XPost: soc.history.war.misc, soc.culture.scottish, alt.religion.   
   hristian.presbyterian   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.baptist   
   From: allan@EASYNET.CO.UK   
      
   "Raktizer Omheit"  wrote in message   
   news:4553be55_1@news.iprimus.com.au...   
   >   
   > "allan connochie"  wrote in message   
   > >> >> "allan connochie"  wrote in message   
   >> 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"   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   The wind and rain did effect the range and accuracy of the longow which of   
   course was already far inferior to the artillery now on show. However they   
   were still firing at closer range and the oncoming mass of pikemen must have   
   made a massive target. The accounts given at the top are I believe from the   
   only detailed contemporary English account of Flodden and clearly seems to   
   be saying that even when on target the arrows did not have much affect. As   
   well as the worn protection there was also the wooden pavises which the   
   front rows carried. The quote from Barr is pretty consistent with most   
   Scottish historian's thinking, however all this is in the fine detail and   
   perhaps debateable, but the main point being made was that the longbow   
   wasn't a decisive factor in the battle, which you seem to now concede.   
      
      
   Allan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)