Author Topic: war arrows of the mary rose?  (Read 22093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline adb

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,339
Re: war arrows of the mary rose?
« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2013, 10:30:41 pm »
No... I didn't get to handle any. What did they feel like? Heavy? Light?

Offline scattershot

  • Member
  • Posts: 161
Re: war arrows of the mary rose?
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2013, 12:34:54 pm »
Another observation about spine... as you go up in spine weight, the less deflection there is between shafts. There is more difference in deflection between 40# and 50# spine shafts, for example, than there is between 80 and 90#.

That may be why they didn't worry too much about spine. Strictly conjecture on my part, but it makes sense to me.
"Experience is just a series of non-fatal mistakes"

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: war arrows of the mary rose?
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2013, 02:09:15 pm »
I was only given one, and due to the lack of head and shaftment it felt light and delicate compared to an "arrow" but I didn't have a complete 1/2" war arrow on hand to compare it to.

If you have any completed war arrows to hand then you know how incredibly sturdy they feel.  They're a world away from a normal arrow and I can't think of a way they would have been put into groups of spine or stiffness, but that doesn't stop me believing that the archers would have done something to match them to their bows somehow.

Hugh Soar wrote that some of them were strangely tapered, with a small shoulder tapering to a wide barrel in the middle, tapering for a very short length then tapering back up to another wide barrel before tapering again to the nock.  That to me is either bad arrow making, or somebodys attempt to change the spine of the arrow to best suit his weapon.

Offline Del the cat

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,322
    • Derek Hutchison Native Wood Self Bows
Re: war arrows of the mary rose?
« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2013, 02:19:23 pm »
Alan Blackham had some good slo mo video on his website 'The backstreet bowyer' He was shooting arrows from a warbow and found they were pretty much going sideways for the first 10 yards!
The heavy head and fletchings straightened 'em out after a while. Unless you are shooting at V close range it doesn't matter too much.
Dunno how it effects the max rage, too soft would waste energy flexing, but going sideways is obviously not very aerodynamic.
In battle it prob doesn't matter a toss as if someone is close enough for it to matter, you'd better grab a sword or a maul anyway.
Del
Health warning, these posts may contain traces of nut.

Offline Benjamin H. Abbott

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: war arrows of the mary rose?
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2013, 07:34:26 pm »
Given the numbers from the tests in The Great Warbow, reading Weapons of Warre caught me by surprise. However, it's worthwhile to remember both that Roger Ascham considered asp (poplar) arrows inferior for war, that heavy arrows probably had little place on a military ship in 1545, and that it's unclear how much the arrows deteriorated. The English crown apparently favor availability and cost over performance in opting for poplar over the ash Ascham recommended as flying faster and hitting harder. Interestingly, a 1993 MRA4 replica bow test listed in Weapons of Warre aligns with Ascham's claims, as a 56.7g ash arrow managed virtually the same speed - 62.2 vs. 64.6 m/s - as a 42.5g poplar arrow. This strikes me as another case of low-quality mass-munitions provisioning. We similarly know that some plate armor consisted of slag-filled wrought iron and that Sir Roger Williams complained about the poor metal used to make common bills and halberds.

I don't know of any firm sources for English arrows in the quarter-pound range - I guess the Charles I quotation is the closest to it - but we can reasonably speculate that the conditions of land war in the fifteen century, for example, would differ from those of naval combat in the sixteenth. I tend to agree with Matthew Strickland, Robert Hardy, and company that the overall weight of the evidence points to 150+lb bows and massive arrows. For instance, during the first half of the fifteenth century, the Burgundian gentleman Bertrandon de la Broquière expressed respect for strength of Turkish bows but considered Turkish arrows weak in comparison to their European counterparts. Assessment of Turkish bows and arrows by Adam Karpowicz indicate an average draw weight of 111lbs and arrow weight of about 20-40g. While the 60-70g birch arrows estimated from the Mary Rose specimens could perhaps explain de la Broquière's evaluation, heaver shafts on the European side would heighten its force. The martial ranges specified in sixteenth-century texts such as Sir Roger Williams and Sir John Smythe stand consistent with the idea of heavier arrows. Williams wrote that few if any archers could do much damage at 240-280 yards. Smythe describe good archers as potentially able to shoot 400-480 yards with flight arrows but considered engaging at even 360 yards laughable. Instead he preferred 160-240 yards. 

Going farther afield, numerous extant examples attest to the fact that Manchu archers often used war arrows weighing 80g to over 100g. In an intriguing parallel, poplar and birch appear as the most popular arrow woods. Apart from the heavier war and hunting arrows, many come in the 45-65g range estimated for the Mary Rose.   

Offline hatcha

  • Member
  • Posts: 246
Re: war arrows of the mary rose?
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2013, 11:34:45 am »
Saw an article the other day that said the treasures of the Mary Rose are going to be re-united with the ship almost 31 years since it was raised from the sea bed.

Then I started to cry  :'(

I remember watching the raising on tv as it happened :(