Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: JeremiahVires on May 08, 2013, 02:08:47 pm
-
Now, we've all read and watched movies about the famous archer, but I'm really getting interested in what his equipment was.
I've read that he used a Yew longbow, and by the dating of when he was supposed to be alive, that would be most likely. But I've also read he used a shortbow. Of what wood, I have not a clue :-[ . I've also read that the bow he shoots is so long that no man can hold it, and that it's so heavy, no man can pull it (Got that from Saxton Pope's book). But then he's also very twiggy and small.
I've also read that he used a back quiver. Nothing else really points to anything else. :D
I've read that he used Bodkin points, but I've also read he used steel broadheads.
I've really been wanting to have my hand in trying to recreate what he used, but can't find much that is a straight arrow (Stupid pun :P ) to what equipment he used.
I've been really thinking of making a 70" Yew English Longbow, pulling 75# (A happy medium between twiggy and impossible to pull).
A well oiled leather quiver.
A dozen of razor sharp broadheads.
But this is also something I'd like other peoples opinions on this topic.
Thank you.
Jeremiah
-
Since Robin Hood is half myth, half legend, and half fact (I know, fuzzy math ::)), you're probably better off looking at time period practices than anything else. Just mho :)
-
You could do whatever took your fancy, couldn't you? He wasn't "real" per se, so just make whatever you bow you like best and put a hat on. ::)
If he was real though, remember that he came from the Crusades back to England. That means he would have been surrounded by, and probably using, an Asiatic style bow. Something light, incredibly fast and heavily recurved, possibly a composite?
When you put common sense into practice, why would you use a very long, very heavy bow if you spend your life in the forest? Every step you take, you'd be whacking the upper limb on a tree branch, and the lower limb on some roots. You'd need to be quick on the draw to pick off fast moving targets, so huge draw-weights would be pointless, and you'd need a quiver packed with just about every type of arrow head you can get your hands on. You would want mail-piercing points, armour-piercers, hunting points, etc etc.
It's quite a nice thought that ol' Robin Hood was using an 80" 100# yew warbow, but it just doesn't make any sense at all when you actually think about it.
-
That is the kind of answer i was looking for.
-
Is it possible that he had more than just one bow in his arrsonal, one for every day carry and one for competition ( stories I've herd says he likes to compete, maybe that's what the long bow was for).
-
Honestly, when I think of Robin Hood, the name and person that pops into my head is Howard Hill. Not the story, but the archery part.
Couldn't howard split arrows?
-
If we're going to look at Robin Hood as a historical figure, not just myth, it's important to consider a few KNOWN facts about archers of that period:
-The vast majority belong to a lord or earl, who are in servitude to the king. It's safe to say that there were at least a few who were acting as mercenaries, fighting for money instead of duty, but they're most likely the minority.
-Any decent archer had more than just a few months of training. Most likely they had been shooting almost all their lives, typically a warbow ranging from 80# to 150#, though obviously that's just a theory. Suddenly switching bows or arrows might severely effect the lethality of archers in battle.
-Most of them were peasants, or low-born.
Most archers of the period didn't have back-quivers. They held less arrows and were prone to spill if a man bent over. While a little later on, we can look at the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, and even Agincourt to examine the equipment. Arrow bags, which hung either at the hip or over the shoulder, were more for transporting arrows than anything else. Unless they were ambushed or had to make a quick shot, in battle they would typically pull out a number of arrows and put them at their feet, ready for use.
Now, bodkins and broadheads. ("Flesh arrows", as they were sometimes called) It's important to remember that while both are very effective tips, each serves an entirely different purpose. The English drove a mounted French army to it's knees in 1346 with a storm of bodkins. A long, needle-nosed bodkin could pierce chain mail at certain ranges, and even plate if the range was close and the arrow hit square. This same feat wouldn't have been possible with broadheads. They lack the penetration of bodkins, and are essentially useless against armor. However, a good flesh arrow can kill a horse with deadly efficiency and send a mounted knight to the ground, where unless he can get up, will probably be killed by a mace, axe, or dagger through a gap in the armor later on.
Other things to consider:
-Were they only expected to shoot, or would they be called on to fight in a shield wall as well? IE: Are they carrying swords/axes/maces, or not?
-If Robin Hood was returning from the Crusades in the middle east, he would definitely need a good pair of boots, or a horse. Possibly both.
Just my $.02
EDIT: I really hope you don't take this the wrong way, WillS, but I respectfully disagree on the matter of the bow choice. While it's very true that a shorter bow was much easier to maneuver in the forest, at the time European bowyers either chose not to or did not have the means/resources to make very short bows. The long, heavy bow we see come out of England in this time period was designed this way for a reason.
The warbow as it came to be called was more than just a hunting tool. It's purpose was to kill armored, possibly mounted enemies. In that case, you would need all the available power you could get. In the research I've done, an 80# bow seems to be on the lower end of the scale for adult longbows. Even in the 1100's (if that's when we're assuming robin hood lived) a heavy bow was the norm. Even the bows that came out of the viking age and around that period were estimated to be above 80#. At the time, the English were being assaulted from every side. The Scots and the Irish were routinely raiding into English territory, and other foreign parties were beginning to attack as well. Fully trained knights were in short supply. Almost every peasant man, however, could shoot a bow proficiently. As I said above, they had started from childhood and shot to the point where it was truly instinctive shooting.
And on the subject of length: Yes, it's true that these bows are very long. A warbow benefits from the thinner, longer design that was implemented at the time. I'll put it this way: I'm the most klutzy person in the woods, and I can still get around with a 74" bow without any trouble.
In short, I still firmly believe that the warbow would be the weapon of choice for our "Robin Hood" figure. I know that if I was a medieval archer, I would take the armor-defeating capability that came with the heavier bow. Short and light bows are wonderful when you're stalking deer, but when an army is charging down the hill at you, determined to kill you and everyone around you, I personally feel that I would be much more confident with a 120# longbow and steel bodkins than a 55# hunting bow.
Like I said, I really don't mean any disrespect at all. I just thought I'd throw my opinion (for all that it's worth) into the ring.
-
In short, I still firmly believe that the warbow would be the weapon of choice for our "Robin Hood" figure. I know that if I was a medieval archer, I would take the armor-defeating capability that came with the heavier bow. Short and light bows are wonderful when you're stalking deer, but when an army is charging down the hill at you, determined to kill you and everyone around you, I personally feel that I would be much more confident with a 120# longbow and steel bodkins than a 55# hunting bow.
Like I said, I really don't mean any disrespect at all. I just thought I'd throw my opinion (for all that it's worth) into the ring.
Agree entirely, apart from one thing (and again, this is just my opinion - none of us know!) - Robin Hood in the legends wasn't a soldier as such. He wasn't on the front line apart from perhaps in the crusades. He was a hunter/gatherer living his life within a forest. He just wouldn't need huge armour-piercing bows at massive draw-weights.
I like the idea that he would have discovered the short, light, powerful Asiatic bows during the crusades and brought one or two home with him. It makes sense to me!
-
In short, I still firmly believe that the warbow would be the weapon of choice for our "Robin Hood" figure. I know that if I was a medieval archer, I would take the armor-defeating capability that came with the heavier bow. <snip>
Agree entirely, apart from one thing (and again, this is just my opinion - none of us know!) - Robin Hood in the legends wasn't a soldier as such. He wasn't on the front line apart from perhaps in the crusades. He was a hunter/gatherer living his life within a forest. He just wouldn't need huge armour-piercing bows at massive draw-weights.
I like the idea that he would have discovered the short, light, powerful Asiatic bows during the crusades and brought one or two home with him. It makes sense to me!
I was once a soldier. We shot the M-16a2. A fine weapon. The guys on the other side were carrying AK-47's, which are fun too. I've shot and occassionally might be persuaded to carry either one now that I am home. If I'm gonna take on Nasty ole Nottingthamm, I might use either. At range I'd want my 16. It's just a lot more accurate. If I'm trying to ambush the buggar and blast through his windshield, hand me the AK. I expect Mr Hood might have been of a similar thought. Right tools for the job at hand!
OneBow
-
Good points, WillS and Onebow. As you said, Robin Hood is almost certainly just legend, though he might have been based on a real person. I suppose it's plausible that he might have taken an enemy bow and brought it home. Heck, I probably would have!
Onebow: Getting through windshields is why .338 lapua exists. /trollface.
-
If I am ambushing someone I am using something SILENT :p
heheheheh
I realisticly don't know carp about war and stuff, just some basic street smarts(e.g how to AVOID a fight ;)
Well, based on what Ive read (I am also a robin-hood fanatic) I think he shot a yew longbow, around #90, with broadheads and a hip quiver/ arrow bag-
Quote-
"Then Sir Richard had the packs laid upon the ground and opened,
whereupon a great shout went up that made the forest ring again, for lo,
there were tenscore bows of finest Spanish yew, all burnished till they
shone again, and each bow inlaid with fanciful figures in silver, yet
not inlaid so as to mar their strength. Beside these were tenscore
quivers of leather embroidered with golden thread, and in each quiver
were a score of shafts with burnished heads that shone like silver; each
shaft was feathered with peacock's plumes, innocked with silver.
Sir Richard gave to each yeoman a bow and a quiver of arrows, but to
Robin he gave a stout bow inlaid with the cunningest workmanship in
gold, while each arrow in his quiver was innocked with gold."
I found that in my book. Took me a while...
I assume that since he could pierce a deer easily, he shot a #90 warbow- I am saying this because (IMO) it is not comfortable nor easy to hold a bow over 100# and shoot very accurately- based on Saxton Pope's Hunting with the bow and arrow
His bow was quite powerful, we do know that.
Keep in mind this is my interpretation of a myth.
I would like to replicate robin hood's bow too, but maybe in the #75 range....
-
Asiatic Bows are practically made out of Hide Glue. Hide Glue doesn't do well in moist environment like england. Yew does well in a moist environment.
-
This is the problem with discussing somebody who didn't exist...!
On the one hand, it's far nicer to conjure up the image of Robin Hood using yew warbows, in the same way it's nice to conjure up fictional/fantastical Kings of England using swords that no man could wield and so on.
But you have to admit, when you take a step back and think about it, as a hunter traipsing through thick forest, a 90# warbow just doesn't work. He may well have had one stashed away for war, or when open conflict broke out somewhere, but as a primary weapon? Can't see it happening!
-
You obviously have your opinion on what you want Robin Hood to be like, and no one will say anything that will change your opinion. After years of historical reeenacting and research to find what was COMMON to a time period and place, to portray the BEST possible picture for public education, I believe that Mr. Hood would have had some sort of yew longbow. They have been making them in europe for thousands of years, and continued to do so long after they discovered composites from asia. A six foot plus bow is no hindrance in a BIG woods, I hunt with flintlocks that have 48" barrels, whereas most modern rifles have 20" barrels. I encounter no real problems from the length. You have to put your mind in the time period, if your fancy composite has issues, who will work on it, and yes, England is damp (well, wet), and that snappy little composite just won't like that. Just some more fuel for a fire that will never go out.
Kyle
-
You obviously have your opinion on what you want Robin Hood to be like, and no one will say anything that will change your opinion.
Not strictly true, and that implies that I'm being a bit pig-headed/narrow minded which I'm not. If I've come across that way I apologise! I'm more than willing to accept theories and thoughts on a fictional character who was probably just a composite of various local archers that became one legend about England.
The yew longbow was designed for war - large volleys over large distances. This doesn't make sense in a woodland/forest environment. If it did, all the guys in America who hunt on a regular basis would be using 80" warbows, wouldn't they?
The only conflicting opinion to mine is that he used a yew longbow, as compared to an Asiatic style recurve. I live in England, and I live about 5 minutes away from one of the biggest ancient forests in the country, the New Forest. I've wandered around with friends doing amateur 3D shooting, and I can tell you that my 74" yew longbow is a NIGHTMARE. I'm not particularly clumsy, and yet I came out after the first session having to strip all the finish off the bow and burnish/sand it to get a LOT of dings and knocks and gouges out. I don't use it any more really, because I'm a bit worried about a couple of them.
It's also not that wet over here. It's got a bit of humidity compared to the States of course, but we're not talking Borneo! I'm sure some clever bugger in the Crusades could quite easily find a bow that wasn't laminated with hide glue but still kept much of the recurve design used over there and brought it home without too much trouble, or once he got back to England commissioned somebody to make him something similar. There's also a good chance that he made one from yew - short, fast, flipped tips, medium draw-weight.
Bear in mind all the legends have him dancing up trees and sleeping in branches, setting quick ambushes and chasing after deer. Try it in any forest with a 74" longbow and see what happens... I know what I'd rather have!
-
The way I see it, there's no point talking about how he was a myth, a half myth or a real person. We don't have any hard facts. What I'm asking is what do YOU guys think he was. What do YOU think his equipment was?
Anyways... I don't see robin hood having a really heavy bow, because remember, he was a very good shot (to the point where if you were to shoot an arrow and completely split it, you robin hooded the arrow) and I don't think many people can shoot a heavy bow accuratley. But then again, back then, that was normal. But I think that maybe he would have used the lowest weight you can do and still have it called a warbow?
And shooting in the forests may or may not hinder your ability to shoot, it just matters where you are.
-
And I think that he could not have used an asaitic recurve, being that it is very reliant on hide glue. And, as we all know, hide glue doesn't like water. England gets alot of rain. ALOT of it.
-
Out of interest, why do you think he would have called it a warbow? When you consider that a "warbow" was a military-issued rocket launcher designed to send massive arrows a long way, what use is that in a forest?
I always saw Robin Hood as a sneaky, silent, quick and deadly ambush hunter. Primarily hunting animals, occasionally getting into scrapes with lightly armoured patrol units/rangers.
There was a fairly poorly made BBC show about Robin Hood released a couple of years ago. I'm sure you can get it online somewhere, but it shows Robin Hood (played by Jonas Armstrong) using a lovely little Asiatic style recurve. Here's a pic or two
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls5cayTKJY1qebqlto1_500.jpg)
(http://img.karaoke-lyrics.net/img/artists/19039/soundtrack-robin-hood-bbc-serial-14268.jpg)
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/content/images/2007/11/16/episode7_series2_01_470x313.jpg)
That looks right to me. And it being the latest (as far as I'm aware) production of Robin Hood, I would imagine all the latest research has been used for it.
P.S. You guys need to actually come to England before saying it's very wet. We get some rain, yes. So does the rest of the world. It's a bit of a myth that we live in a constant state of being underwater :P
-
:laugh:
I may have to do that some day, WillS. Come down there and get me some of that nice english yew you guys got! Hope you people keep an eye on your forests though. I may take it all! >:D
Do you guys happen to know the first book ever written about Sir Robin Hood?
-
I don't know the book, no.
You'll be here for a long time before you find English yew good enough for bows mate! If it was easy to find I wouldn't be using ash now ;)
-
:laugh:
I live in the midwest of the US, so... No yew here at all. We have Osage, I guess, but I've never seen it anywhere but fenceposts >:(
-
WillS, didn't they film Waterworld in downtown London? >:D
-
Hahahahaha!
-
WillS, didn't they film Waterworld in downtown London? >:D
Dammit. :(
-
The evidence that crusaders brought back, adapted, adopted, or otherwise imitated Asiatic bows is, as far as I know, zilch. On the other hand, the vast majority of what we consider western musical string instruments from violins to guitars are indeed an import from that place and time. From that, one could conclude that the conditions for preservation of information on period bows is reasonably complete enough to say that post-Crusade Englishmen used longbows and not any sort of composite Asiatic style bows.
tl;dr There is a lot of evidence of what Crusaders brought back from the Near East. Asiatic bows are not present in any of that evidence.
Also, the Robin Hood television program certainly did not use the latest research on material culture any more than the latest Viking program has. Nevertheless, that bow is hot as hell!
-
That's the jist of what I was thinking Darodalaf.
But then there's the weight of the bow, since A: It HAS to be light enough to be able to shoot accuratley and, B: Has to be heavy enough to pierce through chainmail with a bodkin tipped arrow.
What's the happy medium between these two?
So far, I've settled on making a ash bow (If I can find a good piece) with dog rawhide on the back.
I'm also going to be making a dozen razor broadheads, and a few bodkin tipped arrows, as I'm assuming that Robin Hood would have likely done that, being that he was a hunter/gatherer.
And lets refer to Robin Hood as though he was real? There's no point saying he may or may not have been real. So lets just say that he was a extremely skilled archer outlaw, because there were likely many of those...
-
WillS, didn't they film Waterworld in downtown London? >:D
Dammit. :(
I can't say much. Here in Alabama it has been raining constant lately. The river is flooded and everything is completely saturated. I'm getting tired of it. Supposed to rain again this weekend.
A quick Google search shows us in Alabama getting 58.28" on Average while London pulls a soaking 25.6". :o Wait.......I guess we win!!
Now back to Robinhood. Are you gonna wear tights when you get this bow made?
-
Hell yeah I will!
:laugh:
-
I'm sitting here thinking this:
"You should TOTALLY make a green contruction paper hat! And just put a turkey feather in it and BAM! Robin Hood."
-
And it being the latest (as far as I'm aware) production of Robin Hood, I would imagine all the latest research has been used for it.
There is an award winning documentary made by a German film company that explodes the myths of what really happened when European culture interacted with North American cultures. In the documentary you will see several adult Lakota teaching a Lakota youth how to shoot a bow. The setting is the 1600's representing Jamestown Colony. The bow is an amalgam of eastern woodlands designs in hickory with a Dacron b-50 string. The "father" draws the bow in a classic Mediterranean three finger/split finger draw, but with the arrow on the wrong side of the bow (UNCOUNTED takes before he got it drawn without the arrow falling off his hand). Off camera is the production company's armorer/bowyer desperately trying to coach the poor Native American that has never shot a bow before that morning. But the director is not having any of it because what does Whitey know about Native American archery? *sigh* At least I got paid for the day.
Even in our enlightened times, never let the facts get in the way of what you already "know"!
My favorite Robin Hood film is still "Men In Tights". At least someone with a real English accent finally got to play Robin!
-
WillS
I wasn't going to get involved with one but in the end I can't help myself as I respectfully cannot agree with your conclusions. Here's why...
1. The BBC Robin Hood was based on the latest historical research. Has anyone actually seen it? It’s about as factual as the Disney version
2. There is not much English/Welsh yew that will make good warbows. Well, only if you don't know where to look. Nicolas Frost obviously did, when Henry V sent him out to England and Wales to gather yew staves for the Agincourt Campaign. I've made loads from it.
3. Ash is a better option. Yes, it's easier to find but back then elm would have been chosen over ash and just as easy to find.
4. Composite bows were made and shot by the Romans in Britain. Bone parts in a finished and semi-finished state have been found in a fabrica in Caerleon. However, they had a massive infrastructure and central heating. They didn't live in a wood. Even if Robin wanted a composite bow, which I doubt, it would have come unstuck sooner or later. Read Hugh Soar's book about how animal glued fishtail spliced yew billet bows came apart quite often due to our climate.
-
I just finished an excellent "Robin Hood" account called Sherwood by Parke Godwin
I like it because they really work at the whole norman saxon thing rather than the return from the crusades aspect. It is a far more believeable accounting. I think it speaks to the advice here about the tree species and reinforces the basic english longbow model.
"In his telling of the Robin Hood legend, Godwin offers a fresh, intriguing version set 100 years earlier than usual, in the time of William the Conqueror. After the uprising against William is put down and his father is killed, Robin goes home to inherit his father's land and title. En route, he encounters Marian, who has lost her home and family. Robin finds carrying out the king's edicts intolerable and flees to Sherwood. Robin's men are outlaws, robbing the rich to give to the poor, but possess no special powers except their knowledge of the forest and skill with the bow. Opposing them initially is the Sheriff of Nottingham, here Ralf FitzGerald, a Norman knight depicted sympathetically. Godwin's tapestry interweaves the church, paganism, romance, treachery, violence, and everyday life. The result is believable and enjoyable with well-drawn characterizations."
-
Guys, consider that the Romans in Britain did use composite bows. There have been archeological finds that prove this, wet climate or not.
Look to some ancient Irish legends of Fin and the Fianna. I believe that these stories may have influenced Arthurian tales and the Robin legends. Finn MacCool or Finn mac Cumbhaill was a great warrior with an equally great band of followers. To become one of the band, you had to stand in a hole up to your waist and with only a shield and a stick, you had to fend off 9 spears thrown at you, and even a scratch would disqualify you. You had to jump over a stick your own height, and you had to duck under one at knee level. You had to remove a thorn from your foot with only a fingernail while running as fast as you could. You had to be able to recite poetry, and you had to take oaths that you could never break. They lived isolated in the forest from society and renounce home and family. It was a strictly male warrior society, so no Maid Marion.
I just read that Robin may have been based on a bandit named William of Kensham, aka Willikin of the Weald. And he may have been based on Norse gods, including one named Ull, Hollin, Holler, Oller, or Vulder, who was a god of archery.
Whoever Robin was, he was pretty good with his weapons. And this legend may go back far, far before William showed up and wacked Harold Godwinsson, if you can believe the William of Kensham who was apparently harassing and raiding the French in the wake of the invasion by the Normans.
PS Sorry Yeomanbowman, didn't see your comments. I agree with what you said about the Romans.
-
Funny enough i like to think i have an idea of what he looked like as i made a holloween costume for it last year
but more as a generic archer that ran in to some trouble,no flashy colours and he is a woods man so basic stuff
wool for most of his gear and animal hide for the rest.Thats the main thing that annoys me about most films he is wearing
top of the range gear and supposed to be living in the woods i just do not get it.
but i do like to stick to the classical robin hood and stories like the black arrow and the white company
The one problem with my gear at the moment is the hunting shirt is brand spanking new and clean as i only finished sewing it last week
from old curtins
sleeves are rolled up.brown linen one side the natural wool on the other
the pants are wool with oils put back in it and leather knees and upper legs to keep them water resistant and leather gaiters
the hood is oiled leather that was skinned of an old couch and goes half way down the back
the slowest prey is the easiest to catch
the cloak is just linen waxed and would probably be the most expensive thing to own for someone
and a nice little axe and knife and a couple of belt pouches
gear based around 1070-1120s ish
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eZSKyFsbq5E/UYwC_hDcWAI/AAAAAAAAAHM/k1kTQr9kzqA/w410-h570-no/1+test.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VWepnXrhgXU/UYwDIMRMJGI/AAAAAAAAAHU/6J5D-lLuXvI/w416-h570-no/2+test.png)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-fKYsHQucy5Y/UYwDORVWJtI/AAAAAAAAAHc/fcRusn9OKYQ/w393-h570-no/3+test.jpg)
-
Funny enough i like to think i have an idea of what he looked like as i made a holloween costume for it last year
but more as a generic archer that ran in to some trouble,no flashy colours and he is a woods man so basic stuff
wool for most of his gear and animal hide for the rest.Thats the main thing that annoys me about most films he is wearing
top of the range gear and supposed to be living in the woods i just do not get it.
but i do like to stick to the classical robin hood and stories like the black arrow and the white company
The one problem with my gear at the moment is the hunting shirt is brand spanking new and clean as i only finished sewing it last week
from old curtins
sleeves are rolled up.brown linen one side the natural wool on the other
the pants are wool with oils put back in it and leather knees and upper legs to keep them water resistant and leather gaiters
the hood is oiled leather that was skinned of an old couch and goes half way down the back
the slowest prey is the easiest to catch
the cloak is just linen waxed and would probably be the most expensive thing to own for someone
and a nice little axe and knife and a couple of belt pouches
gear based around 1070-1120s ish
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-eZSKyFsbq5E/UYwC_hDcWAI/AAAAAAAAAHM/k1kTQr9kzqA/w410-h570-no/1+test.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VWepnXrhgXU/UYwDIMRMJGI/AAAAAAAAAHU/6J5D-lLuXvI/w416-h570-no/2+test.png)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-fKYsHQucy5Y/UYwDORVWJtI/AAAAAAAAAHc/fcRusn9OKYQ/w393-h570-no/3+test.jpg)
You forgot to mention a fantastic beard to top it all off.
-
WillS
I wasn't going to get involved with one but in the end I can't help myself as I respectfully cannot agree with your conclusions. Here's why...
1. The BBC Robin Hood was based on the latest historical research. Has anyone actually seen it? It’s about as factual as the Disney version
2. There is not much English/Welsh yew that will make good warbows. Well, only if you don't know where to look. Nicolas Frost obviously did, when Henry V sent him out to England and Wales to gather yew staves for the Agincourt Campaign. I've made loads from it.
I respect all your points! I would never consider myself an expert, they were just my opinions. However, I would like to mention that I said from the outset that the program was "poorly made" and it was never intended as evidence or fact in this discussion. I just thought it interesting that they opted for the Asiatic style recurve as it complied with my belief also. And also, I too have used lots of fantastic quality English yew. Saying there wasn't any was a joke. I don't want somebody coming over and nicking it all...
I'm gonna be stubborn and pig headed in regards to this and stick with my theory (as that was the point of the thread and we'll never know anyway) that Robin Hood would have used short fast recurves made of English wood such as yew, as compared to big 6ft military issue war weapons. So humph. ;D
-
I will see your humph and raise you one harumph!
-
HARUMPHAMUPHHACKCOUGH
Why wouldn't a 6' "War Weapon" be out of the question? These were more than military-issued equipment; these archers would have literally grown up shooting this very type of bow, so why switch to a completely different weapons system that they don't know as well?
I'll relate this to an experience I had (albeit not with archery, but bear with me for a moment) a few months ago. I'm active in the shooting community, and many of the guys I shoot with are former military or law enforcement. As such, many are trained not only to be expert shots with a particular weapon, but to manipulate and control it as well. My buddy Stephen can shoot an AR like no one I've ever met; sub-second malfunction clearence, <1" groups at 100 yards, etc. Anyway, we met a guy who was running an M14 and let both of us shoot it. After twenty rounds at 50 yards, Steve was just barely holding a 6" group, and cursing it the whole time.
It's a stretch for a metaphor, yeah, but it addresses a certain point: If our fictional "Robin Hood" existed, IF he was indeed an English archer, and IF he was like other archers of the time period, there was no valid reason for him to switch to a different bow. To him, a 6' longbow would have been just as easy to shoot as any other, if not more.
-
Agreed. Until you're in dense woodland. Up a tree. Trying to be silent. With a 6ft warbow.
My humph sticks.
-
Agreed. Until you're in dense woodland. Up a tree. Trying to be silent. With a 6ft warbow.
If the tree structure permits, just grab a branch with your feet and teeth, and draw the bow >:D
Actually, it is surprisingly easy to shoot a long bow out of a tree(I have only tried a 65" oak linen back) as long as it has big, widely spaced branches with few twigs or other stuff. As long as you are only gonna be up for a little bit.
Keep in mind I am young, spry, and light, and it was only a 35 pounder with a 26" draw.