I thought it was “They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.”
Or am I thinking of someone else? 
Civil War General John Sedgwick, of course. 
And he was tortured to death for his feat, which implies that “snipers” killing lords weren’t exactly held in high esteem.
Item of interest…
A 3-hour docu-drama, **China’s First Emperor **(which appeared on the History Channel) claims that
-
The Chinese of ~ 220 BC, laid a chrome film on swords which were more than a meter long and were no rusted when unearthed.
-
The business ends of their arrows (the Qin kingdom, anyway) were produced via an assembly line and the process was good that all arrowheads wieghed the same
-
The metal trigger for their crossbows, was similarly assembly-line produced and these were interchangeable with all other of their crossbows.
I strongly suspect that the Chinese government was involved in the making of this film, no facts, just a sense that it was very, very laudatory.
But the King Qin (pronounced chin) was protrayed as going tres paranoid in later life due to the consumption of Mercury-laced potions which his alchemists gave him in his quest for eternal life - on earth.
And Qin did unify CHINA, bending the 6 other kingdoms to his will.
I saved the movie and intend to watch it again.
AQlso, he was the one who caused all those thousands of terra cotta soldiers tobe buried with him.
That may be true for your average peasant crossbowman, but Italian arblasters (militia or mercenary) were the best armed, best armored infantrymen of their time, and their weapons packed a heavier punch than even the best longbow. They’re one reason cities like Genoa and Venice, who had lots of money but few armored knights, remained independant for so long.
No this was much later then the Norman invasion and the two participants were AngloNormans.
Excuse me old chap but Harold was killed at the BoH.
Wiv an arrer right in his mincer
Lust4Life was referring to the incident in question,which he first brought up and Giles was responding to with the Hastings cite. As it happens Harold’s alleged mortal arrow wound probably didn’t end the fighting at Hastings, though it may have been a decisive moment for army cohesion.
…and of course we are all neglecting to mention, Harold was killed not at Hastings, but at Battle, which was a significant place in itself.
That is very important. A bow has a range of several dozen meters while a modern trained sniper can engage targets hundreds or thousands of meters away.
Snipers don’t assassinate generals and other officers (although I suppose they could). They restrict enemy movement using a minimum amount of resources. When soldiers know there is a sniper in the area (usually indicated by some poor suckers head exploding) they tend to stay hidden or under cover, wait for support and so on. It’s demoralizing. Remember Full Metal Jacket or Sergeant York?
A lone archer simply can’t have that effect. First of all, at longer ranges you see a single freakin arrow arcing towards you and you can avoid it. Second, you can probably see where it came from. Which means you can then send a dozen guys over to kick his ass.
According to Wiki Harold was killed at the BoH.
As every schoolkid knows, or at least knew at one time
That would be US Civil War General John Sedgewick, a perennial entry in the “Famous Last Words” compendiums (and it would appear those actually were his last words, as opposed to merely being attributed to him.)
As for King Harold and his death at the Battle of Hastings (way back in 1066, kids!), I believe there’s some debate as to whether the chap in the Bayeux Tapestry with the arrow sticking out of his eye is King Harold or one of his Knights; there’s another fellow nearby on the wrong end of a battleaxe wielded by a horseman, and another one who appears to have come off second best against a swordsman. All of them are in the “Harold Rex Interfectus Est” (“King Harold Is Slain” area of the tapestry, hence the debate over which one is Harold.
The Battle of Hastings was so-called because it was near Hastings (there being nothing else of significance nearby at the time). Whereas the town of Battle is so-called because it is on the site of the actual battle (according to the local propaganda, anyhow). It’s probably techically correct to say that the Battlefield of Hastings is at Battle, not Hastings. However, at the time it wasn’t there. It’s a bit like saying the Battle of Waterloo took place at the Waterloo Battlefield Visitor’s Centre, not at the town of Waterloo. :dubious:
Well, the French nobility wasn’t in the habit of trampling their own soldiers. Crecy was a special case.
Don’t be so sure. They were, after all, French.
There are also certain financial advantages to massacaring all your mercenaries.
Yes, but massacring all your mercenaries is also a good way to guarantee that you won’t find any mercenaries to fight for you in the next battles.
But Crecy was a special case. The French knights were upset that the crossbowmen were retreated and worried because the English arrows were starting to fall amongst them.
Though, if you get a reputation for doing this, it gets harder to hire the next batch of them.
You’re thinking of El Cid, I reckon. I was watching it yesterday afternoon and chuckling at how no horses managed to get hit. Also, that battle scene on the beach was terrible. I saw two Moors stood in the background chatting as though they’d met at the bus-stop. :mad:
So what would you have expected them to call the battle?
“The Battle of that place near Hastings where 'arry got his mince pie shot out wiv an arrer”