Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

What is "Warbow"

<< < (24/30) > >>

ChrisD:
J.D

Wellk, as you say, ther are very trenchent views on this topic. I'm well prepared to change mine - but only if someone comes up with a hypothesis that fits all the facts - and not just the ones people like to concentrate on. Let me explain what I mean by answering your questions.

I agree that the replications made out of high altitude yew come out at 120-160lb. The problem is that we don't actually know that all of the Mary Rose bows were made of high altitude yew (which I know would have been the favoured material). All we really know is that some are big, some are slim and a few are monstrously huge. The sizes lead to the original guesstimate of 80-180lb which is widely quoted. Now I think that range is just plain silliness - its too big for a set of tools designed to do a standardised thing. Balanced against that, you have to look at the bows we do have made of similar and different yews. I have two high altitude alpine bows for example. One is slim, 1m95 between the nocks and c12cm girth in the centre and used to be 90lb at 30 inches. Another looks very big, swiss yew and 100lb at 30 ins. (about 2m5 between the nocks and c14.5cm at the girth). Significantly different looking bows, not too different starting weights and both bigger than either of the MR bows I've seen and one of them bigger than an oregon yew replica I've seen. Then we come to Glennans bow made by Don Adams (Ireland) photographed and described on the old warbow site. That thing is massive by all accounts and I'd be interested to hear how it shapes up measurement wise against the biggest MR bow. It still 'only' came out at 120lb though and just a 10% drop over a few shots would bring it into the range which I expect the majority of warbows would have occupied.
So you see wher I'm coming from here. The range in sizes of the MR bows can't be explained by saying the smaller ones were made of lower quality wood and the bigger ones of better - which is what the modern replications you've talked about have actually gone and done - and nor can it be explained by saying that they are all of the same quality wood. My view is that they all had about the same draw weight   and somewhere between 100 and 120 is where you are likely to find it. If I had to bet on a figure , it'd be closer to the low hundreds - that does perfectly well at 200yds with the lightest feasible war arrow you're likely to see. If you look at the 'experiments' in the second hardy book with 150lb bows (admittedly made of materials ALL not available to medieval bowyers), the performance so far exceed what is accepted from accounts that it more or less proves that 150lb bows weren't used.

You are absolutely right that its easy to find modern labourers - or white collar workers for that matter who could use 100lb bows after some training. Give them the sort of treatment that obtained on the Agincourt chevauchee though - 20 some days of hard marching and almost no rations - and then see what they can do. I know that some sources bemoan the weakening of the modern man with respect to our forefathers of old - but that happens in every generation. The truth about the decline of the bow in favour of the gun is that you don't have to feed a rifleman a fraction of what you have to feed an archer to keep him lethal. The medieval rachers, I believe, shot 'within themselves'. Sure, they could have handled heavier bows but success in artillery archery depends on having lots and lots of archers so you have to make sure that ALL archers can use ALL bows allowing for some sickness, starvation and the range of strengths which men have. That means lightening the draw weights a bit but keeping them high enough to keep a range of 200yds.

One small point. Many on these forums disrespect the ability of the modern man. I cannot think of one field of activity, physical or otherwise where modern men have failed to exceed the abilities of our ancient ancestors. Why would archery with replica warbows be any different?

Chris

sagitarius boemoru:
"Then we come to Glennans bow made by Don Adams (Ireland) photographed and described on the old warbow site."

I have in my collection broken Don Adams bow. It ahs so much sapwood I can think of very elastic piece of wood, which does need extreme dimensions to build up the weight. If the bowyer wasnt lazy and chased ring down to sapwood thicnkess that on MR bows there wont be any need of such extreme dimensions. My piece os that of dimensions of baseball bat and I call it badly made.



"If you look at the 'experiments' in the second hardy book with 150lb bows (admittedly made of materials ALL not available to medieval bowyers), the performance so far exceed what is accepted from accounts that it more or less proves that 150lb bows weren't used."

Admitedly which ones materia is not availble to medieval bowyers? The fiberglass flatbow in tests is included to actually have comparition to modern bow. New records by Stanley and by Mark are shot with italian yew selfbows and these only further strenghten what we know.

"I know that some sources bemoan the weakening of the modern man with respect to our forefathers of old - but that happens in every generation."

Care to include some verifable proof?


"One small point. Many on these forums disrespect the ability of the modern man. I cannot think of one field of activity, physical or otherwise where modern men have failed to exceed the abilities of our ancient ancestors. Why would archery with replica warbows be any different?"

I can think of couple archery and athletics being one of them. We cannot actually yet match pre WW2 wooden bow flight records, altough some of best bowyers and  archers labouring hard to do that.  Anyway. Your assumption is that - they did not even shoot as far as we do, the bare minimum they were requred to shoot was actually standart, not a minimum. That is not acceptable in the light of recorded tudor and post tudor distances at various marks, which are long even for light arrows.

I call you again to produce some numbers or sources to back your claims. I adressed your points in my previous discussion. If you dont care to answer so be it, but I m sure everybody reading it will get the picture.

J.

ChrisD:
No problem with answering Jaro - I was talking to J.D that time because he asked a couple of excellent questions which merited a prompt reply. I don't actually have that much time to spend on this forum so my posts will likely appear at the same time of an evening.

Now what have we heard from you so far eh?

1) The warbow buying public are generally ignorant
2) You can get 100000 shots from a replica warbow without significant deterioration - yeah right.
3) You believe that a tudor bowyer working in a mass production environment [which had to be regulated in order to maintain standards (Hardy and Strickland p23) was more assiduous than the few modern bowyers making these bespoke articles for a living and providing a guarantee.
4)You have disparaged the work of Don Adams - who at least is a bowyer who has actually published work albeit a while ago
5) You took the bait on my Donald Rumsfeld comment which was an invitation for you to go for the man rather than the ball. I was just curious to see whether you'd bite thats all. For your information, I'm no fan of the neocons but I can see when even someone I don't like talks sense.

With regard to Occams Razor - my explanation to J.D of the sizes of the MR bows and why I think the poundages were what I believe they were is actually a model of Occams Razor in that it is consistent with all that is known about the MR bows as well as what is known about modern replicas and in particular, it requires no superlatives abilities of anybody or anything in the system - archers, wood, bows or bowyers. Above average yes, superlative no.

Why do I not quote my sources? Two reasons. Firstly,  I'm not sure if you've noticed but I may as well point it out. You are unique in the extent and degree to which you quote sources on the site. Its your right, I have no problem with it, however it may also have escaped your notice that its an open forum for hobbyists, the merely curious, young people - basically everybody. It isn't a scientific forum and I for one have no desire or appetite to shove the extent of my learning or interest in this topic down everybodies throat. What I've said so far is verifiable with little effort apart from where its only my opinion (and that will be obvious to any discerning raeder) and I've left my e-mail address available to anybody who wants to get in touch. Having said all that, I'm prepared to make a couple of exceptions just for you and just this once.

Second reason is this. Warbow archery is a niche interest of a small field where I come from. There are people here who make a living out of it and others trying to make a living. I try to be sensitive to that fact and not antagonise or jeopardise those people by quoting them while they are still active - they can speak for themselves if they want to. At the same time, a forum like this is an interesting and useful exercise for exchange of information amongst people who are prepared to accept differences of opinion - but thats all they are, opinions.

To answer some of your points. Yes it was the Luttrell Psalter and so what if it was the 1340s? In 1365 Edward 111 issued the same sort of proclamations as you describe (Connections, pub James Burke, 1981 p 66). That just goes to show that nothing changed between tudor times and earlier medieval times. Nothing stupid there.

What materials were used in the Hardy experiment I refer to. Well, as you say, a fibreglass flatbow and longbow of oregon yew. Its a poor piece of scientific writing as the string isn't mentioned but you can bet it was man made fibre. I suppose the horn nocks were available to a tudor bowyer - so I'll give you that much. Oh yes the reference is Hardy and Strickland page 408. I should also say that the MR bow made by Roy King all those years ago only came out at 105lb and 1m87cm between the nocks. It was actually shorter (I'm told) than the bow upon which it was based - as a bowyer you'll know where this is going so I won't bore you with the details.

You seem to object to my suggestion that it is common for people to extol the virtues of the past at the expense of the modern age. Well, its hard to start with something so common and well known. I doubt you are a fan of cricket, but if you were, yesterday you would have heard Geoffrey Boycott suggesting that his mum armed with a stick of rhubarb could have defeated an English medium pace bowler. Thats the sort of hyperbole I'm talking about - maybe its not so common where you are from, buts its standard here. If you want references, check out the British Medical Press where you'll find people talking about how modern surgeons are trained on 9000 hours of surgery while my generation had to do 36000. All rubbish of course but its what people like to believe.

On your bit of Don Adams bow - well who broke it. This is my whole point after all.

What do you mean 'there was not often found more bows than archers'. The MR bows are the only find of note - there is no index with which to compare so you can't make any comment. And were the black bow and Agincourt really used - or were they just in a different condition? Either way, if they still did what they were meant to do, then why not bring them? The presence of only two used bows amongst 137 unused ones would indicate a short life - not a long one I remember reading of a fancy that Agincourt looked like an old timer but please tell me that nobody believes the thing was 130 years old when the ship went down.

My statement that the bows tended towards 80 inches should be taken thus. Your figures show that if you make a bar chart with bow length on the x axis and number of bows on the y axis, then you get a normal distribution with a skew to the right. If you accept that they were of similar weights, then the obvious inference is that the properties of the wood was very heterogenous - which supports my view that there was nothing uniformly superlative about the quality of the wood. Thats all I meant. Your insistence on precise analysis of individual bows  stops you seeing whats right under your nose.

I'd love to experiment - but I'm a surgeon, not a bowyer - I'll leave it to the likes of Pip Bickerstaffe and others who as I have said is a good scientific thinker and has the access and ability to do that kind of work

Dunno where you get your ideas on Simon Stanley. Ask him what he thinks of Italian yew whenever you see him. Last time I saw him(and I've met him only twice) he was using a laminate Osage/yew and I think hickory backed bow.

What athletics? What records on flight shooting where the break wasn't due to advances in materials?

C

SimonUK:
There's nothing like a good fight in the warbow section....

alanesq:

On the subject of what draw weight the bows would have been, just thought I would pass on my experiences so far of taking up the warbow:

I am reasonably large built but I work in I.T. and have never done any job or hobby which involves a lot of heavy work lifting etc.
I took up archery around 1 year ago but up until January I was shooting a 65lb bow (28" draw)
I do not do any training other than shooting my bows once or twice a week
Around 1 month ago I bought a new bow which is 130lbs at 32", it was VERY heavy for me and I didn't know if I would ever manage to fully draw it but now after only a few weeks I can shoot this bow surprisingly comfortably and it gets easier every time I use it    (I have checked the draw weight and it has not dropped yet - I wondered if this was why myself ;-)

The point I wanted to make is that if I can pull 130lbs after a few months of not very intensive use of warbows I find it difficult to imagine that professional archers who had been shooting these bows since boyhood would be shooting bows much lighter than mine ??

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page