Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

Spine consideration for war arrows

<< < (9/9)

ChrisD:
Naw - I haven't forgotten an obvious (and oft used) argument like that ;). I just happen to think its over rated. The presence of coercive legislation enacted in 1363(or 1365 depending on where you read, and by Edwd 3rd, not 2nd, sorry), and then re enacted by Henry V in 1410 enforcing Sunday archery practice indicates that the country wasn't exactly awash with useable archers. For sure, there were always plenty of people willing to take the Kings Schilling - but the law only enforced practice, it didn't force anyone to become any good. Even Robert Hardy who writes about the medieval period with more romanticism than I like to see in a historian admits that in the mid 1300's, an archer in Edwards army was hard to train and harder still to keep at the required level of skill. Small wonder that the warbow was superseded by firearms hundreds of years before it was superseded as one of the finest artillery weapons available. I've read one American Civil War commentator who remarked that the battle of Gettysburg could have been won with longbows! I don't even think that the 12000 odd archers present at the beginning of the Agincourt campaign is a particularly big number - not for a war of conquest - it was the best that could be done at the time, thats all.

Chris.

Rod:
Looking at the work of Simon Stanley and Mark Stretton it would appear that the higher arrow speeds are achieved with  shafts of more moderate weight than the quarter pound (1750 grain) shaft and a bow in excess of 150lb draw weight.
What is then interesting is the fact that the better archers in the heyday of the heavy bow must not only have been able to draw such bows, but the best must also have mastered them.

There are quite a few today who can draw such weights, but scarcely any who have mastered these bows.
This is evident when they are seen shooting, in their accuracy and in theur abuility to maintain a rate of fire without sacrificing accuracy or length.

Rather than see folks struggling to draw heavier weights which they cannot master as the main focus of their attention, I would rather see the same folks master a bow of a given more manageable weight before stepping up in draw weight.
This is more in line with traditional usage where you would not be given a stronger bow until you could control the one you wre already shooting.

Many of todays practitioners can not even maintain a draw length over more than a very few arrows.

As regards bow weights as used, I think it worthwhile to compare with another warbow culture where the literary record is more explicit.
In Selby's "Chinese Archery" actual recorded weights are cited which seem to be a worthwhile comparison, giving a median for infantry bows of 120lb to 150lb and of 90lb to 120lb for cavalry bows.
This bears comparison with other warbow cultures where the demands upon the weapon are not at all different. to project a heavy armour penetrating shaft the greatest possible distance.
These median figures tally quite well with the experience of the more accomplished heavy bow shooters.

Talk about the heyday being from a period when plate was just becoming to come to the fore is all very well, but I think it likely that draw weights increased in direct response to the developments in protection.
The archer may well have been more readily effective against the gentleman's armour of 1340, but the demands placed upon the bow and projectile would have increased with the growth in the more extensive use of plate armour.

To anyone interested in the social and economic realities of raising a mediaeval army and that old chestnut about "England" invading "France", I can only recommend that they acquaint themselves with some of the Yale "English Monarchs" series of paperback books.
Specifically "Henry 1", Henry 11", "Edward 1", "Edward 111" and "Henry V". The volumes on William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Richard 1 and King John are also worth reading.

Rod.

Rod:
Seems to me that the making of shafts out of straight grained splits wiould follow pretty much the same process that we might use today.
Once a fairly uniform "square" dowel has been planed out, the use of a shooting board and thumb plane should allow of fairly quick production of a facetted dowel which can then be rounded out with a sanding block or drawn through a dowel cutting plate.
I hardly think that we have reinvented the wheel when it comes to such a task.
Rod.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page