Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: teddybear111111 on March 01, 2009, 11:11:48 am
-
for my reconackemts when i get asked i say 90lbs and above makes it a warbow what you say the lbs would be.
and if you do it how many arrows a im can you get off
i do 15 but only 50lbs longbow or any informasion about warbows in the past would be grate i like to say things that are facked not congetor
-
i'd say from 85 lbs is a warbow and not a longbow
-
well, at first let's say a warbow is heavier and longer. the english longbow is also drawn further than a normal drawlength.
I think bows over 85# @ 30" are warbows...
hope this is a good answer for you since I didn't really understand your questions. interpunction helps ;)
Nick
-
If you look at the distances that were required to be shot by law at the time and weight of arrow that would be needed to go through plate armour, I would say that 120lbs (low estimate)would give a meaningful warbow. This is not to say that individual bows and archers aren't capable of achieving this at lower weights etc though.
Cheers.
Alistair
-
120 lbs would probably be better if you are versing a french armoured knight however 85 lbs is still considered a warbow but it wouldn't inflict much damage.
-
Just a personal view, but IMHO weight alone does not a "warbow" make.
I don't even care for the term.
In it's heyday it was just a "bowe", even the term "longbow" had no currency until it was used to distinguish a "longbow" from a "crossbow".
These days, post Strickland and Hardy's "The Great Warbow", everywhere I go I see folks calling just about anything made of wood over 90lb a "warbow".
Even if appears to be the bastard offspring of a lawn archery bow and a fencepost.
Of course, not everyone has access to a good single stave of yew, elm or ash, nor the ability to make a good heavy bow, but I saw one recently in the hands of a bloke in an archery shop who knew nothing and cared less about the tradition or wooden bows in general apart from selling anything he could to anyone who would part with the money.
This one had as many laminations as a liquorice allsort, like a bad lawn archery bow on steriods, an overlength handle wrap that told me that the maker was in two minds as to which was the top nock, or would not be surprised to see the tiller reverse when the bow was used.
The trader puffed out his chest and called it his "warbow", to me it was nothing of the sort.
And knowing him of old, I doubt that he could string it without a struggle.
Naturally draw weight and the ability to cast a heavy shaft are a basic requirement and many folks will rely on laminated construction through either economic necessity or availability of materials, but surely, draw-weight alone does not make a proper "warbow".
What do you think?
Rod.
-
a longbow that bends through the handle and is not a victorian stiff in the handle longbow i would refure to as a medieval longbow.
if i was going to war with a medieval longbow i would want a bow over 120lb to shoot a heavy shaft 70g a good distance and to penetrate armour.
80lb to 100lb is a good practice weight to strengthen your body. but i would honestly say with the correct technique any ADULT could shoot a 100lb bow.
to denote the difference between a victorian traditional longbow and a heavy weight medieval longbow the name warbow is used to stop confusion and i think it does the job well. :)
ps. obviously a laminate is not a medieval longbow only self bows but they are good for practice never the less ;)
-
let's say:
(close to) compass tiller, longer, stronger, longer drawlength ?
I don't see why many lams don't make a warbow... And drawweight doesn't count much, depending on the person, but I wonder if anybody would call a yew bow, with a compass tiller, 80"long, drawn to 32 inches a warbow, if it only pulled 30#...
yew wasn't available everywhere, and often elm, ash etc were used for these warbows.
warbow isn't a single type, it's a bunch of different types; laminated, selfbow, backed. And all of these make ENGLISH warbows.
but the English weren't the only tribes with 'warbows'... look at the cherokee d-bows, the sinewbacked warbows from the westcoast indians, the long, incredibly strong chinese hornbows, pulling way over 150#, the long papua bows shooting harpoonlike arrows, the small african bushman warbows, with poisoned arrows and under 50# of drawweight.
Nick
-
Well~ This is the ENGLISH warbow forum so I think it must be we describe English bow, not other warbows....
In that time, they did not laminate woods to make warbow, so it must be selfbow.
Weight wise, well, any bow use in war is technically a warbow, whether it is 40# or 180#, doesn't really matter...
Think about it, you shot in the face at 100 yards by a 40#, it will not help if it is heavier bow, you still dead.
Though, for sake of not lowering weight so everyone can join in (its not suppose to be easy!) I would say 100#@30" at least.
Like Ratty say, any adult should be able to pull 100#. This use to be hunting weight not too long ago, so, warbow should at least be that or higher yeah? I think they mostly start pull bow at young age, not to be able to pull, but to shoot accurately.
-
I think if you want a bow which you can claim to be a true replica of a English Warbow then it should be a self bow, at least 140lb draw weight, natural bow string and of course have sidenocks
I don't think this is what people mean when they say warbow though, it's just to differentiate from the recreational type longbows
-
a longbow that bends through the handle and is not a victorian stiff in the handle longbow i would refure to as a medieval longbow.
if i was going to war with a medieval longbow i would want a bow over 120lb to shoot a heavy shaft 70g a good distance and to penetrate armour.
80lb to 100lb is a good practice weight to strengthen your body. but i would honestly say with the correct technique any ADULT could shoot a 100lb bow.
to denote the difference between a victorian traditional longbow and a heavy weight medieval longbow the name warbow is used to stop confusion and i think it does the job well. :)
ps. obviously a laminate is not a medieval longbow only self bows but they are good for practice never the less ;)
So far I'd say this is the best offering. mainly cus I was thinking about a reply while making shavings in the workshop this arvo and it's about what I was going to say ;D
-
What caliber makes a bullet a weapon of war?
I think we need a defintion on the type of warfare we are taking about. IMO, most people see a warbow as a weapon that acts like artillery....and is capable of long range shooting. A heavy draw weight is essential, of course, but we must define what distance is required first. Perhaps any bow that shoots a 700+ grain arrow 200+ yards would be a warbow? Just a thought.
-
warbow isn't a single type, it's a bunch of different types; laminated, selfbow, backed. And all of these make ENGLISH warbows.
Why is this subject to negotiation ??? We all know medieval warbows (name semantics aside) were selfbows regardless of wood type. It really is a simple as that.
-
well, if the old english had boo and ipe, they'd use it for sure.
please remember those old lads had no bandsaws either, nor ebay for buying staves, cars for driving them.
I think laminated english warbows are still warbows... right?
well, me being a just-16year old kid, I'm more than happy with 90#-110#, and boo backed bows... They're more than enough warbow for me ;)
just a total off-thread question:
I noticed drawing a heavy bow to 30"+ goes very slow, takes at least some seconds,
so for today's urban warfare I'd prefer a 50#-70#@28", 56"-66" ntn bow...
what about you guys?
-
warbow isn't a single type, it's a bunch of different types; laminated, selfbow, backed. And all of these make ENGLISH warbows.
Why is this subject to negotiation ??? We all know medieval warbows (name semantics aside) were selfbows regardless of wood type. It really is a simple as that.
+1
I'll second that
-
a warbow is a SELFBOW.
-
a warbow is a SELFBOW.
A warbow was a self bow - but is it now ?
i.e. are you saying that if your bow isnt a self bow with natural string and sidenocks etc. then you can't call it a warbow ?
actually - to take it to the extreme then a warbow is basically one of the Mary Rose bows - anything else is a replica
-
it's all getting a bit silly now :-\
If you'd been practicing at least weekly with the bow from the age of 7, you ought to be able to draw 100LB as easily as a modern archer draws 50 or 60LB and hit the mark at 200 yards by the time you were of age to go to war. therefore it would be pointless handing out bows less than 120LB.
They knew full well what was required to penetrate the enemy and what was needed to get it there, hence the need to train from an early age.
A laminate is not IMO a replica warbow, an English bow of warbow draw weight perhaps. As far as I'm aware there is no evidence that English bows were laminated or of composite build, though they would have obviously been aware of the technology due to mongolian bows brought here by the Romans.
If you couldn't draw the bows issued, an average of 140LB, you didn't make muster and stayed home with your mum.
-
If you couldn't draw the bows issued, an average of 140LB, you didn't make muster and stayed home with your mum.
Or at least given a pointy stick and called infantry.
-
If you couldn't draw the bows issued, an average of 140LB, you didn't make muster and stayed home with your mum.
Or at least given a pointy stick and called infantry.
;D :D
-
a warbow is a SELFBOW.
A warbow was a self bow - but is it now ?
i.e. are you saying that if your bow isnt a self bow with natural string and sidenocks etc. then you can't call it a warbow ?
actually - to take it to the extreme then a warbow is basically one of the Mary Rose bows - anything else is a replica
tu
No. What I'm saying is a laminated bow is not a replica but it would be a warbow but a true warbow is a selfbow. So here is my opinion: It's 2009 and not 1415 technology has advanced and people now make laminated warbows instead of selfbows. My opinion is that if you want a true warbow you should buy a selfbow. But in my eyes a laminate bow of high draw weigth is a warbow.
-
Yep - I would agree with that :-)
That is the point I was trying to make myself:
there is a replica warbow (which should be a self bow, sidenocks etc. as it is supposed to be as close as possible an exact copy of the bows of old)
and there is a "modern" warbow (a bow based loosely on the bow above which is similar to shoot/use but not necessarily made of the same materials etc.)
-
I have to agree with you alanesq.
How many of you got a new Ferrari when you first started driving. I didn't, I started with a broken down 20 year old truck. For me laminated bows are cheaper to make. Lets say I want to make a 200# MR replica. I need to buy a $400 high quality yew stave. The problem is I cannot pull 200#. Well I'm not going to buy 10 $400 yew staves so I can work my way up to 200#. I am going to make a 100# laminate then a 110, 120 and on up to my goal. When I can shoot my 200# beautiful yew MR replica selfbow it will be great. But I can get there with $200 worth of laminates not $4000 worth of imported yew. 8) To me the laminate don't look so bad, I just wont call it a replica.
Back to the original question, "What lbs makes it a warbow instead of a longbow." Maybe he wants to start as low as he can and still maintain controll of the bow with a reasonable amount of accuracy. Yet if he goes to light some people will give him so much crap about calling it a warbow that he will switch to another sport and go away with the attitude that archers are jerks. I think it was a legitimate question.
Let me offer something up for thought. The original English war archers were not shooting at armor. That came later and the weights of bows increased to compensate. So were the earlier bows not warbows because they were lighter than the later bows. Did the English longbow become a warbow when it became the standard bow used in war or when it penetrated armor. Justin
-
Well said Justin!
-
Just to throw my thouhts into the mix,
A true Warbow or a longbow designed to be used in a war situation....well we only really have the MR bows to go on and these are all self yew bows, there is evidence that they were side nocked and very heavy draw weights,..140+lbs, personally I believe the draw weights were a bit higher but 140 is a good starting pont.
laminates cannot really be classed as "True warbows", 1stly because there is no evidence of laminated woods being used for bows used in warfare in the middle ages in England, however replica heavy weight bows are made nowadays which bend full compass in the characteristic manner of a medieval warbow and can and do shoot heavy arrows a long way with great power, however these are a modern representation of what once was and as there are no heavy weight longbows used in warfare nowadays they cannot be classed in the same way as the self yew warbow of the medieval period.
The heavy weight self yew replica "warbows" that are made today, again are exactly that "Replica's" of what was once used in medieval warefare, these are not real warbows but accurate representations, there is evidence of sidenocks on the MR bows, there is also pictorial evidence that front facing horn nocks were used, the one common factor of the nocks is that they were of cow horn.
Anyway back to the question, in my opinion a "Warbow", this is a bow made for the purpose of killing people in warfare in the middle ages, some of whom may be wearing plate armour, needs to be a very heavy draw weight.... 140lb+, probably more like 160+.
Steve
-
I agree Steve. Here is my new thought: A laminate bow is a "fake" warbow and a selfbow is a true warbow.
-
If I was pressed and had to make a distinction, I would call anything over 100 pounds a "heavy" bow.
If it was used in warfare or for representing that historic use I might think about calling a "warbow" but probably would not....
But I might call it an "English bowe" if it was a single stave selfbow in yew, elm or ash and looked right.
IMHO a heavy laminated longbow is just that, a heavy laminated longbow.
Nothing wrong with that.
As to what poundage makes a "warbow", it seems likely that an arms race took place where the beginnings would have been with useful hunting weights and escalated from there in response to the tactical demands of the situation.
Heavy weights will have been current for as long as defensibly dressed men have been shooting arrows at each other and even before that when they were just trying to outrange each other on open ground with shafts of increasing weight.
There are cultures that use or have used weights in the 100lb range for hunting, one good example being the Liangulu elephant bow.
I once had a bloke show me one of these and asked if I could confirm that it was an old English longbow.
He got it in a house clearance and was not swayed by the wealth of Africana amongst which he found it.
It was round in section throughout, about 90" long and if it had a string on it would have pulled about 100lb with ease.
It even had the mark on the lower limb where the rawhide or sinew wrap for the stringing toehold used to be.
He asked me to make a string for it so that he could sell it as a "longbow".
I said I didn't have any giraffe sinew handy but would buy it off him at a sensible price if he was interested.
He wanted silly money for it so I let it go....
Rod.
-
The term "longbow" has been in use for some time (I was surprised myself recently to discover this)
Here is a quote From 1515 which uses it:
"Whether the Kinges subjectes, not lame nor having no lawfull impediment, and beinge within the age of XI yeares, excepte Spiritual men, Justices etc. and Barons of the Exchequer, use shoting on longe bowes, and have bowe continually in his house, to use himself and that fathers and governours of chyldren teache them to shote, and that bowes and arrowes be bought for chyldren under XVII and above VII yere, by him that has such a chylde in his house, and the Maister maye stoppe it againe of his wages, and after that age he to provideb them himselfe: and who that is founde in defaute, in not having bowes and arrowes by the space of a moneth, to forfayte xiid.. And boyers for everie bowe of ewe, to make two of Elme wiche or othere wood of meane price, and if thei be founde to doe the contrarie, to be committed to warde, by the space of viii daies or more."
- from http://www.scortonarrow.com/features/Archery_its%20the%20law.htm
So we shouldn't really call any laminated bow a longbow either (as a longbow was a self bow) ?
-
I believe the first known mention is commonly accepted as being from one of the Paston letters. In any case, quite late in the story of the English bowe, but not quite as late as 1515.
I suspect the first mention of the "warbow" was equally close to being "after the event".
Rod.
-
I think Robert Hardy was the first to use the term warbow ?
-
Historically, what were the draw weights and dinensions of the war bows that have been found or recovered? Would't that constitute what a war bow would be? anything else would be speculation. ???
-
Victorian English Longbow: stiff handle, 70LB max draw weight, string must not touch the limbs once braced.
Medieval English Longbow: Full compass, any draw weight.
Lighter weights for kids. heavier weights as kids progressed up to adulthood. Bows used for warfare made with enough draw weight to send required projectile a specific minimum distance.
Draw weights and dimensions are already well documented on this site as well as books and other web sites.
Kooi's computer model proved from dimensions the averages were 140LB. testing on calibrated equipment backed up kooi's projections. a few are said to be as low as 80LB and others 180LB. copyright prevents me from posting scans of pages from books.
-
At the end of the day - its an impossible to answer question
The word "warbow" has no official definition and has just been adopted recently by people interested in the English longbow as was used in war to differentiate from the more usual form of longbow used now
No one really knows what a medieval bow was like so people can debate for the rest of time about the details.....
the best we have to go on is the Mary Rose but these were Tudor bows and also bows used at sea which could be different to standard "warbows" of the time anyway - who knows ?
So I think the best you can say is that if you are ultimately trying to re create or experience what using a longbow at Agincourt etc. was like then your into warbows
if you are interested in a light easy to draw bow for recreational purposes then you are interested in the recreational style longbow
following on from that; I personally would say that if the English longbow you are using takes an awful lot of effort to draw and you are drawing to the ear then its a warbow (for you at least)
-
a warbow is a SELFBOW.
ever shot or drawn a warbow? You're very welcome to draw my bows, if you can, you may deny my bows arent warbows :) 110# BBI in the work, so it will be a challenge for you to deny :)
I'm sure people have used rawhide for backings in the medievals, but the've rotten away for sure. what's the true difference between a 3mm thick strip of rawhide and boo?
what's the true difference between ipe and yew/elm/ash? then what's the difference between a rawhide backed yew and BBI? and if you take the rawhide off, what's the difference then?
I don't think there's any answere here, it's a agreement we make. it's about setting limits.
this is what I'd agree with as a warbow definition:
thickest, widest part at handle
drawweight of over 80 #
compass tiller
drawn to the ear, or almost.
all-wood, exept from horn nocks, and arrowpass. (no glass, or carbon...)
no cut in shelves
the term 'longbow' was used to show the difference between crossbow and a normal bow. another similar definition would be hand(drawn) bow. It didn't have to do anything with the design or length. later, term crossbow came
IMHO a heavy laminated longbow is just that, a heavy laminated longbow.
Nothing wrong with that.
As to what poundage makes a "warbow", it seems likely that an arms race took place where the beginnings would have been with useful hunting weights and escalated from there in response to the tactical demands of the situation.
Heavy weights will have been current for as long as defensibly dressed men have been shooting arrows at each other and even before that when they were just trying to outrange each other on open ground with shafts of increasing weight.
Rod.
I totally agree :)
Quote from: triton on March 03, 2009, 10:40:00 AM
If you couldn't draw the bows issued, an average of 140LB, you didn't make muster and stayed home with your mum.
Or at least given a pointy stick and called infantry.
how lovely :)
Nick
-
Just a couple more things,
Alan, I do agree with some of what you are saying, however be a little wary of thinking that the MR bows were to be used at sea, the fact that they were crated up could be that they were in an armoury ready for a foreign campaign.
Nickf, I have not seen any evidence that suggests raw hide was in use as a backing on Ny English longbow, recreational or otherwise, I feel you are a bit low on your estimations of "warbow" weights, one other point to think about is that on nearly all the MR bows the widest point on the bow is actually not just the centre of the handle section, it does in fact stay a similar width for about 8" either side of centre.
Triton, Although Dr Koois computer model has helped our understanding of the MR bow weights, one thing must be taken into consideration and that is the none of the test bows which were used to create the averages for his model were of dense Mediterranean yew, it was mainly American and some English yew, so although the readings were favourable they were still a little on the low side. I have shown so many times that Italian yew will produce a much heavier draw weight bow than other yew types when mDe to the same dimensions.
Now obviously this is only my opinion but it is derived from numerous tests of these bows, along with many visits to the MR to study first hand the bows, by making over the last 5 years very many replica MR bows, I have also had reknowned bowyers such as Marc St Louis make replicas from MR dimensions I have provided and made from the highest quality American yew just to see how the draw weights differ.
Anyway just food for thought
Steve
-
That's why I also said those computer models were checked against MR bows on calibrated scales. A fella I know quite well was on the symposium along with other reknowned bowyers, historians, archeologists and they took a lot of flack from the archery establishment over draw weights. My friend was there when some of the MR bows were shot. The members of the symposium were mocked, quite loudly, and such ridiculous things were said, such as "I can draw no more than 70LB, so nor could they". My friend was drawing 100LB at 15 years old when he vowed to do his part in defending England against a german invasion.
-
That's why I also said those computer models were checked against MR bows on calibrated scales. A fella I know quite well was on the symposium along with other reknowned bowyers, historians, archeologists and they took a lot of flack from the archery establishment over draw weights. My friend was there when some of the MR bows were shot. The members of the symposium were mocked, quite loudly, and such ridiculous things were said, such as "I can draw no more than 70LB, so nor could they". My friend was drawing 100LB at 15 years old when he vowed to do his part in defending England against a german invasion.
Thats about right with the academics of this world, "If i can't do it, then no one else can" attitude ???
I have not heard of any MR bows that were actually shot, I know of a couple that were bent using an Instron machine and a few were broken during this process, 1 bow was actually drawn to 30", another had the limb snapped off in the doors on Concord when it was being taken to the US, but as far as I know none were actually shot, however I will check with the MR on this.
Steve
-
I think the ones that were shot also broke but I'll check. Spending a lot of time in a certain cellar cataloguing and measuring all the bows before they went back to the museum was of the utmost secrecy. even visitors to the house had no idea what was going on below the ground floor.
It wasn't so much "accademics" as the archery establishment ;)
-
Why so secretive? Seems they would want to share such info. Pat
-
because it was firstly in someones own home and these artefacts are priceless, none of the data was yet published and was still being collated. once the information had been gathered, the bows could then be moved back to portsmouth. He didn't want people clammering at the door during his afternoon tiffin.
-
That's understandable!
-
As far as I know there is only one bow which has had new nocks fitted, I will check the MR number, any bow that was shot would have had to have had nocks fitted, yet again I do not know of a bow that was shot even in a basement of a house in Oxfordshire.LOL but I could be mistaken
Steve
-
steve, I ment the handle wasn't narrowed. 80#+ might sound light, but they didn't really need more in the 'young' medievals. I think the drawweight increased by time, just as the armor got better. But I guess in the 1500's bow's over 160# weren't incommon.
triton, I found 100# isn't that hard with a right technique, even at age of 15. I can say it ;) I just got 16 and draw 110# (yap, I know it's dumb :p). But didn't fight against an invasion, tho...
Nick
-
I'm not so sure about the argument that bows got heavier as armour improved, maybe a little but not a difference of say 80lb jumping up to 140lb. I think a 80lb bow would be pretty useless against well made padded armour or maille over/under padding and don't forget plate was getting pretty wide spread by 1340's. For a bow to have been effective at Crecy it would have to drive an arrow through light plate, maille and then light padding, no mean feat.
-
len, in the 1000's even maille wasn't usual. Any needlebodkin would penetrate deep, being shot from a 80 or 160pounder.
-
Whilst it is obvious that a "warbow" should be a heavy bow, such draw-weights are not necessarily an absolute guide to the intended use since heavy hunting bows are known to go up to the 100lb range, even if today most bowhunters think 50lb to 60lb "normal" and 70lb to 80lb "heavy".
It is understandable that there is a focus on achieving high draw-weight, but there is what you can pull, and what you can control and this has always been so, in any style and at every level.
I am not suggesting that the misguided notions of those "warbow" critics who scoff at weights that they cannot themselves draw should be accepted, but there is a kernel of truth behind this attitude and IMHO it should not be forgotten in the emphasis on achieving higher draw-weights.
Rod.
-
Just a personal view, but IMHO weight alone does not a "warbow" make.
I don't even care for the term.
In it's heyday it was just a "bowe", even the term "longbow" had no currency until it was used to distinguish a "longbow" from a "crossbow".
What do you think?
Rod.
Like you, I don't care for the newfangled term. Bows have been used in war for centuries before the Mary Rose. Most bows from the Roman period Danish bogs woulld draw less than 100 pounds but were found with bodkin pointed arrows that were used only in war. So is a warbow any bow that was ever used in war or do we want to consider only the exceptionally powerfull Tudor bows ? We really need a definition of the word, hopefully a better one than the BLBS definition of "longbow". BTW, the word 'handbow' was used to distinguish from a 'crossbow'. The word 'longbow' [long bow] distinguished it from the shorter handbow, the'smallbow'. At least that was the mediaeval terminology.
-
It is a question where I would try to keep an open mind.
There have been tribal cultures who make a distinction between a hunting bow and a heavier "war"bow.
One such was the Cherokee nation who used bows in the 70lb range for hunting but went up to the 100lb range for a fighting bow.
Looking at warbow cultures where there is a written record, we only have information where archery was an activity of the literate classes, which lets out the post Roman european bow until Gaston Phoebus' "Livre de Chasse" or Ascham.
Where the literature is extensive the median for infantry bows appears to be in the 120lb to 150lb range, somewhat less for the smaller cavalry bows, from 90lb to 120lb.
Not to say that the weaker men might not have drawn lighter bows and some strong men might not have used heavier, but in terms of manageability and penetration they do seem to top out in the 165lb range with anecdotal claims for ancient heroes and kings claiming weights regarded as generally beyond the scope of other men.
But who, relying on the good grace and favour of a warlord would contradict such a claim, however unlikely?
Rod.
-
One of the things that seems to be missed on this thread is the fact that there are quite a number of men around today who can shoot bows of 140lb+, and some that can easily draw and shoot well bows in excess of 160lb, now these people have not had to train as our forefathers did, their lives do not depend on the bow and so are probably no where near what a medieval archer was capable of, there still seems to be this underlying attitude that if we can't they they couldn't.
The only English bows found and intended for warfare are the MR bows and I have proven many times that the bow weights would have been very high, by far heavier than even the strongest of todays archers, bar 1 or 2.
The medieval archer would have lived by the bow, shooting it regularly and with purpose, the military archer of the day was the best the country had to offer, these were not just any old archer but chosen for there ability to shoot a bow for warfare with both accuracy and distance.
It would be chirlish of us nowadays to think that they would have been shooting light weight bows, I mean you wouldn't go into battle nowadays with an air rifle would you?
Lets be sensible about this, yes there are claims made about the bow weights of the MR bows, but high and low, but I very much doubt the archer of the past would be happy having a bow that would just about do the job it was intended for, he would want something he could rely on and a bow that would easily do what was required of it.
Steve
-
good post fellas thats a question i always had.
-
yeah, I'd assume weights over 150# weren't all that incommon in the medievals...
for the late english warbow, ofcourse.
Nick
-
could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow
-
could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow
>:D :'( :-* :-\ :-* NO :-\ :-*
-
I thought one limiting factor to manufacturing bows of heavy draw weight was the strength of the hemp or linen used to make bowstrings?
Given the high probability of standardisation of hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment - any archer would have to use any bow be it 'white' or 'painted', and any bow would have to be pretty much compatible with the huge stock of arrows and bowstrings...there was likely a 'standard' bow weight, which probably increased as armour thickness increased.
However we know that the arrow nocks were 1/8th inch and could therefore only take a bowstring of maximum diameter 1/8 inch.
Archers used their bows for practice and then battle.
The capability and longevity of the hemp/linen bowstring would have been an important factor, and defined a practical maximum limit to bow draw weight.
Any research been done on this?
-
could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow
>:D :'( :-* :-\ :-* NO :-\ :-*
>:D >:D >:D hahaha i meant it a little tounge in check .
-
Unlike with bows there is clear line of pedigree which can be traced type by type and that is the arrowheads. It doesnt need much to get idea how an arrow looked liked if you have arrowhead and how both bow and arrow looked like too be shot effectivelly. That is not saying that they too could have using ineffective combination of both, but nobody who would have would stayed along too long.
Jaro
-
could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow
>:D :'( :-* :-\ :-* NO :-\ :-*
>:D >:D >:D hahaha i meant it a little tounge in check .
never seen you post in this section and you never know who drops in for a wind up :D
-
Looking at warbow cultures where there is a written record, we only have information where archery was an activity of the literate classes, which lets out the post Roman european bow until Gaston Phoebus' "Livre de Chasse" or Ascham.
Where the literature is extensive the median for infantry bows appears to be in the 120lb to 150lb range, somewhat less for the smaller cavalry bows, from 90lb to 120lb.
Rod.
A 'warbow' is of course a longbow, just an especially strong one. Besides those you mention we do have one earlier reference, "The Book of Roi Modus" written before the Hundred Years War, that gives the measurements of the "English bow" and its arrows, clearly a longbow. Like other mediaeval writings it gives no details on draw weight which makes me curious to know where your information on draw weights comes from. We can of course estimate Tudor bow strengths from the laws that specify distances to be shot by nearly all adult males. Archers were the general population, not a chosen elite few. Toward the end of the Hundred Years War the ten archers for every man-at-arms were not a select few.
-
I thought one limiting factor to manufacturing bows of heavy draw weight was the strength of the hemp or linen used to make bowstrings?
Given the high probability of standardisation of hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment - any archer would have to use any bow be it 'white' or 'painted', and any bow would have to be pretty much compatible with the huge stock of arrows and bowstrings...there was likely a 'standard' bow weight, which probably increased as armour thickness increased.
However we know that the arrow nocks were 1/8th inch and could therefore only take a bowstring of maximum diameter 1/8 inch.
Archers used their bows for practice and then battle.
The capability and longevity of the hemp/linen bowstring would have been an important factor, and defined a practical maximum limit to bow draw weight.
Any research been done on this?
Hi,
Interesting point, but you must also factor in the dimensions and wood quality of the bows together with the average draw length of the arrows.
Alistaie
-
The argumment has been quite persuasively explained by Pip Bickerstaffe in one of his books.
The bows could have been made very heavy, the soldiers could have been able to wield them, but the weak link in the chain is the bowstring, limited to 1/8th inch diameter.
If I remember aright, his limited research came up with an estimate of about 100lbs @ 30" as an approximate standard for a war bow. I suppose depending on your build, you'd be pulling 90-110 lbs, enough to reach the enemy at distance.
-
The Archers that were aboard the MR would have been the elite, not your general archer of the time, 1st of all not all archrs were taken into the army's at that time, they were chosen for their ability, so these were the elite, also do you really think that Henry VIII would have had just general archers on his flag ship, these would have been the best there was, i'm sure.
The book in question also states I did extensive tests for him, which I didn't????????
With regards the string theory, 1st of all we don't have any idea of how the string was made and what the quality of the natural materials of the time were like, what we do have is the bows and from the extensive research done on these bows and the wood itself suggests very heavy draw weights. IMHO this string theory carries as much water as a collander.
Steve
-
> guys, keep in mind stevesjem is one of the few guys who has acces to the real mary rose bows, and he's done alot of research on them (isn't it right?)
well steve, what drawweigths do you estimate of those bows? given the ringcount, length and thickness?
Nick
-
Hi Nickf
Anyone can go and have a look at the bows in the collection by prior appointment, however I have been and studied the bows very many times, I have had the opportunity to measure all of the bows, both dimensionally and for ring count, at the moment DNA tests are being done by Dr Mark Jones of the MR trust on the bows to find out where the wood originated, I have helped him by supplying him with some Altitude Italian Yew, so he can get DNA from some wood that was cut from a known bow wood area of Italy for comparison, (Someone did by the way send him some American yew for comparison), I'm not sure how that will help?
Anyway to answer your question, IMHO and after more recent research and tests and making replica bows, I believe the bows to be on average about 160lb, with some even up to the 180-190lb, maybe higher.
Steve
-
Steve, I think I may have spoken to you on the phone - you gave me some good advice about arrows. As also has Pip Bickerstaffe.
I do not have such expertise, and retain an open mind about what weight bows were.
Perhaps knowing their bowstrings had a limited life was a trade-off archers were prepared to make in order to use very heavy bows. They could have carried spares, maybe have fitted a newish one before a battle so it would definitely last the two dozen arrows they had chance to fire off.
I take your point about making an exact replica of a medieval bowstring, but it would be interesting to test how many times a bow of 100/120/ 140/ 160/ 180lb could be shot using a hemp/linen bowstring of 1/8" diameter before the string broke.
Count me out though, I can barely pull my wimpish 100@28 replica ;)
Regards
-
Looking at warbow cultures where there is a written record, we only have information where archery was an activity of the literate classes, which lets out the post Roman european bow until Gaston Phoebus' "Livre de Chasse" or Ascham.
Where the literature is extensive the median for infantry bows appears to be in the 120lb to 150lb range, somewhat less for the smaller cavalry bows, from 90lb to 120lb.
Rod.
A 'warbow' is of course a longbow, just an especially strong one. Besides those you mention we do have one earlier reference, "The Book of Roi Modus" written before the Hundred Years War, that gives the measurements of the "English bow" and its arrows, clearly a longbow. Like other mediaeval writings it gives no details on draw weight which makes me curious to know where your information on draw weights comes from. We can of course estimate Tudor bow strengths from the laws that specify distances to be shot by nearly all adult males. Archers were the general population, not a chosen elite few. Toward the end of the Hundred Years War the ten archers for every man-at-arms were not a select few.
Thank you for the note about the Book of Roi Modus.
"Where archery was an activity of the literate classes" there is a written record of what was at different times the norm and what was , by inference, exceptional.
This leads to a conclusion that is by and large in agreement with what Steve Stratton, Mark Stretton and Chris Boyton have to say on the matter of "warbow" draw weights.
Also with the shared experience of some of those who do useful work on other styles of heavy bows and with what my own shooting experience leads me to believe to be rational and not unreasonable.
At the end of the day it is only an opinion, but hopefully a not entirely uninformed opinion.
By and large recruitment of archers was, when and where possible, quite selective.
And there were also times and conditions when recruitment was less selective, but in general, the elite would be taken where the option was available.
Men were sent home, for example, for not being capable of acheiving a desired "rate of fire".
("Rate of fire" is in inverted commas because it is a borowed term in common shooting parlance).
Given that shooting at the butts was a common form of practice, it seems likely that "rate of fire" and cast were not the only criteria.
It seems to me obvious and perfectly reasonable that a "warbow" is any kind of bow which, historically, was made for warfare and that the criteria might vary somewhat though in serious "warbow" environments the solutions reached no doubt had commonality, both in the task requirements and in the draw weights needed to eet them.
In this context, of course, certain types of crossbow are "warbows" but not necessarily of interest on a forum devoted to "hand drawn bows" except as an adversarial or an allied weapon.
And the list of other types of "warbow" of composite construction is not inconsiderable.
Whilst we can say that the longbow can be a "warbow", we cannot truthfully say that "the warbow" is a longbow, only that the archetype of the English "warbow" is a longbow (or more precisely) a single stave yew longbow, but that certain other woods were acceptable substitutes.
Rod.
-
thanks for your reply steve!
160#,.. that's a purty average :) Hopefully I'll get close to it when I'm 18 :P
It shouln't surprise me at all, actually. Those guys shot their bows so often... And without much bow-drawing I got to 115# pretty quickly, at my 16years of age. I imagine the 16year-olds of those days wouldn't have had problems with 120#+ , not to speak of the adults.
AD, 100#@28" isn't bad at all. But I'd advice you to go for a longer draw, say 30-32", you can draw a little heavier at that long drawlength.
and Rod, thanks for the additional info.
Nick
-
Men were sent home, for example, for not being capable of acheiving a desired "rate of fire".
Whilst we can say that the longbow can be a "warbow", we cannot truthfully say that "the warbow" is a longbow, only that the archetype of the English "warbow" is a longbow (or more precisely) a single stave yew longbow, but that certain other woods were acceptable substitutes.
Rod.
[/quote]
For the word to have a recognizable meaning, I hope we can restrict the term ‘longbow’ to European bows not much wider than thick and long enough to draw at least to the ear.To me, that would include all MR bows. Perhaps you have a better definition.
While archers were nearly the entire male [and some of the female] population of mediaeval and early Tudor England, of course some were preferred. For royal bodyguards, tall strong archers were selected. For military archers there were those ‘of the first sort’, probably those placed in the front ranks of the herce, and those ‘of the second sort’. However men enlisted to serve as assistants to the surgeon were instead pulled into the shooting formations to serve as archers.
Again , I would appreciate knowing the original source for men being sent home for failing the 'rate of fire' test.
Erik
-
Hello AD
It would be nice if you could tell us something about who you are and what archery experience you have etc. as I notice you have only just joined the forum and you have not introduced yourself etc.
-
A middle-aged archer, been shooting longbow for exactly a year this month, though I had two flatbows as a teenager.
I did a course at the club with my wife & daughters on recurves, but wasn't tempted to buy one(until quite recently when another member allowed me to shoot his brand new Bernadini riser).
Already own three bows, Bickerstaffe hickory/greenheart/osage/osage laminate 50lb@28(pulls to 29), Dave Cotterill hickory/yew/lemonwood 65lb@30, and the aforementioned Bickerstaffe replica warbow hickory/satinwood/osage/osage laminate which is 100lb@28 (pulls to 32" and is truly a long bow at 85" tip to tip).
The heavy bow was bought to build up my strength & shoot clout. I think I'd settle on something around 70lb for target, while 50lb is enough for field.
I'm probably the worst archer in the club when it comes to concentration. Shooting a Windsor on the 50lber the other week I was keeping up with the opposition at 60... until half way through the 50, sent four arrows alternately either side of the target, l, r, l, r, and just started laughing at myself.
As long as I enjoy arching...
-
Erik,
I have what seems to me to be a distinct recollection of having read it somewhere, but I'll have to trawl through the literature to see if I can find it.
If I can't then perhaps I can pretend that I only put it in there to see how long it took for you to ask for the source? :-)
Rod.
-
Good luck to you both - I've read it too but when I went to search for it, I could no longer find it!! I have a horrible feeling that if it does turn up, it'll turn out to be unattrributed but passed from one relatively recent writing to the next. Hope not, but we'll see.
C
-
I have found this a very interesting read, and it appears to inspire some passion about Warbows. Thats really great. I must admit I know little about them, but I doubt that it would be common for a 16 year old to be shootin 120 pounds of bow. Not sayin that its not possible. I know it is, but I doubt that its that common, even shooting every day. I can believe there were plenty of bows in the 120 pound category, but beyond that would seem to be an uncommon occurrence. I have seen the figure 160 pounds mentioned several times. Maybe in a bow that was shot from the feet, but I just can't fathom a army of archers, sportin 160 pound bows. I know from reading that archers generally made up the bulk of armies, due to economics.
My conception of a Warbow, based on weights would be 80 pounds and up, depending on what the individual archer could handle. I believe I read that the average archer didn't own his own bow, just the string and thus the reason for the bowyers knot. I do know that they shot very heavy poundage as archeologist have excavated and found skeletons with extensive bone damage in the shoulder areas due to this fact. If you are limiting the Warbow classification to the English style, then definitely a selfbow designed for shooting long distances.
Again I state that I know very little about the subject, so don't get offended at my opinion. I had a friend who shot a 110 pound bow. His arms reminded me of Popeye.
-
Hi The Wildcat,
I do understand what you are saying and your reasoning, however there are a couple of things that must be taken into account, 1st of all the actual artifacts of the Mary Rose, these bows are all very substantial and I say again after making replicas from the correct wood and ring count, the minimum bow weight was 120lb.
2nd. during the medieval period archers were required to practice at the "Butts", these were mounds of earth and were shot at a range of 220yds, now we also know the arrow size, both shaft and fletchings etc, as there are over 2000 of them found on the MR, now when an arrow is made up as a replica of one of the MR arrows, Wood type Aspen, Bobtailed from 1/2" at the head to 3/8" at the nock with 7.5" Goose fletchings the arrow weight comes in at approx 70g, now just to shoot this arrow 220yds takes a bow weight of at least 120lb, now that is at a 45 deg angle, but to shoot it accurately at the target a flatter trajectory is needed, thus a heavier bow is needed to achieve this, then take into consideration this was general archer practice not top end military archers, this should then show you what the English military archers would be using with regards bow weights.
Cheers
Steve
-
Wildcat, I'm shooting 115# aswell. I'm 16 :D :
(http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh367/hanshanssam/bows/110pound%20bbi%20warbow/IMG_6728.jpg)
no spinach arms here ;) I did quite some lifting for a year now, but I don't think I would have had to.
Thanks alot for your detailed info again, stevesjem. I highly appreciate true knowlede and facts here :D
You usually read 75 - 150pounds, but wow, if it's more like 120-190pounds, I'm really, really impressed.
And now I know I gotto do some more on my spinach arms :p
Nick
-
I shot a MR replica arrow from my 75# Bow and it only travelled about 80yds ;D.
-
I shot a MR replica arrow from my 75# Bow and it only travelled about 80yds ;D.
And I bet you could have ran along side it ;D
-
I also find this interesting, in that there differeing views and I am unable to make up my mind. I just found Bickerstaffe's 'Medieval War Bows' book, flicked through it and it looks like he came to different conclusions in various areas:
Archers were expected to shoot 240 yards, but how was it measured? By a man's pace or about 30 inches. 240 paces would be about 200 yards.
Goose feathers are not large enough to be made into 7.5inch triangular fletchings, it's likely they were shaped into swineback/hogsback, which enable an arrow to fly further.
His examination of the MR bows he found to be in support of his approximate 100lb @ 30inch standard bow.
He write that bows he made of Italian yew around 85lb @30 when drawn to 31.5 can reach the necessary distances.
Then there is the hemp/linen bowstring practical limitations, and the standardisation of thousands of pieces of equipment as previously mentioned.
I think that's a fair summary.
I'm not arguing, just reckon more evidence is needed for firm conclusions about medieval war bow weights.
Regards
-
as has been illustrated in a couple of comments above, it's an easy experiment to try yourself.
The nearest I've found to Aspen is yellow poplar (tulipwood) or Lombardi poplar. make a half inch shaft with horn reinforcement 2" long and fit a heavy war bodkin. taper the shaft from 3/8" from the nock until you get the desired balance point, just fore of the centre. I have goose feathers here that are 9 1/2" long, plenty long enough to make 7 1/2" triangular cut fletchings, I prefer to follow the grease line so they come out swine or hogs back.
Now go out and shoot it. does it appear slow enough for you to run alongside?
can you hit the modern clout distance of 180 Yards? If you can clear 220 yards then there can be no doubt you would have made muster.
If not, then why not? is it your technique? is your bow of the requisite draw weight to get the arrow there?
I have an 80LB bow here that when I shot an Ash shaft at a 50 gallon oil drum, the arrow merely bounced off. the same arrow pierced the crimped end of the drum (bum shot). remember that is a double crimp, 6 thicknesses) but I was using a 110LB bow from the same distance 30 yards.
When I was training into becoming a computer network engineer, a lecturer was commenting on Norton security products "there are them that can and there are them that write books" at that time, it seemed Norton were producing as many books as there were new security threats ;)
-
Well pointed out Mike, there are those that do and then those that write books, I will refrain from commenting on what is written in that "warbow" book,quite simply because I know the truth about these none existant experiments, I was there!
But nevertheless triton is right, make up a replica arrow and see what weight bow it takes to get it 220yds not 240.
This distance is the recognized distance between the 2 butts.
So far here in the uk only a handfull of archers have managed a military weight arrow over 220yds. And all the bows were well over 120lb and only 4 people have managed this same arrow over 240yds and these bows were 140+lbs, so this fact alone should show you that an 85lb bow has no chance at all, Italian yew or not.
Just think about it, you may start to see some contradictions in books by the same author.
Cheers
Steve
-
Chris,
Ain't that the truth. Just goes to show that we should double check our sources before committing it to print.
Steve,
It would perhaps be interesting to see the head weight and %FOC included in any description of arrows as regards achieving distance.
Rod.
-
AD---
We have the Tudor [not mediaeval] MR bows. What evidence would you accept ?
I think that Steve is correct here. Based on my experience I can not believe that ANY MR yew longbow with MR taper from a 1 ½” x ! ¼” handgrip would draw less than 120.pounds.
Yards were ‘clothyards’ or ‘Tailors yards’, standardized in Richard Lionheart’s reign for measuring cloth or land and were at least as long as our yards. Then, paces were then not the later military pace but were measured between footfalls of the same foot. A 1495 source says “ the pace conteyneth 5 feet “.
Concerning bowstrings, we know that the served string was only 1/8 “ thick . Military strings were made of hemp and two spares were considered enough for a combat archer, but we can’t get the quality of hemp that was used at the time, and if we refuse to consider the historical information in my post on the subject, we wouldn’t know how to make one anyway.
Triton— Clout distance in MR days was 220 yards minimum and archers of 24 years or older were forbidden to shoot at a mark of less than 11 score with the lighter clout arrow or the still lighter flight arrow. Cornish archers required to practice but exempt from overseas service shot 24 score clout. For the short range shooting Ascham mentions butts at 12 score.. But he was just a recreational shooter. !5th century butts are recorded at “13 score tailor’s yards measured with a line” In 1599 Finsbury marks were up to nearly 20 score. I think pretty heavy draw weights would have been needed.
Words of wisdom. There are those that do, and those who write books, and there are those who do both, and those who think that information becomes worthless if it is written down in a book?
Regards,
Erik
-
Words of wisdom. There are those that do, and those who write books, and there are those who do both, and those who think that information becomes worthless if it is written down in a book?
Regards,
Erik
When you put what I'd said earleir with this
His examination of the MR bows he found to be in support of his approximate 100lb @ 30inch standard bow.
He write that bows he made of Italian yew around 85lb @30 when drawn to 31.5 can reach the necessary distances.
It gives my statement it's proper context. Some books are very valuable but to suggest the MR bows were between 85-100LB proves that opinions are often written as fact and those without the necessary experience may take it as gospel. There are also those that have a marketing agenda?
We can't get the quality of hemp for bow strings they had because.............that strain of hemp is now illegal to grow ;)
-
When you put what I'd said earleir with this
His examination of the MR bows he found to be in support of his approximate 100lb @ 30inch standard bow.
He write that bows he made of Italian yew around 85lb @30 when drawn to 31.5 can reach the necessary distances.
It gives my statement it's proper context. Some books are very valuable but to suggest the MR bows were between 85-100LB proves that opinions are often written as fact and those without the necessary experience may take it as gospel. There are also those that have a marketing agenda?
[/quote]
This is where reality becomes fantasy, I will say this one more time, No tests were done by this person or by anyone else with regards Italian yew at the time this book and his previous book was written, also this person has not had any Italian Yew since 2004, he may have done tests later with some low altitude swiss yew that I know he had, The latest book was written well after that. Also only 10 bows were made at that time, I had 3 of them, another friend of mine also had 2, the others were sold to various people around the country and Europe, So I re iterate no tests were done by him on these bows, Any tests that have been done with bows from this wood have been done by myself, Mark Stretton and other members of the EWBS.
I am sorry to sound like I'm having a rant, but I have had enough of people asking me about the SO CALLED TESTS I DID FOR HIS BOOKS, because I never did any, however this shows how people will read something and believe its gospel because it was in a book.
-
Exactly
-
Just an aside on converting paces into yards.
Back in the 19thC there was some contention about the ranges shot accurately with large calibre rifles and at the Creedmore range there was a study of distances accounted in paces.
The conclusion was that the average for a normal walking "pace" was from 27" to 30".
Rod.
-
I'd have to say that 'gospel truth' problem applies equally to all writing ...and only hope my summary of Bickerstaffe's book was as accurate as it was concise ;).
I take it there's a long standing difference of opinion and some falling out between two factions of bowyers/archers up in the midlands. Shame really when you have such an enjoyable hobby in common which you could all share. I don't want to feed the fire with questions so I'll shut up, only saying thanks to those who have explained the heavier war bow view.
Mind you the internet can also do funny things to people; a few years ago I remember being given a link to an aquarium/fish forum where a contentious argument that went on for 40 pages eventually split the forum into two. Having no interest in either side of the argument, it was a rather sad thread to read through.
Regards and have a good weekend - Sunday promises to be good shooting weather :)
-
Well this is pretty cool readin thats fer sure. Y'all make some good points. I still don't see too many archers sportin 160# bows. I know theres people who could shoot em. But I don't think their an average fer a archer though. I would really like ta see some good hard facts on these bows. I don't mind eattin a little crow.I done that plenty in my life. Another thing I guess I stumble with, is that I think of shootin as Drawin, Aiming, and shootin. I ferget there ain't too much aimin with that type a bow. Just elevation. Still I see y'alls interest in them fer sure.
-
Just to reiterate and add a tiny bit:
Dr Kooi was employed to calculate the draw weights of the Mary Rose bows when they were still under secure storage. He came up with a computer programme which worked out what the draw would be. I can't remember at the moment but I'm sure it was Dick Galloway or Ron Palmer, made bows to the same dimensions as those bows, the computer programme predictions were within a pound or two of the replicas.
IMO anyone that says the MR bows were no more than about 100LB either lacks experience or has an agenda. If you make bows upto 100LB you're going to sell more ;)
-
Hello everyone.
I am new and have really enjoyed reading all this. It is highly debatable and is sometimes very frustrating trying to explain what you believe is true. It`s a bit like debating religion. The above is good because nobody has been rude.
Anyway, I have tillered my own pair of longbows pulling at 100 and 110lb @ 32". I really think I know the answer to this question. Here it is;
Given you have as many war arrows as you want and you go to battle with your longbow, kiss the kids and wife goodbye. After about ten minutes, if you have filled your pants, then what you have in your hand is a longbow and not a warbow.
-
Just an aside on converting paces into yards.
Back in the 19thC there was some contention about the ranges shot accurately with large calibre rifles and at the Creedmore range there was a study of distances accounted in paces.
The conclusion was that the average for a normal walking "pace" was from 27" to 30".
Rod.
That is true for the 19th century military pace. The 'Roman' or 'geometric' pace of Tudor times, measured between footfalls of the same foot, was five feet.
-
Im sure the first deadly argument with a bow in a cave over fireburnt rabbit scraps wasnt settled with a one hundred pound bow. It may not have been war by conventional standards but it most certainly was war for the guy who didnt have to share the rest of the rabbit, Id say a warbow could be any bow that could end a mans life.
-
mspink,
whilst you are technically right I think you have the wrong end of the (bent?) stick. This thread refers to the English medieval/Tudor warbow not paleolithic bows.
-
On the other hand the use of draw weights in the 100 lb range are probably of far greater antiquity than many of us might think.
Rod.
-
I am sure you are right
I know these days most people think of a 100lb bow as being very heavy but once you get over this idea and start trying heavy bows you soon find you think of a 100lb bow as being a very light bow
-
alan,
I find 110# pleasant to shoot, but after 40shots my shoulders hurt pretty much, and I quit. I won't say that 110# is really heavy, but neither would I say 100# is very light.
Nick
-
I bet if you tried a 100lb bow you would be surprised how light it feels now you are used to using a 110lb one
I have a 105lb bow I use for indoor archery and after shooting my 140lb one it really does feel like I am not trying at all and I could hold it at full draw for hours (although I probably couldn't)
-
I bet if you tried a 100lb bow you would be surprised how light it feels now you are used to using a 110lb one
I have a 105lb bow I use for indoor archery and after shooting my 140lb one it really does feel like I am not trying at all and I could hold it at full draw for hours (although I probably couldn't)
And probably shouldn't!, not unless you want to break it.
-
I would like to know when was the earliest use of the term 'warbow' ? I have not come across it in any mediaeval or Renaissance writings and I suspect that it may be a modern made-up word. I wonder why we should exclude less powerful longbows from investigation. BTW the word longbow was nof a Victorian invention.
Erik
-
I think the term "warbow" comes from or at least was made popular by Robert Hardy's book "The Great Warbow"
I don't think lighter bows should be ignored but I think we need to distinguish between them and the bows which would have been used for war as they are very different and I think even now some people believe that the 40lb bow they have is a replica of the bows used at Agincourt (although things have improved a lot in this respect even in the 3 years I have been interested in archery)
-
The term ‘warbow’, with regard to the Anglo-Welsh medieval/Tudor tradition may not be contemporary with the period it refers to. I believe livery bow may be more correct. However, it is a title that has become to categorise these bows. No one would degenerate the title ‘Neanderthal’ because a hominid of that type would not use it. We will never know what they used as a self descriptor but we do not argue over the modern version. By this token the, albeit, retrospective name of ‘English warbow’ is a useful one and describes the type of bow well to a modern audience.
-
I think the term "warbow" comes from or at least was made popular by Robert Hardy's book "The Great Warbow"
I don't think lighter bows should be ignored but I think we need to distinguish between them and the bows which would have been used for war as they are very different and I think even now some people believe that the 40lb bow they have is a replica of the bows used at Agincourt (although things have improved a lot in this respect even in the 3 years I have been interested in archery)
My impression has been that the 'livery' [issued by the crown or lord] such as the MR longbows differed from other longbows in that they were stronger and longer versions, and were otherwise the same, arrow length etc.. If you know of other differences, I would appreciaate the information. If I am right, considering the "warbow"as a separate beast leaves out mediaeval and Tudor information about longbows and leaves us with very little information about "warbows' which were not mentioned by that title. Of course a 40 lb bow would not have been used at Agincourt, it would have been used to teach archery to a child.
-
Honestly; I think there are a lot of people who really believe their 40lb target longbow is apart from not being a self bow just like the bows used at Agincourt
seeing some of the re enactments done and t.v. programs you can understand why - how often do we see a T.V. program talking of "the mighty longbows of Agincourt" then see someone twang a little butt bow as a demonstration
As I say, even in the last 3 years there has been a big change in this and the idea of shooting a very heavy bow is starting to be accepted as maybe not that insane after all
so its not been so much a matter of ignoring lighter longbows as trying to get people to accept the idea that heavy ones existed at all!
-
I think bow-toxo is right about the meaning of "livery" - it normally refers to uniform issued to a servant or retainer. When applied to a bow it would simply mean "standard/government issue". I doubt if this implied a particular style of bow, probably it just meant one that was issued from store rather than something bespoke for the individual archer.
-
That's right. An issued bow would have been for war and not for recreation/hunting so any livery bow was a 'warbow'. There must have been personal bows used for war that were, obviously, not livery bows. During the medieval/Tudor period in England there simply was not the plethora of bows we have now so everyone largely knew what a bow was simply by that term.
-
That's right. An issued bow would have been for war and not for recreation/hunting so any livery bow was a 'warbow'. There must have been personal bows used for war that were, obviously, not livery bows. During the medieval/Tudor period in England there simply was not the plethora of bows we have now so everyone largely knew what a bow was simply by that term.
Before the Hundred Years War in the feudal system. levys could be used only in homeland defense and only for a limited time while foreign mercenaries were used in foreign wars . In that period , personal bows may have been used in the levys. Edward III changed the system to one of locally recruited and paid archers, so at the beginning of the Hundred Years War the crown began to order [livery] bows and arrows to be made in huge numbers for the war. Any personal bows used in war after that time must have been few in niumber. Bow terminology at that time included "crossbow", "hand bow", "long bow"[two words}, "livery bow" and "small bow". No mention of "warbow" that I can find.
-
Bow-toxo: I don't think anyone is claiming that the word "warbow" was used back then?
it is just a modern word used to describe the heavy draw longbows which were designed for use in war in days of old
-
Bow-toxo: I don't think anyone is claiming that the word "warbow" was used back then?
it is just a modern word used to describe the heavy draw longbows which were designed for use in war in days of old
Yes, that's true. My concern is that limiting the discussion to English bows that were used in war leaves us with only the Mary Rose bows, the only ones we have the physical evidence for and ignores mediaeval and Tudor information about practice bows, horn nocks, brace height, training methods, string type etc. etc. because it is of course not attached to the newly coined word 'warbow'.
-
I see what you mean
I think any info relating to longbows from the medieval/tudor periods is relevant to warbow discussion because as you say there is so little info. out there
-
I fully understand the economics of stepping up through draw-weight with affordable bows, but I still believe that there are proper "war" bows and there are other bows of "war" bow weight.
Possibly a fine distinction, but a real distinction nonetheless.
That is until someone goes to war with heavy lawn archery bows made from non period hardwoods. ;-)
Rod.
-
As there is no official definition of "warbow" then its going to mean different things to different people
I personally think that having sidenocks is more important than using the correct wood
e.g. What the bow is made of makes little difference to the shooting experience so if all you have ever shot is a heavy laminate bow and someone hands you a true replica of a medieval warbow (or even a restored Mary Rose bow) you would have no problem using it
if you have never used sidenocks you may well find you don't know how to use it?
-
Obviously the nocks on the Mary Rose staves would seem to indicate that the side nock was favoured at that time for tillering, quite possibly they are also an indication that the horn nocks were cut through to the stave, which is more than possible with a shallow flush nock, as opposed to the flared or breasted nock common on later sporting bows, which makes a heavy bow harder to string.
Rod.
-
Obviously the nocks on the Mary Rose staves would seem to indicate that the side nock was favoured at that time for tillering, quite possibly they are also an indication that the horn nocks were cut through to the stave, which is more than possible with a shallow flush nock, as opposed to the flared or breasted nock common on later sporting bows, which makes a heavy bow harder to string.
Rod.
I really doubt that the side nock traces are remnants of tillering nocks. Ascham tells os that the final nocks followed the bow being shot, shortened and whipped, which would eliminate any trace of tillering nocks. Certainly I personally prefer, whenever possible, to tiller a stave longer than the final length of the bow, especially one of war bow weight. Horn nocks cut through to just touching the wood, make possible horn nocks of minimal thickness, making it easier to slip the string loop over the horn while avoiding damage to the really slender whipped ends. That's professionalism.
-
I don't know about historically, but mostly, when I see a bow listed as a 'Warbow', it doesn't have a wrapped handle. Most longbows have some kind of wrap on the handle. I don't know if this is significant or not. I have one of each: 1-60 lb longbow, and 1-80 lb warbow.
-
It certainly appears that none of the Mary Rose bows had a handle-wrap, since no bow has any kind of mark at that point. Also medieval depictions of these bows never show any. There are 2 possibilities; either it was considered an unnecessary expense, or the centre of the bow was just too fat to get your hand around when wrapped. Personally I favour the latter.
Dave
-
I have both, but I prefer a larger handle. I must say, that a wrapped handle just wouldn't look proper on a yew warbow. I have a 100# trilam with a wrapped grip, and I do like it. To each their own.
-
I don't know about historically, but mostly, when I see a bow listed as a 'Warbow', it doesn't have a wrapped handle. Most longbows have some kind of wrap on the handle. I don't know if this is significant or not. I have one of each: 1-60 lb longbow, and 1-80 lb warbow.
There is noi example of handgrip wrapping on any mediaeval or Tudor longbows from the Stone Age onward. Ascham tells us that the bow was to be rubbed down with a waxed woolen cloth before shooting especially, on damp or cold days. Handgrip wrapping would interfere with that. Of course anyone can add handgrip wrapping, plastic nocks, different tillering, bow quiver, laminations or any other inappropriate or perverted variations and call it a warbow. There isn't any law.
-
I think people are coming at the draw-weight question from the wrong angle. Everyone is asking "how much draw-weight can I pull?" when the question should be "how strong a bow is required to replicate the distances shot by a medieval/Tudor archer?"
My argument relies on two assumptions:
1) The statute of Henry VIII, that no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards, was put in place to enforce (and reinforce) military archery.
2) The 220 yard distance was shot with a military-standard arrow, or very similar
You may disagree with these assumptions. That can be the subject of separate discussions.
Acquire yourself a military arrow. The EWBS Livery arrow is a pretty faithful representation of a MR arrow. The arrow should weigh approx 65 - 70g, be 30"+ in length, and have spiral-whipped fletchings, around 7.5" long.
The aim is to shoot that arrow statute distance - 220 yards. With a self-bow. Perhaps of "medieval" design.
A bow under 100lbs will almost certainly not reach the distance. A very good 120lb bow, with a good archer may achieve the distance. To consistently achieve, or exceed the statute distance requires a bow in excess of 120lb, and an archer fully comfortable with that bow (that is, well within his capabilities).
Evidence from EWBS (and other) shoot results seem to support this statement.
(As an aside: Many archers fail at this point, then start to look for evidence for a shorter 'medieval' yard (for example, the Pace) so they can say they've achieved the correct distance. This is called changing the conditions of the test, or 'cheating'!)
So, if you want to shoot a 'war bow' (however you define that!) you need to be looking at the end result (how far, and how accurately, you can shoot a military arrow) as opposed to one rather simplistic metric (the bow weight).
I think you will find this a much more rewarding challenge than the brute-force and ignorance argument of "I can shoot a XXXXlb bow, therefore it's a warbow"
-
A couple of things I'd say in response to that. Your first assumption that "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards" I believe is actually an incomplete part of the statement, I do not have access to the actual statute, but as I understand it it goes something like "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards with prickling/flight arrows", an important difference I'd say.
Also in response to: "(As an aside: Many archers fail at this point, then start to look for evidence for a shorter 'medieval' yard (for example, the Pace) so they can say they've achieved the correct distance. This is called changing the conditions of the test, or 'cheating'!)"
I can't really see how that could be construed as cheating? If indeed the medieval yard was shorter than the modern one then why should we not be measuring by that unit? After all if we wish to replicate Medieval requirements of military archers then why would we not use the original measurements of the time? It seems ridiculous not to do so, as wouldn't that be "changing the conditions for the test"?
-
wouldn't the arrows look more or less the same? fr'instance: light pricking arrows - poplar, aspen - around 70 grams.
Heavy armour penetrating arrows - Ash, oak - around 100 grams. otherwise dimensions and appearance very similar?
-
Dave is right on the quote about prickling arrows and the 220yd statute - the fact is that no one knows what such an arrow would look like but arrows made to MR specs out of aspen and armed with hardened points which are the right weight to optimise flight (an important point this, no pun intended) don't come in at 70-75g or even near. Closer 60-65 if you apply some no nonsense scientific thought to it. Many bows in the 90-100lb range can achieve 220yd with this sort of weight.
I was at Leeds armouries on Thursday and was struck by the meagre diplays on archery related things - but one thing was obvious and that was that there is no relationship whatever between the modern replicas of equipment shown (doubtless informed by people who owe much of what they believe to some cloud cuckoo land concept of aerodymamics and arrow flight - a good story for schoolkids but lets not buy it here) and the actual arrowheads shown - almost delicate, well made, no doubt hardened and clearly designed to do the job without making the arrow 'end heavy' beyond what was absolutely needed.
EWBS???? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.
C
-
A couple of things I'd say in response to that. Your first assumption that "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards" I believe is actually an incomplete part of the statement, I do not have access to the actual statute, but as I understand it it goes something like "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards with prickling/flight arrows", an important difference I'd say.
Also in response to: "(As an aside: Many archers fail at this point, then start to look for evidence for a shorter 'medieval' yard (for example, the Pace) so they can say they've achieved the correct distance. This is called changing the conditions of the test, or 'cheating'!)"
I can't really see how that could be construed as cheating? If indeed the medieval yard was shorter than the modern one then why should we not be measuring by that unit? After all if we wish to replicate Medieval requirements of military archers then why would we not use the original measurements of the time? It seems ridiculous not to do so, as wouldn't that be "changing the conditions for the test"?
To be fair, EnglishArcher did specify the EWBS livery arrow, not a flight arrow. The mediaeval pace was longer than a yard. It was the so-called Roman pace measured between footfalls of the same foot. A 15 th century source says"The pace contayneth five feet." The mediaeval yard was not shorter than the modern yard. The best research indicates that it was the same or one inch longer than our present yard. Check with the British Board of trade. As you say we should "use the original measurements of the time" if we want to honestly compare our performance rather than boost our egos.
-
Perhaps what I said came across in the wrong way, I understand EnglishArcher did specify the 220 yard distance to be shot with a heavier arrow, but what I'm saying is that the original statute was in regard to prickling arrows, not heavy ones so I don't see how we can say that being able to shoot a heavy arrow 220 yards was a standard of the time that archers must be able to achieve when that is not what the quote was in reference to. As for the varying length of the yard, I suppose that discussion could just go on and on, but again perhaps what I said came across in the wrong way. What I was saying was that if the medieval yard was different to the modern yard then we should be using the medieval yard to compare our achievements to rather than the modern one if we want to see how close we are getting to the requirements of the time.
-
I did agree with you that we should use the original distancees. As I understand the statute, the archer, practicing for war, was not to use the lighter prick shafts [ the ones used in clout shooting] or flight arrows at the shorter distances { less than 220 yards}.
At those distances he was to use the heavier arrows designed for maximum penetration. Really, I agreed with you.
-
Dave is right on the quote about prickling arrows and the 220yd statute - the fact is that no one knows what such an arrow would look like but arrows made to MR specs out of aspen and armed with hardened points which are the right weight to optimise flight (an important point this, no pun intended) don't come in at 70-75g or even near. Closer 60-65 if you apply some no nonsense scientific thought to it. Many bows in the 90-100lb range can achieve 220yd with this sort of weight.
I was at Leeds armouries on Thursday and was struck by the meagre diplays on archery related things - but one thing was obvious and that was that there is no relationship whatever between the modern replicas of equipment shown (doubtless informed by people who owe much of what they believe to some cloud cuckoo land concept of aerodymamics and arrow flight - a good story for schoolkids but lets not buy it here) and the actual arrowheads shown - almost delicate, well made, no doubt hardened and clearly designed to do the job without making the arrow 'end heavy' beyond what was absolutely needed.
EWBS???? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.
C
The EWBS has some members that have researched the MR finds probably more in depth research than anyone else, including some of the more notable authors and the EWBS Livery arrow is probably closer than you think to an MR arrow and yes the weight is as you say between 60-65g and makes that 220yds quite attainable for bows of moderately heavy draw weights. However that is only to be able to reach the distance whilst shooting at a 45deg angle, this obviously does not mean it is capable of reaching the required distance with a consistant accurate shot, this would need a heavier draw weight bow which will be shot at a reduced angle for accurate shooting.
-
Well, thats a graceful reply to a potentially provocative post - so hats off! Actually, If I was shooting a 60-65g arrow and trying to get 220yds, I wouldn't need to shoot at 45 degree with either of the 100lb or so hardwood laminate bows of which I have significant experience. With those, I would expect 240yd or so. I don't know if you were at the Finsbury shoot at Sandon recently, but if you were, you would have seen me shooting 220yds yd with a 110lb swiss yew bow with 86g arrows, but that was at 45 degrees.
The discussion seems to have suddenly moved to needing to shoot 220 yds relatively flat. Well pardon me, but I've always had the view that engagements opened with a volley at about 45degrees and gven the relative standardisation of the MR arrow, this would appear to be with a 60-65g arrow for longest range, and if the distance at the marks was 220yd, then one would guess that this, or somewhere thereabouts, is what was done with those arrows. I can see the point which you are making of accurate shooting by shooting straighter - but it isn't a given. I certainly shoot more accurately that way, but the people who win at clout competitions generally do so with an aim at or about 45 degrees using lighter bows, so it isn't by definition inaccurate to do it that way. Much has been made of the skill of archers of old and this has been used to infer that they might have been able to use much higher draw weights than we are accustomed to. I have always preferred to argue that this would have made them better archers (at a variety of draw weights) and this would have stood them in better stead than being able to use, for example, 150lb bows.
C
-
BTW - Don't forget that shooting an arrow at 45 degrees will result in the arrow having much more speed at its target than a more flat shot will have, so it is preferable for that reason
-
BTW - Don't forget that shooting an arrow at 45 degrees will result in the arrow having much more speed at its target than a more flat shot will have, so it is preferable for that reason
I very much doubt that this is the case Alan. I'm no physicist and maths is not my strong point but my logic goes thus. An arrow has most energy when it leaves a bow, converts kinetic energy into mostly potential energy at the apex of its flight and converts that potential energy back into kinetic energy when it comes back down again aided by gravity. No system is completely efficient however and the arrow loses energy to friction with the air when it flies. An arrow with a longer flight path therefore has more opportunity to lose energy to friction than an arrow with a shorter one and therefore, the flatter shot arrow will maintain a bigger proportion of its kinetic energy when leaving the bow than the high shot one.
A flatter shot, is therefore probably a 'stronger' shot - in fact this might be the basis of the idea of 'strong shooting' in which we are all interested. Having said all of that, the longest shot is the one at 45 degrees on flat land and its still likely that this is what was employed in long distance harrying with lighter arrows and this distance is what archers had to be able to reach with those arrows, which kind of makes it reasonable to suppose that it was in or about 220yds or the minimum distance with prickling arrows.
C
-
The theory I am going on is that if you shoot a arrow very high it will be doing something close to the speed it left the bow at by the time it comes down again (because its falling from a very great height)
I have tried shooting arrows as high and far as I can and measured the speed of the arrow coming down using my high speed camera and they do come down very fast
so if you shoot say 100 yards as flat as you can the arrow speed will be reducing all the time it travels, if you shoot the same distance very high it will be travelling much faster when it hits ?
BTW - In fact here is the video http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.blackham/ewbs/hscam/incoming.avi
not an ideal video I know but it was a proof of concept - I then never got round to doing anything with it
The video is filmed at 420frames per sec, the arrow if 34" total length and it takes about 10 frames to travel its length so its doing 120 feet per second on the way down
the arrow was shot from a 120lb bow around 210 yards at a very high angle
-
I understand your theory - its just that I think its wrong for the reasons outlined. What you are arguing is akin to saying that an arrow has somehow become a perpetual motion engine which goes faster the longer its in the air. This is physically impossible. The more time its in flight and going up, the more energy it will lose to friction and there isn't any way to get it back!
Heavier arrows suffer less than light - they carry more momentum, but in general terms I believe what I say to be true. Thinking laterally, the same reasoning makes downhill skiers avoid time in the air when they do jumps - they lose too much speed to friction whereas on the snow, they can glide well and remain aerodynamic by minimising drag by posture etc.
In all these things, friction with the air is the killer.
C
-
Mark Stretton did some similar tests regrding penetration at various distance and these were measured at the Defence academy test centre at Shrivenham, the results were that:
0-40 yds maximum penetration
40-80 yds minimal reduction in penetration, 2-4% less
80-100 yds penetration was down by 8-10%
100-180 serious reduction in penetration at its worst at 180 yds, approx 15% less
180 -200 a marked increase in penetration from the 180yds penetration approx 8%
200-240yds again an increase in penetration, this time only approx 6% loss from maximum penetration.
So I'm afraid Chris I do agree with Alan on this one.
-
I guess the only way to know for sure is do some experiments?
I may give it a go myself some time
As posted above as I was typing this; Mark Streton published some great results on the arrow speed at different distances in The Glade a good while back which shows a graph of arrow penetration against distance which shows nicely how arrows can have more energy at greater distances but I dont think he compared same distances shot at different elevations?
e.g. it shows an arrow shot 180 yards penetrated 6" where as an arrow shot 200 yards penetrated nearly 8"
but this would suggest that shooting 180 yards he would get more penetration if he had shot a much higher arrow ?
so at least in some cases this shows my theory would be true (how often this is the case is another question?)
-
An object (an arrow or a sky diver or a rock) when falling will reach terminal velocity. It can not and does not accelerate. Terminal velocity is around 90 mph. Objects will deviate from this due to air friction or drag. So, an arrow can not magically accelerate beyond terminal velocity while it is falling. After reaching its apex, the arrow will begin to fall and reach this terminal speed. It will have the most energy upon realease, so in fact, you're both correct. It will have its greatest energy upon realease, its least at apex, and then something slightly higher after reaching terminal velocity upon returning to earth.
-
I agree, this means the arrow has an ultimate max speed it can attain when falling
in fact I have thought in the past it would be good to drop an arrow from a great height to find out what its terminal velocity is
The question is; is terminal velocity (assuming they fall from high enough to reach it) greater than the speed the arrow would be doing if shot flat
From Mark's results it suggests an arrow shot high to 200 yards is doing about the same speed an arrow shot flat at 40 yards will be doing, so an arrow shot flat further than 40 yards will presumably be doing less than this (from the same bow etc.)
btw - this is just from looking at the graph so is estimates
-
Mark Stretton did some similar tests regrding penetration at various distance and these were measured at the Defence academy test centre at Shrivenham, the results were that:
0-40 yds maximum penetration
40-80 yds minimal reduction in penetration, 2-4% less
80-100 yds penetration was down by 8-10%
100-180 serious reduction in penetration at its worst at 180 yds, approx 15% less
180 -200 a marked increase in penetration from the 180yds penetration approx 8%
200-240yds again an increase in penetration, this time only approx 6% loss from maximum penetration.
So I'm afraid Chris I do agree with Alan on this one.
Thank you for sharing. What we were actually talking about was impact velocity last time I checked - penetration would be affected by many variables although I accept that velocity would be the prime factor involved.
I have to say that I would view those results as eye opening, even bizarre and I'd be grateful for the reference in a peer reviewed journal if you have one as I've never been tempted to buy the DVD. The reasons for my scepticism are
1 because it isn't what I'd expect given what I've said before and
2 it is wildly different to the impact velocities & energies given in the experiments run through a chronograph in the appendix to 'Great Warbow' which quote velocity losses of 19-24% (less for the heaviest arrow) at the end of the trajectory of a 45 degree shot with a variety of arrows and bows- which is what I would expect given the above.
3 Predictions based on coefficient of drag and velocities later in the same paper indicate falling impact energy with increasing range in a more or less linear fashion for all arrow types
Much as I admire Marks writings on other topics, I agree with Alan that an attempt at replication would be worthwhile - but using a chronograph rather than a hand held camera.
C
-
The problem is you cant really use a chronograph to measure the arrow speed at the target (unless you are VERY accurate at 200 yards)
this is why Mark used the penetration method as this was the only option available to him at the time
I understand the radar they were using couldn't measure it but I think this will be because you need a radar looking straight up at the incoming arrow
I have spoken to him about this in the past as I think there are more options available now
I first considered using a radar speed gun pointing up at the target to measure the incoming arrows speed and I even converted my radar gun so I could trigger it by radio control (as I didn't fancy standing at the target ;-) but never got round to actually trying it (story of my life ;-)
but since then I have got my high speed camera and I think there is a lot of potential to use this as you can use the zoom to film the incoming arrow from a reasonable distance and as the frame rate and arrow length is known you can figure out its speed
it would also be interesting to have the oportunity to test this against a chrono to see how accurate it is
BTW - If you watch a arrow coming down which has been shot at a high angle, one thing is clear - its coming down at a very high speed !
-
Hey, ChrisD
Velocity is not the greatest contributing factor to penetration. Mass is. A heavier object travelling slower, will penetrate much more than a lighter object travelling faster. Would you rather get hit by a ping-pong ball going 100 mph, or a golf ball going 50 mph? I know which one I'd pick... one might leave a bruse, but the other will probably break bone. This is one of the reasons heavier arrows are more efficient when shot from heavy bows. I use this principle when hunting with rifles. A larger, slower bullet will penetrate much better than a high velocity lighter bullet. When hunting dangerous game in Africa, hunters use big calibers because they shoot big bullets. They're not going very fast, but penetration is vital, otherwise you get stomped (keeping in mind bullet construction is also considered).
-
Hey, ChrisD
Velocity is not the greatest contributing factor to penetration. Mass is. A heavier object travelling slower, will penetrate much more than a lighter object travelling faster. Would you rather get hit by a ping-pong ball going 100 mph, or a golf ball going 50 mph? I know which one I'd pick... one might leave a bruse, but the other will probably break bone. This is one of the reasons heavier arrows are more efficient when shot from heavy bows. I use this principle when hunting with rifles. A larger, slower bullet will penetrate much better than a high velocity lighter bullet. When hunting dangerous game in Africa, hunters use big calibers because they shoot big bullets. They're not going very fast, but penetration is vital, otherwise you get stomped (keeping in mind bullet construction is also considered).
Sorry adb, yes I know - but the mass of the arrow (or bullet or whatever) doesn't change between points a and b in a trajectory (unless of course it approaches light speed ;D). In any scientific experiment, you try to look at one variable only and control for all the others. In the case of penetration with an arrow of standard mass and a bow of standard weight and archers of standard ability, changes in velocity should tell you whether the penetration will be better or worse at the various distances. Penetration of course will also vary with angle of incidence and a whole host of other factors no doubt, which is why for this question, I would favour results derived from chronograph data.
As I think I mentioned before, heavier arrows do better - they weigh more and carry more momentum as a result, but like I say, the mass doesn't vary in flight so its a bit of a 'so what?'
C
-
EWBS???? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.
Hello Chris,
I wonder if you could clarify some of your points, please?
I don't think any archery group is also a scientific organisation or am I wrong? The EWBS is the only group to differentiate between different period bow woods and non-period bows so it's data is very valid.
Secondly, you raise scrutineering or authentication. When I shot with the BL-BS, Pickwicks (Simon Stanley's Military arrow) and shoot with GNAS I was not aware of any outside scrutineering from another body. Was this the case? Actually at Batsford it could be argued that this happens, however perhaps you have a point. Al and I are putting on a shoot on the 29th August and it would be great if you could come down and verify the distances. Why not post the results here? It's an open shoot so no worries about insurance. You can shoot too, I'll pay your entry fee. I'll send you a PM with the details, you will have fun I'm sure.
Finally, have you seen our Livery Arrow specification? Here are links to it in more depth.
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/EWBS_ARROW_SPECIFICATIONS.html
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/tudor-livery-arrow.html
Given that not even the MR arrows were of one design and we can never know every detail for absolutely sure I wonder what you think is amiss and what society's arrow spec' is better?
Cheers,
Jeremy
Edited due to spelling
-
EWBS???? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.
Al and I are putting on a shoot on the 29th August and it would be great if you could come down and verify the distances. Why not post the results here? It's an open shoot so no worries about insurance. You can shoot too, I'll pay your entry fee. I'll send you a PM with the details, you will have fun I'm sure.
Finally, have you seen our Livery Arrow specification? Here are links to it in more depth.
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/EWBS_ARROW_SPECIFICATIONS.html
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/tudor-livery-arrow.html
Given that not even the MR arrows were of one design and we can never know every detail for absolutely sure I wonder what you think is amiss and what society's arrow spec' is better?
Cheers,
Jeremy
Edited due to spelling
Hi Chris,
I would just like to second Jeremys offer also and to say that we would warmly welcome any archer who is curious about the EWBS. Chris, if you would like to come you can PM Jeremy or myself for details and any others names who would like to come.
Regarding data, any shoots that Jeremy and I have organised we have gone to great lengths to compile lists of bow weights, wood types within our three bow classes relating to specifc arrow types/distances. I have also noted weather conditions/wind mph etc.
I thought you might be interested in the following:
Mary Rose Class (self-yew bow)
Livery Arrow: Average - 213 yards Average winning distance - 246 yards
It should also be noted that those archers reaching 220 yards or more shot self-yew bows of 120lbs+. The Society record is 272 yards shot by a bow a little over 130lbs.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
EWBS???? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.
Hello Chris,
I wonder if you could clarify some of your points, please?
I don't think any archery group is also a scientific organisation or am I wrong? The EWBS is the only group to differentiate between different period bow woods and non-period bows so it's data is very valid.
Secondly, you raise scrutineering or authentication. When I shot with the BL-BS, Pickwicks (Simon Stanley's Military arrow) and shoot with GNAS I was not aware of any outside scrutineering from another body. Was this the case? Actually at Batsford it could be argued that this happens, however perhaps you have a point. Al and I are putting on a shoot on the 29th August and it would be great if you could come down and verify the distances. Why not post the results here? It's an open shoot so no worries about insurance. You can shoot too, I'll pay your entry fee. I'll send you a PM with the details, you will have fun I'm sure.
Finally, have you seen our Livery Arrow specification? Here are links to it in more depth.
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/EWBS_ARROW_SPECIFICATIONS.html
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/tudor-livery-arrow.html
Given that not even the MR arrows were of one design and we can never know every detail for absolutely sure I wonder what you think is amiss and what society's arrow spec' is better?
Cheers,
Jeremy
Edited due to spelling
Jeremy (and Alistair)
You're right, other archery associations don't class themselves as scientific organisations either- but then I don't remember the Pickwicks or anyone involved as claiming 'discoveries' about the MR bows or anything else. True, the JH competition was an attempt in the direction of data collection but you don't get it bandied around on any forum (not even on the closed one which I participate in).
I agree with you that the issue of scrutineering really does need looking at - not only for the satisfaction of the archery community but also for the enhancement of the good reputations of the archers who achieve what they do. The example below
The record was set at around 430 yds but this was not a recorded world flight record
The actual distance was recorded at 438yds, shot by Alistair Aston, this is an official record with the EWBS and a world record, just because it wasn't shot at a FITA event doesn't mean it isn't official. It was measured with laser range finders by Mark Stretton and the bow was checked by both Mark Stretton and Steve Stratton, both commitee oficials within the EWBS, this shot was witnessed by over 50 other archers from around Europe
Illustrates my point. Yes it is scrutineering, but no it isn't independent - although I don't doubt that the best possible was done on the day. A flight shoot is basically a speed test. In any speed test of which I'm aware, the scrutineering is done by a different organisation to the organiser/participants. The FIA for example is separate from FOTA or the team owners in F1 motor racing. Thus the highest standards are maintained - and if this was done, you wouldn't get the squawking that goes on each time the EWBS announces a NEW WORLD RECORD.
Its kind of you both to invite me to your shoot on 29th Aug. I'm due to be out of the country then but I wouldn't attend in any case as a scrutineer, I'd like to shoot - I can think of a number of appropriate people to do that who have never weighed in in any part of the debates between the heavy bow interested parties and are therefore properly independent and of stature in the field. I would like to attend one of your open shoots however and if there is one between about mid Sept and mid Oct, please pm me. After that, all bets are off for me for now and perhaps for some time as I will be awaiting the imminent birth of child no 2 and my archery may be stuffed for a bit.
All the best to you both.
Chris
-
EWBS???? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.
Hello Chris,
I wonder if you could clarify some of your points, please?
I don't think any archery group is also a scientific organisation or am I wrong? The EWBS is the only group to differentiate between different period bow woods and non-period bows so it's data is very valid.
Secondly, you raise scrutineering or authentication. When I shot with the BL-BS, Pickwicks (Simon Stanley's Military arrow) and shoot with GNAS I was not aware of any outside scrutineering from another body. Was this the case? Actually at Batsford it could be argued that this happens, however perhaps you have a point. Al and I are putting on a shoot on the 29th August and it would be great if you could come down and verify the distances. Why not post the results here? It's an open shoot so no worries about insurance. You can shoot too, I'll pay your entry fee. I'll send you a PM with the details, you will have fun I'm sure.
Finally, have you seen our Livery Arrow specification? Here are links to it in more depth.
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/EWBS_ARROW_SPECIFICATIONS.html
http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/tudor-livery-arrow.html
Given that not even the MR arrows were of one design and we can never know every detail for absolutely sure I wonder what you think is amiss and what society's arrow spec' is better?
Cheers,
Jeremy
Edited due to spelling
Jeremy (and Alistair)
You're right, other archery associations don't class themselves as scientific organisations either- but then I don't remember the Pickwicks or anyone involved as claiming 'discoveries' about the MR bows or anything else. True, the JH competition was an attempt in the direction of data collection but you don't get it bandied around on any forum (not even on the closed one which I participate in).
I agree with you that the issue of scrutineering really does need looking at - not only for the satisfaction of the archery community but also for the enhancement of the good reputations of the archers who achieve what they do. The example below
The record was set at around 430 yds but this was not a recorded world flight record
The actual distance was recorded at 438yds, shot by Alistair Aston, this is an official record with the EWBS and a world record, just because it wasn't shot at a FITA event doesn't mean it isn't official. It was measured with laser range finders by Mark Stretton and the bow was checked by both Mark Stretton and Steve Stratton, both commitee oficials within the EWBS, this shot was witnessed by over 50 other archers from around Europe
Illustrates my point. Yes it is scrutineering, but no it isn't independent - although I don't doubt that the best possible was done on the day. A flight shoot is basically a speed test. In any speed test of which I'm aware, the scrutineering is done by a different organisation to the organiser/participants. The FIA for example is separate from FOTA or the team owners in F1 motor racing. Thus the highest standards are maintained - and if this was done, you wouldn't get the squawking that goes on each time the EWBS announces a NEW WORLD RECORD.
Its kind of you both to invite me to your shoot on 29th Aug. I'm due to be out of the country then but I wouldn't attend in any case as a scrutineer, I'd like to shoot - I can think of a number of appropriate people to do that who have never weighed in in any part of the debates between the heavy bow interested parties and are therefore properly independent and of stature in the field. I would like to attend one of your open shoots however and if there is one between about mid Sept and mid Oct, please pm me. After that, all bets are off for me for now and perhaps for some time as I will be awaiting the imminent birth of child no 2 and my archery may be stuffed for a bit.
All the best to you both.
Chris
Hi Chris,
It's a shame that you can't make the August shoot, maybe as you said, some other time.
Trying to stagger to somewhere near topic, I was using the data collected at our shoots (livery arrow/self-yew bow) to illustrate how we can further our understanding using modern approximations and I am sure that as time progresses this will give a valuable insight into what lbs make a warbow.
Scrutineering is an interesting point and one that I am at a loss in which to offer something that would please you. I would argue that GNAS/GB Archery flight championships (validated by FITA) offer a benchmark and would suggest that for the last two world flight records (FITA) set reflect/are very close to those set at EWBS shoots for self and laminated bows (non-historical), incidently shot by the same archers.
Anyway all the best,
Alistair
-
Hello Chris,
Yes, that is a shame you cannot come. The offer was for you to also shoot if you missed that on my original post as well as scrutineering.
Sorry, I'm more interested in archery than motor sports. I'll take your word for it :)
Cheers,
Jeremy