Re: Bow Bags

[Dave Key]

Hi Brent,
Good questions, let me see if I can answer at least some of them. 

And thanks for the references ... the more the merrier :-)


With regard to "issue" vs "personal"

I think I should clarify somewhat what I meant by en masse, and personal 
vs issue. Always a danger when throwing ideas into the pot. Some work, 
some don't and most are only partially formed ... and some are just badly 
written/described but it all stimulates the discussion.

When I was talking about "issue" vs "personal" I was not thinking about a 
centralised government equipping the entire army but at the level that men 
were recruited. In other words when a person committed, via an indenture, 
to muster with "x" many men they would be responsible for ensuring that 
those "x" men were properly arrayed. This would mean ensuring they had the 
right number of bows. In Coventry the Leet records record precisely that, 
where different levels of the Civic administration (past and present) were 
responsible for providing both the arms and armour (including bows and 
arrows) for the contingent that they were to supply the King. And, if I 
recall correctly, at York the city provided a cart to carry their 
contingents equipment.This is all directly related to the legal 
requirements for military service which were directly related to the 
persons wealth, both in terms of property and income, but which are 
frequently only implied to be an understood commitment rather than a 
precise number in the sources ... which is 'slightly frustrating'. 
However, for every contingent some would be wealthy enough to have some 
equipment (or obligation to have it) and others not so at each tier of 
recruitment the proportions of personal and supplied equipment would 
fluctuate ... which is precisely what you see in things like the Ewelme 
half Hundred and Bridport Muster roll. 

So, I wasn't suggesting a formal 'armoury' where all bows would be stored, 
but simply that contingents whilst travelling would probably have had 
their bows stored together, along with the rest of their equipment, and 
picked up as and when required. Having 48 arrows and a bow on your person 
all day is a serious inconvenience together with your wooden stakes 
etc.etc. and you are far more likely to get it damaged in the process. But 
that doesn't mean you wouldn't carry your bow with you when there was a 
risk of combat ... and that might be for an  entire march or even campaign 
... but it doesn't necessarily follow therefore that it would be carefully 
bagged-up, especially if it was not you who was supplying it or owned it.  


So for the 1475 campaign I'd only expect the "government" to be providing 
enough equipment for those men that were directly indented to the King, 
not those arrayed indirectly via other Lords etc. Unfortunately I don't 
have the records here so I can't check this ... but I will do so if you 
don't beat me to it Brent ;-) If you extrapolate down the layers of 
indenture this would equate to a far greater proportion of 'issue' bows 
than 'personal' than the 1/4 you mention ... but as I have said this is 
conjecture at the moment.


With regard to the evidence for "Bow Bags". 

As I mentioned in a previous post, and why I entitled that post "Bow 
Cases", I feel that the Tudor evidence from Henry VIII's inventory was 
strongly suggestive ... and that if there was evidence I'd expect to see 
it in the Household Accounts of Sir John Howard if anywhere but I couldn't 
remember seeing any and that I'd take a look. Well, you beat me too it and 
provided evidence for bow cases exactly where I suggested you would, 

Since the Tudor evidence clearly illustrates that leather and buckram were 
materials for bow cases then it is reasonable (if not absolutely concrete 
positive proof) to deduce that similar materials would have been used for 
the "Bow Cases" in Sir John's inventory. 

What we can't be sure without more research is whether these 'Bow Cases" 
were specifically for one bow or a soft equivalent to a rigid wooden bow 
chest for multiple bows. The Henrician references suggest both are valid 
possibilities. Also it does nothing to answer the question as to whether 
these cases were, like Henry's, for specialists rather than standard for 
all archers and bowmen, i.e. the medieval equivalent of a modern hunter or 
target shooters rifle or shotgun case (interestingly enough we do still 
use the word "case" in the same context as "bag" in this context so that 
is probably the better term to use (in English anyway)), A good modern 
equivalent to consider is the tennis racket cover ... most are for one 
racket but the professionals seem to have ones capable of carrying a 
dozen!

My personal gut feel (today ... I may feel differently by tomorrow 
depending on what evidence is provided ;-) ...) is that the "Bow Cases" 
referenced in both Sir John's and Henry's inventories are covers for 
personal, specialist, bows not for army issue. As Brent has illustrated 
bows were not, necessarily, 

Bottom line

For me: (and this relates to England not Burgundy etc.)

        1.  Bow Case = Bow Bag
        2.  We do have evidence for Bow Cases, for both single and 
multiple bows made from both cloth (Stiffened linen) and leather
        3.  We, so far, only have evidence that suggests their use as 
personal, as suggested by the number, and the adornment of Henry's and the 
wording in the Howard's accounts 
                "(1467) Acc.Howard in RC 57   591:  The same day my master 
paid for a bow case fore hym, viij d." 
        4.  Not all bows (personally I think probably the minority) were 
personal and as such unlikely to be covered by bow cases but stored, 
transported in chests and then issued 'naked' with the archer caring for 
it "in the field" as best they could. In the same way Sir John had barrels 
to store his armour but I suspect the ordinary soldier had no such luxury.

How does that affect the Companie of Saynt George? 

Well ... since the Company is not an English archer based group of 
soldiers but a Burgundian  gun company  I don't see any issue with 
individuals having their own personal "bow cases". But I would suggest 
that a bow case is probably the sort of thing that only someone with 
enough money to be expected to provide their own bow would own. So, the 
quality should be appropriate to that social standing. i.e. a levy archer 
is unlikely to have had one (wrapping it in a makeshift piece of cloth 
maybe), and for an officer I think it would be expected along with their 
better clothing etc.


Good discussion and keep the actual sources coming I am happy to change my 
opinion if the evidence is there :-)

Cheers
Dave


Brent E Hanner  
Sent by: living-history-bounce-at-companie-of-st-george.ch
01/04/2010 00:23
Please respond to
living-history-at-companie-of-st-george.ch


To
living-history-at-companie-of-st-george.ch
cc

Subject
Re: Bow Bags






Jonathan Davies wrote:
> 
> Ye there are illustrations of bows which are unstrung or apparently with 
the
> string not fully strung and I don't claim to have seen all of the
> illustrations that there are,who has? 

Partially sorry, I misread your tense although you still said "all the
contemporary illustrations of medieval archers" implying some great
spance of evidence when it took me less then 10 min to find
illustrations contrary to what you said.

As it stands right now there is no evidence for bow bags.  Are there
possible reasons for it sure but that doesn't change the fact that there
is NO evidence for it, not even bad evidence.  So the only thing you
have is your insistence that there Must Have Been bowbags because you
think.

So how much were bows worth.  From the York inventories we find the
following values.
worn bow  8d
bow and arrows  1s 8d
2 bows 1s
bow and 27 arrows with iron tips 1s 1d
bow 1s
2 bows with arrows 2s
bow and a dozen arrows  10d
bow  2s
bow (3 faded words)  1s 8d

So a bow is worth about 1s or two days pay, hardly an item to cherish
but certainly a tool to take care of.

I was going to post the cost of the bows for the troops sent in to Kent
after Tewksbury but the source has hidden itself in my room. 

I completely disagree with Dave's idea that bows were issued enmasse. 
The accounts simply don't support that in regards to the number of bows
purchased and the structure of the English army.  Even the bows of the
Calais garrison were primarily purchased privately.  Now that isn't to
say that they didn't store them when onboard ship but even there if your
crossing the English cannel you still might see combat in a very short
period of time.  Once again if this was how things were done we would
expect to see far more in the records.  For the French Expedition of
1475 the government purchased less then 1/4 of the number of bows then
archers, which makes sense for replacements but for distribution.  After
the expulsion from Normandy we see a real desire to increase the number
of bows owned by people in the kingdom, and in the invasion plan of 1453
which the expedition of 1475 was based on the majority of archers were
to be supplied by the counties and mustered and accoutered at their
expense.  If you look at the Burgundian army they were pretty much never
outside of a warzone.  I don't see any reason nor evidence that archers
generally traveled without their bows.

BTW Dave there are bowcases in the Howard accounts which is probably the
most likely place to find them.  Atleast one of the entries is contained
amid payments for shoes indicating it is likely out of leather. 
(a)  (1464) Acc.Howard in RC 57   267:  For a bowcas, viij d.  (1467)
Acc.Howard in RC 57   591:  The same day my master paid for a bow case
fore hym, viij d.  a1500 Hrl.1002 Gloss.(Hrl 1002)   624 fn.:  Hic
carichus i. est techa facta de corio, anglice bowcase. 
(b)  ?a1500 Lndsb.Nominale (Lndsb)   812/42:  Hic corintheus: a
bowehowse. 

IMO leather makes far more sense for something made to carry a bow, I
would suspect that if a bow was wrapped in linen of some sort while
campaigning or whatever it would be wrapped in a sheet or some such and
not a bag made for it.

Brent

-- 
To peel it down to the core / Of what I surely must have meant.  That is
what scholarship is for:  To misread, deconstruct, invent, to prove the
author asinine; Dwell on a phrase you can augment / And ignore the
opposite line, Until your theory fits fine, Interpreting and making
sense / At your pleasure, excluding mine. 
-Francois Villon








Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU