Arrow baskets

Moderator: Moderators

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Re: Arrow baskets

Post by Marcus Woodhouse »

But without some reference to evidence then it's all pure speculation, surely?
What you have to be is cristically aware of the reasons why something was written down, what context the evidence occurs. Some marginal artwork that gets doodeled down the side of a document may be totally unrelated to the text BUT be a completely acurate illustration of costume for example.

Adam R
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: East of Nottingham

Re: Arrow baskets

Post by Adam R »

It was pure speculation indeed, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It is taking what we know and attempting to create an hypothesis about what we don't know. There are so many blanks. So while it would be silly to theorise that all archers wore purple braies as a sign of their puissance, theorising that those archers who were better than the average received a chance of improved kit to maximise their use on the battlefield is interesting. It can't be proved, of course and it should never be passed off as anything other than speculation, but it does have a reasonable "feel" to it.

The difficulty comes with what the hypothesis is used for!! :^)

To explore further, what was the difference in the use of the archers who were called up through commissions of array and those who had been chosen to be retained, for example? Clearly many were valued, given money and other liveried perks by the nobility, were they just lobbed in the line with the commissioned men? That is also speculative and sounds less likely to me.
KDF Nottingham
"Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

User avatar
Posts: 255
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:54 am

Re: Arrow baskets

Post by Bittersweet »

I agree on both points. The picture doodled in the margin may be more relevent than the text but we don't know that as 100% certain.
I think speculation and to some extent extrapolation (from confirmed 100% bona fide evidence, which no-one really has) is reasonable as long as we're all honest about it being just that.
I find it annoying when people claim something to be absolute because they believe the 'evidence' they have but can't accept that the 'evidence' may be misleading or that someone else's speculation can possibly be relevent.
I don't know if my speculation is reasonable or not. I'm happy to have my theories shot down in flames by any reasoned argument, it makes for a better debate and maybe brings the ideas nearer to the truth. I do not accept..."but you have no evidence" as an argument against my speculation because quite frankly, nobody has true 100% incontrovertable evidence.
Why can't life be simple?

Post Reply