View Full Version : Why the Welsh?
Bevan of Hertfordshire
10-26-2003, 00:09
Why do the welsh have longbows, they never had longbows, they were first used by the english against the scots.
The english longbowmen were recruited esspecially from the Wales county http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Bevan of Hertfordshire
10-26-2003, 01:28
every englishman had to report every sunday to the village butts and attend lonbow practice when there was a war the King could count on loads of longbowmen because every man in england had one and was well trained in longbows
The_Emperor
10-26-2003, 01:45
The Longbow was actually a Welsh weapon that became widely used after English commanders realised its effectiveness during Campaigns in Wales. They were very impressed with its power to shoot through a solid Church Door that it was adopted into widespread use.
King Edward I was the king who made it law that everyone should train in Archery to produce a msassive archer poole to be drawn from in times of war.
The law was never withdrawn, and it is actually where sports like darts evolved from.
brent_james
10-26-2003, 05:17
Quote[/b] (Bevan of Hertfordshire @ Oct. 25 2003,18:09)]Why do the welsh have longbows, they never had longbows, they were first used by the english against the scots.
Those 'english' soldiers fighting against the scots were welsh bowmen.
I believe those soldiers weren't all that loyal, and even got in one or two violent skirmishes with other english soldiers, on their way to Falkirk (according to some writings about it)
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Oct. 25 2003,19:45)]The law was never withdrawn, and it is actually where sports like darts evolved from.
I thought dart evolved from lightly armed troops trying to throw small... well darts, through the visor of the more heavy troops helmets. Seems fitting as small javelins are called darts.
Quote[/b] ]I believe those soldiers weren't all that loyal, and even got in one or two violent skirmishes with other english soldiers, on their way to Falkirk (according to some writings about it)
Hardly surprising as Wales had only just been conquered fully. No doubt the Welshmen were a bit annoyed at Edward and the English in general, and it is certain that they would not have liked to have been drafted to fight the Scots.
well if the law was never withdrawn, get back to the butts you english types
Bevan of Hertfordshire
10-26-2003, 15:02
I was this morning we've got two longbows both taller than me and i'm 5'11
The Wizard
10-26-2003, 15:49
Yes, they were very big bows.. but compact bows were better. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Xenophon
10-26-2003, 16:38
Bevan, find a Wlsh toxopholite and ask them. I once had the ear bent off me by a Welsh lass (and fletcher) about how the English would never have gotten so powerful without the Welsh bows. 100% true apparently ... well at least the bit about the Welsh inventing the Longbow. I believe it had something to do with the Normans being metal obsessed and only the Welsh had the woodcraft to make a compound bow from a single piece of wood.
The Wizard
10-26-2003, 17:35
The Celts living in what is today Wales, in the time of Imperial Rome, also had a longbow. Well, that's what a couple of sources I know of say... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Papewaio
10-27-2003, 01:54
Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 26 2003,23:49)]Yes, they were very big bows.. but compact bows were better. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Considering that the longbow is both the heart and outer wood in one you could call the longbow an organically grown compound bow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
He wrote compact not compound. I think he just meant that Longbows are a bit more unwieldy to carry than smaller bows, be it on horse foot or in a wagon.
Papewaio
10-27-2003, 05:35
The only smaller bows that could do better then a longbow had to use a superior design such as the Mongol compound bow.
Hence my assumption that the compact bows referred to had to be compound bows.
----
BTW what most people don't realise is that the longbow isn't just a longer bow then a typical shortbow. The curing process is very important.
However the main reason the longbow ruled when it did was because of the use of it as a battlesystem. In mass, with well trained individuals and most importantly the ability to fire over each others head at targets hence concentrating 'firepower' density where it lands (an advantage compared with a low arc).
I realize that the longbows are superior to other bows, I just assumed that was what he was saying and that you had misinterpreted his post. Just wanted to clarify, not seem snooty or anything.
The only smaller bows that could do better then a longbow had to use a superior design such as the Mongol compound bow.
Hence my assumption that the compact bows referred to had to be compound bows.
true, finally someone recognises the mongol's superiority in what concerns the bow construction.
The Wizard
10-27-2003, 12:59
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Oct. 26 2003,18:54)]
Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 26 2003,23:49)]Yes, they were very big bows.. but compact bows were better. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Considering that the longbow is both the heart and outer wood in one you could call the longbow an organically grown compound bow http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
So, tell me, how much water does it take? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Oct. 26 2003,22:35)]The only smaller bows that could do better then a longbow had to use a superior design such as the Mongol compound bow.
Hence my assumption that the compact bows referred to had to be compound bows.
GAH
Composite bows... composite, not compound. Compound bows are composite bows too, but are more than just that and are at the same time a modern invention. You know the Olympic bows are compounds while the Mongol battlebow was a composite.
The Wizard
10-27-2003, 17:34
Too... much.. C-words... gah http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Doug-Thompson
10-27-2003, 19:12
If memory serves:
King Edward I of England first became interested in the Welsh Longbow when a lone Welsh archer on a hilltop at about 100 yards away missed the king but killed the Edward's horse.
Composite bows and the longbow take two different approaches to the same problem. As a bow is drawn back, the facing or outer portion needs to be very hard and tough. Otherwise, it would break as it was pulled back.
The inside, however, needs to be soft enough to compress some: not exactly spongy, but soft enough to become more and more compacted as the bow is drawn.
Composite bows use very hard, tough material on the outer face -- long slivers of animal antlers, for instance -- which is glued to soft wood.
Longbows use the wood of a yew tree. When treated just right, over the course of years, the outer wood is hard while wood from the core of the tree is soft (I believe that's right. It might be the other way 'round.) This acheives the same effect, although Mongol bows -- and pretty much all the Steppe people's bows -- get the job done with a much smaller bow.
Also, the idea of a "Mongol bow" has become somewhat muddled. I believe I'm right when saying that Mongol light cavalry carried two bows, one for mounted use and one for dismounted use. The one for dismounted use was longer and more powerful. It's the one being referred to in all the debates about range between longbow fans and Steppe fans.
Actually, there's little point to this debate because the longbow and the Mongol bows developed along two entirely different lines. It's like arguing about which is a better cannon: The American "Long Tom" 155mm field gun or the Germain 88mm anti-tank gun.
The longbow developed into a long-ranged weapon for shooting big salvoes of arrows by masses of bowmen. Shorter-range performance was excellent, though, and it wouldn't surpize me if most "kills" came at a shorter range by aimed shots.
The Mongol bow had the capability of an excellent long-range performance, but it was designed for individual killing. For instance, that's one reason why Mongols wore a thumbring for a clean release at just the right moment. Their shorter bows for horseback shooting could also be fired while being held by either the right or left hand, as the situation demanded.
The Wizard
10-27-2003, 19:14
Well, that's a good reason, if I've ever heard one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
bighairyman
10-28-2003, 04:56
the longbow was first use by the welsh. when the enlgih invaded welsh, they had a lot of castilutes from the longbows, so they adopted it, improve it, and use it to kick french butt http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Antigonid
10-28-2003, 16:25
yes the welsh invented the longbow.....
the english however added the string and used it to propel arrows.
fact
The Wizard
10-28-2003, 16:46
English added the string..? Well, the Welsh intelligence just dropped a few notes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
After the French finally (semi-)won the 100 Year's War, they quickly got a strong army up and running. In the late 15th Century, for instance, 4000 longbowmen were massacred by French cannonry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif (no, not in the entire 15th Century, but in one battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif )
King John II
10-28-2003, 18:10
English folklore associates the longbow with the battles of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt.
And with what that folklore believes to have been a change in warfare. The change is thought to revolve around the relationship between the armoured knight - a person who would hold land and almost certainly be a vassal of the king - and the soldiers he met on the battlefield - folk who rated a good bit lower on the feudal scale. What changed in the relationship is that previously the knights armour made him virtually invulnerable. But at Crecy and at Agincourt it was the french armoured knights who died. So casualties among that class, previously numbered in ones and twos, came to be numbered in hundreds. And they died at the hands of mere commoners.
Another aspect to this is that if an armoured knight got into trouble did happen to get into trouble on the battlefield he could previously expect pretty good trteatment. Because he represented the chance to snaffle a huge sum in ransome.
But you can't surrender to a yard of hardwood tipped with a barb.
According to the English folklore this was thought, by the french and any others of the vassal class who noticed, to be not playing the game.
I don't know if the folklore has any basis in reality but it has a pursuasive sound to it.
As for the Welsh, well there simply is no event involving the Welsh to set against Crecy and Agincourt.
And recruiting welsh bowmen sounds dodgy to me. The feudal systen worked on the basis of the lord's protection being repaid by personal service. You did not recruit.
It would be strange if many of the king's vassals in the Welsh marches did not provide bowmen as part of the service they owed. But it stretches belief - and I have never heard any historian suggest - that vassals from other parts of the country did not do likewise.
I suppose the next step will be for the celts among us to begin contending that Sherwood Forest is not in Nottingham but rather in Powys. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The Wizard
10-28-2003, 18:42
Strangely enough, knights detested the Crossbow even more than the Longbow... maybe because the crossbow was much easier to use http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
GAH
Vanya is here once more to shed the light of wisdom on the situation being discussed herein.
It has long been known to many, whether they like to admit it or not, that womenz like their beaus "long".
And Catherine Zeta Jones is welsh.
And we all know she likes them long beaus
Of course, this is by no means a commentary on the endowment of Gordon "greed is good" Gekko, aka Michael Douglass... But "Douglass" does have a donkey in the rear of his name. Does that make him a liberal beau? Maybe... maybe not. Only Catherine can comment on his "wingspan".
Vanya sez... do not attempt to grasp the totality of Vanya's infinite wisdom all at once, for it may cause your head "pop like a weasel".
Of course, "Weisenthal" always sounded to Vanya like "weasel on the stall"... Vanya has concluded after forcing His neighbors to 3 life terms researching this topic, that Vanya was correct all along, and that the origins of the name Weisenthal came from an old Roman proverb taken from one of Vanya's teachings:
"Wily old hustlers wear shiny feather on hat, but are still weasels rummaging in the bowels of a latrine."
-- Vanya
Go forth now and spread the word.
(And next time you go to church and hear the "flock" babble "word", they are REALLY talking about the "word of Vanya". The Gospel of Vanya was one of the original Bible books, but was removed for being "too accurate" to the point of "scaring the flock into hysteria and anarchy". Those are the words of a Pope, not Vanya's!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
So... Catherine Zeta Jones... welsh... long beaus... Now you are ready
GAH
The Wizard
10-28-2003, 21:15
Actually, I'm perfectly able to grasp all of that... well maybe. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Doug-Thompson
10-28-2003, 23:57
Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 28 2003,11:42)]Strangely enough, knights detested the Crossbow even more than the Longbow... maybe because the crossbow was much easier to use http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
The crossbow took almost no skill at all. At least longbowmen were trained professionals.
With the limited exception for an English lord, none of your serfs were going to have the years of practice needed to get good with a longbow. But any serf could pick up a crossbow and have a decent chance of killing you.
From www.archers.org
The History of the Longbow
Early 12th Century: The Longbow was developed from a Welsh bow that had been used against the English. During the numerous skirmishes with the Welsh, the English had witnessed the power of this weapon.
1252: Longbow was accepted as a formal military weapon.
C.1280: Longbow adopted by Edward I during the Welsh campaigns after seeing how effectively the Welsh used the bow.
1331-1333: Longbow used by Edward III during the Scottish Campaign.
1337-1453b: The hundred years war with France: During this time, the English and Welsh longbowmen were the most prominent part of the English army, sometimes outnumbering the Men-at-Arms by as much as 10:1. The average was a ratio of about 3:1.
1346: The Battle of Crecy: The English army of Edward III won the first major battle of the 100 Years War. The English numbered between 12,000 and 19,000 men, of which 7,000 to 10,000 were archers. The French Army, under Philip IV was made up of 12,000 mounted Men-at-Arms, 6,000 Genoese Crossbowmen, and up to 60,000 Foot Soldiers. The English were aided by a shower that morning, making a charge up a muddy hill, with the sun in their eyes and arrows raining down on them -- most difficult for the French. The opening shots were loosed by the Genoese Crossbowmen, which fell short. The English answered with five times as many arrows, which did not fall short. The Crossbowmen broke ranks and tried to flee the field. The French commander, however, was displeased with the apparent lack of courage and ordered that the Crossbowmen be ridden down by the Heavy Cavalry on their way to the English line. After 16 charges and 90 minutes, the French had lost 4000 knights, including 2 Kings, 2 Dukes, and 3 Counts. English losses were estimated at only 50 men.
1356: The Battle of Poiters: Edward III, The Black Prince of Wales, with 6,000-8,000 men defeated a French host 3 times as large. This time the French fought largely on foot, and this time, much hand to hand fighting took place, with the archers attacking the rear and flanks of the French charge. In the end, the results were much the same as at Crecy. Two thousand French Knights and Nobles, including the Constable of France, 2 Marshals, The Bearer of the Oriflamme, along with thousands of common foot soldiers were killed. One Arch- Bishop, 13 Counts, 5 Viscounts, and 21 Barons and Bannerets were killed or captured.
1415: The Battle of Agincourt: In what was perhaps the greatest victory of the Hundred Years War, a small, sick and exhausted English army under King Henry V, won an astounding victory over a seasoned French host at least three times as large. The composition of the English forces was 1,000 Men-at-Arms and 5,000 Archers divided into the traditional three "battles" with the archers in a wedge pattern flanking each "Battle". When the battle was over, between 7,000 and 10,000 French had been killed. Among those killed or captured were the Constable of France, a Marshal, 5 Dukes, 5 Counts, and 90 Barons. Fewer that 500 English had been lost during the fighting
King John II
10-29-2003, 15:27
I had a look at the site. The bibliography cites books primarily by and for enthusiasts. Not an academic historian or an original reference in sight.
About par for the course where the subject is the dark ages.
Very little written material survived from that time. Even less from the British Isles than from elsewhere.
The speculation about the welsh origin for the longbow may well have some slender historical basis somewhere. But no one identifies the source and (assuming the notion did not turn out to be urban myth at its purest) it is unlikely in the extreme that any such source would turn out to be either unambiguous or compelling.
You seem to doubt that the Longbow originated in wales- is this based on any accademic study or just English bias http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
King John II
10-29-2003, 15:52
Pure bias. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
On the 7th day the Angel Gabriel asked Lord God
' Mighty God, do you not think you've been over generous to the Welsh ? Their land is as beautiful and majestic as Heaven itself and they are gifted in poetry, music and song'
God replied
'That may be, but you should see the neighbours I'm giving them'
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]'That may be, but you should see the neighbours I'm giving them'
ain`t that the truth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
*awaits sheep shagging jokes*
Quote[/b] ]One Arch- BishopWhat was he doing at the battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
de la Valette
10-29-2003, 18:09
Quote[/b] (Zone @ Oct. 29 2003,11:00)]
Quote[/b] ]One Arch- BishopWhat was he doing at the battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
To quote a welshman Its not unusual... for Bishops to be involved in fighting in this time period. So long as it was a "holy" war (weren't they all?) it seems their vows didn't apply
The Bishops were just early Chaplains.
They used blunt weapons such as staffs and maces as not to draw blood.
The Wizard
10-29-2003, 20:00
No, when an iron mace hits your face, you don't bleed.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Michiel de Ruyter
10-29-2003, 20:42
For some odd reason, many bishops were even bigger war-mongers then John knight on his estate..
As late as the late 17th century the bishop of Münster, Bernard von Galen had the nickname "Bommen-Berend" (Bombs-Berend), which did have to do with those things that kill people...
Doug-Thompson
10-29-2003, 21:58
Over here in America, where pride isn't at stake, it's widely known that the Welsh invented the "English" longbow.
I would suggest that the latest edition of the "Oxford History of the Middle Ages" would fix this. It's English, so that reference has some chance of being believed by partisans, and it's prestigious.
For now, here's whate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow says:
"The longbow was used in the Middle Ages both for hunting and as a weapon of war and reached its zenith of perfection as a weapon in the hands of English and Welsh archers.
The longbow was first recorded as being used by the Welsh in 633 C.E., when 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 -- more than five centuries before any record of its military use in England. "
There's more at the site.
Don't think that "unbiased?" Post something from somewhere that's better. And don't use some Oxford history that's from the last century, either. Use the up-to-date editions.
Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 29 2003,18:00)]No, when an iron mace hits your face, you don't bleed.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I think its more about not intentionally drawing blood by using an edged weapon.
The same went for the Spanish Inquisition- they were only supposed to crush/stretch and burn their victims as not to intentionally draw blood.
The Wizard
10-30-2003, 13:59
Just to cause pain. What a difference. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Dutch bishops were always worse than the Dukes around them. The Duchy of Gelre had many wars with the Bishopdom of Utrecht... and a lot of them were started by the Bishop More proof that the church is hypocritical... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Theres a massive document proving the Church is Hypocritcal http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Its called The Bible http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
King John II
10-30-2003, 18:46
That is a nice bit of evidence, Doug-Thompson, even though it is still not an original source.
But you are using the words "Welsh" and "English" very oddly. There was no Wales nor any England in the year 633. The word "welsh" appears in some documents of that time but it has nothing to do with either a unified people or a geographical locality associated with modern Wales. And the word England - derived I think from the "aengels" was not in use at all. It certainly had nothing to do with Northumbria nor with Mercia.
With that in mind the report you quote is about someone who was a person of the marshes (that is, marginal land and therefore probably a celt) killing someone who was probably a saxon but may have been norse.
As a modern day englishman I am happy to acknowledge - and to take pride in - celtic forebears, saxon forebears and, to a degree, viking and norman forebears too.
A modern day welshman, I think, would probably acknowledge some saxon/viking/Norman blood - but it is his celtic ancestry that is important to his sense of identity rather than the lesser bits of his bloodline.
Perhaps that makes him a thoroughbred and me a mongrel. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I simply don't mind who was using the longbow in
the year 633. If at that time it was exclusively used by celts and a modern day welshman wishes to take a pride in that I do not object.
Although I remark that I doubt there is anything approaching good historical evidence to support the idea that this was so.
The significance of the longbow viewed from a mongrel englishman's perspective is nothing to do with its early development but rather the use to which it was put at Crecy, at Poitiers and at Agincourt.
By that time (mid 14th century) England and Wales pretty much shared the same king so I imagine there may well have been vassals holding land from the king in Wales at those battles, together with their own retainers. No doubt there will have been longbowmen who lived in Wales (when not invading France). For all I know there may have been a disproportionatly high number of welsh longbowmen at those battles.
But there were unquestionably plenty of english longbowmen also.
i think it has to be true, that`s where kevin costner got his longbows from in his robin hood movie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Orda Khan
10-30-2003, 20:29
The Longbow originated in Wales..
King John 11 does not believe so. What does it matter anyway since Wales became and still remains an English Principality They accept an English ( or should we say French ) brat as their Prince, they have since proudly displayed 3 feathers as an emblem....with the words 'I serve' scrawled in German They endured humiliation as the English sought to stamp out their native tongue.......
...Yet to this day they remain as apathetic as they were back then....
I heard a revamp of the verse 'Taffy was a Welshman' at a Twmpath in Clwb y Bont. It concludes.....
'He's fought for every bloody cause, except his bloody own'
Before you have a go at me......I am Welsh
....Orda
The Wizard
10-30-2003, 20:38
A welshman with a Dutch view on his country *weebl voice* how rare
Doug-Thompson
10-30-2003, 23:43
Quote[/b] ]That is a nice bit of evidence, Doug-Thompson, even though it is still not an original source.
Yeah --- which is precisely why I recommended that somebody look this up in the "Oxford History of the Middle Ages."
Which you did not do.
Instead, you dismissed the quote as something that was not original. Then you dissected this "unoriginal" argument even though I already acknowleged the source was superficial.
If the statement's not credible and a credible statement is waiting for us at the library, there is no need for such a verbose rebuttal, is there?
Get down to the library and look up a credible source, or I will when I go to Little Rock on Wednesday, where I know there's an unabridged Oxford's in a university library there.
Papewaio
10-31-2003, 00:12
Doug you are going to fit in well with the Org.
Although this thread should really be in the Monastery where the rest of the scholars reside.
Doug-Thompson
10-31-2003, 05:03
Thanks, Papewaio
King John II
10-31-2003, 13:32
I guess you prefer authoritative statement to debate then Doug.
If you find the authority I will be interested to read it.
Doug-Thompson
10-31-2003, 21:26
Quote[/b] (King John II @ Oct. 31 2003,06:32)]I guess you prefer authoritative statement to debate then Doug.
If you find the authority I will be interested to read it.
Fair enough. And no, I'm not a whole lot of fun. Check this thread Thursday or Friday of next week. I should have a quote.
Quote[/b] (Zone @ Oct. 29 2003,11:00)]
Quote[/b] ]One Arch- BishopWhat was he doing at the battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
A little more trivia on warlike men of the cloth. At Flodden in 1513, the Scots dead included one Archbishop, two bishops and two abbots http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Bevan of Hertfordshire
11-07-2003, 10:28
Extra Trivia on Bishops and Football.
Back in the middle ages football was an incredibly violent game, for those that don't know two villages were pitted against each other and one village had to get the ball to the other village by running and carrying it, often several miles
Many people were injured with broken limbs dismembered limbs
Some people died but one of the them stands out, when the local Bishop came into play he "accidently" stabbed one of the opposition. After the game he was ordered to go all the way to Rome and apologise to the Pope
Good Healthy Fun,Eh?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.