Author Topic: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'  (Read 14562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2014, 07:07:55 pm »
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.

mikekeswick

  • Guest
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2014, 02:32:12 am »
No but they did have a spot where the arrow passed. I think that is what's being asked.

Offline Frank Thornton

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2014, 06:23:15 am »
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!

Offline Frank Thornton

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2014, 08:09:59 am »
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.

Offline Del the cat

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,279
    • Derek Hutchison Native Wood Self Bows
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2014, 08:26:50 am »

@ 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
Health warning, these posts may contain traces of nut.

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2014, 10:44:08 am »
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.

Offline HoorayHorace

  • Member
  • Posts: 110
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2014, 03:13:53 pm »

@ 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.


Offline HoorayHorace

  • Member
  • Posts: 110
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2014, 03:25:21 pm »
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  ;)

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2014, 03:37:31 pm »
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.

Offline HoorayHorace

  • Member
  • Posts: 110
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2014, 03:43:32 pm »
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?  :)

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2014, 04:03:38 pm »
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.

Offline meanewood

  • Member
  • Posts: 243
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2014, 05:31:06 pm »
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!
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 05:35:27 pm by meanewood »

Offline HoorayHorace

  • Member
  • Posts: 110
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2014, 07:21:41 pm »
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

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2014, 07:41:38 pm »
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. 

Offline HoorayHorace

  • Member
  • Posts: 110
Re: Mary Rose 'battle arrows'
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2014, 07:52:47 pm »
@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.