Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow

<< < (25/29) > >>

bow-toxo:

--- Quote from: Et_tu_brute on July 07, 2009, 12:42:36 pm ---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"?

--- End quote ---
To be fair, EnglishArcher did specify the EWBS livery arrow, not a flight arrow. The mediaeval pace was longer than a yard. It was the so-called Roman pace measured between footfalls of the same foot. A 15 th century source says"The pace contayneth five feet." The mediaeval yard was not shorter than the modern yard. The best research indicates that it was the same or one inch longer than our present yard. Check with the British Board of trade. As you say we should "use the original measurements of the time" if we want to honestly compare our performance rather than boost our egos.

Et_tu_brute:
Perhaps what I said came across in the wrong way, I understand EnglishArcher did specify the 220 yard distance to be shot with a heavier arrow, but what I'm saying is that the original statute was in regard to prickling arrows, not heavy ones so I don't see how we can say that being able to shoot a heavy arrow 220 yards was a standard of the time that archers must be able to achieve when that is not what the quote was in reference to. As for the varying length of the yard, I suppose that discussion could just go on and on, but again perhaps what I said came across in the wrong way. What I was saying was that if the medieval yard was different to the modern yard then we should be using the medieval yard to compare our achievements to rather than the modern one if we want to see how close we are getting to the requirements of the time.

bow-toxo:
I did agree with you that we should use the original distancees. As I understand the statute, the archer, practicing for war, was not to use the lighter prick shafts [ the ones used in clout shooting] or flight arrows at the shorter distances { less than 220 yards}.
At those distances he was to use the heavier arrows designed for maximum penetration. Really, I agreed with you.

Yewboy:

--- Quote from: ChrisD on July 07, 2009, 03:35:17 pm ---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







--- End quote ---

The EWBS has some members that have researched the MR finds probably more in depth research than anyone else, including some of the more notable authors and the EWBS Livery arrow is probably closer than you think to an MR arrow and yes the weight is as you say between 60-65g and makes that 220yds quite attainable for bows of moderately heavy draw weights. However that is only to be able to reach the distance whilst shooting at a 45deg angle, this obviously does not mean it is capable of reaching the required distance with a consistant accurate shot, this would need a heavier draw weight bow which will be shot at a reduced angle for accurate shooting.

ChrisD:
Well, thats a graceful reply to a potentially provocative post - so hats off! Actually, If I was shooting a 60-65g arrow and trying to get 220yds, I wouldn't need to shoot at 45 degree with either of the 100lb or so hardwood laminate bows of which I have significant experience. With those, I would expect 240yd or so.  I don't know if you were at the Finsbury shoot at Sandon recently, but if you were, you would have seen me shooting 220yds yd with a 110lb swiss yew bow with 86g arrows, but that was at 45 degrees.

The discussion seems to have suddenly moved to needing to shoot 220 yds relatively flat. Well pardon me, but I've always had the view that engagements opened with a volley at about 45degrees and gven the relative standardisation of the MR arrow, this would appear to be with a 60-65g arrow for longest range, and if the distance at the marks was 220yd, then one would guess that this, or somewhere thereabouts,  is what was done with those arrows. I can see the point which you are making of accurate shooting by shooting straighter - but it isn't a given. I certainly shoot more accurately that way, but the people who win at clout competitions generally do so with an aim at or about 45 degrees using lighter bows, so it isn't by definition inaccurate to do it that way. Much has been made of the skill of archers of old and this has been used to infer that they might have been able to use much higher draw weights than we are accustomed to. I have always preferred to argue that this would have made them better archers (at a variety of draw weights) and this would have stood them in better stead than being able to use, for example,  150lb bows.

C

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page