what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow

[alanesq]

Bow-toxo: I don't think anyone is claiming that the word "warbow" was used back then?
it is just a modern word used to describe the heavy draw longbows which were designed for use in war in days of old

[bow-toxo]

Bow-toxo: I don't think anyone is claiming that the word "warbow" was used back then?
it is just a modern word used to describe the heavy draw longbows which were designed for use in war in days of old

 Yes, that's true. My concern is that limiting the discussion to English bows that were used in war leaves us with only the Mary Rose bows, the only ones we have the physical evidence for and ignores mediaeval and Tudor information about practice bows, horn nocks, brace height, training methods, string type etc. etc. because it is of course not attached to the newly coined word 'warbow'.

[alanesq]

I see what you mean

I think any info relating to longbows from the medieval/tudor periods is relevant to warbow discussion because as you say there is so little info. out there

[Rod]

I fully understand the economics of stepping up through draw-weight with affordable bows, but I still believe that there are proper "war" bows and there are other bows of "war" bow weight.
Possibly a fine distinction, but a real distinction nonetheless.

That is until someone goes to war with heavy lawn archery bows made from non period hardwoods.   ;-)


Rod.

[alanesq]

As there is no official definition of "warbow" then its going to mean different things to different people

I personally think that having sidenocks is more important than using the correct wood

e.g. What the bow is made of makes little difference to the shooting experience so if all you have ever shot is a heavy laminate bow and someone hands you a true replica of a medieval warbow (or even a restored Mary Rose bow) you would have no problem using it
if you have never used sidenocks you may well find you don't know how to use it?

[Rod]

Obviously the nocks on the Mary Rose staves would seem to indicate that the side nock was favoured at that time for tillering, quite possibly they are also an indication that the horn nocks were cut through to the stave, which is more than possible with a shallow flush nock, as opposed to the flared or breasted nock common on later sporting bows, which makes a heavy bow harder to string.

Rod.

[bow-toxo]

Obviously the nocks on the Mary Rose staves would seem to indicate that the side nock was favoured at that time for tillering, quite possibly they are also an indication that the horn nocks were cut through to the stave, which is more than possible with a shallow flush nock, as opposed to the flared or breasted nock common on later sporting bows, which makes a heavy bow harder to string.
Rod.

I really doubt that the side nock traces are remnants of tillering nocks. Ascham tells os that the final nocks followed the bow being shot, shortened and whipped, which would eliminate any trace of tillering nocks. Certainly I personally prefer, whenever possible, to tiller a stave longer than the final length of the bow, especially  one of war bow weight. Horn nocks cut through to just touching the wood, make possible horn nocks of minimal thickness, making it easier to slip the string loop over the horn while avoiding damage to the really slender whipped ends. That's professionalism.

[gigmaster]

I don't know about historically, but mostly, when I see a bow listed as a 'Warbow', it doesn't have a wrapped handle. Most longbows have some kind of wrap on the handle. I don't know if this is significant or not. I have one of each: 1-60 lb longbow, and 1-80 lb warbow.

[Davepim]

It certainly appears that none of the Mary Rose bows had a handle-wrap, since no bow has any kind of mark at that point. Also medieval depictions of these bows never show any.  There are 2 possibilities; either it was considered an unnecessary expense, or the centre of the bow was just too fat to get your hand around when wrapped. Personally I favour the latter.

Dave

[adb]

I have both, but I prefer a larger handle. I must say, that a wrapped handle just wouldn't look proper on a yew warbow. I have a 100# trilam with a wrapped grip, and I do like it. To each their own.

[bow-toxo]

I don't know about historically, but mostly, when I see a bow listed as a 'Warbow', it doesn't have a wrapped handle. Most longbows have some kind of wrap on the handle. I don't know if this is significant or not. I have one of each: 1-60 lb longbow, and 1-80 lb warbow.

 There is noi example of handgrip wrapping on any mediaeval or Tudor longbows from the Stone Age onward. Ascham tells us that the bow was to be rubbed down with a waxed woolen cloth before shooting especially, on damp or cold days. Handgrip wrapping would interfere with that. Of course anyone can add handgrip wrapping, plastic nocks, different tillering, bow quiver, laminations or any other inappropriate or perverted variations and call it a warbow. There isn't any law.

[EnglishArcher]

I think people are coming at the draw-weight question from the wrong angle.  Everyone is asking "how much draw-weight can I pull?" when the question should be "how strong a bow is required to replicate the distances shot by a medieval/Tudor archer?"

My argument relies on two assumptions:

1) The statute of Henry VIII, that no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards, was put in place to enforce (and reinforce) military archery.
2) The 220 yard distance was shot with a military-standard arrow, or very similar

You may disagree with these assumptions. That can be the subject of separate discussions.

Acquire yourself a military arrow.  The EWBS Livery arrow is a pretty faithful representation of a MR arrow.  The arrow should weigh approx 65 - 70g, be 30"+ in length,  and have spiral-whipped fletchings, around 7.5" long.

The aim is to shoot that arrow statute distance - 220 yards.  With a self-bow.  Perhaps of "medieval" design.

A bow under 100lbs will almost certainly not reach the distance.  A very good 120lb bow, with a good archer may achieve the distance.  To consistently achieve, or exceed the statute distance requires a bow in excess of 120lb, and an archer fully comfortable with that bow (that is, well within his capabilities).

Evidence from EWBS (and other) shoot results seem to support this statement.

(As an aside: Many archers fail at this point, then start to look for evidence for a shorter 'medieval' yard (for example, the Pace) so they can say they've achieved the correct distance.  This is called changing the conditions of the test, or 'cheating'!)

So, if you want to shoot a 'war bow' (however you define that!) you need to be looking at the end result (how far, and how accurately, you can shoot a military arrow) as opposed to one rather simplistic metric (the bow weight).

I think you will find this a much more rewarding challenge than the brute-force and ignorance argument of "I can shoot a XXXXlb bow, therefore it's a warbow"

[Et_tu_brute]

A couple of things I'd say in response to that. Your first assumption that "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards" I believe is actually an incomplete part of the statement, I do not have access to the actual statute, but as I understand it it goes something like "no man should shoot at a distance less than eleven-score yards with prickling/flight arrows", an important difference I'd say.

Also in response to: "(As an aside: Many archers fail at this point, then start to look for evidence for a shorter 'medieval' yard (for example, the Pace) so they can say they've achieved the correct distance.  This is called changing the conditions of the test, or 'cheating'!)"

I can't really see how that could be construed as cheating? If indeed the medieval yard was shorter than the modern one then why should we not be measuring by that unit? After all if we wish to replicate Medieval requirements of military archers then why would we not use the original measurements of the time? It seems ridiculous not to do so, as wouldn't that be "changing the conditions for the test"?

[triton]

wouldn't the arrows look more or less the same? fr'instance: light pricking arrows - poplar, aspen - around 70 grams.
Heavy armour penetrating arrows - Ash, oak - around 100 grams. otherwise dimensions and appearance very similar?

[ChrisD]

Dave is right on the quote about prickling arrows and the 220yd statute - the fact is that no one knows what such an arrow would look like but arrows made to MR specs out of aspen and armed with hardened points which are the right weight to optimise flight (an important point this, no pun intended) don't come in at 70-75g or even near. Closer 60-65 if you apply some no nonsense scientific thought to it. Many bows in the 90-100lb range can achieve 220yd with this sort of weight.

I was at Leeds armouries on Thursday and was struck by the meagre diplays on archery related things - but one thing was obvious and that was that there is no relationship whatever between the modern replicas of equipment shown (doubtless informed by people who owe much of what they believe to some cloud cuckoo land concept of aerodymamics and arrow flight -  a good story for schoolkids but lets not buy it here) and the actual arrowheads shown - almost delicate, well made, no doubt hardened and clearly designed to do the job without making the arrow 'end heavy' beyond what was absolutely needed.

EWBS? Not a scientific organisation of which I'm aware and therefore can't comment on what they've discovered. I hear wonderful - almost magical things from them but without scrutineering or any authentication, can't possibly comment. I will say this though - get the facsimile arrows even a bit wrong, and the equipment you need to drive them will inevitably sky rocket.

C