Talk:Longbow

Not English
The Longbow wasn't English it was Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.108.8 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 December 2005


 * Sign your comments. If you are trying to build an argument to support a change in the article, cite your sources.  Every reference, scholarly text, history, etc., that I have seen uses either designation almost interchangeably.  It was invented by the Welsh, but adopted and made famous by the English. Canonblack 21:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as the article now says, longbows have been widespread in europe since at least Mesolithic times. Yes, the widespread use of the English longbow was inspired by the Welsh.Richard Keatinge 11:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"V" sign
Regarding this, removed from the article:


 * To this day, holding up two fingers in the shape of a V (Churchill's victory sign, inverted) is used as an insulting gesture derived from Agincourt where a reward was offered for the knuckles and fingers of Welsh archers.

It has all the hallmarks of legend. Someone needs to provide an authoritative source, either confirm or debunk it. -- Stbalbach 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See this within Wikipedia.


 * Ok great. Ive updated this article, the V sign article and the Two-fingers salute with this myth. The myth is also already in The finger. Any others we can propagate this meme to? -- Stbalbach 00:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yumi

 * Yumi are recurved bows, and have the unique characteristic of being off-center. That is, the lower arm of the bow is shorter and heavier than the upper arm.:

Should be edited. Every single bow is like this, with a longer top limb and stiffer bottom limb, then tillered to match. The only thing particularly noteworthy about the yumi is the degree of the asymmetry; a yumi has a bottom limb half or so the length of the upper limb, while a longbow only has a few inches of difference.


 * I believe the Yumi is asymmetrical not for horse archery but for a smoother shot. I can't find the website where I read this, but from what I remember, when a bow is fired, there's a tendency for it to vibrate about two nodes 1/3 of the way from either end. The handgrip of a Yumi is placed at one of these nodes so the bow doesn't jerk harshly in the hand when the arrow is fired. AThousandYoung 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

English famous
Perhaps we should state, that not the English, but the Welsh were famous for their longbow skills during the Middle Ages. But the English are famous for their historic longbow skills now.


 * Some Englishmen WERE famous for their bowmanship. The Cheshire guard, and particularly the Maccesfield contingent, for example. Archers from Macclesfield were paid more than the Welsh archers from Gwent and Crickhowell during Edward I's campaign of 1277. The "English" armies that used the longbow so effectively were made up of both Welsh and English archers. I have not seen any conclusive proof that it was the Welsh who "invented" the longbow. Long bows have been found in Britain dating from the Neolithic period. Undoubtably the Welsh were using bows against Edward I, and Wales supplied a significant number of longbowmen during the hundred years war, but the proof that they alone created the famous longbow is missing. Swahilli 19:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a ridiculous suggestion anyway. Of course the English were famous for it in the Middle Ages, the Hundred Years War saw to that.
 * I think the original point means the English weren't famous for it in the 11th and early 12th century, before its general adoption by the English. But its a weird thing to say. And as you say, the idea that the Welsh invented it is quite flimsy, and comes entirely from the idea that the English were impressed by Welsh archery during their campaign in Wales. They WERE, but it doesn't follow that deciding to focus on archery themselves means they copied the Welsh bow, which was in any case, smaller than the longbow the English used. It MAY have influenced its creation, but there is no actual proof. Alooulla (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge with [Longbow]?
The English longbow is not particularly distinguished from any other European longbow, nor indeed from the African, American, Asian varieties as far as I know. Shouldn't this article simply be merged into [Longbow] and deleted, just leaving a redirection? Richard Keatinge

- ok, other users have made clear that they don't think this a good idea. I'll drop it.

Does anyone have a Web reference for the British Long Bow Society's definition of a longbow? -Richard Keatinge 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Longbowman a more modern term
There is a long misconception the bow was called a 'Longbow' in the height of the Middle Ages. It was not until possibly around the 16th C. the term arose. The term mostly used since the 13th C. would have been called the 'War Bow'.

BTW, there really was no such thing as a longbowman; that is a modern term.

70.37.49.19 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks. This article nor English longbow mention this. Do you have a source for more information? -- Stbalbach 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the first recorded use of the word "longbow" is in the mid-fifteenth century by the Paston family. Margaret Paston asks her husband to buy crossbows for the defence of one of their manors as the ceilings were too low for the use of longbows. Schurchill 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The image in this article
The image here is the same one as appears in the English Longbow article. There, it is correctly identified as a flatbow. This image is clearly NOT a longbow, according to the definition in the article, but is a flatbow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.39.158.1 (talk • contribs).


 * Agreed. Thanks, moved image to flatbow. We still have no good image of a longbow, medieval or modern. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Range?
What is the maximum range of a longbow? 195.47.223.5 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The historical English longbow is estimated have shot at about 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds), while modern longbows are effective up to 180 m (200 yds). Hope this is what you were looking for. By the way, the discussion page is for the article, not the subject matter. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 15:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the section on the design correct?
It states, "Yew sapwood is good only in tension, while the heartwood is good in compression.".

However in looking at photos of English Longbows, this seems to be backwards. The photos show that the side nearest the archer is curved like the outside of a tree limb and would this be the sapwood, which would then be under compression. The flat side is away from the archer, and would thus be the heartwood, and would be under tension?

So perhaps it should read, "Yew sapwood is good only in compression, while the heartwood is good in tension."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.12.6 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what photos you're looking at but the article is correct as it stands. The cross-section of a yew longbow is worked down; the back, away from the archer, is a natural growth ring, but it looks fairly flat because it's usually from a tree a lot wider than the bow. The sides and belly are worked down as the bowyer likes, traditionally to the rounded profile that you've noticed. Hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor article
Just read the page, sadly it seems to be a mish-mash of facts, opinion and history. The sections are too large and there contents jumbled, there is no discussion on the bows development. It also seems to be too anglo centric even though large bows were used extensively by many cultures.

Neither does the article make clear what constitutes a "longbow" as opposed to a "large bow".

In conclusion, this needs work!


 * If you have any good sources on development do share them. I don't know of any. As for a longbow as opposed to a long bow, there are various definitions, to which we refer. The rounded cross-section is the usual point of distinction, but it only really matters to the heirs of the Georgian era archery revival and a few dedicated re-enactors. The English/Welsh/European longbow is rather better-documented than most, mainly thanks to that Georgian archery revival, but we do mention such bows from other cultures, and the Yumi has its own article. As for the general organization, no doubt it can be improved, feel free to edit it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong conversion of force units.
Throughout the article your conversions from pounds to kilos are consistent but incorrect. One hundred (100) pounds is pretty close to forty five (45) kilos. Your conversions are out by almost exactly a factor of ten (10). Old_Wombat (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They are correct, it's newtons, not kilogrammes :-) Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh Richard, you and I could have a wonderful flame war here. You are of course correct, but being correct here is entirely useless and I absolutely do not mean that in a derogatory fashion. To pick one example, you have "220 newtons (50 pounds)" which as you say is correct. But not beyond reproach. A "newton" is a unit of force, and a "pound" is a unit of weight, so strictly speaking that is an inconsistent conversion. I propose that for the purpose of convenience and certainly of common usage, you should go with pounds/kilograms. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) Pounds (force) is used in most of the English-speaking world for draw weight, and it's normally described simply as pounds. We therefore follow common usage. I don't think anyone uses any description of kgf for this purpose, though I am ready to be corrected. But those of us of a scientific disposition might want to use newtons. Consistency is wonderful but is suitable only for the least creative of minds! Personally, though I quiver beneath the moral force of your reproach and feel the full force of your argument, I'd keep it as it is. Up to you really. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I were to pick up a bow that claimed a "100 pound" draw I would, rightly or wrongly, convert that to "45 kg" rather than "440 Newtons". And with the greatest respect to you and your "scientific disposition" I would suggest that most people who would want to visit this page would do the same; and there is your "common usage".

But Richard, I have neither the knowledge, skill, time nor desire to impose my opinions on this page. You clearly do, and in all sincerity I compliment you on all of those things. I am merely a drive-by shooter who's had his say and is now ready to move on. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

bad link to English longbow article section
This page (under Legacy) mentions "historical significance", which is a link to the "Use" section of the "English longbow" page. However, it seems there is no longer a "Use" section on the English longbow page. --Teraya (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

India
Longbow first was used in India, Indians used bamboo made longbows.

http://www.ancientmilitary.com/ancient-india-military.htm

In section of War with Alexanadar.Ovsek (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Design and construction
There are a couple of problems in the Design and construction section. It says "a competent man with a sharp hatchet or knife could make a useable "survival" bow quite quickly, even a serviceable string and an arrow or two, whereas many a modern archer might die in search of a pro shop." This silly snipe at modern archers is unencyclopedic and needs to be rephrased or removed.

Then the next sentence says "Bows made of modern materials can be left strung for longer than wood bows and would take a large amount of set if not unstrung immediately after use if they are poorly designed and made or of inferior or green wood, but a decent wooden bow can be carried braced for a whole day of hunting and will come to no harm from what should only be regarded as normal use." I can't make sense of this. It says modern bows can be left strung longer than wood bows, then immediately contradicts itself by saying that modern bows should be unstrung immediately after use. I'm guessing that it really means to say that wood bows should be unstrung after use, but is worded poorly. It would make more sense (although would still be awkward and rambling) if the first "and" were changed to "which", but I don't know if that was really the intention.

Neither of these statements is cited. Since I know little about longbows, I don't want to change anything, but someone knowledgable should fix these. CodeTalker (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * At this diffI have removed most of the recent additions. As CodeTalker points out, they were unreferenced, ill-formatted, difficult to read, and added minimal further encyclopedic information. Not the the present version is perfect, but it's a lot better and should be easy to improve upon. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No full image of a longbow.
There isn't a full image of a longbow on the page any more. I think the previous long standing image (right) was removed because it's upside-down. If I graphically flip it (mirror) or rotate it the correct way up, would it be suitable for the page? Would the numbered arrows be correct, where should they be if not, or is it better without them? ( Hohum  @ ) 15:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Laws encouraging archery and banning football and golf
The article states: "During the reign of Edward III of England, laws were passed allowing fletchers and bowyers to be impressed into the army, also forbidding men and boys to play football or golf and enjoining them to practice archery instead."

Edward III died in 1327. History of golf says that the first mention of golf in Scotland was in an ordnance of James II in 1457, over 100 years later, and there is no talk in that article of golf in England before then (previously it was a Dutch game). It looks like two kings in two different countries at two different times are being confused. It would help if the specific laws (Acts of Parliament for example, if that's what they were) could be cited. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Edward III had in fact banned football in favour of archery, but golf seems to be an anachronism. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Longbow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209021550/http://www.nfas.net/nfas_styles.asp?style=LB to http://www.nfas.net/nfas_styles.asp?style=LB
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927191949/http://www.ifaa-archery.org/pages/longbow.htm to http://www.ifaa-archery.org/pages/longbow.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118111923/http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/History/staff/strickland.htm to http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/History/staff/strickland.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

History
Last recorded use of a longbow:

The article on Lt. Col. Jack Churchill, gives his own confession that he intended to use his longbow, but was unable due to the bow had been broken in an accident earlier.

Nevertheless he seems have been the last soldier to carry a longbow into action.

Ciao

Pentaclebreaker (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Article improvement
I have done a little bit of tidying of the article to improve structure. It remains, however, stubbornly Europe focussed. As wikipedia already has an entire article covering this focus at English longbow, this article needs to do more on use outside of Europe e.g. Japan, the Americas. It is also short of references and inline citations. Monstrelet (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)