New Article on Blunts and their use in medieval archery

[WillS]

Fantastic new article available written by Ian and Mark, well worth a read.  Raises some fascinating questions about blunts and their uses.  More will be written soon, but it's an important breakthrough already.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/MedievalBlunts.html

The video of Joe testing one of Marks blunts with a 170# bow (and hemp string) also available, here

http://youtu.be/lFBHTz9AROM

[Lucasade]

That could make life a lot cheaper... 

[brian]

Hi
 i read with interest Mark and Ian,s new article on blunts ,how ever the reference to Yumi strings on a heavy bow seems to me  to have very little historical significance.The medieval archer  when  his string broke did not go on ebay and order a yumi string  from Japan ,to help with the balance of  payments  deficit , he would  order from his local supplier  ,who would have probably made them from Galeopsis Tetrahit.
which can still be found in abundance

[WillS]

Hi Brian,

I'm sure you're aware of what's currently happening regarding the strings - I thought it was best left off the forums until everybody is amicable about it (although it seems to have been handled quite nicely already).  It's certainly not my place to post anything further on it.

Without the string-theory this is a very interesting bit of research and development, and I believe Mark is working on an article about the construction of them to be published soon. 

As Lucasade said, this would make things a lot cheaper and a lot more convenient than losing hand-forged heads on roves etc, and there's certainly a lot of evidence to substantiate the idea that it was common-place in history.  I'm looking forward to having a go myself once I find out how Mark makes 'em!

[mikekeswick]

Volume 2 of the TBB's tells you how to make a strong enough string out of natural fiber 
The key is clearly full length fibers. I've played about enough with natural material strings to know that string making is the tricky part....but perfectly doable if you've got the patience to learn and good raw materials. Retting is key also.
I remember hearing Mr.Bickerstaffe talking about the nock sizes on the Mary Rose arrows and how their width indicated that the bows were likely 80# average weight.....he wouldn't listen to me.
Grow your own hemp, nip off any side shoots, once it's away 'force' it like you do with rhubarb (but use a drainpipe!). I grew some last year in my greenhouse for string making and it's some strong,strong stuff.
I don't see what the fuss is about - of course blunts fly well/comparable to any other head, if we know it now...they knew it then. It's common sense if you ask me  Try some .50 cal casings 

[PatM]

Much ado about nothing.

[Lucasade]

You know hemp is a controlled species that needs a licence to grow (in the UK anyway)?

[WillS]

Well, there was me thinking any published new research would be interesting.  Didn't realise you guys had a criteria to fill before you decide something is worth doing or not...

Glad you knew about it and its all common sense and blindingly obvious, but at least now it's documented because it never was before.  It's odd that nobody has tested wooden blunts before, what with it being such common sense

The "fuss" (although there isn't any really, it's just an article) is that while "common sense" would suggest any head that weighs the same will fly more or less the same as a real head, the construction and general use in the middle ages isn't documented or discussed anywhere.  That's what is being tested, and to anybody interested in medieval archery that's what is fascinating. 

If everybody had said "well yeah, obviously a 170# bow will shoot further than a 100# bow, that's common sense" then nobody would have tested it, would they?  Every time somebody ignores the people saying "what's the point in trying? It's obviously going to do this..." and actually tests something, we learn new things.  Marks not trying 50cal casings because that has zero relevance to historical archery.  He's making wooden blunts as seen in period artwork and testing those.

Tch.  Honestly!

[mhof86]

Wills I liked the article and look forward to the follow up on what they come up with. Thanks for posting this.

[bobnewboy]

I refer the honorable gent to Marc St Louis' article on wooden blunts in PA a year or so back.  Detailed instructions on how to make and use them.  You do subscribe to the magazine dont you?

[PatM]

Every other culture used them and we presume the English were at least as intelligent. 
 The concept just seems so ordinary to anyone who has a background in the older forms of archery. Not really worth getting excited about.

 Just don't try to tell us that the bows are now calculated to have pulled 250 pounds and could send a blunt through an armored horse.

[Lucasade]

Wills I liked the article and look forward to the follow up on what they come up with. Thanks for posting this.

+1

[WillS]

I thought it was through an oak door.  That's the story you're meant to tell.

I think you've over-estimating the excitement level.  Nobody's having a heart attack over this stuff, it's just a new article written about somebody's work on blunts.  Read it, don't read it, agree with it, don't agree with it etc.  Makes no difference, really.  Saying it's worthless because we already know about blunts is daft though. 

We already knew longbows existed before the MR was lifted.  Does that mean nobody should be making and testing replicas of them?  Should there never be articles written on things that people already know a bit about? 

We know that bows were used against armour, so it stands to reason the arrows can penetrate armour.  Does that mean nobody should be testing the results?  "Nah, we already know that mate.  S'obvious, ain't it.  Don't waste your time."  What a ridiculous attitude to have towards somebody doing research on something.

Has anybody else actually done any testing with an exact replica of a medieval English bow, to see what replicas of medieval English blunts are capable of?  Doesn't ring any bells to me.

[PatM]

Well you did use "fantastic" and "fascinating" and "breakthrough". 
 I will await the  testing of the exact replicas based on artifacts and compare them to my blob ended hickory arrow shot from 120 pound bow into car door.

[WillS]

You're a miserable sod sometimes Pat.  It's fascinating to some (myself included) and while you may be playing with car doors on your own, nobody has actually written anything about medieval English blunts being tested so technically this article is "breakthrough" as well, as will be any results from shooting them for distance.  I certainly can't find anything online or in books about how to make them properly, with indigenous materials so I'm "fascinated" by the idea that Marks going to describe his construction methods as well.  The ones I've seen are "fantastic".

I will do my best in future to remember that you're allergic to enthusiasm however, and try and write all my posts with an overwhelming sense of impending cynical disappointment if that would suit you better?