English longbow

165

English archers. Shot from the movie "Braveheart"

The English longbow, also known as the "longbow" or literally "longbow", is considered one of the most famous examples weapons the era of the Middle Ages. For a long time the English army relied on archers. The battles of the Hundred Years War in France have demonstrated over and over again that this tactic is correct.

The long bow was not invented by the British


The bow is one of the oldest weapons used by humans for hunting and war.



Bows were massively used many millennia ago, and the first arrowheads were made of stone. Naturally, a long bow, which in history The Middle Ages came in as English was not really an invention of the British.

In Scotland, the longbow has been known since about 2000 BC. e., later such bows were found in the territory of Wales. It is believed that the longbow appeared here around the 600s with the beginning of the Viking raids. The longbow itself was a simple bow type and was apparently known throughout Europe. And its active use began in the Stone Age.

Similar bows have been found by archaeologists in Denmark and Switzerland. At one time, Caesar wrote about the yew bows used by the Celtic warriors. Long bows were also used by Germanic tribes who fought with the Roman Empire in the 168th century AD. NS. Longbows dating back to the Viking Age have been found in Denmark and Iceland. Moreover, their length could be from 185 to XNUMX cm. Considering the average height of the inhabitants of Europe in those years, this best characterizes the size of the weapon in relation to the size of the shooter himself.

English longbow
English shooter on a signboard commemorating the Battle of Crecy, photo: wikimedia.org

The English longbow that went down in history, the British troops began to use widely after the setbacks they suffered in the battles in Wales and Scotland during the feudal wars. Around the XNUMXth century, the kings of England decided to take this weapon into service, relying on archers. This was one of the ways to effectively counter the Welsh and Scottish spearmen.

The device of the English longbow


An English longbow is a human-sized or taller bow that was very widespread in medieval England. Feudal and internecine wars in the territory of modern Great Britain, as well as the Hundred Years War, became a real benefit of weapons. The battles in the fields of France made the weapon so famous.

Initially, the shape of a long bow could be spindle-shaped with thinning, which was observed in the area of ​​the weapon's handle, and the shoulders of the bow could be flat. However, most often the bow shaft had a pronounced D-shape. It was this section that was typical for most of the bows that were used by English arrows in the XIII-XIV centuries.

If in Wales long bows were made from rough unpolished elm, in England yew was used for this purpose. Yew bows were very strong and durable. The fibers of the yew tree gave the wood greater elasticity, which also played an important role. Curiously, the leaves of the yew tree were poisonous to livestock, so such trees were often cut down. In England, this eventually led to the fact that yew was imported into the country from other countries, for example, from Spain and Italy.

Typically, the length of the English bow was in the range from 1,7 to 2,1 meters. If in the middle of the arc the width of the bow was 3-4 cm, then along the edges it decreased to 1,8-3 cm. At the level of the capture of the bow by the shooter it reached 5-6 cm. On the English bow there was no special deepening for the arrow, before the shot it lay on the archer's fingers. The shape of the bows of those years followed the structure of the wood from which they were made, so some bows could be slightly bent. The durability of the product was much more important than beautiful shapes.


Monument to Robin Hood in Nottingham, photo: wikimedia.org

Starting from about the XNUMXth century, special inserts with grooves, which were made from horn, began to appear at the ends of the long English bow. The bowstring was fixed in these recesses. The inserts were needed to strengthen the tips of the bow, they were supposed to protect the wood from possible splitting by the bowstring.

The string itself was made from hemp, and in some cases from silk. It is not surprising that the cost of the bowstring alone could be equal to half the cost of the bow itself. To protect against moisture, the bowstring could be specially coated with wax. The bowstring diameter reached 3,2 mm.

It took an experienced gunsmith about one day to produce a long English bow.

Combat characteristics of the long English bow


According to information that has come down to us, shooters who were accepted in England for royal service were required to be able to shoot at a distance of 400 yards (365 meters). But even this was not the limit in theory. With a good tailwind and shooting from a hill, the range could increase. At the same time, in most battles of that era, the firing range of archers almost never exceeded 200-300 yards. And this range was quite enough in those years.

The range of a direct shot from a long English bow did not exceed 30-40 meters. To fire at a long distance, the shooter had to increase the elevation angle, which, in turn, reduced accuracy. It is believed that experienced, well-trained archers were able to shoot relatively accurately at 100 yards when it came to hitting a single target. It was possible to fall asleep to enemies in a dense formation with a hail of arrows at long distances.

The firing range could be influenced, in addition to the pulling force of the bow itself, which depended on the quality of the wood used and the processing, also the angle of the shot and the weight of the shells used. Arrowheads for English longbows weighed 6 to 24 grams. Heavy arrows with roughly 20 grams tips gave the best range results.


English archers, reenactment of the Battle of Agincourt, photo: http://grexluporum.blogspot.com

The arrows themselves for longbows were relatively standardized in England as they were produced in mass quantities. One military campaign could need 400-800 thousand arrows. To increase the penetrating power, they were comparatively heavy - 60–80 grams. For comparison, modern sports bow arrows weigh only 20 grams. The arrows were usually made of ash or poplar, and their average length was about 76 cm.

Even despite attempts at standardization, archers achieved the greatest accuracy only when they had at their disposal arrows from a master they knew or made of their own. Otherwise, differences in length, mass, aerodynamic shape were necessarily manifested, which ultimately influenced the flight of the arrow.

The outcome of the battle was decided not by bows, but by trained arrows


The bet on archers, armed with a long English bow, was made by King Edward I Long-legged. He managed to call under his banners and organize effective detachments of archers. Payment played an important role in this. Archers were paid well and regularly. The salary was issued first every six days, and then every three days.

The second important point was constant training. The English monarchs made sure that a sufficient number of trained archers could always be recruited in the country. Archer training began at the age of 7, and the process itself was quite long and difficult.

This is directly evidenced by studies of the skeletons of English archers, which were studied by scientists. Heavy loads led to a pronounced curvature of the spine, so if the archer lived to an old age for those times, he definitely had serious health problems. In addition to the spine, the fingers of the right hand, the left forearm and the wrists were affected.


Battle of Crecy (1346). Miniature from Froissard's Chronicles, XNUMXth century, image: wikimedia.org

King Edward III of England introduced compulsory archery competitions in the country, which were held every Sunday after visiting the church. Only lawyers and clergymen were exempted from such competitions. Shooting ranges were organized throughout the country, and shooters were selected.

These measures and the rate on archers allowed England to always have a combat-ready army at hand.

The English army was at its peak during the siege of Calais in 1346-1347. It is believed that at that time there were 5 horsemen and 340 infantry in the army, a total of 26 fighters, of which 963 were archers. For that period, it was a huge army.

The bubonic plague epidemic that followed in Europe for a long time deprived the generals of all countries of the opportunity to bring large masses of troops to the battlefields.

Tactical features of the use of archers


Thanks to good preparation and training, an English archer could fire up to 10–12 arrows per minute, and the strongest and most experienced fighters could fire up to 15–16 arrows. This rate of fire was much higher than the crossbows of those years, which gave no more than 4 rounds per minute. The possible inaccuracy of shooting was compensated for by the massiveness of the arrows fired.

An archer's ammunition in those years rarely exceeded 72 arrows, which at the maximum rate of fire would have provided only 6-7 minutes of continuous shooting. The arrows themselves were transported after the army in carts. In the XIV century, English archers did not use quivers, arrows were usually tied in bundles of 12 or 24 arrows.

Before firing, archers spread arrows in front of them or stuck them in the ground. This was very convenient and made it possible to shoot quickly, it took more time to pull the arrow out of the quiver.

This method had another not the most obvious positive effect.

The arrowheads stuck in the ground were dirty. When wounded, this ensured the introduction of infection into the wound, which, taking into account the level of medieval medicine, could end in an extremely deplorable way for a wounded warrior.


English archers. Shot from the movie "Braveheart"

Even without piercing armor, arrows could concussion or wound warriors, and they posed an even greater threat to unprotected horses. By the time the Hundred Years War began, the French knights did not protect their horses in any way, which made them an easy target. In battle, the horses struck by arrows either fell dead, or, being wounded, rushed across the battlefield, disrupting the formation and order of the troops. Fallen horses could cripple the rider or the warriors around, becoming an obstacle.

British tactics and the mass of trained shooters made it possible to shoot thousands of arrows at the enemy in a short period of time. At the same time, the arrows themselves strengthened their positions with stakes dug into the ground, or used natural obstacles that the attackers could not overcome on the move, from the rear they could cover their positions with carts. Also, archers were often located on the flanks or in the shape of a crescent or a V, which made it possible to crossfire and shoot the attackers in the most vulnerable places.
It was a well-known small arms in Europe, the use of which was perfected by the British.

The tactics and good long-term training of the shooters, who were spared no salary, did their job. As in most wars, the outcome of battles was decided not by weapons, but by the people who used these weapons.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

165 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    4 December 2021 05: 54
    I heard a version that the extended middle finger on the hand of the archer towards the enemy served as a prototype for one indecent gesture ...
    1. +15
      4 December 2021 06: 43
      Quote: No name B
      I heard a version that the extended middle finger on the hand of the archer towards the enemy served as a prototype for one indecent gesture ...

      In general, traditionally, but with the English archers, they associate another gesture (with two fingers) V. Thus, they showed the French that they have the opportunity to answer them with arrows. According to legend, the French had the practice of chopping off the thumb and forefinger of captured archers. To what extent - it's true I don't know, but why not.
      1. +13
        4 December 2021 07: 08
        According to legend, the French had the practice of chopping off the thumb and forefinger of captured archers.
        The thumb of the left hand is enough. A person can work after such a dactylectomy, but not shoot a bow.
        1. +20
          4 December 2021 07: 25
          Here "everything is not so simple" Anne Curry, professor at the University of Southampton and former vice president of the Royal Historical Society, dedicated an entire book to the Battle of Agincourt. In it, the researcher writes:
          “There are no reports in any chronicle or historical work of the XNUMXth century that English archers showed any gestures to the French after the battle to demonstrate that they still have fingers. There is no evidence that when capturing an archer in one way or another, the enemy cut off his fingers. "
          Modern scholars are of the opinion that showing the middle finger acquired its symbolic meaning long before the Hundred Years War. According to anthropologist Desmond Morris, “this is one of the oldest gestures known to us.” The use of such a gesture can be found already in ancient times. So, in the writings of Diogenes Laertius, a story is mentioned associated with Diogenes of Sinop - he allegedly pointed to Demosthenes with the middle finger with the words:
          "Here is the ruler of the Athenian people." Another episode is also described there: "Most people, he said, are only one finger away from madness: if a person stretches out his middle finger, he will be considered crazy, and if the index finger, they will not be considered."
          The gesture has also survived in ancient Rome. For example, the epigram of Martial says:
          "Laugh, Sextilius, at those who call you pederast, and show them your middle finger."
          1. +12
            4 December 2021 07: 44
            My respect, colleague!
            I just pointed out a sufficient and rational, by medieval standards, way of depriving a specialist of professional qualities
            1. +12
              4 December 2021 08: 47
              Good morning! Here I thought (and it made me happy - Cōgitō ergō sum (from Lat. - “I think, therefore I am”, or “I think, therefore I exist”), isn't it easier, well, to be sure, to chop off the captive enemy archer's head, or drown him. There were also many ways to ensure that this radish (see note) would certainly not be able to play dirty tricks from his onion? it is also tiresome.
              _________________________________________
              Notes: Radish is not a good person.
              1. +16
                4 December 2021 09: 17
                The ancestors were extremely pragmatic. If you kill everyone, then who will you rob?
              2. +11
                4 December 2021 09: 19
                Perhaps I will surprise you, but the attitude to human life in medieval Europe was much more humane than in the Renaissance. The only massacre that I can recall offhand happened after the capture of Jerusalem by the crusaders. Even the Albigensian Wars were not particularly brutal.
                1. +2
                  6 December 2021 05: 16
                  Residents of Beziers can argue)))))
                  1. +3
                    6 December 2021 08: 16
                    They can. But the Catholics were asked to leave the city.
                    1. +3
                      6 December 2021 15: 54
                      But nevertheless, the massacre took place. And the bike with the phrase "Kill everyone, God will recognize his own", most likely, was not born from scratch.
                      1. 0
                        6 December 2021 16: 03
                        There is no evidence that Amalric spoke it.
                        I actually do not deny the fact of the massacre, but it cannot be compared with the same "Magdeburg wedding"
                      2. +1
                        21 December 2021 11: 42
                        Therefore, I wrote that this is a bike.
              3. +11
                4 December 2021 12: 12
                It's easier to cut off a finger than to chop off your head, less fuss, and blood. Besides, start killing the prisoners, and the enemy will do the same. Didn't you want to provoke? The finger is still not the head. request
                1. +9
                  4 December 2021 15: 38
                  It's great that there are articles on weapons on VO)) I was holding a rarity - a medieval crossbow. Heavy stuff.
                2. +7
                  5 December 2021 06: 56
                  There is no better way to ensure the resilience of enemy troops in battle than to systematically kill prisoners. The enemy will fight to the last.
              4. +7
                4 December 2021 12: 15
                Quote: Crowe
                Why cut your fingers, it is not clear ... It is somehow unproductive and tiring.

                But what about the psychological and frightening effect? Say - look what will happen to you if you pick up a bow. And in war, it is often more important to injure or scare the enemy than to kill.
      2. +6
        4 December 2021 12: 19
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        According to legend, the French had the practice of chopping off the thumb and forefinger of captured archers. To what extent - it's true I don't know, but why not.

        Bernard Cornwell wrote about this in his novel Agincourt. But again, how reliable is this case ...
      3. +1
        6 December 2021 13: 23
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Quote: No name B
        I heard a version that the extended middle finger on the hand of the archer towards the enemy served as a prototype for one indecent gesture ...

        In general, traditionally, but with the English archers, they associate another gesture (with two fingers) V. Thus, they showed the French that they have the opportunity to answer them with arrows. According to legend, the French had the practice of chopping off the thumb and forefinger of captured archers. To what extent - it's true I don't know, but why not.

        Inaccuracy, only the middle finger was chopped off.
    2. 0
      4 December 2021 08: 13
      As I understand it, you heard this version from one overshoot green maggot, under a geo leras chase? wassat
    3. +2
      4 December 2021 15: 33
      Quote: No name B
      I heard a version that the extended middle finger on the hand of the archer towards the enemy served as a prototype for one indecent gesture ...

      and there
      1. +3
        5 December 2021 13: 23
        This gesture is much older ...
    4. +3
      5 December 2021 13: 20
      Quote: No name B
      I heard a version that the extended middle finger on the hand of the archer towards the enemy served as a prototype for one indecent gesture ...

      In fact, this gesture was described by Diogenes Laertius in "On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers" and this is the beginning of the third century AD ...
  2. +19
    4 December 2021 06: 26
    “Archery teaches us how to seek the truth. When the arrow misses the target, the shooter blames himself and not the other. The sage does the same. "
    Confucius
  3. +16
    4 December 2021 06: 48

    Interesting fact. After the installation of the monument to Robin Hood, tourists systematically began to steal arrows from him, and once even a bow. Then the municipality decided to make arrows from plastic (purely for the sake of economy). hi
    1. +10
      4 December 2021 07: 11
      Rational decision. In St. Petersburg "Chizhik-Pyzhik" is constantly being stolen, but here it will be easier.
      1. +10
        4 December 2021 07: 19
        Quote: 3x3zsave
        Rational decision. In St. Petersburg "Chizhik-Pyzhik" is constantly being stolen, but here it will be easier.

        Greetings Anton!
        Alternatively, just at the monument to make a round-the-clock kiosk for the sale of "Chizhikov-Pyzhikov" for any wallet. And the monument is under supervision and taxes are dripping !!! hi
        1. +10
          4 December 2021 07: 32
          Hello, Vlad! hi
          Do not put there
          1. +6
            4 December 2021 12: 15
            Yes, put it here, don't put it - it's easier to come up from the water, or on ice.
            1. +2
              5 December 2021 16: 07
              In Kaluga, bronze sparrows on the fountain in front of the drama theater are constantly being stolen. And pigeons are much less common for some reason
              1. +3
                5 December 2021 16: 21
                Maybe because these thieves are sympathetic to VoraBey as a colleague? )))
      2. +14
        4 December 2021 08: 40
        At one time, Suvorov's sword from the monument in Katka's Garden was stolen. Now they stopped, it seems. And what is surprising: while the chess players were gathering in the kindergarten, the sword disappeared. As soon as they were replaced by darlings, the thefts were over.
        I have two versions about this.
        First, chess players are bad watchmen. Poetlmk in a row to guard the sword was fired by this - vigilant and dangerous.
        Second: chess players are entirely Jews and pacifists. Therefore, the count of Rymniksky was disarmed. And the stuffed cabbage that replaced them simply liked the sword.
        laughing
        Are there any other options?
        1. +10
          4 December 2021 08: 45
          I think everything is a little more prosaic, there are now CCTV cameras, like fleas on a dog
          1. +13
            4 December 2021 08: 58
            Yah you! And where is the flight of fantasy, conspiracy theories and everyday anti-Semitism? In the morning, such things invigorate better than coffee!
            Come on, get yourself together, Anton! The whole Saturday is yet to come!
            1. +8
              4 December 2021 09: 01
              And where is the flight of fantasy, conspiracy theories and everyday anti-Semitism?
              All this is fully present in another article today, along with the Magyars led by Attila
              1. +9
                4 December 2021 09: 09
                I was there ... I’m ready to argue with the author. I know for sure that Bobrok Volynsky brought lard to Russia with lard, we won on the Kulikovo field - the enemies fled at the sight of the shmat of this product on the arrows and spears of Russian soldiers ...
                1. +8
                  4 December 2021 09: 26
                  Lard was brought to Russia by Bobrok Volynsky
                  Having previously moved it from Jagiello. Otherwise, why would he go on a campaign? Return fat!
                  1. +9
                    4 December 2021 09: 44
                    Of course it was. Moonshine was, an appetizer was urgently needed - but no. So we set off on a hike. Only without a snack we got drunk on the way and did not reach it. smile
        2. +10
          4 December 2021 09: 23
          Chess is a nervous game, its fans are impulsive, hot people, one board is not enough for a showdown with an opponent, and Suvorov's sword has something sacred, so they borrowed it, but forgot to return it.
  4. +11
    4 December 2021 07: 07
    The article contains a lot of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Half of those results and information do not apply to this bow.
    1. +11
      4 December 2021 07: 45
      Totally agree!
      1. +10
        4 December 2021 08: 27
        And there is also such a word - button accordion. This is when the narrator tells about something known for a long time. smile
        By the way, in one pre-revolutionary edition (do not believe me, once I attended a public smile ) I, honestly, met the statement in relation to the English archers during the Hundred Years War, that they held the bow in their right hand. The shooting process is described as follows: the shooter with his left hand fixes the arrow near the chin, holding the bow in his right. Then, with a sharp movement, he throws his right hand forward, while simultaneously pulling his left hand back a little and launching an arrow with this movement. That is, the bow in a taut state is literally a fraction of a second.
        How do you like this version of shooting?
        1. +8
          4 December 2021 08: 36
          The version is quite viable, especially since I am inclined to the hypothesis of the imposition of right-handedness
          1. +10
            4 December 2021 08: 45
            What is the hypothesis?
            Is this the one according to which for most people both hands are left? smile
            1. +6
              4 December 2021 08: 50
              I think that humans are originally ambidextrous.
              1. +9
                4 December 2021 09: 01
                But what about ... Oh, okay. Let there be these ... Pidexters. But what about the method of shooting itself?
                1. +8
                  4 December 2021 09: 28
                  It is difficult for me to evaluate this or that archery technique, I am more on crossbows ...
                  1. +11
                    4 December 2021 09: 39
                    Old age is not a joy. There was a time, I was on vodka and on women ... And now, too ... more on crossbows ...
                    1. +8
                      4 December 2021 09: 43
                      I will note, however, that a passion for crossbows does not negate a romantic date in my plans today.
                      1. +9
                        4 December 2021 09: 53
                        If one complements the other, that's just great. smile
                        My wife is waiting for me in the evening, and that's great too. Maybe the son will also go on a romantic date - it will be just a fairy tale. smile
            2. +6
              4 December 2021 08: 50
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              What is the hypothesis?
              Is this the one according to which for most people both hands are left? smile

              Yeah and grow from))) feel
              1. +6
                4 December 2021 09: 03
                From the pelvic area, you mean? Archeology tells us otherwise ...
              2. +16
                4 December 2021 09: 07
                Like that?
        2. +12
          4 December 2021 10: 05
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          By the way, in one pre-revolutionary edition (believe me, I once visited a public meeting), honestly, I came across an assertion, applied to English archers during the Hundred Years War, that they were holding a bow in their right hand.

          However, in the Bayeux tapestry, the archers are holding a bow in their left hand:
          1. +13
            4 December 2021 10: 14
            So too Normans! And the British are not like people, they even switch gears with their left hand! lol
          2. +11
            4 December 2021 10: 28
            Quote: HanTengri
            However, in the Bayeux tapestry, the archers are holding a bow in their left hand:

            See how the sculpted Robin Hood holds the bow! And further....


            By the way, the arrow is to the left of the bow ... this method is called "Mediterranean".
          3. +7
            4 December 2021 10: 29
            The book was probably 1890. I then wrote a term paper on "History of State and Law". Well, along the way, he was interested in the Wars of the Roses. I think that the author of the book could have been a prominent specialist in medieval England for his time, but the general state of historical science at that time allowed such reconstructions to be sculpted.
            1. +7
              4 December 2021 12: 26
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              The book was probably 1890. I then wrote a term paper on "History of State and Law". Well, along the way, he was interested in the Wars of the Roses. I think that the author of the book could have been a prominent specialist in medieval England for his time, but the general state of historical science at that time allowed such reconstructions to be sculpted.

              I read similar conclusions in the fictional historical literature about the Hundred Years War. By the way, the monument to Robin Hood was also criticized in the English historical magazines for its wrong stance.
              So I think Mikhail you are right.
              Now I'm digging in the library looking for the book of Luke and R. Pan's crossbows. It seems to him there were anthological assumptions on the yomin of England and Wales.
              By the way, at one time the second Total Var was subjected to the rack of British units.
              1. +7
                4 December 2021 13: 27
                To be honest, I do not understand at all why such conversations could have passed. Firing an arrow with your left hand is inconvenient, and what you gain from such a stance is unclear. The pictorial sources unanimously show a "normal" stance. But even from scratch, such a statement could not grow. All this is very mysterious. smile
                1. +5
                  4 December 2021 14: 54
                  Quote: Trilobite Master
                  It is inconvenient to shoot an arrow with your left hand,

                  And if the shooter is left-handed? Hence the stand. I also find it wildly uncomfortable to write with my left hand.
                  1. +5
                    4 December 2021 15: 34
                    Left-handed, right-handed - what's the difference? It is inconvenient to hold the bow in the main hand.
                    1. +2
                      4 December 2021 16: 28
                      Quote: Trilobite Master
                      Left-handed, right-handed - what's the difference? It is inconvenient to hold the bow in the main hand.

                      You and I have the "main hand" - the right hand. By the way, among the Anglo-Saxons, left-handers prevail over right-handers.
                      1. +4
                        4 December 2021 16: 47
                        Never heard of it. I heard that every sixth or seventh is left-handed. Why are there more of them in Britain than right-handers? Do you have statistics?
                        And, by the way, pay attention, according to the description of this author, the shooter used his right hand as the main one.
                      2. +2
                        5 December 2021 09: 51
                        Indeed, very few people fully fit the "left-handed / right-handed" label. Most of them wave with a sledgehammer from the right shoulder - the grip with the left is lower than the grip with the right hand? and it's like a normal grip. with a two-handed sword it will be the same. but already many strive to intercept the halberd under a blow from the left ... well, give a Kalash in your hands or a bow, then most of them will aim with their right eye. so everything is very relative.
                      3. +3
                        5 December 2021 12: 10
                        very few people fully fit the left-handed / right-handed label


                        Absolutely right. I write and eat with my left. The right one is stronger. Finnish motor skills are the same. I wave from my right shoulder and aim with my right eye. But he studied the standard guitar, for right-handers. I got used to it. In general, when I come across something new, it takes time to understand which hand is more convenient to do.
                      4. +1
                        5 December 2021 18: 42
                        Quote: ludoger
                        Most of them wave with a sledgehammer from the right shoulder - the grip with the left is lower than the grip with the right hand?

                        Yes, the left grip is lower than the right hand grip, but (!!!) I swing with a sledgehammer and an ax from my left shoulder. And a gun at the right shoulder. But the striking leg is the left one.
            2. +5
              4 December 2021 12: 49
              Coursework in 1890? Uncover the secret, Count Cagliostro.
            3. +6
              4 December 2021 16: 43
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              I think the author of the book could have been a prominent specialist in medieval England for his time, but the general state of historical science at that time allowed such reconstructions to be sculpted.

              I tried to understand everything: from what, the described archery technique,
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              the shooter with the left hand fixes the arrow near the chin, holding the bow in the right. Then, with a sharp movement, he throws his right hand forward, while simultaneously pulling his left one back a little and launching an arrow with this movement.

              I am so familiar to the memory of the body. Then it dawned on me - that's how I shot as a child. Only the arrow, in the left hand, needs to be replaced with a stone, and the bow, in the right, with a slingshot. laughing
              1. +1
                5 December 2021 09: 56
                one to one! but when playing the guitar it was extremely difficult to learn to play chords and riffs with your left hand. think about it after who is left-handed and who is right-handed winked
            4. 0
              5 December 2021 07: 04
              The book was probably 1890. I then wrote a term paper ...

              Here he is, long-liver smile
        3. ANB
          0
          5 December 2021 00: 24
          ... Then, with a sharp movement, throws his right hand forward,

          I also read about this method in some book. Only it was not about English, but about a tight compound bow. Well, hands were not mentioned there.
      2. +6
        4 December 2021 12: 47
        Cutting down yew under the pretext of being poisonous for livestock will not be seen in a nightmare. Although, of course, the yew is poisonous.
        1. +8
          4 December 2021 13: 40
          English historians say that it was cut down for bows. It grows for a very long time, but it is cut relatively quickly (it is strong).
          1. +7
            4 December 2021 14: 24
            I agree with English historians.
            The only thing is that they used it in different ways. They could make beams in the house: it was believed that it interferes with the spread of the plague.

            And it grows, it is true, very, very slowly.
            1. +5
              4 December 2021 14: 45
              believed to interfere with the spread of the plague.
              Cito, long, trade
              1. +4
                4 December 2021 15: 42
                Not everyone could choose wanderlust.

                But, regarding the beams, there could well have been a stereotype - who knows how much it helped.
                1. +5
                  4 December 2021 15: 51
                  Didn't help at all. The miasmatic theory triumphed for another 200 years after Leeuwenhoek's invention. But the experience of the plague pandemic has developed quarantine measures.
                  1. +5
                    4 December 2021 16: 13
                    Agree. But this does not mean that the yew was not harnessed to the beams.
    2. +8
      4 December 2021 10: 45
      Quote: seti
      The article contains a lot of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Half of those results and information do not apply to this bow.

      More specifically? I did not read the article attentively ... so, I "ran my eyes" because from the first lines I saw that it was written on the basis of "Internet consumer goods" ... that is, nothing new ... but the "main" theses, seems to be reflected in it!
  5. +21
    4 December 2021 07: 37
    English king Edward III introduced compulsory archery competitions in the country
    The first archer comes out, shoots, hits the apple and says: - I`am Robin
    Another archer comes out, shoots, hits the apple handle and says: - I`am Jon
    The third archer comes out. A small, old, bald, bow 5 times bigger than him. Shoots a peasant in the eye and says: - I`am sorry.
    1. +11
      4 December 2021 08: 57
      Old age is not a joy! I forgot to say that according to the rules of competition established by King Edward III, an apple was installed (paragraph 17. part 26.) on the head (paragraph 19. part 42) of some (paragraph 29. part 3) man (paragraph 11. part 12.)! !!
    2. +6
      4 December 2021 11: 57
      The third archer comes out. A small, old, bald, bow 5 times bigger than him. Shoots a peasant in the eye and says: - I`am sorry.
      Thanks! In the piggy bank and neighing since Saturday morning laughing Straight burst! Apparently for a week it has accumulated wassat laughing
  6. +10
    4 December 2021 07: 59
    The bubonic plague epidemic that followed in Europe for a long time deprived the generals of all countries of the opportunity to bring large masses of troops to the battlefields.
    1. If the plague was only bubonic, there would be much fewer victims.
    2. The size of the population was restored to the pre-pandemic level during the life of 2-3 generations, compensatory mechanisms of the population worked.
    3. The author is poorly versed in the subject being described, and in general in the European Middle Ages.
  7. +10
    4 December 2021 08: 08
    The arrowheads stuck in the ground were dirty. When wounded, this ensured the introduction of infection into the wound, which, taking into account the level of medieval medicine, could end in an extremely deplorable way for a wounded warrior.

    Which, in fact, was confirmed by Richard Cordillon, however, there was a crossbow bolt.
    Moreover, English archers used targets made of manure and straw for training!
    1. +6
      4 December 2021 12: 30
      That gave the French a reason to add one more "nickname" to the hated English archers - stinkers! crying
    2. 0
      4 December 2021 19: 23
      In fairness, with that level of medicine, sanitation, nutrition, and from a deep splinter, a person could die.
      1. +1
        4 December 2021 21: 45
        For the sake of the same fairness, I want to note that food was very good until 1312, with sanitation, if we mean personal hygiene - too, with medicine, too, until the universities put the bachelor's degree in this specialty on stream.
        1. -2
          5 December 2021 01: 15
          For the sake of the same fairness, I want to note that food was very good until 1312, with sanitation, if we mean personal hygiene - too, with medicine, too, until the universities put the bachelor's degree in this specialty on stream.


          A narrow group of people had good nutrition, the majority ate unbalanced and did not even finish eating. As for hygiene, this was also not available to a large group of people, to fully take a shower / bath with hot water was a privilege at that time, dental hygiene is a separate topic. Medicine is again available to the upper class, but even then with a very low level.
  8. +8
    4 December 2021 09: 12
    Written, in principle, not bad, although simplified! Well ... the popularity of novel summaries (War and Peace, for example ...) and film summaries did not begin today ....! recourse
  9. +5
    4 December 2021 10: 04
    Oh, when we were guys, we did everything we could! And when the film came out on big screens like about Ivanhoe ... I generally keep quiet. Streets with bows and pot lids were walking around But the field for self-improvement was not an open edge. I, for example, came up with the idea of ​​making from dry reeds with plasticine on the tip. I flew !!! Class! wassat
    Article plus, it was interesting Yes good
    1. +5
      4 December 2021 10: 34
      And I did it from a pine board, because the direction of the fibers on the pine is clearly visible, quite even arrows. Only I didn’t know that the arrow had to be rolled, giving it a spindle-like shape, and it all flew anywhere) despite the solid plumage. And then, in order to show off more, I developed a method of attaching the nail to the tip so that it does not interfere with the flight of the arrow. Which quickly put an end to the manufacture of bows in our midst. Almost as soon as my friend was shot right through the cheek ...
      1. +3
        4 December 2021 10: 38
        how my friend got shot right through the cheek ...
        Horror.
        We had no casualties. It carried ... lol
        1. +6
          4 December 2021 10: 47
          I grew up in a small town, almost a village. A normal kid in his life at that time began routinely, routinely risking his life from the age of 7-8, and no one considered this to be anything unusual. This is exactly how a real person should live. Otherwise, the normal, human psyche simply does not start.
          For example, we were constantly running around the construction site, in a self-developed version of the catch-up machines, jumping from the second floor into a pile of sand. However, before starting the game, we always, every day, checked the "working routes" for unstable slabs, bricks, and every day a pile of sand was moved by hand - so that there was no brick or stone in it. Probably, a flock of 10-13 year old children looked strange for such an activity) But adults never stopped us. As I now understand, the development of the mind, courage and various skills was considered more important than the threat to life. Life will always threaten you. And you must be prepared for the threat, and not wrapped in cotton wool, otherwise, when the edge comes, you will not be able to cope with a guarantee.
          It was this approach to education that made Russians the best warriors on the planet. Where are they now, these Russians? There are no more ...
          1. +1
            4 December 2021 10: 50
            For example, we constantly ran around the construction site, in an independently developed version of the catch-up, jumping from the second ................................ ......
            Yes
            Where are they now, these Russians? There are no more ...
            No. And who am I, my children.
            No matter how and who did not try so that we were not.
            1. +4
              4 December 2021 10: 50
              How many times a day do you call your children to check how they are doing?
              1. +6
                4 December 2021 10: 57
                Not at all, the younger one travels through the whole city to study. And in what area. Normally yesterday we were children ... Today adults. Interesting people. ! With your humor. With your desires and problems. A heart-to-heart talk Yes, it's just Class! And a storehouse of thoughts and ideas.
                1. +4
                  4 December 2021 10: 58
                  Good. True, good) There is nothing more important than freedom from petty tutelage, if it is accompanied by constant learning to overcome everyday difficulties. Good luck to you and them, children - the future ...
          2. +7
            4 December 2021 15: 31
            Quote: Mikhail3
            made Russians the best warriors on the planet

            Based on what such a conclusion?
            It would be very nice to realize this fact not on the basis of your words, but on the basis of specific historical facts.
            And then I read somewhere that the best warriors on the planet are the Germans. Should the author of the book be named? There is an opinion (guess whose) that the best warriors are Chechens. And my Kalmyk matchmaker is firmly convinced that the best warriors are Kalmyks. Can you prove that you are right?
            1. +1
              4 December 2021 16: 00
              Yes) Look at the map.
              1. +5
                4 December 2021 16: 36
                If according to the map, then until the middle of the twentieth century. the best warriors are the British. Now, it turns out, the Americans. This is if you look at the map a little deeper than you seem to be doing. Well, if the Americans are considered the heirs of the British, then you see for yourself ...
                Your logic does not agree, alas ...
                1. +2
                  4 December 2021 18: 57
                  You are confusing warriors with bandits. It is generally typical for you to confuse everything around you) You needlessly think that you know how to argue. Alas, I already have three warnings, and for quite a polite speech, the administration just does not like it very much. So stay in your delusion and beyond)
                  1. +4
                    4 December 2021 20: 15
                    Wow! So it's not just about the cards? smile
                    You can probably even explain the difference in military relations between, for example, the process of colonizing Siberia and Australia or New Zealand, the conquest of Central Asia and India ...
                    And at the same time, explain why the best warriors on the planet, fighting almost always in numerical superiority, often suffered greater losses than their opponents?
            2. 0
              5 December 2021 23: 12
              Tuvinians have been forgotten)) They are the descendants of Chingiz.
  10. +8
    4 December 2021 10: 26
    It took an experienced gunsmith about one day to produce a long English bow.
    And it is true. Shitty firewood, called bows in England, was made that way. You take an ax, then a knife, roughly hewn it off, go through with a sand peel and you're done. Well, there is still a "break" to do, perhaps.
    It is interesting that the Turks tried (in contrast to all other countries) to teach their future sultans management techniques from childhood. While the Turks succeeded, Turkey systematically conquered Europe, which could not do anything about it, only surrender. And don't be Young ... But that's not what I mean.

    The main thing in teaching management is what kind of person, what kind of person the future manager will be. One of the most important tools for creating the required personality type is, of course, mastering a craft at a professional level. It is impossible that a truly smart and strong person does not own his hands at least at the level of a strong pro.
    So, one of those skills that the future sultans mastered was the manufacture of bows. Only REAL bows. For this manufacture, it is necessary to dry and prepare the workpiece. It takes at least 5 years. After that, the prince took on several blanks (it is impossible to limit ourselves to one, more precisely, it would be incredible luck), and worked on them for about six months. Every day. A little longer than one day)
    Exactly what the prince did, the composite bow formed the basis of the armament of the Russian boyar. In Russia, these bows were produced in large quantities, although not to say that they were cheap) Only a lot of sturgeon skies are needed ... Imagine a number of "great English archers" with a roughly hewn cudgel, and Russian boyars with composite bows in their hands)) the British hate the Russian people so inevitably. Not surprising at all)
    1. +1
      4 December 2021 22: 00
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Turkey systematically conquered Europe, which could not do anything about it, only surrender. And don't be Young ...

      I look forward to a breathtaking story about how in 1572, the army of Ioan Vasilievich IV, near Molody, utterly defeated the main forces of Sultan Selim II and, thereby, saved Europe from the Ottoman yoke!
      Quote: Mikhail3
      However, I'm not talking about that.

      And let's talk about just that! The story promises to be too exciting! wassat
  11. +14
    4 December 2021 10: 41
    IMHO - these types of deadly English archers are nothing more than a successful PR .. Against the background of several battles lost by the French out of their own stupidity. For some reason, few people remember the battles where the knights cut out archers at the root, acting against them competently. Yes, and in the East during the time of the Crusades - the vaunted longbow did not particularly impress anyone. Because a piece of wood is a piece of wood, with the right composite it cannot compete ..
    1. +9
      4 December 2021 11: 19
      Yes, and in the East during the time of the Crusades - the vaunted longbow did not particularly impress anyone.
      Only because it was not used there.
      1. +3
        4 December 2021 12: 09
        That is - you mean that the English crusaders - did not have archers ?? belay
        1. +7
          4 December 2021 12: 23
          There were probably, but it was the "longbow" that got widespread and widespread use a little later.
          1. +9
            4 December 2021 12: 36
            Come on - the Welsh used the longbow almost since Roman times. It's just that the effectiveness of its use depended directly on the stupidity of the enemy. The stump is clear - if you quickly shove it into the forehead on the entrenched archers, nothing pleasant will come of it. But - such were found only in feudal France. Yes, and there after a while they were transferred. Even in Scotland - but there they used shiltrons exclusively out of poverty.

            Western knights, in principle, did not want to study, and over and over again tried the same thing. But as soon as they were able to be applied at least to some extent competently, the archers would advance a stopudovy kirdyk.

            In the East, there were no such clowns. And the craftsmen about, in turn, shmalnut from onions - it was full. Yes, not from a long log - but from a normal composite.
            1. +9
              4 December 2021 12: 46
              What have the Wollis and the tactics of mass coordinated use of small arms to do with it? Which the British practiced on the same Welsh. As for the phrasemongers, to the last phase of the Hundred Years War and to them the advantages of such tactics reached, only in the crossbow interpretation, the post was even established - the marshal of the crossbowmen, although he led not only them
              1. +9
                4 December 2021 13: 00
                Once again, it can be applied in large quantities only under certain conditions. And they worked it out - on the Scots. Having got rid of the shiltrons a couple of times, we were forced to look for an antidote.

                The answer to this tactic is simple - don't go head-on under the massive shelling of archers behind the fortifications. The flanking maneuver was still used by Epaminondas. All the more so if you have an advantage in cavalry.

                In general, the Battle of Path is a vivid example of this. The situation is exactly the same as at Agincourt and Crécy, only the English archers did not have time to strengthen themselves. The result is a total defeat. But for some reason this battle is not so glorified .. Apparently - it somehow gets out of the legend about the formidable omnipotent longbow ..
                1. +8
                  4 December 2021 13: 08
                  Once again, it can be applied in large quantities only under certain conditions.

                  Do I deny it? The task of the commander is precisely to create conditions for the most effective use of the available troops and types of weapons.
                  1. +6
                    4 December 2021 13: 14
                    Well, yes. Only the stupidity of the French does not at all justify the longbow's fame as a type of wunderwafe of all times and peoples.
                    1. +3
                      4 December 2021 13: 22
                      So I didn't seem to admire him, and do not share the author's enthusiasm for this device?
                    2. +11
                      4 December 2021 15: 17
                      I agree with Anton. None of the sane people consider the English bow a wunderwolf. By itself, it cost a little and did not show any outstanding technical characteristics. The shock in Europe was caused not by the bow itself, but by the way it was used. Mass character, uniformity, controllability. This was a clear step forward in the art of war. The bow itself is only part of this effect, one of many.
                      1. +7
                        4 December 2021 15: 56
                        There was one more absolutely fundamental point - the English nobility began to dismount and stand next to the archers - this gave the archers a huge increase in combat stability. Plus, the interaction between the two types of infantry was perfected.
                      2. +3
                        4 December 2021 21: 49
                        Exactly. The recipe for victory is MASS, achieved by inexpensively making a bow against a composite, and mass training in its use among the lower strata (that is, we immediately have two in one against a composite), plus controllability on the battlefield and protection of archers by dismounted knights acting as a human shield, then, as all other archers / crossbowmen were used autonomously, without interaction and protection by other branches of the armed forces
    2. +1
      4 December 2021 14: 27
      I could be wrong, but there seemed to be an episode when the French knights went through a swampy field to the formation of archers, and having lost their horses, stuck like hedgehogs in arrows, they still reached the archers and would have successfully cut them out, if not for the help that came in time.
      Well, I agree that the bow has been too popular lately, especially all sorts of pseudo-historical films and fantasies help in this. If the bow were such a deadly weapon, until the invention of self-loading rifles, only bows would be in service.
      1. +3
        4 December 2021 14: 33
        There is a description of how the Welsh attacked the knight's castle in Wales. He was the first in the heat to start at them from the gate - and immediately turned into a hedgehog and the horse was killed. The vassals thought - kirdyk to the peasant, but the sir got out from under the horse and with a roar climbed to write out the well-deserved rags. But the knight was in chain mail, not in white armor.
      2. +1
        4 December 2021 16: 07
        The bow is a very technologically advanced weapon. It takes REAL technical development to produce it. The same Europeans did not have this for many centuries, right up to the era of firearms.
        And further. The bow does not obey. To work effectively at a decent distance (and not at a measly 30 meters, like the British)), an archer must be trained somewhere from 3-4 years old. Every day. Considering the cost of a composite bow, and it is necessary to make children's bows, which are not applicable in battle, this is simply too expensive. Everyone would love to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. But most do not pull in technology and finance ...
        1. +1
          4 December 2021 19: 21
          To work effectively at a decent distance (and not at a measly 30 meters, like the British)), an archer must be trained somewhere from 3-4 years old. Every day. Considering the cost of a composite bow, and it is necessary to make children's bows, which are not applicable in battle, this is simply too expensive.


          Well, you are also exaggerating, why then don't you put onions in diapers from birth? Of course, an archer demanded training, but in areal shooting (and it was just that) the difference between five to ten years of training and archers who were trained from childhood will not be big. The task is to shoot an arrow approximately in a square of 50 by 50 meters from a distance of 50-100 meters, and some efficiency is achieved by mass, when at least a hundred archers are shooting at the same square, and when there is a dense formation of troops in this square, well, what or maybe an arrow will hit.
          Just British reenactors with a "beer belly" took these same bows and fired up to ten arrows per minute.
          1. +1
            4 December 2021 21: 52
            Well, actually 6 arrows per minute maximum) but that was enough for MASS APPLICATION
            “When there are many archers, they decide everything. When there are few of them, they do not decide anything "
            1. 0
              5 December 2021 09: 17
              Quote: Michael HORNET
              Well, actually 6 arrows per minute maximum) but that was enough for MASS APPLICATION


              When it comes to aimed shooting, aiming takes most of the time.
              Many peoples had fun, competition: who will shoot the most arrows before the first falls to the ground. A good archer would shoot 7 to 10 arrows. (arrow flight - about 30 seconds).
  12. +8
    4 December 2021 11: 29
    The long bow was not invented by the British

    The author is trying to "debunk" the myths invented by him, possessing extremely scanty knowledge and never having understood that a longbow in general ((longbow) and an English longbow in particular (english longbow) are different subjects and the English have never been able to invent a longbow in general) claimed.
    Sixth grade high school level article.
    1. +8
      4 December 2021 11: 54
      Sixth grade high school level article.
      Whole paragraphs taken out of context, taken from Wikipedia
      1. +7
        4 December 2021 12: 31
        Come on, the person also wants to eat and declare himself. With the first point, he is probably all right ... relatively. drinks
        1. +6
          4 December 2021 13: 01
          Yes. Should that justify bringing crap to the masses?
          1. +9
            4 December 2021 13: 16
            I didn’t seem to say what should be justified, don’t find fault, Nephew. drinks
  13. mz
    +10
    4 December 2021 11: 56
    According to information that has come down to us, shooters who were accepted in England for royal service were required to be able to shoot at a distance of 400 yards (365 meters). But even this was not the limit in theory. With a good tailwind and shooting from a hill, the range could increase. At the same time, in most battles of that era, the firing range of archers almost never exceeded 200-300 yards.
    There is no such information. The unit of measure is possibly confused - 400 feet. At 400 yards, an English bow cannot be fired at all. The maximum firing distance with a light arrow is 320-330 m, a heavy one 200-250 m. Reconstructors (British) checked.
  14. +2
    4 December 2021 14: 33
    According to information that has come down to us, shooters who were accepted in England for royal service were required to be able to shoot at a distance of 400 yards (365 meters). But even this was not the limit in theory. With a good tailwind and shooting from a hill, the range could increase. At the same time, in most battles of that era, the firing range of archers almost never exceeded 200-300 yards.


    Why then did the armies begin to switch to flintlock rifles, whose rate of fire was lower and the aiming range was up to 100 meters and the weapon itself was more expensive. And then bows with a practical firing range of 200-300 yards (182-274 meters), probably the effectiveness of bows on average was extremely low.
    1. +6
      4 December 2021 16: 01
      Quote: ViacheslavS
      Why then the armies began to switch to flintlocks

      Before flint, there were wicks, but that's not the point.
      An archer must be taught all his life, an arrow from a wick arquebus can be trained in a week. Archery is not the easiest thing to do and the shooter gets tired quickly. The process of loading and firing a gun is divided into several simple operations that do not require much work. Therefore, a musketeer, purely theoretically, can shoot without interruption for as long as necessary. And finally, to inflict damage on the armored rider, the arrow needs to get into some unprotected place, a gap, a visor or something like that. An inert piece of lead doesn't care where it goes. Even if it is the very center of the cuirass. which cannot be pierced, the blow will be of such force that the rider can easily fly out of the saddle.
      Something like that.
      1. 0
        4 December 2021 17: 09
        An archer must be taught all his life, an arrow from a wick arquebus can be trained in a week.


        And finally, to inflict damage on the armored rider, the arrow needs to get into some unprotected place, a gap, a visor or something like that. An inert piece of lead doesn't care where it goes.


        This only speaks about the "PR" of the onion as such, preparation takes a lot of time, the efficiency is low.
        1. +3
          4 December 2021 18: 19
          Quote: ViacheslavS
          preparation is time consuming

          Yes.
          Quote: ViacheslavS
          efficiency is low.

          Not really. Archers, when used correctly, are a formidable force. Even during the Napoleonic Wars, our Kalmyks gave their opponents many unpleasant moments.
      2. -1
        5 December 2021 09: 06
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        The process of loading and firing a gun is divided into several simple operations that do not require much work.


        But taking a lot of time. Bows were much faster than the first firearms.
        It was possible to shoot from a match gun 2-3 times per minute, but from a bow? And the crossbow was faster than the match barrel.
        Plus a great dependence on weather conditions. It started raining, the gunpowder got wet - and the gun turns into a simple club.
        Not surprisingly, the crossbows held up for quite some time.
        In terms of penetration, a good bow was rather big. The armor made its way through from close range (up to 30 m). Of course, if the bow was tight and the archer was not a weakling.
        And on a larger one - and it was difficult to hit from the squeak, and the destructive power of the firearm was then not very high, despite the caliber. The gunpowder was imperfect.
        1. +3
          5 December 2021 09: 28
          Quote: Illanatol
          It started raining, the gunpowder got wet - and the gun turns into a simple club.

          Like a bow, by the way :))
          Even on a longbow, the bowstring gets wet quickly, and glued compound bows should be immediately hidden in a special case - if the weather conditions worsen. Otherwise, the glue will get wet and the formidable weapon will be hopelessly damaged.
          In general, as the native Crimean women say, everything is not so simple.
          1. 0
            5 December 2021 13: 36
            Quote: Senior Sailor
            Like a bow, by the way :))


            Composite bows were covered with a special varnish to protect them from moisture.
            Many people confuse this varnish and glue.
            The bows were not always glued. The wood and the horn were sometimes fastened with animal veins (they were preliminarily softened, wrapped in separate parts, after drying, the structure was fastened tightly).
            Even if it was necessary to remove the bow, it could be quickly used after the rain stopped. If the gunpowder got wet, all that was left was to throw it away. By the way, it was not easy to make gunpowder then, since native saltpeter is rare.
            1. +2
              5 December 2021 16: 10
              Quote: Illanatol
              bows were covered with a special varnish

              Who was also afraid of moisture.
              Quote: Illanatol
              if it was necessary to remove the bow, it could be quickly used after the rain ended. If the gunpowder gets wet ...

              Believe it or not, they also tried to make powder flasks airtight :)
              1. 0
                6 December 2021 08: 44
                Quote: Senior Sailor
                Who was also afraid of moisture.


                And the point was in coating with varnish, which did not fulfill its functions?
                Even if the varnish suffered from excess moisture, it could be varnished again. The weapon could be used - this is the main thing.

                Quote: Senior Sailor

                Believe it or not, they also tried to make powder flasks airtight :)


                So what? The gunpowder will remain dry, but the weapon itself? Was he also thrust into an airtight container?
                1. 0
                  6 December 2021 15: 23
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Even if the varnish suffered from excess moisture, it could be varnished again.

                  Excuse me, did you work with a tree at all?
                  Even if you take a product treated with modern varnishes and put it in water for a long time, sooner or later it will warp. The only question is timing.
                  And yes, "varnishing again" is a bad idea. in the sense it will not help. It is necessary to disassemble everything, dry it, glue it again ... it is easier to make a new one.
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Was he also thrust into an airtight container?

                  But the iron barrel will not warp from moisture. And drying it is not such a problem.
                  And further. Rain in those days is an almost guaranteed stop of hostilities. Because it makes the ground soggy, it becomes difficult to move on it even on foot, not to mention hoofed transport and wagon train. And so on and so forth.
                  By virtue of the above, the advantage in "all-weather bows" is a little far-fetched. request
    2. +6
      4 December 2021 16: 06
      1. An archer must practice his whole life. The base for archers is free peasants of decent income. The base began to shrink due to the enclosures, the peasants were ruined and turned into farm laborers. There is no time for exercises with a bow.
      2. Early gunners learn much faster, early gun wounds are much more dangerous. Reconstructions show that the impact of the arquebus bullets was horrendous. Severe contusion injuries, scraps of chain mail crashed into the body with a bullet.
      The process of replacing archers with arquebusiers was bilateral - economic and military, although the effectiveness of large masses of archers was confirmed many times by medieval sources.
      1. 0
        4 December 2021 17: 50
        If the archer is a foot soldier, then the shooting technique is drastically simplified, and then in the war, foot archers, as a rule, fired not at single targets, but at the enemy's battle formations, area targets, shooting often took place over the heads of the archers in front, that is, without seeing the target, they fired in the direction, of course the throwing angle was close to 45 *, so no special skills were required from the shooters, strength and endurance were needed. With regards to the bow itself, from an engineering point of view, it was made quite competently, because the greater the ratio of the length of the bow's shoulders to the bowstring stroke, the less deformation and the lower the requirements for the material of the bow, and the English bow was really long, up to 2.3m, and so no less plastic deformations accumulated in it and it had to be changed regularly,
        1. +4
          4 December 2021 18: 05
          Archers trained on individual targets, usually tall ones. Thus, marksmanship itself was a very important part of the training. Accordingly, it was the skills that were also required.
          1. 0
            4 December 2021 19: 25
            Well, it is clear that he trained on growth targets, why not then. But in battle, their task was to shoot across the squares, and from this point of view, it would take five years to train, that 20 years alone will be.
            1. +3
              4 December 2021 20: 37
              In battle, their task was to shoot at the enemy and inflict damage on him.
              We shoot at the areas on approach and start aiming from 30-40 meters. Here is the most reasonable and consistent assumption. Thus, the skill of marksmanship is still needed.
              Prize shooting in England at that time was carried out at a distance of 100 steps. To think that the shooters did not try to hit a specific target on the battlefield from this distance is at least strange.
              1. 0
                4 December 2021 21: 02
                The shooters may have tried to hit, but most likely single shots had low efficiency, they only took in density, and for this you do not need to shoot from a bow since childhood. Moreover, the presence of any kind of protection, even wooden shields, greatly reduced the effectiveness of the bow.
                And in order to be a skilled master of the sword, spear, hand-to-hand combat with weapons, you need to train incomparably more than an archer and in large aspects, ranging from psychology, ending directly with physical form.
                1. +4
                  4 December 2021 21: 22
                  Some kind of argument for the sake of argument.
                  I don’t want to hurt, but I’m trying to convey an extremely simple idea that since the British purposefully developed accuracy among archers, they needed it. Maybe they still know better? We know that at that time a stick was sometimes used as a target for prize shooting (along with other types of targets). But at the same time, mounted shooting was also practicing - they shot at a circle outlined on the ground.
                  And in order to be a skilled master of the sword, spear, hand-to-hand combat with weapons, you need to train incomparably more than an archer and in large aspects, ranging from psychology, ending directly with physical form.

                  The skeletons of Mary Rose archers have been described and studied. Curved spine, overdeveloped left hand, protrusions on the left hand and fingers of the right hand. All this speaks of a very intense exercise with a bow.
                  1. 0
                    4 December 2021 21: 37
                    I don’t want to hurt, but I’m trying to convey an extremely simple idea that since the British purposefully developed accuracy among archers, they needed it. Maybe they still know better?


                    Well, what else could they do? If you have identified people as archers? Plus, again, prize money at competitions.
                    And the talk that the archer was difficult to train refers to any other war. Or, to handle the sword in such a way that you would not die in the first battle, you did not need daily exercises or was it the same to use a spear?
                    1. +2
                      4 December 2021 21: 47
                      More intense training could only be with the knights.
                      For Welsh spearmen, Flemish and Swiss pikemen, German Landsknechts, Scottish highlanders, I know nothing of the kind. If you give examples with sources I will be grateful.
                      As far as I can tell, for the European infantry of that time, the intensity of the training of the British archers and the similar motivation on the part of the authorities were unparalleled.
                  2. +4
                    4 December 2021 21: 52
                    Some kind of argument for the sake of argument.
                    Indeed, your opponent is somewhat, shall we say, out of topic.
                    1. +3
                      4 December 2021 22: 02
                      The topic is interesting, including from the point of view of analogies.
                      In principle, all the myths of the English bow have long been refuted and discarded, but other extremes have appeared, such as declaring it nonsense and cannot withstand any comparison with the Mongolian / \ Turkish / Russian
                      Unfortunately, the author has written a rather weak article, and many of his critics know no more about the subject.
                      1. +4
                        4 December 2021 22: 19
                        1. The topic is certainly interesting, especially for people interested in the era.
                        2. Myths remain myths, but only for neophytes, and then only for a while.
                        3. Many criticizing the author remain captive to their own illusions and fantasies caused by their own difficult (let's say) existence.
                        4. The author did not write the article, he frankly (you know the verb) from Wikipedia, as I have already stated. And to be honest, Wikipedia is much more complete and interesting.
                        PS And the fact that you, Denis, do not know how to conduct a dialogue with an unprepared interlocutor - obviously, excuse me.
                      2. +3
                        4 December 2021 22: 21
                        PS And the fact that you, Denis, do not know how to conduct a dialogue with an unprepared interlocutor - obviously, excuse me.

                        Is it really bad?)
                      3. +3
                        4 December 2021 22: 40
                        Not really ...
                        It's just that you are spoiled by intellectual debates with the "Trilobite Master", for people like me, look "through the lip", such as the actual opponent leads you into a stupor. Sorry for the frankness, but this is how it looks in my perception.
                      4. +2
                        4 December 2021 23: 18
                        Well, maybe)
                        I don’t promise to fix it, but at least I’ll try.
                        It's just the Internet, people come in with complete confidence that they know everything about the subject. And the discussion begins with the pattern "you do not understand anything", but in an amicable way it is necessary at least "what source do you use?" Alas, the vast majority of people are terribly uninterested.
                        I try not to look down on people. It's just hard for me to give a laconic answer to a difficult question. Plus I sin with pretensions to academism, which can be mistaken for snobbery. That's all.
                      5. +1
                        4 December 2021 23: 31
                        It's just the Internet, people come in with complete confidence that they know everything about the subject.
                        Believe it or not! The old men told me that this happened in "Fido" too!
                      6. +2
                        4 December 2021 23: 38
                        I try not to look down on people.
                        To be honest, it sucks.
                        There are no concise answers to a complex question.
                  3. 0
                    4 December 2021 22: 02
                    You are misunderstanding the value of Longbow. Its value lies in its low cost, and FOR THIS reason, its availability for peasants. Because the composite was not available for the peasant and he, therefore, could not train with it. No need to exaggerate the preparation time. This is no more than a few months, subject to basic physical development. For the first time in my life I took a bow in my hands, immediately hit the target at 20 m, and by the end of the day I confidently hit the target at 30 m, and there was simply no distance in the shooting range) True, it was a compound bow))))) )))
                    Therefore, it was the mass character and nothing more that played a role - the British were able to deploy at times more archers recruited from cheap peasants than any other army in the world
                    1. +2
                      4 December 2021 22: 09
                      Oh Lord, one more.
                      Do you understand that modern bows are much more stable and therefore more accurate than medieval ones?
                      We know of records that show that the training of specifically English archers was long and tiring. We are aware of the findings from Mary Rose that indicate the high cost of such training for the body.
                      But then another expert appears and announces that historians do not understand anything.
                      1. +5
                        4 December 2021 22: 53
                        Denis, try to mention that Mary Rose is the flagship of Henry VIII, not your friend from Glasgow. laughing
                    2. +2
                      4 December 2021 23: 27
                      Quote: Michael HORNET
                      No need to exaggerate the preparation time. This is no more than a few months, subject to basic physical development. For the first time in my life I took a bow in my hands, immediately hit the target at 20 m, and by the end of the day I confidently hit the target at 30 m, and there was simply no distance in the shooting range) True, it was a compound bow))))) )))

                      And a month later, you already boldly took a correction for the wind and confidently fell into a circle with a radius of 5 m, at a distance of 130 m, showing a rate of fire of at least 10 arrows per minute? Yes? ))))))
                      1. 0
                        15 December 2021 19: 41
                        It would have been necessary - I would have done it without any problems. I at least really shoot from a bow, unlike the overwhelming majority here. 10 arrows per minute is a journalistic cliche, like from Vintorez per kilometer. Shooting was carried out with a canopy in that direction, or with aiming at an individual target, when it was possible. In view of the absence of a sight as such on a traditional bow, shooting from it, in principle, was carried out "on a whim", and the legends about accuracy are nothing more than stories.
                        But what really rules is the price of the bow, the number of trained archers, the number of arrows for bows. If you provided these three most important conditions, and your commanders are not finished and understand how to competently fight using this force, and your enemy is arrogant and stupid, you have every chance to win
  15. 0
    4 December 2021 18: 13
    Quote: Trilobite Master
    Are there any other options?

    Maybe there are many Turks among chess players, or Nogays - those who still hate Topal Pasha fiercely.
  16. +1
    4 December 2021 22: 24
    If the archers were trained, they didn't need bows. Perhaps they could throw them with their fingers, or with their eyebrows. Whether it's the sword experts. He waves his sword, there are dozens of enemies, they lie with their heels raised. And if there were still horses, like a certain Camila. Her Ivan Kotlyarevsky describes this girl in the "Aeneid" like this: The divytsya was called Kamila. Zhinka to the navel, there is a mare. The mare is all too small to become. Chotyry legs, whistle with a spike. She blinked her tail, was her backside. She could both talk and laugh.
    1. 0
      11 December 2021 00: 39
      Who is Kotlyarevsky?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"