Link: Copy link
David, I do not see the logic in your argument. To have been Anglocentric he would have had to be arguing that the D section longbow was an English invention.The style of longbow he is championing was made famous by the English and it is within the English language that he is attempting this linguistic land-grab. One does not need to be English to be Anglocentric.
Since the majority of Danes did not settle in England, that is when.Since when where the Danes not English?
While the Jutes did indeed come from Jutland in present day Denmark, (the peninsular is named after them), the Angles and Saxons did not. I believe that historical perspective is in order.the Angles & the Jutes came from Denmark
The fact some of the English heritage comes from the Germanic peoples, other parts come from the peoples that were here long before the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Danes, Norwegians, and other Norse peoples arrived on British shores. Just because the English makeup contains components of other peoples does not make those peoples English any more that it makes the English Scandinavian.As for ' anglocentric', the Angles & the Jutes came from Denmark/ Danmark. Beowulf is set around the Skaggerak! Parliament is another cultural import thence. Just thought that a little historical perspective might be in order.
When was this question previously asked? Please give me the number of the post in which you claim the question was previously raised? I have checked back and cannot find any such question, if you wish to raise a question do so but do not exaggerate and when moving the question to a different point do not tell us to "get back to the main issue".This has been raised several times but never answered clearly here.When we are talking about the Welsh and Irish longbows, are we talking about the D section longbows only or about the longbows of any cross-section profile?
Kfoushr is attempting to tell us that the only shaped bow that should be called a longbow is the D shaped one, he does not ask a question but makes a statement. If there is a question here please show me where.There seems to be a little confusion on a often discussed subject here...
A longbow (in the sense of a medieval western european longbow) is a narrow, mansized bow without defined handgrip and a D cross section, in which the back of the bow is more or less flat, and the belly is more or less rounded. This kind of bow was most probably invented by the Germanic people of Southern Scandinavia at around the turn of the eras.
There are a lot of other bow types which are also man-tall, but they should not be called longbows, because they differ strongly from the shape described above. It´s a pity that rather frequently by some people who don´t know better (a lot of them being archaeologists or book writers like the authors of "The longbow" or "The Great Warbow" the term longbow is used for other bows, especially prehistoric bows.
The bow from Rotten bottom is a typical example of a neolithic flatbow. It is propeller shaped, has a retracted handgrip and a crowned back and a flat belly. It is man-sized... but not a longbow;-) When I was inspecting that find in edinburgh, I was told, that T. Hardy had been there the day before and he had told them it was a longbow... I said that it is not, but I think they didn´t believe me;-)
They even had a quite good replica made by some scottish bowyer, but Hardy told them it´s false, made "the other way round", and they thought of letting somebody make a new replica
Please note the quaifying word "English"Firstly To safeguard and perpetuate the traditions of the English recreational Longbow.
It definately seems that your comprehension of the english language differs from mine, when one rerfers to something as man height one is refering to the "height of a human" which is a rather loose definition as humans range greatly in height but I believe that the majority of people understand this definition or do you believe in some magical length that makes a bow long rather than short?Is that why several people raised "this question"?
Do we agree on what it means for a bow to be "man height or longer"?
Were there any female archers?
How old do you have to be to be called a man?
Neither I nor the others of like mind have, in this thread, ever claimed that longbows were used exclusively, there will and have always been people who experiment or find a particular need that cannot be answered by the use of impliments used by the majority. Take for instance the Gallowglass soldiers that were shown at the beginning of this thread, it appears that they had a need that was met by short reflexed bows, however Albrecht Durer was painting towards the end of the 15th Century so his painting cannot be taken as anything but contemporary to that time.What does it mean for the question of "the length of Irish,
Welsh and indeed Scottish bows" to have "been answered"?
Does that mean the majority of them were long bows?
Or just the majority of bows we know of?
Whilst anything is posible one can only base one belief on the bows that have been found, as the overwhealming majority found in western and northern Europe are long ,the logical deduction is the majority of bows in use were long. The Waterford bow is a rarity.Or just the majority of bows we know of?
No I do not agree with Kfoushr, if you read my post on the subject you would see that.Do we really agreed that
the longbow as defined by Kfoushr "was most probably invented
by the Germanic people of Southern Scandinavia at around the turn of the eras"?
As I said in my previous post "Neither I nor the others of like mind have, in this thread, ever claimed that longbows were used exclusively, there will and have always been people who experiment or find a particular need that cannot be answered by the use of implements used by the majority."Wouldn't it be much more agreeable to say that
as far as we can tell, certain people often used certain kind of bow?
There is overwhelming proof that man sized bows were used by our forefathers, virtually all the archaeological finds are of such bows, there is little to no evidence of the use of short bows. If however overwhelming proof of the widespread use of the short bow were to be discovered I would happily change my belief. as I said mine is based on the archaeological record. You are free to believe what you want.I'm not sure why you need to insist that
certain people mainly used certain kind of bow
when we don't have sufficient evidence.
I am always open to learn something, however learning does not include accepting peoples unsupported assertions.Are you trying to learn something, to teach use something,
or to make us agree with whatever you say?
I have no idea whether you will ever make an ELB, from the above I doubt if you know, however other than myself I can point to a lot of people who do make ELB's and even Mary Rose style Medieval Warbows from white-woods so why shouldn't you do so at some time in the future.I mainly make flat selfbows out of white oak, maple, or birch staves.
But as a poor shot, I make them "almost center shot" with arrow shelf.
Do you think I would ever make English style longbows
out of those white-wood staves?
So? A bad translation is still a bad translation no matter who publishes it. While Hugh Soar is a noted archery Historian he is not, I believe, a noted expert in Latin. I suggest you read page 37 of Hardy's Longbow where he quotes a noted expert.I happen to be reading "The Crooked Stick" by Hugh D. H. Soar.
Regardless of whether the Welsh bow was
"not calculated to shoot an arrow to any great distance" or not, (P. 49)
The description by Gerald of Wales is the only contemporary one I am aware of and as you can see it says nothing about the bows being backed, if they had he may have been more complimentary and not said they were rough and not much to look at. I would also doubt very much if they would/could be given the climate and the available glues of the time, so called hide glue is a very good glue until you get it damp.Is it generally accepted that the Welsh bow (at the time concerned)
was not backed by anything?
That's fine as it stands, however, it is one account which may or may not be accurate and may also have suffered in translation.Jur de Stoute wrote:Timo and Jorgumund,
Geraldus clearly states no sapwood/whitewood.
Agreed, however assuming SCP's intent is to find out how short a "Welsh Bow" could be then I doubt that the same 50 lb bow would be capable of penetrating completely through a thigh, the casing armour on both sides (maille), the part of a saddle know as the alva and mortally wounding the horse beneath it. Nor pinning an armoured man through his hip and casing armour to his saddle. Both of which Gerald relates happened to men of one Norman Lord.SCP - we need a little more definition of a "combat situation". An elm flat bow in the style of the Pacific Northwest American Indians, which is a 36"-40" long, draws 50# at a 20" or 22" draw. Such bows have no riser (bend through handle design) and are perhaps 1.5" wide at the handle.
That will certainly kill a human from ambush out to 30 meters or so. But do you consider than a "combat situation"? I do!