THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

@parados,

parados wrote:

Still not a fact since you still have presented no evidence to support it.

"Concern to maintain archery went right to the top of English society and dated back to at least 1363, when the first of a succession of ordinances and parliamentary statutes had commanded that Englishmen should spend their Sundays and holidays not in pointless amusements such as football, bowls, tennis and dice, but in shooting at the butts.2"

"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders; they promoted it with further statutes ordering every householder to keep bows, not only for himself, but for his servants and children, and commanding every adult and adolescent male to use them.4"

"Under Henry VIII proclamations reinforced the message, repeatedly commanding local officials to do all in their power to promote archery and suppress the unlawful games that threatened to supplant it.5 In 1528 Henry drove the point home with a reminder that it was archery practice that …"

http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/209/1/53.extract

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If that was the case then why are you presenting cases from decades later where people are on trial for having a gun in violation of the game laws?

The judge in each of those cases pointed out that the game laws did not prohibit the ownership of guns.

parados wrote:

People of certain conditions were prevented by law from having guns under the game laws.

Not after the English Bill of Rights.

parados wrote:

You have presented several court cases that prove that to be true otherwise those persons would never have been charged under the law.

That someone is charged with a crime does not mean that the law was actually violated.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No facts in evidence. Repeating this does not make it true.

"Concern to maintain archery went right to the top of English society and dated back to at least 1363, when the first of a succession of ordinances and parliamentary statutes had commanded that Englishmen should spend their Sundays and holidays not in pointless amusements such as football, bowls, tennis and dice, but in shooting at the butts.2"

"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders; they promoted it with further statutes ordering every householder to keep bows, not only for himself, but for his servants and children, and commanding every adult and adolescent male to use them.4"

"Under Henry VIII proclamations reinforced the message, repeatedly commanding local officials to do all in their power to promote archery and suppress the unlawful games that threatened to supplant it.5 In 1528 Henry drove the point home with a reminder that it was archery practice that …"

http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/209/1/53.extract

parados wrote:

It is your responsibility to provide evidence to support your claim. You have not done so.

Yes I have. I provided it again above just for reference.

parados wrote:

Your claim is not a fact. It is your unsupported opinion.

"Concern to maintain archery went right to the top of English society and dated back to at least 1363, when the first of a succession of ordinances and parliamentary statutes had commanded that Englishmen should spend their Sundays and holidays not in pointless amusements such as football, bowls, tennis and dice, but in shooting at the butts.2"

"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders; they promoted it with further statutes ordering every householder to keep bows, not only for himself, but for his servants and children, and commanding every adult and adolescent male to use them.4"

"Under Henry VIII proclamations reinforced the message, repeatedly commanding local officials to do all in their power to promote archery and suppress the unlawful games that threatened to supplant it.5 In 1528 Henry drove the point home with a reminder that it was archery practice that …"

http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/209/1/53.extract

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Let's look at some of your statements -

Let's.

They did not have the power to deny an individual from having guns until the law was changed in 1920.

Only if the British government chooses to allow it. Since 1920 they have had the power to deny an individual the ability to have guns if they so choose.

The British government did not have the power to prevent an individual from having any gun until after 1920, which is when the law was changed to give them this power.

That is incorrect. Under current British law an individual can be prevented from having a gun, even if they agree to follow regulations.

My statement that the British government has the power to prevent an individual from having guns is factually correct.

It is up to the British government. They do allow some individuals to have guns. But they have the power to prevent an individual from having guns if they so choose.

That is incorrect. The Firearms Act of 1920 gave the British government the power to deny individuals the ability to own guns.

That is incorrect. The British government did not have the power to prevent individuals from having guns until 1920.

The Firearms Act of 1920 was not a change in what types of weapons were allowed to the public. It gave the government the power to completely disarm individual people.

The Firearms Act of 1920 did not change what guns were allowed. It gave the government the power to deny individuals from having any gun.

However people in England no longer have a right to have guns, that right having been repealed in 1920. If the government there wishes, it can prevent individuals from having guns.

I have however pointed out that authorization to set up rules for someone to follow when owning guns, is not authorization to bar individuals from having any gun.

That is incorrect. The government over there has the power to deny an individual the ability to have guns even if that individual follows regulations.

I have not made such an argument. I have however said that the government's power to deny individuals from having guns means that they no longer have the right to have guns.

"Barring individuals from having any gun" is not even remotely the same thing as "prohibiting a type of gun".

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

"Concern to maintain archery went right to the top of English society and dated back to at least 1363, when the first of a succession of ordinances and parliamentary statutes had commanded that Englishmen should spend their Sundays and holidays not in pointless amusements such as football, bowls, tennis and dice, but in shooting at the butts.2"

"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders; they promoted it with further statutes ordering every householder to keep bows, not only for himself, but for his servants and children, and commanding every adult and adolescent male to use them.4"

"Under Henry VIII proclamations reinforced the message, repeatedly commanding local officials to do all in their power to promote archery and suppress the unlawful games that threatened to supplant it.5 In 1528 Henry drove the point home with a reminder that it was archery practice that …"

Longbows were not the standard infantry weapons. Do you know what infantry is?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Longbows were not the standard infantry weapons.

At the time of those laws, England viewed them as such.

parados wrote:

Do you know what infantry is?

They were soldiers who fought on the ground as opposed to being mounted on a horse or pulled by a chariot.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

At the time of those laws, England viewed them as such.

Really? Where do you have any historical document that says that?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Note page 112 of this book. Page 132 of this PDF version:
https://ia600205.us.archive.org/11/items/cu31924027939101/cu31924027939101.pdf

It seems you read what you want to read. Of 186 men only 16 were archers. It kind of destroys your argument that bows were the infantry weapon.

Quote:

There are records from the time of Elizabeth I of price controls so that people could better be able to afford guns for militia duty. If the British government did not think that guns were infantry weapons, they would not have been trying to make them affordable for militiamen.

Price controls? The page states:
"The prices of the above and other armour was set down."
That is not "price controls". That is simply stating they recorded what was paid for the equipment. Prior to that on the previous page it states, "the following is an estimate of the charge for the buying. There is nothing there about price controls. It seems you just make **** up then deny you make it up.

3 Replies

@parados,

If you continue to read the book you provided. It shows that the queen in 1598 ordered that bows and arrows be refused and they be supplied with muskets. p134 (Supplied with means the people didn't own the muskets but they were supplied by the government for the muster.)

On page 136 it mentions the affection the towns people had for the town owned muskets.

This is on page 139 and shows how historically inaccurate other claims you have made are.

Quote:

n
1542 (33 HenryVIII. cap.xi.)
the bowyers, fletchers, stringers, and arrow-head makers, finding their occupation affected by the introduction of other arms, procured an" Acte for Mayntenance of Artyllerie and debarring of un-lawful Games, such as Logating in the Fields, Slide-shrift, otherwise Shovegrote. No one was to keep a common house or place of bowling, coyting, cloyshe cayles, half-bowle, tennys, dysing, table or carding, or any other manner of game prohibited." This is a good specimen of class-legis-lation. Our countrymen adopted a better kind of arms; those who continued to make a decidedly inferior kind pro- cured the enactment of laws which aimed at doing away with most of the sports with which men recreated themselves,

1 Reply

@parados,

archers were NOT infantrymen. They were archers. Longbows would be stumbled over and the archer needed a clear angle of fire . Thats why archers were usually deployed as lines or chevrons of shooters who would be between infantry formations. Infantrymen were carrying swords or , usually Halberds ( pikey like weapons) andmaces and battle axes. The Infantry was a ground gaining deployment of masses of troops holding weapons. Archers would stand off and rain arrows down on the enemy deployment.
Many times archers would be brought up in line to fire and would be pulld back after volleys.

Archers with Long bows need space and concentration. I was in longbow target competition years ago , even the arrows were different.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

The government in 1542 referred to them as artillery.

Quote:

Acte for Mayntenance of Artyllerie

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The government in 1542 referred to them as artillery.

Quote:
Acte for Mayntenance of Artyllerie

Curious use of the word artillery. The word must have changed in meaning a bit over the years.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

archers were NOT infantrymen. They were archers.

Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica both seem to count longbowmen under the heading of infantry:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_in_the_Middle_Ages
http://www.britannica.com/technology/military-technology/The-infantry-revolution-c-1200-1500

Same with this guy who wrote this masters thesis in 2013, at least going by the title (Tactics, Strategy, and Battlefield Formation during the Hundred Years War: The Role of the Longbow in the 'Infantry Revolution').
http://www.medievalists.net/2015/10/24/tactics-strategy-and-battlefield-formation-during-the-hundred-years-war-the-role-of-the-longbow-in-the-infantry-revolution/

A quote from this page:
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Crecy.html
"As a result of this and other conflicts, the old feudal order of knighthood declined and the infantry---archers, crossbowmen, pikemen-- rose in importance."

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you continue to read the book you provided. It shows that the queen in 1598 ordered that bows and arrows be refused and they be supplied with muskets. p134 (Supplied with means the people didn't own the muskets but they were supplied by the government for the muster.)

No need to "continue". Those are the very words that I quoted in my post.

Do you believe that these words harm my position? I think they reinforce my position.

parados wrote:

On page 136 it mentions the affection the towns people had for the town owned muskets.

I believe that the town guns mentioned here were what we would call canons today.

Either way though, I am sure that people were indeed happy that there was an arsenal to defend them from the predation of criminals/vikings/pirates/whatever.

Do you believe that these words on page 136 harm my position somehow?

parados wrote:

This is on page 139 and shows how historically inaccurate other claims you have made are.

Quote:
n
1542 (33 HenryVIII. cap.xi.)
the bowyers, fletchers, stringers, and arrow-head makers, finding their occupation affected by the introduction of other arms, procured an" Acte for Mayntenance of Artyllerie and debarring of un-lawful Games, such as Logating in the Fields, Slide-shrift, otherwise Shovegrote. No one was to keep a common house or place of bowling, coyting, cloyshe cayles, half-bowle, tennys, dysing, table or carding, or any other manner of game prohibited." This is a good specimen of class-legis-lation. Our countrymen adopted a better kind of arms; those who continued to make a decidedly inferior kind pro- cured the enactment of laws which aimed at doing away with most of the sports with which men recreated themselves,

What about this quote is supposed to contradict which claim of mine?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

It seems you read what you want to read. Of 186 men only 16 were archers. It kind of destroys your argument that bows were the infantry weapon.

That section of the book refers to a period where the English government was abandoning the longbow and encouraging people to use guns instead. (If you recall, you had asked for evidence that guns were infantry weapons, and I was referring to this section of the book as evidence for the use of guns as infantry weapons.)

It is perfectly reasonable that, in a time where the English government was abandoning the longbow and transitioning to guns, a body of militia might have more guns than longbows.

That said, that book covers a wide range of history, and I'm about to use it again to answer your request for evidence about the English longbow in the time of Henry VIII.

parados wrote:

Price controls? The page states:
"The prices of the above and other armour was set down."
That is not "price controls". That is simply stating they recorded what was paid for the equipment. Prior to that on the previous page it states, "the following is an estimate of the charge for the buying. There is nothing there about price controls.

That is incorrect. Those prices were set down by the government as limits that people were not to exceed in selling those weapons.

Note for example page 105 of the book (page 125 or 126 as the PDF document measures pages). They have an earlier version of such price controls from the era when they still wanted everyone armed with longbows.

parados wrote:

It seems you just make **** up then deny you make it up.

No. I just refer to established history.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Really? Where do you have any historical document that says that?

Are you asking if they ever viewed the longbow as the standard infantry weapon, or if they continued to view it as the standard infantry weapon in the time of Henry VIII?

I'll answer both ways. For evidence that the English longbow was once regarded as the standard infantry weapon, I refer you to the Wikipedia article about the Battle of Crécy (1346):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy

Note:
"The battle saw the rise of the longbow as the dominant weapon of the Western European battlefield until the advent of the arquebus in the 16th century. Crécy also saw the use of some very early cannon by the English army; archaeological digs found shot on the battlefield centuries later. The combined-arms approach of the English, the new weapons and tactics used, which were far more focused on the infantry than previous battles in the Middle Ages (whose predominant focus was the heavily armoured knight), and the killing of incapacitated knights by peasantry after the battle, have led to the engagement being described as 'the beginning of the end of chivalry'."

"The power of Edward's army at Crécy lay in the massed use of the longbow: a powerful tall bow made primarily of yew. Upon Edward's accession in 1327, he had inherited a kingdom beset with two zones of conflict: Aquitaine and Scotland. England had not been a dominant military force in Europe: the French dominated in Aquitaine, and Scotland had all but achieved its independence since the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Previously, medieval battles had largely been decided by the charge of heavily armoured mounted knights, countered effectively by the Scots infantry at battles such as Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn. Longbows had been effectively used before by English armies: Edward I successfully used longbowmen to break up static Scottish schiltron formations at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298; however it was not until Edward III's reign that they were accorded greater significance in English military doctrine. Edward realised the importance of inflicting severe damage upon an enemy force before melée combat began; at Halidon Hill in 1333, he used massed longbowmen and favourable terrain to inflict a significant defeat on the Scots forces to very few casualties of his own--in some ways a harbinger of his similar tactics at Crécy. A second important advantage of longbowmen was cost: they were far cheaper to equip and train than aristocratic knights. To ensure he had a force of experienced archers to call upon, Edward engrained archery into English culture; he encouraged its practice and the production of stocks of arrows and bows in peacetime as well as war. He later declared in 1363 that archery had to be practised by law, banning other sports to accommodate archery."

For evidence that the English longbow was still viewed as the standard infantry weapon in the time of Henry VIII, I refer back to that book I cited earlier for evidence of guns.

Note page 105 of the book, page 125 of this PDF version:
https://ia600205.us.archive.org/11/items/cu31924027939101/cu31924027939101.pdf

Page 126 of this PDF version:
https://ia802604.us.archive.org/1/items/socialhistorype00robegoog/socialhistorype00robegoog.pdf

They have an earlier version of the price controls that I recently cited regarding guns.

In 1542:

A "bow, best sort" was limited to no more than three shillings, four pence.

A "bow, second" was limited to no more than two shillings, six pence.

A "bow, third" was limited to no more than two shillings.

Also, here is an except of a book written by this guy:

"In 1542, the last statute against crossbows and handguns was passed by Parliament. This one imposed the very heavy fine of 20l. on anyone keeping a crossbow, and stated among other reasons for the suppression of the weapon ' that divers murders had been perpetrated by means of crossbows, and that malicious and evil-minded people carried them ready bent and charged with bolts, to the great annoyance and risk of passengers on the highways.'

The prohibition of the crossbow in England was not, it will be understood, the result of a fear that, as a superior arm, it might usurp the position of the longbow, for when the first three statutes were passed to suppress it (1508, 1512, 1515) the crossbow had been almost supplanted by the hand-gun in Continental armies, and at the dates of the later Acts, (1537, 1542) it was unknown in warfare. All the statutes against crossbows and hand-guns were introduced to prevent the yeomen and peasantry of England from practising with, or even handling a weapon of any kind other than the cherished longbow, though the later statutes may have been suggested by a fear that the hand-gun might cause the people to put less trust in the longbow than formerly, and thus in some measure to discontinue its use.

The great victories achieved with the English longbow in former days, induced English kings, and commanders of troops, to believe that no weapon ever invented or likely to be invented, whether crossbow or hand-gun, could compete with it. For this reason, the longbow was retained in English armies beyond the days of its real effectiveness in warfare, though even then, its decadence was not due to its inferiority to the handguns of the period, but to a scarcity of archers trained to its proper use.

Even when it was realised (1570-1580)1 that the longbow was being hopelessly beaten by the hand-gun in battles and sieges, and had no chance of regaining its position, several statutes were passed, all of course unavailing, with a view to saving it from extinction as our national and well-tried weapon.

The longbow was at its best from the time of Crecy, 1346, to about 1530. It began to decline in favour about 1540."

http://www.crossbowbook.com/page_34.html

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Liberals dont lie. They just repeat the same false statement over and over until its a fact.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No need to "continue". Those are the very words that I quoted in my post.

Do you believe that these words harm my position? I think they reinforce my position.

Are you saying your position is that citizens didn't own guns but used government owned guns when they mustered? It certainly doesn't support your position that they wanted people to own their own and supply their own weapons. If you read further of almost 100 men mustered only 8 are recorded as providing their own weapons. A pretty dismal showing if everyone was supposed to provide their own weapon.

Quote:

What about this quote is supposed to contradict which claim of mine?

You have proposed that Henry VIII was promoting owning and training with weapons commonly used by the infantry. That was not the case at all. The bow was no longer a common military weapon. The law was passed because bow makers, etc, wanted to try to force people buy and use a dying weapon. The laws are not the evidence that you claimed. We are back to you repeating something doesn't make it true. It merely means you can't support your argument with facts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

That is incorrect. Those prices were set down by the government as limits that people were not to exceed in selling those weapons.

The only way that would be true is if we completely ignore the rules of the English language and we say anyone can make up whatever they want things to mean.

"set down" means to put in writing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/set%20down
definition 6

Quote:

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/set-down

def 2

Quote:

No. I just refer to established history.

Clearly you make **** up. "Set down" has an historical meaning that you want to ignore.

Quote:

Note for example page 105 of the book (page 125 or 126 as the PDF document measures pages). They have an earlier version of such price controls from the era when they still wanted everyone armed with longbows.

At that point they specifically state they are "price controls". Do you see the difference?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The only way that would be true is if we completely ignore the rules of the English language and we say anyone can make up whatever they want things to mean.

"set down" means to put in writing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/set%20down
definition 6

Quote:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/set-down

def 2

Have a look at 6a for the first link:

"6a: ordain, establish"

And definition #1 for the second link:

"1: FORMAL to state officially how something should be done
Synonyms- To tell people what to do: order, order around, tell"

I personally prefer the Oxford English Dictionary:
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/set_something_down

"1.1: Establish something as a rule or principle to be followed."

parados wrote:

Clearly you make **** up. "Set down" has an historical meaning that you want to ignore.

Good grief. This is getting silly. Even if I had actually been wrong, I would not have been making anything up. I would have merely been mistaken.

parados wrote:

At that point they specifically state they are "price controls". Do you see the difference?

They clearly figured that when they provided the same sort of chart just a few pages later, people would not need a repeated in-depth description and the term "set down" would be sufficient.

1 Reply

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know