Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: gigmaster on July 05, 2009, 08:41:34 am ---I don't know about historically, but mostly, when I see a bow listed as a 'Warbow', it doesn't have a wrapped handle. Most longbows have some kind of wrap on the handle. I don't know if this is significant or not. I have one of each: 1-60 lb longbow, and 1-80 lb warbow.
--- End quote ---
There is noi example of handgrip wrapping on any mediaeval or Tudor longbows from the Stone Age onward. Ascham tells us that the bow was to be rubbed down with a waxed woolen cloth before shooting especially, on damp or cold days. Handgrip wrapping would interfere with that. Of course anyone can add handgrip wrapping, plastic nocks, different tillering, bow quiver, laminations or any other inappropriate or perverted variations and call it a warbow. There isn't any law.
EnglishArcher:
I think people are coming at the draw-weight question from the wrong angle. Everyone is asking "how much draw-weight can I pull?" when the question should be "how strong a bow is required to replicate the distances shot by a medieval/Tudor archer?"
My argument relies on two assumptions:
1) The statute of Henry VIII, that no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards, was put in place to enforce (and reinforce) military archery.
2) The 220 yard distance was shot with a military-standard arrow, or very similar
You may disagree with these assumptions. That can be the subject of separate discussions.
Acquire yourself a military arrow. The EWBS Livery arrow is a pretty faithful representation of a MR arrow. The arrow should weigh approx 65 - 70g, be 30"+ in length, and have spiral-whipped fletchings, around 7.5" long.
The aim is to shoot that arrow statute distance - 220 yards. With a self-bow. Perhaps of "medieval" design.
A bow under 100lbs will almost certainly not reach the distance. A very good 120lb bow, with a good archer may achieve the distance. To consistently achieve, or exceed the statute distance requires a bow in excess of 120lb, and an archer fully comfortable with that bow (that is, well within his capabilities).
Evidence from EWBS (and other) shoot results seem to support this statement.
(As an aside: Many archers fail at this point, then start to look for evidence for a shorter 'medieval' yard (for example, the Pace) so they can say they've achieved the correct distance. This is called changing the conditions of the test, or 'cheating'!)
So, if you want to shoot a 'war bow' (however you define that!) you need to be looking at the end result (how far, and how accurately, you can shoot a military arrow) as opposed to one rather simplistic metric (the bow weight).
I think you will find this a much more rewarding challenge than the brute-force and ignorance argument of "I can shoot a XXXXlb bow, therefore it's a warbow"
Et_tu_brute:
A couple of things I'd say in response to that. Your first assumption that "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards" I believe is actually an incomplete part of the statement, I do not have access to the actual statute, but as I understand it it goes something like "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards with prickling/flight arrows", an important difference I'd say.
Also in response to: "(As an aside: Many archers fail at this point, then start to look for evidence for a shorter 'medieval' yard (for example, the Pace) so they can say they've achieved the correct distance. This is called changing the conditions of the test, or 'cheating'!)"
I can't really see how that could be construed as cheating? If indeed the medieval yard was shorter than the modern one then why should we not be measuring by that unit? After all if we wish to replicate Medieval requirements of military archers then why would we not use the original measurements of the time? It seems ridiculous not to do so, as wouldn't that be "changing the conditions for the test"?
triton:
wouldn't the arrows look more or less the same? fr'instance: light pricking arrows - poplar, aspen - around 70 grams.
Heavy armour penetrating arrows - Ash, oak - around 100 grams. otherwise dimensions and appearance very similar?
ChrisD:
Dave is right on the quote about prickling arrows and the 220yd statute - the fact is that no one knows what such an arrow would look like but arrows made to MR specs out of aspen and armed with hardened points which are the right weight to optimise flight (an important point this, no pun intended) don't come in at 70-75g or even near. Closer 60-65 if you apply some no nonsense scientific thought to it. Many bows in the 90-100lb range can achieve 220yd with this sort of weight.
I was at Leeds armouries on Thursday and was struck by the meagre diplays on archery related things - but one thing was obvious and that was that there is no relationship whatever between the modern replicas of equipment shown (doubtless informed by people who owe much of what they believe to some cloud cuckoo land concept of aerodymamics and arrow flight - a good story for schoolkids but lets not buy it here) and the actual arrowheads shown - almost delicate, well made, no doubt hardened and clearly designed to do the job without making the arrow 'end heavy' beyond what was absolutely needed.
EWBS???? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.
C
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version