Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Norse Shooting Technique
JackCrafty:
Speculation? Me? I know it’s annoying....I have rejected my college training. >:D
Anyway, back to the discussion.
Although I have read some of them and find them fascinating, I do not place any value on the sagas. The earliest copies we have were written well after 1066 (mostly during the 13th century) and reflect contemporary fashion (and bias).
I do not consider the age of the holmegaard bow to be an issue in this discussion. How old is the holmegaard design? Is that one artifact the measure of the age of that technology? How old is the longbow design? Which design do you think predates the other? The holmegaard may have indeed been a lost technology, and many examples of lost technology exist, but technology tends to be lost when the need is lost. What caused the loss of the need for well-made bows?
About the Hedeby bow: I do not consider it to be a “true” longbow (from the persepective of a bow maker) other than the fact that the bow is long (192cm). And there are SEVEN bows: one complete and six fragments....which means we can only be sure of the length of ONE of the bows. Further, all have side nocks and all have tips that are bent toward the belly side!. The complete bow appears to be reflexed (although we can’t be sure) and the tips do not taper to a point. The bow also does not appear to have a weight of greater than 90lb. Finally, the performance of the Hedeby bow would be quite different from a “true” longbow that we are all familiar with: in terms of limb vibration, dry fire speed, and early draw weight.
And, if I may, a few questions:
What evidence do you have to support the idea that the flatbow is not superior to the longbow? Have you researched the latest advances in selfbow construction? Many things have come to light in just the last few years.
Do you have to draw a composite bow with a thumb ring? Is that the only method of shooting such a bow?
Do you know for a fact that the bows depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry are not composite bows of some sort?
How many long bows have been found buried with their Viking owners?
Do you dismiss the influence of Roman archery on the Vikings (or the Saxons, or Franks)?
Do you fart in the general direction of composite bow archers?
(Sorry for that last one). ;D
Bueskytter:
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---Speculation? Me? I know it’s annoying....I have rejected my college training. >:D
--- End quote ---
Heh, that's my problem I'm still in University. :D
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---Although I have read some of them and find them fascinating, I do not place any value on the sagas. The earliest copies we have were written well after 1066 (mostly during the 13th century) and reflect contemporary fashion (and bias).
--- End quote ---
True, there are biases and anachronistic elements in the sagas and they were written post-fact. However they were written down from oral traditions and familial history, particularly among the Icelanders, was of utmost importance to the Norse. These were not novels, but a stylised representation of history.
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---I do not consider the age of the holmegaard bow to be an issue in this discussion. How old is the holmegaard design? Is that one artifact the measure of the age of that technology? How old is the longbow design? Which design do you think predates the other? The holmegaard may have indeed been a lost technology, and many examples of lost technology exist, but technology tends to be lost when the need is lost. What caused the loss of the need for well-made bows?
--- End quote ---
The holmegaard bow is considered to be about 9000 years old. The Meare Heath bow about 6000 years old. The longbow design is thought to be 10000 years old, the flatbow is much older than the longbow and clearly there was an overlap in the tiem frame of their use but one design eventually replaced the other - this doesn't happen without good reason.
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---About the Hedeby bow: I do not consider it to be a “true” longbow (from the persepective of a bow maker) other than the fact that the bow is long (192cm). And there are SEVEN bows: one complete and six fragments....which means we can only be sure of the length of ONE of the bows. Further, all have side nocks and all have tips that are bent toward the belly side!. The complete bow appears to be reflexed (although we can’t be sure) and the tips do not taper to a point. The bow also does not appear to have a weight of greater than 90lb. Finally, the performance of the Hedeby bow would be quite different from a “true” longbow that we are all familiar with: in terms of limb vibration, dry fire speed, and early draw weight.
--- End quote ---
I shoot a Hedeby replica and the tops of the limbs are somewhat deflexed. As to whether it is a "true longbow" depends upon your definition of a long bow: According to the BLBS pretty much anything but the Victorian longbow isn't a true longbow. Many warbow enthusiasts would tell you that the Mary Rose type is the only "true longbow". Pip Bickerstaffe says that to the medieval archer a longbow was any bow that is not a crossbow :D .
Along with my Hedeby replica I own a victorian style, horn-nocked, target longbow and the way they shoot isn't much different but the hedeby bow certainly is cruder and feels it. They aren't nearly as dissimilar as say a recurve and a longbow or a longbow and a flatbow.
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---
And, if I may, a few questions:
--- End quote ---
You may ;D .
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---What evidence do you have to support the idea that the flatbow is not superior to the longbow? Have you researched the latest advances in selfbow construction? Many things have come to light in just the last few years.
--- End quote ---
Personal experience mainly. As much as I love the history of the longbow and the feelings the weapon evokes I would be to admit it as inferior if I thought it was. A compound and recurve are, for example, technically superior and I have no illusions about that.
I've shot flatbows, including a Meare heath replica as well as Native American replicas, and have found that at heavy weights stacking is a real problem whereas it wouldn't be with a longbow. Scientifically speaking a flatbow may be more efficient in storing and releasing energy but in use I find a longbow much preferable. I find it more stable, the extra length makes for a superior weapon and has a much greater presence in the hand. Also I think the longbow design is better at handling heavy weights, ever hear of a 200lb flatbow?
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---Do you have to draw a composite bow with a thumb ring? Is that the only method of shooting such a bow?
Do you know for a fact that the bows depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry are not composite bows of some sort?
--- End quote ---
The asiatic draw pretty much requires a thumb ring with draw weights past 35#, I've tried without and it's painful. You could of course use a mediterranean draw but for proper distribution across the shorter string the asiatic draw is ideal.
The English bows seem to be very much longbows. A Breton archer depicted though does have a recurve bow, but it looks like a piece of wood that has been heat treated not a composite.
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---How many long bows have been found buried with their Viking owners?
--- End quote ---
The majority of viking age graves are accompanied by arrowheads, one can only assume there were bows and shafts also which must have rotted. Wood is an easily perishable material, the right conditions are required to preserve it which explains why no bows survive from the High Middle Ages when their usage was most prolific.
Horn on the other hand is hardy, a lot of drinking horns, cups, bowls, jewelry, et cetera have been found. Why no composite bow limbs in grave finds if they were the ultimate bow for the vikings?
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---Do you dismiss the influence of Roman archery on the Vikings (or the Saxons, or Franks)?
--- End quote ---
I'd say the Romans drew more influence from the Germanic peoples in archery than vice versa, they preferred heavy infantry and seemed to have disdained archery more than anything. The Germanics however were quite esteemed archers and valued it as both a tool for hunting and war. The English didn't care much for the bow during the earliest middle ages, and used it only on a small scale (much to the surprise of the Normans who ran out of arrows at the Battle of Hastings, having expected some to be fired back). So, yeah, I'm pretty dismissive of it, the Romans borrowed most of their weaponry and military ideas from the cultures they came into contact with.
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---Do you fart in the general direction of composite bow archers?
--- End quote ---
Not at all, I just fail to see it as a superior bow on foot (see my earlier comments on stacking, stability, and the advantage of length). Mounted yes, on foot no. As for the flatbow it has its positives and negatives but, generally speaking, the longbow was a military-oriented improvement.
bow-toxo:
--- Quote from: jackcrafty on July 21, 2008, 05:51:25 pm ---Speculation? Me? I know it’s annoying....I have rejected my college training. >:D
Anyway, back to the discussion.
Although I have read some of them and find them fascinating, I do not place any value on the sagas. The earliest copies we have were written well after 1066 (mostly during the 13th century) and reflect contemporary fashion (and bias).
If you reject such histories as remain to us, you really limit sources of informatiion.
I do not consider the age of the holmegaard bow to be an issue in this discussion. How old is the holmegaard design? Is that one artifact the measure of the age of that technology? How old is the longbow design? Which design do you think predates the other? The holmegaard may have indeed been a lost technology, and many examples of lost technology exist, but technology tends to be lost when the need is lost. What caused the loss of the need for well-made bows?
Wow ! If you also reject dated archaeological remains, that pretty much leaves only your fertile imagination for reconstruction.
About the Hedeby bow: I do not consider it to be a “true” longbow (from the persepective of a bow maker) other than the fact that the bow is long (192cm). And there are SEVEN bows: one complete and six fragments....which means we can only be sure of the length of ONE of the bows. Further, all have side nocks and all have tips that are bent toward the belly side!. The complete bow appears to be reflexed (although we can’t be sure) and the tips do not taper to a point. The bow also does not appear to have a weight of greater than 90lb. Finally, the performance of the Hedeby bow would be quite different from a “true” longbow that we are all familiar with: in terms of limb vibration, dry fire speed, and early draw weight.
I,a bow maker, consider the Hedeby bow to be as "true"a longbow as any.With the Balinderry bow we have the length of TWO bows. I am wondering what kind of "true" longbow you are going on about? The bent non-pointed tips the 90 pound draw weight make the Hedeby bow what kind of a bow?
And, if I may, a few questions:
What evidence do you have to support the idea that the flatbow is not superior to the longbow? Have you researched the latest advances in selfbow construction? Many things have come to light in just the last few years.
Hey, the topic is Norse shooting technique. Let's at least stick with models?the Norse part. What is the latest? Do you mean the Victorian models?
Do you have to draw a composite bow with a thumb ring? Is that the only method of shooting such a bow?
See above.
Do you know for a fact that the bows depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry are not composite bows of some sort?
Do you know anything for a fact?
How many long bows have been found buried with their Viking owners?
One. The Balinderry bow.
Do you dismiss the influence of Roman archery on the Vikings (or the Saxons, or Franks)?
The only Roman influence I know of is the draw to the ear the Byzantines learned from the Huns.
Do you fart in the general direction of composite bow archers?
(Sorry for that last one). ;D
--- End quote ---
JackCrafty:
Bow-Toxo....yes, I must have no obstructions for my fertile imagination.....especially dates. ;)
So far, it appears that we are still divided on the question of whether or not the longbow was favored by the Norse (in war). From a military perspective, I believe that the Vikings most often used short bows. Here are my reasons:
1. The longbow seems to be in its initial stages of development as a weapon of war during the Viking era.....whereas the short bow had been used (and well developed) by all major powers for many centuries prior to the Viking era. I consider the Hedeby bow to be a "stick" bow: it is a simple weapon and it does not have the refinements that make it a longbow. A true longbow is designed for long range fire of very heavy arrows.
2. Short bows are easier to transport.
3. The Bayeaux Tapestry depicts short bows.
4. This "model" is going to make Bow-Toxo very angry. ;D
Bueskytter:
1. Again this depends upon your view of what a longbow is. You seem to define it as the warbow of later ages. What use would a 9th century Norseman have for such a bow and heavy arrows? Most of his foes would have been without armour and those that were (this would be rare as only one piece of mail, found in Gjermundbu, exists from the viking age) would be wearing mail, a heavy warbow and heavy arrows would be unnecessary.
Personally I define a longbow as a bow with a D section, of roughly equivalent or greater height to its bearer, which is not significantly reflexed or deflexed. The viking age bows discovered all fit this definition.
2. So are carriage bows and takedowns, doesn't mean the vikings used them.
3. The Bayeux tapestry is highly stylised, an accurate measure of proportion wasn't a critical issue in medieval art.
This is a picture of a Breton archer from the Bayeux tapestry, his bow seems to be slightly recurved at the top limb and when unbraced probably equal in height to himself - hardly short.
Also, the Anglo-Saxons were not vikings. They fought very differently, although they were from the same Scandinavian stock. Drawing conclusions about viking warfare from an image which doesn't depict them, but rather their close cousins, is a pretty lame method.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version