Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: briarbrow on May 10, 2007, 02:30:04 am
-
wooden springs I mean.
Hello.
I was wondering how attentive you are to the moisture content of your warbow?
were you to find yourself floating around on a 15century warship such as the Mary Rose what could you realistically do about it?
If this has been explored before I'd like to read about it.
(Understand I am far from being an expert, dabbler might even be a stretch.)
It is hard to imagine aboard ship being a dry cozy environment. I would not be surprised to learn the relative humidity to be near 100%
i can't be convinced oil and wax type finishes can protect against moisture exchange in a meaningful way.
what would (or could) you do as a bowyer to assure your bows will maintain a minimal level of martial effectiveness in such an environment even for relatively short periods of time, 1 week, 2, a month?
thank you for your consideration.
-
That is an interesting thought. I have wrestled with the question of protecting wood in respect to Viking longships and the equipment they carried on voyages, sometimes lasting years. The Norse used bows as well as wooden shields, iron implements, etc, and how exactly did they protect all that stuff? I was never in the navy, but know the deck guys are always painting, chipping, painting, chipping, etc. It is constant work to take care of a sea going vessel, and for warriors, weapons are always impecable and ready for instant use.
Not much is known about paints used in 1,000 years ago, and medieval times are not that far beyond the time of the Vikings. As for other kinds of wood finished, and for bows, too, does anyone have any reserach or ideas?
I would guess though that the Englishmen's bows were not meant to be stowed in a ship for longer than the time it took to get the foot sloggers to where they needed to go. And wooden ships were always leaky creatures. That is what pumps are for, and the daily job of pumping the bilge for the deck hands.
-
Hi Dane,
The finish was not the point.
If the engagments were of such a short duration that the moisture effect is negligable, my lack of understanding for exactly how such ships were used may well make the question moot.
However with a lack of sound moisture proofing isn't a possible solution to add more wood, resulting in a high draw weight dry bow, somewhat lower draw weight wet bow?
-
beeswax, beeswax and more beeswax. Ascham talks about weather proofing your bow and it all comes down to use a ton of wax, over and over again. That and wool bow bags.
following quote from Toxophilus; Roger Ascham 1545 (I think)
Phi. Well Toxophile, I see well you be cunninger in this gear than I: but put case that I have three or four such good bows, piked and dressed, as you now speak of, yet I do remember that many learned men do say, that it is easier to get a good thing, than to save and keep a good thing, wherfore if you can teach me as concerning that point, you have satisfied me plentifully as concerning a bow.
Tox. Truly it was the next thing that I would have come unto, for so the matter lay.
When you have brought your bow to such a point, as I spake of, than you must have an herden(?) or wollen cloth waxed, wherewith every day you must rub and chafe your bow, till it shine and glitter withal. Which thing shall cause it both to be clean, well favored, goodly of colour, and shall also bring as it were a crust, over it, that is to say, shall make it every where on the outside, so slippery and hard, that neither any wet or weather can enter to hurt it, nor yet any fret or pinch, be able to bite upon it: but that you shall do it great wrong before you break it. This must be done oftentimes but (e)specially when you come from shooting.
Beware also when you shoot, of your shaft heads, dagger, knives, or agglettes, lest they race your bow, a thing as I said before, both unseemely to look on, and also dangerous for frets. Take heed also of misty and dankish days, which shall hurt a bow, more than any rain. For then you must either always(s) rub it, or else leave shooting.
Your bowcase (this I did not promise to speak of, because it is without the nature of shooting, or else I should trouble me with other things infinite(ly) more: yet seeing it is a safeguard for the bow, something I will say of it your bowcase I say, if you ride forth, must neither be too wide for your bows, for so shall one clap upon another, and hurt them, nor yet so straight that scarce they can be thrust in, for that would lay them on side and wind them. A bowcase of leather is not the best, for that is ofttimes moist which hurteth the bows very much. Therfore I have seen good shooters which would have for every bow, a fere(?) case made of wollen cloth, and than you may put 3 or 4 of them so cased, into a leather case if you will. This wollen case shall both keep them in sunder, and also will keep a bow in his full strength, that it never give for any weather. At home these wood cases be very good for bows to stand in. But take heed that your bow stand not too near a stone wall, for that will make him moist and weak, nor yet to near any fire for that will make him short and brittle. And thus much as concerning the saving and keeping of our bow; now you shall hear what things ye must avoid, for fear of breaking your bow.
-
Hi Loyd.
That's pretty good.
I wonder what he means exactly by "crust" The finish he is describing sounds like nothing more than burnished wax. The solutions sound quite functional for average inclement weather. By average, I mean like me and you, able to return home to the fire.
I f you shoose to take every word literally and the description precise. "Always run it or else leave shooting" always?
Wax is cool stuff but it's not quite the ultimate finish described.
-
Actually is says "always rub it or else..." and you can never take Elizabethan writing literally
England is a wet place and I agree that wax alone cannot be the ultimate sealer even in the 16th century although they obviously had lots of experience in maintaining their bows and other woodwork. But if you did wax your bow every day before you went out shooting it would pretty much water proof it temporarily at least. And if I was on campaign and my life depended on my bow you can bet my wax encrusted fingers that I'd be rubbing the damned thing down every chance i got, and the bow bag too! I've see wood work that's had a gazillion (give or take a few) layers of beeswax on it and it may as well have been varnished. All I ever put on my war arrows is linseed oil and wax and I've never had any problems with moisture. Granted arrows are not the same as bows but I think you get my point...
-
Ah yes, my typo sorry.
I like oil, wax finishes too. Wax is quite serviceable in a limited manner as waterproofing. Liquid though is not the problem. vapor will certainly pass through the treatments described.
-
I wonder if packing a bow in a container that was fairly well sealed and contained salt if the salt would collect the moisture in the case? Steve
-
However with a lack of sound moisture proofing isn't a possible solution to add more wood, resulting in a high draw weight dry bow, somewhat lower draw weight wet bow?
That's a very good point. Someone would have to make a replica, store it in the same conditions and then test the draw weight.
-
I think this is one of the many reasons why they preferred Yew. The moisture content of Yew doesn't make as much of a difference as it does in white woods like ash or elm. Hickory can make superior flight bows at low moisture content, but it would not have been practical while campaigning in the pouring rain.
J. D. Duff
-
Hi Simon, JD.
That might be ok Simon, but what are the conditions? I know I'm not the man for the job. :)
That's a good point JD. I wish I had some experience with yew, but I'd rather rely on the wood than the coating.
My point has been that replicating the size of MR bows may not give an accurate picture of their performance without consideration of their operational environment. It could well be that a combination of diligent care and wise material selection, somewhat brief excursions negate the effects of damp environment.
or it may be that MRBs are somewhat oversize to compensate as well as possible for marine use. which is where I place my bet.
-
If a stave has high moisture content it will follow the string considerably. The MRBs don't show much set and sometimes none or backset. The bowyers supposedly air-dried their staves for 7 years so they had an understanding of the affect of moisture content. It is most likely that bows were kept in human environments where they would stay suitably warm and dry. A day marching in the rain won't hurt a greased-up bow at all and a night by the fire will have it as dry as ever. Most primitive cultures seem to be savvy about moisture content, so I don't think there is any reason to believe that the MRBs had to be significantly overbuilt to allow them to be soaking wet. Also, historical accounts tell us that the archers were very in-tuned to the affects of moisture (i.e. removing and protecting their strings at Crecy when it rained).
J. D. Duff
-
I often wondered whether submersion in water would straighten out a bow with string follow. But Apparently the Meare Heath bow has string follow despite being in a bog for a few thousand years.
-
JD, weren't most of the MR-bows unused? - so no wonder they didn't have stringfollow ;)
Very interesting discussion by the way :)
-
I often wondered whether submersion in water would straighten out a bow with string follow. But Apparently the Meare Heath bow has string follow despite being in a bog for a few thousand years.
Hi Simon,
if you were to soak wood and dry it "straight" it would basically stay that way.
I'm less sure that the bow would keep its shape once sent back to work.
-
If a stave has high moisture content it will follow the string considerably. The MRBs don't show much set and sometimes none or backset. The bowyers supposedly air-dried their staves for 7 years so they had an understanding of the affect of moisture content. It is most likely that bows were kept in human environments where they would stay suitably warm and dry. A day marching in the rain won't hurt a greased-up bow at all and a night by the fire will have it as dry as ever. Most primitive cultures seem to be savvy about moisture content, so I don't think there is any reason to believe that the MRBs had to be significantly overbuilt to allow them to be soaking wet. Also, historical accounts tell us that the archers were very in-tuned to the affects of moisture (i.e. removing and protecting their strings at Crecy when it rained).
J. D. Duff
Hiya JD.
my first question was how attentive are you to MC. you don't see in effects? or how many damp days before you feel it softening?
I don't have the answer only a feeling a different kind of fighting needed a different kind of tool. cheers:)
>>> it's funny the site spellcheck doesn't recognize the word "bowyer"
-
JD, weren't most of the MR-bows unused? - so no wonder they didn't have stringfollow ;)
Very interesting discussion by the way :)
Well Kviljo,
As a bowyer yourself, you know that a bow takes 80-100% of its string follow while being tillered to full draw. Even if they hadn't been 'broken in' they had been finished completely.
J. D. Duff
-
If a stave has high moisture content it will follow the string considerably. The MRBs don't show much set and sometimes none or backset. The bowyers supposedly air-dried their staves for 7 years so they had an understanding of the affect of moisture content. It is most likely that bows were kept in human environments where they would stay suitably warm and dry. A day marching in the rain won't hurt a greased-up bow at all and a night by the fire will have it as dry as ever. Most primitive cultures seem to be savvy about moisture content, so I don't think there is any reason to believe that the MRBs had to be significantly overbuilt to allow them to be soaking wet. Also, historical accounts tell us that the archers were very in-tuned to the affects of moisture (i.e. removing and protecting their strings at Crecy when it rained).
J. D. Duff
Hiya JD.
my first question was how attentive are you to MC. you don't see in effects? or how many damp days before you feel it softening?
I don't have the answer only a feeling a different kind of fighting needed a different kind of tool. cheers:)
>>> it's funny the site spellcheck doesn't recognize the word "bowyer"
Good question.
I'm very attentive to MC. I don't use a moisture meter, but I keep a close eye on how the stave is behaving as I bend it. If the moisture content isn't right I can tell by the way the stave responds to stress.
As far as how many days it takes before it starts softening--once a stave is dried completely (down to ten percent or less), MC will rise and fall slowly. Normal days in the rain followed by nights indoors are not abusive to selfbows. A week of walking around in pouring rain would leave a bow pretty soggy IF it wasn't cared for at all. I believe that bows would be cared for by the archers much the way any soldier cares for his equipment. Longbows were objects of value and they weren't left leaning against trees overnight in the rain.
Bottom line, from a bowyer's perspective, you don't season a yew stave for 7 years just to let it get soaking wet again. They didn't need epoxy to keep things dry either. It was easy, daily application of wax or grease.
J. D. Duff
-
JD, weren't most of the MR-bows unused? - so no wonder they didn't have stringfollow ;)
Very interesting discussion by the way :)
Well Kviljo,
As a bowyer yourself, you know that a bow takes 80-100% of its string follow while being tillered to full draw. Even if they hadn't been 'broken in' they had been finished completely.
J. D. Duff
That really depends on how far you tiller it. With so many bows beeing made, I don't find it likely that they carefully tillered it every inch to 32" as we do with our precious pieces of yew. My bet is that they had so much experience with making these, that they relyed on an even taper giving the bow a good tiller, more than we do.
However, I do agree that they must have had a good insight in how moisture affected bows. Yew twists and warps like mad, so using well seasoned blanks must have been obvious to them.
-
I can just hear it now: 'here you go archers. Take your unfinished, untested bow and line up behind the pikeman. Nevermind the reputation Yew has for exploding during the tillering process, or the fact that Yew needs to be slowly exercised to full draw. Our bowyers are the best in the world and they only need to tiller a bow to 10" before it goes to war. Don't forget your safety glasses.' ;D ;D ;D
You have a point, great bowyers can thickness-taper a bow and have it close enough to string. I just doubt that they were sending finished bows into war that had not been tillered to full draw.
J. D. Duff
-
The tillering is not so much an issue is it?
I never thought they might be wet tillered.
liquid water again, is not the concern; it is water vapor which cannot be stopped by waxing or wool bow socks.
dry heat would do it. Was there really enough of that to go around on a 6 week tour?
I am saying they were in tune with the moisture content, and dealt with it. These bows were not lifelong companions you guys make them out to be were they? they were stored in chests.
-
The Bows were disposable items,no fancy decorations like handles and polished horn nocks ;D.I dont know what life span the Bow would be expected to have,but they certainly werent lifelong companions ;D.
they were stored in chests.
is that Bad?
-
For some, I bet they were! :-\
JD, now you're just being silly :P Of course they wouldn't hand out bows they weren't sure would hold.
But give anyone a full year worth of good yew staves and a piecework contract, and I bet he or she would be able to make a fully functioning warbow without having it on the tiller, in the end of the year. And that's probably what it was all about - making effective weapons as efficiently as possible.
Though, I don't think you can attribute much to the fact that most of MR-bows didn't have stringfollow. After 450 years, the wood would probably have straightened itself out to near its original shape.
Anyone got an idea of the relative air humidity onboard a wooden ship sailing along the same latitude as England?
-
Nothing wrong with chests. Though I was implying they were not being always rubbed. and for potentially long periods of time.
However a good wooden box like that could make a relatively good buffer between the air and bow MC now that i think of it.
Wax is also used when drying difficult timbers. with a very thick coating it really slows things down. But if you are burnishing it off it can't be thick. (only mentioning)
Even if you don't use a moisture meter what is your guesstimate of the approximate MC of your bow in its best fighting form?
My guess, which it is of course (sorry) would be RH hovering around 100%. why not?
-
Briarbrow,
Are you a bowyer?
Kviljo,
I'm not sure what you thought was silly.
J. D. Duff
-
Briarbrow,
Are you a bowyer?
Kviljo,
I'm not sure what you thought was silly.
J. D. Duff
Hi JD,
That depends on your definition a little. I have made some bows. Why do you ask?
-
Hey Briarbrow,
I was asking because you said that liquid moisture was not the issue--water vapor was. If water vapor is the issue then, there isn't a real problem because wood seasoned to the high-humidity climate of England is going to maintain a relatively steady--albeit high--moisture content. Outdoor seasoned staves around England probably settle out to around 11-14% moisture content depending on the season. This is not too high for Yew to perform well and would not necessitate significant overbuilding.
I think the real issue is dealing with long campaigns in pouring rain. An unprotected bow would soak up a lot of moisture and take 6" of set. I think all of us would agree that the English bowman would protect their bows against this kind of moisture-absorption. It should also be mentioned that wax and fat do create working vapor barriers.
I think the original question was regarding whether the bows were overbuit because they had such high moisture content. I'm trying to argue that they were well-seasoned and protected. The English built bows that performed extremely well. You can't do anything like what they did without nearly perfect bows. If they were overbuilt due to moisture, they would not have had the cast that they did.
J. D. Duff