Warbows

[GrahameA]

Morning All

Just been doing a bit of thinking about bows and draw weights. (Beats the hell out of thinking about why things don't work on a certain forum.)

So at what draw length should we measure the poundage of a Warbow?

Usually, we measure bows at 28" but I have seen bow weights for Warbows quoted at 31" or 32" which equates to around the ear for an archer of my height. It also goes nicely with a livery arrow which are around 31" to 32" long.

My biggish longbow pulls 63lb at a 28" draw however, at a 31" draw it is well over 80lb.

Opinions anyone?

[longbow steve]

Hi Grahame, I suppose it indicates the design of the bow and at what draw length it is intended to be used at. It would be pointless to order a warbow at 28" if you intend to use it at 32". Plus they sound tougher.
Steve

[White Hawk]

Hi guys,
Len is the expert here but I shall give my definition on them. I define a war bow as a bow being of around 78" - 80" in length, a self bow of full compass design, no leather grip, and of heavy poundage.

Also draw length is the key. The power of these bow is as much from the long draw and the power stroke therein as it is about poundage.

We give measurements for these bows only @30" never at 28". They simpily are not designed for a 28" or under draw. To draw to the ear with this kind of weight also means the archer must employ the "in the bow" rolling draw technique, not the conventonal target draw. You simpily cannot take the weight of these bows (especially once over 100lbs) on the shoulders alone, you must employ the bigger muscle groups of the back.

This is something we are practicing at the moment as it is quite different to what we are used to. But when you get it right, what a difference it makes....

Gav

[waynerob]

... but I shall give my definition on them. I define a war bow as a bow being of around 78" - 80" in length, a self bow of full compass design, no leather grip, and of heavy poundage...

Gav,

I agree broadly with your definition but I'd like to dispute the "no leather grip", unless you also introduce a cut-off date somewhere before AD1600. While I'm not aware of any extant warbows from the late 16th/17th century, the woodcuts from Neade clearly show a leather binding at the handle. I can't see the rolling release working when there's a bloody great pike nailed to the side, either.

Wayne

[GrahameA]

Afternoon

So at what draw length should we measure the poundage of a Warbow?

Just dragging things back on topic for a few seconds - feel free to wax lyrically afterwards.

Gavin

Thanks for your comment - so, as I read it, your poundages are quoted at 30".

So what do others use? As I said at 28" mine is 65 but on those rare occasion, e.g. my Physio needs a holiday or a new car, and I draw it all the way back it is over 80.

So should it be described as 65@28 or 85@31"?

[waynerob]

Mine's marked 55# @ 28", I used to draw 32" but I'm finding as I get older and more decrepit, my draw is getting shorter. 30" would now be nearer the mark (sorry, appaling pun intented).

Wayne

[Len]

Grahame, I reckon you should quote the 85# @ 31", as long as you can command that draw length. Personaly, I think 30" is a good length to quote poundage. I know a lot of the UK guys use 32" but its hard to get that far back if your under average hight ( like me ) and most of the medieval archers who averaged around 5' 7".
I also reckon no leather grip or such, there is no art work to support there ever was any on medieval warbows and it doesn't make sense to have one on a weopon that can be shot either way up, left or right handed. waynerob's picture is of a proposed weopon that joined a pike to a bow and can't be used as an example unfortunately.

[GrahameA]

Hi Len

That sounds good enough for me. Actually it is easier to drag it to 32" - just climb into it and I am stable at that draw. But I would not recommend this to anyone without a lot of training and personally a couple of shots is all I am good for. But it does look good at the Medieval shows.

That bow does have a handle on it and it also has an arrow shelf attached to it. Settle down. It is not an English Longbow - it is somewhat flatter and is probably closer to ancient flatbow. I have an ELB if I want to play at being one of them.

So from now I will describe my big bows as x pounds at a more medieval draw length.

Another small question - anyone have issues with the fletches hitting the face on the way past. Normally it does not occur but every now and then I fell one rip across the top of the cheek.

[Len]

Grahame, you have made a very imporant point about you're draw length. We find that when you get the medieval/warbow style draw right its actually easier to draw long then short, you sort of find the right length as you push - pull and yes we have sometimes had a bit of a scrape from the string or fletches I think its because we havn't grown up with this type of anchor, we all want to anchor in tight to the face which you can't do if you are wearing a helmet ! Also, if the fletch is going across the top of the cheek you may want to try dropping your action a little lower. ( I feel very uncomforatable offering advice to such an experienced archer! )

[waynerob]

Another small question - anyone have issues with the fletches hitting the face on the way past. Normally it does not occur but every now and then I fell one rip across the top of the cheek.

There's a quote in Ascham (or was it Markham?) in the section on the loose that talks about one archer who had a "bracer" made to protect his cheek from the fletching. Old problem.

Wayne

[waynerob]

waynerob's picture is of a proposed weopon that joined a pike to a bow and can't be used as an example unfortunately.

I could bore you guys for hours on why it wasn't just proposed and where it was used, but I think that's for another time. And another beer

Wayne

[buzz]

How 'accurate' was a Warbow. The classic Agincourt style longbow barrage was described as a rain of arrows, seemingly onto a general area. But was it more accurate that that?

Is there any period description of the usage of bows that detailed practice? The holds of the Mary Rose apparently held numerous staves which would suggest that archers were literally just given the next stick off the pile. And in the days of slightly less than optimal quality control this would likely mean the bow could easily have draw weight across as wide as a 20# variation... so without a fair degree of practice and adaptation, this would really point towards a 'spray and pray' approach not being unacceptable. Also the arrow weight and spine were probably not the most carefully managed details. Therefore... (drawing a long bow, so to speak) it might suggest that the draw of the bow was not so much an issue, so much as getting the arrow into the intended ballpark... or crowd. Thus, the historic anchor is probably not particularly relevant, instead the goal of getting the arrow downrange was the aim. So to speak....

[Len]

Buzz, the correct draw was in fact considered very important and a point of pride amongst the English archers. If you have tried shooting at armour you will have seen how a big difference it makes to get that extrea couple of inches, the difference can't be over stated. Practice was required by law weekly and for those wanting to make a carreer out archery I'd say they would have practiced daily. The rain of arrows as you say was the main aim of the archer formations but they still had to shoot those arrows with enough power to be effective and with a reasonable level of accuracy. Tests have shown that with 100lb+ bows and 1/2" arrows spine doesn't seem to come into it. The other day at our comp I hit the wand target from 20m with my warbow ( only 80 lb but comparable to someone raised to shoot warbows from childhood) So I think with the amount of practice those guys were doing they would have been pretty good marksmen and they practiced hitting targets to out past 220 yards. But you are right in saying the real strengh of the longbow in battle was its rate of arrows hitting the enemy.

[Len]

The draw weight variation on the Mary Rose bows was a lot. They range broadly from 100 - 200 lb with the average arounge 130 lb. So I think the bows were never made to a draw weight as such but an ability to shoot the heavy arrows the mimum distance of 220 yards.

[GrahameA]

Hi Buzz

I need to lend you a book - or you could borrow/purchase copy of "The Great Warbow".

How 'accurate' was a Warbow. The classic Agincourt style longbow barrage was described as a rain of arrows, seemingly onto a general area. But was it more accurate that that?

In my opinion - in the hands of an experienced archer yes. But don't expect FITA type accuracy. The hold behind the ear is surprisingly good.

It is also interesting to note that the Koreans as well as many other Asia draw to a similar position and they also are surprisingly accurate.

Is there any period description of the usage of bows that detailed practice?

Ascham is the best but not really. Generally the best you get is from illustrations. Having said that, if you look at people like Simon Stanley who are using the bows today they are surprisingly accurate and they have learnt a lot from using the bows.

As an example if you want to shoot a big bow you have to learn how to "climb into the bow" and use your back muscles. Any FITA coach who saw me draw a big bow would have a fit. But the strain is being taken by the muscles low down in my back and not by the arm/shoulder muscles.

The holds of the Mary Rose apparently held numerous staves which would suggest that archers were literally just given the next stick off the pile. And in the days of slightly less than optimal quality control this would likely mean the bow could easily have draw weight across as wide as a 20# variation... so without a fair degree of practice and adaptation, this would really point towards a 'spray and pray' approach not being unacceptable.

Personal opinion The Mary Rose bows were livery weapons turned out in their thousands. Your typical archer would either just shoot what he was given or adjust it to his requirements. As well as that it is surprising how quickly you can adapt to various bows. I would suggest that after a couple of dozen arrows the archer would have a reasonable idea of how each particular piece of stick shot.

Also the arrow weight and spine were probably not the most carefully managed details.

Having had a bit of experience of mass churning out of arrows it is surprising how close they actually end up. I have made up batches of 100 or 50 of Flu-Flus used for displays and they are just made from Ramin Dowel. The only test is a quick flex and twist to make sure they are stiff and have no splits. Yet when you go and shoot them at their typical range they are all "on the target". So whilst livery arrows may have varied a bit they would still have done the job.

Have a talk to Sabine regarding SCA Combat Arrows. They are made in their thousands by people with a whole range of skill level and yet once again seem to do the job.

Therefore... (drawing a long bow, so to speak) it might suggest that the draw of the bow was not so much an issue, so much as getting the arrow into the intended ballpark... or crowd. Thus, the historic anchor is probably not particularly relevant, instead the goal of getting the arrow downrange was the aim. So to speak....

In my opinion it is that you need to be able to get the bow back - and that requires a very different technique. Plus to get the energy into the arrow the ELB appears to benefit greatly from a long power stroke..

If you don't get the arrow all the way back you don't make the range.

As a general observation you can watch strong archers go blue in the face when they try and draw a warbow. And they really struggle. Take them aside and give them and give them some instruction and change their style and all of a sudden it comes together. It is not the archer rather the technique

In my case it took a year to learn how to draw such a bow and I am at the bottom end of the range of weights, as I had no one to show me. YouTube is great in that there are now lots of clips showing people drawing them and it is so much easier once you see how it is done as distinct from reading it in books.

Len

Have a read of this stuff it is interesting: http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... chery.html

And a bit more:
http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... rbows.html

Some videos

Note the slashing loose being used as the archer struggles with poor technique of not enough strength. Not a good choice.

Distance & IMHO he is short drawing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dypwMBbH ... re=related

Roving and there are some really impressive archers in this lot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_rPxV5Jivg

Trick Shots - some better ELB Shooters shooting at close range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKxMq-THdO0

Korean Traditional. Check out the anchor and the range - and they hit the target.

[buzz]

Thanks for the links MrA. For some reason I've recently been compelled to read up on Viking stuff, so the Viking archery link was interesting.

I'll have to hunt up the Warbow book.

Got any other links or references to dark age / medieval historic bows and usage that isn't longbow @ Agincourt-style battle related? Like for hunting, poaching etc, or smaller force combat? The comment in the other thread that called for men and their long bows also had me wondering what else they might have had and used.

[heavybows]

Hello This is my 148# warbow. Marlon

[heavybows]

This is 120# warbow Marlon

[greybeard]

Hi Grahame,

Prior to the AMO system of measuring I believe that draw length was the distance from the belly side of the handle to the string when the bow was at full draw. Draw length pivot point [dlpp].

AMO added 1 3/4" to this measurement which roughly equated to the back of the handle which may have assisted in working out arrow length.

Daryl.

[Len]

Great bows Heavybows, inspirering stuff for those of us just getting into the warbows. Not that many of them here in Oz but the interest is growing!

[heavybows]

Thank you mates. Marlon

[Benny Nganabbarru]

Fair dinkum! That's pretty much a whole tree there! Lucky the French are friends, eh!

[heavybows]

Ben Its a small tree Marlon