[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (TFT) More long bow reflections

>  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

The tests I am not convinced by are at much shorter ranges than that. But
they are done by persons who have neither the historical background to
know what they are really testing nor the scientific background to do a
proper test. Admittedly, I can't say that I know enough by myself (well,
maybe the testing itself), either, but I do know enough of the right
people that I think I could make a better test, given the time and money
to enlist them. Just as an example, I'd probably use someone like Ric
Furrer for the materials end of it. He has a lot of contacts in that area.
Another acquaintance does an awful lot of scientific sorts of failure
tests which have to be absolutely rigorous. Weapons-wise there's guys like
Chris Poor at the Oakeshoot, and even though he's more of a sword guy he
knows who's who for darned near everything. The guys whose knowledge
filters down to me are pretty good in their fields.

> 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

I don't buy that argument, either. But there are those who are still
looking for a verifiable account of a man notable enough to be named in
the accounts of the battle being killed by arrows through his armour,
rather than through the gaps, open visor, etc.

>  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.

They certainly weren't fighting against mounted lance charges. But the
assertion (sword equals nobility and bow doesn't) is often taken out of
context, which is why I made my statement.

Still, I wouldn't entirely count out the Japanese when it comes to talking
about archery in general.

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