Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

How many strands in a string.

<< < (7/10) > >>

bow-toxo:

--- Quote from: adb on July 10, 2011, 10:20:56 pm ---[
--- End quote ---

 No more from me.  8)
[/quote]

Good news at last.

adb:
 8)

Ian.:
Craig,

Your the one who is trying to draw similarities between the two.


Ian

bow-toxo:

--- Quote from: CraigMBeckett on July 10, 2011, 10:52:14 pm ---I suggest you look at your statement again, we are much closer to the medieval period than Otzi's time was to it, and even with our advantage of the written record, we still have virtually no idea how the medieval string was made.
Craig.

--- End quote ---
Craig—I think we do have an ides of how mediaeval strings were made. If no one has a realistic reason for a 15th century archer to have lied when mentioning a three strand string, and we know the thickness from the size of MR nocks, we have a basic thin rope. We know there was a loop at one end. We see the nocks cut in bows to accommodate a loop. Lartdarcherie specifies that it should be tight. We know from Ascham that the tail end that was tied in a “bending” of “more than one wap” was reinforced. What is the part that we don’t know? I don’t think the manufacture of strings had to go through many changes. I think improved materials were sourced. Certainly you don’t dispute the many sources that list the materials as linen, silk and hemp? The linen strings of this type continued in use until the death of the Flemish maker of the Flemish strings in the early 20th century.

CraigMBeckett:
Erik,

--- Quote ---Craig—I think we do have an ides of how mediaeval strings were made. If no one has a realistic reason for a 15th century archer to have lied when mentioning a three strand string, and we know the thickness from the size of MR nocks, we have a basic thin rope. We know there was a loop at one end. We see the nocks cut in bows to accommodate a loop. Lartdarcherie specifies that it should be tight. We know from Ascham that the tail end that was tied in a “bending” of “more than one wap” was reinforced. What is the part that we don’t know? I don’t think the manufacture of strings had to go through many changes. I think improved materials were sourced. Certainly you don’t dispute the many sources that list the materials as linen, silk and hemp? The linen strings of this type continued in use until the death of the Flemish maker of the Flemish strings in the early 20th century.
--- End quote ---

I know you have strong feelings on this subject and I have read the information you have put on both your own and Alan Blackham's site. I have to disagree with the conclusions, you conclude that the string is made up as any twisted cord is/was made, however that conclusion completely disregards the numerous references to "water glew" and that the secret of how they were made died with the last make in Belgium.

If we believe the references water glue, were the strands twisted as in the modern "Flemish Twist" string and then this glue was applied or were the separate fibers stuck together, or was some other method used? We just don't know and until we have something better to go on than one reference in a book, written by an unknown French Provincial in 1515, which not only states that a good string is made of three strands but also that good string is gummed not glued and that silk is the best material to make strings out of because one made that way"is so springy that it propels the arrow further and with greater force than when made of any other material. Now the part regarding gummed not glued is clearly at odds with other authors who talk of the use of water glue, and the bit concerning springy strings is utter rot and could not be written by anyone who knew the subject on which he writes. So this Author and what he writes is in my opinion very suspect.

In addition to the doubts raised by the above there is also the thought that if the strings were merely simple cord twists such cords and their method of manufacture would be readily recognized by the people of the time so why do we find numerous expressions of ignorance as to the manufacturing process.

Therefore while we may have ideas as to how medieval strings were made we do not conclusively know anything.

By the way I believe the Flemish maker of strings died before the 20th Century as I'm sure I have documents referring to him and his death written before 1900.

As for "we know the materials", you are referring to a very short period in the middle ages, we have little no idea of what was used in the early middle ages or if you prefer the dark ages, when probably your and some of my ancestors parted company 500 to 1000 AD, nor do we know if the hemp/flax string was used exclusively as opposed to the use of strings from animal tissues such as gut, sinew and hide. I would also remind you that in one of your posts you refer to the part in Tox that says ""Eustathius, upon this verse of Homer, doth tell, that in old time, they made their bow-strings of bullocks' thermes, which they twined together as they do ropes". Thermes are tendons or if you prefer sinews. so there is another material to consider, along with gut and rawhide. All of which are string materials used throughout the world, why not England?


So I find myself tending towards agreeing with adb on this and until more conclusive evidence comes to light I will state we do not know fully how the medieval bow string was made.

Craig.



 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page