Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?
WillS:
I have to respectfully disagree with that stuff! Firstly, the Mary Rose wasn't already in battle. It was going towards the battle, still in sight of the shore when it turned heavily and, weighed down by the extra men added to the roster last minute along with open gun ports in preparation, leaned too much and flooded, resulting in the sinking.
The cases of bows were found at various locations within the ship. The way the wreck was discovered meant that half the ship was found just as it was when it sank. Everything was found where it would have been, so point 5 doesn't quite work I'm afraid!
Points 1 and 3 are kinda in the same vein, and neither work out, as nothing was really lost. Items right down to shoes, leather thongs, buttons, jewelry etcetc were all recovered so if hundreds of bows that weren't in the crates had been onboard, they would have been found too. Some of the bows were actually found loose and not in crates, so perhaps they were being carried by archers towards the upper deck?
I think most of your points are based on the fact that the ship was already engaged in battle, which according to most accounts it wasn't. In fact Henry VIII was watching from the castle when the ship simply turned to tack into the wind and just sank. Hope that clears it up a bit?
WillS:
--- Quote from: Atlatlista on November 06, 2013, 07:13:03 pm ---
--- End quote ---
Gotcha. Makes sense. I guess that's why the heads assumed to be arming the MR arrows were small Tudor bodkins (as found at Portchester Castle) rather than the massive plate cutters used during the 100 Years War. Sailors and ship-bound soldiers won't be wearing heavy plate armor, so without having to change the entire design of both bow and arrow from earlier periods, just changing the heavy head to something lighter and more efficient for the situation is the best option.
Interestingly, Mike Loades has a very similar opinion about the actual use of the warbow being almost flat trajectory at close range as compared to the more commonly seen use today, of extreme distance at 45 degrees. I guess it's the historically romantic "arrow storm" or volley that has led to most warbow archers shooting straight up. Plus it's damn hard to be accurate with unspined arrows and massive bows, so normal target shooting is fairly pointless.
llkinak:
--- Quote ---The sinking of the Mary Rose is the event for which the ship is best known. On 19 July 1545 Mary Rose was part of an English fleet that sailed out of Portsmouth to engage the French. She fired a broadside at the enemy and was turning to fire the other broadside when water flooded into her open gun ports and the ship suddenly capsized in full view of Henry VIII watching from the shore. It is not certain what caused Mary Rose to capsize; she was overloaded with extra soldiers and may have been caught by a gust of wind, which made the ship heel over.
--- End quote ---
The above quote is from the following link: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/About-the-Royal-Navy/Organisation/Life-in-the-Royal-Navy/History/Historic-Ships/Mary-Rose-1511
There are other sources which claim the ship was already engaged when she sank as well. If this is true, then the questions about why the cases of bows were below deck from where they would be used still stand.
I'm also not sure we can say with much certainty what was or was not lost from the ship. Maybe a great deal, maybe very little. We do strongly suspect we have around 167 heavy bows (Going from memory), and thousands of arrows.
llkinak:
--- Quote ---Gotcha. Makes sense. I guess that's why the heads assumed to be arming the MR arrows were small Tudor bodkins (as found at Portchester Castle) rather than the massive plate cutters used during the 100 Years War. Sailors and ship-bound soldiers won't be wearing heavy plate armor, so without having to change the entire design of both bow and arrow from earlier periods, just changing the heavy head to something lighter and more efficient for the situation is the best option.
--- End quote ---
Seems like a broadhead or type 16 might be the best option for shooting at unarmored sailors or soldiers.
Atlatlista:
--- Quote from: WillS on November 06, 2013, 07:22:39 pm ---
Interestingly, Mike Loades has a very similar opinion about the actual use of the warbow being almost flat trajectory at close range as compared to the more commonly seen use today, of extreme distance at 45 degrees. I guess it's the historically romantic "arrow storm" or volley that has led to most warbow archers shooting straight up. Plus it's damn hard to be accurate with unspined arrows and massive bows, so normal target shooting is fairly pointless.
--- End quote ---
I think there has been a bit of a shift in that direction for years now. For me, I am primarily a target longbow archer, but my interest in pursuing high level target archery with traditional equipment is to learn what kind of accuracy can be expected from ancient and medieval archers in a warfare context. I can currently, using historically correct bows of about 50-55 pounds draw weight, hit man-sized targets out to 80 yards a very high percentage of the time. However, the problem with shooting much father than that is that eventually your gaps get so big that it's almost impossible to make the minute adjustments necessary to hit the target. It gets to the point where the best you can realistically do is cover an area, and that's okay, but it's a type of accuracy that's not going to lend itself to large amounts of casualties.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version