Comments on: Notes on Arrow Wounds

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:28:30 +0000

Bows and crossbows were superior to guns in the hands of robust, athletic, well-fed troops. Most wars were fought between Auschwitz survivors. If you'd spent a six-month siege eating diseased rats, or fed anywhere in Germany's 30 years war, you could still pull a trigger. Draw the bows carried by the Scottish Archers in Paris, a foot wide at the grips, or an Osmanli Turkish 800-yard shooter, or the bows carried on th Mary Rose that torqued bowman spines 90 degrees?

By: Scipio Americanus

Scipio Americanus — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:23:30 +0000

I can’t remember where I read it, but someone noted that had the Chinese, who had excellent crossbows long before Europe did, figured out a way to mount a bayonet on one that they might have developed linear tactics 800 or so years earlier than Frederick.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:34:48 +0000

I suspect “let the patient diet himself” means “let the patient set his own diet” — don’t force him to eat or to fast.

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:23:52 +0000

Bows and crossbows were superior to early firearms, in many ways, but those early firearms were cheaper than either bows or crossbows, as easy to shoot as crossbows, and had lighter ammunition, so they could sustain fire longer. Then there's the point that doinkers lose.

By: Guy

Guy — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:20:53 +0000

“Apply cold or evaporating lotions, place the limb at perfect rest, let the patient diet himself, and the chances are favourable of such a wound healing by first intention..”

Diet himself? If they were talking an abdomen wound I could see “diet” making sense in its modern usage, but not here.

The only other usage I know of refers to a political body, so what gives?

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:53:39 +0000

Makes ya wonder why archery is not more often used in warfare, especially of the guerrilla sort.