Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Longbow Tech Question
bow-toxo:
Craig You had previously asked for a copy of the relevant passages which I don’t have access to in that form. This is what I have. It works for me and with the 5’ Saxon Chessel bow. Which should qualify as a warbow because of its accompanying 24 arrows, not a hunting kit. If history is a guide, it may not work for you.
Gaston suggests a shaft of 8 poignees [fists again] from nock to barbs. This gives me 26 1/2” shaft,. The bow is to be 20 poulcees between nocks. Under the assumption that this measurement is the length of the thumb from tip to second joint, I get a bow that measures 4’ 8” between nocks. The completed bow matches those in the illustrations for the fifteenth century edition of the book.
I concede that your bow for 28” arrows is a longbow by modern standards.
A suitably long shaft would be one that was going to be an arrow. If you don’t have one, there is no point in measuring. I get 31 ½ inches. I can’t comment on your situation.
Concerning your alternate methods of bending a bow {a gull wing shape with recurved tips}, please. My only comment is L.O.L.
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on September 03, 2011, 03:58:37 pm --- I concede that your bow for 28” arrows is a longbow by modern standards.
A suitably long shaft would be one that was going to be an arrow. If you don’t have one, there is no point in measuring. I get 31 ½ inches. I can’t comment on your situation.
Concerning your alternate methods of bending a bow {a gull wing shape with recurved tips}, please. My only comment is L.O.L.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for the information, however I do not see instructions on how to make a bow there.
If you read what I said : "I have now got such a shaft from my garage/shed and the news is not good for your proclaimed method, the result is that my 10 fists produce an a length of 38 7/16 inches"m it will be clear that I got hold of a suitable shaft and the resultant length, which far exceeds your results.
As for naturally bent or otherwise, I have in my front paddock a tree that has a second growth limb on it that has take a rough "3" shape, which if it were of a suitable wood, not the scribbly gum it is, would, if properly tillered and strung take your gull-wing shape with recurred tips. Now if nature will provide such just imagine what the application of a bit of training by the use of forms would produce. So do not be so quick in dismissing the methods I mention, some of which are reported to be used by modern boyers.
I suggest you start reading some contemporary works to see what people have been experimenting with, start with volume 1 of the The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, take a look at page 95, then tell the primitive technologist and bowyer mentioned there (Jim Riggs) that he cannot do what he does! I would also suggest you think of the shape that such bows would take when strung! Are we still laughing? Something I think was beneath you and that you should be ashamed of!
But ignoring the other methods available, it still not fact that you have no proof as to how they were made and when you made the statement of the method you were making assumptions, when you spoke in absolutes rather than probables?
I would also suggest your gull-wing bows are nothing more that flights of fancy by the artists involved who are probably painting "Greek or Roman classical shapes" a shape more suitable to a horn composite bow than a wooden self bow. Such shapes appear regularly throughout the period and are even shown being used by peoples who who probably had limited contact with Asiatic bows, such as some paintings of the martyrdom of the Edmond king of East Anglia by the Vikings, where even the act is in doubt being too much like the story of the martyrdom of Sebastian by the Romans.
Any way this discussion has gone on too long and still unfortunately you still do not see the error of talking in absolutes when no such proof exists.
Craig.
bow-toxo:
Craig---"Any way this discussion has gone on too long" On this we agree.
Prarie Bowyer:
[/quote]
By the way, very few eucalypt species, (and there are over 700), are suitable for making ELBs and such thin highly stressed bows. Nor are most ranked as decent heat bending woods.
Craig.
[/quote]
Now you tell me. How are they for flat bows?
CraigMBeckett:
--- Quote from: Prarie Bowyer on September 07, 2011, 02:26:15 am ---
--- End quote ---
By the way, very few eucalypt species, (and there are over 700), are suitable for making ELBs and such thin highly stressed bows. Nor are most ranked as decent heat bending woods.
Craig.
[/quote]
Now you tell me. How are they for flat bows?
[/quote]
Same as anything, some are most are not. Do you know the name of the species you intend to use? Just saying you intend to use eucalypt is akin to saying you will use wood!
Craig.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version