Magnet School teaches students to use deadly assault weapons

[jody]

QUOTE
Educators at Floyd Middle Magnet School say a bow and arrow will provide students with a lifelong skill that promotes self-confidence and good health.

The school is one of 16 across Alabama that has been chosen from a pool of 75 applicants to pilot an archery program as part of the school's physical education curriculum.

The program is funded through a partnership of the Alabama Department of Education and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries.
UNQUOTE

[-..__...]

1. The high school I attended...

had archery as part of the sports curriculum (we had 4 or 5 to choose from). We also had golf, tennis,
trampoline (now there's a lawsuit just waiting to happen), and racquetball. This was back
in the early seventies in one of the most liberal communities in Massachusetts. More kids were
injured playing football, wrestling, ice hockey, etc. Guess which activity they dropped in subsequent
years? And it wasn't because of lack of interest.

[Superfly]

2. My high school had

archery and rifle shooting as part of the curriculum, optional but very popular. The rifles we used were Anschutz Biathlon .22s and we shot Recurve bows. And this was in Germany.

[jody]

3. Most people have no idea how physically demanding archery, rifle,

shotgun, and handgun competition can be. I love to take non shooters with me to the skeet range and let them sit on the sidelines and observe a round. Then I coach them through a round and what looked so easy is suddenly very difficult.

By the time one reaches international level, it is both physically and mentally challenging. The interesting thing is women have made the US Olympic shooting teams, that is what would otherwise be know as the "mens team" and taken silver medals.

A favorite book is "Zen in the Art of Archery" for anyone who might be interested in competition.

[CO Liberal]

4. How Many of the Following Have Been Committed With Bow and Arrow?

1 - Drive-by shootings.
2 - Mass murders.
3 - Robberies.
4 - Rapes.
5 - Muggings.
6 - Murder/Suicides.

In virtually all of the above illegal activities, guns are the weapons of choice. And this is why this is an apples-and-oranges argument.

As an aside, my junior high AND high school (Late '60s/Early '70s)offerred girls archery as part of Phys Ed, as well as a team sport. The arrow tips were pointy metal designed to stick in a target - not the barbed arrowheads more commonly used in hunting that are designed to penetrate flesh.

[jody]

13. CO, I believe if one reviews history, they will find several incidents

of each type, maybe even dozens. Just because the weapon has been replaced by more modern tools doesn't make them any less deadly.

There is a bill before congress now to control black powder arms, will bows be next?

Both are tools for committing crime, and that's why it's an apples to apples argument. :shrug:

[CO Liberal]

15. SEVERAL Incidents?? Maybe Even DOZENS????

Compared to the hundreds and thousands committed each year with GUNS???

Pure apples and oranges, Jody. Guns are far more deadly than archery equipment.

[jody]

23. Guns with projectibles are the most efficient arm widely available today

but tomorrow it will be directed energy weapons. The gun-grabbers of those future years will view handguns and long-guns just as you view bows today.

Some things may never change. :shrug:

[Cthulu_2004]

27. it depends on which you are shot with.

Was a 15th century knight shot and killed with a bow any less dead than a person shot with a gun yesterday?

How many hundreds of years were bows and arrows used in warfare? There were many battles that were decided by archers, with thousands and thousands killed by archers in some of them. Prior to guns becoming commonplace, bows and arrows were often used to commit crimes, ranging from robbery to poaching. The English even went as far as to compse songs to their bows: http://www.aginc.net/battle/songbow.html

From http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html

"As the distance closed, the English archers were able to fire at right angles to their targets. Their arrows were fixed with the "Bodkin point", specially designed to penetrate armor."

Apparently, bow and arrows even came equipped with armor piercing "cop killer" points. This isn't even touching the topic of the "assault weapons" of their day, the Crossbow. IIRC, there were efforts made at the time to ban crossbows.

Different technology, same basic idea. Oh, one other point: give an untrained person a bow and arrow and a handgun. Point him or her to a torso-sized target 100 yards away. Let the person take 5 shots with each weapon at the target. Would you care to guess the chance of the person hitting the target with either weapon?

[Paladin]

5. Just Curious

Do the school's "assault weapon" bows feature such critical, erection-inducing items as bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, or other essentials specified in that official Nazi definition you guys are always dredging up? The automatic fire thing might be a little problematic.....

[CO Liberal]

6. Good One, Paladin

I bow to the master.......

:-)

[Paladin]

8. Thankee Kindly

Actually, archery is something I fooled around with in my younger days; there's a compound bow in one of my closets, gathering dust with some guns. Yet another activity that now bears the malignant weight of Ted Nugent.......

[jody]

14. No, but they do have telescopic sights and by design they are

nearly silent.

The problem is that gun-grabbers are concocting silly reasons why bows are not efficient killing tools just like guns. That exposes their hypocrisy on the issue, they hate guns, not tools that kill.

That's enough to make my day. :evilgrin:

[CO Liberal]

16. No, We Don't Hate Guns, Jody

We just don't understand why some pro-gun people look upon guns as the answer to all of society's problems.......

[RoeBear]

21. I would describe it as fear...

...not hate. I've heard people say that they would be afraid to sit next to a person who is carrying a concealed weapon, it seems irrational to me.

[jody]

24. I've never met a pro-gun person who looked "upon guns as the answer

to all of society's problems". I do believe that pro-gun people believe that guns, handguns in particular, are the best way for a citizen to exercise their inalienable right to defend self and property.

My assertion is supported by the overwhelming majority of law enforcement personnel and criminals that choose handguns to defend themselves. My guess is that handguns will continue to be their choice until replaced by a more efficient tool just as the bow and sword was replaced by the gun.

[RoeBear]

20. I'm sorry that I can't stand up...

...and shake your hand right now. All that talk about the features on assault weapons has me a little 'excited'.

[brothermak]

57. quote

"erection-inducing items as bayonet lugs, flash suppressors"

**BOING** :)

[CO Liberal]

7. Some Important Points From The Original Article

Ashley said the students are taught Olympic-style archery, not how to hunt or hit a moving target. The coach stressed that archery is a skill-based sport that requires teaching and practice.

As opposed to real "deadly assault weapons", which can be used to hunt or hit a moving target.

The coaches said safety is the No. 1 priority when teaching the curriculum.

"Some people may think we are bringing weapons into the schools, but research has found that the injuries associated with archery are much less than with other sports," Ashley said.

The injuries would be much higher if they had real "deadly assault weapons" in the school.

The students will be taught about the necessary safety procedures well before they are introduced to the equipment. The children will not be allowed to hold a bow and arrow until they are correctly positioned at the firing line and all other children are behind anyone who is shooting.

The arrows are equipped with blunt tips that minimize any danger and the bows are structured so that they can't be drawn back far enough to launch the arrow a long distance.

As opposed to real assault weapons that are designed to kill.

Another thing about archery. The targets are concentric circles, not the outlines of human forms used at many firing ranges. Just more proof that archery is focused on the skill, while guns are focused on the kill.

[-..__...]

9. Yes, but the program emphasizes safety

and responsible behavior with an object that could maim or kill if misused .
There's a parallel to be made with firearms ownership. Many here on the pro RKBA side
have stated repeatedly the importance of teaching kids (and adults) safety guidelines.
Replace some of the archery terms and references with firearms terminology; the
spirit of the program still doesn't change.

[CO Liberal]

10. Ah, But the IS A Difference

Archery may have a place in the schools, but guns have ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE there.

IMHO.

[-..__...]

11. Explain

Archery may have a place in the schools, but guns have ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE there.

That's opinion, not fact. Why is archery acceptable and not firearms? Does that also extend to
air rifles? Giving the same program and guidelines, only replacing bows and arrows with rifles
and ammunition, why is firearms training unacceptable in schools?

Don't you think that by teaching kids responsible and safe behavior it lessens the chance of
a kid doing something unsafe or stupid with a firearm? If you can't agree to that, then what
makes you think that teaching kids archery is somehow less harmful or dangerous?

We're talking about a structured, supervised curriculum here; not kids wandering the halls with a
MAC-10 in their backpack.


Edited to add: Damn, I forgot to mention it in my earlier post about my high school.

<sarcasm>
We also had fencing. Is teaching kids sword play an unwise or dangerous thing?
</sarcasm>

[CO Liberal]

17. That's Why I Said "IMHO" In My Post, D__S

And nothing will alter my belief that guns have NO PLACE in a school setting.

Not even the "facts" that the pro-gunners spew on this board.

[jody]

28. "PLUCK YEW!" or a short history lesson on the bow

Longbow facts
QUOTE
Such was the power of the Longbow that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow shot from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak.

The average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man-sized target at a minimum of 200 yards. The maximum range was about 400 yards.

The longbow is drawn to the ear, rather than to the chest as with shorter bows.

A longbow is nearly six foot long (normally the full height of the archer) and is typically made of yew.

Whilst plate armour was solid enough to withstand an arrow shot from a longbow, it would easily slice through leather or padded armour or clothing, and was also effective against chainmail.

It was mandatory for many English citizens to practice shooting their longbows on Sundays.

The traditional "two-finger salute" dates back to the taunts of English archers against the French during the Hundred Years' War. The act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew" (or "pluck yew"). Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English having won a major upset at Agincourt, began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French, saying, "See, we can still pluck yew! "PLUCK YEW!"

Over the years some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows for the longbow), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird".
UNQUOTE

[Man_in_the_Moon]

33. Nice Story, Too Bad

the 'pluck yew' part is false.

Does make a good story though.

But in the 100 years war the English Yeomanry devastated the French Aristocracy.

[jody]

42. I was just trying to liven up the party!

:evilgrin:

[jody]

12. But field archery does use pictures. eom

[CO Liberal]

19. And Percentage-Wise......

... how many gun shows in recent years have featured booths selling targets with Bill & Hillary Clinton's pictures on them.

Archery is a quest for accuracy. To way to many gun nuts, gun ownership is someday being able to justify blowing away another human being.........

[jody]

22. You acknowledge "Archery is a quest for accuracy" so why do you ignore

those for whom "Shooting is a quest for accuracy".

One of my friends won an Olympic medal for archery, several other friends have won Olympic medals for shooting sports. Why do you assert that they are different just because of the instruments they use in their sports?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cthulu_2004]

26. Dear Co. Liberal,

"As opposed to real "deadly assault weapons", which can be used to hunt or hit a moving target."

Archers hunt and aim at moving targets. There are specific bowhunting seasons in many states. Some groups like the SCA even practice hitting moving targets that are actually people. They don't use hunting points, but they shoot real arrows at real people.

"The injuries would be much higher if they had real "deadly assault weapons" in the school."

Many schools used to have marksmanship programs. Was there a safety problem with those? Perhaps you can post a link to one?

"As opposed to real assault weapons that are designed to kill."

Bow and Arrows were designed to kill. So were "throwing sticks", slings, and other projectile weaponry. The same exact arguments that can be made for an archery program being OK in school are identical to the arguments for a marksmanship program.

BTW, the marksmanship program I was part of in junior high used concentric circular targets, and not man-shaped targets.

I see no real difference between teaching marksmanship with bows and arrows and marksmanship with .22 rifles. Neither of them have much in common with "military-style" training, where you practice to kill people. When run properly, those sports are much safer than things like football.

[CO Liberal]

38. And I Still See No Justification for Guns In Schools

Anywhere.

Any time

For ANY purpose.

And I can see that as a "logical" conclusion some slack-jawed pro-gunner may make after reading thus post - "Gee, people are OK with bows and arrows in school, why not let Johnny carry an Uzi?"

[Cthulu_2004]

39. such a blanket statement...

must be construed to cover law enforcement officers during the performance of their duties. Would you care to rephrase that?

[CO Liberal]

40. And I Take It That You Have No Problem With Guns In Schools

Would YOU care to elaborate?

[Cthulu_2004]

41. Sure...

I don't have problems with guns in schools themselves, provided the following: That they be kept locked up unless in the hands of a responsible person (police officer, licensed/certified administrator, licensed/certified teacher). I don't have a problem with offering marksmanship as an elective subject if safe facilities exist, parental permission is required, class size is small enough (say 1 instructor for 3 students at a time), the students are under constant and immediate adult supervision by a certified firearms instructor while handling the guns, the guns are securely stored in a real safe when not in use, and safety is taught. I don't have a problem with students bringing hunting guns to school during hunting season provided that they are there with the permission of the parents and administration, the possession of the gun is legal by the student, the student is using them for bona fide purposes on the way to or on the way home from school, the student is licensed to hunt, the guns are left in a locked car, and are rendered inoperable by a steel cable lock through the action. Ammo should be stored separate from the guns (say in the office).

Please note: This would NOT make it OK for urban kids to bring guns to school under normal circumstances, as most urban kids don't have the facilities to legally hunt.

Personally, I think the above is entirely rational...with both parents and administrators having an effective veto over it.

[CO Liberal]

43. I Don't Think That's Rational At All

There is NO reason at ANY time for ANY gun to be in a school building.

[Cthulu_2004]

44. So, when SWAT went into Columbine...

they should have checked their guns at the door? That makes sense.... :eyes:

[CO Liberal]

46. That's Not What I Mean and YOU KNOW IT

I'm talking about the yahoos who want to carry concealed weapons in schools. IMHO, that's insanity.

ON EDIT - BTW, it's usually us pro-control folks who are accused of playing the Columbine card.......

[Cthulu_2004]

47. No, I DON'T know it.

you made an extremely broad, categorical statement (something to the affect of NO guns in schools for ANY reasons, ever). I asked if that's what you really meant, and asked you to clarify your position. When you didn't clarify your position, I took your silence and then reaffirmation as being just that...a reaffirmation of the "no guns in any school for any reason ever" position. "Dammit, Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a mind-reader!"

Just to clarify: you are opposed to anybody EXCEPT law-enforcement having guns in school. What about the military? Do they fall into that category? What about other governmental agents who are armed as part of their job?

[CO Liberal]

48. And Just How Often are Military or Gov't Agent In the Schools?

I have no problem with those who carry as part of their jobs. What I AM opposed to is those who feel that teachers should carry concealed weapons to school every day, or those who feel that markmanship should be taught in the schools.

You want to teach you kid about gun safety? Fine. Do it outside of school. Just as religion has no place in public schools, neither do guns.

[Cthulu_2004]

49. well, military personnel often are on school grounds...

for JROTC and ROTC. In ROTC, they have machineguns on campus.

As long as you realize that your position is based entirely on emotion and not on fact, you're entitled to hold that opinion without my thinking you to be an idiot.

BTW, I'm familiar with the Constitutional basis for separation of church and state...where does the Constitution say anything about no guns in school?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

51. And

You want to teach you kid about gun safety? Fine. Do it outside of school. Just as religion has no place in public schools, neither do guns

Why dont you carry that same line of throught further and include Sex Ed?

[CO Liberal]

52. Sex Ed is a Health Issue

And affects the general welfare.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

53. Hasnt

The same argument (health issue/general welfare) been put forth about guns?

Heck I even seem to remember you using that argument once upon a time. But I could be wrong and have you confused with someone else.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

18. Another gun nut spasm

Let's see, what's this headline: "Middle School Starts Archery Progra--A-A-A-A-A-H! GUNS!!!"

It's sort of the textbook defiinition of fetish, isn't it? An obsession that intrudes on reality?

[Spentastic]

29. Interesting

I'm an English archer. I love the sport, I don't get to do it as often as I want now but I still remember enjoying archery (target) immensely.

There are some things I remember though. Archery is hard. Hitting (well, accurately) a static target at 50 yrds isn't easy. Bows cannot be effectively used by everyone. Draw strength is important (I suppose compound bows help). Reload time is significant. Additionally you need considerable personal space to deploy a bow (long) effectively.

The English long bow was used primarily as a stand off weapon. Constant high angle fire to pin down an advancing enemy. Agincourt (bogged down, heavily armoured knights) and "Armour Piercing" bodkins (close combat) tended to be the exception rather than the rule. I watched an interesting program the other day that tested shaped plate armour versus arrow heads. The armour actually stood up pretty well.

Guns replaced bows as the weapon of choice BECAUSE of their increased lethality. There was a time when guns and bows were being used side by side. As the gun improved it became obvious that the bow would become obsolete. I've yet to see an effective bow that could be concealed in a pair of pants.

I've no doubt a man with a bow could do considerable damage if he decided to. There must be a few bow hunters killed by their mates? However, the skill needed to equip, load, aim and fire a bow is considerably more than that needed to do the same with a gun.

As for teaching this in School. With appropriate supervision and focus on safety I have no problem with it. By the same token I'd not be bothered about rifle shooting under similar conditions. I would however object if any class at school focused on offensive (or even defensive) use of these weapons.

[Cthulu_2004]

30. ok

"I've no doubt a man with a bow could do considerable damage if he decided to. There must be a few bow hunters killed by their mates? However, the skill needed to equip, load, aim and fire a bow is considerably more than that needed to do the same with a gun."

Not really. Guns, like bows, require practice and competency to make them effective. Don't believe me? Go to a range and rent a gun with a 2 inch barrel, and try to hit a target at 25 yards. If you are a novice, I'd bet money that you could empty the gun and not hit the target even once.

[Spentastic]

31. Been there done that

Yes, I'm a horrible shot with a hand gun. However, with a rifle I was pretty good, even the AK47 was appreciably easier to aim than a bow.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

32. so is a crossbow

easier to aim than a bow

So is a crossbow. The ease of teaching someone to use it reasonably well is it's only real advantage over a bow.

[Cthulu_2004]

34. well...

unless you count the heavier weight and higher short-distance impact force of the bolt, and it's ability to penetrate armor better than arrows.

[Spentastic]

35. Against poor reload times

And extra equipment needed to draw more powerful versions.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

36. Well

An English Longbow (in the hands of a proficent user) had longer range, was more accurate, higher rate of fire, and better penetration than the typical man-portable crossbow.

There are several accounts of French Knights being pinned to their mounts by arrows (with the 'armor piercing' bodkin arrowheads) passing through armor, body parts, the other side of the armor, and then the mount's armor. The only crossbows that had much greater pentration were typically multi-person operated.

But the thing was you could take a levee fresh from the sewers of Paris, put a crossbow in his hands and have him being 'almost as good' (other than the rate of fire, crossbows never really could come close in that) in nearly every category in a matter of days, as opposed to the lifetime it took to develop the skills and the musculature for a Longbow.

[Cthulu_2004]

37. True True...

every advance has it's drawbacks...

[happyslug]

45. Not Quite True

Prior to the invention of the Percussion cap in 1809 (and its adoption by the World's Militaries starting with Britain in 1830) the advantages of the Gun over the Bow was NOT that great. For example the Mongols in modern day Russia maintained use of their Recurve Bows till the 1830s and the English Long Bow was even used with great effect in the First Battle of the English Civil War in 1640.

Muskets were short range weapons, with no ability for indirect fire. In the Middle ages Archers would be used in front of Men At Arms. At that location the archers would shoot directly at the enemy. When the enemy closed in the archers would retreat behind the Men At Arms and than resume shooting but this time by indirect firing i.e. OVER the head of their own men. This technique could NOT be done by Crossbows OR guns. Thus archers survived even in England while into the 1600s (With King James I being petitioned to increase his subsidy of bows. strings and arrows). In Scotland Archers were the key to several battles in the late 1600s and early 1700s. In these battles the Armies faced each other and it was the Arrow that cost the King's Troops the battle. The King's troops could not face both a frontal attack AND the indirect fire of Arrows and thus panic and lost the battle.

The “Highland Charge” was the preferred method of Battle for the Highlanders of Scotland. In form the Highland Charge was basically the Middle ages battle technique of Charging up to the Enemy and than either going into him or stopping just short. Most battles consisted of highlanders charging the enemy but stopping short and than retreating till the other side broke and ran. Every time the Charge stopped the Archers would rain down arrows onto the enemy using indirect fire Techniques. The defending side had to prepare itself not only for the charge but the incoming Arrows. When Shields were used do you keep the Shield down to defend against the charge, or up to defend against Arrows? Having to make the decision several times doing a battle would lead to fear and than panic and than defeat.

Given the low reliability of Guns prior to the Percussion Cap (i.e. one misfire in every six attempts at firing a weapon as opposed to one misfire in 6000 rounds with the percussion cap) and that most troops only carried 60 rounds (Black Powder is a very dirty round, after about 60 rounds you need to clean the weapon just to keep in working do to the soot from the powder. Cleaning with hot water and soap not a quick wipe down as with modern Smokeless Powder. Even with the Percussion Cap soldiers doing the Civil War Carried only 60 rounds for this reason) the bow was competitive with the Gun. The Bow and Arrow was very competitive till the mid-1800s (Provided the country supported the practice of Archery, most did not for the last thing many countries wanted was a armed peasantly. Archery had to be encourged AND you had to have good Bows, for example the American Indians never developed a good bow and thus adopted the Musket for hunting even before the settlement of America at Jamestown in 1607).

A good example of the value of Archery prior to the mid-1800s is in my opinion the Battle of Culloden. The Scots lost that battle do to the lack of Bows. It was the first battle between an Army loyal to the King where the Scots did not use Archery. The King’s Troops could shoot all day at the Scots and the Scots could not (No Bows). The Scots lost even through in the prior 100 years the Highland Scots had won several battles in similar circumstances. It was the lack of Bows that made the Highland Charge a death charge instead of the winning charge it had been. Thus the failure of the Highland Charge at Culloden was do to the lack of archery. The Highland Charge had always consisted of two attacks, sword and Buckler and Archery. In Culloden the charge was only Sword and Buckler and failed.

Given the Range and Firepower of the Bow over the Gun the question is WHY did the Gun Replace the Bow? Several reasons exist but to understand them you must understand HOW Archery was done in Medieval England.

Archery was a sport that every male who was worth less than 50 Pounds had to practice. Thus Archery was a “Working Class” Sport. The Middle and Upper Classes did not generally practice Archery (Some did but mostly the Nobility NOT the Growing Middle Class of the time Period, remember we are discussing the 1500s and 1600s here). One of the side affect of Colombus’s discovery of America was the subsequent looting of the Aztec and Incas Gold and Silver. This caused widespread Inflation throughout Europe (Every one used the value of Gold and/or Silver for their Currency at that time). The Long term effect of this inflation is that 50 Pounds in 1500 was worth a lot more than 50 Pounds in 1600. Thus not only did the Middle Class expand in real numbers, the numbers of people exempt from practice of archery was increased with the drop in value of the Pound. This hurt the practice of Archery by lowing the number of people who HAD to practice.

A bigger factor was the lost of practice fields. Prior to Henry VII archery practice took places on Ranges located on or near local Monasteries. When Henry VIII took over the Monasteries and gave them to his Noble supporters not only did the Archers lose his place to practice BUT also the week to week, Month to Month, Year to Year local “Tournaments” used to keep the sport alive. Artillery Ranges still existed for such practice BUT these were Government Owned and hard for most archers to get to, thus practice was restricted (remember most people travel by Foot at this time period especially Archers who by definition were to poor to own a horse).

A third factor is Fashion (which is tied in with class in that during the 1600s it was more fashionable to look “Middle Class” than “working Class”). As you go from the 1500s to the 1600s style said that the Bow was obsolete and being replaced by the gun. In Scotland and parts of England the Bow held its own but as time went by only "old fashioned" people used the bow, “up to the date” people used the gun. Fashion has always affected Military operations. For example the Lance was replaced in most Armies about the same time as the Bow. The Lance was “obsolete” and out of fashion. Napoleon brought it back 150 year later. Why? It was effective in second line of a Calvary Charge. Napoleon tired not to let Fashion dictate military operations (Through even Napoleon had to submit to fashion, Clausenwitz in his Book “On War” mentioned the siege of a City Napoleon had to lift to defeat a relieving army. Why? That was the fashion in the late 1700s, the older method of building a outer defense wall to keep the relieving out while you took the city was out of Fashion. This fashion cost Napoleon six months, for the city was about to fall, but given the lifting of the siege the City was able to get supplies to last another six months). Thus Fashion was an important factor in the replacement of the Bow (and this was especially true of the growing middle class of which more is discussed below).

A fourth factor is the raise of Artillery. While Modern Field Artillery only dates from the 30 year war (mid-1600s) Artillery were present in Battles by the 1500s (as opposed to Sieges where artillery were used as early as the 1300s). These tended to be big guns and thus rarely used in rough terrain (thus only limited number of Cannon at the Battle of Culloden in 1745). The American Artillery Commander during the Revolution liked small “three pounders” for field Artillery do to the ease of transport do to their light weight. He thought larger pieces were to hard to move to be used in battle given the transport problems of the days before the Railroad.

While Cannon tended to be small in Field Artillery, Field Artillery affected Archery in that it forced attacking units to commit to an Attack. The old charge, retreat, charge tactic would be fatal in face of Artillery. A Cannon could open fire at 1500 yards and fire till the attacker were within 50 yards. If the attacking unit decided to follow the tactics of pre-cannon days and retreat, the Artillery would keep on hitting them, thus such tactics would be fatal. Both Cromwell and Gustavus Adolphus favored the Pike due to the introduction of Artillery. Both advocated an all out attack which the Pike represented. Bows could still be a factor in such situation given their better mobility (one of the reasons the Scots used them till the mid-1700s) but if you wanted to close in with the enemy in one big attack it was the pike that did the job. Muskets only replaced the Pike with the introduction of the Bayonet in the mid-1600s. With the Bayonet each Musket was also a potential Pike. Thus Gun Powder in the form of Cannon were a big factor in reducing the advantages of the Bow. Cannon was much bigger than the Musket in the fall of the Bow from warfare. Now the Musket itself is a compromise between the older two man musket and the pike. A compromise made good do to having to face Cannon. Please note the Musket of the 1700s had less firepower than Bows BUT could be used as a pike. If cannon was present this was NOT a problem. It was a problem when NO cannon was present. Thus in the Scottish Highlands, where Artillery was hard to used, when armies faced each other and one side had bows, that side tended to win. The Bow was still military viable as late as 1800.

The Firth and last reason for the decline of Archery in England was the Relationship between the Classes of England and the three Christian Religions of the time period. These were the Growing “Reform” Church (Presbyterian and/or Congregational), the Church of England and the Catholic Church. Each Church represented and were dominated by different POLITICAL and CLASS Groups. The Growing Middle Class tended to be Reform, the Old Nobility tended to be Church of England (The ownership of their property came from Henry VIII taking over the Monasteries and thus they could NOT oppose the Crown and support the Catholics), while the poor were Catholic (There were some exception to this rule but these are how England was Politically organized in the 1500s and 1600s).

During the 1500s these three groups balanced each other out (With the Catholics being the most active in opposition to Elizabeth and her successor James I). By 1630 the balance was upset by the attempt of King Charles I to strengthen himself and the Nobility of England. By the end of the Subsequent Civil War, the Middle Class had won, Charles was beheaded but the fear of the Catholics increased. The reason for this fear is the Catholics represented the working class and as such had stayed out of the Civil War (This is shown in that the only archers used was in the First battle of the Civil War, and than not used afterwards. This dismissal had more to do with the fear of the Crown of the Catholics/Working Class than ineffectiveness of the Archers).

Neither the King (and his Nobles) wanted the support of the Catholics, nor did Oliver Cromwell and his supporters. At the same time the Catholics were still the largest Religion in England (This had actually increased with the Defeat of the King. Without the Nobility the Church of England suffered from a lack of support with its poorer followers defecting back to the Catholics). Cromwell tried to keep a lid on this by suppression, but the financial cost of such suppression was high. With Cromwell’s death the whole situation became unstable and unaffordable. At that point the King was restored (More to strengthen the Church of England against the Catholics and to use the Church of England to maintain peace with the working class than any other reason). An additional factor in the restoration was that King Charles II had access to both money from France (the Stuarts had long accepted bribes from France even when their were Kings only of Scotland) and the financial center of the Netherlands.
Thus King Charles II could pay off Cromwell’s Army and dissolve it and with the King’s restoration the Church of England was strengthen at the expense of the Catholics.

What has this to do with Archery? Simple, Archers in England tended to be working class and thus Catholic during this time period. During the Civil War both sides did NOT want to use (and thus help organized the Catholics/working class). After the defeat of the King, Cromwell feared the Catholics (i.e. the Working Class) more than anything else so he made an effort to discourage any activity where the Catholics may join together. Cromwell thus outlawed most sports but the main thus seems to be against archery. Remember Cromwell’s target was NOT archers per se, but preventing archers from coming together and talking. Once you have a group of people talking they tend to organize. It was this fear of the Catholics ORGANIZING that cause Cromwell to discriminate against Archery (Since Cromwell was ruling without Parliament by this time he could NOT change the old statutes regarding Archery but did everything he could to discourage Archery) . This fear continued in Post Cromwell England (For Example Catholics were NOT allowed into the British Army till the American Revolution) and thus Archery was disfavored in England till the 1800s when it re-appeared as a Middle Class recreational Sport.

All five factors were needed to end English Archery as a National Sport but you can also see how their interacted in ending archery not only in the Army but also in England. Any one of the factors was NOT enough by itself, but together you went from a country where 90% of the males did archery to where 99% of the males did not.

[davidinalameda]

54. I've always wanted to learn how to shoot an bow

I don't see anything wrong with the program

[CO Liberal]

55. The Only Problem I Can See ....

... is some people will look on this as a reason to start rifle classes in the schools, and I'm opposed to that.

[Tinfoil]

56. COLib,

Considering there are 200+ million firearms in this country, the knowledge of how to safely use, and perhaps more importantly, safely UNLOAD a firearm would be something EVERYONE in the country should be given.

Whether one loves, loathes, or just plain doesn't care either way about firearms, everyone should have the ability to make sure a weapon is empty should he or she run across one in the course of their lifetime.

[CO Liberal]

58. I Do NOT Believe Guns Should Be in Schools

For whatever reason.

Period.

[Tinfoil]

59. OK

Because you say so, I'm sure NO ONE will ever bring a firearm to school for unlawful purposes....

[Cthulu_2004]

60. except for cops, right?

eom