Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: HoorayHorace on December 11, 2014, 06:38:13 pm
-
Can anyone give me some insight on the arrows found on the Mary Rose? I'm sure this is the right section for this :)
I understand there was a law passed which required the arrows had be shot a certain distance, like 250 yards?
What was the size and weight of the average arrow, and what bow would bee needed to get 250 yards on flat ground in terms of longbow draw weight?
;)
-
It wasn't a spec that the arrows were made, an adult archer had to shoot that far. If I remember correctly, the estimated weight of the bows recovered off the Mary Rose were 80# to 150# with 120# covering the majority. The majority of the arrow shafts were poplar, about 1/2" at the point tapered to 3/8 at the nock. Several books by Hugh D. H. Soar are alot more informative than what I can ever type on here.
-
This is about as good a description and specification on the MR arrow as you'll get:
http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/tudor-livery-arrow.html
Obviously they varied a fair bit, but the ewbs Livery is a very close approximation to the "average" type.
As a quick sidenote, the estimation of the bow weights has gone up recently. It's now believed that the lowest weight of the MR bows is around 110lbs, with the average being about 150lbs or 160lbs. The really big ones such as MR81A 1607 look to be well into the 180lb range, and the true replicas of these have been around that weight as well. In fact Alistair Aston made a stunning replica of 1607 but slightly longer and had it been the same length (77") as the original bow, it would have been around 196lbs at 32".
-
Very interesting read? An arrow of that length would require a very long draw :o
Any news of whether the supposed medieval arrow was tested by that Company?
-
It would be interesting to know the weight difference between an Aspen shaft and an Oak or Ash shaft of the same dimensions.
-
I am making tapered 1/2 inch shafts from poplar dowel and most of them after sanding and steel wool spine around 130, perfect for the bow I just made. I did try a couple oak dowels and the spine was to high unless I made the whole thing about 7/16 straight shaft.
-
Pat I can weight some of my bare shafts if you want, I have ash, birch and "poplar" all hand-tapered from half inch to 3/8".
Only trouble is getting hold of actual Aspen these days - here in the UK we tend to buy "Poplar" which is actually imported Tulipwood, not a species of Populus. It's incredibly similar to true Poplar or "Aspen" but has a fractionally higher density. I don't think Aspen is available in the UK any more, although most people buying Poplar arrow shafts have no idea that it's actually Tulipwood.
-
All shafts 34" long, Bobtailed (straight taper, not torpedo) from 12.7mm (half inch) to 10mm (3/8")
Ash - 67g
Birch - 76g
"Poplar" - 60g
A finished arrow is about 10grams heavier, including head and fletchings. The wood removed when cutting the horn insert is equivalent to the horn being placed. Obviously there's a wide range of different head weights, but if we're talking about Tudor arrows (Livery arrows) then the head is about 8 or 9 grams.
You do get (obviously) a range of weights within the same wood species, but Birch is considered quite a bit heavier than the other two, and as a result is usually only used for the very heavy arrows such as the 1/4lb plate-cutter arrows, while Ash is used commonly for 3/8" parallel shafts to make the EWBS/BLBS Standard arrow, and Poplar (or Aspen) is used for the Tudor arrows, as the majority (by a long way) of arrows found on the MR were made from Poplar. It can take the half inch diameter without being overly heavy.
An arrow of that length would require a very long draw
The 32" draw is standard for medieval archery - it's a very different technique and approach to hunting or target archery, and requires the archer to be shooting "in the bow" as it were - this means the natural anchor isn't near the face but right back by the collar bone of the string-hand side. Most people can get 32" using the correct technique, but as the bow weights increase the compressive forces shorten the draw somewhat.
-
I've often pointed out the true nature of "poplar" that is commonly found commercially. Didn't realise that Tulip tree was also the substitute over there.
I'm surprised real poplar is that hard to source.
It seems to grow everywhere.
I have made arrows from the 7/16 Tulip tree dowels and found them incredibly light and flimsy at that diameter even though they had a bulky feel to them.
I prefer slimmer denser woods.
-
To get on of those shafts 250 yards, you'd need one big bow.
-
Interesting fact there WillS...about a re-think on the MR draw weights. Any references for that?
Cheers Mate.
-
Hey Frank! No references, just something Jaro was saying at the Dorset shoot, and a conversation on Facebook a few months back between Dave and Jaro. They seem to think 110 is about right for the smallest bows, considering the quality of the yew and the replicas that they're making.
Alistair's replica of 1607 is on here somewhere however, as is Steve's I think. Both came out between 160 and 180 at a longer length than the actual MR bow, so factoring in the piking and you end up well over 180.
-
There is plenty of nonsense spoken and written about the MR arrows.
I'll give some figures direct from "Weapons of Warre"
Most of the arrows were of Poplar, followed by Birch.
Mean total length of arrows from 3 chests
chest 81A2582 788.8 mm (~31") (you can be 95% confident that any arrow would fall between 784.5 and 793.1mm)
chest 81A2398 800.8mm (~31.75") ( 95% confidence... 795.6 - 806.0)
chest 82A1761 759.6mm (~30") (95% confidencs ... 751.8 - 767.4)
Most were in the range 725 to 850mm long (28.5 -33.5)
Total length varies from less about 670mm to 875mm (interpreted conservatively from graph)
E.G approx 26.5" to 34.5"
This dispels the myth that everyone was shooting heavy 32" Ash arrows!
From the bows I've made I'd agree they were 100# plus, and probably nearer 150# on average.
Of course just like the arrows there would be a big variation and also a variation in how far they were drawn. E.G a 130# @ 32" is only about 110# at 28"
BTW. Anyone suggesting that they couldn't draw 100# plus bows is simply an idiot. If a 60+ year old with a desk job can pull 100# (with a week or two practice) I'm sure they could manage it!
Del
-
Here's a quick still image from one of Mark's DVDs of the original Portchester Castle Tudor head, and his own replica. Seems that these are the most likely type of head to have been fitted to the arrows.
(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb363/Will_Sherman/Fletching_0000672600_zps404a79b6.jpg) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/Will_Sherman/media/Fletching_0000672600_zps404a79b6.jpg.html)
-
There is some super interesting information posted here, for which I am very grateful. :)
@ DTC, are those lengths for the full arrow, or back of nock to shoulder?
An arrow of 31 inches from back of nock to shoulder would allow for a draw length of 29-30, considering some of the arrow would be resting on the knuckle, about an inch or so? :)
A very long draw
Off topic here slightly, but did the MR bows have the arrow pass at the centre, or 1 inch above?
;)
-
No arrow pass at all. Just bare wood. No handle wrapping either.
I've not read it for a while, but as far as I can remember Weapons Of Warre documents the lengths of the arrows from shoulder of head to absolute end. Del might be able to correct me on that though.
Some of the guys in the ewbs are drawing 33" or 34" even with bows of 160lbs. It just comes down to body mechanics, length of arms vs width of shoulders and technique.
-
No but they did have a spot where the arrow passed. I think that is what's being asked.
-
Thanks for that Will...I like to keep up with the latest draw weight info!
BTW, you're right, Weapons of Warre give all dimensions as an overall measurement from one end of the shaft to the other. In fact this book is just about the the ultimate reference manual for all things 'Mary Rose'...I'm constantly dipping into it, so if you don't own it, put it on your Christmas wish list!
-
Just thought I'd better mention before I get a slapped wrist, 'Weapons of Warre' is a scholarly work on ALL the weaponry (cannon, bills, daggers etc.) employed on the Mary Rose, not just the bows and arrows. however it does go into great detail about the archers accoutrements (bracers, block planes etc)...it's also expensive, but then excellence always tends to be.
-
@ DTC, are those lengths for the full arrow, or back of nock to shoulder?
Quote from W of W
Complete length:-
A wide spread of complete arrow shaft lengths was recorded ranging from 667mm to 880mm. Most lie in the range 715-854mm in a bimodal (double peaked) distribution with modes at 740mm and 790mm.
Subtracing the median nock depth (6mm) and the median tip length (22mm) from the two modal values gives estimated draw lengths of 712mm (28.03") and 762mm (30.00") respectively.
Like I said... not at all 32"
Del
-
Just thought I'd better mention before I get a slapped wrist, 'Weapons of Warre' is a scholarly work on ALL the weaponry (cannon, bills, daggers etc.) employed on the Mary Rose, not just the bows and arrows. however it does go into great detail about the archers accoutrements (bracers, block planes etc)...it's also expensive, but then excellence always tends to be.
It's a book that keeps on giving, as well. There's so much in there about each specific topic that you can never read it all and take it all in at once, so you end up dipping in and out from time to time, and you learn new stuff each time. Definitely worth every penny, I think.
-
@ DTC, are those lengths for the full arrow, or back of nock to shoulder?
Quote from W of W
Complete length:-
A wide spread of complete arrow shaft lengths was recorded ranging from 667mm to 880mm. Most lie in the range 715-854mm in a bimodal (double peaked) distribution with modes at 740mm and 790mm.
Subtracing the median nock depth (6mm) and the median tip length (22mm) from the two modal values gives estimated draw lengths of 712mm (28.03") and 762mm (30.00") respectively.
Like I said... not at all 32"
Del
Thank you for your quote :)
So the 'mean' draw length of those bows would have been 29-30 inches. Seems reasonable as I expect they were used for flight shooting rather than accurate target shooting.
-
Regarding the bows on the MR, was the design simple or complicated? :)
I now know there were not laminate bows back then, as there were in Asia ;)
-
No need for flight shooting on-board a ship! It was sailing into battle, not sailing to land. This means everything on-board was for use at sea, otherwise it would have been excess weight - massively important to ships. That would suggest that the bows were used for precision, not mass volleys as (apparently) they were used during land campaigns during the middle ages.
It's a very recent thing to use a Warbow for distance, and doesn't reflect their use when they were needed for warfare. Just because they could range 250+ yards doesn't mean they were shot that way. Arrows were expensive, and archers were well trained. Doubtful that these weapons were used to shoot into the sky in the hope of hitting something when they came back down.
Depends what you mean by "simple" - in comparison to a composite bow yes, incredibly simple.
Simple to make - far from it. Getting any piece of wood to bend under the force of 180lbs without exploding is a difficult task, but to do it with so much finesse and care as is seen on these bows is a whole other ball game. When you see them in person, and see how the knots are handled, the tapers so perfect and consistent, and the tips so incredibly small at such high poundages, you could never describe them as simple, but they're about as simple in design as you could get.
-
So they guys who made them were the pros?
I take it you have seen them close up? What struck you about them?
Anyone making bows as good all these hundreds of years later? :)
-
Unquestionably professionals, considering nobody other than official Guild Bowyers were allowed to make them ;)
As I mentioned, the work around pins and knots is superb, the tapers and profiles are handled exceptionally well and the tips of the bows are miniscule - one of the things that makes an amateur's work easy to spot (and I'm speaking as a complete amateur myself!) is whacking great ugly horn nocks that are far too heavy and blocky and resemble some garish Victorian style chess-piece. The Mary Rose bow tips are less than half an inch wide, regardless of the massive draw weights, and the surviving horn nock was tiny, with a delicate single side-nock for the string.
It's easy to make a bow that looks like an MR bow, but getting the cross section right, keeping the tips small, and especially keeping the back profile consistent takes a huge amount of experience, not to mention having a perfect tiller.
There are many guys today who can make bows easily on par with the originals - too many to name really, but a few that come to mind are Ian Coote, Joe Gibbs, Dave Pim, Jaro Petrina and Ian Sturgess. There are plenty of others however that are just as good - many of whom use this forum.
-
Del is right about the draw lenghts on the majority off the arrows found.
Mostly 30in and 28in
I think some people need to adjust their 'specifications' to reflect this!
It seems to be a bit silly to turn up to a shoot with a replica 'mary rose' arrow that has a draw length of 28 or 30 inches only to be told it is not up to spec!
-
WHOAH!
Almost 1.5k for a replica yew MR bow. :o
I could get a top spec hand crafted recurve for that and still have plenty of change ::)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yew-Warbow-Self-Yew-English-Longbow-160lbs-32-80-Nock-to-Nock-/281519908081?pt=UK_Archery&hash=item418be4e4f1
-
That's exactly the problem - you can make a bow that looks a bit like a Mary Rose bow but that doesn't mean it is one.
That bow is junk - the tiller is absolutely appalling and the cross section is completely wrong. You can see how the middle is working far too hard, and the right limb especially is way, way too stiff. Absolute rubbish. Also, looking at the photo of the back of the bow, it's clearly obvious that the edges have been left hard, so there's almost a right angled corner all the way along. A true MR bow is rounded heavily on the back, so that the cross section is almost circular.
That bow isn't worth half what he's asking for it.
A good, well made MR replica bow made from European yew should be between 500 and 800 pounds. You're in the states so you'd pay a high shipping fee as well, but there's a lot of skill and time and experience that goes into these bows (well, some of them, anyway) so they're worth the price.
160lbs is at the top end of what anybody could manage however - certainly not worth buying a bow that heavy without many years of correct training. Bear in mind that the current record for distance with a Mary Rose arrow was set with a bow only 10lbs heavier, at 170lbs.
-
@WillS
I did think from my limited experience that the bow had a bad tiller. The limbs are flat, while the only movement is in the handle area. Looks like an Egyptian Composite bow shape.
Only had laminate bows as of right now, but I did think something wasn't "quite right" with that bow.