Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
adb:
Much debate surrounds the ''clothyard" shaft. Funny, there aren't many examples of them from Medieval times. Having examined the Mary Rose shafts myself in July of '07, none were anywhere near 36"... most being 30-31".
I don't believe we are that much different in stature than our medieval ancestors. Most of us can draw an arrow back to our ear with replica warbows, and that distance is about 30-32". I can't imagine drawing to 36", for anyone, being at all practical... and perhaps physically impossible. Funny, the arrows from the MR are not 36". If spoken of in those terms, it seems logical to assume that a clothyard is not 36in, but something less. I think that just because there was one bow long enough to shoot one, does not mean that they existed. That would be like saying that just because there were wheels during medieval times, that their vehicles should have been able to go 100 mph.
Practical warfare thrives by standardization. Making all the arrows, bullets, rifles, bows, kit, etc. the same for everyone makes practical sense. Therefore, all arrows can be shot by all bowmen.
Clothyard shafts, 200 pound bows, penetrating plate steel at 250 yards... all results of exaggeration and wishful thinking... perpetuated by legend, to become modern fact.
stevesjem:
--- Quote from: adb on November 12, 2008, 10:14:48 am ---Much debate surrounds the ''clothyard" shaft. Funny, there aren't many examples of them from Medieval times. Having examined the Mary Rose shafts myself in July of '07, none were anywhere near 36"... most being 30-31".
I don't believe we are that much different in stature than our medieval ancestors. Most of us can draw an arrow back to our ear with replica warbows, and that distance is about 30-32". I can't imagine drawing to 36", for anyone, being at all practical... and perhaps physically impossible. Funny, the arrows from the MR are not 36". If spoken of in those terms, it seems logical to assume that a clothyard is not 36in, but something less. I think that just because there was one bow long enough to shoot one, does not mean that they existed. That would be like saying that just because there were wheels during medieval times, that their vehicles should have been able to go 100 mph.
Practical warfare thrives by standardization. Making all the arrows, bullets, rifles, bows, kit, etc. the same for everyone makes practical sense. Therefore, all arrows can be shot by all bowmen.
Clothyard shafts, 200 pound bows, penetrating plate steel at 250 yards... all results of exaggeration and wishful thinking... perpetuated by legend, to become modern fact.
--- End quote ---
I agree to a certain degree with what you are saying, however Clothyard shafts using the medieval size of the foot means that 95% of the MR arrows fall into that size range,
200lb bows, well maybe not 200, but certainly 180-190lb at 30", which would take them over 200@32", and penetrating plate steel at 250 yds, well if you can hit the target then this is not just possible but very probable,
See this link (I hope this is allowed) http://englishwarbow.com/forum/index.php?topic=1289.15
So no exaggeration or wishful thinking...but more probably fact.
Steve
adb:
Steve,
I agree... a clothyard was not likely 36", especially considering that if MR arrows were referred to as a clothyard (being that most are 30-31").
As far as penetrating plate at 250 yards... I thought (and from what I've read or seen), that it was only likely to penetrate at something more like 50 yards. I assume you've seen the TV documentary on "Weapons that made Britain: The Longbow"? They did some actual testing, and found it not likely to penetrate, except at very close range. And not just penetrate, but penetrate to be effectively deadly. What are your thoughts on this? Seems to me, also, that Mark Stretton did some testing, and was only able to penetrate plate at fairly close range? Wasn't that in Hugh's book "Secrets of the Warbow?"
Then and now, a 200# warbow was not practical. Appropriate material, an archer who could shoot it properly, and considering a point of diminishing returns, all lead me to believe (and having examined the MR bows) that most warbows were not as heavy as we presently think. Certainly, some heavy bows (150#+) did exist, but more practically, they were somewhat less #.
alanesq:
just throw my 2p worth in ;-)
When you shoot an arrow 250 yards dont forget that it is falling from a great height so actually by the time it reaches the ground it is travelling at a very high speed (watching my arrows come down they really are moving very fast by the time they hit the ground - I must figure out some way to measure the speed?)
so its not a matter of the further you shoot the slower the arrow will be travelling
I have only been doing archery for approx. 2.5 years, I am over 40 years old but I can now shoot a 140lb bow
so its not difficult to imagine that specially selected military archers at the prime of their life who were brought up with archery from a young age would be shooting much heavier bows than I can manage
outcaste:
Hi,
I would also add that just a few years ago arguably there were only one or two archers who were shooting the heavier warbows (150+). Recently we are getting 130lb bows being shot reguarly. What we are seeing is the result of archers applying themselves within their training. I would agree with Alan 2/3 years of training can easily see an archer drawing 140lbs if they train correctly and have favourable genetics. If only I had started in my twenties rather than my thirties!
Alistair
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version