Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why Longbow? An analysis about archery's impact in Middle Ag Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next 
Author Message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jul, 2016 4:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Longbow? An analysis about archery's impact in Middl         Reply with quote

Harald Schneider wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
A shorter bow doesn't allow shorter arrows. You can use very short arrows with a long bow. A shorter bow might force you to use shorter arrows (or at least a shorter draw, in which case you usually use shorter arrows). But (a) there are plenty of long-draw short bows, and (b) there are Asian bows that are comparable in size to European longbows, and were used with longer draws and longer arrows.


On the contrary the shorter bow allows a shorter arrow, but it is also capable of shooting longer ones (up to a certain weight) without loosing to much efficancy in the progress.


Harald Schneider wrote:
Using a longbow (without a help like the Ottoman siper) is trading of range and penetration power on a higher level.


Yes, but exactly the same thing applies to a shorter bow. If, for a given bow, you use a shorter draw, you get less energy. If you compare two bows, of similar construction but one being, say 50lb at 20", and the other 50lb at 30", and shoot with them drawing to 20" and 30" respectively, you'll get less energy. But that's true for both long and short bows.

What matters is the mass of the arrow relative to the mass of the bow limbs. If the arrow is very light compared to the limbs, the efficiency will be very poor. That is, the arrow will have very little energy. A lightweight bow allows lightweight arrows to be used with better efficiency. A shorter bow is likely to be lighter-limber than a longer bow. But this isn't universal. For example, a short self bow needs to have thinner wider limbs to achieve the same draw weight and length as a longer self bows (which is why very short self bows are often "paddle bows"), and they end up with limbs of similar or possibly even greater weight. See, e.g.,:
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/sreply/35003...s-Shortbow
for a numerical example. More relevant to Asian archery, a short bow with long siyahs (of which I've seen Chinese, Korean, Indian, Afghan and Javanese examples) carries dead weight out at the limb tips, and is not friendly to light arrows.

Next, given that long arrows can vary in mass from under 30g to well over 100g, a great deal of variation is possible with short arrows, too.

Arrow length does affect the practicality of closed quivers. European crossbow quivers are usually tip-up closed quivers.

Harald Schneider wrote:
It is still part of a fascinating topic what different solutions mankind developed making use of the range of materials and suroundings. As to tip up and tip down quivers being preferred by (East) Asian archers we shall agree to differ.


I haven't seen a single example of a Qing tip-up quiver. I haven't seen a single example of a Korean archer shooting while wearing arrows in a closed quiver - either the archer wear a short open tip-down quiver, or has arrows tucked through a belt (the arrows having been carried in a closed quiver, removed, and the quiver put down before shooting - also note that some Korean closed quivers are tip-down).

If tip-up was the preferred solution in Early Modern East Asia, I'd expect more examples.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Harald Schneider




Location: Diez
Joined: 10 Jun 2015

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Sun 10 Jul, 2016 4:43 am    Post subject: Re: Why Longbow? An analysis about archery's impact in Middl         Reply with quote

[quote="Timo Nieminen" I haven't seen a single example of a Qing tip-up quiver. I haven't seen a single example of a Korean archer shooting while wearing arrows in a closed quiver - either the archer wear a short open tip-down quiver, or has arrows tucked through a belt (the arrows having been carried in a closed quiver, removed, and the quiver put down before shooting - also note that some Korean closed quivers are tip-down).

If tip-up was the preferred solution in Early Modern East Asia, I'd expect more examples.[/quote]

You might look up the Zargalan grave findings dated around the 7th Century or the japanese Utsubo quiver type.
By the way I never said modern eastern asian archers prefer tip up quivers. My remarks are purely concentrated on the positive impact of tip up quivers for mounted archers in need of carrying variety of different tipd arrows.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Sun 10 Jul, 2016 5:44 am    Post subject: Re: Why Longbow? An analysis about archery's impact in Middl         Reply with quote

Harald Schneider wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
I haven't seen a single example of a Qing tip-up quiver. I haven't seen a single example of a Korean archer shooting while wearing arrows in a closed quiver - either the archer wear a short open tip-down quiver, or has arrows tucked through a belt (the arrows having been carried in a closed quiver, removed, and the quiver put down before shooting - also note that some Korean closed quivers are tip-down).

If tip-up was the preferred solution in Early Modern East Asia, I'd expect more examples.


You might look up the Zargalan grave findings dated around the 7th Century or the japanese Utsubo quiver type.


I'm aware of the Japanese quivers. The kari-ebira appears to be much more popular for use in battle; the utsubo is preferred when travelling long distances and weather protection becomes more important.

Harald Schneider wrote:
By the way I never said modern eastern asian archers prefer tip up quivers.


Sorry, when I said that they preferred tip-down, and you replied "As to tip up and tip down quivers being preferred by (East) Asian archers we shall agree to differ", I read that as you having the opposite opinion (i.e., that they preferred tip-up).

Most of the surviving quivers are relatively modern (e.g., most Chinese quivers are Qing, most Japanese quivers are Edo, etc.), most of the surviving art is relatively modern (e.g., Qing/Edo), and all of the photographs are modern. So most of the evidence is modern. I'm familiar with the modern evidence. When you make statements that appear to contradict it, I ask.

(By "modern", I mean from about 1600, to mid/late 19th century, when serious use of military archery went away, not late 20th century/21st century modern. Current "traditional" practice may well derive from earlier traditional practice when archery was in earnest, but it's a more perilous source of information than contemporary art.)

Harald Schneider wrote:
My remarks are purely concentrated on the positive impact of tip up quivers for mounted archers in need of carrying variety of different tipd arrows.


I don't understand your point. Yes, they work well for mixed types of arrows. But tip-down quivers work perfectly well for this too (not all types, but the ones common among Asian mounted archers). Since both types of quivers work well for mixed types of arrows, I don't see either being used instead of the other due to wanting to carry mixed arrows.

I can see one very, very good reason for closed quivers (which will be tip-up quivers): weather protection. The arrows are also better protected against damage from other things.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Brandon Wilson




Location: California
Joined: 10 Jul 2016

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

New member, first post. Hope I don't stir things up. First, I will admit I do demonstrations on longbow archery, as it is an area of interest. Second, I recently received my BA in History.

As for the longbow argument, I have to go back a bit to the arrow length first. Two bows, with the same final draw weight, firing the same arrow will not shoot the same. The longer the draw length, the more energy put into the arrow, as it will accelerate the arrow with the same force, but longer duration (a rifle and a handgun using the same ammunition will have the rifle shooting further). Many non-European bows did have high draw weights, but shorter draw lengths. I personally, after having both ridden a horse and fired an English war bow (measured 125 pounds at 30 inches), seriously doubt I could have handled both at the same time. Even if the skill was there, the horse would interfere with getting a full draw.

The arrows themselves do make a huge difference though. I've seen penetration tests, comparing various historical arrow types (fired from the same bow no less) against plate and chain armors, and the heavy bodkin type points used by the European archers, especially the Welsh/English proved to have a superior penetration against the European style armors, while matching penetration against Middle and Far East styles. One that I saw had a Japanese archer shoot at chain (not sure if it was butted or riveted), with a bow drawing roughly 80 pounds, and his arrows bounced off. I have personally put a bodkin through two layers of butted chain, or a single layer of riveted (and an 8oz leather backing on both) with my 50 pound longbow.

As for the quivers, from what research I have done, longbow archers generally did not carry quivers in battle. They simply would not have been able to carry enough arrows. Instead young boys would run bundles of arrows to the archers, who would unwrap them, and stick them in the ground in front of them. The French actually accused the English during the Hundred Years War of poisoning their arrows because the dirt and animal matter that tended to stick to the points when stuck in the ground, and the nasty infections even minor wounds caused for this.
I can give further arguments about various battles and tactics, and both sides of the riddle of the longbow.
On a totally different note, I should be receiving a 150 pound, fully operational 16th C crossbow, and am looking forward to doing my own comparisons between it and the war bows.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunch and taste good with catsup.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Will S




Location: Bournemouth, UK
Joined: 25 Nov 2013

Posts: 164

PostPosted: Mon 11 Jul, 2016 12:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Brandon Wilson wrote:


As for the quivers, from what research I have done, longbow archers generally did not carry quivers in battle. They simply would not have been able to carry enough arrows. Instead young boys would run bundles of arrows to the archers, who would unwrap them, and stick them in the ground in front of them. The French actually accused the English during the Hundred Years War of poisoning their arrows because the dirt and animal matter that tended to stick to the points when stuck in the ground, and the nasty infections even minor wounds caused for this.


This is unfortunately one of the many "Hollywood" myths that travels hand-in-hand with the longbow, along with shooting (side note - shooting, not firing. There is no fire involved in using a bow...) 12 arrows a minute, shooting through oak doors, the V sign originating from English archers and so on. They're all rubbish.

We've got actual period artwork showing longbow archers carrying bags of arrows. The work carried out by Jonathan and John Waller on the carriage of arrows is worth a read if you're interested, but essentially a simple arrow bag containing a leather spacer is tied to a thin leather belt using a marlin spike knot, which tightens around the bag as arrows are removed. The bag hangs horizontally at the back of the archer. No belt loops or shoulder straps, despite what reenactors might try and tell you Wink

You don't need to shoot hundreds and hundreds of arrows in a battle - again, despite what film and reenactors spout, there were no huge volleys of thousands of arrows "raining down" on the enemy. Why waste expensive ammunition when in virtually any pitched battle an archer using a bow with a sensible average draw weight (150lb) can aim and hit an advancing target with a single arrow. This means that an arrow bag of a sheaf (24) of arrows is more than enough ammunition - by the time you've shot 24 arrows at individual targets, they've already advanced far enough to smell your feet.

Still, I do love the image of 5000 English archers at Azincourt all unwrapping rolls of arrows, and painstakingly setting them all up in nice neat rows or bunches in front of them, somehow all within reach without having to step sideways or backwards into other archers doing the same thing. Then of course, you've got those super talented young lads who know exactly which archers out of the 5000 have run out, and being able to dart their way through the ranks to hand another roll of arrows to them, which they promptly waste by chucking them all in the air hopefully.



 Attachment: 42.53 KB
medievalarrowbagimage.jpg


 Attachment: 119.45 KB
Untitled.jpg


 Attachment: 27.11 KB
Untitled1.jpg

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Mon 11 Jul, 2016 2:39 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A couple of European pictures of tip-up quivers in use by non-crossbow archers:


From http://www.larsdatter.com/archers.htm


http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg848/0448 <= nice clear depiction of tip-up closed quiver in use by a mounted archer
From http://www.larsdatter.com/archery-quivers.htm

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Will S




Location: Bournemouth, UK
Joined: 25 Nov 2013

Posts: 164

PostPosted: Mon 11 Jul, 2016 4:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tip-up arrow carriage is very interesting - especially considering the fact that English arrowbags were carried essentially tip-down (if not horizontally) but the arrows drawn from the tip, pulling the fletchings through the holes in the spacer and out of the bottom of the bag.

Wouldn't want to trip and fall on them, of course...
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Mon 11 Jul, 2016 2:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's the most common style of crossbow quiver in Europe, so it isn't something radically new to see them in use by non-crossbow archers. They just need to be made a lot longer.

Here's an Asian one of similar form: http://metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/26588

I haven't seen the inside of one. I don't know what kind of spacers might have been used.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Tue 12 Jul, 2016 7:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Will S wrote:
You don't need to shoot hundreds and hundreds of arrows in a battle - again, despite what film and reenactors spout, there were no huge volleys of thousands of arrows "raining down" on the enemy.


Based on the sources I've seen, English and other archers did long-range volleys at times. John Smythe and Roger Williams both wrote about archers shooting at 240+ yards. They didn't necessary recommend this distance - it was about the limit of what Smythe consider effective - but was an option and established technique. Lancastrian volleys fell short at Towton 1461 because of the wind, snow, and perhaps human error, and they apparently shot all their arrows in such conditions. And of course we have endless of accounts of arrows falling like rain, hail, etc. I doubt that was all artistic licence. Shooting at individual targets at closer range may often have been more effective than volleys at long range, but the weight the evidence indicates that both tactics were used historically.
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Tue 12 Jul, 2016 10:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I wouldn't be surprised if they practiced different shooting for level of armor of a target. It doesn't require much in the way of aim to hit flesh or clothes covered people which are all in dense column it way that will kill or main alot of them. It does that alot to hit heavily armored targets in areas were you arro will hurt them. I would guess they volege shoot to kill the army of the common folk and practicised straight , high percision and arruracy shooting on rich, heavily armored folk. Also, why are some some make such a big on tip up quivers are better than tip down because it allow you to see the head. Anti armor shafts are often thicker because they have to be stiffer, a archer could easily pain the ends different colors to coordinate that way, etc. You don't need to see the tip to tell one type of arrow apart from another.
View user's profile Send private message
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 189

PostPosted: Wed 13 Jul, 2016 12:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Will S wrote:
Brandon Wilson wrote:


As for the quivers, from what research I have done, longbow archers generally did not carry quivers in battle. They simply would not have been able to carry enough arrows. Instead young boys would run bundles of arrows to the archers, who would unwrap them, and stick them in the ground in front of them. The French actually accused the English during the Hundred Years War of poisoning their arrows because the dirt and animal matter that tended to stick to the points when stuck in the ground, and the nasty infections even minor wounds caused for this.


This is unfortunately one of the many "Hollywood" myths that travels hand-in-hand with the longbow,


There may be some truth to that one. Sir John Smythe did write that the french accused the english of using poisoned arrows because rust from the arrowheads created much more serious wounds.

"Besides that, I, and diuers other Gentlemen of our Nation yet liuing, that were in France in King Ed∣ward the sixts time, and also diuers times since, haue manie times heard French Captaines and Gentlemen, attribute al the former victories of the English against themselues & their ancestors the French, more to the effect of our Archers, than to anie extraordinarie va∣liancie of our Nation; and therewithall further report and say, that they did thinke that the English Archers did vse to poyson their arrowe heads;* because that of great numbers of the French Nation that many times had been wounded or hurt with arrowes, verie fewe had escaped with their liues; by reason that their wounds did so impostume, that they could not be cu∣red. In which their cōceipts they did greatlie erre; be∣cause in troth those impostumations proceeded of no∣thing els but of the verie rust of the arrowe heads that remained ranckling within their wounds; and there∣fore by the common experience of our auncient Ene∣mies, (that we haue so often vanquished) not onlie the great, but also the small wounds of our arrowes haue been alwaies found to bee more daungerous and hard to be cured, than the fire of anie shot vnpoysoned."

For what it's worth though, Humfrey Barwick made the counter-argument that rusty arrowheads would be less effective at piercing padded jacks.
View user's profile Send private message
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,307

PostPosted: Wed 13 Jul, 2016 12:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Both volleys and precision shooting at close is a historical technique. That's why you have flight arrows and heavy arrows for better penetration.
View user's profile Send private message
Will S




Location: Bournemouth, UK
Joined: 25 Nov 2013

Posts: 164

PostPosted: Wed 13 Jul, 2016 4:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Rusty arrowheads are a long way from deliberately poisoning them by sticking them in the ground. One is fiction, one is an unavoidable circumstance.

I've no doubt that "bearing" arrows were used to taunt from a distance. That's not what I meant. I'm talking about the Hollywood style cascades of many hundreds of volleys of arrows. Didn't happen. The point is that you don't need boys charging around a battle field giving out bundles of arrows, as a single sheaf (possibly two which can still be carried easily by one person) is plenty if used widely.

An enemy battalion isn't going to stand still while archers "rain" down hundreds of arrows. They will advance, and by the time the archer has shot 24 arrows they'll be face to face.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Karl G




Location: Australia
Joined: 25 Apr 2016

Posts: 66

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2016 8:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I also tend to cringe when I see the raining down arrows effect in movies. If you hunt or use arrows you realise how quickly they lose velocity and energy and that arrows coming in from an extremely looping trajectory while not preferable if you are cleanskinned, are not going to be much of a hazard to any sort of protective coverings. For this to occur you are shooting as close to flat as possible at close range.

I also see the inevitable comparison between ''firearms ballistics and arrows'' erroneously rears its head in the discussion too. Oh dear...

Lastly I would like to suggest we lay it on a bit thick with the "years and decades" training needed for bows and long bows. While there is an advantage to time in use no doubt, most folk will still learn to hit a basic target in short order. Traditional archery hunters in the modern era are not practicing "years and years" to shoot their first hog or deer. They are often shooting one in the first season, or at least shooting ''at one'' with relative chance of success, as long as they practice beforehand. The muscular development needed for very heavy bows I doubt takes year and years either, if modern clubs are anything to go by.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2016 1:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hundreds of volleys may have happened in some battles and especially at sieges. Arrow resupply definitely happened. I can't think any of examples from English history off the top of my head, but there's that famous bit about Parthian camels bearing arrows at Carrhae 53 BCE.

As far the original question goes, Bertrandon de la Broquière specifically described the early 15th-century difference between European (presumably English and Burgundian) archery and Turkish archery. That's well after the 11th and 12 centuries but might still be worth considering. Bertrandon de la Broquière considered Turkish bow at least reasonably strong and their shooting fast and accurate, but he thought Turkish arrows poorly designed for piercing armor. He wrote that an arrow from a Turkish bow might pierce light mail but would be stopped by any plate armor. He curious claimed European archers shot from further off. I assume this means they Turkish archers he saw didn't shoot at long range and instead prefer, as he described, medium and short range.

While well-made horn-&-sinew composite bows perform better than well-made yew bows, higher draw weight and arrow for European infantry bows compared with Turkish cavalry bows explain the difference observed by Bertrandon de la Broquière in the 15th century.
View user's profile Send private message
Henry O.





Joined: 18 Jun 2016

Posts: 189

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2016 2:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

One thing that doesn't seem to have been brought up yet is that whether an arrow can penetrate depends a lot on the mail as well. If your mail rings are .25 mm thicker or thinner it can have a pretty big effect on the amount of energy needed to penetrate.

Also, I'd like to second that saying a weapon took "years or decades to train" is probably a bad way of looking at it. Someone who trains rigorously all day every day for 10 months will probably get better with their bow than someone who shoots a couple arrows with their friends once a week for 10 years.
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 507

PostPosted: Fri 15 Jul, 2016 8:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Henry O. wrote:
One thing that doesn't seem to have been brought up yet is that whether an arrow can penetrate depends a lot on the mail as well. If your mail rings are .25 mm thicker or thinner it can have a pretty big effect on the amount of energy needed to penetrate.

Also, I'd like to second that saying a weapon took "years or decades to train" is probably a bad way of looking at it. Someone who trains rigorously all day every day for 10 months will probably get better with their bow than someone who shoots a couple arrows with their friends once a week for 10 years.

True, hence the banning of recretation sports to coerce people to train at archery more frequently. But, to play devil's advocate. An archer didn't need to be able to develop the muscle mass to draw a heavy bow once, he had to develop the mass and stamina to loose arrows repeatily, nock arrows blindly, and judge distance and flight path instintally, all in a very high stress situation. Alot harder than shooting a singular arrow at a target in very calm, controlled conditions.
View user's profile Send private message
Karl G




Location: Australia
Joined: 25 Apr 2016

Posts: 66

PostPosted: Sun 17 Jul, 2016 9:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

From a battle point of view, can't argue there are many skillsets involved for archers beyond simple target shooting. Also agree an army of people who already knew how to shoot a heavy bow, could hunt/forage with the weapon and probably manufacture it themselves would be a huge strategic not to mention logistic advantage.

However just regarding the physical side of things, not a real problem regards continuously cocking and firing etc. Like most muscular endeavours this can be specifically trained fairly quickly to 80-85% peak output. It does not take 5 years to get someone in excellent physical shape for example, it takes a couple of months. There are more factors involved with maximum level outputs and specific movements of course, but still its not years and years.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 19 Jul, 2016 7:49 am    Post subject: Re: Why Longbow? An analysis about archery's impact in Middl         Reply with quote

Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote:
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

For one thing, it was very common for Central Asian warriors (including Turks and Mongols, probably even Arab settlers in Central Asia) to carry two bows. The reason was not always clear; but in some (not all) cases there are indications that it might have been done so that the archer could have a short stiff bow for shooting light arrows over long distances and a somewhat slower but stouter bow for shooting heavier armour-piercing arrows at short range. If this was the case, it would explain why the Turkish horse archers who harassed the Crusaders at long range were so ineffective at it -- they had heavier bows and heavier arrows that had a much better chance of getting through the weak points in European armour, but the Latin crossbowmen prevented them from getting close enough to make effective use of the shorter-ranged armour-piercing arrows.


So, they also had two quivers to differentiate one type of arrow of the other one, right? These "armor piercing" arrows come to be something like a Bodkin or is not the case?


Why bother? It's not that hard to put spacers or pockets in a quiver to separate arrows into several distinct groups, so there would have been no need for a second quiver except if the archer specifically wanted to carry twice as many arrows as usual (and even then the archer could just have carried the extra arrows in some sort of box, bag, tube or basket rather than a second quiver. Or left the extra arrows with a servant or logistical personnel in the rear.
View user's profile Send private message
Veronica-Mae Soar




Location: South Gloucestershire, UK
Joined: 08 Sep 2010

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Mon 08 May, 2017 9:36 am    Post subject: Re: Why Longbow? An analysis about archery's impact in Middl         Reply with quote

Quote:
I have a friend who has some practice with longbow archery. He claims that some longbows, by the time of the War of Roses, have curved design in their limb's end. I don't know the technical term, but would be something slightly like this:
http://s108.photobucket.com/user/OzarkRamblr/...e.gif.html

This actually happened?


Not as shown - what that is is a true recurve, which effectively provides 4 force curves instead of two. What some early bows did have was a reflex, and this can be seen in some ancient illustrations
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why Longbow? An analysis about archery's impact in Middle Ag
Page 2 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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