War bow string theory

[Yewboy]

If it was braced when the ship went down then why didn't it float away?, It seems a little strange that as it would float that it was still found around the wreck site after so many hundreds of years....hmmmmm!

Probably the same reason that the other bows and arrows found on the ship didn't float away, Apparently some did. The number recovered was fewer than thiose listed in the inventory.

Well no! the other bows were packed in wooden chests and could not have floated away, but a bow braced would have been a bow in use at the time she went down and so would have floated away. The arrows were also cased apart from the ones in their leather spacers and as some of the spacers were found it suggests that the arrows that were packed in them have long since degraded to nothing, however the cased arrows were found in similar condition to the bows.

[bow-toxo]

[quote author=Yewboy link=topic=12736.msg187997#msg187997 date=1

Well no! the other bows were packed in wooden chests and could not have floated away, but a bow braced would have been a bow in use at the time she went down and so would have floated away. The arrows were also cased apart from the ones in their leather spacers and as some of the spacers were found it suggests that the arrows that were packed in them have long since degraded to nothing, however the cased arrows were found in similar condition to the bows.

  In that case I await your explanation or theory for the aforementioned bow having been found.

[Yewboy]

[quote author=Yewboy link=topic=12736.msg187997#msg187997 date=1

Well no! the other bows were packed in wooden chests and could not have floated away, but a bow braced would have been a bow in use at the time she went down and so would have floated away. The arrows were also cased apart from the ones in their leather spacers and as some of the spacers were found it suggests that the arrows that were packed in them have long since degraded to nothing, however the cased arrows were found in similar condition to the bows.

  In that case I await your explanation or theory for the aforementioned bow having been found.

I have neither theory or an explanation, however I did not state that the bow was braced when the ship went down.....you did! So it is up to you to put forward your reasons for stating such a fact.

One possibility is that the bow dried into that shape after it was brought up, many of the bows took on a "Set" of some decription due to different areas of the wood drying quicker than others, this one could just be the extreme.
I will take a very close look at the aformentioned bow when I am at the MR in a couple of weeks time.

[bow-toxo]

[/quote]
 
  In that case I await your explanation or theory for the aforementioned bow having been found.
[/quote]

I have neither theory or an explanation, however I did not state that the bow was braced when the ship went down.....you did! So it is up to you to put forward your reasons for stating such a fact.


[/quote]

 Sure. My reason for stating it is because it was reported by Hardy. I invite you to prove him a liar. The bend would not be of a kind to warp to the precise curvature of a braced bow except by having been braced.

[Yewboy]

[/quote]

 Sure. My reason for stating it is because it was reported by Hardy. I invite you to prove him a liar. The bend would not be of a kind to warp to the precise curvature of a braced bow except by having been braced.
[/quote]

I don't want to go round in circles on this, but Hardy's theory is just that - (His theory), he has been wrong in the past and could also be wrong in this instance, With regards the Westminster Abbey arrow, his information is so wrong it's crazy.
I doubt that you have actually ever seen this bow, you have probably only seen a picture of it in Hardy's book and you have accepted his theory as gospel, I have seen this bow and handled it and I will make a point of having another good look at it when I am there in few weeks time, from memory, if the bow had been braced and the shape is as you say "caused by it being braced when the ship went down, then this bow would have had a 9" brace height.....A little high don't you think?
Anyway as I say I will take some very detailed measurements of it and get some high def pictures showing the bent shape of this bow.

We are going a bit of topic here but as you seem to feel you are in the know here and have used this particular bow to help with your string theory's then we might as well explore this to the full.
Anyway

[bow-toxo]

 Sure. My reason for stating it is because it was reported by Hardy. I invite you to prove him a liar. The bend would not be of a kind to warp to the precise curvature of a braced bow except by having been braced.
[/quote]

I don't want to go round in circles on this, but Hardy's theory is just that - (His theory), he has been wrong in the past and could also be wrong in this instance, With regards the Westminster Abbey arrow, his information is so wrong it's crazy.
I doubt that you have actually ever seen this bow, you have probably only seen a picture of it in Hardy's book and you have accepted his theory as gospel, I have seen this bow and handled it and I will make a point of having another good look at it when I am there in few weeks time, from memory, if the bow had been braced and the shape is as you say "caused by it being braced when the ship went down, then this bow would have had a 9" brace height.....A little high don't you think?
Anyway as I say I will take some very detailed measurements of it and get some high def pictures showing the bent shape of this bow.

We are going a bit of topic here but as you seem to feel you are in the know here and have used this particular bow to help with your string theory's then we might as well explore this to the full.
Anyway
[/quote]

 Hardy's claim was that the bow was bent to what would have been what they call a 'fistmele' today, about six inches. That is not a theory, it is a statement of fact, possibly an incorrect one. I repeat; I invite you to prove him a liar. Please post your corrections about the Westminister Abbey arrow. I would like to get the correct info as I am sure others would as well.
 BTW, I haven't used this bow to help with any theory. I don't have a "string theory". What I have done is provide evidence to describe Tudor bowstrings. Let's keep the sniping to actual words and facts.

[jb.68]

A couple of thoughts here gents.

An explanation as to why a bow wouldn’t float away is possibly due to the anti-boarding nets, (that’s if the bow was above decks anyway). Alternatively it could have become wedged/trapped by another object/person.

As to the fact of having such a high bracing height, I would guess the string lasted long enough to keep the strung bow under tension and that as the wood became waterlogged, it’s likely to have lost an amount of its stiffness and so developed the higher brace height.


Any thoughts?

[Marc St Louis]

Just to throw a Monkey wrench in here.  I sold a Yew warbow to a guy in Sweden last year and as the RH went down over the winter so did the bow take set. In fact it took 4" of set and he didn't even have to brace the bow once to do it, it did it all on its own.

[Yeomanbowman]

I was wondering about the anti-boarding nets too.  By the time they rotted the bow would be sodden. 
Another theory/spanner,  maybe the stave was naturally deflexed and straightened by the bowyer and as the bow soaked it gave up it's induced straightness and this added to the brace height.   

[Rod]

The fact is that we don't know why this bow is bent.
It may be reasonable to assume that it had been braced since the shape is reasonably symmetrical, but it is still only supposition.
Nothing to get heated about.

Rod.

[Yewboy]

Ok, i got a chance to really have a good look at this bent bow Yesterday, and I must admit that on close inspection that the bow looks like it was braced when the ship went down as the shape is as Rod says...Very symetrical, I also placed a string next along it and it does show a 6" brace height, So on this occassion I concede to Bow-Toxo's suggestion that it more than likely was braced, So apologies from me Bow-Toxo.
I will post some pictures of the bow being examined once I have captured a few stills from the video footage that I was shooting whilst I was there.

[bow-toxo]

Ok, i got a chance to really have a good look at this bent bow Yesterday, and I must admit that on close inspection that the bow looks like it was braced when the ship went down as the shape is as Rod says...Very symetrical, I also placed a string next along it and it does show a 6" brace height, So on this occassion I concede to Bow-Toxo's suggestion that it more than likely was braced, So apologies from me Bow-Toxo.
I will post some pictures of the bow being examined once I have captured a few stills from the video footage that I was shooting whilst I was there.

  I accept my first offered apology on behalf of myself and Mr. Hardy with grateful appreciation for a man willing to admit an error. I plan to make my first visitto the MR exhibit in September and would appreciate any advice or suggestions to make the most of a once in a lifetime trip. BTW, If anyone is still wondering about Viking arrows, I suggest checking out my article on Viking archery in the current June/July issue of 'Primitive Archer' magazine.

[bow-toxo]

I have read that at the slightest hint of rain, English warbowmen would unbrace their bows and call it a day

That's news to me, despite the account of men  keeping their strings under their hats at Crecy.
There are accounts enough of fights in inclement weather.
What about Towton, for example?

If the string was an unwaxed spare, I might put it under my hat rather than subject it to a soaking, not for fear of it breaking, but not wishing the relaxed string to take on too much moisture.

Having said that it is likely that a well waxed string, twisted and taut under bracing tension, would be far less prone to absorbing moisture.

With a linen string what I do not want are short fibres and dryness.
Our linen industry in it's heyday was based in Lancashire and N.Ireland just because a damper climate was necessary for the machine production of linen thread, it being more too prone to breakage when spun in dry conditions.

Rod.

   
  Further on Smythe's comment about the strings coated with "waterglewe", I just found a reference to a thin solution of hoof glue being used to stiffen bowstrings. Hoof glue, unlike hide glue, is flexible and not waterproof. That would be a reason to keep a bowstring dry.