Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Badger on February 03, 2015, 06:41:24 pm
-
We are starting a flight federation and would hope to include a war bow class where war bows are shot as war bows are intended to shoot.
It would be appreciated if you guys could give is a comprehensive set of rules that would define a war bow and how it should be shot.
The rules would include a description of the bow, the shape, construction method, cross section, nocks, handle area, minimum draw weight etc.
It would also include arrow weights and lengths to be shot.
They should be clear enough that an official untrained in war bows could determine the eligibility to compete in that class.
Thanks in Advance Steve
-
It seems to me that the current warbow shooting societies do things exactly opposite of most other flight shooters. In the current warbow societies, the arrows are all standardised to very close specs, including: length, weight, nocks, heads, profiles, feathers, etc. The bows are pretty much the unlimited factor. They do have some specific guidelines for dimensions and profiles of the bows, including construction and materials.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in other flight shooting organisations, the bows are carefully regulated for material, type, draw weight, etc., and the arrow is anything goes.
I'm just wondering how you want to include warbows in this new federation? Standard arrows (as now), or standard bows?
I must admit, I enjoy the current shooting of the CWBS that I belong to. Everyone shoots the same arrow, and these arrows seem to be accepted by all the global warbow societies I'm aware of. How far you make it go is up to you. The downside of this? Only a few guys in the world can shoot enough draw weight to be on top.
I believe the current goal of the modern warbow societies is to mimic the bows and arrows used during the zenith of the warbow, which was during The Hundred Years War era of medieval times, and up to the Tudor age of Henry VIII.
I believe the current goal of modern flight federations is to see how far you can cast an unlimited arrow with a bow fitting into a specific group.
In your new federation, I think there's definitely room for including what we call English Longbows. However, I do believe the warbow societies will continue to function on a different wavelength.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Adam, we are going to have regular flight shooting classes where we don't regulate the style of the bow so much and we will have tradtional flight shooting where bows will be shot in their own respective classes with arrow weights they might normally shoot, it will be based on grains per pound if I get my way on it.
We are going to leave the war bows rules up to the war bow guys. One thing you might consider is that for the lighter drawing war bow shooters where you would like to have the quality of your bow judged you may consider a similar aspect to war bow shooting where grains per pound are used.
-
That sounds do-able. It would change how things are done as compared to the current warbow societies.
To me, a warbow isn't a warbow until it's >70#. Even at 70#, a warbow casting the current warbow spec arrows is very anemic. Warbows were originally made for war, to cast a heavy enough projectile to inflict death or injury. To me, a warbow doesn't come alive until it's 100#.
If you're talking about reducing the draw weight, then I think you're just talking about an English Longbow. I don't know. I think warbows and the warbow societies will continue to stand alone, persuing their goals. I'm not saying they're going to change or combine with another federation, I just think they're a very separate entity in the flight shooting world. it would be a huge challenge to have "warbows" in another flight federation, I think. I don't know. It's like comparing apples & oranges... both fruit, but very different.
-
Actually, what I think I'm trying to say is: I wouldn't change anything about the current warbow societies. The classes of bows are appropriate (yew selfbow, meane wood, and laminates). The arrow specs are attempts at what some people believe was available at the moment historically. Certainly, it's a young man's game, where strength and ability are going to be the cream which will allow you to rise to the top, but I can't see anything different being better. I am open to suggestions, however.
I think the lighter drawing warbow shooters you speak of, are just shooting English Longbows.
Please keep in mind I mean no offense to anyone. This is just the way I see it. I want to start flight shooting someday soon, but I will continue to shoot warbows until I can't. I just see them as two very different things.
-
I like the idea of longbows shooting their set types of arrows but think that other bows should be allowed in those arrow classes.
-
Not 100% following you Pat...
For example, have horsebows in a warbow society shoot?
I do think it would be VERY interesting to see what other bows could do with an English warbow spec arrow, but it would be contrary to the philosophy of "warbow" shooting... well, English warbow shooting, anyway. Not that that's a bad thing, it just seems too far away from the goals of the current English warbow socities.
I do have a smidgey (that's small here in Western Canada, Pat ;D) of a problem with the current "warbow" societies. Almost every culture had a warbow, not just the English. I argue that the Mongols were far more effective than the English with their "warbows." The EWBS is the English Warbow Society, and I think it's vital that they distinguish, and happy that they do.
-
Adam, I have no opinon on warbows, as I said the war bow guys would draw up their own rules which I assume they allready have. You guys would specify a minimum weight bow before it became an english long bow and no longer a warbow.
On all the other classes I am proposing a distinct division between regular flight bows and traditional bows just shooting as they were intended. War bows would fall into the traditional classes and just be shot the same way they are presently. If a bowyer wanted to enter his war bow into the english long bow classes he would be welcome to do so in which case he would shoot at 8 grains per pound as a traditional english long bow and not a warbow. This might be attractive to bows under 100# for instance.
-
Not 100% following you Pat...
For example, have horsebows in a warbow society shoot?
I do think it would be VERY interesting to see what other bows could do with an English warbow spec arrow, but it would be contrary to the philosophy of "warbow" shooting... well, English warbow shooting, anyway. Not that that's a bad thing, it just seems too far away from the goals of the current English warbow socities.
I do have a smidgey (that's small here in Western Canada, Pat ;D) of a problem with the current "warbow" societies. Almost every culture had a warbow, not just the English. I argue that the Mongols were far more effective than the English with their "warbows." The EWBS is the English Warbow Society, and I think it's vital that they distinguish, and happy that they do.
We say smidgin. ;)
I meant if there is an "open" flight shoot rather than a "society" shoot the arrow classes of the typical WBS should be an open class.
The longbow guys have nothing to be afraid of, right?
-
Yup... smidgin works too! ;)
If it was an "open" flight shoot with WBS arrows, it wouldn't be an English Warbow shoot. I think the warbow societies are only trying to maintain what they clearly state in their mission statements. Here is the one from the CWBS, taken right from their website:
The Canadian Warbow Society is a group of like-minded individuals who practice the shooting and the making of the great English Warbow, War arrows, and tackle. Our goal is to perpetuate the heritage of the English Warbow, and introduce the study and practice of this weapon to our shores.
I have no doubt that other types of bows may outperform English warbows with their own arrows. But, that is clearly not the mission of these societies. Likely, if the English had had access to better bows, which could outperform their own, they would have used them. No fear here... only a willingness to participate in the historical romance of what, at the time, was a powerful weapon which changed history.
I do fear, however, that we are once again straying far off topic. ::)
-
I can't help thinking that the Welsh class within the various Warbow societies seems to cover all the bases. It suggests a minimum and maximum weight bow, materials to be used, strings to be used and the arrow specification.
With a maximum weight alongside a minimum, it puts more focus onto the archer and bowyer reaching greater distance rather than letting the two or three guys who can shoot 190# bows dominate the entire thing because nobody else can get close.
If you were to use a similar set of guidelines to the Welsh class, it would be something along these lines (I have copied these from the official Welsh class section of the ewbs from memory as its not available currently)
Bow weight - over 80# and under 110#
Bow materials - any indigenous wood species to England (European yew, elm, ash, hazel, plum etc)
Bow construction - single stave, "Warbow cross section" - i.e. any found on the MR (round, square, galleon, D) with minimal heat treatment (perhaps just what is necessary to straighten or balance the natural stave). Cow horn side nocks. Circular or elliptical tiller shape. 30" minimum draw length. 72" minimum length.
String - ideally natural fibres, but for safety modern materials should also be allowed
Arrows - to follow Warbow Society Welsh class arrow spec that can be found on the Warbow Wales / ewbs website.
With some tweaking I'm sure something similar can be worked out that satisfies most Warbow enthusiasts?
As Adam has pointed out, most people interested in shooting warbows for distance are already happily doing so within various different Warbow societies. The specs are set and agreed upon, the records are taken carefully and there's no great desire to change anything from what I can tell.
-
Some potential probs there.
I wish people wouldn't write spec' details that aren't actually measurable.
Words like 'minimal heat treating' are meaningless especially as it seems to confuse heat treatment with heat bending...the two are distinct and separate although they can be done together.
Specifying 'cow horn' is a bit stingy... a) how can you tell cow from pale waterbuffalo (DNA test? ::))when even the supplier seems to change the name of what he's supplying! " Horn or Antler" would be fine. (There are vegans who would want to use Nylon or similar)
Personally I'm not a great fan of side nocks. Most people will need second grooves for a bracing string which then raises the question, are second grooves historically accurate.
Specifying tiller shape is again a bit pointless as it is pretty much open to interpretation, but I like it as MR cross section covers pretty much everything from round to rectangular as long as corners are rounded. Adding a 5/8 rule for clarity may be a good idea.
Indigenous UK wood is a bit meane ;) it cuts out Hickory and the like which is handy for US based bowyers.
I think it needs to be as open and inclusive as possible.
The maximum weight is an interesting and valid concept, but I'd think maybe 120# or 130# nearer the mark?
I don't think you mention reflex/deflex... any view on that?
I think your statement "The spec's are set and agreed on" is far from the truth. The people who don't agree with them probably don't join the society.
Del
-
That's exactly why I said with tweaking... :)
I agree on all your points other than side nocks. The MR bows had second grooves for stringers, so there's no reason not to have these with side nocks. If it's a class for warbows, side nocks are the only historically accurate method. Full nocks are Victorian and don't really belong on medieval weapons.
130# is a sensible max I think. Stops the elite domination, while allowing plenty room for improvement amongst archers and bowyers.
As for cow horn and indigenous woods how about a compromise - the materials used should be indigenous to the bowyers country. That means you use materials you can find where you live, which allows for a fascinating comparison between wood types. Or does limiting materials just make it too restrictive?
-
Blimey, you replied before I'd finished editing... :o
Not sure I've seen the evidence for the MR nocks having second grooves... I'll need to dig out W of W.
I have no axe to grind, making 'em isn't an issue for me, but maybe a bit un-nerving for anyone who hasn't done 'em before.
Indigenous to the bowyers country... cunning... will be see bamboo Warbows >:D
Still more probs... waterbuffalo were prob in the UK in the middle ages, but are not indigenous.... picky picky pedant
Del (picky picky pedant ;D )
-
Will, with respect you have to come here without the EWBS baggage
The MR bows had second grooves for stringers, so there's no reason not to have these with side nocks. - That's no true at all
If it's a class for warbows, side nocks are the only historically accurate method. Full nocks are Victorian and don't really belong on medieval weapons. - That's not true at all
As for cow horn and indigenous woods how about a compromise - the materials used should be indigenous to the bowyers country. - the medieval world traded from the east side of Han China right up to Yorkshire, I don't think the medieval man was limited but only what he could forage in his garden.
Adam, the benefit for us is unity with equipment where there is no inherent prejudiced or agenda. We have a chance to create a really helpful specification and instructional guide to anyone who wants to shoot warbows flight or not.
Also 130lb isn't a max at all, the max is unlimited to whatever people want to shoot as long as it still comes close to the MR bows in all attributes. Maximum and minimum width and depth are very easy to enforce from MR bows. I'm happy to do the leg work.
-
There's no baggage Ian. None of what I said is related to the ewbs.
Many of the MR bows have two nocks on the upper limb. Common sense would suggest they're for stringers, no?
There's no evidence for full nocks on bows of the period, unless I've forgotten any? If there are then that changes the issue of course, but if the Warbow class of the new federation is to be based around MR bows, which all had side nocks, why use anything else? Seems odd to enforce a rule that makes bows fit exacting MR dimensions and not to use MR nock types?
Like I said, indigenous can be altered. I was going by the Welsh class idea, as a rough start.
-
That's why I like the EWBS arrow class. At least you can agree on the arrows.
-
Hi,
Both Jeremy (yeomanbowman) and I have shot under the FITA rules, and although there are specs governing bow, weight class and to some degree arrow design, the basic premise is whom can shoot the furthest. By all means create a robust bow spec that takes into account the working properties of wood types and contextual references, but you could leave the arrow design to the discretion of the archer.
Alistair
-
Another possible opton would be not to create a war bow class in the new organization and any war bows wishing to compete would simply compete as unlimited draw weight english long bows shooting at a specified grains per pound, somehwere between 7 and 10 grains per pound is what we are discussing.
-
Another possible opton would be not to create a war bow class in the new organization and any war bows wishing to compete would simply compete as unlimited draw weight english long bows shooting at a specified grains per pound, somehwere between 7 and 10 grains per pound is what we are discussing.
There yah go. That sounds reasonable.
If, for example, you're shooting a 100# EWB, and you specify 10 grains per pound arrow weight, that would be a 65 gram arrow. Very reasonable. That's very close to a Livery spec arrow, currently being used in the warbow societies now. This philosophy would level the playing field a bit more, as more draw weight would require a heavier arrow.
Would there be requirements for fletching and head sizes, etc? Without the heavy heads and long fletchings, you could certainly get much more distance.
With a current WBS livery spec arrow and a 100# bow, I can get 200 yards on a good day. I think with more of a "flight" arrow (minimal fletching, barrel tapered, light head, etc.), you could get much more... likely closer to 300 yards maybe.
-
Another possible opton would be not to create a war bow class in the new organization and any war bows wishing to compete would simply compete as unlimited draw weight english long bows shooting at a specified grains per pound, somehwere between 7 and 10 grains per pound is what we are discussing.
I think that may be the easiest option as the warbow community will then have a choice of shooting with their own societies and rules and/or shooting in this Federation.
It may also avoid the endless pedantic dicussions which seem to me to be a feature of the warbow fraternity.
Alternatively, an extra class of longbow 100#and over?
Del
-
Del, lets just go with that idea, much simpler and we will still get the desired effect.
-
Del, lets just go with that idea, much simpler and we will still get the desired effect.
Excellent, can't beat a bit of executive decision making.
Del
-
Adding a 5/8 rule for clarity may be a good idea.
Sorry, I joined this one late.
Del, Bow X1-3 is outside of this in places. It occures just before the parallel width tapers, which is what I find well designed mean wood bows tend to do.
-
So Badger,
what's the upshot?
-
This topic seems to be raising lots of hotly debated issues discused on other threads.
The first thing to establish is, is the proposed class for Warbows - Medieval and Tudor or just Tudor or just Mary Rose Tudor or Mary Rose Tudor excepting bow X1-3.
As soon as you start to set guidelines, you start ruling out bows and arrows that we know existed!
For example : If you were to apply the ewbs livery arrow specs to the actual arrows found on the Mary Rose, the vast majority would be rejected for being to short!
Another example would be if you start insisting on horn nocks, you rule out any meanewood bows made with self nocks.
The Luttrell Psalter clearly shows a bow with self nocks.
I think It would be a good idea to get a warbow class for flight shooting but for gods sake don't get Warbow guys to come up with the guidelines, we are experts in arguing about our passion!
-
I think It would be a good idea to get a warbow class for flight shooting but for gods sake don't get Warbow guys to come up with the guidelines, we are experts in arguing about our passion!
:-X ;D
-
i thought the main purpose of the heavy bow [war bow] was to hit what you were aiming at, iam sure the medieval didnt get his knickers in a twist worrying about how far his arrow went as long as it found its mark . ::) ::)
-
i thought the main purpose of the heavy bow [war bow] was to hit what you were aiming at, iam sure the medieval didnt get his knickers in a twist worrying about how far his arrow went as long as it found its mark . ::) ::)
No, not really. Warbows in period were massed volley weapons at distance. Medieval artillery, if you will. 5000 archers (as at Azincourt) with a sustained mass volley of 8-10 arrows/minute/archer was a devastating weapon. That's 40,000-45,000 arrows/minute. Some of the arrows found their mark. Accuracy was more vital at close range (<50 yards). Knowing the distance at which you could make contact with your enemy would have been vital. Why bother wasting expensive arrows, if they were too far away? Archers in period were expected to attain certain minimum standards to make muster. Distance was one of them.
I have seen it done, but I have never hit the mark at 200 yards with a warbow. Within a foot, but never actually hitting the target.
-
If they missed by more than a foot, they hit the next guy. It's all good.
-
If they missed by more than a foot, they hit the next guy. It's all good.
Zut alors! Zat arrow, she was meant for me n'est ce pas?! ::)
Del
-
If they missed by more than a foot, they hit the next guy. It's all good.
That's a quality comment right there! (insert light ripple of applause) LMFAO here :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: