Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: backgardenbowyer on July 14, 2008, 07:17:23 pm
-
Does anyone know where some detailed data on the Mary Rose bows and arrows is published? I'm not talking about the selective and second hand scholarship in Harvey et al but a proper analysis of the measurements and description of the finds. It must be around somewhere but despite internet searches and having access to on line journals through working in a university I can't find anything other than material whose primary interest is to develop a mathematical model for archery performance. I've seen the finds on display in the museum and even handled one of the arrows, but it surprises me that there isn't a data set available with all the dimensions.
I've been very disappointed with Hardy and Strickland's The Great Warbow which despite being published nearly 15 years after the finds has pratically no new information to offer.
Any suggestions?
Stan
-
There is soon to be published a journal on the armamnets finds. However I know from a few emails that the curator is having problems putting in all the information on the bows and arrows, so it could be patchy.
-
Thanks Nick,
It's very odd that there hasn't been more when there has been so much interest in the bows.
Stan
-
Well interesting to us maybe, but when you compare it cannons and the amount of money they've thrown at that... ::)
-
Cannons, shmanons! Its the bows!!! Show us the BOWS!!!! ;D
-
It is a shame that after so many years there is so little data available and so little co-operation from the Mary Rose Trust in answering even what I would consider easy questions. Many years ago when yew was plentiful, I made up a yew longbow to the measurements of one brought up by divers before the Mary Rose was raised. with the lengths of bow and arrows to my size as in the Roi Modus instructions. It worked fine. The measurements were given in the Badminton book on archery.
-
I have been told on good authority that
"an extremely detailed explanations about arrows have been in the public domain at least since 1992 (my copy of R Hardy, Longbow, appendix 'some technical considerations'.) Within the volume (1992, pg 212)"
I just bought a copy of Longbow but no info in mine, so maybe it has to be a specific year ?
I have been trying to find out detailed info on the arrow lengths for some time, but so far no luck :-(
-
I've had the same problem. I even sent the Mary Rose museum an email which was totally ignored.
-
Well there you are, it seems no one wants to tell us anything. There is the added complication that a curator or archaeologist would measure an arrow or even a bow differently to an archer. Such arrow lenghts as I've seen published are probably the overal lenght of the artifact rather than the length from the inside of the nock to the socket of the head. I've seen figures of 31.5" as a typical arrow length. Given the long cone on these shafts for the large warheads I think that equates to a drawable lenght of an absolute maximum of 30" probably not much more than 29". I have a suspicion that draw lengths were not as long as some people have suggested.
Stan
-
Hi,
I know from a guy who is friends with some of the Mary Rose curator's, that the head lady of the place is so scared that someone else will put in print info on the bows and arrows before they do that she has everything under lock and key...........But that's just what he said.......So make up your own minds on it.....
Thanks for your time..
-
I have suspected for a long time that the "clothyard shaft" referred to in literature was actually 28", not 36 as currently thought. Can't find any reference to that measurement, though. Can anyone shed light on this?
-
Saw some research in the book "The Englishwarbow" that mentioned the long draw length made for a superior bow with a very good F/D curve while the 28" draw was not using the wood to its full effectivness. I have made some bows both at 28" and 30" drawlengths and the longer draw shoots a heavy arrow much better than the shorter draw length. Even if the arrow flys a bit slower than other bows with shorter arrows it has much more power behind it! I was punching half way through targets that others with shorter lighter arrows with faster speeds were just pricking and sticking!!!! Thats power!!! ;)
-
I have suspected for a long time that the "clothyard shaft" referred to in literature was actually 28", not 36 as currently thought. Can't find any reference to that measurement, though. Can anyone shed light on this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3 foot yard was standardized in the reign of Richard lionheart/John Lackland. Iron bars of this standard length were distributed around England for measurement of cloth and were called clothyards. This measurement, also called an ell, wae the clothyard. It also came to be used to measure land. In the 16th century Paulus Jovius reported that the English shoot arrows somewhat thicker than a man's little finger and two cubits long with barbed steel points. A cubit is the length from elbow to fingertips. Try it. It's a yard.Cornish rebel archers were reported to shoot arrows of "a full yard". It would take a really long bow to take that draw. A 6'11" bow was foound on the Mary Rose. That would be long enough. I believe the English Board of Trade considers the clothyard to have been 37 inches. I could quote other examples.
-
Thanks, Bow-Toxo. That's great info, and just what I was looking for. The reference I was looking for and can't find was in regard to the Flemish cloth yard, but your explanation makes more sense. I'm still having trouble envisioning a medievel archer of fairly small stature (compared to today's man) drawing a 36" arrow "full to the barb", as they say, fom a 100 lb+ bow.
-
I believe the reference to clothyard shooting Cornish archers B.T. is paraphrasing is from the Cornish rebellion in 1497, which would make it roughly contemporary with the Mary Rose equipment. However, regardless of the standardisation of the clothyard the arrows found onboard were largely for a 30” draw length. I think it would be a mistake to assume medieval/Tudor archers were routinely shooting 36” arrows. The only modern warbow archer I know able to shoot arrows this long is about 6’6” tall. Not may of these to the pound, either now or then!
-
I'm still having trouble envisioning a medievel archer of fairly small stature (compared to today's man) drawing a 36" arrow "full to the barb", as they say, fom a 100 lb+ bow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mediaeval archers of fairly tall stature [compared to today's man] were the ones preferred as recruits or royal guardsmen and they would be the most likely ones to shoot clothyard arrows. The illustration for "The Double armed Man" shows a draw to the chest, arrow at a 45 degree angle. If the archer is over 5'9", the arrow would be a clothyard, longer than the arrows in his quiver. There seem to be none on the Mary Rose although a fitting bow was there. Clearly, despite the mediaeval enthusiasm for clothyards, not everyone was shooting them. I won't try to guess how many were. One source said that at Agincourt, most shot a yard.
-
Here is a paper that gives some interesting thoughts on medieval measurements and distances.
http://www.englishwarbow.com/old_english_distances.html (http://www.englishwarbow.com/old_english_distances.html)
Cheers
Steve
-
In the book "Engllish Longbowmen 1330-1515" by Clive Bartlett. Page 22, paragraph 3, of topic "The War Bow", describes the "Stave" as being "3 fingers thick and squared and 7' long. To be well got up, polished and without knots." The following paragraph states that; "Englishmen living in Ireland..... betwixt 60 and 16 in age, shall have an English warbow of his own length and one fistmele at the least between the nyckes"
A footnote on that page states that one bowyer, a "Richard Gallaway" could fashion a bow from the such a stave in 1-3/4 hours.
Obviously a much better bowyer than I. ;D
Hope this helps.
-
They also where not worried about the "prety-ness" of the bow when they where wipping them out.
-
I believe the reference to clothyard shooting Cornish archers B.T. is paraphrasing is from the Cornish rebellion in 1497, which would make it roughly contemporary with the Mary Rose equipment. However, regardless of the standardisation of the clothyard the arrows found onboard were largely for a 30” draw length. I think it would be a mistake to assume medieval/Tudor archers were routinely shooting 36” arrows. The only modern warbow archer I know able to shoot arrows this long is about 6’6” tall. Not may of these to the pound, either now or then!
I agree that clothyard arrows were not for everyone or for butt shooting at all. However it depends how you shoot it. Today's warbow archers seem to draw behind the ear. Mediaeval texts state that a long arrow shot in high arc is to be drawn to the breast, specifically the "right pap"[nipple]'. I am 5' 8" and my arrow length by mediaeval recipe is 31 1/2 " which I cut to 30. Drawing a clothyard to my breast leaves it a few inches short of the arrowhead. It needs someone taller.While no clothyard arrows were found on the MR, there was one bow of the right length to shoot them.
-
I believe the reference to clothyard shooting Cornish archers B.T. is paraphrasing is from the Cornish rebellion in 1497, which would make it roughly contemporary with the Mary Rose equipment. However, regardless of the standardisation of the clothyard the arrows found onboard were largely for a 30” draw length. I think it would be a mistake to assume medieval/Tudor archers were routinely shooting 36” arrows. The only modern warbow archer I know able to shoot arrows this long is about 6’6” tall. Not may of these to the pound, either now or then!
I agree that clothyard arrows were not for everyone or for butt shooting at all. However it depends how you shoot it. Today's warbow archers seem to draw behind the ear. Mediaeval texts state that a long arrow shot in high arc is to be drawn to the breast, specifically the "right pap"[nipple]'. I am 5' 8" and my arrow length by mediaeval recipe is 31 1/2 " which I cut to 30. Drawing a clothyard to my breast leaves it a few inches short of the arrowhead. It needs someone taller.While no clothyard arrows were found on the MR, there was one bow of the right length to shoot them.
Hi,
I think there are some biomechanical issues that should be looked at when drawing to the chest. You are certainly at a mechanical disadvantage and I would therefore suggest that though not impossible, a lighter bow would have to be employed. When shooting heavy bows the body suffers from quite large compressive forces, reducing draw length. Also it is my understanding that the measurement of a Yard was not a standard lenth until after the MR. Could this suggest that a yard arrow might well be anywhere between 30-36 ins?
Just a thought,
Alistair
-
In the book "Engllish Longbowmen 1330-1515" by Clive Bartlett. Page 22, paragraph 3, of topic "The War Bow", describes the "Stave" as being "3 fingers thick and squared and 7' long. To be well got up, polished and without knots." The following paragraph states that; "Englishmen living in Ireland..... betwixt 60 and 16 in age, shall have an English warbow of his own length and one fistmele at the least between the nyckes"
A footnote on that page states that one bowyer, a "Richard Gallaway" could fashion a bow from the such a stave in 1-3/4 hours.
Obviously a much better bowyer than I. ;D
Hope this helps.
Staves of that description were ordered. By mediaeval standards they were of a length to make bows long enough to shoot clothyard arrows. The second quote is from a directive of Fdward IV and the bow length is the same as when measured by another recipe. That is the length for a longbow to shoot the normal arrows just long enough to be drawn to the ear. That is the way I make my longbows. you are getting the real info.
-
Hi,
Hugh Soar's book... "Secrets of the Warbow" has some detailed measurements of a couple of mary rose warbows... length, circumfurances, width, depth, etc.
-
A Clotrhyard measurement comes from the measuring stick used to measure cloth, his was supposed to be 3 feet + 1Inch or (Ynce), however don't be led to believe that 3 feet was 36" because back then the measurement for feet or "Natural feet" as it was knows was actually only 9.9" in modern Inches, so a Clothyard would be:
3 x 9.9" + 1" = 30.7", funnily enough 30.5" is the most common length of arrow found on the MR, hense this is the reason that the EWBS chose this length of arrow as the minimum spec arrow for our "Livery Arrow" .
The arrow measurements I quote are not from a book, these come from actual measurements made by me at the MR.
Hope this helps.
Steve
-
While no clothyard arrows were found on the MR, there was one bow of the right length to shoot them.
Could you please explain this statement, I have seen and handled pretty much all of the bows and would be very interested to know where you got that bit of info from.
Cheers
Steve
-
Much debate surrounds the ''clothyard" shaft. Funny, there aren't many examples of them from Medieval times. Having examined the Mary Rose shafts myself in July of '07, none were anywhere near 36"... most being 30-31".
I don't believe we are that much different in stature than our medieval ancestors. Most of us can draw an arrow back to our ear with replica warbows, and that distance is about 30-32". I can't imagine drawing to 36", for anyone, being at all practical... and perhaps physically impossible. Funny, the arrows from the MR are not 36". If spoken of in those terms, it seems logical to assume that a clothyard is not 36in, but something less. I think that just because there was one bow long enough to shoot one, does not mean that they existed. That would be like saying that just because there were wheels during medieval times, that their vehicles should have been able to go 100 mph.
Practical warfare thrives by standardization. Making all the arrows, bullets, rifles, bows, kit, etc. the same for everyone makes practical sense. Therefore, all arrows can be shot by all bowmen.
Clothyard shafts, 200 pound bows, penetrating plate steel at 250 yards... all results of exaggeration and wishful thinking... perpetuated by legend, to become modern fact.
-
Much debate surrounds the ''clothyard" shaft. Funny, there aren't many examples of them from Medieval times. Having examined the Mary Rose shafts myself in July of '07, none were anywhere near 36"... most being 30-31".
I don't believe we are that much different in stature than our medieval ancestors. Most of us can draw an arrow back to our ear with replica warbows, and that distance is about 30-32". I can't imagine drawing to 36", for anyone, being at all practical... and perhaps physically impossible. Funny, the arrows from the MR are not 36". If spoken of in those terms, it seems logical to assume that a clothyard is not 36in, but something less. I think that just because there was one bow long enough to shoot one, does not mean that they existed. That would be like saying that just because there were wheels during medieval times, that their vehicles should have been able to go 100 mph.
Practical warfare thrives by standardization. Making all the arrows, bullets, rifles, bows, kit, etc. the same for everyone makes practical sense. Therefore, all arrows can be shot by all bowmen.
Clothyard shafts, 200 pound bows, penetrating plate steel at 250 yards... all results of exaggeration and wishful thinking... perpetuated by legend, to become modern fact.
I agree to a certain degree with what you are saying, however Clothyard shafts using the medieval size of the foot means that 95% of the MR arrows fall into that size range,
200lb bows, well maybe not 200, but certainly 180-190lb at 30", which would take them over 200@32", and penetrating plate steel at 250 yds, well if you can hit the target then this is not just possible but very probable,
See this link (I hope this is allowed) http://englishwarbow.com/forum/index.php?topic=1289.15 (http://englishwarbow.com/forum/index.php?topic=1289.15)
So no exaggeration or wishful thinking...but more probably fact.
Steve
-
Steve,
I agree... a clothyard was not likely 36", especially considering that if MR arrows were referred to as a clothyard (being that most are 30-31").
As far as penetrating plate at 250 yards... I thought (and from what I've read or seen), that it was only likely to penetrate at something more like 50 yards. I assume you've seen the TV documentary on "Weapons that made Britain: The Longbow"? They did some actual testing, and found it not likely to penetrate, except at very close range. And not just penetrate, but penetrate to be effectively deadly. What are your thoughts on this? Seems to me, also, that Mark Stretton did some testing, and was only able to penetrate plate at fairly close range? Wasn't that in Hugh's book "Secrets of the Warbow?"
Then and now, a 200# warbow was not practical. Appropriate material, an archer who could shoot it properly, and considering a point of diminishing returns, all lead me to believe (and having examined the MR bows) that most warbows were not as heavy as we presently think. Certainly, some heavy bows (150#+) did exist, but more practically, they were somewhat less #.
-
just throw my 2p worth in ;-)
When you shoot an arrow 250 yards dont forget that it is falling from a great height so actually by the time it reaches the ground it is travelling at a very high speed (watching my arrows come down they really are moving very fast by the time they hit the ground - I must figure out some way to measure the speed?)
so its not a matter of the further you shoot the slower the arrow will be travelling
I have only been doing archery for approx. 2.5 years, I am over 40 years old but I can now shoot a 140lb bow
so its not difficult to imagine that specially selected military archers at the prime of their life who were brought up with archery from a young age would be shooting much heavier bows than I can manage
-
Hi,
I would also add that just a few years ago arguably there were only one or two archers who were shooting the heavier warbows (150+). Recently we are getting 130lb bows being shot reguarly. What we are seeing is the result of archers applying themselves within their training. I would agree with Alan 2/3 years of training can easily see an archer drawing 140lbs if they train correctly and have favourable genetics. If only I had started in my twenties rather than my thirties!
Alistair
-
Steve,
I agree... a clothyard was not likely 36", especially considering that if MR arrows were referred to as a clothyard (being that most are 30-31").
As far as penetrating plate at 250 yards... I thought (and from what I've read or seen), that it was only likely to penetrate at something more like 50 yards. I assume you've seen the TV documentary on "Weapons that made Britain: The Longbow"? They did some actual testing, and found it not likely to penetrate, except at very close range. And not just penetrate, but penetrate to be effectively deadly. What are your thoughts on this? Seems to me, also, that Mark Stretton did some testing, and was only able to penetrate plate at fairly close range? Wasn't that in Hugh's book "Secrets of the Warbow?"
Then and now, a 200# warbow was not practical. Appropriate material, an archer who could shoot it properly, and considering a point of diminishing returns, all lead me to believe (and having examined the MR bows) that most warbows were not as heavy as we presently think. Certainly, some heavy bows (150#+) did exist, but more practically, they were somewhat less #.
Hi Adam
Mark has done tests which prove that a military weight arrow will only lose approx 6% of it's initial speed over distances of 250yds, the only reason it is difficult to test plate penetration over that distance is because it is very difficult to hit.
What makes you think a bow of 200# isn't practicle?, The material is available now as I have shown, so you can bet your life it was available in the middle ages, as Alistair and Alan have stated there are many archers who are now shooting heavyweight bows with just a few years training, so don't think for one moment that just because no one does it now that it isn't possible.
I'm afraid your memory of the MR bows must be failing you, as the growth ring count alone on the majority of the bows will give you an approximation of the draw weight and I can tell you now that they would all fall into the 150+ range...there is no question of it. I don't care what people may say about string thicknesses or about replicas made from Yew that is not correct.
Use the right wood with the correct density and you will get a bow well over 150#, even using dimensions of one of the smaller bows.
Sorry mate.
Steve
-
Hey, Steve
Medieval military archery equipment is so filled with conjecture and speculation! I love the endless debate. As far as weight goes, I do think the strings were the limiting factor. A very heavy bow, whose string only lasts a few shots, is not a viable weapon. Alas, we will never know for sure, as no strings from that era exist. The material used does, but we can only guess. Maybe they used silk strings, who knows? We can hypothesize from the size of the arrow's string nock, however.
I was also thinking about a point of diminishing return, in terms of practicality. If a 100# warbow will cast a battle shaft 200 yards, and a 190# warbow will cast a battle shaft 230 yards (these numbers are just speculation to make my point, and not based on any practical experience), then is the extra weight worth the extra effort for 30 yards?
Have you actually watched the documentary "Weapons That Made Britain: The Longbow"? In part 2, there is some very specific testing done with Mark Stretton, using a 150# warbow. Velocities are recorded with Doppler radar, with initial arrow velocity of 52 meters/ second. They also state that velocity drops rapidly. Then using controlled conditions with an air cannon and the same weight shaft, matching velocity at various ranges, they were only able to effectively penetrate plate at 20 meters! Seems very convincing to me. I think more arrows, during Medieval battles, inflicted damage to soft targets, than plate.
I have absolutely no doubt that most of the MR bows were around the 120-150# range. The MR bows are indeed made of very dense yew. Certainly, I don't have quite as skilled an eye as yourself. 200#? Probably not. It takes a very extraordinary individual to manage this type of bow. Not likely practical, either. I'm sure a bow of 300# could be made, but could anyone shoot it? I think much chest thumping goes along with ultra heavy bows. I know you shoot warbows, and very well. Are any of your's 200#, or even close? I think most of your bows are around 120-140#, yes? Very heavy indeed, but still practical and reasonably comfortable to shoot more than once. I know, having just started, that my 90#@30" bow is doable, but with some effort. I also realize proper technique plays a huge role... kind of like weight lifting.
Don't get me wrong... I don't dispute heavy bows existed in Medieval warfare, and also today. I just wonder what the upper limit actually was? Thanks, Steve, for the enlightening debate. I enjoy the opportunity to learn from your vast and ongoing knowledge!
Cheers, Adam.
-
Hi Adam, yes it is a good debate, however it is one I have had many times with people.
Lets address each issue again.
String theory.
This just doesn't carry at all, yes I know how big the nock slots in the arrows were (1/8") and I know what materials were used, however there are no surviving strings of the period and the knowledge of how to make them is lost to us, but one thing that you can be absolutely sure of is the string fellows of the day would not be making strings that broke after a few arrows...there would be little point and the Warbow would be pretty useless if the archers could not rely on their strings.
Diminishing returns.
Tests have been done using self yew bows of differing draw weights to see what weight bow is needed to get a battle shaft the minimum practice distance of the day (220yds) This is the distance between the "Butts". Now the arrow would weigh in the region of 75grams, now just to make the 220yd distance you need a bow of 120lb minimum, that would be shot at an elevation of 45deg, so not an aimed shot, now take into consideration that the target they would be practising at was a garland of about 10" diameter, this needs to be an aimed shot, so a much flatter trajectory was used and obviously a much more powerful bow would have to be used to do this.
A very heavy bow may not send an arrow that much further than a bow which is lighter, however what it can do is send a much heavier arrow to the target and as such a heavier arrow has much more hitting power.
Weapons that made Britain.
Mark is one of my closest friends and let me tell you that he was very unhappy with the program as they changed a great deal of what he did to coincide with a prior agenda they had, this was done after he had left, he has also said that if he had known what the producer had in mind, he would never have got involved. The air cannon test is a sham, as the head type used was not a plate cutting head but a long type 7 (needle bodkin) which were used against chain mail, not plate armour, also the paradox of the arrow is completely lost when using the air canon, this is the way the arrow reacts as it travels around the bow, giving much more power in the arrow.
The MR bows.
These bows are incredible and are made from High Altitude Alpine Yew, Probably Italian, This wood is not like any yew that you may be familiar with, I have made more replicas of these bows than probably anyone and from the correct wood, even when using the worst piece of yew with very low density 30 rpi, the weight still hits 130#+ and even then the bows I make are at least 2" longer, so shorten them by 2" and you will be at the 150#+, Now if you take a similar density piece of wood 60+rpi the weight increases massively. This is the defining point, The bows are there and all measurements can be taken and if the correct wood is used to replicate them you will see the draw weight, regardless of what you or anyone else may think, this is fact.
This is not about chest thumping as you put it, this is the reality of it. Archers of the day were not like the archers you see around today, these were the best, they had trained since the age of 6yrs old and spent their life training, the military archers were the best there was and were chosen from around England and Wales for their skill by having competitions and only the best were taken as military archers, Now think of the MR, this was Henry VIII flag ship and you can bet your life that as an avid archer himself, the archers on board his ship were the best of the best.
You need to get out of this mind set of looking at archers today and comparing them with the archers of the medieval period, there is no comparison, Mark Stretton has shot a 200# bow and I'm sure he won't mind me saying it really did hurt, Another friend of mine, a young lad of 23 managed to draw back a 202lb bow to 29", There is also a young Welsh lad who is shooting 140lb bows and is only 15yrs old, My own son is just turned 10 and is shooting 55lb bows, these are just recreational archers, as are all archers nowadays, their lives do not depend on them shooting bows, however the medieval archer had a reason to excel and become a military archer as it was a good way of getting them out of the poor villages and a chance to become quite wealthy.
Any way That will do for now.
Cheers
Steve
-
Thanks, Steve!! Your info is always enlightening. Yes, I agree... we're playing at being archers. I believe it would be a different story if your life depended on your ability with a heavy bow.
Cheers, Adam.
-
Steve,
I agree... a clothyard was not likely 36", especially considering that if MR arrows were referred to as a clothyard (being that most are 30-31").
Why would someone refer to MR arrows as clothyards ? A clothyard was likely 36 of today's inches, three of today's feet and 36 of today's inches. If my postings #12 and #15 have not made that clear and if you won't take the word of the English Board of Trade, i guess it's time to change the subject. Where I got the information that one MR bow waas 5' 11" long is irrelevant. Members with access to the MR site can check whether it is a fact. If it is not, I will be very embarrassed and retract the statement. Let us know.
Re. whether the strings for heavy bows lasted for more than a few shots but we can never know because we have no strings from that time. We can get a hint from the fact that earlier archers had three linen strings and as John Smythe tells us, Elizabethan combat archers, instructed to discard a string at the least sign of weakness, carried only two extra hemp strings, implying that there was not a lot of breakage.
-
Steve,
I agree... a clothyard was not likely 36", especially considering that if MR arrows were referred to as a clothyard (being that most are 30-31").
Why would someone refer to MR arrows as clothyards ? A clothyard was likely 36 of today's inches, three of today's feet and 36 of today's inches. If my postings #12 and #15 have not made that clear and if you won't take the word of the English Board of Trade, i guess it's time to change the subject. Where I got the information that one MR bow waas 5' 11" long is irrelevant. Members with access to the MR site can check whether it is a fact. If it is not, I will be very embarrassed and retract the statement. Let us know.
Re. whether the strings for heavy bows lasted for more than a few shots but we can never know because we have no strings from that time. We can get a hint from the fact that earlier archers had three linen strings and as John Smythe tells us, Elizabethan combat archers, instructed to discard a string at the least sign of weakness, carried only two extra hemp strings, implying that there was not a lot of breakage.
5'11"is only 71", this is quite short and if it exists, then it is one of the shortest MR bows in the collection, being this short I would not want to draw a bow of this length to 30", let alone 36", I have just made a copy of a MR bow for a customer and he asked for a 35" draw length, so this bow was made 82" long, that is 11" longer than the length you have quoted. The original was one of the average length bows and that is 75" long.
Steve
-
Yep, there's a bow in the MR-database that is said to be 71" long, plus anotherone at 72" if I remember correctly. There was some talk about the database not beeing totally reliable, so it should be investigated.
Who is up for the task of making a copy of the smallest MR-bow? ;D
-
Gentlemen
I have watched this discussion with great interest and on thing comes to mind is could the ultra heave bows have been a shock weapon? One might think that a few vollies from a great distance might send an enemy into a state of disarray and allow one to take advantage of the confusion with a "regular" weight bow or infantry.
Ronnie
-
Thats a very good point Ronnie, I do believe that the warbow was there to cause total panick and demoralise the enemy, I mean imagine watching all your mates in front of you dying with arrows in them when all you can do is wait for your turn, I mean they could not exactly fight back when they are 300yds away could they.
Steve
-
Ive watched the specials that have been broadcast on history channel concerning the great battles involving the longbow. Can anyone tell me how close they are to being historically accurate?
Ronnie
-
Hi Ronnie, I'm not sure about the ones you have seen, but I have just recently finished doing some filming for the History channel, A program called "Warriors", which is being shown next August I believe, it was all about the Battle of Agincourt and from what I saw, they seemed to be doing it the right way, so keep an eye out for it.
Steve
-
You bet I will. I love that sort of thing. Some how It arouses my wife's wrath she'll just have to get over it.Ronnie
-
[quote author=stevesjem link=topic=8078.msg139869#msg139869 date=122661579
5'11"is only 71", this is quite short and if it exists, then it is one of the shortest MR bows in the collection, being this short I would not want to draw a bow of this length to 30", let alone 36", I have just made a copy of a MR bow for a customer and he asked for a 35" draw length, so this bow was made 82" long, that is 11" longer than the length you have quoted. The original was one of the average length bows and that is 75" long.
Steve
[/quote]
SirJohn Smythe tells us that war bows [such as the MR bows} were made longer than the normal longbows so that they "did but seldom break". I make up all my personal bows and arrows by the normal mediaeval measurements which specify an arrow the same length as the longer MR arrows but a shorter bow as was used for hunting and shooting at a mark.
Erik
-
Hello BT
Could you post some images of your bows please? I'd love to see them made to these shorter lengths, the most I've dared to do was 140lbs /75" ntn with a 32" draw out of English yew. The stave was no longer so it was not a matter of choice.
-
Photos,Photos,Photos.......Please.......... ;D
-
Hello BT
Could you post some images of your bows please? I'd love to see them made to these shorter lengths, the most I've dared to do was 140lbs /75" ntn with a 32" draw out of English yew. The stave was no longer so it was not a matter of choice.
I do have a few photos but lack the computer savvy to post them. If you would post them, I will send some as attachments to an email. I can send one of my unsuccessful atttempt to draw my replica yew MR bow thirty four years ago. More up to date pictures that will appear in 'Primitive Archery' magazine in my article on Viking archery are not now available due to contract restrictions.
Erik
-
I do have a few photos but lack the computer savvy to post them. If you would post them, I will send some as attachments to an email. I can send one of my unsuccessful atttempt to draw my replica yew MR bow thirty four years ago. More up to date pictures that will appear in 'Primitive Archery' magazine in my article on Viking archery are not now available due to contract restrictions.
Erik
No problem, PM sent.
-
[quote author=stevesjem link=topic=8078.msg139869#msg139869 date=122661579
5'11"is only 71", this is quite short and if it exists, then it is one of the shortest MR bows in the collection, being this short I would not want to draw a bow of this length to 30", let alone 36", I have just made a copy of a MR bow for a customer and he asked for a 35" draw length, so this bow was made 82" long, that is 11" longer than the length you have quoted. The original was one of the average length bows and that is 75" long.
Steve
SirJohn Smythe tells us that war bows [such as the MR bows} were made longer than the normal longbows so that they "did but seldom break". I make up all my personal bows and arrows by the normal mediaeval measurements which specify an arrow the same length as the longer MR arrows but a shorter bow as was used for hunting and shooting at a mark.
Erik
[/quote]
Hi Erik
Regardless of what Sir John Smythe says the fact of the matter is that the majority of the MR bows were 75-78" long and the majority of the arrows were 30", the longest of the arrows were 32". This I know as fact coz I have measured them.
What are "NORMAL MEDIEVAL MEASUREMENTS"? and where are they, Self Yew bows do not and cannot have a specific set of NORMAL measurements by their very nature, every stave is different and as such must be treated in its own way.
Steve
-
Images and text posted on behalf of Bowtoxo...
Here is my unsuccessful attempt to properly draw what may be the first MR bow replica that I made thirty four years ago, before the ship was raised. The smallbow is made to the specifications given in 'Livre de Chasse' .The small archer in the other picture is now 34 years old. In today's pictures I am not yet at full draw with round compasse yew bow and three matching arrows for my personal length as advised in mediaeval instructions and with Tudor shooting glove and bracer, horn sidenocks, loop in silk string. I apologize for the photo quality.
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q280/yeomanbowman/MR_replica.jpg)
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q280/yeomanbowman/yew_smallbow.jpg)
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q280/yeomanbowman/yew_longbow.jpg)
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q280/yeomanbowman/todays_yew_longbow.jpg)
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q280/yeomanbowman/ready_to_shoot_001.jpg)
-
Very nice picture bowtoxo. 34 years ago :)
-
Hi Erik
Regardless of what Sir John Smythe says the fact of the matter is that the majority of the MR bows were 75-78" long and the majority of the arrows were 30", the longest of the arrows were 32". This I know as fact coz I have measured them.
What are "NORMAL MEDIEVAL MEASUREMENTS"? and where are they, Self Yew bows do not and cannot have a specific set of NORMAL measurements by their very nature, every stave is different and as such must be treated in its own way.
Steve
Smythe did not dispute the lengths of MR bows and I haven't done so either. He gave the reason for their length.
Normal measurements both before and after the Hundred Years War specified arrows of ten fists length [the archer's own fists] from base of nock to shoulder of the head. For me thet is 31 1/2 inches, like the longer MR arrows. The bow was to be twice arrow length plus one fist for a short lived flight bow,or plus two fists for a longbow for hunting or mark shooting,which gives me a bow of 5' 11" between nocks. These specifications are in the 'Book of Roi Modus' and again in 'Lartcarcherie'. An act of Edward IV required Englishmen in Ireland to provide themselves with bows of their own height plus a fist. I still get 5' 11".
I have made bows to this measurement of yew, osage orange, elm, hickory and lemonwood. All have been problem free except for the lemonwood which broke when someone else tried to draw it. I can't imagine why anyone, given a decent stave to start with, would have a problem with these measurements.
If you can get over your book phobia, you could learn lots of useful information from people you have no opportunity to talk to.
Erik
-
Smythe did not dispute the lengths of MR bows and I haven't done so either. He gave the reason for their length.
I’ve noticed that one too… :-) Kind of disputing or arguing against something that has not been said.
Else, I’d like to thank you for the excellent and very useful information.
-
Hi Erik
Regardless of what Sir John Smythe says the fact of the matter is that the majority of the MR bows were 75-78" long and the majority of the arrows were 30", the longest of the arrows were 32". This I know as fact coz I have measured them.
What are "NORMAL MEDIEVAL MEASUREMENTS"? and where are they, Self Yew bows do not and cannot have a specific set of NORMAL measurements by their very nature, every stave is different and as such must be treated in its own way.
Steve
Smythe did not dispute the lengths of MR bows and I haven't done so either. He gave the reason for their length.
Normal measurements both before and after the Hundred Years War specified arrows of ten fists length [the archer's own fists] from base of nock to shoulder of the head. For me thet is 31 1/2 inches, like the longer MR arrows. The bow was to be twice arrow length plus one fist for a short lived flight bow,or plus two fists for a longbow for hunting or mark shooting,which gives me a bow of 5' 11" between nocks. These specifications are in the 'Book of Roi Modus' and again in 'Lartcarcherie'. An act of Edward IV required Englishmen in Ireland to provide themselves with bows of their own height plus a fist. I still get 5' 11".
I have made bows to this measurement of yew, osage orange, elm, hickory and lemonwood. All have been problem free except for the lemonwood which broke when someone else tried to draw it. I can't imagine why anyone, given a decent stave to start with, would have a problem with these measurements.
If you can get over your book phobia, you could learn lots of useful information from people you have no opportunity to talk to.
Erik
Hi Erik
I do not have a book phobia it's just that very few books give accurate information on the bows of the period.
Lets look at your information with regards to a 75" MR(This is one of the shortest bows on the MR) bow and see what we get.
If the arrow length is supposed to be 10 fists length and the bow 2 Arrow lengths + 1 fist (=21Fists) then using the equation of Bow length = 21 Fists:
75" MR bow (This is one of the shortest bows) is 75 divided by 21 = 3.57". So 1 fist is 3.57".
So Arrow length must be 10 x fists size which is 10 x 3.57 = 35.7", There are NO arrows over 32" on the MR.
So lets look at it another way, nearly all of the arrows on the MR are 30" from Nock to Shoulder.
So using your equation, the archers fist would be no more than 3" wide, (This is a Childs fist size, not a seasoned archers).
So Archers fist is 3"
Arrow length is 10 x fist size = 30" (Correct length of MR Arrows)
Bow length is 2 Arrow lengths + 1 x fist (2 x 30" + 3") = 63".
The vast majority of bows on the MR are 75" or more, this is a whole 12" longer than your equation allows.
THIS IS WHY I TAKE VERY LITTLE NOTICE OF WHAT'S WRITTEN IN BOOKS!
I applaud the fact that you have made bows of 5'11" between the nocks, however as a 71" bow has no baring on the actual MR bows, I have no interest in making one of this length.
Steve
-
hey steve in premtive archer the other sday im seeing a new book called the "english war bow " aurthor timothy may from horsefeathers im wondering if ya have read it yet and if there is any info to help with this ?? reason im askin is a lot of guys say most of these books have no ifo for that stuff just thought id ask befor i buy it thanks brock
-
Hi Brock
The only book I can see by Timothy May is "The Mongol Art of War"
So I'm not sure what book you are looking at.
Sorry
steve
-
steve this is in the new premitive archer mag page29 the full name is sectrats of the english war bow hope that help haha brock
-
Yes, I think he is referring to Hugh Soar's book "Secrets of the English Warbow." I'm sure that you've read this book Steve.
-
yep i just double checked thats the one you guys know if it s any good ? if it dont have any data i aint gettin it i want some stuff with some measurments and what not in it haha but like everyone s been saying most have very lil or no ifo there thanks brock
-
Hi,
My arrow length should be 35 inches!
Alistair
-
I think I will stick with 30" draw length for warbows. Takes it to the ear instead of to the corner of the mouth for my 27" draw.
-
The books cited above are the actual words of actual people who used archery gear of their own time, the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I think their words and suggestions give a better idea of archery in their time than the words of present day people who choose to ignore information handed down to us. My goal is to reproduce the gear and shooting style of the Middle Ages as nearly as I can determine. That is my idea of re-enactment.
The photos posted above show my bows and arrows made by the method I have clearly described. Others are free to ignore it or try it, but please don't make ridiculous objections. The method works. The bows and arrows work.
-
yep i just double checked thats the one you guys know if it s any good ? if it dont have any data i aint gettin it i want some stuff with some measurments and what not in it haha but like everyone s been saying most have very lil or no ifo there thanks brock
It's an excellent book, with detailed info on EWBs, arrows, heads, etc. Well worth the price, IMO.
-
thanks adb think ill go ahead get it wont hurt to read it anyway haha brock
-
the books cited above are the actual words of actual people who used archery gear of their own time, the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I think their words and suggestions give a better idea of archery in their time than the words of present day people who choose to ignore information handed down to us. My goal is to reproduce the gear and shooting style of the Middle Ages as nearly as I can determine. That is my idea of reenactment.
The photos posted above show my bows and arrows made by the method I have clearly described. Others are free to ignore it or try it, but please don't make ridiculous objections. The method works. The bows and arrows work.
Hi,
When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
Hi,
When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.
Cheers,
Alistair
Hi Alstair,
Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above]. MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.
Erik
-
Hi,
When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.
Cheers,
Alistair
Hi Alstair,
Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above]. MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.
Erik
Hi,
Not really trying to correct or accuse, maybe trying to break out of the loop we all seem to be stuck in.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
Hi,
When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.
Cheers,
Alistair
Hi Alstair,
Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above]. MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.
Erik
Hi Erik
Alistair has not missed the point at all, he has hit the nail on the head, This section of the forum is to deal with the "WARBOW" not lighter hunting bows, so all discussions should be to do with the WARBOW, Although you did make an attempt at a MR replica, it can only be seen as a lookalike not a true replica as you have not used High altitude Italian Yew, In fact it doesn't look like any type of yew, so really has no baring on the MR bows. Sorry to be so blunt.
Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.
Steve
-
As long as those importing to England filled their quota for "taxes" I doubt they really cared where the yew came from. High or low altitude, good or poor soil, good sunlight or little. England was importing from all over europe not just Italy. The king of spain ordered every yew tree be cut down and burnt to prevent his forces being shot with their own wood. Italy is the primary source right now but that wasn't true 500+ years ago.
-
As long as those importing to England filled their quota for "taxes" I doubt they really cared where the yew came from. High or low altitude, good or poor soil, good sunlight or little. England was importing from all over europe not just Italy. The king of spain ordered every yew tree be cut down and burnt to prevent his forces being shot with their own wood. Italy is the primary source right now but that wasn't true 500+ years ago.
Sorry Triton,
At the time of the MR Spain and Portugal had already stopped exporting wood to England and so the wood came from Italy and the Baltic region, This wood was checked for quality and had to be of the correct quality for Warbows and this meant High altitude, this can also be seen in the growth ring count of the MR bows, this ring count can only come from High Altitude and at this time the best quality would have come from Italy, Do you really think that Henry VIII would have had inferior quality wood for the bows on his flagship?
Steve
-
certainly not, he would have had the best of everything but the warbow did exist long before the MR. It is our only primary source for data but other written accounts exist, which show other woods were used for warbows, yew being by far preferable. If you want to specialise in bows of the MR period, that's fair enough, I aint knocking it but there seems to be an an inference that it's not a warbow if it's not made form yew and/or from high altitude italian wood, there were bows of other woods found too. I wonder if scientific tests have been done to determine the origin of the MR rose bow wood, such as those done on the teeth of those on board. The MR isn't the be all and end all of the warbow, though it can be seen as the peak of design and power. It was an incredible find and an invaulable resource but must be viewed as a small period of development.
-
I totally agree that the MR bows are not the be all and end all of Warbows, however this thread is called "data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows" and as such this should be the topic of conversation.
When I was last at the MR, which was only a couple of weeks ago, i was talking to one of the scientists there who is looking at the DNA of the wood to try and determine where this wood came from and he asked me to send him a sample of Italian yew for reference, so very soon we will know for sure where this wood came from.
Steve
-
damn. please excuse me for going off topic O:) by referring to bows other than those on the MR.
Those results wil be very interesting.
-
damn. please excuse me for going off topic O:) by referring to bows other than those on the MR.
Those results wil be very interesting.
No problem
-
Hi, Erik
I don't understand how you can say you made the first MR replica warbow, 5 years before the MR was discovered?? Certainly, you may be able to say you made a Medieval era bow, depending on what material and # the bow is. Have you been to the MR museum? As you're obviously interested, it's worth the trip! Was for me.
-
Hi, Erik
I don't understand how you can say you made the first MR replica warbow, 5 years before the MR was discovered?? Certainly, you may be able to say you made a Medieval era bow, depending on what material and # the bow is. Have you been to the MR museum? As you're obviously interested, it's worth the trip! Was for me.
Good question. The Mary rose was discovered long before it was raised and dtvers brought up two of the bows in the nineteenth century. One of these was described in the 'Badminton Library' volume on 'Archery' which includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. At one foot from the tip, the girth is 3 ¼”, at two feet, a girth of 4”, and at two feet ten inches, a 4 ½”girth. includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. The maximum girth of 4 1/2” is maintained for eight and three-quarter inches. I cared enough to make one up. Yes,Steve. The one in the photo is really yew. high altitude Pacific yew drawing 100# plus, arguably as good as wood from parts of Europe, even England, that were sourced when the best was no longer available.
Alastair,---- It is true that the written word is not necessarily true. The same can be said for the spoken word, the posted word, or an interpretation formed by faulty or uninformed guesswork. Did the Badminton Library have any reason to give false measurements, or medieval archers who described how they determined bow and arrow length ? We are not talking the Agincourt body count here. BTW, do you and Steve believe the battle of Agincourt really happened ? After all, it is known only from the written word..
-
I think this was the first MR replical bow below, it predates BT's bow by quite some time :). It was made by a R. Warry and purchased by the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford on January 28th, 1893. the first bows were raised in the 19th C.
http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms-and-armour/o/A-Place-in-History/1893.65.1/
-
Hi, Erik
I don't understand how you can say you made the first MR replica warbow, 5 years before the MR was discovered?? Certainly, you may be able to say you made a Medieval era bow, depending on what material and # the bow is. Have you been to the MR museum? As you're obviously interested, it's worth the trip! Was for me.
Good question. The Mary rose was discovered long before it was raised and dtvers brought up two of the bows in the nineteenth century. One of these was described in the 'Badminton Library' volume on 'Archery' which includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. At one foot from the tip, the girth is 3 ¼”, at two feet, a girth of 4”, and at two feet ten inches, a 4 ½”girth. includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. The maximum girth of 4 1/2” is maintained for eight and three-quarter inches. I cared enough to make one up. Yes,Steve. The one in the photo is really yew. high altitude Pacific yew drawing 100# plus, arguably as good as wood from parts of Europe, even England, that were sourced when the best was no longer available.
Alastair,---- It is true that the written word is not necessarily true. The same can be said for the spoken word, the posted word, or an interpretation formed by faulty or uninformed guesswork. Did the Badminton Library have any reason to give false measurements, or medieval archers who described how they determined bow and arrow length ? We are not talking the Agincourt body count here. BTW, do you and Steve believe the battle of Agincourt really happened ? After all, it is known only from the written word..
Thats it I've had enough of this, Bow toxo talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, You are so full of your self you refuse to see what is actually staring you in the face, have you never heard of moving forward with research. I will no longer enter into any discussions with you and will disregard your words as that of a rambler....feel free to carry on in yoir misguided little world.
BTW, yes Agincourt did happen coz we won it, it's part of our History and culture, something you will not know much about!
Steve
-
I think this was the first MR replical bow below, it predates BT's bow by quite some time :). It was made by a R. Warry and purchased by the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford on January 28th, 1893. the first bows were raised in the 19th C.
http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms-and-armour/o/A-Place-in-History/1893.65.1/
Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.
Erik
-
This thread is very typical to what can be seen on other threads as it comes to MR bow measurements.
Backgardenbowyer’s initial question was:
“Does anyone know where some detailed data on the Mary Rose bows and arrows is published? I'm not talking about the selective and second hand scholarship in Harvey et al but a proper analysis of the measurements and description of the finds. […] it surprises me that there isn't a data set available with all the dimensions.”
Several other member have deplored the fact that no dimensions are available.
Up to this point there are 77 (!) answers to Backgardenbowyer’s question. So far, only one (!) person (bow-toxo) gave MR bow dimensions (post#74) as asked in the initial question. And this very person is accused as being “off topic” and as being a “rambler” in his “misguided little world”.
Steve, you who “made more replicas of these bows than probably anyone” (Reply #32), why don’t you just give measurements of three of the replica bows you made. Say the dimension of one of the smaller MR bows, dimensions of one of the bigger bows and one of in between, including ring count.
Thus Backgardenbowyer’s question would be answered and the discussion be back on the right track?
-
Hartung
I am unable to give specific dimensions of these bows as the MR are producing a paper which will give all the information necessary, so until then it would be wrong for me to give specific dimensions.
Reply 1 and reply 9 both say how things are!
Sorry
-
Just finnished an 80# warbow style composit out of hickory and sapelle. Works great but I think the Sapelle takes to much set. Will be trying something else next. Thing I think is interresting it feal like I'm stringing one of my lighter 27" draw length bows and its not so hard to bring it to full draw when you get into it. Sure feal muscles I wasnt aware I had before. Especially in the lower abdomin and just bellow the ribs and across my back. Good work out! Now to build up the muscles for my 90# bow!
David T
-
Well guys, I'm a bit wiser than when I started the thread but not much! A few weeks ago I met and talked to Pip Bickerstaffe at a Roving Marks shoot. He has a fair claim to have made more English Longbows than anyone else at present (though I'm not a fan of his standard mass produced bows) and he has certainly made quite a few MR replicas. He's also handled and measured some of the bows. Pip's view is that the dimension only make sense when you examine the wood and the larger longer bows are just the ones made our of wider grained and less dense yew. He also said that the arrows do indeed vary in length 31.5" being the most common, and that where arrows were found in sheaves there were always several lengths in each sheaf and usually the same proportion of shorter and longer arrows. Does this suggests that there might have been a variety of head types in a sheaf? Might a shorter (therefore stiffer) arrow with a heavier head be kept for short range direct shots and a longer lighter one used at distance? Well I don't know.
Thanks for all your comments.
It's all useful information but I'd still like to see the whole find measured, catalogued and published!
Stan
-
No need to feel sorry. I find it strange though that you’re promoting and selling Mary Rose replica warbows – which makes those dimensions public anyway - but refuse to give the dimensions of one or two of the replicas… I would understand it though if it was for professional secrecy that you deny any demand.
-
Well guys, I'm a bit wiser than when I started the thread but not much! A few weeks ago I met and talked to Pip Bickerstaffe at a Roving Marks shoot. He has a fair claim to have made more English Longbows than anyone else at present (though I'm not a fan of his standard mass produced bows) and he has certainly made quite a few MR replicas. He's also handled and measured some of the bows. Pip's view is that the dimension only make sense when you examine the wood and the larger longer bows are just the ones made our of wider grained and less dense yew. He also said that the arrows do indeed vary in length 31.5" being the most common, and that where arrows were found in sheaves there were always several lengths in each sheaf and usually the same proportion of shorter and longer arrows. Does this suggests that there might have been a variety of head types in a sheaf? Might a shorter (therefore stiffer) arrow with a heavier head be kept for short range direct shots and a longer lighter one used at distance? Well I don't know.
Thanks for all your comments.
It's all useful information but I'd still like to see the whole find measured, catalogued and published!
Stan
I would suggest that even if these dimensions (larger bows) were made from average rpi English yew it would still give a bow of 140/50lb min. I also understand that the most common arrow length was 30.5 inches.
Just my opinion.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
No need to feel sorry. I find it strange though that you’re promoting and selling Mary Rose replica warbows – which makes those dimensions public anyway - but refuse to give the dimensions of one or two of the replicas… I would understand it though if it was for professional secrecy that you deny any demand.
As I've said Hartung, It would be wrong of me to give out information like this prior to the MR paper being published, If I did it may jeopardise my position and also cause me problems with doing my own research with the MR Trust. So you will just have to wait until the MR produce their document.
Steve
-
I'll second that. The archaeological system is full of this stuff. Rights to publish data on finds. Over here, in Norway, there are even those that virtually sit on the material and won't let others publish it, even though they themselves won't publish anything on it.
Let's just hope the MR paper will contain information useful to bowyers.
-
Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.
Steve
Ooh, that sounds scary. I don’t know why anyone would want to “shoot down big time” a post offered to inform interested people but as I’ve said, I welcome correction. I prefer historically based evidence, such as I have posted, rather than garbled incoherent attacks. The above refers to Tudor bow strings, not theoretical physics and the post was as follows.
I think we are all aware that the bowstrings were made ‘of very fine hemp’ or silk and had a loop as mentioned by Ascham, Smythe [Certaine Discourses] and ‘Lartdarcherie’ [ pub.Paris 1515, trans. Col Walrond ], Lartdarcherie, which contradicts Ascham only as to whether to nock an arrow before or after taking a stand, states that the string should be tightly twisted of three strands of fiber or thread. [We know from the Mary Rose arrows that the strings had to be only about 1/8” thick.] The loop [ for longbow horn tipped sidenocks.],, should be made as small as possible and stretched with a stone weight. Ascham’s comment about the bending, the timber hitch at the end , “if [the string] be long, the bending must needs be in the small of the string, which being sore twisted, must needs snap in sunder”, clearly tells us that the string is made thicker at the bending, a stress point. The loop being another stress point, and with Ascham’s comment “ if either of the nocks be naught” referring to the string, not the bow, we can safely infer that the loop would be likewise reinforced. Smythe, a strong Elizabethan proponent of military archery, tells us that the strings were also treated “ with a kind of water glue to resist wet and moisture” and in 1547 every archer was to “have three bow strings in a waterproof case”.. We no longer know what that glue was.
So much for the stringer. Smythe tells us that the string is whipped [served] by the archers with fine thread, as we do now, and a list of gear for Elizabeth’s “trayned bands” says, :”every string whipped in the nock”, another point of wear.
I would not be able to offer a much more detailed description ot a Tudor period bow string if a time traveller dropped an original one in my lap. For those interested in making one, I suggest Dr, Elmer’s ‘Target Archery”, which describes the real Flemish string as made by a Belgian stringer from the early 20th century who died with his craft, but whose strings suggested how they were made. They did however have a looser twist than noted above. Making such a string of linen ,silk, or hemp, is an all day job for me.
Cheers,
Erik
-
Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.
Steve
Ooh, that sounds scary. I don’t know why anyone would want to “shoot down big time” a post offered to inform interested people but as I’ve said, I welcome correction. I prefer historically based evidence, such as I have posted, rather than garbled incoherent attacks. The above refers to Tudor bow strings, not theoretical physics and the post was as follows.
I think we are all aware that the bowstrings were made ‘of very fine hemp’ or silk and had a loop as mentioned by Ascham, Smythe [Certaine Discourses] and ‘Lartdarcherie’ [ pub.Paris 1515, trans. Col Walrond ], Lartdarcherie, which contradicts Ascham only as to whether to nock an arrow before or after taking a stand, states that the string should be tightly twisted of three strands of fiber or thread. [We know from the Mary Rose arrows that the strings had to be only about 1/8” thick.] The loop [ for longbow horn tipped sidenocks.],, should be made as small as possible and stretched with a stone weight. Ascham’s comment about the bending, the timber hitch at the end , “if [the string] be long, the bending must needs be in the small of the string, which being sore twisted, must needs snap in sunder”, clearly tells us that the string is made thicker at the bending, a stress point. The loop being another stress point, and with Ascham’s comment “ if either of the nocks be naught” referring to the string, not the bow, we can safely infer that the loop would be likewise reinforced. Smythe, a strong Elizabethan proponent of military archery, tells us that the strings were also treated “ with a kind of water glue to resist wet and moisture” and in 1547 every archer was to “have three bow strings in a waterproof case”.. We no longer know what that glue was.
So much for the stringer. Smythe tells us that the string is whipped [served] by the archers with fine thread, as we do now, and a list of gear for Elizabeth’s “trayned bands” says, :”every string whipped in the nock”, another point of wear.
I would not be able to offer a much more detailed description ot a Tudor period bow string if a time traveller dropped an original one in my lap. For those interested in making one, I suggest Dr, Elmer’s ‘Target Archery”, which describes the real Flemish string as made by a Belgian stringer from the early 20th century who died with his craft, but whose strings suggested how they were made. They did however have a looser twist than noted above. Making such a string of linen ,silk, or hemp, is an all day job for me.
Cheers,
Erik
i like this quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
Great strings and little strings be for divers purposes : the great string is more surer for the bow, more stable to prick withall, but slower for the cast. The little string is clean contrary, not so sure, therefore to be taken heed of, lest with long tarrying on it break your bow, more fit to shoot far, than apt to prick near; therefore, when you know the nature of both big and little, you must fit your bow according to the occasion of your shooting. In stringing of your bow .
-
[/quote]
i like this quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
Great strings and little strings be for divers purposes : the great string is more surer for the bow, more stable to prick withall, but slower for the cast. The little string is clean contrary, not so sure, therefore to be taken heed of, lest with long tarrying on it break your bow, more fit to shoot far, than apt to prick near; therefore, when you know the nature of both big and little, you must fit your bow according to the occasion of your shooting. In stringing of your bow .
[/quote]
That is a correct quote although it is only from a book so I am sure that Steve would not accept it as a big time shoot down.
I accept it and add that silk strimgs were preferred because, being strong, they could be made to the thickness desired. Military strings were of hemp, undoubtedly standardized, and the arrow nocks were to fit whipped strings as I mentioned. Do you find Ascham's book valid for military gear or only for the dilletante aristocrats equipment ? Thank you for your interest. I appreciate the discussion.
Cheers,
Erik
-
i don't believe ascham's books are the be all and end of military archery. infact i believe them to be more about pastime shooting.
i think this quote is good
this is a quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
God send us good stringers both for war and peace. Now what a string ought to be made on, whether of good hemp, as they do now-a-days, or of flax, or of silk, I leave that to the judgement of stringers, of whom we must buy them.
this tells me hemp seems to be more used than silk at this time.
the first book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
and i think this quote says such alot about what ascham is talking about.
Phi. I grant, Toxophile, that use of shooting maketh a man draw strong, to shoot at most advantage, to keep his gear, which is no small thing in war; but yet methink that the customable shooting at home, specially at butts and pricks, make nothing at all for strong shooting, which doth most good in war. Therefore, I suppose, if men should use to go into the fields, and learn to shoot mighty strong shots, and never care for any mark at all, they should do much better.
this tells me they are shooting lighter bows than they would at war.or not drawing there bows to there full potential . what do you think?
-
first extract says to me that, although they had two strings, one was in use and because there was little room to move, they had little or no chance of fitting the second string. so making him almost useless.
second extract looks like Ascham is referring to the stronger war archers as not so accurate as those using lighter bows..
After all, I doubt I'd be too fussed about accuracy at 2-300 yards when there are likely to be thousands of arrows hitting the general area.
-
first extract says to me that, although they had two strings, one was in use and because there was little room to move, they had little or no chance of fitting the second string. so making him almost useless.
second extract looks like Ascham is referring to the stronger war archers as not so accurate as those using lighter bows..
After all, I doubt I'd be too fussed about accuracy at 2-300 yards when there are likely to be thousands of arrows hitting the general area.
hello mike :-)
the first quote i used was a little long, the part i was refuring to was this part :-)
God send us good stringers both for war and peace. Now what a string ought to be made on, whether of good hemp, as they do now-a-days, or of flax, or of silk, I leave that to the judgement of stringers, of whom we must buy them.
this tells me hemp seems to be more used than silk at this time.
-
sadly the "hemp" used then is now illegal
-
sadly the "hemp" used then is now illegal
yep so i believe,
i have done most of my experiments with linen, but am now making a few silk strings ,they seem quite promising to be used on warbows. ive experimented with linen upto 110# . and it works well.but does break after time, but usually as the arrow is launched and not while drawing the bow.which enables the bow to survive the break quite well.
i believe linen would have been a good roving string, but maybe not the best for warfare. in my opinion, but am still open minded to peoples practical findings. :-)
-
I'm going to give the fella a chance to recover from the holiday but I have a contact in Poland that can supply long strand raw hemp. I'm keen to give it a go. There's also some obscure reference to strings being whipped for their entire length (perhaps with silk) to add strength.
-
I'm going to give the fella a chance to recover from the holiday but I have a contact in Poland that can supply long strand raw hemp. I'm keen to give it a go. There's also some obscure reference to strings being whipped for their entire length (perhaps with silk) to add strength.
excellent :-)
i will be interseted to hear your results.
are you going to try the hemp string on your 110# lam warbow ?
-
i don't believe ascham's books are the be all and end of military archery. infact i believe them to be more about pastime shooting.
i think this quote is good
A few points concerning your belief versus facts. Henry VIII promoted and legally required archery practice for war, not pastime.
Ascham refers to shooting at the butts as well as 'prick' [clout] shooting. Nearly alll able bodied Englishmen were required to shoot at the butts from the ages of 16 to 60 as required by law to prepare archers for war, not pastime..
Ascham wrote 'Toxophilus' at the request and patronage of Henry VIII to instruct in archery as practice for war, not pastime.
All archers were required to practice at the butts as above mentioned . There were not special butts for the regular archers and other special butts for pastime shooters.
this tells me hemp seems to be more used than silk at this time.
Hemp came into common use in the late Middle Ages, not so long before Aascham;r time.I recently made up a hemp string of 20 pound hemp, three strands of 3 strings each, total 180 pounds, just about 1/8" thick. Coarse stuff but OK.
the first book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
this tells me they are shooting lighter bows than they would at war.or not drawing there bows to there full potential . what do you think?
They were using fully drawn arrows of Mary Rose length and shorter bows that had to cast the distances required by law, but I would guess they would have been of lighter draw weight, especially for the teen agers.
-
i don't believe ascham's books are the be all and end of military archery. infact i believe them to be more about pastime shooting.
i think this quote is good
A few points concerning your belief versus facts. Henry VIII promoted and legally required archery practice for war, not pastime.
Ascham refers to shooting at the butts as well as 'prick' [clout] shooting. Nearly alll able bodied Englishmen were required to shoot at the butts from the ages of 16 to 60 as required by law to prepare archers for war, not pastime..
Ascham wrote 'Toxophilus' at the request and patronage of Henry VIII to instruct in archery as practice for war, not pastime.
All archers were required to practice at the butts as above mentioned . There were not special butts for the regular archers and other special butts for pastime shooters.
this tells me hemp seems to be more used than silk at this time.
Hemp came into common use in the late Middle Ages, not so long before Aascham;r time.I recently made up a hemp string of 20 pound hemp, three strands of 3 strings each, total 180 pounds, just about 1/8" thick. Coarse stuff but OK.
the first book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.
this tells me they are shooting lighter bows than they would at war.or not drawing there bows to there full potential . what do you think?
They were using fully drawn arrows of Mary Rose length and shorter bows that had to cast the distances required by law, but I would guess they would have been of lighter draw weight, especially for the teen agers.
the opening words od the book.
TOXOPHILUS,
The School of Shooting
contained in two
books.
To all Gentlemen and yeoman of England,
pleasant for their pastime to read,
and profitable for their use
to follow, both in war
and peace.
how many peasants could read at this time ? (not many i'm sure. which says to me that the book was aimed toward wealther people of the time)
pleasant for their pastime to read,
this tells me that the book was for people that enjoyed shooting and not aimed at people that were forced to shoot by law.
with in saying this i do realise it was compulsary to practice with a bow for war and peace but not everyone shooting would have come anywhere near being a warbow archer,very few would have shown exceptional skill and strength.so it was encouraged as a competative sport with rewards to encourage people away from probably playing football or dice.
-
since the invention of the printing press in 1440, literacy boomed in England, especially in the cities. by the 16thC even women were learning to read :o
I think the language needs to be thought about as a lot different to current literary works. This phrase "pleasant for their pastime to read", I believe these days that would translate to "a nice bedtime read" or "easy to read" rather than being a heavyweight tome.
To be taken more seriously than the witterings of a dandy in my opinion. But so much of his works are taken out of context or ignored entirely, so what does it matter? may as well put it out of reach and make it up as we go along to suit our own ends ;)
-
thanks mike :)
i think dandy's appeared around 1795 - 1820 . i believe it was a fashion of clothing .
i think around the time of ascham 1500ish the first books written in english and not latin were appearing. which may have helped the written word extend to a larger audience :-)
-
Ratty; The quote tells me that the book is addressed to gentlemen and yeomen. Gentlemen were the nobles, not gentle by the modern definition. They owed their position to their immediate readiness to fight for their king with the weapons and armour appropriate to their position. Yeomen, the higher class of peasants who owned their own land, were renowned as the finest warbow archers in existence. But you knew that, cidn't you ? If very few ot the population could have used warbows, maybe you can tell me how the crown found ten archers for every man-at-arms at the end of the Hundred Years War ?
Triton; Since you don't consider the book worth anything because it is ignored, you might as well ignore it. Great reasoning ! Good luck making up history while ignoring it. That is a challenge. Perhaps you will come up with something so much better than your historical heritage.
Cheers,
Erik
-
If very few ot the population could have used warbows, maybe you can tell me how the crown found ten archers for every man-at-arms at the end of the Hundred Years war ?
I guess that the gene pool at that time would have been around the 3 million to which to draw the appropriate standard of archery from.
I am thinking of the numbers of modern archers shooting today with warbow weights and to an historical standard as a percentage of the population as a whole. I guess if more people practised archery (warbow) then we would see a potential tapped and accuracy and distances over 240 yards with heavy arrows common place.
Alistair
-
I've just finished reading a couple of chapters of Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England
by David Cressy, and he mentions Ascham as an example of an advocate of literacy for the general populace as a means of social control. It seems that what passes as being literate in Tudor times is ambiguous but being illiterate was not seen as a disadvantage or had any stigma attached to it. However I was surprised that literacy may have been higher than 30% in the Stuart period. As Mike says printing and Protestantism certainly promoted literacy.
Perhaps the great man did have ideas of his works being for a wide readership but whether this was achieved with Toxophilus I doubt (well not until much later). Some of the rudimentary shooting information suggest to me that he in mind, as the primary target for his information, novice shooters and not hardend expert military archers. I think he may well have tried to encourage greater participation in archery, which would have pleased Henry VIII. It sadly didn't halt the decline of the warbow though.
-
Triton; Since you don't consider the book worth anything because it is ignored, you might as well ignore it. Great reasoning ! Good luck making up history while ignoring it. That is a challenge. Perhaps you will come up with something so much better than your historical heritage.
Cheers,
Erik
calm down Erik, I was being sarcastic. some readers of those books have cherry picked the parts they agree with and discount the rest as it doesn't fit their personal agenda. If you read what I'd said previously, you should understand I have high regard for Aschams teachings.
-
I've just finished reading a couple of chapters of Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England
by David Cressy, and he mentions Ascham as an example of an advocate of literacy for the general populace as a means of social control. It seems that what passes as being literate in Tudor times is ambiguous but being illiterate was not seen as a disadvantage or had any stigma attached to it. However I was surprised that literacy may have been higher than 30% in the Stuart period. As Mike says printing and Protestantism certainly promoted literacy.
Perhaps the great man did have ideas of his works being for a wide readership but whether this was achieved with Toxophilus I doubt (well not until much later). Some of the rudimentary shooting information suggest to me that he in mind, as the primary target for his information, novice shooters and not hardend expert military archers. I think he may well have tried to encourage greater participation in archery, which would have pleased Henry VIII. It sadly didn't halt the decline of the warbow though.
excellent post :)
-
Triton; Since you don't consider the book worth anything because it is ignored, you might as well ignore it. Great reasoning ! Good luck making up history while ignoring it. That is a challenge. Perhaps you will come up with something so much better than your historical heritage.
Cheers,
Erik
calm down Erik, I was being sarcastic. some readers of those books have cherry picked the parts they agree with and discount the rest as it doesn't fit their personal agenda. If you read what I'd said previously, you should understand I have high regard for Aschams teachings.
Sorry, the post was so much like those from the wheel re-inventors that I took it as part of the threatened big-time shoot down and my military training kicked in. My mistake.
Erik
-
well to me it looks like a good reason why laws are written as they are today, yet some still manage to find loopholes.
we're getting way off the original topic though.
-
Sorry, the post was so much like those from the wheel re-inventors that I took it as part of the threatened big-time shoot down and my military training kicked in. My mistake.
Erik
LOL :D
-
Sorry, the post was so much like those from the wheel re-inventors that I took it as part of the threatened big-time shoot down and my military training kicked in. My mistake.
Erik
LOL :D
GROW UP BOTH OF YOU!
I've had it with this area on the forum, both Hartung and Bow-Toxo seem to feel they can get away with saying anything they want and do not think anyone else has as much experience and knowledge as they do. Well they are wrong, when they actually do some research of their own and it has some relevance to the English warbow, then and only then will people take them seriously.
Guys it's very easy to sit in front of a computer with a username that is anonymous and talk absolute rubbish, but I'm afraid the fact will always remain:
YOU BOTH HAVE DONE NOTHING TO FORWARD OUR KNOWLEDGE, ALL YOU CAN DO IS MAKE REDICULOUS STATEMENTS AND CHILDISH COMMENTS AIMED AT ME...........HOW VERY SAD BOTH YOUR LIVES MUST BE.
If the moderators of thisa site feel that i have been unfair by this comment and remove me from this forum then so be it.
Steve Stratton
-
Now, that is a veeeeery interesting post and a prime example of an ad hominem attack that I would really enjoy picking to pieces. But we are on a bowyer website here that’s why I will refrain from it – unless of course you are asking for it ;D
Why does the author chose to employ such an ad hominem argument?
“Ad hominem argument is most commonly used […] as argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.” “The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.” (Wikipedia)
And
“The only reason for changing the subject to address the character of the presenter or author of a viewpoint is to avoid discussing the evidence. This makes ad homenim attacks unscientific, and experience has taught me that people who engage in baseless ad homenim are usually […] trying to avoid exposure.”
http://logic.timothycasey.info/
The author disagrees with at least two of my last threads
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,10215.0.html
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,10123.0.html
The author wrote three answers to those threads but later chose to completely delete all of the three answers and announced that he rather choses to “no longer post on this site”.
I will no longer post on this site and will leave you all know in the hands of the very knowledgable Hartung.
Steve
If you feel we are being lead astray maybe you should share more not less. ???
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,10215.0.html
I would like to hold it with Justin Snyder and ask the author that if he feels that I’m leading PA members astray to present facts and not to delete his answers again since no one will be able to follow his argumentation any longer or understand why he acts the way he acts.
I’m inviting the author to debate the subjects he disagrees but to do it in a scientific way and not attacking people personally. I finally like to present a quote from Tim Baker himself quoting Comstock: “We're of no value to each other if we can't disagree." (Quote from PP)
Now, with this in mind ... ;)
-
GROW UP BOTH OF YOU!
I've had it with this area on the forum, both Hartung and Bow-Toxo seem to feel they can get away with saying anything they want and do not think anyone else has as much experience and knowledge as they do. Well they are wrong, when they actually do some research of their own and it has some relevance to the English warbow, then and only then will people take them seriously.
Guys it's very easy to sit in front of a computer with a username that is anonymous and talk absolute rubbish, but I'm afraid the fact will always remain:
YOU BOTH HAVE DONE NOTHING TO FORWARD OUR KNOWLEDGE, ALL YOU CAN DO IS MAKE REDICULOUS STATEMENTS AND CHILDISH COMMENTS AIMED AT ME...........HOW VERY SAD BOTH YOUR LIVES MUST BE.
If the moderators of thisa site feel that i have been unfair by this comment and remove me from this forum then so be it.
Steve Stratton
Steve,
You may be right but we are moving off topic. I am sorry about your frustration but I can only please one person a day and your turn has not yet come up. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
cheers,
Erik
-
Some good info in this thread and some real crap. If you are asking yourself if I am referring to something you typed, I will leave it to you to decide. But please ask yourself that question before you post it again. Lets try to be civil. You do not have to like each other, but we would appreciate it if you would try to be descent to each other. I know people can make a point without the condescending undertone because many have done it. If you need to take 5 minutes and catch your composure before posting please do it. Justin
-
Just trying to help steve. He's the underdog now and Hartung and Bow-toxfag are shooting their mouths off at him without any intervening from you!
-
I've just finished reading a couple of chapters of Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England
by David Cressy, and he mentions Ascham as an example of an advocate of literacy for the general populace as a means of social control. It seems that what passes as being literate in Tudor times is ambiguous but being illiterate was not seen as a disadvantage or had any stigma attached to it. However I was surprised that literacy may have been higher than 30% in the Stuart period. As Mike says printing and Protestantism certainly promoted literacy.
Perhaps the great man did have ideas of his works being for a wide readership but whether this was achieved with Toxophilus I doubt (well not until much later). Some of the rudimentary shooting information suggest to me that he in mind, as the primary target for his information, novice shooters and not hardend expert military archers. I think he may well have tried to encourage greater participation in archery, which would have pleased Henry VIII. It sadly didn't halt the decline of the warbow though.
Great post Yeomanbowman. It is quite plausible that he was trying for a wide readership but addressing those who are able to pay him for his work "gentlemen and yeomen." Also to suggest he could partially be writting to please Henry VIII. It is expedient in any political environment to remain in favor of someone who can behead you for disagreement with them. ;)
-
It's funny, but typical. Those who can do... and those who can't feel complled to tell others how. I think hartung and bow-toxo should make some replica warbows and show us their stuff, instead of telling us how it should be. Sure... read some books, I have. You'll never really know until you do it yourself. I think you guys should put up, or shut up. Typical internet "experts." Until you guys have made some 140+#@32" yew selfbows, then you should open your minds, and maybe learn from those who have.
-
Well put adb.
-
It's funny, but typical. Those who can do... and those who can't feel complled to tell others how. I think hartung and bow-toxo should make some replica warbows and show us their stuff, instead of telling us how it should be. Sure... read some books, I have. You'll never really know until you do it yourself. I think you guys should put up, or shut up. Typical internet "experts." Until you guys have made some 140+#@32" yew selfbows, then you should open your minds, and maybe learn from those who have.
I already did 'put up'. Didn't you see my photo of my replica warbow of three decades ago on this thread ? I did it myself. Please open your eyes as well as your mind and learn from those who are seeking and offering actual information.
-
ENOUGH!!!!!!!! If you have usefull info to share on the MR bows please feel free to share. No more personal attacks.
-
Justin, you have given quite a few warnings and Deleted a bunch of sensless, childish crap. If it was me, I'd delete the account of the one that throws the next stone, Just my thoughts.
-
Guys.
It has been suggested that this whole board be deleted. Do get along or else it will happen
-
Yes, this is getting quite silly. Seems like the forum says "English Warbow Forum" at the top, not "Immature Arguing and Name-Calling Area."
-
hope this helps ;)
Well it seems that the arrows were of a length between 61cm and 81cm (24.02 inch to 31.89 inch long) and a thickness of about 27/64 up-to 1/2 inch
The bows were of length 187cm up-to 211cm ( 6.1352 feet or 73.6224 inches up-to 6.9226 feet or 83.0712 )
All this came from the Mary Rose Website. see here http://www.maryrose.org/ship/bows1.htm
This may also be of help http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,10071.0.html.
As far as i know Chris Boyton was part of the the team that where the first to have a look and measure the bows and arrows.
Regards Ian
-
To say that I am a bit angry with what has been happening here is an understatement. If this type of conduct were to be happening on your "englishwarbow" forum you guys would not be happy and people would get banned. Some very unpleasant things were posted here that could be read by the general public and that is just unacceptable. I have banned one guy, a ban that will last 30 days, and I may ban some more.
-
I came across this small artical
"Mary Rose" A Second Report: W.F.Paterson. Journal of the Society of Archer Antiquaries pp 4-6 Vol 24 1981
Hope it may be of some interest
-
I really Have enjoyed the chat on meadevil bows. I resently produced 15 bows for the SCA function in Pennsylvania next week. These people take their sport pretty serious, however I don't think they can quite grasp the intensity or seriousness of this time. Like us we can only speculate, based on what we read or have heard. I just recently built a 80+lb 72" Hickory longbow which my 16 yearold can draw easily at 30 inches . It buries a 32 inch shaft to the fletching in a round target bale replica of that time. Now I am sure some of you know probably more history then I, but I have shot my bows Thru a chonograph and it isn't unusual to get 150 to 180fps with 60lb at 28inches . So why would it be so hard to believe some of the facts presented. I am 60 yearsold and have shot bows as long as I can remember, once shot a 75# bow 210 paces from my shop to the woods which we stepped off . The arrows went beyond into the woods never did find. Deer probably ate it.. Anyway, I did read and my memory does slip once and a while , that a yeoman skeleton could be idenified by the enlarge scapula or shoulder blade, undoubtablely from shooting so much. And I do belief from what I have read the men of that time where some what taller. Maybe some of our englihmen can verify that. None the less thats my too sense. Lets play nice and not fight over toys boys. denny
-
Ratty; The quote tells me that the book is addressed to gentlemen and yeomen. Gentlemen were the nobles, not gentle by the modern definition. They owed their position to their immediate readiness to fight for their king with the weapons and armour appropriate to their position. Yeomen, the higher class of peasants who owned their own land, were renowned as the finest warbow archers in existence. But you knew that, cidn't you ? If very few ot the population could have used warbows, maybe you can tell me how the crown found ten archers for every man-at-arms at the end of the Hundred Years War ?
Triton; Since you don't consider the book worth anything because it is ignored, you might as well ignore it. Great reasoning ! Good luck making up history while ignoring it. That is a challenge. Perhaps you will come up with something so much better than your historical heritage.
Cheers,
Erik
i found this quote quite interesting
Toxophilus
The First Book of The School of Shooting.
Part 8 of 8
Philologe, the lack of teaching to shoot in England causeth very many men to play with the King's acts; as a man did once, either with the Mayor of London or York, I cannot tell whether, which did command by proclamation, every man in the city to hang a lantern, with a candle, afore his door; which thing the man did, but he did not light it: and so many buy bows, because of the act,[22] but yet they shoot not
what do you think?
-
Hehe, that's cool.
Sort of the same thing as we had here in Norway, where the law said you had to have such and such weapons. Most chose to have an axe, because an axe is more useful than a other weapons. Guess warbow-shooting wasn't as popular a hobby back then as it is today :)
-
When people talk of the Bows and equipment found on the MR, I often hear said,sentences which give this impression... "The Mary Rose was Henrys Flagship so it must have had the best and strongest Archers with no expense spared on equipment"..
However, I believe that the MR was not the Flagship of the fleet but just one of three refitted ships with the Flagship being the much larger Henry Grace á dieu known as the Great Harry. Therefore the MR Archers may be just ordinary levied soldiers armed with "ordinary" 90-190# Bows and "ordinary" arrows and equipment!
Wonder what the Archers and the Bows on the Great Harry were like!!
Mark.
-
i found this quote quite interesting
Toxophilus
The First Book of The School of Shooting.
Part 8 of 8
Philologe, the lack of teaching to shoot in England causeth very many men to play with the King's acts; as a man did once, either with the Mayor of London or York, I cannot tell whether, which did command by proclamation, every man in the city to hang a lantern, with a candle, afore his door; which thing the man did, but he did not light it: and so many buy bows, because of the act,[22] but yet they shoot not
what do you think?
I think that English kings constantly tried to get their archers to improve and tried to block distractions such as football, tennis, and gambling games that they never managed to legislate out of existence in England. As we know, the English archers were very effective in the Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses. Henry VIII issued more legislation than any previous king, partly because archery was becoming less effective. By Aschan's time it was getting harder to maintain public interest and at Flodden the archery was not considered to have had much to do with the outcome of the battle even though there were archers who still shot strongly.
-
Any competent archer who reads Ascham will recognise that the man knows what he is writing about.
What he says rings true in many details regarding practice and attitudes.
What draw-weights he used is a matter of speculation, but I think it likely that in those days it would be usual to shoot more than what might be considered ordinary these days.
But a discussion of Ascham is perhaps a little off topic here.
Rod.
-
Making all the arrows, bullets, rifles, bows, kit, etc. the same for everyone makes practical sense. Therefore, all arrows can be shot by all bowmen.
Except that bows and archers are not standardised to the same degree as rifles and cartridges, and this can affect where the arrow goes.
It might not be too significant if just shooting barrage fire to a distance, but when an individual has to be laterally accurate such standardisation could be a significant disadvantage.
I would not be surpised to learn that skilled marksmen selected and set aside shafts from the general stock, which even if dimensionally standardised, would contain a range of variation in shaft performance.
Rod.
-
When people talk of the Bows and equipment found on the MR, I often hear said,sentences which give this impression... "The Mary Rose was Henrys Flagship so it must have had the best and strongest Archers with no expense spared on equipment"..
However, I believe that the MR was not the Flagship of the fleet but just one of three refitted ships with the Flagship being the much larger Henry Grace á dieu known as the Great Harry.
I know this is going a bit off topic, but there is reference to both as being Henry's flagship. It seems that in 1512, the "Mary Rose" was the flagship, but by time of her sinking she had been replaced by the "Great Harry." Though the "Mary Rose" remained Henry's favourite ship.
The Henry Grace á dieu was a much bigger ship and was also the vessel used to take Henry to France to meet Francis I on the occasion of the "Field of the Cloth of Gold."
She caught fire at Woolwich and was destroyed (1553)
An earlier incarnation of the Henry Grace á dieu was Henry V's flagship and she was also quite a large ship for the time (over 200'). She only sailed on one voyage (as the role she was built for no longer existed). She was then laid up on the River Hamble where she was later struck by lightning, caught fire and burnt down to the water line (1439)
jb
-
I just recently built a 80+lb 72" Hickory longbow which my 16 yearold can draw easily at 30 inches . It buries a 32 inch shaft to the fletching in a round target bale replica of that time.
"A round target bale replica of that time"?
You might get such a shaft up to it's fletches in a straw bale, but a properly made boss of tightly coiled straw would stop such a shaft very well indeed until the centre has been softened by continual use.
Then and only then will you get a pass through.
These things when new (I own ten of them) are not so easy to shoot through.
Rod.