Re: Bow Bags

["Loic LEYMEREGIE"]

Hi all,
    Just thought I could feed the thread a bit with this earlier reference, which concurs with Dave on his vision's sum-up (bottom notes 2, 3, 4), even if we're really on the diplomatic gift's side of things here, rather than on the practical object's one, meant to be actually used :

1401 : "A Michelet de Nogent, gaynnier, pour un estuy de cuir fauve pour mettre 2 arcs d'Angleterre que la royne d'Angleterre a donné à la royne - 40 s. p." (9° Compte royal d'Hemon Raguier, f°40 v.)
To Michelet de Nogent, sheaths/leather cases-maker, for a fawn leather case for to put 2 England bows that the queen of England gave to the queen [of France] - 40 s[ols] p[arisis].

Cheers,

Loïc

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Key" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Bow Bags


> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>