Timeline for Why did archery not make a comeback when armor was phased out in the 18th century?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2020 at 17:56 | comment | added | Stefan Skoglund | A longbowman probably started as early as around 5-6 years of age. | |
| Jul 10, 2016 at 10:49 | comment | added | Benjamin | @TylerH No, re Olympic athletes, many are training in their teens where they still have to attend school albeit homeschool or other non-traditional alternatives. | |
| Jul 10, 2016 at 10:48 | comment | added | Benjamin | @Martin That only works up until a point. | |
| Jul 10, 2016 at 10:32 | history | edited | Tom Au |
edited tags
|
|
| May 4, 2015 at 10:02 | history | protected | yannis | ||
| Nov 2, 2014 at 15:47 | vote | accept | Evil Washing Machine | ||
| Oct 14, 2014 at 17:27 | comment | added | Martin | @Tyler Durden FITA target distance are 30, 50, 70 and 90 metres. And you don't need more strength for longer distances. You just aim higher up. | |
| Sep 28, 2014 at 19:05 | comment | added | Steven Wood | I believe that the Duke of Wellington asked Horseguards if their were any men trained in the art of archery. It was his belief that in the rugged terrain of spain and portugal, a battalion of archers could make a bigger difference against the French than a battalion of muskets | |
| Sep 27, 2014 at 13:58 | answer | added | user5001 | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 27, 2014 at 12:10 | answer | added | Semaphore | timeline score: 13 | |
| Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 | answer | added | vsz | timeline score: 12 | |
| Sep 27, 2014 at 4:05 | answer | added | daviewales | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 21:41 | comment | added | JenSCDC | @Tyler- Take a look at pictures of Olympic archers- they don't look like the strongest bunch of people. Now take a look at pictures of Olympic rowers. It's those kind of guys that could shoot 300+ yds. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 17:24 | answer | added | Dronz | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 16:38 | comment | added | mechalynx | Oh as a side note, you and others might be interested in this youtube channel. He's done various videos on historical combat and some involving old firearms (I think he's commented on some topic akin to this one). Use the search function :) | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 16:34 | comment | added | mechalynx | As most have said already, there is a difference between the maximum range and accurate range. I remember firing a battle rifle and although the bullet can effectively hit a target at ~800m, the range at which it can do so effectively is about half that much. Also, hitting a target at 100m with iron sights is hard enough - at 300m you need to be extremely good at aiming and handling the rifle. A battle rifle is also closer to the purpose of those weapons (unlike a modern assault rifle which has shorter range). I can't see how arbalests could do better than 20th century battle firearms. | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 10:16 | answer | added | CynicalBiker | timeline score: 27 | |
| Sep 26, 2014 at 7:32 | answer | added | Drachen Birch | timeline score: 17 | |
| Sep 25, 2014 at 22:25 | comment | added | Evil Washing Machine | @TylerH modern archers are on 50m ranges. Henry VIII's ranges are sighted at 200m en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range | |
| Sep 25, 2014 at 14:38 | comment | added | TylerH | @EvilWashingMachine It's important to note that the longbow is a siege weapon; an archer able to fire "accurately" at 200m means he can generally hit a large patch of (unmoving) ground somewhat reliably. It does NOT mean he can aim at a person moving (or even standing still) 200m away and hit it. | |
| Sep 25, 2014 at 14:36 | comment | added | TylerH | @EvilWashingMachine And you think Olympic athletes don't train for 10+ years in a time with few other distractions? Clearly you don't know the level of dedication for Olympic athletes. Archers from Henry V's time might have been able to pull great distances, but certainly not with any accuracy. When talking about the range of "your army's archers", you have the benefit of being able to line up 100 of them and have them all aim at roughly the same general location, because you know some of those arrows might hit their mark. One person hitting a human-sized target 300m away would be a miracle. | |
| Sep 25, 2014 at 13:53 | comment | added | Evil Washing Machine | @tyler durden every archer in henry v's army would probably be considered an Olympic archer today, given that they've been practicing for 10+ years in a time with few other distractions | |
| Sep 25, 2014 at 4:24 | comment | added | Tyler Durden | @EJP Those ranges are by a few champion archers. In most competitions, including the Olympics, 70 yards is the usual range. 100 yards is a long shot in archery and you need a lot of strength just to pull 100 yards. | |
| Sep 25, 2014 at 0:21 | comment | added | user207421 | @TylerDurden JFC Fuller, Armament and History, 1945, writes: 'The range of the longbow was about 250 yards. Shakespeare mentions as a notable feat 280 to 290 yards (King Henry IV, Second Part, Act II, sc.2). In 1798, 1856, 1881, 1891, and 1897, longbow arrows were shot at the following ranges: 340, 308, 286, 290, and 310 yards'. He also mentions shooting arrows through one-inch boards of seasoned timber. | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 22:36 | answer | added | Randomiser | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 14:08 | comment | added | Tyler Durden | LOL 300 meters. Who can do that? Robin Hood? | |
| Sep 24, 2014 at 0:25 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/514571338951172096 | ||
| Sep 23, 2014 at 19:57 | comment | added | user45891 | Basically both your questions are: Why use firearms? Shock effect, better armor piercing, maybe lighter, ammunition can be transported more easily and even made faster (a damn metal ball against a straight arrow with feathers and all), ... Volley fire was invented in 1594 - so not sure how tactics apply; | |
| Sep 23, 2014 at 19:53 | answer | added | Schwern | timeline score: 144 | |
| Sep 23, 2014 at 19:44 | comment | added | user45891 | Because if it were, then armor would have made sense again? | |
| Sep 23, 2014 at 19:35 | comment | added | sds | Could you please merge this with Does a regiment of English Longbowmen have more firepower than a regiment of smoothbore fusiliers? | |
| Sep 23, 2014 at 18:20 | history | asked | Evil Washing Machine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |