Talk:English longbow

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Synesis

Reluctantly, I see that synesis, as demonstrated in this edit, is acceptable in British English. "Diversity" is definitely an improvement over mine. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't want to be picky, as both are taught at school but the version I used is certainly the more common nowadays. I didn't realise it had a Greek name though. Always happy to edit with a man who takes his grammar seriously :)

Tactics

After recent edit began the work of removing erroneous material from this section, I've done a little more towards structuring a framework to allow a summary of tactics to be made. There is still a strong need for citations and examples, however. A number of quite significant statements are in the text without any supporting evidence e.g. that archery was inaccurate and used for barrage shooting, that archery and cavalry attacks were alternated (definitely used in 13th century but how common later?), that archers couldn't stand up to cavalry without field defences. There is also a fundamental decision to be made whether this section should show historical evolution or whether it should broadly summarise. I hope other will now feel emboldened to further improve this section Monstrelet (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Imperial vs Metric

Is there a specific reason for using imperial lb over kg? Pounds are not really used by many people these days, metric would increase article accessibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjoyce (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been looked at, and adjusted, before; see Talk:English_longbow/Archive_1#measurement, but there are quite a few other suggestions on that page. The upshot seemed to be, AFAICR, “needs more work”. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing history

I've just been looking at the history section and noticed it doesn't really discuss the English longbows origins. The current orthodoxy is that of Strickland and Hardy in Great Warbow. There was no shortbow - early Medieval bows were longbow length. What really changes around 1300 is mode of use. However, Clifford Rogers has recently restated the old case that the English longbow is a new weapon, replacing the older shortbow around 1300. See Clifford J. Rogers : The development of the longbow in late medieval England and ‘technological determinism’ in Journal of Medieval History, Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 321–341 . Sadly, I don't have access but I guess given Rogers' reputation this will be a significant contribution. It would be useful to compare these origin theories in the article.

Also, does it make sense to have the sections on use before the section on history? Or does description/history/use work better as a sequence. Monstrelet (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

On order, I'm quite indifferent. Thanks for the reference to Rogers' work. I'll try to get a copy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and completely rewritten the origins subsection of the history and attempted to briefly reflect the ongoing debate about the origins of the weapon, rather than the history of archery in England and Wales. Ironically, after proving the catalyst, Rogers new paper is boiled down to a line. As an argument it deserves far more (as does Strickland's argument) but it would unbalance this article. --Monstrelet (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Admirable! It might be worth adding a little more - this is a notable debate - but you have done a fine job. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've learnt quite a bit, and I won't be the only one—thanks. The Rogers article is GBP23, just for the download, so I'll have to rely on what's here! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I got mine via the local library, though it cost GBP5.20 and a six week wait.--Monstrelet (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Longbows between 16th and 20th centuries

With the removal of the poorly referenced Wellington comment, we have rather a gap. Obviously sporting archery continued during this period, which we may wish to reflect. In military terms, Heath and Featherstone both quote schemes to recreate military archery in the late 18th/ early 19th century. Heath records Ben Franklin was a proponent in the 1770s, that the Honourable Artillery Company had an archer company between 1784 and 1794 and a man named Richard Mason wrote a book proposing the arming of militia with pike and longbow in 1798. Featherstone records one Lt. Col. Richard Lee of 44th Foot advocated the military use of the longbow in 1792. Now, I have the bare references to these which could be dropped into the text but does anyone have more detail which would make a better job? Monstrelet (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot more material than I would be able to contribute! I'd be surprised if there were a great number of sources which have substantial material on the period after the last significant use of the English longbow in battle. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)