ELB & Warbows

[Joe M]

I've been thinking, and maybe this is a silly question, but I'll ask it anyway, and it may bring to light some information not known or considered as yet...  

We know that the English Warbows had a very heavy pull, as I understand it #80 pounds and up, or in this general pull weight.

Now, for those Englishmen that would stand guard at castle walls or in the field when the army was camped, what poundage of longbows did they use?  Did they use the heavy Warbows or did they use lighter longbows - say #45 to #65 pound pulls or somewhere in this range?

Warbows have such a heavy pull that to my thinking I can't imagine that a night or day guard would use such a heavy bow when it may have to be brought into service at a moments notice for a quick snap shot to be made.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[deerhunter97370]

I am by no meens an expert on this but I would think they would still use a heavy bow for armor penitration. Which I dont think they would get even at close range with a 45-65 pound bow. Joel

[duffontap]

A couple thoughts:

1.  There are certain practical limitations to the weight a wooden bow can pull and still maintain portability, performance, etc.  With the high quality Yew that was available to the English in Medieval times, the upper-limit based on materials would have been in the neighborhood of 120-200#s.  So, strictly from a stave standpoint, there was no reason why they would have to avoid heavy bows. 

2.  There are certain human factors involved as well.  Fit male archers would not be able to pull 1,000 pound bows but with the English style of draw they could probably all pull well over 100#s with the training they received.  My pastor has a background in manual labor and he picked up one of my 100+ pound warbows and just pulled it without a problem--I just had to show him how.  Within the English 'shooting in the bow' style, I'd bet that a 9-year-old boy could pull a 45# bow so why hand it to a trained military professional to shoot at armored men?

3.  Heavy bows have two obvious advantages--penetration and distance.  There is no war context in which penetration and distance are not desirable attributes for a bow to have. 

Honestly, I probably get a little too 'romantic' about the weights of old warbows but I don't see any reason for a military to build bows far under the potential of their staves, or for fit, grown men to shoot light bows at armored soldiers. 

I would suspect that most of the bows were over 100#s with few exceptions.  But then, everyone knows what I think.  Ha, ha.

            J. D. Duff

[markinengland]

Joe,
There is quite a lot of evidence to show that many English and Continental European castles were defended by suprisingly small garrisons using crossbows. "The Great Warbow" by Strickland and Hardy is a very interesting read if this is of interest. Powerfull crossbows could shoot a heavy bolt through arrow slits and crenelations. A few with good fields of fire could keep the enemy at a distance, much like the modern machine gun. The crossbows were failry sensetive items and needed regular maintenance and stayed in the castle, records show this. Penetration and range was very much an issue so I would guess these were quite powerful. A light bow or crossbow wouldn't work so wouldn't be used.
Many garrisons used archers as defenders, but I suspect they used bows when needed and also manned the crossbows. Ultimately the defense was the walls and supplies to wait out a seige  and the limited fighting season as much as anything the defenders did.
Mark in England

[stevesjem]

Personally i feel that the weight of bows for warfare were all similar regardless of the job at hand, all and i mean all english archers at the time would have found a 100lb very easy to shoot, i mean it would  have been a weight they would have been required to shoot as a young teenager in practice, my son is just tuirned 9 and has been shooting since the age of 4, he can shoot all day with a bow of 45lb easily, i am in the process of making him a bow of 60lb as he now finds the 45lb to easy.
Here is a picture of him when he was 7 shooting a 45lb self yew bow.
.
So back then 100lb was a kids bow and bows made for warefare would probably have been in the weight range of 140lb and upwards, maybe even getting close to the 200lb area.
Anyway that is just my opinion.

Steve

[duffontap]

Cool picture Steve.

[stevesjem]

Cheers Josh...BTW i like your crabapple bow, very sweet.

Steve

[duffontap]

Thanks Steve!

       J. D.

[SimonUK]

Perhaps slightly unrelated, but one of the problems with the warbow was the time needed to prepare for battles. The bow needed to be strung, defensive stakes were hammered into the ground etc. So it was difficult to use at a moments notice. The French realised this towards the end of the Hundred Years War and had success with surprise attacks on the English.

[Joe M]

That's a good point, Simmon.  I had not thought of that.  I also did not think about the use of the crossbow for sentries.

[duffontap]

Perhaps slightly unrelated, but one of the problems with the warbow was the time needed to prepare for battles. The bow needed to be strung, defensive stakes were hammered into the ground etc. So it was difficult to use at a moments notice. The French realised this towards the end of the Hundred Years War and had success with surprise attacks on the English.

I can string my 110# Mary Rose replica pretty fast.  I'll time it.........19 seconds to walk to the kitchen, pick up the bow, string it (without a stringer), unstring it, hang it back on the wall and walk back to my computer.  Pounding stakes into the ground would take me about two days though .  I would bet that Medieval archers could grab their bows and have arrows in the air in 30 seconds without taking the time to set up defensive positions. 

There is a good point there though Simon.  Longbows worked best when they were employed perfectly using topography to the highest advantage. 

I wish I knew more about the crossbow--I'm a zero on that one. 

         J. D.

[Joe M]

I just dug out 'The Crooked Stick'  A History Of The Longbow - by Hugh D.H. Soar.  I will need to read this as time permits.  Just thumbing through it there are references made to lighter Warbows and the employment of the termed longbows in the #70 range that were used for hunting and protection, and speculation of them being used in warfare.  (I thought it odd about the hunting, but this reference takes place before the 100 Years War I believe.  I'm not sure of the dates involved here.  Also, I wasn't aware that the peasantry was allowed to hunt the Kings game?)

I have several books on the subject of Warbows and Longbows, but just haven't had time to give them a good read.  It's been mostly just thumbing through them, but perhaps this winter I can get one or two read?  I'll just have to see where the speculation leads.