1999
DOI: 10.1353/tech.1999.0150
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Longbow and Hackbutt: Weapons Technology and Technology Transfer in Early Modern England

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We suspect that the vessel came from England and operated some time between c .1560 and c .1590, based primarily on a complement of weapons which includes cast‐iron guns and metal crossbows. Until the early‐17th century, England dominated the manufacture of cast‐iron guns (Cipolla, 1965: 36–64; Guilmartin, 1974: 175; Cipolla, 1980: 286–7; Guilmartin, 1994: 149–50; Glete, 2000: 23; Black, 2002: 175), while late in the 16th century the English publicly debated the wisdom of using bows in warfare (Esper, 1965; McNeill, 1982: 91–5; Borman, 1997; Phillips, 1999). The length‐to‐breadth coefficient of c .4:1 implies a slightly‐elongated cargo vessel.…”
Section: Summary and Working Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We suspect that the vessel came from England and operated some time between c .1560 and c .1590, based primarily on a complement of weapons which includes cast‐iron guns and metal crossbows. Until the early‐17th century, England dominated the manufacture of cast‐iron guns (Cipolla, 1965: 36–64; Guilmartin, 1974: 175; Cipolla, 1980: 286–7; Guilmartin, 1994: 149–50; Glete, 2000: 23; Black, 2002: 175), while late in the 16th century the English publicly debated the wisdom of using bows in warfare (Esper, 1965; McNeill, 1982: 91–5; Borman, 1997; Phillips, 1999). The length‐to‐breadth coefficient of c .4:1 implies a slightly‐elongated cargo vessel.…”
Section: Summary and Working Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ao mesmo tempo, houve um vácuo tecnológico no tocante à substituição dos cavalos, isso porque qualquer alternativa a ela para a realização de movimentação nos campos de batalha, fosse para reconhecimento, recuo ou perseguição, era bastante limitada -a exemplo dos trens (que não perpassavam pelas zonas de conflito) e automóveis (que ainda eram uma promessa frágil). Além do mais, até mesmo os carros de combate ou tanques de guerra eram considerados recursos bélicos vulneráveis, lentos e deficitários no deslocamento e de difícil manutenção e reparo; já os aviões, como referido, não foram bem aproveitados estrategicamente para contribuir com as operações da guerra terrestre (Duarte, 2012;Phillips, 1999).…”
unclassified