Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: AH on April 13, 2013, 11:22:32 pm
-
I originally posted this in the arrows section, then realized that I would most likely get more responses in the EWB forum. So..
I was just wondering,
what are you guy's thoughts on the lengths of the arrows on the Mary Rose? From what I've read online, apparently the average was 30.5", but whenever we see a warbow it's always drawn to 32"..? were the average draw legnths really just that short, or was the arrow legnth increased with a long head? I always wonder where the mystical "32 inch" draw came from.
Also, were medieval arrows really as heavy as they are often depicted? In the warbow world, we hear a lot about the "Quarter Pound Arrow", does anyone have any knowledge as to whether they really were this heavy?
-
Apparently there is a reference to the famed 1/4lb arrow, never seen it myself, it could have been made and arrows would have been heavy but perhaps 1/4 is over the top.
The 32" reference came from modern archers who found that length comfortable to shoot, 30-31 is the average by a long way for the Mary Rose arrows.
Weight of the MR arrows is a question more based on practical experience and reproductions made, when the EWBS put together the livery arrow it was made to the same dimensions as the average shafts found, using the same wood, with a typical tudor arrow head. The arrow came out at 62 grams. What you find when shooting as bow over 140lb is that 62 grams is a very nice weight, perfect for distance and general shooting, just feels right.
-
Some people can draw to 32", but I am not one of 'em. I find my most comfortable draw is 30".
As Ian so correctly stated, most of the Mary Rose arrows are 30" from the valley of the nock to the base of the head, and using replica materials, come in at around the 'livery' arrow weight used by the EWBS and others. As the medieval arms race heated up in its later stages, I imagine some heavy arrows were used, but the arrows I saw at the Mary Rose Museum didn't look like 1/4#ers.
With a 100# warbow, drawn to 30" and shooting a 65 gram arrow, I get a really nice cast. 200+ yards is easily do-able.
-
Hi,
Looking at the data from the Mary Rose, it suggests that the majority of arrows were constructed from Poplar (75%+), Birch (14%) and Alder (6%). With regards to the draw length, there appears to be two large peaks at just over 28ins and 30ins. Interestingly the Alder shafts appear to be the longest (beyond 30ins) as a rule (perhaps fire arrows?)
With regard to the weight of the Poplar shafts; these have been calculated with the addition of a type 16 or small bodkin to around 40.5g and 48.5g. Only the Birch comes in at slightly below 60g or 67g, depending on the head.
Hope this helps?
Alistair
-
Thanks, Alistair... awesome info. Where did you source it?
-
Hi,
All the info is drawn from the 'Weapons of Warre' . There is a massive amount of info on the arrows and the bows, plus anything else you would wish for in terms of Tudor arms and armoury.
If you take the MR average spec for a bobtailed poplar shaft (which is the most common), I think it would be the devils own work to get a 60g+ arrow out of it without a heavy head and or using the heartwood.
Alistair
-
Hmmmm... I have those books and I've read everything in them on the bows, but I guess I must have skimmed the section on the arrows! I'll have to go back and re-read that part. Thanks!
-
OK... I re-read the section in "Weapons of Warre" on the arrows from the Mary Rose, and I was surprised at how light in weight the arrow shafts actually were. Most seemed to be from 40 - 70 grams depending on shaft material, with birch some of the heaviest. I didn't see mention of any arrow shafts >80g. Where on earth did the 1/4# (113g) arrow come from? Is there mention of a 1/4# arrow used in the medieval or Tudor era anywhere? Or is this just the figment of someone's imagination?
-
The EWBS Quarter Pound Arrow is a representation of a heavy military arrow used to penetrate armour. It is similar to those that were shot during the Hundred Years War.
Quarter-pound Arrow Weight: Minimum weight 1/4lb (113.4g)
Nock: A horn reinforced self-nock (reinforcement approximately 2”). A slot depth of around ¼" is suggested. The nock does not need to be further reinforced with bindings but this may be advisable for longevity and safety.
Shaft: Any indigenous hard wood is acceptable but the denser woods like oak, ash or birch may be needed to make the weight. Either a torpedo or bob-tailed shaft profile is acceptable. Minimum shaft diameter at the shoulder 1/2” Minimum shaft diameter at the nock 3/8” Minimum Shaft length (bottom of nock to shoulder) 30 ½”
Fletchings: Fletchings must be cut in a triangular pattern with a trailing rear edge as nature intended. The fletchings may be bound on but this is not required. Minimum length 7 3/8” Minimum height 5/8”
Head: A heavy hand forged plate-cutting bodkin must be used.
70 gram shaft, 30 gram arrowhead, 5 gram feathers, 5 gram bindings, 3 gram horn insert. Seems doable.
-
Sorry... that was a 70g total arrow weight, assuming a type 7 or type 16 bodkin in place (with an average weight of 15g). My apologies for neglecting to include that! Also, 3 feathers weigh usually 1g or less, binding material weighs basically nothing (5g?... get real!), and the horn insert weighs roughly the same as the wood removed to insert it.
-
I'm just guessing those weight, really. I've yet to put a full length feather on the scale. You might be right there.
What I'm trying to say, is that the quarterpound arrow is not based upon the 40-70 gram shaft weight of a Mary Rose wararrow. So the quarterpound arrow can have a heavier shaft to make the required weight. The bodkin doesn't need to be a type 7 or 16, but can be any hand forged bodkin. So it can be heavier too.
-
In my original post I did say there is a reference to the 1/4lb arrow somewhere! but no one is every able to prove it; certainly not in the MR book. To make the weight I have seen arrow heads up to about 36g, then Oak or Birch to get the weight. A rather pointless arrow in my opinion but some people like it.
-
I have been making heavy arrows as of late but I have never personally used an English warbow. Does anyone know if arrows should be light or heavy? I make the heavier arrows with spines of 60-140lbs...and weights of 500-850 grains. I was wondering if a heavy weight was as important as a heavy spine?
Kevin
-
I forgot to mention...the heavy arrows are made of hard rock maple, leopardwood, jatoba, and red balau...Kevin
-
I'm just guessing those weight, really. I've yet to put a full length feather on the scale. You might be right there.
What I'm trying to say, is that the quarterpound arrow is not based upon the 40-70 gram shaft weight of a Mary Rose wararrow. So the quarterpound arrow can have a heavier shaft to make the required weight. The bodkin doesn't need to be a type 7 or 16, but can be any hand forged bodkin. So it can be heavier too.
I'm not asking how to make a 1/4# arrow... got that covered. I'm asking where (or if) there is any historical reference to its actual existence.
-
In my original post I did say there is a reference to the 1/4lb arrow somewhere! but no one is every able to prove it; certainly not in the MR book. To make the weight I have seen arrow heads up to about 36g, then Oak or Birch to get the weight. A rather pointless arrow in my opinion but some people like it.
Thanks, Ian... that's what I was wondering.
-
I have been making heavy arrows as of late but I have never personally used an English warbow. Does anyone know if arrows should be light or heavy? I make the heavier arrows with spines of 60-140lbs...and weights of 500-850 grains. I was wondering if a heavy weight was as important as a heavy spine?
Kevin
I generally follow the EWBS rules for arrow weights. Standard, livery, and 1/4#. Check their website for details. Roughly 55g, 65g, and 113g for each category.
I don't worry about the spine. I don't think medieval era bowyers or archers even thought about it or knew about it. The arrow needs to be strong enough to withstand the initial force of being shot from a heavy bow. I'm more worried about the grain of the shaft, and what it weighs. 850 grains would be 55g, which would be a standard arrow weight for flight shooting in the EWBS. I find arrow weights of 60-65g to be good for shooting warbows. You still get a nice cast of around 200 yards, the bow has less handshock, and is more efficient.
-
Regarding length, in the original post, arguments have been going on about this forever. I constantly hear references to the "clothyard shaft". The clothyard was a Flemish unit of measure, and was 28", to the best of my knowledge. I would hope someone could cast some light on this and clear it up, once and for all.
-
I think this debate will continue to go on forever, because nobody knows for sure.
-
I think this debate will continue to go on forever, because nobody knows for sure.
+1
-
I think this debate will continue to go on forever, because nobody knows for sure.
Well the debate about a cloth yard may run and run but, really, it is a moot point because we have so many of the real artifacts. The one medieval and vast majority of the Mary Rose arrows are a useable draw length of 30" or less. The MR Trust measure their arrows from the cone tip to the nock end, not arrowhead to shoulder of the valley of the knock. The lesser amount, by some way, of arrows that had a 32" usable draw were very likely to have been for fire arrows. Draw a lit fire arrow to the shoulder of the arrowhead and you char the back of the bow. Not good in a battle or otherwise.
-
I agree... I only meant the debate about what a clothyard shaft is will continue. There are enough artifacts from the MR in terms of arrows to determine the length of most late medieval battle shafts.
-
I don't worry about the spine. I don't think medieval era bowyers or archers even thought about it or knew about it. The arrow needs to be strong enough to withstand the initial force of being shot from a heavy bow. I'm more worried about the grain of the shaft, and what it weighs.
I bet they did. Remember they likely knew more about bows than we do.
-
I seriously doubt that. I think it unlikely they measured arrow shaft deflection and separated the arrows into lots. They were livery arrows... to be shot out of all bows.
-
We'll obviously never know, but I can't help thinking that if my life absolutely depended on my bow, and I had days and weeks between marching to sit around, I'd probably spend a lot of time sorting the arrows that flew the best from my particular bow.
Whether it was "spine" back then who knows, but I can't imagine anybody going into a battle with "basic" or rough weapons if they had the option not to. Nobody would go into a modern-day warzone with a roughly setup scope on their rifle!
-
It's my belief that arrows then are like ammo now. All 5.56mm ammo will shoot out of all govt issue military weapons chambered for it. Yes? I'm not military, but I think that's how it works. Will all artillery shells shoot out of all artillery pieces of the same caliber?
But... as mentioned, we'll never know!
-
Aye, but modern ammo is machined. Arrows were made of natural materials that as we know vary from one to another. If modern ammo had variables, wouldn't soldiers pick the bullets that best shot from their weapon if there was the possibility of doing so?
-
Yes... they probably would. I'm just wondering how they'd go about doing that? The arrows from the Mary Rose that I saw (or more correctly the arrow shafts) all looked about the same.
-
Good point. I reckon the 400 year soaking the arrows had probably distorted the appearance of them somewhat - did you get a chance to handle any? When I did, they didn't feel like any arrows I've held before.
I'm assuming they wouldn't have carried spine calculators with them, but I've heard people can tell rough spine just by flexing an arrow shaft. I'm almost certain that due to relying on the bow and the accuracy of an arrow to stay alive (whether for hunting or warfare) they'd have done whatever they could to match arrows to bows.
All that being said - when you're dealing with mass produced arrows and mass produced bows, there's a limit as to how far you can go. Maybe the first volley of arrows were hand picked by the individual archers, but the moment people came round handing out sheaves during a battle all of that would have gone out the window.
-
Good point. I reckon the 400 year soaking the arrows had probably distorted the appearance of them somewhat - did you get a chance to handle any? When I did, they didn't feel like any arrows I've held before.
What do you mean "Didn't feel like any arrows You'd ever held? can you be a bit more descriptive?
???
-
No... I didn't get to handle any. What did they feel like? Heavy? Light?
-
Another observation about spine... as you go up in spine weight, the less deflection there is between shafts. There is more difference in deflection between 40# and 50# spine shafts, for example, than there is between 80 and 90#.
That may be why they didn't worry too much about spine. Strictly conjecture on my part, but it makes sense to me.
-
I was only given one, and due to the lack of head and shaftment it felt light and delicate compared to an "arrow" but I didn't have a complete 1/2" war arrow on hand to compare it to.
If you have any completed war arrows to hand then you know how incredibly sturdy they feel. They're a world away from a normal arrow and I can't think of a way they would have been put into groups of spine or stiffness, but that doesn't stop me believing that the archers would have done something to match them to their bows somehow.
Hugh Soar wrote that some of them were strangely tapered, with a small shoulder tapering to a wide barrel in the middle, tapering for a very short length then tapering back up to another wide barrel before tapering again to the nock. That to me is either bad arrow making, or somebodys attempt to change the spine of the arrow to best suit his weapon.
-
Alan Blackham had some good slo mo video on his website 'The backstreet bowyer' He was shooting arrows from a warbow and found they were pretty much going sideways for the first 10 yards!
The heavy head and fletchings straightened 'em out after a while. Unless you are shooting at V close range it doesn't matter too much.
Dunno how it effects the max rage, too soft would waste energy flexing, but going sideways is obviously not very aerodynamic.
In battle it prob doesn't matter a toss as if someone is close enough for it to matter, you'd better grab a sword or a maul anyway.
Del
-
Given the numbers from the tests in The Great Warbow, reading Weapons of Warre caught me by surprise. However, it's worthwhile to remember both that Roger Ascham considered asp (poplar) arrows inferior for war, that heavy arrows probably had little place on a military ship in 1545, and that it's unclear how much the arrows deteriorated. The English crown apparently favor availability and cost over performance in opting for poplar over the ash Ascham recommended as flying faster and hitting harder. Interestingly, a 1993 MRA4 replica bow test listed in Weapons of Warre aligns with Ascham's claims, as a 56.7g ash arrow managed virtually the same speed - 62.2 vs. 64.6 m/s - as a 42.5g poplar arrow. This strikes me as another case of low-quality mass-munitions provisioning. We similarly know that some plate armor consisted of slag-filled wrought iron and that Sir Roger Williams complained about the poor metal used to make common bills and halberds.
I don't know of any firm sources for English arrows in the quarter-pound range - I guess the Charles I quotation is the closest to it - but we can reasonably speculate that the conditions of land war in the fifteen century, for example, would differ from those of naval combat in the sixteenth. I tend to agree with Matthew Strickland, Robert Hardy, and company that the overall weight of the evidence points to 150+lb bows and massive arrows. For instance, during the first half of the fifteenth century, the Burgundian gentleman Bertrandon de la Broquière expressed respect for strength of Turkish bows but considered Turkish arrows weak in comparison to their European counterparts. Assessment of Turkish bows and arrows by Adam Karpowicz indicate an average draw weight of 111lbs and arrow weight of about 20-40g. While the 60-70g birch arrows estimated from the Mary Rose specimens could perhaps explain de la Broquière's evaluation, heaver shafts on the European side would heighten its force. The martial ranges specified in sixteenth-century texts such as Sir Roger Williams and Sir John Smythe stand consistent with the idea of heavier arrows. Williams wrote that few if any archers could do much damage at 240-280 yards. Smythe describe good archers as potentially able to shoot 400-480 yards with flight arrows but considered engaging at even 360 yards laughable. Instead he preferred 160-240 yards.
Going farther afield, numerous extant examples attest to the fact that Manchu archers often used war arrows weighing 80g to over 100g (http://www.manchuarchery.org/arrows). In an intriguing parallel, poplar and birch appear as the most popular arrow woods. Apart from the heavier war and hunting arrows, many come in the 45-65g range estimated for the Mary Rose.
-
Saw an article the other day that said the treasures of the Mary Rose are going to be re-united with the ship almost 31 years since it was raised from the sea bed.
Then I started to cry :'(
I remember watching the raising on tv as it happened :(