A History of the British Army, Vol. 1: First Part—to the Close of the Seven Years' WarFortescue, J. W. (John William), Sir
History
A History of the British Army, Vol. 1: First Part—to the Close of the Seven Years' War
Fortescue, J. W. (John William), Sir
Great Britain -- History, Military; Great Britain. Army -- History
Next we come to the peculiar strength of England, the archers.
Though a certain number of them seem generally to have been
mounted, yet, like the dragoons of a later day, these rode for
the sake of swifter mobility only, and may rightly be reckoned as
infantry. As has been already stated, the archers wore no defensive
armour except an iron cap, relying on their bows alone. These bows
were six feet four inches long; the arrows, of varying length
but generally described as cloth-yard shafts, were fitted with
barb and point of iron and fledged with the feathers of goose or
peacock. But the weapon itself would have gone for little without
the special training in its use wherein the English excelled. "My
father," says Bishop Latimer (and we may reasonably assume that in
such matters there had been little change in a hundred and fifty
years), "My father was diligent in teaching me to shoot with the
bow; he taught me to draw, to lay my body to the bow, not to draw
with strength of arm as other nations do, but with the strength
of the body. I had my bows bought[20] me according to my age and
strength; as I increased in these my bows were made bigger and
bigger." The principle was in fact analogous to that which is
taught to young oarsmen at the present day. The results of this
training were astonishing. The range of the long-bow in the hands
of the old archers is said to have been fully two hundred and forty
yards, and the force of the arrow to have been such as to pierce at
a fair distance an inch of stout timber. Moreover, the shooting was
both rapid and accurate. Indeed the long-bow was in the fourteenth
century a more formidable weapon than the cross-bow, which had been
condemned by Pope Innocent the Second as too deadly for Christian
warfare so far back as 1139. It was at no disadvantage in the
matter of range, while it could be discharged far more quickly; and
further, since it was held not horizontally but perpendicularly
to the ground, the archers could stand closer together, and their
volleys could be better concentrated. Thus the long-bow, though the
cross-bow was not unknown to the English, was not only the national
but the better weapon. In action the archers were ranked as deep
as was consistent with the delivery of effective volleys, the rear
ranks being able to do good execution by aiming over the heads of
the men before them. It may be imagined from the muscular training
undergone by the archers that they were physically a magnificent
body of men.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account