Flatbows found on the Mary Rose?

[Kviljo]

Hehe, this just goes on and on

When the MR-publication is out, hopefully in this year, we will all be surpriced. ...but those refusing the idea of non-yew bows from the MR, will probably be the most surpriced

[Phil Rees]

Mark -I dont know who put up that lecture but none MR bow is reported of other wood than yew. I think that nobody at the moment has better ties to MR trust than EWBS or people like Hugh Soar and nobody respectable in the buissnes thinks anymore than all the bows are something else than yew. The information about one bow being something else is somehow outdated.
Jaro

I knew I had read it somewhere:

"Secrets of the English War Bow",
page 13, referring to the Mary Rose bows: "..although current archaeology has revealed the presence on board of at least some bows of other wood."

page 17 says something about the 8 more rectangular shaped bows. -I'm not sure how much text I'm allowed to copy from a book, but in general the text says theese are "..significantly more robust and longer than the others..." "...the draw weight of these formidable things has been assassed as significantly greater than the others..." -It is suggested that theese were not hand held weapons.

I believe Mr Soar is the author of "Secrets of the English War Bow", is there any reference in his book as to where this information came from?

[nidrinr]

yep, Soar is the author. The references from page 13 quote are "rules of the British Long-Bow society, Organisation-Tackle, 4th ed. (2001).

[CraigMBeckett]

Have not been here for a while so am only joining this discussion now:

With regard to non yew bows on the Mary Rose: the Mary Rose Trust's artifact data base:

 http://www.maryrose.org/database/mary_rose_archive.html

lists all bows as being made of yew except for:

Artifact No. 79A0471 which is stated as being a 320 mm piece of a willow bow. See record No. 2425;
Artifact No. 81A0213 which is stated as being a 102 mm piece of a bow of unspecified wood. See record 2426;

Plus two bows that were used in tests and had horn nocks fitted so in the column where on other bows they state yew or indeed in the one case willow, they state "Horn: Wood:" see record No. 2322, artifact No. 81A1607 and record No. 2411 artifact No. 81A3975.

Therefore unless their data base is wrong, it seems there is one piece of wood that is thought to be from a willow bow and one unidentified piece all the remainder are claimed to be of yew. AS this claimed willow bow piece is only 320 mm long one can understand the reluctance of people to speak of it especially as it is not of a recognised "English" bow wood.

Regarding flat bows, I have not seen the bows but from my reading of the various books etc on the subject of the Mary Rose bows I believe that what is meant by references to flat bows are actually squarish sectioned bows.



Craig.

[oat]

320 mm = 32 cm ~13 inches ... must be very interesting piece
102 mm = 10.2 cm ~4 inches ... must be very small bow

[CraigMBeckett]

102 mm = 10.2 cm ~4 inches ... must be very small bow

Why do you need to change mm to cm?

The original post said :

"a 102 mm piece of a bow"

What bit of "piece of bow" do you not understand?

Craig

[JW_Halverson]

No need to get sarcastic.  We've already gone thru name calling on this thread and there is no need to become inflammatory over the subject again.

[CraigMBeckett]

JW_Halverson ,

Have not called any names, have merely responded to a stupid, meaningless post.

I suggest you need to read what is written not assume things. and to correct your mis-comprehension I am not becoming inflammatory over any subject again.

Posts such as the one I responded to do nothing but detract from the discussion ans should be stamped on. One wonders why you feel the need to defend it rather than condemn it.

Craig.

[JW_Halverson]

I do sometimes wonder if the rules should be "no mention of sex, politics, religion and medieval!"

You hit the nail on the head, Mark.  Funny how this particular thread brings out the worst.  Even when the moderators post warnings in the middle of the thread!  I'm outa here, I've had it with incivility that seems to go hand in hand with this subject.  From here out I am staying away from any posts dealing with anything about the middle ages and English bows.  I don't think I am going to miss a lot of good information but I am sure going to avoid a lot of bickering and self-aggrandizing behavior.  So long.