Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Hawkeye1974 on July 21, 2011, 11:28:17 am
-
I have been watching a documentary on youtube about longbows called the Weapons That Made Britain. On the show the host traveled to a museum where they are researching the Mary Rose. One of the researcher's show him a bunch of bows recovered from the wreckage.
He explains to him that based on carbon and other tests they have learned that the longbow tips were designed to bend like recurve bows.
He had a couple made with the recurve feature, thenshot them against other standard longbows. It seemed the "custom" longbow shot further and was more proficient.
in fairness the guy was a really good archer but....
Anyway my question is has anyone tired this type of bow? Would it really work? And why haven't we heard about this before?
-
Here's the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaZ6pQiYclo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
Yes, it would work. A recurved limb will store more energy than a straight limb, thereby increasing cast. None of the tips on the Mary Rose bows I'm aware of (or seen first hand) are recurved. Whether this was done in period or not, is up for debate. I think the youtube producers have taken liberties with poetic licence.
-
I flip my tips on my hackberry longbows all the time.
-
Put simple the MR tips are not recurved. There is evidence for bows on the continent being slightly recurved but never the English bow.
Edited as to not cause offence.
-
I would disagree with the statement that Chris Boyton is not an expert on heavy weight longbows - he knows a vast amount on the subject. Chris is a terrific bowyer makes many types of bow amongst them heavy MR style longbows and I've seen a number of them - I believe Simon Stanley has at least one.
-
Yes recurves store more energy by keeping string angle low but a recurve has to be heavier than a straight tip to stay a recurve and on an 80 inch longbow extra mass at the tips would be a disadvantage. The MR bows are NOT recurved and I doubt very much wethewr any English longbow (warbow) ever was.
-
Okay, I am not an expert, hell I am barely a novice. But if anyone watched the videos (I think its part 3) isn't the guy at the museum an expert on the Mary Rose and/or longbows? If so why would say they were curved like a recurve bow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaZ6pQiYclo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
Hawkeye1974,
Because of so called iconographic evidence (pictures to most of us) that appear to, and indeed do, show English archers using bows with recurved tips and also because of the exposure of the English archers to Burgundian bows, which did have recurved, tips, and, as has been suggested, with a recurve the performance is likely to be better, there are people who argue that the English Bow therefore must have been recureved as its unlikely that they would let such an "improvement" go to waste. The truth of the matter is there may have been recurved bows used in England but on the whole there is no evidence of recurves being widespread.
As for why would someone from the Mary Rose Trust agree, well you may have been watching a program in which two like minded individuals were taking part.
**EDIT** having looked at the program, at least in part I think you need to have another look at the part where you said the Mary Rose bloke agreed, The man in question is or was the keeper of the artifacts, the Collections Manger, he is/was probably not an expert in the bows. I did not see him agreeing nor disagreeing in fact he was not in the shot when the claim about recurved tips was made.
I have no idea if tests have been done with bows at warbow weights to see if heat bent recurves will stay in ir will pull out, perhaps someone who has will let us know the result?
Craig.
-
AFAIK there were no bows with recurved tips found on the Mary Rose.
BTW That clip has about 12 parts and is a triumph of presentation over content...any idea which bit has the pertinent info in it?
Del
-
AFAIK there were no bows with recurved tips found on the Mary Rose.
BTW That clip has about 12 parts and is a triumph of presentation over content...any idea which bit has the pertinent info in it?
Del
Decided to have a look and was disappointed to find that the program is an old one, I have seen it before and read of the disagreement of many with the use of the air cannon for the penetration tests. Anyway to answer your question the pertinent bits are the end of part 3, bits of part 4 and a tiny bit of 5, did not watch any more so maybe the second half of 5 and the remainder also have some bits on it.
Craig.
-
Its not a program for anyone interested about the history.
-
I was at the Fraternity shoot when they were filming... basicaly Mike Loades said what the program makers wanted him to say.
-
good grief here we go again ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I was at the Fraternity shoot when they were filming... basicaly Mike Loades said what the program makers wanted him to say.
Im quite glad to hear that, I think Mike is genuinely knowledgeable on the subject.
-
After watching the program, the Mary Rose bow they show might have a bit of recurve, however, it had no where near the recurve of the bow they built. I'm in no way an expert on the subject, but I know research and I know what it looks like to read your own opinions into the evidence. To say the MR bow they showed was evidence that all/most/some longbows were recurved is a pretty big leap. Even if that one bow had some recurve at the tips, you still have to prove that it was put there intentionally.
-
Might have had a bit..
Yeah and I might have had a night of passion with Keira Knightly...
::).
WALOOB
Del
-
DEL!!!!... you too! ;D ;D
-
WALOOB
Exactly. You have a theory, so you take your theory and dig through the 137 bows that were recovered until you find one that might have a bit of what you're expecting to see. Of course you're looking for that evidence so when you see it you convince yourself it's there and say "LOOK! I have PROOF!". It's pushing opinions into evidence. It happens all the time in scientific studies, that's why they're peer reviewed and independently verified (or should be).
BTW isn't it WALOB with one O? ;)
-
welllllllll.... I wasn't going to thow my 2 cents in but I guess I will, if you pay close attention to the very beginning of part 4 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDoggUZTOJs&feature=related ) he shows what "appears" to be a reflexed limb. If you look again at what he calls the belly of the bow you can see the cream color of the sapwood, in other words what he just showed us was a limb with set or deflex and then claims it to be evidence of a recurved tip >:(
me, IMHO I like the curve of the warbow w/o flipped tips :)
You have a theory, so you take your theory and dig through the 137 bows that were recovered until you find one that might have a bit of what you're expecting to see. Of course you're looking for that evidence so when you see it you convince yourself it's there and say "LOOK! I have PROOF!". It's pushing opinions into evidence. It happens all the time in scientific studies, that's why they're peer reviewed and independently verified (or should be).
as much as a don't like it some scientists look for the answer they want, not the truth
--Mark R.
PS: what is "WALOOB"? ???
-
he shows what "appears" to be a reflexed limb. If you look again at what he calls the belly of the bow you can see the cream color of the sapwood, in other words what he just showed us was a limb with set or deflex and then claims it to be evidence of a recurved tip >:(
You're absolutely right. I had to click on large screen to see it, but the sapwood is there on what he calls the belly of the bow. They've got the bow backwards for sure.
-
PS: what is "WALOOB"? ???
If you google walob it gives a definition, I have merely enhanced it with the addition of the word Old before the last word.
-
i feel i must take issue with Ian,regarding ,his remarks he has posted about Chris Boynton,if he turns out to be a good as bowyer as Chris he wiil be exceptional. i have seen the bow he made for Simon Stanley its a marvellous piece of work,the best heavy bow i have seen and i have seen a lot.
As for the bowyers guild i can assure Ian he was not [kicked out].
-
...about Chris Boynton,...
Please please please. The guys name is Boyton.
I get the same thing with people slipping an extra N into my name... even my service provider has got it wrong which causes confusion. I know it irritates him >:(.
Del
-
hi Del,
i must admit i did not check the spelling of Chris,s surname before i replied to Ian,s post,i do know Chris personally,i am sure he will foregive me.i am now going to write it out 100 times so i dont forget.
-
Sent you a PM Brian
-
Although there is pictorial evidence, (as Craig has mentioned) throughout the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries depicting bows used in batlle with recurve tips I think it's fair to say that it should be viewed with a degree of caution. But, what we have to remember is, Britain was not an isolated society. Before the battles of the hundred years war, there had been over two hundred years of tooing and frowing, back and forth to the Holy land. It would be easy to see how eastern bow characteristics were incorporated into the more traditional longbow designs of western europe.
-
Although there is pictorial evidence, (as Craig has mentioned) throughout the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries depicting bows used in batlle with recurve tips I think it's fair to say that it should be viewed with a degree of caution. But, what we have to remember is, Britain was not an isolated society. Before the battles of the hundred years war, there had been over two hundred years of tooing and frowing, back and forth to the Holy land. It would be easy to see how eastern bow characteristics were incorporated into the more traditional longbow designs of western europe.
What I failed to mention with regard to the pictorial evidence is the the majority of the pictures are not contemporary with the scenes they depict, some being done decades later than the event, painted/drawn by people who were not at the battles and who probably had never been near a battlefield and were possibly influenced by classical depictions of Greek bows etc. Although to be fair to the artists a lot of them were from the continent where they may have been exposed to Burgundian bows, bows that were both long and had recurved tips.
Craig.
-
@ craig: thanks for the answer.
infact thank all of your for your answers and insite.
-
Although there is pictorial evidence, (as Craig has mentioned) throughout the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries depicting bows used in batlle with recurve tips I think it's fair to say that it should be viewed with a degree of caution. But, what we have to remember is, Britain was not an isolated society. Before the battles of the hundred years war, there had been over two hundred years of tooing and frowing, back and forth to the Holy land. It would be easy to see how eastern bow characteristics were incorporated into the more traditional longbow designs of western europe.
Concerning the pictorial evidence, check the lengths of bows pictured used in battle. Many illustrations show not longbows, but smallbows that were normally heat bent to various curvatures. A longbow [ sorry, not every self bow is a longbow] is at least the length of the archer, or much more. The smallbow, of course using shorter arrows, might reach the archer’s nose. One late mediaeval manuscript illustration depicting the 1066 invasion, shows Normans with recurved longbows, Saxons with straight ended ones.
-
Concerning the pictorial evidence, check the lengths of bows pictured used in battle. Many illustrations show not longbows, but smallbows that were normally heat bent to various curvatures. A longbow [ sorry, not every self bow is a longbow] is at least the length of the archer, or much more. The smallbow, of course using shorter arrows, might reach the archer’s nose. One late mediaeval manuscript illustration depicting the 1066 invasion, shows Normans with recurved longbows, Saxons with straight ended ones.
Erik,
The existence of the small bow (certainly in England, France & Burgundy) is unproven until way past the time of the use of the bow in battle. In addition I do not know of any instructions on how to make either long or short bows until those published in the 19th C appeared, so the fashion of manufacture, such as "heat bent to various curvatures" can only be speculation. The small bows shown in the Bayeux tapestry may be the results of artistic interpretation or there again they may be relatively correct in that it is believed that in some areas of southern Europe short (how short is short?) bows were used and as most of Williams archers are believed to have been mercenaries then there is a every chance that they came from short bow areas and therefore the depictions could be relatively correct.
One late mediaeval manuscript illustration depicting the 1066 invasion, shows Normans with recurved longbows, Saxons with straight ended ones.
To which manuscript do you refer, who was the artist and at what date was the illustration you refer to produced? Your description of "late medieval" probably puts it being produced two or three hundred years after the invasion and at a guess the bows would represent those used by both the Burgundians and the English close to the time of the production of the manuscript, recurved tipped longbows as used in Burgundy for the (Continental/French) invaders and straight tipped longbows as used by the English for the Angle/Saxon/Danish defenders. Such a transfer of then contemporary equipment to paintings/illustrations depicting earlier events is a regular occurrence throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods.
I also have to ask where you obtained the definition that the smallbow "might reach the archer’s nose" while a longbow "is at least the length of the archer"? There are many who shoot the ELB who would disagree as does the BL-BS's own definition which uses minimum absolute lengths.
Craig.
-
Who knew specifics of bow history could be such a heated topic.
All science fields are prone to seeking to prove their theory. That is kinda how it works. Interesting read "What is This Thing Called Science" by Kunz I think. There was another I read for my philosophy of science class. We are all biased but it still works in the end.
Back to topic. I did catch that the bow may be backwards. But history nerds are allowed in my book to be camera shy. As I understand the idea of the flipped tips was a theory. I don't think they said that all bows were recurved. I'm not certain they said the Marry Rose bows were. I know there are very few surviving english long bows. However the English are a people that respect tradition and later period bows were generaly straight.
I have never seen a burgundian bow but it would be neat to look into. A few questions that are not mentioned and adressed above. What happens to a heat recurve with 200 years of underwater storage? Why such long thin tapers and sharp tips if recurves were not employed? Is it not plausible despite no surviving example? They weren't stupid back then weapon making was an industry. They had concepts of economies of scale despite not having interchangable parts (it would not suprise me to find the nock covers were however because that would be highly efficient). Flipping the tips would have been an extra expense reserved for something more than the common grade of bow is my guess. Thus it probably wasn't that common given the marginal gains compared to slowed production. You can bet they were made by craftsmen that were part of guilds and were quite skilled and fast at producing bows. Some may have even had royal patronage and thus less need to "diversify their offerings (Some armorers also made money coins, and other metal works for the region).
We know that allot of armor did not survive history. Whole harneses were melted down for tank armor in WWI. So much of what remains is the cream of the crop. I would imagine that something similar has happened with the bows.
On the questions of the tips of the bows I'm not bowyer or historian enough to weigh in with credibility, BUT it is a COOL and Plausible idea.
-
Craig—I can’t imagine how you could have missed instructions on determining bow and arrow length in Roi Modus, Lartdarcherie and Le Livre de Chasse. Making a smallbow according to the instructions and standing it in front of myself, I can hardly miss noticing how tall it is {to my nose], and that is how short short is. Smallbows are pictured in illustrations from the 11th to the 16th century. The manuscript illustration was 15th century, and shows, to me at least, that the difference between Burgundian bows at that time was recognized, which you seem to agree with. I am sure that many would disagree. Some may even be correct.
Prairie Bowyer---Of course we can’t prove that no English longbow was recurved because it is impossible to prove a negative and we needn’t waste our time. Bows were made with long slender tips [with sidenocks] because that was thought to increase cast, and we find these thin tips in Nydam as well as on the MR. The MR bowtips certainly seem like interchangeable nocks when all MR bows were very close to 12 mm at the point the horn started, no matter the strength of the bow. And livery bows were not of the best quality When I visited the MR trust, one of the researchers asked me if I knew of any recurved English longbows. I said no.He was disappointed because, as he said, “I like recurves”. I can picture him working really hard to find something to fit his preference.
-
After struggling for a while to flip the tips on a Lyptus wood ELB . . . I'm content to say that there was no such thing. ;)
-
Craig—I can’t imagine how you could have missed instructions on determining bow and arrow length in Roi Modus, Lartdarcherie and Le Livre de Chasse. Making a smallbow according to the instructions and standing it in front of myself, I can hardly miss noticing how tall it is {to my nose], and that is how short short is. Smallbows are pictured in illustrations from the 11th to the 16th century. The manuscript illustration was 15th century, and shows, to me at least, that the difference between Burgundian bows at that time was recognized, which you seem to agree with. I am sure that many would disagree. Some may even be correct.
Erik,
I do not have translation of "Le Livre du Roi Modus et de la Reine Reson" but it is my understanding that this document is nothing more than a homily/moral tail and that it contains little of interest to the archer or archery historian. I will be happy to learn otherwise so if you can point out the section that contains the instructions I will see about a translation of that part.
I do have a translation of Lartdarcherie ir "The Art of Archery and the book is silent as to any bow length as it is to there being any such thing as a small bow however you like to spell it.
While I do not exactly have a translation of Le Livre de Chasse by Gaston Phébus I do have a copy of Master og Game, by Edward, second Duke of York, which is reputed to essentially be an English translation of Le Livre de Chasse but minus some chapters , the subjects of which were not animals found in England. As far as I am aware it contains nothing on bow length. But as it is an incomplete translation the original "Le Livre de Chasse" may have such a content. Can you therefore copy the section you say has the instructions so that I can see what it actually says? Does it actually refer to a short-bow as a separate weapon or are you assuming that any bow that does not measure up to the stated length is not a long bow so it must be a short bow. In addition does it instruct on the heat bending/forming as you suggest in your earlier post?
I would also suggest that using points on peoples bodies to decide what are or are not long bows is a flawed process, in imperial measurements I stand about 5' 8", or 68", so by your reckoning a 68 inch bow would be a long bow, yet one of my friends stands at about 6' 4" or is it 6' 6" so a 68 inch bow would , be somewhere below his nose, does this self same bow suddenly stop being a long bow when he picks it up?
Craig.
-
Why such long thin tapers and sharp tips if recurves were not employed? Is it not plausible despite no surviving example?
Because "long thin tapers and sharp tips" are basic good design removing mass from where it would most impact upon performance. Such design has nothing to do with recurves.
As for plausible, it depends on your definition but virtually anything is apparently valid until definitely proven otherwise, so plausible yes, but based on the historical evidence, probable, no.
By the way, very few eucalypt species, (and there are over 700), are suitable for making ELBs and such thin highly stressed bows. Nor are most ranked as decent heat bending woods.
Craig.
-
Burgundian bows at that time was recognized, which you seem to agree with. I am sure that many would disagree. Some may even be correct.
I do have a translation of Lartdarcherie ir "The Art of Archery and the book is silent as to any bow length as it is to there being any such thing as a small bow however you like to spell it.
While I do not exactly have a translation of Le Livre de Chasse by Gaston Phébus I do have a copy of Master og Game, by Edward, second Duke of York, which is reputed to essentially be an English translation of Le Livre de Chasse but minus some chapters , the subjects of which were not animals found in England. As far as I am aware it contains nothing on bow length. But as it is an incomplete translation the original "Le Livre de Chasse" may have such a content. Can you therefore copy the section you say has the instructions so that I can see what it actually says? Does it actually refer to a short-bow as a separate weapon or are you assuming that any bow that does not measure up to the stated length is not a long bow so it must be a short bow. In addition does it instruct on the heat bending/forming as you suggest in your earlier post?
I would also suggest that using points on peoples bodies to decide what are or are not long bows is a flawed process, in imperial measurements I stand about 5' 8", or 68", so by your reckoning a 68 inch bow would be a long bow, yet one of my friends stands at about 6' 4" or is it 6' 6" so a 68 inch bow would , be somewhere below his nose, does this self same bow suddenly stop being a long bow when he picks it up?
Craig.
[/quote]
In one example , Lartdarcherie in ’On the Make of Handbows’ quoting Sexmodus , says ”If you wish your bow to last, its length should be that of two arrow lengths and two small fists [not including the thumb] “ Fgor flight shooting they should only be one hands breadth….longer than the said two arrows length.
In ‘On the Way of Shooting with a Bow”, the author states “According to custom, [implying general use] the archer should draw ten palms breadth of arrow [from nock to shoulder of the head. I get 31 inches].. Some draw more, some less.
As I don’t have access to the other works at this time, I leave the relevant research to you.
Points on people’s bodies were most of mediaeval measurement, such as hand, fist, thumb, fist with outstretched thumb, span, cubit. Sorry you don’t like them.
I suggest your tall friend try one of the mediaeval recipes and see what he gets.
Erik
-
In one example , Lartdarcherie in ’On the Make of Handbows’ quoting Sexmodus , says ”If you wish your bow to last, its length should be that of two arrow lengths and two small fists [not including the thumb] “ Fgor flight shooting they should only be one hands breadth….longer than the said two arrows length.
In ‘On the Way of Shooting with a Bow”, the author states “According to custom, [implying general use] the archer should draw ten palms breadth of arrow [from nock to shoulder of the head. I get 31 inches].. Some draw more, some less.
As I don’t have access to the other works at this time, I leave the relevant research to you.
Points on people’s bodies were most of mediaeval measurement, such as hand, fist, thumb, fist with outstretched thumb, span, cubit. Sorry you don’t like them.
I suggest your tall friend try one of the mediaeval recipes and see what he gets.
Erik
MMM! if you don't have the books why are you using them to support your argument?
This discussion is about your claim of there being short bows and that the books contain instructions on how to construct them, contained in your post of August 19th and 20th which stated:
Concerning the pictorial evidence, check the lengths of bows pictured used in battle. Many illustrations show not longbows, but smallbows that were normally heat bent to various curvatures. A longbow [ sorry, not every self bow is a longbow] is at least the length of the archer, or much more. The smallbow, of course using shorter arrows, might reach the archer’s nose.
Craig—I can’t imagine how you could have missed instructions on determining bow and arrow length in Roi Modus, Lartdarcherie and Le Livre de Chasse. Making a smallbow according to the instructions and standing it in front of myself, I can hardly miss noticing how tall it is {to my nose], and that is how short short is.
Your quotes from the art of archery has nothing to do with short bows or instructions on the manufacture of the same, or your stated measure of what constitutes a short bow. Sexmodus is talking of safe lengths, not short bows.
If we examine Sexmodus' system we will get the following:
My palm breadth varies from 3 3/8 inches measured across at the base of the little finger, (the pinky to those of you in the US), to 3 7/8 inches near the base of the thumb, the calculation would then claim that I should draw an arrow that is somewhere between 33 3/4 inches and 38 3/4 inches, both of which are preposterous. I am 5' 7.5" to 5.8" taking the smallest calculated arrow length and applying Sexmodus' calculation to this the shortest safe bow length would be 33.75+33.75+3.375" (my small fist seems to measure the same as my palm breadth near the base of the thumb, but I will use the smaller palm breadth measurement of 3 3/8) which equals 70.875" or if you prefer 70 7/8 inches. Now your claim of a small bow reaching the archer's nose would on me put the bow at approximately 61 1/4 inches long, (measured by my wife), Sexmodus' method says it should be as a minimum 9 5/8" longer so how do the two excerpts from "The Art " reconcile with the short bow claim?
As you can gather, in height, I am not a big man, (other dimensions are different including alas my abdominal measurement), but I am told my hands are large, so lets take a look at my wife, she is 5' 6" tall and here palm's breadth is 3 inches across, measured as mine was at the base of the little finger, thus the calculations say her arrows should be 30 inches long an her bow should be 66 inches long which is her height not the underside of the nose which is some 6 inches lower. So even with her the measurements are for a bow that far exceeds the distance from the ground to the the underside of her nose.
So Once again there is nothing in "the Art of Archery that would support you claim of both the use of and directions to manufacture short bows.
WRT points on people’s bodies being used for medieval measurement, I know that such were used, but your usage of the under-nose measurement is the one in question, my question regarding a 68" bow still remains unanswered.
Craig.
-
Craig I don’t have the books because I really can’t afford to buy the hundreds of books I had access to via interlibrary loan, and I have moved enough to make their transportation impractical. I take notes. The one I quoted is of course a longbow, as is the Roi Modus recipe which are examples of bow length instructions whose existence you questioned. The smallbow dimensions are in Le Livre de Chasse. My mention of my smallbow reaching to my nose is not an instruction, just a description. A longbow is a bow that is long, long enough to take an arrow at least long enough to draw to the ear. Any disagreement ? You don’t have to measure your hand. You grasp one end of your shaft blank , press your other fist down on it, and continue til 10 fists { for longbow arrows]. RE heat bending, if you know any other way to put a desired bend into a bow, please inform me. Perhaps we should make an effort not to bore readers.
-
Erik
The one I quoted is of course a longbow, as is the Roi Modus recipe which are examples of bow length instructions whose existence you questioned. The smallbow dimensions are in Le Livre de Chasse.
While I said that I do not have English Translations of these I do actually have or have access to copies both in old French and with modern French transcripts, now as you say you have taken notes then please share the information in your notes I would like to find the exact excerpts that take of small bows/short bows and how to make them.
You don’t have to measure your hand. You grasp one end of your shaft blank , press your other fist down on it, and continue til 10 fists { for longbow arrows]
But only if one has access to a suitably long shaft to do these 10 fists upon.
I have now got such a shaft from my garage/shed and the news is not good for your proclaimed method, the result is that my 10 fists produce an a length of 38 7/16 inches, and before you ask I made sure my thumb had nothing to do with the measurement pressing the lower part of each fist, that bit nearest to the little finger down on the area formed by my index finger.
This by Sexmodus' method my bow should be a minimum of 76 7/8 inches which is way above my head. As an aside I tried the system on a tall colleague, the results were such that the required bow was only slightly shorter that his height. So I would suggest that the method does not work, although the twice arrow length plus something is a pretty standard method employed by most bowyers.
A longbow is a bow that is long, long enough to take an arrow at least long enough to draw to the ear. Any disagreement ?
Yes actually, a longbow ids a bow that is long not short, which means that my bows that are designed for 28 inch arrows are longbows, although they are shorter bow that those designed to shoot 32inch arrows, I also do not subscribe to the British claim that the bow has to be of a certain shape and that flatbows are not longbows.
RE heat bending, if you know any other way to put a desired bend into a bow, please inform me
Erik, the point was not the method which we know works but your statement as to that was the way they were made, once again you use absolutes when they are only assumptions. Or can you infact actually point to directions that tell you how to bend wood to form your claimed short bows or any other bow?
That aside there are other methods of achieving the desired shape:
1, Grow the wood to that shape by using forms on the live tree,
2, Select naturally bent shapes;
3, Bend over forms while green and allow to dry and season whilst bent to shape;
4, laminate the wood gluing the shape in as one goes, animal glues are eminently suitable for this, it is after all what the Eastern bowyers did and do with their bows.
Craig.
-
Craig You had previously asked for a copy of the relevant passages which I don’t have access to in that form. This is what I have. It works for me and with the 5’ Saxon Chessel bow. Which should qualify as a warbow because of its accompanying 24 arrows, not a hunting kit. If history is a guide, it may not work for you.
Gaston suggests a shaft of 8 poignees [fists again] from nock to barbs. This gives me 26 1/2” shaft,. The bow is to be 20 poulcees between nocks. Under the assumption that this measurement is the length of the thumb from tip to second joint, I get a bow that measures 4’ 8” between nocks. The completed bow matches those in the illustrations for the fifteenth century edition of the book.
I concede that your bow for 28” arrows is a longbow by modern standards.
A suitably long shaft would be one that was going to be an arrow. If you don’t have one, there is no point in measuring. I get 31 ½ inches. I can’t comment on your situation.
Concerning your alternate methods of bending a bow {a gull wing shape with recurved tips}, please. My only comment is L.O.L.
-
I concede that your bow for 28” arrows is a longbow by modern standards.
A suitably long shaft would be one that was going to be an arrow. If you don’t have one, there is no point in measuring. I get 31 ½ inches. I can’t comment on your situation.
Concerning your alternate methods of bending a bow {a gull wing shape with recurved tips}, please. My only comment is L.O.L.
Thank you for the information, however I do not see instructions on how to make a bow there.
If you read what I said : "I have now got such a shaft from my garage/shed and the news is not good for your proclaimed method, the result is that my 10 fists produce an a length of 38 7/16 inches"m it will be clear that I got hold of a suitable shaft and the resultant length, which far exceeds your results.
As for naturally bent or otherwise, I have in my front paddock a tree that has a second growth limb on it that has take a rough "3" shape, which if it were of a suitable wood, not the scribbly gum it is, would, if properly tillered and strung take your gull-wing shape with recurred tips. Now if nature will provide such just imagine what the application of a bit of training by the use of forms would produce. So do not be so quick in dismissing the methods I mention, some of which are reported to be used by modern boyers.
I suggest you start reading some contemporary works to see what people have been experimenting with, start with volume 1 of the The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, take a look at page 95, then tell the primitive technologist and bowyer mentioned there (Jim Riggs) that he cannot do what he does! I would also suggest you think of the shape that such bows would take when strung! Are we still laughing? Something I think was beneath you and that you should be ashamed of!
But ignoring the other methods available, it still not fact that you have no proof as to how they were made and when you made the statement of the method you were making assumptions, when you spoke in absolutes rather than probables?
I would also suggest your gull-wing bows are nothing more that flights of fancy by the artists involved who are probably painting "Greek or Roman classical shapes" a shape more suitable to a horn composite bow than a wooden self bow. Such shapes appear regularly throughout the period and are even shown being used by peoples who who probably had limited contact with Asiatic bows, such as some paintings of the martyrdom of the Edmond king of East Anglia by the Vikings, where even the act is in doubt being too much like the story of the martyrdom of Sebastian by the Romans.
Any way this discussion has gone on too long and still unfortunately you still do not see the error of talking in absolutes when no such proof exists.
Craig.
-
Craig---"Any way this discussion has gone on too long" On this we agree.
-
[/quote]
By the way, very few eucalypt species, (and there are over 700), are suitable for making ELBs and such thin highly stressed bows. Nor are most ranked as decent heat bending woods.
Craig.
[/quote]
Now you tell me. How are they for flat bows?
-
By the way, very few eucalypt species, (and there are over 700), are suitable for making ELBs and such thin highly stressed bows. Nor are most ranked as decent heat bending woods.
Craig.
[/quote]
Now you tell me. How are they for flat bows?
[/quote]
Same as anything, some are most are not. Do you know the name of the species you intend to use? Just saying you intend to use eucalypt is akin to saying you will use wood!
Craig.
-
It's sold as plantation grown "Lyptus". What is this resource ? Perhaps I could save myself some frustration by checking it in the future. I went from loving the wood, to hating it and am coming back around.
It bends nice, and is light weight but rigid. I think there will be little memory. I'm considering using it as a core. I'm attempting slavaging the bow by splitting it, shaving the Lyptus down to a thin lamination between bamboo. One limb tip literaly twists when drawn in both previous attempts. I think it's a grain thing. I shaved it thin and made a hickory splice to add in to the tip. Between that and the two layers of bamboo the tip should stop rotating. I'm also considering flipping the tip on glue up this time. Not alot obviously.
-
Plantation grown "Lyptus" means nothing to me, Where is it grown? I believe that very few Eucalyptus species were taken abroad for planting. I believe one of the favorites for such was Blue Gum or Sydney Blue gum because it grows fairly rapidly and straight. If it is this wood I have heard of people successfully making bows out of it. Its figures (density, Modulus of rupture and Modulus of elasticity, at 850 Kg/m3, 149 Mpa and 18 Gpa are similar to Pignut Hickory 817, 139 and 16 but, and its a big but, most Australian species are known to vary as to usability based on where they were grown and the local micro-climate.
If the bow is working why change it?
Craig.
-
Well I had two fail on the tree. It SEEMS to be ok for some applications. Thin laminations that are gently flexed and trapped between other layers (trying that now). Heat bending. NO, won't do it.
I was liking the feeling and action of the bows right up to the point where they broke. they didn't so much break as they developed this sort of crushed crack looking thing completely cross grain all the way to the bamboo backing.
-
Sorry to hear of the failure.
Craig.
-
It wont stand up to being a core either turns out. I did a sandwich of it between bamboo backings and belly. It broke right down it's length. There was Lyptus stuck to both pieces of boo. I went back to the store to get a different wood and spoke to the "guy". He said he dosent use it either. It's supposed to be a replacement for mahogany but not as good. It's grown fast on plantations and aparently is only just slower than bamboo.
Starting over with hickory.
-
I know you guys are on something totally hi-tech. But I have a question what are minimum tools needed to make bow? I have either the work space or garage to do one properly
-
I know you guys are on something totally hi-tech. But I have a question what are minimum tools needed to make bow? I have either the work space or garage to do one properly
This is a question asked a thousand times and one that raises differing opinions.
The following is my own opinion, others will differ.
Minimum required for a stave bow is a hand axe/machete and some form of scraper, the latter could be could be a knife.
Then to make things easier add:
1, A vice or something to help hold the stave while you work on it such a superjaws etc.
2, Better scrapers,
3, Draw knife
4, a decent rasp or two,
5, small scraper plane with toothing blade.
6, Chain saw to make gathering more staves quicker and easier >:D
Then start to mechanise!
1, palm sander;
2, a band saw:
If going to laminate a stave/bow
1, Bow Jig, (if only making straight bows this could be a straight piece of say 2 by 4)
2, clamps/cramps etc.
2, decent hand plane or 2
3, thickness planer
Then whatever takes your fancy.
Others will had different opinions and for your sake I hope they post them.
Best of luck
Craig.
-
I always think like this on this issue. If I was a bowyer "for fun", or a hobby in the medivael era or earlier, exc, and I had access to boiling water and something round I would surely recurve my bows as I do now sometimes... Now if I was a bowyer by trade, there is no way in hell I am going to recuvre 100 bows when I could just make them without all the trouble. I am sure I could sell them without the recurve. Of course the billions of mass produced bows that would have been used by the military would not of had little flipped tips. It would be a pain keeping the water boiling and dealing with the tip flip failures on the wood breaking when that was money down the drain that would of put food in my mouth. And there is a billion times more of a chance to find evidence of a bow that there were billions of, when there would probably be slim to none that you would find the couple here and there that someone flipped the tips on, for themselves of for fun/taste or whatever. So when I flip the tips on a longbow I am making, to get rid of set of for whatever reason, I don't feel like I am commiting that bad of a sin. As I know I would not be going to war with anyone with a 50# @ 28" anything anyway, :laugh:. But that is just me.
-
I know you guys are on something totally hi-tech. But I have a question what are minimum tools needed to make bow? I have either the work space or garage to do one properly
This is a question asked a thousand times and one that raises differing opinions.
The following is my own opinion, others will differ.
Minimum required for a stave bow is a hand axe/machete and some form of scraper, the latter could be could be a knife.
Then to make things easier add:
1, A vice or something to help hold the stave while you work on it such a superjaws etc.
2, Better scrapers,
3, Draw knife
4, a decent rasp or two,
5, small scraper plane with toothing blade.
6, Chain saw to make gathering more staves quicker and easier >:D
Then start to mechanise!
1, palm sander;
2, a band saw:
If going to laminate a stave/bow
1, Bow Jig, (if only making straight bows this could be a straight piece of say 2 by 4)
2, clamps/cramps etc.
2, decent hand plane or 2
3, thickness planer
Then whatever takes your fancy.
Others will had different opinions and for your sake I hope they post them.
Best of luck
Craig.
Shoot, this is all I use from start to finish:
-30 dollar Handsaw for collecting the staves,
-Hacket for spliting (wedges are wooden, beaten in with other pieces of wood), and also roughing out
-Butcher knife for finer roughing out
-Farriers rasp for almost all the rest
-Finer rasps for knick removin
-Sandpaper
-Glass bottle for burnishing
-Done. :)