Mary Rose 'Marks'

[meanewood]

I think its pretty much accepted that the marks on the 'Mary Rose' bows were makers marks and maybe some are done by the archer to identify his bow.

The thing I find unusual is there does not seem to be a mark to indicate where to shoot the arrow from, commonly known as the arrow pass!

Why would that be the case when it literally takes a minute or two to do so?

Some of the bows didn't even have makers marks to use as a reference.

Without any mark, anywhere, were they just guessing where the center was?

[Del the cat]

On such a long bow with unmatched randomly supplied arrows just feeling the balance of the bow in the hand would probably be good enough.
Did they have a nocking point on the string (even just a wear mark would suffice), that would automatically define the arrow pass on the bow.
Surely a more pertinent question is... did they even bother which limb was uppermost.
Someone once asked me:-
Why do you always answer a question with another question?"
I said...
"Why not?"
Del

[sleek]

I am certain string wear and never taking the string off the bow, and the wear marks on the arrow side made id eazy enough.

[WillS]

You're assuming the strings were kept on the bows and that each bow had one string - dangerous!

I've always thought the "bowyer's" marks were actually draw weight identification.  They're all so similar but for an extra mark it would make more sense.  Three pricks, or 5 or 7 etc instead of lots of unique identifying symbols.  Only a small amount have an actual symbol - a circle with a symbol inside it, for example - but the majority have a set of triangular pricks arranged in a certain shape, and I think the number of pricks correlates to the power of the bow.  That would make the fact that each chest contained bows with different (but very similar) marks all the more reasonable.  Otherwise you'd expect one bowyer's guild to complete a chest of bows, and ergo each chest would have a load of bows with the same bowyer's guild mark on them, which isn't the case at all.

It's almost impossible to confirm though, because we don't actually know the draw weights of them.

Oh, and if you make your arrows properly, and don't bind them with great thick linen like the reenactors do, and the bindings are seated in a traditional wax and resin compound you very rarely get any sort of wear mark from use. 

[jaxenro]

How important is it? My understanding, flawed as it is, is they relied on the mass effect of thousands of arrows shot into a relatively confined area for effect and not so much individual accuracy? Kind of like the muskets that replaced them it was the mass effect shooting at a formed body of enemy troops that caused mayhem not individual accuracy?

So as long as you could get a heavy arrow launched in the correct general direction with sufficient velocity next to hundreds of your mates you were good to go.

[WillS]

Hasn't that already been proven a very out of date idea?  I thought the modern understanding of military archery was to pick a mark, and shoot it.  Wasting thousands of expensive arrows by chucking them into the air and hoping they hit something doesn't make sense, and isn't depicted in a single historical piece of artwork, whereas flat shooting at a target is shown in historical pieces time and time again.

If you just pick a bow up and get it balanced, you'll be at the middle. 

[WillS]

Here are some of the marks.  I'd be amazed if they're bowyer's guild marks.  They're too similar to be identifying completely different guilds of work. 

Looks to me like a set of identifiers for those picking them up and using them.  "This one's a 5, it's too heavy for me.  This is a 3, that's better..." etc.

[jaxenro]

Hasn't that already been proven a very out of date idea?  I thought the modern understanding of military archery was to pick a mark, and shoot it.

So you pick a mark and shoot at it. In a situation like this there must be 100 reasons why your mark isn't there when the arrow arrives including the archer next to you picking the same mark a second before, and 100 others why a different mark gets your arrow. In a small skirmish I would agree with you but when you have 2,000 men charging you I think it is volume more than individual accuracy that works. I'm not stating they shot at random I think they aimed like you state just that the practical effect of the arrow hitting three feet to the left of aim was probably nil. Three feet to the left of your mark was another mark

[WillS]

Oh yeah, I agree entirely.  If you pick a mark and you hit the guy next to it, or somebody hits your mark it's sort of irrelevant, because a target is down.  It's about efficiency I suppose right?  You don't waste thousands of arrows that way, as you're always going to hit something.

[Lucasade]

Hasn't that already been proven a very out of date idea?  I thought the modern understanding of military archery was to pick a mark, and shoot it.  Wasting thousands of expensive arrows by chucking them into the air and hoping they hit something doesn't make sense

Interestingly, when rifles began to replace muskets the soldiers believed that the presence of sights on the weapon meant that you were murdering your enemy as you were making a concious decision to aim at one man and shoot him, rather than just firing at the enemy mass.

[jaxenro]

Oh yeah, I agree entirely.  If you pick a mark and you hit the guy next to it, or somebody hits your mark it's sort of irrelevant, because a target is down.  It's about efficiency I suppose right?  You don't waste thousands of arrows that way, as you're always going to hit something.

Sort of my point. It's not that they didn't aim, I m sure they did, just like the guys with the musket did. But I think it was volume more than aimed shots that resulted in the killing zones and pinpoint accuracy was irrelevant. You want to put your arrow in close proximity to where there were the most targets of opportunity.

It wasn't like hunting where you waited and stalked for the best shots. And there is a reason they tried to put archers on the flanks, hitting a man charging straight  towards you is harder than hitting one in the flank. I mean the man shaped targets are always standing straight up and down but how many of us run fully erect? Isn't it more of a hunched over position? And what's the "hang time" for arrows? A lot can happen on a fluid battlefield in a second or two.

[WillS]

lots of stuff

We're in agreement, totally.  5000 archers aiming at individual marks causes chaos. 

This is in comparison to the age-old myth (no doubt helped along by the Hollywood idea) of archers aiming into the sky and a "hail of arrows" just falling randomly.

[cadet]

Conventionally, muskets like brown bess were without sights and rifling, and in musketry drills were "presented" rather than aimed by rolling ranks in mass volley fire at massed enemy.  That's not to say marksmanship wasn't valued, just that that's how it was done militarily; and it perhaps gives us some clues as to warbow use only a couple of centuries earlier.

[jaxenro]

To go back to the original point is there any size comparison of the bows with the different marks? Are the ones with five marks stouter than the ones with two? I know you can't test for draw weight but all things being equal otherwise wouldn't a larger heavier stave be expected to have a higher weight?

[WillS]

If only it was that simple!

A smaller bow could be the same draw weight as a much larger one, if the smaller bow was made from better quality timber. 

I've always been meaning to do an analysis of each type of mark and cross reference with the bows dimensions, but never got round to it.