Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: WillS on January 18, 2015, 10:14:35 am
-
Fantastic new article available written by Ian and Mark, well worth a read. Raises some fascinating questions about blunts and their uses. More will be written soon, but it's an important breakthrough already.
http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/MedievalBlunts.html
The video of Joe testing one of Marks blunts with a 170# bow (and hemp string) also available, here
http://youtu.be/lFBHTz9AROM
-
That could make life a lot cheaper... :)
-
Hi
i read with interest Mark and Ian,s new article on blunts ,how ever the reference to Yumi strings on a heavy bow seems to me to have very little historical significance.The medieval archer when his string broke did not go on ebay and order a yumi string from Japan ,to help with the balance of payments deficit , he would order from his local supplier ,who would have probably made them from Galeopsis Tetrahit.
which can still be found in abundance ::) ::) ::)
-
Hi Brian,
I'm sure you're aware of what's currently happening regarding the strings - I thought it was best left off the forums until everybody is amicable about it (although it seems to have been handled quite nicely already). It's certainly not my place to post anything further on it.
Without the string-theory this is a very interesting bit of research and development, and I believe Mark is working on an article about the construction of them to be published soon.
As Lucasade said, this would make things a lot cheaper and a lot more convenient than losing hand-forged heads on roves etc, and there's certainly a lot of evidence to substantiate the idea that it was common-place in history. I'm looking forward to having a go myself once I find out how Mark makes 'em!
-
Volume 2 of the TBB's tells you how to make a strong enough string out of natural fiber ;)
The key is clearly full length fibers. I've played about enough with natural material strings to know that string making is the tricky part....but perfectly doable if you've got the patience to learn and good raw materials. Retting is key also.
I remember hearing Mr.Bickerstaffe talking about the nock sizes on the Mary Rose arrows and how their width indicated that the bows were likely 80# average weight.....he wouldn't listen to me.
Grow your own hemp, nip off any side shoots, once it's away 'force' it like you do with rhubarb (but use a drainpipe!). I grew some last year in my greenhouse for string making and it's some strong,strong stuff.
I don't see what the fuss is about - of course blunts fly well/comparable to any other head, if we know it now...they knew it then. It's common sense if you ask me ;) Try some .50 cal casings >:D
-
Much ado about nothing.
-
You know hemp is a controlled species that needs a licence to grow (in the UK anyway)?
-
Well, there was me thinking any published new research would be interesting. Didn't realise you guys had a criteria to fill before you decide something is worth doing or not...
Glad you knew about it and its all common sense and blindingly obvious, but at least now it's documented because it never was before. It's odd that nobody has tested wooden blunts before, what with it being such common sense ;)
The "fuss" (although there isn't any really, it's just an article) is that while "common sense" would suggest any head that weighs the same will fly more or less the same as a real head, the construction and general use in the middle ages isn't documented or discussed anywhere. That's what is being tested, and to anybody interested in medieval archery that's what is fascinating.
If everybody had said "well yeah, obviously a 170# bow will shoot further than a 100# bow, that's common sense" then nobody would have tested it, would they? Every time somebody ignores the people saying "what's the point in trying? It's obviously going to do this..." and actually tests something, we learn new things. Marks not trying 50cal casings because that has zero relevance to historical archery. He's making wooden blunts as seen in period artwork and testing those.
Tch. Honestly!
-
Wills I liked the article and look forward to the follow up on what they come up with. Thanks for posting this.
-
I refer the honorable gent to Marc St Louis' article on wooden blunts in PA a year or so back. Detailed instructions on how to make and use them. You do subscribe to the magazine dont you?
-
Every other culture used them and we presume the English were at least as intelligent. ;)
The concept just seems so ordinary to anyone who has a background in the older forms of archery. Not really worth getting excited about.
Just don't try to tell us that the bows are now calculated to have pulled 250 pounds and could send a blunt through an armored horse.
-
Wills I liked the article and look forward to the follow up on what they come up with. Thanks for posting this.
+1
-
I thought it was through an oak door. That's the story you're meant to tell.
I think you've over-estimating the excitement level. Nobody's having a heart attack over this stuff, it's just a new article written about somebody's work on blunts. Read it, don't read it, agree with it, don't agree with it etc. Makes no difference, really. Saying it's worthless because we already know about blunts is daft though.
We already knew longbows existed before the MR was lifted. Does that mean nobody should be making and testing replicas of them? Should there never be articles written on things that people already know a bit about?
We know that bows were used against armour, so it stands to reason the arrows can penetrate armour. Does that mean nobody should be testing the results? "Nah, we already know that mate. S'obvious, ain't it. Don't waste your time." What a ridiculous attitude to have towards somebody doing research on something.
Has anybody else actually done any testing with an exact replica of a medieval English bow, to see what replicas of medieval English blunts are capable of? Doesn't ring any bells to me.
-
Well you did use "fantastic" and "fascinating" and "breakthrough". :-*
I will await the testing of the exact replicas based on artifacts and compare them to my blob ended hickory arrow shot from 120 pound bow into car door.
-
You're a miserable sod sometimes Pat. It's fascinating to some (myself included) and while you may be playing with car doors on your own, nobody has actually written anything about medieval English blunts being tested so technically this article is "breakthrough" as well, as will be any results from shooting them for distance. I certainly can't find anything online or in books about how to make them properly, with indigenous materials so I'm "fascinated" by the idea that Marks going to describe his construction methods as well. The ones I've seen are "fantastic".
I will do my best in future to remember that you're allergic to enthusiasm however, and try and write all my posts with an overwhelming sense of impending cynical disappointment if that would suit you better?
-
I am cynical about over enthusiasm which may possibly cloud what really happened.
Can you link to the artifacts that these reproductions are based on?
-
Be as cynical as you like. My enthusiasm for something I'm passionate about doesn't remotely change the article that I linked to, and personally I feel that comments like "much ado about nothing" are pointless, as they offer nothing of any worth to the discussion.
What's that old saying... "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all" or words to that effect.
Other documents and links will become available when Mark and Ian want them to be available, I would imagine.
Although, I assume you won't be very interested really. It's just common sense, after all...
;)
-
Well it will be common sense of that I"m sure.
-
Thanks for posting this Will, I think it's quite an interesting thought, that the French not using bows because they just didn't want to arm the peasants, I have often wondered why in tarnation the French after getting whipped by English bows a couple times didn't just get some of their own, I'm not sure that's 100% right but it does bear some thinking on it. Duck
-
I agree! I've always heard the same reason - that because the French weren't training young kids to shoot heavy bows they never had soldiers with the strength or discipline to use them in war. I think that's rubbish, because pretty much any healthy man can learn to shoot 100# within a couple of years of basic training, so increase the training regime, give them about 5 years and they'd be easily able to shoot very heavy bows.
The politics of not arming peasants seems more sound to me.
-
I think people are mixing up 2 issues here. Will is not saying that the idea of making blunts like this is anything ground breaking or that they fly well. We made one as a prize arrow based on the Luttrell Psalter illustration for a prize arrow in 2012 and it shot well.
http://warbowwales.com/#/wye-valley-historical-2012/4568060192
I think the innovative idea here is the theory about why there are very few arrowheads found and how widespread blunts were in medieval times. That's very interesting and something I'd never really thought about. I wonder, as metal became cheaper, are more arrowheads are found?
(edit due to poor spelling!)
-
Will - You came across as though this is something new - it isn't. I've made loads of blunts and shot them out of lots of different bows. Blunts fly well. If the shaft is right they will fly right. As for 'construction' the strongest way is to use split timber shafting - as you round the shaft from square just leave the end big and then carve it to whatever shape you want. Or make the shaft then get a small block of wood and drill a shaft sized hole in it.
Just about every bow wielding culture in the history of the world has used blunts. Once you can't just buy fancy broadheads you start to realise they take effort to make and are easy to break.
As for blunts not being deadly....I wouldn't like to get shot in the head with one ;D
-
I think people are mixing up 2 issues here. Will is not saying that the idea of making blunts like this is anything ground breaking or that they fly well. We made one as a prize arrow based on the Luttrell Psalter illustration for aprize arrow in 2012 and it shoot well.
http://warbowwales.com/#/wye-valley-historical-2012/4568060192
I think the innovative idea here is the theory about why there are very few arrowheads found and how widespread blunts were in medieval times. That's very interesting and something I'd never really thought about. I wonder, as metal became cheaper, are more arrow heads are found?
Oh, dear.
I did post earlier but deleted as it was rather negative.
BUT
The Idea that blunts being used for practice is in some way an explanation for the lack of steel heads found at battle sites is nonsensical.
Del
-
Will - You came across as though this is something new - it isn't. I've made loads of blunts and shot them out of lots of different bows. Blunts fly well. If the shaft is right they will fly right. As for 'construction' the strongest way is to use split timber shafting - as you round the shaft from square just leave the end big and then carve it to whatever shape you want. Or make the shaft then get a small block of wood and drill a shaft sized hole in it.
Just about every bow wielding culture in the history of the world has used blunts. Once you can't just buy fancy broadheads you start to realise they take effort to make and are easy to break.
As for blunts not being deadly....I wouldn't like to get shot in the head with one ;D
Did you read Jeremy's comment, above yours?
By the way, it's the natural fibre binding that you see on originals I'm most interested in.
Del, you appear to have misunderstood the entire focus of the article - arrow heads are found all over battle sites - there are hundreds of them - but never found in places where archery would have been practiced. Towns, villages, open areas not associated with military conflict. That's where Mark is saying blunts would have been used, because steel heads aren't found there. It's got nothing to do with battle grounds.
-
Oh, right my bad :-[...
But... all I can say then is the article is poorly (over wordy) written as it gives the wrong impression.
I quote the following two complete sentences from early in the article.
"Still metal detecting, he began to search for metal arrow heads, which is fairly logical, being that they are the only metallic component of the weapon and projectile. Mark had previously noted that such finds were reasonably rare given their widespread use in a military context during the medieval period. "
People don't seem to know how to write a clear concise report these days :(.
Brief abstract giving the main points.
Body of the report.
Conclusion.
Will...
You managed to sum it up in one short sentence :)...
" arrow heads are found all over battle sites - there are hundreds of them - but never found in places where archery would have been practiced."
It's a shame the article couldn't have said that in the intro!
Maybe it would have read better in hard copy, and I do have a propensity for speed reading.
Del
-
After reading the article and then these comments I do admit that I found my interpretation of the information was different than the point they seem to be trying to convey. First off I did not realize their reference to blunts was of wood heads as opposed to a more blunt steel head. I also agree with Del in that I felt it was talking about the use of blunts, not just in practice, but in warfare as well. Never the less I found some points in the article interesting and its nice to see some people still adamantly researching these subjects. Even if we know how our weapons behave, I feel it's interesting from a historical perspective to research and try to find more closely definitive answers about the knowledge of those in the period.
Also I just have to say that these types of "arguments" is what makes the Warbow forum interesting. >:D
-
Don't want to overstep my bounds here but it seems that the majority of comments here in the article add nothing to the original topic, and seem to be "feeding the fire". Mods is there a way to lock it until the original poster has an update? Maybe this sort of back and forth is common (have not seen anything along these lines yet in my limited use of this forum) but it seems to be a lot more hostile than any other posts I have read.
We are all here because we have a common love for primitive archery and a certain level of respect for the history. Can we try to get back on the rails and guide this topic back to those values?
Wills still looking forward to the update on Marks methods of construction and materials used in his blunts and how they perform. Maybe this is all "common sense" to most but for others (myself included) it is an interesting topic that maybe we haven't seen discussed in length.
Sorry don't usually post things like this especially being this new to the community, but this is one community I have come to respect and admire and this is a side of it that I haven't seen before (and don't really care for).
-
Don't want to overstep my bounds here but it seems that the majority of comments here in the article add nothing to the original topic, and seem to be "feeding the fire". Mods is there a way to lock it until the original poster has an update? Maybe this sort of back and forth is common (have not seen anything along these lines yet in my limited use of this forum) but it seems to be a lot more hostile than any other posts I have read.
Hah! This is nothing. 8)
-
Wills I liked the article and look forward to the follow up on what they come up with. Thanks for posting this.
+1
-
Will, Take note of Dean's words.
-
Those are not my words.....
-
Don't want to overstep my bounds here but it seems that the majority of comments here in the article add nothing to the original topic, and seem to be "feeding the fire". Mods is there a way to lock it until the original poster has an update? Maybe this sort of back and forth is common (have not seen anything along these lines yet in my limited use of this forum) but it seems to be a lot more hostile than any other posts I have read.
We are all here because we have a common love for primitive archery and a certain level of respect for the history. Can we try to get back on the rails and guide this topic back to those values?
Wills still looking forward to the update on Marks methods of construction and materials used in his blunts and how they perform. Maybe this is all "common sense" to most but for others (myself included) it is an interesting topic that maybe we haven't seen discussed in length.
Sorry don't usually post things like this especially being this new to the community, but this is one community I have come to respect and admire and this is a side of it that I haven't seen before (and don't really care for).
::) You must be new here ???. This is nothing when you guys start talking about, "what if". I've been reading all of this and have to agree with PatM, kinda :o Everybody seemed to use Blunts and nobody knows what for unless you were there.
And, sorry, from a Yank's perspective, it cracked me up when Del said the article was a "little wordy". When you guys try to explain or talk about anything I fall asleep before I figure out what this new discovery is about. If someone doesn't use the right Terminology, or structure the sentence correctly, it's good for another bowl of popcorn and a cold beer. ;). Just kidding around, but, hey, you guys get too serious for me over a very short time in History. But I love reading this Thread.
It's fun to read when I'm drinking a Cold One. :)
-
Looks like a bunch of posts got deleted! Is somebody in the penalty box?? ;D
-
Adam;
I came into this late. It wasn't me.
-
I've got a feeling, the lack of arrowhead finds at 'butts" would be because they were not used, only blunts.
I think I've seen quite a few references to hunting and war heads to be illegal in medieval times and it was a hanging offence to be in possession of one!
-
Also when you are shooting at a well designed backstop why would you be snapping points off? Especially off a 1/2 inch thick shaft.
Anybody who makes a backstop then goes shooting and finds that all his arrow points have snapped off is likely to try and make a better backstop.
I think it's as simple as this.
-
I'm not convinced it was due to losing arrow heads, but more down to the cost of making them.
If you've already got every blacksmith making heads for the millions of arrows required for war, you don't want them wasting time and materials making heads for practice arrows. Therefore you use wooden blunts that weigh the same so that archers can practice without needing expensive heads.
I think its similar to bows in that respect - you have guilds popping out elm, ash, hazel and other meane wood bows for practice purposes, and using expensive outsourced yew to supply troops for warfare. I can't see every archer in the country being given yew bows and stacks of steel-tipped arrows just to practice with them and ultimately lose/break them.
Give 'em something cheap that allows them to practice and improve without costing a fortune, and save the "real thing" for actual conflict.
-
I see your point Will, but I don't entirely agree. I don't think there has been any armed forces in history that has practised with one weapon, and gone into battle with another. I know they're both longbows, but it doesn't make sense.
I do a lot of shooting, and even when I'm flight shooting with warbows, I don't lose many heads. Actually, I've never lost one of my hand forged heads while flight shooting my warbows. The only heads I lose are lost arrows, or heads that stay in the target when I pull them out.
I agree that blunts were likely used extensively during this period, but it's not for new or different reasons. I don't go stumping with broadheads most of the time... I use a blunt!
-
If you shoot at a typical target at long range with a blunt, does it stick in?
-
I see your point Will, but I don't entirely agree. I don't think there has been any armed forces in history that has practised with one weapon, and gone into battle with another. I know they're both longbows, but it doesn't make sense.
I do a lot of shooting, and even when I'm flight shooting with warbows, I don't lose many heads. Actually, I've never lost one of my hand forged heads while flight shooting my warbows. The only heads I lose are lost arrows, or heads that stay in the target when I pull them out.
I agree that blunts were likely used extensively during this period, but it's not for new or different reasons. I don't go stumping with broadheads most of the time... I use a blunt!
Here's my thought - you make perfect sense in context of today's usage, but then a few guys shooting today with cheap ways of getting/making heads is quite different to the many thousands who would be training regularly. Personally I still think it would make sense for the "higher power" to decide that the thousands of archers practicing need a cheap, sustainable type of arrow head that allows the same form and technique skills to be practiced, without wasting arrow heads.
Many who are into shooting warbows these days make their own heads - steel is incredibly cheap - and if they don't then buying hand-forged ones is no longer expensive or difficult. Compare that to the medieval period when you needed millions of them to be made from steel that needed to be sourced for that specific use and it's quite a different thing!
I guess the main point of Mark's research is that zero heads have been found anywhere other than battle sites. When you take the massive number of archers require to practice (and let's use 100 years as a base estimate) even if only a few heads are lost for one archer's entire career of practice you're still looking at hundreds of thousands of missing arrow heads (lost in towns, cities, villages etc that are constantly excavated and turned over for various reasons) and not a single head has been found. That simply doesn't make any sense, until you factor in the idea that the heads are perhaps wooden instead of steel.
As an aside, the blunts we're talking about have sharp points in the end of them, they're not just "blunt" so to speak. They'd be useful for all kinds of shooting, from target to stumping.
-
Here's the infamous Lutrell Psalter image of archers practicing at the target butte, using blunts. You can see the sharp points on the blunts in the close up pic.
(http://www.medievalists.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Geoffrey_luttrell_psalter_1325_longbowmen.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Longbowmen.jpg)
The wooden blunts that I've seen Mark make are identical to this, using natural fibre binding in the middle, and wooden sharp points in the end.
-
Hi,
Relevant to the topic is the 2008 paper written by Richard Wadge: 'Medieval Arrowheads from Oxfordshire'. Lots if interesting information on arrowhead finds; military, hunting and for practice. I would also like to know the number of medieval organic blunts found in the UK. Can anyone cast any light on this?
Alistair
-
Will,
From the Psalter image you posted we can see that the blunts have clearly stuck deep into the butt whether they had protruding steel/iron or not. Looking at the archers, it is difficult to read what the artist is portraying as some arrows appear to be self/horn pointed and others tipped (or placed over needle bodkins). It could be read from the image that some arrows have been all made from a single billet of wood as in other bow cultures. Our un-steeled replica stuck in the ground in the summer, albeit, a Welsh summer!!!
The image linked here is for hunting and not practice, per se. This looks metal tipped but if he misses or bird flies away mid shot, the arrow could end up pinned high in the tree.
http://www.bl.uk/turning-the-pages/?id=d06e9f02-074d-46f7-a46c-090548b402d5&type=book
If the blunts are placed over bodkins, as you suggest, how does this save on metal? Is it that it ensured, or a least goes some way to, that metal heads were easier to find?
-
Hi Jeremy,
I wasn't suggesting that they were placed over bodkins at all - as far as I'm aware (and looking at the blunts Mark made) it's all wood. The blunt itself (the main body bound with natural fibres and turned) is wooden, as is the sharp point sticking out. Whether it's all a single piece or not I don't know, but it makes more sense if it is one piece.
My own personal interpretation of it all is that steel was saved for the military heads due to cost and labour (both in preparing the steel and in forging the heads) and most other types of head used for practice, hunting, sport etc would be wooden, keeping the cost down and ergo resulting in far fewer metal heads being found in areas that weren't involved in battle.
So to clarify, I don't think the blunts were placed over bodkins, but that the blunts included sharp wooden spikes at the end, either turned with the blunt itself or fixed somehow to the blunt. Perhaps even the arrow shaft itself was sharpened and heated to strengthen it, and a blunt placed around it to provide the necessary weight?
When Mark and Ian write up the next bit hopefully they'll discuss his methods of construction.