| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
 Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: Low draw weight longbows historical? |
 |
|
Hello everyone,
I have been wondering. I have a longbow made of red oak with a 45 lb. draw weight. Although this weapon LOOKS historical is this basically a fantasy weapon- Is there any evidence of historical bows with draw weights less than the well known 100-180 draw?
We all know of the english/welsh longbow but were there any other bow types used during the time period 1100-1300? The Huns and Saracens and probably others used the smaller (laminated?) bow from horseback and on foot but what about the westerners? Is it the case that either the true longbow or the crossbow was used?
It seems to me that virtually ALL longbows sold today may be modern adaptations with no historical precedent save those few that are TRULY traditional.
Thanks,
Jeremy
|
|
  |
 |
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 10:05 am Post subject: 45 lb? |
|
|
In neolithic Europe it would be a viable small game bow, but not a heavy one.
In the period of heavy war bow use it's a child's or a lady's weight, but still capable of taking small game with the right head.
Rod.
|
|
 |
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The authors of The Great Warbow commented that the bow depicted in Dürer's sketch of Irish warriors would be a relatively weak bow unless it was of composite construction.
Seems to me that the great power was the point of the long, thick limbs of the longbow. If you wanted less power for some reason, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use a smaller bow rather than build a weak longbow. Yew was a prized military resource, so it seems unlikely that one would build a full-size bow and plane it down to half-strength. It would be like mounting one of those .22 conversion kits on a .45 pistol and taking it into combat like that. You could do it, but it wouldn't make much sense. If your specialized combat mission requires the .22 (and some have, historically,) why not just take a purpose-built .22? Maybe that would hold true with the bow as well.
But your bow may be historically accurate after all. As I understand it, what is commonly sold today as a traditional English longbow is just that, but its design dates from the 18th or 19th centuries rather than to the 14th or 15th. IIRC, scholars just don't know very much about the longbows of the 100 years war. They rely largely on the later generation of Tudor bows as recovered from the Mary Rose. I'm way out of my depth here and just speculating, but I'm sure somebody knowledgeable will comment in detail. There are a surprising number of longbow afficionados around here. 
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
 |
|
|
Jeremy V. Krause
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks guys,
Then can it be stated that the missle weapons of the high to late middle ages were the true 100-180 lb. weight english longbow or the crossbow? I guess this may be difficult to determine but I really have no interest in owning a "false" longbow. Perhaps slings were used but I know nothing about this. I like for my collection to be comprised of weapons closer to there historical counterpart. Please continue discussing this!
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Study this image from the new Poitiers article:
http://www.myArmoury.com/view.html?features/p...iers06.jpg
Note the two figures at bottom right. One is a slinger (with nasty bits of flint at his feet) and the other is a javelineer. This is a late 15th c. illustration, so shows arms and armour of that period, but slingers and javelineers were on the field at Poitiers. So, yes, there were other missles on the field (in opposition to the longbow,) but they were in the minorty and apparently were routed by the longbowmen. Javelins had very limited range. I would guess that a slinger would be a much more formidable foe at ranges over, say, 40 yards. Below about 30 yards I'd start worrying more about the darts. But compare that to to a clothyard arrow dropping out of the sky toward you with 75 percent of its initial velocity and fired from 200 yards away. That's a special kind of hurt.
I find it interesting that the javelin shown here isn't significantly more robust than the longbow arrows. It's longer, of course, and the head would be a very large hunting-type arrow head (used for combat as well,) but the shaft seems to be about the same diameter as the longbow arrows depicted. I recently made one of these as an experiment and had some intriguing preliminary results. Next step is to make three properly finished darts/javelins with fletching.
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: |
Seems to me that the great power was the point of the long, thick limbs of the longbow. If you wanted less power for some reason, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use a smaller bow rather than build a weak longbow.
Maybe that would hold true with the bow as well.
But your bow may be historically accurate after all. As I understand it, what is commonly sold today as a traditional English longbow is just that, but its design dates from the 18th or 19th centuries rather than to the 14th or 15th. IIRC, scholars just don't know very much about the longbows of the 100 years war. They rely largely on the later generation of Tudor bows as recovered from the Mary Rose. I'm way out of my depth here and just speculating, but I'm sure somebody knowledgeable will comment in detail. There are a surprising number of longbow afficionados around here. |
The fact is that there is more than one kind of English or European longbow.
You have neolithic small game hunting and skirmishing bows. Some of these artefacts may well be kids or small game bows, others could be for bigger game and fighting.
The common archetype of a high arched belly so often cited as typical is in actual fact more of a hardwood sporting bow section from the late 19thC to early 20thC though it can be found amongst the wide variety of sections in ancient bow artefacts where there was no doubt a good deal of empirical experimentation.
The very sharp high (gothic) arch is most typical of very thin narrow target and popinjay sporting bows, narrow to minimise the effects of paradox, consequently deep in section to retain draw weight in a narrow section. But these are typically tropical hardwood bows such as lancewood or snakewood which is why they can be so thin and have such built up handles.
Having a deep and highly arched section has the drawback of concentrating compressive forces in the wood along the narrow spine of the belly, thus making a chrysal or fret and consequent failure in compression far more likely, requiring a very high standard of craft to make such a marginal design sufficiently reliable.
This is not a good strategy with a war bow where power and durability are the prime requirement. As war bow width at a given length is defined by the density of the wood and the required draw weight, it is therefore a good policy to use the densest and cleanest wood available which has a low mass (carefully nurtured yew from a suitable growing environment) and the section tends on the whole to be far less sharply arched than the sporting bow archetype, so often misrepresented as a defining characteristic for all English bows, due to the uninformed transmission of the preferences of a few well known and relatively recent makers of the later sporting bow.
A relatively light man's bow would not necessarily be a lot shorter, though it could be of a smaller diameter.
Since properly tillered length has functionality in providing stability in the hand in the vertical axis, thereby having the potential to enhance accuracy especially at longer distances, there is a lower limit in bow length in a direct relationship to the draw length.
Where a heavy warbow might go to 85" or even a little more, so spreading the stress over a greater length of wood, with a lower weight sporting or hunting bow, accuracy will be potentially enhanced by not going below 66" to 72" depending upon the draw length.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeremy V. Krause wrote: | Thanks guys,
Then can it be stated that the missle weapons of the high to late middle ages were the true 100-180 lb. weight english longbow or the crossbow? I guess this may be difficult to determine but I really have no interest in owning a "false" longbow. Perhaps slings were used but I know nothing about this. I like for my collection to be comprised of weapons closer to there historical counterpart. Please continue discussing this!
Jeremy |
It very much depends upon what you want the bow for and your ability to shoot it without hurting yourself or anyone else. If you just want a costume item it is a simple matter to make a big looking bow out of low grade yew, but I would not necessarily guarantee such an item at a long draw length nor recommend it's use against a crowd of costumed re-enactors if it drew more than 30 or 40 lb..
But Joe Public at a re-enactment will not know much about bows and safety considerations have produced a whole genre of men dressed cap a pie shooting what appear to the informed eye to be low weight lady's target bows.
There is a classic image of this sort on p.71 of Hardy's "Longbow". The very slender and inappropriate full draw shape is typical of the wrong style of bow
Faced by opposition so armed, you might picnic with impunity at over 200 yards even with the wind in your face, rising from your repast every now and then to strike one of these gentlemen down with a 4oz shaft out of your heavy bow.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Risto Rautiainen
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
As Sean said, good stuff Rod. Here in Finland the minimum weight for a hunting bow is 42 lbs. Usually the max weight on traditional hunting bows lies somewhere between 60-70lbs depending on the user. Accuracy is usualy decreased if too heavy bows are used. I don't believe that hunting bows in the middle ages would have had much more weight. I'm saying this only because at some point there would have been people carrying their hunting equipment to war.
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: Hunting weights |
|
|
Anything from 35lb to 70lb would potentially be a hunting weight if you can put a sharp broadhead in the right place from a close distance.
Over 70lb and you are heading into low end war bow territory, usually thought of as 90 lb to 180 lb depending on the culture, period and nature of the defense and the range at which you start shooting and the weight of your shafts.
In cultures where archery is developed against opponents who are defensively arrayed, cavalry bow median weights tend to be in the 90lb to 120 lb range, infantry bows in the 120 lb to 150 lb range.
The practical top end is most likely around 175 lb to 180 lb. 200lb is more examination bow (test of strength) territory than a useful and accurate shooting weapon. An archer who could handle that with effect in the field would be truly exceptional.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | | IIRC, The Great Warbow offers an account of a man killed with a civilian bow. I forget what conclusions, if any, the authors drew about the weight. |
In a period when almost everyone of a certain class was required to shoot from childhood, most men would at the very least be shooting a heavy shaft out of high end hunting weight. In a brawl that will be lethal especially with a pass through or if the shaft is pulled out, since the shaft often prevents haemorrhage or delays the collapse of the lung while it is left in place.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rod Parsons wrote: | | Sean Flynt wrote: | | IIRC, The Great Warbow offers an account of a man killed with a civilian bow. I forget what conclusions, if any, the authors drew about the weight. |
In a period when almost everyone of a certain class was required to shoot from childhood, most men would at the very least be shooting a heavy shaft out of high end hunting weight. In a brawl that will be lethal especially with a pass through or if the shaft is pulled out, since the shaft often prevents haemorrhage or delays the collapse of the lung while it is left in place.
Rod. |
The authors picked this particular incident because the wounds were recorded in surpising detail by the local authorities. Grim stuff. I forget the period, but I think it was late 15th.
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Risto Rautiainen wrote: | | As Sean said, good stuff Rod. Here in Finland the minimum weight for a hunting bow is 42 lbs. Usually the max weight on traditional hunting bows lies somewhere between 60-70lbs depending on the user. Accuracy is usualy decreased if too heavy bows are used. I don't believe that hunting bows in the middle ages would have had much more weight. I'm saying this only because at some point there would have been people carrying their hunting equipment to war. |
If you made a graph of group sizes based upon the habits of modern archers, accuracy would fall off fast over 70lb, though 70lb is not so much in a single shot, adrenaline pumped hunting situation for a bowhunter of adequate strength.
The real objection to low weights should perhaps not be oriented quite so much towards penetration alone, as upon also achieving an arrow speed sufficient to reduce the likelihood of game jumping the string at close range.
This is why there is a tendency to prefer the heavier draw weights and why it is generally considered unethical to chance long shots.
In earlier times war bow weights and high end hunting weights would have been the same, war bow weights only increasing in an arms race as your foe became adept at making moredistance with his bows and his protection became harder to penetrate thus requiring that the distance be made with heavier shafts.
This same arms race led the Chinese to develop the crossbow and company tactics in response to social changes that changed military archery from a gentleman's occupation to a matter of organised artillery requiring the quick training of large numbers of infantry.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Jul, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: |
The authors picked this particular incident because the wounds were recorded in surpising detail by the local authorities. Grim stuff. I forget the period, but I think it was late 15th. |
I believe the one you mean was during the '"Wars of the Roses". Although the civilian population was not on the whole directly involved by the military actions, there was a considerable break down in civil order under Henry VI and Edward IV, not that we were not prone to such disputes even in times of strong rule.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Shamsi Modarai
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Nov, 2006 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
So.....historically (whatever that means  ), would a woman have been able to use a longbow? Is there a limit to how low the draw weight can be? Please forgive my ignorance, I've only ever shot with recurves, but I'm curious about the possibilities of a longbow. 
Wa biš žam že sceal of langože leofes abidan.
~ The Wife's Lament
|
|
 |
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Nov, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bows, like any other kind of medevial impliment, would be custom made to fit the need of the user.
If you want a weak bow for target practice, you make one, or more likely, trade a couple of bushels of butter for one.
While a 40 pound bow is a bit on the light side, it is still quite adequate for small game like rabbit, and casual sporting use. (A 40 pound bow would be quite adequate for killing a person; compare to a .22 pistol)
A serious hunting bow would have a lot heavier draw, but probably well below 100; Bow hunting is more about stalking than range anyhow; If the bow can take down a deer at 30 paces, it is more than adequate for the needs of the medevial hunter.
But in the end, whether you want to own a low powered longbow is a question of what you want it for. If you want to discover what it was like to use a warbow, it's not that rewarding. If you want to do reenactment or living history, it is slightly better; it might not be completely correct, but it looks right, and you can always explain to the audience that the real thing would three times as powerful.
For recreational use, the main weakness is that the low velocity means that it will be less accurate. However, it is more convenient, and you do not need a football field to practice on.
So, basically, its up to you...
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic