Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
What is "Warbow"
duffontap:
This board can be totally inclusive for all I care. BUT, Jaro has a legitimate point that we're dealing with historical data here and we should be responsible to represent 'the English Warbow' in a historically-accurate manner. This provides lots of latitude for speculation and opinion, but for historical purposes, we need to use a stricter definition. "Any weight, any tiller, any material, any draw length, any limb taper, any length, whatever I want to call a warbow" doesn't describe anything and doesn't advance our understanding of the historical subject at hand. Does that make sense to you guys?
Take care,
J. D. Duff
SimonUK:
Ratty's theory on arrow length and arrow heards makes a lot of sense to me. I'm sure I read somewhere that it was the long 'english arrow' that was the major difference between english and continental archery equipment. If this is the case, the desire for a long draw length would surely have driven the development of a long arrow.
I guess there might be other advantages for a long arrow ...increased accuracy? ... increased weight yet still streamlined?
ratty:
i sort of agree about the definition of the warbow, but i feel we have more to learn about how it was shot.
the medieval style (in the bow)
its no good owning one if you cant shoot it properly,or should i say historically correct.
as a few of you know when you first got your warbow you suddenly realised you had to change shooting style.
which is why i feel that the laminate warbow should not exclude people from the warbow threads the laminate warbow is just a warbow replica, which needs the same style and effort to shoot. :)
BUT for definition purposes a medieval English warbow was known to be made of imported yew.
a laminate if it is made to medieval style and weighs 100#+ and draw 32" is a (laminate replica medieval English warbow) ;)
D. Tiller:
Aye, theres the rub JD! There are many different variations on the Warbow theme historicaly speaking. We only have the Marry Rose bows to go by and they were at the tail end of the warbows development and millitary use. They also had a lot of variation between them in there designs. We can only speculate on what early bows looked like or performed like. We have to keep in perspective that we just dont know except from whats found in a few painting and some written documentation. So we nead to keep it a bit vague.
Personally, I believe limiting bow materials to the three we know were used historically would defeat the inclusive nature of the PA bulleting board. Sure, there are limmiting factor but I think the nead to be a bit vague because of this. Some people wish to make historicaly accurat represintation of what was used durring the mideivil ages and that is a good goal and will allow us to figure out how things were back then. Others just want to build a warbow and shoot them and it does not matter what the material are or how heavy a wieght they pull.
Here are what I think we should limit our bassis for discusion on the English Warbow forum:
1) Bows must be round of belly.
2) Bows must taper from grip to nocks.
3) Bows should be man height or taller.
4) Bows must bend through out there length in Compass Rose fashion.
5) Should draw to the ear for the length of draw.
6) String nocks should be self or horn nocks. (Dont know what they were durring the early mideivil ages so keep it open a bit)
7) No recurves on bows except the small tiny ones that were used historicaly on yew bows. (Yep! They did put small recurve on some at the very ends of the bows. These were included, sometimes, on bows after the crusades)
This should limit things enough but still leave the board broad enough to include the majority of people who enjoy shooting a warbow style of bow.
1/2primitive:
I like your definition, David. Now what about all of the bows they have labled as 'longbows' now days? I mean, anything that isn't a recurve they call a longbow.
Sean
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version