XPost: soc.history.war.misc, soc.culture.scottish, alt.religion.   
   hristian.presbyterian   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.baptist   
   From: micheil@shaw.ca   
      
   On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:54:30 +1100, "Raktizer Omheit"   
    wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"Nebulous"  wrote in message   
   >news:w-KdnXTGd474pc3YnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@pipex.net...   
   >>   
   >> "Raktizer Omheit"  wrote in message   
   >> news:454fc810_1@news.iprimus.com.au...   
   >>>   
   >>> "Don Phillipson"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:eio3oo$ral$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...   
   >>>> "Raktizer Omheit"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:454ec049_1@news.iprimus.com.au...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> The Scottish aristocracy was so arrogant and snobbish that they refused   
   >>>>> to   
   >>>>> grant to their middling class or middle class peasantry the right to   
   >>>>> use   
   >>>>> longbows on a large scale when fighting in major battles against   
   >>>>> English   
   >>>>> longbow archers. This led to disastrous and humiliating defeats for the   
   >>>>> Scottish armies against English armies at the Battles of Dupplin Moor   
   >>>>> in   
   >>>>> 1332, Halidon Hill in 1333, St. Neville's Cross in 1346, Flodden Field   
   >>>>> in   
   >>>>> 1513, Solway Moss in 1542, and Pinkie Cleugh in 1547.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why should anyone think bowmen on either side were "middling   
   >>>> class or middle class peasantry" in 14th-16th century wars?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Don, many historians whom I have read have described the English longbow   
   >>> archer as belonging usually to the yeoman class, which in its day formed   
   >>> a well-to-do class of farmers who were neither rich nor poor.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A principal difference between Scotland and England before   
   >>>> recent times was the weakness of the Scottish class system,   
   >>>> mainly the equality of everyone (except the 5 per cent wealthiest)   
   >>>> in schools, churches, law courts etc.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Don, if that's the case, then why did the English longbowmen, with the   
   >>> help of knights and pikemen, defeat the Scots so many times in battle?   
   >>> Why did the Scots fail to use the longbow to the extent that the English   
   >>> did?   
   >>   
   >> The longbow was a relatively expensive weapon which took a long time to   
   >> learn. You could teach the basic pike moves in half an hour.   
   >>   
   >> Neb   
   >>   
   >True Nebulous, but in that case the French, with a larger population and a   
   >larger tax revenue base, should have adopted the longbow on a larger scale.   
   >And the Welsh, who were more impoverished than the Scots, used the longbow   
   >extensively, as the English were themselves to do so later on.   
   >   
      
   I think that was the start of the sea change in weaponry and   
   protection against it in Europe.   
      
   Knights were the tanks of their time and the investment in armour for   
   man and horse must have cost a pretty penny.  Agincourt demonstrated   
   the advantages of the longbow, where the French knights were   
   slaughtered by arrows, but still the surviviors refused to lay their   
   expensive armour aside and seek new solutions.   
      
   Actually, the Romans had probably the best tactics and weaponry seen   
   for over a thousand years. The only difference between the Romans and   
   the Highlanders 1700 years later was that the Romans marched into   
   battle while the Highlanders ran at the enemy.   
      
   The Highlander   
      
   Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns   
   an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.   
   The views expressed in this post are   
   not necessarily those of The Highlander.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)