data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows

[bow-toxo]

     The books cited above are the actual words of actual people who used archery gear of their own time, the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I think their words and suggestions give a better idea of archery in their time than the words of present day people who choose to ignore information handed down to us. My goal is to reproduce the gear and shooting style of the Middle Ages as nearly as I can determine. That is my idea of re-enactment.

  The photos posted above show my bows and arrows made by the method I have clearly described. Others are free to ignore it or try it, but please don't make ridiculous objections.  The method works.  The bows and arrows work.

[adb]

yep  i just double checked  thats the one  you guys know if it s any good ?  if it dont have any data  i aint gettin it  i want some stuff with some measurments and what not in it haha but like everyone s been saying  most have very lil or no ifo  there  thanks  brock

It's an excellent book, with detailed info on EWBs, arrows, heads, etc. Well worth the price, IMO.

[bcbull]

 thanks adb  think ill go ahead get it  wont hurt to read  it anyway haha  brock

[outcaste]

    the books cited above are the actual words of actual people who used archery gear of their own time, the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I think their words and suggestions give a better idea of archery in their time than the words of present day people who choose to ignore information handed down to us. My goal is to reproduce the gear and shooting style of the Middle Ages as nearly as I can determine. That is my idea of reenactment.

  The photos posted above show my bows and arrows made by the method I have clearly described. Others are free to ignore it or try it, but please don't make ridiculous objections.  The method works.  The bows and arrows work.

Hi,

When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.

Cheers,
Alistair

[bow-toxo]

Hi,

When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.

Cheers,
Alistair

Hi Alstair,
      Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above].  MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.

    Erik

[outcaste]

Hi,

When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.

Cheers,
Alistair

Hi Alstair,
      Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above].  MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.

    Erik

Hi,

Not really trying to correct or accuse, maybe trying to break out of the loop we all seem to be stuck in.

Cheers,
Alistair

[stevesjem]

Hi,

When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.

Cheers,
Alistair

Hi Alstair,
      Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above].  MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.

    Erik

Hi Erik
Alistair has not missed the point at all, he has hit the nail on the head, This section of the forum is to deal with the "WARBOW" not lighter hunting bows, so all discussions should be to do with the WARBOW, Although you did make an attempt at a MR replica, it can only be seen as a lookalike not a true replica as you have not used High altitude Italian Yew, In fact it doesn't look like any type of yew, so really has no baring on the MR bows. Sorry to be so blunt.
Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.

Steve

[triton]

As long as those importing to England filled their quota for "taxes" I doubt they really cared where the yew came from.  High or low altitude, good or poor soil, good sunlight or little.  England was importing from all over europe not just Italy.  The king of spain ordered every yew tree be cut down and burnt to prevent his forces being shot with their own wood.  Italy is the primary source right now but that wasn't true 500+ years ago.

[stevesjem]

As long as those importing to England filled their quota for "taxes" I doubt they really cared where the yew came from.  High or low altitude, good or poor soil, good sunlight or little.  England was importing from all over europe not just Italy.  The king of spain ordered every yew tree be cut down and burnt to prevent his forces being shot with their own wood.  Italy is the primary source right now but that wasn't true 500+ years ago.

Sorry Triton,
At the time of the MR Spain and Portugal had already stopped exporting wood to England and so the wood came from Italy and the Baltic region, This wood was checked for quality and had to be of the correct quality for Warbows and this meant High altitude, this can also be seen in the growth ring count of the MR bows, this ring count can only come from High Altitude and at this time the best quality would have come from Italy, Do you really think that Henry VIII would have had inferior quality wood for the bows on his flagship?

Steve

[triton]

certainly not, he would have had the best of everything but the warbow did exist long before the MR.  It is our only primary source for data but other written accounts exist, which show other woods were used for warbows, yew being by far preferable.  If you want to specialise in bows of the MR period, that's fair enough, I aint knocking it but there seems to be an an inference that it's not a warbow if it's not made form yew and/or from high altitude italian wood, there were bows of other woods found too.  I wonder if scientific tests have been done to determine the origin of the MR rose bow wood, such as those done on the teeth of those on board.  The MR isn't the be all and end all of the warbow, though it can be seen as the peak of design and power.  It was an incredible find and an invaulable resource but must be viewed as a small period of development. 

[stevesjem]

I totally agree that the MR bows are not the be all and end all of Warbows, however this thread is called "data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows" and as such this should be the topic of conversation.
When I was last at the MR, which was only a couple of weeks ago, i was talking to one of the scientists there who is looking at the DNA of the wood to try and determine where this wood came from and he asked me to send him a sample of Italian yew for reference, so very soon we will know for sure where this wood came from.

Steve

[triton]

damn.  please excuse me for going off topic  by referring to bows other than those on the MR.
Those results wil be very interesting.

[stevesjem]

damn.  please excuse me for going off topic  by referring to bows other than those on the MR.
Those results wil be very interesting.

No problem

[adb]

Hi, Erik

I don't understand how you can say you made the first MR replica warbow, 5 years before the MR was discovered?? Certainly, you may be able to say you made a Medieval era bow, depending on what material and # the bow is. Have you been to the MR museum? As you're obviously interested, it's worth the trip! Was for me.

[bow-toxo]

Hi, Erik

I don't understand how you can say you made the first MR replica warbow, 5 years before the MR was discovered?? Certainly, you may be able to say you made a Medieval era bow, depending on what material and # the bow is. Have you been to the MR museum? As you're obviously interested, it's worth the trip! Was for me.

 Good question. The Mary rose was discovered long before it was raised and dtvers brought up two of the bows in the nineteenth century. One of these was described in the 'Badminton Library' volume on 'Archery' which includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. At one foot from the tip, the girth is 3 Ό”, at two feet, a girth of 4”, and at two feet ten inches, a 4 ½”girth. includes the information that the bow is 1 1/2” by 1 1/4” at midpoint. The maximum girth of 4 1/2” is maintained for eight and three-quarter inches. I cared enough to make one up. Yes,Steve. The one in the photo is really yew. high altitude Pacific yew drawing 100# plus, arguably as good as wood from parts of Europe, even England, that were sourced when the best was no longer available.

Alastair,---- It is true that the written word is not necessarily true. The same can be said for the spoken word, the posted word, or an interpretation formed by faulty or uninformed guesswork. Did the Badminton Library have any reason to give false measurements, or medieval archers who described how they determined bow and arrow length ? We are not talking the Agincourt body count here. BTW, do you and Steve believe the battle of Agincourt really happened ? After all, it is known only from the written word..