|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 28, 2013 8:05:08 GMT
Absolutely... as stated in an earlier post, Bows were a personal thing.... Research has indicated that "greenhorn" archers would have been given the standard "There's a pile pick one" bow from an average (Family) arsenal, and trained with that... you had to start somewhere?... The better ones got a job at the local military fort, private army, etc?... As they got better, as their diet improved from military life (Reported two pounds of Bread and one pound of meat a day?.. Minimum?..) their build improved, they needed a better bow. They are getting paid, so would go to the fletcher/chippies and commission a better bow, or buy one "Off the shelf", perhaps from someone who had a spare. Again, as they grew better, and became more affluent, that bow becomes outdated, sold on, and again, a better bow.... This is almost exactly the same as the top range archers of today, and how they progress through the ranks to world-wide competitions. At any given point, from Greenhorn to respected archer, you would have had mixed abilities... This is perhaps a reason why the Mary Rose is found with may different abilities in the bows. There are reports somewhere that they needed to fire 12 per min into a target of a certain size, and be able to do that to a certain distance, and be able to keep up that rate of fire for sustained periods.... Your 10 per min may have been from the same source, I may have remembered that wrong, but there was definitely "Here is 6 dozen arrows get at least 5 dozen into that target, and you have a limited time to do that" type qualifications they had to be able to keep up... They would also be asked to re-string a bow during that qualification.... Reports are that archers would carry a number of spare strings, as they were prone to snapping, getting frayed. And then go bring back 6 dozen arrows afterwards..... including the ones up that tree?... Nothing helps accuracy like having to go fetch the ones that went >>>>>thataway>>>>>>>> There were reports that they didnt care who's arrows, as the battle progressed, if it was a french arrow that landed nearby they would just fire it back. TLW, 100 yds is close range for a longbow?.... heck, many of the archers could throw a rock that far....  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 28, 2013 14:41:37 GMT
according to the information I could find on the internet, 100 yards is the maximum range competitive archery is done at. keep in mind that is slightly less than the distance try line to try line on a rugby pitch. and he was firing with a flat trajectory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 9, 2013 18:31:57 GMT
There was no standing military force as such, and certainly no 'army'. The closest were guards employed by the local noble, who's role was part house guard and part police. Private armies were at least technically possible, but there were problems here. First the feudal system only allowed lords to call up men to serve for limited periods. Second the men you were calling up were workers, and if you kept them in your service for too long that meant that the basis of your wealth (the land) wasn't being worked. At best you'd loose money (rather a lot of it since you'd still have to pay for your troops) and at worst you'd end up starving the rest of the population further diminishing your power base. Third mercenaries were not cheap, and they expected to be paid with hard cash...refusing or ending up being unable to pay them was a bad idea. At best they'd leave and spread the news so you'd never be able to hire anyone to replace them. At worst...well you've just made an enemy of an armed force who knows the layout of your home.
Last if you raised a large force without a good reason - such as ruling an area that got attacked frequently - you'd make the other nobles in the area nervous and quite possibly the king as well.
Armies of the period of the long bow were raised by the king instructing the nobles to provide X number of men for x number of days at their own expense. Going off the records for the Agincourt campaign the number of men raised per noble was never more than around 120 strong - which was probably the largest force all but a handful of nobles could muster without causing serious problems for themselves.
Archers themselves appear to have been employed as common workers and possibly huntsmen or grounds keepers when not called for service. The evidence for this seems to lie in the law that was passed requiring that they trained for a certain number of hours per week - this would not have been needed if archers were part of a 'military' force as there would have been closer control over what they were doing.
It seems that most archers had the skills to make their own bows, but of course this would require being able to find a length of wood that was suitable. Naturally this would be impossible at sea and very difficult even on land. So it would make sense to provide spare bows for an army. This is not really any different to armies carrying large supplies of arrows even though it is very clear that any archer worth the name was more than capable of making his own.
You can't, or couldn't, pick up someone else's bow and be assured of being able to use it. There are accounts in the Viking Sagas as to a fabled hero breaking his bow during a battle. Undeterred he picks up a friends bow, pulls back the string and...snaps the bow - which was tensioned far below what he was used to.
You probably wouldn't see this with an English longbow, but certainly trying to use a bow that was significantly outside the draw-weight you were used to was going to be a problem and might well be impractical. This is the most likely explanation as to the range of bows found on the Mary Rose - they covered the most common draw weight ranges and sizes so anyone unfortunate enough to loose or damage their bow would be able to find something they could use fairly easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 12, 2013 8:37:24 GMT
For competition shooting, yes, but during a long campaign, accuracy was down to the number of arrows being shot into a large number of the enemy on the grounds that with that many arrows in the sky at the same time, someone will get hurt eventually.....
Thus specialised Fletchers were employed to create vast numbers of shafts wherever they stopped and expected to fight....
Fletcher-ing was a case of all sit together and create one HUGE pile, someone did shafts, someone did feathers, it was mass production in a way.
During the Agincourt period, the actual campaign depended on what forestry was available along the route, for forest was required for hunting fresh meat, wood for fires, and, of course, weaponry.
Transport was always a problem... for every trained fighting man, there could be two or three ancillary staff needed.... dependant on how far away the battle was from "Home"...
And of course, if needed, those ancillary staff could be, and WOULD be, armed and expected to fight.
Also, on that actual campaign, the whole "army" stopped at every town on the route to make that a major camp.
Some resisted, some supported, some just decided that might was right, and anyway, trade would be good with that many soldiers around....
More or less, you only carried what you needed for the next battle....
And after the battle, you collected what you could find... "Spoils of war"....
Arrows could be second-third-fourth-[XxX] hand?....
You made new , acquired more, as required?...
And if you found a better Bow than your own.... probably a fight, as anyone else who has seen it wants it as well?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 12, 2013 13:16:17 GMT
We have VERY detailed records from the Agincourt campaign, especially in regards the preparations made. One of the preparations made was the ordering of arrows for the Tower* in eye watering numbers over some two years, and those figures don't include the arrows that would have brought with them. The wording of the mustering was that the lords had to provide men who had all the provisions and equipment they would need for three months.
I've not seem any evidence that fletchers were included in the muster for Agincourt, although that could simply be a case of no one thinking them worthy enough to mention. But the amount of arrows that had been pre-ordered and were being carried would seem to imply that they were not replying on being able to make their own in the field. This is similar to the situation a few hundred years later with musket men. Soldiers of the 1700's were more than capable of making their own shot if they could find lead**, but that didn't stop armies from supplying their troops with both powder and shot.
(*The Tower meaning the Tower of London, which was used as an armoury amongst other roles.)
(**Churches were usually the prime source of lead for soldiers.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 12, 2013 14:17:30 GMT
We have VERY detailed records from the Agincourt campaign, especially in regards the preparations made. One of the preparations made was the ordering of arrows for the Tower* in eye watering numbers over some two years, and those figures don't include the arrows that would have brought with them. The wording of the mustering was that the lords had to provide men who had all the provisions and equipment they would need for three months. I've not seem any evidence that fletchers were included in the muster for Agincourt, although that could simply be a case of no one thinking them worthy enough to mention. But the amount of arrows that had been pre-ordered and were being carried would seem to imply that they were not replying on being able to make their own in the field. This is similar to the situation a few hundred years later with musket men. Soldiers of the 1700's were more than capable of making their own shot if they could find lead**, but that didn't stop armies from supplying their troops with both powder and shot. (*The Tower meaning the Tower of London, which was used as an armoury amongst other roles.) (**Churches were usually the prime source of lead for soldiers.) peons are seldom considered worth mentioning unless you are submitting a bill. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 25, 2013 9:32:31 GMT
I am wondering that the name Fletcher is a well know surname in England.
So the making of arrows is/was a common trade?...
I am suspecting that most men able to fire a bow would be more that capable of making their own arrows...
Double Trade?...
In my own profession, I hold the licence to drive the wagon, I also hold the licence to drive the fork-lift to load and unload the wagon....
I am therefore suspecting the Fletchers would be the men most able to do such trade, and as your actual archers are mostly unemployed until the actual battle, if one of them is also a dab hand at shoeing horses, or even a blacksmith by trade in Non war years, perhaps a cook....
They would, of course, probably go hunting most days to provide meat for the tables?...
I dont think any Army consisted of anyone who could only do one job.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 25, 2013 11:19:40 GMT
I am wondering that the name Fletcher is a well know surname in England. So the making of arrows is/was a common trade?... I am suspecting that most men able to fire a bow would be more that capable of making their own arrows... Double Trade?... In my own profession, I hold the licence to drive the wagon, I also hold the licence to drive the fork-lift to load and unload the wagon.... I am therefore suspecting the Fletchers would be the men most able to do such trade, and as your actual archers are mostly unemployed until the actual battle, if one of them is also a dab hand at shoeing horses, or even a blacksmith by trade in Non war years, perhaps a cook.... They would, of course, probably go hunting most days to provide meat for the tables?... I dont think any Army consisted of anyone who could only do one job.? Nice thought, but Archer and Hunt/Hunter are also surnames. Interestingly I can't find any particular surname that seems to refer to 'bowmaker' - Bower appears to be a corrupted spelling of the German Bauer, which means peasant or farmer. Although archers could make their own arrows, the number needed during a battle was simply too high for one man to be capable of supplying his own. English Archers carried some 50 arrows - we know this because the Archers at Agincourt were ordered to carry twice their normal number which came to 100 arrows. Of course if you were back home practising or hunting you didn't need that many arrows, so making your own made sense. Archers would also have needed to have the skills to repair and maintain their weapons and arrows - it is a lot easier and faster for an archer to repair the damaged fletching himself than try to track down someone who could do this in an army camp. Archers as a whole are unlikely to have been out hunting, although that would depend on their location and the date. Many hunting areas were Royal Land, where only the King was allowed to hunt. Others would have been owned by the local Lord, who likewise tended to ban hunting. They could hunt on common land which, as the name suggests, was open to everyone. Not that hunting on private and Royal Lands never took place of course.... |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 25, 2013 14:31:40 GMT
I thought that rather than Bower, it was the surname Bowyer that referred to a Bow maker.
From the OED,
For example Lee Bowyer the former Football ( Soccer) player.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 28, 2013 10:43:20 GMT
Fred the Archer was a better Archer than he was a Blacksmith... and he got known for his Archery skills, not for the bent metal knives?...
Same for Daren the Hunter... he was a Bloody Good Bowman (also a name), but NEVER fau=iled to come home with the best piece on the hunt...
Most peoples surnames came from their main trade, the one they were known best for.
.... they were multi-skilled?...
We have proof of that.
Bow-maker, that would be woodwork, chippie work, and you HAD to be a bloody good Carpenter (Surname) before you could make a bow.... and yes, Bowyer the name even passes my Spellchecker, but first a Carpenter, then specialise...
And those days, Apprenticeships lasted seven years.
You needed all those skills, it took that long to learn.
Then we come to the great common pass-time of Poaching....
We cant ignore the fact that many common people ignored the law, it was part of being a commoner, there was no organised police force, and although the Kings Land (Etc) you could not take Deer, Wabbits were allowed, especially if they were a problem for the local crops...........
And if something larger "Got in the way" of the arrow........
Even today in some out-lying towns in England, there are people who WILL go out and hunt their own food.
Its part of the way of life....
If I go to my Mums home, I know which Pub, and which Person to nod a wink at to get a nice brace of Coneys on the back doorstep tomorrow morning.... if I leave a pan of water out the night before, which is the usual way, he will know to gut and skin them before he drops them in to soak?...
Now in these days he uses a Crossbow, its silent, and that way he can get a whole bunch of them without kicking up a fuss.
How legal is it?...
Who cares?..
The Local Law has more important things to worry about, the farmer knows he will do no harm, and the customer gets Fresh Rabbit....
The local butcher shops, they dont stock Rabbit, and doesnt know where you cant get any... especially if they dont know you....
The Rabbit Hunter?... never seen him ever pay for his beer, but "Put a couple in for Sid" (Name changed etc...) is a common request at the bar....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 28, 2013 16:01:38 GMT
Fred the Archer was a better Archer than he was a Blacksmith... and he got known for his Archery skills, not for the bent metal knives?... Same for Daren the Hunter... he was a Bloody Good Bowman (also a name), but NEVER fau=iled to come home with the best piece on the hunt... Most peoples surnames came from their main trade, the one they were known best for. .... they were multi-skilled?... We have proof of that. Bow-maker, that would be woodwork, chippie work, and you HAD to be a bloody good Carpenter (Surname) before you could make a bow.... and yes, Bowyer the name even passes my Spellchecker, but first a Carpenter, then specialise... And those days, Apprenticeships lasted seven years. You needed all those skills, it took that long to learn. Then we come to the great common pass-time of Poaching.... We cant ignore the fact that many common people ignored the law, it was part of being a commoner, there was no organised police force, and although the Kings Land (Etc) you could not take Deer, Wabbits were allowed, especially if they were a problem for the local crops........... And if something larger "Got in the way" of the arrow........ Even today in some out-lying towns in England, there are people who WILL go out and hunt their own food. Its part of the way of life.... If I go to my Mums home, I know which Pub, and which Person to nod a wink at to get a nice brace of Coneys on the back doorstep tomorrow morning.... if I leave a pan of water out the night before, which is the usual way, he will know to gut and skin them before he drops them in to soak?... Now in these days he uses a Crossbow, its silent, and that way he can get a whole bunch of them without kicking up a fuss. How legal is it?... Who cares?.. The Local Law has more important things to worry about, the farmer knows he will do no harm, and the customer gets Fresh Rabbit.... The local butcher shops, they dont stock Rabbit, and doesnt know where you cant get any... especially if they dont know you.... The Rabbit Hunter?... never seen him ever pay for his beer, but "Put a couple in for Sid" (Name changed etc...) is a common request at the bar.... I had rabbit once. tasted like chicken. seriously. we kids didn't notice it had too many drumsticks and mother didn't tell us until later. - some kids have thrown a fuss from that; but I just figured if I couldn't tell the difference, it was no big deal - and I was used to eating steaks with names, so that wasn't an issue, either. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 29, 2013 8:46:36 GMT
Rabbit, it has to be done "Right"....
We soak for at least 24hrs in salted water first, and that is a "MUST"....
I can not find any credible recipe for Rabbit that is roasted..?.
I think that is because it hardly has any fat at all, and roasting relies on the fat content.
(Unless its camp-fire "On-a-stick" C-M-O-T Dibbler type, and even then, I would go for the Albatross...)
Rabbit is always boiled, be that as a whole, part, or chopped into a stew, it always contains a thin (Not thickened) liquid, to prevent it getting too dry....
It CAN be a bit tough, dependant on the age of the Rabbit etc, which is why its soaked and boiled, and the rest depends on what you chuck in with it.
I prefer spring onion, salt, pepper, carrot and leeks in with a wabbit.
I have seen deep fried wabbit.... it was kinda crispy, like Duck, not too sure...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 29, 2013 11:56:44 GMT
I would agree with SD, Rabbit tastes more gamey than Chicken, more like Duck or Pheasant, to me. But the taste might vary a bit depending on if it was wild rabbit or in some cases I believe it is Farmed.(France IIRC)
In the UK the episode where Grant and Tori had to compare different meats in a "Tastes like Chicken" Myth, that IIRC was declared busted.
Could it however be something to do with the age of the person tasting the food? A young child might have immature taste buds that have not either, developed enough to tell subtle differences in taste, or enough experience to make the distinction. If I think to my younger self, then processed cheese Triangles seemed tasty, now I prefer a nice Stilton or Cornish Blue.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 29, 2013 15:29:58 GMT
Rabbit, it has to be done "Right".... We soak for at least 24hrs in salted water first, and that is a "MUST".... I can not find any credible recipe for Rabbit that is roasted..?. I think that is because it hardly has any fat at all, and roasting relies on the fat content. (Unless its camp-fire "On-a-stick" C-M-O-T Dibbler type, and even then, I would go for the Albatross...) Rabbit is always boiled, be that as a whole, part, or chopped into a stew, it always contains a thin (Not thickened) liquid, to prevent it getting too dry.... It CAN be a bit tough, dependant on the age of the Rabbit etc, which is why its soaked and boiled, and the rest depends on what you chuck in with it. I prefer spring onion, salt, pepper, carrot and leeks in with a wabbit. I have seen deep fried wabbit.... it was kinda crispy, like Duck, not too sure... this was floured and skillet fried, with the same seasonings as chicken. and it shows the flaw in the "tastes like chicken" bust. running a "these taste like chicken and these don't" test is different from serving up a platter of something and having the kid not say "mom, this chicken tastes funny" keep in mind, of course, that this was back before chicken was grown on corn and growth hormones, and it was a domestically raised rabbit. (chicken no longer tastes like chicken) |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 29, 2013 20:46:48 GMT
That`s probably why there`s a difference in flavour, almost all UK rabbit meat is from wild stock that is classed as game, rather than raised stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 29, 2013 21:09:50 GMT
That`s probably why there`s a difference in flavour, almost all UK rabbit meat is from wild stock that is classed as game, rather than raised stock. I have heard stories of butchers who could taste your game and tell you what area it came from. in some cases, the added flavor is good, and in some it is bad. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jul 30, 2013 19:27:26 GMT
That`s probably why there`s a difference in flavour, almost all UK rabbit meat is from wild stock that is classed as game, rather than raised stock. From what I've read, most folks in the UK just "think" that rabbit meat they buy in restraints and stores are from wild rabbit, while in fact the majority of rabbit meat is farmed. The local hunters, nor the the rabbit population (despite them breeding like rabbits) could keep up with the fairly limited demand (compared to other meats) of the rabbit meat market. All that said, back in the 80s when I was in the Marines, we had rabbit in the chow hall, every week, for a pretty long stretch. It was fixed like fried chicken and was greasy and nasty. Turned me off rabbit. I still won't eat wild rabbit if its fried. I might eat wild rabbit in a stew. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Aug 1, 2013 6:47:36 GMT
I heard a story (probably completely fabricated) that includes both archery and the origin of the famous "F" word and a certain rude English gesture. Please bear with me as I am going to describe this as delicately as I can and with my tongue only partially planted firmly in-cheek...
Supposedly, English archers who were captured by the French suffered the punishment of having their index finger chopped off, leaving them incapable of drawing a bowstring. Thus, in one stoke, they were destroying their usefulness as a weapon and terrorizing those not captured.
In defiance, those English not captured would wave their index and middle fingers at their enemies, and loudly proclaim they could still "Pluck Yew".
Over time, this saying took on the more familiar phraseology, but the gesture remains.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 1, 2013 9:32:32 GMT
..... I am thinking that one through..............
That depends where you get your chicken?...
Mass "Processed" factory food chicken tastes nothing like real chicken.
So what DOES taste like chicken, and if the real chicken I get doesnt, you are all in trouble.............
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 1, 2013 14:46:50 GMT
..... I am thinking that one through.............. That depends where you get your chicken?... Mass "Processed" factory food chicken tastes nothing like real chicken. So what DOES taste like chicken, and if the real chicken I get doesnt, you are all in trouble............. I am, of course, referring to the mass produced stuff on the supermarket shelves. |
|
