document_title: Relative dating

question_text: who proposed the principles of stratigraphy to relatively date rock layers

text: Relative dating

text: Geology[edit]

text: The regular order of occurrence of fossils in rock layers was discovered around 1800 by William Smith. While digging the Somerset Coal Canal in southwest England, he found that fossils were always in the same order in the rock layers. As he continued his job as a surveyor, he found the same patterns across England. He also found that certain animals were in only certain layers and that they were in the same layers all across England. Due to that discovery, Smith was able to recognize the order that the rocks were formed. Sixteen years after his discovery, he published a geological map of England showing the rocks of different geologic time eras.

text: Principles of relative dating[edit]

text: Methods for relative dating were developed when geology first emerged as a natural science in the 18th century. Geologists still use the following principles today as a means to provide information about geologic history and the timing of geologic events.

text: Uniformitarianism[edit]

text: The principle of Uniformitarianism states that the geologic processes observed in operation that modify the Earth's crust at present have worked in much the same way over geologic time.[2] A fundamental principle of geology advanced by the 18th century Scottish physician and geologist James Hutton, is that "the present is the key to the past." In Hutton's words: "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now."[3]

text: Intrusive relationships[edit]

text: The principle of intrusive relationships concerns crosscutting intrusions. In geology, when an igneous intrusion cuts across a formation of sedimentary rock, it can be determined that the igneous intrusion is younger than the sedimentary rock. There are a number of different types of intrusions, including stocks, laccoliths, batholiths, sills and dikes.

text: Cross-cutting relationships[edit]

text: The principle of cross-cutting relationships pertains to the formation of faults and the age of the sequences through which they cut. Faults are younger than the rocks they cut; accordingly, if a fault is found that penetrates some formations but not those on top of it, then the formations that were cut are older than the fault, and the ones that are not cut must be younger than the fault. Finding the key bed in these situations may help determine whether the fault is a normal fault or a thrust fault.[4]

text: Inclusions and components[edit]

text: The principle of inclusions and components states that, with sedimentary rocks, if inclusions (or clasts) are found in a formation, then the inclusions must be older than the formation that contains them. For example, in sedimentary rocks, it is common for gravel from an older formation to be ripped up and included in a newer layer. A similar situation with igneous rocks occurs when xenoliths are found. These foreign bodies are picked up as magma or lava flows, and are incorporated, later to cool in the matrix. As a result, xenoliths are older than the rock which contains them.

text: Original horizontality[edit]

text: The principle of original horizontality states that the deposition of sediments occurs as essentially horizontal beds. Observation of modern marine and non-marine sediments in a wide variety of environments supports this generalization (although cross-bedding is inclined, the overall orientation of cross-bedded units is horizontal).[4]

text: Superposition[edit]

text: The law of superposition states that a sedimentary rock layer in a tectonically undisturbed sequence is younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it. This is because it is not possible for a younger layer to slip beneath a layer previously deposited. The only disturbance that the layers experience is bioturbation, in which animals and/or plants move things in the layers. however, this process is not enough to allow the layers to change their positions. This principle allows sedimentary layers to be viewed as a form of vertical time line, a partial or complete record of the time elapsed from deposition of the lowest layer to deposition of the highest bed.[4]

text: Faunal succession[edit]

text: The principle of faunal succession is based on the appearance of fossils in sedimentary rocks. As organisms exist at the same time period throughout the world, their presence or (sometimes) absence may be used to provide a relative age of the formations in which they are found. Based on principles laid out by William Smith almost a hundred years before the publication of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, the principles of succession were developed independently of evolutionary thought. The principle becomes quite complex, however, given the uncertainties of fossilization, the localization of fossil types due to lateral changes in habitat (facies change in sedimentary strata), and that not all fossils may be found globally at the same time.[5]

text: Lateral continuity[edit]

text: The principle of lateral continuity states that layers of sediment initially extend laterally in all directions; in other words, they are laterally continuous. As a result, rocks that are otherwise similar, but are now separated by a valley or other erosional feature, can be assumed to be originally continuous.

text: Layers of sediment do not extend indefinitely; rather, the limits can be recognized and are controlled by the amount and type of sediment available and the size and shape of the sedimentary basin. Sediment will continue to be transported to an area and it will eventually be deposited. However, the layer of that material will become thinner as the amount of material lessens away from the source.

text: Often, coarser-grained material can no longer be transported to an area because the transporting medium has insufficient energy to carry it to that location. In its place, the particles that settle from the transporting medium will be finer-grained, and there will be a lateral transition from coarser- to finer-grained material. The lateral variation in sediment within a stratum is known as sedimentary facies.

text: If sufficient sedimentary material is available, it will be deposited up to the limits of the sedimentary basin. Often, the sedimentary basin is within rocks that are very different from the sediments that are being deposited, in which the lateral limits of the sedimentary layer will be marked by an abrupt change in rock type.

text: Inclusions of igneous rocks[edit]

text: Melt inclusions are small parcels or "blobs" of molten rock that are trapped within crystals that grow in the magmas that form igneous rocks. In many respects they are analogous to fluid inclusions. Melt inclusions are generally small – most are less than 100 micrometres across (a micrometre is one thousandth of a millimeter, or about 0.00004 inches). Nevertheless, they can provide an abundance of useful information. Using microscopic observations and a range of chemical microanalysis techniques geochemists and igneous petrologists can obtain a range of useful information from melt inclusions. Two of the most common uses of melt inclusions are to study the compositions of magmas present early in the history of specific magma systems. This is because inclusions can act like "fossils" – trapping and preserving these early melts before they are modified by later igneous processes. In addition, because they are trapped at high pressures many melt inclusions also provide important information about the contents of volatile elements (such as H2O, CO2, S and Cl) that drive explosive volcanic eruptions.

text: Sorby (1858) was the first to document microscopic melt inclusions in crystals. The study of melt inclusions has been driven more recently by the development of sophisticated chemical analysis techniques. Scientists from the former Soviet Union lead the study of melt inclusions in the decades after World War II (Sobolev and Kostyuk, 1975), and developed methods for heating melt inclusions under a microscope, so changes could be directly observed.

text: Although they are small, melt inclusions may contain a number of different constituents, including glass (which represents magma that has been quenched by rapid cooling), small crystals and a separate vapour-rich bubble. They occur in most of the crystals found in igneous rocks and are common in the minerals quartz, feldspar, olivine and pyroxene. The formation of melt inclusions appears to be a normal part of the crystallization of minerals within magmas, and they can be found in both volcanic and plutonic rocks.

text: Included fragments[edit]

text: The law of included fragments is a method of relative dating in geology. Essentially, this law states that clasts in a rock are older than the rock itself.[6] One example of this is a xenolith, which is a fragment of country rock that fell into passing magma as a result of stoping. Another example is a derived fossil, which is a fossil that has been eroded from an older bed and redeposited into a younger one.[7]

text: This is a restatement of Charles Lyell's original principle of inclusions and components from his 1830 to 1833 multi-volume Principles of Geology, which states that, with sedimentary rocks, if inclusions (or clasts) are found in a formation, then the inclusions must be older than the formation that contains them. For example, in sedimentary rocks, it is common for gravel from an older formation to be ripped up and included in a newer layer. A similar situation with igneous rocks occurs when xenoliths are found. These foreign bodies are picked up as magma or lava flows, and are incorporated, later to cool in the matrix. As a result, xenoliths are older than the rock which contains them.

text: Planetology[edit]

text: Relative dating is used to determine the order of events on Solar System objects other than Earth; for decades, planetary scientists have used it to decipher the development of bodies in the Solar System, particularly in the vast majority of cases for which we have no surface samples. Many of the same principles are applied. For example, if a valley is formed inside an impact crater, the valley must be younger than the crater.

text: Craters are very useful in relative dating; as a general rule, the younger a planetary surface is, the fewer craters it has. If long-term cratering rates are known to enough precision, crude absolute dates can be applied based on craters alone; however, cratering rates outside the Earth-Moon system are poorly known.[8]

text: Archaeology[edit]

text: Relative dating methods in archaeology are similar to some of those applied in geology. The principles of typology can be compared to the biostratigraphic approach in geology.


document_title: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)

question_text: who played the mom in charlie and the chocolate factory

root

text: Plot

text: This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (April 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: Charlie Bucket is a kind and loving boy living in poverty with his parents and four bedridden grandparents. They all rely on his father for income, employed at a toothpaste factory, responsible for putting the caps on the tubes. Mr. Bucket is later laid off when the factory replaces him with a machine that puts the caps on the tubes. Down the street is Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, which reopened after industrial espionage forced him into seclusion and sacking his employees. Charlie's Grandpa Joe worked for Wonka before the termination.

tag: p

text: Wonka announces a contest whereby children that find Golden Tickets hidden in five Wonka bars will be given a tour of the factory and a lifetime supply of chocolate, and one a chance to be presented with an unknown grand prize. Four tickets are quickly found: the greedy and gluttonous Augustus Gloop from Düsseldorf, who found the ticket while eating a bar; the spoiled and rotten Veruca Salt from Buckinghamshire, who made her father buy as many Wonka bars as possible; the gum chewing and boastful Violet Beauregarde from Atlanta, who gave up gum and started buying bars after hearing of the tickets; and the arrogant and aggressive Mike Teavee from Denver, who retracked the manufacturing dates and hacked the system. Charlie hopes to find a ticket, but his chances are small as money is tight, and the best has to be made of his annual birthday present of one Wonka bar and a bar bought by Grandpa Joe's money, both of which yield no tickets. All hope is seemingly gone when the last ticket is apparently claimed in Russia. Charlie, on finding some money in the street, just intends to enjoy one chocolate bar when news breaks that the ticket was fake. To Charlie's surprise, he finds the bar he just bought has the real last Golden Ticket. Bystanders attempt to separate him from it, only for the shopkeeper to see that he keeps the ticket, and gets back home with it.

text: When Grandpa Joe sees the ticket, he jumps out of bed and dances with joy. He offers to accompany Charlie on the tour, but Charlie explains how he was offered money for the ticket, and intends to sell it. Grandpa George reminds Charlie that money is far more common than the tickets, and convinces Charlie to keep it. Upon meeting him on the day of the tour, the visitors find Wonka to be peculiar, lonely, and acting odd at the mention of "parents". The tour shows how the fantastical factory operates under the efforts of the short humans called Oompa-Loompas.

text: As Charlie seems to enjoy the entire tour, the other four children succumb to temptation, ending up being caught in the factory workings, and have to be safely recovered by the Oompa-Loompas, albeit in worse shape than at the start of the tour: Augustus falls into a river of chocolate and is pulled in by a pipe before being rescued from the fudge processing center; Violet expands into an oversized blueberry when she tries an experimental piece of chewing gum despite Wonka's warning; Veruca is thrown away as a "bad nut" by trained squirrels down the garbage chute; and Mike is shrunk down after being the first person transported by Wonka's new television advertising invention. The four leave the factory revealing their deformities; a chocolate-covered Augustus, a much more flexible but still blue Violet, a garbage-covered Veruca and her father, and a taller and paper-thin Mike who was overstretched with the "taffy puller".

text: During the tour, flashbacks reveal Wonka's troubled childhood; his strict father, Wilbur, a prominent dentist, forbade Wonka from candy consumption, but after managing to sneak a taste, he became hooked, and later ran away from home to live his dream. He then returned several days later to find his father and home completely gone.

text: Wonka then brings Charlie and Grandpa Joe home using the Great Glass Elevator. Upon arrival, Charlie is congratulated as the only remaining child and the winner of the grand prize: being named heir to Wonka's factory (and presumably, his company). Unfortunately, Wonka stipulates that Charlie's family has to stay behind; therefore, to Wonka's dismay, Charlie rejects the offer. Wonka then sadly flies back to the factory in his great glass elevator, leaving a hole in the roof. Mr. Bucket is later given a new job at the toothpaste factory as a technician.

text: Some days later, Wonka's candies are selling poorly, and he comes to associate his unhappiness with the financial state of his company, so he makes an effort to find Charlie. After discovering Wonka's troubled past, Charlie helps him locate his father. When they visit, it appears that despite his strict prohibition of candy, the dentist has followed Willy's success, and they reconcile. Wonka allows Charlie's family to move into the factory, while he and Charlie plan new product lines to produce.

text: Cast

text:
Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka

Blair Dunlop as Young Willy Wonka

Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket
David Kelly as Grandpa Joe
Deep Roy as Oompa-Loompas
AnnaSophia Robb as Violet Beauregarde
Philip Wiegratz as Augustus Gloop
Julia Winter as Veruca Salt
Jordan Fry as Mike Teavee
Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Bucket
Noah Taylor as Mr. Bucket
Missi Pyle as Mrs. Beauregarde
James Fox as Mr. Salt
Adam Godley as Mr. Teavee
Franziska Troegner as Mrs. Gloop
Christopher Lee as Dr. Wilbur Wonka
Liz Smith as Grandma Georgina
Eileen Essell as Grandma Josephine
David Morris as Grandpa George
Geoffrey Holder as the Narrator
Nitin Ganatra as Prince Pondicherry
Shelley Conn as Princess Pondicherry
Oscar James as Shopkeeper
Philip Philmar as Arthur Slugworth
Criss Cresswell as Prodnose
Tony Kirwood as Ficklegruber
Harry Taylor as Mr. Gloop
Francesca Hunt as Mrs. Salt
Todd Boyce as the Newscaster

tag: ul

text: Production

text: Development

text: Author Roald Dahl disapproved of the 1971 film adaptation and declined the film rights to produce the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.[5] Warner Bros. and Brillstein-Grey Entertainment entered discussions with the Dahl estate in 1991, hoping to purchase the rights to produce another film version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The purchase was finalized in 1998,[6] with Dahl's widow, Felicity ("Liccy"), and daughter, Lucy, receiving total artistic control and final privilege on the choices of actors, directors and writers. The Dahl Estate's subsequent protection of the source material was the main reason that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had languished in development hell since the 1990s.[7][8]

text: Scott Frank was hired to write the screenplay in February 1999, after approaching Warner Bros. for the job.[8] Frank, a recent Oscar nominee for the R-rated crime film Out of Sight, wanted to work on a film that his children could enjoy.[9][10][11] As an enthusiastic fan of the book, he intended to remain more truthful to Dahl's vision than the 1971 film had been.[8] Nicolas Cage was under discussions for Willy Wonka, but lost interest.[5][12] Gary Ross signed to direct in February 2000,[13] which resulted in Frank completing two drafts of the screenplay,[11] before leaving with Ross in September 2001.[14] Both Warner Bros. and the Dahl Estate wanted Frank to stay on the project, but he faced scheduling conflicts and contractual obligations with Minority Report (2002) and The Lookout (2007).[11]

text: Rob Minkoff entered negotiations to take the director's position in October 2001,[15] and Gwyn Lurie was hired to start from scratch on a new script in February 2002. Lurie said she would adapt the original book and ignore the 1971 film adaptation. Dahl's estate championed Lurie after being impressed with her work on another Dahl adaptation, a live-action adaptation of The BFG, for Paramount Pictures, which was never made (Paramount distributed the earlier 1971 film version of Charlie, and later sold the rights to WB).[16] In April 2002, Martin Scorsese was involved with the film, albeit briefly, but opted to direct The Aviator instead.[5][12] Warner Bros. president Alan F. Horn wanted Tom Shadyac to direct Jim Carrey as Willy Wonka, believing the duo could make Charlie and the Chocolate Factory relevant to mainstream audiences, but Liccy Dahl opposed this.[7]

text: Pre-production

text: After receiving enthusiastic approval from the Dahl Estate, Warner Bros. hired Tim Burton to direct in May 2003.[6] Burton compared the project's languishing development to Batman (1989), which he directed, in how there had been varied creative efforts with both films. He said, "Scott Frank's version was the best, probably the clearest, and the most interesting, but they had abandoned that."[17] Liccy Dahl commented that Burton was the first and only director the estate was happy with. He had previously produced another of the author's adaptations with James and the Giant Peach (1996), and, like Roald and Liccy, disliked the 1971 film because it strayed from the book's storyline.[7]

text:
"As a child, Dahl was the author who I connected to the most. He got the idea of writing a mixture of light and darkness, and not speaking down to kids, and the kind of politically incorrect humor that kids get. I've always liked that, and it's shaped everything I've felt that I've done."

Tim Burton[17]

tag: div

text: During pre-production Burton visited Dahl's former home in the Buckinghamshire village of Great Missenden. Liccy Dahl remembers Burton entering Dahl's famed writing shed and saying, "This is the Buckets' house!" and thinking to herself, "Thank God, somebody gets it." Liccy also showed Burton the original handwritten manuscripts, which Burton discovered were more politically incorrect than the published book. The manuscripts included a child named Herpes, after the sexually transmitted disease.[17] Burton immediately thought of Johnny Depp for the role of Willy Wonka, who in August 2003 joined the film, his fourth collaboration with the director.[18]

text: Lurie's script received a rewrite by Pamela Pettler, who worked with Burton on Corpse Bride, but the director hired Big Fish screenwriter John August in December 2003 to start from scratch.[12] Both August and Burton were fans of the book since their childhoods.[17] August first read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when he was eight years old, and subsequently sent Dahl a fan letter. He did not see the 1971 film prior to his hiring, which Burton believed would be fundamental in having August stay closer to the book.[19] The writer updated the Mike Teavee character into an obsessive video game player, as compared to the novel, in which he fantasized about violent crime films. The characters Arthur Slugworth and Prodnose were reduced to brief cameo appearances, while Mr. Beauregarde was entirely omitted.[20]

text: Burton and August also worked together in creating Wilbur Wonka, Willy's domineering dentist father. Burton thought the paternal character would help explain Willy Wonka himself and that otherwise he would be "just a weird guy".[3] The element of an estranged father-son relationship had previously appeared in Big Fish, similarly directed by Burton and written by August. Warner Bros. and the director held differences over the characterizations of Charlie Bucket and Willy Wonka. The studio wanted to entirely delete Mr. Bucket and make Willy Wonka the idyllic father figure Charlie had longed for his entire life. Burton believed that Wonka would not be a good father, finding the character similar to a recluse.[21] Burton said, "In some ways, he's more screwed up than the kids." Warner Bros. also wanted Charlie to be a whiz kid, but Burton resisted the characterization. He wanted Charlie to be an average child who would be in the background and not get in trouble.[17]

text: Casting

text: Prior to Burton's involvement, Warner Bros. considered or discussed Willy Wonka with Bill Murray, Christopher Walken, Steve Martin, Robin Williams, Nicolas Cage, Jim Carrey, Michael Keaton, Robert De Niro, Brad Pitt, Will Smith, Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, Leslie Nielsen, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Patrick Stewart, and Adam Sandler.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Dustin Hoffman and Marilyn Manson reportedly wanted the role as well.[24][30] Pitt's production company, Plan B Entertainment, however, stayed on to co-finance the film with Warner Bros.[7] Coincidentally, Cleese, Idle and Palin (as well as the other three Monty Python members) had all previously expressed interest in playing Wonka in the 1971 film adaptation.[29] Johnny Depp was the only actor Burton considered for the role,[17] although Dwayne Johnson was Burton's second choice in case Depp was unavailable.[31] Depp signed on without reading the script under the intention of going with a completely different approach than what Gene Wilder did in the 1971 film adaptation.[32] Depp said regardless of the original film, Gene Wilder's characterization of Willy Wonka stood out as a unique portrayal.[7]

text: Depp and Burton derived their Willy Wonka from children's television show hosts such as Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo), Fred Rogers, and Al Lewis from The Uncle Al Show, and Depp also took inspiration from various game show hosts.[33] Burton recalled from his childhood that the characters were bizarre but left lasting impressions. He said, "It was kind of a strange amalgamation of these weird children's TV show hosts."[17] Depp based Wonka's look (exaggerated bob cut and sunglasses) on Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour.[34]

text: Comparisons were drawn between Willy Wonka and Michael Jackson. Burton disagreed with the comparisons and said Jackson, unlike Wonka, liked children.[21] Depp said the similarities with Jackson never occurred to him. Instead, he compared Wonka to Howard Hughes due to his "reclusive, germaphobe, controlling" nature.[33] Burton agreed with the similarity to Hughes. He also cited Charles Foster Kane from Citizen Kane as an inspiration for Wonka, as Kane is "somebody who was brilliant but then was traumatized and then retreats into their own world".[17] Depp wanted to sport prosthetic makeup for the part and have a long, elongated nose, but Burton believed it would be too outrageous. During production, Gene Wilder, in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, accused the filmmakers of only remaking the 1971 film for the purpose of money. Depp said he was disappointed by Wilder's comment, and responded that the film was not a remake, but a new adaptation of Dahl's 1964 book.[3]

text: The casting calls for Charlie Bucket, Violet Beauregarde, Veruca Salt, and Mike Teavee took place in the United States and United Kingdom, while Augustus Gloop's casting took place in Germany. Burton said he sought actors "who had something of the character in them", and found Mike Teavee the hardest character to cast.[17] Burton was finding trouble casting Charlie, until Depp, who had worked with Freddie Highmore on Finding Neverland, suggested Highmore for the part.[5] Highmore had already read the book before, but decided to read it once more prior to auditioning.[35] The actor did not see the original film adaptation, and chose not to see it until after Burton's production, so his portrayal would not be influenced.[36]

text: Before Adam Godley was officially cast as Mr. Teavee, Dan Castellaneta, Tim Allen, Ed O'Neill, Bob Saget, and Ray Romano were all considered for the role.[22]

text: It has been rumored that Gregory Peck was considered for the role of Grandpa Joe.[37] Other actors that were considered for Grandpa Joe included Richard Attenborough, Kirk Douglas, Albert Finney, Anthony Hopkins, Paul Newman, Max von Sydow, David Warner, Christopher Lloyd and Peter Ustinov.[38]

text: Filming

text: Principal photography for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory started on June 21, 2004[12] at Pinewood Studios in England.[39] Director Tim Burton and composer Danny Elfman found filming somewhat difficult because they were simultaneously working on Corpse Bride.[21] The Wonka Factory exterior was coincidentally constructed on the same backlot Burton had used for Gotham City in Batman (1989).[17] The ceremonial scene required 500 local extras.[7] The Chocolate Room/River setpiece filled Pinewood's 007 Stage. As a consequence of British Equity rules, which state that children can only work four and a half hours a day, filming for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory took six months, ending in December 2004.[17]

text: Design

text: The architecture of the Bucket family home was influenced by Burton's visit to Roald Dahl's writing hut. Like the book, the film has a "timeless" setting and is not set in a specific country. "We've tried not to pinpoint it to any place," production designer Alex McDowell explained. "The cars, in fact, drive down the middle of the road."[7] The town, whose design was shaped by the black and white urban photography of Bill Brandt, as well as Pittsburgh and Northern England, is arranged like a medieval village, with Wonka's estate on top and the Bucket shack below.[7] The filmmakers also used fascist architecture for Wonka's factory exterior, and designed most of the sets on 360° sound stages, similar to cycloramas. Burton biographer Mark Salisbury wrote that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory "melds 1950s and '70s visuals with a futuristic sensibility that seems straight out of a 1960s sense of the future."[17] The "TV Room" was patterned after photographs from the films 2001: A Space Odyssey, Danger: Diabolik, and THX 1138. Danger Diabolik also served as inspiration for the Nut Room and Inventing Room.[17]

text: Visual effects

text: Tim Burton avoided using too many digital effects because he wanted the younger actors to feel as if they were working in a realistic environment.[40] As a result, forced perspective techniques, oversized props and scale models were used to avoid computer-generated imagery (CGI).[17] Deep Roy was cast to play the Oompa-Loompas based on his previous collaborations with Burton on Planet of the Apes and Big Fish. The actor was able to play various Oompa-Loompas using split screen photography, digital and front projection effects.[3] "Tim told me that the Oompa-Loompas were strictly programmed, like robots — all they do is work, work, work," Roy commented. "So when it comes time to dance, they're like a regiment; they do the same steps."[41]

text: A practical method was considered for the scene in which Violet Beauregarde turns blue and swells up into a giant 10-foot blueberry. A suit with an air hose was considered at one point for the beginnings of the swelling scene, before the decision was made to do the entire transformation in CGI. The visual effects house Cinesite was recruited for this assignment. In some shots of AnnaSophia Robb's head, a facial prosthetic was worn to give the impression that her cheeks had swelled up as well. Because this decision was made late in the film's production, any traces of Violet's blueberry scene were omitted from trailers or promotional material.

text: Rather than rely on CGI, Burton wanted the 40 squirrels in the Nut Room to be real. The animals were trained every day for 10 weeks before filming commenced. They began their coaching while newborns, fed by bottles to form relationships with human trainers. The squirrels were each taught how to sit upon a little blue bar stool, tap and then open a walnut, and deposit its meat onto a conveyor belt.[7] "Ultimately, the scene was supplemented by CGI and animatronics," Burton said, "but for the close-ups and the main action, they're the real thing."[17] Wonka's Viking boat for the Chocolate River sequence floats down a realistic river filled with 192,000 gallons of faux melted chocolate.[42] "Having seen the first film, we wanted to make the chocolate river look edible," McDowell said. "In the first film, it's so distasteful." The production first considered a CGI river, but Burton was impressed with the artificial substance when he saw how it clung to the boat's oars. Nine shades of chocolate were tested before Burton settled on the proper hue.[7]

text: Music

text: The original music score was written by Danny Elfman, a frequent collaborator with director Tim Burton. Elfman's score is based around three primary themes: a gentle family theme for the Buckets, generally set in upper woodwinds; a mystical, string-driven waltz for Willy Wonka; and a hyper-upbeat factory theme for full orchestra, Elfman's homemade synthesizer samples and the diminutive chanting voices of the Oompa-Loompas.[43]

text: Elfman also wrote and performed the vocals for four songs, with pitch changes and modulations to represent different singers.[44] The lyrics to the Oompa-Loompa songs are adapted from the original book, and are thus credited to Roald Dahl.[43] Following Burton's suggestion, each song in the score is designed to reflect a different archetype.[44] "Wonka's Welcome Song" is a maddeningly cheerful theme park ditty, "Augustus Gloop" a Bollywood spectacle (per Deep Roy's suggestion),[41] "Violet Beauregarde" is 1970s funk, "Veruca Salt" is 1960s bubblegum pop / psychedelic pop, and "Mike Teavee" is a tribute to late 1970s hard rock (such as Queen) and early 1980s hair bands.[43][44]

text: The original motion picture soundtrack was released on July 12, 2005 by Warner Bros. Records.

text: Release

text: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had its premiere at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre, on July 10, 2005, where money for the Make-a-Wish Foundation was raised.[45] The film was released in the United States on July 15, 2005 in 3,770 theaters[46] (including IMAX theaters).[47]

text: Marketing

text: Early in the development of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in February 2000, Warner Bros. announced their intention of marketing the film[13] with a Broadway theatre musical after release. The studio reiterated their interest in May 2003,[6] however, the idea was postponed by the time filming began in June 2004.[7] The main tie-in for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory focused on The Willy Wonka Candy Company, a division of Nestlé. A small range of Wonka Bars were launched, utilizing their prominence in the film.[48] The release of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory also rekindled public interest in Roald Dahl's 1964 book, and appeared on the New York Times Best Seller list from July 3 to October 23, 2005.[49][50]

text: Box office

text: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory earned $56,178,450 in its opening weekend,[46] the fifth-highest opening weekend gross for 2005, and stayed at #1 for two weeks.[51] The film eventually grossed $206,459,076 in US totals and $268,509,687 in foreign countries, coming to a worldwide total of $474,968,763. It was the fifty-eighth highest-grossing film of all time when released,[46] as well as seventh-highest for the US[51] and eighth-highest worldwide for the year of 2005.[52]

text: Critical response

text: Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an approval rating of 83% based on 222 reviews, with an average rating of 7.2/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Closer to the source material than 1971's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is for people who like their Chocolate visually appealing and dark."[53] On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 72 out of 100, based on 40 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[54] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale.[55]

text: Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly praised Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, writing "Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka may be a stone freak, but he is also one of Burton's classic crackpot conjurers, like Beetlejuice or Ed Wood."[56] Roger Ebert gave an overall positive review and enjoyed the film. He was primarily impressed by Tim Burton's direction of the younger cast members, but was disappointed with Depp's performance: "What was Depp thinking of? In Pirates of the Caribbean he was famously channeling Keith Richards, which may have primed us to look for possible inspirations for this performance."[57] Mick LaSalle from the San Francisco Chronicle found Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Burton's "best work in years. If all the laughs come from Depp, who gives Willy the mannerisms of a classic Hollywood diva, the film's heart comes from Highmore, a gifted young performer whose performance is sincere, deep and unforced in a way that's rare in a child actor."[58] Peter Travers wrote in Rolling Stone magazine that "Depp's deliciously demented take on Willy Wonka demands to be seen. Depp goes deeper to find the bruises on Wonka's secret heart than what Gene Wilder did. Depp and Burton may fly too high on the vapors of pure imagination, but it's hard to not get hooked on something this tasty. And how about that army of Oompa-Loompas, all played by Deep Roy, in musical numbers that appear to have been choreographed by Busby Berkeley on crack."[59]

text: Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post criticized Depp's acting. "The cumulative effect isn't pretty. Nor is it kooky, funny, eccentric or even mildly interesting. Indeed, throughout his fey, simpering performance, Depp seems to be straining so hard for weirdness that the entire enterprise begins to feel like those excruciating occasions when your parents tried to be hip. Aside from Burton's usual eye-popping direction, the film's strenuous efforts at becoming a camp classic eventually begin to wear thin."[60]

text: In 2007, Gene Wilder said he chose not to see the film. "The thing that put me off ... I like Johnny Depp, I like him, as an actor I like him very much ... but when I saw little pieces in the promotion of what he was doing, I said I don't want to see the film, because I don't want to be disappointed in him."[61] In 2013, when Wilder was asked about the Burton remake, he said "I think it's an insult. It's probably Warner Bros.' insult." He also criticized the choices that Burton made as a director, saying "I don't care for that director. He's a talented man, but I don't care for him doing stuff like he did."[62]

text: Accolades

text: Costume designer Gabriella Pescucci received an Academy Award nomination, but lost to Colleen Atwood for Memoirs of a Geisha.[63] Johnny Depp lost the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy to Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line.[64] More nominations followed from the British Academy Film Awards for Visual Effects, Costume Design (Pescucci), Makeup & Hair (Peter Owen and Ivana Primorac) and Production Design (Alex McDowell).[65] Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was also nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film, as well as Performance by a Younger Actor (Freddie Highmore), Music (Danny Elfman) and Costume (Pescucci).[66] Elfman and screenwriter John August were nominated for a Grammy Award with "Wonka's Welcome Song".[67]


document_title: English longbow

question_text: when was the longbow last used in battle

text: English longbow

text: Description[edit]

text: Length[edit]

text: A longbow must be long enough to allow its user to draw the string to a point on the face or body, and the length therefore varies with the user. In continental Europe it was generally seen as any bow longer than 1.2 m (3.9 ft). The Society of Antiquaries of London says it is of 5 or 6 feet (1.5 or 1.8 metres) in length.[4] Richard Bartelot, of the Royal Artillery Institution, said that the bow was of yew, 6 feet (1.8 m) long, with a 3-foot (910 mm) arrow.[5] Gaston III, Count of Foix, wrote in 1388 that a longbow should be "of yew or boxwood, seventy inches [1.8 m] between the points of attachment for the cord".[6] Historian Jim Bradbury said they were an average of about 5 feet and 8 inches.[7] All but the last estimate were made before the excavation of the Mary Rose, where bows were found ranging in length from 1.87 to 2.11 m (6 ft 2 in to 6 ft 11 in) with an average length of 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in).[8]

text: Draw weights[edit]

text: Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.

text: A modern longbow's draw is typically 60 lbf (270 N) or less, and by modern convention measured at 28 inches (71.1 cm). Historically, hunting bows usually had draw weights of 50–60 lbf (220–270 N), which is enough for all but the very largest game and which most reasonably fit adults can manage with practice. Today, there are few modern longbowmen capable of using 180–185 lbf (800–820 N) bows accurately.[10][11][12]

text: A record of how boys and men trained to use the bows with high draw weights survives from the reign of Henry VII.

text: [My yeoman father] taught me how to draw, how to lay my body in my bow ... not to draw with strength of arms as divers other nations do ... I had my bows bought me according to my age and strength, as I increased in them, so my bows were made bigger and bigger. For men shall never shoot well unless they be brought up to it.

text: What Latimer meant when he describes laying his body into the bow was described thus:

text: the Englishman did not keep his left hand steady, and draw his bow with his right; but keeping his right at rest upon the nerve, he pressed the whole weight of his body into the horns of his bow. Hence probably arose the phrase "bending the bow," and the French of "drawing" one.

text: Construction and materials[edit]

text: Bowstave[edit]

text: The preferred material to make the longbow was yew, although ash, elm and other woods were also used. Gerald of Wales speaking of the bows used by the Welsh men of Gwent, says: "They are made neither of horn, ash nor yew, but of elm; ugly unfinished-looking weapons, but astonishingly stiff, large and strong, and equally capable of use for long or short shooting".[15] The traditional construction of a longbow consists of drying the yew wood for 1 to 2 years, then slowly working the wood into shape, with the entire process taking up to four years. (This can be done far more quickly by working the wood down when wet, as a thinner piece of wood will dry much faster.[original research?]) The bow stave is shaped into a D-section. The outer "back" of sapwood, approximately flat, follows the natural growth rings; modern bowyers often thin the sapwood, while in the Mary Rose bows the back of the bow was the natural surface of the wood, only the bark being removed. The inner side ("belly") of the bow stave consists of rounded heartwood. The heartwood resists compression and the outer sapwood performs better in tension. This combination in a single piece of wood (a self bow) forms a natural "laminate", somewhat similar in effect to the construction of a composite bow. Longbows will last a long time if protected with a water-resistant coating, traditionally of "wax, resin and fine tallow".

text: The trade of yew wood to England for longbows was such that it depleted the stocks of yew over a huge area. The first documented import of yew bowstaves to England was in 1294. In 1350 there was a serious shortage, and Henry IV of England ordered his royal bowyer to enter private land and cut yew and other woods. In 1470 compulsory practice was renewed, and hazel, ash, and laburnum were specifically allowed for practice bows. Supplies still proved insufficient, until by the Statute of Westminster 1472, every ship coming to an English port had to bring four bowstaves for every tun.[16] Richard III of England increased this to ten for every tun. This stimulated a vast network of extraction and supply, which formed part of royal monopolies in southern Germany and Austria. In 1483, the price of bowstaves rose from two to eight pounds per hundred, and in 1510 the Venetians obtained sixteen pounds per hundred.

text: In 1507 the Holy Roman Emperor asked the Duke of Bavaria to stop cutting yew, but the trade was profitable, and in 1532 the royal monopoly was granted for the usual quantity "if there are that many". In 1562, the Bavarian government sent a long plea to the Holy Roman Emperor asking him to stop the cutting of yew, and outlining the damage done to the forests by its selective extraction, which broke the canopy and allowed wind to destroy neighbouring trees. In 1568, despite a request from Saxony, no royal monopoly was granted because there was no yew to cut, and the next year Bavaria and Austria similarly failed to produce enough yew to justify a royal monopoly.

text: Forestry records in this area in the 17th century do not mention yew, and it seems that no mature trees were to be had. The English tried to obtain supplies from the Baltic, but at this period bows were being replaced by guns in any case.[17][page needed]

text: String[edit]

text: Bowstrings are made of hemp, flax or silk, and attached to the wood via horn "nocks" that fit onto the end of the bow. Modern synthetic materials (often Dacron) are now commonly also used for strings.

text: Arrows[edit]

text: A wide variety of arrows were shot from the English longbow. Variations in length, fletchings and heads are all recorded. Perhaps the greatest diversity lies in hunting arrows, with varieties like broad-arrow, wolf-arrow, dog-arrow, Welsh arrow and Scottish arrow being recorded.[18] War arrows were ordered in the thousands for medieval armies and navies, supplied in sheaves normally of 24 arrows.[19] For example, between 1341 and 1359 the English crown is known to have obtained 51,350 sheaves (1,232,400 arrows).[20]

text: Only one significant group of arrows, found at the wreck of the Mary Rose, has survived. Over 3500 arrows were found, mainly made of poplar but also of ash, beech and hazel. Analysis of the intact specimens shows their length to vary from 61 to 83 centimetres (24–33 in), with an average length of 76 centimetres (30 in).[21] Because of the preservation conditions of the Mary Rose no arrowheads survived. However, many heads have survived in other places, which has allowed typologies of arrow heads to be produced, the most modern being the Jessop typology.[22] The most common arrowheads in military use were the short bodkin point (Jessop M10) and a small barbed arrow (Jessop M4).[23]

text: Use and performance[edit]

text: Training[edit]

text: Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[24]

text: It was the difficulty in using the longbow that led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and Edward III of England's declaration of 1363:

text: Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery. [25]

text: If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the king to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen that eventually led to their being replaced by musketeers.

text: Range[edit]

text: The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with much depending on both the power of the bow and the type of arrow. It has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd (370 m)[26] but the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345 yd (315 m).[27]  In 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of 220 yd (200 m); ranges below this had to be shot with heavy arrows.[28] Modern experiments broadly concur with these historical ranges. A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.89 oz) arrow 328 m (359 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.38 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (273.3 yd).[29]  In 2012, Joe Gibbs shot a 2.25 oz (64 g) livery arrow 292 yd (267 m) with a 170 lbf yew bow.[30] The effective combat range of longbowmen was generally lower than what could be achieved on the practice range as sustained shooting was tiring and the rigors of campaigning would sap soldiers' strength. Writing 30 years after the Mary Rose sank, Barnabe Rich estimated that if 1,000 English archers were mustered then after one week only 100 of them would be able to shoot farther than 200 paces, while 200 would not be able to shoot farther than 180 paces.[31][clarification needed]

text: Armour penetration[edit]

text: Modern testing[edit]

text: In an early modern test by Saxton Pope, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus mail armour.[32][33]

text: A 2006 test was made by Matheus Bane using a 75 lbf (330 N) draw (at 28") bow, shooting at 10 yards; according to Bane's calculations, this would be approximately equivalent to a 110 lbf (490 N) bow at 250 yards.[34] Measured against a replica of the thinnest contemporary "Jack coat" armour, a 905 grain needle bodkin and a 935 grain curved broadhead penetrated over 3.5 inches (89 mm). ("Jack coat" armour could be up to twice as thick as the coat tested; in Bane's opinion such a thick coat would have stopped bodkin arrows but not the cutting force of broadhead arrows.) Against "high quality riveted maille", the needle bodkin and curved broadhead penetrated 2.8". Against a coat of plates, the needle bodkin achieved 0.3" penetration. The curved broadhead did not penetrate but caused 0.3" of deformation of the metal. Results against plate armour of "minimum thickness" (1.2mm) were similar to the coat of plates, in that the needle bodkin penetrated to a shallow depth, the other arrows not at all. In Bane's view, the plate armour would have kept out all the arrows if thicker or worn with more padding.

text: Other modern tests described by Bane include those by Williams (which concluded that longbows could not penetrate mail, but in Bane's view did not use a realistic arrow tip), Robert Hardy's tests (which achieved broadly similar results to Bane), and a Primitive Archer test which demonstrated that a longbow could penetrate a plate armour breastplate. However, the Primitive Archer test used a 160 lbf (710 N) longbow at very short range, generating 160 joules (vs. 73 for Bane and 80 for Williams), so probably not representative of battles of the time.

text: Tests conducted by Mark Stretton[35] examined the effects of heavier war shafts (as opposed to lighter hunting or distance-shooting 'flight arrows'). The quarrel-like 102 gram arrow from a yew 'self bow' (with a draw weight of 144lbs at 32 inches) while travelling at 47.23 metres per second yielded 113.76 joules, more kinetic energy than the lighter broad-heads while achieving 90% of the range. The short, heavy quarrel-form bodkin could penetrate a replica brigandine at up to 40° from perpendicular.[35]

text: In 2011, Mike Loades conducted an experiment in which short bodkin arrows were shot at a range of 10 yd (9.1 m) by bows of 140 lbf (620 N) - powerful bows at less than normal battlefield range. The target was covered in a riveted mail over a fabric armour of deerskin over 24 linen layers.  While most arrows went through the mail layer, none fully penetrated the textile armour.[36]

text: Other research has also concluded that later medieval armour, such as that of the Italian city state mercenary companies, was effective at stopping contemporary arrows.[37]

text: Contemporary accounts[edit]

text: Gerald of Wales commented on the power of the Welsh longbow in the 12th century:

text: [I]n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron chausses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.[38][39]

text: Against massed men in armour, massed longbows were murderously effective on many battlefields.[40]

text: Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows".[41]

text: Archery was described by contemporaries as ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights and men at arms of fairly modest means by the late 14th century, though never to all soldiers in any army. Longbowmen were however effective at Poitiers, and this success stimulated changes in armour manufacture partly intended to make armoured men less vulnerable to archery. Nevertheless, at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 and for some decades thereafter, English longbowmen continued to be an effective battlefield force.[40]

text: Shields[edit]

text: Following the Battle of Crécy, the longbow did not always prove as effective. For example, at the Battle of Poitiers (1356), the French men-at-arms formed a shieldwall with which Geoffrey le Baker recounts "‘protecting their bodies with joined shields, [and] turned their faces away from the missiles. So the archers emptied their quivers in vain".[42]

text: Summary[edit]

text: Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows. However this did not necessarily make the longbow ineffective; thousands of longbowmen were deployed in the English victory at Agincourt against plate armoured French knights in 1415. Clifford Rogers has argued that while longbows might not have been able to penetrate steel breastplates at Agincourt they could still penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs. Most of the French knights advanced on foot but, exhausted by walking across wet muddy terrain in heavy armour enduring a "terrifying hail of arrow shot", they were overwhelmed in the melee.[citation needed]

text: Less heavily armoured soldiers were more vulnerable than knights. For example, enemy crossbowmen were forced to retreat at Crécy when deployed without their protecting pavises. Horses were generally less well protected than the knights themselves; shooting the French knights' horses from the side (where they were less well armoured) is described by contemporary accounts of the Battle of Poitiers (1356), and at Agincourt John Keegan has argued that the main effect of the longbow would have been in injuring the horses of the mounted French knights.[citation needed]

text: Shooting rate[edit]

text: A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle. Most archers would not shoot arrows at maximum rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. "With the heaviest bows [a modern war bow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."[43] Not only do the arms and shoulder muscles tire from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of shooting in combat would vary considerably. Ranged volleys at the beginning of the battle would differ markedly from the closer, aimed shots as the battle progressed and the enemy neared. On the battlefield English archers stored their arrows stabbed upright into the ground at their feet, reducing the time it took to nock, draw and loose.

text: Arrows were not unlimited, so archers and their commanders took every effort to ration their use to the situation at hand.  Nonetheless, resupply during battle was available. Young boys were often employed to run additional arrows to longbow archers while in their positions on the battlefield.[44] "The longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages: accurate, deadly, possessed of a long range and rapid rate of fire, the flight of its missiles was likened to a storm".[2]

text: In tests against a moving target simulating a galloping knight[35] it took some approximately seven seconds to draw, aim and loose an armour-piercing heavy arrow using a replica war bow. It was found that in the seven seconds between the first and second shots the target advanced 70 yards and that the second shot occurred at such close range that, if it was a realistic contest, running away was the only option.

text: A Tudor English author expects eight shots from a longbow in the same time as five from a musket,.[31] He points out that the musket also shoots at a flatter trajectory, so is more likely to hit its target and its shot is likely to be more damaging in the event of a hit. The advantage of early firearms lay in the lower training requirements, the opportunity to take cover while shooting, flatter trajectory,[31] and greater penetration.[45]

text: Treating arrow wounds[edit]

text: The only way to remove an arrow cleanly was to tie a piece of cloth soaked in water to the end of it and push it through the victim's wound and out the other side — this was extremely painful. Specialised tools have existed since ancient times: Diocles (successor of Hippocrates) devised the graphiscos, a form of cannula with hooks, and the duck-billed forceps (allegedly invented by Heras of Cappadocia[46]) employed during the medieval period to extract arrows from places where bone prevented the arrow being pushed through.

text: Henry, Prince of Wales, later Henry V, was wounded in the face by an arrow at the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403). The royal physician John Bradmore had such a tool made, which consisted of a pair of smooth tongs. Once carefully inserted into the socket of the arrowhead, the tongs screwed apart till they gripped its walls and allowed the head to be extracted from the wound. Prior to the extraction, the hole made by the arrow shaft had been widened by inserting larger and larger dowels of elder pith wrapped in linen down the entry wound. The dowels were soaked in honey, now known to have antiseptic properties.[47] The wound was then dressed with a poultice of barley and honey mixed in turpentine (pre-dating Ambroise Paré but whose therapeutic use of turpentine was inspired by Roman medical texts that may have been familiar to Bradmore). After 20 days the wound was free of infection.[48]

text: History[edit]

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The word may have been coined to distinguish the longbow from the crossbow.  The first recorded use of the term longbow, as distinct from simply 'bow', is possibly in a 1386 administrative document which refers in Latin to arcus vocati longbowes, "bows called 'longbows'", though unfortunately the reading of the last word in the original document is not certain.  A 1444 will proved in York bequeaths "a sadil, alle my longe bowis, a bedde".[49]

text: Origins[edit]

text: The origins of the English longbow are disputed. While it is hard to assess the significance of military archery in pre-Norman Conquest Anglo-Saxon warfare, it is clear that archery played a prominent role under the Normans, as the story of the Battle of Hastings shows. Their Anglo-Norman descendants also made use of military archery, as exemplified by their victory at the Battle of the Standard in 1138. During the Anglo-Norman invasions of Wales, Welsh bowmen took a heavy toll of the invaders and Welsh archers would feature in English armies from this point on. However, historians dispute whether this archery used a different kind of bow to the later English Longbow.[50] Traditionally it has been argued that prior to the beginning of the 14th century, the weapon was a self bow between four and five feet in length, known since the 19th century as the shortbow. This weapon, drawn to the chest rather than the ear, was much weaker. However, in 1985, Jim Bradbury reclassified this weapon as the ordinary wooden bow, reserving the term shortbow for short composite bows and arguing that longbows were a developed form of this ordinary bow.[51] Strickland and Hardy in 2005 took this argument further, suggesting that the shortbow was a myth and all early English bows were a form of longbow.[52] In 2011, Clifford Rogers forcefully restated the traditional case based upon a variety of evidence, including a large scale iconographic survey.[53] In 2012, Richard Wadge added to the debate with an extensive survey of record, iconographic and archaeological evidence, concluding that longbows co-existed with shorter self-wood bows in England in the period between the Norman conquest and the reign of Edward III, but that powerful longbows shooting heavy arrows were a rarity until the later 13th century.[54] Whether or not there was a technological revolution at the end of the 13th century therefore remains in dispute. What is agreed, however, is that the English longbow as an effective weapon system evolved in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.

text: Fourteenth and fifteenth century[edit]

text: The longbow decided many medieval battles fought by the English and Welsh, the most significant of which were the Battle of Crécy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415), during the Hundred Years' War and followed earlier successes, notably at the Battle of Falkirk (1298) and the Battle of Halidon Hill (1333) during the Wars of Scottish Independence. They were less successful after this, with longbowmen having their lines broken at the Battle of Verneuil (1424), and being routed at the Battle of Patay (1429) when they were charged before they had set up their defenses.

text: The longbow was also used against the English by their Welsh neighbours. The Welsh used the longbow mostly in a different manner than the English. In many early period English campaigns, the Welsh used the longbow in ambushes, often at point blank range that allowed their missiles to penetrate armour and generally do a lot of damage.[55]

text:
Although longbows were much faster and more accurate than the black-powder weapons which replaced them, longbowmen always took a long time to train because of the years of practice necessary before a war longbow could be used effectively (examples of longbows from the Mary Rose typically had draws greater than 637 N (143 lbf)). In an era in which warfare was usually seasonal, and non-noble soldiers spent part of the year working at farms, the year-round training required for the effective use of the longbow was a challenge. A standing army was an expensive proposition to a medieval ruler. Mainland European armies seldom trained a significant longbow corps. Due to their specialized training, English longbowmen were sought as mercenaries in other European countries, most notably in the Italian city-states and in Spain.
The White Company,[56] comprising men-at-arms and longbowmen and commanded by Sir John Hawkwood, is the best known English Free Company of the 14th century. The powerful Hungarian king, Louis the Great, is an example of someone who used longbowmen in his Italian campaigns.[citation needed]

text: Sixteenth century and later[edit]

text: Longbows remained in use until around the 16th century, when advances in firearms made gunpowder weapons a significant factor in warfare and such units as arquebusiers and grenadiers began appearing. Despite this, the English Crown made numerous efforts to continue to promote archery practice by banning other sports and fining people for not possessing bows.[57] Indeed, just before the English Civil War, a pamphlet by William Neade entitled The Double-Armed Man advocated that soldiers be trained in both the longbow and pike; although this advice was followed only by a few town militias.[citation needed]

text: The Battle of Flodden (1513) was "a landmark in the history of archery, as the last battle on English soil to be fought with the longbow as the principal weapon..."[58] The last recorded use of bows in an English battle may have been a skirmish at Bridgnorth, in October 1642, during the Civil War, when an impromptu town militia, armed with bows, proved effective against un-armoured musketeers.[59] The Battle of Tippermuir (1644), in Scotland, may have been the last battle involving the longbow.[60] Longbowmen remained a feature of the Royalist Army, but were not used by the Roundheads.

text: Longbows have been in continuous production and use for sport and for hunting to the present day, but since 1642 they have been a minority interest, and very few have had the high draw weights of the medieval weapons. Other differences include the use of a stiffened non-bending centre section, rather than a continuous bend.[citation needed]

text: Serious military interest in the longbow faded after the seventeenth century but occasionally schemes to resurrect its military use were proposed. Benjamin Franklin was a proponent in the 1770s; the Honourable Artillery Company had an archer company between 1784 and 1794; and a man named Richard Mason wrote a book proposing the arming of militia with pike and longbow in 1798.[61]  Donald Featherstone also records a Lt. Col. Richard Lee of 44th Foot advocated the military use of the longbow in 1792.[62] There is a record of the use of the longbow in action as late as WWII, when Jack Churchill is credited with a longbow kill in France in 1940.[63]  The weapon was certainly considered for use by Commandos during the war but it is not known whether it was used in action.[64]

text: Tactics[edit]

text: Battle formations[edit]

text: The idea that there was a standard formation for English longbow armies was argued by Alfred Byrne in his influential work on the battles of the Hundred Years' War, The Crecy War.[65] This view was challenged by Jim Bradbury in his book The Medieval Archer[66] and more modern works are more ready to accept a variety of formations.[67]

text: In summary, however, the usual English deployment in the 14th and 15th centuries was as follows:

text:
Infantry (usually dismounted knights and armoured soldiers employed by the nobles and often armed with pole weapons such as pollaxes and bills) in the centre.
Longbowmen were usually deployed primarily on the flanks, sometimes to the front.
Cavalry was rarely used but, where deployed, either on the flanks (to make or protect against flank attacks), or in the centre in reserve, to be deployed as needed (for example, to counter any breakthroughs).

text: In the 16th century, these formations evolved in line with new technologies and techniques from the continent. Formations with a central core of pikes and bills were flanked by companies of "shot" made up of a mixture of archers and arquebusiers, sometimes with a skirmish screen of archers and arquebusiers in front.[68]

text: Surviving bows and arrows[edit]

text: More than 3,500 arrows and 137 whole longbows were recovered from the Mary Rose, a ship of Henry VIII's navy that capsized and sank at Portsmouth in 1545. It is an important source for the history of the longbow, as the bows, archery implements and the skeletons of archers have been preserved. The bows range in length from 1.87 to 2.11 m (6 ft 2 in to 6 ft 11 in) with an average length of 1.98 m (6 ft 6 in).[8] The majority of the arrows were made of poplar, others were made of beech, ash and hazel. Draw lengths of the arrows varied between 61 and 81 centimetres (24 and 32 in) with the majority having a draw length of 76 centimetres (30 in).[21] The head would add 5–15 cm depending on type, though some 2–4.5 cm must be allowed for the insertion of the shaft into the socket.[69]

text: The longbows on the Mary Rose were in excellent finished condition. There were enough bows to test some to destruction which resulted in draw forces of 450 N (100 lbf) on average. However, analysis of the wood indicated that they had degraded significantly in the seawater and mud, which had weakened their draw forces. Replicas were made and when tested had draw forces of from 445 N to 823 N (100 to 185 lbf).[9]

text: In 1980, before the finds from the Mary Rose, Robert E. Kaiser published a paper stating that there were five known surviving longbows:[2]

text:
The first bow comes from the Battle of Hedgeley Moor in 1464, during the Wars of the Roses. A family who lived at the castle since the battle had preserved it to modern times. It is 1.66 m (65 in) and a 270 N (60 lbf) draw force.[70]
The second dates to the Battle of Flodden in 1513 ("a landmark in the history of archery, as the last battle on English soil to be fought with the longbow as the principal weapon..."[58]). It hung in the rafters at the headquarters of the Royal Scottish Archers in Edinburgh.[2] It has a draw force of 360 to 410 N (80 to 90 lbf).
The third and fourth were recovered in 1836 by John Deane from the Mary Rose.[71] Both weapons are in the Tower of London Armoury and Horace Ford writing in 1887 estimated them to have a draw force of 280 to 320 N (65 to 70 lbf).[72] A modern replica made in the early 1970s of these bows has a draw force of 460 N (102 lbf).[73]
The fifth surviving longbow comes from the armoury of the church in the village of Mendlesham in Suffolk, and is believed to date either from the period of Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth I. The Mendlesham Bow is broken but has an estimated length of 1.73 to 1.75 m (68 to 69 in) and draw force of 350 N (80 lbf).[74]

text: Social importance[edit]

text: The importance of the longbow in English culture can be seen in the legends of Robin Hood, which increasingly depicted him as a master archer, and also in the "Song of the Bow", a poem from The White Company by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.[75]

text: During the reign of Henry III the Assize of Arms of 1252 required that all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed.[76] The poorest of them were expected to have a halberd and a knife, and a bow if they owned land worth more than £2.[77] This made it easier for the King to raise an army, but also meant that the bow was a weapon commonly used by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt. From the time that the yeoman class of England became proficient with the longbow, the nobility in England had to be careful not to push them into open rebellion.[78][79]

text: It has been conjectured that yew trees were commonly planted in English churchyards to have readily available longbow wood.[80]