Talk:English longbow/Archive 1

message: "Long Bow arrows were made from <<????>> (this could help Westminster boys answer a competition, so I'm not giving it away."
:Will someone please explain this? At least explain this Westminster boys competition... is the competition over? I'm a Kansas boy and am confused by these weird Engrish "competitions".
::# It was just someone playing a joke, (vandalising the article).
# I'm pretty sure that school children in Kansas also participate in academic competitions.
::: Umm.... long bow arrows were made out of ash... right?--Shark Fin 101 18:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrows 

message: Longbows found on the Mary Rose (Slip of Henry VIIIs Navy, sunk at Portsmouth) had a draw weight of up to 170 lbs (80 kg)
81.152.194.3 21:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draw weight 

message: :Traditional Archers and Crossbowmen in the center back, in rank formation.
Is anyone sure that this bit is correct? In most armies the crossbowmen and archers were in the front rank, and retreated through the rest of the infantry when the enemy got too close. Bit hard to shoot people with a crossbow when your own soldiers are in the way! --kudz75 05:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read accounts of both ways, but obviously your correct, more so in the front. This bit of text is too specific, tactics varied based on many factors; plus, crossbowmen and longbowmen were seen in entirely diffrent status (the former were hated by both sides and usually mercenary and often killed w/out mercy on capture). It should rather give historic examples of battles and the tactics used at those battles to illustrate a point, rather than try to use words like "traditionally" which really has no meaning.Stbalbach 06:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactics 

message: According to an expert in the field, there are no surviving longbows from the Middle Ages. There is no standard date on when the Middle Ages ended, it can range from the beginning of the Ren. in Italy, to the Gutenburg Press, etc.. we can debate that here, but, that would be original research. The expert said none from the Middle Ages, we should stick to it, and provide a citation if needed. Stbalbach 17:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is debatable when the middle ages finished in foreign lands, in England it is simple: 1485 Battle of Bosworth, and for the swats at the front "August 22, 1485". All school children in England know about "1066 and all that", any which remain awake through most of the next 10+ years, know about 1485 and 1966. (For any German readers of this paragraph IT WAS A GOAL!) Philip Baird Shearer 22:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Middle Ages" 

message: And, with Neolithic finds of longbows in Somerset and Scotland, why is this particular longbow article titled "English Longbow"? Neolithic Englishmen and Jolly Old Crecy and all that? --Wetman 06:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article separate from [[Longbow]]? 

message: " Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms, "
How can you see if the left arm was bigger on a skeleton ? Old of 1000 years, and in what condition ? !
I was told the indication of assymetry on the skeleton of a professional archer was the erosion of the cartiledge on the "bow" arm shoulder blade.  As an amateur archer (about 30 lb) I can testify that is where I feel it.24.10.102.46 06:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms, 

message: Regarding the paragraph:
"In the British Isles the weapon was first recorded as being used by the Welsh, in AD 633. Offrid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an arrow shot from a Welsh longbow, during a battle between the Welsh and the Mercians — nearly six centuries before any record of its military use in England. Despite this, the weapon is often referred to as the "English longbow" rather than the "Welsh longbow"."
Could you please state precisely where this information is recorded, since this will be of outstanding and immense importance to comparative linguists and researchers such as myself, as well as to universities, historians and anyone interested in the development of archery (possibly even the national press). No term for longbow has previously been identified in Old or Middle Welsh, Old English or medieval Latin, the languages used at the time of the incident mentioned, so I am more than eager to understand how such a specific reference could have been made.
I note that the AS Chronicle entry for 633 simply states that Offrid died in battle, with no detail of how this occurred. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable!
Ranulfus 06:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is now reason to think this is inaccurate, it has been removed, until someone can provide a verifiable source. -- Stbalbach 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh Longbow 

message: I've heard that the success of the huge Mongol bows were a prompt to the widespread adoption of the English longbow.  I'm not sure if this is true though. Jztinfinity 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mongol bow was a typical Asian recurve bow. Very powerful, and with a comparable draw length, but physically rather small. Also, use of the longbow in Wales predates contact with the mongols by quite some time.--Stephan Schulz 11:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongol prompt 

message: Is there any particular reason that Agincourt is mentioned in the preamble to the page but not Crecy? I recognise that there were more longbowmen at Agincourt than Crecy, but it was surely at least as decisive a victory brought about because of the longbow.
--145.221.52.70 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because Agincourt is part of the British national myth: a badass army of plebian longbowmen beat up on the arrogant French knights. It's almost certainly the most well-known battle in which the longbow was decisive. Stilgar135 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Agincourt highlighted but not Crecy? 

message: Is it actually true that 'The longbow was the weapon of choice for rebels during the Peasants' Revolt'? I've had a quick look at some sources, and I can find references to bows, sure, but nothing about longbows. And the weapons are described like this:
"some carried only sticks, some swords covered with rust, some merely axes and others bows more reddened with age and smoke than old ivory, many of their arrows had only one plume.” Surely these would have been bows used for hunting? You only really need a bow with the enormous draw of a longbow if a) you're shooting at armoured men or b) you're hunting something like an elephant. Which is why they were sometimes called 'war bows' at the time, and I find it difficult to imagine peasants commonly possessing them. I would have thought that most of the bows would have been what we would call shortbows, although I'm open to correction if someone can point me in the direction of a good source. In the meantime, I've added a 'citation needed'.
--Merlinme 09:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longbow in the Peasants Revolt 

message: As Wetman says, above, I can see no reason for it to be separate. The English longbow is a typical longbow, as found all over northern Europe, most of the Americas, Africa, and so on. OK, the English kept a living tradition of shooting, and (as with other cultures) the longbow is in some sense an icon of culture. But the bow itself is pretty standard. Indeed, the two articles have a lot of overlap already. Disagreements, anybody?
---------------------------------------------------------------
This article is several times larger than the Longbow article. As I remember, about 18 months ago the two articles were combined. I assume it was separated out to make both articles more manageable and focused, although I'm only guessing. 
I don't have a problem with a separate article though. Surely this is no different from having a separate article on the Brown Bess musket, as opposed to muskets in general? The problem with combining the articles, I would have thought, would be that the main longbow article would become long and unwieldy, and spend too much time concentrating on the English longbow.
There were also some specifically Welsh/English features about it, e.g. the preference for making it out of one piece of yew, use of bodkin arrows to pierce mail, etc.
--Merlinme 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article separate from [[Longbow]]? 

message: At least two Neolithic long bows have been found in Britain. One, made of yew and wrapped in leather, was found at Meare Heath, Somerset, in 1961. Although broken, it had an original length of 6 ft 3ins. It was identified as Neolithic by a combination of peat stratigraphy, pollen analysis and radiocarbon dating ca 2690 (±120) BC (Somerset Historic Environment Record), much to the consternation of some archaeologists at the time. The Meare Heath bow is long, but also wide, narrowing at the handle; it would probably fit the modern definition of a flatbow. A second was found in southern Scotland at Rotten Bottom. It was made of yew and dates to between 4040 and 3640 BC. A reconstructed bow had a draw force of about 23 kgf (230 N, 50 lbf) and a range of 50 to 55 metres. The famous Ötzi the Iceman, of the Chalcolithic period (Copper Age), found in the Ötztaler Alps, bore an unfinished bow very similar to the Rotten Bottom example, with a bowstring possibly of nettle or flax fibre. 
Weapons resembling a longbow have been discovered by archaeologists in Scandinavia, dating from the Mesolithic period, made of elm wood and found in the Holmegaard-bog in Denmark (although, during the medieval period, Scandinavians were characterized by the effective use of the shortbow). From the Neolithic onwards, yew was the preferred material. It was ideal as the inner heartwood would compress, while the outer sapwood would stretch, making a powerful natural spring.
This section has nothing to do with the English longbow and is by no means connected to its origin. Wandalstouring 15:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: The Great Warbow - Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland
This book seems to advocate the theory that the longbow in warfare has a much older history in England than usually presumed. If someone can take a look, we can possibly update this article. Please note, that it is noted for the Neolithic longbows that they were quite week and had a different construction, so the only similarity is the length, despite several other claims on various websites. Wandalstouring 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is basically about the medieval longbow, discussions of origins seem to be more detailed in Longbow. Not saying it can't be changed, but that has been the trend. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The label "English" longbow is perhaps wrong as this book points out, so I think it essentially belongs here, while longbow concerns any long bow. Wandalstouring 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information on the longbow 

message: An anon added the below "disclaimer", moved to here:
:[Disclaimer: The original Norman-English invasions of Wales, under the first Plantagenets, found the Welsh using a short bow, most fully described in Geraldus Cambrensis' "Itinerare Triugh Wales" (roughly, "Travels Through Wales"; Cambrensis, immediately following the passage quoted below by the primary author of this article, describes the bow as "short" and "rudely made" and "of elm", utterly distinguishing it from the English longbow). The longbow did not appear to have been known to the indigenous Welsh bowmen and, in fact, it was the English use of the longbow, during Edward I's incursions (c. 1250 AD/CE), which did much to bring Wales under English control, since the Welsh had no effective answer to the weapon. Thereafter, and under both English suzerainty and tutelage, the Welsh were quick to adopt the longbow and began, increasingly, to appear as longbow archers within any combined Anglo-Welsh army, whence came the mythology of the "Welsh longbow". In fact, bows recovered from the Nydam Bog boat burials (in the vicinity of the ancestral Angle homeland, c. 200 AD/CE) are almost indistinguishable in size and configuration from longbows recovered from, e.g., the Tudor ship "Mary Rose" (c. 1520 AD/CE), providing compelling evidence for the English origin of the longbow, popular mythology notwithstanding. Third Century AD/CE Gothic bows, from the areas around the Black Sea, though shorter and somewhat distinguished morphologically, also mimic/herald the form of the later longbow, again indicating a Germanic origin for the weapon. The misattribution of the longbow to the Welsh remains a common error, requiring no greater rebuttal than the "Legend of Robin Hood", a Saxon folk hero who was, famously, using the longbow before the proponents of the Welsh origin of the longbow would even allow for its introduction into England.]
The origins of the longbow needs to be discussed, but this is un-sourced and reads like original research making the claim that the longbow was an English invention and that the Welsh longbow is a "myth". This may be standard and un-contested, or it may be controversial, I do not know. These seem like fairly strong claims, sources are needed as well as a balance of other views. -- Stbalbach 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is proof that porridge was invented by the English :) 86.133.175.12 (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English or Welsh longbow? 

message: Lines such as "This rate of fire was much higher than that of crossbows or any other projectile weapon of the period, including firearms." are somewhat missleading as this article has to do with the English Longbow, not bows in general. There was nothing special about the Enlgish Longbow in regards to rate of fire, one could just a easily argue that the eastern composite recurve was just as fast or faster when you consider the thumb draw (sometimes called the Mongol draw). There seem to be a few arbitary statements making the Longbow seem like the best bow of the period. I don't want to start an argument of longbow vs. composite bow, however I think that we need some clarifying statements in this regard. Master z0b 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded bias 

message: I stumbled upon this page and noticed the units where incoherent, some in the form “metric (imperial)” some “imperial (metric)” some pure metric and some pure imperial.
This makes for uneasy reading. So I put every thing in the “Standard International (imperial)” form, as I believe it makes it more legible for the majority of the world. CyrilleDunant 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we're writing about the English (Welsh) longbow. A large majority of the literature (everything written before decimalisation and quite a lot after it) will refer to feet, inches, pounds force etc. In some cases your edits are just wrong. E.g. The Antiquaries Society did not say the bow was 1.5m or 1.83m in length; they said it was 5 or 6 feet. Richard Bartelot did not say the bow was 1.83m long with a 914mm arrow; he said it was 6 feet long with a 3 foot arrow. Please do not change quotes to make the article more 'coherent'. I have no particular objection to giving standard units in addition to the Imperial units, but I would have thought in this particular case, given the subject matter and the quotes, it makes more sense to give Imperial units first. --Merlinme 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a particularly easy matter to resolve, but I would suggest something along the following lines: don't change quotes, whichever form they use; stick to feet and inches when describing the length of the bows and arrows, because they were essentially 6ft long with a 3ft arrow, they weren't 1.83m long with 914mm arrows. I'd suggest we standardise on Newtons rather than kgf as well. I don't mind if Newtons comes before lbf. I don't have a particularly strong view on distance and weight. In practice these should be taken from some sort of source anyway, so use whichever form the source uses. --Merlinme 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appologize about changing the quotes, this is of course wrong...CyrilleDunant 08:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: This does not exist. Which Society of Antiquaries is being credited with the statement? --Wetman 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Royal Antiquaries Society of Great Britain " 

message: Interesting, when I corrct the misinformation in the main article and state why in here, giving references, then both the correction and the comment are suddenly deleted. Is this a bias? --82.28.46.207 11:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrow Length 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that all of this extra information about longbows in the Sahara and from the Mesolithic have essentially nothing to do with the particularly powerful longbows used in England. Yes, it seems that longbows have been in use there for a while, but that again seems to be a different topic from "English Longbow". The description section talks broadly about longbows found in England, and the general use of the bows throughout Europe, but very little about the specific type of bow generally considered English (i.e. the kind used against the French in the Hundred Years' War). Most of that information seems to fit more appropriately into the longbow article. This article should stick specifically to information about the longbow referenced in the article's first paragraph.
Alucardtepes (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article about English Longbows or about Longbows in general? 

message: I think this article needs a image of a archer's formation, insted of \___/. Although it does work, I think with an image it could clear it up more, and there could be other parts of the army listed. Maybe I'll create an SVG in inkscape of a formation, highlighting (hiliting looks too much like 'Hitlering') the archers position. 142.23.10.137 (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good plan to me, please go ahead and see what you can come up with. --Merlinme (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation image 

message: This article references a "Mary Rose" longbow, however the links are to Mary Rose, the warship.  Is this an error in linking?  I can't imagine a warship, equipped with cannons, using longbows; however I'm happy to be corrected.
--Pjf (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the warship was equiped with early cannons. The usual small arms on deck would have been crossbows and melée weapons with very few guns, but for this ship was English they tried longbows instead of crossbows(they had some battle records in that their archers defeated the famed Genuese crossbowmen). Wandalstouring (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Rose? 

message: The paragraph that starts "Prince Hal (later Henry V) was wounded in the face by an arrow at the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403). ..." was originally added by me at 00:56, on 9 September 2004. I am not sure if it was a quotation or a summary of something I was reading at the time. I can not find anything on the net with this wording but if anyone knows that it is a quotation then please mark it as such and add the source. For the time being I have added as a citation an article written in 2006 that is from a reliable source that goes into more detail than the paragraph and backs up what is said in the paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I wonder if it is a quote because I added to Wikipedia indented in italics but in those days I might have done that for simile style reasons. But thinking about it and reading the new source I am fairly sure it was a summary I wrote because I think I deliberately used the word "dowels" rather than whatever was used in the original source I was reading so that the text would clearly be unique.  --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Hal paragarph 

message: A think that is possible to have specific article for soldiers english longbowmen.--Vojvodaeist 11:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English longbowman 

message: I once saw some TV programme (ten most influential weapons of all time?) that claimed the English longbow was unsurpassed, whether in terms of range, power, or rate of fire, until the American civil war - what a load of rubbish. Oriental longbows, e.g. Mongol bows had a far greater range, and an at least comparable rate of fire, as well as pretty much equal power.
Well strictly speaking, the mongol bow wasn't a longbow, it was a recurved bow.  It sounds like dramatization on their part, but not as far off as you might think.  The reason being while firearms soon passed longbows in power and range, in accuracy they weren't much better over great distances.  Ergo, the concept of massing your ranged troops and have them lay down a wall of fire on a specified area still was the norm.  And it stayed that way until the civil war when advances in the guns and rounds themseves made those tactics suicide.  But the Napoleonic tactics that are so well noted trace their roots back to Crecy and Azincourt, so i wouldn't say the comment was as farfetched as it seems at first glance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.113.96 (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV gibberish 

message: The quoted draw forces for Tudor-era bows, in particular the Mary Rose examples, are all over the place in this article. This isn't surprising: it reflects the widely differing estimates in the sources. The first sentence of "Use" alludes to these variations but having contradictory, although seemingly definitive, statements at various points around the page doesn't look good. Perhaps someone with expert knowledge could fix this?--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert at all but I did have "The Great Warbow" by Strickland open in front of me as I made the last edit. I think that's as good as it gets. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking this up. The task that initially drew my attention here was rounding some of the Newton/pound force and length conversions; a few of these have a round figure, appropriate for an estimate, in one unit but an exact conversion to an arbitrary figure in the other.  The smoothly assimilated level of accuracy as found in the lead image caption seemed about right. I'm still happy to give this a try, but it might need knowledge of which figures were measured and which estimated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in the original figures and at first there were lbs, kgs and newtons. The problem is that different sources used different base units for measurements, the numbers used in one measurement look odd if converted exactly into another base unit -- when someone give a draw weight of say 80 lbs, if that is converted exactly it makes it look as if the original measurement was to the same precision, which it is unlikely to be the case if the number is to the nearest pound. The other problem is that some sources give the weights in in lbs and others in kgs and others in newtons and lengths are given either in imperial or the metric system where precision has a similar problem. We can always use the figures given in the original sources with the conversions in brackets or we can go for rounded numbers both sides and designate all measurements in a consistent way. You pays your money and makes a choice. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the list of units available to us in the conversion template. Precision is optional, and presumably we would be selecting low precision for these historical estimates. The reason I didn't use it before is that the various starting units in the article aren't the same, but if these are coming from sourced material I suppose that's inevitable. An alternative would be to do the conversion, then insert the derived figure back into the template for the final version; any multiplication of rounding errors wouldn't be significant because of the low precision.  --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This diff from 10:10, 9 September 2004 shows the first time I tried to standardise the measurements. No templates like the one you are suggesting using in those days. All I can suggest is that if you are concerned about the spread and/or inaccuracies that you go back to the original sources and check them and place them into your magical conversion template and see how inaccurate they are. But I do suggest that we keep the measurements in what would be used in the latest scientific papers on the subject rather than those from former times, and that we standardise across the article, which suggests that imperial measurements should be in brackets. -- PBS (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cop-out: my original plea for someone with "specialist knowledge to fix this" still stands. It was a request that such unrealistically  precise conversions as "estimated at 667–712 N" for surviving Mary Rose specimens ("150—160lb" in the source work) could be fixed, followed by a suggestion of using the convert template, with precision reduced, as a way of doing this. I was prepared to have a go, but it's not a magic formula that allows someone without specialist knowledge to do the job properly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draw force 

message: Some of my comments may belong with discussion points above; feel free to relocate them there.
Units: No archers in England quote draw weights in anything other than pounds (lb). The unit lbf is unknown, unused and potentially confusing, and as gravity holds no place in drawing a longbow is not even appropriate. 
Materials: Most modern longbows are made of laminates, and include a variety of woods including Lemonwood, Hickory, Osage, and others. (Check any modern bowyer's website for a range of options, e.g. http://bickerstaffebows.co.uk)
Length: Modern bows tend to be longer than the lengths quoted, which may reflect the increased height of modern man. Bows over 6 foot are far from uncommon.
Range: The comments are inconsistant, with estimates lower than the actual ranges reached with the Mary Rose replica. Even modern hunting bows (55-60lb) can reach 200y (I shoot with approx. 100 longbow archers several times a year at those ranges) and the modern warbows (including selfbows) are getting significantly over those distances. I've seen 240-260y and that isn't with 'flight' arrows or a tailwind.
It may also be worth noting that there are several organisations and clubs devoted to the shooting of the English Longbow, including the ILAA and the BLBS and their attendant clubs. Other organisations such as the NFAS have specific competitive classes for the longbow (and their national championship scores demonstrate that modern crossbows significantly outscore longbows at hunting distances, but don't outscore sight-encumbered compound bows) and there are several organisations in the UK offering ancient and traditional shoots such as shooting at the Marks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.17.78 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspectives of a modern English Longbow archer 

message: This edit added some text which begins with a quotation mark and cites a source, but does not close the quotation, or put it in a block, which would be appropriate for its length. I've put it in a block (with which the quotation marks are redundant), but since it is not closed properly it might not be a quotation at all; it needs verifying. I'm not sure whether it's better to leave it as a quotation, risking it being wrong; or leave it as a non-quotation, risking it being a copyvio. I've asked the contributor, User:Emil.mckellar, to verify, but the account doesn't look active. Hairy Dude (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to verify quotation 

message: The good faith edits Revision as of 11:53, 7 September 2008 and Revision as of 12:04, 22 October 2008 were wrong. The article consists of short notes section and a reference section that is meant to contain the full details of the citation used in the short notes section (See WP:CITESHORT). I am reverting the change that edit made and cleaning up the references section. If in future someone makes a similar mistake please revert it. -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference entry for short citations 

message: There has been long term vandalism of this page by ip addresses so I am going to protect the page for 3 months to give the editors who monitor it a break. -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term vandalism 

message: While checking the Paterson citation in the article on the net I came across a paper On the Mechanics of the Arrow: Archer's Paradox by  B.W. Kooi and J.A. Sparenberg, the department of Theoretical Biology, the department of Theoretical Biology, VU University of Amsterdam. 
It included the following quote: 
This may at some time be useful for the article. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draw weight of over 450 N 

message: I suppose here is as good as any other place to ask the following question. In fr-wikipedia, we have an article about a corps, the "Franc-Archers", made out of peasants that where exempted from taxes (hence the "Franc", that means "Free [of taxes]") in exchange of buying some military equipment (most notably a bow) and regular training. The corps was used only once in the Battle of Guinegate (1479), where it quickly disbanded. Curently, the article on fr-wiki presents a template asking for internationalization. hence the question : are you aware of a similar corps somewhere else, or is this only a French half-baked idea (and no internationalization of the article is needed) ? Thanks. Bokken | 木刀 21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there's really an English equivalent. The English yeoman was supposed to be proficient with a bow, hence all the ordinances from the king banning sports other than archery. The medieval town militia (such as it was) would have been formed of such men. English armies invading Wales/ Scotland/ France certainly had longbowmen, but these would have been professionals (although the large number of men proficient with the bow made recruiting such professionals easier). I'm not sure the idea of giving peasants privileges for being proficient with a bow has a direct equivalent. Men of a certain level of wealth would been expected to be able to fight (or provide someone who could), but that's not really the same thing. --Merlinme (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically (from the yeoman page): "The Assize of Arms of 1252 gave instructions for the small landholder to be armed and trained with a bow and those of more wealth (wealthy yeomen) would be required to possess and be trained with sword, dagger and the longbow (the war bow)." A yeoman was not gentry, but he was not a peasant; he was a landowner of some wealth. --Merlinme (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I get the point. The British system was that wealthy enough non-nobles faced some military requirement, while the French idea was that tax exemption could be a counterpart from military training from peasans. A French contributor pointed to something of this kind in Britanny, but I suspect this was mainly an extension to English-ruled Britanny of the yeoman use. Thanks for the information. Bokken | 木刀 10:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francs-Archers 

message: In the section English longbow#Shooting rate it states that the archers were issued with a certain number of arrows. Out of interest, would they not have been expected to make them themselves? Similarly, it is not stated where the young boys obtained their fresh supplies of arrows from, in the course of a battle. Would it have been by scavenging round the battlefield?  TheAMmollusc (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who made the arrows? 

message: The reference to the 'longbow' in the Paston Letters of the 15th century, actually reads long bow. the word 'long' being used as an adjective. The weapon/bow is not referred to as a longbow. Son of Herodotus (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Longbow' in the Paston Letters 

message: In response to 'longbow' being English, as I have written above, the term longbow, in my opinion, is a misnomer that essentially came about because of its usage in the development of the English Language. The only reason that the longbow can be attributed to being English is because of the military success in the hands of the English who realised its military potential, when used en-masse, prior to, and during the Hundred Years War. The English Medieval War-Bow being, I think, a far more accurate defination. I would concur with Wandalstouring on this issue.84.252.215.84 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point, but the fact is that everyone knows (or thinks they know) what the English longbow is; the English warbow is less well-known. Generally on Wikipedia, unless there is a very good reason not to, the most well-known name for something will be used, especially as the name for an article (so people can find it). The article itself can then discuss whether the popular name is accurate and give alternative names, such as names that were used at the time, or technically preferred names. You may wish to add something about this in the longbow article, especially if you can support it with references. --Merlinme (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with you. The term 'longbow' is now in the common vernacular of the English Language and it would be difficult to change, and from that perspective should stay. I was taking a purist stance and being historically accurate. For instance before the 19thC there is no reference to chain-mail, just 'mail' or some other euphimism or poetic description as you would find in Beowulf. From the contemporary documents I have read, the weapon was simply referred to as a bow. The big problem, and which I have personally come acrosss is where the contemporary work refers to the bow as a bow or long bow, but a modern translation would re-write that as longbow, so the original meaning is lost and the modern misunderstanding is reinforced. However I would love to put a referenced article together, but would be grateful if I could run it past you first. Son of Herodotus (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea to me. The Great Warbow by Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland would be a good place to start, but my copy's in storage at present. If I remember correctly, at the time the things were just "bows", occasionally "lug" bows to distinguish them from crossbows. I'd suggest a section in, and possible rename of, this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'English' longbow 

message: As penance for my last, embarrassing edit I propose deploying the  tag for this section. Example here. For consistency all the conversions would go in the same direction—perhaps always metric to lbf—but this might change the original units from those in the sources. This was why I didn't do it before, but now there's been one vandal, followed by a clumsy edit that reinstated the original vandal, too many. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it was vandalism, it may have been confusing the weakest bows (i.e. from about 105lbf) with the average (from 150lbf to 160lbf). Anyway, I've no objection to using automatic conversion. I would personally suggest that we use imperial first, simply because all of the older sources (and even some of the newer sources) use imperial. If we are directly quoting from a source I'd suggest we give first whichever units are used in the source, although I recognise that will be inconsistent and might look messy. --Merlinme (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: imperial => metric. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Perhaps scope for some similar tidying further down. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draw weights : metric conversion 

message: I cannot remember, is there a prohibition on video examples?
The reason I ask is that the Fraternity Of St George have produced some excellent video's Twobells (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: I think Froissarts 'Battle Of Crecy' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg  or this one, or perhaps this one are far more suitable picture of the longbow than the Martyrdom Of St Sebastien painting, that has too many negative connotations, the pictures are all in the public domain. Twobells (talk)
:I agree there is probably a better image to use. Of the options given I prefer the Froissart. What's the source for the second? It looks quite late to me. It was also absolutely massive when I clicked on the link. The third link didn't work for me. --Merlinme (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would suggest the Froissart, the other two both look modern. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Yea, it doesn't really make sense to include St. Sebastian in article on English Longbows. I like the Crecy painting. Hot Stop (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crecy picture is already in the article further down the page.  Swapping it with the St. Sebastian might be the best course, giving the more evocative image at the top of the page.  The other two are of unknown copyright status and should be avoided.  The third one is by Gerry Embleton, so would certainly be a copyvio.  Monstrelet (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I've been thinking of improvements for this article for a while and have finally gone for a bold edit of the structure.  I haven't deleted any text, just reordered it.  I think it is now easier for general reader to find what they want.
However, in carrying this out I have found there is quite a bit of duplication and some contradiction (I think the subject of draw weight and penetration is in three places) so could do with a copy edit.  I have left the inadequate tactics section alone for the time being - if I get time I may rewrite/replace it (if this was on your to do list, go for it - this section is the weak point of the article IMO)Monstrelet (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. I agree it would benefit from a copy-edit. There are many edits I would like to make to Wikipedia if I had the time! --Merlinme (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tactics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Imperial vs Metric 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reviewing history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Longbows between 16th and 20th centuries 

message: on a visit to the national library of Wales I came across a book, the title of which eludes me which refered to a welsh bow that could easily penetrate steel armour as it was so strong that the only way to use it with great effect was to lay down on one's back, place both feet on the wood of the bow then draw back the string by using both hands. If I remember correctly the poundage was in excess of 400lb  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.75.76 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds more like a crossbow to me, where later medieval examples had enormous draw weights. I believe the method you describe could be used to cock a heavy crossbow, although some sort of crank (i.e. windlass) was more common. I find it hard to believe you could ever use that method to draw a longbow; if you need your legs to draw it, how are you going to actually fire it? The method works with a crossbow because once you cock it the force is taken by the crossbow itself. With a longbow, unless you are proposing to fire it from between your legs, then you somehow have to take the strain using your arms and chest and then hold it long enough to at least vaguely aim at something. If such a weapon existed I find it hard to believe it would have been very effective. In any case, we need a proper reference before we could consider adding something to the article. --Merlinme (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In Conan Doyle's book The White Company a plucky longbowman beats a dastardly foreign crossbowman in a shooting competition using this technique (it is a distance shooting contest).  Even Conan Doyle thought this was a trick shot.  I have not seen a suggestion that the battlefields of the Middle Ages were full of Welshmen shooting from a prone position, however.Monstrelet (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  400-lb welsh longbows 

message: I intend to add a few comments from Mike Loades new book "Longbow", mainly around modern experiments.  However, when I came to consider how best to do this, I concluded that the current structure of the text was somewhat confused.  I've therefore done a bit of preparatory work in advance and will try to add a few pieces of information down the week.Monstrelet (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed the bits of editing I intended although, having worked on the armour penetration section, I have some concerns (below)Monstrelet (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering sections prior to adding new content 

message: We seem to have some difficulty with the incident of Edwin's death.  It currently occurs in the lead section, which may give it undue prominence, especially as we have no evidence of longbow usage.  It could usefully be mentioned in the section on history,however,  if we expand commentary on pre-Norman archery. Monstrelet (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the source could be. I looked up the two primary sources for the battle—Bede and the Welsh annals—and they don't mention an arrow at all, let alone that it certainly came from the Welsh and not their allies the Mercians. Where did you see that it was his son Offrid? Something reliable or just another Wiki page? — LlywelynII 15:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a source and consensus, and while I'd personally accept reference to Dark Age arrows as coming from longbows (on the assumption that the European longbow tradition was the only one around) others might be more fussy. I'll remove Edwin from the lede for the time being. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been unable to track down the original arrow story - I have checked Bede, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and Geoffrey of Monmouth (just in case) but, although Offrid (or Osfrith, which he is sometimes called) clearly died, there was no detail.  The best secondary source I have is Robert Hardy's Longbow (p.30)where he states clearly we don't know whether the arrow is Welsh or English or whether it came from a longbow.  I think we have enough to place it as a "first example" in a sentence/para on pre-Norman archery but I wouldn't put it in the lead paragraph.Monstrelet (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Indeed the arrow detail isn't in either the Chronicle or in Bede. A quick Google search for the words "Offrid" and "arrow" brings up statements going back at least as far as Tobias Smollett, but no further. Did Smollett simply add a touch of color? Anyway, in this case I think we should await a really reliable source, a scholarly comment specifically supported by primary sources, before we add anything here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, Smollett references the AngloSaxon Chronicle as source, which it certainly isn't in.  For completeness I've done a few more histories - Henry of Huntingdon, Florence of Worcester, William of malmesbury - looking for an embellishment of Bede or AS chronicle but nothing has turned up.  So, looks a bit unreliable at this stage.  But a good referenced comment in a reliable secondary work could change that in the future. Monstrelet (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwin of Northumbria 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on English longbow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140826115634/http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/ahds/dissemination/pdf/vol40/40_192_205.pdf to http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/ahds/dissemination/pdf/vol40/40_192_205.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot link was alas faulty but I tracked the real link to its new location on the University of York website and put that link in Monstrelet (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified