Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Flatbows found on the Mary Rose?
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: Jaro on December 12, 2010, 10:36:46 am ---
Erik - none of published crossesctions can be with clear mind described as "rectangular". Its pretty clear from account of the technology, that the bowyers started with "chipped" - that is squared and tappered stave. The bows differ in how much of the wood has been taken off the square during the shaping process, but even the big ones have round belly. I make this type of bow relativelly often and if you start with tapered squared stave and round the back corners and then take off the facette of belly wood on each side away and then just work very quickly from edge of the facete to another rounding the stave along with scraper, small plane or spokeshave, the small flat areas on sides of the stave emerge by themselves. That off course is not rectangular. There is few odd shapes like prominent "galeon" with ridge running down mid off the belly, but they are far and few and I would be interested in seeing if the bows in question have such a profile for the whole of their lenght, or just where there was not enough wood to work round.
Jaro
--- End quote ---
Those who consider Hugh Soar a reliable authority are invited to check “Secrets of the English Warbow”. He not only refers to the existence of MR bows of rectangular section but says how many were found. I think the number was eight ? These were at first thought to have been for large crossbows because of the flat backs. Two of them are #A807 and #A1159. The 15th/16/th century LARTDARCHERIE tells us, Bows are made of two patterns that is to say, square and round, which are used for three kinds of shooting. The square are best for butt shooting for three reasons- first, because they have more back[what Englishmen call the belly] and therefore last longer; secondly, because the arrow lies better against their side, and thirdly because they shoot straighter and keep their cast longer. ‘Bows are made of two patterns that is to say, square and round, which are used for three kinds of shooting. The square are best for butt shooting for three reasons- first, because they have more back and therefore last longer; secondly, because the arrow lies better against their side, and thirdly because they shoot straighter and keep their cast longer. Ascham says ”If a bow be flat made, gather it round”.
According to information I have seen, bows from Nydam up to MR were either of D section, oval, rectangular, or trapezoidal. Of course sharp corners were usually rounded off without changing the basic section type. BTW I believe the high belly ridge {galleon] was a short lived Victorian idea abandoned when found to be a bad idea. These points have convinced me that rectangular section bows did exist.
Cheers,
Erik
nidrinr:
--- Quote ---Also MR dimensions and tapers wont likely work with anything else but yew
--- End quote ---
-Tried wytch elm..?
BTW, this is an interesting thread. I have used many whitewoods successfully for MR-dimensioned bows, many of them well over what's considered heavy draw weight. Other than w. elm and laburnum they all "need" heat treating on the belly to manage the design though. -And, as Jaro pointed out, moisture is a bigger problem for white woods than it is for yew. Ash is maybe the most extreme one, acting like a sponge to any moist. W. elm withstand moist better than other white woods though. (Our local juniper respond to moist almost as yew, but cannot be compared to yew for war bows.)
About other woods being found on the MR, I wouldn't know. But considering the mentioning of woods like elm, I do think of it as very possible.
Jaro:
Mark -
There are two problems - first is that information level advanced in 5 years enormly, and the second that even Hardy and Strickland made mistakes in things they for example had no experience themselves. That of itself isnt bad, but science isnt sum of knowledge, but rather a method how to obtain it.
Erik - "Those who consider Hugh Soar a reliable authority are invited to check “Secrets of the English Warbow”. He not only refers to the existence of MR bows of rectangular section but says how many were found"
Yeh thank you for reffering to book, which not only I happen to have, but into which two my best friends contributed. Anyway the bows you quote are not "square" - they are maybe "squarish" if you want to call them any name and if there is 8 of them then its whooping 4 percent of all bows found. Madonna mia! What shall I do (panic) :o . Hugh´s pet "crossbow" theory is even over enormous respect I have to his work something of sort his personall fantasy - because if you want crossbow, you have to have stock and mechanics too, of which there is no evidence whatsoever, and off course the fact that there is zero room on MR gundeck for giant crossbows with span of 80". I find the idea ridiculous. There is not a hint of evidence.
"Two of them are #A807 and #A115"
I dont think those are what an engeneer call square. We are still talking about bows with moderatelly rounded belly. I can ask directly, but I fear that those are a) galeon or very uneven profile b) so called "slab sided" bows - which by many people have been refered wrongly as "square" and off course rebutall
(Btw - quick search shows that even in Journal of society of Archery antiquities these are called "squarish" - which can be lots of shapes.)
I suppose that you can call upper right profile "squarish" as it has obviously 4 corners, right?
"According to information I have seen, bows from Nydam up to MR were either of D section, oval, rectangular, or trapezoidal."
Please be so kind and make a bell-curve distribution of profiles of found bows and we shall talk. That would be scientific. Mind you living in archeologicall comunity I have the actuall datasheets from various finds starting nydam - and one thing is painfully clear, when single stave european bow is concerned the rectangular section seems to be associated with rather primitive weapons, in extremelly small numbers, and it does not seem to be product of anything else than technology. (meaning either the tools or the wood was not enough to make better weapon)
"BTW I believe the high belly ridge {galleon] was a short lived Victorian idea abandoned when found to be a bad idea."
-Again you have conviction of something of which you aparently have no information. Not only have been such bows found on MR but for example alemanic yew bows from warrior graves in 4-6. century have these prominent pattern. (They are smallish raised handle weapons, incomparable in any aspect to MR beast and they appear to be made to stack for reason.) Yet it is not victorian idea, for they have been around longer than one might think. (And again only one specific pattern ov victorian bow made of unbendable woods is made in this shape. Which is like gothic arch, rather than "galeon" I m speaking about.)
"Ascham says ”If a bow be flat made, gather it round”."
That is something without a context I would tell somebody if I wanted him to retiler his bow into more arc shape. :D
"These points have convinced me that rectangular section bows did exist."
Oh yes, you find squarish sticks among european longbow finds - for example 9. cetury moravia magna bow from Velké Mikulčice, which displays similar pattern like the frankish/alemanic bows, but instead of ridge it has flat choped belly. But it has also well rounded back, as it comes from very small sapling. I assure you if somebody who only knows prominent victorian D pattern looked at that bow he would thought the belly and back being reverse oriented.
These bows did existed, yet for different reasons you think and off course, they cannot be called flatbows.
J.
markinengland:
Jaro,
You say "There are two problems - first is that information level advanced in 5 years enormly, and the second that even Hardy and Strickland made mistakes in things they for example had no experience themselves. That of itself isnt bad, but science isnt sum of knowledge, but rather a method how to obtain it."
Information level has advanced in 5 years? 5 years is not relevant to this. Knowledge may have advanced enormously, but this would not effect whether or not all the bows were of yew. Either they are or they are not. How does five years passing have any effect on what was said then? You appear to base your opinion on faith and dogma, religion of bows rather than facts of bows! Keep the faith, ignore the truth! The Mary Rose Inquisition strikes again? I am sure that everyone can make mistakes, but this was not an off-the-cuff comment. This was a carefully worded question, and a considered and even slightly reluctant answer answer. If Hardy was not sure, I think he may have said so. He did not exactly want to discuss it, but did admit this FACT.
He has no experience of this you say? He is fairly experienced in yews bows, and in bow making. For some years he was the only published author championing the yew English longbow! He has had a unique opportunity as caretaker of the Mary Rose bows to examine them. He may have made a mistake, but is it not also possible that you make a mistake in ignoring his well informed opinion? He may be wrong in thinking that some of the Mary Rose bows were not made of yew, but his mistake may be better than what you base your opinion on - unless you know more than Robert Hardy on this issue? He has probably seen and handled more Mary Rose bows than you have handled Longbows! Have you had all the Mary Rose bows in your care in your home for many years? Have you been responsible for preserving them and studying them? Have you have them in your custody in your home for many years? He may be wrong on this, but he may also have a better chance of being right on this!
Ideally, one of these "alledged" non-yew bows would be put up for detailed examination. Unfortunately this does not seem likely to happen so it may never be proven - but it was still said in a public meeting by acknowledged world experts who had access to ALL the Mary Rose bows! It seems too many people have a stubborn faith that all the bows were yew to allow the possibility of the fact saying otherwise.
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: Jaro on December 15, 2010, 10:23:50 am ---Mark
/quote]
Jaro---Please don’t misquote me. I didn’t use the words “square” or “squarish” although one bow was nearly square.. I said “rectangular” and mentioned rounded corners. No, I don’t consider “upper right profile “squarish”.and I see no need of a bell curve. Make one if you like. I am not entirely ignorant about Alemannic bows. They are a European exception with a stiff handle similar to Victorian bows, not bending in an arc, and used with ca. 25” arrows.. The limbs are nearly flat, but five sided, the two facets on the belly barely forming a corner. This is not even close to being a high ridge. Maybe we have a language problem here.
For those who think this thread is about “whitewood” bows, Soar’s book mentioned above notes that the MR previously did have such bows which tended to break, for which the ship’s captain was criticized. The MR was then re-supplied with the yew bows that went down with the ship.
Erik
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version