http://bibliotecadigitalhispanica.bne.es/view...ePid2=true

There is the whole PDF. I must warn that those "trachtenbuch" (book of chothes) tend to copy and re-interpret earlier books. Several images seems to be taken from Christoph Weiditz's (or Weidtz) from 1520's, that saw quite widespread and success, being copied still several decades later:

http://dlib.gnm.de/item/Hs22474/html

It shows a rather old fasioned Basque crossbowman, dressed in something more proper of the previous century. About the crossbow, It was still required as a weapon of war for local defense units in 1552, and no mention was made of replacing it with firearms...not only the English stuck to missile weapons that had worked fine for centuries... ;)

As a traditional archer, I may be able to shed some light on the idea of carry position and "arrows in the ground"

a belt quiver is infinitely more comfortable and easier to get to than a back quiver. in the same way drawing a sword over the shoulder doesn't work, neither does drawing an arrow from a back quiver. when mounted on the belt, all you have to do is grab a nock, put the arrow on the bow, nock it, then draw and fire- much preferable to clumsily grasping for an arrow you can't see and attempting to lift it 30" straight up to clear your quiver.

As for putting your arrows in the ground pre-firing, it raises rate of fire and incidentally helps you keep track of how many arrows you have left. A competent archer can easily fire an arrow a second (especially roughly aimed volleying) like this.

an arrow a second really isn't that fast when you consider how long a second is; just plinking my bows i average maybe 3-4 seconds per shot at a fixed target, which is probably in line with about how fast an archer would bother firing on the battlefield (considering each archer only had 50 arrows at the battle of agincourt, it would make sense to make em last 5 min instead of 1- good thing the battle was over within a half hour) If a archer was attempting to be a medieval machinegun, i could see someone getting it down to around 1-2 seconds per shot.

as for selecting broadheads or bodkins from the ground.... have two groups

Well not to be facetious a second is as long second, 1 every 3-4 seconds I can understand that is very different to 1 a second! ;) Dad for History of the Longbow, in 1972 did 21 in a minute. However 1 a second!
Lets say the arrows are stuck in the ground, You have to pick an arrow lay it over the bow, nock it, put fingers on the string, and draw and loose a war draw weight all in one second!? That is 2/10ths second per action? Again suggestions of an arrow every 1-2 seconds with a bow in the 90lb plus draw weight range? I would need to at least least video of it.

So now you spend time putting two lots of arrows in the ground! ;) 48, two sheaves, that will take time, as well as putting in the stakes in the think plough earth! and then Henry orders the archers to move up so they have to pull all their arrows up from the thick earth, which is stuck to the points, those point that haven't got stuck in the mud and come off. :wtf:

Yes archers "may" have stuck their arrows in the ground, however their are many cons against it, There is little to no reference to it in the sources. There are however numerous sources where arrow bags, girdle knots and through the girdle at the waist. or juts laid on the ground.

a lot depends on the draw weight, and how long the rate of fire needs to be maintained

here is a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g

Lars Andersen is an incredibly quick archer, his skill in that department is without question. That said, I do not think that anyone, ever, would be able to approach that rate of shot with a militarily effective draw weight. The best modern warbow archers seem to reach a peak of 18-24 arrows per minute, allow a higher rate of 24-30/min for the medieval professionals and we are still far short of one per second. As for the arrow in the ground as opposed to in an arrow bag, take 24 arrows, 32" to 36" in length and stick them in the ground in front of you, it takes a heck of a lot of room, now take a sheaf of 24 in a bag, fold the bag down 2/3 of the way and toss it on the ground next to your feet. It takes less room and is pretty much as fast, and if you tuck six or eight through your belt, point up, it is even faster.

It does not take any more time to pull back a heavies bow, just more muscle. I can pull back a 70lb longbow easily once a second and I don't practice this stuff at all compared to your average medieval archer.

Also Lars is shooting 10 arrows in 5 seconds so even if you shot half as fast with a 100lb longbow you are still at 1 arrow/second

The key to the technique is holding the arrows in the hand rather then the quiver, that is the real differentiator that moves the ROF up so dramatically. The real question to me is not around a heavier bow but did longbowmen use that technique? I've never seen any of the modern groups experiment with it, though I have seen tapestries of medieval archers holding a fistful of arrows in one hand

Tossing the bag down on the ground is nowhere near as fast, you have to bend over to get the arrows as opposed to just reaching for them. Belt quiver is going to be about the same as stuck in the ground until you run out

But 70lbs isn't 100lbs and it certainly isn't 140lbs+ it is a matter of a different technique, there is lots of video available showing heavy longbows being shot. Study the way the arrow is loosed, it bears no resemblance to the way a lighter bow is shot, for many of the archers a simple stoop would allow them to scoop up another shaft.

As for holding the arrow in the hand, how many could you hold? A "warbow" is a substantial handful, add in 3/8" shafts and I wouldn't be able to handle very many. I don't recall seeing any illustrations of western European archers holding shafts in their hands in a military context. I have seen many contemporary or near contemporary illustrations showing arrows laid neatly on the ground in front of, or next to, the archer. Do you remember which tapestries you saw the technique in?

I would be willing to speculate that to someone practiced in shooting a heavy bow, and then placed in a formation, the fastest way to shoot in the bow is to lay them on the ground as seen in contemporary illustration. Here is my thought on this; start with the bow hanging naturally at the side, bend and take up an arrow at the last third, as you straighten cock the wrist of the bow hand and reach over to nock the arrow, as you continue to vertical, straighten the wrist as you slide the right hand back to the nock. Draw the bow as you cycle through vertical and squat into the bow, release, and continue going down to scoop up another shaft.

I just went and tried it in the garage with a 74" longbow and I require very little frontage to cycle through the shooting sequence. Is there anyone out there willing to give it a try with a military weight longbow?

I've seen Lars speed shooting before, it is undoubtedly impressive and skill full. He is faster than all the other speed shooters I have seen, The thing they have in common though is they shoot recurved bows of lighter or indeterminate craw weight, using shooting and drawing practices that are not similar to those we are considering in Western Europe. Lars is drawing a relatively light bow (I've not seen a reference to actual draw weight, that leads to me suspecting that it isn't "impressive") and isn't drawing more than about 20 inches.
As Jason says drawing a90+lb bow (I use that as it is the lower weight of the MR bows so can be set as an expected minimum) 28-30+ inches is a very different situation. That's fine because they are not claiming to be recreating Western European style, however to use what he can do as a basis for what can be done with a long bow with military draw weight is like comparing apples and oranges, or better, trying to use modern speed shooting pistol competition for a basis for how military combat shooting works.
They are recreating or using styles that are intended for horse archers for example who need ride to a closer range, shoot a volume of arrows quickly and then ride away. That is a different tactical use as well as technique. Again nothing wrong with that but it doesn't add to understanding what we are looking at.

I agree with Jason, when you cross the 100lb + weight threshold it requires as different shooting style and chaining in different muscles and actions. That of itself makes for slower shooting.

Jason, The Bayeux Tapestry has an example of arrows in hand in a military as opposed to a hunting context, as we reference in the article. Otherwise it is very rare to see it, for the reasons you mention, It would be good to see other sources of military use for the technique.

Yes I can see that arrows on the ground can be useful with a heavy bow shooting technique.
It is worth saying again, that pictorial reference from sources when the bow was a military weapon. the most common method is arrows at the waist, in bags, under the belt or tied in a girdle knot, next most common is on the ground.

A few things to take in to consideration. Even if we say a rate of shooting of ?12 arrows a minute? a supply of two sheaves per archer, they could burn through their allotment for an entire campaign in four minutes of one engagement!
Of comparison one can look at and compare the possible rates of shooting in the black powder period and the allocation of ammunition on campaign and what was issued before a battle. Again we see figures where the ammo would be gone very quickly if used at the possible max rates of shooting. Why? Because we know in that context that combat shooting takes place at a much slower rate than the maximum possible. One also needs to consider that one doesn't need to shoot that many times in actual combat. Why? Because people don't like being shot at with arrows! :\
There is a period source from the mid 14th century if I recall, i am trying to find it now!. It says in the old days battles were normally decided in 2 to 3 volleys or arrows, where as these days it takes 6 or 7 (this from memory) It stuck out for two

The subjects of draw weight and rates of shooting are complex, even when we are just looking at theoretical maximums, when we then consider it in actual military use, it becomes more so and we need to consider other factors outside of shooting technique, not least things like supply and the logistics of transporting enough ammunition with a mobile force.

yeah it is an interesting question and the style of archery does matter, Lars may even be using a thumb ring

There are "western techniques" in the sense that they work with Western style archery that are similar to the ones that Lars uses, usually the arrows are held in the same hand that holds the bow, but I have not seen anyone use those to approach the rate fire Lars gets to.

I am also not sure about the historical accuracy of those of course

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86x-k-oZ4g

I have no idea how it translates to very heavy bows but there is also some debate on how heavy the Mary Rose bows actually were and whether they were representative as well

I am pretty sure that if someone were to practice every day for 20 years they could get to a 2 second rate of fire, possible a one second with a warbow, at least for a short burst of 10 arrows or so. Whether they actually bothered to do that is not determinable

Also I want someone to practice lying their arrows on the ground and bending over to pick each one up, shoot about 300 arrows that way and see how your back feels (-:

People did hold arrows in the bow hand, but as we have said before there is little evidence for it in a war situation apart from the Bayeux Tapestry.
The video you link, he is shooting a light draw weight, I would say around 30lbs looking at the way he is shooting, the grip is different to a longbow and the arrows are not medieval ones, so it really doesn't say anything beyond that.

Certainly Dad and I question the actual draw weights of the MR bows and he has since his involvement in the project before the ship was brought to the surface, this is based upon a number of things, however we can say that the range is from around 90lb to around 130lb. If we start questioning the fact that the bows etc. may not be representative we get in to a situation where we have to say why? Why would one ship have been equipped differently? Which then would mean that they would not be usable by the archers and crew that were expected to use them? We know what equipment was supposed to be on all the ships in the fleet at the time, so why would the MR be different....but that is another discussion.

Having been shooting for most of my life, with longbows, I can not see any one sustaining 1 arrow a second. Think of it as a time and motion exercise, there are too many elements, as I mentioned before, at least five, to compress those into a second with a bow of a battle fighting draw weight, I will be happy to acknowledge someone who could do it but I would need to see it and know the draw weight of the bow and it be authentic kit.

I would like to know how anybodies back would feel like shooting 300 arrows with a war bow full stop regardless of where the arrows were places, again with any bow with a decent draw weight.

No one would shoot that many arrows with a heavy draw bow. I have sometimes shot 25 dozen (300) arrows in a day, normally broken in to 3 blocks. That would not be done with bow in the war draw weight range but someone around 60lb. I carry my arrows at the waist. However if one were applying a shooting method like Jason suggested the work of "bending" as such would be taken by the legs not the back, so as such.

There is much we don't know for sure about archery in the middle ages. However there is quite a lot of evidence that we can use from the archaeological record and period sources. From these We can make suppositions and extrapolations if we are practising with authentic reproduction equipment. However unless that criteria is met it doesn't add anything useful.

There is also the issue that there are several agendas in the discussion of the longbow. The Heavy bow party, the fast shooting party and the armour piercing party, There is an overlap in some respects. However the problem with them all is that they seek to confirm their own bias and assumptions rather than really considering what was possible.

Jonathan, thanks for the reminder, I had actually looked at the earlier post with the Bayeux Tapestry and thought, "well now" and then promptly forgot about it. I also think you are right that we as a group fixate on the material and forget about the human element (and logistical!). The ammunition supply is what first got me to examine my assumptions about missile combat in this period. With the ammunition levels available, combined with modern research into crowd dynamics, would it not be reasonable to assume that the archery engagement is several quick volleys, followed by the attacking force recoiling or coming to hand strokes? That scenario fits with the information available; contemporary descriptions of battles, distribution of points found on battlefields, and available ammunition.

Guy, I wasn't aware that there was any credible debate remaining on the MR bows, I had thought that there were two main camps, the 90-140lbs and the 120-180lbs camp, from replicas I have seen information on, built to the same dimensions as MR bows I tend to the heavier camp myself, but will consider any information that comes available, I am not wedded to the idea. A big problem with the longbow, as seen in discussions on amateur (in the older sense of the word) sites like this and academic squabbles in the published research world is that there is so much myth-making and national amor-propre to be waded through. As for the bending over 300 times part, it would only be 48-72 times if you disallow the fact that, as Jonathan mentions, arrows at the girdle is the most common method mentioned in period sources. As for the physical reality, in my "back on the farm" days I will guarantee that I bent over more times than that in a single morning when picking rocks (average weight about 30lbs and the south quarters were known as "the rock garden".


EDIT: I've got to type faster, Jonathan has hit most of the points I was making above.

The reason why the Mary Rose bows are questionable is they date from 1545 which is 200 years after stuff like Crecy and well into the gunpowder era. The debate I have heard was "were bow being built heavier to try to compete with guns and cannons?", whether that is credible I do not know, but the fact is they are not from the same era and 200 years is a long time to assume no major changes

There is also a huge different between 90-140lbs and the 120-180lbs . I can shoot a 70lb bow longbow all day and shoot 300 arrows every weekend in an hour and a half non-stop with no issues at all. I usually fire ten hours at a time from a ground quiver at about 3 arrows/second.

I can also shoot decently from a back quiver and a cat quiver, but hate belt quivers cause i could never get the hang of running with them

I have been shooting bows on and off for 30 years, since i was 12, but only got back into it about six months ago. i shoot a "longbow" that is really a flatbow / longbow

The guy I shoot with is shooting a 90lb yew longbow and also shoots 300-400 arrows. He is a ton slower but he's also 60 years old.

Getting to 100lbs (increasing my draw 40%) does not to me seem like it would present much serious difficulty for me personally if I put the time in and I have heard it said that most healthy adult males can get to that spot. Doubleling my draw weight is pretty hard to imagine

I totally get that 120+lbs is probably moving off the chart and I cannot even begin to think what 180lbs is like.

So there is actually a big big difference between the two Mary Rose camps, one is "a bow i could probably get to in about six months of hard practice" and the other is "maybe never how the hell do people do that?" .

There is also nothing to say you have to shoot a longbow at full draw. The techniques Lars uses is not only arrow holding but also giving up on the idea of an anchor point. This might come in handy for semi close quarters where even a half draw of a 100lb bow is going to put someone down who is say rushing your line

It's also worth pointing out that no one thought the stuff Lars is now currently doing was possible until he did it.

Thought this might be relevant to the conversation at hand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY

There's no editing in this video (deliberately) so there can be no naysayers claiming the bow isn't of the weight it is. Another myArmoury forum member was present during the filming of the this video and can confirm the draw-weight of the bow. It should be pretty clear from the fact it takes two grown men to pull the bow down on the scales!

Joe Gibbs is probably the finest warbow archer in the world today.

I think his shooting speed here represents the likely maximum rate-of-shot of a heavyweight military bow. As you can see it is nowhere near the mythical 'twelve arrows a minute', so beloved of reenactors.

Jason,
Agreed. Though we believe that there has been an overestimation of what the bows would be drawing in actual use, not in the maximum potential, based upon various issues, that will hopefully be addressed in another article.

Guy yes 200 years after Crecy but that is near the beginning of the "long bow era" if we call it that. 1545 is only 32 years after Flodden and the Battle of the Spurs both of which archery played an important part.Only 60 years after Bosworth and less than 100 years after the end of the HYW, all the battles of the WotR and the continued use of English archers in Europe. We also have a wealth of pictorial evidence showing bows of dimensions like those of the MR, dating from the MR back to the early part of the 1400s. I am not saying there was no change at all across the 200 plus years, one can argue longer as the even the division of bows and long bows is rather abstract, even the name long bow doesn't appear until the mid 1400s. IMO those that make the most noise about the MR equipment not being representative are those for whom the finds contradict the opinions they hold.

I have also heard they made the bows heavier to compete with guns, however the issue IMO doesn't add up, a bow will not compete with a firearms however heavy you make it really regards penetration against armour, what it has is speed of use over firearms. but armour is becoming less complete, and what armour their is is generally proof against the arrows, At Flodden for example is was the lightly armed troops that were shot off the field by the English archers, not the fully armoured men at arms. Again I find this argument being used by those that have an agenda that is contradicted by the evidence from the MR

I am not sure what relevance Lars keeps having to the conversation, He is using a shooting style and equipment irrelevant to western European archery. Yes you can shoot a long bow at half draw, but why? As we can see from the video just posted the time it actually takes him to draw would not be appreciatively shortened by a half draw. Also a bow drops around 5lb an inch of draw depending on the final draw weight. Say a 120lb bow at half draw is around 60lb draw weight but trying to shoot an arrow that has a weight and length intended to be shot at 120lbs! That is going to seriously affect what the arrow does. Finally we have no evidence that it was done.
Perhaps people didn't believe it could be done before Lars did it . Howevr The big difference here is that there were accounts that said it could be done that no one believed. Here the evidence we have is being exceeded already by what people can do now .

Glennan Thanks for the video, I have seen video of Joe before, the weights he draws are impressive. There was an American in the 90' who shot a 200lb bow, and I believe someone else has done so recently.
He could trim some time off if he wanted as he takes time nocking the arrows and he looks down to do so. But certainly it shows a good speed of shooting.

A couple of observations, the bow is braced pretty high, certainly more than period sources indicate. Also what is the string made of? Most people that I know who are shooting very heavy draw weights are using dacron/kevelar/fats flight strings, not period strings. I understand why, obtaining linen as it would have likely been used is nearly impossible. Also using a string that you are not certain of whether it will break is not a good thing at the best of times, even more so when the draw weight is so high.
However it is a vital part. If we are looking at what is possible with the equipment. There is the bow, the arrow, the shooting style required and the string. The first 3 have been pretty well addressed, however the string has largely been left out of the equation. Dad has done a fair bit of research on his own and in connection to the MR.
best

Thanks.
Can you find out the bows length as well?
Obviously how one braces the bow is very much down to the individual archer. and a short bow can make it look braced higher, but it was also based upon the length of the fletchings, i took those to be 6 inches.

Regards the string that is the thing isn't it! bows and arrows are bad enough finding a string! On the good side there still large amounts of cordage from the MR that has yet to be conserved and sorted.

Not intending to knock his shooting speed, just pointing out for anyone who is looking for faster shooting that he would trim time off to streamline the time.

As I said before, there are several entrenched positions regards the English bow. The "rate of shooting camp", tend to be dismissive of things that don't confirm to their way of seeing things. :\

The Luttrell Psalter shows many archers with a single arrow thrust through their belts, point low and forward, fletching high and back. Matthew Strickland published an image from the Bodleian Library Romance of Alexander which shows a whole sheaf of arrows carried that way. He doesn't gives a folio number, just shows two archers in the bottom margin at the left; someone with time might browse here. (Its Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow (Phoenix Mill: Sutton, 2005) p. 189).

In 1267 one William de Stanegate went walking with a crossbow in Sussex. He met the widow Desiderata who asked if he had been told to hunt outlaws, joked that she was a match for three such as him, caught him at the neck with her arm, crooked her leg behind him, and tripped him. She fell with him, was pierced to the heart by the bolt tucked in his belt, and died. The court ruled her death a misadventure. Source: Bradbury, Medieval Archer (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1985), p. 79 citing English Historical Documents iii.827