Actually this is correct although this is the higher range for the Mary Rose bows.

I missed this question. How do we know for a fact what the draw weights were of earlier English warbows? It was my understanding that the Mary Rose bows are the earliest surviving English warbows.

From Hardys expanded version of his previous work, it was my understanding the draw weights were in the 100-160 lb range, and very few were at the latter end of the spectrum.

I have the last revision of Hardys longbow, done only a few years ago, with the tables of data of tests on the bows done at that time - draw to destruction point on some examples. 180 lbs sounds like the breaking point of one of the bows, which I don't think equates to actual working draw weight.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by dsj:
...becuase the other longbows from other battles were only less than 80 pounds

---

Chef is correct and I should have elaborated and Hardy's recent "The Great Warbow" publication goes to great length in detailing this question. The original premise was that the bows when being tested and measured were in the 70-80 pound range. This was in error because the calculation was in error by a factor of 2. (see p 15). The average of the bows tested was 153 pounds. The range was from 100 to 180lb. With the bulk of those tested to be in the 150-160lb range.

A few hundred of finished yew staves were recovered from the 1545 Mary Rose wreck including over 3000 of the 6000 known arrow shafts. Of these, a number were restored and used for destructive limits testing.

Now, as to your reference to bows from other battles... Part of the debate and research has been that (for european longbows), these from 1545 are the earliest survivors and artifacts. There are a few rare greecian and eastern Mediterranean bows in preservation but these are hunting or short warbows and mostly ceremonial at that.

Now, in fairness, there are a few Scandavian longbows that have survived with a slightly different profile. Four of these (est. from the 9th & 10th century) are at Scholss Gottorf, Schleswig-Holstein. A larger one from Hedeby, is estimated to be in the 100+lb range.

There are sigificant records of importing yew longbow staves to england (import shipping tax). However, nothing prior to 1545 can be documented for continental europe regarding the poundage question.

The problem with the single bow that is claimed to be from the Battle of Flodden, is that "the Flodden Bow is without reliable provenance or secure date, and as such cannot be taken as representative of Scottish weapons of the 13th to 15th centuries." Part of the theory is that the Scots had a shortbow that was inferior to the English (who took the longer bows from both europe and the Welsh longbow). But there is little if any extant material with details of bow size let alone wood type(s).

I know the same is with regard to what is called the Hedgeley Moor bow. They are unsure of it's origen (it's only from the local area) and it hasn't been dated. Yes, it's a longbow but is only a 50 lbr or so. Probably a hunting bow.

If the discussion is about the first longbows, then there are extant sections of some yew longbows dating all the way back to 2600BC or so. But not as a common piece.

The other problem is that there is much confusion as to the definition of and distinguishing between the longbow and shortbow. As even some recent finds originally declared shortbows are actually leftover pieces of lost or damaged crossbows.

I think part of the issue and what we need to consider is that some archers used their hunting bows because that was all they had and they had to fulfill service to their local lord or town. And that we certainly know that longer bows of significant poundage were used in earlier wars such as Agincourt (1415) and elsewhere. But that the Mary Rose bows (1545) are the first hard proof of their design and the first that can be documented to a specific time and place. They also number more than one from a specific region and for a specific purpose.

FYI: That I ordered the book from amazon.co.uk and not from amazon.ca.

I ordered it from amazon.co.uk (UK).

In practicality, 60-80 pounds makes a good hunting weight for short range. But other than volley for distance or from the top of a castle loosing down, it's a bit weak on trying to get through armour defenses.

Experienced military bowman of the day practiced often 6 days a week (with no tv or forums to distract them...) and were constantly being tested and practiced. (Just look at the skeletal structures of shoulders and spines. All deformed.) So big bows were the norm.

From a conversational point of discussion (not debate), I have a 104lb (120lb at 31in) longbow here. It, in my opinion, is a tad short. And know a couple of people who shoot 120lb+ longbows regularly. My linen string is shot out so I do not pull it anymore. Point being, if you were a rough and tough individual, got paid more, and would be sent to carry a pike if you got out of practice, I would think you, with practice, could become proficient with such a bow.

And I think bows did come in ranges. Hunting weights. And "normal" and extra heavy or ludicrous poundage warbows.

But, what we can rightly conclude is based on what we have difinitively proven and researched. And even then, sometimes conclusions get revised.

I don't believe outside of the Wisby finds, any other Medieval war graves have been uncovered.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the power of Turkish composite bows - English self bows were crude by comparison. The English bow is Neolithic technology (see the Hardy book for the history of the development of the longbow), whereas the composite contruction of many eastern bows is far more advanced, and more efficent for storing the energy of the draw and releasing.

You seem to have a theme behind the thrust of your posts, but I am not sure the ideas are supportable when close examination of the subjects are undertaken. Shouldn't we find a similar grave in that context (a provable Eastern Archer) to begin to make the comparison?

[ 03-26-2005: Message edited by: chef de chambre ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by dsj:
Thanks, the other bows are from the Battle of Flodden, village of Mendlesham, Battle of Hedgeley Moor, they are supposed to range from 60 to 90 pounds. I don't understand what your error means Friedrich, can you explain more to me? And the great warbow isn't for sale on amazon.ca yet.

---

Hi DSJ,

[u]No English warbows from prior to the wreck of the Mary Rose exist.[/u] The numbers you are quoting are guesstimates by military historians who were not archers to speak of, and prior to the finds of the Mary Rose bows. The information derived from these finds throws out the earlier guesstimates - information derived from a known extant object trumps a historians guess.

--------------------

They are directed to the ongoing commentary, not to the individual necessarily. In the case where you had made a comment regarding the bone deformation on some of the skeletons in the Towton grave, I pointed out that we have no known similar grave to point to in China or the Middle East to make a meaningful comparison.

Terribly sorry, I thought the response had been fairly straightforward.

--------------------

and a trained longbowman is just as accurate as a crossbow one would think.

isnt there an ordinence about having to shot your bow after church?

i dont see where your going with your posts is all. no attacks or anything meant. the finds just arent there to really even speculate that much.

--------------------

even the guy that was on the show weapons that made britian "the longbow" that was the worlds best archer was not disfingerd.. hehe save around the belly like most of us ehhehe. he did all of mike loads testing with the 150 lb longbow.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick the red:
If so would this still be enough to cause the deformities mentioned.

---

No and you could look at today's modern sports as representative of that kind of wear and tear for recreational vs professional athletes.

I don't shoot longbows. Don't even own one, though I"d like to for comparative purposes. I shoot recurve bows such as were popular in Hungary and Turkey. They have a different force curve than the straight bows.

My "strength" bow is 128 pounds at 30 inches. It's a little bitty bow, I don't think more than 50" tall. Well, as I've got a lot of different hobbies, I've never gotten to where I can draw it -- I top out with my next lighter bow at 78 pounds. But for backyard shooting, I can shoot from either bow... I'm simply never able to get much past "point x" on the heavier bow.

The 60-gram arrow shafts also found with the Mary Rose is consistent with the heavy bows. But that doesn't mean that it goes back in time. Those bows were made with specially-imported, highest-quality wood, etc.

The only surviving 14c arrow I know of, the "Abbey Arrow," is 40g *with* arrowhead. That arrow would snap like a matchstick coming off a 160lb bow, especially on a 30" draw.

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------