Seven ages of britain bow query

[bushcraftbob]

There was a repeat of Seven Ages of Britain screened last night (the Bettany Hughes, and not the Dimbleby version), and on it they compared the power of a primitive selfbow, to that of a medieval yew longbow, in which they imply that the primitive bow is "much more powerful".

In the test they fired arrows from each bow in to a pig hanging from a tree. The arrows from the Yew bow just bounced off, as they would (!), and the arrow from the self bow went straight in.

I always thought the Yew bows were in general much more powerful than the stone age bows?

Did anyone else see this???

 

[mrcharly]

Erm, I have no idea what they were playing at - an arrow fired from a kids 20lb bow would stick in a pig carcass if the arrowhead is sharp.

 

[Dave Budd]

no idea about the bows in the program as I didn't see it, but this I can tell you.

When I was at uni, some time ago, a guy a couple of years ahead of me recreated the Mere Heath flat bow faithfully (using stone tools too). That bow was made from heartwood of yew and I think his drew something like 70lb from memory. Amongst the tests that he carried out with it he ran chronos and cast tests (so arrow speed and how flat the tragectory were). He ran all opf the same tests with a medieval longbow that he had also made from a piece of yew and weighed the same. His tests very clearly showed that that flatbow was faster and thus had a flatter cast than the longbow of the same weight.

Also, while not very empirical, I've a self flatbow of elm that I made a few years back. It draws less than 30lb and yet I managed to overshoot a 45yd target by a clear 30 yds in the WOODS without hitting a tree! The cast of that thing was much better than a longbow of the same weight, but not as good as on a recurve for example. One major reason for the change to round or D shape section is economy: a flatbow takes up 3 three times the amount of wood as a longbow

 

[SteveW]

I saw the program last night, what struck me at the time, was that the longbow arrows had no broad heads, maybe a very short bodkin at best. The flat bow had flint "broad heads" and they were very sharp. It certainly wasn't a fair test. I just had a wee look on Iplayer for yesterday, but it's not on there at the moment.

 

[bushcraftbob]

His tests very clearly showed that that flatbow was faster and thus had a flatter cast than the longbow of the same weight.

Blimey there is some truth in it then!!! Do you still shoot your elm bow Dave? I made an Elm one but it broke afetr a few hundred arrows, prob due to my appalling tillering and the fact i left it in a room with central heating on full blast for a month!!

 

[Dave Budd]

not very often sadly. I keep meaning to try backing it to up the poundage a bit, but never seem to find the time. I'm working on an ash flatbow at the moment, just to get back into practice before a course in a couple of months

 

[mrcharly]

I've not shot a selfwood (D) longbow, but did spend some time (years) shooting recurves, fibreglass/wood flatbows and compounds.

The flatbow/longbows were never 'fast' compared to the other bows. They were more tolerant of slightly varying draw length (which really makes a difference when hunting - you can't always choose to have perfect stance) and were better at casting a heavy arrow.

For 'war' bows, the ability to throw a heavy arrow would be far more important than speed. I believe (but haven't researched this) that the 'D' longbows were noted for their ability to cast a heavy arrow a long distance. That's why they achieved their mythological status.

The 'speed' of a bow will have a great deal to do with the weight of the limbs. Light, short limbs are always going to be faster (for the same draw weight) than long, heavy limbs.

 

[dwardo]

There is lots of speculation when it comes to bow designs and i think the jury is still out.
Some of the main points were due to manufacture. Using an english "D" tiller and "D" cross section longbow design you could produce more bows from the same log as they are a lot thinner in profile. Yew being good in compression will handle this kind of desin easily where as other woods will not which is why they are made wider aka flat bows. I would assume that a properly designed flat bow and longbow would have little or no difference in cast and speed of arrow. I prefer to make flat bows as they take less set and i can get away with much more "iffy" wood than a D tiller ELB. The ELB design lends its self a lot better to throwing a heavy mortar kind of warfare arrow compare to a flat bow.
Can anyone provide a link to the show?

Also if i can get 5 minutes to put the last seal on my new yew flat bow i will get some pictures up, dont mind saying my self its a pretty one, Buffalo horn knocks, black silk backing, flat recurve selft bow

 

[stovie]

....Also if i can get 5 minutes to put the last seal on my new yew flat bow i will get some pictures up, dont mind saying my self its a pretty one, Buffalo horn knocks, black silk backing, flat recurve selft bow

Sounds interesting...Natural recurve or did you steam it in?
Haven't made a bow in an age...must get 'round to whittling a new toy...

 

[dwardo]

Steamed them in mate. One limb has a bit of natural deflex but overall its got a reflex deflex look about it. Its sat here now with the first coat of half/half poly drying.
Should have it finished today at least with a temprary leather grip as i am waiting for a nice bit of leather from a mate but it may be a while.

Will pull my finger out!

 

[al21]

There was a repeat of Seven Ages of Britain screened last night (the Bettany Hughes, and not the Dimbleby version), and on it they compared the power of a primitive selfbow, to that of a medieval yew longbow, in which they imply that the primitive bow is "much more powerful".

In the test they fired arrows from each bow in to a pig hanging from a tree. The arrows from the Yew bow just bounced off, as they would (!), and the arrow from the self bow went straight in.

I always thought the Yew bows were in general much more powerful than the stone age bows?

Did anyone else see this???

I didn't see the program in question, but suspect that if any of the English Warbow Society members did the program makers will be receiving copies of videos showing warbow shooting arrows into sheets of steel to a sufficient depth to cause serious injury to anyone wearing such steel as armour. Sounds to me like this test they created for the program was simply nonsense. Are we really going to believe that one of the most effective weapons of war for nearly four hundred years is ineffective at piercing a pigs hide!

Of course, it must be remembered that that draw weight of modern bows is puny compared with the medieval warbow. A seventy pound bow isn't capable of shooting a military arrow which weighs 4oz and is a half inch in diameter for roughly half its length. The bows found on the Mary Rose averaged 140lb.

Sounds again like they had someone create a victorian style longbow of the same draw weight as a, so called, primitive style self-bow. Not really a like for like comparison in my view.

Al

 

[mrcharly]

Of course, it must be remembered that that draw weight of modern bows is puny compared with the medieval warbow. A seventy pound bow isn't capable of shooting a military arrow which weighs 4oz and is a half inch in diameter for roughly half its length. The bows found on the Mary Rose averaged 140lb.
Al

Sorry mate, I don't like to argue, but you have two things there that simply aren't true.

The mary rose longbows were estimated to have draw weights of 60-70lb. Some a bit higher.

I can guarantee you that the arrows were never 1/2" in diameter - more like a bit over 3/8". AFAIK the shafts were straight, not barrelled, so would be the same diameter along their length. 4.5 ounces is a bit high, as well. A modern longbow field arrow is about 1 ounce, I'd have to guess at medieval longbow arrow weights, but I'd reckon they'd be no more than 2 ounces. Too much range would be lost with heavier arrows.

 

[santaman2000]

I didn't see the program in question, but suspect that if any of the English Warbow Society members did the program makers will be receiving copies of videos showing warbow shooting arrows into sheets of steel to a sufficient depth to cause serious injury to anyone wearing such steel as armour. Sounds to me like this test they created for the program was simply nonsense. Are we really going to believe that one of the most effective weapons of war for nearly four hundred years is ineffective at piercing a pigs hide!

Of course, it must be remembered that that draw weight of modern bows is puny compared with the medieval warbow. A seventy pound bow isn't capable of shooting a military arrow which weighs 4oz and is a half inch in diameter for roughly half its length. The bows found on the Mary Rose averaged 140lb.

Sounds again like they had someone create a victorian style longbow of the same draw weight as a, so called, primitive style self-bow. Not really a like for like comparison in my view.

Al

Don't know about the bows on the Mary Rose but a modern bow in the 70 pound range should be more than enough. After all Fred Bear killed a 4 ton African Bull elephant with one shot from a 75 pound recurve. (page 120, The Archer's Bible, revised edition, copyright 1980, Doubleday Press) Granted he had modern arrows and broadheads.

 

[dwardo]

Sorry mate, I don't like to argue, but you have two things there that simply aren't true.

The mary rose longbows were estimated to have draw weights of 60-70lb. Some a bit higher.

I can guarantee you that the arrows were never 1/2" in diameter - more like a bit over 3/8". AFAIK the shafts were straight, not barrelled, so would be the same diameter along their length. 4.5 ounces is a bit high, as well. A modern longbow field arrow is about 1 ounce, I'd have to guess at medieval longbow arrow weights, but I'd reckon they'd be no more than 2 ounces. Too much range would be lost with heavier arrows.

I did hear that some of the poundages were over exagerated especially the 200lbs draws. However i went to the Manchester museum recently to take a look at one of the bows in the flesh, albeit behind glass and i was astounded at the girth of the thing. There is no way, epecially given the quality of the yew they used that the bow way anywhere near 70lbs, more like 100+ easily. The thing was like a polished log with pointy ends. The growth rings must have been in the 50+ per inch. What i wouldnt give to own one of those bows, go see it for your self.

 

[al21]

Sorry mate, I don't like to argue, but you have two things there that simply aren't true.

The mary rose longbows were estimated to have draw weights of 60-70lb. Some a bit higher.

I can guarantee you that the arrows were never 1/2" in diameter - more like a bit over 3/8". AFAIK the shafts were straight, not barrelled, so would be the same diameter along their length. 4.5 ounces is a bit high, as well. A modern longbow field arrow is about 1 ounce, I'd have to guess at medieval longbow arrow weights, but I'd reckon they'd be no more than 2 ounces. Too much range would be lost with heavier arrows.

You can argue that as much as you like fella, it's no skin off my nose! As a former associate member of the English Warbow Society I'm happy to accept the findings of the respected archers and bowyers who had the opportunity to examine the bows recovered from the Mary Rose, take measurements and then recreate said bows.

The military arrow isn't barreled, it's bobbed. This is where, in the case of the military arrow it is a half inch thick from the point to roughly half way along its length, and then tapers to the nock. The heavy weight arrow then creates more damage on its descent than a lighter one. This was, after all its sole purpose.

As Dwardo says, the heavy poundage warbows of the period are like smooth polished logs with pointy tips. You are extremely unlikely to draw one in the Horace Ford style used today. They are completely different thing to the victorian longbow.

Al

 

[PDA1]

[
The mary rose longbows were estimated to have draw weights of 60-70lb. Some a bit higher.

According to Hardy, a number of the Mary Rose bows were tested to destruction and had draw forces measured average of 100 lb on average Further analysis indicated that the wood had deteriorated under sea water, Replicas made had draw forces of between 100 and 185 lb.
It seems reasonable to suppose that typical war bow draw was in the region of 150 lb.

 

[mrcharly]

Well, I have to bow (sic) to your superior experience. I've read conflicting reports and descriptions. Never shot anything over 90lb myself, and I wouldn't want to. Doesn't half knacker your left shoulder - mine is permanently damaged from using a 65lb bow as a teenager.

Never heard of a bobbed arrow before. Do you have any info on how they were made?

 

[dwardo]

Does anyone have access to this show? A few friends were talking about this in the boozer last night and some of the "stated FACTS" were pretty shocking.