Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?
WillS:
Because it's pretty impractical to be walking around a ship while it's on the move, holding 7ft long pieces of wood.
I don't know if you've been to the Mary Rose Museum, but there isn't exactly a whole heap of headroom onboard. The only place onboard that ship that you could stand upright holding a bow 80 inches long and not be hindered is on the top deck. So the only logical, practical place to keep hundreds of standard issue weapons is in crates. When the ship stops, and battle commences, the bows are unloaded, handed to the archers and the archers go to the one place they can use them (top deck or castles fore and aft) and shoot.
Otherwise, you've either got soldiers standing around bumping bow limbs on the ceilings of all the decks (useless, irritating and will damage the bows) or the bows are kept on the floor, where they roll around amongst people's feet (useless, irritating and will damage the bows)
Atlatlista:
I don't disagree about the MR bows. I think they were clearly finished bows, intended for use. However, they show many different features different from Otzi's bow (prepping for string nocks or horn nocks for example). And the context is very different - a warship which is presumably ready for battle when it's at sea. We don't know what Otzi was prepped for when he went out that day, we don't know what he was doing, etc. So, the comparison doesn't work for me.
That having been said, despite the initial argument which started this thread, I think the MR bows are sufficient evidence to support the idea of quite heavy war bows in the medieval period in and of themselves.
WillS:
Yep agreed.
I don't think there's any sensible argument that the bows on the MR were made massively bigger and heavier than the norm, especially not for use onboard a ship. Just because it was Henry VIII warship doesn't mean the men onboard were suddenly able to pull and use massive bows all of a sudden.
Out of interest, would anybody agree that it's likely medieval bows were actually heavier, on account of them needing to shoot further than when fighting ship to ship?
llkinak:
--- Quote ---Because it's pretty impractical to be walking around a ship while it's on the move, holding 7ft long pieces of wood.
I don't know if you've been to the Mary Rose Museum, but there isn't exactly a whole heap of headroom onboard. The only place onboard that ship that you could stand upright holding a bow 80 inches long and not be hindered is on the top deck. So the only logical, practical place to keep hundreds of standard issue weapons is in crates. When the ship stops, and battle commences, the bows are unloaded, handed to the archers and the archers go to the one place they can use them (top deck or castles fore and aft) and shoot.
Otherwise, you've either got soldiers standing around bumping bow limbs on the ceilings of all the decks (useless, irritating and will damage the bows) or the bows are kept on the floor, where they roll around amongst people's feet (useless, irritating and will damage the bows.)
--- End quote ---
The crates were below deck, though, correct? So the question remains, since the battle had already commenced, why were crated bows down there where they were not immediately to hand? The crates could have been stored on the fighting deck, but I believe they were located below that. So, we've got a few possibilities:
1. The bows in the crates were spares, which raises the question about why so many were needed.
2. The bows in the crates were not intended for use in that battle for one reason or other, in which case why have them on board?
3. The bows in the crates are only a portion of the bows the ship had onboard, the rest being lost. In which case where are the other crates and what sort of bows did they contain?
4. (I agree this is the least likely) The things in the crates are, for some reason, unfinished staves not ready for use, so why bother to have them at hand for fighting?
5. The crates started out on the fighting deck during the battle but somehow migrated to a lower deck when the ship sank.
(There are probably more, but I'm feeling the brain pain as it is and can't think too much more before I pull something.) :)
Atlatlista:
--- Quote from: WillS on November 06, 2013, 06:39:35 pm ---Yep agreed.
I don't think there's any sensible argument that the bows on the MR were made massively bigger and heavier than the norm, especially not for use onboard a ship. Just because it was Henry VIII warship doesn't mean the men onboard were suddenly able to pull and use massive bows all of a sudden.
Out of interest, would anybody agree that it's likely medieval bows were actually heavier, on account of them needing to shoot further than when fighting ship to ship?
--- End quote ---
I definitely don't agree that medieval bows were heavier to shoot further. Distance was never a major factor in the design of the English medieval bow and its arrows. The arrows, with their giant fletchings, thick shaft diameters, and heavy steel heads are designed for penetration at close-medium range, not for long distance shooting. I think that the preponderance of the textual evidence from the period is suggestive of the use of war bows at close range - less than 100 yards. They certainly could have been shot further, and were on occasion, but the majority of the actual killing in battle seems to be closer than 100 yards in the textual accounts. This also jives with what we know about accuracy (most archers would find it inordinately difficult if not impossible to target an individual person beyond 100 yards), and penetration of the armor of the period (which occurs at much closer ranges - less than fifty, or even as close as 20 yards).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version