No it isn't.
I prefer 'guiding', 'keeping things on track' making sure problems on the forum don't arise. Thats what MODs do.
If you feel that I'm being heavy handed, drop the boss a line.
War Archer!
- Thread starter sandbender
- Start date
No it isn't.
I prefer 'guiding', 'keeping things on track' making sure problems on the forum don't arise. Thats what MODs do.
If you feel that I'm being heavy handed, drop the boss a line.
My apologies for sidetracking the thread. The original discussion over the definition of war was du to Boatman's apparent belief that lighter bows aren't suitable for war because conflicts using lighter bows don't qualify as war. It just seems like a self proving argument.
My examples (restricted to archery use) were warring Amazon tribes and similar earlier conflicts in history. Apparently these don't meet your definition of war. Convincing you isn't my aim; leaving the possibility open for others to make their own decisions as to what constitutes a war (and thus if lighter bows were successfully used in war) is another matter though.Neither you nor I are the definitive authority.
Sandbender I apologize again. This time for my last post still on the subject of war. I was typing as you were posting your last post and thus didn't see it.
My post was merely a segway into getting Edwin Starrs lyrics into the thread....
Title of thread "War Archer", weight of bow used lighter than one normally found in war. Two questions raised what is war and are the bows he used likely to have been of a weight employed in warfare? Ask Sandbender for permission to discuss it further, I can't be bothered.
Im surprised this thread is still rumbling on. I suggested that we could not say with any certainty that the only bows used in war are those in the high 90lb plus range. I read a lot about archery and bow making like Bushcraft in general there are rarely clearly defined right and wrong answers. Personally I wouldn't stand in front of an arrow from a bow shot from a 20lb trainer bow or a 120lb long bow. Sharp pointy object travelling at speed tends not to stop when meeting flesh.
With absolute certainty? No, none of us could state either way. But considering that Fred Bear killed a bull elephant with a 75lb recurve, I'd say bows lighter than the high 90s have probably been used in warfare.
Couple of points:-
Anyone who can actually shot a bow explain to me why an inch ie either side of the bow is so important when using the large (War) bows?
Second, is there actually any evidence that there were war and peace bows?
Third, has anyone seen if the bloke in the video has tried the speed test for the Guinness book of records? I ask because people seem to be saying he is gaining speed and losing accuracy so this would say one way or the other.
Anyone who can actually shot a bow explain to me why an inch ie either side of the bow is so important when using the large (War) bows?
Second, is there actually any evidence that there were war and peace bows?
Third, has anyone seen if the bloke in the video has tried the speed test for the Guinness book of records? I ask because people seem to be saying he is gaining speed and losing accuracy so this would say one way or the other.
Remember this thread?
The poster of the original video has put up another one where he hopes to answer some of the points raised by his viewers.
Enjoy.
[video=youtube;8iLTA43MBuA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA[/video]
The poster of the original video has put up another one where he hopes to answer some of the points raised by his viewers.
Enjoy.
[video=youtube;8iLTA43MBuA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA[/video]
So what? In no way does it prove that "everything we thought we knew abaout war archery was wrong." I believe that an automatic weapon can shoot bullets very quickly but single shot or double=tap is prefered in many conflict situations and the same would be true of war archery.
Interesting. I know nothing whatsoever on this subject and I was merely intrigued by the argument, and then I saw Sandbender's link. I remember watching this a few weeks ago... Perhaps this might offer some insight? The presenter seems very knowledgeable, at least to me. Hope this helps in the debate?
[video=youtube;rDbqz_07dW4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4[/video]
[video=youtube;rDbqz_07dW4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4[/video]
My Osage orange self bow is about a yard long and has a 50lb draw weight. Full draw is ridiculously short. I don't see this guy using it any more than I can for tricks, but it is quick on the follow up.
The Western Hemisphere, pre Columbo, never passed the stone age. Many types of bow were used throughout, few, if any coming close to an average English longbow in draw weight. However, plenty of wars were fought against the various white nations using those very bows (lighter weight by some standards) and there was hell to pay for it. Even after firearms were readily available, many preferred the more reliable and efficient bow. The environment dictated the technology.
Interesting to note, there are very few woods in North America that will render a suitable longbow. Conversely, England doesn't have any decent wood for good short horsebows. Probably a good thing you all didn't rely on buffalo hunts to feed and clothe yourselves anymore than Sitting Bull or Chief Joseph massed their yew-longbowed ranks against the whites. We make the most of what we have.
Firearms come in varying calibers. Some more suited to some jobs than others. Statistically, the .22 leads all others combined for deaths in the US. That's big numbers for a lighter round.
Any time I'm being shot at or the other guy wishes great bodily harm on me, that's a war, and I'll treat it as such.
The Western Hemisphere, pre Columbo, never passed the stone age. Many types of bow were used throughout, few, if any coming close to an average English longbow in draw weight. However, plenty of wars were fought against the various white nations using those very bows (lighter weight by some standards) and there was hell to pay for it. Even after firearms were readily available, many preferred the more reliable and efficient bow. The environment dictated the technology.
Interesting to note, there are very few woods in North America that will render a suitable longbow. Conversely, England doesn't have any decent wood for good short horsebows. Probably a good thing you all didn't rely on buffalo hunts to feed and clothe yourselves anymore than Sitting Bull or Chief Joseph massed their yew-longbowed ranks against the whites. We make the most of what we have.
Firearms come in varying calibers. Some more suited to some jobs than others. Statistically, the .22 leads all others combined for deaths in the US. That's big numbers for a lighter round.
Any time I'm being shot at or the other guy wishes great bodily harm on me, that's a war, and I'll treat it as such.
And my tricycle is the fastest on the block,....especially when mounted with a lawnmower engine. By your very statement, requiring sinew backing to especially make a suitable short bow, you reflect that the native woods cannot stand alone on their merits for the task.
There is a reason why the venerable and highly respected English/Welsh longbow evolved there; because you had the best wood for it. There is also a reason why the shorter bows evolved here (US, specifically Eastern and Plains) and that is due to the woods available. The aforementioned Osage orange (Hell, its even known as "bo darc" where it comes from, from the French bois d'arc meaning "bow wood".) couldn't have been designed in a lab to be better suited for short bows due to its easily defined grain/wood delineations and their respective and complimentary qualities of compressive vs.tensile strengths and qualities. But, it makes shyte longbows. Here, hickory and sometimes ash can make an OK longbow, but it sure as hell ain't English yew. Take the compliment when given.
Many of my books are in limbo, or I would cite a study done, iirc, in the early part of the 20th century. It consists of tables of data collected over many, and I mean MANY, woods and bows, including data on composite construction (ie; horn, sinew, etc). Quite informative and well worth a perusal for anyone with an interest in the subject.
A bow is a highly evolved tool. Yes, while you can bend a branch and tie a string to it and essentially have " built" a bow, it will not stand up to the daily demands and standards placed on the real thing. Along that same thought, bows should be built from the woods that best suit the demands placed on the tool. Whether a wood tends to whip in the limbs, or the bow has a tendency to "follow" the string, or any number of other negative characteristics are most often, if not always, caused by the particular material used and/or assigned to a style of bow which said wood doesn't lend itself well to while being superior for other styles.
Let's not talk about crossbow prods. They are not bows, are not built like bows, ....aren't even shot like bows. We might as well talk about wagons.
There is a reason why the venerable and highly respected English/Welsh longbow evolved there; because you had the best wood for it. There is also a reason why the shorter bows evolved here (US, specifically Eastern and Plains) and that is due to the woods available. The aforementioned Osage orange (Hell, its even known as "bo darc" where it comes from, from the French bois d'arc meaning "bow wood".) couldn't have been designed in a lab to be better suited for short bows due to its easily defined grain/wood delineations and their respective and complimentary qualities of compressive vs.tensile strengths and qualities. But, it makes shyte longbows. Here, hickory and sometimes ash can make an OK longbow, but it sure as hell ain't English yew. Take the compliment when given.
Many of my books are in limbo, or I would cite a study done, iirc, in the early part of the 20th century. It consists of tables of data collected over many, and I mean MANY, woods and bows, including data on composite construction (ie; horn, sinew, etc). Quite informative and well worth a perusal for anyone with an interest in the subject.
A bow is a highly evolved tool. Yes, while you can bend a branch and tie a string to it and essentially have " built" a bow, it will not stand up to the daily demands and standards placed on the real thing. Along that same thought, bows should be built from the woods that best suit the demands placed on the tool. Whether a wood tends to whip in the limbs, or the bow has a tendency to "follow" the string, or any number of other negative characteristics are most often, if not always, caused by the particular material used and/or assigned to a style of bow which said wood doesn't lend itself well to while being superior for other styles.
Let's not talk about crossbow prods. They are not bows, are not built like bows, ....aren't even shot like bows. We might as well talk about wagons.
And no Indian bows were sinew backed? It is entirely possible that short bows were used at the same time as the introduction of beakers in the late Neolithic in Britain. Is that early enough for you to agree that suitable wood was available in Britain?
Ash, hickory, locust, Osage orange, cedar, juniper, oak, walnut, birch, choke cherry, serviceberry, and mulberry seem to be among the woods the North Americans used and most if not all have equivalents in Britain. It does seem that the shorter the bow the more likely it was to have a sinew backing.
Your google search has missed a varied host of woods for making bows. Including faggoting shoots and otherwise unsuitable growth for same.
My initial, and continuing, input has and is solely on the merits of the wood and what is required of it.
Throughout this thread your basic need to be correct about something, anything, has got you so exasperated, grasping at straws, and shaking like a dog ****ting a peachpit with attempts at segue and diversion.
I addressed one of your initial points at under weighted bows, by your definition, as being unsuitable for war. Then, anything that wasn't a longbow, afoot on the battlefield. Now, it comes to the quantifier of sinew backing. Y'know, if my aunt had a moustache, she'd be my uncle.
I've praised the proven longbow. I've even seen your point at times herein better than others. Yet still you have to feel right about something after everybody else seems to have tired with you. Even at the cost of trying to be argumentative with someone who might have agreed with some of your earlier points.
At any rate, I've been building self-bows for over 30 years. I've done plenty of sinew work. As a younger man I could shoot the taste out of a mouth whether i was afoot or ahorse, with short bow or American longbow. I'll be damned if I'm going to ever feel any need to justify anything in the context of this recent discourse.
You may have the field, sir.
My initial, and continuing, input has and is solely on the merits of the wood and what is required of it.
Throughout this thread your basic need to be correct about something, anything, has got you so exasperated, grasping at straws, and shaking like a dog ****ting a peachpit with attempts at segue and diversion.
I addressed one of your initial points at under weighted bows, by your definition, as being unsuitable for war. Then, anything that wasn't a longbow, afoot on the battlefield. Now, it comes to the quantifier of sinew backing. Y'know, if my aunt had a moustache, she'd be my uncle.
I've praised the proven longbow. I've even seen your point at times herein better than others. Yet still you have to feel right about something after everybody else seems to have tired with you. Even at the cost of trying to be argumentative with someone who might have agreed with some of your earlier points.
At any rate, I've been building self-bows for over 30 years. I've done plenty of sinew work. As a younger man I could shoot the taste out of a mouth whether i was afoot or ahorse, with short bow or American longbow. I'll be damned if I'm going to ever feel any need to justify anything in the context of this recent discourse.
You may have the field, sir.
Similar threads
