Pre 14thC bulbous English arrows.

[davecrocket]

Hi there. 
I am new here and I am interested in longbow and arrow history.  I have tillered myself a pair of longbows (100 and 110lb@32") and love making my own arrows.  I am very interested in the history of bulbous nock arrows and now I want to make some.

I don`t want to get tangled up with the heads used just yet (no pun), but if anyone has any suggestions on the main body of the arrow I will be so grateful.  Also any historical evidence written or otherwise.  I do alot of reading and searching for this subject, but have found it a bit thin.  I am sure I must have missed a few references.

I have started off with a half inch straight grained ash shaft.  I don`t know how long the fletchings should be before I bring the arrow back up to fatness after the nock.  I am going to use four goose primary wing feathers, but don`t know if to strip or cut.  I have decided there is enough evidence to fit them into grooves.  This may point to the cut and grind fletching maybe.  Also for my first attempt I am going to have the thickest part of the arrow near the front and taper off in both directions.
If any of you have "Gut feelings" on how they should be made or thoughts on probable performance etc, I would very much like to know, as written evidence seems so rare.
Thank you very much for taking time to read this and any comments on this subject will  be appreciated.
Dave.

[Ian.]

Hi Dave
 There is a good book you may be interested in its called Toxophilus, cant find the online copy some one will know where it is.

 As far as arrows if you want to make them in the medieval pattern then a good starting place is

http://wvw.englishwarbow.com/making-blbs-standard-arrow.html

I would point out that you dont need four feathers on an arrow it will increase drag but not effect anything else.

Oh and tapering from the head to the nock is called bobtailing

[davecrocket]

Thank you Ian for taking time to help me.  I have struggled through Toxophilus a few times, but Asham seems to go on about 16thC archery.  He did give me the idea of ash though.  He reckoned arrows should be made of ash "not like these days".
I am interested in war arrows pre 14thC.  There are a few carvings around the place, but the bulbous nocks seem to be much exaggerated.
The site you recomended is very good, but again seems to be post 16thC.
Thank you again Ian.
Dave

[Rod]

I guess you are talking about the type of nock shown on some illustrations of target or hunting shafts, such as those shown on the Wilton Dyptich or in the Lutrell Psalter.

Does anyone have any evidence or rationale as to whether these would be built up or worked out of an oversize shaft?

There is evidence of both methods in other cultures making nocks of a similar appearance.

There is also some visual and written evidence about other feather types or styles, as well as specialised bulbous heads for shooting at butts.

Rod.

[davecrocket]

Thank you Rod for your kind reply.

It had never occurred to me that a bulbous nock could be built up after the arrow has been made.  In the old pictures it is so hard to tell.  Also I have read the same account as you but can`t remember where from.  You definitely know what I am trying to say though!

Anyway, I have made a very rude bulbous knock arrow and plan to loose it today or tomorrow.  I have used ash, but not half inch, more like 3/8".  I did this so it could be roughly compared with other conventional arrows I have.  It`s a very basic design with the the four 2.5 inch fletchings sat in a very narrow (2/8") part of the shaft.  The shaft then comes back up after the fletchings (as quick as it came down) to it`s original thickness at the nock giving me  my bulbous nock.  Don`t hold your breath though.  It doesn`t feel right.  I will at least see if I can dispel or confirm the bulbous nock was just there for the pinch grip.  I can`t see me being able to pinch the nob at 100lb-with or without gloves.  But I will try.  The fletchings are elongated swine-back, and they seem too long!  I will also wear brown trousers because of the narrow part of the arrow.
Something else has occurred to me.  If I take a Turkish arrow and saw the end off at it`s thickest part, this in effect would become a bulbous arrow.  Maybe I should base me next arrow on that design.

Dave.

[bow-toxo]

I go mostly by gathered information. As far as you have gone sounds good. The head to tail taper with horn slip reinforcement was a new idea in Tudor, not mediaeval, times. Previously the nock was strengthened by being left the maximum thickness while the shaftment was much thinned to improve archers paradox. With ½” thickness and 1/8”bowstring you wouldn’t need binding reinforcement. There may have also been pieced nocks besides the brass ones from pre-Viking Scandinavia, but I don’t have the info..
Fletching is best when cut and trimmed, but was sometimes stripped as Ascham mentions. Four vane fletch was used on Nydam and some Viking arrows but three vane was more common. Some archers find four vane more accurate, and it fits with cross nocks. I don’t know about the fletching grooves, which were used in crossbow bolts. It sounds like you are thinking of the Roman period Nydam arrows that with shaftment wrappings and birch tar are a real challenge to reproduce.  Half inch shaft sounds good . Most mediaeval arrows I know of are tthat maximum thickness. Some fletching lengths; Nydam-3 ¾”, Alemannic-3 ¼”, Viking- 4 !/4..Tudor ones went up to 9”.You are pretty safe with either swine back or square shorn fletching for any mediaeval culture.

                                                                       cheers,
                                                                         Erik

[davecrocket]

Thank you Erik for your most informed input.

I think the bulbous nock is going to have to be half inch as you mentioned.  I tried out my comparison arrow today and it was impossible to feel the bulb on the release.  As for the pinch grip I had no chance.  Despite being heavier and having four fletchings, on average it came about 4th out of 6 of the three fletched arrows that I shot.  What I was expecting really, especially because the fletchings were put on by hand as jigs can`t reach into recesses.

I note with interest you think three fletchings may be the way?  I picked up the four fletching and cut in from Nydam I think.  I thought it was a good idea at the time because as long as you find your nock you do not need to worry if your arrow is upsidedown!  I thought this would be a huge advantage on the battlefield.

I will be shortly starting on my full sized arrow.  I will try to put up a picture before I loose it.
Thanks again Erik.
Dave.

[bow-toxo]

Dave- I overlooked referring to your pinch grip experiment. While some cultures like North American Indians used a pinch grip with a bolbous nock, that was probably never the case in mediaeval Europe. Earliest written descriptions, from before the Hundred Years War, as well as earlier manuscript illustrations involve two or three fingers on the string. I suggest that. It is true that with the four vane fletch you can nock without looking and as I mentioned, some preferred it. Some still do.

                                                                                                    Erik

[davecrocket]

Erik - I wanted to put the pinch grip to bed for good.  The general consensus with the bulbous nock is the pinch grip.  It cannot be so.
North West Europe used two fingers and the rest of the world used rings.  As soon as you loose an arrow from a ring it is on it`s way - full tilt.
Two fingers holding a bulbous nock has the same effect...but better.  The arrow is in the "V" of the string.  With a ring the arrow has to sit above.  That is why most very old arrows have a narrow nock, so they can sit on the string as close to the ring as possible.
There are two things I really need to know.  The first is the release.  "Pingability".  If you can hold an arrow and then let it loose without distorting the string away from the "V" shape then it will ping.
The second is aerodynamics.  The feathers sit in a recess.  I do not know how this works, but it does.  If you have a recess then it leaves a bulbous nock.
I hope you can see what I am saying.
Dave.

[Rod]

I seem to recall (and I will check) that Ascham distinguishes between deeper nocks for reliability in a livery shaft and shallower nocks for shooting at marks.

The "bulbous" nocks are I think intended to pinch the string rather than to be pinched except lightly between the string fingers, not to be "pinch gripped" as we normally understand the term.

Most cultures that use the pure primary or secondary pinch grips will have placed a draw weight limit on themselves, defined as the weight at which the shaft will slip out of a simple pinch grip, probably on average in the order of a mid to high end hunting weight, from around 65lb to 70lb or perhaps a little more.

A bulbous nock obviously makes retention of a pure pinch grip easier, but I think that ceased to be a common English style long before the period that you are interested in.

As has been noted, I think you need to be careful of the distribution of force (diameter of the core) in a built up nock and I would nonetheless always prefer to bind or otherwise reinforce such a nock.

Rod.

[davecrocket]

When I say pinch grip I mean holding the end of the arrow between thumb and fingers.  Traditionally this has always been associated with bulbous nocks.  However, it may be possible to loose a bulbous nock from a longbow using just two fingers and still holding on primarily to the arrow.  This method -if possible- will not distort the string so much as a conventional pull.
However, I have no evidence for this.  This is why I am making this arrow.  I think it will be very interesting to see how it performs.
I am also going to bind in a homemade head.  I am going to put it in with the grain of the wood so the arrow cannot be pulled past the head.  Again this will help with the release.  There are quite a few old longbows with evidence of them being marked because of this drawing method.
Best get back to it!
Dave.

[Rod]

The shafts in question may not be "bulbous" in the sense that you mean.

That is to say three dimensionally "bulbous", so as to provide a bulge which is meant to be pinch gripped.
They may in fact be far more two dimensional being shaped to "clip on" rather than for a pinch grip, which is in any case a very weak method of trying to maintain a purchase on a heavy bow.

Rod.

[davecrocket]

Sorry for the delay.. I am still working on the arrow.
I have kept the nock at the maximum 1/2 inch and taken the part that will take the fletchings down as far as I dare.  The thickest part of the shaft is about four inches from the head.  The nock is not big enough to hold onto.  Also the tapering is not as much as I would have liked.  5/8 inch shaft seems more sensible now.

I am determined however to cut the fletchings in though.  I shot one once and it seemed to go much quicker.  There must be a technique to do this.  I don`t know what it is though.

It is very hard for me to explain what I am trying to do.  I want to make an arrow that was shot from a long bow pre Tudor times.  I will finish this arrow in a few days and take some pictures and then I hope everything will become clear.  Advice then may come forth.

In the mean time I still need advice.  It is taking me longer to make this arrow than it did making my bows.

I don`t want to get too much in front of myself, but does anyone think I should have headed the arrow with a harder wood than ash?  I know spine didn`t come into the equation in these times, but maybe a very ridgid foreshaft with a flexible aftshaft may have helped in some way.  I got the idea from bamboo arrows.  For years I could not work out how they could have been so successful as they bend uniformly along the shaft..  And then I saw some Japanese heads with a huge and unnecessary tang on it.  This would render the foreshart totally rigid.

Dave.

[davecrocket]

I mean footed, not headed.  Sorry.
Dave.

[Rod]

Dave,
I think that tanged shafts were often made with overlenth tangs much in the same way as unmounted sword blades were produced with overlength tangs.

On an arrow head this allows the tang to be cut to the desired length, as for example in a cane shaft to match a length to a node.

Regarding the "pinch" nock, examination of the illustrations I mentioned earlier shows that the shape of the nock aperture of these "bulbous" nocks appears to be designed to allow "clipping on" to the string,
a refinement not apparent in livery shafts.
This is what I refer to in distinguishing between a "pinch" nock and a "bulbous" nock, although the swelling obviously does permit pinching in the usual sense.

FWIW
Rod.