Spine consideration for war arrows

[Rod]

A lot of folks seems to be making the lighter "flighting" war shafts, bearing in mind that the famous "quarter pound shaft" would be more like 1750 grains, not around 1000 grains.

As has been remarked, at different times a variety of different woods have been used for shafting, with ash being most common for a heavier shaft and asp (poplar, probably  for alighter shaft. black poplar if we are being specific) for a lighter shaft.

But I have no doubts about the suitability of hornbeam for a heavy shaft giving a greater stripe than the lighter ash.

As for spine, with artillery shafts so long as they shoot cleanly and make the distance, precise spine does not seem to be as problematic as with a shorter shaft which is shot with precise and critical alignment.

In my experience as long as the shaft is stiff enough, there seems to be quite some tolerance until the shaft is so stiff that it just lurches off to the left like a telegraph pole.
What you definitely do not want is a weak shaft, though I nurture the thought that given their method of shooting, that oriental bowmen probably shot a slightly "weak" shaft since they usually aimed the other side of the bow, rather than the shaft.
Peculiar system....

As Jaroslav says where he quotes my advice to him, in the old days an empirical test based on an assumption relating density or shaft weight to stiffness (and then diameter) generally served well enough.

When you read about the sporting shafts of the early gentleman archers being a certain fletcher's five shilling and sixpence shafts, they do not refer to the cost, but the weight equivalence in a specific combination of coin.

Ash is very common here, "as common as weeds" as one old boy said, and usually quite straight grained, but hornbeam was also in common use and is listed as a useful alternative for the heavy shaft.
In the states I reckon hop hornbeam or indeed any "ironwood" could make a heavy shaft, but if talking about shoot shafts, you would not come up light using dogwood or anything similar.

Just seems to me that when you are asked to make shafts in the tens of thousands, straightening shoots is just too much work compared to planing out shafts from straight grained wood when you are set up for it.

Rod.

[duffontap]

Just seems to me that when you are asked to make shafts in the tens of thousands, straightening shoots is just too much work compared to planing out shafts when you are set up for it.

Rod.

Do we have any idea of what kind of planes they used?  Native American's painstakingly scraped beautiful barreled arrows that had bulbous self-blunts from Hickory billets with scrapers, so it doesn't take much technology to do.  But, that being said, I wonder if the English didn't come up with something more controlled, like a board with a v-groove to hold the billet, or even a Strunk-type round-blade track plane?  Do we have any historical documentation? 

Also, you are right that the arrows would be very heavy most of the time.  Standard arrows are probable equivilant to 'harrassing arrows.'  My initial speculation on speed was based on distances they were required to shoot.  An arrow needs a significant muzzel velocity to reach 220-240 yards, let alone 300 yards +.  If at the HEIGHT of the warbow they were shooting 3 oz. arrows 300+ yards, then they were coming out of the bow very, very fast.  That speed contributed to stability like the length and FOC balance did. 

                         J. D. Duff

[Badger]

JD, it would have likely taken at least an extremely well made bow of 160# to cast 3 oz 300 yards. I would doubt that was the norm although they may have done it. Thats a lot of energy! Steve

[duffontap]

Steve,

Historical records seem to suggest that there was a period of time in which bowyers and archers were really pushing the limits of the longbow.  With all the talk about how amazing this time period was in comparison to latter days or weaker archers and bows (the MR bows would have fallen into this weaker category), it seems reasonable to think that highly trainded archers could be getting the most out of 160+ # bows. 

My endless speculation isn't worth much though.   

       J. D.

[Badger]

I do believe their bows were likely very well designed and likely at their peak in quality. Hard to imagine how strong they might be if trained from childhood. Howard hill was not a weightlifter and he could draw over 160#'s so if they had an archery culture it may not be unthinkable. I have a hard time imagining an army that could avergae bows of 120#'s, but It is also hard to relate to the lifestyle they had , anything is posssible. Steve

[mullet]

  JD,What was the "time" of that period of time.Any references when could look at? It sounds really interesting.

[Coo-wah-chobee]

              Yes J.D. I am very interested like Eddie. Sounds plausible.....bob

[duffontap]

Steve, Bob and Eddie,

You get a pretty good feel for this in Robert Hardy's Longbow.  I'll try to assemble some of the better quotes and post them.  You get a strong impression that there was something really serious going on there with the training of the archers from youth specifically to pull the heaviest bows.  I'll get my book out. 

           J. D.

[ChrisD]

Well, my views on the weight of bows are already posted elsewhere on the site and like Steve, I have a veeeery hard time imagining an army averaging 120#. Individuals - fine, but as soon as you try to extrapolate that to the majority of your troops, the median would drop.

I'll put in my tuppeny worth just for laughs. From the point of view of the strength of the idividuals, the hey day of the archer would have been up to the mid 1340's. The reason for this is that at that point in time, the population in Britain exceeded the capacity to provide sufficient food with available technology and the size of the parcels of land occupied by those people. Essentially, a significant proportion of the population were involved in agriculture and most of them had to supplement the table with hunted food - hence the fact that the bow in England was regarded as a 'way of life' by continentals. The method of breaking earth with a plough of that time involves a push pull movement together with anchor on a wide stance and rotation of the hips - very similar to drawing a big bow. The strength came from day to day activities, therefore, not practice with the bow.

After the mid 1340's, the great plagues had killed off enormous swathes of the population and those left alive found themselves better off and occupying bigger parcels of land. They needed to hunt with the bow less often and decline in the use of the bow commences at this stage as a result. The laws requiring Sunday archery practice post date the plagues for this reason (first one by Edwd 2nd in 1365 I believe but I'd have to check).

By 1415, guns had to started to appear although the bow was still the major artillery weapon. It was becoming hard at this time to raise and maintain large archer armies.

Jumping forwards towards the tudor period - many archers were no longer engaged in agrarian activity, hence the bewailing of loss of strength in our manhood etc etc. Its worth noting that by Tudor times there was an awareness that an archer, in order to shoot strong shots, needs his three meals a day and to sleep warm in a bed at night - hence the growing popularity of firearms at that time.

So you see, its not about bows - its about the people. I think its likely that the requirements of the bows by the tudor times would have been greater than those of the 1340's - armour became better and more available after all. As a result, I'd guess you had a problem of needing to make the bows heavier at a time when the people were weakening for the reasons outlined above. Either way - it still makes me think that the longbows averaged in the 100-110# range and not more. After all, we aren't talking about anything sophisticated here - it is just a stick made of a softwood. I'm prepared to accept that the quality of wood might have been better in the past - but in percentage terms it wouldn't have been THAT much better than the best yew wood today. Equally, the medieval bowyers knew what they were doing - but again, in percentage terms, they won't have been THAT much better than a Roy King or a Pip Bickerstaffe. 

Anyway, thats my take on things.

ChrisD

[Len]

One point I think Chris has missed is that it is not untill the 1340's that archers vastly ouynumber other troop types in English armies and after Crecy I think the social status of the archers would be greater and the self pride and ambition to be a good archer would push young men to practice and compete against each other and this would have been even more so after Agincourt though Henry had no trouble raising a large archer army even after a time of no major campaigns.

[ChrisD]

Naw - I haven't forgotten an obvious (and oft used) argument like that . I just happen to think its over rated. The presence of coercive legislation enacted in 1363(or 1365 depending on where you read, and by Edwd 3rd, not 2nd, sorry), and then re enacted by Henry V in 1410 enforcing Sunday archery practice indicates that the country wasn't exactly awash with useable archers. For sure, there were always plenty of people willing to take the Kings Schilling - but the law only enforced practice, it didn't force anyone to become any good. Even Robert Hardy who writes about the medieval period with more romanticism than I like to see in a historian admits that in the mid 1300's, an archer in Edwards army was hard to train and harder still to keep at the required level of skill. Small wonder that the warbow was superseded by firearms hundreds of years before it was superseded as one of the finest artillery weapons available. I've read one American Civil War commentator who remarked that the battle of Gettysburg could have been won with longbows! I don't even think that the 12000 odd archers present at the beginning of the Agincourt campaign is a particularly big number - not for a war of conquest - it was the best that could be done at the time, thats all.

Chris.

[Rod]

Looking at the work of Simon Stanley and Mark Stretton it would appear that the higher arrow speeds are achieved with  shafts of more moderate weight than the quarter pound (1750 grain) shaft and a bow in excess of 150lb draw weight.
What is then interesting is the fact that the better archers in the heyday of the heavy bow must not only have been able to draw such bows, but the best must also have mastered them.

There are quite a few today who can draw such weights, but scarcely any who have mastered these bows.
This is evident when they are seen shooting, in their accuracy and in theur abuility to maintain a rate of fire without sacrificing accuracy or length.

Rather than see folks struggling to draw heavier weights which they cannot master as the main focus of their attention, I would rather see the same folks master a bow of a given more manageable weight before stepping up in draw weight.
This is more in line with traditional usage where you would not be given a stronger bow until you could control the one you wre already shooting.

Many of todays practitioners can not even maintain a draw length over more than a very few arrows.

As regards bow weights as used, I think it worthwhile to compare with another warbow culture where the literary record is more explicit.
In Selby's "Chinese Archery" actual recorded weights are cited which seem to be a worthwhile comparison, giving a median for infantry bows of 120lb to 150lb and of 90lb to 120lb for cavalry bows.
This bears comparison with other warbow cultures where the demands upon the weapon are not at all different. to project a heavy armour penetrating shaft the greatest possible distance.
These median figures tally quite well with the experience of the more accomplished heavy bow shooters.

Talk about the heyday being from a period when plate was just becoming to come to the fore is all very well, but I think it likely that draw weights increased in direct response to the developments in protection.
The archer may well have been more readily effective against the gentleman's armour of 1340, but the demands placed upon the bow and projectile would have increased with the growth in the more extensive use of plate armour.

To anyone interested in the social and economic realities of raising a mediaeval army and that old chestnut about "England" invading "France", I can only recommend that they acquaint themselves with some of the Yale "English Monarchs" series of paperback books.
Specifically "Henry 1", Henry 11", "Edward 1", "Edward 111" and "Henry V". The volumes on William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Richard 1 and King John are also worth reading.

Rod.

[Rod]

Seems to me that the making of shafts out of straight grained splits wiould follow pretty much the same process that we might use today.
Once a fairly uniform "square" dowel has been planed out, the use of a shooting board and thumb plane should allow of fairly quick production of a facetted dowel which can then be rounded out with a sanding block or drawn through a dowel cutting plate.
I hardly think that we have reinvented the wheel when it comes to such a task.
Rod.