what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow

[Pat B]

Historically, what were the draw weights and dinensions of the war bows that have been found or recovered? Would't that constitute what a war bow would be? anything else would be speculation. 

[triton]

Victorian English Longbow: stiff handle, 70LB max draw weight, string must not touch the limbs once braced.
Medieval English Longbow: Full compass, any draw weight.

Lighter weights for kids. heavier weights as kids progressed up to adulthood.  Bows used for warfare made with enough draw weight to send required projectile a specific minimum distance.

Draw weights and dimensions are already well documented on this site as well as books and other web sites.
Kooi's computer model proved from dimensions the averages were 140LB. testing on calibrated equipment backed up kooi's projections. a few are said to be as low as 80LB and others 180LB. copyright prevents me from posting scans of pages from books.

[alanesq]

At the end of the day - its an impossible to answer question
The word "warbow" has no official definition and has just been adopted recently by people interested in the English longbow as was used in war to differentiate from the more usual form of longbow used now

No one really knows what a medieval bow was like so people can debate for the rest of time about the details.....
the best we have to go on is the Mary Rose but these were Tudor bows and also bows used at sea which could be different to standard "warbows" of the time anyway - who knows ?

So I think the best you can say is that if you are ultimately trying to re create or experience what using a longbow at Agincourt etc. was like then your into warbows
if you are interested in a light easy to draw bow for recreational purposes then you are interested in the recreational style longbow

following on from that; I personally would say that if the English longbow you are using takes an awful lot of effort to draw and you are drawing to the ear then its a warbow (for you at least)

[nickf]

a warbow is a SELFBOW.

ever shot or drawn a warbow? You're very welcome to draw my bows, if you can, you may deny my bows arent warbows 110# BBI in the work, so it will be a challenge for you to deny

I'm sure people have used rawhide for backings in the medievals, but the've rotten away for sure. what's the true difference between a 3mm thick strip of rawhide and boo?
what's the true difference between ipe and yew/elm/ash? then what's the difference between a rawhide backed yew and BBI? and if you take the rawhide off, what's the difference then?

I don't think there's any answere here, it's a agreement we make. it's about setting limits.

this is what I'd agree with as a warbow definition:

thickest, widest part at handle
drawweight of over 80 #
compass tiller
drawn to the ear, or almost.
all-wood, exept from horn nocks, and arrowpass. (no glass, or carbon...)
no cut in shelves

the term 'longbow' was used to show the difference between crossbow and a normal bow. another similar definition would be hand(drawn) bow. It didn't have to do anything with the design or length. later, term crossbow came

IMHO a heavy laminated longbow is just that, a heavy laminated longbow.
Nothing wrong with that.

As to what poundage makes a "warbow", it seems likely that an arms race took place where the beginnings would have been with useful hunting weights and escalated from there in response to the tactical demands of the situation.

Heavy weights will have been current for as long as defensibly dressed men have been shooting arrows at each other and even before that when they were just trying to outrange each other on open ground with shafts of increasing weight.

Rod.

I totally agree

Quote from: triton on March 03, 2009, 10:40:00 AM
If you couldn't draw the bows issued, an average of 140LB, you didn't make muster and stayed home with your mum.


Or at least given a pointy stick and called infantry.
how lovely

Nick

[stevesjem]

Just a couple more things,
Alan, I do agree with some of what you are saying, however be a little wary of thinking that the MR bows were to be used at sea, the fact that they were crated up could be that they were in an armoury ready for a foreign campaign.

Nickf, I have not seen any evidence that suggests raw hide was in use as a backing on Ny English longbow, recreational or otherwise, I feel you are a bit low on your estimations of "warbow" weights, one other point to think about is that on nearly all the MR bows the widest point on the bow is actually not just the centre of the handle section, it does in fact stay a similar  width for about 8" either side of centre.


Triton, Although Dr Koois computer model has helped our understanding of the MR bow weights, one thing must be taken into consideration and that is the none of the test bows which were used to create the averages for his model were of dense Mediterranean yew, it was mainly American and some English yew, so although the readings were favourable they were still a little on the low side. I have shown so many times that Italian yew will produce a much heavier draw weight bow than other yew types when mDe to the same dimensions.
Now obviously this is only my opinion but it is derived from numerous tests of these bows, along with many visits to the MR to study first hand the bows, by making over the last 5 years very many replica MR bows, I have also had reknowned bowyers such as Marc St Louis make replicas from MR dimensions I have provided and made from the highest quality American yew just to see how the draw weights differ.
Anyway just food for thought
Steve   

[triton]

That's why I also said those computer models were checked against MR bows on calibrated scales. A fella I know quite well was on the symposium along with other reknowned bowyers, historians, archeologists and they took a lot of flack from the archery establishment over draw weights.  My friend was there when some of the MR bows were shot.  The members of the symposium were mocked, quite loudly, and such ridiculous things were said, such as "I can draw no more than 70LB, so nor could they".  My friend was drawing 100LB at 15 years old when he vowed to do his part in defending England against a german invasion.

[stevesjem]

That's why I also said those computer models were checked against MR bows on calibrated scales. A fella I know quite well was on the symposium along with other reknowned bowyers, historians, archeologists and they took a lot of flack from the archery establishment over draw weights.  My friend was there when some of the MR bows were shot.  The members of the symposium were mocked, quite loudly, and such ridiculous things were said, such as "I can draw no more than 70LB, so nor could they".  My friend was drawing 100LB at 15 years old when he vowed to do his part in defending England against a german invasion.

Thats about right with the academics of this world, "If i can't do it, then no one else can" attitude
I have not heard of any MR bows that were actually shot, I know of a couple that were bent using an Instron machine and a few were broken during this process, 1 bow was actually drawn to 30", another had the limb snapped off in the doors on Concord when it was being taken to the US, but as far as I know none were actually shot, however I will check with the MR on this.

Steve

[triton]

I think the ones that were shot also broke but I'll check. Spending a lot of time in a certain cellar cataloguing and measuring all the bows before they went back to the museum was of the utmost secrecy. even visitors to the house had no idea what was going on below the ground floor.
It wasn't so much "accademics" as the archery establishment 

[Pat B]

Why so secretive?  Seems they would want to share such info.   Pat

[triton]

because it was firstly in someones own home and these artefacts are priceless, none of the data was yet published and was still being collated.  once the information had been gathered, the bows could then be moved back to portsmouth. He didn't want people clammering at the door during his afternoon tiffin.

[Pat B]

That's understandable!

[stevesjem]

As far as I know there is only one bow which has had new nocks fitted, I will check the MR number, any bow that was shot would have had to have had nocks fitted, yet again I do not know of a bow that was shot even in a basement of a house in Oxfordshire.LOL but I could be mistaken
Steve

[nickf]

steve, I ment the handle wasn't narrowed. 80#+ might sound light, but they didn't really need more in the 'young' medievals. I think the drawweight increased by time, just as the armor got better. But I guess in the 1500's bow's over 160# weren't incommon.

triton, I found 100# isn't that hard with a right technique, even at age of 15. I can say it I just got 16 and draw 110# (yap, I know it's dumb :p). But didn't fight against an invasion, tho...

Nick

[Len]

I'm not so sure about the argument that bows got heavier as armour improved, maybe a little but not a difference of say 80lb jumping up to 140lb. I think a 80lb bow would be pretty useless against well made padded armour or maille over/under padding and don't forget plate was getting pretty wide spread by 1340's. For a bow to have been effective at Crecy it would have to drive an arrow through light plate, maille and then light padding, no mean feat.

[nickf]

len, in the 1000's even maille wasn't usual. Any needlebodkin would penetrate deep, being shot from a 80 or 160pounder.