Max. length?

[PatM]

Many of the Manchu style bows were easily of those heavy weights. They were drawn 34-35 inches which is flattered somewhat by a thumbring potentially increasing the drawlength.
 Those qualify as recurves.
Most evidence points to them radically outshooting a longbow when it comes to heavy arrows which isn't really surprising.
http://www.manchuarchery.org/bows
 I still see no reason for the arm to "compress". Your arm can't compress because the bones are rigid. It may be collapsing by bending but it's certainly not physically  getting shorter.
 Your rib cage is what would bow under the pressure but again that's only going to happen if your musculature can't brace it to be more rigid.
 I  also am not sure why you feel the bow will pull 180 because of its length. How does length translate to draw weight?

[WillS]

Yeah bending due to the compressive forces.  I wasn't exactly suggesting the bone gets shorter  .  Either way you view it, the hand comes closer to the body.  Thus the bow comes closer, ergo the draw feels longer.

We're talking about Mary Rose.replicas here.  The longer bows within the collection were projected at having draw weights around 180#.  A long bow doesn't mean a high draw weight. If anything, the shorter you make a bow the heavier it gets.  Hence piking.  However, when discussing accurate replicas of original bows, and somebody mentions making a bow based on the longest bows found which had the heaviest projected poundage, logic leads you to assume the goal draw weight is the same.

[PatM]

Maybe if they mentioned an actual replica based on all measurements. I don't know that I would assume all that if a tall guy just requested a bows as long as a known specimen.

[adb]

Adult bones won't compress much, but joints will. Bones which are continuously under heavy stress will increase in size. Weight lifters will show increased bone mass and density. Tennis players will show greater bone mass in the arm swinging the racket. No different for archers shooting heavy bows. Skeletons recovered from the Mary Rose showed deformity.
As a bone is placed under longitudinal force it will shorten slightly due to flexing. It can be negligible, or significant, depending on the stress. If a bone is placed under enough stress, obviously, it'll fail and fracture.

[AndiE]

Hi

Yes my friend wants a replica of the max. length warbow ever found but he can`t do the 180#.
Are the 180# of the MR bow at 32" or more?

I don`t know why there are always these discussions about muscles and bones associated with warbow shooting, but noone ever mentions the main problem, the ligaments. These are the structurs that are mainly highly stressed or overburdened, and get damaged first if somebody doesn`t know what he is doing or overacts.

Kind regards
Andi

[WillS]

I would imagine the really heavy bows are still around the same draw length (28" to 30") 

Judging by the arrows, and factoring in to some extent the height of men in the 16th Century (I don't actually know if they were shorter as a population but I don't think there were many men taller than us today) 28" to 30" seems to be the most common draw length.  I guess that some men were drawing slightly further, but I don't know if draw weight had a direct relationship to draw length.  It probably did. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the longer draws (32" to 34") were probably specific actions, to loose incendiary arrows for example where the arrow needs to be longer and heavier.

I've always found it interesting that the arrow heads assumed to be arming the Mary Rose arrows are the very short Tudor Bodkins and Type 16s.  A Tudor Bodkin was found at Portchester Castle from almost exactly the same period, so that's become the arrowhead we associate with arrows from 1545.  However, at Crecy a much different head was found - very long, very heavy and clearly designed to cut plate armour.  I would have to imagine that arrows carrying these large heavy heads would be longer than the ones found on the Mary Rose, and if that were true the draw lengths of bows from the 14th/15th Century may well be longer.

If that theory flies with you and the guy you're making the bow for, maybe it's worth making him a 100 Years War replica based partly from theory and partly from the Mary Rose finds which could well be a longer bow with a longer draw length, but not necessarily at the top end of poundage. Hugh Soar, Roy King and Simon Stanley tested arrows armed with these heads and found that a bow of around 120 - 150# in draw weight were suitable to efficiently shoot the heavy plate cutting warheads.

[AndiE]

Hi

I will build him the 84" yew warbow and if it looks great I keep it for myself and give him my 90# bamboo yumi warbow (106" long and insane >50" max. drawlength) that only costed me 5€ and works great even without handshock. 

Kind regrads
Andi

[AndiE]

Hi

I talked to a german bowyer today who has been at the MR museum and he said that there was a 220cm bow (= 87") found on the MR too.
   ? ? ?

Kind regards
Andi

[WillS]

Well he's wrong.   

Seriously, I didn't see one either time I've been there, and Alex Hildred's book is comprehensively compiled, with every single bow listed by length, width and depth.  Certainly nothing that long.

[AndiE]

Hi

Do you have a link to this book?
Do you know other good books about warbows?

Kind regards
Andi

[WillS]

I don't have a link I'm afraid, but the book is called Weapons of Warre volume 3.  It's probably a bit too expensive if you're only interested in the bows as it's around £50 and huge, packed with details on everything from cannons to spoons.  The bows take up one chapter of many, but they are detailed to the smallest degree.

Most other books that have warbows in them don't have much real detail, or are full of inaccuracies.  If anybody else has recommendations I'd be as interested as you!

[meanewood]

It sounds like your friend is being a bit pedantic with his request.

If he wants a replica of one of the bows found then the longest was 2113mm or 83.18 inches 38.8mm wide and 35.6mm deep in the handle ref: weapons of warre.

If he wants a longer one then I'm sure there were longer bows used during the same period, just not on that ship at that particular time! It would still be 'authentic 'if you made it a bit longer. In my book 83.18 inches is close enough to 84 anyway!

[AndiE]

Hi

What do you guys think of this article I found?
http://myincarnations.com/bard/agincourt.htm (scrawl down to the last part)

A 8 or 10 foot warbow? 

Kind regards
                    Andi

[WillS]

Haha! Absolute garbage. I love the reasoning - this is a painting of a man and a bow.  They weren't called longbows in the Netherlands, therefore this must be a normal bow! So ""long""bows HAD to be longer.

Amazing.

P.S. the rest of the article is utter tripe as well.  Completely inaccurate and full of totally made up facts, such as the execution of the French captives, the way the battle was fought ("they would have known the ground was soft because a dog would have walked on it and sunk..." for example) and the idea that the French could have given their peasants "sticks" to make bows from, but were afraid they would use them on their own knights...

[AndiE]

 
I think this guy drank to much english beer and french wine when he wrote this article!

Kind regards
                    Andi