Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A couple questions

Expand Messages
  • aelric_southlake
    Thank you all for the great/useful input! Much to look up now. I might try to make a linen bag-quiver. Something that i can sling over my shoulder while
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 29, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you all for the great/useful input! Much to look up now.

      I might try to make a linen bag-quiver. Something that i can sling over my shoulder while walking around, and then tie to my waist/belt as I get situated to shoot. If it comes out cool/functional, i'll post some pics and pattern.

      I have a longbow on order. Very excited to start shooting off the knuckle. But my "time period" is, generically, "Dark Ages," and i know the longbow didn't exist yet. I'm wondering if the Welsh short-bow isn't a lot closer to what your average Saxon/ Post-Roman Brit/ 'viking' might've used. No evidence of what viking bows exactly looked like, from what I understand. Would like to see one though - would make it a lot easier, ha ha ha...

      ~ A
    • Carolus
      Actually, the long bow is known to be in use from prehistoric times with the ice man having been found with one. It is extremely likely that migration (or
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 29, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Actually, the long bow is known to be in use from prehistoric times with
        the "ice man" having been found with one. It is extremely likely that
        migration (or "Dark Ages") cultures did use them.
        Carolus

        aelric_southlake wrote:
        > Thank you all for the great/useful input! Much to look up now.
        >
        > I might try to make a linen bag-quiver. Something that i can sling over my shoulder while walking around, and then tie to my waist/belt as I get situated to shoot. If it comes out cool/functional, i'll post some pics and pattern.
        >
        > I have a longbow on order. Very excited to start shooting off the knuckle. But my "time period" is, generically, "Dark Ages," and i know the longbow didn't exist yet. I'm wondering if the Welsh short-bow isn't a lot closer to what your average Saxon/ Post-Roman Brit/ 'viking' might've used. No evidence of what viking bows exactly looked like, from what I understand. Would like to see one though - would make it a lot easier, ha ha ha...
        >
        > ~ A
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >
        > No virus found in this incoming message.
        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3286 - Release Date: 11/28/10 11:34:00
        >
        >
      • obsidian@raex.com
        Greetings The longbow most assuredly existed in your time period, though I admit that it seems to have faded from common usage from ca. 500 CE to ca. 1000 CE
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 29, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Greetings

          The longbow most assuredly existed in your time period, though I admit that it seems to have faded from common usage from ca. 500 CE to ca. 1000 CE (or, quite possibly, people weren't writing about them as much simply because people weren't writing about much of anything in that time). Otzi, the chalcolithic-age wanderer found in a melting glacier on the Italo-Austrian border high in the Alps some years ago, carried a longbow - he's over  5000 years old. German tribes shredded a Roman legion with longbows - blackening the sky with a hail of arrows - at Neuss in 388 CE. As you yourself say, Scandinavians have a very long tradition of bow use, and plenty of early sagas refer often to feats of archery. You are correct that we can't know what an early period bow looked like - damaged bows were tossed in the nearest campfire. But we can surmise pretty carefully - an early longbow from, say, Norway, would likely be carved of oak or ash, be roughly 60 to 75 inches long, and almost certainly be carved into a D-section. The poundage would be impressive, perhaps not as high as late-period ELBs, but still quite high by modern standards. We can't know if they used fancy horn nocks or simply carved a channel - I suspect both techniques were known and used. None of this is documentable by academic standards, but it's reasonable hypothesizing.

          Cordially;
          Nigel

          On Mon, November 29, 2010 7:42 pm, aelric_southlake wrote:
          > Thank you all for the great/useful input! Much to look up now.
          >
          > I might try to make a linen bag-quiver. Something that i can sling over
          > my shoulder while walking around, and then tie to my waist/belt as I get
          > situated to shoot. If it comes out cool/functional, i'll post some pics
          > and pattern.
          >
          > I have a longbow on order. Very excited to start shooting off the knuckle.
          > But my "time period" is, generically, "Dark Ages," and i know the longbow
          > didn't exist yet. I'm wondering if the Welsh short-bow isn't a lot closer
          > to what your average Saxon/ Post-Roman Brit/ 'viking' might've used. No
          > evidence of what viking bows exactly looked like, from what I understand.

          > Would like to see one though - would make it a lot easier, ha
          ha ha...
          >
          > ~ A
          >
          >


          --
          "Ausculta, feminae novae in lacunis recumbens gladii dispensans non fundamentum pro formula administrationis est."
          -
          http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/regindex.html
        • James W
          There are two pretty good sources of period bows. Most of us know about the Mary Rose and the bows found there but you are in luck with the other less well
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 29, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            There are two pretty good sources of period bows. Most of us know about the Mary Rose and the bows found there but you are in luck with the other less well known dig at the Nydam Bog.

            The Nydam Bog find is in Denmark and the finds date back to around 200-400 AD.
            http://www.nydam.nu/eng/weaponry.html

            Hardy describes these bows in Chapter 1 of his book "Longbow: A Social and Military History". They are made of yew or fir wood and have the english long bow D cross section. Lengths are around 6 feet.

            The English Long Bow design was not a new invention. It goes back centuries before.

            As for the Welsh Shortbow -- we have no surviving Welsh bows and we don't really know whether it was short or long. Yes, there are some crude drawings of Welshmen pulling what looks like a short bow but if we are to trust the artist's scale then Welsh archers had really short arms and enormous feet. We have Gerald of Wales description but that doesn't really get into its size. Other than that, we don't have a lot of talk about the Welsh bow.

            You would think that when Edward I went through Wales, if they were using a bow substantially different than the what the English were using, it would get mentioned in some description of the war.

            My feeling is that there was no Welsh Shortbow but there was a Welsh Longbow. Like the Nydam bows, it looked like an English Longbow. It might have been made out of elm instead of yew. It might have been a bit rougher looking but it was still very much a longbow.

            Cheers, James

            --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "aelric_southlake" <magnetcoil@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thank you all for the great/useful input! Much to look up now.
            >
            > I might try to make a linen bag-quiver. Something that i can sling over my shoulder while walking around, and then tie to my waist/belt as I get situated to shoot. If it comes out cool/functional, i'll post some pics and pattern.
            >
            > I have a longbow on order. Very excited to start shooting off the knuckle. But my "time period" is, generically, "Dark Ages," and i know the longbow didn't exist yet. I'm wondering if the Welsh short-bow isn't a lot closer to what your average Saxon/ Post-Roman Brit/ 'viking' might've used. No evidence of what viking bows exactly looked like, from what I understand. Would like to see one though - would make it a lot easier, ha ha ha...
            >
            > ~ A
            >
          • Fritz
            When obsidian@raex.com put fingers to keys it was 11/29/10 9:06 PM... ... Nigel, I m with you on everything but the D-section. As I understand it: The
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 30, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              When obsidian@... put fingers to keys it was 11/29/10 9:06 PM...

              > ... - an early longbow from, say, Norway, would
              > likely be carved of oak or ash, be roughly 60 to 75 inches long, and
              > almost certainly be carved into a D-section. ...
              > ... We can't know if they used fancy horn nocks or
              > simply carved a channel - I suspect both techniques were known and used.
              > None of this is documentable by academic standards, but it's reasonable
              > hypothesizing.

              Nigel,
              I'm with you on everything but the D-section.

              As I understand it:
              The D-section works well with yew, working the heartwood's resistance to
              compression against the sapwood's elasticity. AND the narrow design lets
              you get more bows out of a given tree. This latter point being important
              because the good yew was imported.

              Oak and ash are far more available, and don't have the heartwood/sapwood
              thing going, so they generally work better with flat, wide limbs than
              with D-section, deep ones.

              --
              Fritz
              Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.
            • obsidian@raex.com
              Greetings Fair enough...  When I think of longbows, it s all too natural to have a classic ELB in my head, and thus forget that design characteristics are
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 30, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Greetings

                Fair enough...  When I think of longbows, it's all too natural to have a classic ELB in my head, and thus forget that design characteristics are there to take advantage of different wood species peculiarities. I wonder how widespread Northern Yew was - I seem to recall that the handful of prehistoric bows that have survived (what? 3 or 4 bog bows plus Otzi's glacier bow) were all oak, and O sectioned. Be nice to know who first started using Yew, but I can't imagine ever being able to figure that out without a time machine.

                Nigel

                On Tue, November 30, 2010 10:01 am, Fritz wrote:
                > When obsidian@... put fingers to keys it was 11/29/10 9:06 PM...
                >

                >> ... - an early longbow from, say, Norway, would
                />>> likely be carved of oak or ash, be roughly 60 to 75 inches long, and
                >> almost certainly be carved into a D-section. ...
                > > ... We can't know if they used fancy horn nocks or
                >> simply carved a channel - I suspect both techniques were known and used.
                >> None of this is documentable by academic standards, but it's reasonable
                >> hypothesizing.
                >
                > Nigel,
                > I'm with you on everything but the D-section.
                >
                > As I understand it:
                > The D-section works well with yew, working the heartwood's resistance to
                > compression against the sapwood's elasticity. AND the narrow design lets
                > you get more bows out of a given tree. This latter point being important
                > because the good yew was imported.
                >
                > Oak and ash are far more available, and don't have the heartwood/sapwood
                > thing going, so they generally work better with flat, wide limbs than
                > with D-section, deep ones.
                >
                > --
                > Fritz
                > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.
                >


                --
                "Ausculta, feminae novae in lacunis recumbens gladii dispensans non fundamentum pro formula administrationis est."
                -
                http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/regindex.html
              • James W
                Hi Fritz, I would say it is still a D section. Most of the European digs that I have read about suggest D section bows are in the majority regardless of bow
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 30, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Fritz,

                  I would say it is still a D section. Most of the European digs that I have read about suggest D section bows are in the majority regardless of bow wood but yew is the most prevalent bow wood found.

                  Yew is a superior bow wood but the D-section works regardless whether it is on white wood like oak, ash, or elm. With the white woods, you are going with a compromise. The sapwood is just as good in tension as it is in compression.

                  James

                  --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Fritz <carl.west@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > When obsidian@... put fingers to keys it was 11/29/10 9:06 PM...
                  >
                  > > ... - an early longbow from, say, Norway, would
                  > > likely be carved of oak or ash, be roughly 60 to 75 inches long, and
                  > > almost certainly be carved into a D-section. ...
                  > > ... We can't know if they used fancy horn nocks or
                  > > simply carved a channel - I suspect both techniques were known and used.
                  > > None of this is documentable by academic standards, but it's reasonable
                  > > hypothesizing.
                  >
                  > Nigel,
                  > I'm with you on everything but the D-section.
                  >
                  > As I understand it:
                  > The D-section works well with yew, working the heartwood's resistance to
                  > compression against the sapwood's elasticity. AND the narrow design lets
                  > you get more bows out of a given tree. This latter point being important
                  > because the good yew was imported.
                  >
                  > Oak and ash are far more available, and don't have the heartwood/sapwood
                  > thing going, so they generally work better with flat, wide limbs than
                  > with D-section, deep ones.
                  >
                  > --
                  > Fritz
                  > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.
                  >
                • Eadric Anstapa
                  The oldest specimens of the Holmegaard bows are Elm but latter ones were Yew. Such an interesting design. There are people who will argue that this is a
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 30, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The oldest specimens of the Holmegaard bows  are  Elm but latter ones were Yew.  Such an interesting design. There are people who will argue that this is a "flatbow" design but those outer non-working limbs make it different from the typical flatbow and also different from the typical longbow. l  but I guess that depends on what exactly people think makes something a "longbow".

                    Also look at

                    Clark, J.G.D. (1963) Neolithic bows from Somerset, England, and the prehistory
                    of archery in north-western Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
                    for 1963 XXIX.

                    Where on page 66 you will find a description of a Neolithic longbow of yew found in Switzerland.  There are plenty of other examples  in that work work of what scholars would clearly call a "longbow".

                    Longbows clearly weren't unique or even remotely new to the English Longbow period.  I think the significance there is that it played such a huge role in the English armies and that there were simply so many obligations and  laws in England at that time to ensure that the people and army were well equipped with longbows.  I think this is  the first time that the longbow became so strongly associated with the armies of any culture (perhaps only) and that's why people seem to often assume it is an English invention from that period.

                    -EA

                    On 11/30/2010 10:38 AM, obsidian@... wrote: Greetings

                    Fair enough...  When I think of longbows, it's all too natural to have a classic ELB in my head, and thus forget that design characteristics are there to take advantage of different wood species peculiarities. I wonder how widespread Northern Yew was - I seem to recall that the handful of prehistoric bows that have survived (what? 3 or 4 bog bows plus Otzi's glacier bow) were all oak, and O sectioned. Be nice to know who first started using Yew, but I can't imagine ever being able to figure that out without a time machine.

                    Nigel

                    On Tue, November 30, 2010 10:01 am, Fritz wrote:
                    > When obsidian@... put fingers to keys it was 11/29/10 9:06 PM...
                    >
                    >> ... - an early longbow from, say, Norway, would
                    >> likely be carved of oak or ash, be roughly 60 to 75 inches long, and
                    >> almost certainly be carved into a D-section. ...
                    > > ... We can't know if they used fancy horn nocks or
                    >> simply carved a channel - I suspect both techniques were known and used.
                    >> None of this is documentable by academic standards, but it's reasonable
                    >> hypothesizing.
                    >
                    > Nigel,
                    > I'm with you on everything but the D-section.
                    >
                    > As I understand it:
                    > The D-section works well with yew, working the heartwood's resistance to
                    > compression against the sapwood's elasticity. AND the narrow design lets
                    > you get more bows out of a given tree. This latter point being important
                    > because the good yew was imported.
                    >
                    > Oak and ash are far more available, and don't have the heartwood/sapwood
                    > thing going, so they generally work better with flat, wide limbs than
                    > with D-section, deep ones.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Fritz
                    > Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.
                    >


                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.