Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Marlin on July 05, 2011, 03:00:03 am
-
Hello, Friends
All the bows in my past have never pulled more than 65# or so. I am new to war bows and it's another dimension for me. This Osage stave is reflexed and has attitude 1" thick 1.25" wide about 70" long. I have a 21 strand string that just seams to keep stretching. Do I need more strands or do I need to shorten my string?
I am hoping for a bow that's in the 110# range. Marlin
-
You can used a 22 strand fastflight if you got horn nocks or pad the loops. cheers Marlon
-
You should get away with 14 strands of FF, you really cant use dacron on a bow more than 70 as it will have you have noticed stretch, I wouldn't make the string shorter that's a false economy.
Good to have you back on the forum Marlon
-
Allright then I have another question. What did they use in days of old when Knights were bold and those bows as effective as they were to pin a man to his horse? I guess I may have to buy some fancy new fast flight string.
Marlin
-
When Knights were bold, or bald, the strings were of linen, hemp, or silk {the strongest}for anyone that could get it. I got a big hank of raw silk in Thailand and have made strings of it, you can also get thin Chinese hemp 20# cord. Three strands {medieval strings were 3 strands] of three or four cords each. You do the math. For linen you used to be able to get Belfast linen thread but I don't know if that is still available.
-
When Knights were bold, or bald, the strings were of linen, hemp, or silk {the strongest}for anyone that could get it. I got a big hank of raw silk in Thailand and have made strings of it, you can also get thin Chinese hemp 20# cord. Three strands {medieval strings were 3 strands] of three or four cords each. You do the math. For linen you used to be able to get Belfast linen thread but I don't know if that is still available.
Medieval strings were 3 strands? I wasn't aware there were any medieval era strings in existace? None were recovered from the Mary Rose, and I'm unaware of any other sources. Please enlighten us.
-
Sure, adb. I guess you were on vacation when, in response to a challenge, I posted a full page of my sources on the topic of mediaeval and Tudor bowstrings. In response to a threat, I posted the whole page again. The source is Lartdarcherie translated by Colonel Walrond. Mediaeval bow strings were mostly of the single loop type, now known as the 'Flemish' string. LARTDARCHERIE refers to the single loop string tightly twisted of three strands of fiber or thread, You can look it up in the Archery library online. That should cover it unless you are addicted to string boards and refuse to believe original mediaeval and Renaissance sources.
-
So, there is a medieval bow string in existance? Where?
-
On the archery library the two oldest books are The art of Archery 1515 and Toxophilus 1545 to memory I cant remember reading anything on actual string making only that the author didn't feel qualified enough to talk about the subject. Could you point us to the chapter in either book that the reference is in.
-
Art of Archery (1515)
"And if you wish to know if a string is good, untwist the middle of it, and if the three strands are separate and distinct, it is a good one, provided always that when the string is twisted up again, it is hard and firm, for the harder it is, the better it will be."
Toxophilus 1545
"Now what a string ought to be made on, whether of good hemp, as they do now-a-days, or of flax, or of silk, I leave that to the judgement of stringers, of whom we must buy them. Eustathius, upon this verse of Homer,"
It goes on to say
"Eustathius, upon this verse of Homer, doth tell, that in old time, they made their bow-strings of bullocks' thermes, which they twined together as they do ropes" this is talking about the ancient Greeks not the middle ages.
Thats is the only reference to construction, its not concrete.
-
So, there is a medieval bow string in existance? Where?
Who told you that one had survived ? You are getting incoherent.
-
Art of Archery (1515)
"And if you wish to know if a string is good, untwist the middle of it, and if the three strands are separate and distinct, it is a good one, provided always that when the string is twisted up again, it is hard and firm, for the harder it is, the better it will be."
Toxophilus 1545
"Now what a string ought to be made on, whether of good hemp, as they do now-a-days, or of flax, or of silk, I leave that to the judgement of stringers, of whom we must buy them. Eustathius, upon this verse of Homer,"
It goes on to say
"Eustathius, upon this verse of Homer, doth tell, that in old time, they made their bow-strings of bullocks' thermes, which they twined together as they do ropes" this is talking about the ancient Greeks not the middle ages.
Thats is the only reference to construction, its not concrete.
Good. You did find the chapter on bowstrings! The quote "if the three strands are separate and distinct" constitutes evidence.
-
It would seem so, there isn't much writing dedicated to strings and the period images don't tell us much, but I wouldn't think that they would have changed how they made strings through the few hundred years that they were used.
-
My point, Erik, is that no one (not even you) knows FOR SURE the make up of a medieval bow string, because one does not exist.
-
It would seem so, there isn't much writing dedicated to strings and the period images don't tell us much, but I wouldn't think that they would have changed how they made strings through the few hundred years that they were used.
Why a few hundred? the oldest bow remnant is 10,000 years old, where there is a bow there must be a string. Otzi the iceman had a length of cordage in his quiver, bow string or not is apparently the subject of argument, but he certainly had a bow so must have had a bow string and his remains are 5,300 or so years old. So strings have been made for a bit more than a few hundred years.
As for did they change the way they made them, do you not believe people can get better at making things over time? Maybe the way they were made became static during the historical period but during pre-history there must have been changes.
Craig
-
I'm guessing Ian meant the few hundred years of the medieval period.
-
I'm guessing Ian meant the few hundred years of the medieval period.
I did, I am well aware of the Otiz bow and string but to much time has passed between the Otiz artefacts and the Medieval period for them to be in any way linked.
-
My point, Erik, is that no one (not even you) knows FOR SURE the make up of a medieval bow string, because one does not exist.
[/quoe]
That is like saying that no one can be sure 6that Attila the Hun really existed. As there is no known tomb, corpse or picture, we rely on written histories. It really takes a fool to dismiss them. However we have to ask ” Is there a motive for lying”?
Craig. There may have been little change in manufacture during the mediaeval period when guilds discouraged new ideas as unfair competition, but hemp became more used in the later Middle Ages.
-
I'm guessing Ian meant the few hundred years of the medieval period.
I did, I am well aware of the Otiz bow and string but to much time has passed between the Otiz artefacts and the Medieval period for them to be in any way linked.
Mid 400 to mid 1400's is 1000 years, which on any reckoning is more than a few hundred.
As for no link between bows used in the Medieval period with those used in prehistory, my my what a claim! You say you are aware of Otzo's bow, well take a minute or two to think of its basic design, do you see any similarities between it and the bows at Rotten Bottom, Ashcott Heath, Hedeby, Ballinderry Cranog and on the Mary Rose, 5,000 years of development of the same type of bow
Erik,
The guilds only came into existence late in the medieval period and were only in existence as fully operating guilds for something of the order of 200 years most of which was later than the medieval period, yet bows were used throughout the 1000 years of the medieval period. Look at the relative weights of the Hedeby bows and the heavier Mary Rose bows, don't you think that the manufacture of strings had to go through massive changes to accommodate the Mary Rose weights in a string only 3.2 mm in diameter?
-
Well, Erik, I'm not disputing that either Attila the Hun or medieval bow strings existed. What I am saying is, we will never know for sure the details of either Attila's life or medieval bow strings, because we can not examine them first hand. So, for you to say on this forum, that 'medieval bow strings were 3 strands' is hog wash. It's like saying Attila had 14 wives, maybe... but something we will never know for sure.
-
I have finnished tillering this bow and got a string on it. I had to go with B50 as this is all I have right now anyway. I am a bit dissapointed in the draw weight though. I dont have a scale but it feels like 80# rather than the 100 plus I was hoping for. I don't know yet if I want nocks or overlays. I have not even shot it yet but it feels like it would hurl an arrow pretty good. My Wife was taking forever it seemed to take the full draw pictures.
-
You can see the reflex in the Right limb in the second picture. Marlin
-
That's looking pretty good for a first heavier bow. Try and get yourself some FF string. I find B50 nearly useless for bows >60#. Also, try and work at getting your draw length out to your ear. Make yourself some arrows that are 30-32" (measured from the base of the head to the valley of the nock) so you know how far you're drawing everytime. It's good to see you starting with a reasonable draw weight, and working your way up over time.
-
I'm guessing Ian meant the few hundred years of the medieval period.
I did, I am well aware of the Otiz bow and string but to much time has passed between the Otiz artefacts and the Medieval period for them to be in any way linked.
Mid 400 to mid 1400's is 1000 years, which on any reckoning is more than a few hundred.
As for no link between bows used in the Medieval period with those used in prehistory, my my what a claim! You say you are aware od Otzo's bow, well take a minute or two to think of its basic design, do you see any similarities between it and the bows at Rotten Bottom, Ashcott Heath, Hedeby, Ballinderry Cranog and on the Mary Rose, 5,000 years of development of the same type of bow
I really don't want to get into this over the net talking always leads to problems, my original thought was that of the military bow adopted by the English from around 1100 to 1500. Nothing more. There is a smaller distance in time between us and the medieval period than between the Mperiod and Otiz, knowledge has been lost and gained in much shorter times.
-
Well, Erik, I'm not disputing that either Attila the Hun or medieval bow strings existed. What I am saying is, we will never know for sure the details of either Attila's life or medieval bow strings, because we can not examine them first hand. So, for you to say on this forum, that 'medieval bow strings were 3 strands' is hog wash. It's like saying Attila had 14 wives, maybe... but something we will never know for sure.
Hogwash? Do I have your expert opinion on that? We don’t have to bet our lives on those details but we know them, not because I or someone else posts them, but because they are described in non-fiction literature of the period. You don’t seem able to recognize this. It is called research and all history we know is based on it. Ever heard of it ? Look it up. Enlighten yourself.
-
That's looking pretty good for a first heavier bow. Try and get yourself some FF string. I find B50 nearly useless for bows >60#. Also, try and work at getting your draw length out to your ear. Make yourself some arrows that are 30-32" (measured from the base of the head to the valley of the nock) so you know how far you're drawing everytime. It's good to see you starting with a reasonable draw weight, and working your way up over time.
-
Thank You for that advice, ADB I will take it. I eventualy want to make some needle bodkins with 1/2" shafts that I see postedon here. Marlin
-
Well, Erik, I'm not disputing that either Attila the Hun or medieval bow strings existed. What I am saying is, we will never know for sure the details of either Attila's life or medieval bow strings, because we can not examine them first hand. So, for you to say on this forum, that 'medieval bow strings were 3 strands' is hog wash. It's like saying Attila had 14 wives, maybe... but something we will never know for sure.
Hogwash? Do I have your expert opinion on that? We don't have to bet our lives on those details but we know them, not because I or someone else posts them, but because they are described in nonfiction literature of the period. You don't seem able to recognize this. It is called research and all history we know is based on it. Ever heard of it ? Look it up. Enlighten yourself.
Back in medieval times, and especially today, anyone could write pretty much anything they want. I, for one, don't take it as gospel truth. Until a medieval period bow string is recovered, we will not know for sure what they were made of, or look like, or how many strands they contained. Remember, history is written by the victors, and is not always accurate. If you believe everything written in the past as truth, you are truly naive. The only thing we do know for sure about medieval strings is their diameter, being approx. 1/8". We can assume this because the arrow nocks found on existing medieval artifacts (some of which I've examined first hand) are that size. The rest is speculation. How they were made, and what the majority were made of is anyone's guess. To say otherwise, to a certainty, is hogwash.
Anyway, I'm not sure why I get involved in these childish and petty arguements. I guess because I have a hard time letting BS pass without accountability. Armchair experts have always rubbed me the wrong way. I could take a couple of people on this warbow forum more seriously if they contributed some examples of their work for all to see. I've decided not to become involved in it anymore, especially on this particular forum topic. I will continue to contribute, but not in this manner. The useless arguing is over for me. Erik, you and Craig can continue on, amazing us with your knowledge, and I'll remain out of it. This behaviour sure gets some threads way off topic. No more from me. 8)
-
Adb,
Anyway, I'm not sure why I get involved in these childish and petty arguements. I guess because I have a hard time letting BS pass without accountability. Armchair experts have always rubbed me the wrong way. I could take a couple of people on this warbow forum more seriously if they contributed some examples of their work for all to see. I've decided not to become involved in it anymore, especially on this particular forum topic. I will continue to contribute, but not in this manner. The useless arguing is over for me. Erik, you and Craig can continue on, amazing us with your knowledge, and I'll remain out of it. This behaviour sure gets some threads way off topic. No more from me.
Once again you show your disregard for any kind of research into the topic and your propensity to hurl insults at others. For someone who claims not to like seeing BS pass without accountability, you have a very selective approach to it, in both giving it out and picking people up on it.
Craig.
-
Ian,
There is a bigger distance in time between us and the medieval period then between the Mperiod and Otiz, knowledge has been lost and gained in much shorter times.
Otzi = 5,300 years ago;
Medieval period, 550 to 1,550 years ago
I suggest you look at your statement again, we are much closer to the medieval period than Otzi's time was to it, and even with our advantage of the written record, we still have virtually no idea how the medieval string was made.
Craig.
-
[
No more from me. 8)
[/quote]
Good news at last.
-
8)
-
Craig,
Your the one who is trying to draw similarities between the two.
Ian
-
I suggest you look at your statement again, we are much closer to the medieval period than Otzi's time was to it, and even with our advantage of the written record, we still have virtually no idea how the medieval string was made.
Craig.
Craig—I think we do have an ides of how mediaeval strings were made. If no one has a realistic reason for a 15th century archer to have lied when mentioning a three strand string, and we know the thickness from the size of MR nocks, we have a basic thin rope. We know there was a loop at one end. We see the nocks cut in bows to accommodate a loop. Lartdarcherie specifies that it should be tight. We know from Ascham that the tail end that was tied in a “bending” of “more than one wap” was reinforced. What is the part that we don’t know? I don’t think the manufacture of strings had to go through many changes. I think improved materials were sourced. Certainly you don’t dispute the many sources that list the materials as linen, silk and hemp? The linen strings of this type continued in use until the death of the Flemish maker of the Flemish strings in the early 20th century.
-
Erik,
Craig—I think we do have an ides of how mediaeval strings were made. If no one has a realistic reason for a 15th century archer to have lied when mentioning a three strand string, and we know the thickness from the size of MR nocks, we have a basic thin rope. We know there was a loop at one end. We see the nocks cut in bows to accommodate a loop. Lartdarcherie specifies that it should be tight. We know from Ascham that the tail end that was tied in a “bending” of “more than one wap” was reinforced. What is the part that we don’t know? I don’t think the manufacture of strings had to go through many changes. I think improved materials were sourced. Certainly you don’t dispute the many sources that list the materials as linen, silk and hemp? The linen strings of this type continued in use until the death of the Flemish maker of the Flemish strings in the early 20th century.
I know you have strong feelings on this subject and I have read the information you have put on both your own and Alan Blackham's site. I have to disagree with the conclusions, you conclude that the string is made up as any twisted cord is/was made, however that conclusion completely disregards the numerous references to "water glew" and that the secret of how they were made died with the last make in Belgium.
If we believe the references water glue, were the strands twisted as in the modern "Flemish Twist" string and then this glue was applied or were the separate fibers stuck together, or was some other method used? We just don't know and until we have something better to go on than one reference in a book, written by an unknown French Provincial in 1515, which not only states that a good string is made of three strands but also that good string is gummed not glued and that silk is the best material to make strings out of because one made that way"is so springy that it propels the arrow further and with greater force than when made of any other material. Now the part regarding gummed not glued is clearly at odds with other authors who talk of the use of water glue, and the bit concerning springy strings is utter rot and could not be written by anyone who knew the subject on which he writes. So this Author and what he writes is in my opinion very suspect.
In addition to the doubts raised by the above there is also the thought that if the strings were merely simple cord twists such cords and their method of manufacture would be readily recognized by the people of the time so why do we find numerous expressions of ignorance as to the manufacturing process.
Therefore while we may have ideas as to how medieval strings were made we do not conclusively know anything.
By the way I believe the Flemish maker of strings died before the 20th Century as I'm sure I have documents referring to him and his death written before 1900.
As for "we know the materials", you are referring to a very short period in the middle ages, we have little no idea of what was used in the early middle ages or if you prefer the dark ages, when probably your and some of my ancestors parted company 500 to 1000 AD, nor do we know if the hemp/flax string was used exclusively as opposed to the use of strings from animal tissues such as gut, sinew and hide. I would also remind you that in one of your posts you refer to the part in Tox that says ""Eustathius, upon this verse of Homer, doth tell, that in old time, they made their bow-strings of bullocks' thermes, which they twined together as they do ropes". Thermes are tendons or if you prefer sinews. so there is another material to consider, along with gut and rawhide. All of which are string materials used throughout the world, why not England?
So I find myself tending towards agreeing with adb on this and until more conclusive evidence comes to light I will state we do not know fully how the medieval bow string was made.
Craig.
-
Ian,
I see you edited your post on the distances in time to reverse the original meaning, it seems you do take notice of what is being said.
Craig.
-
[quote
I know you have strong feelings on this subject and I have read the information you have put on both your own and Alan Blackham's site. I have to disagree with the conclusions, you conclude that the string is made up as any twisted cord is/was made, however that conclusion completely disregards the numerous references to "water glew" and that the secret of how they were made died with the last make in Belgium.
If we believe the references water glue, were the strands twisted as in the modern "Flemish Twist" string and then this glue was applied or were the separate fibers stuck together, or was some other method used? We just don't know and until we have something better to go on than one reference in a book, written by an unknown French Provincial in 1515, which not only states that a good string is made of three strands but also that good string is gummed not glued and that silk is the best material to make strings out of because one made that way"is so springy that it propels the arrow further and with greater force than when made of any other material. Now the part regarding gummed not glued is clearly at odds with other authors who talk of the use of water glue, and the bit concerning springy strings is utter rot and could not be written by anyone who knew the subject on which he writes. So this Author and what he writes is in my opinion very suspect.
In addition to the doubts raised by the above there is also the thought that if the strings were merely simple cord twists such cords and their method of manufacture would be readily recognized by the people of the time so why do we find numerous expressions of ignorance as to the manufacturing process.
Therefore while we may have ideas as to how medieval strings were made we do not conclusively know anything.
By the way I believe the Flemish maker of strings died before the 20th Century as I'm sure I have documents referring to him and his death written before 1900.
As for "we know the materials", you are referring to a very short period in the middle ages, we have little no idea of what was used in the early middle ages or if you prefer the dark ages, when probably your and some of my ancestors parted company 500 to 1000 AD, nor do we know if the hemp/flax string was used exclusively as opposed to the use of strings from animal tissues such as gut, sinew and hide. I would also remind you that in one of your posts you refer to the part in Tox that says ""Eustathius, upon this verse of Homer, doth tell, that in old time, they made their bow-strings of bullocks' thermes, which they twined together as they do ropes". Thermes are tendons or if you prefer sinews. so there is another material to consider, along with gut and rawhide. All of which are string materials used throughout the world, why not England?
So I find myself tending towards agreeing with adb on this and until more conclusive evidence comes to light I will state we do not know fully how the medieval bow string was made.
Craig.
/quote]
Craig--Archers, dismayed at the death of their Flemish stringer, took their strings apart and clearly saw how they were made. The French archer’s preference was gum rather than the water glue with which he was also familiar enough to mention. What could the water glue have been ? Something soluble in water, of course. Gelatine would fill the bill and is known to have been used on post mediaeval strings, and is used as a glue by members of this forum. A stiffener, it would of course be allied to the finished string. You misquote the Frenchman. He wrote “properly made”, not “made that way”. Tox, a scholar who credits introduction of British archery to the Saxons, mentioning “bullock’s thermes” as used by ancient Greeks clearly knows of no more contemporary use of that material. I haven’t come across any expressions of ignorance of the manufacturing process, other than on this forum. Any examples ?
Erik
-
Erik,
Craig--Archers, dismayed at the death of their Flemish stringer, took their strings apart and clearly saw how they were made. The French archer’s preference was gum rather than the water glue with which he was also familiar enough to mention. What could the water glue have been ? Something soluble in water, of course. Gelatine would fill the bill and is known to have been used on post mediaeval strings, and is used as a glue by members of this forum. A stiffener, it would of course be allied to the finished string. You misquote the Frenchman. He wrote “properly made”, not “made that way”. Tox, a scholar who credits introduction of British archery to the Saxons, mentioning “bullock’s thermes” as used by ancient Greeks clearly knows of no more contemporary use of that material.
Erik all you say is supposition not proven fact, this is the downfall of your claims, you suppose something is so and then state that it is not that it may be, even if it is likely it is not known fact. With regard to people pulling stings apart and learning how to make them, read the quote from Duff below.
I was not in fact quoting the Frenchman at that stage but paraphrasing what he said. The quote begins just after that statement and concerns his ridiculous statement on springy silk strings. Are you implying that his "properly made" silk string was not made that way when he himself say it was so?
I haven’t come across any expressions of ignorance of the manufacturing process, other than on this forum. Any examples ?
If you have not come across "any expressions of ignorance of the manufacturing process", I suggest you need to expand your reading habits and look to contemporary writers.
As for doubt being expressed only on this forum, I think you exaggerate, you are a member of at least one other forum where the same doubts form of have been raised and where at least one of the members has, I believe, written of testing glued not twisted strings, the forum I have in mind is Paleoplanet. I would also suggest you join one of the British forums and have a look at their "Traditional Archery forums.
I also have to ask the question that even if the doubt has only been raised on these forums, is not a doubt raised that you cannot absolutely refute?
As I read through my collection and come across the statements I shall let you know where they are made, they must all be statements made in books written in the 20th and 21st Centuries as prior to that books tended to be written by people of substance who would never dream of making strings and besides the Flemish makers were still in existence. From memory I seem to recall such statements made in the books by the contemporary Authors Strickland, Hardy, Soar, of the earlier but still recent authors, one that springs to mind is James Duff who on page 80 of his "Bows and Arrows" says this:
"Much has been written on the subject of making bowstrings. Perhaps because for over 500 years the Belgian bowstring makers have had an almost complete monopoly on the bowstring business. That this has inspired the writing of meaningless instructions may or may not be so. Surely it would have been more risky had the Belgian method been common knowledge and capable of adoption. Still, there have been some practical directions published : for the world war taught the archer the value of acquiring a measure of the art, so long kept secret on Belgium, handed down from one generation to another in the same families. And should the reader wonder that nobody could learn the secret from examining and even dissecting the Belgian strings, let me say this. I have submitted Belgian Bowstrings to the very best American makers of hand-laid linen fishing lines, which have been made the same way, by the same families, for more than one hundred years. The world record lines, famous for their excellence: twisted out of flax as a bowstring is made. And yet these expert line makers could not duplicate the Belgian Bowstring. "It is the queerest thing I never saw", said the head of business, a man over sixty years of age who all his life has been an expert in the making of hand-laid lines". The passage goes on to say that the strands used are extremely long. then tells how to make a substitute but one that is not equal to the Belgium string. Duff essentially says the string is formed by twisting and uses extremely long fibres and makes no mention of glue and as this book was published in 1927 way past the date of major use therefore it is even possible that the string made by the Flemish string maker was different to the strings used in the middle ages. We just do not know.
Craig.
-
Ian,
I see you edited your post on the distances in time to reverse the original meaning, it seems you do take notice of what is being said.
Craig.
Yes, that was a typo. As far as the discussion I think all that can be said has now been said shall we put this one to rest.
-
Hello, Friends
All the bows in my past have never pulled more than 65# or so. I am new to war bows and it's another dimension for me. This Osage stave is reflexed and has attitude 1" thick 1.25" wide about 70" long. I have a 21 strand string that just seams to keep stretching. Do I need more strands or do I need to shorten my string?
I am hoping for a bow that's in the 110# range. Marlin
Marlin .... what string material are you using?
-
Horace
I am using B50 right now. The bow I made only turned out to be 80lbs so i guess it workedout any way. It still strewched pretty good though. Marlin
-
On any bow >60#, I use nothing but FF. I find B50 way too stretchy. In fact, I can't even brace my 100# tri-lam with B50. With FF, it's a snap using push/pull.
-
On any bow >60#, I use nothing but FF. I find B50 way too stretchy. In fact, I can't even brace my 100# tri-lam with B50. With FF, it's a snap using push/pull.
I am going to get some of that before my next heavy bow. Hey I made a bodkin out of rebar the other day and shot a 2x4 with it. It only went a 1/2". Then I tried shooting a flat nosed shovel and the arrow broke right behind the socket. I guess a shovel would make pretty good armour.Marlin
-
My bodkin for a 1/2" arrow.
-
Hope this picture turns out better.
-
another picture with1/2" Poplar
-
Just a little input :)
Barbour Irish linen was the best I ve tryed but they sold the whole factory and the made in eu thing is a piece of s**t :(
http://www.alanesq.com/longbow/sidenock/Craft-of-the-Stringer.pdf
If use linen or hemp, have to duble the strands at the loops and knots. Allways try the breaking strenght and calculate from that and not from datas on the roll. ;)