@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
A secret weapon indeed! Still kept against the day in a cave in Ayrshire. But this is between us...
I recall being taken to a cave in cliff over a river near Dumfries or Moffat over which there was a castle that had belonged to a family retainer (with the same name as me). Apparently there was once a tunnel from the castle to this cave and Robert the Bruce had allegedly hidden there when on the run and made his acquaintance with the spider.
It was my father that took me nearly 40 years ago and I have never been able to identify the castle again.
Is it not a coincidence that we are discussing a) The complexities and shifting alliances of 13 & 14 C Scottish/English relationships, with their associated brutalities, on one hand and b) The complexities and shifting alliances of 21st C Syrian/Muslim relationships, with their associated brutalities, on the other!
I'd say it is a coincidence, there's doesn't appear to be much particularly in common with them that you couldn't pair between all kinds of other conflicts through history (borne from a certain underlying repeating of themes).
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
Indeed! Sir William Wallace was Guardian of Scotland during the early part of the Wars of Independance and was knighted, some say by Robert the Bruce. A great historical novel of the Wallace was written by Nigel Tranter and is (as are his other works) a great read. In many ways it foreshadows today's debate!
Saw a great documentary about Bannockburn on Youtube yesterday (called Line of Fire). The Jockanese definitely deservd to win that one. And I learned that Bruce personally sunk his battleaxe into the brain of an English knight who was charging him on a horse. Cool man.
Also reinforced the truth that Edward I was an all-round superstar of a king - militarily, diplomatically, in many ways. Not AT ALL the white cat stroking evil genius of Mel Gibson's imagination. Ed II was however a useless drip of a man and got his deserved comeuppance at Bruce's hands. Graham Norton in a chain mail dress.
In fairness to Edward II, he actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, "like a lioness deprived of her cubs" and had to be dragged away by his bodyguard, when the battle was lost.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
A secret weapon indeed! Still kept against the day in a cave in Ayrshire. But this is between us...
I recall being taken to a cave in cliff over a river near Dumfries or Moffat over which there was a castle that had belonged to a family retainer (with the same name as me). Apparently there was once a tunnel from the castle to this cave and Robert the Bruce had allegedly hidden there when on the run and made his acquaintance with the spider.
It was my father that took me nearly 40 years ago and I have never been able to identify the castle again.
I do not have any serious knowledge here, but the Crags of Doon might be able to assist?
@DavidBrackenbury That is why he was hung drawn and quartered (traitors death). He had sworn fealty to "Toom Tabard" who had sworn fealty to Edward. If he had fought having renounced that oath, he might have escaped that punishment, and only been beheaded.
Politics was very vicious under Edward I and II. Hanging, drawing, and quartering became Standard Operating Procedure for people who lost out (eg Hugh de Spenser the Younger, Llewellyn Bryn, Andrew Harclay). After that era, noble traitors were generally beheaded.
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
Indeed! Sir William Wallace was Guardian of Scotland during the early part of the Wars of Independance and was knighted, some say by Robert the Bruce. A great historical novel of the Wallace was written by Nigel Tranter and is (as are his other works) a great read. In many ways it foreshadows today's debate!
Saw a great documentary about Bannockburn on Youtube yesterday (called Line of Fire). The Jockanese definitely deservd to win that one. And I learned that Bruce personally sunk his battleaxe into the brain of an English knight who was charging him on a horse. Cool man.
Also reinforced the truth that Edward I was an all-round superstar of a king - militarily, diplomatically, in many ways. Not AT ALL the white cat stroking evil genius of Mel Gibson's imagination. Ed II was however a useless drip of a man and got his deserved comeuppance at Bruce's hands. Graham Norton in a chain mail dress.
In fairness to Edward II, he actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, "like a lioness deprived of her cubs" and had to be dragged away by his bodyguard, when the battle was lost.
I am sure that Edward II was no craven and fought as well as he could. However, he was outgeneraled and led his armoured chivalry into a bog (the Carse of Stirling) where the much lighter armed Scots could defeat them piecemeal.
@DavidBrackenbury Whoever handed him over, it saved Bruce a lot of trouble. and as for Bruce's family? They were on Edwards side at Falkirk, and their father had also sworn an oath to Edward in the hope of the crown of Scotland Under the English one Politics were just as dubious then as now, but with usually a worse outcome than losing your deposit.
Oh yes it was a messy time and even the hero Robert the Bruce supported both sides, partly because of his House's antipathy to John Baliol and the powerful Comyns. It was only after he took the slightly radical step of stabbing John Comyn that matters crystalised, but at greivous cost for the Bruces, the Comyns and indeed for the English. All of this was eight years before the decisive Battle of Bannockburn and took the death of Edward I, who was a charasmatic prince and a brilliant soldier. His son was not.
IIRC from 1066 and all that it was Bruce's somewhat unfair deployment of a giant spider that made the difference at Bannockburn.
A secret weapon indeed! Still kept against the day in a cave in Ayrshire. But this is between us...
I recall being taken to a cave in cliff over a river near Dumfries or Moffat over which there was a castle that had belonged to a family retainer (with the same name as me). Apparently there was once a tunnel from the castle to this cave and Robert the Bruce had allegedly hidden there when on the run and made his acquaintance with the spider.
It was my father that took me nearly 40 years ago and I have never been able to identify the castle again.
I've never understood that argument at all. Firstly, weren't ISIS already near the forefront of the Syrian opposition a year ago? And secondly, even if they weren't, when there's a power vacuum in such a turbulent situation, the pendulum almost ALWAYS swings to the extremists on one side or the other, because desperate civilians caught up in the turmoil see them as atleast being strong enough to get stuff done.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster.
1) This time last year, the FSA controlled large parts of Syria, including the outskirts of Damascus. The dual attacks on them by the Syrian regime, ISIS, Al-Nusra and others have reversed that. From all accounts, the FSA is now in serious trouble.
2)
"It seems pretty obvious to me that Western intervention in Syria (if it had actually dislodged Assad, which obviously is in itself debateable) would've meant ISIS would've risen further and faster."
I see no reason to believe that would have been the case. ISIS's rise was incredibly fast as it was - from October last year to harassing much of Iraq this Spring. The time to stamp pout their cancer was last year or earlier.
There is not, and never has been, a 'right' side to support in Syria/Iraq. The 'best' of the bunch would have been the FSA. Sadly it is too late for that now, and we are going to be forced to arm the Kurds, their satellites and the PKK.
"In June 1987, the PKK slaughtered the entire population of Pinarcik, a Kurdish village unsympathetic to its cause, in order to coerce nearby villages into submission." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pınarcık_massacre
Utter codswallop. You must think people reading this are idiots.
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
Indeed! Sir William Wallace was Guardian of Scotland during the early part of the Wars of Independance and was knighted, some say by Robert the Bruce. A great historical novel of the Wallace was written by Nigel Tranter and is (as are his other works) a great read. In many ways it foreshadows today's debate!
Saw a great documentary about Bannockburn on Youtube yesterday (called Line of Fire). The Jockanese definitely deservd to win that one. And I learned that Bruce personally sunk his battleaxe into the brain of an English knight who was charging him on a horse. Cool man.
Also reinforced the truth that Edward I was an all-round superstar of a king - militarily, diplomatically, in many ways. Not AT ALL the white cat stroking evil genius of Mel Gibson's imagination. Ed II was however a useless drip of a man and got his deserved comeuppance at Bruce's hands. Graham Norton in a chain mail dress.
In fairness to Edward II, he actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, "like a lioness deprived of her cubs" and had to be dragged away by his bodyguard, when the battle was lost.
I am sure that Edward II was no craven and fought as well as he could. However, he was outgeneraled and led his armoured chivalry into a bog (the Carse of Stirling) where the much lighter armed Scots could defeat them piecemeal.
I always thought this was a remarkable mistake for the English to make given all their success against armoured knights in France using very similar tactics to those deployed by the Scots.
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
Indeed! Sir William Wallace was Guardian of Scotland during the early part of the Wars of Independance and was knighted, some say by Robert the Bruce. A great historical novel of the Wallace was written by Nigel Tranter and is (as are his other works) a great read. In many ways it foreshadows today's debate!
Saw a great documentary about Bannockburn on Youtube yesterday (called Line of Fire). The Jockanese definitely deservd to win that one. And I learned that Bruce personally sunk his battleaxe into the brain of an English knight who was charging him on a horse. Cool man.
Also reinforced the truth that Edward I was an all-round superstar of a king - militarily, diplomatically, in many ways. Not AT ALL the white cat stroking evil genius of Mel Gibson's imagination. Ed II was however a useless drip of a man and got his deserved comeuppance at Bruce's hands. Graham Norton in a chain mail dress.
In fairness to Edward II, he actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, "like a lioness deprived of her cubs" and had to be dragged away by his bodyguard, when the battle was lost.
I am sure that Edward II was no craven and fought as well as he could. However, he was outgeneraled and led his armoured chivalry into a bog (the Carse of Stirling) where the much lighter armed Scots could defeat them piecemeal.
How many countries has the evil Iranian bogeyman invaded since the Mad Mullahs came to power, do tell? And how many has the United States invaded (though I believe the term is 'exported democracy to') in this time? Remind me, who constitutes a threat to our liberty and way of life?
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 25/08/2014 15:46 Something 2015 general election watchers haven't noticed; Ukip's new general secretary has a VERY firm grasp of its support. No amateur.
Ukip are in the middle of all parties, why highlight them?
Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) 25/08/2014 16:27 17% of UKIP voters in London tell YouGov that they'd have to pay a mansion tax on houses £2m+. pic.twitter.com/zCWTR2j9pK
@DavidL In what way were the Scot's tactics the same as the French knights?
Wrong way around. Sorry if I was not clear. The successes of the English (mainly after Bannockburn of course rather than before it) at battles such as Crecy (1346) were mainly down to using more lightly armed and mobile forces against the "heavy brigades" of the French.
At Bannockburn the English were the heavy brigade getting stuck in the bog as @DavidBrackenbury has referred to.
Maybe it was another good idea from the Scots that the English pinched!
@DavidBrackenbury Yes, In the case of William Wallace, he was a noble of a fairly major family and could speak at least three languages. To paint him in woad, and dress him in a tartan plaid is a travesty of a true and fascinating story.
Indeed! Sir William Wallace was Guardian of Scotland during the early part of the Wars of Independance and was knighted, some say by Robert the Bruce. A great historical novel of the Wallace was written by Nigel Tranter and is (as are his other works) a great read. In many ways it foreshadows today's debate!
Saw a great documentary about Bannockburn on Youtube yesterday (called Line of Fire). The Jockanese definitely deservd to win that one. And I learned that Bruce personally sunk his battleaxe into the brain of an English knight who was charging him on a horse. Cool man.
Also reinforced the truth that Edward I was an all-round superstar of a king - militarily, diplomatically, in many ways. Not AT ALL the white cat stroking evil genius of Mel Gibson's imagination. Ed II was however a useless drip of a man and got his deserved comeuppance at Bruce's hands. Graham Norton in a chain mail dress.
In fairness to Edward II, he actually fought very bravely at Bannockburn, "like a lioness deprived of her cubs" and had to be dragged away by his bodyguard, when the battle was lost.
I am sure that Edward II was no craven and fought as well as he could. However, he was outgeneraled and led his armoured chivalry into a bog (the Carse of Stirling) where the much lighter armed Scots could defeat them piecemeal.
I always thought this was a remarkable mistake for the English to make given all their success against armoured knights in France using very similar tactics to those deployed by the Scots.
The English learned from their earlier mistakes against the Scots.
Many medieval battles were idiot balls, however. Cavalry charging pikemen head- on was always a recipe for disaster. At Crecy, the French arrived in late afternoon, exhausted, and their King ordered an immediate attack by their crossbowmen, without their pavises. When the crossbowmen were broken by English archery, the French cavalry massacred them. At Poitiers, one third of the French army marched away for reasons no one has ever worked out. At Agincourt, they chose to fight the English on a waterlogged battlefield where they couldn't use their cavalry. At Patay, English archers were cut to bits because they were hunting hares. At Solway Moss a few hundred English cavalry destroyed a much bigger Scottish army, because none of it's leaders could decide who was in charge.
Ukip are in the middle of all parties, why highlight them?
Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) 25/08/2014 16:27 17% of UKIP voters in London tell YouGov that they'd have to pay a mansion tax on houses £2m+. pic.twitter.com/zCWTR2j9pK
@DavidL Only fair really, the Scots pinched the idea from history as well. Edward didn't have the luxury of position, he had a strict schedule to keep, and after the day before the main battle, he had few good options.
@DavidL In what way were the Scot's tactics the same as the French knights?
They weren't. The English learned by their mistakes and in the Hundred Years War at Crecy and Agincourt, that they used the ground and their huge advantage in longbowmen to decimate the noble, but disorganised French mounted chivalry, who were overconfident fighting what appeared to be a rag tag army of footmen. This was, perhaps, something that the English learned from their defeat at Bannockburn.
So tonight Darling keeps mobile, jumps from topic to topic firing arrows of questions from a secure position and hopes that Salmond is daft enough to charge right in?
So tonight Darling keeps mobile, jumps from topic to topic firing arrows of questions from a secure position and hopes that Salmond is daft enough to charge right in?
Have I got that right?
That may work, but how much has it been raining in the area? BT longbowmen should never be discounted...
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip are in the middle of all parties, why highlight them?
Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) 25/08/2014 16:27 17% of UKIP voters in London tell YouGov that they'd have to pay a mansion tax on houses £2m+. pic.twitter.com/zCWTR2j9pK
Because he hates them.
Oh I know he hates them!
But even so, why tweet that? It makes no sense when ukip voters are as far away from those of the coalition parties as they are labour on that measure... If ukip voters were miles clear of all the others, fair enough. If they were marginally ahead, I wouldn't be surprised to see a partisan anti ukip point made, but when they are 3rd of 4 (2nd least likely) to be affected... What's his point?
I have just had a Magpie knocking at my window presumably asking for food. However online there are details of a Scottish superstition that one Magpie at a window means impending death.
Bl**dy Scotland can XXXX off and taking the Magpies with them.
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
Mr. Gin, I concur, the weather does seem to be getting more erratic. However, that doesn't mean it's not due to natural patterns changing (as has always happened).
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
@DavidL In what way were the Scot's tactics the same as the French knights?
They weren't. The English learned by their mistakes and in the Hundred Years War at Crecy and Agincourt, that they used the ground and their huge advantage in longbowmen to decimate the noble, but disorganised French mounted chivalry, who were overconfident fighting what appeared to be a rag tag army of footmen. This was, perhaps, something that the English learned from their defeat at Bannockburn.
English archery wasn't actually very lethal. Plate armour, chain mail, even a padded jack, could give adequate protection from arrows, unless fired from very close range. What it did do was to disrupt the momentum of the French attacks. If 60,000 arrows a minute were fired at the French army, some would find their mark, and a small number of fallen horsemen will disrupt a charge. In the end, though, Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt were decided by hand to hand combat. Archers fought with weapons like pole axes and war hammers at close quarters.
@DavidL In what way were the Scot's tactics the same as the French knights?
They weren't. The English learned by their mistakes and in the Hundred Years War at Crecy and Agincourt, that they used the ground and their huge advantage in longbowmen to decimate the noble, but disorganised French mounted chivalry, who were overconfident fighting what appeared to be a rag tag army of footmen. This was, perhaps, something that the English learned from their defeat at Bannockburn.
English archery wasn't actually very lethal. Plate armour, chain mail, even a padded jack, could give adequate protection from arrows, unless fired from very close range. What it did do was to disrupt the momentum of the French attacks. If 60,000 arrows a minute were fired at the French army, some would find their mark, and a small number of fallen horsemen will disrupt a charge. In the end, though, Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt were decided by hand to hand combat. Archers fought with weapons like pole axes and war hammers at close quarters.
Mmm, Sean. You are right up to a point. Archery was certainly fairly dangerous to less well armoured soldiers, but was far more dangerous to horses. The vast majority of horses were not armoured and once a knight was off his horse, stunned by the fall, it would be hard to get up and be effective. That is when they were vulnerable to foot soldiers finishing them off on the ground. As happened to many, not least the Earl of Warwick after the Battle of Barnet (1471)
We can't control numbers now. Well, we can, but those already here and already here and we can't get rid of them.
I do wonder if Blair will go down as the worst PM of the 20th century. He can match Eden's Suez, he may end up having lost us Scotland, the immigration splurge has caused untold difficulty regarding integration and provision of services, the pensions system was wrecked, we had a boom which included a deficit and then the worst recession in history.
Rightwingers won't defend him and lefties loathe him as well. And yet he won three elections including two landslides.
The worst PM together with the worst Chancellor of the 20th century, it will take this country decades to fully recover.
some of the very same team want us to trust them with power again.
I have just had a Magpie knocking at my window presumably asking for food. However online there are details of a Scottish superstition that one Magpie at a window means impending death.
Bl**dy Scotland can XXXX off and taking the Magpies with them.
This may be my last post !
Speak politely to the magpie, and tell him that you can see his mate is well. That way he'll think he's not alone and will not bring ill-fortune.
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
Ha! Yeah often the sensitive softies are so pathetic they cant stay in character for more than a sentence or two without reverting to type!
...protection from arrows, unless fired from very close range.
At risk of appearing a complete pedant, you 'shoot' or 'loose' arrows, you do not 'fire' them. Unless of course you have a very unusual bowstring... I know what you mean, but on the other hand ships do still "sail" without sails.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
Ha! Yeah often the sensitive softies are so pathetic they cant stay in character for more than a sentence or two without reverting to type!
...protection from arrows, unless fired from very close range.
At risk of appearing a complete pedant, you 'shoot' or 'loose' arrows, you do not 'fire' them. Unless of course you have a very unusual bowstring...
I know what you mean, but on the other hand ships do still "sail" without sails.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
At podium range a Crossbow would be better, then the swordplay...
@Ishmael_X - yes, because 'sail' came first, so it is now an idiomatic term to mean a ship proceeding. Also, as many ships down to the Second World War could use steam and sail, it wasn't ever entirely out of use or required replacing with 'steamed' (which is often used in late Victorian times as an alternative word, to show the method of propulsion the ship is using). However, there would at the time before guns came into common use have been no form of 'firing' so its use for bows is anachronistic. I agree with your last comment!
@Morris_Dancer I'm glad to hear it. Nothing infuriates me more about historical novelists who pose as 'experts' on these things (I'm thinking here of Philippa Gregory, although she's not by any means the only one) getting such easy details wrong.
Mr. Doethur, fantasy rather than historical, but getting obvious details wrong (in Atlantis, recent BBC TV series, they called Heracles 'Hercules' even though it was meant to be Greek...) can grate. Ever watch videos by Lindy Beige on Youtube? He's got some excellent points on various bits of medieval and ancient weaponry, and the odd pisstake of films that have glaring inaccuracies.
I have just had a Magpie knocking at my window presumably asking for food. However online there are details of a Scottish superstition that one Magpie at a window means impending death.
Bl**dy Scotland can XXXX off and taking the Magpies with them.
This may be my last post !
I have always believed it only applies before noon. You are OK.
(although you may want to take measures to prevent a repeat performance tomorrow morning! And apparently they shun shiny things rather than collect them, latest research shows...)
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
Ha! Yeah often the sensitive softies are so pathetic they cant stay in character for more than a sentence or two without reverting to type!
@Morris_Dancer I believe the Swiss crossbowmen out shot the English archers during a skirmish in France. They alternated between pairs, with one loading and the other shooting then swapping duties before fatigue set in. The English of course claimed it was a draw. (dodgy Spanish refereeing perhaps?)
Mr. Doethur, fantasy rather than historical, but getting obvious details wrong (in Atlantis, recent BBC TV series, they called Heracles 'Hercules' even though it was meant to be Greek...) can grate. .
Yes, I remember watching the BBC TV historical drama Danger Mouse when younger, thinking, Mice can't talk, let alone solve crime, this is preposterous.
Mr. X, but sails preceded motors for ships, whereas gunpowder came later, compared to bows and crossbows.
Mr. Foxinsox, crossbows could also be handy sniping at sieges, perhaps, where the slightly longer reloading time didn't matter as much.
Mr. Dancer, were not the French (actually Geonese) crossbowmen at Crecy affected by a rainshower which soaked their bowstrings, thus reducing their range. and when they retreated, having been unable to damage the English lines, they were cut to pieces by the advancing French cavalry? The English longbowmen unstriged their bows (easier to do) and preserved their effective range.
@DavidBrackenbury That is why he was hung drawn and quartered (traitors death). He had sworn fealty to "Toom Tabard" who had sworn fealty to Edward. If he had fought having renounced that oath, he might have escaped that punishment, and only been beheaded.
I doubt it Smarmeron, Robert the Bruce's brothers, who paid no fealty to John Bailiol were executed in a similar fashion. King Edward of England never forgave Wallace after Stirling Bridge and treated him as outlaw. While a minor member of the landed gentry, it is clear that William Wallace was a cultured and educated man in an era when many nobles could not read or write. A shame for Edward, England and Sir John de Menteith of Scotland, who handed him over...
Wallace had passed his "sell by date" and refused to comply with the peace terms the Scots nobles were negotiating with Edward I. Sir John De Menteith (my 22x ggfather) held office from Edward I and was duty bound to capture Wallace and hand him over. Menteith's father was a member of the Stewart family and his daughter Joanna succeeded Princess Margaret Bruce as wife of William, 5th Earl of Sutherland. The Sutherland, Stewart, Mar and Bruce families were related by no fewer than 6 marriages in 3 generations which is why Robert the Bruce and at least 2 of his brothers-in-law count among my 22xggfathers.
Evening campers - Ms Briskin's on other duties (you should maybe ignore tonight then).
Just signing in so that I may respond to tonight's debate if I so chose.
As ever, my idiotic reviewing of some the M press continues unabated-
I note that today's T2 re-published the most spankingly hot picture of the year - If I'm a bit tipsy, is my faith in homosexuals allowed to be diminished??
Mr. X, but sails preceded motors for ships, whereas gunpowder came later, compared to bows and crossbows.
Mr. Foxinsox, crossbows could also be handy sniping at sieges, perhaps, where the slightly longer reloading time didn't matter as much.
In the siege of Valletta at one point the Ottomans were repelled from an attack in the rain by getting crossbows from the store room, matchlocks not working well due to the damp.
@Hugh, I may have missed something, but didn't Dangermouse admit it wasn't historically accurate somewhere in the credits? Like they do in Star Trek where they state 'All persons and events in this production are fictitious and any resemblance to any actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental' (because we would never work out that James Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard are not real characters and the Enterprise is not a real starship despite obviously being completely the wrong shape for ourselves)?
Whereas there are far too many historical novelists who try to pass off fiction as fact and cause poor old Muggins here endless problems unpicking them later - I'm thinking of the lurid fantasies of The White Queen (shudder) which Gregory insisted was historically accurate and anyone who argued against her version of events was some Masonic crypto-conspirator, despite the fact that it was actually somewhat less accurate than Dangermouse (and not nearly as well written or 'acted').
Getting little details right can help to guard against such things, which is why I'm so hot on them. As the late, great Sir Robin Day once rebuked David Dimbleby, 'it is important to be precise, especially in matters of detail.'
Mr. Brackenbury, whilst I've heard (and mention in my work-in-progress, actually) that water could ruin strings I'm not familiar enough with the 14th century to confirm that, although it seems entirely plausible.
Mr. Doethur, fantasy rather than historical, but getting obvious details wrong (in Atlantis, recent BBC TV series, they called Heracles 'Hercules' even though it was meant to be Greek...) can grate. .
Yes, I remember watching the BBC TV historical drama Danger Mouse when younger, thinking, Mice can't talk, let alone solve crime, this is preposterous.
You obviously don't remember it was one of the first programmes on Children's ITV.
The best 'all events and people are fictional' type notice was in Shadow Hearts: Covenant, a computer game which featured as NPCs people such as Rasputin, Tsar Nicholas II and Princess Anastasia.
@DavidBrackenbury, quite correct. One of the most devastating defeats a French army ever suffered, at the hands of (a) the weather and (b) at least partly their own men.
Unstringing a crossbow as I understand it wasn't the biggest part of the problem - it was trying to reassemble it that was a nightmare, because there were several strings that all had to go into the right place or it simply wouldn't work. Which meant the bowmen were very reluctant to disassemble it in the first place.
Mr. Doethur, fantasy rather than historical, but getting obvious details wrong (in Atlantis, recent BBC TV series, they called Heracles 'Hercules' even though it was meant to be Greek...) can grate. .
Yes, I remember watching the BBC TV historical drama Danger Mouse when younger, thinking, Mice can't talk, let alone solve crime, this is preposterous.
You obviously don't remember it was one of the first programmes on Children's ITV.
@Hugh, I may have missed something, but didn't Dangermouse admit it wasn't historically accurate somewhere in the credits? Like they do in Star Trek where they state 'All persons and events in this production are fictitious and any resemblance to any actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental' (because we would never work out that James Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard are not real characters and the Enterprise is not a real starship despite obviously being completely the wrong shape for ourselves)?
Whereas there are far too many historical novelists who try to pass off fiction as fact and cause poor old Muggins here endless problems unpicking them later - I'm thinking of the lurid fantasies of The White Queen (shudder) which Gregory insisted was historically accurate and anyone who argued against her version of events was some Masonic crypto-conspirator, despite the fact that it was actually somewhat less accurate than Dangermouse (and not nearly as well written or 'acted').
Getting little details right can help to guard against such things, which is why I'm so hot on them. As the late, great Sir Robin Day once rebuked David Dimbleby, 'it is important to be precise, especially in matters of detail.'
I'm sure Atlantis should have had such disclaimers too...
But yeah I see what you mean, only leg pulling.
But then aren't there few real historical "facts", only interpretations of evidence, particularly the further back you go? And the Wars of the Roses were a wee while back, like.
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
Ha! Yeah often the sensitive softies are so pathetic they cant stay in character for more than a sentence or two without reverting to type!
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
Ha! Yeah often the sensitive softies are so pathetic they cant stay in character for more than a sentence or two without reverting to type!
@Smarmeron hemp's not nearly as pliable, so you don't get the same spring out of it, removing most of the point of having such a bow in the first place. If you grease a bowstring, even a crossbow string, it becomes difficult to pull back, hard to grip, and difficult to knot or otherwise work with. On the subject of cover, well, perhaps. But in the days when not so many people could afford waterproof clothes for themselves (bearing in mind the most effective - indeed the only really effective - waterproof material was leather, probably greased in some way) finding a cover for something as big as a crossbow would not have been easy or cheap.
Longbows, on the other hand, weren't nearly as powerful but were easy to string, easy to unstring, could be kept from the rain and if the wood got wet it didn't matter much. You can also loose off several - I think six or seven - arrows from a longbow while a crossbow is being reloaded. Which made it, all in all, a much more effective weapon.
The disadvantage was it needed considerable strength and training to use, starting from a young age to develop the muscles in the drawing arm - and that wasn't always popular (one of the Henrys had to ban football to make sure all boys did their longbow training). Indeed that reason, rather than the advent of firearms (similar problems to crossbows) is why it ceased to be widely used - the hours of practice required among adolescent boys simply went out of fashion.
@Easterross Foreigner! Come the glorious day of independence, we shall ship you back to your homeland along with those damned Scots.
I hope to live long enough to celebrate the 900th anniversary of Freskyn being granted much of the Moray lands by David I. In 3 weeks time we have a Gathering of Sutherlands from all over the world and thanks to the marvel of DNA analysis can now greet a fair number of them as cousins as well as kinsmen.
At Warwick castle a few years ago there was a chap with a longbow of the dimensions of those used in the XIVth century. In a demonstration he loosed 15 arrows in a minute. I am not sure how a pair of crossbowmen could out-shoot that. As for archers not being lethal, several thousand of them letting go ten times plus a minute would have produced an arrow storm of death that would perhaps have produced no small effect
...protection from arrows, unless fired from very close range.
At risk of appearing a complete pedant, you 'shoot' or 'loose' arrows, you do not 'fire' them. Unless of course you have a very unusual bowstring...
I know what you mean, but on the other hand ships do still "sail" without sails.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
Knights in good quality mail could be stuck full of arrows like a pin cushion, and still fight.
@Ishmael_X - yes, because 'sail' came first, so it is now an idiomatic term to mean a ship proceeding. Also, as many ships down to the Second World War could use steam and sail, it wasn't ever entirely out of use or required replacing with 'steamed' (which is often used in late Victorian times as an alternative word, to show the method of propulsion the ship is using). However, there would at the time before guns came into common use have been no form of 'firing' so its use for bows is anachronistic. I agree with your last comment!
@Morris_Dancer I'm glad to hear it. Nothing infuriates me more about historical novelists who pose as 'experts' on these things (I'm thinking here of Philippa Gregory, although she's not by any means the only one) getting such easy details wrong.
There's far worse out there, among historical novelists. How about a sex scene involving Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and a pot of honey? (The Tudor Wife, by Emily Purdy).
@ydoethur Siege crossbows perhaps, but they were a more specialized weapon than mercenaries used, which would have been based on hunting crossbows,. Wet strings would not be much more of a problem than restringing a longbow.
Not many'll be watching the debate tonight. City are playing Liverpool
I'll be watching both, so I just hope the more interesting parts of either do not overlap too much.
Is it on the radio at all? Jr and I do not thinkbe can wrest control of the telly from relatives.
The build up on BBC Radio Scotland MW and digital begins at 20:00. You can then listen to the debate live between 20:30 to 22:00. After that there will be a special phone-in programme to take your views, between 22:05 to 23:00. That will be followed by Referendum Tonight, hosted by Graham Stewart. Radio Nan Gaidheal will also broadcast the debate.
...protection from arrows, unless fired from very close range.
At risk of appearing a complete pedant, you 'shoot' or 'loose' arrows, you do not 'fire' them. Unless of course you have a very unusual bowstring...
I know what you mean, but on the other hand ships do still "sail" without sails.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
Knights in good quality mail could be stuck full of arrows like a pin cushion, and still fight.
Noooo, I don't think so. In good quality plate armour maybe, but not mail. A bodkin arrow would pierce mail a quite a long range.
@Hugh, interpretations are undoubtedly part of history (it's called 'historiography', if you're interested) to the extent that one former colleague of mine complained history isn't made, it's written. But interpretations must be based on facts if they are to have any validity. And I say again there are people out there who play fast and loose with them. When I mentioned Gregory, I was thinking particularly of the Princes in the Tower. Among historians, the debate is over and has been for thirty years. The evidence all points to Richard having murdered them. He controlled access to them, he had the best possible reason to kill them, and he never said what had happened to them even though his men had been in charge of the Tower when they disappeared and would have undoubtedly known the truth, and relayed it to him. But Gregory picked Margaret Beaufort as the culprit. Let me run through her reasons:
1) Beaufort's motive was that her son was 'next in line' (false: at least a dozen people, Yorkist and Lancastrian, stood between him and the crown)
2) Beaufort's husband may have had access to the Tower over Richard's head (false: access was by personal authorisation from Richard)
3) Beaufort was a compulsive schemer (entirely true, but there is no evidence that she was anything more than that - in fact, she seems to have been quite squeamish about killing, more so than her son)
4) Elizabeth Woodville would never have come to an arrangement with a man who had murdered her sons (an understandable position, but since Richard had already very publicly murdered her second son, Richard Grey, patently not the case)
5) Richard, as he only had one son, would have needed the Princes in case he needed spare heirs (ridiculous - he could not have made them his heirs without admitting their parents' marriage was valid, which would make Edward V the rightful king and Richard guilty of high treason)
6) Richard was an honourable and honest man who loved his nephews and would never have hurt them (possibly true in the second of those three parts, but Richard actually had quite a reputation for brutality - his behaviour towards the Countess of Oxford, whom he kidnapped and threatened to murder if she did not forfeit her lands to him springs to mind, and he was clearly a pragmatist who would do what it took to keep what he held - murder included).
You see my point? Gregory speculates, but the 'facts' she speculates from are wrong, and that annoys me greatly as an historian and has caused many upsets - even tears - in my classroom when I'm teaching, because her fans struggle to understand that she has lied to them.
I don't want to get all Thomas Gradgrind about this, but I do believe facts are important and that monkeying with them is dangerous - and that when we can get minor details right, we should make every effort to do so.
Revolt on the Right (@RevoltonRight) 25/08/2014 18:40 "Ukip's manifesto is a serious challenge to Labour", says @LabourList contributor bit.ly/1p5JIOW #Ukip
Mr. Llama, wouldn't that be partly contingent on angle? A near range straight shot I agree, but a long range, fired-in-the-sky shot would come down at a steep angle and be less liable to pierce chainmail, surely? [Of course, if it pierces your skull then armour is the least of your problems].
There's far worse out there, among historical novelists. How about a sex scene involving Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and a pot of honey? (The Tudor Wife, by Emily Purdy).
Please tell me it's a spoof novel...please...
Not that that will help with the very strange image I now have in my head!
...protection from arrows, unless fired from very close range.
At risk of appearing a complete pedant, you 'shoot' or 'loose' arrows, you do not 'fire' them. Unless of course you have a very unusual bowstring...
I know what you mean, but on the other hand ships do still "sail" without sails.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
Knights in good quality mail could be stuck full of arrows like a pin cushion, and still fight.
Noooo, I don't think so. In good quality plate armour maybe, but not mail. A bodkin arrow would pierce mail a quite a long range.
It's certainly recorded at the Battle of Dorylaeum. The composite bow used by the Turks was almost as powerful as a longbow.
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
Ha! Yeah often the sensitive softies are so pathetic they cant stay in character for more than a sentence or two without reverting to type!
Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness. Interesting you should choose to insult your opponents using a disused psychological term describing those with a mental age of 8-12 too -a very un-bigoted choice may I say.
Ukip haters seem to act/argue in the way they expect of Ukip supporters.. the results are quite pitiful
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
I have never heard a skinhead in any decade use the phrase "vulgarian bigot"!
Ha! Yeah often the sensitive softies are so pathetic they cant stay in character for more than a sentence or two without reverting to type!
Lol, "Softies"?!
Kind of people who visit farmers markets I guess.
Probably
The kind of effette posh City boy who wouldn't be seen dead in a pub unless it was for publicity to show how ordinary he was for liking a "a pint and fag" (and even then it's usually one of those posh gastro places that serve food on wooden boards not plates)?
Comments
http://www.brucescave.co.uk/history.html
http://www.scottish-places.info/features/featurefirst17124.html
http://www.brucescave.co.uk/history.html
It's a lot easier researching these things in the age of google than it was 20 years ago!
There is not, and never has been, a 'right' side to support in Syria/Iraq. The 'best' of the bunch would have been the FSA. Sadly it is too late for that now, and we are going to be forced to arm the Kurds, their satellites and the PKK.
An interesting article on the FSA published today, showing how we have let the FSA down:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/syrian-rebels-to-obama-airstrikes-in-syria-will-never-stop-isis.html
And examples of the Kurdish PKK's atrocities:
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-298415-surrendered-terrorist-reveals-pkks-atrocities-against-its-members.html
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/europes-terror-problem-pkk-fronts-inside-the-eu
"In June 1987, the PKK slaughtered the entire population of Pinarcik, a Kurdish village unsympathetic to its cause, in order to coerce nearby villages into submission."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pınarcık_massacre
Utter codswallop. You must think people reading this are idiots.
In what way were the Scot's tactics the same as the French knights?
25/08/2014 15:46
Something 2015 general election watchers haven't noticed; Ukip's new general secretary has a VERY firm grasp of its support. No amateur.
Ukip are in the middle of all parties, why highlight them?
Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB)
25/08/2014 16:27
17% of UKIP voters in London tell YouGov that they'd have to pay a mansion tax on houses £2m+. pic.twitter.com/zCWTR2j9pK
At Bannockburn the English were the heavy brigade getting stuck in the bog as @DavidBrackenbury has referred to.
Maybe it was another good idea from the Scots that the English pinched!
Many medieval battles were idiot balls, however. Cavalry charging pikemen head- on was always a recipe for disaster. At Crecy, the French arrived in late afternoon, exhausted, and their King ordered an immediate attack by their crossbowmen, without their pavises. When the crossbowmen were broken by English archery, the French cavalry massacred them. At Poitiers, one third of the French army marched away for reasons no one has ever worked out. At Agincourt, they chose to fight the English on a waterlogged battlefield where they couldn't use their cavalry. At Patay, English archers were cut to bits because they were hunting hares. At Solway Moss a few hundred English cavalry destroyed a much bigger Scottish army, because none of it's leaders could decide who was in charge.
Only fair really, the Scots pinched the idea from history as well.
Edward didn't have the luxury of position, he had a strict schedule to keep, and after the day before the main battle, he had few good options.
Have I got that right?
"Because he hates them."
That makes at least two of us.
Perhaps he thinks they're morons led by a vulgarian bigot.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY
Quite possibly. After the previous debate, Salmond has to come out swinging to regain the morale of his troops.
#globalwarming
It hasn't started here, though it feels more like the back end of September than August
But even so, why tweet that? It makes no sense when ukip voters are as far away from those of the coalition parties as they are labour on that measure... If ukip voters were miles clear of all the others, fair enough. If they were marginally ahead, I wouldn't be surprised to see a partisan anti ukip point made, but when they are 3rd of 4 (2nd least likely) to be affected... What's his point?
Bl**dy Scotland can XXXX off and taking the Magpies with them.
This may be my last post !
Weird after how hot it was in July...
Joking aside the weather does seem to be getting more volatile...
You end up with effete Walter the softy types doing pathetic impersonations of 70s racist skinhead thugs...
(From the safety of their keyboards)
If that doesn't work, er, bad luck and nice knowing you... ; )
Mr. Gin, I concur, the weather does seem to be getting more erratic. However, that doesn't mean it's not due to natural patterns changing (as has always happened).
Any buzzword tips, anyone?
"Resorting to personal abuse is always a sign of immense weakness".
Were you talking about me or Farage?
We were both guilty of personal abuse and in neither case did it show weakness as it happens
some people must have memories like goldfish.
I know what you mean, but on the other hand ships do still "sail" without sails.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
Kind of people who visit farmers markets I guess.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
At podium range a Crossbow would be better, then the swordplay...
@Morris_Dancer I'm glad to hear it. Nothing infuriates me more about historical novelists who pose as 'experts' on these things (I'm thinking here of Philippa Gregory, although she's not by any means the only one) getting such easy details wrong.
Mr. Foxinsox, crossbows could also be handy sniping at sieges, perhaps, where the slightly longer reloading time didn't matter as much.
I throw them personally.
(although you may want to take measures to prevent a repeat performance tomorrow morning! And apparently they shun shiny things rather than collect them, latest research shows...)
I'll get my coat....
I believe the Swiss crossbowmen out shot the English archers during a skirmish in France.
They alternated between pairs, with one loading and the other shooting then swapping duties before fatigue set in.
The English of course claimed it was a draw. (dodgy Spanish refereeing perhaps?)
Just signing in so that I may respond to tonight's debate if I so chose.
As ever, my idiotic reviewing of some the M press continues unabated-
I note that today's T2 re-published the most spankingly hot picture of the year - If I'm a bit tipsy, is my faith in homosexuals allowed to be diminished??
Whereas there are far too many historical novelists who try to pass off fiction as fact and cause poor old Muggins here endless problems unpicking them later - I'm thinking of the lurid fantasies of The White Queen (shudder) which Gregory insisted was historically accurate and anyone who argued against her version of events was some Masonic crypto-conspirator, despite the fact that it was actually somewhat less accurate than Dangermouse (and not nearly as well written or 'acted').
Getting little details right can help to guard against such things, which is why I'm so hot on them. As the late, great Sir Robin Day once rebuked David Dimbleby, 'it is important to be precise, especially in matters of detail.'
Bloody Norman! I should have guessed. Are you on the Levenson-Gower side of the bed?
I do, as I was his sidekick ;-)
The resemblance was quite a coincidence, indeed.
Unstringing a crossbow as I understand it wasn't the biggest part of the problem - it was trying to reassemble it that was a nightmare, because there were several strings that all had to go into the right place or it simply wouldn't work. Which meant the bowmen were very reluctant to disassemble it in the first place.
You would think they would have been clever enough to use hemp strings and tallow, and have had covers?, Thick those Genoese.
Foreigner! Come the glorious day of independence, we shall ship you back to your homeland along with those damned Scots.
But yeah I see what you mean, only leg pulling.
But then aren't there few real historical "facts", only interpretations of evidence, particularly the further back you go? And the Wars of the Roses were a wee while back, like.
Longbows, on the other hand, weren't nearly as powerful but were easy to string, easy to unstring, could be kept from the rain and if the wood got wet it didn't matter much. You can also loose off several - I think six or seven - arrows from a longbow while a crossbow is being reloaded. Which made it, all in all, a much more effective weapon.
The disadvantage was it needed considerable strength and training to use, starting from a young age to develop the muscles in the drawing arm - and that wasn't always popular (one of the Henrys had to ban football to make sure all boys did their longbow training). Indeed that reason, rather than the advent of firearms (similar problems to crossbows) is why it ceased to be widely used - the hours of practice required among adolescent boys simply went out of fashion.
Neil Warnock is the new favourite to be the next manager at Crystal Place.
More saliently, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in chain mail, never mind a "padded jack", and having clothyard arrows loosed, shot or fired from a longbow at me from less than about a mile.
Knights in good quality mail could be stuck full of arrows like a pin cushion, and still fight.
Siege crossbows perhaps, but they were a more specialized weapon than mercenaries used, which would have been based on hunting crossbows,. Wet strings would not be much more of a problem than restringing a longbow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioscotland/about_us/
Noooo, I don't think so. In good quality plate armour maybe, but not mail. A bodkin arrow would pierce mail a quite a long range.
1) Beaufort's motive was that her son was 'next in line' (false: at least a dozen people, Yorkist and Lancastrian, stood between him and the crown)
2) Beaufort's husband may have had access to the Tower over Richard's head (false: access was by personal authorisation from Richard)
3) Beaufort was a compulsive schemer (entirely true, but there is no evidence that she was anything more than that - in fact, she seems to have been quite squeamish about killing, more so than her son)
4) Elizabeth Woodville would never have come to an arrangement with a man who had murdered her sons (an understandable position, but since Richard had already very publicly murdered her second son, Richard Grey, patently not the case)
5) Richard, as he only had one son, would have needed the Princes in case he needed spare heirs (ridiculous - he could not have made them his heirs without admitting their parents' marriage was valid, which would make Edward V the rightful king and Richard guilty of high treason)
6) Richard was an honourable and honest man who loved his nephews and would never have hurt them (possibly true in the second of those three parts, but Richard actually had quite a reputation for brutality - his behaviour towards the Countess of Oxford, whom he kidnapped and threatened to murder if she did not forfeit her lands to him springs to mind, and he was clearly a pragmatist who would do what it took to keep what he held - murder included).
You see my point? Gregory speculates, but the 'facts' she speculates from are wrong, and that annoys me greatly as an historian and has caused many upsets - even tears - in my classroom when I'm teaching, because her fans struggle to understand that she has lied to them.
I don't want to get all Thomas Gradgrind about this, but I do believe facts are important and that monkeying with them is dangerous - and that when we can get minor details right, we should make every effort to do so.
25/08/2014 18:40
"Ukip's manifesto is a serious challenge to Labour", says @LabourList contributor bit.ly/1p5JIOW #Ukip
Four ring mail perhaps, but five ring mail is supposed to be pretty good.
Not that that will help with the very strange image I now have in my head!
It's certainly recorded at the Battle of Dorylaeum. The composite bow used by the Turks was almost as powerful as a longbow.
[On the plus side, it means I don't have to do any more proofreading].