Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?

(1/29) > >>

kevinsmith5:
I'm in a bit of a debate (or screaming match) with a historian about the draw weights if 15th and 16th century English Longbows. He swears that as far as he's concerned the bows of the Mary Rose were atypical for longbows because the crew was an elite unit and obviously you can't assume that average longbow draws were as high as on the MR. I'm not looking to debate that here now, I'm just looking for primary sources from books of research into other bows found, ranges, arrow weights, and accounts of performance that would make a 80lb draw average weight improbable. As he's making these comments where a lot of ATTENTIVE but low information readers are at least watching my interest is in swaying the views of the readers since it sounds like I could drop him back with time machine and not convince HIM

WillS:
You're in for a fight, I think.  There are no other bows found, really.  You need to use other forms of logic to prove that the bows were pushing 150lb.  Using arrows is a good way of doing it - we know exactly what type of arrows were used, and we know how heavy a bow needs to be in order to effectively utilise the arrow.

If we stay away from the Mary Rose for a moment, another brilliant example of an arrow found during the medieval period is the Westminster arrow.  It was complete with head (a type 16) and had a shaft just over 3/8, and barrelled in the centre to 1/2".  It was just under 30" long (but is commonly assumed to have been broken a few times and re-made with a different head) and had 7.5" long fletchings, whipped at 4 turns to the inch.  Just like the majority of the MR arrows.

Now, the accepted term "bowshot" used during the period has been equated to around 240 yards.  In the SAS Production DVD "Fletching The Medieval Arrow" Mark Stretton shoots an exact replica of the Westminster arrow, along with exact replicas of Mary Rose arrows.  It goes just beyond bowshot, so around 240 yards.  The bow he was using was 150lbs. 

The arrow clearly would not have reached that distance with a much lighter bow (and bare in mind we are not talking about the Mary Rose period here (1545), but much earlier) so unless the term bowshot was constantly changed and redefined during the period (unlikely) a bow of around 150lb is not at all unlikely or exaggerated.

It's also worth noting that there are a huge number of people shooting today who can draw and shoot a bow of 140 - 170lbs with apparent ease, and these are NOT archers trained from a very young age.  If you were to start shooting at the age of 7 for example, by the time you reach your mid to late twenties, heavy bows of around 160lbs would be achievable, comfortable and realistic.  I don't think anybody who actually makes and shoots these bows has any real doubt. 

Unfortunately there are very few findings or documents that can support the theories, but there's no real reason to suggest that the MR bows are anything different to the norm.  The very fact that the bows were used on board a ship at close range to other ships would almost suggest that they might be lighter in comparison to some used during field battles where great range and constant penetration of heavy armour (not used onboard ships) is more important. 

One bow that was discovered much, much earlier was Otzi's bow.  Steve Stratton has made a few replicas of this bow using identical high altitude Alpine yew, to exacting dimensions and construction techniques (the bow was made inside out, with the sapwood forming the belly and the heartwood forming the back) and he said the bow came out at very similar weight to the MR bows.

He's also amongst many bowyers who have made exacting replicas of the MR bows using identical wood from the same location and of course these bows have come out around 180lbs.

Hope some of that helps?

WillS:
I can supply you with one excellent example actually, of a bow far earlier than the Mary Rose bows.

There's a longbow that was recovered in 1932 from an Irish crannog and in a tenth century context.  It's 75 inches overall, and straight.  It's called the Ballinderry Bow, and it's dimensions are almost identical to the average size of the Mary Rose bows.  It's 1.6 inches wide, 1.25inches deep and made of yew, with sap and heartwood in proportion.  These dimensions are the same (If perhaps slightly wider) as the typical Mary Rose warbow.   It's half a millennium older than the Mary Rose bows, and yet essentially the same bow.

It's more well known as the Viking Bow, and as Hugh Soar writes in his book Secrets Of The English Warbow, "if this is truly typical of contemporary Viking weaponry, then the bows in use at Maldon in AD 991 are put into perspective, and doubt may be cast upon the belief that weapons of that period were inferior in draw weight to those of later times."

See what he says to that!

One thing to note - keep him away from anything written or said by Pip Bickerstaffe.  I've had many conversations with Pip recently, and he is adamant that the warbows found on board the MR are much lighter in draw weight than they really are.  His reasoning is based wholly on the fact that the nocks in the arrows are 1/8" wide, and yet he believes that no natural string (Hemp, linen) that's 1/8" thick could support a bow over 100lbs.  However, in recent years many bowyers and stringfellows have made natural linen string 1/8" thick that have supported bows up to 170lbs, and done very well in terms of cast and longevity.  Pip also believes that a bow of a draw weight 100lbs+ would break very quickly, or lose it's cast and thus be useless for battle.  Again, this has been proven totally untrue by bowyers and warbow archers who are using massively heavy bows for many years with no detriment to their performance.  The trouble is, he wrote all of this down in a very early book and with all the new evidence being discovered by people actually shooting the bows, his information is dated and wrong but he can't go back on his printed word so will stick to it stoicly despite it's untruth. 

toomanyknots:
Very cool info WillS, thank you! That is interesting about Pip Bickerstaffe's views.

WillS:
I hope some of it helps Kevin.  I also hope it doesn't sound too much like I'm slating Pip - I think the guy makes gorgeous longbows and is clearly very talented (and also incredibly forthcoming with advice and help when contacted about making bows!) but if you wanna win an argument about big heavy bows, he's not the guy to use for quotes  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page