| Author |
Message |
Dan Howard
|
 Posted: Thu 13 Apr, 2023 3:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ryan S. wrote: |
Why do you think that people were drawing 200 lbs bows? Has such a high weight bow ever been found? What is the advantage of a 200 lbs bow? My understanding is that the main advantage of a heavy bow is that it shoots a heavy arrow, and therefore has a better chance of piercing armour. However, I haven’t seen any numbers relating to that.. |
We know that people in Asia and the Middle East were shooting bows this heavy. Why would European archers be weaker?
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
|
|
  |
 |
|
Anthony Clipsom
Location: YORKSHIRE, UK Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 322
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Apr, 2023 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | Why do you think that people were drawing 200 lbs bows? Has such a high weight bow ever been found? What is the advantage of a 200 lbs bow? My understanding is that the main advantage of a heavy bow is that it shoots a heavy arrow, and therefore has a better chance of piercing armour. However, I haven’t seen any numbers relating to that. |
Around 200 lbs seems to be the human limit. The high estimate of the stiffest of the Mary Rose bows puts it around 190 lbs at 28" (from memory) and around 200 lbs is the highest I have heard any of the heavy bow shooters today using. And 20 to 200 pounds communicates that the range is a whole order of magnitude.
| Quote: | | As far as viking era bows compared to the Mary Rose bows, the Royal Armouries says the Mary Rose bows ranged from 65 lbs to 160 lbs. So the "viking" bows would fit into that range. |
That sounds like the low estimate from Weapons of Warre. Other people cite the higher estimate of the draw weights of the Mary Rose bows from The Great Warbow. I have never found anyone who could explain the basis for the disagreement (possibly its high-altitude European yew vs. Oregon yew, since until recently there was no high-altitude European yew available to bowyers - OTOH merchants' records make clear that bows and arrows were made of a variety of wood in the 15th and 16th century).
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Apr, 2023 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | Ryan S. wrote: | | Why do you think that people were drawing 200 lbs bows? Has such a high weight bow ever been found? What is the advantage of a 200 lbs bow? My understanding is that the main advantage of a heavy bow is that it shoots a heavy arrow, and therefore has a better chance of piercing armour. However, I haven’t seen any numbers relating to that. |
Around 200 lbs seems to be the human limit. The high estimate of the stiffest of the Mary Rose bows puts it around 190 lbs at 28" (from memory) and around 200 lbs is the highest I have heard any of the heavy bow shooters today using. And 20 to 200 pounds communicates that the range is a whole order of magnitude.
century). |
Depends on what we mean by human lmit, but I think it would be way higher.
Joe Gibbs apparently shoots 215 pound monster bow in Todd's Workshop video, and quite accurately too. And Joe is apparently only about 170 pounds!
There's no doubt that some huge, 6'5'' 260 pound kind of man would be able to shoot much, much heavier bows if he was training for as long and hard as Joe has been training. And such men while rare, happen today and were happening even back then when people were smaller on average.
Then there's everything in between that and 170 pounds, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Apr, 2023 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bartek Strojek wrote: | There's no doubt that some huge, 6'5'' 260 pound kind of man would be able to shoot much, much heavier bows if he was training for as long and hard as Joe has been training. And such men while rare, happen today and were happening even back then when people were smaller on average.
Then there's everything in between that and 170 pounds, of course. |
OTOH, the population of Europe after the Iron Age and before the Columbian Exchange was on the order of the population of the UK today. With a smaller population there are fewer extreme outliers. And I don't know of any evidence for hand bows much above 200 lbs draw weight.
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Apr, 2023 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Anglocentric history of the longbow may, in part, be explained by the fact that it's invention and/or mass usage was initially an English phenomena and did not spread far beyond north western Europe.
As Dan rightly points out archaeological finds from the copper- and viking age suggest long bows with dimensions similar to the mary rose bows have existed at all times. Scholars have carried these finds further to the point of suggesting so-called short bows did not exist and that all medieval archers used longbows. The English success with these bows then is supposed to be merely their manner of usage and mass deployment.
Yet others have argued the longbow in its medieval context truly was a 14th century innovation. Notwithstanding earlier finds they argue the dominant bow prior to the 14th century was a relatively weaker short bow. The historical record supports this notion in multiple ways. Simple hand spanned crossbows with wood or composite prods were widely regarded as being stronger and having a longer range than bows throughout the high middle ages. During this period soldiers wearing mail were often regarded as quite invulnerable to arrows. Yet later accounts suggest this was no longer the case during the later middle ages. Modern tests suggests a simple coat of mail fares poorly against mary rose type bows and a 15th century Italian noted with some surprise that the bows he witnessed being carried by English archers matched the range of crossbows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Apr, 2023 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony Clipsom wrote: | | Quote: | | I am not sure how they got the weight range for the Hedeby bow. |
From the Halpin quote given, they made replicas. |
I was not sure how they got multiple numbers for one bow, or if it was based on multiple bows. Fortunately, my local library has Pfeil und Bogen by Jürgen Junkmanns. Says that Paulsen made three replicas based of Haitabu 1 (the only complete bow). The weights were 101 lbs, 93 lbs and 84 lbs. The reason for the different weights seems to have been the varying hardness of the wood. The density of the original was 12–15 rings per centimeter. The heaviest bow preformed the worst, and eventually broke after about 1000 shots.
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Ryan S. wrote: |
Why do you think that people were drawing 200 lbs bows? Has such a high weight bow ever been found? What is the advantage of a 200 lbs bow? My understanding is that the main advantage of a heavy bow is that it shoots a heavy arrow, and therefore has a better chance of piercing armour. However, I haven’t seen any numbers relating to that.. |
We know that people in Asia and the Middle East were shooting bows this heavy. Why would European archers be weaker? |
My point isn’t that the archers were weaker, but rather focusing on the actual bows that exist. I could speculate on all the reasons that a bowman would prefer a lighter bow, but in the end it would be just speculation. I think it should be uncontroversial to say, that in general, one would not use a bow stronger than one needs. My recent reading, however, has pointed out that different game requires different weight bows. So possibly the presence of really big game might be another reason for the use of very heavy bows. Junkmanns lists many Mesolithic and neolithic bows, the heaviest are around 110 lbs. He also mentions several changes in the bow between the neolithic era and the Middle Ages. He actually sees the neolithic bows as better, at least in the sense that they are more efficient. The migration era bows he views as poorer craftsmanship, and in general that the medieval bows valued power and durability over energy efficiency, and only really possible with the availability of good yew. The design of the English longbows especially show that they were optimized towards mass production. The big difference that he stresses is that stone age bows had the round side on the back of the bow, whereas the medieval bows had the round side on the belly.
| Bartek Strojek wrote: |
Depends on what we mean by human lmit, but I think it would be way higher.
Joe Gibbs apparently shoots 215 pound monster bow in Todd's Workshop video, and quite accurately too. And Joe is apparently only about 170 pounds!
There's no doubt that some huge, 6'5'' 260 pound kind of man would be able to shoot much, much heavier bows if he was training for as long and hard as Joe has been training. And such men while rare, happen today and were happening even back then when people were smaller on average.
Then there's everything in between that and 170 pounds, of course. |
In general, the athletic achievement of today is higher than it was even in the 1950s. It is hard to say with the shooting of heavy bows, because it is so niche, and uses historical technique. Joe Gibbs, as I understand, is in a class of his own. If there was the same type of competition for shooting the heaviest bow as for power lifting, we might see even higher achievements.
| Pieter B. wrote: | The Anglocentric history of the longbow may, in part, be explained by the fact that it's invention and/or mass usage was initially an English phenomena and did not spread far beyond north western Europe.
As Dan rightly points out archaeological finds from the copper- and viking age suggest long bows with dimensions similar to the mary rose bows have existed at all times. Scholars have carried these finds further to the point of suggesting so-called short bows did not exist and that all medieval archers used longbows. The English success with these bows then is supposed to be merely their manner of usage and mass deployment.
Yet others have argued the longbow in its medieval context truly was a 14th century innovation. Notwithstanding earlier finds they argue the dominant bow prior to the 14th century was a relatively weaker short bow. The historical record supports this notion in multiple ways. Simple hand spanned crossbows with wood or composite prods were widely regarded as being stronger and having a longer range than bows throughout the high middle ages. During this period soldiers wearing mail were often regarded as quite invulnerable to arrows. Yet later accounts suggest this was no longer the case during the later middle ages. Modern tests suggests a simple coat of mail fares poorly against mary rose type bows and a 15th century Italian noted with some surprise that the bows he witnessed being carried by English archers matched the range of crossbows. |
The history of the longbow is not only anglocentric, but centered on a certain time period. It has also been so distorted in the anglophone literature by the longbow-shortbow debate, so that even viking bows are interpreted in light of this debate. There is more to a bow than its length. There are multiple definitions of longbow, some of which just focus on its length. Junkmanns definition downplays the length and focuses on the form: a rod form, a D cross-section that faces the archer, and lack of a recognizable grip. All medieval self bows fit this pattern except the Oberflacht bows, and maybe another fragment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony Clipsom
Location: YORKSHIRE, UK Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 322
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Apr, 2023 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The English success with these bows then is supposed to be merely their manner of usage and mass deployment.
Yet others have argued the longbow in its medieval context truly was a 14th century innovation. |
We can also add Richard Wadge's idea in "Archery in Medieval England" that stronger and weaker bows co-existed in England from at least the Norman conquest. Stronger bows required more practice and tended to be in the hands of people who had a reason to use them regularly, like forestry officials and, presumably, professional soldiers. What the increased military interest in bows did was to begin a virtuous circle, increasing demand for more and better bows and arrows, which called for more skilled bowyers and fletchers and international supply chains for bow wood to meet that demand.
Anthony Clipsom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Apr, 2023 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with studying hand bows in the second half of the middle ages is that they were cheap and used by working class people, so evidence is scarce. Even in the 13th century there are surprisingly few pictures of ordinary infantry. And self bows are made of wood so they rarely survive.
| Ryan S. wrote: | | The history of the longbow is not only anglocentric, but centered on a certain time period. It has also been so distorted in the anglophone literature by the longbow-shortbow debate, so that even viking bows are interpreted in light of this debate. There is more to a bow than its length. There are multiple definitions of longbow, some of which just focus on its length. Junkmanns definition downplays the length and focuses on the form: a rod form, a D cross-section that faces the archer, and lack of a recognizable grip. All medieval self bows fit this pattern except the Oberflacht bows, and maybe another fragment. |
I think its still true that all the writers who contrast English bows with their own bows are Italians from the 15th and 16th century Italians. Matthew Strickland's argument that English, Scots, Flemings, and North French used similar bows still has some support even if his idea that shortbows were just an artistic convention is hard to defend today. In 1477 Orso degli Orsini casually says that archers should use bows with long timber like the English archers use (ie. he seems to think that its not hard to find archers who can use bows like the English use in Italy, although the numbers were probably much smaller).
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Millman
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Apr, 2023 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Ryan S.,
| On Friday 14 April 2023, you wrote: | | . . . I think it should be uncontroversial to say, that in general, one would not use a bow stronger than one needs. . . . |
In general, for people who use bows solely as tools for hunting and combat, you are probably right that few use bows that are stronger than they need. But there's a confounding factor: People interested in archery for its own sake, and particularly those interested in competing at archery, can be expected to draw heavier bows than necessary. There are four obvious forms of competition at archery: best accuracy, fastest shooting, longest shots and heaviest draws. (Please note that these are not independent of one another--draw weight clearly has a direct effect on the time between shots and on shot distance, and perhaps less obviously influences accuracy.) Evidence exists--I'd argue as far back as Homeric Greece--that being able to draw heavy bows was a point of pride and competition. Others have noted above that medieval England's focus on producing bowmen resulted in a larger population of archers able to draw heavy bows because the pool of archers was larger; but this would not necessarily have resulted in a higher percentage of the pool of archers being able to use the most powerful bows. More people competing, however, would very likely have increased the percentage of archers able to draw bows stronger than would otherwise be needful.
Best,
Mark Millman
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Apr, 2023 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bartek Strojek wrote: | | Joe Gibbs apparently shoots 215 pound monster bow in Todd's Workshop video, and quite accurately too. And Joe is apparently only about 170 pounds! |
Which video is this? I haven't or don't recall one of Joe Gibbs shooting a 215lb bow quite accurately. I have seen this video where Gibbs draws 210lbs with a training band. It doesn't involve shooting.
As far as historical draw weights go, Mark C. Elliot's The Manchu Way mentions a record from 1728 that the winner of a contest between the best archers in Qing China used an eighteen-strength bow (nearly 240lbs). While this could easily be made up or exaggerated, it seems within the realm of possibility based on what 21st-century archers like Joe Gibbs can manage. Qing China had a large population & a military culture that valued archery. In that context, the actual best archer in the empire being able to accurately shoot a bow drawing almost 240lbs is at least distantly plausible.
However, because of the specific kinds of strength required to shoot heavy bows, it's not necessarily the case that larger people can draw more weight. You see this with other athletic endeavors as well, as in this video on grip strength. You'd think someone larger than Gibbs would be able to draw more weight with sufficient practice, & that's probably true, but it's yet to be demonstrated & may be a case of diminishing returns.
I suspect some archers across the planet did shoot 100+lb bows for as long as people were able to craft such bows. With that in mind, it's still likely that archery training & bow manufacture improved on average in England during the English bow's heyday compared with other parts of Europe (& many other parts of the world). That's what tends to happen when a practice takes on great social importance.
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Apr, 2023 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | Interesting, I haven’t heard of a Portuguese bow. That would be a valuable find, being earlier than the Mary Rose bows, yet later than other bows. Is there any idea of what was used on the Iberian Peninsula before the crossbow? Slings or composite bows? |
Short bows. Funny thing: the Iberian Peninsula kept slings well into the 14th century, so when the Black Prince faced the Castillians in Najera, the skirmishers threw stones and javelins, but couldn't stand the longbowmen arrow shower.
Slings could be either normal or stave-slings, which were more powerful and could throw stones or balls of iron and lead. I haven't seen any primary source of Toro (1470's), but while slingers are not mentioned, one Portuguese wing was composed of javelin-throwers and arquebusiers.
The transition to the crossbow, at least in Portugal, would happen in 12th century, and yet during this century bows would be out of Portuguese military. I mean, perhaps used when cities and villages were besieged or invaded, but it's more likely the longbow would be more successful on that than a technology that was abandoned literally everywhere in the "civilized medieval world".
----
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Ryan S. wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | The bows didn't change. The only thing the English did was to develop tactics to use them more effectively in battle and to engineer society so that more archers were available. |
So you think that vikings and merovingians were using bows that were the same draw weight as the Mary Rose bows? There are also differences such as different types of nocks and some bows have metal studs in them. |
Of course. There are accounts all throughout history telling of people who could draw heavy bows. When you have a greater percentage of the population practicing archery, you get a greater percentage of the population who can draw those heavy bows. |
The issue is mainly a demand, so to speak. With lighter bows you can shoot more arrows at a given time than heavier ones. But I'm satisfied with the argument on the reconstruction of Viking Longbows.
Anyways, I hope someone make a reproduction of Alcacer do Sal bow, so we may compare with the later Mary Rose bows and even discover if it's was a lighter bow intended for hunting or an actual war bow. But the Portuguese gov. and its Historians are way narrow-minded for that, we should ask that from bow-makers in England.
-------
| Sean Manning wrote: | | OTOH there are the coroner's report with a bow a yard and a half long, and the short bow from Ireland. So there is evidence that some people in the British Isles were using short bows circa 1300 (aside from the art which we have reasons not to trust). |
Ireland and Highland Scotland were places Englishmen would consider savage and backward. Outside the iberian peninsula, for example, we see the use of javelins in Ireland, the Scottish Highlands, Frisia (which basically was a pirate nest and self-ruled by tribesmen) and Gascony (Italy too, but I think it was rather reintroduced), elsewhere it was "outdated"
“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Apr, 2023 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Bartek Strojek wrote: | | Joe Gibbs apparently shoots 215 pound monster bow in Todd's Workshop video, and quite accurately too. And Joe is apparently only about 170 pounds! |
Which video is this? I haven't or don't recall one of Joe Gibbs shooting a 215lb bow quite accurately. I have seen this video where Gibbs draws 210lbs with a training band. It doesn't involve shooting.
|
I guess my memory may be playing tricks, because I could have sword he was shooting the 210 or 215 monster somewhere on video, but it does seem that he's mostly shooting 160, 170, sometimes 200 pounders everywhere.
Here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE&t=419s
He talks about shooting 200 pound bows, noting that he can shoot it, but not very effectively.
Here's the video, though hard to say if there's any accuracy going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB0Tnn2sbfc
| Quote: |
However, because of the specific kinds of strength required to shoot heavy bows, it's not necessarily the case that larger people can draw more weight. You see this with other athletic endeavors as well, as in this video on grip strength. You'd think someone larger than Gibbs would be able to draw more weight with sufficient practice, & that's probably true, but it's yet to be demonstrated & may be a case of diminishing returns.
|
I seriously doubt that bow shooting is some very unique strength feat,, it's strength exercise as any other.
Yes, people with larger limbs have leverage and range of motion against them in many exercises, and strength in general doesn't scale linearly with size.
That's why good 260 pound lifter doesn't bench two times more than good 130 pound one, but still, he benches way, way more.
Size of muscles provides more pulling power, bigger bones and joints provide more leverage, and bigger tendons can survive these loads.
It's not surprising that climber has some crazy grip strength, but still records in absolute grip strength competition are unsurprisingly set by very large people too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNC_Grip_Gauntlet#:~:text=150%20kg%20barrier%20and%20the%20World%20Record,-On%20March%208&text=On%20July%2030%2C%202013%20Russia's,break%20the%20150%20kg%20barrier
http://www.davidhorne-gripmaster.com/worldrecords.html
They would make rather lousy climbers, most surely, but still in absolute numbers their grip is more powerful.
All in all, it's very possible that even biggest, strongest archers would generally shoot sub 200 pound bows in actual combat, because shooting heavier would be just too tiring to be useful.
Just stating that there's no way 200 pounds is "human limit". If I had to guess I would guess that even 300 isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Apr, 2023 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
Short bows. Funny thing: the Iberian Peninsula kept slings well into the 14th century, so when the Black Prince faced the Castillians in Najera, the skirmishers threw stones and javelins, but couldn't stand the longbowmen arrow shower.
Slings could be either normal or stave-slings, which were more powerful and could throw stones or balls of iron and lead. I haven't seen any primary source of Toro (1470's), but while slingers are not mentioned, one Portuguese wing was composed of javelin-throwers and arquebusiers.
The transition to the crossbow, at least in Portugal, would happen in 12th century, and yet during this century bows would be out of Portuguese military. I mean, perhaps used when cities and villages were besieged or invaded, but it's more likely the longbow would be more successful on that than a technology that was abandoned literally everywhere in the "civilized medieval world".
----
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Ryan S. wrote: | | Dan Howard wrote: | | The bows didn't change. The only thing the English did was to develop tactics to use them more effectively in battle and to engineer society so that more archers were available. |
So you think that vikings and merovingians were using bows that were the same draw weight as the Mary Rose bows? There are also differences such as different types of nocks and some bows have metal studs in them. |
Of course. There are accounts all throughout history telling of people who could draw heavy bows. When you have a greater percentage of the population practicing archery, you get a greater percentage of the population who can draw those heavy bows. |
The issue is mainly a demand, so to speak. With lighter bows you can shoot more arrows at a given time than heavier ones. But I'm satisfied with the argument on the reconstruction of Viking Longbows.
Anyways, I hope someone make a reproduction of Alcacer do Sal bow, so we may compare with the later Mary Rose bows and even discover if it's was a lighter bow intended for hunting or an actual war bow. But the Portuguese gov. and its Historians are way narrow-minded for that, we should ask that from bow-makers in England.
-------
| Sean Manning wrote: | | OTOH there are the coroner's report with a bow a yard and a half long, and the short bow from Ireland. So there is evidence that some people in the British Isles were using short bows circa 1300 (aside from the art which we have reasons not to trust). |
Ireland and Highland Scotland were places Englishmen would consider savage and backward. Outside the iberian peninsula, for example, we see the use of javelins in Ireland, the Scottish Highlands, Frisia (which basically was a pirate nest and self-ruled by tribesmen) and Gascony (Italy too, but I think it was rather reintroduced), elsewhere it was "outdated" |
I have tried to find more information about it, but couldn´t. The bow is not listed in any text I have found. Although, a lot of lists overlook bows. Mike Loades states that there are no medieval longbows that survive, but that is, of course, not true. So I think the ability of historians to check this information is limited.
You make a good point bringing up slings and javelins, as they were the competition for bows. I suspect that their use would suggest that the bows in that time and place weren't especially strong.
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Apr, 2023 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | I have tried to find more information about it, but couldn´t. The bow is not listed in any text I have found. Although, a lot of lists overlook bows. Mike Loades states that there are no medieval longbows that survive, but that is, of course, not true. So I think the ability of historians to check this information is limited.
You make a good point bringing up slings and javelins, as they were the competition for bows. I suspect that their use would suggest that the bows in that time and place weren't especially strong. |
Portuguese historiography, even more than Spanish historiography, is too narrow-minded, and there isn't much being done to put what Medieval Portugal can contribute to worldwide Medieval Studies (I also deal with art history and what exists in Iconoclastic Period by Spanish authors barely leaves Spain, in fact, it hasn't even reached Portuguese speaking academy!).
I mean, do people know that England had an armor industry in the early 15th century that received tax cuts to be imported to Portugal? This might change the way we see medieval armor industry, which is only recently abandoning the Italy-Germany dichotomy. Duke John Holland exchanged letter with Joao I of Portugal, and he received info about the target of the expedition of 1415 (something no spy in the Portuguese Court could knew), etc.
But fairly, there isn't many pictures for the bow beside a Catalogue I got from my previous network + some photos of the collection. The link I posted has a picture, but I'm uploading here anyways:
Also, there's an interesting depiction of a longbow in actual war scene: the etching by Pedro Nissart depicting the entry of King Jaime of Aragon in Mallorca, made 1468, painted by another artistic from the Balearic Islands.
I discussed the armor depicted in the main panel (for all purposes the same depicted here) proposing it to be Flemish and not Italian or Iberian in style, as the haute on the pauldrons scream that; and Fernando of Aragon's armor of a half-century late still has Italian pauldrons. A possible explanation could be related to the whole context of the (possible) Flemish artist that worked in the project, influence, Pero's training in the Ibero-Flemish school, and the model behind it. But everyone said it was Italian so, the discussion bogged down since then.
But the thing is: how to explain the longbow here? It was used in the Crown of Aragon only? In the Balearic Islands only? It wasn't used because it mirrored Flemish models, and Flanders DID use longbowmen? Does it have to do with the proximity with Italy? As we know Composite and Longbows were used by local Italians, although longbows failed to appear in Italian art.
The art is amazing, Pero depicts both a turkish bow in St. George's panel and a longbow here. The barbute in the etching is of course locally used, and the depiction of Moors (spear over biceps, leather adargas, clothes and the shortsword) is done by someone that KNOWS what North African people were using at that time. It's a strong case, I think.
“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Apr, 2023 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | Mike Loades states that there are no medieval longbows that survive, but that is, of course, not true. |
What bow are you thinking of? By "longbow" I wold mean a self bow (ie. a bow made of one piece of wood) about 170-190 cm long used in Catholic Europe in the 14th-16th century. So the Scandinavian bows would be too early and the Mary Rose bows would be too late and the Irish and Scottish bows don't fit the typology.
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Augusto Boer Bront
Industry Professional
Location: Cividale del Friuli (UD) Italy Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Apr, 2023 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do longbows fail to appear in Italian art?
There are a cuple.
From circa 1460 in Celle Macra.
And this is from 1464 in the Bessarione Chapel in Rome.
Also, to expand upon Orso degli Orsini statement about longbows in Italy, here's the full quote.
The context is equipping 500 sappers for the army with a bow, which should possibly be rectuited from the local populace, as they know the terrain well.
"And that said bows be either wooden long bows in the English fashion [...], or in the Turkish fashion, and that the bows should be good and the sappers be strong so they can shoot well.”
So he's pretty explicit that both self longbows and recurve (perhaps composite?) bows require strenght to be used properly and are both equally effective.
Armourer-Artist-Blacksmith
www.magisterarmorum.com
Pinterest albums to almost all existing XIVth century armour.
Pinterest albums on almost all existing XVth century Italian armour.
|
|
 |
|
|
Anthony Clipsom
Location: YORKSHIRE, UK Joined: 27 Jul 2009
Posts: 322
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Apr, 2023 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | Ryan S. wrote: | | Mike Loades states that there are no medieval longbows that survive, but that is, of course, not true. |
What bow are you thinking of? By "longbow" I wold mean a self bow (ie. a bow made of one piece of wood) about 170-190 cm long used in Catholic Europe in the 14th-16th century. So the Scandinavian bows would be too early and the Mary Rose bows would be too late and the Irish and Scottish bows don't fit the typology. |
It also assumes that the traditional datings of the Hedgeley Moor and Flodden bows are not sound and these are also later weapons. Both these weapons seem to have avoided modern technical scrutiny so one can't say with certainty, though a later date seems to be assumed by modern authors.
Anthony Clipsom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Apr, 2023 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Millman wrote: | Dear Ryan S.,
| On Friday 14 April 2023, you wrote: | | . . . I think it should be uncontroversial to say, that in general, one would not use a bow stronger than one needs. . . . |
In general, for people who use bows solely as tools for hunting and combat, you are probably right that few use bows that are stronger than they need. But there's a confounding factor: People interested in archery for its own sake, and particularly those interested in competing at archery, can be expected to draw heavier bows than necessary. There are four obvious forms of competition at archery: best accuracy, fastest shooting, longest shots and heaviest draws. (Please note that these are not independent of one another--draw weight clearly has a direct effect on the time between shots and on shot distance, and perhaps less obviously influences accuracy.) Evidence exists--I'd argue as far back as Homeric Greece--that being able to draw heavy bows was a point of pride and competition. Others have noted above that medieval England's focus on producing bowmen resulted in a larger population of archers able to draw heavy bows because the pool of archers was larger; but this would not necessarily have resulted in a higher percentage of the pool of archers being able to use the most powerful bows. More people competing, however, would very likely have increased the percentage of archers able to draw bows stronger than would otherwise be needful.
Best,
Mark Millman |
Dear Mark,
I would consider winning a contest as a need. I would be interested in learning more about contests of who can pull the heaviest bows.
thanks,
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic