Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Pat B on June 11, 2007, 11:41:17 am
-
Is there a spine consideration when building war arrows or does one just make an arrow with the dowel he has without adjusting the spine? Also, I noticed Jaro(I think) mentioned hardwood shoot arrows for war bows. Are hardwood shoots a reliable sourse of war arrows? I make most of my arrows from sourwood(a local hardwood) shoots both for target shooting and hunting(same arrows for both). Pat
-
Pat, they used two woods at most and that is ash and poplar. Poplar does seem to be lighter, though if you weigh two shafts of the same measurements you get only about 5-10 grams of difference, which does not seem to be that much. I think that poplar main advantage is very low hysteresis, which causes it vibrate different than ash and thus fly better. The same reason makes oak very muggy shaft.
Anyway - they did not spined arrows even until post 1900´ or some as proper understanding of spine came in pre WW2 era, but they judged stiffness of arrows empirically by the weight of the shaft (and eventually diameter).
With warbows spine is not much of concern, the main problem is to have an arrow stiff enough - which does somehow just about work with the diameters of preserved arrows, give or take.
A 3/8´´ shaft works well from some 75# up to 100# where I think starts to be somehow weak, unless you sellect harder wood specifically, then tapered 1/2´´ is needed for bows up to 120# or 130# with rather long taper to nock and the heavier bow above that weight the less of the taper to nock (means longer mid portion of the bow is paralel).
I had some 12 mm (which is not yet 1/2´´) from very dense ash, which was from core and somehow green in collor and both Mark and Joe thought it was enough stiff for 150# and more. I have noticed that in soft materials they penetrate better than full 1/2´´ because of smaller diameter.
I think that decent penetrator for 100# would be around 12 mm in 2/3´´ of the lenght to front, 10 cm of paralel shaft there , and tapered down to 3/8´´ nock (or rather 9 mm) and tapered to 10 mm where the arrowhead is fitted. This way it wont need to cut so big hole to go through.
I would only make them around 75-80 gr for 100#.
This is what I m now making for Berkelley for myself.
Jaro
-
Thanks Jaro. What about hardwood shoot arrows?
I use sourwood for most of my arrows and it is no problem finding shoots that are 1/2" diameter. Pat
-
I dont know anything about shoots. I think wood in shoots is not enough hard.
J.
-
Pat,
It seem very likely that shoots were used as there is a surviving medieval order for shafts that specify them to be 'peeled'. You don't need to peel a cleaved and planed wood shaft, only a green shoot. It's in the first chapter of the Great Warbow, somewhere. However, it's not just a case of how they fly. What they do when they strike is just as important, hence the need for a stiff 1/2" shaft at the head.
Jeremy
-
There are records of quite a few woods being sued for arrows, in the Great Warbow and also Toxiphilus. I can't rememner them all though. Some liek chestnut were obviously used but not thought very good.Ash was given an OK as it was heavier and gave a good "stripe2 or wound, but poplar thought somewhat light I think.
I;ll have to have a bt of a read. Trouble is that Ascham bores the pants off me!
Mark in England
-
see my post in the "What is a War Arrow" thread for a list of all the arrow woods that Ascham mentions.
-
I'm gonna see what I can come up with, weight wise with a 1/2" diameter sourwood(Oxydendrum arboreum) shoot shaft. What weight should I look for in a 1/2" shaft to make weight in a war arrow?
Pat
-
1/2" bob tailed ash would weigh anywhere from the mid 700's to the low 1000s of grains at 33" or so on average. Plus the head of course.
-
I was thinking 1000gr+ for the total arrow weight. I'll have to do a bit of experimenting with different hardwood shoots to see which will make weight. If nothing else, you guys are gonna make a war bow fletcher out of me. ;D Pat
-
1000-1200 grains is a good finished weight.
Then there are the joys of 8.5" feathers.
If you get any good hardwood shoots that are long enough and heavy enough let me know. Maybe we can trade for bodkins or something.
-
Lloyd, I can definately get shoots long enough(up to or over 6') and they should be heavy enough. I will test some to see. My hunting arrows are 29" long and after removing lots of wood to correct the size and spine my finished arrows usually come out 600+grains with a 125grain point. I believe I could easily have 800grain arrows with no problem.
I will do a bit of testing to see what I come up with and get back with the results. Pat
-
Pat, its not english, but there are some cossack arrows made out of hazle shots from Berestezcko battlefield (1610) - the idea is if you chose the right ones, they come tapered. I think hazel would be quite good as its heavy and its eay to find some shots which taper roughly from 1/2´´ to 3/8´´ in one arrowlenght.
It also does contain relativelly low ammount of marrow for a shot.
Jaro
-
The natural taper of shoots make them less spine sensative. On my average hunting arrow(that's what I know about) I can use a shaft that has 10# heavier spine weigh then what your bow normally shoots. I don't think I would have trouble finding sourwood shoots that tapered from 1/2" to 3/8" in 32". The hazle(coryalis[?]) that grows near here are small shrubs with few, if any straight shoots for arrows plus it grows in higher elevations along the Blue Ridge Parkway and illegal to cut. Pat
-
As kids we used poplar shoots as arrows. They were nice and straight. I've no idea how they'd stand up in a warbow though.
-
I rummaged through my hardwood shoots and came up with a privet shoot(Ligustrum japonicum) that is 36" long. For some all of the larger hardwood shoots I have(no matter the species) have an oval cross section...so this privet shoot is 36" long, 5/8-1/2" at the pile end and 3/8-7/16 at the nock end. As it stands, fairly well seasoned with the bark removed, this shoot weighs 1356 grains... or just over 3 ozs. I have a hand forged round "bodkin" type point that weighs about 570 grs. This was made by a local blacksmith in 5 minutes from his own imagination.
I will work on straightening this privet shoot, cutting it to length and see how it will work as a war arrow. I have goose feathers(Canada) and red silk thread! I'm good to go!!! ;D Pat
ps. I do need an arrow for a bow I can't shoot. ::)
-
I forgot to post the pics so here are a couple..... Pat
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
sounds like it's time to get out the plane or the shurform and do a little shoot reduction
-
Hey Pat, I got the Bodkin points the other day and started on an arrow. The heads weigh between 20 and 26 Grams (300 to 400 grains). The top shaft with the head is 7/16 doweling with an 11 inch tapper to 3/8 inch. The shaft is 35 1/4 inch's long and weighs 1000 grains with no feathers. Hint, Hint, Hint ;D It is spined to 100#. The bottom shaft is Oak, 36 inch's long and weighs 1050 grains in the raw. I picked up some 3/8 dia. Oak shafts today and will see how they work out. Now I need a 100# bow. Hey if you got any spare white goose feathers, lets trade.
Dick Bernier
Mebane NC
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ash and asp (poplar) were much used, though the poplar used then (most likely Black Poplar which is almost extinct hereabouts) is not the same as the poplar in current use.
For a heavy shaft ash is good and poplar probably better for a flighting shaft than ash.
Another good option for the heavy shaft would he hornbeam. It should be noted that Ascham cites a number of shaft materials of which Ash and Asp are merely the most commonly used.
For a heavy shaft hornbeam is probably superior to ash in weight at a given dimension and was very common as a coppiced wood in parts of the country, having many "industrial" uses.
On the whole I think it likely that for mass production planing shafts from straight grained wood might be a more productive process than gathering and straightening shoot shafts.
As for spine, as long as stiffness is sufficient that the shaft will "stand in the bow" then it is not too critical.
Lets face it, at full draw you will not be looking down the shaft anyway, unless you are strong enough to anchor low enough to get your eye behind the string.
Otherwise your eye to mark and through the shaft to the mark are two separate and converging lines.
The aim will always consist of an intuitive allwance for offset, so having an arrow that shoots a little stiff is of little consequence, though it might be useful is the arrows were a reasonable match to each other.
Rod.
-
Good post Rod. The English war arrows were also designed in such a way that spine matered less. Large diameter provided sufficient stiffness for most arrow woods, the taper kept the vibration down, the FOC way forward and long, low fletchings provided adequate drag to right the arrows.
Another thing to consider is that English Warbows shot arrows at very high speeds (well over 200 fps was probably common or even slow) so less fletching was required to stabilize the arrow. (It is a general principle of aerodynamics that the drag increases as the speed increases. Thus, a faster arrow needs less fletching to right itself. This is why slow arrows tend to wobble in flight and fast ones tend to fly like darts).
J. D. Duff
-
J.D. never knew that about wobbly arrows but know I know why my arrows that wobbled out of my 50lb ELB shoot fine out of the 66lber I made.
-
J.D. never knew that about wobbly arrows but know I know why my arrows that wobbled out of my 50lb ELB shoot fine out of the 66lber I made.
Len,
There can be a lot of reasons why arrows wobble (yaw or porpoise) through the air but there is a tendency for fast arrows to have smoother flight and slower arrows to have more tuning issues. You never stop learning with this hobby--or is it a fascination...
J. D.
-
Another thing to consider is that English Warbows shot arrows at very high speeds (well over 200 fps was probably common or even slow)
J. D. Duff
That sounds a little dumb. What I meant to say was speeds over 200 fps was probably the norm and 200 fps may even have been slow at the height of the warbow. At any rate, the arrows traveled much faster, on average, that what we are used to with hunting and target bows. :)
J. D.
-
I didn't know that JD. I always thought that the arrows were quite slow but with high momentum due to their weight. If they were heavy and fast, the performance of those bows must have been amazing.
-
From "The Great Warbow" by Hardy & Strickland:
Arrow: John Holder Challenge Cup specification arrow (31.5", 2.6oz, 8.5" x 0.75" fletches)
Bow: 150lb @ 32"
Initial velocity: 189.7 ft/s
Impact velocity: 147.3 ft/s
Initial KE: 124J
Impact KE: 75J
Average Range: 282 yards
(Highest velocity: BLBS 'Standard' Arrow shot off 150lb bow - 232 ft/s)
-
The performance of the bow posted above is outstanding, on a grains per pound comparison about the same as a very well made american longbow. I figured the kinetic energy upon release a bit lower though at about 91ft#'s. Still excellent.Steve
-
I'm sure there's something wrong with those figures. The mass of the arrow doesn't change, therefore shouldn't the kinetic energy be proportional to its velocity? Therefore 147.3/189.7 should equal 75/124 but it doesn't. Where's Gino when we need him?
-
Simon, velocity squared times mass divided by 450240= kinetic energy
189X189X1138 grains divided by 450240=90.2 ft#'s kinetic energy
147X147X1138 grains divided by 450240=54.6 ft#'s kinetic energy
-
I knew I should have looked up the formula before I opened my mouth :-[
-
A lot of folks seems to be making the lighter "flighting" war shafts, bearing in mind that the famous "quarter pound shaft" would be more like 1750 grains, not around 1000 grains.
As has been remarked, at different times a variety of different woods have been used for shafting, with ash being most common for a heavier shaft and asp (poplar, probably for alighter shaft. black poplar if we are being specific) for a lighter shaft.
But I have no doubts about the suitability of hornbeam for a heavy shaft giving a greater stripe than the lighter ash.
As for spine, with artillery shafts so long as they shoot cleanly and make the distance, precise spine does not seem to be as problematic as with a shorter shaft which is shot with precise and critical alignment.
In my experience as long as the shaft is stiff enough, there seems to be quite some tolerance until the shaft is so stiff that it just lurches off to the left like a telegraph pole.
What you definitely do not want is a weak shaft, though I nurture the thought that given their method of shooting, that oriental bowmen probably shot a slightly "weak" shaft since they usually aimed the other side of the bow, rather than the shaft.
Peculiar system....
As Jaroslav says where he quotes my advice to him, in the old days an empirical test based on an assumption relating density or shaft weight to stiffness (and then diameter) generally served well enough.
When you read about the sporting shafts of the early gentleman archers being a certain fletcher's five shilling and sixpence shafts, they do not refer to the cost, but the weight equivalence in a specific combination of coin.
Ash is very common here, "as common as weeds" as one old boy said, and usually quite straight grained, but hornbeam was also in common use and is listed as a useful alternative for the heavy shaft.
In the states I reckon hop hornbeam or indeed any "ironwood" could make a heavy shaft, but if talking about shoot shafts, you would not come up light using dogwood or anything similar.
Just seems to me that when you are asked to make shafts in the tens of thousands, straightening shoots is just too much work compared to planing out shafts from straight grained wood when you are set up for it.
Rod.
-
Just seems to me that when you are asked to make shafts in the tens of thousands, straightening shoots is just too much work compared to planing out shafts when you are set up for it.
Rod.
Do we have any idea of what kind of planes they used? Native American's painstakingly scraped beautiful barreled arrows that had bulbous self-blunts from Hickory billets with scrapers, so it doesn't take much technology to do. But, that being said, I wonder if the English didn't come up with something more controlled, like a board with a v-groove to hold the billet, or even a Strunk-type round-blade track plane? Do we have any historical documentation?
Also, you are right that the arrows would be very heavy most of the time. Standard arrows are probable equivilant to 'harrassing arrows.' My initial speculation on speed was based on distances they were required to shoot. An arrow needs a significant muzzel velocity to reach 220-240 yards, let alone 300 yards +. If at the HEIGHT of the warbow they were shooting 3 oz. arrows 300+ yards, then they were coming out of the bow very, very fast. That speed contributed to stability like the length and FOC balance did.
J. D. Duff
-
JD, it would have likely taken at least an extremely well made bow of 160# to cast 3 oz 300 yards. I would doubt that was the norm although they may have done it. Thats a lot of energy! Steve
-
Steve,
Historical records seem to suggest that there was a period of time in which bowyers and archers were really pushing the limits of the longbow. With all the talk about how amazing this time period was in comparison to latter days or weaker archers and bows (the MR bows would have fallen into this weaker category), it seems reasonable to think that highly trainded archers could be getting the most out of 160+ # bows.
My endless speculation isn't worth much though. :P
J. D.
-
I do believe their bows were likely very well designed and likely at their peak in quality. Hard to imagine how strong they might be if trained from childhood. Howard hill was not a weightlifter and he could draw over 160#'s so if they had an archery culture it may not be unthinkable. I have a hard time imagining an army that could avergae bows of 120#'s, but It is also hard to relate to the lifestyle they had , anything is posssible. Steve
-
JD,What was the "time" of that period of time.Any references when could look at? It sounds really interesting.
-
Yes J.D. I am very interested like Eddie. Sounds plausible.....bob
-
Steve, Bob and Eddie,
You get a pretty good feel for this in Robert Hardy's Longbow. I'll try to assemble some of the better quotes and post them. You get a strong impression that there was something really serious going on there with the training of the archers from youth specifically to pull the heaviest bows. I'll get my book out.
J. D.
-
Well, my views on the weight of bows are already posted elsewhere on the site and like Steve, I have a veeeery hard time imagining an army averaging 120#. Individuals - fine, but as soon as you try to extrapolate that to the majority of your troops, the median would drop.
I'll put in my tuppeny worth just for laughs. From the point of view of the strength of the idividuals, the hey day of the archer would have been up to the mid 1340's. The reason for this is that at that point in time, the population in Britain exceeded the capacity to provide sufficient food with available technology and the size of the parcels of land occupied by those people. Essentially, a significant proportion of the population were involved in agriculture and most of them had to supplement the table with hunted food - hence the fact that the bow in England was regarded as a 'way of life' by continentals. The method of breaking earth with a plough of that time involves a push pull movement together with anchor on a wide stance and rotation of the hips - very similar to drawing a big bow. The strength came from day to day activities, therefore, not practice with the bow.
After the mid 1340's, the great plagues had killed off enormous swathes of the population and those left alive found themselves better off and occupying bigger parcels of land. They needed to hunt with the bow less often and decline in the use of the bow commences at this stage as a result. The laws requiring Sunday archery practice post date the plagues for this reason (first one by Edwd 2nd in 1365 I believe but I'd have to check).
By 1415, guns had to started to appear although the bow was still the major artillery weapon. It was becoming hard at this time to raise and maintain large archer armies.
Jumping forwards towards the tudor period - many archers were no longer engaged in agrarian activity, hence the bewailing of loss of strength in our manhood etc etc. Its worth noting that by Tudor times there was an awareness that an archer, in order to shoot strong shots, needs his three meals a day and to sleep warm in a bed at night - hence the growing popularity of firearms at that time.
So you see, its not about bows - its about the people. I think its likely that the requirements of the bows by the tudor times would have been greater than those of the 1340's - armour became better and more available after all. As a result, I'd guess you had a problem of needing to make the bows heavier at a time when the people were weakening for the reasons outlined above. Either way - it still makes me think that the longbows averaged in the 100-110# range and not more. After all, we aren't talking about anything sophisticated here - it is just a stick made of a softwood. I'm prepared to accept that the quality of wood might have been better in the past - but in percentage terms it wouldn't have been THAT much better than the best yew wood today. Equally, the medieval bowyers knew what they were doing - but again, in percentage terms, they won't have been THAT much better than a Roy King or a Pip Bickerstaffe.
Anyway, thats my take on things.
ChrisD
-
One point I think Chris has missed is that it is not untill the 1340's that archers vastly ouynumber other troop types in English armies and after Crecy I think the social status of the archers would be greater and the self pride and ambition to be a good archer would push young men to practice and compete against each other and this would have been even more so after Agincourt though Henry had no trouble raising a large archer army even after a time of no major campaigns.
-
Naw - I haven't forgotten an obvious (and oft used) argument like that ;). I just happen to think its over rated. The presence of coercive legislation enacted in 1363(or 1365 depending on where you read, and by Edwd 3rd, not 2nd, sorry), and then re enacted by Henry V in 1410 enforcing Sunday archery practice indicates that the country wasn't exactly awash with useable archers. For sure, there were always plenty of people willing to take the Kings Schilling - but the law only enforced practice, it didn't force anyone to become any good. Even Robert Hardy who writes about the medieval period with more romanticism than I like to see in a historian admits that in the mid 1300's, an archer in Edwards army was hard to train and harder still to keep at the required level of skill. Small wonder that the warbow was superseded by firearms hundreds of years before it was superseded as one of the finest artillery weapons available. I've read one American Civil War commentator who remarked that the battle of Gettysburg could have been won with longbows! I don't even think that the 12000 odd archers present at the beginning of the Agincourt campaign is a particularly big number - not for a war of conquest - it was the best that could be done at the time, thats all.
Chris.
-
Looking at the work of Simon Stanley and Mark Stretton it would appear that the higher arrow speeds are achieved with shafts of more moderate weight than the quarter pound (1750 grain) shaft and a bow in excess of 150lb draw weight.
What is then interesting is the fact that the better archers in the heyday of the heavy bow must not only have been able to draw such bows, but the best must also have mastered them.
There are quite a few today who can draw such weights, but scarcely any who have mastered these bows.
This is evident when they are seen shooting, in their accuracy and in theur abuility to maintain a rate of fire without sacrificing accuracy or length.
Rather than see folks struggling to draw heavier weights which they cannot master as the main focus of their attention, I would rather see the same folks master a bow of a given more manageable weight before stepping up in draw weight.
This is more in line with traditional usage where you would not be given a stronger bow until you could control the one you wre already shooting.
Many of todays practitioners can not even maintain a draw length over more than a very few arrows.
As regards bow weights as used, I think it worthwhile to compare with another warbow culture where the literary record is more explicit.
In Selby's "Chinese Archery" actual recorded weights are cited which seem to be a worthwhile comparison, giving a median for infantry bows of 120lb to 150lb and of 90lb to 120lb for cavalry bows.
This bears comparison with other warbow cultures where the demands upon the weapon are not at all different. to project a heavy armour penetrating shaft the greatest possible distance.
These median figures tally quite well with the experience of the more accomplished heavy bow shooters.
Talk about the heyday being from a period when plate was just becoming to come to the fore is all very well, but I think it likely that draw weights increased in direct response to the developments in protection.
The archer may well have been more readily effective against the gentleman's armour of 1340, but the demands placed upon the bow and projectile would have increased with the growth in the more extensive use of plate armour.
To anyone interested in the social and economic realities of raising a mediaeval army and that old chestnut about "England" invading "France", I can only recommend that they acquaint themselves with some of the Yale "English Monarchs" series of paperback books.
Specifically "Henry 1", Henry 11", "Edward 1", "Edward 111" and "Henry V". The volumes on William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Richard 1 and King John are also worth reading.
Rod.
-
Seems to me that the making of shafts out of straight grained splits wiould follow pretty much the same process that we might use today.
Once a fairly uniform "square" dowel has been planed out, the use of a shooting board and thumb plane should allow of fairly quick production of a facetted dowel which can then be rounded out with a sanding block or drawn through a dowel cutting plate.
I hardly think that we have reinvented the wheel when it comes to such a task.
Rod.