Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
Kviljo:
I'll second that. The archaeological system is full of this stuff. Rights to publish data on finds. Over here, in Norway, there are even those that virtually sit on the material and won't let others publish it, even though they themselves won't publish anything on it.
Let's just hope the MR paper will contain information useful to bowyers.
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: stevesjem on November 27, 2008, 05:51:34 am ---
Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.
Steve
--- End quote ---
Ooh, that sounds scary. I don’t know why anyone would want to “shoot down big time” a post offered to inform interested people but as I’ve said, I welcome correction. I prefer historically based evidence, such as I have posted, rather than garbled incoherent attacks. The above refers to Tudor bow strings, not theoretical physics and the post was as follows.
I think we are all aware that the bowstrings were made ‘of very fine hemp’ or silk and had a loop as mentioned by Ascham, Smythe [Certaine Discourses] and ‘Lartdarcherie’ [ pub.Paris 1515, trans. Col Walrond ], Lartdarcherie, which contradicts Ascham only as to whether to nock an arrow before or after taking a stand, states that the string should be tightly twisted of three strands of fiber or thread. [We know from the Mary Rose arrows that the strings had to be only about 1/8” thick.] The loop [ for longbow horn tipped sidenocks.],, should be made as small as possible and stretched with a stone weight. Ascham’s comment about the bending, the timber hitch at the end , “if [the string] be long, the bending must needs be in the small of the string, which being sore twisted, must needs snap in sunder”, clearly tells us that the string is made thicker at the bending, a stress point. The loop being another stress point, and with Ascham’s comment “ if either of the nocks be naught” referring to the string, not the bow, we can safely infer that the loop would be likewise reinforced. Smythe, a strong Elizabethan proponent of military archery, tells us that the strings were also treated “ with a kind of water glue to resist wet and moisture” and in 1547 every archer was to “have three bow strings in a waterproof case”.. We no longer know what that glue was.
So much for the stringer. Smythe tells us that the string is whipped [served] by the archers with fine thread, as we do now, and a list of gear for Elizabeth’s “trayned bands” says, :”every string whipped in the nock”, another point of wear.
I would not be able to offer a much more detailed description ot a Tudor period bow string if a time traveller dropped an original one in my lap. For those interested in making one, I suggest Dr, Elmer’s ‘Target Archery”, which describes the real Flemish string as made by a Belgian stringer from the early 20th century who died with his craft, but whose strings suggested how they were made. They did however have a looser twist than noted above. Making such a string of linen ,silk, or hemp, is an all day job for me.
Cheers,
Erik
ratty:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on December 31, 2008, 07:14:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: stevesjem on November 27, 2008, 05:51:34 am ---
Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.
Steve
--- End quote ---
Ooh, that sounds scary. I don’t know why anyone would want to “shoot down big time” a post offered to inform interested people but as I’ve said, I welcome correction. I prefer historically based evidence, such as I have posted, rather than garbled incoherent attacks. The above refers to Tudor bow strings, not theoretical physics and the post was as follows.
I think we are all aware that the bowstrings were made ‘of very fine hemp’ or silk and had a loop as mentioned by Ascham, Smythe [Certaine Discourses] and ‘Lartdarcherie’ [ pub.Paris 1515, trans. Col Walrond ], Lartdarcherie, which contradicts Ascham only as to whether to nock an arrow before or after taking a stand, states that the string should be tightly twisted of three strands of fiber or thread. [We know from the Mary Rose arrows that the strings had to be only about 1/8” thick.] The loop [ for longbow horn tipped sidenocks.],, should be made as small as possible and stretched with a stone weight. Ascham’s comment about the bending, the timber hitch at the end , “if [the string] be long, the bending must needs be in the small of the string, which being sore twisted, must needs snap in sunder”, clearly tells us that the string is made thicker at the bending, a stress point. The loop being another stress point, and with Ascham’s comment “ if either of the nocks be naught” referring to the string, not the bow, we can safely infer that the loop would be likewise reinforced. Smythe, a strong Elizabethan proponent of military archery, tells us that the strings were also treated “ with a kind of water glue to resist wet and moisture” and in 1547 every archer was to “have three bow strings in a waterproof case”.. We no longer know what that glue was.
So much for the stringer. Smythe tells us that the string is whipped [served] by the archers with fine thread, as we do now, and a list of gear for Elizabeth’s “trayned bands” says, :”every string whipped in the nock”, another point of wear.
I would not be able to offer a much more detailed description ot a Tudor period bow string if a time traveller dropped an original one in my lap. For those interested in making one, I suggest Dr, Elmer’s ‘Target Archery”, which describes the real Flemish string as made by a Belgian stringer from the early 20th century who died with his craft, but whose strings suggested how they were made. They did however have a looser twist than noted above. Making such a string of linen ,silk, or hemp, is an all day job for me.
Cheers,
Erik
--- End quote ---
i like this quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
Great strings and little strings be for divers purposes : the great string is more surer for the bow, more stable to prick withall, but slower for the cast. The little string is clean contrary, not so sure, therefore to be taken heed of, lest with long tarrying on it break your bow, more fit to shoot far, than apt to prick near; therefore, when you know the nature of both big and little, you must fit your bow according to the occasion of your shooting. In stringing of your bow .
bow-toxo:
[/quote]
i like this quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
Great strings and little strings be for divers purposes : the great string is more surer for the bow, more stable to prick withall, but slower for the cast. The little string is clean contrary, not so sure, therefore to be taken heed of, lest with long tarrying on it break your bow, more fit to shoot far, than apt to prick near; therefore, when you know the nature of both big and little, you must fit your bow according to the occasion of your shooting. In stringing of your bow .
[/quote]
That is a correct quote although it is only from a book so I am sure that Steve would not accept it as a big time shoot down.
I accept it and add that silk strimgs were preferred because, being strong, they could be made to the thickness desired. Military strings were of hemp, undoubtedly standardized, and the arrow nocks were to fit whipped strings as I mentioned. Do you find Ascham's book valid for military gear or only for the dilletante aristocrats equipment ? Thank you for your interest. I appreciate the discussion.
Cheers,
Erik
ratty:
i don't believe ascham's books are the be all and end of military archery. infact i believe them to be more about pastime shooting.
i think this quote is good
this is a quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
God send us good stringers both for war and peace. Now what a string ought to be made on, whether of good hemp, as they do now-a-days, or of flax, or of silk, I leave that to the judgement of stringers, of whom we must buy them.
this tells me hemp seems to be more used than silk at this time.
the first book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
and i think this quote says such alot about what ascham is talking about.
Phi. I grant, Toxophile, that use of shooting maketh a man draw strong, to shoot at most advantage, to keep his gear, which is no small thing in war; but yet methink that the customable shooting at home, specially at butts and pricks, make nothing at all for strong shooting, which doth most good in war. Therefore, I suppose, if men should use to go into the fields, and learn to shoot mighty strong shots, and never care for any mark at all, they should do much better.
this tells me they are shooting lighter bows than they would at war.or not drawing there bows to there full potential . what do you think?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version