Join Kobo & start eReading today
The significance of the Infantry Revolution, which reached fruition in the s and s, extends far beyond its immediate impact on the conduct of war. That there is a relationship between military power and political power is self-evident; thus, it should come as no surprise that the growing importance of common infantry on the battlefield was reflected in the political influence of the commons, especially in those nations such as England and Switzerland where the Infantry Revolution was the most completely embraced. The rebels were generally armed with longbows, and their leader, Wat Tyler, had seen service in France.
Contemporary rulers well understood this connection between the military and the political power of the commoners: It is little more than a striking coincidence that the French Estates-General met for the first time in the year of the battle of Courtrai. In wars against the Scots and Welsh, the English borough and shire levies had proved increasingly important since the late thirteenth century. The first record of the Commons meeting separately from the Lords in Parliament occurs in , shortly after the English bowmen proved their worth at Dupplin Muir , Halidon Hill , Cadzand , and Sluys At about the same time, the Commons began to take the initiative in legislation on a regular basis, acceding to new taxes only in return for political concessions.
Still, there can be little doubt that a connection does exist, and that the military enfranchisement of the nonaristocratic population contributed to its increased political influ—ence. On a less elevated plane, the social impact of the Infantry Revolution made itself felt on the battlefield, with remarkable consequences for the European conception of war. War under the feudal regimes of Western Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries often seemed more like sport than serious business. In the Flanders War of , which involved about a thousand knights fighting for over a year, only one died by the hand of an enemy; an equal proportion of the total losses of the war resulted from excessive horn-blowing.
At Lincoln in , three knights were killed and four hundred captured. The French at Courtrai, in contrast, lost a thousand knights;. Over eight thousand died at Verneuil How are we to explain this contrast? This figure was truly exceptional — equal to some twenty years worth of English ordinary royal revenue 67 — but even lesser captives could bring tremendous sums. When common infantry became a major force on the battlefield, much changed.
Enemy Arrows: Toronto in the Year 1420
The commoners, in general, did not command large enough ransoms to make their capture worthwhile. From Morgarten onward, the Swiss were famous for neither asking nor giving quarter. The Flemings at Courtrai took no prisoners. Simple technical factors also contributed to the increase in casualties evident during the Infantry Revolution. Pikes and longbows, by their very nature, are intended to kill an opponent before he can come in striking distance of the wielder, and it is difficult to offer or accept a personal surrender at a distance.
The value of the pike, furthermore, rested entirely on its use in a tight formation, and, again, it would have been impossible to take prisoners without breaking formation. They are, however, slow and unwieldy weapons. Thus, a halberdier must strive to down his enemy with his first blow, for he is unlikely to get a second; and a full-arm swing from a halberd will rarely leave the person struck in much shape to surrender.
Considering these social and technical factors, it is easy to see why the battlefields of the Infantry Revolution became such bloody places. It is hard to overemphasize the consequences of this development. Ever since, Europeans have had an unusually lethal approach to warfare. Geoffrey Parker has outlined the importance of this European conception of war in the European conquests of the early modern period, but he does not identify its origin.
The Infantry Revolution, however, was only the first of a series of periods of rapid change in European warfare which bring into question the concept of a single, overarching Military Revolution. Gunpowder artillery first appeared in Europe almost exactly a century before it revolutionized warfare in the ss. Guns, probably much like the Milemete weapons, were employed by German knights at the siege of Cividale in In that year, the English besieged Berwick and.
This account is worth quoting at some length because it concisely sums up the way in which gunpowder artillery was used throughout the fourteenth century. The gunstones were fired into the town, where they knocked down houses and churches, not against the walls. And, most important, the use of guns did not appreciably lessen the duration of the siege; the defenders still had to be starved out. The cannon of the early fourteenth century were both small and inexpensive. A gun, probably weighing forty pounds, was purchased for just 13s 4d in , when a springald cost 66s 8d.
Malo in , though most were probably handguns. Even as the number of cannon employed increased, so too did their size. A much larger cannon prepared for the siege of Saint-Saveur-le-Vicomte in fired stone shot of a hundredweight, and Froissart records the use of a gun firing pound stones two years later. The massive Pumhart von Steyr, forged e. How did this increase in the size and quantity of gunpowder artillery affect actual campaigns? At first, not much. At Breteuil in the same year, for instance, the besieged English used cannon to destroy a French assault tower.
Even at the end of the fourteenth century, siege guns could do little more than knock in the roofs of towers. The siege of Harfleur by Henry V in , for which we have several contemporary accounts, provides us with a clear picture of the use of gunpowder artillery in the early fifteenth century. As at Berwick almost a century earlier, the main role of the cannon was to wreak devastation within the town in order to encourage the besieged to surrender. Gunpowder artillery also had a new part to play at Harfleur, one not seen at the siege of Berwick.
At Harfleur, the guns were fired not only into the town, but also against the walls and wooden bulwarks defending it. Although certain passages suggest that Henry hoped to knock assailable breaches in the walls,91 as was to become common practice a generation later, it seems more likely that his intention was, rather, to silence the guns and catapults with which the defenders harassed his army.
The many long sieges of the s and early s show that artillery was not yet then capable of rapidly battering its way into a strong fortress garrisoned by determined defenders. The strong castle of Chateau Gaillard in Normandy held out for six months, until the cords the garrison used to draw up drinking water wore out. The English began besieging Guise in January of , but did not enter the town until February of In all the cases cited above, the chroniclers give lack of supplies as the primary reason for the eventual surrender of the besieged.
These bombards and cannons, after eight or ten days, began to fire incessantly, day and night, so that they beat down the walls of the said town from more than a bow-shot away. These events did not yet demonstrate the complete triumph of gunpowder artillery over medieval fortifications.
- Robin Hood.
- Items in search results;
- Portrait and Biography of Parson Brownlow, The Tennessee Patriot.
- Double Stitch: Designs for the Crochet Fashionista!
- Robin Hood - Wikipedia?
- Frauchen wünscht sich ...: Episoden aus dem Leben von Mops und Mensch (German Edition).
As mentioned above, the siege of Guise in lasted over a year, and Ferte-Bernard managed to hold out against Salisbury for several months in the same year. In the English had to spend six months starving out the castle of Torcy; the French garrison of Chateau Gaillard had once again to be starved out that year; the siege of Laigny-sur-Marne took over five months in ; and as late as Harfleur was able to resist an English siege for over three months. The powerful Burgundian artillery of the s, on the other hand, could demolish the walls of most fortifications.
By the late s the Franco-Burgundian artillery could destroy even the most powerfully defended places. Mighty Harfleur, which had held out so long against the English in , made terms after a seventeen-day bombardment in Saveur-le-Vicomte, Cherbourg, Roche-Guyon, and Rouen, all of which had earlier required long sieges to capture. Based on the above accounts, it seems fair to say that a revolution occurred in the art of war around the s to s, as gunpowder artillery overturned the centuries-old dominance of the defensive in siege warfare.
What was the nature of this revolution? At first glance, contemporary descriptions of the campaign might lead the historian to attribute the incredible French successes to the Vaubanesque system of siegecraft so carefully described by Leseur and Chartier. The watch ordered and set, our prince sent for a force of pioneers and miners, who, all night long, he had make broad approaches and deep ditches and trenches, [and] set up his large artillery, and put the protective mantles there; and he was so diligent that the said artillery was ready to fire at dawn.
And in the same way my lord the prince made huts by filling wickerwork and faggots with earth, in the manner of a broad mound, to shelter the watch from the artillery of the town; and the trenches were so advanced the next day that one could go safely under cover from one quarter of the siege to another, and in the same way one could come by the said approaches to the artillery, and even up to their fosses. And always, day and night, the said pioneers worked on them …. Furthermore, the large artillery was fired assiduously day and night.
Inside of a few days it had done great damage, so that the defenses of the towers. However, an account of the siege of Harfleur, written in , already describes much the same method of approach and bombardment from covered positions. It has been argued that gun design remained essentially stagnant until well into the fifteenth century, and that the most important advances were made after the artillery pioneers Jean and Gaspard Bureau became Treasurer and Master of Artillery of France, respectively, around Indeed, the developments in cannon design most critical for the Artillery Revolution appeared in the years These developments included changes in the design and manufacture of the guns themselves, in loading methods, and in powder formulation.
Probably the most important of these involved the lengthening of gun barrels. In most large bombards seem to have had barrel-lengths about equal to 1 — 1. By at the latest, the ratio of barrel length to ball diameter had grown to 3: Since the kinetic energy of the ball is a function of the square of the velocity, this meant a major increase in the effectiveness of the newer guns. As contemporary gunners realized, it also meant an increase in range.
The lengthening of bombard barrels had an equally important indirect effect. In the early years of the fifteenth century, with the shorter-barreled bombards, a rather complex loading process had to be employed. The next fifth was left empty, and the last fifth filled by a soft wood plug cut to fit the chamber bore exactly.
Then the cannonball was fixed in place in the barrel with soft wood wedges. Finally, to get the tightest possible seal thus minimizing pressure loss to windage , wet mud mixed with straw was put in place and allowed to dry. After the bombard had been fired, it had to be allowed to cool before more powder could be packed in. Guns with longer barrels, however, ameliorated this problem.
Since the ball was under pressure from the expanding gas for a longer period of time, somewhat more gas loss due to windage could be allowed, and the wet loam seal dispensed with. This, in turn, permitted more rapid firing. As guns of this sort became more common, there was an important change in the process used to manufacture them. In the late fourteenth century, the barrels of large iron bombards were made either by forging a large iron plate into a cylinder, or by spiraling out a broad iron band, forming a cylinder in the same way that the coils of a spring do. These methods, however, could not be scaled up past a certain point.
At about the same time, a metallurgical innovation made the pro—digious quantities of iron used in this process less expensive: This increased the temperature necessary to make the slag free-running, so that it could only be used with developed blast furnaces, but it changed the structure of the slag from 2FeO. The two atoms of iron thus removed from each molecule of slag were no longer wasted, increasing the iron output from a given quantity of ore and making iron cheaper.
The cost of cannon — which were priced in direct proportion to their weight — fell significantly about a third as a result of these changes. More or less simultaneously with these developments, an important change took place in a related area: The explanation of this seeming paradox lies in yet another new technique: Although there is evidence that the English may have employed this process as early as , it seems that it did not come into use on the Continent until the around ; it was in almost universal use by Sifted powder tended to separate into its component elements when transported, but corned powder was immune to this deterioration.
Most importantly, the structure of corned powder allowed the burning to progress mainly between, rather than within powder grains, resulting in a much more rapid evolution of the solid into gas. This posed a problem, however: Thus, between and , a whole series of interconnected innovations synergistically improved the power and efficiency of gun—powder artillery. The development of the hooped-staves method made it possible for even the largest iron cannon to have longer barrels, the adoption of which increased accuracy, power, and rate of fire. The new iron refining process, and the increasing skills of the gunsmiths, made guns cheaper to buy; and corned powder made them both more powerful and cheaper to use.
The number and size of guns in use increased rapidly. Put together, these developments were enough to reverse the centuries-old superiority of the defensive in siege warfare, and bring the walls of medieval castles crashing down. Further important improvements were made in the s to s, including the general adoption of the modern two-wheeled carriage, trunnions, and iron cannonballs.
Large bombards increasingly gave way to smaller, cheaper, more easily transportable guns, particularly cast bronze muzzle-loaders. The idea that the introduction of gunpowder led to sweeping changes in the political structure of Europe has been a familiar one from the days of Adam Smith, David Hume, Carlyle, and Macaulay.
Fuller, Ferdinand Lot, and William H. McNeill have made similar arguments. As early as , the French government was spending more than twice as much on its artillery train as it spent on more traditional war materiel — arrows, lances, bows, etc. The imbalance between offensive and defensive in siege warfare led to a corresponding inequity in strategy: Because of these lengthy, dangerous and arduous sieges, and because battle and assaults can be avoided, leaders are apt to come to agreements which are unfavorable to the stronger party. Under such circumstances, local powers could effectively keep the interference of the central government to a minimum.
The Artillery Revolution altered the situation dramatically. Regional interests lost their ability to defy central authorities; small states and semi-independent regions were gobbled up by their larger neighbors. There were many exceptions, of course, but the process by which France and Spain became unified nation-states owed much to the Artillery Revolution. In France, the central government rapidly asserted its control over Normandy, Aquitaine, and Brittany, then turned to the conquest of Burgundy. The Florentine historian Guicciardini accurately perceived the impact which the Artillery Revolution had on warfare.
After the Artillery Revolution, defense had to be defense in the field — a truth which had already been clearly demonstrated by the French reconquest of Guienne in In addition, by the s, artillery was beginning to be as much a help in battles as in sieges-witness the battles of Formigny and Castillon. The great cost of artillery, and the larger armies engendered by the growing importance of open battle, put a premium on the ability to produce and manage large amounts of cash. This created a self—reinforcing cycle, which continued to spiral upwards at least until the advent of the Artillery Fortress Revolution of the early sixteenth century.
It went something like this: The artillery trains counteracted centrifugal forces and enabled the central governments to increase their control over outlying areas of their realms, or to expand at the expense of their weaker neighbors. This increased their tax revenues, enabling them to support bigger artillery trains and armies, enabling them to increase their centralization of control and their tax revenues still further, and so on. True, this superiority of the offensive itself eventually succumbed to another military revolution — but in the century between the initial triumphs of gunpowder artillery in the s to s and the flowering of the sunken-profile, bastioned-trace earthwork fortress in the s to s, gunpowder artillery wrought a true revolution in European warfare, with great consequences for the continent and the world.
But that covers a span of a full half a millennium. The length of time involved can range from a year to a century, depending on the scope of the revolution — depending on whether it is a government, a social structure, an idea, or an economy which is overturned — but in none of these cases does the time-frame during which the reversal takes place exceed a single maximum human life span. Furthermore, a revolution — however extended — must be in essence a single change, from state X to state Y, from front to back or top to bottom.
Over the five centuries between and , however, Europe experienced not one but several military revolutions, even considering land forces alone, each of which dramatically altered the nature of warfare over a short span of time. Is the answer to our question, then, a matter of evolution? Evolution normally implies advancement through a near-infinite number of infinitesimal changes, and that, clearly, is not the conceptualization we want.
Cannon evolved for a full century before they were able dramatically to change the European way of war, and they continued to improve steadily if slowly for centuries after—ward. There is a paradigm, however, which may be able to provide a conceptual framework broad enough and sturdy enough to support analysis of the diverse events which must go into an explanation of the growth of Western military superiority. Their theory aroused much controversy, and over the intervening years it has become clear that their initial formulation did not give sufficient play to gradual, incremental change.
After a long period of near-stasis, infantry began to evolve very rapidly around the beginning of the fourteenth century. Cannon appeared at about that time, evolved incrementally for a century, then in a burst of rapid advancement revolutionized war in Europe. Artillery fortifications began to develop at about the same time as artillery reached its height; evolved gradually over the course of a century; then in their turn effected a military revolution. A similar process of punctuated equilibrium evolution in military technology continues even today.
But, as George Orwell showed so effectively in , words shape ideas, and ideas shape the world. By attempting to subsume the innovations of five centuries into a single phenomenon, we may be imposing an artificial teleological unity onto a series of inherently distinct, separate developments. And, in doing so, we may be clouding our understanding of a critically important area of history, an area which fully deserves to be studied through the clearest possible lens.
A number of scholars have been kind enough to read drafts of this article and offer me their corrections and comments: It has long been suggested, notably by John Maddicott , that "Robin Hood" was a stock alias used by thieves. Chief Rawandagon, headman and shaman of an Abenaki Indian tribe on the lower Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers in seacoast Maine was a notorious figure in early colonial New England. What reminds us of him, wrote anthropologist Harald E.
Prins , "are some place names in the lower Kennebec River area. For instance, there is a Georgetown Island village called Robinhood, located at the entrance of Robinhood Cove. Merrymeeting Bay , situated nearby, is another symbolic reference. As such, he assumed responsibility for the actions of his native compatriots in the region, and mediated in negotiations and conflicts between them and the English. His final public act took place in , when he mediated in a smoldering conflict between his cohorts and the settlers.
Words used by an English observer to describe New England's natives in the s are revealing: When they had sported enough about this walking Maypole , a rough hewne Satyre cutteth a gobbit of flesh from his brawnie arme, eating it in his view, searing it with a firebrand Given this mindset, it is easy to imagine how Rawandagon, as an Indian headman, came to be identified with the fair's Lord of Misrule —Robin Hood.
Not surprisingly, the English also associated the name Robin Hood with deception by trickery, as in the saying: Typically, they were paid a mere pittance for their land. Consider Rawandagon's first deed, a contract first identifying him as Robin Hood. In exchange for a considerable piece of land located on the east bank of the lower Kennebec at Nequaseg, now Woolwich , which had "one wigwam, or Indian house" on it, he received the sum total of "one hogshead of corn and thirty sound pumpkins" []. There is at present little or no scholarly support for the view that tales of Robin Hood have stemmed from mythology or folklore, from fairies or other mythological origins, any such associations being regarded as later development.
ENEMY ARROWS: TORONTO IN THE YEAR - Will O’Hara - Google Книги
While the outlaw often shows great skill in archery, swordplay and disguise, his feats are no more exaggerated than those of characters in other ballads, such as Kinmont Willie , which were based on historical events. Robin Hood has also been claimed for the pagan witch-cult supposed by Margaret Murray to have existed in medieval Europe, and his anti-clericalism and Marianism interpreted in this light. The early ballads link Robin Hood to identifiable real places.
In popular culture, Robin Hood and his band of "merry men" are portrayed as living in Sherwood Forest , in Nottinghamshire. Notably, the Lincoln Cathedral Manuscript , which is the first officially recorded Robin Hood song dating from approximately , makes an explicit reference to the outlaw that states that "Robyn hode in scherewode stod.
His chronicle entry reads:. Mary in the village of Edwinstowe and most famously of all, the Major Oak also located at the village of Edwinstowe. Dendrologists have contradicted this claim by estimating the tree's true age at around eight hundred years; it would have been relatively a sapling in Robin's time, at best. Nottinghamshire's claim to Robin Hood's heritage is disputed, with Yorkists staking a claim to the outlaw.
In demonstrating Yorkshire's Robin Hood heritage, the historian J. Holt drew attention to the fact that although Sherwood Forest is mentioned in Robin Hood and the Monk , there is little information about the topography of the region, and thus suggested that Robin Hood was drawn to Nottinghamshire through his interactions with the city's sheriff. Robin Hood's Yorkshire origins are generally accepted by professional historians.
A tradition dating back at least to the end of the 16th century gives Robin Hood's birthplace as Loxley , Sheffield , in South Yorkshire. The original Robin Hood ballads, which originate from the fifteenth century, set events in the medieval forest of Barnsdale. Barnsdale was a wooded area covering an expanse of no more than thirty square miles, ranging six miles from north to south, with the River Went at Wentbridge near Pontefract forming its northern boundary and the villages of Skelbrooke and Hampole forming the southernmost region.
From east to west the forest extended about five miles, from Askern on the east to Badsworth in the west. During the medieval age Wentbridge was sometimes locally referred to by the name of Barnsdale because it was the predominant settlement in the forest. And, while Wentbridge is not directly named in A Gest of Robyn Hode , the poem does appear to make a cryptic reference to the locality by depicting a poor knight explaining to Robin Hood that he 'went at a bridge' where there was wrestling'.
The Gest makes a specific reference to the Saylis at Wentbridge. Credit is due to the nineteenth-century antiquarian Joseph Hunter , who correctly identified the site of the Saylis. The Saylis is recorded as having contributed towards the aid that was granted to Edward III in —47 for the knighting of the Black Prince. An acre of landholding is listed within a glebe terrier of relating to Kirk Smeaton , which later came to be called "Sailes Close". Taylor indicate that such evidence of continuity makes it virtually certain that the Saylis that was so well known to Robin Hood is preserved today as "Sayles Plantation".
One final locality in the forest of Barnsdale that is associated with Robin Hood is the village of Campsall. Davis indicates that there is only one church dedicated to Mary Magdalene within what one might reasonably consider to have been the medieval forest of Barnsdale, and that is the church at Campsall. The church was built in the late eleventh century by Robert de Lacy, the 2nd Baron of Pontefract. The backdrop of Saint Mary's Abbey at York plays a central role in the Gest as the poor knight who Robin aids owes money to the abbot.
At Kirklees Priory in Yorkshire stands an alleged grave with a spurious inscription, which relates to Robin Hood. The fifteenth-century ballads relate that before he died, Robin told Little John where to bury him. He shot an arrow from the Priory window, and where the arrow landed was to be the site of his grave. The Gest states that the Prioress was a relative of Robin's. Robin was ill and staying at the Priory where the Prioress was supposedly caring for him.
However, she betrayed him, his health worsened, and he eventually died there. The inscription on the grave reads,. Despite the unconventional spelling, the verse is in Modern English , not the Middle English of the thirteenth century. The date is also incorrectly formatted—using the Roman calendar , "24 kal Decembris" would be the twenty-third day before the beginning of December, that is, 8 November. The tomb probably dates from the late eighteenth century. The grave with the inscription is within sight of the ruins of the Kirklees Priory, behind the Three Nuns pub in Mirfield, West Yorkshire.
Though local folklore suggests that Robin is buried in the grounds of Kirklees Priory , this theory has now largely been abandoned by professional historians. A more recent theory [] proposes that Robin Hood died at Kirkby, Pontefract. Drayton's Poly-Olbion Song 28 67—70 composed in speaks of Robin Hood's death and clearly states that the outlaw died at 'Kirkby'. The location is approximately three miles from the site of Robin's robberies at the now famous Saylis. All Saints' Church had a priory hospital attached to it.
The Tudor historian Richard Grafton stated that the prioress who murdered Robin Hood buried the outlaw beside the road,. Where he had used to rob and spoyle those that passed that way All Saints' Church at Kirkby, modern Pontefract, which was located approximately three miles from the site of Robin Hood's robberies at the Saylis, accurately matches Richard Grafton's description because a road ran directly from Wentbridge to the hospital at Kirkby. Within close proximity of Wentbridge reside several notable landmarks relating to Robin Hood.
One such place-name location occurred in a cartulary deed of from Monkbretton Priory, which makes direct reference to a landmark named Robin Hood's Stone, which resided upon the eastern side of the Great North Road, a mile south of Barnsdale Bar. Robin Hood type place-names occurred particularly everywhere except Sherwood. The first place-name in Sherwood does not appear until the year The Sheriff of Nottingham also had jurisdiction in Derbyshire that was known as the "Shire of the Deer", and this is where the Royal Forest of the Peak is found, which roughly corresponds to today's Peak District National Park.
Mercia , to which Nottingham belonged, came to within three miles of Sheffield City Centre. But before the Law of the Normans was the Law of the Danes, The Danelaw had a similar boundary to that of Mercia but had a population of Free Peasantry that were known to have resisted the Norman occupation. Many outlaws could have been created by the refusal to recognise Norman Forest Law. Further indications of the legend's connection with West Yorkshire and particularly Calderdale are noted in the fact that there are pubs called the Robin Hood in both nearby Brighouse and at Cragg Vale ; higher up in the Pennines beyond Halifax , where Robin Hood Rocks can also be found.
Considering these references to Robin Hood, it is not surprising that the people of both South and West Yorkshire lay some claim to Robin Hood, who, if he existed, could easily have roamed between Nottingham, Lincoln , Doncaster and right into West Yorkshire. A British Army Territorial reserves battalion formed in Nottingham in was known as The Robin Hood Battalion through various reorganisations until the "Robin Hood" name finally disappeared in A Neolithic causewayed enclosure on Salisbury Plain has acquired the name Robin Hood's Ball , although had Robin Hood existed it is doubtful that he would have travelled so far south.
Ballads dating back to the 15th century are the oldest existing form of the Robin Hood legends, although none of them were recorded at the time of the first allusions to him, and many are from much later. They share many common features, often opening with praise of the greenwood and relying heavily on disguise as a plot device , but include a wide variation in tone and plot. Ballads whose first recorded version appears usually incomplete in the Percy Folio may appear in later versions [] and may be much older than the midth century when the Folio was compiled.
Any ballad may be older than the oldest copy that happens to survive, or descended from a lost older ballad. For example, the plot of Robin Hood's Death , found in the Percy Folio, is summarised in the 15th-century A Gest of Robyn Hode , and it also appears in an 18th-century version. The first two ballads listed here the "Death" and "Gisborne" , although preserved in 17th-century copies, are generally agreed to preserve the substance of late medieval ballads. The third the "Curtal Friar" and the fourth the "Butcher" , also probably have late medieval origins.
Some ballads, such as Erlinton , feature Robin Hood in some variants, where the folk hero appears to be added to a ballad pre-existing him and in which he does not fit very well. Then Robyn goes to Notyngham,: Hym selfe mornyng allone,: And Litull John to mery Scherwode,: The pathes he knew ilkone. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For other uses, see Robin Hood disambiguation.
Isis and the Seven Scorpions (Egyptian Myths)
Of my good he shall haue some,: Yf he be a por man. And dyde pore men moch god. The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood. Robin Hood film and Robin Hood Disney character. Robin Hood in popular culture and List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood.
- Navigation menu.
- The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years’ War » De Re Militari.
- Account Options.
- See a Problem?;
- The Hunt for a Notorious Terrorist.
- Milton 1420-ML Imperial Casserole ( 1420 ml ) Price List :.
The Gest of Robyn Hode. Retrieved 15 April Retrieved 12 March The Early Poems , —, Newark: Robin Hood and the Early Printers , pp. From Child's edition of the ballad, online at Sacred Texts, A: The English Outlaw Unmasked. Sur les vicissitudes et les transformations du cycle populaire de Robin Hood. A Hero for All Times. Child, Francis James The English and Scottish Popular Ballads. The Robin Hood Companion. Deitweiler, Laurie, Coleman, Diane Robin Hood Comprehension Guide. The Robin Hood Handbook. The Rymes of Robin Hood: An Introduction to the English Outlaw. Doel, Fran, Doel, Geoff Outlaw and Greenwood Myth.
Secrets of the Grave. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Toronto in the Year by Will O'Hara. Voyages to distant lands by canoe. These are the experiences of three young men who lived in what is now called Toronto during the early 15th Century.
The three friends learn skills they need to survive in a beautiful but dangerous world.