Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow

<< < (13/29) > >>

stevesjem:
The Archers that were aboard the MR would have been the elite, not your general archer of the time, 1st of all not all archrs were taken into the army's at that time, they were chosen for their ability, so these were the elite, also do you really think that Henry VIII would have had just general archers on his flag ship, these would have been the best there was, i'm sure.

The book in question also states I did extensive tests for him, which I didn't????????
With regards the string theory, 1st of all we don't have any idea of how the string was made and what the quality of the natural materials of the time were like, what we do have is the bows and from the extensive research done on these bows and the wood itself suggests very heavy draw weights. IMHO this string theory carries as much water as a collander.
Steve

nickf:
> guys, keep in mind stevesjem is one of the few guys who has acces to the real mary rose bows, and he's done alot of research on them (isn't it right?)

well steve, what drawweigths do you estimate of those bows? given the ringcount, length and thickness?

Nick

stevesjem:
Hi Nickf
Anyone can go and have a look at the bows in the collection by prior appointment, however I have been and studied the bows very many times, I have had the opportunity to measure all of the bows, both dimensionally and for ring count, at the moment DNA tests are being done by Dr Mark Jones of the MR trust on the bows to find out where the wood originated, I have helped him by supplying him with some Altitude Italian Yew, so he can get DNA from some wood that was cut from a known bow wood area of Italy for comparison, (Someone did by the way send him some American yew for comparison), I'm not sure how that will help?

Anyway to answer your question, IMHO and after more recent research and tests and making replica bows, I believe the bows to be on average about 160lb, with some even up to the 180-190lb, maybe higher.

Steve

AD:
Steve, I think I may have spoken to you on the phone - you gave me some good advice about arrows.  As also has Pip Bickerstaffe.

I do not have such expertise, and retain an open mind about what weight bows were. 
Perhaps knowing their bowstrings had a limited life was a trade-off archers were prepared to make in order to use very heavy bows.  They could have carried spares, maybe have fitted a newish one before a battle so it would definitely last the two dozen arrows they had chance to fire off.
I take your point about making an exact replica of a medieval bowstring, but it would be interesting to test how many times a bow of 100/120/ 140/ 160/ 180lb could be shot using a hemp/linen bowstring of 1/8" diameter before the string broke. 
Count me out though, I can barely pull my wimpish 100@28 replica   ;)

Regards

Rod:

--- Quote from: bow-toxo on March 16, 2009, 05:39:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: Rod on March 12, 2009, 07:46:11 am ---
Looking at warbow cultures where there is a written record, we only have information where archery was an activity of the literate classes, which lets out the post Roman european bow until Gaston Phoebus' "Livre de Chasse" or Ascham.

Where the literature is extensive the median for infantry bows appears to be in the 120lb to 150lb range, somewhat less for the smaller cavalry bows, from 90lb to 120lb.
Rod.

--- End quote ---


A 'warbow' is of course a longbow, just an especially strong one. Besides those you mention we do have one earlier reference, "The Book of Roi Modus" written before the Hundred Years War, that gives the measurements of the "English bow" and its arrows, clearly a longbow.  Like other mediaeval writings it gives no details on draw weight which makes me curious to know where your information on draw weights comes from. We can of course estimate Tudor bow strengths from the laws that specify distances to be shot by nearly all adult males. Archers were the general population, not a chosen elite few. Toward the end of the Hundred Years War the ten archers for every man-at-arms were not a select few.



--- End quote ---
Thank you for the note about the Book of Roi Modus.

"Where archery was an activity of the literate classes" there is a written record of what was at different times the norm and what was , by inference, exceptional.
This leads to a conclusion that is by and large in agreement with what Steve Stratton, Mark Stretton and Chris Boyton have to say on the matter of "warbow" draw weights.
Also with the shared experience of some of those who do useful work on other styles of heavy bows and with what my own shooting experience leads me to believe to be rational and not unreasonable.

At the end of the day it is only an opinion, but hopefully a not entirely uninformed opinion.

By and large recruitment of archers was, when and where possible, quite selective.
And there were also times and conditions when recruitment was less selective, but in general, the elite would be taken where the option was available.
Men were sent home, for example, for not being capable of acheiving a desired "rate of fire".

("Rate of fire" is in inverted commas because it is a borowed term in common shooting parlance).

Given that shooting at the butts was a common form of practice, it seems likely that "rate of fire" and cast were not the only criteria.

It seems to me obvious and perfectly reasonable that a "warbow" is any kind of bow which, historically, was made for warfare and that the criteria might vary somewhat though in serious "warbow" environments the solutions reached no doubt had commonality, both in the task requirements and in the draw weights needed to eet them.
 
In this context, of course, certain types of crossbow are "warbows" but not necessarily of interest on a forum devoted to "hand drawn bows" except as an adversarial or an allied weapon.
And the list of other types of "warbow" of  composite construction is not inconsiderable.

Whilst we can say that the longbow can be a "warbow", we cannot truthfully say that "the warbow" is a longbow, only that the archetype of the English "warbow" is a longbow (or more precisely) a single stave yew longbow, but that certain other woods were acceptable substitutes.

Rod.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page