| Author |
Message |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
 Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 9:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Cabeza de Vaca and other Iberians notably described many Florida-region Native peoples as like giants, tall and strong. De la Vega gave a few accounts Native archers using their bows as a staves to strikes Spaniards in close combat - in one case strokes from a bow drew blood through a helmet but didn't incapacitate the Spaniard in question, who responded with two sword thrust that provided lethal - so if accurate those bows were indeed substantial. Paul Schneider in Brutal Journey claims Timucua archers went to Europe in 1567 and "consistently outperformed the best European archers in exhibitions" (149). I'd love to find the source for that, but he doesn't provide a citation.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | But back to plains Indians: Were they horse archers who rode without saddle and stirrup? |
Yes. Once they got horses, that is. The big military changes of the time were getting horses (shields got smaller, from big shields used in shield walls, to 18-24" roundshields better for horseback use), moving onto the open plains (which drives the adoption of the short composite bow due to lack of good wood), guns, and abandonment of armour.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Will S
Location: Bournemouth, UK Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: bow experience |
|
|
| Paul Ballantyne wrote: | | Discussions about bow strength especially longbows have a habit of of getting out of control. And I know Will has written extensively on forums. |
As is often the case when strong opinion goes hand in hand with bad or incorrect evidence.
| Paul Ballantyne wrote: | | I can only speak of my own experience of bows. I have shot very heavy bows myself but they are very hard on the joints and tendons, and I'm not exactly a wee or weak chap. There were many bows on the Mary Rose at or below 100 pp. My question would centre around how common would the very heavy bows be. All of our examples of longbows come from the Mary Rose. Would these examples be typical of the general issue to all archers ? Probably or possibly ? |
There are no bows from the Mary Rose that are in the 100lb range. For starters, there has not been a single replica made that is that light, and even the most basic of knowledge of making heavy war bows using Italian or other European yew would provide that information. Believe me when I say that if you take a stave of European yew and make an EXACT replica of a Mary Rose bow, you will end up somewhere in the 150 - 180lb draw weight range. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's been done so often by so many different bowyers. The reason people STILL think the bows were so light is because up until recently timber good enough for accurate replicas was extremely hard to find, so they used American or poor growth English yew which yield far lighter bows.
Not all longbows came from the MR. I mentioned the Ballinderry bow - dated to the 10th Century, and built almost identically to the MR bows, and recent replicas have come out around 150lb, the average weight of the MR bows.
As for stature or size - it's utterly irrelevant. There is one particular young archer who I won't name but is in his 20s with a very slim, very slight build who can quite comfortably shoot bows up to 160lb and has set records doing so. Technique goes much further than strength. Personally speaking, with the right instruction and advice from those who actually know what they're doing I went from 70lb to 110lb to 125lb in less than 2 years.
| Paul Ballantyne wrote: | | Did some archers shoot very heavy longbows ? yes. But how common was this ? Would a lower pp bow be more practical weapon to carry considering a higher rate of fire, more accurate, ability to maintain a rate of rate for a longer time before becoming fatigued ? I usually shoot a few hundred shafts at archery practice and my longbow is less than 100 pp, maybe I'm just getting old and have too many old war wounds but its hard enough on the old body. |
I know a few ladies who shoot at the same places I do who are quite capable of shooting over 100lb bows, and quite a few more around the world. 100lb is considered the starting point for getting into medieval archery, and quite frankly if it's not possible then technique or strength is flawed somewhere.
With proper training (for example, military training...) any healthy man should be easily able to shoot bows over 150lb. Joe Gibbs shoots all weekend with bows in the 170lb range, accurately and quickly. He is neither massively built nor a dedicated athlete - just somebody who's been shooting since childhood with dedication.
Also, if you've ever done any real, actual testing with a replica medieval war arrow being shot into plate steel that is around 2mm thickness from a realistic distance you'll find that 100lb simply does absolutely nothing. This is why all of Mark Stretton's extensive testing of different arrowheads published in Glade magazine was done with a bow of 140lb - a bow he considers "average" if not below average for the time.
| Paul Ballantyne wrote: | | I don't know Wills heavy war bow friends and I would certainly like to hear their views and experiences. I'm always open to new evidence especially when it comes down to actual practical experiences. |
I'm sure you've heard of Mark Stretton, Joe Gibbs and Simon Stanley. All three of which would quite happily state that the most likely average draw weight of a medieval bow is in the 150lb region. They are not the only ones, either. By a long, long way.
I won't go into the Bickerstaffe comments on here, but to put it as cleanly and politely as I can, all of his theories have since been disproven, and he finds it very difficult to accept that. There is evidence out there and yet he won't acknowledge it. That's all I'll say on the matter.
|
|
 |
|
|
Gabriele Becattini
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Did some archers shoot very heavy longbows ? yes. But how common was this ? Would a lower pp bow be more practical weapon to carry considering a higher rate of fire, more accurate, ability to maintain a rate of rate for a longer time before becoming fatigued ? |
i completely agree with Paul,
i'm pretty sure that in a near future someone will be able to shoot a 250 pounds warbow but the fact that some some individuals are capable of remarkable feats that the average person cannot equate, don't tell us nothing,
(this simple truth can be applied to every kind of phisical activity: there is Always someone that is stronger, faster, or with more stamina or endurance than the average).
the vast majority of pratictioners cannot shot a bow that is so heavy and i believe that it was the case also in the past.
for sure there was an elite of archers quite capable of handle super heavy draw weights, but i'm strongly inclined to believe that the main body of archers were more accostomed to bow in 100 pounds mark, that is a very respectable poundage that require a lot of training to be mastered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will S
Location: Bournemouth, UK Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | according to Weapons of Warre, extant Mary Rose arrows were mostly rather light: 40-48g for poplar arrows and 60-67g for birch. Is any physical evidence for heavier European arrows? (Some extant Manchu/Qing arrows exceed 100g, as do some extant European crossbow bolts.) |
Weapons of Warre is fantastic, but has many incorrect assumptions and data unfortunately - such as bow draw weights based on Bob Kooi's computer software. A well made aspen arrow such as those found on the Mary Rose carrying a small Tudor bodkin will weigh somewhere between 60 and 70g. The arrowheads found at Crecy would have needed a far more substantial shaft to fly properly, and of course a very heavy bow (well over 160lb to be effective at any real distance). There is some documentation about quarter pound arrows, and something with a true lozenge-bodkin plate cutting head made of birch will weigh around 110g.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | At least in eighteenth-century China, drawing 100lb bow wasn't too easy. Records from the Hangzhou garrison show that many soldiers (29-47%) couldn't even pass with a six-strength bow (75-80lbs). This wasn't considered acceptable and was far away from the front lines, but it suggests that drawing a 100lb bow isn't trivial. I'm not sure exactly what the exam required in this case. Only 0.625-2.5% of the garrison passed with 146-173lb bows! (There's some evidence that Manchu bows are harder to draw than English bows, though claimed weights for Manchu bows go up to nearly 240lbs.) |
All I know is that plenty of people today including women are able to shoot bows over 100lb. It's certainly considered entry-level now, and considering the number of people just in a small area of the UK who are shooting bows in the 150lb+ range it seems highly unlikely that bows as light as 100lb would be considered "war bows." Why use something so light when you can shoot quickly, accurately and fatally with something much heavier?
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Is this published anywhere? The Great Warbow gives 100-180lbs as the range, and that used to be controversially high. I like the idea of even heavier English bows; given the design's relatively low efficiency, mighty bows would stand consistent with the praise English archers often received from across Europe. |
Sadly not, it's just the respected opinion of some of the best heavy bow makers around the world at the moment (Jaro Petrina, Joe Gibbs, David Pim et al). I'm sure soon there will be a collection of opinions put together and written down with testing and documentation but for now there's only very old data that far too many people take as fact! At the moment the focus of testing seems to be on natural strings and medieval blunts - two subjects that need as much new and accurate testing as possible. Once that's been sorted out and documented properly no doubt the experimentation will turn to draw weights amongst other topics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will S
Location: Bournemouth, UK Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Gabriele Becattini"] | Quote: | | 100 pounds mark, that is a very respectable poundage that require a lot of training to be mastered |
Except that it's not. 100lb takes very little training. That's why it's considered entry-level here in the UK. It took me less than a year to shoot 100lb going from no archery experience whatsoever. I think people give up too easily, and that gives rise to the opinion that something like 100lb is "respectable" when in actual fact a 100lb bow used with a medieval replica arrow won't do a damn thing. It won't go anywhere near 220 yards (known in historical documents as "the kings distance" and required to be the MINIMUM practice range) and it won't do a thing when it hits period armour. 100lb simply isn't enough.
You'll struggle to reach 220 yards with a 110lb bow and an overly light 3/8" arrow weighing 50 grams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriele Becattini
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a year of practice is not properly what i consider a short amount of time...
for what it is worth, i'm also able to shoot a 100 lb bow and has took me about the same amount of time to learn,
but the real point of debate is the usefulness of super heavy bows in the heat of battle, not for re-creational purposes
i have to quote Paul again: Would a lower pp bow be more practical weapon to carry considering a higher rate of fire, more accurate, ability to maintain a rate of rate for a longer time before becoming fatigued ?
if you are having fun at your archery club, you can indulge in feats of streght without problems, but in the stress of a battle?
i beleive that if your life depend on your ability to keep arrows Flying , i would be more comfortable with a 100lb bow, but propbably we won't never see the end of this kind of discussion 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | But back to plains Indians: Were they horse archers who rode without saddle and stirrup? |
Yes. Once they got horses, that is. The big military changes of the time were getting horses (shields got smaller, from big shields used in shield walls, to 18-24" roundshields better for horseback use), moving onto the open plains (which drives the adoption of the short composite bow due to lack of good wood), guns, and abandonment of armour. |
Makes me wonder why Europe went through a chariot phase first.
At least the societies that left us documents. I believe Dan put forward the idea that the lack of proper riding equipment (i.e. war saddle) was the reason. Then again Native Americans seem to have had little problem with that (although I do not know if their horse archery was any good).
Would it be possible to ride without saddle in a set of bronze armor and still shoot effectively?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will S
Location: Bournemouth, UK Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that the discussion is done to death and probably pointless, but one thing to add - arrows were expensive and limited. There weren't hundreds for each archer, more like a couple of sheaves each. That's 48 or so. With proper training and practice, 150lb bow shooting 48 arrows carefully at targets (because the Hollywood mass volley idea is ridiculous for many reasons) isn't at all extreme.
The thing that everybody seems to forget in these arguments is that we KNOW what replicas weigh. We know for a fact that every replica made of the Mary Rose bows (and the Ballinderry bow) are around 150 to 200lb. If it wasn't common for archers to shoot that weight, it means the Mary Rose was stocked with bows far heavier than anybody could shoot. What's the point of that? It simply doesn't work.
For some reason, people take the fact that all identical replicas of bows are over 150lb, they take the fact that plenty of people today can shoot them (in a modern world where we are soft and there is no fear for life or death) and somehow decide that the military archery equipment would be almost half the draw weight. And they can't see that it's ludicrous  perhaps it makes them feel better talking in their reenactment groups to say 100lb is heavy, so when they struggle they don't mind so much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will S
Location: Bournemouth, UK Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a final point on accurate replicas of Mary Rose bows, this is a direct quote from Joe Gibbs on the English Warbow Society forum a few months ago.
"I have made a few bows lately based on the Mary rose bows, the last few I made were 76 inch nock to nock, one was 36mm wide by 34mm deep. tillered to 30 inch and weighs 182#, and the seconded was roughly the same size again tillered to 30 inch and is 170#,
Both are yew from the alps."
36mm x 34mm is smack in the middle of MR bow dimensions. Some are far bigger and some are smaller (although denser wood makes similar draw weights in physically smaller bows)
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: bow experience |
|
|
| Will S wrote: | | With proper training (for example, military training...) any healthy man should be easily able to shoot bows over 150lb. |
If that's true, the numbers from those Qing garrisons either show a profound lack of training and/or that it's significantly harder to draw heavy Manchu bows than English. (If Manchu bow are harder to draw, then that makes the eighteenth-century archer who supposedly won a contest with a nearly 240lb bow even harder to believe.) Sung Ying-Hsing (Yingxing Song), a late Ming author, did present 120 catties (158lbs) as the standard draw weight for strong archers, claiming few could use bows stronger than this. He gave 79lbs as weak bow, a bow that all archers can use.
| Quote: | | Joe Gibbs shoots all weekend with bows in the 170lb range, accurately and quickly. He is neither massively built nor a dedicated athlete - just somebody who's been shooting since childhood with dedication. |
He shoots an arrow every 10-11 seconds in this video, which isn't particularly fast. And both Simon Stanley and Mark Stretton have claimed it's difficult to shoot very fast with heavy bows. But we've had this debate before.
| Quote: | | Also, if you've ever done any real, actual testing with a replica medieval war arrow being shot into plate steel that is around 2mm thickness from a realistic distance you'll find that 100lb simply does absolutely nothing. |
The 140lb bow Mark Stretton used for this famous test was so comparatively inefficient that a high-quality 100lb yew bow could manage about the same performance. That still does basically nothing against even low-quality 2mm plate at close range, but nothing matches most historical sources on English arrows vs. plate armor.
If shooting 150+lb English-style bows isn't a big deal, why are so many of the bows listed from EWS shoots under 150lbs? For example, see this one. For this one you've got Joe Gibbs shooting 183lbs and that's it: nobody else shot above 139lbs and most are 100-125lbs. Who are all these archers who shoot 150+lbs easily? Joe, Mark, and Simon seem to be the main ones, or at least the main ones with any public presence.
Additionally, if any male should be able to train up to 150+lbs, why is the current record Mark's 200lb draw? (There are a few reports of high draws, up to around 250lbs, but poorly documented.) It seems curious that anybody would be able to train up to close to the world record; that's certainly not how it works in other sports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will S
Location: Bournemouth, UK Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess they don't particularly care about what people online think. Two other people who can shoot 150lb or so are on this forum in fact. The only reason Joe, Mark etc are so well known is because they're the leading proponents of this stuff. EWBS flight results are completely irrelevant in terms of who is shooting what. It's one small group of archers who happen to document their distance results. There are quite a few groups of archers all over the UK that don't document their results despite some of the members shooting very heavy bows.
I could list plenty of names of people quite capable of shooting what many consider unrealistic or extreme weights, but it wouldn't make a difference. I could make up a load of names for what good it would do to this discussion.
As for Marks record - that's down to respect. Joe has been filmed shooting a 210lb bow. He doesn't need to prove himself however and has too much respect for Mark to take it away. Mark did it to prove something to critics at the time I believe. It doesnt need to be repeated. There is somebody who many think is preparing to go for the record, and no doubt will attempt it in a few years. He's not in EWBS results and has never shot with the EWBS but that doesn't mean he can't shoot heavy bows. It is worth saying however that 150lb is a long way off 200lb. My belief is that 120, 140, 150 etc were the common military weights (supported by plenty of testing, bow replicas, etc) and the 200lb bows were used by the medieval equivalent of Joe - the elite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriele Becattini
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Will, do you really think that in abattle like Grecy (just to give a classical example) each archer has only 46 Arrow at his disposal?
with a rate of fire of even 1 Arrow every 10 seconds, means that all the archers exausted ther arrows in the first 10 minutes of the engagement,
and what have they done after this in a battle that has raged from the late afternoon until dark?
also, could you provide me a scientific study that prouve the measurements of the mary rose bows that you have cited? personally i have never seen one like this.
i think that we are terribly off-topic respect to the converstion started by Neal, but your thesis are fascinating and it is for sure an interesting topic.
P.S
obviously english is not my mother tongue, so if you find some of my statements harsh or unpolite, it is not done intentionally, i try to do my best but my linguistic ability is somewhat limited
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Will S wrote: | I guess they don't particularly care about what people online think. Two other people who can shoot 150lb or so are on this forum in fact. The only reason Joe, Mark etc are so well known is because they're the leading proponents of this stuff. EWBS flight results are completely irrelevant in terms of who is shooting what. It's one small group of archers who happen to document their distance results. There are quite a few groups of archers all over the UK that don't document their results despite some of the members shooting very heavy bows.
I could list plenty of names of people quite capable of shooting what many consider unrealistic or extreme weights, but it wouldn't make a difference. I could make up a load of names for what good it would do to this discussion. |
Videos and documentation would go a long way.
| Quote: | | As for Marks record - that's down to respect. Joe has been filmed shooting a 210lb bow. He doesn't need to prove himself however. There is somebody who many think is preparing to go for the record, and no doubt will attempt it in a few years. He's not in EWBS results and has never shot with the EWBS but that doesn't mean he can't shoot heavy bows. It is worth saying however that 150lb is a long way off 200lb. My belief is that 120, 140, 150 etc were the common military weights (supported by plenty of testing, bow replicas, etc) and the 200lb bows were used by the medieval equivalent of Joe - the elite. |
Strickland and Hardy's 150-160lb average from the Mary Rose strikes me as plausible given English fame as strong archers. Chinese-region sources support the idea that strong archers shot 150-160lb bows (officer exams typically required shooting or at least drawing a 150+lb bow on foot).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will S
Location: Bournemouth, UK Joined: 25 Nov 2013
Posts: 164
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Jan, 2016 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gabriele Becattini wrote: |
also, could you provide me a scientific study that prouve the measurements of the mary rose bows that you have cited? personally i have never seen one like this. |
Weapons of Warre documents the exact measurement of over 100 of the MR bows to detailed millimetres. It is the Standard for making replicas. I have used it personally to make many European Yew replicas of which the lightest was around 120lb.
As for the arrows - to assume they would run out is to assume a rate of fire. This is impossible, as we don't know how quickly they shot. I think it would be pointless adding yet another off-topic element to this discussion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,Sorry I only saw today how many replies there were, thanks very much to all. As has been mentioned I am mostly interested in archery as pertains to use by Irish and Gaelic Scots. The regular forces of Anglo Ireland used English style warbows in huge numbers so they were clearly of value to English forces in Ireland. The Gaels are continually referenced using smaller bows. My Bowyer co-worker and I are trying to back engineer such bows and at present I think that the starting point should be a minimum effective poundage.
Boswell relates a story about a bow kept by a Scottish Chieftain that could not be pulled back by their party, but then technique is everything in archery. A nonarcher often finds a 60# very difficult.
Clearly the history from North America (and the Indian mutiny?) shows that hunting weight bows were considered very dangerous by un-armoured troops. Modern bow hunting also confirms this. The Great Wyoming Archaeologist George Frisson relates that when he started bow hunting it was at what ranges far in excess of modern hunters and was still effective.
From threads presented on this forum and other sources I understand that medieval armours presented an effective counter to missiles especially bows. Therefore the heavy arrows (and therefore draw weights) of medieval English bows reflected a tactic beyond the destruction of individual soldiers.
That said Scandinavian bows also appear to have been of a high draw weight yet existed in an a less armoured military environment which adds an interesting dimension.
The thread has taken an interesting turn and I have to say I find it fascinating.
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriele Becattini
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
in order to answer most of your questions, Neal, we should first determine the kind of bow that was used in the scot/irish contest.
if we have to trust the scarce contemporary descriptions and illustrations, appereantly the bow in question was a medium sized (150-160cm ? i'm just guessing but in most depiction the bow is not higher than chest or shoulder level or even shorter) selfbow with recurved tips and rigid handle.
at least in irish context
i have read 2 english traveller's accounts of the XVIIth century were the highland scots were described using "longbow"
after that, we should determine the draw lenght of such bows.
a medium sized self bow with recurve tips and rigid handle without backing or sinew cannot be of a very high draw weight , for sure it can be over 50 lb but not 150lb
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal Matheson
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Garbriele,
yes I have read the accounts of "longbows",Off the top of my head I searched for the pieces in their original language but could not find them. being an archery nerd I know the word "bow" in loads of languages, a nice side effect! I am sure bows we would call longbows or English longbows were used along side "native" (careful now!) designs
I agree about the general form of bows in an Irish context. As for draw length I have seen standard chin type anchors in period art and I seem to recall reading in Hardy's(?) work references to shooting in the bow and drawing to or past the ear being unique traits of English archers.
There is not much to go on but it would seem Gaels were shooting in a broadly similar way to modern archers. "not tall highlanders seldom are" I would guess draw lengths might be low. Using a standard method we can arrive at a draw length of around 26 1/2" or 67cm for a man about 5'6".
http://www.seeknottheancestors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Nik Gaukroger
Location: United Kingdom Joined: 22 Sep 2013
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gabriele Becattini wrote: | Will, do you really think that in abattle like Grecy (just to give a classical example) each archer has only 46 Arrow at his disposal?
|
As I recall about 2 sheaves - 48 arrows - is consistent with what we know about the numbers of arrows supplied to the armies for the Crecy and Agincourt campaigns; and as there were engagements along the way it may well be that they had fewer come the big event. Of course this may well indicate that shooting was a lot less continuous that sometimes thought - it may well also have implications for the ranges heavy shooting would mostly take place at on the basis you wouldn't waste limited ammunition at ranges where the shooting had limited effect, rather you'd keep it back until your arrows will have maximum effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriele Becattini
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2016 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
given the cultural Heritage of the scottish highlands and isles, that is exclusively norwegian,
i'm inclined to believe that the bow used was broadly similar to the viking bow, and so a man high (or taller) straight limbed selfbow
the depiction of curved bow in scottish context may be expalined with the interchangeability between the irish and scottish culture during the XVIth century, that it is period from which, the pictorial sources comes.
so probably the shorter, recurve design of the irish bow was Always depicted, even when the subject was intended to be a scottish highlander
but given the said interchangeability it is equally possible that the curved design spread into the highlands via irish influence from Ulster.
if we assume that the irish bow was short and recurve, and not longer than 160cm the draw lenght should have been in the region 0f 26'' - 28''. it was more probably that they draw to the chest, that is the method depicted in all the sources were a short european self bow in shown in action
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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