Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Bueskytter on July 20, 2008, 03:51:15 pm
-
My interest in the military application of archery is more focused upon the Dark Age and the Early Middle Ages (particularly in Northern Europe i.e Scandinavia and Britain) , from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476CE till the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. From what I gather the bows application was very different than the time of the Hundred Years War and the Mary Rose.
The Viking Age Norse seemed to have avoided massed battle, preferring more of a skirmish. The longbow saw widespread usage in naval battles also. This seems to me to suggest a different technique than the shooting-in-the-bow and drawing to the ear that we associate with medieval archery.
Depictions from the period (i.e the Bayeux Tapestry, the Franks Casket, illuminated manuscripts) seem to show them shooting from the chest. In my experience this is woefully inaccurate and is in stark contrast to the accuracy accounted in the literary sources (such as Gunnar's defense of Hlidarend in Njal's Saga, or the feats of Einar in Olav Tryggvasson's saga). In a small scale skirmish or naval battle I can't see such a draw having much value when the shooting must have been more similar to target archery than loosing a hail of arrows en masse.
I was just curious as to everyone elses views on this.
-
Good question. I too researched this period when I was part of a group that reenacted the middle and dark ages.
First off, shooting from the chest is not inaccurate. With practice, an archer can master the technique and be accurate at hunting/fighting ranges. If you're shooting for distance, then shooting en masse is better anyway. Furthermore, if you've ever tried shooting while wearing a helmet with a nasal tang or face guard, you'll appreciate the efficiency of the technique. Also, powerful bows are more easily drawn to the chest (actually there is as much "pushing" as there is pulling....and pushing the bow while your had is anchored to your chest is easier than the alternative).
Drawing to the face (or ear) is a technique that has been hammered into our heads for so long (and with such force) that we have become completely senseless. Just try drawing your arrow to the chest at an archery meet and watch as the archery zombies converge on your location.....drooling over "fresh meat" and desiring to make you into a zombie as well. ;)
Seriously, archery has gone through many stages of fashion over the centuries. In the manuscripts, we are seeing a small perspective of the whole. IMO, all the various forms of archery were practiced by Norse archers: volley fire, "target" shooting, short range shots during a melee, etc. Whatever got the job done.
It has been documented that armies during the period you described were quite small...more like bands of warriors than armies of professional soldiers. The closest parallel in modern times would be militia forces. With this in mind, archery was probably highly subject to the skill of the individual archer....less skilled archers using crude bows (like the Hedeby examples) and the elite using Holmegaard type bows.
-
I too am interested in that period. Shooting with a longbow is a different matter than shooting with a smallbow. As a longbow is long enough to draw to the ear, that was the recorded nethod in mediaeval France and England as well as the earlier Byzantine empire, where Norsemen served in the Varangian Guard. The Hedeby bow and the Balinderry bow, the only complete Viking bows we have, are longbows. Unfortunately they were not found with the arrows that were used with them. Smallbows were shorter with shorter arrows and were adapted to a draw to the chest or the face.It is surprising how well one can hit with them with a little practice. I can draw more poundage to the ear than to the chest and find the smallbow more suitable for short range shooting. There is no evidence that Vikings used anything resembling Holmegaard stone age bows. Archery was very popular with the aristocrats. In a Scandinavian museum I once saw a complete [except for fletching] Viking arrow, barreled , with a forked head and a spread nock. If you run across it, please send me the measurements.
-
You're right, Bow-Toxo, there is no evidence that the Homlegaard design was used by vikings. (I've got to remind myself not to jump to conclusions....but I can dream, can't I? ;D).
The majority of the physical evidence (and opinions) points to longbows as the preferred weapons....bows that can be made from small diameter saplings cut from coppice farms. However, how long do you think it would take for those alpha males (in the aristocracy) to discover that pyramid flatbows shoot better than long sticks?
Anyway, in the final analysis, it may turn out that composite bows (from the Near East) were the weapon of choice....especially when you look at the arrowhead artifacts from the viking era. The arrowheads were leaf shaped and tanged: a design commom among the Romans and Near East archers.
-
Woah . . . I think we're speculating far too much. There has been what could be a thumb-ring found in Iceland, and fragments which could be composite bows found in Birka, Sweden. Birka was THE trading capital of the viking lands and as such many weird and wonderful things have been found there from other cultures, such trade items (i.e animals, wine, silk and beads) would be extremely expensive - trinkets of the ultra rich. I personally don't believe such things were more than curiosities, vikings were particularly fond of exploration. Art from the viking age depicts peacocks and lions and other trade items, but a composite bow has never been depicted.
There is little literary evidence for eastern style composite bows being used, except that Hunbogi (Hunnish Bow) is a name that is encountered once or twice in the sagas. Yet longbows are depicted often.
I don't for a second believe that Holmgaard style bows were by the vikings, the bow design was about 6000 years old. It was a lost technology by the Viking Age. Also I'm disinclined to believe that the longbow is inferior to the flatbow, a single study in the early 20th century showed it performed marginally better, but that study probably wouldn't stand up to modern scientific standards. Also the longbow has superior elements to the flatbow, for example a longbow utilises the backmuscles far more when drawing than a flatbow which should pointing at the target before drawing, it uses less wood in the width meaning more bows can be made per peice of lumber, the greater length makes it stack better.
The tanged, leaf-shaped arrowheads are common to the Anglo-Saxons and the Franks also. The Norse used many kinds of arrowheads not just this, barbed arrowheads, triangular broad heads, trefoil heads, and even points resembling a sort of proto-bodkin have been found.
If the eastern composite bows were expensive imports coveted by the upper classes they would almost certainly have been buried with their owner, yet not even a fragment of them exists in burials (which composite bows often leave due to their, erm, composition).The evidence suggests that longbows, and longbows alone, were the preferred ranged armament of the Norse.
-
Speculation? Me? I know it’s annoying....I have rejected my college training. >:D
Anyway, back to the discussion.
Although I have read some of them and find them fascinating, I do not place any value on the sagas. The earliest copies we have were written well after 1066 (mostly during the 13th century) and reflect contemporary fashion (and bias).
I do not consider the age of the holmegaard bow to be an issue in this discussion. How old is the holmegaard design? Is that one artifact the measure of the age of that technology? How old is the longbow design? Which design do you think predates the other? The holmegaard may have indeed been a lost technology, and many examples of lost technology exist, but technology tends to be lost when the need is lost. What caused the loss of the need for well-made bows?
About the Hedeby bow: I do not consider it to be a “true” longbow (from the persepective of a bow maker) other than the fact that the bow is long (192cm). And there are SEVEN bows: one complete and six fragments....which means we can only be sure of the length of ONE of the bows. Further, all have side nocks and all have tips that are bent toward the belly side!. The complete bow appears to be reflexed (although we can’t be sure) and the tips do not taper to a point. The bow also does not appear to have a weight of greater than 90lb. Finally, the performance of the Hedeby bow would be quite different from a “true” longbow that we are all familiar with: in terms of limb vibration, dry fire speed, and early draw weight.
And, if I may, a few questions:
What evidence do you have to support the idea that the flatbow is not superior to the longbow? Have you researched the latest advances in selfbow construction? Many things have come to light in just the last few years.
Do you have to draw a composite bow with a thumb ring? Is that the only method of shooting such a bow?
Do you know for a fact that the bows depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry are not composite bows of some sort?
How many long bows have been found buried with their Viking owners?
Do you dismiss the influence of Roman archery on the Vikings (or the Saxons, or Franks)?
Do you fart in the general direction of composite bow archers?
(Sorry for that last one). ;D
-
Speculation? Me? I know it’s annoying....I have rejected my college training. >:D
Heh, that's my problem I'm still in University. :D
Although I have read some of them and find them fascinating, I do not place any value on the sagas. The earliest copies we have were written well after 1066 (mostly during the 13th century) and reflect contemporary fashion (and bias).
True, there are biases and anachronistic elements in the sagas and they were written post-fact. However they were written down from oral traditions and familial history, particularly among the Icelanders, was of utmost importance to the Norse. These were not novels, but a stylised representation of history.
I do not consider the age of the holmegaard bow to be an issue in this discussion. How old is the holmegaard design? Is that one artifact the measure of the age of that technology? How old is the longbow design? Which design do you think predates the other? The holmegaard may have indeed been a lost technology, and many examples of lost technology exist, but technology tends to be lost when the need is lost. What caused the loss of the need for well-made bows?
The holmegaard bow is considered to be about 9000 years old. The Meare Heath bow about 6000 years old. The longbow design is thought to be 10000 years old, the flatbow is much older than the longbow and clearly there was an overlap in the tiem frame of their use but one design eventually replaced the other - this doesn't happen without good reason.
About the Hedeby bow: I do not consider it to be a “true” longbow (from the persepective of a bow maker) other than the fact that the bow is long (192cm). And there are SEVEN bows: one complete and six fragments....which means we can only be sure of the length of ONE of the bows. Further, all have side nocks and all have tips that are bent toward the belly side!. The complete bow appears to be reflexed (although we can’t be sure) and the tips do not taper to a point. The bow also does not appear to have a weight of greater than 90lb. Finally, the performance of the Hedeby bow would be quite different from a “true” longbow that we are all familiar with: in terms of limb vibration, dry fire speed, and early draw weight.
I shoot a Hedeby replica and the tops of the limbs are somewhat deflexed. As to whether it is a "true longbow" depends upon your definition of a long bow: According to the BLBS pretty much anything but the Victorian longbow isn't a true longbow. Many warbow enthusiasts would tell you that the Mary Rose type is the only "true longbow". Pip Bickerstaffe says that to the medieval archer a longbow was any bow that is not a crossbow :D .
Along with my Hedeby replica I own a victorian style, horn-nocked, target longbow and the way they shoot isn't much different but the hedeby bow certainly is cruder and feels it. They aren't nearly as dissimilar as say a recurve and a longbow or a longbow and a flatbow.
And, if I may, a few questions:
You may ;D .
What evidence do you have to support the idea that the flatbow is not superior to the longbow? Have you researched the latest advances in selfbow construction? Many things have come to light in just the last few years.
Personal experience mainly. As much as I love the history of the longbow and the feelings the weapon evokes I would be to admit it as inferior if I thought it was. A compound and recurve are, for example, technically superior and I have no illusions about that.
I've shot flatbows, including a Meare heath replica as well as Native American replicas, and have found that at heavy weights stacking is a real problem whereas it wouldn't be with a longbow. Scientifically speaking a flatbow may be more efficient in storing and releasing energy but in use I find a longbow much preferable. I find it more stable, the extra length makes for a superior weapon and has a much greater presence in the hand. Also I think the longbow design is better at handling heavy weights, ever hear of a 200lb flatbow?
Do you have to draw a composite bow with a thumb ring? Is that the only method of shooting such a bow?
Do you know for a fact that the bows depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry are not composite bows of some sort?
The asiatic draw pretty much requires a thumb ring with draw weights past 35#, I've tried without and it's painful. You could of course use a mediterranean draw but for proper distribution across the shorter string the asiatic draw is ideal.
The English bows seem to be very much longbows. A Breton archer depicted though does have a recurve bow, but it looks like a piece of wood that has been heat treated not a composite.
How many long bows have been found buried with their Viking owners?
The majority of viking age graves are accompanied by arrowheads, one can only assume there were bows and shafts also which must have rotted. Wood is an easily perishable material, the right conditions are required to preserve it which explains why no bows survive from the High Middle Ages when their usage was most prolific.
Horn on the other hand is hardy, a lot of drinking horns, cups, bowls, jewelry, et cetera have been found. Why no composite bow limbs in grave finds if they were the ultimate bow for the vikings?
Do you dismiss the influence of Roman archery on the Vikings (or the Saxons, or Franks)?
I'd say the Romans drew more influence from the Germanic peoples in archery than vice versa, they preferred heavy infantry and seemed to have disdained archery more than anything. The Germanics however were quite esteemed archers and valued it as both a tool for hunting and war. The English didn't care much for the bow during the earliest middle ages, and used it only on a small scale (much to the surprise of the Normans who ran out of arrows at the Battle of Hastings, having expected some to be fired back). So, yeah, I'm pretty dismissive of it, the Romans borrowed most of their weaponry and military ideas from the cultures they came into contact with.
Do you fart in the general direction of composite bow archers?
Not at all, I just fail to see it as a superior bow on foot (see my earlier comments on stacking, stability, and the advantage of length). Mounted yes, on foot no. As for the flatbow it has its positives and negatives but, generally speaking, the longbow was a military-oriented improvement.
-
Speculation? Me? I know it’s annoying....I have rejected my college training. >:D
Anyway, back to the discussion.
Although I have read some of them and find them fascinating, I do not place any value on the sagas. The earliest copies we have were written well after 1066 (mostly during the 13th century) and reflect contemporary fashion (and bias).
If you reject such histories as remain to us, you really limit sources of informatiion.
I do not consider the age of the holmegaard bow to be an issue in this discussion. How old is the holmegaard design? Is that one artifact the measure of the age of that technology? How old is the longbow design? Which design do you think predates the other? The holmegaard may have indeed been a lost technology, and many examples of lost technology exist, but technology tends to be lost when the need is lost. What caused the loss of the need for well-made bows?
Wow ! If you also reject dated archaeological remains, that pretty much leaves only your fertile imagination for reconstruction.
About the Hedeby bow: I do not consider it to be a “true” longbow (from the persepective of a bow maker) other than the fact that the bow is long (192cm). And there are SEVEN bows: one complete and six fragments....which means we can only be sure of the length of ONE of the bows. Further, all have side nocks and all have tips that are bent toward the belly side!. The complete bow appears to be reflexed (although we can’t be sure) and the tips do not taper to a point. The bow also does not appear to have a weight of greater than 90lb. Finally, the performance of the Hedeby bow would be quite different from a “true” longbow that we are all familiar with: in terms of limb vibration, dry fire speed, and early draw weight.
I,a bow maker, consider the Hedeby bow to be as "true"a longbow as any.With the Balinderry bow we have the length of TWO bows. I am wondering what kind of "true" longbow you are going on about? The bent non-pointed tips the 90 pound draw weight make the Hedeby bow what kind of a bow?
And, if I may, a few questions:
What evidence do you have to support the idea that the flatbow is not superior to the longbow? Have you researched the latest advances in selfbow construction? Many things have come to light in just the last few years.
Hey, the topic is Norse shooting technique. Let's at least stick with models?the Norse part. What is the latest? Do you mean the Victorian models?
Do you have to draw a composite bow with a thumb ring? Is that the only method of shooting such a bow?
See above.
Do you know for a fact that the bows depicted in the Bayeaux Tapestry are not composite bows of some sort?
Do you know anything for a fact?
How many long bows have been found buried with their Viking owners?
One. The Balinderry bow.
Do you dismiss the influence of Roman archery on the Vikings (or the Saxons, or Franks)?
The only Roman influence I know of is the draw to the ear the Byzantines learned from the Huns.
Do you fart in the general direction of composite bow archers?
(Sorry for that last one). ;D
-
Bow-Toxo....yes, I must have no obstructions for my fertile imagination.....especially dates. ;)
So far, it appears that we are still divided on the question of whether or not the longbow was favored by the Norse (in war). From a military perspective, I believe that the Vikings most often used short bows. Here are my reasons:
1. The longbow seems to be in its initial stages of development as a weapon of war during the Viking era.....whereas the short bow had been used (and well developed) by all major powers for many centuries prior to the Viking era. I consider the Hedeby bow to be a "stick" bow: it is a simple weapon and it does not have the refinements that make it a longbow. A true longbow is designed for long range fire of very heavy arrows.
2. Short bows are easier to transport.
3. The Bayeaux Tapestry depicts short bows.
4. This "model" is going to make Bow-Toxo very angry. ;D
-
1. Again this depends upon your view of what a longbow is. You seem to define it as the warbow of later ages. What use would a 9th century Norseman have for such a bow and heavy arrows? Most of his foes would have been without armour and those that were (this would be rare as only one piece of mail, found in Gjermundbu, exists from the viking age) would be wearing mail, a heavy warbow and heavy arrows would be unnecessary.
Personally I define a longbow as a bow with a D section, of roughly equivalent or greater height to its bearer, which is not significantly reflexed or deflexed. The viking age bows discovered all fit this definition.
2. So are carriage bows and takedowns, doesn't mean the vikings used them.
3. The Bayeux tapestry is highly stylised, an accurate measure of proportion wasn't a critical issue in medieval art.
(http://www.18inchfly.net/combat-archery/includes/bayeux-arch-1.jpg)
This is a picture of a Breton archer from the Bayeux tapestry, his bow seems to be slightly recurved at the top limb and when unbraced probably equal in height to himself - hardly short.
Also, the Anglo-Saxons were not vikings. They fought very differently, although they were from the same Scandinavian stock. Drawing conclusions about viking warfare from an image which doesn't depict them, but rather their close cousins, is a pretty lame method.
-
Your argument is loosing steam....too early for you? ;)
The Ballinderry bow argument is actually more compelling than your criticism of my latest comments. ;D
My view of a what a longbow is rests on the characteristics and performance of the weapon. Yes, the warbow is what I consider a longbow. It is, after all, called a warbow....a bow of war.....no? And what Viking would say...."No, I do not wish to use a bow that will fire heavy arrows at a great distance! A soldier does not need such a bow! Give me that farmer's bow!!!"?
And those archers in your picture are Normans. The Bretons are facing the other way......maybe you missed your morning coffee?
Actually, I'm being argumentative and unreasonable on purpose. I wish to bring out compelling arguments supporting the use of archery by Vikings....because I'm very interested in the subject. In a lame sort of way. ;D
-
Bueskytter, I went back and read your original post....let me see if I understand: You are basically saying that the Norse favored a "target archery" approach, using bows of long length, and drawing to the face with and anchor point below the eye?
I agree that bows of long length were used in this way during the Viking era....I cannot dispute that. My dispute is with the idea that Vikings (or Norse soldiers in general) used this style of archery during combat.
-
No, I'm saying that in a skirmish where one isn't blindly firing in the enemies general direction but instead picking a target (as can be read in Gunnar's defense of Hlidarendi in Njal's Saga) a chest draw doesn't seem as accurate as a modern target archery draw. I'm not saying they used a modern draw but instead am questioning why they used a chest draw.
-
Well, I've thought about this for a while (and looked at several ancient paintings, sculptures, and statues) and the simple answer is that I do not know why a Norse archer would use a chest draw.
From the limited information we have, there are two things that might be reasons:
1. The Norman archers using a chest draw seem to be in motion. I have personally fired a bow while running and it's difficult to fire the bow using an anchor point on the face....but easily drawn to the chest. The "always in motion" style of fighting fits with the Viking concept of war.
2. To avoid entanglement of equipment...like chin straps, etc.
In any case, it is most likely that the shooting technique (and the type of bow) varied with the situation. ;D
-
Rather than trying to decypher Jackcrafty's fantasy definitions, let's use the definitions as used in the Middle Ages or Renaissance
A bow other than a crossbow is a handbow.
A longbow is a handbow other than a flatbow that can take a draw to the ear or longer. It may have a D, an oval, a lenticular.a trapezoidal, or a rounded rectangular section.
A warbow is an especially strong longbow.
A smallbow is a handbow shorter than a longbow. It may have heatbending.
Both longbows and smallbows have been in use since the stone age. Otzi garried a longbow, and the Danish bog finds had lots of longbows. The big advantage of a longbow is that it has the mass to cast a heavier arriow and weight=penetration.
Surprise ! { mine at least] A point for jackcrafty ! I also find that the Bayeux Tapestry shows smallbows. My longbows, made to mediaeval standards for my size, are 5'11" between nocks. My smallbow, also by mediaeval standards, is 4'8" between nocks. With my height of 5'8" it fits the figures in the tapestry middle if not the margins.
That being said, I am losing interest in what jackcrafty considers a "true" longbow. The"anchor point below the eye" comment makes it clear that teaching him the basics would take more time than I can afford to waste. Btw "Breton' means a person from Brittany, not Britain.
-
Btw "Breton' means a person from Brittany, not Britain.
I know, it says on the tapestry in Norman French that William used Breton archers. So, I can only assume the archers depicted on the Norman side are Bretons.
-
If it was not painfully obvious than I'm ignorant, Bow-Toxo has put his stamp of approval on the idea. (Thanks)
( ;D Look Mom! I'm a certified dumbass ;D)
(Bueskytter, my apologies for the misunderstanding of "Bretons")
Now let's move on.....
The idea of a "true" longbow is worthless, I agree. For the sake of clarity, I will be using the term "longbow" in the current politically correct manner.
Are we any closer to answering the question posed by our gracious host? I think not. One the one hand we have physical evidence of the Norse using longbows during the Viking era. We also see a tradition of longbow use and an affection for the weapon in the sagas. But, on the other hand, we have this document called the Bayeaux Tapestry that seems to contradict the "mainstream" view. Hence, we have the question: What was the Norse shooting technique?
As I stated earlier, I believe the short bow (smallbow) was an established weapon and used by soldiers of many countries for many centuries prior to the year 1066. I believe the Norse (Bretons) used this weapon in the battle of Hastings. But this still does not address the issue of shooting technique. A smallbow can be shot using the same technique as a longbow, provided the smallbow can withstand the strain of a long draw....which leads into the next question: Why draw to the chest? It may be as simple as, "The smallbow has a much shorter draw than the longbow...especially if it is NOT a composite type bow". Even though I would like to imagine that the Vikings used Asiatic style composite bows, it is very likely they did not.
Then there is the issue of the power needed to be an effective weapon against armored opponents. I think we can all agree that 80-90lb is sufficient strength to pierce mail at combat ranges and that 80-90lb is within the design capabilities of both longbows and smallbows made from saplings of yew, ash, or elm.
So, in conclusion, I think the shooting technique was dictated by the bow itself and that various self bows were used by the Norse.
PS...Bow-Toxo, you don't have time to teach me the basics? (chuckle) I know this: basically, you need to get over yourself. ;D
-
How would you characterise the shooting techniques in these pictures? Please explain the differences. Perhaps one technique is more "Norse" than the other?
(Pictures taken from article in PA, by Pip Bickerstaffe)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
There have been found a few viking arrows in the Oppdal mouintains, complete with shaft, point and birch bark for the lashing of the point. One is 27" long. No eardraw there, but those were for hunting. Hunting equipment could be quite different to warbows, as they were in the medieval period (Malde 2008 (me ;D)).
-
How would you characterise the shooting techniques in these pictures? Please explain the differences. Perhaps one technique is more "Norse" than the other?
(Pictures taken from article in PA, by Pip Bickerstaffe)
I'd be carefull there. They are very old pictures of Mark shooting and his style has changed markedly since then. The pictures here represent someone in the process of rediscovering a technique and are not an absolute technique in itself. If you look at the bottom picture in particular you'll notice its a short arrow. To say Mark is shooting a 'Norse' technique would be seriously in error and I wouldn't make any claims as to either of them being a norse technique because that is not what he was developing.
I know you've got an interesting debate going on here but these photo's do not represent the argument at hand :-\
-
Nick1346, thanks for the reply...for a while there I thought this thread had run its course.
It's been probably seven years since I fired a longbow...and it's been longer than that since I researched anything on the subject at hand. Could you direct me to the proper forums, videos, (or whatever) so I can get up to speed? I really don't know what the heck you guys are talking about concerning the "eardraw" thing. I've heard of it, of course, but I thought the technique was not in widespread use until much later than 1066. :-\
-
We haven't found a Norse bow and arrow together. In Hedeby enough remained of a quiver to show it was two feet long. Projecting shaftments would add at least another six inches, but we don't know what length of arrowheads would have been in it. Nydam longbows and arrows fit a draw to the ear, which was common throughout the Middle Ages and until the middle of the nineteenth century when changes in shooting practices led to development of the famous corner of the mouth draw that many of today's archers can't bring themselves to give up. For Norse technique we can look to the closest cultures we know about. That would be:- Draw to the chest [ especially with smallbows' shorter arrows] or draw to the ear. Instinctive aiming. Some good tips for that on the English longbow forum, or google " instinctive."
-
Bow-toxo, from where do you have the term "shortbow"? I haven't come across any references to such bows, either in text or in archaeological remains. From 1100 in Norway and Sweden we can talk about short bows (two-wood bows), but not for the vikings. If you are refering to hornbows, I would not regard it as a reliable analogy for longbow-shooting cultures.
-
Bow-toxo, from where do you have the term "shortbow"? I haven't come across any references to such bows, either in text or in archaeological remains. From 1100 in Norway and Sweden we can talk about short bows (two-wood bows), but not for the vikings. If you are refering to hornbows, I would not regard it as a reliable analogy for longbow-shooting cultures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I used the term "smallbow" not "shortbow" The recipe for the length is in Le Livre de Chasse, a mediaeval French book on hunting.The term small bow was written in the time of Richard II, and in another Hundred Years War reference concerning the Earl of Desmond. I know of no remaining smallbows, so we have to go by the many manuscript illustrations, some from Norway, that show them.The illumination of the Viking execution of Saint Edmund shows boww with the bent back tips that may represent smallbows which were used mainly in hunting, sometimes in war. The two-wood bows I am familiar with are not short, but about the height of a man. Anyway they are of Lapp [sorry] or"Finn" manufacture although Vikings named ''Finnbogi" may have used them. They are much like bows of northern Russian Asiatic tribes such as the Ostjak.
-
Interesting stuff. If they are mentioned in Richard II's time (1367-1400), it might be the short type B two-wood bow. The Maciejowski Bible has a few illustrations that may well be such bows. The medieval type Bs were probably between 140 and 160 cm long, much shorter than the 2m+ type A. But then again, the most southern find of these two-wood bows are from Oslo (or perhaps Novgorod is further south?).
Cut from my masters thesis:
The type B to the right, type A in the middle, and a longbow to the left for comparison.
(http://kviljo.no/bue/twb.jpg)
Smallbow may perhaps even be a description for a small crossbow, after all, if the term comes from a book from the fourtheenth century it is regarding the higher classes from the later part of the medieval period, and even from France*. I doubt that those guys would degrade themselves by shooting a cheap handbow :)
-
Apart from northern Scandinavia we have no evidence for two-wood bows in Europe before the backed bows of post-Tudor times. The Maciejowski Bible bowws are however strikingly similar to Asian composites and two-wood bows. I think the jury is still out on those. I have made up bows and arrows from the clearly described Le Livre de Chasse recipe and they match the original illustrations from the first printing. Why would you bring up two-wood bows, a northern Asian idea in an area known for self bows ? Your "type b" is certainly the Finn bow type. What is the one in the middle ?
It is apparently a flatbow. What is its origin ?
-
I see, so they are clearly not crossbows then? What's the general description of the bow? I'll have to get myself a copy of that document!
I wouldn't call the two-wood bows asian. They might have their origin there, but the technology was adapted and developed into the type A which has only been found in Norway. There are 57 fragments in total, mainly from Bergen, Oslo and Trondheim, which have been dated to between 1100 and 1500. It's a longbow made with two-wood technology, birch and compression pine. I wrote about them and made some reconstructions in connection with my masters thesis that I finished this spring. They haven't been studied fully before, so I'm hoping to publish at least some english articles concerning them, if not the complete thesis. I'll just have to translate it first, hehe...
http://kviljo.no/bue/nydam2/1.jpg (http://kviljo.no/bue/nydam2/1.jpg)
http://kviljo.no/bue/nydam2/7.jpg (http://kviljo.no/bue/nydam2/7.jpg)
-
Le Livre de Chasse specifies an arrow of 8 'poignees' [fists] from nock to barbs of a broadhead 4 fingers eide by 5 fingers long. The bow is to be 20 'poulcees' [ thumbs, tip to second joint] between nocks, and to be braced at a palm's width of height. I think you can find the contemporary illustrations on the web.
I am very interested in your Norse two-wood bows, which I have not previously known about. I assume this is a new discovery. I have a Norwegian book on ancient archery that does not mention it. How can I get information?
-
Ahh, way cool! :) Is it these illustrations you were thinking of?
http://classes.bnf.fr/phebus/images/3/c80_616.jpg
http://classes.bnf.fr/phebus/images/3/c76_616.jpg
http://classes.bnf.fr/phebus/images/3/c73_616.jpg
http://classes.bnf.fr/phebus/images/3/c71_616.jpg
The type A two-wood bow has been known since 1972 in Oddmunn Farbregds "Pilefunn fra Oppdalsfjella", but they haven't been studied closely until now. So I guess you'll have to wait till I get the time to print my masters thesis. I can resereve a copy for you if you want, but it is written in Norwegian. :-\ Hoping to write some smaller english articles on them though.
-
Ahh, way cool! :) Is it these illustrations you were thinking of?
The type A two-wood bow has been known since 1972 in Oddmunn Farbregds "Pilefunn fra Oppdalsfjella", but they haven't been studied closely until now. So I guess you'll have to wait till I get the time to print my masters thesis. I can resereve a copy for you if you want, but it is written in Norwegian. :-\ Hoping to write some smaller english articles on them though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, those are the ones, especially the last one. Please reserve me a copy, I worked in Norway and Sweden for over a year and could once read a book in Norsk. Maybe I still can.
-
According to the Joonian bow axion, bow more that 25cm (10") shorter than its user is shortbow. Any bow longer that is is longbow.
It has been written.
-
According to the Joonian bow axion, bow more that 25cm (10") shorter than its user is shortbow. Any bow longer that is is longbow.
It has been written.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post has also been written. Where and when does the '"Joonian bow axion? " come from ?
-
[quote author=jackcrafty link=topic=8175.msg115583#msg115583 date=1216820707t the "mainstream" view. Hence, we have the question: What was the Norse shooting technique?
PS...Bow-Toxo, you don't have time to teach me the basics? (chuckle) I know this: basically, you need to get over yourself. ;D
[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than tell other people what they need to do, it might be more profitable to give yourself instructions. You can avoid embarrassment by cupping a hand over your ear so that people will think you are advising some loser on your cellphone.[chuckle]