Re: [tied] Bow and arrow

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Julianus <julianus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Exu Yangi wrote:
> >
> > >From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > > Discovery the other day had an interesting feature on the

battle of

> > >Azincourt (sic) which was won mainly by the English longbowmen.

Interesting

> > >fact: one man-at-arms had the price of two longbowmen. More
> > >intersting fact: The French were interested in taking hostages

for

> > >later extorting a ransom. In that quest they completly ignored

the

> > >English longbowman: they were nobodies.
> >
> > Actually, to make matters worse, they were peon nobodies.
> >
> > >Who were these longbowmen, historically? The English and French

noblity

> > >should have the samestructure, having sprung from a common

Germanic

> > >source. But I haven't heard of Celtic Britons being especially
> > >connected with bows and arrows.
> >
> > First, the Welsh archer is almost a legend. That aside, the

English of the

> > time were REQUIRED BY LAW to spend a certain amount of time

practicing with

> > the longbow. Any man (women were exempt, but that didn't stop

some of them)

> > was required to practice with the longbow. The better ones

were ... errr ...

> > requested to stop by their local castle for a bit of long range

service.

>
> I've hear it can take about ten years to make a good longbowman.
> >
> > Since most of the longbow archers were serfs, the French didn't

bother

> > trying to ransom them. There was no money to pay any ransom

anyway.

> >
> > The other problem of course, was the bow itself. It was generally

5-6 foot

> > high and made of English Yew. You had to be pretty hefty just to

fire it. It

> > was a very effective weapon. According to contemporary accounts,

the French

> > lost 20,000 of their best knights. The English lost a couple of

hundred

> > peasants.
>
> The official figures were about 6,000 French dead, mostly knights
> (indeed it was almost an entire generation of French nobility)

against

> less than 400 English casualties (which did include the Duke of

York and

> Earl of Suffolk.) Not bad when you consider the French started out

with

> a 3 to 1 advantage.
>
> > But, and here's the rub, contemporary sources cited the REAL

reason for the

> > huge French loss. You see, there used to be a garment called a

cotehardie.

> > The English preffered theirs quite long, and said the French

version (which

> > was shorter) was an offence against God. Sheesh, no wonder they

lost.

>
> That and the fact the French tried to charge the longbow units on

such a

> narrow front the English hardly needed to take aim to hit somebody.
>
> It's interesting to note that when gunpowder came into vogue the

English

> took that up with equal enthusiasm, especially at sea, and quickly
> became famous for firing 3 shots for every 1 their opponents

managed.

>
> > >Which is enough for me to suspect they these archers were

descended

> > >from Nordwestblock peoples arriving in England with the Saxon
> > >invasion.
> >
> > Nope, just English peasants.
>
> Well I'm sure that most of them were Anglo-Saxons:)
>

Yes and that is all real and interesting, but seems to me you are
making the classical British assumption that whoever crossed the
channel to invade Britain underwent immediate amnesia only later to
develop their typical Britishness in situ, if you get my meaning. You
refer to a lot of facts being the case as if chosen by conscious
decision, whereas I was wondering what part of it were attitudes
belonging to various ethnic components of the invasion (sorry if I've
made you shudder ;-) ).
(I know I'm not being totally fair here).

Torsten