Re: (TFT) More long bow reflections

["Edward Kroeten" <ekroeten@farmersagent.com>]

Neil Gilmore,



 Those test you are not convinced by are at 250 yards if you are quoting
Matheus Bane which is long range for a longbow.  The kills and penetration
that are described at Agincourt and again at Tewkesbury (1471) describe
individual archers picking out targets at much closer range.  The battle of
Portiers 1356 where the archers never even got into position to shoot more
than once or twice is not a good example of the damage that the longbow could
do.  They also argue that plate armor was proof against arrow because the
Italians in armor were not penetrated nearly as much with their armor.  The
big problem with that logic is that the Italian archers were generally
inferior (French mercenaries said this when they were in the Wars of Lombardy
1425-1453) because they had only fought other Italian in a series of internal
struggles and there equipment wasn't anywhere in the same pull weights or
quality as English bows



 As for continuing to fight when wounded that happens all the time that
doesn't take away from the longbows effectiveness.


 And if we are going back to 1066 Archers were even more effective, even
discounting Harold, as armor was no where near as good.



 On your last point I think we have been mainly talking about French and
English battles so the Gentry were swordsmen and yeoman and lower class were
archers.  Now if you want to talk Mongol mounted archers and Japanese archers
they fought a much different type of foe, not generally full plate mounted
cav.




   Edward Kroeten
     Farmers Agent
     39899 Balentine Drive Suite 200
     Newark, CA 94560
     Phone 510-579-0135
     Fax 510-438-6875
     Website: www.kroeteninsurance.com













 ------ Original Message ------
   Received: 04:13 PM PDT, 08/28/2013
   From: raito@raito.com
   To: tft@brainiac.com
   Subject: Re: (TFT) More long bow reflections




     > I grew up thinking the English longbow was the ultimate
pre-manufacturing
       > technology bow. I've learned a bit more since then and I know that
other
       > bows -- laminated, recurved, etc. -- may have actually out-performed
the
       > old cloth-yard shaft, but there is no doubt that a six foot long yew
bow
       > could put a three foot long arrow clear through a suit of decent
armor at
       > a hundred paces -- and it didn't make much difference if there was a
body
       > in there or not. Yes the shot had to be dead on to penetrate that
well,
       > but these guys practiced a lot. There were laws on the books in the
UK
       > until the 1950's (unobserved) that required Englishmen to practice at
the
       > butts weekly. And you don't need to penetrate the armor every time
to
       > incapacitate the target. A neck wound, leg wound, even a hand wound
would
       > put a serious hurt on a guy -- and don't forget old Harold who got
shot in
       > the eye by a Norman archer.

       There are lots of bow designs out there. On advantage of any self bow
is
       that it can be made in the field (try laminating horn or sinew in
field
       conditions). I'm less convinced as to how often arrows killed through
       armour. Persons who have studied the existing records far more than I
       dispute it. As for wounds, there's an awful lot of accounts of people
       continuing to fight while wounded.

       And unfortunately, no one has done an accurate modern test. There's
       usually problems with the bow, the arrow, the armour material, the
armour
       form, and the range. Modern armour isn't mild steel, for example. Nor
is
       it modern medium-carbon steel.

       And Harold doesn't count, as the armour wasn't penetrated for that hit.
So
       there. Nyah.

       There were also English laws on the books about not playing football
on
       Sundays.

       > The long bow is a bad news weapon. But it has to be used at range.
It's
       > worse than useless in a hand to hand fight, Legolass notwithstanding,
and
       > it is typically limited to lower class fighters (Robin of Loxley
being a
       > possible exception). No historical sword wielder would use a bow.
Swords
       > throughout all cultures have traditionally been marks of gentry, if
not
       > nobility. Gentlemen fight face to face. Even to this day, we issue
rifles
       > to the troops and pistols to the officers.

       This is not correct, except for western Europe after a particular date
       (pre-Norman Norse used bows). Samurai were originally mounted archers.
       Eastern Europe had sword-carrying nobility who were also mounted
archers.
       Though we also issue (dress) swords to modern officers.

       Neil Gilmore
       raito@raito.com
       =====
       Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
       Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
       "unsubscribe tft"






This e-mail message and any documents accompanying this transmission may
contain confidential information and are intended solely for the addressee (s)
named above. If you are not the intended addressee/recipient, any use of,
disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on the contents of this e-mail
information is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender advising of the
error in transmission and immediately delete/destroy the message and any
accompanying documents.

Farmers Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Farmers
Financial Solutions, LLC, reserve the right to monitor and review the content
of all e-mail communications and attachments sent or received by or from this
address and to retain them in accordance with the applicable regulatory
requirements. Securities are offered through Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC,
30801 Agoura Road, Building 1, Agoura Hills, California 91301. Member FINRA &
SIPC.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"