what lbs makes it a warbow insted of a longbow

[Rod]

Whilst it is obvious that a "warbow" should be a heavy bow, such draw-weights are not necessarily an absolute guide to the intended use since heavy hunting bows are known to go up to the 100lb range, even if today most bowhunters think 50lb to 60lb "normal" and 70lb to 80lb "heavy".

It is understandable that there is a focus on achieving high draw-weight, but there is what you can pull, and what you can control and this has always been so, in any style and at every level.

I am not suggesting that the misguided notions of those "warbow" critics who scoff at weights that they cannot themselves draw should be accepted, but there is a kernel of truth behind this attitude and IMHO it should not be forgotten in the emphasis on achieving higher draw-weights.

Rod.

[bow-toxo]

Just a personal view, but IMHO weight alone does not a "warbow" make.
I don't even care for the term.

In it's heyday it was just a "bowe", even the term "longbow" had no currency until it was used to distinguish a "longbow" from a "crossbow".

What do you think?

Rod.

 Like you, I don't care for the newfangled term. Bows have been used in war for centuries before the Mary Rose. Most bows from the Roman period Danish bogs woulld draw less than 100 pounds but were found with bodkin pointed arrows that were used only in war. So is a warbow any bow that was ever used in war or do we want to consider only the exceptionally powerfull Tudor bows ? We really need a definition of the word, hopefully a better one than the BLBS definition of "longbow". BTW, the word 'handbow' was used to distinguish from a 'crossbow'. The word 'longbow' [long bow] distinguished it from the shorter handbow, the'smallbow'. At least that was the mediaeval terminology.

[Rod]

It is a question where I would try to keep an open mind.
There have been tribal cultures who make a distinction between a hunting bow and a heavier "war"bow.
One such was the Cherokee nation who used bows in the 70lb range for hunting but went up to the 100lb range for a fighting bow.

Looking at warbow cultures where there is a written record, we only have information where archery was an activity of the literate classes, which lets out the post Roman european bow until Gaston Phoebus' "Livre de Chasse" or Ascham.

Where the literature is extensive the median for infantry bows appears to be in the 120lb to 150lb range, somewhat less for the smaller cavalry bows, from 90lb to 120lb.
Not to say that the weaker men might not have drawn lighter bows and some strong men might not have used heavier, but in terms of manageability and penetration they do seem to top out in the 165lb range with anecdotal claims for ancient heroes and kings claiming weights regarded as generally beyond the scope of other men.

But who, relying on the good grace and favour of a warlord would contradict such a claim, however unlikely?

Rod.

[stevesjem]

One of the things that seems to be missed on this thread is the fact that there are quite a number of men around today who can shoot bows of 140lb+, and some that can easily draw and shoot well bows in excess of 160lb, now these people have not had to train as our forefathers did, their lives do not depend on the bow and so are probably no where near what a medieval archer was capable of, there still seems to be this underlying attitude that if we can't they they couldn't.

The only English bows found and intended for warfare are the MR bows and I have proven many times that the bow weights would have been very high, by far heavier than even the strongest of todays archers, bar 1 or 2.
The medieval archer would have lived by the bow, shooting it regularly and with purpose, the military archer of the day was the best the country had to offer, these were not just any old archer but chosen for there ability to shoot a bow for warfare with both accuracy and distance.
It would be chirlish of us nowadays to think that they would have been shooting light weight bows, I mean you wouldn't go into battle nowadays with an air rifle would you?

Lets be sensible about this, yes there are claims made about the bow weights of the MR bows, but high and low, but I very much doubt the archer of the past would be happy having a bow that would just about do the job it was intended for, he would want something he could rely on and a bow that would easily do what was required of it.

Steve

[huntertrapper]

good post fellas thats a question i always had.

[nickf]

yeah, I'd assume weights over 150# weren't all that incommon in the medievals...
for the late english warbow, ofcourse.

Nick

[ryanfromcanada]

could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow 

[triton]

could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow 

NO 

[AD]

I thought one limiting factor to manufacturing bows of heavy draw weight was the strength of the hemp or linen used to make bowstrings?
Given the high probability of standardisation of hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment - any archer would have to use any bow be it 'white' or 'painted', and any bow would have to be pretty much compatible with the huge stock of arrows and bowstrings...there was likely a 'standard' bow weight, which probably increased as armour thickness increased.

However we know that the arrow nocks were 1/8th inch and could therefore only take a bowstring of maximum diameter 1/8 inch.  
Archers used their bows for practice and then battle.
The capability and longevity of the hemp/linen bowstring would have been an important factor, and defined a practical maximum limit to bow draw weight.
Any research been done on this?

[ryanfromcanada]

could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow 

NO 

  hahaha i meant it a little tounge in check .

[sagitarius boemoru]

Unlike with bows there is clear line of pedigree which can be traced type by type and that is the arrowheads. It doesnt need much to get idea how an arrow looked liked if you have arrowhead and how both bow and arrow looked like too be shot effectivelly. That is not saying that they too could have using ineffective combination of both, but nobody who would have would stayed along too long.

Jaro

[triton]

could a war bow not be a a crossbow. i know not in the sense that you guys mean but hey its a stick with a string that was pointed at people to make them dead so dosn't that constitute as a warbow 

NO 

  hahaha i meant it a little tounge in check .

never seen you post in this section and you never know who drops in for a wind up 

[bow-toxo]

Looking at warbow cultures where there is a written record, we only have information where archery was an activity of the literate classes, which lets out the post Roman european bow until Gaston Phoebus' "Livre de Chasse" or Ascham.

Where the literature is extensive the median for infantry bows appears to be in the 120lb to 150lb range, somewhat less for the smaller cavalry bows, from 90lb to 120lb.
Rod.

A 'warbow' is of course a longbow, just an especially strong one. Besides those you mention we do have one earlier reference, "The Book of Roi Modus" written before the Hundred Years War, that gives the measurements of the "English bow" and its arrows, clearly a longbow.  Like other mediaeval writings it gives no details on draw weight which makes me curious to know where your information on draw weights comes from. We can of course estimate Tudor bow strengths from the laws that specify distances to be shot by nearly all adult males. Archers were the general population, not a chosen elite few. Toward the end of the Hundred Years War the ten archers for every man-at-arms were not a select few.

[outcaste]

I thought one limiting factor to manufacturing bows of heavy draw weight was the strength of the hemp or linen used to make bowstrings?
Given the high probability of standardisation of hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment - any archer would have to use any bow be it 'white' or 'painted', and any bow would have to be pretty much compatible with the huge stock of arrows and bowstrings...there was likely a 'standard' bow weight, which probably increased as armour thickness increased.

However we know that the arrow nocks were 1/8th inch and could therefore only take a bowstring of maximum diameter 1/8 inch.  
Archers used their bows for practice and then battle.
The capability and longevity of the hemp/linen bowstring would have been an important factor, and defined a practical maximum limit to bow draw weight.
Any research been done on this?

Hi,

Interesting point, but you must also factor in the dimensions and wood quality of the bows together with the average draw length of the arrows.

Alistaie

[AD]

The argumment has been quite persuasively explained by Pip Bickerstaffe in one of his books. 
The bows could have been made very heavy, the soldiers could have been able to wield them, but the weak link in the chain is the bowstring, limited to 1/8th inch diameter. 
If I remember aright, his limited research came up with an estimate of about 100lbs @ 30" as an approximate standard for a war bow.  I suppose depending on your build, you'd be pulling 90-110 lbs, enough to reach the enemy at distance.