Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Longbow Tech Question
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on August 19, 2011, 06:04:38 pm ---
Concerning the pictorial evidence, check the lengths of bows pictured used in battle. Many illustrations show not longbows, but smallbows that were normally heat bent to various curvatures. A longbow [ sorry, not every self bow is a longbow] is at least the length of the archer, or much more. The smallbow, of course using shorter arrows, might reach the archer’s nose. One late mediaeval manuscript illustration depicting the 1066 invasion, shows Normans with recurved longbows, Saxons with straight ended ones.
--- End quote ---
Erik,
The existence of the small bow (certainly in England, France & Burgundy) is unproven until way past the time of the use of the bow in battle. In addition I do not know of any instructions on how to make either long or short bows until those published in the 19th C appeared, so the fashion of manufacture, such as "heat bent to various curvatures" can only be speculation. The small bows shown in the Bayeux tapestry may be the results of artistic interpretation or there again they may be relatively correct in that it is believed that in some areas of southern Europe short (how short is short?) bows were used and as most of Williams archers are believed to have been mercenaries then there is a every chance that they came from short bow areas and therefore the depictions could be relatively correct.
--- Quote ---One late mediaeval manuscript illustration depicting the 1066 invasion, shows Normans with recurved longbows, Saxons with straight ended ones.
--- End quote ---
To which manuscript do you refer, who was the artist and at what date was the illustration you refer to produced? Your description of "late medieval" probably puts it being produced two or three hundred years after the invasion and at a guess the bows would represent those used by both the Burgundians and the English close to the time of the production of the manuscript, recurved tipped longbows as used in Burgundy for the (Continental/French) invaders and straight tipped longbows as used by the English for the Angle/Saxon/Danish defenders. Such a transfer of then contemporary equipment to paintings/illustrations depicting earlier events is a regular occurrence throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods.
I also have to ask where you obtained the definition that the smallbow "might reach the archer’s nose" while a longbow "is at least the length of the archer"? There are many who shoot the ELB who would disagree as does the BL-BS's own definition which uses minimum absolute lengths.
Craig.
Prarie Bowyer:
Who knew specifics of bow history could be such a heated topic.
All science fields are prone to seeking to prove their theory. That is kinda how it works. Interesting read "What is This Thing Called Science" by Kunz I think. There was another I read for my philosophy of science class. We are all biased but it still works in the end.
Back to topic. I did catch that the bow may be backwards. But history nerds are allowed in my book to be camera shy. As I understand the idea of the flipped tips was a theory. I don't think they said that all bows were recurved. I'm not certain they said the Marry Rose bows were. I know there are very few surviving english long bows. However the English are a people that respect tradition and later period bows were generaly straight.
I have never seen a burgundian bow but it would be neat to look into. A few questions that are not mentioned and adressed above. What happens to a heat recurve with 200 years of underwater storage? Why such long thin tapers and sharp tips if recurves were not employed? Is it not plausible despite no surviving example? They weren't stupid back then weapon making was an industry. They had concepts of economies of scale despite not having interchangable parts (it would not suprise me to find the nock covers were however because that would be highly efficient). Flipping the tips would have been an extra expense reserved for something more than the common grade of bow is my guess. Thus it probably wasn't that common given the marginal gains compared to slowed production. You can bet they were made by craftsmen that were part of guilds and were quite skilled and fast at producing bows. Some may have even had royal patronage and thus less need to "diversify their offerings (Some armorers also made money coins, and other metal works for the region).
We know that allot of armor did not survive history. Whole harneses were melted down for tank armor in WWI. So much of what remains is the cream of the crop. I would imagine that something similar has happened with the bows.
On the questions of the tips of the bows I'm not bowyer or historian enough to weigh in with credibility, BUT it is a COOL and Plausible idea.
bow-toxo:
Craig—I can’t imagine how you could have missed instructions on determining bow and arrow length in Roi Modus, Lartdarcherie and Le Livre de Chasse. Making a smallbow according to the instructions and standing it in front of myself, I can hardly miss noticing how tall it is {to my nose], and that is how short short is. Smallbows are pictured in illustrations from the 11th to the 16th century. The manuscript illustration was 15th century, and shows, to me at least, that the difference between Burgundian bows at that time was recognized, which you seem to agree with. I am sure that many would disagree. Some may even be correct.
Prairie Bowyer---Of course we can’t prove that no English longbow was recurved because it is impossible to prove a negative and we needn’t waste our time. Bows were made with long slender tips [with sidenocks] because that was thought to increase cast, and we find these thin tips in Nydam as well as on the MR. The MR bowtips certainly seem like interchangeable nocks when all MR bows were very close to 12 mm at the point the horn started, no matter the strength of the bow. And livery bows were not of the best quality When I visited the MR trust, one of the researchers asked me if I knew of any recurved English longbows. I said no.He was disappointed because, as he said, “I like recurves”. I can picture him working really hard to find something to fit his preference.
Prarie Bowyer:
After struggling for a while to flip the tips on a Lyptus wood ELB . . . I'm content to say that there was no such thing. ;)
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on August 20, 2011, 02:01:15 pm --- Craig—I can’t imagine how you could have missed instructions on determining bow and arrow length in Roi Modus, Lartdarcherie and Le Livre de Chasse. Making a smallbow according to the instructions and standing it in front of myself, I can hardly miss noticing how tall it is {to my nose], and that is how short short is. Smallbows are pictured in illustrations from the 11th to the 16th century. The manuscript illustration was 15th century, and shows, to me at least, that the difference between Burgundian bows at that time was recognized, which you seem to agree with. I am sure that many would disagree. Some may even be correct.
--- End quote ---
Erik,
I do not have translation of "Le Livre du Roi Modus et de la Reine Reson" but it is my understanding that this document is nothing more than a homily/moral tail and that it contains little of interest to the archer or archery historian. I will be happy to learn otherwise so if you can point out the section that contains the instructions I will see about a translation of that part.
I do have a translation of Lartdarcherie ir "The Art of Archery and the book is silent as to any bow length as it is to there being any such thing as a small bow however you like to spell it.
While I do not exactly have a translation of Le Livre de Chasse by Gaston Phébus I do have a copy of Master og Game, by Edward, second Duke of York, which is reputed to essentially be an English translation of Le Livre de Chasse but minus some chapters , the subjects of which were not animals found in England. As far as I am aware it contains nothing on bow length. But as it is an incomplete translation the original "Le Livre de Chasse" may have such a content. Can you therefore copy the section you say has the instructions so that I can see what it actually says? Does it actually refer to a short-bow as a separate weapon or are you assuming that any bow that does not measure up to the stated length is not a long bow so it must be a short bow. In addition does it instruct on the heat bending/forming as you suggest in your earlier post?
I would also suggest that using points on peoples bodies to decide what are or are not long bows is a flawed process, in imperial measurements I stand about 5' 8", or 68", so by your reckoning a 68 inch bow would be a long bow, yet one of my friends stands at about 6' 4" or is it 6' 6" so a 68 inch bow would , be somewhere below his nose, does this self same bow suddenly stop being a long bow when he picks it up?
Craig.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version