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

Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Great archery find in Irish bogs

Expand Messages
  • blackwaterincorp@sbcglobal.net
    Sent from my U.S. Cellular Android device ... From: warbow67 Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 5:01 pm Subject: [SCA-Archery] Re: Great archery
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 18, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      Sent from my U.S. Cellular Android device

      ----- Reply message -----
      From: "warbow67" <warbow67@...>
      Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 5:01 pm
      Subject: [SCA-Archery] Re: Great archery find in Irish bogs
      To: <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>


      Also, there is a difference of nearly 500 years between Hastings 1066 ans the Mary Rose wreck of 1545. The culture of the longbow did not exist yet in England in 1066, the longbow was introduced by the Welsh and adopted by Edward I in the late 13th century. And it was Henry VIII who decried that all practice at the butts shall be of no less range than 265 yards. The Mary Rose bows are all 130+ pounds but the effect of a lifetime of shooting ultra-strong bows is evident on the skeletons of the archers with their compressed bones.

      This culture did not exist yet at Hastings, and so far no other discovered bows of other centuries and countries are anywhere near as powerful as the fabled English longbows, these Irish bog short bows are closer to the norm.

      I'll bet a 50lb bow shooting bodkin points can penetrate maile at 80 yards but not wooden shields, so 50lbs with bodkin is a lethal man-killer combo even against light armor. There was no need to develop stronger bows until heavier armor came along, and thus no need to force training upon a populace at ever younger and younger ages, which takes time, money and resources (and which eventually killed off the English longbow).

      Dave H


      --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "warbow67" <warbow67@...> wrote:
      > Still, we do know that the ranges that archery was used at Hastings was very close and the bows used could not penetrate the wooden shields (the Norman archers only began to have an effect late in the day when William commanded them to shoot high for plunging fire behind the shields). Stronger bows could probably penetrate, ergo stronger bows were probably not used. I think the bog findings may be correct.
      > Dave H
      > -------------------------------
      > --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Ld.blackmoon" <ld.blackmoon@> wrote:
      > >
      > > greetings
      > >
      > > differences in physicality.
      > > at that time there weren't a lot of machines doing everything for people, so people had to rely on muscle power for everything.
      > > when you consider that boys were shooting by age six, and building more muscle all the time, it is within the realm of possibility that yes 45 to 50 # bows could be " youth bows " ( I was shooting a 50 # bow at the age of 16 myself ) remember , those deer , pigs, squirrels, etc weren't wearing heavy leather or chainmail and padding over their skin, like the humans were ; ) , and the humans weren't always within 30 yards.
      > > just a thought ; )
      > > Be Safe , Be Happy, Have Fun .
      > > Arthur

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