Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: AndiE on November 30, 2013, 08:59:26 am
-
Hi
What is the max. length of a warbow found in the past? I read that there were bows up to 84" on the Mary Rose, is that right?
Or does anyone know somebody who build (a) warbow(s) >84"?
Kind regards
Andi
-
Hi mate, hope I can be of some help - as far as I know, although there are bows up to 84" (or thereabouts) on the Mary Rose, the average is around 77". The longer the bow, the less stress the limbs are under. If you wanted a monster bow (something 160lbs +) going to around 82 - 84" is a safe bet, as you're giving the bow the best chance of surviving.
It also comes down to the individual archer's draw length. If you have a draw of around 33" (like Glennan Carnie for instance) then making a bow a few inches longer can help.
I'm currently finishing up a 130lb self yew warbow which was 83.5" long to begin with. I cut the nocks as close to the tips as possible, and long-string tillered it like that. The plan was to then chop 1 inch off each end, then fit the horn nock and end up with a bow around 78 - 80" nock to nock. It actually broke during tillering and forced me to cut it slightly shorter than planned so I'll just have to put the nock slots closer to the tips than I usually do to get the same length.
One particular bowyer in the UK makes all his Mary Rose replicas around 82 - 84" long just for the safety of the bow and longevity of performance.
It's also really hard to come across perfect yew staves 84" long, so generally speaking if you happen to have one - use it all! If you're making a laminated warbow, go for the best length to suit draw length and performance which is usually somewhere between 75 and 80" long.
-
This doesn't answer the original question... but... there's a fine balance between overall length, draw length & weight, limb mass, and performance.
-
You could contact the Mary Rose museum and ask, it must be catalogued somewhere.....
-
Hi
Thx! :D
Who is this UK bowyer?
Kind regards
Andi
-
You could contact the Mary Rose museum and ask, it must be catalogued somewhere.....
No need. Every single bow is catalogued in Weapons of Warre with drawings, cross sections, weight, draw weight, style, shape, length etc. Even a table of each bowyers mark and how often they occur. Plus arrows, horn nocks, strings, cannons, shoes, maille, gunshot, hand guns, pikes... All meticulously measured, analysed... It's stunning. If you were to contact the museum Alex Hildred will only direct any queries regarding the bows to her book anyway, with good reason!
Andi, I referring to Steve Stratton. In fact, if you look through the threads in this section he's posted quite a few photos of his Mary rose replicas.
-
Hi Wills
Are people still allowed to got to the museum and handle/ get close and personal with the bows?
I haven't been yet.
-
Up until the new museum launch it was pretty straightforward, but not any more. You need a good number of contacts and a good reason to be allowed before they let you anywhere near. I'll enquire with them what it is what's in charge and see if I'm allowed to name a few people who are worth knowing, but generally speaking it's tricky now.
It is worth becoming a Friend Of The Mary Rose Museum however, as they often have events and talks on and if you're a Friend (it's a bit pricey of course) you get invited. Can sometimes involve handling one or two bows and the odd arrow. Real shame it's become so hard, but then I guess they're incredibly precious objects so letting various people in gets risky after a while.
It is WELL worth going anyway though. The museum almost feels like a warbow display case, the bows are everywhere on every floor and on the top floor there's an entire room dedicated to them. They're in glass cases but you can get so close that you can see knots, grain and tool marks.
-
Sounds amazing.
I wonder if I can bribe the wife and kids to make the trip from Cambridge.....
May be a solo trip me thinks ;)
-
Are there any skeletons of the archers on display? as an osteopath I am particularly interested in the skeletal changes of the archers.
-
Yup, first room you go through has an archer and focuses heavily on his bone structure. Have you seen Ghosts of the Mary Rose, with Steve Stratton and Mark Stretton in it? They do a full bone scan on Marks shoulder structure. Might interest you.
-
Thanks Wills
I will see if it is on you tube.
Ta.
-
It is.
I put up a thread with photos from the new museum - did you see it? The pics have all gone now because I shifted them in Photobucket but if you've not seen them yet I'll re-upload them?
-
If you don't mind, that would be magic!
-
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,40917.msg546736.html#msg546736
Enjoy!
-
Hi
The reason for this question is that a friend of mine wants a yew warbow and it should have reserves / be safe 1-2" more than he draws because he had one and it broke.
The problem is that he is 207cm and he has a drawlength of 34".
He said that he wants a 86" bow but only if there were historic finds with this length.
Kind regrads
Andi
-
Right, well there definitely aren't any warbows discovered that long.
34" is a MASSIVE draw length, and while it might be possible with a light weight target bow, I'd be really surprised if somebody could draw 34" with a heavy bow - and that's purely because of the compressive forces on the bow arm. By the time you reach full draw on a warbow the arm holding the bow itself is being squashed so much that even 32" ends up being right back onto the collar bone.
What draw weight does he want?
-
Hi
He wants 120-125#@34".
Here is something I found here in the forum: http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,9817.0.html
A warbow also made for a tall archer with 35" max. drawlength and 84" total length ntn.
Steve writes there that it is a replica of one of the longest MR warbows. But was there a longer one?
Kind regards
Andi
-
Tricky. 125# isn't that heavy, so there won't be a huge amount of compression on the bow arm once he gets used to the weight. There's definitely no point in playing for risks, so I'd say you'll have to make a bow around 84" long.
I can tell you for a fact that the longest bow found on the Mary Rose was 2113mm, or 83.2" so definitely nothing around 84" long. It depends I guess on whether his priority is having a perfectly accurate Mary Rose replica, in which case his draw length will suffer, he won't get his full potential power and may well risk over-drawing, or whether he wants a powerful, peak-performance warbow which will let you make it 84"
-
I disagree that a heavy bow can't be drawn 34". How are you getting that? I only draw 27" when just shooting but had no trouble extending the draw to 33" (the length of the arrow) with an extremely heavy bow. The whole system doesn't collapse that much if you are puffing your chest up on the draw and bracing yourself through the shoulders.
-
I didn't say they can't be drawn 34". I said it was harder as the draw feels longer. If the guys normal draw on a light bow is 34", when given a bow that compresses the bow arm lots 34" will feel much longer because the bow arm is essentially moving back towards the body.
I was talking about bows around 160-180 pounds. Joe Gibbs said that when he's shooting those his bow arm compresses almost 8 inches. That moves the back of the draw 8 inches further back from the normal anchor point. It's very common to try a new warbow and expect the full draw length you're used to, but find that you're getting the arrowhead nowhere near the back of the bow which is really odd until you realise that the bow arm is squashing.
-
Oh and the reason I was assuming the draw weight would be around 180# is due to the length being discussed. 34" on a 125# bow shouldnt be an issue.
-
Drawing a wabow to 32" is challenging. I'm an average sized man... 5'10", 200 lbs, stocky and strong. Drawing to 30" is no problem, but to 32" seems very difficult, if not impossible. Unless you're very tall, and very strong, 34" (with a heavy warbow) is very difficult. If memory serves, there were no arrows on the Mary Rose that would have been suitable for a 34" draw.
-
Longest arrow found on the ship according to Alex Hildred was 34". But that was rare, and probably used for fire arrows. The most common length was 31.2 inches, with peaks in frequency at 28" (just over 100 shafts) and 30" (just over 200 shafts)
A draw of 32" was towards the topmost length, with 28-30" being far more common.
-
Longest arrow found on the ship according to Alex Hildred was 34". But that was rare, and probably used for fire arrows. The most common length was 31.2 inches, with peaks in frequency at 28" (just over 100 shafts) and 30" (just over 200 shafts)
A draw of 32" was towards the topmost length, with 28-30" being far more common.
Exactly.
-
Just out of interest. is there such a thing as a re-curve bow with similar draw length and power?
-
You mean are there any recorded examples of 150#ish recurve bows?
-
yes.
And would you use a similar draw length to a warbow?
-
Hi
I know somebody who has an older Hoyt recurve with 90#@32".I don`t know if there are stronger recurves because I don`t know much about recurves because they don`t please me.
I read somewhere that there were 95" long warbows in use in south america I think. Or was it africa, or somewhere else? I don`t know it anymore! :o
Does anyone here know more?
Kind regards
Andi
-
One of the recent discussions on the other thread (Evidence....) mentioned very heavy drawweight bows from China/Japan. Perhaps they're worth looking into - I don't know if they were recurves or not?
-
Many of the Manchu style bows were easily of those heavy weights. They were drawn 34-35 inches which is flattered somewhat by a thumbring potentially increasing the drawlength.
Those qualify as recurves.
Most evidence points to them radically outshooting a longbow when it comes to heavy arrows which isn't really surprising.
http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows
I still see no reason for the arm to "compress". Your arm can't compress because the bones are rigid. It may be collapsing by bending but it's certainly not physically getting shorter.
Your rib cage is what would bow under the pressure but again that's only going to happen if your musculature can't brace it to be more rigid.
I also am not sure why you feel the bow will pull 180 because of its length. How does length translate to draw weight?
-
Yeah bending due to the compressive forces. I wasn't exactly suggesting the bone gets shorter ;). Either way you view it, the hand comes closer to the body. Thus the bow comes closer, ergo the draw feels longer.
We're talking about Mary Rose.replicas here. The longer bows within the collection were projected at having draw weights around 180#. A long bow doesn't mean a high draw weight. If anything, the shorter you make a bow the heavier it gets. Hence piking. However, when discussing accurate replicas of original bows, and somebody mentions making a bow based on the longest bows found which had the heaviest projected poundage, logic leads you to assume the goal draw weight is the same.
-
Maybe if they mentioned an actual replica based on all measurements. I don't know that I would assume all that if a tall guy just requested a bows as long as a known specimen.
-
Adult bones won't compress much, but joints will. Bones which are continuously under heavy stress will increase in size. Weight lifters will show increased bone mass and density. Tennis players will show greater bone mass in the arm swinging the racket. No different for archers shooting heavy bows. Skeletons recovered from the Mary Rose showed deformity.
As a bone is placed under longitudinal force it will shorten slightly due to flexing. It can be negligible, or significant, depending on the stress. If a bone is placed under enough stress, obviously, it'll fail and fracture.
-
Hi
Yes my friend wants a replica of the max. length warbow ever found but he can`t do the 180#.
Are the 180# of the MR bow at 32" or more?
I don`t know why there are always these discussions about muscles and bones associated with warbow shooting, but noone ever mentions the main problem, the ligaments. These are the structurs that are mainly highly stressed or overburdened, and get damaged first if somebody doesn`t know what he is doing or overacts.
Kind regards
Andi
-
I would imagine the really heavy bows are still around the same draw length (28" to 30")
Judging by the arrows, and factoring in to some extent the height of men in the 16th Century (I don't actually know if they were shorter as a population but I don't think there were many men taller than us today) 28" to 30" seems to be the most common draw length. I guess that some men were drawing slightly further, but I don't know if draw weight had a direct relationship to draw length. It probably did.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the longer draws (32" to 34") were probably specific actions, to loose incendiary arrows for example where the arrow needs to be longer and heavier.
I've always found it interesting that the arrow heads assumed to be arming the Mary Rose arrows are the very short Tudor Bodkins and Type 16s. A Tudor Bodkin was found at Portchester Castle from almost exactly the same period, so that's become the arrowhead we associate with arrows from 1545. However, at Crecy a much different head was found - very long, very heavy and clearly designed to cut plate armour. I would have to imagine that arrows carrying these large heavy heads would be longer than the ones found on the Mary Rose, and if that were true the draw lengths of bows from the 14th/15th Century may well be longer.
If that theory flies with you and the guy you're making the bow for, maybe it's worth making him a 100 Years War replica based partly from theory and partly from the Mary Rose finds which could well be a longer bow with a longer draw length, but not necessarily at the top end of poundage. Hugh Soar, Roy King and Simon Stanley tested arrows armed with these heads and found that a bow of around 120 - 150# in draw weight were suitable to efficiently shoot the heavy plate cutting warheads.
-
Hi
I will build him the 84" yew warbow and if it looks great I keep it for myself and give him my 90# bamboo yumi warbow (106" long and insane >50" max. drawlength) that only costed me 5€ and works great even without handshock. ;D
Kind regrads
Andi
-
Hi
I talked to a german bowyer today who has been at the MR museum and he said that there was a 220cm bow (= 87") found on the MR too.
??? ? ? ?
Kind regards
Andi
-
Well he's wrong. :P
Seriously, I didn't see one either time I've been there, and Alex Hildred's book is comprehensively compiled, with every single bow listed by length, width and depth. Certainly nothing that long.
-
Hi
Do you have a link to this book?
Do you know other good books about warbows?
Kind regards
Andi
-
I don't have a link I'm afraid, but the book is called Weapons of Warre volume 3. It's probably a bit too expensive if you're only interested in the bows as it's around £50 and huge, packed with details on everything from cannons to spoons. The bows take up one chapter of many, but they are detailed to the smallest degree.
Most other books that have warbows in them don't have much real detail, or are full of inaccuracies. If anybody else has recommendations I'd be as interested as you!
-
It sounds like your friend is being a bit pedantic with his request.
If he wants a replica of one of the bows found then the longest was 2113mm or 83.18 inches 38.8mm wide and 35.6mm deep in the handle ref: weapons of warre.
If he wants a longer one then I'm sure there were longer bows used during the same period, just not on that ship at that particular time! It would still be 'authentic 'if you made it a bit longer. In my book 83.18 inches is close enough to 84 anyway!
-
Hi
What do you guys think of this article I found?
http://myincarnations.com/bard/agincourt.htm (scrawl down to the last part)
A 8 or 10 foot warbow? ???
Kind regards
Andi
-
Haha! Absolute garbage. I love the reasoning - this is a painting of a man and a bow. They weren't called longbows in the Netherlands, therefore this must be a normal bow! So ""long""bows HAD to be longer.
Amazing.
P.S. the rest of the article is utter tripe as well. Completely inaccurate and full of totally made up facts, such as the execution of the French captives, the way the battle was fought ("they would have known the ground was soft because a dog would have walked on it and sunk..." for example) and the idea that the French could have given their peasants "sticks" to make bows from, but were afraid they would use them on their own knights...
-
;D ;)
I think this guy drank to much english beer and french wine when he wrote this article!
Kind regards
Andi