Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?

[kevinsmith5]

I linked this to the thread where we're arguing. Hopefully it will be read.

Thanks to all.

[adb]

This has been an excellent debate. Kept it civil... good job. There is much controversy surrounding this subject and likely will remain so. The only thing we'll know for sure... we'll never know for sure!

[brian]

couldnt agree more, well said.

[meanewood]

I think this thread highlights a point made by Ascham, when he is lamenting the fact that his archer contemporaries were not as proficient as those of earlier times!

The 'Mary Rose' finds show that they could still use the heavy weight bows but the real value of an archer on the battlefield is his ability to judge distance, to constantly adjust his elevation to hit moving targets such as horses.

Prior to the emergence of these highly skilled bowmen, the mounted knight ruled the battlefield!
They kept evolving the armour protection but the horse would always be vulnerable even at long range.

The 'Target' accuracy would then come into play as your opponent got to within 50 yards and elevation became less of an issue. Lets face it, close range accuracy would have been vitally important because armour penetration is only possible if you can hit the plate at close to 90 degrees or find a gap protected by mail!

It can be easy for us nowdays to congratulate ourselves on achieving draw weights that may be close to those common to medieval times but loosing arrows as far as we can is hardly scratching the surface when it comes to replicating the feats of those men.

[Atlatlista]

I totally agree with your statement, Meanewood.  I'm very interested in replicating as much as possible the capabilities of archers of the medieval and ancient periods, however, I've taken the accuracy approach rather than the draw weight approach.  I've been honing my technique to try to get as accurate as I possibly can without sights or sight marks over all kinds of distances.  It's really tough work.  Maybe, someday I'll be able to tie that in to some of the heavier bow weights.  Maybe not.  50-60 pounds though is not wholly unrepresentative of military bows from many cultures other than England though, so I may content myself with that.

[WillS]

That's interesting, because here in the UK our archery clubs are basically built around doing just that.  We have roving and field archery competitions as standard here, where distances are unmarked and natural terrain such as hills, valleys, fences, water and so on make up the courses, a bit like in golf!

There are no real limitations in draw weight at these competitions, although I think the British Longbow Society puts a 70lb upper limit on the bows.  No sight marks allowed of course.  This means that there are many archers in the country shooting incredibly accurately (I'm talking tiny kill zones on 3d targets such as the head of a duck for example) at any distance with fairly heavy bows.  Once you hit 70lbs and feel like going up, the EWBS take over, where true medieval bows are only allowed, with a 70lb minimum weight.  Again, the events at the EWBS included roving, unmarked distances, wand shooting and so on.  The only real difference is that the bows have to be exact replicas of Mary Rose bows, with the same construction and profile.

[Atlatlista]

That's interesting, because here in the UK our archery clubs are basically built around doing just that.  We have roving and field archery competitions as standard here, where distances are unmarked and natural terrain such as hills, valleys, fences, water and so on make up the courses, a bit like in golf!

There are no real limitations in draw weight at these competitions, although I think the British Longbow Society puts a 70lb upper limit on the bows.  No sight marks allowed of course.  This means that there are many archers in the country shooting incredibly accurately (I'm talking tiny kill zones on 3d targets such as the head of a duck for example) at any distance with fairly heavy bows.  Once you hit 70lbs and feel like going up, the EWBS take over, where true medieval bows are only allowed, with a 70lb minimum weight.  Again, the events at the EWBS included roving, unmarked distances, wand shooting and so on.  The only real difference is that the bows have to be exact replicas of Mary Rose bows, with the same construction and profile.

We have much the same stuff in the US, and many of the organizing bodies have similar standards making cross-comparisons valid.  For instance, the US National Traditional Target Archery championships includes a Hereford round, which is also shot at the English Grand National Archery Meeting, so it's possible to compare scores directly in instances like those.  I still want to go to England to shoot though.  I have this dream of winning a gilt spider and I think I could maybe manage it.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

50-60 pounds though is not wholly unrepresentative of military bows from many cultures other than England though, so I may content myself with that.

Which cultures would those be? Records, estimates, and reconstructions from Turkey to China suggest 120-180lbs for infantry bows and 80-120+lbs for cavalry bows. While 50-60lb bows surely saw action from time to time, I don't know of any source that considers them acceptable for military use. To me, such composite bow draw weights offer strong supporting evidence that English archers commonly used 150+lb bows.

Regarding long-distance shooting, both Fourquevaux and Smythe - two sixteenth-century military writers - indicated the advantages of engaging at closer than maximum range.

[Archeress]

Middle earth cultures i believe.  Bows unearthed in the imagination of Tolkien have suggested that Dwarves shot an average of 60 pound M.E recurves with reports that in his younger days Gandolf once drew a mighty 75 pounder..but no one ever saw this feat. If anyone can clarify please.

[WillS]

It all comes down to getting the most acceptable result from a certain arrow.  I have to admit, you can't do much with a 60lb bow if you're shooting war-ready arrows.

I've tried!  I took a standard military issue arrow (3/8" at 30.5" long, small type 10 bodkin and 6 inch fletchings weighing overall 60g) and shot a few of them at a target about 40yds away from a 65lb yew longbow that I made.  The arrow left the bow as if it was made of iron, went sideways about 30yds then gave up and had a sleep in the grass.  It's just not practical until you're pushing about 90lbs, and that's the lightest arrow usually described as a "war" arrow.  When you look at the military arrows found on the MR or even the smaller one found on Westminster Abbey, they're a good 20g heavier still, so a 60lb bow has no chance of being accurate or effective with them (in my non-expert opinion!)

[Archeress]

On a serious note..In comparison with wills..Yesterday i was launching my half inch bobtail war arrows (according to EWBS specs) from my 110 greenheart/bamboo longbow.  My bow is slow with these arrows. Made 120 metres only....although we had a mighty head/cross wind.It kept up all day.  Arrows went from right to left.  On a stationary target i feel i could probably throw my arrows faster.   BTW..the 110 is now producing 103 pounds of thrust.  On a positive note..my 120 yew from Ben Perkins is all paid for and i expect to see it next week sometime.  My war arrows are the most dangerous arrows i have but in retrospect i would really need smaller arrows spined to 100 /105 to make the bow happy.

[Josh B]

50-60 pounds though is not wholly unrepresentative of military bows from many cultures other than England though, so I may content myself with that.

Which cultures would those be? Records, estimates, and reconstructions from Turkey to China suggest 120-180lbs for infantry bows and 80-120+lbs for cavalry bows. While 50-60lb bows surely saw action from time to time, I don't know of any source that considers them acceptable for military use. To me, such composite bow draw weights offer strong supporting evidence that English archers commonly used 150+lb bows.

Regarding long-distance shooting, both Fourquevaux and Smythe - two sixteenth-century military writers - indicated the advantages of engaging at closer than maximum range.

I believe it would be safe to say that native Americans used bows in that poundage range for there martial needs.  The only tribe that I have studied that actually had a heavier bow specifically for war was the Cherokee.  I am no expert, so that could be completely wrong and others may have done the same.  The point being, these are cultures that used a lighter bow in warfare and to good effect.  Josh

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Saying Native Americans is likely saying Europeans. It's a huge category. Various Spanish, Portuguese, and English colonial accounts suggest that at least some Native groups used large bows every bit as powerful as traditional English ones. Garcilaso de la Vega even wrote about English-trained archers in the Spanish contingent, and he made no distinction between their bows and those of their Native opponents in what's now the Southeast United States. De la Vega also wrote that no Spaniard was able to draw a captured Native bow - possibly, but probably not, including the one Spaniard raised in England and trained in English archery.

[Josh B]

I never intended to imply that all the tribes were the same.  That's why I used the plural "cultures".  As the Cherokee are a southeastern people, it would be of high probability that their neighbors practiced a similar style of warfare, with similar weapons.  But as you said, native American covers a lot of people.  Some of which were quite accomplished at making war with hunting weight bows.  You wanted cultures that made war with lighter bows.  I offer "some" native American people as an answer.  Josh

[Archeress]

I should imagine that one reason the nth american indigenous peoples used lighter bow than european medievalists is because thier enemies did not have body armour..just clothing/uniforms.  shirts/bare torsos.  even my 40 pound ash bow with a 5/16th arrow and a sharp point would do damage.