Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

Expand Messages
  • J. Hughes
    Not only did they target nobility, but sometimes used stealth to do so. The fowling is an account of the attack on Richard the Lionheart by the Emperor of
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Not only did they target nobility, but sometimes used stealth to do so. The fowling is an account of the attack on Richard the Lionheart by the "Emperor" of Cyprus in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi: "All at once the Emperor and about seventy Greeks leaped suddenly out of a hiding place. Their balistarii burled spears at our men in the rear ranks, but they could not break up our formations, which stayed together in a disciplined way. The Emperor emerged from hiding slowly, like a scout. He proceeded on an irregular course so that either our formation, when it saw him, would spontaneously break up or in order that he might shoot arrows at the King when he found him. After he spied the King in the last formation, he shot two poisoned arrows at him. The King was violently outraged at this. He spurred his horse toward the Emperor in order to strike him with his lance. The Emperor saw him coming and slipped away." Both the Emperor of Cyprus and Richard used crossbows.
       
      Charles O'Connor

      From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
      To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 9:04 PM
      Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
       
      Yes, they did target officers and nobility.  However, as Carolus explained, that is not "sniping".
      Shooting a selected target is not "sniping". Handbow archers also selected their targets when a specific target was available

      Jon

      From: Jim Pickette <pickette@...>
      To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
      Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 6:57 PM
      Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
       
      Did Crossbowmen never target specific officers and nobility?? James of Odo, Fidelibus ---- Carolus <mailto:eulenhorst%40rosesandivy.net> wrote: > Lord Mungo, > A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons. > neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping". A sniper, > by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from > surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws. The point of a sniper > is to kill without being detected. The role of the sniper did not > develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th > century. To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be > appropriate, however. > Carolus > On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote: > > > > Sir Jon, > > > > A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a > > very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably > > remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn't get > > noticed much by military historians who are enamored by the romance > > of the longbow. > > > > Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its > > use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although > > there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) > > which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first > > recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. > > Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around > > 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to > > develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow > > archers so effective. > > > > When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a > > weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the > > mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for > > this type of warfare. > > > > Thanks much for calling this to our attention. > > > > Yours Aye, > > > > Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge > > > > Read "The Tale of Mungo Napier": > > > > http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html > > > > *From:mailto:%2ASCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Edgerton > > *Sent:* Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM > > *To:* mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com; mailto:SCA-MissileCombat%40yahoogroups.com > > *Subject:* [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England > > > > Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on > > Medievalists net. > > > > http://www.medievalists.net/2013/08/01/english-government-bought-many-millions-of-crossbow-bolts-during-thirteenth-century-historian-finds/ > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > >
    • J. Hughes
      David Bachrach has delivered several papers at the International Congress on Medieval History at Kalamazoo on crossbow and bolt production in England from the
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        David Bachrach has delivered several papers at the International Congress on Medieval History at Kalamazoo on crossbow and bolt production in England from the time of Henry II to Edward I. England was a major crossbow power before Edward I decided he wanted to take enough projectile arms to invade France. 
         
        England developed the war bow because the crossbowmen and the crossbows would cost more than any handbow. They could not mass crossbowmen the way they massed longbowmen. It was not until the time of Edward III that the English could field the mass of archers shooting the war bow.
         
        Charles O'Connor

        From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
        To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>; "SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 11:36 AM
        Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
         
        Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 

        http://www.medievalists.net/2013/08/01/english-government-bought-many-millions-of-crossbow-bolts-during-thirteenth-century-historian-finds/

        Jon
      • Carolus
        The case below is one of skirmish fighting, not sniping Note the Emperor ... emerged from hiding slowly... then ...proceeded on an irregular course so
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 5, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          The case below is one of skirmish fighting, not "sniping"  Note the Emperor "... emerged from hiding slowly..." then "...proceeded on an irregular course so that either our formation, when it saw him...".  He clearly was not acting covertly.  Then he was charged and "...slipped away...".  Again clearly not a covert action.  The sniper attempts to make his kill and withdraw without being detected.  While this most assuredly did take place on occasion, it is not the usual tactic of archers in period.  They typically operated in an aimed, direct fire capability similar to anti-tank fire of the modern era and had the capability of volley fire - indeed they were period artillery.
          Carolus
          On 8/5/2013 7:55 PM, J. Hughes wrote:
           
          Not only did they target nobility, but sometimes used stealth to do so. The fowling is an account of the attack on Richard the Lionheart by the "Emperor" of Cyprus in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi: "All at once the Emperor and about seventy Greeks leaped suddenly out of a hiding place. Their balistarii burled spears at our men in the rear ranks, but they could not break up our formations, which stayed together in a disciplined way. The Emperor emerged from hiding slowly, like a scout. He proceeded on an irregular course so that either our formation, when it saw him, would spontaneously break up or in order that he might shoot arrows at the King when he found him. After he spied the King in the last formation, he shot two poisoned arrows at him. The King was violently outraged at this. He spurred his horse toward the Emperor in order to strike him with his lance. The Emperor saw him coming and slipped away." Both the Emperor of Cyprus and Richard used crossbows.
           
          Charles O'Connor

          From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
          To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 9:04 PM
          Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
           
          Yes, they did target officers and nobility.  However, as Carolus explained, that is not "sniping".
          Shooting a selected target is not "sniping". Handbow archers also selected their targets when a specific target was available

          Jon

          From: Jim Pickette <pickette@...>
          To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
          Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 6:57 PM
          Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
           
          Did Crossbowmen never target specific officers and nobility?? James of Odo, Fidelibus ---- Carolus <mailto:eulenhorst%40rosesandivy.net> wrote: > Lord Mungo, > A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons. > neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping". A sniper, > by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from > surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws. The point of a sniper > is to kill without being detected. The role of the sniper did not > develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th > century. To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be > appropriate, however. > Carolus > On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote: > > > > Sir Jon, > > > > A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a > > very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably > > remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn't get > > noticed much by military historians who are enamored by the romance > > of the longbow. > > > > Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its > > use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although > > there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) > > which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first > > recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. > > Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around > > 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to > > develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow > > archers so effective. > > > > When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a > > weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the > > mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for > > this type of warfare. > > > > Thanks much for calling this to our attention. > > > > Yours Aye, > > > > Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge > > > > Read "The Tale of Mungo Napier": > > > > http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html > > > > *From:mailto:%2ASCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Edgerton > > *Sent:* Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM > > *To:* mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com; mailto:SCA-MissileCombat%40yahoogroups.com > > *Subject:* [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England > > > > Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on > > Medievalists net. > > > > http://www.medievalists.net/2013/08/01/english-government-bought-many-millions-of-crossbow-bolts-during-thirteenth-century-historian-finds/ > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > >

        • Chris Ivins
          ...and had the capability of volley fire - indeed they were period artillery. Also the equivalent of a modern machine-gun: multiple shots aimed at one area.
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 6, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            "...and had the capability of volley fire - indeed they were period artillery."

            Also the equivalent of a modern machine-gun: multiple shots aimed at one area.

            - Iurii


            From: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 8:37 PM
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England



            The case below is one of skirmish fighting, not "sniping"  Note the Emperor "... emerged from hiding slowly..." then "...proceeded on an irregular course so that either our formation, when it saw him...".  He clearly was not acting covertly.  Then he was charged and "...slipped away...".  Again clearly not a covert action.  The sniper attempts to make his kill and withdraw without being detected.  While this most assuredly did take place on occasion, it is not the usual tactic of archers in period.  They typically operated in an aimed, direct fire capability similar to anti-tank fire of the modern era and had the capability of volley fire - indeed they were period artillery.
            Carolus
            On 8/5/2013 7:55 PM, J. Hughes wrote:
             
            Not only did they target nobility, but sometimes used stealth to do so. The fowling is an account of the attack on Richard the Lionheart by the "Emperor" of Cyprus in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi: "All at once the Emperor and about seventy Greeks leaped suddenly out of a hiding place. Their balistarii burled spears at our men in the rear ranks, but they could not break up our formations, which stayed together in a disciplined way. The Emperor emerged from hiding slowly, like a scout. He proceeded on an irregular course so that either our formation, when it saw him, would spontaneously break up or in order that he might shoot arrows at the King when he found him. After he spied the King in the last formation, he shot two poisoned arrows at him. The King was violently outraged at this. He spurred his horse toward the Emperor in order to strike him with his lance. The Emperor saw him coming and slipped away." Both the Emperor of Cyprus and Richard used crossbows.
             
            Charles O'Connor

            From: John Edgerton <sirjon1@...>
            To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 9:04 PM
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
             
            Yes, they did target officers and nobility.  However, as Carolus explained, that is not "sniping".
            Shooting a selected target is not "sniping". Handbow archers also selected their targets when a specific target was available

            Jon

            From: Jim Pickette <pickette@...>
            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: Carolus <eulenhorst@...>
            Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 6:57 PM
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
             
            Did Crossbowmen never target specific officers and nobility?? James of Odo, Fidelibus ---- Carolus <mailto:eulenhorst%40rosesandivy.net> wrote: > Lord Mungo, > A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons. > neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping". A sniper, > by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from > surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws. The point of a sniper > is to kill without being detected. The role of the sniper did not > develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th > century. To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be > appropriate, however. > Carolus > On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote: > > > > Sir Jon, > > > > A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a > > very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably > > remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn't get > > noticed much by military historians who are enamored by the romance > > of the longbow. > > > > Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its > > use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although > > there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) > > which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first > > recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. > > Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around > > 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to > > develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow > > archers so effective. > > > > When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a > > weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the > > mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for > > this type of warfare. > > > > Thanks much for calling this to our attention. > > > > Yours Aye, > > > > Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge > > > > Read "The Tale of Mungo Napier": > > > > http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html > > > > *From:mailto:%2ASCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Edgerton > > *Sent:* Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM > > *To:* mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com; mailto:SCA-MissileCombat%40yahoogroups.com > > *Subject:* [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England > > > > Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on > > Medievalists net. > > > > http://www.medievalists.net/2013/08/01/english-government-bought-many-millions-of-crossbow-bolts-during-thirteenth-century-historian-finds/ > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > >





          • Groff, Garth (ggg9y)
            M Lord Carolus, I see you point, and agree sniper was not the best term. You say aimed direct fire , though aimed direct release would be a more accurate
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 6, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              M’Lord Carolus,

               

              I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.

               

              Yours Aye,

               

               

              Mungo

               

              From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
              Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

               



              Lord Mungo,
              A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
              Carolus

              On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:

               

              Sir Jon,

               

              A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.

               

              Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.

               

              When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.

               

              Thanks much for calling this to our attention.

               

              Yours Aye,

               

              Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

              Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

              http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

               

               

               

               

              From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
              Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

               

               

              Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 

               

               

              Jon









            • Carolus
              True enough about fire I dislike it also but couldn t think of your much better phrase last night. Carolus
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 6, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                True enough about "fire" I dislike it also but couldn't think of your much better phrase last night.
                Carolus
                On 8/6/2013 3:54 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:
                 

                M’Lord Carolus,

                 

                I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.

                 

                Yours Aye,

                 

                 

                Mungo

                 

                From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                 



                Lord Mungo,
                A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                Carolus

                On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:

                 

                Sir Jon,

                 

                A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.

                 

                Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.

                 

                When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.

                 

                Thanks much for calling this to our attention.

                 

                Yours Aye,

                 

                Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

                 

                 

                 

                 

                From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                 

                 

                Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 

                 

                 

                Jon










              • Kelly Burgess
                If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers. bran
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 6, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers.

                  bran



                  From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                  To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:54 AM
                  Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                   
                  M’Lord Carolus,
                   
                  I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.
                   
                  Yours Aye,
                   
                   
                  Mungo
                   
                  From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                  Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                  To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                   


                  Lord Mungo,
                  A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                  Carolus
                  On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:
                   
                  Sir Jon,
                   
                  A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.
                   
                  Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.
                   
                  When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.
                   
                  Thanks much for calling this to our attention.
                   
                  Yours Aye,
                   
                  Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge
                  Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:
                   
                   
                   
                   
                  From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                  Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                  To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                   
                   
                  Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 
                   
                   
                  Jon










                • Groff, Garth (ggg9y)
                  M’Lord Bran, I agree absolutely. You seem to be talking about covering fire during an assault. This must give way when the walls are scaled, or the attackers
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 7, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment

                    M’Lord Bran,

                     

                    I agree absolutely. You seem to be talking about covering fire during an assault. This must give way when the walls are scaled, or the attackers are likely to get a shaft in the back from their own archers. However, the field tactics of an archery-heavy army are only marginally applicable to siege warfare. Taking a castle is a job mostly for heavy men at arms fighting hand-to-hand, and/or sappers. Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle. And as I see it, there was little advantage to the handbow over the crossbow in a castle assault.

                     

                    Yours Aye,

                     

                    Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                    Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                    http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Burgess
                    Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
                    To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                     




                    If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers.

                    bran

                     

                     


                    From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                    To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:54 AM
                    Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                     

                     

                    M’Lord Carolus,

                     

                    I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.

                     

                    Yours Aye,

                     

                     

                    Mungo

                     

                    From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                    Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                    To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                     



                    Lord Mungo,
                    A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                    Carolus

                    On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:

                     

                    Sir Jon,

                     

                    A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.

                     

                    Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.

                     

                    When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.

                     

                    Thanks much for calling this to our attention.

                     

                    Yours Aye,

                     

                    Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                    Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                    Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                    To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                     

                     

                    Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 

                     

                     

                    Jon







                     




                  • Doug Copley
                    I will have to disagree here with the Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle. Comment. As far
                    Message 9 of 18 , Aug 7, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I will have to disagree here with the "Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle." Comment. As far as what was "absolutely essential" very little, all you really needed to do was control all of the land around and let them starve to death. Just as the allies re-learned in both WWI and WWII, you must control the air to be effective on the ground. If you lay siege to castle and do not have archers, they will pick you off and exact a huge toll on your army every time you try to move in. If your castle defense does not include archers it allows the siege army to advance to a close range in relative safety. So, in my opinion (which may or may not count for much!), archers were essential for both sides in a siege battle.

                      Vincenti
                      Ansteorra


                      On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) <ggg9y@...> wrote:
                       

                      M’Lord Bran,

                       

                      I agree absolutely. You seem to be talking about covering fire during an assault. This must give way when the walls are scaled, or the attackers are likely to get a shaft in the back from their own archers. However, the field tactics of an archery-heavy army are only marginally applicable to siege warfare. Taking a castle is a job mostly for heavy men at arms fighting hand-to-hand, and/or sappers. Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle. And as I see it, there was little advantage to the handbow over the crossbow in a castle assault.

                       

                      Yours Aye,

                       

                      Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                      Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                      http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Burgess
                      Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
                      To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                       




                      If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers.

                      bran

                       

                       


                      From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                      To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:54 AM
                      Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                       

                       

                      M’Lord Carolus,

                       

                      I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.

                       

                      Yours Aye,

                       

                       

                      Mungo

                       

                      From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                      Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                      To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                       



                      Lord Mungo,
                      A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                      Carolus

                      On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:

                       

                      Sir Jon,

                       

                      A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.

                       

                      Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.

                       

                      When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.

                       

                      Thanks much for calling this to our attention.

                       

                      Yours Aye,

                       

                      Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                      Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                       

                       

                       

                       

                      From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                      Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                      To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                       

                       

                      Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 

                       

                       

                      Jon







                       





                    • Kelly Burgess
                      yup,   just as the pre assault artillery barrage has evolved from WW1 to present day,  killing the dug in defenders with said artillery is a bonus , keeping
                      Message 10 of 18 , Aug 7, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        yup,   just as the pre assault artillery barrage has evolved from WW1 to present day,  killing the dug in defenders with said artillery is a bonus , keeping their heads down during the assault is the goal.

                        just bran ...



                        From: Doug Copley <doug.copley@...>
                        To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 8:06 AM
                        Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                         
                        I will have to disagree here with the "Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle." Comment. As far as what was "absolutely essential" very little, all you really needed to do was control all of the land around and let them starve to death. Just as the allies re-learned in both WWI and WWII, you must control the air to be effective on the ground. If you lay siege to castle and do not have archers, they will pick you off and exact a huge toll on your army every time you try to move in. If your castle defense does not include archers it allows the siege army to advance to a close range in relative safety. So, in my opinion (which may or may not count for much!), archers were essential for both sides in a siege battle.

                        Vincenti
                        Ansteorra


                        On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) <ggg9y@...> wrote:
                         
                        M’Lord Bran,
                         
                        I agree absolutely. You seem to be talking about covering fire during an assault. This must give way when the walls are scaled, or the attackers are likely to get a shaft in the back from their own archers. However, the field tactics of an archery-heavy army are only marginally applicable to siege warfare. Taking a castle is a job mostly for heavy men at arms fighting hand-to-hand, and/or sappers. Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle. And as I see it, there was little advantage to the handbow over the crossbow in a castle assault.
                         
                        Yours Aye,
                         
                        Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge
                        Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:
                        http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Burgess
                        Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
                        To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                         



                        If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers.

                        bran
                         
                         

                        From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                        To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:54 AM
                        Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                         
                         
                        M’Lord Carolus,
                         
                        I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.
                         
                        Yours Aye,
                         
                         
                        Mungo
                         
                        From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                        Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                        To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                         


                        Lord Mungo,
                        A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                        Carolus
                        On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:
                         
                        Sir Jon,
                         
                        A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.
                         
                        Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.
                         
                        When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.
                         
                        Thanks much for calling this to our attention.
                         
                        Yours Aye,
                         
                        Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge
                        Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                        Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                        To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                         
                         
                        Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 
                         
                         
                        Jon






                         






                      • J. Hughes
                        The use of archery in a siege was essential. It is worth looking at what actually happened in history. Henry II is a good example. He was noted for his
                        Message 11 of 18 , Aug 7, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The use of archery in a siege was essential. It is worth looking at what actually happened in history. Henry II is a good example. He was noted for his campaigns of siege warfare. He for the most part did not use the feudal levy, but had a paid force (not mercenaries as such) that was heavy on crossbowmen (often mounted to provide mobility from one castle to another). He had a significant amount of siege engines, sappers, and just enough men at arms to deal with a breach if it came to that. Most sieges for him and throughout the middle ages ended with the surrender of the castle (or fortified city). While starvation or disease played roles in long sieges, often the surrender took place when the besieged commander realized he could not win, usually after a period of siege with no prospect of relief.
                          The archers were mainly crossbowmen as they were far more effective than hand bows both in the attack and the defense of fortified positions. In the attack, the archers were able to not only reduce the defenders presence on the walls, but along with the siege engines shoot over the walls. Fire bolts were particularly useful in this role. The defenders without archery were doomed. They could not prevent the attackers from coming right up to the walls to attempt to damage the walls or to undermine them. The advantages of the crossbow men on the walls were enormous. Frequently they were able to take aimed shots from the protection of the walls and had greater range than the forces opposed as they had the advantage of height. Many commanders of sieges were killed by a well placed bolt. Not least was Richard the Lionheart, but many others I could name. There was also the effect that the attackers dare not expose themselves in range to do things like bring up battering rams.
                          In the event of an assault, if it was as a result of a breach in the walls, the troops going into the breach were referred to as a “forlorn hope.” It was a very difficult tactic, and archers’ main roles were to clear the walls near the breach to prevent those attacking suffering withering archery from them. Far more favored when possible was an attack on the walls from a siege tower. As the siege tower was moved into position there was an intense archery battle usually. For example when Geoffrey de Boulogne had his siege tower advanced on the walls of Jerusalem, he was shooting his crossbow as were his soldiers theirs. When the drawbridge was dropped on the walls themselves, he and his men put aside their crossbows and drew their swords.
                          Note: the massed archery that was used in battles such as Crecy or Agincourt had no place in sieges.
                          Charles O'Connor

                          From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                          To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 8:42 AM
                          Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                           
                          M’Lord Bran,
                           
                          I agree absolutely. You seem to be talking about covering fire during an assault. This must give way when the walls are scaled, or the attackers are likely to get a shaft in the back from their own archers. However, the field tactics of an archery-heavy army are only marginally applicable to siege warfare. Taking a castle is a job mostly for heavy men at arms fighting hand-to-hand, and/or sappers. Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle. And as I see it, there was little advantage to the handbow over the crossbow in a castle assault.
                           
                          Yours Aye,
                           
                          Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge
                          Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:
                          http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Burgess
                          Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
                          To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                           



                          If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers.

                          bran
                           
                           
                          From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                          To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:54 AM
                          Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                           
                           
                          M’Lord Carolus,
                           
                          I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.
                           
                          Yours Aye,
                           
                           
                          Mungo
                           
                          From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                          Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                          To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                           


                          Lord Mungo,
                          A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                          Carolus
                          On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:
                           
                          Sir Jon,
                           
                          A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.
                           
                          Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.
                           
                          When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.
                           
                          Thanks much for calling this to our attention.
                           
                          Yours Aye,
                           
                          Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge
                          Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                          Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                          To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England
                           
                           
                          Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 
                           
                           
                          Jon






                           



                        • Groff, Garth (ggg9y)
                          M Lord Vicenti, Archery was useful on both sides, but not essential. Beyond starving the defenders into surrender, there were lots of other ways to take a
                          Message 12 of 18 , Aug 7, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment

                            M’Lord Vicenti,

                             

                            Archery was useful on both sides, but not essential. Beyond starving the defenders into surrender, there were lots of other ways to take a castle. Consider that Robert the Bruce and his men took several English-held castles during his war against the English by scaling the walls quietly at night. And how many castles were carried by mining? In one of my books there is a story of French castle which was taken without casualties when the English called a truce and showed their completed tunnel to the garrison commander, prompting a quick surrender. Then there were siege engines. The Scottish garrison at Stirling Castle tried to surrender when they saw Edward I’s infamous “War Wolf” being assembled. Edward refused their offer, and insisted on testing his evil machine while they were still inside. And so on.

                             

                            Yes, archery was useful, but not essential to taking a castle.

                             

                            Yours Aye,

                             

                            Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                            Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                            http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Copley
                            Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:06 AM
                            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                             




                            I will have to disagree here with the "Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle." Comment. As far as what was "absolutely essential" very little, all you really needed to do was control all of the land around and let them starve to death. Just as the allies re-learned in both WWI and WWII, you must control the air to be effective on the ground. If you lay siege to castle and do not have archers, they will pick you off and exact a huge toll on your army every time you try to move in. If your castle defense does not include archers it allows the siege army to advance to a close range in relative safety. So, in my opinion (which may or may not count for much!), archers were essential for both sides in a siege battle.

                             

                            Vincenti

                            Ansteorra

                             

                            On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) <ggg9y@...> wrote:

                             

                            M’Lord Bran,

                             

                            I agree absolutely. You seem to be talking about covering fire during an assault. This must give way when the walls are scaled, or the attackers are likely to get a shaft in the back from their own archers. However, the field tactics of an archery-heavy army are only marginally applicable to siege warfare. Taking a castle is a job mostly for heavy men at arms fighting hand-to-hand, and/or sappers. Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle. And as I see it, there was little advantage to the handbow over the crossbow in a castle assault.

                             

                            Yours Aye,

                             

                            Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                            Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                            http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Burgess
                            Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
                            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                             



                            If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers.

                            bran

                             

                             


                            From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                            To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:54 AM
                            Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                             

                             

                            M’Lord Carolus,

                             

                            I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.

                             

                            Yours Aye,

                             

                             

                            Mungo

                             

                            From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                            Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                             



                            Lord Mungo,
                            A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                            Carolus

                            On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:

                             

                            Sir Jon,

                             

                            A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.

                             

                            Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.

                             

                            When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.

                             

                            Thanks much for calling this to our attention.

                             

                            Yours Aye,

                             

                            Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                            Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                             

                             

                             

                             

                            From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                            Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                            To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                             

                             

                            Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 

                             

                             

                            Jon





                             



                             




                          • Doug Copley
                            I agree with you, nothing was essential as you pointed out. Castles have been taken by digging, siege, and stealth. The key each time was a plan based on
                            Message 13 of 18 , Aug 7, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I agree with you, nothing was "essential" as you pointed out. Castles have been taken by digging, siege, and stealth. The key each time was a plan based on their strengths and the time frame in which they needed / wanted to win. Many things can be used, archery is one of those that very frequently was a factor of some sort. Even in the digging or the siege, archers could be used to keep people inside without risking any of the soldiers.

                              YIS,
                              Vincenti


                              On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) <ggg9y@...> wrote:
                               

                              M’Lord Vicenti,

                               

                              Archery was useful on both sides, but not essential. Beyond starving the defenders into surrender, there were lots of other ways to take a castle. Consider that Robert the Bruce and his men took several English-held castles during his war against the English by scaling the walls quietly at night. And how many castles were carried by mining? In one of my books there is a story of French castle which was taken without casualties when the English called a truce and showed their completed tunnel to the garrison commander, prompting a quick surrender. Then there were siege engines. The Scottish garrison at Stirling Castle tried to surrender when they saw Edward I’s infamous “War Wolf” being assembled. Edward refused their offer, and insisted on testing his evil machine while they were still inside. And so on.

                               

                              Yes, archery was useful, but not essential to taking a castle.

                               

                              Yours Aye,

                               

                              Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                              Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                              http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

                               

                               

                               

                               

                              From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Doug Copley
                              Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:06 AM
                              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                               




                              I will have to disagree here with the "Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle." Comment. As far as what was "absolutely essential" very little, all you really needed to do was control all of the land around and let them starve to death. Just as the allies re-learned in both WWI and WWII, you must control the air to be effective on the ground. If you lay siege to castle and do not have archers, they will pick you off and exact a huge toll on your army every time you try to move in. If your castle defense does not include archers it allows the siege army to advance to a close range in relative safety. So, in my opinion (which may or may not count for much!), archers were essential for both sides in a siege battle.

                               

                              Vincenti

                              Ansteorra

                               

                              On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) <ggg9y@...> wrote:

                               

                              M’Lord Bran,

                               

                              I agree absolutely. You seem to be talking about covering fire during an assault. This must give way when the walls are scaled, or the attackers are likely to get a shaft in the back from their own archers. However, the field tactics of an archery-heavy army are only marginally applicable to siege warfare. Taking a castle is a job mostly for heavy men at arms fighting hand-to-hand, and/or sappers. Both crossbows and handbows have important uses, but are not absolutely essential to taking a castle. And as I see it, there was little advantage to the handbow over the crossbow in a castle assault.

                               

                              Yours Aye,

                               

                              Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                              Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                              http://people.virginia.edu/~ggg9y/napier1.html

                               

                               

                               

                               

                              From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Burgess
                              Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM
                              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                               



                              If I may ....archery would of been used in siege warfare as it would force the defenders to take cover at the most advantageous time for the attackers.

                              bran

                               

                               


                              From: "Groff, Garth (ggg9y)" <ggg9y@...>
                              To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 4:54 AM
                              Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                               

                               

                              M’Lord Carolus,

                               

                              I see you point, and agree “sniper” was not the best term. You say “aimed direct fire”, though “aimed direct release” would be a more accurate term. Arrows are not “fired” unless they are flaming arrows. That’s one of my “hot” buttons. :~). I think we both agree that massed archery as used on the battlefield is not practical in siege warfare, since the defenders can easily take cover until the attackers run out of arrows/bolts.

                               

                              Yours Aye,

                               

                               

                              Mungo

                               

                              From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carolus
                              Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 9:05 PM
                              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                               



                              Lord Mungo,
                              A small quibble here - you have managed to hit one of my "hot" buttons.  neither the crossbow nor the longbow was used for "sniping".  A sniper, by definition, is one who covertly stalks his/her target, shoots from surprise and concealment, and covertly withdraws.  The point of a sniper is to kill without being detected.  The role of the sniper did not develop until the advent of the rifled firearm in the late 18th century.  To say the both were used for aimed direct fire would be appropriate, however.
                              Carolus

                              On 8/5/2013 10:01 AM, Groff, Garth (ggg9y) wrote:

                               

                              Sir Jon,

                               

                              A very interesting piece. Not surprising either. The crossbow was a very useful weapon for siege as well as castle defense, and probably remained so long after this time. The role of crossbows doesn’t get noticed  much by military historians who are enamored by the romance of the longbow.

                               

                              Though the longbow was widely used in England during this time, its use as a military weapon was largely ad hoc and auxiliary. Although there were noted centers of longbow archery (Chester, for example) which produced companies of archers, it was Edward I who first recognized the tactical value of a longbow-heavy army in the field. Widespread importation of yew staves is not documented until around 1291 during his reign. It remained for his grandson, Edward III, to develop the field battle tactics in the 1330s needed to make longbow archers so effective.

                               

                              When it came to siege, a crossbow was probably just as effective a weapon as a longbow, since both were used mostly for sniping, and the mass volleys possible with a longbow were really not efficient for this type of warfare.

                               

                              Thanks much for calling this to our attention.

                               

                              Yours Aye,

                               

                              Lord Mungo Napier, The Archer of Mallard Lodge

                              Read “The Tale of Mungo Napier”:

                               

                               

                               

                               

                              From: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Edgerton
                              Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:36 PM
                              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com; SCA-MissileCombat@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [SCA-Archery] Crossbows in England

                               

                               

                              Here is a short article on crossbow use in England that I found on Medievalists net. 

                               

                               

                              Jon





                               



                               





                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.