Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: staveshaver on April 27, 2009, 01:31:50 pm
-
I have read that at the slightest hint of rain, English warbowmen would unbrace their bows and call it a day , if this is true could it be possible that the strings they used were gut? In a beef culture the material would be plentiful, and cheep. it is more than strong enough and it may explain why no strings were found on the mary rose .This is pure speculation.I am sure some of you can debunk this theory easily but it is a thought, I am learning more since I found this forum than in my whole life . I have been a bowyer for half my life and made a lot of long bows but my next project will be a war bow.
-
only input I can offer at the moment is from personal experience as a butcher near 30 years ago. lambs intestine was used for sausage skins, myself and another trainee had some fun in that shop, tug-o-war with lambs gut. when it's soaked in hot water it resembles what it was like inside the animal, soft, pliable and very elastic radially but not longitudinally. If it was twisted (as it is between sausage links) and held taught between pegs, it would certainly be very stiff and strong.
-
as far as I know the warbowstrings were usually made of linen, or hemp. You want to avoid anything elastic on those big bows, trust me. A non-prestretched b-50string will stretch enormously, and slapping the bowhand violently, even with a high brace. It could be the strings were treated with hideglue, or something else, though.
Nick
-
A bit of testing was done by someone on PP and he found that linen strings actually gained in strength when they got wet
-
A bit of testing was done by someone on PP and he found that linen strings actually gained in strength when they got wet
Really? That is interesting, I'll have to look that up, any idea as to when it was posted?
-
I couldn't tell you an exact date but it was not much more than a couple months ago
P.S. I believe it was a thread that dealt with linen strings and was in fact titled that
-
Thanks Marc!
-
The guys findings made sense to me. Wood gets brittle when too dry especially in tension and linen is a natural fiber
-
Hi Marc,
I found it! IT makes very interesting reading, the thread title is 'Linen strings on high performance bows'.
Nick
-
"In the second part of this book, which will treat of bow strings, you will be told of the number of ways in which strings should be made, and of what the best are made. Bow strings are made of raw green silk and of hemp. Strings made of silk are good for flight shooting for three reasons, as Sexmodus tells us. The first is, that silk is so strong that it lasts longer without breaking than any other material. The second is, that the string can be made as thin as may be desired. The third is, that when properly made the string is so springy that it propels the arrow further and with greater force than when made of any other material The silk should be naturally green, and not burnt by dyeing, for it is spun green by silkworms. The other material of which strings are made is hemp, and this is of two kinds, male and female. The male is thick and coarse, and consequently is worthless for bow strings. The female sort is good, but it must be carefully picked and very well chosen. A good string should be gummed and not glued. The loop should be as small as possible, and well stretched with a stone weight (etendue fort a bonnes pierres de fais). And if you wish to know if a string is good, untwist the middle of it, and if the three strands are separate and distinct, it is a good one, provided always that when the string is twisted up again, it is hard and firm, for the harder it is, the better it will be."
from http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/gallice/docs/chapter04-1.html
-
Thanks for the feedback fellas ,so could we surmise that putting away their bows in the rain is a myth? it is silly when you think about the idea. if such were the case Braveheart just would have attacked in the rain ! LOL
-
I have read that at the slightest hint of rain, English warbowmen would unbrace their bows and call it a day , if this is true could it be possible that the strings they used were gut? In a beef culture the material would be plentiful, and cheep. it is more than strong enough and it may explain why no strings were found on the mary rose .This is pure speculation.I am sure some of you can debunk this theory easily but it is a thought, I am learning more since I found this forum than in my whole life . I have been a bowyer for half my life and made a lot of long bows but my next project will be a war bow.
Some ot the Roman period arrows from Denmark had nocks a little largrer than the usual 1/8" string, but there is no record of mediaeval European gut strings, period. The military archers did keep their bow strings dry, maybe to protect the 'waterglewe' coating mentioned by Smythe. In the early Middle Ages, strings mentioned in the records were linen and silk, silk being much preferred, but more expensive. Later, hemp came into use. The quote Triton posted [thanks !] is from just a little earlier than Ascham's time, when war bows like the MR ones were of hemp. Even though that quote is from France, there is very little disagreement with Ascham. If you ase interested in Tudor bowstrings, I suggest you read my post on the subject or the one reprinted despite threats to "shoot it down bigtime." It wasn't shot down.
-
I have read that at the slightest hint of rain, English warbowmen would unbrace their bows and call it a day
That's news to me, despite the account of men keeping their strings under their hats at Crecy.
There are accounts enough of fights in inclement weather.
What about Towton, for example?
If the string was an unwaxed spare, I might put it under my hat rather than subject it to a soaking, not for fear of it breaking, but not wishing the relaxed string to take on too much moisture.
Having said that it is likely that a well waxed string, twisted and taut under bracing tension, would be far less prone to absorbing moisture.
With a linen string what I do not want are short fibres and dryness.
Our linen industry in it's heyday was based in Lancashire and N.Ireland just because a damper climate was necessary for the machine production of linen thread, it being more too prone to breakage when spun in dry conditions.
Rod.
-
uote]That's news to me, despite the account of men keeping their strings under their hats at Crecy.
There are accounts enough of fights in inclement weather.
What about Towton, for example?
If the string was an unwaxed spare, I might put it under my hat rather than subject it to a soaking, not for fear of it breaking, but not wishing the relaxed string to take on too much moisture.
Having said that it is likely that a well waxed string, twisted and taut under bracing tension, would be far less prone to absorbing moisture.
With a linen string what I do not want are short fibres and dryness.
Our linen industry in it's heyday was based in Lancashire and N.Ireland just because a damper climate was necessary for the machine production of linen thread, it being more too prone to breakage when spun in dry conditions.
Rod.
Giood point about Towton. Linen strings have been found to be as strong wet as dry. The only reason I can find to keep them dry would be to protect the 'water-glewe' with which they were treated. Spare strings for military archers were prepared, even to the bowyers knot, served, no doubt waxed, and ready to clap on the bow at a moments notice.
-
I have an Aldred kid's bow which has it's original string and it is drying out that most of all causes the glue coating to fragment on the string.
A little humidity would not be much of a problem with such a string, probably a benefit.
Rod.
-
Why then would Hemp, or Linen decay any faster than wood? ( such as on the Mary Rose) it is all cellulose.
-
Why then would Hemp, or Linen decay any faster than wood? ( such as on the Mary Rose) it is all cellulose.
The bows were not just any wood, but yew, which used to be used for fence posts because it was so resistant to decay. I guess the next question would be: "Then why didn't the arrows decay" Maybe someone has an answer to that. Maybe the varnish ?
-
I thought most of the artefacts which were recovered from the Mary Rose survived because they were buried in the silt of the seabed, where the conditions were anaerobic, allowing minimal decay.
-
Why then would Hemp, or Linen decay any faster than wood? ( such as on the Mary Rose) it is all cellulose.
The bows were not just any wood, but yew, which used to be used for fence posts because it was so resistant to decay. I guess the next question would be: "Then why didn't the arrows decay" Maybe someone has an answer to that. Maybe the varnish ?
half the hull of the ship survived and that was made of oak.
i must admit, ive never hered of yew being used as fence posts? :-\
-
I've heard of osage being used as fence posts.
-
yew as a fencepost. Such a WASTE! ;)
without oxigen, there's very little to decay eh :p Keep that in mind :)
-
Problem with Linen strings when wet is that they mildew and rot! Think of the heat of battle and your string snaps because it rotted away after getting wet a week before in the rain. Hear come the French! There go the archers!!! ;)
-
Why then would Hemp, or Linen decay any faster than wood? ( such as on the Mary Rose) it is all cellulose.
The bows were not just any wood, but yew, which used to be used for fence posts because it was so resistant to decay. I guess the next question would be: "Then why didn't the arrows decay" Maybe someone has an answer to that. Maybe the varnish ?
half the hull of the ship survived and that was made of oak.
i must admit, ive never hered of yew being used as fence posts? :-\
There is a quote which I read long ago but stayed with me - 'A post of yew will outlast a post of iron'. No idea where I read it but it was written in the vernacular and iron was spelt 'yrn' I think.
I had a fence problem in my garden where the laths on top had rotted so as an experiment, I used a piece of yew sapwood about an inch thick bandsawed to the correct width and left untreated. 2 years have passed and there is no sign of decay at all!
C
-
Is it possible that strings were not yet purchased or supplied for the bows? even as I ask that question it sounds unlikely. I think there were 138 bows found on the M.R.( correct me if I'm wrong) there had to have been at least 300 strings on board. it is hard to believe not one would survive. As far as yew being resistant to decay , even if we allowed for yew outlasting iron; you're still only talking about 50 to 70 years at most. I don't know the exact number but I think it was 400 years under the sea. Maybe the strings were not stored along with the bows .Though I admit I'm speaking through ignorance, the absence of bowstrings on the M.R. is to me a mystery. It seems to me that what ever preserved the bows and arrows would preserve the strings as well.
-
since even leathergoods have been recovered, your theory probably makes sence.
-
Although both hemp/linen and wood contain cellulose, they are structurally very different. In wood the cellulose fibres are bound together with a variety of lignins which resist the rot induced by micro organisms. Yew is particularly resistant to rot, but any wood buried under anaerobic conditions will in any case be protected. If strings were in the mud you'd think they would also be protected so it's possible that the archers were carrying all the strings with them when the ship went down and these were exposed to the water, as would have been any strings on bows in use at the time.
Cheers, Dave
-
If strings were in the mud you'd think they would also be protected so it's possible that the archers were carrying all the strings with them when the ship went down and these were exposed to the water, as would have been any strings on bows in use at the time.
Cheers, Dave
That might be the explanation. One of the bows was found bent up in what would have been a shaftment brace height if the string were still on it. Obviously the set occurred before the string dissolved.
-
[/quote]
That might be the explanation. One of the bows was found bent up in what would have been a shaftment brace height if the string were still on it. Obviously the set occurred before the string dissolved.
[/quote]
If it was braced when the ship went down then why didn't it float away??????????, It seems a little strange that as it would float that it was still found around the wreck site after so many hundreds of years....hmmmmm!
-
If it was braced when the ship went down then why didn't it float away??????????, It seems a little strange that as it would float that it was still found around the wreck site after so many hundreds of years....hmmmmm!
Probably the same reason that the other bows and arrows found on the ship didn't float away, Apparently some did. The number recovered was fewer than thiose listed in the inventory.
-
Just a thought. If the bows were in silt, or even if they weren't this might work, could the strings have been found with the bows only they didn't realize it and the strings were washed away with the muck that was on the bow? A water logged string that has been sitting in muck might not be the different from the mud around it. Not sure how the bows were rescued but could the act of pulling them up destroyed the string.
Were other cloth artifacts found or was it only leather?
-
If it was braced when the ship went down then why didn't it float away??????????, It seems a little strange that as it would float that it was still found around the wreck site after so many hundreds of years....hmmmmm!
Probably the same reason that the other bows and arrows found on the ship didn't float away, Apparently some did. The number recovered was fewer than thiose listed in the inventory.
Well no! the other bows were packed in wooden chests and could not have floated away, but a bow braced would have been a bow in use at the time she went down and so would have floated away. The arrows were also cased apart from the ones in their leather spacers and as some of the spacers were found it suggests that the arrows that were packed in them have long since degraded to nothing, however the cased arrows were found in similar condition to the bows.
-
[quote author=Yewboy link=topic=12736.msg187997#msg187997 date=1
Well no! the other bows were packed in wooden chests and could not have floated away, but a bow braced would have been a bow in use at the time she went down and so would have floated away. The arrows were also cased apart from the ones in their leather spacers and as some of the spacers were found it suggests that the arrows that were packed in them have long since degraded to nothing, however the cased arrows were found in similar condition to the bows.
In that case I await your explanation or theory for the aforementioned bow having been found.
-
[quote author=Yewboy link=topic=12736.msg187997#msg187997 date=1
Well no! the other bows were packed in wooden chests and could not have floated away, but a bow braced would have been a bow in use at the time she went down and so would have floated away. The arrows were also cased apart from the ones in their leather spacers and as some of the spacers were found it suggests that the arrows that were packed in them have long since degraded to nothing, however the cased arrows were found in similar condition to the bows.
In that case I await your explanation or theory for the aforementioned bow having been found.
I have neither theory or an explanation, however I did not state that the bow was braced when the ship went down.....you did! So it is up to you to put forward your reasons for stating such a fact.
One possibility is that the bow dried into that shape after it was brought up, many of the bows took on a "Set" of some decription due to different areas of the wood drying quicker than others, this one could just be the extreme.
I will take a very close look at the aformentioned bow when I am at the MR in a couple of weeks time.
-
[/quote]
In that case I await your explanation or theory for the aforementioned bow having been found.
[/quote]
I have neither theory or an explanation, however I did not state that the bow was braced when the ship went down.....you did! So it is up to you to put forward your reasons for stating such a fact.
[/quote]
Sure. My reason for stating it is because it was reported by Hardy. I invite you to prove him a liar. The bend would not be of a kind to warp to the precise curvature of a braced bow except by having been braced.
-
[/quote]
Sure. My reason for stating it is because it was reported by Hardy. I invite you to prove him a liar. The bend would not be of a kind to warp to the precise curvature of a braced bow except by having been braced.
[/quote]
I don't want to go round in circles on this, but Hardy's theory is just that - (His theory), he has been wrong in the past and could also be wrong in this instance, With regards the Westminster Abbey arrow, his information is so wrong it's crazy.
I doubt that you have actually ever seen this bow, you have probably only seen a picture of it in Hardy's book and you have accepted his theory as gospel, I have seen this bow and handled it and I will make a point of having another good look at it when I am there in few weeks time, from memory, if the bow had been braced and the shape is as you say "caused by it being braced when the ship went down, then this bow would have had a 9" brace height.....A little high don't you think?
Anyway as I say I will take some very detailed measurements of it and get some high def pictures showing the bent shape of this bow.
We are going a bit of topic here but as you seem to feel you are in the know here and have used this particular bow to help with your string theory's then we might as well explore this to the full.
Anyway
-
Sure. My reason for stating it is because it was reported by Hardy. I invite you to prove him a liar. The bend would not be of a kind to warp to the precise curvature of a braced bow except by having been braced.
[/quote]
I don't want to go round in circles on this, but Hardy's theory is just that - (His theory), he has been wrong in the past and could also be wrong in this instance, With regards the Westminster Abbey arrow, his information is so wrong it's crazy.
I doubt that you have actually ever seen this bow, you have probably only seen a picture of it in Hardy's book and you have accepted his theory as gospel, I have seen this bow and handled it and I will make a point of having another good look at it when I am there in few weeks time, from memory, if the bow had been braced and the shape is as you say "caused by it being braced when the ship went down, then this bow would have had a 9" brace height.....A little high don't you think?
Anyway as I say I will take some very detailed measurements of it and get some high def pictures showing the bent shape of this bow.
We are going a bit of topic here but as you seem to feel you are in the know here and have used this particular bow to help with your string theory's then we might as well explore this to the full.
Anyway
[/quote]
Hardy's claim was that the bow was bent to what would have been what they call a 'fistmele' today, about six inches. That is not a theory, it is a statement of fact, possibly an incorrect one. I repeat; I invite you to prove him a liar. Please post your corrections about the Westminister Abbey arrow. I would like to get the correct info as I am sure others would as well.
BTW, I haven't used this bow to help with any theory. I don't have a "string theory". What I have done is provide evidence to describe Tudor bowstrings. Let's keep the sniping to actual words and facts.
-
A couple of thoughts here gents.
An explanation as to why a bow wouldn’t float away is possibly due to the anti-boarding nets, (that’s if the bow was above decks anyway). Alternatively it could have become wedged/trapped by another object/person.
As to the fact of having such a high bracing height, I would guess the string lasted long enough to keep the strung bow under tension and that as the wood became waterlogged, it’s likely to have lost an amount of its stiffness and so developed the higher brace height.
Any thoughts?
-
Just to throw a Monkey wrench in here. I sold a Yew warbow to a guy in Sweden last year and as the RH went down over the winter so did the bow take set. In fact it took 4" of set and he didn't even have to brace the bow once to do it, it did it all on its own.
-
I was wondering about the anti-boarding nets too. By the time they rotted the bow would be sodden.
Another theory/spanner, maybe the stave was naturally deflexed and straightened by the bowyer and as the bow soaked it gave up it's induced straightness and this added to the brace height.
-
The fact is that we don't know why this bow is bent.
It may be reasonable to assume that it had been braced since the shape is reasonably symmetrical, but it is still only supposition.
Nothing to get heated about.
Rod.
-
Ok, i got a chance to really have a good look at this bent bow Yesterday, and I must admit that on close inspection that the bow looks like it was braced when the ship went down as the shape is as Rod says...Very symetrical, I also placed a string next along it and it does show a 6" brace height, So on this occassion I concede to Bow-Toxo's suggestion that it more than likely was braced, So apologies from me Bow-Toxo.
I will post some pictures of the bow being examined once I have captured a few stills from the video footage that I was shooting whilst I was there.
-
Ok, i got a chance to really have a good look at this bent bow Yesterday, and I must admit that on close inspection that the bow looks like it was braced when the ship went down as the shape is as Rod says...Very symetrical, I also placed a string next along it and it does show a 6" brace height, So on this occassion I concede to Bow-Toxo's suggestion that it more than likely was braced, So apologies from me Bow-Toxo.
I will post some pictures of the bow being examined once I have captured a few stills from the video footage that I was shooting whilst I was there.
I accept my first offered apology on behalf of myself and Mr. Hardy with grateful appreciation for a man willing to admit an error. I plan to make my first visitto the MR exhibit in September and would appreciate any advice or suggestions to make the most of a once in a lifetime trip. BTW, If anyone is still wondering about Viking arrows, I suggest checking out my article on Viking archery in the current June/July issue of 'Primitive Archer' magazine.
-
I have read that at the slightest hint of rain, English warbowmen would unbrace their bows and call it a day
That's news to me, despite the account of men keeping their strings under their hats at Crecy.
There are accounts enough of fights in inclement weather.
What about Towton, for example?
If the string was an unwaxed spare, I might put it under my hat rather than subject it to a soaking, not for fear of it breaking, but not wishing the relaxed string to take on too much moisture.
Having said that it is likely that a well waxed string, twisted and taut under bracing tension, would be far less prone to absorbing moisture.
With a linen string what I do not want are short fibres and dryness.
Our linen industry in it's heyday was based in Lancashire and N.Ireland just because a damper climate was necessary for the machine production of linen thread, it being more too prone to breakage when spun in dry conditions.
Rod.
Further on Smythe's comment about the strings coated with "waterglewe", I just found a reference to a thin solution of hoof glue being used to stiffen bowstrings. Hoof glue, unlike hide glue, is flexible and not waterproof. That would be a reason to keep a bowstring dry.