war arrows of the mary rose?

[adb]

In my original post I did say there is a reference to the 1/4lb arrow somewhere! but no one is every able to prove it; certainly not in the MR book. To make the weight  I have seen arrow heads up to about 36g, then Oak or Birch to get the weight. A rather pointless arrow in my opinion but some people like it.

Thanks, Ian... that's what I was wondering.

[adb]

I have been making heavy arrows as of late but I have never personally used an English warbow. Does anyone know if arrows should be light or heavy? I make the heavier arrows with spines of 60-140lbs...and weights of 500-850 grains. I was wondering if a heavy weight was as important as a heavy spine?
Kevin

I generally follow the EWBS rules for arrow weights. Standard, livery, and 1/4#. Check their website for details. Roughly 55g, 65g, and 113g for each category.
I don't worry about the spine. I don't think medieval era bowyers or archers even thought about it or knew about it. The arrow needs to be strong enough to withstand the initial force of being shot from a heavy bow. I'm more worried about the grain of the shaft, and what it weighs. 850 grains would be 55g, which would be a standard arrow weight for flight shooting in the EWBS. I find arrow weights of 60-65g to be good for shooting warbows. You still get a nice cast of around 200 yards, the bow has less handshock, and is more efficient.

[scattershot]

Regarding length, in the original post, arguments have been going on about this forever. I constantly hear references to the "clothyard shaft". The clothyard was a Flemish unit of measure, and was 28", to the best of my knowledge. I would hope someone could cast some light on this and clear it up, once and for all.

[adb]

I think this debate will continue to go on forever, because nobody knows for sure.

[Thesquirrelslinger]

I think this debate will continue to go on forever, because nobody knows for sure.

+1

[Yeomanbowman]

I think this debate will continue to go on forever, because nobody knows for sure.

Well the debate about a cloth yard may run and run but, really, it is a moot point because we have so many of the real artifacts.  The one medieval and vast majority of the Mary Rose arrows are a useable draw length of 30" or less.  The MR Trust measure their arrows from the cone tip to the nock end, not arrowhead to shoulder of the valley of the knock.  The lesser amount, by some way, of arrows that had a 32" usable draw were very likely to have been for fire arrows.  Draw a lit fire arrow to the shoulder of the arrowhead and you char the back of the bow.  Not good in a battle or otherwise. 

[adb]

I agree... I only meant the debate about what a clothyard shaft is will continue. There are enough artifacts from the MR in terms of arrows to determine the length of most late medieval battle shafts.

[mikekeswick]

I don't worry about the spine. I don't think medieval era bowyers or archers even thought about it or knew about it. The arrow needs to be strong enough to withstand the initial force of being shot from a heavy bow. I'm more worried about the grain of the shaft, and what it weighs.

I bet they did. Remember they likely knew more about bows than we do.

[adb]

I seriously doubt that. I think it unlikely they measured arrow shaft deflection and separated the arrows into lots. They were livery arrows... to be shot out of all bows.

[WillS]

We'll obviously never know, but I can't help thinking that if my life absolutely depended on my bow, and I had days and weeks between marching to sit around, I'd probably spend a lot of time sorting the arrows that flew the best from my particular bow. 

Whether it was "spine" back then who knows, but I can't imagine anybody going into a battle with "basic" or rough weapons if they had the option not to.  Nobody would go into a modern-day warzone with a roughly setup scope on their rifle!

[adb]

It's my belief that arrows then are like ammo now. All 5.56mm ammo will shoot out of all govt issue military weapons chambered for it. Yes? I'm not military, but I think that's how it works. Will all artillery shells shoot out of all artillery pieces of the same caliber?

But... as mentioned, we'll never know!

[WillS]

Aye, but modern ammo is machined.  Arrows were made of natural materials that as we know vary from one to another.  If modern ammo had variables, wouldn't soldiers pick the bullets that best shot from their weapon if there was the possibility of doing so?

[adb]

Yes... they probably would. I'm just wondering how they'd go about doing that? The arrows from the Mary Rose that I saw (or more correctly the arrow shafts) all looked about the same.

[WillS]

Good point.  I reckon the 400 year soaking the arrows had probably distorted the appearance of them somewhat - did you get a chance to handle any?  When I did, they didn't feel like any arrows I've held before.
 
I'm assuming they wouldn't have carried spine calculators with them, but I've heard people can tell rough spine just by flexing an arrow shaft.  I'm almost certain that due to relying on the bow and the accuracy of an arrow to stay alive (whether for hunting or warfare) they'd have done whatever they could to match arrows to bows. 

All that being said - when you're dealing with mass produced arrows and mass produced bows, there's a limit as to how far you can go.  Maybe the first volley of arrows were hand picked by the individual archers, but the moment people came round handing out sheaves during a battle all of that would have gone out the window.

[AH]

Good point.  I reckon the 400 year soaking the arrows had probably distorted the appearance of them somewhat - did you get a chance to handle any?  When I did, they didn't feel like any arrows I've held before.
 

What do you mean "Didn't feel like any arrows You'd ever held? can you be a bit more descriptive?