Re: Bow Bags

[Brent E Hanner]

Dave Key wrote:
> 
> 
> 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. <cut to save space>
> 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.

I think you are way overemphasizing this,  while it is true if you look
at the size of contingents sent out vs the expectation by in this case
the county corporate of Coventry the self armed are easily able to meet
the expectation.  In Coventry's case it could meet the expectation 5 to
10 times over without having anyone lend any equipment.  In 1450 the
government of Coventry realized things were not going well and ordered
all men having the means to have a jack/haburion, a sallet, a bow and a
sheef of arrows and other weapons, with the upper tier of men in the
town to have more.  When the tally was done 593 men now owned the proper
arms, 549 (92%) owning only a single set.  Coventry typically sent
between 50 and 100 men when it was requested of them and were charged by
Parliament in 1453 with sending 76 men which should have been their
number in 1475.  So while yes there is some emphasis on those at the top
of society having more supplies, also the men most likely to have
servants in their household capable of military service.  The kind of
numbers produced land more on the side of the rhetoric of every man
should have the equipment to be a soldier if need be.  

 
> 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.

Your 'would probably' is contrary to 500 years of military history in
the western world.  Based off the Mary Rose arrow bags, 24 arrows is a
much more likely number to be carrying and when you compare your list of
arrows a bow and a wooden stake it still comes out better then what many
soldiers over the last 500 years had to carry.  And if it came down to
the bow and arrows or the wooden stake I'd be shocked to find out that
they were carrying the wooden stake. 

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