Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: davecrocket on April 23, 2009, 07:23:43 am
-
Hi there.
I am new here and I am interested in longbow and arrow history. I have tillered myself a pair of longbows (100 and 110lb@32") and love making my own arrows. I am very interested in the history of bulbous nock arrows and now I want to make some.
I don`t want to get tangled up with the heads used just yet (no pun), but if anyone has any suggestions on the main body of the arrow I will be so grateful. Also any historical evidence written or otherwise. I do alot of reading and searching for this subject, but have found it a bit thin. I am sure I must have missed a few references.
I have started off with a half inch straight grained ash shaft. I don`t know how long the fletchings should be before I bring the arrow back up to fatness after the nock. I am going to use four goose primary wing feathers, but don`t know if to strip or cut. I have decided there is enough evidence to fit them into grooves. This may point to the cut and grind fletching maybe. Also for my first attempt I am going to have the thickest part of the arrow near the front and taper off in both directions.
If any of you have "Gut feelings" on how they should be made or thoughts on probable performance etc, I would very much like to know, as written evidence seems so rare.
Thank you very much for taking time to read this and any comments on this subject will be appreciated.
Dave.
-
Hi Dave
There is a good book you may be interested in its called Toxophilus, cant find the online copy some one will know where it is.
As far as arrows if you want to make them in the medieval pattern then a good starting place is
http://wvw.englishwarbow.com/making-blbs-standard-arrow.html
I would point out that you dont need four feathers on an arrow it will increase drag but not effect anything else.
Oh and tapering from the head to the nock is called bobtailing
-
Thank you Ian for taking time to help me. I have struggled through Toxophilus a few times, but Asham seems to go on about 16thC archery. He did give me the idea of ash though. He reckoned arrows should be made of ash "not like these days".
I am interested in war arrows pre 14thC. There are a few carvings around the place, but the bulbous nocks seem to be much exaggerated.
The site you recomended is very good, but again seems to be post 16thC.
Thank you again Ian.
Dave
-
I guess you are talking about the type of nock shown on some illustrations of target or hunting shafts, such as those shown on the Wilton Dyptich or in the Lutrell Psalter.
Does anyone have any evidence or rationale as to whether these would be built up or worked out of an oversize shaft?
There is evidence of both methods in other cultures making nocks of a similar appearance.
There is also some visual and written evidence about other feather types or styles, as well as specialised bulbous heads for shooting at butts.
Rod.
-
Thank you Rod for your kind reply.
It had never occurred to me that a bulbous nock could be built up after the arrow has been made. In the old pictures it is so hard to tell. Also I have read the same account as you but can`t remember where from. You definitely know what I am trying to say though!
Anyway, I have made a very rude bulbous knock arrow and plan to loose it today or tomorrow. I have used ash, but not half inch, more like 3/8". I did this so it could be roughly compared with other conventional arrows I have. It`s a very basic design with the the four 2.5 inch fletchings sat in a very narrow (2/8") part of the shaft. The shaft then comes back up after the fletchings (as quick as it came down) to it`s original thickness at the nock giving me my bulbous nock. Don`t hold your breath though. It doesn`t feel right. I will at least see if I can dispel or confirm the bulbous nock was just there for the pinch grip. I can`t see me being able to pinch the nob at 100lb-with or without gloves. But I will try. The fletchings are elongated swine-back, and they seem too long! I will also wear brown trousers because of the narrow part of the arrow.
Something else has occurred to me. If I take a Turkish arrow and saw the end off at it`s thickest part, this in effect would become a bulbous arrow. Maybe I should base me next arrow on that design.
Dave.
-
I go mostly by gathered information. As far as you have gone sounds good. The head to tail taper with horn slip reinforcement was a new idea in Tudor, not mediaeval, times. Previously the nock was strengthened by being left the maximum thickness while the shaftment was much thinned to improve archers paradox. With ½” thickness and 1/8”bowstring you wouldn’t need binding reinforcement. There may have also been pieced nocks besides the brass ones from pre-Viking Scandinavia, but I don’t have the info..
Fletching is best when cut and trimmed, but was sometimes stripped as Ascham mentions. Four vane fletch was used on Nydam and some Viking arrows but three vane was more common. Some archers find four vane more accurate, and it fits with cross nocks. I don’t know about the fletching grooves, which were used in crossbow bolts. It sounds like you are thinking of the Roman period Nydam arrows that with shaftment wrappings and birch tar are a real challenge to reproduce. Half inch shaft sounds good . Most mediaeval arrows I know of are tthat maximum thickness. Some fletching lengths; Nydam-3 ¾”, Alemannic-3 ¼”, Viking- 4 !/4..Tudor ones went up to 9”.You are pretty safe with either swine back or square shorn fletching for any mediaeval culture.
cheers,
Erik
-
Thank you Erik for your most informed input.
I think the bulbous nock is going to have to be half inch as you mentioned. I tried out my comparison arrow today and it was impossible to feel the bulb on the release. As for the pinch grip I had no chance. Despite being heavier and having four fletchings, on average it came about 4th out of 6 of the three fletched arrows that I shot. What I was expecting really, especially because the fletchings were put on by hand as jigs can`t reach into recesses.
I note with interest you think three fletchings may be the way? I picked up the four fletching and cut in from Nydam I think. I thought it was a good idea at the time because as long as you find your nock you do not need to worry if your arrow is upsidedown! I thought this would be a huge advantage on the battlefield.
I will be shortly starting on my full sized arrow. I will try to put up a picture before I loose it.
Thanks again Erik.
Dave.
-
Dave- I overlooked referring to your pinch grip experiment. While some cultures like North American Indians used a pinch grip with a bolbous nock, that was probably never the case in mediaeval Europe. Earliest written descriptions, from before the Hundred Years War, as well as earlier manuscript illustrations involve two or three fingers on the string. I suggest that. It is true that with the four vane fletch you can nock without looking and as I mentioned, some preferred it. Some still do.
Erik
-
Erik - I wanted to put the pinch grip to bed for good. The general consensus with the bulbous nock is the pinch grip. It cannot be so.
North West Europe used two fingers and the rest of the world used rings. As soon as you loose an arrow from a ring it is on it`s way - full tilt.
Two fingers holding a bulbous nock has the same effect...but better. The arrow is in the "V" of the string. With a ring the arrow has to sit above. That is why most very old arrows have a narrow nock, so they can sit on the string as close to the ring as possible.
There are two things I really need to know. The first is the release. "Pingability". If you can hold an arrow and then let it loose without distorting the string away from the "V" shape then it will ping.
The second is aerodynamics. The feathers sit in a recess. I do not know how this works, but it does. If you have a recess then it leaves a bulbous nock.
I hope you can see what I am saying.
Dave.
-
I seem to recall (and I will check) that Ascham distinguishes between deeper nocks for reliability in a livery shaft and shallower nocks for shooting at marks.
The "bulbous" nocks are I think intended to pinch the string rather than to be pinched except lightly between the string fingers, not to be "pinch gripped" as we normally understand the term.
Most cultures that use the pure primary or secondary pinch grips will have placed a draw weight limit on themselves, defined as the weight at which the shaft will slip out of a simple pinch grip, probably on average in the order of a mid to high end hunting weight, from around 65lb to 70lb or perhaps a little more.
A bulbous nock obviously makes retention of a pure pinch grip easier, but I think that ceased to be a common English style long before the period that you are interested in.
As has been noted, I think you need to be careful of the distribution of force (diameter of the core) in a built up nock and I would nonetheless always prefer to bind or otherwise reinforce such a nock.
Rod.
-
When I say pinch grip I mean holding the end of the arrow between thumb and fingers. Traditionally this has always been associated with bulbous nocks. However, it may be possible to loose a bulbous nock from a longbow using just two fingers and still holding on primarily to the arrow. This method -if possible- will not distort the string so much as a conventional pull.
However, I have no evidence for this. This is why I am making this arrow. I think it will be very interesting to see how it performs.
I am also going to bind in a homemade head. I am going to put it in with the grain of the wood so the arrow cannot be pulled past the head. Again this will help with the release. There are quite a few old longbows with evidence of them being marked because of this drawing method.
Best get back to it!
Dave.
-
The shafts in question may not be "bulbous" in the sense that you mean.
That is to say three dimensionally "bulbous", so as to provide a bulge which is meant to be pinch gripped.
They may in fact be far more two dimensional being shaped to "clip on" rather than for a pinch grip, which is in any case a very weak method of trying to maintain a purchase on a heavy bow.
Rod.
-
Sorry for the delay.. I am still working on the arrow.
I have kept the nock at the maximum 1/2 inch and taken the part that will take the fletchings down as far as I dare. The thickest part of the shaft is about four inches from the head. The nock is not big enough to hold onto. Also the tapering is not as much as I would have liked. 5/8 inch shaft seems more sensible now.
I am determined however to cut the fletchings in though. I shot one once and it seemed to go much quicker. There must be a technique to do this. I don`t know what it is though.
It is very hard for me to explain what I am trying to do. I want to make an arrow that was shot from a long bow pre Tudor times. I will finish this arrow in a few days and take some pictures and then I hope everything will become clear. Advice then may come forth.
In the mean time I still need advice. It is taking me longer to make this arrow than it did making my bows.
I don`t want to get too much in front of myself, but does anyone think I should have headed the arrow with a harder wood than ash? I know spine didn`t come into the equation in these times, but maybe a very ridgid foreshaft with a flexible aftshaft may have helped in some way. I got the idea from bamboo arrows. For years I could not work out how they could have been so successful as they bend uniformly along the shaft.. And then I saw some Japanese heads with a huge and unnecessary tang on it. This would render the foreshart totally rigid.
Dave.
-
I mean footed, not headed. Sorry.
Dave.
-
Dave,
I think that tanged shafts were often made with overlenth tangs much in the same way as unmounted sword blades were produced with overlength tangs.
On an arrow head this allows the tang to be cut to the desired length, as for example in a cane shaft to match a length to a node.
Regarding the "pinch" nock, examination of the illustrations I mentioned earlier shows that the shape of the nock aperture of these "bulbous" nocks appears to be designed to allow "clipping on" to the string,
a refinement not apparent in livery shafts.
This is what I refer to in distinguishing between a "pinch" nock and a "bulbous" nock, although the swelling obviously does permit pinching in the usual sense.
FWIW
Rod.
-
I have tried to post pictures of the arrow on here but I can`t get the size below 200MB. So I put them on Photobucket. I think you should be able to find them.
I could not cut in the fletchings as this would have made the shaft too thin. I will try again though. Also I think I will dispense with the shoulder at the start of the fletching with my next arrow. As you can see, I did not use goose feathers, but bought ones.
The head is homemade. It is cut out of 3mm mild steel and then shaped. After heating, I plunged it in oil to harden it. I then sharpened it. I then glued and whipped in. The whole thing weighs 80 grams.
I will try to shoot it soon and I will post the results. After distance trials I think I will shoot it into a corrugated sheet and then compare with my conventional arrows. This should also tell me if I need to foot my next arrow.
Dave.
-
http://s704.photobucket.com/albums/ww49/davecrocket/
-
Hi Dave,
Before trying to make a replica I suggest that you find a picture of a Nydam arrow or some mediaeval arrow and then make one that looks something like the picture.
Erik
-
It was never my intention to make a replica. (For a start my arrow making skills are not up to it!).
I am interested in the aerodynamics of the bulbous nock. Also it seems logical that the fletchings sit in a recess as the shaft has to come back up to fatness. (A bit like old Turkish arrows.)
What I have made is a is more of a model than a replica.
It is possible that no English arrows have survived from the period I am interested in. I think that if there are advantages in the aerodynamics or release then these would have been exploited.
Dave.
-
It was never my intention to make a replica. (For a start my arrow making skills are not up to it!).
Sorry, I thought you wanted to make a mediaeval arrow.
-
I do, but I do not know what they look like. I want to make the arrow that was shot from an English war bow in it`s hayday which I thought would be about between 1066 and 1415 maybe. I could be quite wrong here Erik. I didn`t think any survived (again I could be wrong). I want to keep making arrows but I don`t know what they looked like and more impotantly the principles which made them so much better than spined or Tudor arrows. If I could find an arrow from this period then I would certainly like to copy it, but in the mean time it looks like I will have to keep guessing and trying out different principles like what I have done. Sorry I have been a bit rambling, but I just want ideas to try them out, and you have been very informative.
Dave.
-
check this out
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I've been reliably informed that bulbous nocks were used in conjunction with a thumb ring.
-
I've been reliably informed that bulbous nocks were used in conjunction with a thumb ring.
In what context ? No Europan thumbrings have been found and the earliest European illustrations as well as written sources involve a two or three finger draw but bulbous nocks were used from the Roman period until shortly before Tudor times, I would think in order to have a safe self nock.
Cheers.
Erik
-
I simply cannot see Anthony of Burgundy shooting with a thumb ring.
-
Thank you very much for the pictures Daniel. That is much more like it. My arrow was rubbish. I don`t know why I thought I had to put the fletchings in a recess. Been looking at too many Turkish arrows maybe. Anyway I don`t think any of you need to be told I failed when I shot it. It was just like shooting an over spined arrow in a weak bow.
I will try to make on of those. I wish his hand wasn`t in the way. The tapering is very harsh on closer inspection.
I have been emailed by Mike who works for a master fletcher and he also associates bulbous nocks with rings. The arrows I have seen that would have been shot with rings do have bulbous ends alot of the time, but the actual nock is thin and pointy. This is where the confusion is creeping in I think. A nock to me is the bit where the string sits in. I collect archery rings and it makes sense to have the knock as slender as you can so it can sit as close to the ring as possible. I could be wrong.
As for making these arrows..it`s a real pain. I have only been doing it for a couple of years. Other arrows that I have made have been much easier. I have a steel plate with holes in with different diameters which alows me to shave them down and shape them. I can`t use the smaller holes because the nock won`t fit in.
Thank you all very much for all your helpful advice and coments.
-
I've been reliably informed that bulbous nocks were used in conjunction with a thumb ring.
With a composite bow, no doubt.
With an English bow, unlikely.
Rod.
-
have it your way but I've seen hundred year old arrows along with the bows. they are of course victorian but the reasons they used thumb rings with bulbous nocks remains the same.
-
have it your way but I've seen hundred year old arrows along with the bows. they are of course victorian but the reasons they used thumb rings with bulbous nocks remains the same.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that my comment refers to the use of thumb rings with an English bow, not to the use of thumb rings with bulbous nocks which may or may not be the practice in other cultures.
Nor would an English lawn archery shaft of one hundred years ago typically have a bulbous nock as you seem to imply.
Presumably the "they" in your second paragraph does not refer to Victorian archers shooting English bows.... :-)
Rod.
-
The picture posted by Daniel shows an interesting variant on a gentleman's sporting shaft, if you compare this to the Lutrell Psalter picture (used on the cover of Hardy's "Longbow" and also shown in "The Great Warbow") you will see a different nock aperture, not the triangular shape of this Burgundian example on a clearly bobtailed shaft, but more of an enlarged "C" shaped nock aperture shown in use for shooting at the butts in an earlier period, also with the interesting bulbous head with the marks made by these heads on impact with the clay face of the butt.
Neither of these are primarily bulbous nocks so as to be "pinch gripped" as we usually understand the term, they are far more likely to be "clip on" in function, something not in evidence on a livery shaft for warfare, partly no doubt for reasons of economy of production, partly for the reasons given by Ascham in making his distinction in nocking depth and function between shafts for war and shafts for sport.
It should also be borne in mind that primary and secondary pinch grips, where employed, set a lower draw weight limit on the bow than that which would be used in a heavy war bow culture for fighting, though it should be noted that Gaston Phoebus does make a recommendation that a lighter draw weight than that typical in a war bow might be usefuly be employed for hunting.
Not that I expect that this is addressed to the common archers, but obviously to literate gentlemen who may well have been less frequent users of the bow.
It is also worth noting that with a basic pinch grip, above a certain draw weight, the arrow escapes the grip, like it or not.
Where a primitive culture uses a very heavy bow, we do not see a simple pinch grip in use.
For example, the Liangulu elephant hunters, drawing around 100 lb use a grip not unlike a Mediterranean loose.
FWIW
Rod.
-
That was very helpful. I am going to put a conclusion in to finish everything off.
My quest was to find out what arrows were originally shot in anger from the English War Bow.
They started to get rare around 1400. For some reason after this date Aspen and the like were used and the design had to be changed.
Maybe ash trees got rare. Maybe fletcher`s guilds could make more money by making loads of straight target arrows. Maybe gun powder took over. Maybe they were so much more costly to make than Aspen arrows. We may never know for sure. Here is what I have concluded.
1. Bulbous nocks.
I don`t think they were as big or functional as I first thought. Sure, they help placing on the string and holding the arrow there, but only to a relatively small degree. (I made a very thin nocked arrow once and it was a pain holding it on the string). I conclude they were there because that was the thinest the fletcher could safely make a nock. The aftshaft just happens to be thinner.
2. The grip.
Two fingers. No doubt here. Since writing this I have modified all my tabs to two fingers. I have always used three and thought I would not be able to pull a strong bow with just two fingers. How wrong I was.
3. Number of fletchings.
Again I think I may have to stand corrected. What you gain in less drag by using just three fletchings instead of four must outweigh advantages over blind nocking.
4. Antony of Burgundy.
This portrait answered most of my questions. I had come across it in the past in "Secrets of the English War Bow" but the picture was rather small and I dismissed it as a target arrow. I didn`t even appreciate the tapering. The larger picture above is much clearer. It has to be ash as there is no horn insert or reinforcement in the nock as far as I can see.
Also the portrait was mid 15th C and I thought the arrows that I am interested in had long gone. Feel a bit daft now. I don`t think he would be holding the latest fad in an important portrait like this. He would be holding an arrow his ansesters would have used.
5. Dimensions.
I think I will take the dimensions from the portrait. I know this may not be very accurate but everything else looks in proportion. Take his iris as 12mm (fairly standard in humans). It looks like the thinnest part of the arrow is only about 6mm! The nock seems to be about 9mm and the thickest part of the arrow by his fingers is about 12mm. The portrait is showing about 45cm of the arrow.
6. Performance.
I think the aftshaft is very thin to bend round the bow when shot(AP). It is aerodynamic as well but not the primary function. I do not think, however, that the very end of the arrow bends at all. If you put the head of the arrow in a vice horizonally and push down on the nock I think it will make a pleasing and ever increasing curve. What this curve looks like I don`t know, but this curve will affect the performance and of course there will be an optimum curve for an optimum performance.
Cheers!
Dave.
-
You say that you dismissed it as a target arrow....
Well it probably is, it has all the hallmarks of a gentleman's sporting shaft.
But without seeing the point it is not certain that it might not be a hunting shaft, but it certainly is a fancy sporting shaft, not a livery type of "war" shaft.
Rod.
-
You may be right there Rod. I know he did shoot in competitions (and won!). He also used his bow in conflicts.
Sporting, to me, can imply target and game hunting. I don`t think the arrow will differ that much, apart from the point, from a war arrow and, say, an arrow to take down a deer or boar.
The question is; did he have target arrows or did he use his war/game arrows? I am still trying to make one and I have learned that to make a sporting/war arrow is a lot of trouble and they must have cost so much make.
I don`t think he was short of a bob or two, so he would have had his arrows made for him as opposed to taking livery ones. I don`t know when livery arrows came in, but I think around this time livery could mean money given in order to buy certain goods, for example war arrows. Livery soon came to mean goods bought by the King and they were marked in some way I think. Either way, I don`t think this is a livery arrow.
I have a friend who thinks he can turn me an arrow like Burgundy`s on a laythe. I think that this is impossible but he is convinced, so I will let him try. In the mean time I am having another shaving plate made so I can shape my arrow. This time I will include half holes around the edge of the tool.
Cheers!
Dave.
-
Dave,
Labour costs were cheap in those days, so livery arrows, with horn-reinforced nocks and silk bindings, involved as they are to make, would have cost relatively less to make than today - the only real costs being the iron/steel for the heads and the silk for the binding.
Cheers, Dave
-
Good point Dave. Also in those days they would have had large families that would have worked for the business. Maybe they were expensive because of the Guilds`s monoply on arrow making or shortage of materials.
As with the horn nock, well, I think I am going to have to side with Bowtoxo here. I think they had to be put in when they started to use popular type woods, other wise the string would split the arrow. Before that I think they used ash which doesn`t need a horn nock. Seasoned ash is very hard to split with an axe-let alone a bow string. I had to chop down a type of popular a few months ago and I was splitting huge great logs with just a tap of the axe-and the grain was so straight!
What I am interested in is what was the design of the arrow before they used softer woods with a horn nock. I don`t know when the transaction took place or why, but I`m having a wild stab in the dark and saying possibly around 1400.
Thank you for your input Dave.
Dave.
(Off the subject slightly...is anyone else counting down to goose feather collecting day? Domestic geese are loosing their primaries now in my area, so maybe another four weeks for wild geese?)
-
davecrocket ====A few points. No doubt about two fingers ? Our three written mediaeval instruction sources say three fingers. Four vane fletching if cut lower and not helical would not increase drag. The difference between a hunting and a war shaft;:the hunting bow being weaker, it would take a thinner shaft. If the Anthony of Burgundy arrow is indeed 12 mm= ½ inch thick, [I doubt it] it would be the thickness of MR war arrows, therefore would be a war arrow. Re.bulbous nocks, I think they were left thick to be less likely to split. It was, and is, a lot quicker and easier for a fletcher to taper a shaft to the very end which can be done with a plane and chuting board, even with insertion of the then advisable horn slip provided by a horner, than to taper one up to the full sized nock. The tapered shaftment [ what you call ‘aftshaft’] was for better recovery from archers paradox. An Alemannic arrow is 1cm thick at head and nock tapered to 57.4 mm just before the noch swelling. The only arrowhead of flat plate I have seen is a single Viking forked head, no resemblance to yours which is shaped like a stone arrowhead. Of course Anthony bouight his arrows like everyone else except wartime archers who got livery [issued] arrows from their lord or king, and he was a lord.
Erik
-
Given the title (pre 14thC bulbous English arrows) I'm wondering why so much time is being spent on discussing a picture of a 15thC Burgiundian. :-)
Rod.