Author Topic: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows  (Read 101785 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Yeomanbowman

  • Member
  • Posts: 283
    • warbowwales
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #75 on: November 27, 2008, 06:23:32 pm »
I think this was the first MR replical bow below, it predates BT's bow by quite some time :). It was made by a R. Warry and purchased by the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford on January 28th, 1893.  the first bows were raised in the 19th C.

http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms-and-armour/o/A-Place-in-History/1893.65.1/ 

stevesjem

  • Guest
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #76 on: November 27, 2008, 08:01:24 pm »
Hi, Erik

I don't understand how you can say you made the first MR replica warbow, 5 years before the MR was discovered?? Certainly, you may be able to say you made a Medieval era bow, depending on what material and # the bow is. Have you been to the MR museum? As you're obviously interested, it's worth the trip! Was for me.

 Good question. The Mary rose was discovered long before it was raised and dtvers brought up two of the bows in the nineteenth century. One of these was described in the 'Badminton Library' volume on 'Archery' which includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. At one foot from the tip, the girth is 3 ¼”, at two feet, a girth of 4”, and at two feet ten inches, a 4 ½”girth. includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. The maximum girth of 4 1/2” is maintained for eight and three-quarter inches. I cared enough to make one up. Yes,Steve. The one in the photo is really yew. high altitude Pacific yew drawing 100# plus, arguably as good as wood from parts of Europe, even England, that were sourced when the best was no longer available.

Alastair,---- It is true that the written word is not necessarily true. The same can be said for the spoken word, the posted word, or an interpretation formed by faulty or uninformed guesswork. Did the Badminton Library have any reason to give false measurements, or medieval archers who described how they determined bow and arrow length ? We are not talking the Agincourt body count here. BTW, do you and Steve believe the battle of Agincourt really happened ? After all, it is known only from the written word..

Thats it I've had enough of this, Bow toxo talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, You are so full of your self you refuse to see what is actually staring you in the face, have you never heard of moving forward with research. I will no longer enter into any discussions with you and will disregard your words as that of a rambler....feel free to carry on in yoir misguided little world.

BTW, yes Agincourt did happen coz we won it, it's part of our History and culture, something you will not know much about!

Steve

Offline bow-toxo

  • Member
  • Posts: 337
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #77 on: November 27, 2008, 08:02:42 pm »
I think this was the first MR replical bow below, it predates BT's bow by quite some time :). It was made by a R. Warry and purchased by the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford on January 28th, 1893.  the first bows were raised in the 19th C.

http://webprojects.prm.ox.ac.uk/arms-and-armour/o/A-Place-in-History/1893.65.1/ 

Thanks for the info. I stand corrected.

                                                          Erik

Hartung

  • Guest
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2008, 02:43:34 am »
This thread is very typical to what can be seen on other threads as it comes to MR bow measurements.

Backgardenbowyer’s initial question was:

Does anyone know where some detailed data on the Mary Rose bows and arrows is published?  I'm not talking about the selective and second hand scholarship in Harvey et al but a proper analysis of the measurements and description of the finds.  […]  it surprises me that there isn't a data set available with all the dimensions.

Several other member have deplored the fact that no dimensions are available.

Up to this point there are 77 (!) answers to Backgardenbowyer’s question. So far, only one (!) person (bow-toxo) gave MR bow dimensions (post#74) as asked in the initial question. And this very person is accused as being “off topic” and as being a “rambler” in his “misguided little world”.

Steve, you who “made more replicas of these bows than probably anyone” (Reply #32), why don’t you just give measurements of three of the replica bows you made. Say the dimension of one of the smaller MR bows, dimensions of one of the bigger bows and one of in between, including ring count.

Thus Backgardenbowyer’s question would be answered and the discussion be back on the right track?

stevesjem

  • Guest
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #79 on: November 28, 2008, 05:48:20 am »
Hartung

I am unable to give specific dimensions of these bows as the MR are producing a paper which will give all the information necessary, so until then it would be wrong for me to give specific dimensions.

Reply 1 and reply 9 both say how things are!
Sorry

Offline D. Tiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,507
  • Go ahead! Bend that stick! Make my day!!!
    • Whidbey Island Soap Co.
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2008, 04:30:38 pm »
Just finnished an 80# warbow style composit out of hickory and sapelle. Works great but I think the Sapelle takes to much set. Will be trying something else next. Thing I think is interresting it feal like I'm stringing one of my lighter 27" draw length bows and its not so hard to bring it to full draw when you get into it. Sure feal muscles I wasnt aware I had before. Especially in the lower abdomin and just bellow the ribs and across my back. Good work out! Now to build up the muscles for my 90# bow!

David T
“People are less likely to shoot at you if you smile at them” - Mad Jack Churchill

Offline backgardenbowyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 130
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #81 on: November 29, 2008, 07:39:09 pm »
Well guys, I'm a bit wiser than when I started the thread but not much! A few weeks ago I met and talked to Pip Bickerstaffe at a Roving Marks shoot.  He has a fair claim to have made more English Longbows than anyone else at present (though I'm not a fan of his standard mass produced bows) and he has certainly made quite a few MR replicas.  He's also handled and measured some of the bows.  Pip's view is that the dimension only make sense when you examine the wood and the larger longer bows are just the ones made our of wider grained and less dense yew.  He also said that the arrows do indeed vary in length 31.5" being the most common, and that where arrows were found in sheaves there were always several lengths in each sheaf and usually the same proportion of shorter and longer arrows.  Does this suggests that there might have been a variety of head types in a sheaf? Might a shorter (therefore stiffer) arrow with a heavier head be kept for short range direct shots and a longer lighter one used at distance? Well I don't know.

Thanks for all your comments.

It's all useful information but I'd still like to see the whole find measured, catalogued and published!

Stan

Hartung

  • Guest
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #82 on: December 01, 2008, 03:20:05 pm »
No need to feel sorry. I find it strange though that you’re promoting and selling Mary Rose replica warbows – which makes those dimensions public anyway - but refuse to give the dimensions of one or two of the replicas…  I would understand it though if it was for professional secrecy that you deny any demand.

Offline outcaste

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #83 on: December 01, 2008, 05:53:34 pm »
Well guys, I'm a bit wiser than when I started the thread but not much! A few weeks ago I met and talked to Pip Bickerstaffe at a Roving Marks shoot.  He has a fair claim to have made more English Longbows than anyone else at present (though I'm not a fan of his standard mass produced bows) and he has certainly made quite a few MR replicas.  He's also handled and measured some of the bows.  Pip's view is that the dimension only make sense when you examine the wood and the larger longer bows are just the ones made our of wider grained and less dense yew.  He also said that the arrows do indeed vary in length 31.5" being the most common, and that where arrows were found in sheaves there were always several lengths in each sheaf and usually the same proportion of shorter and longer arrows.  Does this suggests that there might have been a variety of head types in a sheaf? Might a shorter (therefore stiffer) arrow with a heavier head be kept for short range direct shots and a longer lighter one used at distance? Well I don't know.

Thanks for all your comments.

It's all useful information but I'd still like to see the whole find measured, catalogued and published!

Stan

I would suggest that even if these dimensions (larger bows) were made from average rpi English yew it would still give a bow of 140/50lb min. I also understand that the most common arrow length was 30.5 inches.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,
Alistair

stevesjem

  • Guest
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #84 on: December 02, 2008, 05:59:07 am »
No need to feel sorry. I find it strange though that you’re promoting and selling Mary Rose replica warbows – which makes those dimensions public anyway - but refuse to give the dimensions of one or two of the replicas…  I would understand it though if it was for professional secrecy that you deny any demand.


As I've said Hartung, It would be wrong of me to give out information like this prior to the MR paper being published, If I did it may jeopardise my position and also cause me problems with doing my own research with the MR Trust. So you will just have to wait until the MR produce their document.

Steve

Offline Kviljo

  • Member
  • Posts: 488
  • Archaeologist, Antitheist
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #85 on: December 22, 2008, 03:57:33 pm »
I'll second that. The archaeological system is full of this stuff. Rights to publish data on finds. Over here, in Norway, there are even those that virtually sit on the material and won't let others publish it, even though they themselves won't publish anything on it.

Let's just hope the MR paper will contain information useful to bowyers.

Offline bow-toxo

  • Member
  • Posts: 337
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2008, 07:14:44 pm »

Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.

Steve

  Ooh, that sounds scary. I don’t know why anyone would want to “shoot down big time” a post offered to inform interested people but as I’ve said, I welcome correction. I prefer historically based evidence, such as I have posted, rather than garbled incoherent attacks. The above refers to Tudor bow strings, not theoretical physics and the post was as follows.

    I think we are all aware that the bowstrings were made ‘of very fine hemp’ or silk and had a loop as mentioned by Ascham, Smythe [Certaine Discourses] and ‘Lartdarcherie’   [ pub.Paris 1515, trans. Col Walrond ],  Lartdarcherie, which contradicts Ascham only as to whether to nock an arrow before or after taking a stand, states that the string should be tightly twisted  of three strands of fiber or thread. [We know from the Mary Rose arrows that the strings had to be only about 1/8” thick.] The loop [ for longbow horn tipped sidenocks.],, should be made as small as possible and stretched with a stone weight. Ascham’s comment about the bending, the timber hitch at the end , “if [the string] be long, the bending must needs be in the small of the string, which being sore twisted, must needs snap in sunder”, clearly tells us that the string is made thicker at the bending, a stress point. The loop being another stress point, and with Ascham’s comment “ if either of the nocks be naught” referring to the string, not the bow, we can safely infer that the loop would be likewise reinforced. Smythe, a strong Elizabethan proponent of military archery, tells us that the strings were also treated “ with a kind of water glue to resist wet and moisture” and in 1547 every archer was to “have three bow strings in a waterproof case”.. We no longer know what that glue was.

   So much for the stringer. Smythe tells us that the string is whipped [served] by the archers with fine thread, as we do now, and a list of gear for Elizabeth’s “trayned bands” says, :”every string whipped in the nock”, another point of wear.

  I would not be able to offer a much more detailed description ot a Tudor period bow string if a time traveller dropped an original one in my lap. For those interested in making one, I suggest Dr, Elmer’s ‘Target Archery”, which  describes the real Flemish string as made by a Belgian stringer from the early 20th century who died with his craft, but whose strings suggested  how they were made. They did however have a looser twist than noted above.  Making such a string  of linen ,silk, or hemp, is an all day job for me.

                                                                                                         Cheers,
                                                                                                            Erik
   



Offline ratty

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #87 on: January 01, 2009, 06:57:11 am »

Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.

Steve

  Ooh, that sounds scary. I don’t know why anyone would want to “shoot down big time” a post offered to inform interested people but as I’ve said, I welcome correction. I prefer historically based evidence, such as I have posted, rather than garbled incoherent attacks. The above refers to Tudor bow strings, not theoretical physics and the post was as follows.

    I think we are all aware that the bowstrings were made ‘of very fine hemp’ or silk and had a loop as mentioned by Ascham, Smythe [Certaine Discourses] and ‘Lartdarcherie’   [ pub.Paris 1515, trans. Col Walrond ],  Lartdarcherie, which contradicts Ascham only as to whether to nock an arrow before or after taking a stand, states that the string should be tightly twisted  of three strands of fiber or thread. [We know from the Mary Rose arrows that the strings had to be only about 1/8” thick.] The loop [ for longbow horn tipped sidenocks.],, should be made as small as possible and stretched with a stone weight. Ascham’s comment about the bending, the timber hitch at the end , “if [the string] be long, the bending must needs be in the small of the string, which being sore twisted, must needs snap in sunder”, clearly tells us that the string is made thicker at the bending, a stress point. The loop being another stress point, and with Ascham’s comment “ if either of the nocks be naught” referring to the string, not the bow, we can safely infer that the loop would be likewise reinforced. Smythe, a strong Elizabethan proponent of military archery, tells us that the strings were also treated “ with a kind of water glue to resist wet and moisture” and in 1547 every archer was to “have three bow strings in a waterproof case”.. We no longer know what that glue was.

   So much for the stringer. Smythe tells us that the string is whipped [served] by the archers with fine thread, as we do now, and a list of gear for Elizabeth’s “trayned bands” says, :”every string whipped in the nock”, another point of wear.

  I would not be able to offer a much more detailed description ot a Tudor period bow string if a time traveller dropped an original one in my lap. For those interested in making one, I suggest Dr, Elmer’s ‘Target Archery”, which  describes the real Flemish string as made by a Belgian stringer from the early 20th century who died with his craft, but whose strings suggested  how they were made. They did however have a looser twist than noted above.  Making such a string  of linen ,silk, or hemp, is an all day job for me.

                                                                                                         Cheers,
                                                                                                            Erik
   




i like this quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.

Great strings and little strings be for divers purposes : the great string is more surer for the bow, more stable to prick withall, but slower for the cast. The little string is clean contrary, not so sure, therefore to be taken heed of, lest with long tarrying on it break your bow, more fit to shoot far, than apt to prick near; therefore, when you know the nature of both big and little, you must fit your bow according to the occasion of your shooting. In stringing of your bow .


Offline bow-toxo

  • Member
  • Posts: 337
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #88 on: January 01, 2009, 02:48:54 pm »



[/quote]

i like this quote from the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.

Great strings and little strings be for divers purposes : the great string is more surer for the bow, more stable to prick withall, but slower for the cast. The little string is clean contrary, not so sure, therefore to be taken heed of, lest with long tarrying on it break your bow, more fit to shoot far, than apt to prick near; therefore, when you know the nature of both big and little, you must fit your bow according to the occasion of your shooting. In stringing of your bow .


[/quote]

  That is a correct quote although it is only from a book so I am sure that Steve would not accept it as a big time shoot down.
I accept it and add that silk strimgs were preferred because, being strong, they could be made to the thickness desired. Military strings were of hemp, undoubtedly standardized, and the arrow nocks were to fit whipped strings as I mentioned.  Do you find Ascham's book valid for military gear or only for the dilletante aristocrats equipment ? Thank you for your interest. I appreciate the discussion.

                                                                                                                 Cheers,
                                                                                                                   Erik


 

Offline ratty

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
Re: data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
« Reply #89 on: January 01, 2009, 05:02:04 pm »
i don't believe ascham's books are the be all and end of military archery. infact i believe them to be more about pastime shooting.

i think this quote is good



this is a quote from  the second book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.

God send us good stringers both for war and peace. Now what a string ought to be made on, whether of good hemp, as they do now-a-days, or of flax, or of silk, I leave that to the judgement of stringers, of whom we must buy them.

this tells me hemp seems to be more used than silk at this time.


the first book of the school of shooting by Roger Ascham.



and i think this quote says such alot about what ascham is talking about.

 Phi. I grant, Toxophile, that use of shooting maketh a man draw strong, to shoot at most advantage, to keep his gear, which is no small thing in war; but yet methink that the customable shooting at home, specially at butts and pricks, make nothing at all for strong shooting, which doth most good in war. Therefore, I suppose, if men should use to go into the fields, and learn to shoot mighty strong shots, and never care for any mark at all, they should do much better.

this tells me they are shooting lighter bows than they would at war.or not drawing there bows to there full potential .     what do you think?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 07:16:51 am by ratty »