My interest in the military application of archery is more focused upon the Dark Age and the Early Middle Ages (particularly in Northern Europe i.e Scandinavia and Britain) , from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476CE till the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. From what I gather the application of the bow was very different than the time of the Hundred Year's War and the Mary Rose.

The Viking Age Norse seemed to have avoided massed battle, preferring more of a skirmish. The longbow saw widespread usage in naval battles also. This seems to me to suggest a different technique than the shooting-in-the-bow and drawing to the ear that we associate with medieval archery.

Depictions from the period (i.e the Bayeux Tapestry, the Franks Casket, illuminated manuscripts) seem to show them shooting from the chest. In my experience this is woefully inaccurate and is in stark contrast to the accuracy accounted in the literary sources (such as Gunnar's defense of Hlidarend in Njal's Saga, or the feats of Einar in Olav Tryggvasson's saga). In a small scale skirmish or naval battle I can't see such a draw having much value when the shooting must have been more similar to target archery than loosing a hail of arrows en masse.

I was just curious as to everyone elses views on this. I appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

Having used a standard pull & release all of my life I would find the method you describe from manuscripts and the like to be woefully inaccurate also but that doesn't mean it is or would be for someone accustomed to doing it that way. Like most things involving physical skill through repetition and familiarity comes proficiency.

Although it's a far cry from your area of interest if you have ever heard of Ishi or read any of Saxton Pope's stories on how he learned the Yahi natives methods of bow & arrow making and hunting practices from Ishi himself then you know his methods of drawing and firing were similar to what is known as a ' Mongolian' release.

I'm not sure what the forum rules are on posting passages from online books are so I won't because I'm not certain of that web sites legality but I can describe his form for you. 1st off, and here is where my woefully inaccurate rate would really begin to show Ishi's preferred stance was in fact kneeling, no recurves or compound bows I've owned would allow this if I held them as I traditionally do arm straight, palm facing left, string drawn to right side of mouth and chin as my anchor point. Ishi's draw was with the bow held diagonally across the torso at about 35 or 40 degrees, palm up. He drew straight back into his chest using the top of his breast bone as anchor point.

It was reported by Pope, anthropologists Alfred Kroeber & Thomas T. Waterman who both studied Ishi at the University of California, San Francisco and many people who saw him shoot on exhibition hunts that he seldom missed when it came to moving targets, especially if the target was something he found desirable to eat. Oddly enough or perhaps not so odd from Ishi's own perspective he was average at best when shooting at at stationary archery targets. He could hit a rabbit running at 40 paces, pin a squirrel scampering up a tree but was lucky if he could place 5 of 10 arrows into the bull's-eye at equal distances. Kroeber's wife published a book " Ishi In Two Worlds " from notes and journals her husband kept about his time with Ishi that mention when questioned about the discrepancy between his game shooting skills and target shooting abilities his answer was along the lines of " The color and circles distract me and who can get excited about paper and straw?"

It seems that what would be uncoordinated, uncomfortable and inaccurate to me would for Ishi and his people be the natural, correct and accurate way to use a bow. Remember that he quite literally depended upon his shooting for his life all but the last 5 years of his adult life. If you ever have any interest in bow & arrow manufacture and their usage outside the Dark ages and early Middle age that you stated I recommend Hunting with the Bow & Arrow by Saxton Pope. Most of the book covers his own discovery of a love of archery, chiefly through his contact with with Ishi but my favorite parts are where he describes in great detail the Yahi art of bow & arrow making and Ishi's expertise in woodcraft.

Thanks for the information Carter. I have heard of Ishi and Saxton Pope but have never got around to reading his accounts. It's interesting to note the similarities between Ishi's and Dark Age North European technique.

I must admit my experience shooting from the chest amounts to only a few hours practice, but it did strike me as being ineffecient in comparison to later techniques. Though as you say it is something we have not been taught as 'the-way-to-do-it'. Perhaps I'm shooting it wrong. I stand diagonally to the target and, probably similar to Ishi, anchor at the inner most part of the collarbone. That seems to be the way depicted from pictorial sources.

I had previously considered it possible that the illustrations of a chest-draw were artistic license, but there are simply too many such depictions. Now that you've brought up Ishi's technique and the viability of a chest-draw I completely disregard the possibility of a chest-draw being artistic license or ignorance on the artists part.

Carter, do you have any knowledge of the draw length and poundage used by Ishi? The Hedeby bows have been estimated to weigh from 60-90#, a comparison would be interesting.

I'm no expert, but at least some scandinavian bows (in the middle ages) where made for a relatively short draw, based on preserved arrows.
While drawing to the chest might not be extremely accurate, you could draw to the chin or nose instead, for a shorter, faster draw.

There is also evidence for use of compound bows in scandinavia, using both different kinds of wood and horn, though not in the eastern horsebow form. Some of the finds have been interpented as parts of "static" recurves; a simple short bow with ears.
[ Linked Image ]
The proposed reconstructions are made by a aquaintance of mine who is writing a theseis on the compound bow finds in Norway.
I attended a bowmaking workshop with him a little while ago, and am currently the proud owner of a 80 pound ash/walnut longbow, but I haven't had the time to really use it yet....

E. Polden

Those look to be nicely finished. Do you happen to know what wood your friend used?

Have you ever had the opportunity to try them yourself and if so how did they perform?

Elling, those are indeed very interesting...I too would be very interested to hear how they perform.
They also remind me greatly of some of the bows in the Maciejowski Bible, which appear to be selfbows with siyhas.
Dan

He's made several (they where used in his thesis). The static recurve is a proposed reconstruction based on a spine laminate found in Bergen; the actual "ears" where not found, so its not definite.

The bow is made from a laminate of birch and pine (!) in the front and spine respectively. It develops about 100 pounds at full draw.

I've recently finished reading "Horseback Archery" by Lajos Kassai. He basically recreated (his version) of horseback archery in Hungary as a modern sport. He found that the modern draw to the corner of the mouth or chin didn't work on horseback. Having a fixed anchor on the corner of mouth while the tip of the arrow moves all over the place makes it impossible to hit anything. After looking at historical illustrations he found that drawing to the chest works better on a moving horse.

Shooting from the chest does take longer to learn and more concentration (from what I've read). You will probably never be as accurate in most situations but it does have some advantages and it's possible that it may be more accurate when shooting from a boat bouncing up and down, but I'm just guessing.

I've tried shooting from the chest, not very accurate yet but a noticeable improvement after 8-10 half hour practice sessions but a long way to go. My anchor point keeps creeping back up, which is a major part of the problem.

I don't know if that was any help or not.

Elling, do you know the time period that these short recurved bows are estimated to be from?

As far as I know, they, or rather, the fragments that the reconstruction is based on, are dated 13th century.
There are older bows, but I'm no expert.

Similar models are depicted in 13th c. manuscripts, like the Maciowski bible

[quote="Elling Polden"]

There is also evidence for use of compound bows in scandinavia, using both different kinds of wood and horn, though not in the eastern horsebow form. quote]

There are strong evidence for use of eastern magyar "horsebows" in finds from the birka garrison and in burrials. At present it is not clear if the bows were imported or copied. There have been several papers written on the subject here in sweden in the last years.

The connection between the lake Mälaren culture and the magyar culture and vice versa is since long well established.
Then again the mid Swedish area is quite different to other norse areas, so this type of bow is not typical for the period.

As far as I know the eastern hornbow takes huge amounts of time and work to make; while it might perform better in some respects it is not THAT much better that it is worth making when good wood is available.
You can of course reinforce a primarily wooden bow with horn or sinew, as well.

Regardin scandinavians and archery, it should be noted that it was not primarily a weapon for the lower classes. In medevial england bows where demanded from the people with the lowest income; in scandinavia the same people where expected to field spear and shield like everyone else. Only the more wealthy are required to bring a bow.
However, the ships where supposed to have a bow for every second pair of oars, which was counted as part of the ships equipment.

Actually, the Eastern recurve's advantage is customizability--you can vary the proportions between the bendable limbs and the static recurve of the "ears" so as to get a slower but more stable bow with a heftier punch (long limbs, short ears) or a faster but more fragile bow (short limbs, long ears--mostly seen in flight bows). The ears also provide a mechanical advantage by acting like levers that counteract the limbs' tendency to stack near the end of the draw.

That being said, I definitely agree that the heavy medieval form of the non-recurved self longbow does have the advantage of simplicity and stability (in the sense of being far less sensitive to damage from improper treatment). However, I'm not so sure about presence and hand shock--an Eastern recurved composite with a well-made grip and well-matched limbs could shoot every bit as sweetly as a well-made longbow, especially when each is used with the proper technique.