Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

Flatbows found on the Mary Rose?

<< < (5/11) > >>

nidrinr:
Does anyone know when this book of more info on the MR bows will be available..?

Phil Rees:

--- Quote from: Jaro on December 12, 2010, 04:00:15 pm --- The research of wood on the bows has gone so far, that DNA test has been done and the kindred living speciemens of the yew tree, have been located in alpine valley (Not that far from Celestios place I m told).
Jaro

--- End quote ---
Jaro
Can we be absolutley clear here .... Your saying that from DNA analysis of bow wood found on the Mary Rose the exact geographical location of the source of that wood has been identified ... is this correct?

Jaro:
Mark :
"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?"

Do you have any idea how much research can be done in 5 years? Off course it is pretty well damn relevant. For example at the time when Hardy and Stricklan wrote their book, much less Hardy´s longbow  alone, there was no comparable material to those bows availble, thus no comparable bows. Now there is and there are people who have both experience shooting bows of the same wood, but also making them. That is also why dr. Kooei´s computations of strenght of those bows does not match - because he only had the parameters for incorect yew. Informations date out faster than anything else.

"You appear to base your opinion on faith and dogma, religion of bows rather than facts of bows!"
Mark, I have made roughly 1500 bows and I have the closest ties to people who have best availble information NOW. With current level of knowledge. You obviously win shiny mirror award for this.


"He has no experience of this you say? He is fairly experienced in yews bows, and in bow making"

And now, now you are misquoting me. See, you are not any better nor hold any moral high ground. I said, that he makes mistakes in what he does not have personal experience. For example, there is well known manuscript picture published in "The great warbow" on which the archers are holding bows up in the air next to their heads - under which is written by autor´s pen "Everybody knows that you cannot draw heavy bow that way."  That is off course rather bold statement given that author has no experience in doing so and when I superposed picture of me in early draw over the manuscrip its exactly the same thing and I pull 140#/30" with body weight of 156#. (And I m not only one person who uses that method producing similar result.)

" 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?"

Mark if you want to debate me, educate yourself on what a debating (logical) faul is. How can his mistake be better than eventual truth based on good source. Because its me Im saying that ? Is your mind shape of corkscrew? Do you assume that difference between correct and mistaken observation is based on the identity of observer? Who, seriously crazy. I would call it "Schrodinger´s dog" or something.
I base my opinion in latest info, prominent members of EWBS, participants on published books on the subject and master of guild of bowyers can provide. Which has actually the experience with working the exactly same wood up to the DNA match the Mary rose bows were made. Obviously they can also be misinformed or make a mistake, but their information is of newer date that than of Mr. Hardy and their research goes well deeper.

"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."

-Except that both Hardy and Strickland are writers. That does not makes either of them expert in e.g. dendrochronology or cognitive science, which would make them authority on recognising 450 years old wood. In that I rather trust lab. There is no official statement of Mary Rose trust who actually has the means on doing such testing that there was whitewood bow on MR. Understand that there are also different sources of information, than these two books - for example in pure informationall value Richards Wadge´s book "Arrowstorm" contains more information and is better researched than Great Warbow - particulary information which is worth to archer and bowyer, that is. Diference being that Richard can actually walk the walk.

The whole affair is like "accusing me that I cannot be scientist because I dont worship on altar of Rodenberry". Bizzare.

As I said, there are new informations availble since Great Warbow - for example there have been research on wood and living specimens of yew trees kindred to the wood of MR bows have been located. If there was indeed whitewood bow, it would be confirmed by now.

Just let us summarised

-  No flatbows
-  No whitewood bows were ever confirmed by scientific authority or bowyer for that matter. The information that some are white woodbows is I believe actually literary reference, which seems to persist contrary to Mary Rose trust info.
- "Rectangularity" of those bows is highly questionable in regards of number of profiles to assume anything but odity. Still not square though.
-  No giant crossbows. Not a squat of evidence for them. No stock, no mechanism, no bindings and no space for 80" span crosbow on MR gundeck. Besides those bows have recognisable asymetricity. That is not what you make for crossbow.


J.

Mr. Roth its amusing to see you pedall, but given that you didnt cave-in under Mark Stretton´s and Steve Stratton´s authority on the subject, and babbled your nonsense on and on in older threads I wont loose my time on you, since you cannot do the thing anyway.

" 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"

- They are as unlike as victorian bow as one might imagine. There are no victorian bows with that profile which is exactly the "galeon", unlike the victorian high gothic arch (which is exceptionall by itself) and both the technology and approach to some solutions (handle and tips) are very very different.


Nidrir - it is all very hush hush now, but it seems to being prepared so the time horizont is not that far.

Jaro:
"Can we be absolutley clear here .... Your saying that from DNA analysis of bow wood found on the Mary Rose the exact geographical location of the source of that wood has been identified ... is this correct?"

Yes Horace, that is exactly what I m saying -  Let me quote : "They did DNA testing of the wood and then compared it to living specimen yew trees in alps and have found kindred (offspring) trees in alpine valley, not far from Cellestios place."

I suppose that should end the controversy about MR wood origin. Though there some odd bows on MR which do not seem to be made of the same wood, but they are far and few.

Jaro

Phil Rees:

--- Quote from: markinengland on December 13, 2010, 01:42:53 pm ---Jaro,

It is a FACT that shortly after the publishing of "The Great Warbow" the authors of the book Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy gave a lecture in London, that I attended and that when I questioned them they confirmed that not all the bows were yew, that a few were other woods. This was said in front of a large audience in 2005 presumably because it was true, true then, true now and true of the facts when the Mary Rose went down. ;D

--- End quote ---

Mark
I think you may be referring to a lecture at the National Army Museum  London on 22nd October 2005 with lectures by Dr Andrew Ayton and Robert Hardy. If we are talking about the same lectures I can confirm, because I was also there, that questions were asked about bow materials and (if my memory is correct) bow profiles. Both the speakers confirmed the existence of bows thought not to be made of Yew.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page