As I said, people now twist things, or rather "re-interporate" them, which seems to be the new buzz word. The problem is with history is that there are already lots of new books, so in order for one to sell the author has to try a new angle. But I hate that, history should be kept accurate, not twisted just for a new angle. It happens all over the world sadly, especially these days due to the number of people writing books.

I am indeed. We have been planning it for a little while. I will be leaving mid week next week for a few weeks. Not sure how long, it all depends on how my health is. It is kind of a birthday/anniversary thing, as my partners birthday is in November and it was on the 30th October last year that I proposed, so we thought it a nice time for a little holiday, especially as my health is still not too good and we don't know what the future will have in store.

So no worries, I won't probably be dead. As I said last time, if I am not back for a month then consider me dead. But I want a Viking/Anglo-Saxon burial, which means being cremated with all my stuff, that way none of you lot can get your greedy hands on my GOG games. ;-)

Understandable. I mean thanks to the higher fire rate it is more powerful than a crossbow.

I'd love to try some bows as well at some point. Didn't you can still use a longbow today :)

Good moaning.

Aaah the deceitful Albion retelling its old battles. I remember being taught that Boudica was a heroic feminist freedom fighter, instead of some cannibalistic madwoman.

I like her more in the second version actually.

The English Longbow was unmatched, which is why it was so useful and still used even after the introduction of gunpowder. The problem was it took time to master the skill, up to a year to do it properly, whereas a crossbow took about a week, and a gun about a day.

Archery is very fun. I prefer the old fashioned kind, not those modern bows with all the pulleys and counter-weights. I am not sure if it is illegal, I guess so in public etc, but the nice thing about having a farm and owning lots of land is that I get to have fun. :-)

Yes. That's an unfortunate trend in history although i wouldn't generally condemn that as long as the newer approaches are based on newly discovered facts and not for the sake of selling books. But then again history as well as many other sciences is not objective.

Erm, you do know she was not a cannibal. There is no evidence of any cannibalism in Britain even dating back to the stone age. And she did defeat two of the greatest Roman legions, so that can be seen as heroic. I mean, they raped her and her daughters, killed her husband, tortured her, and if she had been more strategically minded she could have defeated Roman forces in England.

And I still remember that you were taught that English solders during the Civil War were Hobbits, despite the average heigh being just an inch or so less than today. So I would take what Spain says with a pinch of salt given how much you seem to hate us. :-)

I have no problem with new proven facts, such as the recent discovery of Richard III's body, which has confirmed a few things about his appearance and possible cause of death. But most is just speculation, and that should be clearly labelled as such, not as though it is now fact.

The main problem the longbow had was that you needed years of training before you were able to shoot anything other than your own backside.

Whereas the crossbow you just pointed and shot.

I know, I said that to ELT a few posts ago. But remember than in England many people used it from a young age, King Henry VIII made it law that most men had to train with it once they come of age. It took about a year to use it properly, and more to truly master it. Guns and crossbows were much easier, which is why they soon dominated the battlefield as it took about a week or less to use them, most of the time just using the whole fire and hope you hit something theory.

I seem to recall that the Pope once outlawed the use of a crossbow against other Christians, but no on seemed to listen.

That's too many people. I didn't realize battles were so deadly back then ,ô__ô,

I've never tried frogs, but a certain feathered individual who will remain nameless recommended it to me. So yes, right now, I'd rather have frogs, because I've heard great things and can't wait to try :-)

The weekend has been pretty rough for me so far. Nothing serious (or even interesting), just not feeling my best these last couple of days. I'm sure™ I'll be feeling like my cheery self™ again soon™ :-)

*big return hug*

My dear Albionite, why would I be taught about Boudica here? No one has ever heard of her. much less care. Aside from a very few celt-nerds.

Are you saying she didn't eat the heart and brains of her fallen enemies? Or burn their captured enemies in giant wicker men? What a wuss! I'm disappoint.

You keep your version, I prefer mine. And until the moment we find a Tardis, they're both valid.

We'll print out your library and burn it along with you... ;-)

Are staying in Britain or are you going to some place with nice weather?

Yes. Well at that moment the muskets became more precise they were outdated after all....but unitl then i can imagine that they were invaluable.

Afaik in Germany those old bows are allowed if you use them in a archery club or something like that but honestly i'm not sure about that - having a farm surely is an advantage then :)

I seem to remember it had to do something with a lowly dirty peasant being able to kill a fully armored knight with it. Which was something you just couldn't have in "civilized" warfare.
And I think I read something about the longbow actually having even greater range, due to the archers being able to shoot in a parabollic trajectory. Or course you needed years to be able to hit anything at all using that trick.

Absolutely - but not labelling speculation properly is a general problem nowadays (especially on the internet)....

History... a science... I think Groucho Marx once said something about that.