How or why did the English become a bow culture?

[axel]

is rule of thumb archery related? in that case we have it to.

[Pat B]

In one of the old PA magazines(I believe) there is a list of old archery related sayings.    Pat

[axel]

Loki:

"What dont you think is about Bow culture?
The difference between the English and the Scandanavians (the same people) is the English used the Bow en masse for War,making laws to encourage Archery etc etc blah blah..."

- In 1325 a law in sweden, at least some major provinces, said that all men must have a bow and a number of arrows(i hav'nt really figured out how many yet...)

That tells me that we had big numbers of archers too=bow culture. But ofcourse the population here cannot be compared to brittain...

[Loki]

I wasnt saying the Scandanavians dont have a Bow culture Axel,i thought you were saying the English havent,which is wrong.

[axel]

I don't mean to be offensive. Trying to say that britain isn't really more of a bowculture than many other. It kind of irritates me a little all this talk about Britain, ELB, and warbows(english ofcourse ) . think the discussion could be a little bit more precise and not so amateure-scientist like. Too often a half-truth turn into a truth and is all of sudden a widespread fact everyone seem to accept!? That is generaly speaking.

Ok i rest my case.  Peace.

[SimonUK]

Maybe the english bow culture is simply more famous. Those big battles have been well documented in history and turned into shakespeare plays and films etc.

By the way, I think the population of england in the middle ages was quite small ....3 milliion or something?

[axel]

yes your bow culture is more famous, you have so many good actors and writers... lol

3 milion cant be true...? or...

[SimonUK]

Here's a quote from the following website about the black death in the middle ages http://www.britainexpress.com/History/medieval/black-death.htm

'Over the next 2 years the disease killed between 30-40% of the entire population. Given that the pre-plague population of England was in the range of 5-6 million people, fatalities may have reached as high as 2 million dead.'

[Len]

Hi guys, I think its worth noting that in England nearly the whole society was involved in some way with archery. The amount of archery related production is staggering, for example, in 1359 ( a year of peace) 850,000 arrows, 20,000 bows and50,000 bowstrings were collected and sent to the Tower of London. And still today there are people with the surname Fletcher for example to remind us of how many people must have been needed to keep the archer armies in the field.

[Yeomanbowman]

Trying to say that britain isn't really more of a bowculture than many other.

Not really Britain, Scotland and Ireland cannot be included in this as they did not really take to the bow during this period.
Jeremy

[ChrisD]

I think Lens point is a very fair one and gets close to the heart of the matter. Its true that lots of cultures used the bow at the time for hunting or warfare but I don't think any of them fielded armies with ratios of 5 or six archers to one man at arms. From the time of Edward the First, the longbow in England became a defining component of the society, in a way that I don't think it was in other bow using cultures. The longbow became central to its warfare and the capacity to be more successful than other societies of the time where it came to conflict. Thats the reason that Hardy's first book 'Longbow' is subtitled 'A social and military history'. Part of the the success at Agincourt, for example, was attributed to the pragmatism of putting a really powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary folk and letting them get on with it, whereas French society at the time abhorred that concept, and lacked the conviction to give their poorer folk a central role for fear of upsetting the social order. Much good it did them - the revolution came anyway, although much later.

ChrisD

[Dane]

I think Lens point is a very fair one and gets close to the heart of the matter. Its true that lots of cultures used the bow at the time for hunting or warfare but I don't think any of them fielded armies with ratios of 5 or six archers to one man at arms. From the time of Edward the First, the longbow in England became a defining component of the society, in a way that I don't think it was in other bow using cultures. The longbow became central to its warfare and the capacity to be more successful than other societies of the time where it came to conflict. Thats the reason that Hardy's first book 'Longbow' is subtitled 'A social and military history'. Part of the the success at Agincourt, for example, was attributed to the pragmatism of putting a really powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary folk and letting them get on with it, whereas French society at the time abhorred that concept, and lacked the conviction to give their poorer folk a central role for fear of upsetting the social order. Much good it did them - the revolution came anyway, although much later.

ChrisD

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, guys.

A thought came to me (thinking is dangerous eh? ) about the various Asian and nomadic peoples who fielded archers and bows so different and, it can I think be safely argued, superior to the self bow in many ways. Yeah, I know, climate, culture, etc. all factor in as well, but what about those bow cultures? I heard, true or false, that in some cultures (Turkish?) a bowyer would be beheaded if a bow he crafted failed in battle. Perhaps those armies of conquest used the bow in a much more central way than the English did during the war bow heyday?

[axel]

Hi guys, I think its worth noting that in England nearly the whole society was involved in some way with archery. The amount of archery related production is staggering, for example, in 1359 ( a year of peace) 850,000 arrows, 20,000 bows and50,000 bowstrings were collected and sent to the Tower of London. And still today there are people with the surname Fletcher for example to remind us of how many people must have been needed to keep the archer armies in the field.

I won't argue on this since i don't have much information on this. Im sure this is correct.

One thought, I know Swedish forces used the crossbow in this way, a lots of crossbows rain arrows on the enemies(the danish) and not shot in the more traditional way-horisontal. The swedish masses consisting of "real people" and the danish forces foreign mercenarys. Im sure the bow was used in this way too. Wasn't the famous english army made with concripts among people rather than proffesional soldiers like the french? A  conection perhaps. or maybe the swedish learned from the english. Im guessing here !

[Loki]

Bowyer too is not a uncommon surname.

Wasn't the famous english army made with concripts among people rather than proffesional soldiers like the french? A  conection perhaps. or maybe the swedish learned from the english. Im guessing here !

?
Are you saying the' famous English army' was made up of French conscripted Bowmen  ,or are you saying the French army was professional and the 'Famous English Army' was made of conscripted Bowmen? .
Either way your wrong i'm afraid Axel,Edward I used conscripted Welsh men for a time but the 'Famous English Army' was made up of very professional English archers,sorry to dissapoint you but allthough most men in England could use a Bow only the best were taken to war.Some of them may of been the scum of the earth but they were still good archers  .

[axel]

Im not saying amateur or poor archers, but were they professional all of them?