Talk:English longbow

“Welsh longbow”

@WolfsCastle: Don’t edit war, you’ll just end up blocked. Per WP:BRD, as you have been reverted put forward your arguments here rather than reverting again. You need WP:CONSENSUS to change the article and you don’t have it. DeCausa (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Rename?

The thing was seldom named a "long" bow at the time of its use, that's mainly a modern-period usage although a very widespread one. As Hardy and Strickland point out, (The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose, 2011), it was usually a "hand" or "lugg" bow when it needed to be differentiated from a crossbow, otherwise just a bow. And it wasn't limited by nationality, originating in South Wales, used by English armies and then by Scots and French. I feel that we would have a more accurate and more stable solution, also one free from patriotic irritation, if we retitle this article to, perhaps "Mediaeval War Bow". Does anyone have any thoughts or further suggestions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s irrelevant what it was called at the time of it’s use. Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME. “Mainly a modern-period usage although a very widespread one” is exactly how Wikipedia articles should be titled. English longbow is what it’s refered to in modern historiography. I see no issue with that. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed a specific type of longbow, confusing though that word is for the average encyclopedic reader. But it isn't uniquely English, nor was the use of powerful longbows in mass. Mediaeval longbow captures the essence a lot better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be the first to agree that current name isn't ideal. The problem comes in what to call it instead. We could try European Longbow, as this would allow us to bypass some of the Uk-based nationalistic POV yet at the same time maintain a focus that doesn't include longbow traditions from India, the far East or the Americas. However, we will still need to have some focus on English use in the Middle Ages, simply because it was militarily significant and drove some of the spread to other nations, like France and Burgundy. The problem with using Medieval in the title is the risk of falling foul of definitional issues as use continues into the 17th century. "Warbow" is a modern coinage to distinguish the Victorian-style sporting longbow from an approximation of the medieval military one, though, as two words, John Smyth used it to refer to the livery bow as a distinction from civilian weapons. The danger of confusion with the modern term is probably too great to make this an easily-identified name for the lay reader, which wikipedia guidance requires.Monstrelet (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I should also add a move away from current title, to, say, Medieval or European Longbow would need quite a bit of rewriting to reflect the shift of emphasis. Monstrelet (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Monstrelet. Indeed, European longbow might well be the best available title. More accurate and puts identity politics out of the way. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no mention of use by anyone other than the Welsh and English in the article. "European longbow" might be appropriate if there was a decent amount of coverage of use by Continental powers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree too. where is there any evidence that WP:RS use the term “European Longbow”? There is no problem with the current title. We have an article about the Longbow. This article is about the foerm of the Longbow primarily associated with the English. There’s a WP:NPOV issue with disassociating it with English usage unless anyone advocating that can produce WP:RS that is WP:DUE disassociating it. Can those who think there is a problem with the title cite those RS please? DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

As said above, if one were to move down this route, it would require a complete rewrite. It could be done and it would be legitimate to do so in (weapon) usage terms. That said, I don't think we have an editorial community that could do the heavy lifting on this and the chances of POV editing guerilla warfare would probably still be there. We may simply remove one POV disruption and create another. Monstrelet (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all who have commented, but I think I'll shelve the idea for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably wise. Though the conversation does demonstrate some coverage gaps about European adoption, especially French and Burgundian use. Monstrelet (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I found this interesting as a (possible) reason for limited non-Anglo-Welsh adoption. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I read this yesterday. Agree it does offer another perspective, though we say so little on non-English use, it hard to see how it would fit in the article at the moment. Monstrelet (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Serendipity! I am also a little surprised that The Efficacy of the English Longbow: A Reply to Kelly DeVries doesn't crop up in the article. I have found it useful in several articles I have taken to FA, such as Battle of Crécy and Battle of Poitiers. (Numerical Analysis of English Bows used in Battle of Crécy also provided some interesting snippets for each.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Gerald of Wales quotes

It has been traditional since the late 19th century to quote Gerald of Wales' comments on Welsh archery when talking about the longbow. As modern debates have shown, this identification is no longer considered so certain. Just dropping in Gerald's words without caveat seems to out of synch with the remainder of the article. To remove them would be one option but they are quoted in reputable sources as part of the history of the longbow and the identification in central to the Welsh origin theory, which does give them some notability. Any attempt to qualify the statements in line with the competing theories risks a backlash of POV edit warring. In line with policy, I'm therefore offering this for discussion to the editing community. As written, the article is contradictory at best, misleading at worst. How do we improve it? Monstrelet (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If there are differing interpretations they certainly should not be used in bare quotes, in the way they have been inserted. That’s a misuse of the source per WP:PRIMARY. They should instead be used as interpreted by, and with citations to, secondary sources but giving WP:DUEWEIGHT to the different interpretations. If to do that properly is too much of a distraction, which seems likely, the quotes should just come out. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Reputable secondary sources use Giraldus Cambrensis in pretty much the way that we do. Powerful wooden bows that could shoot through two layers of mail and padding were used in Gwent... but nobody has good information on numbers, use, draw weight, etc, nor about any continuity of tradition until Edward I a century later. I think this is quite a good instantiation of WP:PRIMARY. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because a quote comes from a reputable source doesn't mean it should be used without context or, worse, to assume a POV, where in actuality that POV is one of several. While removal is the simplest course, I'd rather we reflected the influence of Gerald on the origins debate. However, a random drop in of his description of a Welsh bow (which is not described as a longbow) in mid paragraph is odd. His comments on knights being shot in the leg doesn't really fit in a discussion of longbow effect without contextualisation either. Monstrelet (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I've come back to this topic to see if I could improve matters and have decided that the simplest way to contextualise Gerald was to draw together his words in the origins section, removing the misleading assumption by placing his words in the performance section of the article that he was talking about a longbow, when the article position is that we don't know whether he is or not. It's not perfect but little in this article is, as it is such a complicated topic. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

the references to and quotes from Gerald of Wales are innaccurate in at least two different ways. first:, the quotes are not actually the words of Gerald of Wales himself. he makes it quite clear that this is the testimony of a man he calls "William of Breusa" which is almost certainly William de Braose (1145-1211) 4th Lord of Bramber. second: there is nothing in what he says that would make you think he is referring specifically to a Longbow. he just calls it a bow, with no indication of size at all. all of his comments about bows and Welsh archery come from a single page of Itinerarium Cambriae (although he spelled it with a K) and he gives three anecdotal second-hand examples of a very powerful bow. but he neither calls it a Longbow nor gives you any reason to suppose that is what he means. I am at this point struggling to understand why he is even in the article at all. would, for example, an article on the Japanese tea ceremony just randomly mention that they also drink tea in France? no. so why does an article on the English longbow just randomly mention that they also have bows in Wales? it just seems a bit odd and off topic. unless you are trying to specifically make the connection that the English Longbow may have, possibly, been developed from or alongside a pre-existing Welsh longbow. but Gerald does not make that connection for you because he is not talking about a Longbow. it's just a bow. an impressively powerful bow, but not obviously a Longbow. Cottonshirtτ 13:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is really much argument here - as said above, it is a late 19th/early 20th century association to suggest Gerald was talking about longbows. He doesn't say so. I would quibble about whether these are Gerald's words. He is not quoting "William of Breusa" but summarises what he was told, so to say this is a quote of Gerald's text is correct (allowing for translation).

As to removing the quote, the problem is the role it plays in the historiography. There remains a popular belief in the Welsh origins of the longbow, based largely on interpretation of these lines. This should be represented somehow, though perhaps a stronger statement of uncertainty should exist in the article text. Monstrelet (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Welsh "myth" edits

We have a persistent issue with an IP (or group of IPs) wanting to remove mention of Welsh longbow use from the lead. As I've pointed out with my last reversion, the IP doesn't seem to have read the article and seems to connect the statement to the origins debate, whereas the removed phrase refers to usage (I could argue the case out but I don't think there is much doubt the English and Welsh were using the same weapon from the 14th century onwards). Is there anything we can do to tackle this nuisance editing? A change in wording? A hatnote saying this article doesn't take a position on the origins of the longbow (which it doesn't)? Thoughts? Monstrelet (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

One approach would be to convert what you said in your post (which seems reasonable) into the first two sentences. Does this reflect what you said: "The English longbow was a powerful medieval type of bow, about 6 ft (1.8 m) long. While there is debate about whether it originated in England or Wales, by the 14th century the same longbow was being used by both the English and the Welsh as a weapon of war, and for hunting." DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Welshman k: discuss your point of view here. If you introduce your edit again you'll be blocked for edit waring because you've already tried to do so 5 times today. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is the longbow is a universal weapon everyone had one. Otzi had what qualified as a longbow but was he welsh no. Everyone had variations the famous of them all the English longbow was the developed and adapted by the English and was similar in length to those found in Denmark and much of the germanic. The welsh had a smaller composite bow of 4ft drawn to the chest for ambush so there should be a seperate page for their bow as it was effective at what they wanted. Welshman k (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It is important, I think, to note the article is about a specific form of longbow - that which was primarily developed by the English for military use from 14th to 17th centuries. There is actually an article Longbow that is supposed to cover the wider aspects, not that it does it very thoroughly. Really, discussions about Otzi's bow, Germanic bows and Viking bows should all be covered in there. We ought to mention more about the adoption of the developed English longbow in continental Europe in the 15th than we do, however, as it is about the main focus of the article.

On the Welsh bow, we know remarkably little about it and the main written evidence is quoted almost in full in the article. The evidence that it is a longbow is circumstantial but the theory that it was the origin of the English longbow is so often repeated, it does need to referenced in the article to give a balanced view. One thing we can say about the Welsh bow, however, is it was a self bow, not a composite one as our one and only source says as much. To place a definitive statement that the Welsh used a composite bow in the lead paragraph is at odds with the evidence but also contradicts the text of the article and the lead should summarise the article not introduce different theories. Evidence about Welsh use of the longbow in later times is not as explicit as we would like, but there seems no reason to assume the Welsh troops in English armies from the 14th century onwards used a different weapon to their English comrades.

Whether it would be useful to have a separate article on the Welsh bow isn't my choice. There is certainly plenty of scholarly discussion of it in relation to the origins of the longbow and plenty of well referenced discussion of its use, even if its nature is unknown. Fuller discussion in this article would be undue prominence, though. Monstrelet (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it would be helpful to have a separate article about the Welsh bow and perhaps the two articles can reference each other. As things are right now, there seems to be an awful lot of commentary about "it's Welsh really!"/"no it's not!" and it even appears right there in the 2nd sentence of the article; what with that and some comments about "why is there even an English longbow article? They aren't special, all of Europe used them and the Native American bows were better anyway, so there, ner!" my inclination isn't to remove information that has a particular historical context but add to it: if other bows and their history are notable, it's much better to create more articles rather than trying to awkwardly squish them together into one. I'm not sure it's "nationalistic" to maintain a particular historic context and IMHO there should be more, not less: it's not like this is "Wikipedia, the concise encyclopaedia"... --Vometia (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

For information, there is an article Welsh bow. As already stated, there is also an article Longbow, which should cover longbows of different types. Monstrelet (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What should we call it?

This page has developed extremely well over the years. As an archery historian/writer it is very pleasing to be able to read something about the bow which doesn't make me wince every few sentences. There are however a few things which need to be addressed. First of all this is not about the Longbow it is solely about the English warbow -and I feel the title should reflect that - as should the early sentence that the Longbow was 6 foot long etc. Only the massive war bow was all these dimensions. There have always been many long bows which do not reach those dimensions -but they're still long bows. Note the two Tudor children's longbows discovered in the moat of Acton court, in Gloucestershire. Beautiful examples, each a perfect reflection of the dimensions and shape of the grownup's bow. There is also – in my view - sufficient evidence to support the idea that these bows were called long to distinguish them from the crossbow. This can be seen in the many inventories, where they are only called long if other types of bows, such a crossbows, are also included. One of the most famous - and earliest - references, often quoted, is in the Paston letters, when Margaret writes to her husband in London asking him to acquire some crossbows and windlasses for her to defend the house, for “our houses here are so low that we cannot shoot out of them with a Longbow however much we might wish to.” Although in speech the bow was almost certainly referred to just as a bow, or bowe, some writers are known to have called it the English bow, the bend bow, the hand bow, or the noble bow. However, there is no evidence whatever that it was ever called a lugg; this is a whimsy of Hugh Soar - fuelled by the names of two rivers, rising in Wales as the Llugwy and the Arwy, anglicised to the Lugg and the Arrow as they pass through Herefordshire and beyond. Returning to the subject heading, in support of my contention regarding the title, this excellent piece refers solely to the war bow, and says nothing about the hunting bow or the recreational bow - and there is a great deal to say about both. If this amendment were made, then all discussion on the correct name would no longer be necessary – since one can have a long war bow or a short war bow. Bogacwen (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Two comments. The first is there is a article on the longbow in general, which does have more coverage of other bows and uses, albeit seriously underdeveloped. This does give a rationale to the military bow having its own article and focus. Second is that we need to be be aware of Wikipedia's guidance to use common names where possible. Longbow is a very widely used term for the medieval weapon. Monstrelet (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, no reason why the military bow should not have its own article - there is plenty to fill such a page, and I am all in favour. But I do feel that there should be some indication for the unitiated that this is ONLY the military weapon. Just saying "the longbow is such and such a size" can be misleading - Look at those little children's longbows. All it needs is to insert "military" now and again in the right places.

Question: Is it up to those "talking" to make appropriate amendments? or leave it to...who??

Is there a link to the other page? I did not see it. As you say - a lot more scope there. Bogacwen (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

With regard to your question on who/how amendments should be made it may be useful for you to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITING. I've placed the standard welcome template on your user talk page - that provides links to all the main Wikipedia policies etc that need to be followed when editing. You mentioned that you have published in this area. The WP:EXPERT essay might be relevant to you. DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the link, wikipedia displays links to articles in blue. So, it is there in the second sentence. However, for simplicity, here it is again - Longbow . Monstrelet (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)