Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Weapons of Warre: The Ordnance of the Mary Rose
Prarie Bowyer:
Nice statistics work on above. Yea it seems that historians are not bowyers and thus have not provided some thing that may be desired. "Slab bows" is that to say some were flat in cross section?
Given what we know about English long bows and the above basic measurements It would be easy to project the missing dimensions. My only question is why. We know they were self bows and much will depend on wood characteristics so how specific can a replica get? If it were me making a self yew bow, which it won't be, I'd set the handle/middle of the bow and the tips then project the missing points given the available points and the constraint of the ELB design. You should get a narrow band of probability in which they will fall.
I don't understand the fuss over the tiny details in this case. What interests me is that only one string was possibly recovered. There is no evidence of shooting gloves or tabs. Did they not use them or were they something highly personal and kept close. Did the shoes that came up come from a body? If the bodies decayed then most leather probably wold be gone. What happened to the strings? Flax and linen should have survived to some degree. Were they some other material? Did archers keep their strings on their person? Were bows crated in one box and strings in another? That doesn't make allot of sense.
why the long skinny points on some where the nock tips are?
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: Prarie Bowyer on August 20, 2011, 04:36:29 am ---Nice statistics work on above. Yea it seems that historians are not bowyers and thus have not provided some thing that may be desired. "Slab bows" is that to say some were flat in cross section?
Given what we know about English long bows and the above basic measurements It would be easy to project the missing dimensions. My only question is why. We know they were self bows and much will depend on wood characteristics so how specific can a replica get? If it were me making a self yew bow, which it won't be, I'd set the handle/middle of the bow and the tips then project the missing points given the available points and the constraint of the ELB design. You should get a narrow band of probability in which they will fall.
I don't understand the fuss over the tiny details in this case. What interests me is that only one string was possibly recovered. There is no evidence of shooting gloves or tabs. Did they not use them or were they something highly personal and kept close. Did the shoes that came up come from a body? If the bodies decayed then most leather probably wold be gone. What happened to the strings? Flax and linen should have survived to some degree. Were they some other material? Did archers keep their strings on their person? Were bows crated in one box and strings in another? That doesn't make allot of sense.
why the long skinny points on some where the nock tips are?
--- End quote ---
Working through your post in the order you wrote it.
--- Quote ---"Slab bows" is that to say some were flat in cross section?
--- End quote ---
There are four, (I believe it was 4) bows whose grip area is rectangular in section and which show a sudden transformation from ovoid to rectangular. They are all amongst the heaviest, (by sight) bows recovered and there has been speculation as to their use etc. Bow B in Hugh Soar's book on the warbow is probably one of them as there appears to be only one bow of 83 inches or more in length.
--- Quote ---Given what we know about English long bows and the above basic measurements It would be easy to project the missing dimensions. My only question is why. We know they were self bows and much will depend on wood characteristics so how specific can a replica get?
--- End quote ---
One of the reasons of being as accurate as possible in replication is precisely because no 2 pieces of wood are the same, so the more replicas/approximations that closely follow the original dimensions the more reasonable it is that the information gained from the replicas/approximations can be applied to the original telling us what the likely performance and physical characteristics of it were. Think of the arguments about the weight of the bows and the distances shot.
--- Quote ---There is no evidence of shooting gloves or tabs. Did they not use them or were they something highly personal and kept close.
--- End quote ---
Not sure if you meant to make a statement or mis-typed a question, anyway, it appears that no tabs or shooting gloves were found. Although leather bracers were so they probably did not exist or those that did are still in the Solent. There is iconographic evidence of the use of shooting gloves by the gentry but not much that says they were used by the masses. A child's tab was found in Coventry, for a left handed archer, I cannot remember the date, if any, ascribed to it.
--- Quote ---What happened to the strings? Flax and linen should have survived to some degree.
--- End quote ---
Why do you believe this? As only 2 bits of string have survived. The strings that were, apparently, on some of the bows, whose shape shows that they were strung when the ship sank, have disappeared. Therefore the qualities of the materials used to make the strings cannot have bee such that they were not effected by the immersion and the action of both the mud and wildlife.
--- Quote ---Were bows crated in one box and strings in another? That doesn't make allot of sense.
--- End quote ---
Simple answer yes they were carried separately, the same way guns and ammunition are kept in separate containers today. I can just imagine the holy mess that would ensue from bows and strings being carried in the same box.
--- Quote ---why the long skinny points on some where the nock tips are?
--- End quote ---
I believe this was asked and answered in a different post, the reason is efficiency of design removing mass from where it would most impact on performance.
Craig.
Ian.:
I think you should thank Craig for his very detailed reply.
You seem to be very curious about the bows which is very good, the replicas that have been done of these bow are very detailed, dimensions on there own will not let you make a bow.
You need cross sections and profiles, Hunt arounds forums and look at the topics where people have posted pictures and you will understand a little better.
And there is more evident than just the MR to to go on, look at period from the period and read Toxophilas and the Art of Archery which is a similar period to the MR and it explains clearly about the things that the MR finds can not.
nidrinr:
..I've been reading both the archery part of the book and had a look at the dvd now. I enjoy the reading, but what I really could have wished for was a note on density (or rpi) on each bow.. I know this would only be interesting for us bowyers, but still it is vital information. I guess they had good quality on all of their staves, but just by comparing two 140#'ers I have, I started thinking about the matter.. One is from English yew, the other one from local yew. The difference in dimensions are... quite a lot.
Still they hold the same poundage, and shoot more or less the same distance using a standard arrow. But, if the bow from local yew were made from the same dimensions as the English yew, I guess the poundage would have passed 200# and more.
-Guess I'm just trying to say that guessing the strength of a yew bow from the dimensions are hard unless you have information of the quality of the wood. If I use a really perfect stave and follow the dimensions of the largest bow, I guess it would at least be heavier than the 185# suggested. If I used a stave with less quality I could end up far below 185#.
CraigMBeckett:
Hi nidrinr,
--- Quote ---but what I really could have wished for was a note on density (or rpi) on each bow.
--- End quote ---
I doubt that density would tell us much as it is likely to have changed due to degredation during the tong immersion but as they provide a weight for each bow it would be relatively easy to calculate a volume (not necessarily correct) for each bow, and then apply the published weight to come up with comparative densities.
Have you noticed that on the DVD they have divided the bows up into those with ring counts of 40 or less (course), 41 to 60 (medium) and over 60 (fine)? However more info would have been better.
Reading this and other archaeology books it is occasionally amusing to see that what you and I think would be important to record from our points of view are not what most archaeologists think of as being important.
Craig.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version