The Replacement of the Longbow by Firearms in the English Army
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4025980 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas Esper (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1965 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 382 |
| Publication date | 1965-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Technology and Culture (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0040-165X • E-ISSN: 1097-3729 |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/3101785 |
| OpenAlex | W2328426678 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
In 1792 Lee, an officer in the British army, recommended the longbow as a more effective weapon than the flintlock musket.2 Considering the reasons given for the longbow's superiority over firearms in the late eighteenth century, one wonders why that weapon was replaced two hundred years earlier much inferior firearms. Scholarly works on the history of the English army or on firearms have not adequately explained this curious development. Charles Cruickshank simply stated that by the end of the [sixteenth] century the bow, which had been for so long the national weapon, had
Aeronautics · Ancient history · Forensic engineering · Officer · Political science · Engineering · Historical Economic and Social Studies · Historical Studies of British Isles · History · Law · Military History and Strategy
Longbow and Hackbutt
Arrows Can Be Dangerous
Three Renaissance Wrecks from Turkey and Their Implications for Maritime History in the Eastern Mediterranean
At the Transition from Late Medieval to Early Modern
Theories and Models of Technological Change
Military Self-Sufficiency and Weapons Technology in Muscovite Russia
The Art of War in Angola, 1575-1680
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,12 |
| Citation span | 1969 - 2012 (44) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |