Mary Rose Replica Bow Build-Along--An Entrance into the World of War Bows

[duffontap]

Jaro,

Thanks for the pics--the tiller of that bow impresses me every time I see it.  I asked Steve about those experiments a while ago and he said he never did do any.  Pip seems to imply that he has worked with Steve Stratton on those tests.  I think he talks about working with Mark more.  I'll ask Pip.

I agree that the laminated stave is not preferable, but I didn't want my personal preference for self bows to exclude others who would like to try a war bow style but don't have a chain saw and a Yew permit. 

I would love to buy one of Steve's Italian Yew bows, but my truck didn't even cost that much.  I think they're priced fairly--I was surprised at how low--but I'll never have that kind of money.  The most interesting thing that they show is that bows cannot be made to MR dimensions out of Alpine Italian Yew without hitting 120-160#.  It's some of the most valuable research done to date. 

                 J. D. Duff

[duffontap]

Hey everyone,

Note that the pics that Matti posted show Yew bows with both heart and sapwood. 

Here are Jaro's pics if you haven't seen them yet:

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Kviljo]

The experimental data is quite convincing, but I think the properties of the wood varies quite a lot, and does disturb the data quite much.

If the 80" 96# bow Jaro mentioned was cut down to 74", and was gaining 4# for each inch, it would draw 120#. I guess it couldn't be thicker than 30mm if it is 30mm wide. My first and only self yew is 33mm wide and 30mm thick, and only 70 1/2" long, it has a quite squarish cross section, and it bends perhaps a bit much in the handle. All this leads us to believe it should be over 120#. In fact it is 40 punds lighter, being only around 80# (@28"). A variable of 40 to perhaps as much as 60# is quite a lot!

Now, my bow is made from pacific yew, which could account for some of the difference, but it sure does tell me that these experimental data is quite unreliable.
Using the correct species with the correct density, right amount of sapwood, and making them from exect measures could lead to some rough approximates.
I haven't gone through much litterature, and I don't know if the 150#+ or 100#- guesswork is supported by reliable experiments, but it seems like the disagreement suggests that they aren't.

And this of course leads to: Where can one get hold of some exact measures of different Mary Rose bows? Millimeter-measures for at least each 20cm would be preferable. Have anyone been in contact with the museum regarding this?

[Jaro]

"Now, my bow is made from pacific yew, which could account for some of the difference, but it sure does tell me that these experimental data is quite unreliable."

- That is complete quatch my friend.

Pacific yew being entirelly different species is much more elastic than european yew. But we have now opportunity to work with the same yew which was used for Mary Rose bows and its harvested from the same plantage where it was 400 yrs ago. Pretty convincing results actually. Bows from Italian yew also shoot better and further than best Pacific yew.

Even working with not so dense european yew, you will hit 100+ at width 32-34 mm and the biggest problem is to get actually the thing to bend.
I just made 34 mm wide 78´´ english yew bow and it came out pretty flat to actually hit the target weight as the guy cannot pull more than 85#. It was hovever 110x when I braced it and that was pretty much tilered bow.
I will post pictures later, no hornnocks, but if youd throw it amongst MR bows, only bad wood quality would distinguish it from them. This is wood which has only about 40 rings per inch.
I m having some Czech yew, which in mediaval literature is described "as bad quality" and it still better than the piece I just worked on.
Even that one is still not longshot to that Italian yew.
(Actually I have some czech yew which might be the same density, but its not seasoned.)

Jaro

[Jaro]

".... but I think the properties of the wood varies quite a lot, and does disturb the data quite much."

- Yes the properties of individual pieces of wood do varies a lot, but tell me then, why should they use bad quality wood for warbows? (Means low stiffnes per mass) Particulary if we know that the quality of wood on MR Bows is outstanding....

[Kviljo]

Hmm, I don't know what to believe

From what I've heard, the pacific yew is more brittle than the european, where the european should be more tough. But from what I understand, the pacific yew may be less dense, and therefore yield a lower poundage than european, if the same measures are used.

Even though it also seems convincing that tests are beeing carried out on trees that grew in the same locations as the originals, the climate is not the same, and the soil is probably not the same as it was either. However, tests of such staves would probably be the closest one could get, and if we are to have any opinion, we must allow ourselves to use the avaliable data.

I guess they would use bad quality wood because of the enormous quantity of bows that were made. They even made warbows out of yew branches (if we are to believe Robert Hardy). Other woods were also used, so I guess they would prefer to use yew as long as they could get hold of it. But as I'm beginning to understand, the Mary Rose bows are top notch of what were used back then. So using the best yew we have today will probably give us the best draw weight estimates we can get.

Have there been carried out reliable and accurate tests of these Italian staves yet?

Jaro, smile

[Fred_Hagell]

I'm just going to throw this out there; Have any of the original Mary Rose bows been shot (or can they be shot)?
Is it possible that the dimensions of these bows has changed since the ship sank?
Please excuse my ignorance.
Fred

[Jaro]

"the climate is not the same, and the soil is probably not the same as it was either"
- do you have anything to support this? The best wood we have now is roughly worst which has found on original MR Bows.

What do you mean by "Accurate tests" - the bows are fairly accurate replicas, from the same material. We have lots of people shooting them and recording the distance, this is what we have.
What exactly do you want to do other with bow, which has the same profile,taper, material, poundage and drawlenght for testing than shoot it?


"the climate is not the same, and the soil is probably not the same as it was either"

- what is this? Show me some hard data supporting this, show me how it affect yew tree growth in the sense of wood quality and we will talk further. This is bloody "wave hand" dismisal, without anything to suport it.
(I guess the climate is different, but not the soil, on the other hand my guess is that is different in the sense that in mediaval times it was better for warbow quality yew than today. Its notable to say that trees which are cut today started their life exactly in that climate and soil as some of last warbow staves were cut there - means 400 -500 years back)

What Hardy writes is that branches were used for second rate quality bows, means bows used at home in england for law invoked archery practice and hunting. These are also called peasant bows.
However this is not something a front line professional soldier would have issued and used, after all none of MR bows seems to be branch bow, they are all excellent quality timber. Actually if my memory does not fails me Roger Ascham writes exactly the same thing.


If you think I have waxed out, you are right. Because internet is full of people throwing opinions around like if they were facts and who have nothing which could support the statements and who search for another exuse the moment when they are presented with solid rebutall.

Just now, there is somebody on englishwarbow pages who says that arrows in bundles were of different lenght (I mean in each bundle were arrows from say 28 -33´´), because you see, the soldiers were of different height and have different drawlenght. Why should it be so, where is any benefit?
Why should even the crown buy it that way (means for more money) Where are the data? Does the idiot not grasp that a short archer can draw long arow, but long draw archer cant use short arrow? And stop with "but he can shortdraw" - he cannot, because it is dangerous to do with warbow and good way to tear your shoulder muscle. With warbow full stretch of frame is imperativ.

Every single myth about the warbow is repeated again again, speculations without solid ground from people who neither made one, or shot it, there is books, there are people who know, but everytime one thing is straightened out another pure stupidity emerges.
There are more knowledgeable people than me, particulary those who dont care about internet and thus have more time for bows but I wont be silent when I have something to say.
And sorry I dont believe everything what Pip says, because he has been caught bullshiting about the tests, he said he conducted with Steve Stratton and Mark wont have anything to do with him for some time.

Jaro

[Jaro]

They cant be shot after 400 years on bottom of the sea, they have been strung and several of them pulled on the tiler, hovever the elastic modulus of the wood is off after such long time in salt water.
But the shape on tiler remained alright so we know how they bend.

What we do now is that we have the same wood, roughly the same or slightly worse quality than MR bows and bows out of it to dimension, tiler and profile wont come under 100#.
Actually as I wrote, most of replicas is made in lenghts of longer examples of MR bows, if you should cut them down to shortes we have then they would be 20-30# heavier.

Jaro

[duffontap]

Jaro,

I understand your frustration.  Quality dips pretty low on internet research sometimes.  I'm trying to learn as I build, so I'm listening to anything people who actually make a shoot these weapons are saying.  I started this build-along because I wanted other people to get excited about something that I'm really enjoying.  I also thought the PA page could use a little more on the war bow. 

Different length arrows in the arrow bags: 
I have been guilty of saying this very thing.  I suppose I'm the one you're talking about on the English War Bow page.  The reason why I said this is because the original leather disks that were in the arrow bag still contained the remains of arrows in an assortment of lengths.  If you can point me to definitive, published proof that this is not true, I would cheerfully withdraw my comment.  But your 'shoulder injury' theory doesn't change the fact that the arrow bag disks contained a variety of arrow lengths. 

                J. D. Duff

[Kviljo]

Sorry, I don't want to fill JD's great thread with a typical internet-forum-argument.

I see your point about the internet beeing full of opinions and false truths. I'm currently studying archaeology, and I try to be as scientific and honest as I can. Also, a big part of being scientific is beeing able to discuss matters in a good tone.

My point is basicly that beeing critical is a good thing. And I think there is good reason to doubt some replicas exact representation of the originals draw weight, if the difference in materials actually can make such a difference as I somehow unscientificly outlined above.

If I knew how accurate some replicas were made, then I would make myself an opinion about how heavy the bows could have been, but untill then I'll stay sceptical.

If you want to, I'll be interested in discussing this further in some PMs.


Oh, just one thing Jaro, as for the different arrowlenghts, I think speculating in why they should be exactly the same lengt, is just what you yourself is warning about. If the empiricism tells us something, it has to be trusted, and we will have to shape and reshape out theories from those.

[ragi]

Ya gotta love jaro, not shy to express his feelings. I do wish you would not cuss though, you can express yourself just as well and not have to cuss. this is a family chat board eh?  aside from that I am learning a whole lot here.

[duffontap]

Hello Everyone,

I'm taking a break to turn a bow out in my shop this weekend.  When we come back together Monday the 6th, we'll lay out the bow and discuss how the war bow profile evolves as you work the stave. 

            Take Care Everyone,  J. D. Duff

[stickbow]

Jaro, were any of the bows on the Mary Rose made of whitewoods? I read that they did make long bows out of whitewoods, but did they heat treat them like we do?
 How high of a draw weight can be expected from an unheat-treated whitewood bow of similar length and width as a Mary Rose bow, before it either shatters or takes 4" of set?

[Matti]

Stickbow, I made an experimental  heavy bow out of Hazel which turned out about 85# @ 32". It's 75" long and 3,4cm wide and 3,2 thick, 12 mm tips. The stick is only for training purposes but seems to work pretty well in spite of 3" set and heavy fretting. I made three heat treatings. But, I managed to break the belly by bending it in the wrong way after wondering how much set there was and can I straignten the bow. Will never do that again!
In next week I'll make another and bigger one and hopefully this one holds together for some distance shooting. Rowan tree this time.