Two different designs of Warbow found on the Mary Rose?

[D. Tiller]

Well, I just got done reading the chapter in the "English Warbow" where they talk about two differing bows found on the Mary Rose and compare the two. If I'm reading this right they differ in that one tapers directly out of the handle to the and has more of a flat back and rounded belly while the other is parallel to mid limb then tapers to the nocks and is more round in shape? Is this true? If so what are the design advantages of each?

Thanks

David T

[Badger]

David, there could be a number of reasons for those deign changes, A lower draw weight bow might be better off with a stiff center thus not tapered, Another reason could be they may have used a different style of bow for launching lighter harrasing type arrows possibly. The bows could also have been the heavier bows and tillered to work the paralell center section. The is any number of logic's which could apply without knowing more about the bow.

[D. Tiller]

I think it was most likely that they were made by different bowyers who went about building the bows in different ways.  I just wish the book went into a bit more detail on how they were tillered. I suspect the longer of the two, which was parallel limbed to the center of each limb, may have been tillered a bit more whip ended than the other. This one had the belly and back that were more circular in cross section while the other tapering design was more like a "D" in cross section. 

Bet ten to one the even taper from handle to nock bow may have been more efficient and with less hand shock than the parallel limbed one. From the pyramid bows I've handled and built this tends to be the case so I would think it would transfer over to warbow also. Though the longer parallel bow design may have made up the difference because of its length.  Guess I will just have to try both designs out and see how they work. What do you all think?

[Kviljo]

Different sizes of lumber could be one factor in this? One shipment from a heavily harvested area with small diameter-logs, and large logs from a new yew-harvesting area

I'm looking forward to take a look at the book myself. Which one was it?

[D. Tiller]

It was "Secrets of the English War Bow" By H.D. Soar. Just contacted Pip Bickerstaff and he mentioned there are actually arround 6 variations that were found on the Mary Rose in total. Just wish there was a book out there that dealt with the 6 types and how they differed. Pip mentioned the best way to start is making them 82" in  length 45mm wide by 36mm deep in the central area and taper to mid limb slightly then taper more quickly to the tips with the last 10" tapering quickly to the nocks. Seems this is the more prevalent of the designs. Cant wait to try it out on my next stave. I will adjust the dimensions for the lighter hunting bow I will be building.

David T

[Rod]

There are probably as many minor variations in section and taper as there were bowyers, but then not all bowyers would necessarily have the same level of mastery of the craft.
As a general rule, a limb which carries the width further out along ther limb is more likely to be of a heavier draw weight, all else being equal.
This is certainly true of how you mark out bow dimensions, then or now.
It is also probably true that that a heavy longbow with sharper edges on the back (or belly) is more likely to have subsequent stress problems (deformity in bending) on the back edges.
Heavy longbows have radiused back edge corners and less arched bellies very practical reasons.
The very flat backed, sharp edged model with a highly arched belly derives far more from later narrow sporting bows of lighter draw weight, often made of tropical hardwoods.

Rod.