Talk:English longbow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English longbow article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Accuracy

"Modern champion archers maintain that you cannot 'guarantee' a hit on an individual target at more than 80 yards with any bow whatsoever."

Source? This isn't true; top modern compound shooters can shoot round after round of 6-8" groups at 90 yards. Certainly this qualifies as an individual target. This statement should be restricted to longbows or other traditional bows, or removed.

[edit] Arrows

"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".
  1. It was just someone playing a joke, (vandalising the article).
  1. 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)

[edit] Draw weight

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)

Slight problem: I have read (it would be a real pain to relocate the source) an article on the bows recovered from the Mary Rose and it indicated two separate tests (one by math, one by duplication) that the average draw of the longbows on the Mary Rose was 105 lbs. Anyone out there interested enough to confirm/deny this? I'm not - just passing through.24.10.102.46 06:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Its in Hardy & Strickland's Italic textThe Great WarbowItalic text, 2005. The original calculation was given in a 1981 edition of Italic textthe Journal of the Society of Archer AntiquariesItalic text as between 70 & 80 lb. The revised, corrected calculations cited by Hardy is given as 153lb for the same bow (A812). The modulus of elasticity of the timber in the original calculations was incorrect. This new figure matches the spine of the Mary Rose arrows and dimensionally similar modern reproductions.

[edit] Scandinavian

Please produce sources showing that the Longbow originated in Scandanavia. I have never heard that before, indeed just the opposite, that Scandanavians were fond of the short bow. Keep in mind there is a diffrence, the long bow was about 6 feet long and was drawn to the ear and required special training to master (somthing I suspect did not exist in the mesolithic period as the current article suggests), the short bow was about 3 feet long and drawn to the chest. Stbalbach 03:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Details of Neolithic finds in Somerset and Scotland are now in the article)

[edit] Tactics

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)

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)

[edit] Artifacts

Why are there so few surviving longbows? http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow2.html suggests it's because they were common objects, but the fact that they took several years to make seems to go againts this hypothesis. Were they outlawed at some point? Did they rot? (But they were preserved in tallow) Were there just very few of them produced to begin with?

Not outlawed, and obviously not few because there were thousands of Welsh and English longbowman so it's probably because they were just old or something. Oh well, guess we'll never know,eh?-Flyingcheese 23:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I think you are getting your bows mixed up: Because longbows are simply carved from a solid piece of wood (a stave) they can be made in an afternoon by a very experienced bowyer, assuming the wood is seasoned beforehand (20-40 hours work for beginners if the wood is straight grained with few knots, which yew never is, hehe). You may be thinking of very high quality composite bows, such as turkish flightbows. Glue on those was allowed to dry for months before the next bowyering step was undertaken. I think there aren't many remaining longbow examples because wood rots and because these were not usually prestigious weapons. Longbows were the weapon of commoners and from what I know of making and shooting wooden bows, a longbow wouldn't survive use for more than a generation and wouldn't be worth preserving reverently if not in use.

Mev532 23:19, 11 Aug 2005

Yeah, what he said. :)

[edit] "Middle Ages"

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)

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)

[edit] measurement

The lengths of the bows at the start of the article are from the Mary Rose http://www.maryrose.org/ship/bows1.htm and are quoted in metric measurements. For consistency it should be metric first through out the article. Many English speaking people only learn the metric system at school as there are no imperial measurements their country. Do people in the US not learn the metric system at school? There is no point putting in Newtons on ever measurement as anyone who is interested in that can calculate them providing the first one is left in place all it does is add clutter to the article. Philip Baird Shearer 08:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The "consistency" should be original measurement first, something which provides us with additional information related to the likely precision of the measurements. Sometimes, of course, what was original is hard to determine. Other times, a measurement has been redone independently in different units at different times, but we don't have that for most of these measurements.
In this particular case, while the measurements in metres may have been original to you, as the ones contained on the web site, it looks like at least some of them were converted from originals in inches. However, I don't the sources they cite, and cannot check that out, so for the measurements which came from there, it would be okay with me for you to put metric first unless someone finds that they were indeed likely to be ocnversions.
The whole purpose of expressing measurements such as this in dual units is so that people who ignore either set of units can get the same information. That's why those newtons (not capitalized in English) should appear in every instance, and be done to approximately the same precision in every case—something that is never exactly achieved. People who want use SI units should not be required to do their own conversions to get them. This article is not a lesson in conversion of units, it should provide readily available information.
Speaking of consistency, don't people wherever you are learn the International System of Units? Don't you use them? We do here in the United States. And sometimes we have an advantage, too—less unlearning to do when it comes to getting rid of obsolete, non-SI metric units. Gene Nygaard 13:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Archaeologists will have measured and published the lengths of the the bow staves recovered using the metric system. No scientific paper worth the name published in the UK in the last 30 years would use imperial measurements. The Mary Rose Trust (as they paid for the research!) will have used those measurements. I do not know what Robert Hardy has published this draw weights in, but as the term implies I suspect that they will be in kgs or lbs rather than Newtons. Using simple weights is the most likely way in which the general public would be able to relate to the power of the bows, and bowyer traditionally tests a bow by hanging weights from the string so it is not unreasonable for him to publish his books, which are aimed at the general public, using those measurements. As it looks very cluttered to translate each pull weight into three measurements, I think it best to drop the one which is least familiar to the most people. I live in a country where people are weighed in stones, but weigh cheese in grams, and buy litres of milk but pints of beer. Many people come from other countries which tend to use one system or the other, so I suggest that although it is clumsy, it is best to leave the imperial measurements in for the American audience and older members of the British population. Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This may seem like an odd question, but I recently saw a comment in print about the general wieght of these bows - the number tossed about made absolutely no sense (it was massive) - any idea of the weight range of these weapons? Dxco 07:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article separate from Longbow?

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)

[edit] Skeletons of longbow archers are recognizably deformed, with enlarged left arms,

" 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)

Since I have been shooting a 70lb longbow, my posture has changed quite dramatically. In a space of about 6 months my left shoulder is no longer level with my right. It is now about 1.5 inches higher than the right even though I'm right handed. Also my left forearm is considerably more developed than my right.Swchurchill 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myth

I'm not convinced about the cutting off of the index and ring finger. What would be the point?

In shooting in a longbow, the archer uses, above all, the index and middle fingers. These two fingers keep the arrow on the bowstring. The ring finger is also used, but one does not put as much pressure on that finger as one does on the first two.

Try it yourself, if you attempt to draw with your ring and index fingers, you wind up with an awkward and out of place middle finger which will do nothing whatsoever for your shot.

I have half a mind to take it out, but it's a pretty big chunk off the page Vince In Milan 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The medieval English style of shooting often appears to use only the index and middle finger, not the ring finger at all. This makes much more sense of the French threat to cut off these two fingers Swahilli 19:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll rewrite that bit to get rid of the ring finger stuff. IMHO, it's plain, flat-out wrong :) Vince In Milan 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Jean Froissart wrote about it (the removal of the finger), so we do have documentary evidence, and the passage is pretty clear that it is considered myth, there is not reason to remove it, someone will just re-add it. Better the way it is, as myth, then someone presenting it as factual in the future (which has been the problem in the past).-- Stbalbach 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you do much traditional archery, but it is *impossible* to shoot using your first and *ring* fingers. You really ought to try it sometime :) Vince In Milan 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It says they cut off the index and ring fingers, perhaps because if they only cut off the index finger, someone could learn to shoot using the middle and ring finger. You'd think they just cut off the whole hand or all 4 fingers. but we don't really know much about this, other than what little has been handed down. We can speculate about it. -- Stbalbach 13:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Given the documentation by Froissart, Why would this be considered a "myth"? Sure, it can't be proven, but is there any evidence that it did not happen? Titling the section "Myth" seems to imply that it was thought to be true but has been shown otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varlet16 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of this section already exists in V sign, so I'm removing the part after the myth debunking. The rest is not related to English longbows. -- nae'blis 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sundays

I've always heard that archery was the only "sport" allowed on Sundays in England, at least during the medieval period. Certainly in my village, The Buttway (now alas used as a carpark) is next to the church. Anybody know/have sources on this? JackyR 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "medieval" - it is one of the most abused terms in the English language. My own view is that the medieval period of English history starts on 14 October 1066 and ends with the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII around 1538, but each to his own.
From 1066 to the mid-13th century, both the bow and the archer are treated as almost non-existent in legal documents (Henry II's Assize of Arms of 1181 makes no mention of bows, nor of the archers who certainly existed at that time (these were of both the peasant and serjantz classes, as well as large numbers of foreign mercenaries). Archery practice was certainly taking place, however -in the early 12th century Henry I had proclaimed that an archer would be absolved of murder, if he killed a man during archery practice.
The Assize of Arms of 1252 ordered that every man between the age of 15 and 60 must equip themselves with a bow and arrows. Edward III went further and introduced an Archery Law in 1363 which commanded the obligatory practice of archery on Sundays and Holy days (both being non-working days - there were by that time at least 100 such days per year). This 14th century enactment forbade, on pain of death, all sport that took up time better spent on war training such as archery practice. This law, really a Royal decree, has never been repealed and therefore still applies in England today.
Since archery practice had to be held on those days when church attendance was also required, the archery butts were often sited near to the parish churches.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ranulfus (talk • contribs) .
Sources, sources please! I've just spent some time looking through the statutes of 1363 and cannot find anything that commands the obligatory practice of archery. Are you sure this is not an urban myth. The archery must be practised idea comes up again and again. Henry VIII passed two statues concerning gaming (as you say) but they were little obeyed and had no means of enforcement. They were repealed in the C19. Francis Davey 19:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
No "urban myth" here. The Calendar of Letter-books of the City of London (G: 1352 - 1374), published in detail by the Centre for Metropolitan History is the source, in particular:

Folio cxi. Writ to the Mayor and Sheriffs to cause certain ordinances for preserving the peace, &c., to be proclaimed in the City. Witness the King at Westminster, 12 June, 37 Edward III. [A.D. 1363]. Folio cxi b. Writ to the Sheriffs to make proclamation encouraging the practice of archery by way of a pastime in place of football, cock-fighting, &c. Witness the King at Westminster, 1 June, 37 Edward III. [A.D. 1363]. (fn. 2) Custod' Joh' is fil' Thom' Aleyn calcar'.

(From: 'Folios cxi - cxx: June 1363 -', Calendar of letter-books of the city of London: G: 1352-1374 (1905), pp. 154-65. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=33502.)

Far from being repealed in the 19th century as in the case of the Henry VIII statutes, this royal writ of Edward III can only legally be revoked by a monarch and this has never been done. Ranulfus 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Which are good sources, however I think the point of the previous poster is that these are statutes to encourage archery, they do not make it compulsory. If that is correct, then other sports weren't banned, they were just frowned upon.

--Merlinme 14:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite. What I was objecting to was a statement that there was an "archery law" commaning the obligatory practice of archery, which is clearly not substantiated by the above. The writ given above is directed to the sheriffs of the City of London (so its not a law but a local proclamation) and all it does is require the sheriffs to *say* something. Obviously you can't "repeal" it, since it isn't a law of any kind. Once they (the sheriffs) had made the proclamation, the write had done its job. "Custod' Joh' is fil' Thom' Aleyn calcar'." is the heading of the following writ and has to do with guardianship and not archery. I would be interested to see sources for any of the assertions made in the passage to which I objected. Francis Davey 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics

From the article under tactics: "the psychological effect on the enemy of the famous 'cloud of arrows' produced by such a volley is not to be underestimated." This sounds like a lesson in how to wage war. I'm not disputing that it would be scary, but this sounds like the writer has personal experience.

[edit] Welsh Longbow

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)

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)

[edit] Mongol prompt

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)

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)

[edit] Why is Agincourt highlighted but not Crecy?

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)

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)

Ok, well if that's the point, I've changed the wording to Agincourt being the 'most famous' battle in which the English longbow was involved. To say 'particularly' implies to me that it wasn't particularly significant in other battles, which is just not true.

--Merlinme 09:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longbow in the Peasants Revolt

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)

I'm still not sure about this, but it is true that the Assize of Arms of 1252 said that "all citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed. Those with property under 40 shillings were expected to have a bow. So maybe they really were war bows in the Peasants Revolt, as the point of the Assize of Arms was that it would be easier for the King to raise an army. I'll modify the entry to emphasise this. It would still be nice to have a citation.

--Merlinme 13:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more, and considering that the 'typical' English longbow is supposed to be 6' tall, with a draw weight of 80lbf, I find it really hard to imagine that the average villein or farm labourer was well fed enough and well enough practiced at archery to be able to use such a powerful bow. A yeoman, possibly, but by definition a yeoman (greater than 40s land) would have been richer and presumably better fed. I'm therefore going to change the reference to "longbows" in the Peasants' Revolt to "bows" (although it then becomes debatable whether it should be in this article at all). As always, I'm open to someone giving a proper source correcting me.

--Merlinme 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why is this article separate from Longbow?

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)

This article is specific to the English longbow - history, significance, extant examples, etc.. the longbow is generic to many cultures, but each has its own history and specifics. The Longbow article can act as a general high-level that leads into more specific detailed articles. I'd love to see an article on Native Americans, their longbows were supposed to be even more powerful than the English. -- Stbalbach 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

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)

[edit] New information on the longbow

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)

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)
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)

I didn't understand this point. Are you suggesting that we rename the article English Warbow?

--Merlinme 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English or Welsh longbow?

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)

It is interesting, but I would also go with original research. From what I know of Robin Hood, he wasn't even a particularly good archer until quite late versions of the legend, and in any case, the word 'longbow' wasn't generally used in medieval times; so I don't know how the legend of Robin Hood can be used to justify the claim that the longbow was English.

--Merlinme 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia "Robin Hood" entry: 'The earliest surviving Robin Hood text is "Robin Hood and the Monk".[2] This is preserved in Cambridge University manuscript Ff.5.48, which was written shortly after 1450' (i.e. well after the high point of the use of the longbow). Also: 'The idea of Robin Hood as a high-minded Saxon fighting Norman Lords also originates in the 19th century.'

--Merlinme 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unneeded bias

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)

Fair enough- I've modified it.

--Merlinme 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/g/Talk%7EEnglish_longbow_b656.html"