Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By law the English were supposed to 'practice' their archery every Sunday, I think this was 'officially' stopped in 1863. The English became very adapt with the bow and completely destroyed the French nobility in the battles of Crecy and Agincourt, this was particularly upsetting for the French at the time who couldn't believe that their 'nobles' could be so soundly beaten by nothing but 'peasants'
By law the English were supposed to 'practice' their archery every Sunday, I think this was 'officially' stopped in 1863. The English became very adapt with the bow and completely destroyed the French nobility in the battles of Crecy and Agincourt, this was particularly upsetting for the French at the time who couldn't believe that their 'nobles' could be so soundly beaten by nothing but 'peasants'
I think it was way before 1863. I think improvements in armour doomed the longbow. Even a bodkin tipped arrow could not pierce better armour. And then - firearms. It was simply easier to train a soldiers in firearms then longbows. You not only needed skill in longbow's, but extreme upper body strength.
During the age of Napoleon the Duke of Wellington wanted to incorporate a corp of archers. He was dismayed to find in that age (1805) there were simply not enough men that knew the skill. Riflemen could be training in a week, longbowmen needed a decade of training.
During the age of Napoleon the Duke of Wellington wanted to incorporate a corp of archers. He was dismayed to find in that age (1805) there were simply not enough men that knew the skill. Riflemen could be training in a week, longbowmen needed a decade of training.
Napoleon is said to have briefly considered using slingers from the Bealric Islands as an alternative to muskets. Like the longbow, the humble sling with lead shot had the potential to easily out perform the fire arms of the era. The bad news is that reaching that potential required expert slingers.
As with longbows, expert slingers take a decade of constant practice to develop. In addition, a certain number of people just dont have the required level of eye hand coordiantion. In the end, Napoleon dropped the slinger idea for the same reason the Duke dropped long bowmen.
How do these guys even dig up these threads from 2011?
I sometimes look to see what post resurrected the dead thread. When I see a new member, I assume it is that, as a result of an Internet search, somebody decided they have something to add to the thread, so they sign up with City-Data so they can say it, not realizing that the thread has been dormant for lo these many years.
Nobility did prevent the masses from owning weapons, that's why their descendants are so uncompromising about the 2nd amendment.
Opposite, the threat of the nobility next door coming over and taking all their stuff was far greater then the surfs revolting. Hence the requirement by law for every man of fighting age to own the best weapons/armour they could afford and train continuously in their use in most countries. Being optional and with no training requirement the 2nd amendment is nowhere near as strict. The Swiss have a modern version of the medieval laws with all men between 20 and 34 required to do basic training and remain part of the reserve militia aswell as storing an assualt rifle at home though since 2007 without ammunition.
I think it was way before 1863. I think improvements in armour doomed the longbow. Even a bodkin tipped arrow could not pierce better armour. And then - firearms. It was simply easier to train a soldiers in firearms then longbows. You not only needed skill in longbow's, but extreme upper body strength.
During the age of Napoleon the Duke of Wellington wanted to incorporate a corp of archers. He was dismayed to find in that age (1805) there were simply not enough men that knew the skill. Riflemen could be training in a week, longbowmen needed a decade of training.
I think it wasn't 'officially' repelled until 1863, that doesn't mean that it hadn't stopped being a 'relevant' or enforced law way before then.
All that talk of supermen archers with their magical longbows that can shoot a couple dozen arrows every minute and pierce through an armored knight and his horse 600 yards away are 90% BS and 10% exaggeration.
It was already mentioned here - I think - that the Japanese warlords during the most bloody period in Japan history (1600s) had dumped their bow and arrow armies in favor of the harquebuses copied from the Portuguese. Well, they didn't completely dump them, but they definitely considered the firearms to be more important. This was a - relatively - very quick adaptation of the new technology by the people who spent practically all of their time fighting their neighbors. And the old harquebus was not nearly as efficient or cheap as the later musket.
There was also a History Channel (yes I know, but...) comparison of the bow vs crossbow bolt vs old firearm against a reproduction breastplate of a typical XV century suit of plate armor. There was no comparison, the musket ball went right through it and would create such a messy wound that whomever would be wearing that armor would be toast. As I recall, the bolt was only good at a very short range and didn't penetrate much, and the arrow just bounced off.
Of course most people probably couldn't afford full plate armor back then.
Also, the introduction of the firearms didn't make the armor obsolete. Quite the opposite. The XVI and XVII century fighting force was more armored than the earlier middle ages armies. Just look at the New Model Army. But they primarily wore thick breastplates - much thicker than the Midieval ones, so they had to dump some arm and leg protection to make up for the weight difference. As the guns became more powerful, the breastplates became thicker and heavier, and the rest of the armor disappeared, until by the XIX century it became unrealistic to provide any armor to most of the troups, save for some shock heavy cavalry.
All that talk of supermen archers with their magical longbows that can shoot a couple dozen arrows every minute and pierce through an armored knight and his horse 600 yards away are 90% BS and 10% .
The longbow is constantly over/under estimated. Its primary use was as a supporting arm to well disciplined dismounted English men at arms.
The massed longbow kept enemy skirmishers away while breaking the formation and demoralising attackers so that in the critical first clash the English men at arms had the advantage.
While improvements in armour diminished the effectiveness of the bow, it was equally reduced by the increasing effectiveness of the French.
Quite simply rushing an English arny setup on a hill a la Crecy is just plain a bad idea, the best counter is simply to not engage and wait for better ground requiring discipline the French didnt have until far later in the war.
Of course not. In the case of England, the peasant males were not only required by law to be in the militia, but they had to furnish their own weapon usually. Actually the nobility were more concerned about peasants who acquired consumer goods such as clothes that only the nobility typically consumed - because that kind of thing was what differentiated them, & tried to outlaw that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statut...d_Apparel_1363
There were definitely peasant revolts. On the small scale, peasants were at a disadvantage because they were uneducated. The knights trained from childhood how to be hardcore killers. They had more up to date & higher quality weapons, but their real advantage was in their education, organization & alliances. If there was a peasant revolt, the nobleman under duress would call on his allies - which were all the other people in power - they'd put down the revolt and since they controlled the courts anyone associated with the rebels would be made examples of.
The peasants could be a force to be reckoned with if they could bring numbers to bear. The most famous peasant revolt in England was in 1381. The peasants had older swords, but their main weapons were axes, pikes, axes & bows & arrows. That revolt was huge & threatened the capitol.
Here is an example of a battle between peasant rebels and nobility in France, 1358: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mello Assassination of charismatic peasant leaders was a common way to deal with them.
Peasants had access to weapons & were expected to have access to weapons. What they did not have was education, discipline & organization. That made large scale resistance difficult. At a small scale, what they didn't have was money or power. It was a few peasants against the world so to speak. If no one joined your revolt, even with your weapons you wouldn't last long against knights who were trained to be hardcore killers from childhood and whose class controlled the entire political, economic, & societal structure.
If you tried to revolt and failed (which is what normally happened), the knights would not only deal with YOU, they'd kill your family and then raze the village you were from. That would teach any other would-be rebels.
Last edited by redguard57; 06-26-2016 at 09:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
