New Article on Blunts and their use in medieval archery

[PatM]

I am cynical about over enthusiasm which may possibly cloud what really happened.
 Can you link to the artifacts that these reproductions are based on?

[WillS]

Be as cynical as you like.  My enthusiasm for something I'm passionate about doesn't remotely change the article that I linked to, and personally I feel that comments like "much ado about nothing" are pointless, as they offer nothing of any worth to the discussion. 

What's that old saying... "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all" or words to that effect.

Other documents and links will become available when Mark and Ian want them to be available, I would imagine.

Although, I assume you won't be very interested really.  It's just common sense, after all...

 

[PatM]

 Well it will be common sense of that I"m sure.

[killir duck]

Thanks for posting this Will, I think it's quite an interesting thought, that the French not using bows because they just didn't want to arm the peasants, I have often wondered why in tarnation the French after getting whipped by English bows a couple times didn't  just get some of their own, I'm not sure that's 100% right but it does bear some thinking on it.   Duck

[WillS]

I agree! I've always heard the same reason - that because the French weren't training young kids to shoot heavy bows they never had soldiers with the strength or discipline to use them in war.  I think that's rubbish, because pretty much any healthy man can learn to shoot 100# within a couple of years of basic training, so increase the training regime, give them about 5 years and they'd be easily able to shoot very heavy bows.

The politics of not arming peasants seems more sound to me.

[Yeomanbowman]

I think people are mixing up 2 issues here.  Will is not saying that the idea of making blunts like this is anything ground breaking or that they fly well.  We made one as a prize arrow based on the Luttrell Psalter illustration for a prize arrow in 2012 and it shot well.
http://warbowwales.com/#/wye-valley-historical-2012/4568060192
 
I think the innovative idea here is the theory about why there are very few arrowheads found and how widespread blunts were in medieval times.  That's very interesting and something I'd never really thought about.  I wonder, as metal became cheaper, are more arrowheads are found?

(edit due to poor spelling!)

[mikekeswick]

Will - You came across as though this is something new - it isn't. I've made loads of blunts and shot them out of lots of different bows. Blunts fly well. If the shaft is right they will fly right. As for 'construction' the strongest way is to use split timber shafting - as you round the shaft from square just leave the end big and then carve it to whatever shape you want. Or make the shaft then get a small block of wood and drill a shaft sized hole in it.
Just about every bow wielding culture in the history of the world has used blunts. Once you can't just buy fancy broadheads you start to realise they take effort to make and are easy to break.
As for blunts not being deadly....I wouldn't like to get shot in the head with one

[Del the cat]

I think people are mixing up 2 issues here.  Will is not saying that the idea of making blunts like this is anything ground breaking or that they fly well.  We made one as a prize arrow based on the Luttrell Psalter illustration for aprize arrow in 2012 and it shoot well.
http://warbowwales.com/#/wye-valley-historical-2012/4568060192
 
I think the innovative idea here is the theory about why there are very few arrowheads found and how widespread blunts were in medieval times.  That's very interesting and something I'd never really thought about.  I wonder, as metal became cheaper, are more arrow heads are found?

Oh, dear.
I did post earlier but deleted as it was rather negative.
BUT
The Idea that blunts being used for practice is in some way an explanation for the lack of steel heads found at battle sites is nonsensical.
Del

[WillS]

Will - You came across as though this is something new - it isn't. I've made loads of blunts and shot them out of lots of different bows. Blunts fly well. If the shaft is right they will fly right. As for 'construction' the strongest way is to use split timber shafting - as you round the shaft from square just leave the end big and then carve it to whatever shape you want. Or make the shaft then get a small block of wood and drill a shaft sized hole in it.
Just about every bow wielding culture in the history of the world has used blunts. Once you can't just buy fancy broadheads you start to realise they take effort to make and are easy to break.
As for blunts not being deadly....I wouldn't like to get shot in the head with one

Did you read Jeremy's comment, above yours?

By the way, it's the natural fibre binding that you see on originals I'm most interested in. 

Del, you appear to have misunderstood the entire focus of the article - arrow heads are found all over battle sites - there are hundreds of them - but never found in places where archery would have been practiced.  Towns, villages, open areas not associated with military conflict.  That's where Mark is saying blunts would have been used, because steel heads aren't found there.  It's got nothing to do with battle grounds.

[Del the cat]

Oh, right my bad ...
But... all I can say then is the article is poorly (over wordy) written as it gives the wrong impression.
I quote the following two complete sentences from early in the article.

"Still metal detecting, he began to search for metal arrow heads, which is fairly logical, being that they are the only metallic component of the weapon and projectile. Mark had previously noted that such finds were reasonably rare given their widespread use in a military context during the medieval period. "

People don't seem to know how to write a clear concise report these days .
Brief abstract giving the main points.
Body of the report.
Conclusion.

Will...
You managed to sum it up in one short sentence  ...
" arrow heads are found all over battle sites - there are hundreds of them - but never found in places where archery would have been practiced."
It's a shame the article couldn't have said that in the intro!

Maybe it would have read better in hard copy, and I do have a propensity for speed reading.
Del

[RyanY]

After reading the article and then these comments I do admit that I found my interpretation of the information was different than the point they seem to be trying to convey. First off I did not realize their reference to blunts was of wood heads as opposed to a more blunt steel head. I also agree with Del in that I felt it was talking about the use of blunts, not just in practice, but in warfare as well. Never the less I found some points in the article interesting and its nice to see some people still adamantly researching these subjects. Even if we know how our weapons behave, I feel it's interesting from a historical perspective to research and try to find more closely definitive answers about the knowledge of those in the period.

Also I just have to say that these types of "arguments" is what makes the Warbow forum interesting. 

[mhof86]

Don't want to overstep my bounds here but it seems that the majority of comments here in the article add nothing to the original topic, and seem to be "feeding the fire". Mods is there a way to lock it until the original poster has an update? Maybe this sort of back and forth is common (have not seen anything along these lines yet in my limited use of this forum) but it seems to be a lot more hostile than any other posts I have read.

We are all here because we have a common love for primitive archery and a certain level of respect for the history. Can we try to get back on the rails and guide this topic back to those values?

Wills still looking forward to the update on Marks methods of construction and materials used in his blunts and how they perform. Maybe this is all "common sense" to most but for others (myself included) it is an interesting topic that maybe we haven't seen discussed in length.

Sorry don't usually post things like this especially being this new to the community, but this is one community I have come to respect and admire and this is a side of it that I haven't seen before (and don't really care for).

[adb]

 Don't want to overstep my bounds here but it seems that the majority of comments here in the article add nothing to the original topic, and seem to be "feeding the fire". Mods is there a way to lock it until the original poster has an update? Maybe this sort of back and forth is common (have not seen anything along these lines yet in my limited use of this forum) but it seems to be a lot more hostile than any other posts I have read.

Hah! This is nothing. 

[adb]

Wills I liked the article and look forward to the follow up on what they come up with. Thanks for posting this.

+1

[PatM]

 Will,   Take note of Dean's words.