"The Effective Archery Debate" Topic

"The engagement range at Agincourt is generally accepted to be at maximum range for longbows. Somewhere between 200 and 300 yards. What difference does that make?"

It makes no difference as we are trying to explain to you. According to your argument the range of 200 – 300 yards mandates a 70lb bow. Um … why?

"I've said this before: if the bows at Agincourt were 100 lbs draw weight, the French men at arms don't have enough men left standing to make a fight when they reach the English line: I know this because I have played out Agincourt both ways, with the heavier bows and with the 70 lb bows (this according to the physics studies Rocky Russo has indicated, crunched into our two longbow tables: "Bow 3" and "Bow 4", 70 lb and 100 lb bows respectively)."

Again you seem to be missing the point that your rules are entirely based on your interpretation of the effectiveness of archery (bringing us neatly back to the topic of discussion). They are just that and no more. Your interpretation and hence your rules are no more scientifically valid than anyone else's rules since (like everyone else) you have made certain assumptions about the effectiveness. Oh yes, you will no doubt go on about Rocky's number crunching, but since the best academic minds have so far failed to generate a reliable formula for the physics of arrow penetration of different types of target, I find it hard to believe that that Rocky has done so. Has his research been published anywhere?

I said I wasn't going to be drawn into this debate again. Sorry.

"Again you seem to be missing the point that your rules are entirely based on your interpretation of the effectiveness of archery (bringing us neatly back to the topic of discussion)."

No, that was exactly my point (and Rocky's): he has told you what physics and test sources went into the bow tables in our rules. It isn't so much interpretation as belief and "faith": that the authors knew what they were talking about. Rocky (more so than I) has built and tested the weapons enough to replicate the findings of Klopstag, Pope, et al. So either you believe or you don't. But you ought to know why you go with either way. I have to admit "faith" in Rocky's conclusions, since I never went that deeply into testing/confirming those published studies. And, as I said in the previous post: playing the battles is my testing method, so the 100 lb longbows are too deadly, while the 70 lb longbows work to replicate the descriptions of the original sources (the eye witnesses) to the battle.

"No, that was exactly my point (and Rocky's): he has told you what physics and test sources went into the bow tables in our rules."

Let me get this straight. You are claiming unerring historical accuracy in your rules because Rocky did some complex calculations based on physical experiments to generate the bow tables?

"Unerring historical accuracy", no of course not. But just taking the probability of hits versus heavy and plate armor, the 70 lb longbows work to reproduce Agincourt, the 100 lb longbows do not: they're too deadly.

I don't know how complex the calculations are/were. I only know that Rocky read the books, got curious, tried out some solo games using tables generated from the physics claims, acquired weapons where possible to test in the field himself (to further confirm the claims in said-books), and used the calculations to generate, by extrapolation, for the weapons he could not test in the field.

‘Robert Hardy could conceivably be labelled an enthusiast
Matthew Strickland"

Is not this the same guy who plays Cornelius Fudge in the Harry Potter movies? Almost two years ago I started looking for reviews of this book and only found one, (which was positive.)

"Surely if the longbow had been such a super weapon as some like to see it today, then its use would have spread across Europe?"

Yes you would think that every city in the continent would have glides manufacturing them, had to be cheaper then crossbows.

I am of the camp that the longbow is not a super weapon, the English won battles in the HYW because of a lot of factors including the idiocy of the French.

"You would need at least 2 1/2 foot frontage per man to give room for the beer gut and pickups for anyone who had to march more than a football field. And I just don't think there are enough beer trucks to provide a supply train "

Someone has seen my living history group

""Unerring historical accuracy", no of course not. "

Well, I'm glad we cleared that one up. So if the rules are not necessarily historically accurate, using them to "prove" the draw weight in use is statistically invalid.

"But just taking the probability of hits versus heavy and plate armor,"

I hate to state the obvious, but anyone who claims to know the exact probability for hitting and penetrating an armoured target with an arrow of a given draw weight at a specific range is sadly deluded:

1. There are just too many factors that could affect the probability of such a hit and many of them are all but impossible to quantify.
2. If it was that easy, how come no one else has done so.
3. Don't forget that a disabling hit doesn't necessarily have to penetrate armour at all, finding a weak point (e.g. at the junction of two plates or an inadvertently exposed unarmoured area) can be equally effective.
4. Such "bottom up" wargames design was dismissed years ago as being far too inaccurate to produce a reliable simulation (not that we claim a game to be a simulation these days anyway)

"Is not this the same guy who plays Cornelius Fudge in the Harry Potter movies?"
Yes. Robert Hardy is the UK actor. ( link ). He is also an acknowledged expert on the longbow, a Trustee of the Royal Armouries at HM Tower of London, and of the Mary Rose Trust. He was personally responsible for the conservation of the longbows recovered from the Mary Rose.

"Yes you would think that every city in the continent would have glides manufacturing them, had to be cheaper then crossbows."

It's not the manufacture that is the problem, it is the training. It's a lot easier to train someone to use a crossbow than a longbow. Same with firearms.

"I am of the camp that the longbow is not a super weapon, the English won battles in the HYW because of a lot of factors including the idiocy of the French."

I'd agree with that. I'm not claiming it was a super weapon either.

One of the points Strickland makes over and over in his book, is that the effectiveness of the longbow was primarily due to a TACTICAL change. The cooperation of bows with dismounted men at arms. (and the idiocy of the French – which was due primarily to egotism of the commanders vying for honors, and the inability or lack of the central command.) The fact that the bows the English were pulling had a 150+ draw weight is SECONDARY to the tactical considerations. Super bow or not, without the battlefield expertise of the English commanders, the yeomanry of England would have been hosed. Yes, Strickland makes a very convincing argument for extremely powerful bows, so powerful in fact that post mortem examinations of the skeletons of archers showed deformities consistant with pulling such a bow, but he never claims that it was the bow itself that was a super weapon. In fact his point is just the opposite. It was the combination of longbows in support of the men at arms that made the English armies of the HYW so lethal.

David

"I've read so many differing accounts and seen so many opposing documentaries concerning the effectiveness of the English longbow as historians and would be historians attempt to explain, unravel or revisit medieval history and seemingly impossible superiority of English arms throughout the 100 years war."

Historiographically speaking the idea of prominence of the English longbow man developed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th-centuries. This coincided with the development of the ideas of class within English society. It became a sort of reverse snobbery. The strength of England lay with it's middle class. English historiography began to reflect this focus on the importance of the middle class. As a result, the importance of the English "middle class" archers came into increased importance.

With regards to Flashman14's video, the sources indicate that archery fire was high-angle fire not direct fire which makes such video's to be of not much worth. Now if they would take that dummy and place it 150 meters away and fire at it using high-angle fire, then it would be more instructive.

"The eyewitnesses indicate that the effects of the arrow storm even stopped the French line before it finally pushed on to make melee contact: which is to be expected, if the line was to arrive in anything like a cohesive mass as intended."

I've read every eyewitness account and do no recall any of them linking the pause in the French attack to archery fire. The French did pause but it seems the pause was to reorganize the attack. They formed three wedges with which to penetrate the English line.

"To protect against the power of the longbow, plate armor became heavier, which in turn tires and slows the wearer, especially in muddy or rough terrain, making them easy pickings for lightly armored longbow men dashing around with giant ice picks."

If you stop to think about this, you find there is a fallacy in the logic. If the mud of the battlefield was such that the French sank up to their calves, there is every reason to believe that the archers would also sink up to their calves.

"Longbows, stakes, mud from rain the night before, and if memory serves the English chose a spot that channeled the French attack to counteract the difference in numbers, and the French fell for it."

Actually it was just the opposite. It was the French who pinned the English and forced them to fight at Agincourt. In the 50's Burns describes the battlefield as a rectangle. Curry, in the 90's describes it as a blunted wedge, and Juliet Barker states we have no idea the shape of the battlefield as all the growth there is rather new growth giving us no idea of the true shape of the 15th-century battlefield.

‘If the longbow wasn't particularly effective against armor, why did they keep using it?"

Because it was probably more effective than throwing clods. ☺)

"PS- Does anyone have anything on how effective French Ordinance archers where?"

I think it was in Picardy that the French first experimented with the longbow. At the action at Mont Epiloy (1429), the Picard bowmen acquitted themselves quite well.

"And the Assizes of Arms of Henry III specifically commanded that the poorer sort of levied soldier be armed with the longbow, and further stipulated regular practice with it. From this pool of national archers, the famous yeomen of England of the HYW were hand-picked, i.e. the best of the lot."

‘Poorer sort" is relative. Longbow men were property owners They simply didn't have enough property to warrant them raising a horse and man-at-arms. Those with less property than longbow men were commanded to be armed with spears or knives.

I'm afraid there was no pool of national archers. The king could only raise archers from his own estates. To increase that, he had to write contracts with other nobles to raise men-at-arms and archers from their estates.

"Only freedom to keep and bear arms, as the yeomen of England had (ironically, were not free to ignore as a duty), produces an effective militia in time of war. A militia, composed of the common men, must have their own weapons and train in their proficient use, or else there can be no effective militia at all in the hour of need."

England was really a country of villages. Thus bowmen tended to come from the countryside. France had many more towns than did England. As such, they had access to quite a number of civic crossbow men from the civic militias. The problem was the French enlisted men-at-arms separately from the bowmen. The men-at-arms had no trained archers within their estates. Archers had to be raised from town militias or from Italy. Civic militias were reluctant to fight for anything other than their own towns. Italian crossbow men were expensive.

For much of the HYW the crown simply didn't have enough money to raise both men-at-arms and crossbow men. However, when they could raise crossbowmen, these bowmen could be quite effective. At Constance (1356) the crossbow men simply hid behind their shields until the longbow men ran out of arrows. The crossbow men then shot the English in support of their men-at-arms.

Now people can talk technical details until my eyes glaze over (which happens fairly quickly) but sources are quite clear that whiles the longbow fire was relatively affective against mounted attacks, as long as they were behind protection, they were far less effective against dismounted attacks. Effectiveness has to be a combination of power of bow fire + angle of shot + range + effectiveness of armor. Without all four elements being discussed together you are just blowing in the wind. As to the armor, the foot van was composed of French nobles. It is reasonable to think they wore the finest armor that could be made.

I'll help you with the French. The sources estimate the French foot van to be around 500 men strong. Other sources estimate the van to be formed in 20 ranks. This means the width of the van to be around 250 files or 250-300 yards wide. There is your target. Now, calculate bow fire + angle of shot + range + effectiveness of armor. If your not prepared to do that and prove your estimates then I suggest we move on.

Rich

Hi

Mike, lets see, I used refrences involving a physicist developing the math that does suggest how these things worked. I then replicated HIS tests and numbers. I then crossrefrenced them with a long bow fan writing before hardy and also privy to the originals, and replicated his testing. Then, since they were all working with slide rule and paper, wrote computer programs to speed up the analysis and analysed all the variables. After all that work, you respond, with no source or work at all "nope, you are wrong".

have I got that right.

You cannot both insist on relying on Hardy and then respond that the way he reports the longbow as a superweapon is wrong. You have, in one simple post, both dismissed my sources and yours!

So, now that you have conclusively proved that we don't know anything, how do you produce a game? "Throw a six, sink a ship"…err… "throw a six kill a frenchman"?

Our game is as all games, an opinion, but in this case based on a lot of sources and testing. Your dismissal of same isn't valuable to the discussion.

As for the engagement ranges. I crossed a lot of sources, starting with the 1927 map from oman, through the S&T studies in the 70s. The story is that everyone waited. Then the longbow advanced from the stakes into range fired harassing fire causing the advance. The various maps showing WHERE these things happen are consistant that the intital flight arrow engagement range was ca 220 yards, thus a 70# draw weigh ASSUMING that the boyers had properly built longbow.

R

[ BTW, Rocky, you and Doug should read some of the other posts on this thread. I don't think anyone else is supporting your point of view ]

"Then, since they were all working with slide rule and paper, wrote computer programs to speed up the analysis and analysed all the variables. After all that work, you respond, with no source or work at all "nope, you are wrong".

have I got that right."

More or less. From the above I presume you have a mathematical formula that allows you to compute the probability of an arrow shot from a longbow hitting and penetrating a target and taking into account:
- the strength of the archer
- his fatigue level
- the range
- the wind direction
- the archer's skill and accuracy
- the mass of the arrow
- the spine of the arrow
- the draw weight of the bow
- the hardness of the armour
- the thickness of the armour
- the angle of penetration
- probably several more factors I haven't thought of

Perhaps you would like to share this incredible knowledge for if you can do that for archery, it must be even easier to do it for firearms (where there are less parameters). Such a formula would revolutionise wargaming by allowing us to produce 100% accurate rules.

"You cannot both insist on relying on Hardy and then respond that the way he reports the longbow as a superweapon is wrong."

Hardy does not claim it is a super weapon (once again, I am forced to wonder if you have actually read "The Great Warbow"). As I and others have said they provide convincing evidence for the existence of so-called heavy warbows with draw weights in excess of 100 lb. A body of evidence you appear to find difficulty in accepting. They do NOT claim that because of the heavy draw weight it is a super weapon. A battle winning weapon, yes, but then you are claiming the same for the 70lb bows. Again, as others have said it is the tactics that are more important than the weapon.

"So, now that you have conclusively proved that we don't know anything, how do you produce a game? "Throw a six, sink a ship"…err… "throw a six kill a frenchman"?"

Actually, yes. Take a look at most wargames on the market and that is about the size of it. Any claim to accuracy is just a figment of the rule author's imagination. A wargame is a GAME. Any resemblance to any military historical event is purely coincidental.

"Our game is as all games, an opinion, but in this case based on a lot of sources and testing. Your dismissal of same isn't valuable to the discussion."

I can say the same about my rules for the WOTR. I have based the design of my rules on a detailed study of many primary sources from battles of the period. They have been tested by a group of very experienced gamers. Unlike you however, I do not make any claims to "historical accuracy". That my rules produce a game that looks like a WOTR battle, gives the players similar tactical decisions as a leader in a WOTR battle and produces results similar to written reports of WOTR battles in the chronicles, I am satisfied that it is as "accurate" as a wargame is likely to get.
(It it looks like a duck …)

"the intital flight arrow engagement range was ca 220 yards, thus a 70# draw weigh ASSUMING that the boyers had properly built longbow."

Sorry, I fail to understand why a range of ~220yds means that they HAD to be using 70lb bows. Is there some tight correlation between draw weight and range?

"Effectiveness has to be a combination of power of bow fire + angle of shot + range + effectiveness of armor. Without all four elements being discussed together you are just blowing in the wind."

All of that is taken into acount in our missile tables.

You see, it is a simple fact that arrows do not drop at a high impact angle until shot at quite a long range. Longbows would impact almost perpendicularly into a vertical surface even outside of 100 yards. This is because at the top of the arc, the arrow is point-high. Unless it is traveling at a high trajectory, for a long-range shot, the arrow does not have time to drop into an extreme point-down position. The heavy war arrow would impact with the ground at something like 56 degrees when shot at c. 43 degrees of elevation. So inside "effective range" (150 yards) the arrow is going to be impacting almost straight on. The armor testing is relatively the easiest part; you shoot replicated bodkins and the like into steel sheet with various backing materials, and you do this at all the ranges to which the arrow can reach. You do this with different bows. And, using Rocky's extrapolations, he factored for the bows we didn't have.

Now, our rules define a 70 lb longbow and a 100 lb longbow. If the 70 lb weapon is producing an Agincourt result which often matches the eye witness acounts, while the 100 lb weapon does not (by killing of the French too readily), then I would say that the 70 lb longbow table is our historical weapon.

"All of that is taken into acount in our missile tables."

Did you actually read my post timed at 2:10pm above?

Rocky said:
"The various maps showing WHERE these things happen are consistant that the intital flight arrow engagement range was ca 220 yards, thus a 70# draw weigh ASSUMING that the boyers had properly built longbow."

Doug said:
"So inside "effective range" (150 yards) the arrow is going to be impacting almost straight on."

- so if effective range is 150yds, how could the engagement range at Agincourt be ~220yds, clearly, by your statement, beyond effective range?

"Did you actually read my post timed at 2:10pm above?"

Nope, it got posted while I was composing mine and I didn't scroll up so I missed it. Reading now….

Okay, your list of "factors" is a non sequitur simply because a unit of archers subsumes the individual in a group effect. And it is the group effect that the missile tables reflect.

If all the archers are pulling c. the same draw weight, shooting the same type of arrow and are loosing in massed vollies (all true where the English longbow is concerned), then the only factors are those affecting probability, not special cases.

Individual testing of weapons against the surfaces of armor enhance our understanding and put us in a ballpark testing-wise, but such anecdotal test results do not overturn massed effects (as some posters seem to think that they do, the way they point to singular results and say, "see? see?").

"Effective range" simply means the range at which the missile impacts the target at optimal angles of attack. To reach beyond that range results in an impact angle which is defeated by the target's armor, or even reduces penetration of an unarmored target so that lethality is greatly reduced.

That does not mean that lighter arrows were not shot at extreme ranges in order to distract and goad the enemy. It was that pestering sort of shooting that opened the battle of Agincourt. Once back behind their stake line, and being charged by cavalry, the light arrows were replaced by the bodkins.

"Our game is as all games, an opinion, but in this case based on a lot of sources and testing. Your dismissal of same isn't valuable to the discussion."

I can say the same about my rules for the WOTR. I have based the design of my rules on a detailed study of many primary sources from battles of the period. They have been tested by a group of very experienced gamers. Unlike you however, I do not make any claims to "historical accuracy". That my rules produce a game that looks like a WOTR battle, gives the players similar tactical decisions as a leader in a WOTR battle and produces results similar to written reports of WOTR battles in the chronicles, I am satisfied that it is as "accurate" as a wargame is likely to get.

Well, that's all we are really claiming. "Historical accuracy" is a phrase that I think you are getting hung up on. Don't attach too much significance to it. We mean "historical results with the armies resorting to their historical tactics and weapons on the scaled down battlefield." That kind of historical accuracy.

If Rocky approached this with physics, and testing weapons, and used that to design the missile tables, the proof is in the pudding. We claim the missile tables produce historically accurate results within the defining parameters of range, target armor and numbers involved. (barring, of course, freakish dice, which is always the fun factor awarding defeat to the unlucky general who does everything right :)).

So if the English in our Agincourt wargame refights are successful in defeating the French by a combination of stake defenses versus the cavalry, and arrow casualties weakening the enemy as he approaches, and finally dispatched by melee involving the archers on the flanks and rear, then I say we have a "match" with how the battle went, according to the eye witness accounts where they agree (which is in the main).

"Okay, your list of "factors" is a non sequitur simply because a unit of archers subsumes the individual in a group effect. And it is the group effect that the missile tables reflect."

I'm sure they do. But you are claiming that Rocky carried out several tests to determine the probability of an effective shot. Given the probability of a single effective shot than this can be extrapolated to generate probabilities for mass effect. Correct me if I am wrong, but I presume he did NOT do this by getting 1000 archers to shoot at his targets. Therefore to arrive at the probability for a single shot ALL the factors I listed above (and probably a few more besides) must be taken into account. This is the classic "bottom up" design approach. If any of then weren't then it renders the whole process as scientifically invalid.

"Well, that's all we are really claiming. "Historical accuracy" is a phrase that I think you are getting hung up on. Don't attach too much significance to it. We mean "historical results with the armies resorting to their historical tactics and weapons on the scaled down battlefield." That kind of historical accuracy."

You are the one getting hung up on historical accuracy by claiming that because your rules make 100lb bows too effective to deliver the expected result then they must have used 70lb bows. This to me is a classic case of reverse logic.

Unless you can prove that your rules ACCURATELY reflect the probability and effects of massed archery using bows of a specific draw weight, you cannot claim that your rules prove the bows in use were 70lb rather than 100lb.

As I have said before, if you CAN prove that then you have achieved something every wargamer has been striving to achieve since the year dot.

Frankly, I don't believe it.

The question is one of "70 lb or 100 lb". In this specific instance, that is the nub.

I can't speak to the testing "ingredients" that went into Rocky's assertion that the bows must necessarily have been 70 lb and not 100 lb draw weights. On the one hand we have the "bow porn" guys claiming as much for the 150 lb draw weights: and all on the examination of a few skeletal remains and some old bow staves?

But outside evidence certainly suggests that such a claim as 100 to 150 lb draw weights as the norm are falacious.

Go ahead, find one other race of archers on the planet where they shot warbows that powerful. The best archers in history, the Steppes horsed archers going back millennia, never shot bows like that in battle: 70 lbs is the norm for a warbow. The Muslim archers employed by the Siculo-Normans, same thing: famous archers, but not remotely near 100 lb bows. Why should Anglos be so special? In fact they were not. Yes, all archer nations show off with powerful bows, even train with them to exhaustion: but when it comes time to fight for hours, they all use the same strength bows as the more average archers do: one that will not fatigue the shooter, even (or especially) considering the vicisitudes of campaigning, with illness weakening the bowmen: they must still have 70 lbs well within their capability to use for extended periods. All the outside evidence is for the 70 lb draw weights. Strickland and Hardy, et al. the fanboys, are out of touch with all that evidence and focusing on specific pieces of evidence within the British Isles only. They have made a falacious conclusion regarding the draw weights employed in battle, compared to the draw weights in evidence from other applications.

One of the things that has bothered me is that the Mary Rose went down more then 100 years after Agincourt, and more then fifty years after WORs, so I think one needs to be careful in using what was found there as a baseline. Also recently (last couple years) a mass grave was discovered from one of the WORs battlefields do this bodies show any deformities?

"It's not the manufacture that is the problem, it is the training. It's a lot easier to train someone to use a crossbow than a longbow. Same with firearms."

True but I looking at the money aspect. But again if it was a truly superior weapon, you also would expect that every city would have been trying to hire Longbow men to train their citizen. This would have been a nice job, but I've not come across anything indicating this was so.

Btw, I have not read Strickland's and Hardy's book: I am responding to the interchange of opinions regarding them on these threads over the last couple of years. If you don't consider them "fanboys", or take exception to that epithet, that's fine with me. But their own set of fans who practically worship that book do come across to me as "one source one conclusion" types.

When Rocky says that such research goes into the subject to prove an already assumed point of view, he is addressing a real weakness of much research: it is agenda based.

We have no agenda. What we claim to be the facts are simply what came out of playing with the weapons, reading the original sources, reading the writers on bow physics, and trying to validate or invalidate their claims. All the while, we were playing-testing with historical battles and developing our rules and armies lists.

We have one other important disconnect from all of this: we are not professionals who must "publish or perish." You might think about that when reading the published works of folks like Strickland and Hardy. It has been my observation, that many scholarly works are flawed by the built-in need of the author to "make a splash." It's good for recognition and sales. It is a calculated art, of when to agree with a consensus and when to disgree and make a daring pronouncement in a bid to establish a new theory. (E.g. there is nothing new whatsoever in Strickland's observation that the genius of the English military system in battle was the cooperation between yeomen archers and the dismounted men at arms: in fact, to emphasize such is to minimize the real effect of massed archers by emphasizing their melee capabilities.)

One of the things that has bothered me is that the Mary Rose went down more then 100 years after Agincourt, and more then fifty years after WORs, so I think one needs to be careful in using what was found there as a baseline. Also recently (last couple years) a mass grave was discovered from one of the WORs battlefields do this bodies show any deformities?

That is a valid caveat. Consider this too: somewhere Robert Ascham said that no more than one in ten archers could pull the more powerful bows. (I have Toxophilus, and either I am blind or it isn't in there, though one might expect it to be: my memory of the quote is decades old, so I welcome any help in refinding it.) If the Mary Rose bow staves are actual warbows ready for battle (and not unfinished bow staves, as Saxton Pope assumed), and the sea water hasn't altered their draw weight properties in some way, then what are we to assume? That these "normal" 150 lb longbows are actually the weaker variety? That the "one in ten" yeomen were pulling in excess of 200 lbs draw weight? Uh, no.

Deformed skeletal remains of archers in a massed WotR grave would not prove anything. It has not been shown that it takes 150 lbs draw weight for an archer's years of development to deform his bones: it could just as easily be the result of constant practice with warbows of c. 70 lbs and "showing off" regularly with 100 or 150 lbs.

"The best archers in history, the Steppes horsed archers going back millennia, never shot bows like that in battle: 70 lbs is the norm for a warbow. The Muslim archers employed by the Siculo-Normans, same thing: famous archers, but not remotely near 100 lb bows."

But there is very little archaeological evidence to support these statements.

"Why should Anglos be so special?"

History abounds with examples of where one group of people made a technological or military advance that set them apart from everyone else. The Greek phalanx, the Roman manipular system, the British baker rifle etc. etc. Why should the Brits be so special? Because they thought of it first!

"Yes, all archer nations show off with powerful bows"

They do? You just said that all the other archery specialists used 70lb bows!!

"even train with them to exhaustion: but when it comes time to fight for hours,"

Er, no. The evidence suggests that archery did not go on continuously for hours and hours, both in the descriptions in the chronicles and in the logistics of the number of arrows required.

"All the outside evidence is for the 70 lb draw weights."

What evidence? How many 70lb bows from the period have been found?

"Strickland and Hardy, et al. the fanboys, are out of touch with all that evidence and focusing on specific pieces of evidence within the British Isles only."

I'm sorry, but you build a completely fallacious argument. S&H use the best available evidence:
- the primary source material
- the archaeological evidence

What evidence can you offer to support your counter argument? Again, I come back to a primary point. Hardy & Strickland have published their research in meticulous detail. You and Rocky have written a set of rules … Which one am I more likely to believe? Your repeated accusation of "bow porn" and "fanboy" does not rest well with an academic discussion of the subject – dare I say "name calling"?

"They have made a falacious conclusion regarding the draw weights employed in battle, compared to the draw weights in evidence from other applications."

It's only fallacious in your opinion – unless you can cite others who have challenged H&S in print? What "other applications " are you referring to?

I sense this discussion is going round in circles, so unless you can offer any hard evidence to support your theories, I suggest we desist.

"When Rocky says that such research goes into the subject to prove an already assumed point of view, he is addressing a real weakness of much research: it is agenda based."

So now you are accusing H&S of preconceived ideas and agendas? READ THEIR BOOK, then we can have an informed discussion.

"We have no agenda."

I'm sorry, but this is just getting silly. H&S have an agenda. You and Rocky do not. I would beg to differ. Every time the subject has come up on TMP you two chime in and make wild statements about "bow porn" and "fanboys". That certainly sounds like an agenda to me. OTOH if you had said something like, well that is one view, but here is a book written by other experts who disagree with them, I might have found your position more acceptable. As it is you are setting yourselves up as self proclaimed experts in the field with no basis of knowledge or expertise to back this up.

"What we claim to be the facts are simply what came out of playing with the weapons"

You have some authentic 15th century bows to play with?

"reading the original sources, reading the writers on bow physics, and trying to validate or invalidate their claims."

Validate/invalidate – how?

"All the while, we were playing-testing with historical battles and developing our rules and armies lists."

I have explained before that any resemblance between a wargame and reality is purely coincidental so cannot be used to support your argument. If a set of rules delivers a historical result in a refight then fine – that is what we would all like to achieve. But don't then say that this proves anything about history.

And another thing:

"We have one other important disconnect from all of this: we are not professionals who must "publish or perish." You might think about that when reading the published works of folks like Strickland and Hardy."

I hardly think Robert Hardy has a need to publish. As a very successful actor in both TV and film I don't think he is short of the odd penny or two.

Dr Strickland is an academic. I don't know what it's like in US academia, but in the UK there is no financial imperative for a senior academic to go into print. They are expected to publish since they are supposed to be carrying out research in their specialist subject, however this usually not the popular press, but articles and papers in obscure academic journals. That H&S decided to produce a large format book is more likely due to their wanting to write something for the "military enthusiast" market. For all I know they may well have been approached by the publisher to write it (as I was with my book) rather than having to tout it round prospective publishers in the hope of finding one willing to take it.

"The best archers in history, the Steppes horsed archers going back millennia, never shot bows like that in battle: 70 lbs is the norm for a warbow. The Muslim archers employed by the Siculo-Normans, same thing: famous archers, but not remotely near 100 lb bows."

But there is very little archaeological evidence to support these statements.

Just a complete lack of evidence to support stronger warbows than 70 lbs is all. And we do have surviving into almost modern times the existence of the Steppes composite bow, which Saxton Pope shot as well. We have a plethora of bows surviving from all over the world, and they do not support the 100 lb bow as the norm theory.

History abounds with examples of where one group of people made a technological or military advance that set them apart from everyone else. The Greek phalanx, the Roman manipular system, the British baker rifle etc. etc. Why should the Brits be so special? Because they thought of it first!

You're missing the point of my objection about Brit speciality: physically impossible things still can't be done just because you think of them. It is inconceivable that archers today, who shoot just as often and with our modern dietary knowledge, can routinely pull 100+ lb bows. Most come nowhere near that draw weight, no matter how long they practice.

"Yes, all archer nations show off with powerful bows"

They do? You just said that all the other archery specialists used 70lb bows!!

Long range shooting contests are ubiquitous. In the Steppes of Asia, it was routine to use extremely powerful bows and shoot very short, light weight flight arrows (with a guide attached to the bow wrist), and send them well in excess of 500 yards. None of this had application in wartime. "Showing off" means just that: pulling a bow a few times to get an impressive demonstration of prowess. The warbow is an entirely different matter.

Er, no. The evidence suggests that archery did not go on continuously for hours and hours, both in the descriptions in the chronicles and in the logistics of the number of arrows required.

You miss the point here: Agincourt is an "all day battle." That is, the archers stood in their ranks from morning till darkness fell. They had to be ready at an instant's demand to shoot in rapid vollies. It would do no good to shoot deadly 100+ lb bows in the first couple of minutes of battle, only to exhaust themselves and be worthless during the next attack.

"All the outside evidence is for the 70 lb draw weights."

What evidence? How many 70lb bows from the period have been found?

I mentioned the extant Steppes bows. We have too few long or short selfbow finds from NW Europe to make a judgment on "how powerful were longbows"? on finds alone. What outside (of England) evidence there is does not suggest that other archer nations used warbows anywhere near as powerful as 100 lbs. Lacking such evidence, and seeing the extant examples of other archery world-wide, observing the bow physics studies of a century ago, and seeing how archery stacks up today among lifetime shooters, vis-a-vis how powerful bows are on average, taken together this calls the claims of Hardy and Strickland, et al. (that 150 lb longbows were the warbow of the English yeomen), into serious question.

You and Rocky have written a set of rules … Which one am I more likely to believe? Your repeated accusation of "bow porn" and "fanboy" does not rest well with an academic discussion of the subject – dare I say "name calling"?

Yes, I recognized that and allowed that you are justified if it offends you to call them such. We're not anything but human over here either. Passion will enter into a discussion of things we "think" we know whereof we speak.

As Rocky has pointed out clearly and often: the sources we resorted to are numerous, venerable, varied and extensive. H&S cite ENGLISH archeological evidence. They don't appear to compare this to outside evidence of other archery nations who achieved even more remarkably effective shooting than the yeomen of England. We argue against the "super yeoman" and "super weapon". We agree with H&S that the longbow was an effective weapon en masse, as the sources clearly indicate. We disagree entirely that the yeoman was some kind of physically developed force of nature compared to other archers of the world.

Our rules produce HYW wins for the English archers with what we claim was the same c. draw weight that all other archer nations employed.

It's only fallacious in your opinion – unless you can cite others who have challenged H&S in print?

I don't have to quote anyone else to call a H&S type of claim fallacious. I only have to point out reasons why they might be fallacious; which I have been doing.

What "other applications " are you referring to?

Non warfare ones: like showing off in contests, a far more common use of bow shooting than wartime application, and hunting, the only archery applications that endure today. All non warfare archery can use bows much too powerful than are useful in a long battle.

OTOH if you had said something like, well that is one view, but here is a book written by other experts who disagree with them, I might have found your position more acceptable.

Well, we do that. But evidently you didn't catch it. Our delivery sucks, you've made that clear.

H&S disagree, evidently, with earlier studies on bow physics and field tests. It's hard for me to take seriously the modern conclusions of a longbow "fanboy" compared to a detached shooter of many weapons, including in hunting applications; and the even more detached observations of physicists studying bows and arrows from that perspective.

You have some authentic 15th century bows to play with?

No. Neither does anyone except perhaps a museum curator, or friends of such, like Saxton Pope.

Tell me, why would Pope and Hardy differ so much in their claims? They shot (shoot) the same bows from the same period.

Rocky claims that once you know the draw weight and efficiency returns of the bow construction and materials, and a given weight of arrow, you can extrapolate for other draw weights using the same percentage of efficiency. You don't have to physically shoot every type of bow, once your physics formulas are dialed in. (I know nothing of physics personally: playing parrot, again).

"reading the original sources, reading the writers on bow physics, and trying to validate or invalidate their claims."

Validate/invalidate – how?

Well, anyone can validate historical claims by playing the battles as closely to how they are described as possible. If your rules produce consistent historical wins without resorting to some non historical trick, then at least your rules work historically!

As for the rest of it, the physics confirmations and building/testing of weapons, I have had very little comparative experience: I have shot my glass/wood recurve (55 lb), and two crossbows, my 80 lb Wham-O and a 150 lb Barnett. I made several kinds of bolt for the crossbows and shot into anything from discarded kitchen stoves to oil drums, and shot for ranging distances comparisons. I can only say that my recurve, which approximates the efficiency return of a Steppes 50 lb bow, gets the same ranges as such a bow does and did (according to, I assume, Rocky's dissection of Klopstag and Negler). My 80 lb Wham-O shot like our "Crossbow 2" missile chart for range, and seemed to punch "armor" well enough to allow that such a draw weight could indeed drive through steel plate if it isn't too thick. So the total of my limited physical experience did not bring any of Rocky's conclusions, vis-a-vis our missile hit tables, into question. And I get historical results when playing known battles on the tabletop.

I have explained before that any resemblance between a wargame and reality is purely coincidental so cannot be used to support your argument. If a set of rules delivers a historical result in a refight then fine – that is what we would all like to achieve. But don't then say that this proves anything about history.

Yeah, we're happy campers here. We did all this to please ourselves (if that is an agenda, it's the only one we started and ended up with: the rest -- conversing/arguing -- is just whipped cream).

We have never said that our wargame rules "prove" anything about history. Only that the consistency of our approach has paid off and we like telling others about how we did it.

"It is inconceivable that archers today, who shoot just as often and with our modern dietary knowledge, can routinely pull 100+ lb bows. Most come nowhere near that draw weight, no matter how long they practice."

No it is not inconceivable. Simon Stanley is an archer who specialises in heavy (100lb plus) bows. If he can do it so could others, particularly if they were practising frequently. Besides it's not just sheer strength it's technique as well. And he's not deformed either …

"We argue against the "super yeoman" and "super weapon". "

Neither Hardy nor Strickland make any reference to "super" anything – as you'd know if you had read their book. I also agree that the warbow is not a "super weapon". In fact, I'll go further than that. I think that English archery would have been effective even if they WERE using 70lb bows as you propose. The draw weight itself isn't important. What is important is how they were deployed and used and the deadly nature of the arrow storm.

"I don't have to quote anyone else to call a H&S type of claim fallacious. I only have to point out reasons why they might be fallacious; which I have been doing."

Sorry, no. You are merely a voice crying in the wilderness saying "of course the bows couldn't be that heavy" unless you can cite people who agree with you. If what you say is true how come H&S haven't been challenged in print by their peers?

"H&S disagree, evidently, with earlier studies on bow physics and field tests. "

They disagree because for the first time, the Mary Rose bows gave them the opportunity to examine and replicate actual bows from the period. Actual archaeology is far more reliable than any amount of theorizing.

"No. Neither does anyone except perhaps a museum curator, or friends of such, like Saxton Pope.

Tell me, why would Pope and Hardy differ so much in their claims? They shot (shoot) the same bows from the same period."

READ THE BOOK!

"Rocky claims that once you know the draw weight and efficiency returns of the bow construction and materials, and a given weight of arrow, you can extrapolate for other draw weights using the same percentage of efficiency."

Rocky claims … since when is he an internationally renowned expert on the subject? What scientific basis is there for his claims?

"Well, anyone can validate historical claims by playing the battles as closely to how they are described as possible. If your rules produce consistent historical wins without resorting to some non historical trick, then at least your rules work historically!"

Playing a game does not and cannot validate reality. All you can say is that your game produces similar results to those of history. Crumbs, we can't even be sure about the strengths of the opposing armies in most medieval battles!

"We have never said that our wargame rules "prove" anything about history. Only that the consistency of our approach has paid off and we like telling others about how we did it."

Er … how about this statement of yours then:
"I know this because I have played out Agincourt both ways, with the heavier bows and with the 70 lb bows (this according to the physics studies Rocky Russo has indicated, crunched into our two longbow tables: "Bow 3" and "Bow 4", 70 lb and 100 lb bows respectively). The amount of time to shoot and the effectiveness of 70 lb bows matches the original source descriptions of a stiff fight remaining after the French advanced to melee. If we use 100 lb bows, the French are too shot up to melee as described."

???

(Oh, it's ROGER Ascham, btw, not Robert. That echo entered my frontal lobes, finally.)

Hi

This has reached the "heat but no light" stage.

Curious, that Mark "proves" our stuff is wrong by citing a source, then "proves" that it is all irrelevent and doesn't mean anything. I suspect the issue is one of he feels his rules are under attack because we did it differently.

By the way, I didn't invent the "fanboy" and "bow porn" terms. These came up from others who insist that no one ever dies from bow (which is merely harasssing or disruptive)in response to Hardy and Stricland.

I never claimed to be world famous, but thanks for the suggestion. And outside of the rules, I have, indeed, be published in magazines on the subject.

I even suggest that my biblography would be much like yours when citing sources EXCEPT for the ones you haven't read involving bow physics. So, again, you have an opinion based on reading your sources, I have a different opinion based on reading the same sources, a few more, and actually testing stuff in the real world.

R

….Simon Stanley is an archer who specialises in heavy (100lb plus) bows. If he can do it so could others, particularly if they were practising frequently. Besides it's not just sheer strength it's technique as well. And he's not deformed either…

Let's not enter into a multiplying of anecdotal references. It isn't JUST technique. And Yelnats isn't shooting on a battlefield, needing to replicate his performance on demand all day. He probably could, but he'd be the exception not the norm.

Neither Hardy nor Strickland make any reference to "super" anything – as you'd know if you had read their book.

I never said they did: the comparison is to our claim that 70 lbs is the normal warbow weight. Any army of archers all pulling 100+ lb bows would be "supermen" by comparison, and pulling "super weapons".

The draw weight itself isn't important. What is important is how they were deployed and used and the deadly nature of the arrow storm.

That's an interesting claim to make. Draw weight directly relates to penetration capacity and range. It does matter a great deal. I agree, though, that the largest part of what made English archery so effective was exactly how it was deployed, as you say.

You are merely a voice crying in the wilderness saying "of course the bows couldn't be that heavy" unless you can cite people who agree with you. If what you say is true how come H&S haven't been challenged in print by their peers?

I don't know that they haven't been countered. If they haven't it doesn't mean anything in itself. When were Klopstag, Negler, Taybugha, Pope, et al., the authorities of yesteryear, cited in modern publications? Does that mean that they have been challenged and refuted? Or does it mean instead that their work was so esoteric that many or most authorities today haven't even heard of them?

"H&S disagree, evidently, with earlier studies on bow physics and field tests."

They disagree because for the first time, the Mary Rose bows gave them the opportunity to examine and replicate actual bows from the period. Actual archaeology is far more reliable than any amount of theorizing.

Not for the first time! Saxton Pope early last century finished a Mary Rose bow stave in a museum, ended up with a c. 80 lb draw weight, shot it into armor, killed a "bar" outside 100 yards, and did other tests with it and a number of other bows. His studies and experiences form one of Rocky's primary sources (parroting again, yes I am).

Rocky claims … since when is he an internationally renowned expert on the subject? What scientific basis is there for his claims?

I see. We must be an internationally droppable name before we can know a thing or two. It's called research and testing. Anyone can do it. When your results match history, and are consistent, you may be onto something. But don't expect to impress anyone until you have a consensus. That's fine with me.

Playing a game does not and cannot validate reality. All you can say is that your game produces similar results to those of history. Crumbs, we can't even be sure about the strengths of the opposing armies in most medieval battles!

I know, that's why only a handful of battles are worthy examinations to test the accuracy of rules by. Agincourt, Bosworth, Nicopolis, Hattin, Benevento, Hastings, a few others, are clearly enough rendered in the sources to replicate them within a good range of probability. The actual strengths are not as important to know as the relative strengths.

"We have never said that our wargame rules "prove" anything about history. Only that the consistency of our approach has paid off and we like telling others about how we did it."

Er … how about this statement of yours then:

"I know this because I have played out Agincourt both ways…."

???

I know this, to my satisfaction. But you don't. What's wrong with that? Whatever the bow actually is that the English used at Agincourt, in our game it is called "Bow 3" (the 70 lb weapon). If you prefer to assume that Rocky is somehow mistaken, because we disagree with H&S, and that in fact that bow should properly be called a 100 lb weapon (our "Bow 4"), then we can't really argue with you. I take most of what Rocky did on faith, in that I have not researched any of those sources and have only read limited passages of Pope's book.

You say, "read the book", which I intend to do. I say, "I hope you can find a copy of those books" (that Rocky cites), as they mainly only exist in the archives of universities either in manuscript copy form or as limited editions.

"Curious, that Mark "proves" our stuff is wrong "

Who is Mark?

"Curious, that Mark "proves" our stuff is wrong by citing a source,"

Assuming you are referring to me and not some other guy, I did not prove your stuff is wrong by citing a source. You are attempting to prove you are right by writing wargames rules and then trying to prove the history from them.

"I suspect the issue is one of he feels his rules are under attack because we did it differently."

No, I don't feel my rules are under attack. But they are just as valid as yours are since both seem to be able to generate historical results given a scenario that approximates to what we know about a historical battle.

"And outside of the rules, I have, indeed, be published in magazines on the subject."

I was not referring to the popular press, but books or academic journals.

"And Yelnats isn't shooting on a battlefield, needing to replicate his performance on demand all day. "

Yelnats? Again you miss my point. I actually said that an archer in the 15th century did not need to "replicate his performance on demand all day". Read the sources, most archery duels lasted quite a short time.

"Any army of archers all pulling 100+ lb bows would be "supermen" by comparison, and pulling "super weapons"."

Only if you take the view that a 100+lb bow was unusual. To me they are not supermen using super weapons, but simply ordinary guys who regularly trained from a young age to pull a heavy bow, which was the accepted normal wepon of the time. The problem you seem to struggle with is that "if modern men can't do it then how could medieval man". I don't think modern man could march 20 miles a day for weeks on end either, but the Romans did.

"Not for the first time! Saxton Pope early last century finished a Mary Rose bow stave in a museum, ended up with a c. 80 lb draw weight, shot it into armor, killed a "bar" outside 100 yards, and did other tests with it and a number of other bows. His studies and experiences form one of Rocky's primary sources"

I'll deal with that one in a separate post.

"I see. We must be an internationally droppable name before we can know a thing or two."

It helps if you are going to publicly challenge an accpeted authority on the subject.

You mention Bosworth as a suitable candidate for analysis. There are at least two conflicting views on the location of the battle. If we don't even know where the troops were in relation to each other, how we can we prove anything from a game that purports to recreate it?

""I hope you can find a copy of those books" (that Rocky cites), as they mainly only exist in the archives of universities either in manuscript copy form or as limited editions."

Er … which books were they? I don't recall Rocky citing any books (even though I have repeatedly asked you two to back up your claims from academic texts).

"Not for the first time! Saxton Pope early last century finished a Mary Rose bow stave in a museum, ended up with a c. 80 lb draw weight, shot it into armor, killed a "bar" outside 100 yards, and did other tests with it and a number of other bows. His studies and experiences form one of Rocky's primary sources (parroting again, yes I am)."

This one was so interesting, it deserved a post all to itself. I confess I had never heard of Saxton Pope until you mentioned him. I have now tracked him down and I quote the following from "Hunting with the Bow and Arrow" by that learned fellow:

"Of all the bows of the days when archery was in flower, only two remain. These are unfinished staves found in the ship Mary Rose, sunk off the coast of Albion in 1545. This vessel having veen raised from the bottom of the ocean in 1841, the staves were recovered and are now in the Tower of london. They are six feet, four and three-quarters inches long, one and one-half inches across the handle, one and one-quarter inches thick, and proportionally large throughout. The dimensions are recorded in Badminton. Of course they have never been tested for strength, but it has been estimated at 100 pounds.

Determined to duplicate these old bows, I selected a very fine grained stave of seasoned yew and made an exact duplicate, according to the recorded measurements.

This bow when drawn the standard arrow-length of twenty-eight inches, weighed sixty-five pounds and shot a light flight arrow two hundred and twenty-five yards. When drawn thirty-six inches, it weighed seventy-six pounds and shot a flight arrow two hundred and fifty-six yards. From this it would seem that even though these ancient staves appear to be almost too pwerful for a modern man to draw, they not only are well within our command, but do not shoot a mile."

So to answer the points you make:

"Not for the first time! Saxton Pope early last century finished a Mary Rose bow stave in a museum, ended up with a c. 80 lb draw weight, shot it into armor, killed a "bar" outside 100 yards, and did other tests with it"

Er … no he didn't. Not only are the two bow staves he referred to still in the Royal Armouries, but SP is totally wrong when he says the Mary Rose was raised in 1841. Strange, I seem to recall saying the same thing at the beginning of this discussion.

"His studies and experiences form one of Rocky's primary sources (parroting again, yes I am)."

Er … no again SP is not a primary source. A primary source is a historical text from at or near the time of a historical event. Froissart is a primary source, SP is sadly not.

SP also says:
"Determined to duplicate these old bows, I selected a very fine grained stave of seasoned yew and made an exact duplicate, according to the recorded measurements."

In other words he took the measurements and made an approximation based on those measurements. He had never seen or measured the actual bow staves himself and he certainly didn't "finish" one, by his own admission By contrast Hardy et al made exact copies of the bow staves raised from the Mary Rose by measuring then directly.

Yelnats? Again you miss my point. I actually said that an archer in the 15th century did not need to "replicate his performance on demand all day". Read the sources, most archery duels lasted quite a short time.

(hehe Stanley backwards, blame Holes, sorry)

But they are repetetive, or risk being so. As in Morlaiz, Poitiers, and even Agincourt: the second battle was shot at too, not forgetting the shooting into the cavalry first. Any archer shooting his maximum bow is going to get tired quickly. And if he is sick, he isn't going to be able to pull it in the first place. You are not taking that into account.

I don't think modern man could march 20 miles a day for weeks on end either, but the Romans did.

Of course we could, if we had to. We ride so we don't, simple as that. I have a cousin who routinely used to do 50 mile hikes in three days or less. Fully loaded with camp gear. And he used to do this with groups.

You mention Bosworth as a suitable candidate for analysis. There are at least two conflicting views on the location of the battle. If we don't even know where the troops were in relation to each other, how we can we prove anything from a game that purports to recreate it?

Simple: play it both ways. That shouldn't present a problem. We also don't know the exact hill Hastings was fought on! Lately Caldbec has been advanced as an even more likely spot. The terrain is essentially the same in either case, as is true of Bosworth.

(Must dash now, I will respond to the rest later, most likely tomorrow morning.)

Saxton Pope. Interesting fellow. Rocky can weigh in on this far better than I can. He knew Saxton's kid, iirc.

Other books: I don't know the titles, but three authors are the two physicists, Negler and Klopstag, and the 15th century Arabic source, a guy named Taybugha. These are Rocky's books/copies, not mine.

Anyway, your objections to my imperfect memory are insignificant, imho. Pope created a fresh yew longbow. "An exact duplicate, according to the recorded measurements." I don't see the problem myself. If Hardy makes and shoots 100+ lb longbows on the same measurments, the differences are of course in the precise piece of wood, and the crafting to a finished stage. Pope's efforts seem as confidently carried out as Hardy's. It would be fascinating to see the two men together. The best we can do is read what they said. I have read limited Pope, no Hardy: I intend to rectify that….

(Btw, estimating how strong a contemporary longbow must have been by pulling a MR bow stave -- as has been done, I recall an author of a National Geographic article on the MR doing so -- is not necessarily germane: the long centuries onder the sea has to have had some affect on the wood, surely.)

Why Pope's exact date (1841) for the raising of the Mary Rose? Are you accusing Pope of fabricating where the bow staves in the museum came from? He could have had a mistaken notion about "raised": probably the wreck was only partially lifted, and the guck beneath explored, which produced what the museum had at the time. The complete raising of the MR of course has been a motherload by comparison since then.

Pope is one of Rocky's primary sources on interpreting what the bows did and do. I never said Pope was a primary source from the middle ages! There is a difference between "primary" and "original" (as in contemporary) sources. Klopstag and Negler are "primary sources" for bow physics. Taybugha is both a primary source on bow studies, and an original source for the period of the 15th century.

By your constantly referring back to Hardy, Hardy, Hardy, you are sounding like a one-source guy to me. He's ONE GUY, and evidently quite a "Brewster Beefcakes" guy at that, pulling the bows that he does (evidently, I don't know except from what others say). As I said before, I have met a very few archers in my time who could pull 100+ lbs without wincing and straining: maybe one in ten, if that (sure wish I could find that Roger Ascham quote)….

Hi

The 1841 raising refers to raising the bow staves, not the boat.

And the concept that Pope doing a replica is inferior to Hardy doing a replica?

Pope wrote several books, not just the one you pulled up.

Now, why is Hardy a primary source, but pope isn't. In your scholorship can you point to an english source that specifies all the variables you demand from my sources? You are insisting that for me to refute these sources, I must be "world famous" but your argument fails on a couple points. No one is "world famous" on this subject. Even on TMP, you and others haven't heard of the basic sources on most subjects.

Look, if your rules produce historical results, i applaud you. If you insist, however, that they are not sims, that is your problem.

I have never claimed most of the things you accuse us of.

I will go back to first principles.

I had a bunch of sources discussing the way bow fire works, and I did the scientific thing. I repeated THEIR experiments. And got similar results. I am guessing that you didn't replicate the claims of the hardy book.

In any case, I didn't start with "I know all" but rather reading these sources and repeating the tests and, in the case of the books involving bow physics, repeated the math. Not to "prove" anything, but to see if it was plausable.

I didn't mention "Featherstone" who has a famous shot involving a longbowman cutting standing rigging on a boat at some stupid distance with a broadhead. I could not come up with a actual way to prove or even suggest the plausability of the shot.

But your objections seem to exist for no reason I can fathom. You insist your rules produce historical results, and imply ours must not, and then follow that with "but there are no simulations".

and your quibbles about Doug's memory do not advance the discussion in any way. Now, I know that doug enjoys argument for the sake of argument, and I suspect the two of you might be soulmates.

So, you are a true believer in H&S, and I am not. And my reasons don't matter to you. Which leaves us nowhere.

So, might as well refight agincourt with purple dwarves throwing rocks.

Rocky

"…might as well refight agincourt with purple dwarves throwing rocks."

That can be next up: you already did the 18th century muskets versus Hal V's archers version.

"Other books: I don't know the titles, but three authors are the two physicists, Negler and Klopstag, and the 15th century Arabic source, a guy named Taybugha. These are Rocky's books/copies, not mine."

I can find no on-line references to either Negler or Klopstag, so quoting them doesn't prove anything. For all I know they could be made up names just to sound impressive!
Since the Saracens presumably did not use longbows, the Taybugha reference is irrelevant.

"Anyway, your objections to my imperfect memory are insignificant, imho. Pope created a fresh yew longbow. "An exact duplicate, according to the recorded measurements." I don't see the problem myself. If Hardy makes and shoots 100+ lb longbows on the same measurments, the differences are of course in the precise piece of wood, and the crafting to a finished stage. Pope's efforts seem as confidently carried out as Hardy's."

The significant difference, which you have apparently failed to grasp is that Pope had NEVER SEEN the bow staves. On the other hand the bowyer Roy King who made the copies described in H&S was able to examine the original artefacts in detail.

"(Btw, estimating how strong a contemporary longbow must have been by pulling a MR bow stave -- as has been done, I recall an author of a National Geographic article on the MR doing so -- is not necessarily germane: the long centuries onder the sea has to have had some affect on the wood, surely.)"

Oh come one, this was a scientific study, they tool that factor into account.

"Why Pope's exact date (1841) for the raising of the Mary Rose? Are you accusing Pope of fabricating where the bow staves in the museum came from?"

No, he correctly says they are in the Royal Armouries.

"He could have had a mistaken notion about "raised": probably the wreck was only partially lifted, and the guck beneath explored, which produced what the museum had at the time."

He was not only mistaken, but plain wrong. The bow staves he knew of had been found in the vicinity of the wreck, but the wreck itself lay untouched until 1982.

"Pope is one of Rocky's primary sources on interpreting what the bows did and do. I never said Pope was a primary source from the middle ages! There is a difference between "primary" and "original" (as in contemporary) sources."

Er … no. All historians when they refer to "primary" sources mean at or near contemporary with the events being described.

"By your constantly referring back to Hardy, Hardy, Hardy, you are sounding like a one-source guy to me. He's ONE GUY"

I keep referring to Hardy & Strickland because you two seem intent on attacking their work and attempting to debunk it. And no, he's not "one guy", there is:

Robert Hardy, actor, bow consultant and conservator for the bows recovered from the Mary Rose
Dr Matthew Strickland, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Glasgow
John Levy, Professor of Wood Science at the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London
Peter Pratt, Dean and Professor of Crystal Physics at Imperial College
Dr B. W. Kooi, University of Amsterdam (author of "On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow") PDF link
Simon Stanley, archer
Roy King, bowyer
Professor Anna Crowley, Department of Ballistics at the Royal Military College of Science

all of whom were involved in the research based on the Mary Rose bows.

"and evidently quite a "Brewster Beefcakes" guy at that, pulling the bows that he does (evidently, I don't know except from what others say)."

Hardly, the man is over 80!!

"As I said before, I have met a very few archers in my time who could pull 100+ lbs without wincing and straining: maybe one in ten, if that"

Again, this proves nothing except that some modern archers find it hard to believe that their forebears could handle much heavier bows.

"Pope wrote several books, not just the one you pulled up."

Maybe, but unless he contradicts himself, it is clear from my quote what he actually did. My purpose in quoting itwas to refute your friend's claim that Pope himself finished one of the bow staves from the MR.

"Now, why is Hardy a primary source, but pope isn't."

Please read my posts. I DID NOT say that Hardy is a primary source.

"In your scholorship can you point to an english source that specifies all the variables you demand from my sources?"

I am not sure what variables you are referring to. Please be more specific.

"You are insisting that for me to refute these sources, I must be "world famous" but your argument fails on a couple points. No one is "world famous" on this subject."

I beg to differ. Any one who studies English medieval history would be aware of the MR as an extremely significant archaeological find and would therefore know of the work of Hardy et al (see list of names above) on the bows from the MR.

"Even on TMP, you and others haven't heard of the basic sources"

I can hardly regard them as basic sources on medieval archery if I cannot find any reference to them on-line.

"Look, if your rules produce historical results, i applaud you. If you insist, however, that they are not sims, that is your problem."

Not my problem at all, but recognition of a simple fact. You think your rules ARE a simulation though?

"I have never claimed most of the things you accuse us of."

Such as?

"I am guessing that you didn't replicate the claims of the hardy book."

That would be a bit difficult since I am neither a bowyer nor an archer. However, I have a lot of respect for those who are.

"I didn't mention "Featherstone" who has a famous shot involving a longbowman cutting standing rigging on a boat at some stupid distance with a broadhead. I could not come up with a actual way to prove or even suggest the plausability of the shot."

Don't know why you brought that one up as it is not pertinent to this discussion. But for the record, I have read his book "The Bowmen of England" and I agree that sometimes he gets a bit carried away!

"But your objections seem to exist for no reason I can fathom. You insist your rules produce historical results, and imply ours must not, and then follow that with "but there are no simulations"."

I will spell it out for you:
1. Your rules produce historical results
2. My rules produce historical results
3. You claim your rules prove the use of 70lb bows
4. My view is that wargame rules cannot prove anything because they are not anything like an accurate enough simulation.

Seems we disagree on point 4 …

"and your quibbles about Doug's memory do not advance the discussion in any way."

Maybe not, however, I find it irksome when someone makes a statement, that I then attempt to verify, only to find that the statement is completely wrong. Still I suppose that is what studying history is all about …

"So, you are a true believer in H&S, and I am not."

It is not a question of faith. I regard the work of H&S to be a well researched treatise on the subject. Until or unless you can point me in the direction of an equally well researched treatise by someone who disagrees with their findings, I am forced to accept their view as valid.

"And my reasons don't matter to you. Which leaves us nowhere."

So far, you do not appear to have offered any reasons that can be independently verified. I am forced to conclude that your views are based on personal bias.

"So, might as well refight agincourt with purple dwarves throwing rocks."

That would probably be just as accurate as some other wargames I have seen!

Aha!

Hickman CN, Nagler F, Klopsteg PE. (1947). Archery: the technical side

is a reference in the Kooi thesis. Perhaps the misspelling of their names didn't help. I take back my (slightly unfair) comments about them. Might be difficult to get hold of a copy though …

link- link

From- wWapons that changed Britain.

I guess many of you may have seen this before- part 7 has an intreasting bit about if the longbow could have been used mounted.

Shame we don't see his recurved longbow tested- maybe it didn't work out so well.

"Since the Saracens presumably did not use longbows, the Taybugha reference is irrelevant."

Not in the least. Archery is consistent in the world in many respects. The draw weights used being one of them: which is why English yeomen cannot be pulling much more powerful bows than archers elsewhere who are equally well known for their proficiency.

Sorry for the misspelling of Nagler and Klopsteg: just copying from Rocky's text, and I sure as hell don't know who those dudes were. We learn something almost every day!

Now, go to and seeketh thou a copy, and good luck.

As for myself, the game is enough, and I will call "The Great Warbow" a 70 pounder. It mattereth not to me one whit or another; 'tis the the result I crave, and I have that in plenty, yea, verily yea.

"Not in the least. Archery is consistent in the world in many respects. The draw weights used being one of them: which is why English yeomen cannot be pulling much more powerful bows than archers elsewhere who are equally well known for their proficiency."

The historical and archaeological evidence from the Mary Rose finds proves otherwise.

"Sorry for the misspelling of Nagler and Klopsteg: just copying from Rocky's text, and I sure as hell don't know who those dudes were. We learn something almost every day!

Now, go to and seeketh thou a copy, and good luck."

Suggest you read the Kooi reference I provided a link to. It seems he takes the work of Nagler, Klopsteg et al and both updates and expands upon it.

It would be interesting to see if your bow tables match up to Kooi's findings.

"As for myself, the game is enough, and I will call "The Great Warbow" a 70 pounder. It mattereth not to me one whit or another; "

The way you have argued so strongly in favour of the 70lb bow would tend to negate this comment!

If other bowmen where near the equal, how come the French managed to charge through 3 lines at the battle of Nicopolis.

Show some comparative examples that demostrate other military cultures could pull off the same sort of military feats. The battle of Wadi al-Khazandar which had dismounted Mongol troops shooting on foot wasn't the same sort of success that Crecy or Agincourt was.

True…I agree James.

At Nicopolis, the Turks are not only not using the same weapon, they're not using the same tactics. They're also not the same kind of trooper. There's no record of the Turks using massed showers of arrows shot at high trajectory, not by the azaps in front of the ridge, nor by the janissaries behind stakes on the ridge.

Also, the Turks didn't have five thousand foot archers there. The bulk of their forces were in sipahis and other cavalry, which is what ended up doing in the overextended and unsupported French.

I've come to believe the conclusion that the success of the longbow almost always comes down to a combination of the weapon, the archer, the tactics employed and the terrain. There's no single element in the above that guarantees success. Look at Patay – the terrain is lousy and the English have no time to prepare pits or stakes. Same archers, fairly good numbers of them in terms of the overall English battle, but you take away the terrain advantage – existing or created via fieldworks – and the English archer can't get the job done, no matter what the draw weight of his bow.

I get tired of this debate because it seems this nut has been cracked many times.

"Not in the least. Archery is consistent in the world in many respects. The draw weights used being one of them: which is why English yeomen cannot be pulling much more powerful bows than archers elsewhere who are equally well known for their proficiency."

The historical and archaeological evidence from the Mary Rose finds proves otherwise.

"Proves" nothing. Is evidence for 100 lb bows being the norm, yes. We have Hal VIII's FLAGSHIP: doesn't that signify anything to you? And we have fragments of earlier "longbows" estimated to be 100 lbs draw weight. We have Pope's own longbow made according to the measurements of existing MR bow staves. We have Hardy's. We have discrepencies abounding everywhere. And then we have our rules, which produce historical outcomes of Agincourt using 70 lb bow statistics crunched into our missile combat table for the same.

Suggest you read the Kooi reference I provided a link to. It seems he takes the work of Nagler, Klopsteg et al and both updates and expands upon it.

And how would I be able to tell any differences? I've not asked to peruse Rocky's copies of Nagler/Klopsteg, simply because I know no physics. It would be "Greek" to me. Maybe Rocky can take you up on that invite. Thanks for finding the online referrence. That's cool.

"As for myself, the game is enough, and I will call "The Great Warbow" a 70 pounder. It mattereth not to me one whit or another; "

The way you have argued so strongly in favour of the 70lb bow would tend to negate this comment!

I have argued strongly in favor of being able to come up with a historical Agincourt wargame. That's dependent on the missile fire working properly. If Rocky calls the longbow ("Bow 3") a 70 lb weapon, who am I to argue? As I said, it can wind up a 100 lb weapon instead; and Rocky's tables are all off by one degree of table separation and it won't alter anything I have assumed: except that somehow, yes indeedee, those stalwart English yeomen were brewster beefcakes dudes one and all, just like Featherstone says they are.

I don't believe it for a minute. Your assumption via H&S, et al. those who believe them, is mistaken. I don't know that this will be provable anytime soon, but I am still betting on the 70 lb bow being our Agincourt weapon of massed destruction. There are plausible explanations for the 100 lb draw weight bias/claim, which I have reiterated. The rest of the world evidently does not use such powerful draw weights en masse either: so I don't see anything special (racially superior) about the English archers, allowing them to do what nobody else has ever done. Claiming that they did on the basis of a single FLAGSHIP's bows and a few fragments down the centuries only raises my suspicions even more. We have no evidence outside England to support such a claim. We have copious outside evidence to contradict such a claim.

James and John (where's Peter" hehe): good points and answers there. I agree completely.

When I say that other archer nations are the equal of the English, I am of course referring to the level of physical strength translating as bow draw weight. The usual non warbow weight is c. 50 lbs. A short range hunting bow is even less. It seems that the best Azubs (hardly the social equivalent of the English yeomen levy) used a recurve 50 lb bow, which puts out essentially the same impact energy as the "typical" (quotes for the sake of those who disagree) 70 lb longbow; the rest used bows of lesser effect ("Bow 2" in our rules). The difference in effects is mainly not the weapon, but the application on the battlefield. The Azubs do not stack as deep or shoot with the same effectiveness in volley as the English longbow men do. And at Nicopolis specifically, we have an enormous mounted attack (c. 5,000, iirc) rushing the skirmish line, then dismounting to push through the stakes into the Janissaries: again, leaving no time to pour volley after volley into a slowly advancing line of foot, as we see at Agincourt or Homildon hill. Crecy is a freak battle of the English seeing off piecemeal attacking units. Poitiers is won by hard hand to hand fighting and a rear attack with mounted troops -- hardly an example of the longbow's superiority: the English have too few archers to begin with, and run out of arrows and cannot bring up more in time to meet the next French attacking column. And again, Verneuil shows what John points out: not enough time to shoot down swiftly approaching cavalry, and no staked line to stop them, results in the cavalry riding right through the archers (who would have been toast if the cavalry hadn't then ridden off the field to attack the baggage).

The "secret" ingredient to English victories was a carefully orchestrated set of conditions. Without them all in place, victory was anything but assured, and lost battles are actually to be more expected. Even having 100 lb longbows would not change that. They are significantly better, but not enough better at piercing armor to do it quickly enough to prevent a numerous, determined enemy from closing and riding the archers down. I know this from gaming alone. And our game results are supported by a wealth of outside evidence, only a little of which has been mentioned on this thread.

Hi

Mike, I never claimed our rules "proved" 70#.

to digress. My real world work at the time doing our rules was as an analysist for the USAF. My job involved looking at covert data and photos and doing performance estimates for them.

My HOBBY is that I am a boyer, archer and weapons maker since childhood. And some of your earlier posts didn't say anything except that you are not an archer, boyer, etc.

Using Klostegs work, he describes his testing equipment, I replicated the equipment and tested his approach. And, as mentioned above, was comfortable that he had the numbers right.

The bowstaves that survived before MR and after are usually described as being unfinished and about 110 or so draweight. As a boyer, the simple point is that you cannot add to a stave. Thus, you can take an unfinished stave that can produce a 110 bow, and finish it and end up at 85 or 75 or 30.

Now, longbows are, as all weapons, a compromise. The short version, again, is one you can understand as a non bow geek. Simply, a bow is a storage device for muscle energy. One cannot, somehow, put in 85 pounds and get 100. What actually happenes is that the thicker the bow, the greater the draw, and the lower the energy return given imput energy. "Long" is a compromise that allowes wood to be bent at a thickness and strength without breaking. That simple. the downside from an engineering standpoint is that the bow has mass. Longer, more mass. More mass means more energy losses just moving the stave back to position.

Thus, in the steppes, the choice was expensive bow technology to produce small light bows with a higher energy return. (each bow takes a year to make). Versus the british choice of using a simple self bow and accepting the energy losses of the design.

Now, to your misunderstanding of the points.

I make the following assertian. "Hank" had wagons for resupply of arrows. In order for even a hint of accuracy, the bows used at agincourt had to be similar enough on drawweight to use the same arrow. It looks like the long range engagement range for the 1oz flight arrow at agincourt was ca 220 yards. This suggests, doing the math, a 70# draw weight. If all the bow at agincourt were 100, 110 pounds, the engagement range for that first harrassing volley would be closer to 275.

Looking at the battle field, I don't see that. Further, at all the other battlefields, I don't see this.

Thus, while I can do 100#, even 150, even 200, I don't think that all the bows or even a big percentage of the bow used in the hundred years war were heavier than 70/75.

Now, it could be I got my sums all wrong. And it is even possible that the boyers of the HYW were very inferior to even my skills and they did all pull 100# with even more inefficient bows.

I assumed that the boyers then were as good as Saxton Pope, thus, with the engagement ranges we see with "flight" arrows in that war, I see 70#.

Further, the reason the bow fire was less effective in the War of the Roses would, again, suggest that the USUAL longbowman in that war was pulling 50#, all based on the closer engagement ranges.

And, the rules doug relies on reflects this math and work. Could be wrong. But here is the deal, I have opinions based not just on reading the sources, but actual real world building.

Rocky

"Mike, I never claimed our rules "proved" 70#."

No, you didn't. However, your friend Doug certainly did. I quote:
"I've said this before: if the bows at Agincourt were 100 lbs draw weight, the French men at arms don't have enough men left standing to make a fight when they reach the English line: I know this because I have played out Agincourt both ways, with the heavier bows and with the 70 lb bows (this according to the physics studies Rocky Russo has indicated, crunched into our two longbow tables: "Bow 3" and "Bow 4", 70 lb and 100 lb bows respectively). The amount of time to shoot and the effectiveness of 70 lb bows matches the original source descriptions of a stiff fight remaining after the French advanced to melee. If we use 100 lb bows, the French are too shot up to melee as described."

"The bowstaves that survived before MR and after are usually described as being unfinished and about 110 or so draweight. As a boyer, the simple point is that you cannot add to a stave. Thus, you can take an unfinished stave that can produce a 110 bow, and finish it and end up at 85 or 75 or 30."

The bows recovered from the MR were NOT "unfinished staves". They were finished ready-to-use bows. Evidence also suggests that some of them were actually in use as the ship went down.

"It looks like the long range engagement range for the 1oz flight arrow at agincourt was ca 220 yards. This suggests, doing the math, a 70# draw weight. If all the bow at agincourt were 100, 110 pounds, the engagement range for that first harrassing volley would be closer to 275."

You are assuming a 1oz flight arrow. Arrows recovered from the MR were nearer 2 or 3oz. Average length of 0.8m average diameter 0.01m.
I am still puzzled by your insistence that an engagement range of ~220yds mandates a 70lb bow. Why? You say that heavier bows could shoot further. Of course they could (more kinetic energy) but that doesn't prove anything. The closer the target the more effective the hit, so it makes sense to hold your fire until the range is closer. I see no reason why the range mandates the draw weight.

"Thus, while I can do 100#, even 150, even 200, I don't think that all the bows or even a big percentage of the bow used in the hundred years war were heavier than 70/75."

That is an assumption.

I assumed that the boyers then were as good as Saxton Pope, thus, with the engagement ranges we see with "flight" arrows in that war, I see 70#."

More assumptions.

"Further, the reason the bow fire was less effective in the War of the Roses would, again, suggest that the USUAL longbowman in that war was pulling 50#, all based on the closer engagement ranges."

The reasons bows were less effective in the WOTR were the final development of full plate armour, the fact that men-at-arms usually fought dismounted and the not insignificant fact that both sides had bows.

I see your problem. You are convinced that range correlates with draw weight. Did you watch the "Weapons of War" video linked to earlier? It demonstrates archers engaging targets at a variety of ranges with the same bow – or are you saying that each archer had a set of different bows for use at different ranges??

"And, the rules doug relies on reflects this math and work. Could be wrong. But here is the deal, I have opinions based not just on reading the sources, but actual real world building."

Said it before, will say it again. "Bottom up" wargames design was long ago shown to be fatally flawed.

"The closer the target the more effective the hit, so it makes sense to hold your fire until the range is closer. I see no reason why the range mandates the draw weight."

The dictum is to shoot as soon as the enemy is reachable. The lighter arrows begin the procedure of distrupting/goading the enemy (as at Agincourt). You keep up the arrow storm as long as possible. There are always the chance hits that take out the unlucky ones at any range, so even the longest ranged shots are not something the enemy ignores. I know that in crusading warfare that the horsearchers kept at extreme bow range; not because of this dictum but because the Franks practiced it and horsearchers were attempting to keep outside of crossbow range altogether. Obviously, the crossbows opened up on them the moment that the horsearchers presented a reachable target; they didn't wait until the enemy was closer just because their bolts were more deadly up closer.

"Said it before, will say it again. "Bottom up" wargames design was long ago shown to be fatally flawed."

I don't see this in Rocky's (my) approach to game design. If you are comparing what we do with gamers who make assumptions and then create rules to simulate them, that would be an accurate description of the rules. But we laid assumptions on the back burner so to speak and went at it to SEE what the evidence and testing would verify or refute. A lot of assumptions got taken off the back burner as a result. Not a perfect method, I'll allow, but hardly design from the bottom up.

"The dictum is to shoot as soon as the enemy is reachable."

Why? Surely the need to make every shot count (limited ammunition supply) would tend to encourage holding fire until a closer range. Where is this "dictum" documented in primary sources?

"The lighter arrows begin the procedure of distrupting/goading the enemy (as at Agincourt)."

Excuse me? Are you implying that the archers had arrows of different weights? Again, where is this documented?

"I know that in crusading warfare that the horsearchers kept at extreme bow range;"

Others have already explained why it is invalid to assume the tactics of the English longbow are the same as the tactics of the Asiatic horse archer.

" [Bottom up] I don't see this in Rocky's (my) approach to game design. If you are comparing what we do with gamers who make assumptions and then create rules to simulate them, that would be an accurate description of the rules."

No, I'm not.

"But we laid assumptions on the back burner so to speak and went at it to SEE what the evidence and testing would verify or refute. A lot of assumptions got taken off the back burner as a result. Not a perfect method, I'll allow, but hardly design from the bottom up."

Sorry, my mistake, you clearly do not understand the term "bottom up". By "bottom up" I mean the process of attempting to calculate the effectiveness of a single man with a single weapon and then multiplying up that probability to produce a calculated effectiveness of a large group of men with that weapon.

Most modern rule writers adopt a "top down" approach whereby they determine what level of resolution they want to achieve in a game and then design rules within those parameters. Experience has shown that top down design leads to much simpler rules mechanisms but that still generate the required overall battle effects without all the number crunching required by the more traditional bottom up approach.

Hi

That you are not an archer is implict again in the above.

If the MR bows were finished ready for shooting AND imported from spain, then there is a logical disconnect. Where are the longbowmen of spain?

What you miss, mike, is that I amde assumptions, that is what all of us do. Unlike you, I tested the assumptions. I started with older sources, and tested the points. Found them plausable.

Now, the thread has split again about your assumptions of our game design approached, and which are approved. Different discussion. I would offer that if you start top down, but produce engagement ranges that are impossible for the details of the individual weapons, then your assumption of "top down" being proper are flawed.

Surviving arrows, agains, you show a lot of bow ignorance. Even casual reading will reveal that archers in the HYW carred three arrows for combat. It has to do with using the right tool for the job. Unarmored targets are best engaged with heavy broadheads. Produces maximum effect against people and horse. Armored targest are best engaged with various anti-armor points. Somtimes these are referred to as "bodkin". Then there are "flight arrows". That your reading hasn't exposed you to this just indicates a limit in your reading.

You are correct, I didn't spend a lot of time correcting Doug's misunderstandings of things. You have supplied me with much more dramatic things to address.

For instance, I didn't know Saxton Popes son. The story is that when Saxton Pope was bow hunting with his longbow, and building bows, he had a buddy, boyer, archer whom he mentions in some places, and his son. That is the son I knew and did bow stuff with. As this trivial point was irrelevent to the discussion, I saw no reason to address it.

You are correct, I made assumptions about the size of the people, the ability of the boyers and so on. The implication is that your choices in your game make no assumptions at all.

Simply, I am explaining that as an archer I built and tested the sources and made assumptions, but I admit to the assumptions.

You have suggested we did everything wrong without being honest about what your choices were.

Again, there is a lot of heat here. No light.

R