Like everyone else on here, I enjoy seeing what others are doing and what opinions they have in regards to bow making and it's history.
This document is obviously having to satisfy academics in a way that we don't have to adhere to with our own opinions on the subject.
On the subject of the origins of the bow used in warfare in the medieval period, I get the feeling the author isn't a bow maker!
When it comes to the 'evolution' of this type of bow, in the absence of artifacts that supply all the answers as in this case, then
'experimental archeology' is the key to understanding some of these questions.
The 'Mary Rose' bows are a fantastic example of artifacts that provide a wealth of knowledge and understanding but they have to be
seen in context.
The yew bows are not all the same.
They vary in length, profile and very likely draw weight, perhaps by a lot!
So what does that mean, beyond the observation that maybe standardisation and uniformity were not as important as they are in later military applications.
The obvious answer is different bowyers had different ideas of how to do the same thing, remembering each stave presents its own challenges.
Remember, an Elm bow was also recovered from the wreak and to say it's nothing like the Yew bows would be an understatement!
In fact, could this be the type of bow being used at Hastings in the 'Bayeux Tapestry'?
If so, what is the difference between a so called 'longbow' and 'short' bow when they are both essentially 'Warbows'?
The answer is, the type of wood used to make heavy bows for warfare dictated their design!
So if the Welsh were using Elm for bows in the conflict with 'Norman England', it stands to reason, they were shorter than Yew bows used elseware.
We know other woods were used for bows on Henry VIII's warships, so how long were they?
When it comes to bows used in warfare, I don't buy into a so called 'evolution' from short bow to longbow.
