Thane Morgan wrote:
<snip>
>Yes, I'm well aware of the great bow fire debate. As near as I can
tell,
>English scholars defined history and made the Longbow the ultimate
weapon.
>My understanding after a reasonable amount of research is that:
>
>A- Longbows could penetrate plate, but it was not gauranteed.
>B- Longbows could fire 200 yards, but not very accurately. Furthermore,
many
>composite bows from asia and the middle east had similiar ranges.
>C- Volley bowfire was used in large battles, while individual "sniper"
>bowfire was common in smaller skirmishes, such as tribal/clan warfare
in
>england and gaul.
Yeah, and the debate around the bow whether composite or longbow barely
scratches the surface. They get into the weight and quality of the
arrows, the strength needed to maintain effective fire over a period of
time, the psychological makeup of the archer, and the list goes on and
on.
<snip>
>numbers. It's why I decided against a history minor.
I wish I could remember who said the quote along the lines of "the
victor gets to write the history," but it is certainly true. And
history is not static, it is continually being rewritten. I do,
however, like the historians who are willing to admit that luck also
plays a part in events.
On the name front, how about "Wars of Myth," "Msytical Wars," "Warfare
in the Age of Myth," "Mythical Conflicts," or "Triumphs of Fizban the
Fabulous?"
--Elaine
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Thu Sep 17 1998 - 12:50:47 UTC