Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
stronges bow on the world
alanesq:
lol - That is taking "holding the record" quiet literally ;-)
Rod:
It is interesting to note that both Mark Stretton and Jaroslav Petrina have expressed an interest and regard establishing a benchmark for accuracy at 100 yards as an interesting and worthwhile challenge.
Given the present emphasis upon extreme distances, sustaining a rate of fire and concerns about investigating penetration, accuracy at the extreme of practicable distance for deliberate accuracy against a target smaller than a mass of defensively armed men seemed to us not entirely irrelevant, particularly in the light of what was evidently standard practice in another war bow culture with a greater body of literature upon which one might call for useful comparision.
And make no mistake, these people were using bows in the same range of draw wweight for very similar purposes against defensively arrayed men.
I dare say that an investigation of other established war bow cultures (Hindu, Mongol, Korean, Japanese)would show more similarities than differences despite the more obvious differences in style.
To reject this purely on the basis of it being a different type of bow is foolish. We are not comparing compounds and crossbows with the English war bow, but other full draw bows of similar draw weights.
If we had had to face these people, we would have had to deal with it, not make excuses, so what does the response of the nay sayers tell us about the attitudes of todays war bow exponents?
Is it the contention that these cultures would have been more skilled, more accurate than our ancestors, or was there possibly a useful consonance across all well developed war bow using cultures? The evidence on draw weights and general performance, such as it is, would tend to suggest the latter might well be the case.
As for this continual mithering on about "target archery", how many times do I have to write that comparison with contemporary target scores is not the point and criticism by someone who cannot even draw a heavy bow let alone shoot one, of no consequence, so you should set such fears aside.
Anyway, in the Luttrell Psalter you will find an illustration of target archery circa 1330, they even have specialised arrows with pinch nocks and bulbous heads for shooting at the clay faced butts.
The proposal to use a FITA face only arose since it would provide a universally available standard and is of a comparable size for the distance.
The quantity of arrows arose to cover two aspects. One was to place it in the context of maintaining a rate of fire. The other, that scoring rings permit the recording of potentially useful information which can be transmitted to others using the same standard face, and that averages might be derived therefore affording a meaningful comparison, being more representative of ongoing performance that the odd shot or personal best.
Rod.
david w.:
Mark whats a crumpet? what do they taste like? Or is that sterio typing to automatically assume you have because your English. ;D I am 25% english i think i have cousins in London
Justin Snyder:
--- Quote from: Rod on February 22, 2008, 03:07:28 pm ---It is interesting to note that both Mark Stretton and Jaroslav Petrina have expressed an interest and regard establishing a benchmark for accuracy at 100 yards as an interesting and worthwhile challenge.
Rod.
--- End quote ---
I for one would like to see a standard of accuracy set. If there were a benchmark set, I think it would push me to shoot the heavy bows more just to try to get closer to the benchmark. A little good natured competition is always good. If there hadn't been competition on the other side of the battlefield, none of the great warbows would have reached their full potential.
I'm not what you would call a warbow fanatic, but my love of bows certainly isn't impeded by a silly notion that they are different. I like to build and shoot bows. I'm pretty sure that protection from others (man or animal) who were willing to kill you crossed the mind of every Paleo man who ever existed. Justin
nick1346:
--- Quote from: Rod on February 22, 2008, 03:07:28 pm ---.
If we had had to face these people, we would have had to deal with it, not make excuses, so what does the response of the nay sayers tell us about the attitudes of todays war bow exponents?
Rod.
--- End quote ---
Care to expand on that Rod? I've noticed a strong feeling in your posts that anyone who does not immiedately take up your challenge is attacked! You implicated that I was some kind of a coward in a prior post on this thread! Setting forth a challenge and attacking anyone who may point reasons why that challenge has not been taken up on masse is no way to win people over to take up that challenge, in fact it will do the exact opposite. Attacking 'nay sayers' is no way going to get people to take up your challenge, to my mind it sounds like I'd be making a rod for my own back.
You state that two archers will take up your challenge. I know Mark will we discussed this a few days ago and even though I've never met Jaro I know Mark holds in in very high regard so that holds a lot of water with myself but you could have so many more if you stopped the insults.
I'll take up your challenge on one condition you shoot with me and I'll choose the bow and arrows (and no I will not take the mickey with the kit) That way we will have a fair comparison, a warbow archer who is rubbish at target archery vs a target archer who is rubbish with a warbow. It would be fun and at least we could bury the hatchet :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version