at best, but is currently of the dimensions of a foundation stone and it is barely credible that anyone could have picked it up, let alone hurl it some twenty or thirty feet. 

 

Dramatics aside, the account has a lot going for it (I've now read it btw), the layout of the English Army is pretty much how I'd expect it to be and would probably deploy it myself for example (not that I'm a military genius or anything). I suspect he was there as he claims, or at least had someone with a better view of things filling in the blanks... so part fact, part anecdotal and part pub-story, but is as good as it will get.

 

[Atheling]

I'm not sure that 'patriotic' is the right word to use.

The notion of the Nation State was in a very primitive form in 1415.

Agincourt was no Shakespearean epic

To say that the author of the Gesta wanted to add to the 'worship' (honour) of Henry V and his nobility would be a more accurate precept.

The so called HYW was a series of dynastic struggles in essence and the influence of patriotism, as we would understand it today, would have been negligible.

Darrell.

[tin shed gamer]

Patriotic in the sense of not biting the hand that feeds you.Is not inflating the honour of the leadership of a country whilst its at war not patriotic PR?(without a shadow of a doubt if he'd done the opposite at the time he'd have been up for treason.)if there's no patriotism,then who commits treason.
I've no doubts that being patriotic was played upon rallying troops before the first shot was fired.and has been played upon from city states to one stone age community against another.So for me I've no issue the semantics of a more modern context its enough to aid the example without this notion of loyalty to a group regardless of is size,or longevity there wouldn't be anyone to argue for kings.
Mark

[Cubs]

[Captain Blood]

Gentlemen, I would say this is straying way off topic now.

Is this conversation nearly done yet? It seems to be going round in circles... 

[Arlequín]

So for me I've no issue the semantics of a more modern context...

Which is one of the principle problems with each generation of historians that tries to put a 'conflict into context'. We've had Late 19th - Early 20th Century historians trying to turn the longbow into 'artillery' and to a point more recently as 'assault rifle' in that it was "far more effective at close range" and with some few archers able to utilise it at distance as a 'designated marksman's rifle'. I would presume Early 19th Century enthusiasts pictured disciplined archer platoon volleys at close range as being the most effective use too.

Oddly accounts of medieval archery practice stress purely individual skill in knowing what elevation to use at a number of set ranges to get an arrow into a target, and being able to shoot a 'popinjay' mounted on a tall pole while it was being moved around by another person... no mention of practising moving as a body of men in a formation, nor shooting in unison by command, which makes me wonder when those concepts were added to the lore.

Noted that I took the quote out of completely out of context btw.    

[jon_1066]

Gentlemen, I would say this is straying way off topic now.

Is this conversation nearly done yet? It seems to be going round in circles... 

I'm still finding it very interesting so don't mind its meanders.

[tin shed gamer]

I wouldn't say this meandering is unfounded,by looking at how each of use the same source makes you take a fresh look at your own interpretation and biases gained through personal experiences.personally I'm taking on board others views and examples,
I think were more likely to be able to find a more usable model for the use of all three weapons in a gaming context with common ground gained by seeing how each of us approaches the subject.The chronology of the transition from bow to black powder is well known,But how to game the crossover of all three weapon systems without  biases is still a little grey.
There's no great literary truths being discovered within this thread.Just  musings
Mark.

[MerlintheMad]

Caution and skepticism is all good when trying to establish "history" as something real and accurate, as opposed to made up. But when discussions, like bows and crossbows (or any other comparative study) come up, and all of the original sources and pieces of evidence are questioned into invalidity, we no longer have a discussion of "bows and crossbows": we have devolved, yet again, into a debate of "my sources can beat up your sources." I've been seeing more of this as the Net engages more of us on a more or less level "playing field".

[MerlintheMad]

...

Oddly accounts of medieval archery practice stress purely individual skill in knowing what elevation to use at a number of set ranges to get an arrow into a target, and being able to shoot a 'popinjay' mounted on a tall pole while it was being moved around by another person... no mention of practising moving as a body of men in a formation, nor shooting in unison by command, which makes me wonder when those concepts were added to the lore.

... 

I recall references to "clout" shooting. In other words, at a broad area laid out by cloths , and you were supposed to put your arrows into it. Individual marksmanship was of course the prime example of the practiced archer. But there were relatively few of those. Most archers were expected to mass for effect. All the evidence shows this mass effect to be the battlefield use of the longbow, or indeed, any missile troops that are not skirmishers.

[Captain Blood]

we no longer have a discussion of "bows and crossbows": we have devolved, yet again, into a debate of "my sources can beat up your sources."

My point exactly.

Gentlemen, I would say this is straying way off topic now.
Is this conversation nearly done yet? It seems to be going round in circles...