What is "Warbow"

[D. Tiller]

Yep! JD obsession is also a form of enjoyment. Research is enjoyment. Finding the little things that make em tick. Its still enjoyment of our shared hobby. No matter what we build its still a replica anyways and for fun.  If you and I did not enjoy what we are doing we would not be doing it.

Warbow is still just a bent stick when you get down to it. 

[sagitarius boemoru]

Well, well. You can build these and get tudor prescribed distances with ash single stave you know...(or elm), I did.

Rod once said " call it Ginger or Mabel but that wont make it the thing".

If we call it "warbow" it shall be tha thing. Its the same for "english longbow" - it should not have flat limbs and handle with arrow rest you know. But we see them here and there on forums, and their maker are adamant as "they like it so".

Since no prescription of drawweight was left behind a 75# can be called warbow by some, but they should take 3oz arrow and shoot it in field and re evalute their position. This is not about drawweight wanking, but there is certain level of performance required. These bows were made to kill armored men over long distance after all.


If this is to be a worthwhile activity, it should not be watered down.

J.

[Rod]

As a poiint of information, I believe it was Richard Galway who led the way in the rekindling of interest in shooting the heavy bow.
But when in Prague or on the internet...  :-)
Restricting follks to a well got up yew stave is both foolish and un-necessary. Admittedly yew is the pre-eminent wood for this type of bow but back in the day they would not have shrunk from using a substitute if necessary and of these wych elm was probably prefered but ash far easier to obtain in a straight stave of suitable dimensions.
My great uncle was fond of laburnum and rowan, but then he was shooting the Scottish "drovers bow".
But if you do not put a date to your ideal of the English longbow, then you will be looking at anything from a high end hunting weight upwards, depending upon your chosen period.
Rod

[sagitarius boemoru]

I asked my friend for a picture of his ash 105# single stave bow. Wait a while I post it, so youll see what can be done with it.


Jaro

[Loki]

Some of us are playing and some of us are researching,but none of us are killing people (i hope!).I appreciate the time and effort some people put into these weapons,the research they do is telling us of the ability's of the Yew Fence of England,which is very important and a worthwhile thing to do.Whats been wrote about the Bows in the past is not necessarily (sp?) correct today,the work Jaro,Steve,JD,Yeoman,Glennan and co do is helping us all understand the capability's of the Bows and what the Archers achieved,i can underestand why they get angry with us but sometimes they'll come to different conclusions than each other  .
Its important to use historically accurate materials and dimensions for research purposes but some of us just enjoying shooting Bows in a way our ancestors did,the style's important to me not the poundage,i shoot a laminate because its all whats available to me,its 75lb because i'm a skinny little dog  but hell!i like it and I know its not a real WarBow,livery arrows are far too heavy for it and me .
I'm not a bowyer so knocking a Bow up out of the 'lesser' woods isnt a option for me and i'm not rich i'm afraid so getting a Italian Self Yew from Steve will have to wait till i'm sure it wont be a waist of cash (i'd hate for it to end up a wall hanger!).

[sagitarius boemoru]

Here is the bow in question.



Its 100#/31´´ (or it was). When we shot it, Rob eventuelly got something like 230 yrds with it, while I got only around 5 more with old Marc bow made of hornbeam.
As you can see the shape is nowhere to the yew bow. Its quite narrow, thin, the tips and the last 1/3 of limbs are made to be light as possible. It also works well if made relatively short, I think this bow is just about 73´´ long.
My shooting buddy does not care about character, only about the density of material, so most of his bows look like this.
I have couple of staves of the same ash, some of them prefectly straight.
The two big waves past and down handle make me think of MR "black bow" with its banana shaped mid section. (Must have been somebodys favorite bow, brought from home.)

Jaro

[jb.68]

In all fairness, we all enjoy the subject of English Warbows, but there is a big difference in the degree of personal investment from member to member.  Some of us want to 'build 'em and enjoy 'em,' and others will invest years of their lives researching and recording data.  If Jaro, or Stratton, or Stretton don't want to take a carefree 'whatever' attitude toward this subject like Dave or others want to, perhaps that's because their personal involvement goes far beyond 'hobby.'

             J. D. Duff

Hmm I guess that was back at me..    JD I'm with you there, that is what I'm saying, but when someone comes on and says that "this is and that isn't" I find that it is more likely to put off the people who are here to find out stuff, due to the fact that they feel excluded. I'm aware that there must be a definition of what a warbow was and that there are people who shoot replicas of these and that there are others like myself who shoot laminated replicas.

Please don't for a minute think that this is just a hobby to me, I have been shooting for about 7 years now, longbow for the last three and now warbow (sorry laminated replica warbow ) for about 6 weeks. I shoot at least twice a week, sometimes three (work permitting) I have under Steve's guidance made a bow and intend to make more.
 I got into shooting from a historical point of view and have read a lot of stuff but there are still people here who know much much more than I do or probably ever will know I respect them alot for that, so if my post seemed to imply that I didn't then I'm sorry but all I'm saying is are we not (for the purposes of this forum) getting too hung up on a name?

Anyway I'm off shooting now, while it's still sunny.

All the best 

jb

[duffontap]

jb.68,

Not just at you.  I was trying to address the fact that we have different degrees of interest and differences in purpose.  Jaro is an example of someone who wants to help beginners understand precisely what an English Warbow was--be it Yew, Ash, or Elm.  Jaro also makes some fine laminated bows but he is careful not to call them authentic replicas.  He is not telling people they can't have fun or shoot laminated bows--he is trying to promote good understanding and an accurate definition of the warbow. 

I think every one of us would be building and shooting 150# Italian Yew replicas if we had the time, money and ability.  We all know what the ultimate would be.  Most of us are using inferior Yew, white woods or laminates and that's fine.  But there is a difference between a sport that has descended from Medieval warbows and historical research and replication. 

Three proposed categories:
1.  Historical Replica Warbows:  Yew, Ash and Elm bows with MR type sections, horn nocked (side-nocks being the most accurate) and capable of reaching perscribed minimum distances with replica arrows. 

2.  Historically-Styled Warbows:  Warbows of any wood or combination of laminates that meets the above criteria.

3.  Recreational/Sporting Warbow:  Bearing some strong similarities to authentic replicas (section, tiller, length, etc.) but made of any materials and to any weight with no performance requirements. 

             J. D. Duff

[ChrisD]

Hmmm. Don't discussions move along fast when you go away for a few hours - like to bed and then to work? Must be the different timezones.

Now where was I.

Oh yes - turning a bow into a pike. Well I know I've never seen any evidence of that either - but I'm mindful that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I only threw it in as an idle thought.

Re the linen strings - reading between the lines, it doesn't look like you've seen one either J.D. Of course we all hear about things such as Glennans 120lb bow with a broken string which might well have been linen and is the kind of happening I'm thinking of. I certainly won't be using a linen string on any replica bow of mine in a hurry and I shall be surprised if I see any anytime soon. Having said that, my compliments to anybody who can make a linen string work for a long time with a big bow for any amount of time and I look forward to seeing it for myself. I won't speak for Pip - he's a good correspondent and his e-mail is on line anyway - but his approach is very much that of a materials scientist and is worthy of serious consideration

As for the longevity of bows - I've spoken to people who reckon a yew self bow is can be 'shot out' after about 600 shots. Even Hardy quoted about 4000 shots in his original book and my lighter yew bow was shot out after less than a 1000. Thats not to say it doesn't work - its great and its reached a stable level of performance and I love shooting in it. I got 190yd with a 1000grain arrow today for example - but its only about 75lb at 30 inches these days after warming up and it started life at 90 (the arrow is 33inches long btw). I'm afraid just don't buy the idea of 100000 shots out of any wooden self bow without deterioration in performance.

On stockpiling of bows and prices I have a couple of comments. Huge numbers of staves were imported to a country with a pretty small population by todays standards and likely demographics favouring high numbers of children who never made it to adulthood and of course lots of people who never became archers as well those who did having to be encouraged to practice. Archer armies were always hard to raise and maintain. That means that the actual numbers of bows in use at any one time would have been a fraction of what was being imported ergo they didn't last long. If you argue the stockpiling route - it means they needed to be stockpiled because they didn't last long in battle. Either way, it looks more like they got 'shot out' pretty smartly unless you go for a more modest drawweight with a little less stress. Then they'd last longer. For sure J.D your shorter bows are a good draweight - but then they would be being shorter and the Mary Rose bows tend towards the 80inch mark. On cost a bows price was held at between 1/2 a week and a weeks pay for an archer depending on the type of bow. Not too pricey given you could get docked that for minor offences.

Final point. We love to say that these things were designed to kill armoured men at long distance. I suppose that must explain why sooo many survived to be pummelled to death in the hand to hand phase at Agincourt or captured and then slaughtered in a massacre. The bottom line is that there were lighter arrows and heavier arrows with the lighter ones used at longer distance for causing chaos, killing lighter armed combatants and causing havoc with horses. The  heavier ones would have been used at shorter distances. Now given that a Mary Rose replica arrow with a short type 10 on it weighs in at maybe 2 1/2 oz, its safe to say that you could get that to 200yd with a reasonably light bow (by the standards of some opinions - it'd still be about 100lb at 32 ins). We don't even know what kind of fletchings were used but you can bet they would have been aerodynamically efficient. I also know about discouragement of shooting at less than 220yds etc etc King Henry VIII blah blah blah. Well who said anybody practiced with war arrows? I don't - I shoot 230-240yds too - mostly to addle the brains of my club colleagues - but with lighter arrows.

All that brings me to the point I'm trying to make - which is that the idea of the 'chainmail penetration test' employing minimums is a really good one and is the way to go.

ChrisD

PS I know I'm being a heretic here  - it just happens to be what I think.

PPS JB is right, it should be about enjoyment chiefly

[SimonUK]

Just to change the topic very slightly - does anyone know if there are warbows in Native American culture? If so, what were the draw weights?

Or are they one and the same as hunting bows?

[sagitarius boemoru]

Point by point

"but I'm mindful that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

- absence of evidence is evidence of absence in any sort of serious research.


"but his approach is very much that of a materials scientist and is worthy of serious consideration"

- well well, he also writes about tests he conducted with Steve Stratton in his new book. Ask Steve about it.

"On cost a bows price was held at between 1/2 a week and a weeks pay for an archer depending on the type of bow."

3s 4d = 40 s  is indeed about weeks pay of an archer, but a 30 - 40 day pay for a craftsman. As obvious that the person must have been also living of something sparring money for new bow wont be a matter of week (Thinking about perhaps average archer being able to spare like 1s a week, if carefull. A craftsman living in england would probably have cheap bow for law enforced practice, but again definitelly not throw away item.


"We don't even know what kind of fletchings were used but you can bet they would have been aerodynamically efficient"

-WE have several depictions of tudor arrows on e.g. coat of arms of Arthur Tudor (Henry VII older brother), or on older painting by Rogier van der Weyden "man with an arrow (man in black turban) from 1480´which is best depiction of war arrow in heavy style ever drawn and known contemporary portrait of Henry tudor hodling big tudor arrrow."
Anyway there is specific way to cut a goose feather along greaseline which produces very distinctive, nearly, but only nearly triangular shape, which is the shape on all these sources. Where they differ is rear part as some are forktailed and some are not. On the other hand there is  equilibrium between weight of an arrow and surface of fletching needed for reasonable flight. Heavy arrow with too little of fletch wont be going nearly as far as the "proper" one.


" I've spoken to people who reckon a yew self bow is can be 'shot out' after about 600 shots"

-Well that is incredibly sh---y bow then. I wouldnt care about bow like that. I m making them and I have seen good ones in alpine yew. They dont loose any much vigor after several thousand arrows. Its plain nonsense to anyone familiar with these. Original Hardy´s book is 30 years old. Research did progressed since then. We should understand what is with bow when its "shot in", which happens after few hundred arrows and when its "shot out" - means unusable. Just take a look at Aschams comentary about shooting in and customising bows in "Toxophilus".

"Mary Rose bows tend towards the 80inch mark"

- common misconception. I charted all the bows in MR trust electronic archive. Only few is 80´´ and more (like 12 percent) and few others (Only 9 bows from 139)  is under 74´´. Majority is between 75-78´´. Such a bow fitted with 2´´ hornnocks on each end (lets say the groove will be 1´´ from edge of horn) and braced is how long? Go figure.


" I also know about discouragement of shooting at less than 220yds etc etc King Henry VIII blah blah blah. Well who said anybody practiced with war arrows? I don't - I shoot 230-240yds too - mostly to addle the brains of my club colleagues - but with lighter arrows."

If you happen to actually read my post youll notice there was ACT passed which prohibited shooting "flighting or prickling" arows at any distance shorter than..etc etc. As much as other ACT which enforced men over 24 years of age to shoot at marks over 220 yrds. This is not encouragement. Its LAW passed by tyrant who was known for choleric atacks of violence and execution orders right and left. A substantial penalty was to be paid in cash if you werent able to uphold these rules on regular enforced practice sessions.


Its not about heretism. The research of many people who make these bows and shoot them is head on contrary of what you say. Hence backing by some better arguments is needed.

Jaro

[SimonUK]

A craftsman living in england would probably have cheap bow for law enforced practice, but again definitelly not throw away item.

I wonder if some very poor people made the practice bows themselves out of a common wood such as ash? Or at least got a local carpenter to make one?

How to we know that the official price of a bow in the records isn't referring to a high quality bow for the army's use?

[duffontap]

Re the linen strings - reading between the lines, it doesn't look like you've seen one either J.D. Of course we all hear about things such as Glennans 120lb bow with a broken string which might well have been linen and is the kind of happening I'm thinking of. I certainly won't be using a linen string on any replica bow of mine in a hurry and I shall be surprised if I see any anytime soon.

I really appreciate a lot of what Pip has to say, but you have to remember that his test of the 'string theory' consisted of shooting a 65# bow with a linen string for a few weeks and then guessing how long such a string would last on a 100# bow.  That is not a rigorous, scientific methodology.  Pip has been very helpful to me and I enjoy corresponding with him, too, but I don't think he did enough research before he published his string theory because people like Glennan and Jaro are shooting 100#+ bows with linen strings and finding them quite suitable.  I have no reason to doubt that what either of them are saying is true--but I have not seen these bows and strings in person.

            J. D. Duff

[Justin Snyder]

Just to change the topic very slightly - does anyone know if there are warbows in Native American culture? If so, what were the draw weights?

Or are they one and the same as hunting bows?

Yes there were warbows in Native American Culture.  The hunting bows were usually fairly light, while the warbows were usually a lot heavier. English warbows are considered to be the heaviest of all warbows. Many of the Native American Warbows were longbows. I'm not going to pass along the particulars about weight until I go back and read what they were again.  Justin

[Coo-wah-chobee]

                     Hmmm............thats interessting Justin. I would be interested to know what tribes and where your information comes from, anthropologists, direct source material, etc. ........bob