Longbow v crossbow (and handgun) - historical discussion

[Charlie_]

You mentally highlight parts of it and blank others,

Hmmm yes, I can just imagine somebody witnessing a particularly gory death or act of violence up close which really sticks in their mind, and becomes a focal point of their account of the battle, whilst completely missing other events and being obviously unaware of overall statistics and such.

[Arlequín]

Or vice versa. I never saw the individual who threw a house brick at me, nor was I aware that anyone had. Within an hour of arriving back at the station I knew that there had been and could have described what the thrower was wearing... despite still not having seen him or it at any point.

[jon_1066]

The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance.

Wellington

[Cubs]

I think the trick is to isolate primary sources and identify exactly what information they can reliably convey. What are the events the witness personally saw, what are events they thought they were seeing, what are the events they pieced together from the testimony of others and what is conjecture. Much of this is just going to have to be a judgement call.

[MerlintheMad]

I am puzzled by the objections offered vis-a-vis "the cleric's" account. To me, he seems dispassionate and lucid. He clearly places himself. He gives a plausible account that provides a few clear, valuable details. His account, written the soonest after the events described, is therefore the most valuable. And others need to be compared to it, to arrive at as holistic a reading of all the accounts as possible....

[janner]

When it comes to explaining sources and their challenges, I have found that the analogy of a sporting event, such as a rugby match, can be useful.

Players from either sides describe the game variously in post match interviews, as do those playing in different positions within the same team, e.g.a full back v a prop. The match officials each have a different perspective and then we have the crowd present at the game, as well as those watching or listening to it live elsewhere. Finally, we have someone hearing about it third hand down the pub or reading the account in a newspaper/online.

[Atheling]

I am puzzled by the objections offered vis-a-vis "the cleric's" account. To me, he seems dispassionate and lucid. He clearly places himself. He gives a plausible account that provides a few clear, valuable details. His account, written the soonest after the events described, is therefore the most valuable. And others need to be compared to it, to arrive at as holistic a reading of all the accounts as possible....

A good and very honest example how it is very difficult for an observer of a battle to have 'birds eye' understanding of the sequence of events etc is the chronicler Jean de Warrene's account of the Battle of Verneuil, where he was in the thick of the fighting, "I could not see or comprehend the whole as I was sufficiently occupied in defending myself".

Darrell.

[Cubs]

Players from either sides describe the game variously in post match interviews, as do those playing in different positions within the same team, e.g.a full back v a prop.

The view of the prop is the only one that counts, because they're the only ones who play the 'real' game. Besides, they're usually the most intelligent ... not to mention good looking.

[Arlequín]

I am puzzled by the objections offered vis-a-vis "the cleric's" account...

Not specifically "the cleric's" account, but all eyewitness testimony is flawed. How flawed is variable. All that aside an eyewitness is still more valuable than someone who attempts to recreate a battle through data, analogy and flawed experiments, which happens from time to time; there was a whole book on Dark Age battles based solely on what the author thought... great read but zero definable historical accuracy.   

[janner]

The view of the prop is the only one that counts, because they're the only ones who play the 'real' game. Besides, they're usually the most intelligent ... not to mention good looking.

Thankfully, such views are also usually short as the prop quickly becomes distracted - especially if there are any mirrors around... 

[Arlequín]

... not to mention good looking.

In the same sense as "In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king" perhaps. 

[MerlintheMad]

Okay. Nobody this time around, this discussion, seems to have it in for "our cleric" of the Gesta Henrici Quinti. In the past I've had to defend "our cleric" against attack, specific and unwarranted. Perhaps I brought this upon "him" by referencing him so much. But the points I usually make about Agincourt usually fall back upon the Gesta, simply because of its singular position as the earliest account, combined with its first-person style; coupled with his nearness to the battle, yet removed from it. He could actually see what occurred, and made that obvious by carefully describing where he was throughout.

All other accounts are compared to the cleric's. We start with his and go from there....

[Arlequín]

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. 

[MerlintheMad]

I appreciate everything that you say about cautionary acceptance of "eyewitness" accounts. The "Nam" vets that are lying usually started that up years even decades after the war. The author of the Gesta wrote within a couple of years. His details are unsensational. His admitting to staying out of harm's way was carefully qualified by making his physical location during the battle clear. If he were a glory hound, he'd have put himself closer to the action. So the very qualifier that removes him "from" the battle, also supports his narrative as a true one and not some "hell yes I was there", and he wasn't at all.

Internal evidence supports his ability to actively see what he described. There is no reason to assign his account to one that he made up after the fact, because he couldn't see the battle, because he was "a thousand yards behind the main line" (sic, Matthew Bennett, Osprey). Utterly unjustified assertion. Nothing can be shown to discredit the cleric's narrative of Henry moving his baggage train up to protect it by keeping it close to the army. So disqualifying the cleric's account details because "he wasn't there" is making up objections out of nothing....

[tin shed gamer]

I personally view his work as being more a kin to a tabloid reporter interviewing witnesses for a Sunday edition special. Rather than an embedded reporter covering a campaign .
All such reports require a more abstract thinking .looking at who was the intended audience was then look at their likely knowledge and  experiences because there's alway the preconceived notions that the reader has similar life experience,out look ,and belief systems as the author,and a similar view of such an authors patron.is equally if not more important .
Nor can the desire not to bite the hand that feeds you.be underestimated,not just from a patron but wandering around in a world where you writings conflict with ideas of powerful men who were veterans of the wars you've chronicled can't be underestimated.
There are three sides to every argument ,once you can get your head round that then such works become starting points not conclusions.It doesn't mean it's not a valid piece of writing nor does it mean the information isn't flawed,just that they are works of there times.
Mark.