XPost: soc.history.war.misc, soc.culture.scottish, alt.religion.
hristian.presbyterian
XPost: alt.religion.christian.baptist
From: cequka@iprimus.com.au
"allan connochie" wrote in message
news:45546970@news.greennet.net...
>
> "Raktizer Omheit" wrote in message
> news:45526740_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>>
>> "allan connochie" wrote in message
>> news:45526772@news.greennet.net...
>> >
>> > "Raktizer Omheit" wrote in message
>> > news:455110d4_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> >>
>> >> "allan connochie" wrote in message
>> >> Alan, Scotland's last major victory against England at the Battle of
>> >> Bannockburn in 1314 was followed at LATER dates by a string of English
>> >> victories were the English longbowmen, along with the Welsh mercenary
>> >> longbowmen, were a decisive factor against the Scots at the Battles of
>> >> Dupplin Moor in 1332, Halidon Hill in 1333, St. Neville's Cross in
> 1346,
>> >> Flodden Field in 1513, were useful at Solway Moss in 1542, and at also
> at
>> >> Pinkie Cleugh in 1547.
>> >
>> > The longbow was not the important factor that you claim it to be at any
> of
>> > these 16thC battles!
>> >
>> > Allan
>> >
>> >
>> Alan, that might have been to a certain extent the case at Solway Moss,
>
> It was more than a certain extent though! There may have been some
> longbowmen involved, though I'm not sure there were any there at all, but
> one thing is pretty well known. The rout itself was caused by relatively
> small numbers of light cavalry in the shape of English Borderers; the
> terrain the Scots found themselves in; and the complete disorganisation
> within the Scottish leadership.
>
>
> but
>> as far as Flodden Field and Pinkie Cleugh are concerned, I am not so
>> sure.
>
> Flodden is thought of as the last battle in Britain where the longbow was
> the principle English weapon. However the significant thing was not how
> effective it was, but how ineffective it was shown to be in that battle.
> English accounts of the battle state that few Scots were killed by arrows.
> The main weapons which did damage at distance were the English artillery
> which was much lighter and more accurate than the Scottish artillery. The
> heavy losses the Scots were taking in the artillery exchange made them
> come
> down from their position and attack. The continual bombardment of the
> centre, which was the main royal force, caused immense damage. Once they
> came within range of the longbows the hail of arrows made little
> difference
> to the advance. The weather conditions didn't help the weapon's
> effectiveness but the main shock to the English was that even when the
> arrows were on target they had little great effect.
>
> "The Scots were so surely harnessed with complete harness, German jacks,
> rivets, splents, pavises and other habiliments, that shot of arrows in
> regard did them no harm..........from Laing's Trewe Encountre"
>
> "They were so well appointed......with arms and harness....that few of
> them
> were slain with arrows.......Ibid"
>
> "Finally after 200 years, the Scots had found the answer to the English
> longbow. The English archers must have been dismayed to see the Scots
> close
> the range without their archery haveing any appreciable effect. Flodden
> was
> not begun and ended by a storm of English arrows, but would just as the
> Scots had intended, be decided by close combat, or hand
> strokes........................Flodden by Niall Barr"
>
> On the left side of the battle tLord Home's Scottish Borderers and
> Huntly's
> Highlanders tore into the English ranks and looked like overcoming them
> but
> Dacre's cavalry,English Borderers, saved the day and after stalemate both
> sides eventually pulled apart. The Scots looked down on the main centre of
> the army and saw the disaster unfolding. Huntly wanted to attack again but
> Home refused to budge. Some accused him of treachery but it's quite
> possible
> that his forces were incapable of re-entering the fray immediately - or
> perhaps he realised that Scottish and English Borderers may not slaughter
> each other needlessly, as it was pretty clear what was happening in the
> main
> centre.
>
> The Scots advance had been hindered by a stream and boggy terrain at the
> bottom of Branxton Hill and they had lost their disciplined formation. In
> the close hand to hand fighting the long Scottish pikes turned out to be a
> complete liability against the English bill and a massacre was taking
> place.
>
> The Highlanders of Argyll and Lennox on the other flank were not actively
> involved and were possibly shocked at what they were witnessing. They had
> a
> hail of arrows shot at them and then when attacked by Stanley's billmen
> most
> of them, quite unlike Highlanders, simply turned tail and ran. The damage
> of
> course had already been done. The Highlanders and Borderers apart, the
> main
> royal army in the centre had been well beaten.
>
> As for Pinkie well yes, there were bowmen there but this was much more a
> modern battle so bowmen were far more insignificant than the field
> artillery, naval barrage, as well as the arquebesiers. The Scots cavalry
> consisted of Scottish Borderers and, as well as outnumbering them 3 to 1,
> the English cavalry included more professional troops. Like Flodden and
> Solway Moss, the defeat at Pinkie was not down to the longbow.
>
>
> Allan
>
>
Alan, I believe that the reason why the longbow was not all that effective
at the Battle of Flodden field in 1513 was because the wind was blowing
against the English, rather than at the Scots. In more favourable
circumstances for longbow archers, the longbow, with its bodkin point, could
easily pierce armour, especially when fired in a straight line rather than
in massed arching volleys, as well as wound a knight in his leg, or bring
down his horse along with himself.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
