This book, which I have enjoyed for a dozen years, I think, is quite excellent and has not got through to the history community, at least in Scotland, because of the usual snobbery: the author is an actor, so how could his book be any good? It is better than anything else because it is scientific. Every fact about the bow is discovered by making modern versions of the bows and trying them out in the field as well as trying them out to extinction in a science lab. Prof Pratt of London University (a physicist) has papers on the longbow in this book which answer every question. The essential questions historians often ask are: what is the maximum range and the rate of fire? 400 yards has been shown to be possible with a bodkin arrowhead. The maximum rate of fire is likely to be 30 arrows a minute and great accuracy at least over a short range.
It is clear that the Scottish historians have learnt nothing from this book for the reasons given: they think they know it all already; and yet know nothing. They do not study anything at depth because they assume it cannot be understood or known.
There may be a few undiscovered facts about the longbow, most of which may have emerged in the years since the book appeared. But make no mistake: this is the book on the subject. No historian knows enough about science to take this line. Well done Robert Hardy.
There is a long section about the longbows found aboard the Mary Rose when excavated. Hardy was closely involved in person as in everything else.
Is any criticism possible? Only this: Hardy gives the average height of archers as about 5ft 7 or 8, I think. His own height, I guess. In fact the skeletons of archers found in the Mary Rose were bigger, as he tells us. How was it they were known to be of archers? Because of the stress fractures in the spine, caused over time by drawing the powerful bow.
A brilliant, very accessible book.
William Scott (elenkus)