Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: kevinsmith5 on November 06, 2013, 07:55:41 am
-
I'm in a bit of a debate (or screaming match) with a historian about the draw weights if 15th and 16th century English Longbows. He swears that as far as he's concerned the bows of the Mary Rose were atypical for longbows because the crew was an elite unit and obviously you can't assume that average longbow draws were as high as on the MR. I'm not looking to debate that here now, I'm just looking for primary sources from books of research into other bows found, ranges, arrow weights, and accounts of performance that would make a 80lb draw average weight improbable. As he's making these comments where a lot of ATTENTIVE but low information readers are at least watching my interest is in swaying the views of the readers since it sounds like I could drop him back with time machine and not convince HIM
-
You're in for a fight, I think. There are no other bows found, really. You need to use other forms of logic to prove that the bows were pushing 150lb. Using arrows is a good way of doing it - we know exactly what type of arrows were used, and we know how heavy a bow needs to be in order to effectively utilise the arrow.
If we stay away from the Mary Rose for a moment, another brilliant example of an arrow found during the medieval period is the Westminster arrow. It was complete with head (a type 16) and had a shaft just over 3/8, and barrelled in the centre to 1/2". It was just under 30" long (but is commonly assumed to have been broken a few times and re-made with a different head) and had 7.5" long fletchings, whipped at 4 turns to the inch. Just like the majority of the MR arrows.
Now, the accepted term "bowshot" used during the period has been equated to around 240 yards. In the SAS Production DVD "Fletching The Medieval Arrow" Mark Stretton shoots an exact replica of the Westminster arrow, along with exact replicas of Mary Rose arrows. It goes just beyond bowshot, so around 240 yards. The bow he was using was 150lbs.
The arrow clearly would not have reached that distance with a much lighter bow (and bare in mind we are not talking about the Mary Rose period here (1545), but much earlier) so unless the term bowshot was constantly changed and redefined during the period (unlikely) a bow of around 150lb is not at all unlikely or exaggerated.
It's also worth noting that there are a huge number of people shooting today who can draw and shoot a bow of 140 - 170lbs with apparent ease, and these are NOT archers trained from a very young age. If you were to start shooting at the age of 7 for example, by the time you reach your mid to late twenties, heavy bows of around 160lbs would be achievable, comfortable and realistic. I don't think anybody who actually makes and shoots these bows has any real doubt.
Unfortunately there are very few findings or documents that can support the theories, but there's no real reason to suggest that the MR bows are anything different to the norm. The very fact that the bows were used on board a ship at close range to other ships would almost suggest that they might be lighter in comparison to some used during field battles where great range and constant penetration of heavy armour (not used onboard ships) is more important.
One bow that was discovered much, much earlier was Otzi's bow. Steve Stratton has made a few replicas of this bow using identical high altitude Alpine yew, to exacting dimensions and construction techniques (the bow was made inside out, with the sapwood forming the belly and the heartwood forming the back) and he said the bow came out at very similar weight to the MR bows.
He's also amongst many bowyers who have made exacting replicas of the MR bows using identical wood from the same location and of course these bows have come out around 180lbs.
Hope some of that helps?
-
I can supply you with one excellent example actually, of a bow far earlier than the Mary Rose bows.
There's a longbow that was recovered in 1932 from an Irish crannog and in a tenth century context. It's 75 inches overall, and straight. It's called the Ballinderry Bow, and it's dimensions are almost identical to the average size of the Mary Rose bows. It's 1.6 inches wide, 1.25inches deep and made of yew, with sap and heartwood in proportion. These dimensions are the same (If perhaps slightly wider) as the typical Mary Rose warbow. It's half a millennium older than the Mary Rose bows, and yet essentially the same bow.
It's more well known as the Viking Bow, and as Hugh Soar writes in his book Secrets Of The English Warbow, "if this is truly typical of contemporary Viking weaponry, then the bows in use at Maldon in AD 991 are put into perspective, and doubt may be cast upon the belief that weapons of that period were inferior in draw weight to those of later times."
See what he says to that!
One thing to note - keep him away from anything written or said by Pip Bickerstaffe. I've had many conversations with Pip recently, and he is adamant that the warbows found on board the MR are much lighter in draw weight than they really are. His reasoning is based wholly on the fact that the nocks in the arrows are 1/8" wide, and yet he believes that no natural string (Hemp, linen) that's 1/8" thick could support a bow over 100lbs. However, in recent years many bowyers and stringfellows have made natural linen string 1/8" thick that have supported bows up to 170lbs, and done very well in terms of cast and longevity. Pip also believes that a bow of a draw weight 100lbs+ would break very quickly, or lose it's cast and thus be useless for battle. Again, this has been proven totally untrue by bowyers and warbow archers who are using massively heavy bows for many years with no detriment to their performance. The trouble is, he wrote all of this down in a very early book and with all the new evidence being discovered by people actually shooting the bows, his information is dated and wrong but he can't go back on his printed word so will stick to it stoicly despite it's untruth.
-
Very cool info WillS, thank you! That is interesting about Pip Bickerstaffe's views.
-
I hope some of it helps Kevin. I also hope it doesn't sound too much like I'm slating Pip - I think the guy makes gorgeous longbows and is clearly very talented (and also incredibly forthcoming with advice and help when contacted about making bows!) but if you wanna win an argument about big heavy bows, he's not the guy to use for quotes ;)
-
I don't doubt it, but were does the 240 yard 'bow shot' distance come from?
-
Hey Wills......wonder what our mate "Bip Pickerstaffe" would say to this.....
EXTRACTED FROM L’ART D’ARCHERIE
EDITED BY HENRI GALLICE CIRCA.1515 (translated 1901 from an old French manuscript for limited circulation)
FOURTH CHAPTER.
OF BOW STRINGS
________________________________________
“In the second part of this book, which will treat of bow strings, you will be told of the number of ways in which strings should be made, and of what the best are made. Bow strings are made of raw green silk and of hemp. Strings made of silk are good for flight shooting for three reasons, as Sexmodus tells us. The first is, that silk is so strong that it lasts longer without breaking than any other material. The second is, that the string can be made as thin as may be desired. The third is, that when properly made the string is so springy that it propels the arrow further and with greater force than when made of any other material The silk should be naturally green, and not burnt by dyeing, for it is spun green by silkworms. The other material of which strings are made is hemp, and this is of two kinds, male and female. The male is thick and coarse, and consequently is worthless for bow strings. The female sort is good, but it must be carefully picked and very well chosen. A good string should be gummed and not glued. The loop should be as small as possible, and well stretched with a stone weight (etendue fort a bonnes pierres de fais). And if you wish to know if a string is good, untwist the middle of it, and if the three strands are separate and distinct, it is a good one, provided always that when the string is twisted up again, it is hard and firm, for the harder it is, the better it will be”.
This, from a document compiled 100 years after Agincourt, from a series of even earlier essays. On balance, I tend to afford more credence to this information regarding historical accuracy on the capabilities of "stringfellowes" than Mr.B's somewhat more recent conclusions! LoL
John ;)
-
Hmmm, “Bowshot”……(scratches head, acquires a splinter).....In my mind (not necessarily the most reliable resource) ::) this is firmly pegged at 240 yards.
The minimum practice distance laid down for men of 18 years and older in Henry VIII’s reign was 220 yards, whereas the specific “Shot in the Cloth of Gold”, which dates back to the shot that King Henry VIII demonstrated to King François I of France in the field by the same name between the French enclave of Ardres and the English enclave of Guines in Northern France. The measurement for the CoG shot is 12 score or 240 yards (220 metres). So maybe I'm getting my references mixed! LoL.
I’d be very interested to hear if anyone has located any firm documentary evidence to back up one distance or the other, it would be good to put this one to bed.
John :)
-
Hey Wills......wonder what our mate "Bip Pickerstaffe" would say to this.....
EXTRACTED FROM L’ART D’ARCHERIE
EDITED BY HENRI GALLICE CIRCA.1515 (translated 1901 from an old French manuscript for limited circulation)
FOURTH CHAPTER.
OF BOW STRINGS
________________________________________
“In the second part of this book, which will treat of bow strings, you will be told of the number of ways in which strings should be made, and of what the best are made. Bow strings are made of raw green silk and of hemp. Strings made of silk are good for flight shooting for three reasons, as Sexmodus tells us. The first is, that silk is so strong that it lasts longer without breaking than any other material. The second is, that the string can be made as thin as may be desired. The third is, that when properly made the string is so springy that it propels the arrow further and with greater force than when made of any other material The silk should be naturally green, and not burnt by dyeing, for it is spun green by silkworms. The other material of which strings are made is hemp, and this is of two kinds, male and female. The male is thick and coarse, and consequently is worthless for bow strings. The female sort is good, but it must be carefully picked and very well chosen. A good string should be gummed and not glued. The loop should be as small as possible, and well stretched with a stone weight (etendue fort a bonnes pierres de fais). And if you wish to know if a string is good, untwist the middle of it, and if the three strands are separate and distinct, it is a good one, provided always that when the string is twisted up again, it is hard and firm, for the harder it is, the better it will be”.
This, from a document compiled 100 years after Agincourt, from a series of even earlier essays. On balance, I tend to afford more credence to this information regarding historical accuracy on the capabilities of "stringfellowes" than Mr.B's somewhat more recent conclusions! LoL
John ;)
Very cool info! That is particularly interesting that they used 3 ply strings. I am totally stealing this quote to justify my 3 ply linen strings. :) Didn't know that the female hemp plant was preferred for strings as well. I wonder what "gummed" means? And I wonder about the construction of the hemp strings, if they spun a thread of used a different method for string construction. I would love to try to replicate a "gummed" nettle fiber string.
-
I'd say the big problem is 'YARDS'
They didn't have good standardised weights and measures back then. So it's prob 240 paces...
And we all know, if you are pacing how far you can shoot there's a tendency to pace short to make it seem further... A bit like how a fisherman judges the length of his fish ::)
A big stride is maybe a yard, a normal walking pace is less.
Del
-
Or they had some sort of yardstick that has possibly been altered over the years. Who knows?!
I know that in one of the DVDs I've got, Mark Stretton can be quoted saying "in medieval times, bowshot was 240 yards" so if the big man believes it, I'm 'appy ;)
Although, if I were to quote (which I won't) the most recent email Pip Bickerstaffe wrote to me about a certain Mr. Stretton (again, I won't quote) the big man is not to be trusted.... ::)
Oooh, handbags at dawn anybody?
-
Hey Wills......wonder what our mate "Bip Pickerstaffe" would say to this.....
EXTRACTED FROM L’ART D’ARCHERIE
EDITED BY HENRI GALLICE CIRCA.1515 (translated 1901 from an old French manuscript for limited circulation)
FOURTH CHAPTER.
OF BOW STRINGS
________________________________________
“In the second part of this book, which will treat of bow strings, you will be told of the number of ways in which strings should be made, and of what the best are made. Bow strings are made of raw green silk and of hemp. Strings made of silk are good for flight shooting for three reasons, as Sexmodus tells us. The first is, that silk is so strong that it lasts longer without breaking than any other material. The second is, that the string can be made as thin as may be desired. The third is, that when properly made the string is so springy that it propels the arrow further and with greater force than when made of any other material The silk should be naturally green, and not burnt by dyeing, for it is spun green by silkworms. The other material of which strings are made is hemp, and this is of two kinds, male and female. The male is thick and coarse, and consequently is worthless for bow strings. The female sort is good, but it must be carefully picked and very well chosen. A good string should be gummed and not glued. The loop should be as small as possible, and well stretched with a stone weight (etendue fort a bonnes pierres de fais). And if you wish to know if a string is good, untwist the middle of it, and if the three strands are separate and distinct, it is a good one, provided always that when the string is twisted up again, it is hard and firm, for the harder it is, the better it will be”.
This, from a document compiled 100 years after Agincourt, from a series of even earlier essays. On balance, I tend to afford more credence to this information regarding historical accuracy on the capabilities of "stringfellowes" than Mr.B's somewhat more recent conclusions! LoL
John ;)
That's very interesting stuff, thanks! I've not heard of this document. I don't suppose there's any mention of poundage, weight or bow dimensions is there? That would clear up a good few debates in one swoop.
-
One bow that was discovered much, much earlier was Otzi's bow. Steve Stratton has made a few replicas of this bow using identical high altitude Alpine yew, to exacting dimensions and construction techniques (the bow was made inside out, with the sapwood forming the belly and the heartwood forming the back) and he said the bow came out at very similar weight to the MR bows.
Now, why would this be? I'm not a bowyer, but I recall reading that the heart and sapwood of yew have very different properties, hence their typical placement as belly and back of a bow respectively. Seems like switching those around would be a recipe for failure.
-
Yep, it's very weird!
If you go onto Paleoplanet, in the Primitive Archery section there's a whole thread where Steve Stratton documents his making of the bow. He also includes an excellent Cat scan of the actual bow, where you can see the grain lines of the wood in a completely opposite layout to how a bow is usually built.
Here's the page where Steve states the bow should be around 150lbs
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/reply/134396/t/202lb-yew-warbow.html#.UnqZMRtFCUk
And here's the cat scan image
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/14119/202lb-yew-warbow?page=12#.UnqZextFCUk
-
As is made clear in that thread, all serious archaeologists dealing with Otzi's bow agree that it is an unfinished bow blank. The idea that it is a backwards-made 202 pound warbow is really not at all in line with the evidence, and doesn't make sense considering what we know of the weights of other neolithic bows from the region, and similar bows cross-culturally in other contexts.
-
As is made clear in that thread, all serious archaeologists dealing with Otzi's bow agree that it is an unfinished bow blank. The idea that it is a backwards-made 202 pound warbow is really not at all in line with the evidence, and doesn't make sense considering what we know of the weights of other neolithic bows from the region, and similar bows cross-culturally in other contexts.
Agreed. Also, in "The Crooked Stick A History of the Longbow", Hugh Soar says Otzi's bow is ""Made of yew, heartwood alone, is a little over 71 inches in length, and compares with his height of 5 feet 3 inches." It earlier says that "Axe marks on the limbs of Otzi's bow have suggested to some that the weapon was incomplete, since it lacks the smoother finish on other contemporary bows, although a bow does not have to be tidied to be useable. Moreover, careful examination has failed to detect string marks on the limb extremities; and while he carried what is believed to have been a string, his weapon was seemingly unstrung." (Soar, 2004.)
This being the case, I'm not sure we should be holding Otzi's bow out as an example of a heavy weight bow used in the late Neolithic period.
-
It wasn't a 202lb warbow. You've misread the thread. The thread started regarding a 202lb warbow, but totally change tack (as is the way on forums!) to focus on Otzi's bow. It's quoted within the thread that the projected draw weight is around 160lb.
I don't buy the unfinished bow theory, just as I don't buy the Mary Rose unfinished bow theory. Why on earth would a hunter be halfway up a mountain, with a quiver of arrows and a half-made bow? Pretty damn pointless. Even the half made arrows is ridiculous - half were finished and fletched as can be seen by the remains of the whipping (but not able to be shot from anything if the bow wasn't finished?!?!?), and the other half were probably shafts found and taken by Otzi on his travels. Nothing about the situation makes a half finished bow plausible. A bow would be made in a workshop or clearing somewhere in a village, not lugged across the alps for no reason. "Just off love, gonna trek across perilous mountains full of bandits and wild animals. No, don't worry, I've got my quiver of arrows. What? The bow? No no, it's useless but I'll carry it with me anyway dear. Bye!"
I don't think so.
-
It wasn't a 202lb warbow. You've misread the thread. The thread started regarding a 202lb warbow, but totally change tack (as is the way on forums!) to focus on Otzi's bow. It's quoted within the thread that the projected draw weight is around 160lb.
I don't buy the unfinished bow theory, just as I don't buy the Mary Rose unfinished bow theory. Why on earth would a hunter be halfway up a mountain, with a quiver of arrows and a half-made bow? Pretty damn pointless. Even the half made arrows is ridiculous - half were finished and fletched as can be seen by the remains of the whipping, and the other half were probably shafts found and taken by Otzi on his travels. Nothing about the situation makes a half finished bow plausible.
Anyway, let's avoid it going off topic eh?
I can think offhand of half a dozen reasons why Otzi would have a half-finished bow blank with him - including perhaps that he had another bow in his possession that was taken by his murderers (though that doesn't explain why the valuable copper axe wouldn't have been taken also). Also, there is no evidence that Otzi was a hunter. He was probably a pastoralist and farmer living in a neolithic community nearby. "Hunter" really doesn't describe that population very well at all.
Really though, it doesn't matter why. All that matters is the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence makes it clear that the bow is unfinished - it doesn't look like other known examples from the same place and time, the draw weight not only doesn't mesh with those found in other neolithic contexts, but doesn't make sense for a hunting-weight bow in any culture (not even Medieval England where warbows really did have heavy draw weights), there are no signs of string nocks or other ways in which the bow might have been braced, and the bow itself had axe marks and other signs of it being unfinished, when compared to what other known finished bows looked like. Those are the facts. It makes no sense from a scientific standpoint to dismiss those facts just because you don't think they represent logical behavior on the part of the person involved. We don't know the full facts of what he was doing when he died, where he was going, whether or not he had other possessions that were lost on the way or in the altercation that ended his life, etc. There is so much that we don't know that we can't toss out what we do know on the basis of it not appearing to make sense to our eyes.
-
A bow would be made in a workshop or clearing somewhere in a village, not lugged across the alps for no reason.
Do you have a source citation for that? Have there been any identified bow workshop areas in neolithic villages in this region? Have archaeologists discovered bow making tools corresponding to particular locations in villages?
I suspect the answer to all of those questions is "no." You can't just make something up and say that's the way things were in the past. You have to have evidence. And that's the real problem with Stratton's interpretation of the bow as a 160 pound monster. He has no evidence to support his claims, other than the fact that he can shoehorn the bow into being a working replica. How many half-finished bows on this website could have the same thing done to them? All evidence points in the opposite direction, and it's not unreasonable to say so.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree then :)
I've got no academic knowledge whatsoever on the topic, while you clearly do, so I won't insult your education by arguing! In my head, the thought of a primitive man away from the safety of his peers with a quiver of finished, ready arrows and nothing to shoot them with seems crazy. Two bows? Maybe. Hell of a lot to take on a journey as a lone man. (Although we don't know he was alone...)
Stratton reckons the tiny tool marks are a good indication that it was a finished bow. As far as he is concerned going to the effort of making such delicate, refined tool marks shows pride and care in finishing a product without the use of abrasives like sandpaper. I dunno if I agree entirely with that, but I can see the logic for sure.
I do think on a whole we underestimate primitive man and his strength and ability to use heavy bows. They lived a far harder life than us, and if soft couch potatoes like modern man can learn in a few years to use a 150lb bow, then surely, surely a hardened living-off-the-land primitive fella wouldnt have an issue.
-
We'll have to agree to disagree then :)
I've got no academic knowledge whatsoever on the topic, while you clearly do, so I won't insult your education by arguing! In my head, the thought of a primitive man away from the safety of his peers with a quiver of finished, ready arrows and nothing to shoot them with seems crazy. Two bows? Maybe. Hell of a lot to take on a journey as a lone man. (Although we don't know he was alone...)
Stratton reckons the tiny tool marks are a good indication that it was a finished bow. As far as he is concerned going to the effort of making such delicate, refined tool marks shows pride and care in finishing a product without the use of abrasives like sandpaper. I dunno if I agree entirely with that, but I can see the logic for sure.
I do think on a whole we underestimate primitive man and his strength and ability to use heavy bows. They lived a far harder life than us, and if soft couch potatoes like modern man can learn in a few years to use a 150lb bow, then surely, surely a hardened living-off-the-land primitive fella wouldnt have an issue.
My lab works with the Hadza, a hunter-gatherer group still using bows to hunt big game in Africa. Their bows get up to 100 pounds of draw weight. I don't disagree that Otzi's bow, when finished, might have been of a relatively heavy draw weight. 90-100 pounds certainly isn't unreasonable or out of the realm of possibility (though cross-culturally 50-60 pounds seems more normal). So, I'm not opposed to the idea of heavy weight bows, I just don't see that we can make a claim for that in this particular instance, with this particular evidence. Had the bow been finished, it would have been an incredible find. I'd likely have 3 replicas hanging in my living room as the Otzi discovery was one of the main reasons I grew up wanting to become an archaeologist. So, I definitely respect the idea of wanting to recreate his weapons, I just don't think it can be done with his bow, worse luck for that.
I also think that there is a lot missing in the story about where he was going and what he was doing - especially since things turned very violent and resulted in his death. Was that part of the world exceptionally violent then? Was warfare prevalent? Were communities isolated and aggressive towards one another? The trouble is we just don't know. Novels of speculation could be written, but from a scientific standpoint we're stuck with what we've got - which is actually an incredible abundance of information, information we've never had for any other European context from this age before.
I wonder if the stave was a trade item though. Look at how often we trade for staves on this and other forums. A good yew stave might have been something worth quite a bit at the time. Of course, that's every bit as speculative as anything else, but I like to wonder as much as the next person.
-
Hi Atlatlista
Way to much common sense for us to handle!
Wild speculation is far more interesting, especially when it comes to Otzi's exploits in the Alps!
-
I'm pretty much with you on most of that. The one thing I can't ignore is that it looks so incredibly similar to the found Mary Rose bows (and the Viking Bow). The cross section is identical, the dimensions are identical, the length is very close if a tiny bit short.
I really like the idea of Otzi trekking across the alps to trade, it works logically and there's no reason for it not to be so. However, if you were going to trade a premium stave of yew, surely you wouldn't reduce it to dimensions which we as bowyers know make an excellent, high performance bow first. I know that most bowyers on here and other forums wouldn't bother paying for somebody's half finished bow. For a stave, yes. With the options available to layout your own personal design, choose your draw weight, fit the length to the user, but not a half finished bow. It's not worth anything to anybody other than original craftsman.
Looking at the cat scans, the bow cross section is complete. It's been rounded nicely, the edges of the back are smoothed (usually only done right at the end of work, before final tillering) and the thickness and profile tapers are cut and finished. The only thing that would suggest that it's not a finished bow are the mystery of the string nocks, and the tool marks. I find it really believable that in the absence (or lack of knowledge) of something like sandpaper, a bow would look rough to those who use abrasives to finish. The nocks... who knows. But again, he was found with string. You gotta admit, a body found with coiled bowstring, finished arrows.... and a bow.... sounds like a complete picture. To take the bow (which looks finished apart from the tool marks) and theorise that it's just a blank doesn't work - to me!
It's like the people who think the Mary Rose went sailing straight into battle with crates of unfinished bows. It's ludicrous, and doesn't work, logically.
I'm no expert, not by a long shot, so all I can do is theorise and put forward my personal opinion and hopefully you won't see this as an argument, but as a set of opinions as that's all it is. Otzi fascinates me, and I wish like you there was just that missing piece of the puzzle that would answer the questions, but we haven't got it, so we'll have to sit back and just... guess!
Interesting thread though! Original topic disappeared somewhere, so hopefully Kevin won the argument...
-
I think it could of easily been a reflexed bow (or stave) with a flat belly. Makes sense if he is scrapping the belly mostly to tiller. I doubt people back then cared much for cross section.
-
It's like the people who think the Mary Rose went sailing straight into battle with crates of unfinished bows. It's ludicrous, and doesn't work, logically.
If they were sailing into battle, why would any bows, finished or not, be in crates? Probably because they were not intended for use in that battle. I don't know if the bows on the MR were staves or finished, though I tend to think the latter. I guess my point is that not jumping to conclusions isn't really all that ludicrous.
-
Because it's pretty impractical to be walking around a ship while it's on the move, holding 7ft long pieces of wood.
I don't know if you've been to the Mary Rose Museum, but there isn't exactly a whole heap of headroom onboard. The only place onboard that ship that you could stand upright holding a bow 80 inches long and not be hindered is on the top deck. So the only logical, practical place to keep hundreds of standard issue weapons is in crates. When the ship stops, and battle commences, the bows are unloaded, handed to the archers and the archers go to the one place they can use them (top deck or castles fore and aft) and shoot.
Otherwise, you've either got soldiers standing around bumping bow limbs on the ceilings of all the decks (useless, irritating and will damage the bows) or the bows are kept on the floor, where they roll around amongst people's feet (useless, irritating and will damage the bows)
-
I don't disagree about the MR bows. I think they were clearly finished bows, intended for use. However, they show many different features different from Otzi's bow (prepping for string nocks or horn nocks for example). And the context is very different - a warship which is presumably ready for battle when it's at sea. We don't know what Otzi was prepped for when he went out that day, we don't know what he was doing, etc. So, the comparison doesn't work for me.
That having been said, despite the initial argument which started this thread, I think the MR bows are sufficient evidence to support the idea of quite heavy war bows in the medieval period in and of themselves.
-
Yep agreed.
I don't think there's any sensible argument that the bows on the MR were made massively bigger and heavier than the norm, especially not for use onboard a ship. Just because it was Henry VIII warship doesn't mean the men onboard were suddenly able to pull and use massive bows all of a sudden.
Out of interest, would anybody agree that it's likely medieval bows were actually heavier, on account of them needing to shoot further than when fighting ship to ship?
-
Because it's pretty impractical to be walking around a ship while it's on the move, holding 7ft long pieces of wood.
I don't know if you've been to the Mary Rose Museum, but there isn't exactly a whole heap of headroom onboard. The only place onboard that ship that you could stand upright holding a bow 80 inches long and not be hindered is on the top deck. So the only logical, practical place to keep hundreds of standard issue weapons is in crates. When the ship stops, and battle commences, the bows are unloaded, handed to the archers and the archers go to the one place they can use them (top deck or castles fore and aft) and shoot.
Otherwise, you've either got soldiers standing around bumping bow limbs on the ceilings of all the decks (useless, irritating and will damage the bows) or the bows are kept on the floor, where they roll around amongst people's feet (useless, irritating and will damage the bows.)
The crates were below deck, though, correct? So the question remains, since the battle had already commenced, why were crated bows down there where they were not immediately to hand? The crates could have been stored on the fighting deck, but I believe they were located below that. So, we've got a few possibilities:
1. The bows in the crates were spares, which raises the question about why so many were needed.
2. The bows in the crates were not intended for use in that battle for one reason or other, in which case why have them on board?
3. The bows in the crates are only a portion of the bows the ship had onboard, the rest being lost. In which case where are the other crates and what sort of bows did they contain?
4. (I agree this is the least likely) The things in the crates are, for some reason, unfinished staves not ready for use, so why bother to have them at hand for fighting?
5. The crates started out on the fighting deck during the battle but somehow migrated to a lower deck when the ship sank.
(There are probably more, but I'm feeling the brain pain as it is and can't think too much more before I pull something.) :)
-
Yep agreed.
I don't think there's any sensible argument that the bows on the MR were made massively bigger and heavier than the norm, especially not for use onboard a ship. Just because it was Henry VIII warship doesn't mean the men onboard were suddenly able to pull and use massive bows all of a sudden.
Out of interest, would anybody agree that it's likely medieval bows were actually heavier, on account of them needing to shoot further than when fighting ship to ship?
I definitely don't agree that medieval bows were heavier to shoot further. Distance was never a major factor in the design of the English medieval bow and its arrows. The arrows, with their giant fletchings, thick shaft diameters, and heavy steel heads are designed for penetration at close-medium range, not for long distance shooting. I think that the preponderance of the textual evidence from the period is suggestive of the use of war bows at close range - less than 100 yards. They certainly could have been shot further, and were on occasion, but the majority of the actual killing in battle seems to be closer than 100 yards in the textual accounts. This also jives with what we know about accuracy (most archers would find it inordinately difficult if not impossible to target an individual person beyond 100 yards), and penetration of the armor of the period (which occurs at much closer ranges - less than fifty, or even as close as 20 yards).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Seems like a broadhead or type 16 might be the best option for shooting at unarmored sailors or soldiers.
-
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.
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.
-
Well, I can safely say that's the first time I've read that it was already engaged. The staff of the Mary Rose Museum are pretty damn sure it wasn't even near enough to an enemy ship to fire at them. I think (and this is from memory I have to admit, but I remember hearing it from somewhere/somebody) that it was one of the last ships to leave the port, and the rest of the fleet were about to engage when the MR went down. Not sure on that though.
Another mystery haha!
-
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.
Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties! Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.
-
Seems like a broadhead or type 16 might be the best option for shooting at unarmored sailors or soldiers.
Yeah possibly! Certainly would cause more problems than a Tudor bodkin!
-
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
The guy you wanna look at is Simon Stanley. He's probably the closest anybody could get to a medieval archer, having shot very heavy warbows/longbows since he was young. He still shoots and wins competitions with the FRAS using heavy bows.
-
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.
Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties! Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.
Sort of. I ran a gap calculator out once, to figure out this kind of thing, and I found that when you use a warbow out to 150 yards (forget 240), an error in range estimation of 5 yards results in the arrows missing the target by about ten to fifteen feet. Compare that with shooting on the flat end of the trajectory, where if you aim for twenty instead of twenty-five you hit the guy in the belly instead of the chest. There is a risk, out to 240 yards of missing an entire formation, let alone an individual man.
Also, if you look at the sources and the battles themselves, the English were awfully careful to position their longbow archers where the enemy would not be able to close with them, but where the archers were still reasonably close to the action - herce formations, stakes, use of hedgerows and swamps, river crossings, etc. It seems like the archery was taking place at reasonably close range (by that I mean less than 100 yards).
-
Hmm yeah, I see what you're saying!
Perhaps "bowshot" was the maximum range for a bow (of a given weight) and perhaps there were a select few "snipers" who could actually use a bow at that range, but the vast majority were more likely to be used as you say, when the action is within 100 yards, where not only the accuracy was far more realistic and effective, but also the chance of armour penetration and maximum damage is achieved, unlike at 240 yards!
Again, I think it's typical of the romance of "the longbow" that gives us the image of a hardy English yeoman shooting a 160lb bow and slotting an arrow through the visor of a Clanky 200 yards away. Lovely thought, almost ridiculous however.
How close are ships usually, during a sea battle?
-
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.
Ah, but multiply yourself by 7000 and suddenly there are a lot of casualties! Doesn't really matter if you're hitting "gold" or just hitting the edge of the target, that many arrows shot into a packed group of people will cause enough casualties to be effective.
Sort of. I ran a gap calculator out once, to figure out this kind of thing, and I found that when you use a warbow out to 150 yards (forget 240), an error in range estimation of 5 yards results in the arrows missing the target by about ten to fifteen feet. Compare that with shooting on the flat end of the trajectory, where if you aim for twenty instead of twenty-five you hit the guy in the belly instead of the chest. There is a risk, out to 240 yards of missing an entire formation, let alone an individual man.
Also, if you look at the sources and the battles themselves, the English were awfully careful to position their longbow archers where the enemy would not be able to close with them, but where the archers were still reasonably close to the action - herce formations, stakes, use of hedgerows and swamps, river crossings, etc. It seems like the archery was taking place at reasonably close range (by that I mean less than 100 yards).
If I recall correctly about Agincourt, however (and I might not) the English initially advanced from their first position to close within long range of the French...Since the French had refused to oblige them by coming closer on their own accord. They then loosed a volley or two at long range, which provoked a French cavalry charge that started the fracas. I suppose, though, the entire intent of this was to get the French into a more effective range of the bows on hand where they could at least inflict some damage. However, if I also recall Keegan and Barker correctly, the lion's share of the killing at Agincourt was not done by arrows, despite how many were used.
-
I agree with that. You also see the same thing at Towton in regards to long-range harassing fire provoking a charge. Like I said, I think it was certainly part of the arsenal of options to shoot at long range, but I think if you want military efficacy in terms of killing and wounding a large number of enemies, you're going to be looking at closer ranges on the whole, and a lot less of the firing at high compass that's so popular in films and other dramatic depictions.
-
I think a large part of the Azincourt victory was the simple fact that the French nobility were just stunned that the English were so unchivalrous. They were expecting great tournament-style glory as they fought hand to hand with the English king and his trained bodyguards, and yet no matter their rank, status or expensive armour they were dropped by arrows regardless. That was enough to send shock waves and morale loss through the French. The arrows as you say weren't responsible for the win, they were a catalyst to the French losing heart and being taken by surprise.
Plus the fact that by the time the French had trudged through the muddy quagmire (Giggity), stepped over the dying, screaming, kicking horses and bodies, fighting constantly against a hail of arrows and finally reached the English lines, they were already losing.
I think the EWBS NZ Bearing Arrow is probably the closest to what was actually used at Azincourt. Irritating and harassing from long range, enough to provoke a charge into the enemy's upper hand.
-
I agree with that. You also see the same thing at Towton in regards to long-range harassing fire provoking a charge. Like I said, I think it was certainly part of the arsenal of options to shoot at long range, but I think if you want military efficacy in terms of killing and wounding a large number of enemies, you're going to be looking at closer ranges on the whole, and a lot less of the firing at high compass that's so popular in films and other dramatic depictions.
That makes complete sense to me. Especially when considering the angles of impact involved and the ability of various types of armor to absorb or deflect arrows.
-
I linked this to the thread where we're arguing. Hopefully it will be read.
Thanks to all.
-
This has been an excellent debate. Kept it civil... good job. There is much controversy surrounding this subject and likely will remain so. The only thing we'll know for sure... we'll never know for sure!
-
couldnt agree more, well said.
-
I think this thread highlights a point made by Ascham, when he is lamenting the fact that his archer contemporaries were not as proficient as those of earlier times!
The 'Mary Rose' finds show that they could still use the heavy weight bows but the real value of an archer on the battlefield is his ability to judge distance, to constantly adjust his elevation to hit moving targets such as horses.
Prior to the emergence of these highly skilled bowmen, the mounted knight ruled the battlefield!
They kept evolving the armour protection but the horse would always be vulnerable even at long range.
The 'Target' accuracy would then come into play as your opponent got to within 50 yards and elevation became less of an issue. Lets face it, close range accuracy would have been vitally important because armour penetration is only possible if you can hit the plate at close to 90 degrees or find a gap protected by mail!
It can be easy for us nowdays to congratulate ourselves on achieving draw weights that may be close to those common to medieval times but loosing arrows as far as we can is hardly scratching the surface when it comes to replicating the feats of those men.
-
I totally agree with your statement, Meanewood. I'm very interested in replicating as much as possible the capabilities of archers of the medieval and ancient periods, however, I've taken the accuracy approach rather than the draw weight approach. I've been honing my technique to try to get as accurate as I possibly can without sights or sight marks over all kinds of distances. It's really tough work. Maybe, someday I'll be able to tie that in to some of the heavier bow weights. Maybe not. 50-60 pounds though is not wholly unrepresentative of military bows from many cultures other than England though, so I may content myself with that.
-
That's interesting, because here in the UK our archery clubs are basically built around doing just that. We have roving and field archery competitions as standard here, where distances are unmarked and natural terrain such as hills, valleys, fences, water and so on make up the courses, a bit like in golf!
There are no real limitations in draw weight at these competitions, although I think the British Longbow Society puts a 70lb upper limit on the bows. No sight marks allowed of course. This means that there are many archers in the country shooting incredibly accurately (I'm talking tiny kill zones on 3d targets such as the head of a duck for example) at any distance with fairly heavy bows. Once you hit 70lbs and feel like going up, the EWBS take over, where true medieval bows are only allowed, with a 70lb minimum weight. Again, the events at the EWBS included roving, unmarked distances, wand shooting and so on. The only real difference is that the bows have to be exact replicas of Mary Rose bows, with the same construction and profile.
-
That's interesting, because here in the UK our archery clubs are basically built around doing just that. We have roving and field archery competitions as standard here, where distances are unmarked and natural terrain such as hills, valleys, fences, water and so on make up the courses, a bit like in golf!
There are no real limitations in draw weight at these competitions, although I think the British Longbow Society puts a 70lb upper limit on the bows. No sight marks allowed of course. This means that there are many archers in the country shooting incredibly accurately (I'm talking tiny kill zones on 3d targets such as the head of a duck for example) at any distance with fairly heavy bows. Once you hit 70lbs and feel like going up, the EWBS take over, where true medieval bows are only allowed, with a 70lb minimum weight. Again, the events at the EWBS included roving, unmarked distances, wand shooting and so on. The only real difference is that the bows have to be exact replicas of Mary Rose bows, with the same construction and profile.
We have much the same stuff in the US, and many of the organizing bodies have similar standards making cross-comparisons valid. For instance, the US National Traditional Target Archery championships includes a Hereford round, which is also shot at the English Grand National Archery Meeting, so it's possible to compare scores directly in instances like those. I still want to go to England to shoot though. I have this dream of winning a gilt spider and I think I could maybe manage it.
-
50-60 pounds though is not wholly unrepresentative of military bows from many cultures other than England though, so I may content myself with that.
Which cultures would those be? Records, estimates, and reconstructions from Turkey to China suggest 120-180lbs for infantry bows and 80-120+lbs for cavalry bows. While 50-60lb bows surely saw action from time to time, I don't know of any source that considers them acceptable for military use. To me, such composite bow draw weights offer strong supporting evidence that English archers commonly used 150+lb bows.
Regarding long-distance shooting, both Fourquevaux and Smythe - two sixteenth-century military writers - indicated the advantages of engaging at closer than maximum range.
-
Middle earth cultures i believe. Bows unearthed in the imagination of Tolkien have suggested that Dwarves shot an average of 60 pound M.E recurves with reports that in his younger days Gandolf once drew a mighty 75 pounder..but no one ever saw this feat. If anyone can clarify please.
-
It all comes down to getting the most acceptable result from a certain arrow. I have to admit, you can't do much with a 60lb bow if you're shooting war-ready arrows.
I've tried! I took a standard military issue arrow (3/8" at 30.5" long, small type 10 bodkin and 6 inch fletchings weighing overall 60g) and shot a few of them at a target about 40yds away from a 65lb yew longbow that I made. The arrow left the bow as if it was made of iron, went sideways about 30yds then gave up and had a sleep in the grass. It's just not practical until you're pushing about 90lbs, and that's the lightest arrow usually described as a "war" arrow. When you look at the military arrows found on the MR or even the smaller one found on Westminster Abbey, they're a good 20g heavier still, so a 60lb bow has no chance of being accurate or effective with them (in my non-expert opinion!)
-
On a serious note..In comparison with wills..Yesterday i was launching my half inch bobtail war arrows (according to EWBS specs) from my 110 greenheart/bamboo longbow. My bow is slow with these arrows. Made 120 metres only....although we had a mighty head/cross wind.It kept up all day. Arrows went from right to left. On a stationary target i feel i could probably throw my arrows faster. BTW..the 110 is now producing 103 pounds of thrust. On a positive note..my 120 yew from Ben Perkins is all paid for and i expect to see it next week sometime. My war arrows are the most dangerous arrows i have but in retrospect i would really need smaller arrows spined to 100 /105 to make the bow happy.
-
50-60 pounds though is not wholly unrepresentative of military bows from many cultures other than England though, so I may content myself with that.
Which cultures would those be? Records, estimates, and reconstructions from Turkey to China suggest 120-180lbs for infantry bows and 80-120+lbs for cavalry bows. While 50-60lb bows surely saw action from time to time, I don't know of any source that considers them acceptable for military use. To me, such composite bow draw weights offer strong supporting evidence that English archers commonly used 150+lb bows.
Regarding long-distance shooting, both Fourquevaux and Smythe - two sixteenth-century military writers - indicated the advantages of engaging at closer than maximum range.
I believe it would be safe to say that native Americans used bows in that poundage range for there martial needs. The only tribe that I have studied that actually had a heavier bow specifically for war was the Cherokee. I am no expert, so that could be completely wrong and others may have done the same. The point being, these are cultures that used a lighter bow in warfare and to good effect. Josh
-
Saying Native Americans is likely saying Europeans. It's a huge category. :) Various Spanish, Portuguese, and English colonial accounts suggest that at least some Native groups used large bows every bit as powerful as traditional English ones. Garcilaso de la Vega even wrote about English-trained archers in the Spanish contingent, and he made no distinction between their bows and those of their Native opponents in what's now the Southeast United States. De la Vega also wrote that no Spaniard was able to draw a captured Native bow - possibly, but probably not, including the one Spaniard raised in England and trained in English archery.
-
I never intended to imply that all the tribes were the same. That's why I used the plural "cultures". As the Cherokee are a southeastern people, it would be of high probability that their neighbors practiced a similar style of warfare, with similar weapons. But as you said, native American covers a lot of people. Some of which were quite accomplished at making war with hunting weight bows. You wanted cultures that made war with lighter bows. I offer "some" native American people as an answer. Josh
-
I should imagine that one reason the nth american indigenous peoples used lighter bow than european medievalists is because thier enemies did not have body armour..just clothing/uniforms. shirts/bare torsos. even my 40 pound ash bow with a 5/16th arrow and a sharp point would do damage.
-
I should imagine that one reason the nth american indigenous peoples used lighter bow than european medievalists is because thier enemies did not have body armour..just clothing/uniforms. shirts/bare torsos. even my 40 pound ash bow with a 5/16th arrow and a sharp point would do damage.
You are undoubtedly correct. I would imagine that a good blacksmith to make armor would have been hard to find in pre-contact America! Lol! I shouldn't have even brought it up as it has absolutely no bearing on the OP. I'm easily sidetracked I guess. My bad! Josh
-
50-60 pounds though is not wholly unrepresentative of military bows from many cultures other than England though, so I may content myself with that.
Which cultures would those be? Records, estimates, and reconstructions from Turkey to China suggest 120-180lbs for infantry bows and 80-120+lbs for cavalry bows. While 50-60lb bows surely saw action from time to time, I don't know of any source that considers them acceptable for military use. To me, such composite bow draw weights offer strong supporting evidence that English archers commonly used 150+lb bows.
Regarding long-distance shooting, both Fourquevaux and Smythe - two sixteenth-century military writers - indicated the advantages of engaging at closer than maximum range.
That's the problem though - most of the data you're referencing is from estimates based on non-functional examples. Most extant ethnographic bows from Persia, Mongolia, China, Korea, and Japan fall in the 50-60 pound range. And Native American bows of the eastern woodlands, plains, Pacific Northwest and so on fall into this range as well. Inuit war bows may well have been lighter.
-
Just went back to the data for these things, as I wanted to look at the ethnographic examples I could find, and I actually managed a little free time this week (which I didn't think would happen).
You're right in that early Chinese exams required a 168 pound draw from an infantry archer and 90 pounds or so from a mounted archer. However, according to Stephen Selby, that was a test probably using a special bow to test the archer's strength, not as a standard draw weight for a bow in battle. In battle, as the archer would be expected to shoot many arrows, draw weights varied considerably. Ming and Qing accounts list draw weights from 36-96 pounds. So, the low end of Ming war bows would have been as low as 36#.
Mongolian ethnographic bows tend to run up to 80 or so pounds, but not more than that. Turkish war bows have been measured at draw weights around 70-80 pounds.
So, I think there is a great deal of variability. 50-60 may be a bit on the low side for a warbow, depending on the culture, I'll grant, but it's very representative of bows from cultures that didn't differentiate between war and hunting bows.
-
Is there any way of finding out whether different types of archery were used within these results? By that I mean - 36# as a drawweight is not going to do a whole heap of damage to somebody, especially if the arrow has any kind of heavy, forged point with enough mass to penetrate flesh/armour/leather etc. Would these very light bows be used as "harrassing" bows, dropping arrows from a very long way away to provoke, annoy and confuse approaching armies/enemies?
It's why I think it's vital to always consider arrows when discussing war bows - the arrow is what does all the damage, and the bow has only one job - get it to where it's needed with enough grunt to do it's job when it arrives. An arrow suitable for a 36# bow is going to have to be tiny, thin and light to go anywhere at all, and with no mass it can't do much damage.
Unless it's for insanely close range...
I think 36# is too light to even be legal for hunting in the states isn't it? Not sure what good it's going to do against a human wearing either armour or just leather/layered linen for example!
-
"Ming and Qing accounts list draw weights from 36-96 pounds"! :o
36# for a warbow, seriously? ::)......I'll make a point of doing a bit of research on this when I'm back in Shanghai next Spring. I can only assume these would have been for indoor Winter practise with suction-cup tipped arrows to encourage the servants to move a bit faster! >:D
-
with suction-cup tipped arrows >:D
These points are rubbery!
Jorry good! I tell blacksmith!
Del
(Oppologies to the Chinese community :-[)
-
"Ming and Qing accounts list draw weights from 36-96 pounds"! :o
36# for a warbow, seriously? ::)......I'll make a point of doing a bit of research on this when I'm back in Shanghai next Spring. I can only assume these would have been for indoor Winter practise with suction-cup tipped arrows to encourage the servants to move a bit faster! >:D
I thought it was strange too, but it was quoted on ATARN from Selby's book on Chinese archery. He posted in the thread and didn't dispute the numbers, so I can only assume it wasn't a misquote, not having Selby's book myself. If anybody has better data, I'm always happy to hear it. I don't have an agenda for these things, I just want the facts.
-
I think 36# is too light to even be legal for hunting in the states isn't it?
Quite so, Will, at least for some states. For example, Alaska requires a minimum of 40 pounds for some animals like wolf, black tail deer, wolverine, caribou, etc, and minimum of 50 for others like moose, brown bear and other bigger critters. I'm not sure what other state regulations are. 36#s seems needlessly light to me as well, especially for warfare, but I have no doubt it could injure / kill unarmored humans.
-
I think 36# is too light to even be legal for hunting in the states isn't it?
Quite so, Will, at least for some states. For example, Alaska requires a minimum of 40 pounds for some animals like wolf, black tail deer, wolverine, caribou, etc, and minimum of 50 for others like moose, brown bear and other bigger critters. I'm not sure what other state regulations are. 36#s seems needlessly light to me as well, especially for warfare, but I have no doubt it could injure / kill unarmored humans.
Yeah, it is a bizarrely light number, and it comes from a translation of Chinese measurement systems from the 16th and 17th centuries. So, there's always that to consider as well. Nonetheless, I think that we often view the past as monolithic, in terms of bow draw weights and other things as well. The Mary Rose bows varied by 40 pounds in draw weight, and all indications are that they were more or less general-issue weapons. So, I think we should expect quite a lot of variation in bow weights, be they for war or hunting in the pre-modern period. Especially when we consider how hard it would have been to get really accurate draw weight measurements in the absence of modern spring-based scale systems.
-
The evidence for the numbers I listed is pretty overwhelming. What Ming source lists a 36lb bow? A very late (1637) Ming text (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24380) says that strong archers draw 155-160lbs, average archers 125-140lbs, and weak archers around 80lbs. Selby's book lists many accounts of infantry bows at 147-167lbs and cavalry bows at 92-119lbs. Not all of these come from military exams, but such exams shouldn't be discounted. Adam Karpowicz's careful measurements and replicas of extant Turkish bows indicate an average draw weight of 111lbs. Similarly, a replica of a Scythian bow drew 120lbs (http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf). Karpowicz and Sebly identify 80-140lbs as common weights for composite bows in general. In the Qing era, about 80lbs was consider the minimum for effective cavalry use. Earlier accounts of Manchu bows give 106lbs as the average. Etc. Some soldiers in the eighteenth century couldn't pass examination with 80lb bows, but this wasn't considered acceptable. Some sources did encourage using a soft bow for mounted military usage, but this usually meant something 80-100lbs rather than extreme weights (up to nearly 240lbs) some folks would draw.
-
but this usually meant something 80-100lbs rather than extreme weights (up to nearly 240lbs) some folks would draw.
I thought the 240 ish bows were only used as military strength tests, etc. 240 lb is dam near ridiculous for an actual usable bow.
-
One archer supposedly used such a bow to win a contest in the eighteenth century. I don't know of any recorded use in war.
-
One archer supposedly used such a bow to win a contest in the eighteenth century. I don't know of any recorded use in war.
Wow!
-
The evidence for the numbers I listed is pretty overwhelming. What Ming source lists a 36lb bow? A very late (1637) Ming text (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24380) says that strong archers draw 155-160lbs, average archers 125-140lbs, and weak archers around 80lbs. Selby's book lists many accounts of infantry bows at 147-167lbs and cavalry bows at 92-119lbs. Not all of these come from military exams, but such exams shouldn't be discounted. Adam Karpowicz's careful measurements and replicas of extant Turkish bows indicate an average draw weight of 111lbs. Similarly, a replica of a Scythian bow drew 120lbs (http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf). Karpowicz and Sebly identify 80-140lbs as common weights for composite bows in general. In the Qing era, about 80lbs was consider the minimum for effective cavalry use. Earlier accounts of Manchu bows give 106lbs as the average. Etc. Some soldiers in the eighteenth century couldn't pass examination with 80lb bows, but this wasn't considered acceptable. Some sources did encourage using a soft bow for mounted military usage, but this usually meant something 80-100lbs rather than extreme weights (up to nearly 240lbs) some folks would draw.
To be fair, I like Adam Karpowicz's work, but on several threads he has shown a consistent bias towards higher bow weights in his calculations from the actual result on bows where dimensions and known draw weight are available. I think there is a certain bias in the warbow community towards trumpeting the heaviest possible draw weights and the heaviest possible interpretations of bows. This may be a justifiable reaction to previous theories (and some extant theories) that heavy bows didn't exist, but it has its own problems. In addition, the sample size of known warbows from periods for which they were actually used is ludicrously small.
The textual evidence is valuable, but I just quoted a source that says 36 pounds as a minimum and you refuse to believe it, but I'm expected to take at face value your quotations of much heavier draw weights as "overwhelming evidence." The source I'm quoting by the way is the following:
"However, in the Ming dynasty (1368--1644 AD), Li Chengfen's manual mentions draw weights in the range 3--8 li (36--96#), with exceptional archers shooting 9--10 li (108--120#) [paragraphs 11C9, 11C11]. Also, in the Qing Dynasty (1644--1911 AD), we see draw weights ranging from 30 kg (66#) to 8 li (104#) [p. 346, paragraph 12D1, footnote 27 on p. 352] --- and I'm not including the strength testing bows. " http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1946
Personally, I'm not sure why our competing ideas can't both be right. People, and bows, would have had great variability, and quite light bows are still capable of killing. Not everyone was focused on penetrating plate armor. I mean, Chinese sources also list zhugenu as being military weapons, and we all know what light draw weights they have.
If you throw in the extant ethnographic evidence for societies that didn't have a differentiation between hunting and war bows, you find a huge number of bows with draw weights in the 50-70 pound range. This is quite a lot of societies covering quite a lot of the world, and these bows were certainly also used for warfare.
So, on the sum of things, I don't think there's anything inherently ridiculous about 50-60 pound bows being used in the context of military archery from pre-modern periods (certainly nothing meriting scoffing lord of the rings references). Clearly, it's not a good baseline for medieval English archery, and it's on the light side for Asiatic archery as well, but it certainly fits with the evidence we have for ethnographic contexts of unsegmented hunter-gatherer societies, Native American contexts (both North and South America), African contexts, and Island Southeast Asian contexts, and it fits within the range of textual accounts of Chinese archery, ethnographic examples of extant Mongolian bows, and extant Japanese bows.
-
I'm sure everybody's already seen this, but hopefully it adds something to the discussion.
If you consider that archers would have been trained from a fairly young age if they lived in a location/era where warfare could be won with a bow, I don't think it's at all unreasonable that 200lbs was an achievable, and possibly average draw weight. Here's "that" now famous video of Joe Gibbs (age 28) shooting six heavy arrows pretty damn easily from a 170lb warbow. Bear in mind Joe hasn't been shooting a particularly long time (11 years I think he said) and certainly hasn't been pushed into training for warfare which would probably give you a kick up the arse to use heavier bows, so if he can achieve this then I think 240lbs for a trained, hardened warrior isn't at all crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUgkVHUxltoZ_uoNUFlJ_B7A
Mark Stretton of course has successfully shot 3 arrows in succession from a 202lb warbow, so adding 38lbs with years and years of training plus the pressure of warfare and it all seems pretty logical. I know nobody's really disputing that it's true, but it does put the idea of a 36lb "warbow" into perspective - that just doesn't make any sense!
-
They all seem to do this, get to full draw, dip down and then come up to 45(ish) degrees...
In one slo mo vid, I could see the dip down was the bow arm rather than torso lowering to help the last few inches of draw and bringing it down to the chest level...
Can't see why he dips in this vid... he looks comfortable enough.
Any one know what the dip is all about?
Del
-
I'm sure everybody's already seen this, but hopefully it adds something to the discussion.
If you consider that archers would have been trained from a fairly young age if they lived in a location/era where warfare could be won with a bow, I don't think it's at all unreasonable that 200lbs was an achievable, and possibly average draw weight. Here's "that" now famous video of Joe Gibbs (age 28) shooting six heavy arrows pretty damn easily from a 170lb warbow. Bear in mind Joe hasn't been shooting a particularly long time (11 years I think he said) and certainly hasn't been pushed into training for warfare which would probably give you a kick up the arse to use heavier bows, so if he can achieve this then I think 240lbs for a trained, hardened warrior isn't at all crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUgkVHUxltoZ_uoNUFlJ_B7A
Mark Stretton of course has successfully shot 3 arrows in succession from a 202lb warbow, so adding 38lbs with years and years of training plus the pressure of warfare and it all seems pretty logical. I know nobody's really disputing that it's true, but it does put the idea of a 36lb "warbow" into perspective - that just doesn't make any sense!
Shooting 3 arrows from a "warbow" doesn't make any sense either. If that's the best you can do, then you're going to be very dead, and your corpse is going to have a very full quiver when all is said and done. And again, the idea that 200 pounds might have been "average" is pure speculation. None of the available evidence suggests this. We have hundreds of bows, and the high end is 130 pounds of draw weight, with the low end being around 90. How in the world can you reason from that evidence that the average was 200 pounds?
In addition, I think the notion of training from a young age is overblown. Men like Mark Stretton who have been training for years, very hard, in a modern society, with the benefit of a modern diet and modern medicine and modern levels of leisure time, probably have achieved all that our medieval ancestors did, and possibly more. Archers were required by law to practice once per week. How many people on this forum practice a hell of a lot more than that? Granted, it's possible medieval archers practiced more as well, but they didn't have the kind of leisure time that we do in the modern western world, so I find it unlucky that they could have crammed as much training into a year as we can.
-
I'm sure everybody's already seen this, but hopefully it adds something to the discussion.
If you consider that archers would have been trained from a fairly young age if they lived in a location/era where warfare could be won with a bow, I don't think it's at all unreasonable that 200lbs was an achievable, and possibly average draw weight. Here's "that" now famous video of Joe Gibbs (age 28) shooting six heavy arrows pretty damn easily from a 170lb warbow. Bear in mind Joe hasn't been shooting a particularly long time (11 years I think he said) and certainly hasn't been pushed into training for warfare which would probably give you a kick up the arse to use heavier bows, so if he can achieve this then I think 240lbs for a trained, hardened warrior isn't at all crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUgkVHUxltoZ_uoNUFlJ_B7A
Mark Stretton of course has successfully shot 3 arrows in succession from a 202lb warbow, so adding 38lbs with years and years of training plus the pressure of warfare and it all seems pretty logical. I know nobody's really disputing that it's true, but it does put the idea of a 36lb "warbow" into perspective - that just doesn't make any sense!
Shooting 3 arrows from a "warbow" doesn't make any sense either. If that's the best you can do, then you're going to be very dead, and your corpse is going to have a very full quiver when all is said and done. And again, the idea that 200 pounds might have been "average" is pure speculation. None of the available evidence suggests this. We have hundreds of bows, and the high end is 130 pounds of draw weight, with the low end being around 90. How in the world can you reason from that evidence that the average was 200 pounds?
In addition, I think the notion of training from a young age is overblown. Men like Mark Stretton who have been training for years, very hard, in a modern society, with the benefit of a modern diet and modern medicine and modern levels of leisure time, probably have achieved all that our medieval ancestors did, and possibly more. Archers were required by law to practice once per week. How many people on this forum practice a hell of a lot more than that? Granted, it's possible medieval archers practiced more as well, but they didn't have the kind of leisure time that we do in the modern western world, so I find it unlucky that they could have crammed as much training into a year as we can.
Just to be clear, I didn't mean (or say) that 200lb WAS average, I said it wasn't unreasonable that 200lb was POSSIBLY an average draw weight. Possibly. Because I don't know, despite the fact that we have young guys over here drawing 170lb with ease, despite never having military-intensive training routines or the pressure of survival. So it's a good POSSIBILITY.
Mark hasn't been training since he was 7, which is more or less the accepted and recorded (I believe?) age that English archers started. Whether that's right or wrong I don't know, but he was approached by Pip Bickerstaffe purely because he was already built more or less the way Pip believed medieval archers to have been built, and that's what got him started. He can now shoot 190lb bows all day, so 200lbs for an archer training since childhood is pretty obviously achievable. And if it's achievable, why wouldn't it be done? Yeah, you can use the modern medicine, modern diet argument for sure, but to counter it I would say we are as a generation MUCH softer than the medieval period - we don't HAVE to train to fight with a bow, whereas they did.
As always, it's all speculation. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a discussion in the first place. The fact that guys like Joe and Mark can shoot what is essentially 200lbs constantly for a period of time proves that it can be done (which I know isn't being argued) so my point is - if us soft modern generation can do it without the pressure of survival, does it really make sense for somebody in a time of warfare where a bow can decide if you live or die choose to shoot a 36lb bow in the first place?
Also, as a sidenote, can you actually call a 36lb bow a "warbow" anyway? If you can, why then isn't every bow ever made a warbow? Where does the definition "warbow" come into play?
-
We have hundreds of bows, and the high end is 130 pounds of draw weight, with the low end being around 90.
Which bows does this statement refer to? I ask because all the replicas of the Mary Rose bows using identical timber from the same part of the world and made to exact dimensions have come out between 150 and 200lbs.
-
To be fair, I like Adam Karpowicz's work, but on several threads he has shown a consistent bias towards higher bow weights in his calculations from the actual result on bows where dimensions and known draw weight are available. I think there is a certain bias in the warbow community towards trumpeting the heaviest possible draw weights and the heaviest possible interpretations of bows. This may be a justifiable reaction to previous theories (and some extant theories) that heavy bows didn't exist, but it has its own problems. In addition, the sample size of known warbows from periods for which they were actually used is ludicrously small.
The textual evidence is valuable, but I just quoted a source that says 36 pounds as a minimum and you refuse to believe it, but I'm expected to take at face value your quotations of much heavier draw weights as "overwhelming evidence."
Asking for a source isn't refusing to believe. I'm actually familiar with the 36lb figure; I wanted to know where it came from. Thanks for providing a citation. Contrary to your assertion, I've provided lots of sources. They're remarkably consistent across time and space. though I'll grant some uncertainty around draw weight numbers in Ming and Qing China. In addition to Li Chengfen, back in 2005, Stephen Selby supposed said that Qing infantry bows draw 75lbs and cavalry bows 45lbs. However, many period texts suggest otherwise. Mark C. Elliot's The Manchu Way includes translations and summaries of these sources. He writes that a six-strength bow was considered the minimum for a grown man and ten strength was required to go on hunts. A military report in 1735 cautioned that few of the younger soldiers at a certain garrison were able to handle strength greater than seven or eight with ease, unambiguously indicating that these and higher were desirable draw weights for the field. Because of intense competition to draw heavy bows, the emperor issued a statement describing six strength or greater as sufficient for mounted military use. Elliot estimates each degree of strength as representing 10 catties (5.97kg); some decades earlier 1 li equaled 9 catties, 4 ounces (5.521kg). So the Qing minimum cavalry bow by these sources was 72.9-78.8lbs, and officers worried that younger soldiers weren't able to easily handle bows above 85-105lb - also probably on horseback. Records of military exams do show that significant numbers of soldiers couldn't handle a six-strength bow, but this wasn't considered acceptable and such soldiers received extra training to get them up to standard.
Personally, I'm not sure why our competing ideas can't both be right. People, and bows, would have had great variability, and quite light bows are still capable of killing. Not everyone was focused on penetrating plate armor.
That's all true enough. The late Ming author I mentioned earlier, Yingxing Song, wrote that weak archers - those who drew 78.8lb bows - could still conquer via accuracy. However, he noted the need for strong archers - drawing 157.6lbs - to pierce enemies' chests (implying armor) and shields.
I mean, Chinese sources also list zhugenu as being military weapons, and we all know what light draw weights they have.
Song specifically dismissed them as military weapons for this reason, writing that they were home-defense weapons for keeping off bandits.
So, on the sum of things, I don't think there's anything inherently ridiculous about 50-60 pound bows being used in the context of military archery from pre-modern periods (certainly nothing meriting scoffing lord of the rings references).
That's fair. However, in the Qing army in the eighteenth century, as described above, soldiers who couldn't handle 72.9-78.8lbs received extra training. 50-60lbs wasn't considered enough in that time and place.
In addition, I think the notion of training from a young age is overblown. Men like Mark Stretton who have been training for years, very hard, in a modern society, with the benefit of a modern diet and modern medicine and modern levels of leisure time, probably have achieved all that our medieval ancestors did, and possibly more. Archers were required by law to practice once per week. How many people on this forum practice a hell of a lot more than that? Granted, it's possible medieval archers practiced more as well, but they didn't have the kind of leisure time that we do in the modern western world, so I find it unlucky that they could have crammed as much training into a year as we can.
Elite historical archers literally fought for a living. English archers might have had agricultural responsibilities while not on campaign, but folks like the Manchu bannermen were professional soldiers and part of ruling warrior class. You saw similar arrangements in Egypt, Japan, etc. Professional and aristocratic warriors had all the time in the world to practice shootings, because that's fundamentally what they did. Also, note that it's only rather recently that you find significant numbers of folks drawing 100+lb bows. That wasn't the case a mere few decades ago.
-
I don't really disagree with any of that. I think it's just important to remember in the face of huge draw weight numbers that there are also many cultures and many warriors even within those cultures who are not using such massive draw weights and who seem to be combat effective as well. I really admire people taking on the task of building and shooting these very heavy bows, but I think there is something of a "cult of the warbow" that has developed that sees things of lesser weights as not being combat effective when they quite clearly were. So, I apologize if my posts have seemed a bit reactionary in that regard. I'm also still interested in seeing if people who have mastered these heavy draw weights have also mastered accurate shooting with the same.
-
I think a huge amount of people scoff at warbows when accuracy is the topic of conversation, but mainly because they just can't shoot them themselves! There is no point using a bow if you can't hit your target! The EWBS include wand, target and roving shoots at all their meets, but the reason not many people realise is simply because there's no Portsmouth/York/FITA etc scoring system. Joe Gibbs was dead accurate using the 140# bow last weekend, he wasn't shooting distance he was aiming at body-shaped targets pinned to straw bales and getting head shots at various distances. There are hundreds of pics on Facebook of guys like Nick Birmingham doing "normal" target stuff with 120# bows, and of course there's Martin Harvey, one of the best and most skilled archers in the country shooting 110# with pin point accuracy. That guy is amazing.
Basically, if you're in control of a bow, you can be accurate and as long as the technique, training and core strength is good, there is no reason not to be in control of a warbow. It's not all about heaving back massive lumps of timber just to see how far they go.
-
That's why I'd like to see them shoot a FITA or IFAA or York type round. It gives a universal standard for comparison.
-
I dunno. I see your point, but in a way it's almost an unfair test. Warbows were designed to inflict big, deadly wounds on people often without much concern on consistency (if we're talking livery issue artillery bows) whereas the bows being used to shoot target today are designed to be consistent, predictable and fast to maximise efficiency and speed. The modern arrows are superfast needles with 2 inch fletchings and very light, compared to the spears that warbows shoot. The modern arrows are ultra stable, and the war arrows are big ungainly things for punching through armour.
I don't think even the best warbow archer would stand a chance against a modern target archer, but then modern archery came from warbows, and has been refined and refined until it's accurate enough to become a sport. It's like racing a Ford Model T against a Lamborghini Sesta Elemento.
Plus of course, after one round of a York there wouldnt be a target... ;-)
-
Good grief...
you are debating about unknown things based on a tiny few, who living in the modern world with optimal nutrition, genetics and modern luxuries, can manage almost super human feats of shooting massive bows.
'supposed, possible, probable and maybe' are no grounds for actual reason or logic.
Sorry.. I've had a few beers and am just totally fed up with the same old arguments.
cant believe Im actually contributing to this post....
-
Pfffftttsssh. The "modern lifestyle" argument doesn't fly with me. We as a generation are soft, spoiled, pampered and weedy compared to our medieval ancestors who fought to survive, worked outside every day, had no chemically modified food, tvs, computers etc and yet we can shoot 150+ bows after a couple years of training. The idea that medieval man would have struggled even slightly is daft using that line of debate.
Debate is why we're all here. If the conversation doesn't appeal, there's not a huge amount of point taking the time to post "stop arguing" is there? Just don't read/reply. It's like the YouTube comments such as "this music is crap" - just skip it, not hard.
-
I dunno. I see your point, but in a way it's almost an unfair test. Warbows were designed to inflict big, deadly wounds on people often without much concern on consistency (if we're talking livery issue artillery bows) whereas the bows being used to shoot target today are designed to be consistent, predictable and fast to maximise efficiency and speed. The modern arrows are superfast needles with 2 inch fletchings and very light, compared to the spears that warbows shoot. The modern arrows are ultra stable, and the war arrows are big ungainly things for punching through armour.
I don't think even the best warbow archer would stand a chance against a modern target archer, but then modern archery came from warbows, and has been refined and refined until it's accurate enough to become a sport. It's like racing a Ford Model T against a Lamborghini Sesta Elemento.
Plus of course, after one round of a York there wouldnt be a target... ;-)
I don't disagree that they would "lose" but that's hardly the point in my opinion. I'm sure there are some who would love to ridicule warbow shooters' scores, but that's not my game. I'm just interested in seeing what level of consistency and accuracy is achievable by the current crop of warbow shooters as it will better inform my understanding of past military practices. If warbow shooters can't regularly hit a man-sized target at 80 yards, that tells us something important about how they might have been utilized, what the effective range was, and so on and so forth. By contrast, if warbow shooters attain good levels of accuracy compared to Victorian target longbow shooters, that also tells us something important about how accurate these bows are at different ranges.
I don't know if you've heard of the International Practical Shooting Confederation or the International Defensive Pistol Association, but they host tournaments for pistol shooters in which they engage human silhouette targets in creative ways aimed at testing competence in defensive shooting of the style used by military and law enforcement. I would love to create a similar competition for archers, with divisions for target style bows as well as warbows, which test different aspects of "military" style archery at different ranges and from different places, but where the courses and targets are standardized. That way, when you have a friend drilling silhouette targets in the head with his warbow, that will mean something to folks across the pond who are looking for an unambiguous standard of accuracy.
-
Yup I agree - I just meant that compared to a modern archer shooting something like a York, there'd be no contest!
I can say that at 80 yards, with bows between 90 and 120lbs getting headshots is pretty straightforward (provided the archer is not overbowed)
How many headshots compared to a locked in modern target shooter - I don't know! I like your idea of pitting warbows against Victorian longbows using the same targets at the same distance. Would be very interesting!
-
...
I can say that at 80 yards, with bows between 90 and 120lbs getting headshots is pretty straightforward (provided the archer is not overbowed)
...
Errr, in that case you would have won gold at the last olympics at a measley 70 metres.
Del
-
Didnt say I could do it...
Might have exaggerated a bit I suppose. An exceptional archer, in complete control of his bow could do it. Especially when you consider 100yards is used throughout many target clubs. As long as the bow fits the archer, there's no reason why it should be any harder to hit the target if the bow is heavy, compared to a light 50lb longbow. I think that's the current mindset - too many people seem to think that once you hit about 80lbs, accuracy disappears and it just becomes a bit of fun or a macho thing when really there's no difference provided the bow weight has been carefully worked up to.
-
Yes I'll agree Warbow accuracy doesn't have to be less than ordinary longbow accuracy.
The other weekend I was demonstarting my bows to a visitor, he was having a go too. at the end of the session I was nicely warmed up so I couldn't resist having a go with the 100# bow. One shot only 10 ten yards drawn to the shoulder/chest rather than jaw. Twack straight in the centre of my 2x3" block of white foam which I have pinned to the target. A warboe anchor/draw jus tfeel sweird to start with, mind and body soon zone in to it.
Del
-
Good stuff! Nothing quite compares to getting a good clean shot on target with a mighty big bow! What arrows are you using for the 100#er?
I think a lot of people hit a plateau at about 70lbs which makes them stop, giving them the impression that 100lbs (for example) would be just impossible to control. I think as long as the dedication and commitment to push into warbow weight is there then there's no reason for it to stop being accurate and start being silly.
-
The arrows were 70-75#spined Maple, self nocked, Modkin points.
Pics n details here:-
http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/tudorfication-of-stuff.html (http://bowyersdiary.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/tudorfication-of-stuff.html)
Someone told me that the Nidderday archery guy is no longer trading due to ill health... I haven't checked, but he had some great shafts.
Del
-
Don't think anyone on this forum dressed in jeans and a t-shirt would like to be on the end of an arrow shot from a 36 pound bow at 200 yards or 20!
I'd like to think that I can keep an open mind on the draw weights of the bows found on the MR, but you do have to factor other aspects of the 'delivery system'. Warbow Wales have been testing the relative strength of natural strings at their flight shoots for some time and it is apparent that they can survive bow weights of 130,40, even 170lbs. Though one must look at the length of the MR arrows (two peaks 28in and just over 30ins), drawing to 32 will add at least 10-15lbs at the higher bow weights. Also in terms of addressing an 'average', do we think that those shorter bows of 72ins and below were shooting 200lb @ 32?
I totally agree that practice is the key to accuracy at the higher draw weights as it is at the lower and if you have a look at the link you'll see what WW are trying to achieve at their archery events.
http://warbowwales.com/ (http://warbowwales.com/)
-
Well I do know that a lot of Steve's bows that he made as exact replicas of the MR bows were actually made 2-3 inches longer so they could withstand constant shooting without breaking, and most of his (using the same wood with the same ring count and dimensions of course) came out around 160-190lbs. Factor in the poundage gained by shortening and 200lbs doesn't seem far fetched!
-
Well I do know that a lot of Steve's bows that he made as exact replicas of the MR bows were actually made 2-3 inches longer so they could withstand constant shooting without breaking, and most of his (using the same wood with the same ring count and dimensions of course) came out around 160-190lbs. Factor in the poundage gained by shortening and 200lbs doesn't seem far fetched!
Course than again if the historical draw length was not a full 32" (or at the least varied, judging by the arrows found on the mary rose) than we are right back to 160 - 190, :). That's crazy that his replicas were longer. Maybe some of the bigger dimensioned bows were just made of not that great wood, and had bigger dimensions to meet the typical weight the bowyer wanted. Do we know what the ring count of the wood used was on any of the bows, or have they been so effected by time and decay that it is not possible to know? I guess a bow would have to be cut up though to find out.
-
Pfffftttsssh. The "modern lifestyle" argument doesn't fly with me. We as a generation are soft, spoiled, pampered and weedy compared to our medieval ancestors who fought to survive, worked outside every day, had no chemically modified food, tvs, computers etc and yet we can shoot 150+ bows after a couple years of training. The idea that medieval man would have struggled even slightly is daft using that line of debate.
Debate is why we're all here. If the conversation doesn't appeal, there's not a huge amount of point taking the time to post "stop arguing" is there? Just don't read/reply. It's like the YouTube comments such as "this music is crap" - just skip it, not hard.
I apologise for being old and grumpy ::) But I does seem incredible that there were thousands of people out there who used to be able to shoot 180-200lbs bow.........( what a truly terrifying prospect!)
Just to add my own experience, I'm now shooting 100lbs@28" target style. I can hold it at full draw for several seconds comfortably. But I admit I'm not a great shot, even with a 30lb bow.
My personal aim is to see just how high I can go with target style draw rather than warbow draw. It will be interesting to see just how far I can go.
And in the defence of my generation, we didn't have computer, didn't watch much T.V, didn't eat junk food. And I personally work a 12-14 hour day most days......we aren't all soft ! ;)
I did read some very interesting studies into nutrition and development back when I was at med school, It basically stated that the upper and middle classes mostly reached full maturity by their early twenties, but the working classes quite often didn't reach full physical maturity until nearly 30!
There figures were probably based on the industrial age, so I'm not sure how this would equate to medieval times though......
The physiology of strength development is fairly straight forward though. progressive training with sufficient amino acids/ protein to allow the strengthening of the muscles ligaments and tendons.
Does anyone out there know what sort of diet was available back then?
Grumpy Matt ;)
-
Daniel, there are quite a few excellent cross section photos of Mary rose bows, and the wood quality is SUPERB. I'll try and find some and post them here. Steve has inspected them all by hand, so he knows the quality and is able to make replicas closer than most, especially considering his ability to get hold of Italian yew from the same area.
The reason the bowyers guilds imported yew from so far away was to get premium quality. They were only using the absolute best of the best!
-
Here ya go, one cross section! This shows just why Italian yew is so highly treasured - you won't get density like this on English yew!
(Well, maybe you do but I've not found any this good yet!)
(http://www.archers-review.com/images/845.jpg)
-
Here ya go, one cross section! This shows just why Italian yew is so highly treasured - you won't get density like this on English yew!
(Well, maybe you do but I've not found any this good yet!)
(http://www.archers-review.com/images/845.jpg)
Woah! Wow! Those are some tight rings right there! Thank you for the info and the picture. That's some slow growing wood.
-
...The reason the bowyers guilds imported yew from so far away was to get premium quality. They were only using the absolute best of the best!
There is absolutely no justification for that statement!
a) Yes they imported it, as a tax... but we only know that it was because we didn't have enough of our own.
b) High altitude Yew? Yes, because all the low lying land in Italy would be used for agriculture and it is a relatively mountainous country. Ipso facto the Yew will be growing in the mountains!
I too have handled the Mary Rose bows and there certainly some less than premium staves there.
We should confine ourselves to fact and not attribute random motives to fit them.
A classic story is the bowl shaped depression in the doorway of some Iron age roundhouses found between the post holes. These were attributed by various 'experts' to be of religious significance, where small offerings or rituals would take place.
When experimental archeaologists built such a settlement and lived in it, they found it was merely where the chickens chose to dust bath.
Please note:- I'm not saying Italian Yew isn't better etc etc. (IMO it's debatable) and I have no personal axe to grid.
What I'm saying is we cannot say we imported it because of quality, any more than because of price (free!) or quantity.
Del
-
Great photo!
It nicely shows the section of that particular bow is more circle with a slightly flattened back than a 'D'
Del
-
...The reason the bowyers guilds imported yew from so far away was to get premium quality. They were only using the absolute best of the best!
There is absolutely no justification for that statement!
a) Yes they imported it, as a tax... but we only know that it was because we didn't have enough of our own.
b) High altitude Yew? Yes, because all the low lying land in Italy would be used for agriculture and it is a relatively mountainous country. Ipso facto the Yew will be growing in the mountains!
I too have handled the Mary Rose bows and there certainly some less than premium staves there.
We should confine ourselves to fact and not attribute random motives to fit them.
A classic story is the bowl shaped depression in the doorway of some Iron age roundhouses found between the post holes. These were attributed by various 'experts' to be of religious significance, where small offerings or rituals would take place.
When experimental archeaologists built such a settlement and lived in it, they found it was merely where the chickens chose to dust bath.
Please note:- I'm not saying Italian Yew isn't better etc etc. (IMO it's debatable) and I have no personal axe to grid.
What I'm saying is we cannot say we imported it because of quality, any more than because of price (free!) or quantity.
Del
No no, you are right. I love debates like this and I always get a tad carried away and get all "but it MUST have been because..." when I don't actually know. I'm really bad at it!
BUT.
Surely - picking up on point a) - the reason we didn't have enough is because we didn't have enough QUALITY yew. England is FULL of yew - it's one of our native plants. There's no way the entire country's yew population was wiped out just to make bows and then we looked elsewhere to carry on.
I honestly think that they went through the majority of yew and realised it just wasn't good enough. Our yew is perfect for the hobby bowyer, because you can take your time going through loads of it, and end up with one or two fantastic warbows/longbows. But if you had to make thousands of seriously good, seriously heavy bows it just isn't reliable and dense enough, when compared to the yew that grows in really harsh, really cold environments such as in the alps. The bowmakers on this forum for example relish the thought of crazy staves, little dips and knots to work around, the challenge of uneven sapwood, twists, cracks etc etc. It's a bit of an adventure and makes it all far more exciting. We also can all appreciate the workmanship if the bowyer manages to pull off a fantastic bow despite all of these "flaws" in the wood. But a medieval bowyer, commissioned to make hundreds of warbows in a very short time would surely not want to spend his life with a scraper easing around knots and taking his time. He wants to bash out a load of powerful, heavy warbows because to him it's a job. You can't do that with English yew, each piece seems to have some challenge or problem.
I know you know this, but harsh climate = slower growth. Slower growth = denser, tougher wood. Tougher wood = higher poundage without needing 2inchx2inch handle areas. Italian yew is unquestionably different to English/American yew. The huge price tag on it is not just because it's "more traditional" or for the stigma attached to it. It's definitely better quality wood as a whole. If you know that another country has "premium" quality wood compared to your own hit and miss quality, of course you're gonna get it imported, right?
Now, obviously some of the Italian/Spanish/Portugese wood that was imported wasn't AAA grade wood, and some of that wood made it to the MR bows. But in general, the majority of those bows are top quality wood that would take somebody a long time to find in the UK. And that time just wasn't available when you had to cater for large numbers in a short time.
-
Oh, also, by the time the MR sank in 1545 the 100 Years War had been and gone. So I would imagine (no facts here ;) ) that a huge amount of the really good European yew that was imported had been used during the campaigns and was perhaps starting to run thin around the Tudor times. It's really impossible to know what sort of wood was used during the HYW as we just don't have any examples (which I still find weird...?) but I guess there's a chance the MR bows is a spectrum of the really really good stuff (like in that cross section photo) down to much lower quality wood because that's all that was left.
I was talking to one of the owners of Fairbow during the NLHF and he actually told me that Italian yew now that most people are able to get hold of is starting to get much closer in quality to American yew/top English yew just because all the good stuff has been taken or used. The price is coming down for the wood itself, but the import price is still more or less the same so it seems like the wood is too expensive for the quality.
-
The big confusion is in the word 'Quality'
If you mean clean straight Yew suiatble for a longbow that is entirely different from saying the actual properties of the wood are somehow "higher quality".
You can buy plenty of really "good quality" Yew on the internet really cheaply... but it's 300mm long and won't make a bow!
There are plenty of other factors which we just don't know... here are some that may or may not be relevant.
Yew may have been managed in plantations, if so it takes a long time to get a crop. Our native wood lands may have been full of gnarled twisted stuff whereas plantations grown close together in naturally occuring high altitude woods (where the trees all huddle together for warmth ;) ) may have yielded close grown straight trees
Woodland was being maintained for hunting? Growing Oak for ship building? Being managed for charcoal for iron making? or cut down for agriculture?
Language is a tricky chap and people will interpret the words to suit their own purpose. We should try and apply scientific rigor to what we say.
Note my prolific use of the word 'may' I don't know the answers, but at least I know that I don't know (drifts off into that famous Donald Rumsfeldt speach about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns) ;)
Your ability to leap to unsupported conclusion is still pretty breathtaking. The 130# Yew bow I just made could easilly have been a 150#, I had trouble getting the weight down, it the quality of the wood was so bad, I'd have had to make it bigger than MR dimensions not smaller.
You are certainly right about the current Italian Yew ... what I've seen in the flesh and on the internet is V similar to the English Yew I've used, and some has paler wood of lower ring count.
Del
-
I thought I'd add a brief passage from Weapons Of Warre by Robert Hardy regarding the yew bows found on the MR:
"The quality of the timber, its density, in many cases the extreme fineness of the grain, suggests that the timber was of a straighter and finer quality than could have been found in the British Isles. It is likely that most of it was imported from the Continent where such timber certainly could be found."
I'm not arguing of course that English yew can be superb, but is there enough of the superb quality English yew to ration hundreds of thousands of bows that have to be made quickly? I don't think there is. I don't know, none of us do, but I don't think there is. Your recent warbow may well have been made from excellent ""quality"" English yew. But could you now go out and find 20 more staves that you could do it with in a very short space of time? If the answer is "no", or "I don't know" then importing bowstaves from a country that gives the answer "yes" makes sense, doesn't it? In which case, the reason the English imported Spanish/Italian/Portugese yew is down to the "quality" of the wood.
The odd person can of course make stunning warbows from English yew, because they have the time to rifle through a bunch of staves until one stands out as being suitable. I don't think that would have been practical if you were ordered to make hundreds. That isn't saying "all English yew is bad quality" because of course it's not. But there isn't enough English yew of good quality available. So better wood was imported. Because it was better.
Perhaps.
Your ability to leap to unsupported conclusion is still pretty breathtaking
I would also like to add a small personal preference as well - just because I don't add the word "may" or "perhaps" to every single sentence doesn't necessarily mean I think my opinion is 100% correct full stop. I'm too focused on getting my opinion into writing quickly to add suppositions to everything. It shouldn't be taken so seriously. Hope that makes sense? I would never claim to actually know about this stuff to the extent where I can make a statement and hope everybody else reading goes "oh, right. Well, if he said that then there we go!" If I forget to add "may" or "I suppose" or "I think" to something I write, just treat it as if I have. S'easier that way.
Let's not argue, eh? I don't know any of the answers, I only know what I think. I won't ever claim to actually know, but sometimes I'll forget to make that clear.
-
What I think is that I should bring back this great tax, why ever was it ever discontinued? Anyone that wants to travel within my realms has to, by decree, pay me one stave. That means front yard, my house, parking in front of my house outside, (why would any neighbor do this?!) ,parking in my driveway, etc. Wife's relatives included.
-
I'll just quote from the quote that you quoted ;)
"The quality of the timber, its density, in many cases the extreme fineness of the grain, suggests that the timber was of a straighter and finer quality than could have been found in the British Isles. It is likely that most of it was imported from the Continent where such timber certainly could be found."
That just shows it could be the clear length of staves that was important, not the actual timber quality.
E.G There are thousands of dead straight clear staves of Hazel, Willow, Aspen and other woods. But the timber itself isn't suitable...
There is a big difference between the staves being better and the timber being better..
To some extent I'm just playing Devil's advocate because those who go in print saying English Yew is unsuitable, because it is a) Too britle or b) Too full of moisure are doing the amateur bowyer a huge disservice.
I am just trying to redress the balance based on my own experience.
Del (I'll quit now else we'll just go round in circles)
-
those who go in print saying English Yew is unsuitable, because it is a) Too britle or b) Too full of moisure are doing the amateur bowyer a huge disservice.
I am just trying to redress the balance based on my own experience.
Del (I'll quit now else we'll just go round in circles)
Well all I'll add is that I agree entirely with the above sentiment. I think English is superb, if you have the time and dedication to find the right piece. Which most amateur/keen hobbyists do have.
-
Good time to throw my two bobs worth in.
You guys are a major asset to this forum with your knowledge and passion for the subject. Don't stop, we are all learning more each time we discuss these issues.
I can see where Del has an issue when it comes to English Yew. He goes out, finds it and makes bows out of it ( Dammed good ones) so I can understand if he feels it gets a bad 'rap' in some of the literature and warbow circles.
Ive learnt a lot from books and forums but nothing beats the knowledge you get from 'getting your hands dirty'
In my opinion, the reason Yew began to be imported was they had exhausted the native supply of usable wood, a bit like I'm doing around my neighbourhood! There is still plenty of Elm, Black Locust and other bow woods around here but none that I can use!
Anyway, thanks for the good debate
PS: Less Yew talk and more Meanewood topics
-
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Yup I agree on the meane wood, I made an Elm one a while back and I aim to do a Hazel 'stick' Warbow soon. I might even go for a quick seasoned one... really push some poor Hazel stick to the limits ;D
I feel the need for a walk over to the woods with my pocket saw O:)
Del
-
I don't think it's far fetched to assume that clear Yew was once available to a greater extent in England. Slow growing trees that likely aren't a very numerous species can be impacted very quickly with indiscriminate cutting.
In North America Rock elm was once extremely valued as a timber for shipbuilding and Hockey sticks. Even allowing for the elm blight it is now exceptionally rare.
If you think that the first thing people do when inhabiting a land is cut EVERY tree down in most areas, the fragmented populations go even faster.
-
Finding clear, straight yew probably wasn't an issue as much as finding yew dense enough to make huge numbers of high poundage artillery bows. There are still ancient yew trees in England which are perfect for bow staves, so that suggests they didn't even try after a while otherwise wouldnt all the good yew have been used?
I reckon they knew denser, harder yew was easily obtainable from the continent, so why waste time scouring england in the hope of finding the odd perfect tree when it can be brought in en mass from overseas?
-
Finding clear, straight yew probably wasn't an issue as much as finding yew dense enough to make huge numbers of high poundage artillery bows. There are still ancient yew trees in England which are perfect for bow staves, so that suggests they didn't even try after a while otherwise wouldnt all the good yew have been used?
I reckon they knew denser, harder yew was easily obtainable from the continent, so why waste time scouring england in the hope of finding the odd perfect tree when it can be brought in en mass from overseas?
Why do you keep calling them "artillery" bows? Is that the Tudor terminology?
-
The ancient yew trees that look suitable now have had 500 years to either grow or grow over knots etc. You would have to go back in time to see what actually happened.
-
Finding clear, straight yew probably wasn't an issue as much as finding yew dense enough to make huge numbers of high poundage artillery bows. ...
???!!!
I'd have though exactly the opposite.
AFIK there is no evidence to support the theory that the actual wood isn't good enough for bows.
If that were the case the bows wouldn't have evolved here!
We hadn't always imported Yew, we imported it because our supply was dwindling.
It's about supply and convenience.
If we can get the Italians to chuck a load of staves in every time they bring over a ship full of wine then we'd have been daft not to. It doesn't mean the wood was any better ... it was just convenience.
Two little tests.
a) Where do you get apples? Most people prob get 'em from the supermarket, even Mrs Cat gets 'em from there, yet for a good portion of the year they are free on the trees on public land in Harlow (I collect 'em and make cider ;D). Convenience!
b) If your employer said you had to bring two bags of soil into work each week else you would loose your job. Would you go and select the finest quality high altitude soil, or would you shovel up two bags from the most convenient point in your garden, possibly incorporating any cat crap that was lying about? Convenience.
Del
-
From what I've seen of our Yew, you need to manage it or grow it in fairly dense thickets maximise the clean straight growth.
The places I've seen most staves per tree have been fallen trunks which have then sprouted with a line of tightly packed straight poles, and Pollarded Yews where the poles grow long and straight. These are both forms of management (the fallen Yew could have been simulated by being partly cut and bent down like laying a hedge. A perfectly normal technique)
Managing a copse or plantation of Yew doesn't take much time or effort, but it would take a lot of elapsed time. (prob just walk through twice a year rubbing off any buds, side shoots etc)
Woodland management needs planning and long term committment. If we suddenly wanted to ramp up production for war effort, we may well need to import (or outsource, to use the curent jargon ;) )
I don't know anything about how they grow at high altitude in Italy.
Del
-
As far as I'm aware, the stuff growing oop high in the mountains is very different to ours. I guess that's why Stratton and Poletti guard it with their lives and you just can't get hold of it. At least, you couldn't for a long time.
One problem is that you can get hold of poor quality "Italian" yew which is the pale, wide-ringed timber you can find on eBay, or through a couple of notorious online bow makers. It doesn't make stunning bows and is very different to the really high-altitude Italian yew that I assume was used for the warbows.
-
As far as I'm aware, the stuff growing oop high in the mountains is very different to ours. I guess that's why Stratton and Poletti guard it with their lives and you just can't get hold of it. At least, you couldn't for a long time.
One problem is that you can get hold of poor quality "Italian" yew which is the pale, wide-ringed timber you can find on eBay, or through a couple of notorious online bow makers. It doesn't make stunning bows and is very different to the really high-altitude Italian yew that I assume was used for the warbows.
I think you have been indoctrinated... resistance is futile...you will be assimilated...
Del
-
'Ere,'ang on. Aren't you basing your opinion on having seen one poor quality "seconds" bow made from coarse Italian yew?
-
Whilst following this thread with interest ,i was wondering what is the definitive minimum altitude that qualifies a yew stave to be classed as[high altitude],search as i may , i cannot find a E.U. directive that qualifies this.Also could this be open to question under the Trades Description Act.??? ;)
-
The higher the altitude, the thinner the air, giving less oxygen so the tree grows slower. This creates a denser, tighter wood than trees growing lower down. It's the same with Pacific/Oregon yew. England doesn't have any really high yew-rich mountain ranges. If we did, I'd have bought a chainsaw and some hiking boots.
There were a lot of very nice looking yew trees in Snowdonia when I last visited however...
You're being tongue in cheek with your comment of course, but it would be interesting to know if anybody has done tests on yew from various altitudes with density results. There's probably a table somewhere in a book... There may well be a point where the density spikes dramatically at a certain altitude where the conditions really slow the growth.
-
Sorry to be a constant nay sayer :-[ , but I think the altitude of the treeline is more about climate (temperature, wind etc) than oxygen. (errrr don't trees respire carbon dioxide? :-[ )
If you really want to know Mr Google will point to a multitude of learned papers.
Del
-
The higher the altitude, the thinner the air, giving less oxygen so the tree grows slower. This creates a denser, tighter wood than trees growing lower down. It's the same with Pacific/Oregon yew. England doesn't have any really high yew-rich mountain ranges. If we did, I'd have bought a chainsaw and some hiking boots.
There were a lot of very nice looking yew trees in Snowdonia when I last visited however...
You're being tongue in cheek with your comment of course, but it would be interesting to know if anybody has done tests on yew from various altitudes with density results. There's probably a table somewhere in a book... There may well be a point where the density spikes dramatically at a certain altitude where the conditions really slow the growth.
There's the same amount of oxygen at the top of Mt Everest as there is at sea level. 20.95%. The air around us in made up of 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. That doesn't change until the atmosphere ends. The atmospheric pressure is less. It's the difference in the partial pressure of oxygen that makes a difference. Humans existing at altitude use supplemental oxygen not because there's less, but because the pressure is lower. This is a bit off topic, but it's important to get your facts and info correct.
Trees growing at altitude do so slower due mostly to sunlight levels and poorer nutrition, not decreased oxygen levels.
-
Well then I stand corrected!
Not too off topic and if somebody reading this learns something new it's never a bad thing!
Still, the overall point was that high growing trees are denser than the exact same tree growing lower down, which is a good attribute for bow wood and MAY have been an important consideration when outsourcing yew for warbows.
-
Come on boys, just a few more combative posts and we'll hit the 10 page mark with this thread ! :D
John T. :)
p.s. Hey WillS are you up for the Fraternity of St.George shoot at Royal Windsor deer park on Sunday? Its only a few quid, plus insurance and there's a few of us going ;)
Shoot info here..... http://www.longbow-archers.com/LeafletChristmasShootENG.pdf
-
Combative?! This is passionate debate right here!
Didn't know about the shoot John, thanks! I'm playing a gig on the Saturday night but if I'm not exhausted I might try and make it up there. S'along way for me to go though. I'm saving my travel pennies for Mark's EWBS shoot in March!
-
This threads seems to have run out of steam somewhat :(...... How about we spin it back up to speed with a few words of "Wisdom" from Mr.Bickerstaffe. Extracted from the ILAA website....
"Name: Pip Bickerstaffe
Suggestion: On the subject of which woods are to be avoided, typically most English yew will make poor and frequently brittle bows, that break. It can also make quite soggy bows; both are disappointing. Bamboo is not a wood and should never be used.
Maple can be used as a backing and can also be totally unsuitable, you need to know what you are looking at to avoid a broken bow.
If the wood you are looking at has an established history as a bow wood then it is likely to be OK but there are few woods that will successfully back bows and provide reliable bellies. Look at the bows that are professionally made for guidance. If you do not see the wood offered by a reputable manufacturer then it might be best avoided. Best to ask the question of someone who's opinion you can trust before you spend the money"......
(Sits back, opens popcorn)
-
By 'ek lad I wouldn't trust Bickerstaffe to tell me t'time if he were stood under t'town hall clock :o
Del
-
Honestly, my email inbox is packed with conversations with Pip full of the stuff. He once told me that ash will never make a longbow of any weight, and English yew will chrysal and fail the moment it hits 100#. Like I said before, he's not actually misinformed or deliberately obtuse but his problem stems from printing very early information into books and now he has to stand by what he said, despite recent discovery and testing proving him wrong all around him. He's probably more annoyed than anybody else that he's dug himself a hole.
Lets try to avoid turning this thread into a hate piece for somebody who isn't here to defend himself though as hopefully we are all above that!
-
......."He once told me that ash will never make a longbow of any weight, and English yew will chrysal and fail the moment it hits 100#. Like I said before, he's not actually misinformed or deliberately obtuse but his problem stems from printing very early information into books and now he has to stand by what he said"......
.....and lets not forget, his elves have probably just run another shed-load of Hickory/Lemonwood bananas through the bandsaw that he's planning to get banged out on the interweb before Xmas Eve........not to be a cynic or anything... (pauses to puff pipe, look over half-glasses and wink to camera to inject additional gravitas)......but thank goodness we're above making facetious comments like that eh? ;)
-
Well personally, until I can make high performance longbows like he can, I'm not going to go out of my way to bad mouth him. I do think some of his theories are far fetched, and I do think he's mucked up in the past by saying certain things, but that doesn't make him a bad bowyer. Did you have a go with the 100# Bickerstaffe that Chris brought to the NLHF? It was gorgeous. Everybody on this forum uses a bandsaw to make bows if they have one, so there's nowt wrong with that. Are your bows all hand made with hatchet and draw knife?
-
Just to keep this thread going,i was speaking to a very eminent bowyer[,no names no pack drill ]yesterday and he was telling me that you can have timber DNA tested .It would be very interesting to find out if any tests have been carried out on the Mary Rose bows to find out excatly what region the yew came from
-
That's more like it Will! ......are we on page 10 yet?
P.s. Absolutely no argument with the use of power tools matey, I'm not a Luddite. Incidentally, I understand that Mr.Pippersqueak very rarely makes a bow these days, which is just as well, as he's already cut bits of his fingers off using a bandsaw. He's far too busy pursuing another hobby with the profits these days and has a range of guest bowyers that make em for him until he upsets them and they leave......allegedly. No doubt some good bows do find their way out of his workshop, but my personal experience with his wares has certainly been disappointing.
Pip, pip (or rather not) ;D
-
It's only three pages long for me... I changed the page settings yonks ago :-P
Will he be at the ILAA Windsor longbow shoot? I liked Dave's response to the whole shebang!
-
Will he be at the ILAA Windsor longbow shoot?
I don't know, but just in case I'd better wear a false moustache and beard combo now if I want to avoid a type 16 through the neck when I least expect it 8)
-
I have literally just wet myself laughing at your Bickerstaff bashing :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Thanks chaps for making my day!
-
Why the Bickerstaffe bashing? I came all the way from Canada, and spent a day with him in his shop. He was a very gracious host, and showed me a few things about doing splices. I also got to watch Fred tiller out a nice tri-lam. While there, I also picked up a bow I had commissioned. He packaged it free, included a bow sock free and a signed copy of his book free. A very generous man.
When you guys who are bashing him have made as many bows and been in the business full time as long as he has, then maybe you can shoot your mouths off. He has his opinions (some of which I don't agree with), but I believe the man deserves my respect as a bowyer. I thought personal attacks and name calling were discouraged here? All in poor taste.
-
Hi adb
Im sure its all meant good naturedly.
I personally am rather Jealous of the man, anyone who makes fine bows and is able to make a living from it, I take my hat off to. He has always been very helpful in my experience.
I would love to be in his shoes, being a full time bowery is my idea of heaven!
Please don't take the jibes too seriously.
Matt
-
Hi adb
Im sure its all meant good naturedly......Please don't take the jibes too seriously.
Matt
Well spotted Mr.Beardie! ;D
-
The jibes aren't against me. That's my point. Sounds like justification for inappropriate behaviour to me. Maybe Mr. Heffalump and Mr. Bearded Bowyer could post some pics of some bows they've made, so we can all have a look? It's the armchair bowyers, who are quick with a smart-aleck comment (but have made nothing) that put a twist in my shorts. I'd be thrilled to see a "Hickory/lemonwood banana" from either one of you.
-
I think Del may have made some amazing banana's, from laminates and meane selfbows, like elm, yew....
Not sure about Heffalump, but Im currently making a light hickory/ dark hickory/ Ipe longbow at the moment and a hickory/bamboo/ lemonwood with yew riser hybrid bow. and a pure lemon wood recurve, and experimenting with a 5 lam hickory/ ipe combination.
I will post pics of them when they are all done so you can all poke fun at me and I REALLY don't mind. If I can take it from my wife and children.....and the dog. Then anyone can.
Wait a minute...are you laughing at me??? how dare you!
;)
-
Back to Brians comment on DNA testing, I suspect It may be a very broad location where the timber came from.
If I've got the gist of things, dense tight growth rings are down to poor growing conditions? So what you really want is poor soil quality.
There must be areas in the uk where poor soil quality and nutrient supply would create good yew.
Are mountainous regions generally of poor soil quality? Do you get forests of yew at high altitude?
-
I think Del may have made some amazing banana's, from laminates and meane selfbows, like elm, yew....
Not sure about Heffalump, but Im currently making a light hickory/ dark hickory/ Ipe longbow at the moment and a hickory/bamboo/ lemonwood with yew riser hybrid bow. and a pure lemon wood recurve, and experimenting with a 5 lam hickory/ ipe combination.
I will post pics of them when they are all done so you can all poke fun at me and I REALLY don't mind. If I can take it from my wife and children.....and the dog. Then anyone can.
Wait a minute...are you laughing at me??? how dare you!
;)
I look forward to it.
-
Scanty soil does produce fine rings apparently as much as high altitude does. I believe Chris Boyton had a piece of yew cut from a cliff on a chalk type rocky area that was extremely fine of growth ring.
Here in Canada there are cedar trees growing on the ridges of the Niagara Escarpment that actually don't even produce a ring some years because the soil is so poor where they are growing. Trees which were thought to be 500 years old are apparently much older. The same trees growing at the bottom of the ridge are pretty normal of growth.
It is certainly not just a northern or generally colder climate/shorter growing season that is solely responsible for finer rings.
English Yew here still has pretty large rings when grown in typical fairly rich soil beside a building.