Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: bow101 on January 06, 2013, 07:51:02 pm
-
I'am considering building a bow that will be 70" NTN does that make it a Warbow, longbow or otherwise. What is the weight target for a basic Warbow..? If I only get 55# out of it at 70" does that make it a slow bow because of it's lenght..?
-
You should post this in the "Bows" section. The English Warbow follows other strict rules. 50# definitely isnt near warbow draw weight and i think at least 72 inches is required to qualify as one as well.
But anyhow, 70 inches with a stiff handle is okay for 50#. It will definitely make a safe design. If it is a bendy handle bow, it is quite overbuilt. Nothing wrong with overbuilding, it just won't be as fast as it would be if shorter and lighter.
-
"i think at least 72 inches is required to qualify as one as well"...................................now I know. ::) ::) ::)
-
I'm not sure where the 72ins comes from, but you will find bows less than this NTN recovered from the Mary Rose.
-
Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.
The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".
-
Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.
The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".
Hi adb,
If you have access to the MR Data sheets you will see that there are a few very short bows. Also if you are looking at the overall length of recovered bows you would then have to take off perhaps an inch plus either end for the slots.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.
The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".
In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.
Craig.
-
Minimum draw weight for men open class (ages 16 - 60) is 70#@32". That's EWBS rules. I'd agree. 55# is just not warbow weight. It doesn't give you any idea what the heavier draw weights feel like.
The shortest bows recovered from the Mary Rose were 74".
In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.
Craig.
Hi Craig,
The length of the bows measured on the MR are taken tip-to-tip. So 80A1298 has a linear length of 71 3/8ins the nock slots will obviously be below this. MR bow 81A850 has a reflex/deflex length of 69 1/8ins and a linear length of 68 5/8ins. This bow has some 'gribble' at the tip so one nock slot is missing, it is recored as 'damaged' rather than 'incomplete'.
Cheers,
Alistair
-
Hi Craig,
The length of the bows measured on the MR are taken tip-to-tip. So 80A1298 has a linear length of 71 3/8ins the nock slots will obviously be below this. MR bow 81A850 has a reflex/deflex length of 69 1/8ins and a linear length of 68 5/8ins. This bow has some 'gribble' at the tip so one nock slot is missing, it is recored as 'damaged' rather than 'incomplete'.
Cheers,
Alistair
Alistair,
With regard to your statement "The length of the bows measured on the MR are taken tip-to-tip." I suggest you re-read the information on the bows. It is not known if the bows suffered from set induced by the conditions of "storage", therefore both the measurments I quoted were taken and recorded and appear in the information contained on the CD that accompanied Weapons of Warre.
I think you should revisit the information on the bows, both the bows you mention are damaged at one or the other of their ends and the dimensions must be suspect, however:
81A850 is recorded as being extensively gribbled, the gribbling is so extensive that some dimensions are not given, the lengths reported cannot be relied on.
80A1298 is also gribbled but aparently not to the same extent as 81A850, because the location of one bit of data is not reported this bow was not transcribed by me as being complete so does not appear in my list as such, a closer study of the info provided seems to indicate that the bow is indeed complete, however it has quite a curviture on it such that length along curve 73.5 inches, 1867 mm, tip to tip 713/8 inches or 1813mm
Measurment tip to tip on a heavily curved bow cannot be relied on and when measured along the curve the bow is longer than the 72 7/16 inches of 80A763.
Craig
-
In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.
Craig.
In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.
Craig.
Hi Craig,
Are you stating that artefact 80A763 is 72 7/16” long from the tip of the upper limb cone to the tip of the lower, along the convex side, or the nock to nock length, please?
My understanding is all bow length dimensions given on the CD or otherwise from the MR Trust are from tip to tip and not nock to nock. This is assuming it complete, of course. Also I understand that the wooden cone length under the horn was around 2" (and sometimes longer) with the string grove filed in about 1/2 way down. The one remaining horn nock, so far, would conform to this. If this is the case, and I take your point about reflex (but as the length is along the convex side this would not distort the matter). That is if the stated length of 72 7/16”is indeed tip to tip then the bow would be a little over 70 nock to nock.
For those following this tread, a great introduction can be found here...
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=alanesque+side+nocks&oq=alanesque+side+nocks&gs_l=hp.3...1295.10858.0.11217.20.20.0.0.0.0.188.2027.14j6.20.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.NCdZzAjBAbY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&fp=c409455af118ddbd&biw=1280&bih=822 (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=alanesque+side+nocks&oq=alanesque+side+nocks&gs_l=hp.3...1295.10858.0.11217.20.20.0.0.0.0.188.2027.14j6.20.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.NCdZzAjBAbY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&fp=c409455af118ddbd&biw=1280&bih=822)
You can see a great image of the colour difference where the horn has protected the wood from the water until it was eventually eaten away by microbes being made of a protein called keratin.
-
In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.
Craig.
In fact the shortest complete bow recovered from the Mary Rose is artifact 80A763 which is 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches long measured along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long nock to nock.
Craig.
Hi Craig,
Are you stating that artefact 80A763 is 72 7/16” long from the tip of the upper limb cone to the tip of the lower, along the convex side, or the nock to nock length, please?
My understanding is all bow length dimensions given on the CD or otherwise from the MR Trust are from tip to tip and not nock to nock. This is assuming it complete, of course. Also I understand that the wooden cone length under the horn was around 2" (and sometimes longer) with the string grove filed in about 1/2 way down. The one remaining horn nock, so far, would conform to this. If this is the case, and I take your point about reflex (but as the length is along the convex side this would not distort the matter). That is if the stated length of 72 7/16”is indeed tip to tip then the bow would be a little over 70 nock to nock.
For those following this tread, a great introduction can be found here...
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=alanesque+side+nocks&oq=alanesque+side+nocks&gs_l=hp.3...1295.10858.0.11217.20.20.0.0.0.0.188.2027.14j6.20.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.NCdZzAjBAbY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&fp=c409455af118ddbd&biw=1280&bih=822 (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=alanesque+side+nocks&oq=alanesque+side+nocks&gs_l=hp.3...1295.10858.0.11217.20.20.0.0.0.0.188.2027.14j6.20.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.NCdZzAjBAbY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.d2k&fp=c409455af118ddbd&biw=1280&bih=822)
You can see a great image of the colour difference where the horn has protected the wood from the water until it was eventually eaten away by microbes being made of a protein called keratin.
Hi Yeomanbowman,
You are correct my use of nock to nock was a typo or brain tilt and not intended, I should have written tip to tip. The MR people measured both along the convex side tip to tip and in a straight line tip to tip, so artifact 80A763 was measured at 1839mm or 72 7/16 inches along the convex side and 1833 mm or 72 3/16 inches long tip to tip. WRT the length nock to nock, it would indeed be something like the length tip to tip along the convex side minus 2 inches so as you say 80A763 is approximately 72 inches or possibly up to 1/2 inch more nock to nock. Its a pity that the location of any remaining nock marks was not also recorded.
And appologies to Alistair, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, I thought you were denying that the MR bows were measured along the convex side rather that correcting my typo of nock to nock. I did not properly re-read what I had written even when you provided the quotation.
I still disagree about the use of the two bows you mention.
Craig
-
Just remember, Warbows and longbows are the same thing. Don't get confused with the definitions and requirements of various societies. I'm sure many thousands of bows made for warfare in medieval times were less than 72 inches long.
I regard a 'longbow' used for 'war' in the medieval period to be the height of a man and we all know how much that varies!
The 'Mary Rose' bows are a great source of knowledge but they don't come close to representing all that came before them.
Sorry, you've missed the boat on this one by about 30 years, they are very different things as different as any other type of bow.
-
just my opinion, but I think maybe some of the bows on the MR were overbuilt for the safety of war? at least the ones over 78",
-
just my opinion, but I think maybe some of the bows on the MR were overbuilt for the safety of war? at least the ones over 78",
I don't think they were 'overbuilt' per say. I do think they were made to cast a very heavy (up to 1/4#) armour piercing arrow a long distance (200+ yards). To accomplish this with yew, the bows needed to big and long.
-
Just remember, Warbows and longbows are the same thing. Don't get confused with the definitions and requirements of various societies. I'm sure many thousands of bows made for warfare in medieval times were less than 72 inches long.
I regard a 'longbow' used for 'war' in the medieval period to be the height of a man and we all know how much that varies!
The 'Mary Rose' bows are a great source of knowledge but they don't come close to representing all that came before them.
Sorry, you've missed the boat on this one by about 30 years, they are very different things as different as any other type of bow.
+1
-
I agree, with the development of armour and other protection it came to be more about the arrow and the only way to propel an effective heavy arrow was to increase draw weights.
I personally dislike categorising the same style of bow into 'Warbows' or 'Longbows' based on wether they are more or less than 70lbs just because some societies have made that distinction.
I have made bows that range from 50-145lbs and they are all the same style, just some are thicker than others! They are all longbows and suitable for "war'.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. A longbow is not the same as a war bow. Yes, they're both 'longbows', but vastly different. Different application, different tiller... an all together different purpose. A Ducati Panigale and a Vespa 50 cc scooter are both classed as motorcycles, but are vastly different.
-
To me, length is far less important in 'warbow' determination than draw weight and tiller shape.
-
I am quite amazed to be honest how you can have such an uncritical eye, can you really seen no difference in an MR bow to a Victorian target bow?
-
I am quite amazed to be honest how you can have such an uncritical eye, can you really seen no difference in an MR bow to a Victorian target bow?
+1!
-
I don't think he has said anywhere that a Victorian longbow is the same as a MR warbow.
He even stated in his last post that he's not talking about Victorian longbows. Or have I jumped into a discussion having missed something?
-
I love it when you warbow guys get in these "discusions" and everyone gets all huffy >:D
-
I could argue more, but I think it would be useless. Perhaps I'll just save my breath. ;)
-
I love it when you warbow guys get in these "discusions" and everyone gets all huffy >:D
first time i read your post i thought you said fluffy ::)
-
I did write a long post but I'll just leave with this, your ideas are fallacy and you facts are about as water tight as the current state of the Mary Rose.
-
Okay lets be serious. There are not and probably never will be a complete bow from the medieval period found in England, I do not know where the 5/6 come from. Yes a small fragment was found in Southampton but that's all! You have to understand its difficult for us to talk about something if out of nowhere you seem to think more bows survive than actually do.
Yes some Mary Rose bows will be shorter than others, yes some medieval archer undoubtedly drew less and so could get away with shorter bows. Though the difference I concern myself with and I am sure adb for that matter is how different a Victorian target longbow is to a medieval bow, this is not a simple case of societies deciding their requirements and I can tell you I pay those definitions of longbows/warbows little time. Weight would be the obvious difference, application another but design and materials are also pretty unanimously different.
I guess what I fundamentally disagree with is the oversimplification, "I have made bows that range from 50-145lbs and they are all the same style, just some are thicker than others! They are all longbows and suitable for "war'."
-
In my complete ignorance (I've only been properly interested in the history of archery for a very short time) I'd be interested in hearing a clarification of the problem with Stu saying that "they are all the same style, just some are thicker than others! They are all longbows and suitable for "war'."
I know the term "victorian longbow" has been used a bit in this thread, but it seems a bit like people are telling him that he's making victorian longbows instead of warbows, purely because of the weight. From what I can tell, a victorian longbow has a stiffer handle section, a handle wrap or grip and various other tiller and construction differences to the bows found on the Mary Rose, that are more commonly described as "warbows." If Stu has built a 145# longbow that comes full compass, bends in the handle, doesn't have a grip or bare any other resemblence to a victorian longbow, I assume that's classed as a warbow? Surely if he built an identical bow (bends in the handle etc) which comes off the tiller at 50#, that doesn't make it a victorian longbow, it makes it a lighter "warbow" and not suddenly a completely separate classification as it follows the same construction design as the heavier one. A scaled down version, if you will?
Maybe I've missed something within this discussion - again, I'm only just starting on my "journey of discovery" with these incredible weapons, so by all means tell me I'm completely wrong if that's the case!
-
Stuart... I'd love to see pictures of your 145# bow (longbow, warbow... whatever you feel comfy calling it).
-
Okay lets be serious. There are not and probably never will be a complete bow from the medieval period found in England, I do not know where the 5/6 come from. Yes a small fragment was found in Southampton but that's all! You have to understand its difficult for us to talk about something if out of nowhere you seem to think more bows survive than actually do.
How about across the water say in Belgian, Holland or even France after all the battles some of the enemy probably brought some back. I thought in the Book crooked stick had some original Longbows, or you talking about war bows..?
-
I am talking about just military bows from the period - I know a few Dutch guys have been round various museums in their area and France I think and they found maybe one but it is unlikely to be medieval. They would have never been brought back from battles as they were seen as the weapon of the common man, you'd take a sword or piece of armour but even this was controlled.
-
I agree, with the development of armour and other protection it came to be more about the arrow and the only way to propel an effective heavy arrow was to increase draw weights.
I personally dislike categorising the same style of bow into 'Warbows' or 'Longbows' based on wether they are more or less than 70lbs just because some societies have made that distinction.
I have made bows that range from 50-145lbs and they are all the same style, just some are thicker than others! They are all longbows and suitable for "war'.
i would disagree that your 50lb bow is suitable for war
-
I did write a long post but I'll just leave with this, your ideas are fallacy and you facts are about as water tight as the current state of the Mary Rose.
Hi Ian
I didn't want to continue this discussion but you have not told me exactly what you disagree with.
So let me clarify, I'm talking about bows used for warfare in medieval England, like the ones found on the 'Mary Rose' and illustrated on the cover of Robert Harvey's book 'Longbow', not anything else! If you want to refer to these as Warbows that's fine.
Now I expressed the view that I'm sure many of these 'Warbows' were probably made shorter than 72 inches long, do you disagree with this?
I also tried to make the point that if you make two of these bows, same style, profile and length and one has a draw weight of 69lbs and the other 71lbs , it does not mean they are different to the point you need to call one a 'Longbow' and the other a 'Warbow'. Do you disagree with this?
Now I'm not assosiated with the BLBS or the EWBS, so if there is any 'bagagge' being hauled around this discussion, it's not by me!
Stuart
this 70lb thing is annoying me, people see a single sentence on the ewbs site saying they prefer people to shoot bows over 70lb and you interpret it to say that we think 70lb is some sort of magical line between a 'longbow' and a 'warbow', there is no where it says that.
I love it when you warbow guys get in these "discusions" and everyone gets all huffy >:D
lol what warbow guys
-
I would agree with the "70# thing". A warbow can be a warbow below 70#, depending on how it's made, how it's tillered, and how it's shot. On the flip side, I've made plenty of longbows over 70#, and I call them longbows because of the way they're tillered and shot.
However, institutions like the EWBS have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Their specs on what they consider a 'warbow' are listed on their site... 70# (for men 16-60), >74", circular tiller to 32", and shot off the fist.
I included a pic of a longbow I finished recently. It's 74" ntn, 75#@28", and has a leather grip and arrow shelf. To me, it's a longbow, not a warbow.
-
That's a very pretty bow, is it one piece of Maple or a tri-lam?
-
Very pretty, indeed. I love the 'creamy' backing against the 'honey' yew!
To find the origin of the 71lb 'delineation' one must look to the BL-BS as that is their cut off point for allowable draw-weight.
-
I would agree with the "70# thing". A warbow can be a warbow below 70#, depending on how it's made, how it's tillered, and how it's shot.
how?
-
A 68#@32'' bow, 76" ntn, tillered full compass and shot to a full draw of 32" would be a low poundage warbow in my book.
Does this bow look like a warbow?
-
That's a very pretty bow, is it one piece of Maple or a tri-lam?
It's maple backed yew.
-
A 68#@32'' bow, 76" ntn, tillered full compass and shot to a full draw of 32" would be a low poundage warbow in my book.
what? how would that be any use, and yes that bow has a round tiller but im not sure what you are trying to prove by that
-
Answer the question. Does it look like a warbow or not?
-
Answer the question. Does it look like a warbow or not?
im not sure what 'looks' has to do with anything. its 68lb lol its a lightweight laminate, why are you associating the word warbow with it? you seem to think that round tiller+ no handle automatically equals warbow, if i make a 15 pound bow with those characteristics is it a warbow? no because if i shoot a standard or livery arrow off it it will go a couple of yards
-
Well, the above bow is 78" ntn, 70#@30", is tillered full compass, has no grip, and is shot off the fist. It has a cast of nearly 200 yards with a EWBS standard arrow. So, in my book, it's a warbow. I made it as one, tillered it as one, and sold it as one. It was made for a new warbow shooter, who wanted 'legal' weight, but the ability to draw it properly. IMHO, learning proper form is much more important than jumping into a bow you can't shoot or even bring to full draw.
The 75#@28" maple backed yew bow posted earlier is NOT a warbow. If it was pulled to 30", it would likely break. Even though it meets EWBS minimum draw weight, it's still not a warbow.
If you can't understand the difference, you're missing the point. Do you shoot warbows?
-
Well, the above bow is 78" ntn, 70#@30", is tillered full compass, has no grip, and is shot off the fist. It has a cast of nearly 200 yards with a EWBS standard arrow. So, in my book, it's a warbow. I made it as one, tillered it as one, and sold it as one. It was made for a new warbow shooter, who wanted 'legal' weight, but the ability to draw it properly. IMHO, learning proper form is much more important than jumping into a bow you can't shoot or even bring to full draw.
The 75#@28" maple backed yew bow posted earlier is NOT a warbow. If it was pulled to 30", it would likely break. Even though it meets EWBS minimum draw weight, doesn't make it a warbow.
If you can't understand the difference, you're missing the point. Do you shoot warbows?
yes i do, and i dont know why you keep mentioning 'legal weight' '70lb' etc, i think you are taking that sentence completely out of context, considering you havent even mentioned the next line which i find strange 'allowance will be made in a new members first year'. you are trying to use that line to claim that the ewbs has said that 70lb is a weight for a bow to be considered a warbow and that isnt what it says at all.
-
OK, well if you're not a new member anymore (past your first year) and you're a male between 16 and 60, to shoot in an EWBS event, you need a 70#@32" bow, which is >74", has no grip, is shot off the fist, and which is tillered in a circular fashion. This is, in fact, what the EWBS calls a warbow. I believe the EWBS is trying to recreate martial archery activities associated with the time of the Mary Rose bows, and has decided to call a warbow a warbow according to the criteria they've picked. I agree... I think 70# is a good minimum draw weight. It's just heavy enough to provide decent cast of standard and livery arrows, but not so heavy that it can't be shot with good form. The criteria for an EWBS warbow is there, in plain black & white, for all to see.
But, all you seem to want to do is argue, so you have yourself a great Easter weekend! You don't seem to get the point I'm trying to make, so I'll stop.
-
I didn't know ewbs was around in the medieval times telling everyone what was and was not a war bow,long bow, etc. Doubtless if we had every bow from that time and area that was used in warfare it would be nearly impossible to classify them biased on anything but their purpose. And I'm sure that if a 40# bow could kill a deer than it could kill a human so why couldn't that be a war bow.
-
Oddly enough, EWBS would allow both of adb's beautiful bows into the "non historical" category. They wouldn't be allowed into the usual warbow category shoots as both are laminated. However the non historical category allows for laminations AND handle grips.
This is why you can't really use EWBS requirements to say "thats a warbow" and "that isn't". Its just one society with one set of rules. I think that as long as the bow is tillered to 32" (in order to give maximum penetrative force to the only war arrows ever found) and its heavy enough to do that then you can call it a warbow.
Just because one ship was found with bows that didn't have handles (at the very end of the warbow's military life) does not mean that's how they were made throughout the whole of history. Yes, certain bows wouldn't be allowed at EWBS shoots today, but nobody can say whether the EWBS would have been laughed off the battlefield if they turned up with what they think are "warbows" only to find that they had completely missed something that the medieval bowyers considered crucial to the construction of the weapon.
-
Just to add that the 70#+ weight for the EWBS was decided upon to differentiate from the BLBS which shoots up to 70#.
Regards,
Alistair
-
OK, well if you're not a new member anymore (past your first year) and you're a male between 16 and 60, to shoot in an EWBS event, you need a 70#@32" bow, which is >74", has no grip, is shot off the fist, and which is tillered in a circular fashion.
the thing is, you dont... that is what is annoying me, someone in another thread is being given advice about whether their bow would be allowed to be shot by two people who arent even in the society and dont know what is allowed
-
This is why you can't really use EWBS requirements to say "thats a warbow" and "that isn't". Its just one society with one set of rules. I think that as long as the bow is tillered to 32" (in order to give maximum penetrative force to the only war arrows ever found) and its heavy enough to do that then you can call it a warbow.
Just because one ship was found with bows that didn't have handles (at the very end of the warbow's military life) does not mean that's how they were made throughout the whole of history. Yes, certain bows wouldn't be allowed at EWBS shoots today, but nobody can say whether the EWBS would have been laughed off the battlefield if they turned up with what they think are "warbows" only to find that they had completely missed something that the medieval bowyers considered crucial to the construction of the weapon.
no one in the society claims that that one sentence is what they believe represents a medieval bow (that isnt what they think) and you are trying to change the sentence to say that is what it says.
-
Just to add that the 70#+ weight for the EWBS was decided upon to differentiate from the BLBS which shoots up to 70#.
Regards,
Alistair
this is the correct reason, that is as far as it goes. no one has said that we believe that medieval bows were 70lb which is what people seem to be trying to twist that sentence to say
-
no one in the society claims that that one sentence is what they believe represents a medieval bow (that isnt what they think) and you are trying to change the sentence to say that is what it says.
You should read more carefully. Nowhere did I mention that the English Warbow Society think that all medieval bows would comply with their society rules.
They are a society, therefore they need some form of guideline to stop people trying to join with 45# horsebows. The society guidelines are a separate thing to what individual people think medieval bows might have been like.
-
no one in the society claims that that one sentence is what they believe represents a medieval bow (that isnt what they think) and you are trying to change the sentence to say that is what it says.
You should read more carefully. Nowhere did I mention that the English Warbow Society think that all medieval bows would comply with their society rules.
They are a society, therefore they need some form of guideline to stop people trying to join with 45# horsebows. The society guidelines are a separate thing to what individual people think medieval bows might have been like.
people do shoot 45lb horsebows
-
I give up.
-
I realize there are a lot of things written and known about standard warbows but here's my opinion on what should be considered a historically accurate warbow. These bows had to be heavy enough to cast a standard arrow a desired distance and must be made well enough to survive and perform well in warfare conditions and for a long period of time. I believe laminated bows would have been too time consuming to make where a good yew bow would work just as well. Longer length will add to energy storage and durability where shorter bows will not make weight as easily and be more strained. Draw weight, of course, will launch the arrow farther. As for draw length it's my understanding that the arrows were made by the thousands and therefore any archer should be able to shoot those arrows the desired distance. Drawing them their full length is an easy advantage for distance and the bow has to survive. I can't say for sure what the minimum standard warbow would be but I can imagine that bowyers and archers of the time had enough experience to know if a bow was capable of achieving the desired result, shooting war arrow after war arrow a desired distance. (Typed on my phone so please forgive any typos)
-
no one in the society claims that that one sentence is what they believe represents a medieval bow (that isnt what they think) and you are trying to change the sentence to say that is what it says.
You should read more carefully. Nowhere did I mention that the English Warbow Society think that all medieval bows would comply with their society rules.
They are a society, therefore they need some form of guideline to stop people trying to join with 45# horsebows. The society guidelines are a separate thing to what individual people think medieval bows might have been like.
people do shoot 45lb horsebows
So... you show up to EWBS shoots with a 45# horsebow?
-
@#(^@ warbow societies. Sorry if that offends anyone...
A warbow is a bow made for war or BASED off of one that was. We do not have many surviving examples from that period.
Therefore we really do not know precisely what they looked like.
I know I AM offending people, go ahead and say it.
But I am rather tired of argueing over what the heck a warbow is.
-Squirrel
-
I dunno. I think healthy debate on a topic that we're passionate about is fine. Forums are here for a reason - passionate people having discussions about things. I don't think anybody on this thread or any of the others are really getting annoyed and angry at what other people have to say. It's just good conversation. It would be exactly the same if everybody was sitting around with a pint, and the topic of warbows was brought up.
Very rarely it gets spiteful or nasty but that certainly hasn't happened on this thread! Also, it's not the warbow societies that you should be annoyed at, if you want to be annoyed at anybody. The societies are in place to encourage and inspire people to get involved in a sadly dying tradition. They put some rules and regulations up to keep themselves separate, but that's not something to be annoyed about. They could say "Eh, we don't KNOW what all warbows looked like, so until we find some 14th century photos of bows, feel free to come along and shoot with anything you've got" but then there wouldn't be much point in their society, would there. Remember, you can't please all the people all of the time.
-
no one in the society claims that that one sentence is what they believe represents a medieval bow (that isnt what they think) and you are trying to change the sentence to say that is what it says.
You should read more carefully. Nowhere did I mention that the English Warbow Society think that all medieval bows would comply with their society rules.
They are a society, therefore they need some form of guideline to stop people trying to join with 45# horsebows. The society guidelines are a separate thing to what individual people think medieval bows might have been like.
people do shoot 45lb horsebows
So... you show up to EWBS shoots with a 45# horsebow?
personally mine is 53lb
-
Let's not forget that this is the 'English' War Bow Society, for the preservation of the 'English' War Bow, based mostly on the artifacts recovered from The Mary Rose. Not the Asian Horse Bow Society (if there is such a thing)? Why on earth would you attend an EWBS shoot with a 53# horse bow? I don't understand your reasoning?
-
Let's not forget that this is the 'English' War Bow Society, for the preservation of the 'English' War Bow, based mostly on the artifacts recovered from The Mary Rose. Not the Asian Horse Bow Society (if there is such a thing)? Why on earth would you attend an EWBS shoot with a 53# horse bow? I don't understand your reasoning?
personally i wouldnt use it to rove with but others do and theres no problem with them doing so, when it comes to the flight shoot which is just one of the several activities held yes you do have to use bows of xxxx spec, but for roving etc there are no limitations and i was pointing out how incorrect it was for another poster above to be told his bow has to be xxxxxx to attend a shoot, he could shoot whatever he liked unless he was setting a recorded shot in the flight with a specific bow and arrow
-
I just love it when you boys get going
-
trust me you do not want to hear me rant.