[William P]

[Alexis Bataille]

great, many thanks
edit : i just read gurps rules , shield don't really protect you from arrows x)

[Dan Howard]

[Alexis Bataille]

i find a nice thing for enduring trust damage : http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
i read the rules better this time, yeah its not bad except in this rules buckler and scutum have close cover capacity :-3 (1 or 2 points difference on 3D6 roll).
but its perfect: i was assuming an arrow in the leg will stop and drop a warrior but obviously its not enough . I am not afraid of that last bow shot in my game any more ^^

[Gary T]

Sorry, a bit late on this one.

But I'd like to point out the huge differences between a composite recurve (I'll refer to this simply as composite from now on) and a long selfbow (Referred to as selfbow).

One huge difference is that while the Selfbow desires to get back to straight, the Composite wants to get back to past straight - to it's unstrung position. The exact effect of this varies by bow, but for conversation and simplicity we'll say the selfbow's brace position is at 20% of draw - and the composite is at 40% of draw.

If both are 100 pound draw bows with the same draw length, the composite due to this simple fact stores 117% of the energy while have the same maximum tension on the draw.

And don't let the shortness of the composite bow fool you - they are roughly comparable in draw length to selfbows that maybe almost twice as long.

Another issue is that while composite bows are more effiicient (as expected) than a selfbow due to merely physics, they also seem to be even more efficient than a selfbow with lighter arrows. Faster moving limbs? Less mass of the limb needed to be moved? I am not sure. But it seems that a composite bow has a higher "terminal velocity" if you would than a selfbow. And this is based upon tests of re constructed bows.

It does indeed seem that the arrows used by late middle ages "longbows" were generally heavier than arrows used by composite bows, though I'm not sure if this is based largely on late middle ages "flight arrows" used for competition.

Which would mean as energy imparted by the arrow is a function of mass and the square of velocity, the arrow of a composite bow will impart more energy at short range, but will lose energy faster as velocity decreases. the Longbow arrow retaining energy better.

I find it interesting that in a documents describing murders in middle ages London, a "turkish bow" is mentioned a few times as the culprit. I'd think England had knowledge of the Composite bow. So why use the long selfbow instead? My though is cost, it's cheaper, far cheaper from a labor standpoint. It also is much faster to make, proper drying of the glue for a composite can take over a year. And perhaps it is more durable in the moist English weather as well.

I'd also second the idea on how wrong tests can be using modern materials and manufacture. A modern bowstring can impart 10% more energy to an arrow than a period bowstring. I may be wrong on this but I think I recall reading that a silk string is a bit closer to modern materials in this regard than most other period materials.

But this means an arrow using a period bowstring might impart 108 Joules - and a modern bowstring raises this to 120 joules. And that is just the string, there are many other issues with a bow and arrows that can give wrong results using modern materials.

[Dennis Courneyea]

[Gary T]

[Dan Howard]

[Craig Peters]

[Luka Borscak]

[Gary T]

[Gary T]

Just thought I 'd correct something. It is not Halpin's judgement of his findings that I disagree with - it's actually a paper by Clifford Rogers.

This paper points to things such as the Bayeaux tapestry not showing bows of longbow length. I think it's too abstract to be of use.. It also points to Halpin's findings, and all this is determined to be "proof" that the longbow did not exist in Northwestern Europe until the 14th century.

As I have read more of Halpin, I would tend to agree with his assertion that shorter as well as longer bows existed side by side, and that they are indeed the same other than length. Perhaps the bow most prevalent in military matters was the longer bow, but that dies not preclude shorter bows from being in use. This also seems to fall in line with some late middle ages bowfinds not of the Mary Rose, where the both the bows length and estimated drawlength falls below what we expect of "longbows".

Perhaps the Mary Rose's bows seemingly rather uniform length are due to it being from a specific Military unit, were uniformity was more the case.

The one issue I have though with a shorter bow is drawlength. It seems bows were made with drawlengths not based upon the length of the bow but upon the drawlength required for a full draw, which is why composite bows of less than 36" of length have a similar drawlength to longbows twice as long. It would just seem very difficult to me to make a selfbow that has both a 100+ pound draw AND a 30" or greater drawlength. It just seems wood alone is not elastic enough to do both.

Secondly, I think is is interesting that the bows found at Waterford were rather short, and that the Irish archers of the 15th century looked as if they used shorter bows. I'd point to the Albrecht Durer illustration of Gallowglass, and his illustrations were not abstract in the least. I wonder if these bows stem from the Irish tradition of archery as opposed to the Norman or Welsh traditions.

[Dan Howard]

Medieval illustations can't be used as evidence for determining bow length. One problem is that these artists had no concept of perspective or 3-dimensional depiction. Not all bows were shot at the vertical. If you see an illustration of the profile of a bow that is wielded at an angle, it appears shorter than it really is.

[Gary T]

Dan, here is something that describes Irish archery in later centuries from a contemporary vantage point:

[Dan Howard]

We know that the Irish and Irish-Scots used short bows. But not because of medieval illustrations; we have texts and artefacts to tell us that. I was simply saying that we can't rely on iconographical evidence. If someone wants to claim that the English used short bows in battle then they need a lot more than a painting.

[Gary T]

[Philip Dyer]

Is it just me or than people are narrowing down on length to much in this bow debate discussion? A bow stave can still be long have low draw wieght if the bow is thinner. Same thing, a bow shortness can be short a depectively powerful if the stave is very thick and stiff. Length doesn't necessarily equal to power.

[Dan Howard]

[Gary T]

[Timo Nieminen]