Were the Mary Rose bows as powerful as the longbows at Agincourt?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- Welcome to the first of our Q&A sessions about history, the longbow, archery or whatever subscribers want to know.
This question is from Andromeda, who has asked ....'are the Mary Rose longbows as powerful as the longbows at Agincourt over 100 years earlier?'
Listen as Kevin Hicks shares his thoughts on the question.
#Medieval #MedievalLongbow #Longbow #Mary Rose #Agincourt
![What sparked the Hundred Years War? | Medieval history series [Episode 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BDugcgtGmxQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![What sparked the Hundred Years War? | Medieval history series [Episode 1]](/img/tr.png)
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
Some years ago there was a program about the Mary Rose long bows, where they decided to test some of them and see firstly if they would actually bend enough to be strung (some did, but not all), and then what draw weight they would handle after those years in storage. Amazing! (There were so many that it was an acceptable loss).
One of the points raised in that program was that there was an edict, that ALL yeomen of England were required BY LAW to learn to shoot from a very early age, and maintain that proficiency through out adulthood. They were able to identify the archers from the Mary Rose by their skeletons: Their BONES were thickened (and strengthened), in places to withstand the wear and tear from the over-developed ligaments caused by shooting the Longbow!
Present day bodies do not have that same level of training, and so are not strong enough (with the odd exception), to handle the rigour. Rather like ballet dancers and gymnasts needing to start training at 7 or 8 years, to mould the body while it is still developing. Those who start later in life have much more of a challenge to match their fellows who grew up with the 'dicipline.'
Yep, fascinating stuff 👍🏻
Thanks for watching.
Yes. Just like any form of physical labor, the sooner you begin, the better you will become, but this can cause problems later in life. However, when you are not expected to live very long, it kinda makes sense to push the limits.
Hello from the U.S, I’m a history student with a medieval studies minor in university. I have always wondered what other arms a longbowman would have carried into the field for use in close quarters. Thanks a ton, fantastic videos!
They would've certainly had a mallet and small axe for making the famous stakes which could be used as weapons. Additionally, they'd certainly have a knife just as everyone else at the time (likely a bollocks dagger) and anything a typical man at arms might have. The archers really were quite well paid and were able to afford pretty decent kit.
The bowmen on retinue with a lord, possibly would've had a sword as well, maybe a falchion like weapon.
@@Liquidsback I certainly have heard of a sword and buckler being used, not sure how common it is seen in the contemporary art and accounts in period
Great answer from PotterSieben 👍🏻 I do have a bullock knife.
Archers would have carried a falchion (a short chopping blade) and my archers pick (featured in this video) is actually designed to be hammered through the voids in the armour.
I plan to make a film about the personal weapons, so stand by.
Thanks for watching.
They would of had a short sword and a buckler which is a small shield and the sword would swash about on the buckler hence the term swash buckling
I'm in the USA, I've shot compound bows, longbows, recurve and flat bows. I agree with your assessment. You have to be comfortable with the bow, size, draw weight and the rest location if it has one. I would imagine, if at Agincourt (sp?) If the Archers weren't using their own bows, they would have adjusted them to their preferences. They would have traded bows as you said I have a 90 lb longbow of Yew. I can't use it anymore due to a shoulder injury. After I got the blank and tillered it I spent almost as long adjusting little things about it. I know they did it too. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I think the Mary Rose bows probably were the same draw weight range as bows from earlier periods. We will as you said never know. You do a great job discussing the subject, Sir.
Yes absolutely & thank you. Do you manage to shoot at all these days?
Also we must take into account that bows of varying.lbs would have been useless in a coordinated fleet of arrows in battle, they had to be the same weight with only a mere few.lbs between them otherwise the drop off would rediclous between each fleet shot , they would vary to much making it completely ineffective. They Must have had almost the same draw weight and the arrow's of course un-spined or at least of a common thickness as a standard. The thing is that there is not much literature about arrow's and bows of the time as it wasn't seen as a sophisticated thing like today, and arrow's were like spoons are too a bowl of soup, completely normal and nothing of interest, a simple tool for a simple job what would their be to write about...it's only our captivation and time of peace that we've been able to treat archery as something sophisticated and built upon accordingly, ingenuity and passion as a hobby as an industry, back then it was thrown together and shot at 70mph into a blokes face if lucky, more often than not, broken on impact of a deflective piece of steel. The finer points of archery that do exist in literature of the times was hunting and for good reason, FOOD. And so, sophistications and engineering was needed, it was personal, and of course the wealthy needed custom arrow's fancy fletchings, different cuts for different styles of hunting, finer crafted shafts ect and even still not much survives.
Another point also would be that medieval arrow's are beautifully crafted today, in those days they weren't they can't have been, not in the million's not possible. If you've ever sat and made a batch of 12 FINE medieval style arrow's you can't even do 12 in a day even if you have the heads pre forged, and then 3k arrows drying for a week waiting for hide glue to set and fully harden wouldn't work. The shafts would have been shaved fast and uneven which is why we see bob tailing ect , they created these shafts to compensate for shabby work, they would remain thicker in the middle so they didn't break. Heads again not glued on. This was war.
Hi there, thanks for watching 👍🏻 . Roger Asham's book Toxophilus, written in 1515 is a good read and will give you an excellent insight into the mentality of the bowmen and archery looking back in time.
A translation is available on Kindle if you're interested in taking a look.
@@thehistorysquad thanks, I'll do that. It is amazing people could stand with a hail of arrows or bolts raining on them
I believe, broadly, that the poundages of the bows in the two contexts are about the same or, if you like, they share a similar poundage range. I tend to believe the Mary Rose archers would have used heavier bows on average, because the archers on board the King's Flagship must've been the best archers among thousands, selected to be part of the crew of that specific ship, so they were probably operating on the top floors of that power spectrum.
In Agincourt there were way more bows and archers, of all builds and schools and I think Agincourt could've seen the less potent and the above average in strength archer and bow in action at the same time.
Even though 130 years fall in between the two scenarios, plate protections were widely known and they were getting developed at a quick rate. That also makes me think bows were being made accordingly.
I agree with your point that a bow can be adapted to the immediate needs of an archer and that he's not necessarily bound to a single bow all the time.
Hi Fabio, all excellent points, thank you. I particularly love the point about the Mary Rose archers being among the best chosen, I hadn't considered that before but of course it makes perfect sense. Thanks for watching 👍🏻
Pretty much the point I was going to make - these were the elite bowmen of the time. If you look at the skeleton of what is called"the archer" from the Mary Rose, he was an exceptionally unusual man.
The reason the Mary Rose sank wasn't because of the bows but because there were too many bowmen on board.
@@Super241946 Yes it was laden for sure, but also because it's believed the lower gun ports were open so as the ship turned, it took on water causing it to sink. Also there were anti-boarding nets over the deck which meant no-one could escape, adding to the disaster. 👍🏻
The soldiers on the Mary Rose was part of the Captains own retinue. There was nothing special about them in comparison to the archers at Agincourt. Apart from those recruited by indenture by the men-at-arms themselves in 1415, the King brought 1,450 archers recruited by Commission of Array from his own lordships, such as Cheshire, Lancashire and Brecon, famous for the quality of their longbowmen. He recruited 12,000 archers as a total, and 9,400 went with him on the Agincourt campaign. Probably only the best in the country. We have at least 20 sources telling us that they only wanted the best when they recruited archers. At the battle he had 5,000 archers. One source can tell us that the pool of archers to draw men from in the beginning of the 16th century numbered 150,000 men. After 1381 and the peasant’s revolt the number of free men increased rapidly. In 1387 workers had to practice at the butts too, so the pool of men to draw archers from was quite large in 1415. So if we allow for a pool of only 2/3 of this in 1415 before the Agincourt campaign, 12,000 archers would only be 12 % of the total. In other words, only the best.
According to Gesta Henrici Quinti, an eye witness at the battle, arrows “by their very force [lit. hostility] pierced the sides and visors [lit. covers] of their helmets ..."
To do that against thinner wrought iron and low carbon steel plates, it takes an arrow with an initial kinetic energy of around 120-150 Joules, according to tests done. It would take a bow in the 135-150 lb range to do that.
Here we have Dominic Mancini's description of Richards III's archers brought by Gloucester and Buckingham into London in 1483, 68 years after Agincourt "... their bows and arrows are thicker and longer than those used by other nations, just as their bodies are stronger than other peoples, for they seem to have hands and arms of iron. The range of their bows are no less than our arbalest."
In other words, English archers could reach the same maximum range as arbalests.
I asked Andreas Bichler what range he get with his 1,197.1 lbs composite replica crossbow from the second half of the 15th century. This is not the rampart crossbow he is known for, but a one-man operated 3.54 kg crossbow. He told me it depends on the bolt weight. A 70 gram bolt will reach out to 300 meters (328 yards). A 100 gram bolt will reach out to 250 meters (273 yards). Most of the bolts are around 80 grams and therefore in line with the best heavy yew bows in terms of range when the arrow is around 63-64 grams.
Joe Gibbs have shot a 63.7 gram arrows over 300 yards (274 meters) with a 175 lb bow at 30". If I remember correctly, it was 312 yards (285 meters). The arrow left the bow at 210 fps (64 m/s). If we take a look at his tests on TH-cam, "Speed test of Mary Rose replica bows", we find these results:
145 lb Swiss yew bow at 30", 64.3 m/s, 63 gram arrow.
150 lb Oregon yew bow at 30", 62.88 m/s, 63 gram arrow.
160 lb Swiss yew bow at 30", 63.947 m/s, 63 gram arrow.
Here we can see that the speed is approximately the same as when he did that record shot, so he should get results similar to his record shot (or at least close enough). This clearly indicate that the bows were from 135 lb and up.
The bows on the Mary Rose were stored in chests and was the property of the Crown, not personal items. Therefore it is possible they were bows to be used by the regular sailors, as well as being secondary and replacement bows for the archers. It's actually almost certain because other ships during the battle had no soldiers but still they had plenty of bows. The ship had 185 soldiers, 30 gunners and 200 sailors, but the number of bows were 250. This indicate that at least 65 of the weaker bows were meant to be used by the sailors. The number of heavy bows from 135 lb and up, in terms of percentages, match up with the number of soldiers well.
To conclude. We know that all the soldiers, both on the Mary Rose and the Agincourt campaign, were raised by indenture, so they were essentially equal. We have descriptions of armour being pierced at the battle of Agincourt and we have tested what it takes to do that, we have Dominic Mancini's comparison to an arbalest in terms of range, and we have the Mary Rose bows and the test of replica bows to match up with the range. The conclusion. From 135-140 lb and up.
There is an interesting parallel in some of the Eastern Roman military manuals: "Each man should have a bow suited to his own strength and not above it, more indeed on the weaker side" (Taktika, by Emperor Leo).
Though of course, we shouldn't interpret that to mean that they shot flimsy, weak bows. To an archer who maxes out at 120 pounds, a 90 pound bow is likely quite comfortable.
I suspect the same social pressure of "you're shooting a weak bow ergo you're not that good" was also there at that time, so the commander's and the teacher's concern was mostly on limiting it from the top. I've seen "signs the bow is too strong for you" in probably every source on archery, but I only remember "don't use bows weaker than X" in Way Of Archery.
Fascinating, I've read the same and agree 100%, it's one of the reasons I shoot the bows I do. Thankfully, I have nothing to prove these days with my bow, I shoot for pleasure. Thanks for watching again & your input 👍🏻
About 15 yrs ago I attended a medieval fete in Malestroit, Brittany.
In the local cinema an English bowman gave a great talk, was a big bearded guy and had a war bow of 150lbs which some people tried to draw. 😂
But in his presentation he had some calculations by a university team about the striking power of an arrow. The war arrows were a heavier shaft and with different styles of head. What interested me was the calculation of how hard they hit from a distance as they were shot high and followed a parabolic curve.
They found that as they topped that curve they actually accelerated and produced a much higher striking power than they'd imagined...in fact they thought they'd lose power over the distance with drag but they didn't.
That sounds like Mark Stretton. His blog has lots of tests on arrows being shot from a war bow.
Just came across your videos - great stuff, presented by an intelligent, sensible man. I live in the U.S. Was an archer from my early days, and love the longbow, but mine draws 70 lb., and after rotator cuff injury I had to give it up to one of my sons. Vicissitudes of age. Looking at the heavy poundages used on the Mary Rose, we might want to consider their use - shooting from a ship, you need to carry an arrow a long distance w/good penetration, and so these archers might have been marine specialists. My wife's maternal grandfather was an avid archer and bowyer mid-20th century - your comment about adjusting bows is well taken - that's just what our 'old timers' did as well.
Hi Chris, glad you found the channel, thanks for your comment. Another consideration though was that the soldiers on the Mary Rose, had they have not gone down with the ship, were actually due to land on the Isle of Wight and fight there.
@@thehistorysquad Good point! I do remember reading that at one point in English history, archery practice was mandatory, and you were not allowed to shoot at a mark closer than 100 yds. As volley shooting was a common military practice, heavier draw weights make sense, especially at distance. 60-80 lbs would be enough to do the job, but still stout bows. I remember reading that when they found human remains on the Mary Rose, they could tell the archers from the rest of the crew by their skeletons having heavier bones in their L arms than their R arms from bracing their bow against the pull. I guess warfare just demanded heavier draw weights whatever the use.
@@thehistorysquad it does make me wonder if their were "specialists" as far as being suited to one objective or another, or was it, "You're a bloody archer, dont matter where ya standin'! Shoot the Frenchies!"
Hi Kevin, hope you're well. You correctly answered your question 'I don't know'. Nobody knows. But a few bits of information of the time might point us into the right region. My guess is the bows averaged somewhere in the 140# range for the English army archers of the 100 Years War, which I don't think is too far off the Mary Rose average so I'd suggest there wasn't much difference? My guess is based upon the characteristics of the ammunition used, and what that ammunition was expected to do. 1/2" rear tapered or barrelled shafts of poplar or ash 28+ inches long in the main, many over 30" long, a forged bodkin or broadhead, and long bound goose fletchings make for a heavy arrow. Heavy enough to hit like a sledgehammer. Then, the arrow was also expected to fly over 200 yards - to make the King's distance as a mark of the quality of the weapons and the strength and skill of the archer. I'm not sure if it was 240 yards, or paces. I suspect that the yew and other bow wood trees haven't evolved much in the last 600 years given their time on earth so far, there are yews alive today that easily predate the 100 years war..so I'd reason that the wood then and now wasn't much different. From my own experience and that of others I know, longbows of 100# or so struggle to make those sort of distances with that kind of arrow, plus a half inch shaft arrow, with usually a stiff spine as a result, generally doesn't fly nicely from longbows of that sort of weight... unless it's just me and I'm rubbish. My 110# seems happiest with 3/8" tapered 30" arrows with which it will go well over 200 yards, but switch to half inch war arrows and it struggles - and it's good, and for a longbow, fast. So what I'm leading to is the draw weight of a bow to effectively lob the kind of ammunition they used hard enough to upset the enemy(from the examples we know of and the writings of the time) in my questionable opinion, would need to be 120# plus to even get there. There are archers today like Mark Stretton, Joe Gibbs, Simon Stanley, and some others, who can shoot 150/160# with ease and accuracy, with Mark and Joe at least going up to 200+# at their limit, so going back to a time when work was physical, and archery a way of life from an early age, I see no reason why 140# would not be a manageable and militarily effective average weight for a professional medieval archer. Still, I don't know either. How could I when nobody else does, but that's my opinion and if you don't like it, I've got others! (Grouch Marx). Enjoy Canada Kevin, it looks great and with plenty of space for shooting!
Thanks for your input Steve, this is becoming a great forum. 👍🏻
I actually never gave the idea of shaving down bows individually and how that affects its power any thought. Very interesting to consider, though.
I have only a moderate interest in late mediaeval warfare and weapons but I listened with great interest to your entire video because of your beautiful, clear English and your compelling presentation. If you had been explaining mediaeval eating habits or clothing I would have been just as beguiled. Keep up the good work, and thank you!
Well thank you Winston for your kind words, I will.
Very good points in there regarding the ammunition "status", both for arrows and bows as well. That's something we don't hear or consider very often in these topics. That makes a lot of sense, since we know the military used to store loads of swords and blades of all kinds but keep them unsharpen for instance, and they would only go to sharpening once issued. Might as well be the case with bows for all we know. They did it with staves of course, but they could just as well have stored high poundage, thick, bows, and shave them down when issued with various considerations in mind...
Thanks, good comment. Interestingly, the army and navy have always had a cutler, whose job it was to sharpen and hone the weapons.
@@thehistorysquad The problem here is that shaving down a finished bow without spoiling the tiller is actually quite a slow and skilled job if it is to be done well. How many emergency bowyers would the Tower have to hand? Although I'm sure some level of customisation went on I expect a more common scenario ran like "Can't draw your nice new bow lad? Drop and give me 50... Better now?"
I love your videos. I've been blowing through them over the past couple weeks and I can't get enough. Thank you for the content, keep it coming!
You are so welcome! Part 5 of the Hundred Years War series will be on by the weekend 👍🏻
"we don't know, and we'll never know"
I don't trust any historian who is too proud to utter these words, it's one of the things we have to acknowledge- that we have exhausted all available sources of information about a specific topic without a definitive answer one way or the other.
I agree, and not too proud to say if I get it wrong either.
Thanks for watching
I'm American, but I love British history, especially medieval history.
Great, thanks for watching. There’s lots more medieval history to come. 👍
One of my earliest memories is visiting the Mary rose in Portsmouth i think down south anyway I'm a relatively new subscriber i worked at Warwick castle when you did. I doubt i talked to you i have Asperger's and don't find human interaction easy, to say the least. So glad to have found you i did history for gcse it was awful we basically did the enclosure system for a year and the clearances of Scotland for another year. I mean, you'd imagine we'd learn something about our kings and queens but no just what i deemed extremely boring stuff. I on occasion worked in the aidio booth at the castle when i did i could hear you speaking to tourists it was super interesting, so I'm chuffed to bits to have found you have a TH-cam channel. Proud supporter of ths.
How lovely Stephen, thank you so much. I really appreciate you finding the channel and your support. I hope to visit Warwick again in the spring but I fear it's changed way beyond what I remember. 👍🏻
I always look forward to your reviews. As always thank you
My pleasure!
Another interesting snippet Kevin, keep em coming 🏹
Hello Kevin,
I'm a Brit stuck in Western Newfoundland and I'd give my left arm to work with archery equipment, hang on, that wouldn't really work would it lol. Your videos are always informative and entertaining, the best way to learm. The last longbow I had made was only in the 40 odd pound region, but it sent arrows into the boss just fine. Thank you so much for all you do. Mark.
You're welcome - enjoy your 40 pounder 👍🏻
@@thehistorysquad Actually in that part of the world,the alcohol consumed is mostly spirits, and the 40oz bottles ,the big bottles,were referred to as 40 pounders. That is Imperial measure,1/4 of a gallon. So I find your comment there might very well have a double meaning. I can't imagine archery during consumption of such,much less archery with a thundering hangover. There must have been lots of that back in the day. Much wiser to drink tea instead.
Great answer to a good question. Thank you. There's something about listening to the experienced observations of a professional, quite different from the opinions of the self taught earlier promoted.
Glad you enjoyed it! 👍🏻
it would be fun to listen to this guy just tell stories, hes super interesting and a decent fellow
That's kind, thank you 👍🏻
Love watching these fillms.
I feel you would be a great host for a show. You did a brilliant job on the video about arrowhead removal. You have intriguing expressions, articulate yourself well, and speak with a pleasant voice. I could definitely watch you for a greater part of my day, and can’t say that I’d feel it’d have been a waste of time. Please keep offering us content.👍
That's really kind Lawrence, thank you and yes I plan to keep up these history vids. 👍🏻
I occasionally shoot with Simon Stanley, I can't pull the poundage he can, but I do have a 70# @28" (or 80# @32") carbon/wood laminate American flat bow that Jim Neaves at Centaur archery made for me. It keeps up with the higher poundage bows due to it's more efficient design. I used to do target archery (Olympic recurve - not that I did the Olympics, it's just what it is called) then I moved on to field archery and then started with the roving shoots. I still like field archery (our club has left the NFAS to go independent, I was an NFAS coach, but there are too many rules now. it got silly) but I have to say there is something about all shooting together heading out to 250 - 300yds. Watching your arrows fly clear across a field. Thanks for the vid.
great to see you started your own channel I am looking forward to follow along :D
Thank you so much! Welcome aboard
Very useful answer. Thank you.
You are welcome!
I've been shooting the same recurve bow for over 50 years. It still gets the job done same as my modern bows . 👍🤙✌
Excellent! Love it 👍
This made me chuckle. Sometimes there's no answer just speculation and that's OK
I agree about the bows on the Mary Rose that were in cases were probably not issued yet so may have been intended to be shaved down when brought into service. The ship capsized in a battle so the archers would have their bows in their hands not stored in cases.
Absolutely 👍🏻
Thank you very informative stranger to think there so much that goes in to fitting a bow to the archer one would never think that an archer would customise his own bow
There's a great longbow shot buy Joe Gibbs using a 140lb over about 150 meters it was posted a few hours ago Trebuchet against a Medieval Longbow. In a battle where range is priceless and thousands of arrows are in flight every second, I can see why they would sacrifice a bit of accuracy still being better than anyone from now for more power and greater distance,
Brilliant... someone who isn't afraid to say we don't know! And as you say, bows often benefit from some fiddling and fetting. A good 80# will out shoot a bad 100#. (btw I am bowyer)
Nice one Del - thank you!
Hi Kevin, just over 2 years ago before covid lock down hit us, we were on tour of the south in our tin tent (motor home) and we visited the Mary Rose exhibition. It was absolutely brilliant. Being a late starter to archery I just had to try pulling the 2 longbows attached to the wall, a 40lb and 80lb and I did manage both. At that time I was 72 so felt quite chuffed at that. What really impressed me was the full skeleton of an bowman, pointing out the parts of his skeleton which showed he was an archer. Anyways young man keep these vids coming. Peter R.
Fascinating isn't it. You know because I've been shooting for such a long time, and professionally for much of that, if you were to pare me down you would probably find similar deformities.
@@thehistorysquad Me thinks my skeleton won’t have change much as I started at the age of 69 and I become 74 at the end of next week, mind you the man with the la’al knife (West Cumbrian for Little knife or scalpel) has had a go two or three times at repairing my inner self🤣 I don’t have one of those fancy expensive bows but I get hours of pleasure from a cheap Korean/Chinese take down bow.
Rapidly becoming my favourite history/archery channel.
One thing I wondered is whether range markers were used with the longbow or did bowmen practice en masse at different, set ranges.
Thanks for posting.
Good question!
I'm not aware that range markers were used with the longbow as this is something that historically used with sighted rifles & muskets.
I've actually practiced in the past a method called gapping, where you look through the lower limb of your bow and by looking straight through at the target you can gauge the angle of your bow and you can watch your arrows drop. You often see bowmen with their bows arched at high elevation and they themselves are looking up, so how can they tell where their arrows are landing?
I'll make a note to do a video in the spring when the snow has cleared a bit, to explain and demonstrate this better.
@@thehistorysquad Thanks for that Kevin.
I look forward to more videos in the future!
@@thehistorysquad I think that they probably practiced with range markers and if they had the time would have set them up for a battle. My thinking is that they may have had different strength archers shoot at different times on an advancing army.
@@thehistorysquad Is the practice of shooting the marks where the archers would have learned to judge the distance to the targets by sight.
Great point about bowmen shaving their bows to suit! That makes real sense. It would take only a minute or two using tools that every man in those days had on him (i.e. a knife), though a plane or draw-knife wouldn't be hard to find.
Thank you Kevin .
I'm really appreciating your comments, thanks 👍🏻
Tell us more about your time in the Military, and perhaps you could do a video with Joerg Sprave
Stories & experiences will unfold. Thanks for watching 👍🏻
Very interesting school of thought,thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
I just wanted to say that I appreciate this video. I think you're spot on in how you look at it, especially given the variability of yew. I know that Will Sherman has found that exact replicas of any individual bow vary in draw weight by 40lbs or more - which other empirical and scientific evidence backs up - so we quite literally can't estimate what the draw weight was. All we can say for sure is that it was what they were comfortable with and what was sufficient effective at the time.
Thanks for your comment Hegrim. People get so hung up on poundage, I just wanted to add a different perspective. 👍
So interesting to listen to..top man
Tiny bows are fun..shooting is invigorating...fly winging is a challenge. 😎
Haha! -Thanks for debating my question here Kevin, and you're absolutely right, it doesn't really matter about one man having a heavier weighted bow than the other man. The "My bow's bigger than your bow, my Dad's bigger than your Dad" macho BS syndrome! -Although I bet you it all went on in those days -blokes never change, in fact they were probably worse then, as they would've suffered from boredom a lot more!
As long as you have a bow that feels comfortable and you're able to hit the target effectively, who the hell cares.
My self yew blow is 110#, it's completely unnecessary and an effort to draw continually, but in a way that's the point, because It's an experiment into pushing yourself and experiencing exactly what those guys were experiencing 600 years ago. It's a good workout, and above all it's very rewarding seeing a dozen heavy hand forged arrows thump into the target!
Thanks again for the entertaining vids, keep it up!
I love it, you're welcome!
I'm going to answer the other question you raised soon, so keep posted. Thanks so much for watching, and for such a great question 👍🏻
@@thehistorysquad Any time mate, It's all good!!!
There's no point in shooting very heavy weights for target archery, agreed, unless it's the challenge of maintaining accuracy at heavy weight that you enjoy which is fair enough. Virtually any bow will doink an arrow into a boss. The problem is using terms 'comfortable' and 'effectively' in the same sentence when it comes to military archery. If comfortable is 50#, you're not going to hit the target (the approaching French person) effectively. Hit it, yes, but it won't be effective against a well armoured opponent. Much of the effectiveness of longbow hits in the 100 years war was through blunt force trauma, the energy of a heavy arrow moving fast thumping the target hard. Whether it was lucky enough to find a gap or penetrate the armour or not, the force of the hit would do damage either physically or psychologically on the other hand a hit from a comfortable 40# or 50# bow would most likely go unnoticed in battle...therefore comfortable yes, effective, no. To deliver that force a heavy arrow was needed, and heavy arrows need heavy bows to shoot them. Yes, for recreational shooting you shoot what's comfortable, but in a battle situation you shoot what works.
I bloody love your channel.🙃
good explanation and train of thought
Thoroughly interesting. Subscribed!
Awesome, thank you!
Now that's an interesting idea/theory.
As an historian myself (in religion) we tend sometimes to overcomplicate things out of our need to analyze (or sometimes to make the subject more "special").But as you stated, looking at it from a pragmatic view is a good reasoning. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. :)
Thank you for that - it's appreciated 👍🏻
@@thehistorysquad You are very welcome. Cheers from Sweden. :)
Absolutely fair... You know what you're doing.
Makes sense to customize your weapon as we still do it now
Indeed 👍🏻
Excellent point. A weapon properly fitted is WAY more useful and accurate. I help coach a youth trap shooting team. If a small boy tries to shoot a full size 12 guage before he is ready, he won't hit a thing and get discouraged. Give him a youth size 20 guage and he's knocking clays out of the sir left and right.
Great stuff. Thanks for sharing that Richard 👍🏻
Love youre vids. Thanks
Thanks for watching! 👍🏻
I love listening to this man talk.
I'm not a huge fan of most English accents, not sure which regional accent this is.
It's how I imagine soldiers of this time period speaking.
Cheers, it's probably more of a soldier's accent than a regional one, made up of all the different places I lived and served. 👍🏻
I believe that the bows found on the Mary Rose are unique, or very nearly so, and surprised historians, not the least because of the weight of the draw on many of them.
Thanks Kev N Julie - great question, very interesting answer :-)
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it.
JD?
I'm an avid reloader and used to compete in High Power rifle competitions. This question of poundage reminds me of people who reload to chase velocity. Chasing velocity or trying to get the maximum speed in FPS out of a bullet does not equal accuracy, in fact it is detrimental to accuracy. My most accurate loads are always middle of the range loads. I don't know or even care how fast the bullet is travelling as long as I can achieve 1 inch or less at 100 yards and in some cases 1/2 inch depending on my bullet choice. I would think that an Archer would not care about poundage as long as he can hit the mark at a given distance. Just my opinion.
Spot on! I am so with you there, you speak my language 👍🏻
@@thehistorysquad Well Sir, we have a lot in common. You and I were both in our respective armed forces and we are both retired police officers. I was a Chicago cop and I'm very proud of that, I would still be there if it wasn't for an unfortunate heart attack that took me off the street. 24 years went too fast and I still can't believe it's over.
Greater velocity would increase the effective range and the armor penetration though, would it not?
@@witalian1 For my needs in shooting, accuracy is king. My buddies and I shoot weekly at a backyard range (we all have acreage here) and our longest distance is 120 yards which isn't really very far, however we shoot at golf balls, golf tee's, buttons, and thumb tacks mounted on a cardboard backer. These are very small targets and yes we use scoped rifles mostly in .223/5.56 and we all hand-load our own ammunition. We each have our own pet loads and I find that if I push a bullet too fast with a higher powder charge accuracy falls off and when shooting at thumb tacks, it makes a big difference as does the wind even at such short a distance. I used to compete in service rifle matches (High-power) in the ISRA and shoot at Camp Perry every year for the National matches where the range 600 yards with iron sights only but I think that has changed now since the military went to low power variable optics they are now allowed for service rifle matches. I know my hand-loads are good out to 600 yards at least and I have no need for armor penetration outside of the skin of a golf ball. Yes you will conceivably greater distance out of a heavier powder charge but if the accuracy isn't there what good is it?
@@witalian1 It's a trade off, the higher the velocity the more the recoil, i imagine this would equate to the harder the bow is to draw the stress will affect accuracy. 10m target pistols have the lowest lbs they can get away with while still keeping a flat trajectory.
Great topic 👏
Cheers Allan
I had an Ancestor who was an Archer in the Service of Lord Clifford from Bradford who fought at the battle of Flodden against the Scots in 1513.
Most Ambler men were over 6ft tall and powerfully built.
To all those who say the archer on the Mary Rose was an elite. They were not, unless you want to classify indentured soldiers in general as an elite. The soldiers on the Mary Rose was part of the captain's own retinue. There was nothing special about them in comparison to the archers at Agincourt. The vast majority of the archers recruited for the Agincourt campaign was raised by indenture by the men-at-arms themselves. The King brought only 1,450 archers recruited by Commission of Array from his own lordships, such as Cheshire, Lancashire and Brecon, but those were famous for the quality of their longbowmen. He recruited 12,000 archers as a total, and 9,400 participated at the siege of Harfleur. Probably only the best in the country. We have at least 20 sources telling us that they only wanted the best when they recruited archers. At the battle he had 5,000 archers. One source can tell us that the pool of archers to draw men from in the beginning of the 16th century numbered 150,000 men. After 1381 and the peasant’s revolt the number of free men increased rapidly. In 1387 workers had to practice at the butts too, so the pool of men to draw archers from was quite large in 1415. So if we allow for a pool of only 2/3 of this in 1415 before the Agincourt campaign, 12,000 archers would only be 12 % of the total. In other words, only the best.
According to Gesta Henrici Quinti, an eye witness at the battle, arrows *“by their very force* [lit. hostility] *pierced the sides and visors* [lit. covers] *of their helmets* ..."
To do that against thinner wrought iron and low carbon steel plates, it takes an arrow with an initial kinetic energy of around 120-150 Joules, according to tests done. It would take a bow in the 135-150 lb range to do that.
Here we have Dominic Mancini's description of Richards III's archers brought by Gloucester and Buckingham into London in 1483, 68 years after Agincourt "... their bows and arrows are thicker and longer than those used by other nations, just as their bodies are stronger than other peoples, for they seem to have hands and arms of iron. *The range of their bows are no less than our arbalest."*
In other words, English archers could reach the same maximum range as arbalests.
I asked Andreas Bichler what range he get with his 1,197.1 lbs composite replica crossbow from the second half of the 15th century. This is not the rampart crossbow he is known for, but a one-man operated 3.54 kg crossbow. He told me it depends on the bolt weight. A 70 gram bolt will reach out to 300 meters (328 yards). A 100 gram bolt will reach out to 250 meters (273 yards). Most of the bolts are around 80 grams and therefore in line with the best heavy yew bows in terms of range when the arrow is around 63-64 grams.
Joe Gibbs have shot a 63.7 gram arrows over 300 yards (274 meters) with a 175 lb bow at 30". If I remember correctly, it was 312 yards (285 meters). The arrow left the bow at 210 fps (64 m/s). If we take a look at his tests on TH-cam, "Speed test of Mary Rose replica bows", we find these results:
145 lb Swiss yew bow at 30", 64.3 m/s, 63 gram arrow.
150 lb Oregon yew bow at 30", 62.88 m/s, 63 gram arrow.
160 lb Swiss yew bow at 30", 63.947 m/s, 63 gram arrow.
Here we can see that the speed is approximately the same as when he did that record shot, so he should get results similar to his record shot (or at least close enough). This clearly indicate that the bows were from 135 lb and up.
The bows on the Mary Rose were stored in chests and was the property of the Crown, not personal items. Therefore it is possible they were bows to be used by the regular sailors, as well as being secondary and replacement bows for the archers. It's actually almost certain because other ships during the battle had no soldiers but still they had plenty of bows. The ship had 185 soldiers, 30 gunners and 200 sailors, but the number of bows were 250. This indicate that at least 65 of the weaker bows were meant to be used by the sailors. The number of heavy bows from 135 lb and up, estimated by Kooi, in terms of percentages, match up with the number of soldiers well.
To conclude. We know that all the soldiers, both on the Mary Rose and the Agincourt campaign, were raised by indenture, so they were essentially equal. We have descriptions of armour being pierced at the battle of Agincourt and we have tested what it takes to do that, we have Dominic Mancini's comparison to an arbalest in terms of range, and we have the Mary Rose bows and the test of replica bows to match up with the range. The conclusion. From 135-140 lb and up.
In addition to this we have the arrows, as mentioned in Steve Djurovich's post. 3/8" arrows require a bow around 100 lb or heavier to do great. 1/2" arrows need heavy draw weights in the 140 lb range to do well.
Honest answer to an honest question. I have long thought that troops of that era were mainly drawing the bows that were issued to them. Sure they were matched to the man as best they could, but not bespoke weapons.
👍🏻 thanks for watching V
Being comfortable with your weapons is key to success in combat that's for sure...I shoot, recurve, long bow and compound as well as being versed in many types of firearms both civilian and military...I've always been comfortable with the AR platform especially the Carbine/M4 variants, Ive shot several different configurations of the FAL and was never comfortable with it even though I was better than average accurate shooting it. I always have my bows, rifles/carbines, shotguns and handguns customized to myself.
A fair point. My old English longbow was made of osage and pulled 66lbs. But old age has taken its toll. And at 66 I now use a 46lb trilaminate bow. As you say, tis all about comfort. Flaxen Saxon.
Just keep on shooting 👍🏻
Oh, just a thought - did you know the Dudley Household at Dudley Castle?
Very interesting subject. I am agreeing with Kevin.
I have a replica of the smallest bow from the Mary Rose. And it’s draw weight is 80#32 lbs but at my draw length is 65#29-70#30 lbs. so perhaps not all those on the Mery Rose were not so heavy but I have heard that other replicas of the same bow ended up at 120lbs.
Who knows how heavy the bows were in the hundred years war🤷🏼♂️🏹
👍🏻 Thanks for watching.
Makes perfect sense.... Real common sense. 👍
Hi Kevin. I made laminate longbow here in the UK with 5 other guys on a guided weekend course. Most of them were aiming for a draw weight of between 30 and 40 pound. I wanted to feel something similar to the medieval archers and I ended up with a draw weight on my bow of 75 pound. Its hard to draw as I don't have the physique of a medieval bowman but I managed to learn to shoot it proficiently with some practice. the point is, a professional bowman would have known his abilities with any draw weight of bow he got his hands on. I have shot 100 pound bows and it took 3 or 4 shots to get my hand and eye set up for that bow and I am just an enthusiast. If I was doing it every day as a professional soldier, no bow would phase me but there must have been bows of varying weights made to an Archers preference. just like your rifle.
👍🏻 absolutely
G'day Kevin, may I ask you a quick question? With your experience as an archer and as a soldier, what kind of ranges would they have operated at? And also what kind of poundage would still be effective against an enemy soldier?
I only shoot about a 50lb hunting longbow, love it to bits by the way, and yes I find it comfortable to shoot. But I dont think it'll do much against a French knight charging at me.
I love your videos and I believe you are one of the best storytellers out there. I would like to wish you all the best from New Zealand.
Cheers,
Joshua
Hi Joshua, Although it's believed that more powerful bows were used in medieval times, in my opinion a 50lb bow would still do the job if you were close enough. If you take Henry V's army at Agincourt, he actually advanced his army to within 200 paces of the enemy and then with the French advancing toward them the range is closing down to point blank range. 👍🏻
Eccellent points here! Eccelent!!!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it 👍🏻
Question for you did the longbow have different longbow string's made of different types of string's enjoy your TH-cam channel keep up the amazing work
We believe so, but there's no evidence remaining. Linen, hemp flax perhaps.
Thank you and have a wonderful day
Well Kevin. I've had that theory, like you for many years. Shotgun stocks look like a stock. But when shaped down to fit the gun itself its a different kettle of fish. SO were the Mary Rose bows ready for that final fitting or shaving down as it were?. Like you say Sir we will never know. But my god I've got through pints, talking about this subject. Haha so who cares what poundage. I used to shoot 70 to 80 pound. I'm 70 next year. I now shoot 37 to 40lb.love it. Excellent video Kevin. Great work.
Hey buddy, I'm right behind you there. If I can't reduce the poundage on one of my bows, I'll be buying one, probably 45 lb or there abouts 👍🏻
Excellent 👍👍
I think the expression horses for courses comes to mind .
Excellent point. I suppose it is possible to shave a bow and reduce required force and you cannot do opposite. Each ship had at least one skilled carpenter in crew who could do simple customization.
You CAN do the opposite:- Saw an inch off each end and re-tiller it will increase the draw weight. Anyway, a well tillered 80# can be better than a poor 100#. Warbows, often need some re-tillering after some use (maybe a 200 shots, and the bowyer wouldn't have time to do this "shooting in")
There's no way to know for sure BUT..........considering that weapons and armour evolve together, I would expect that when armour was at it;s peek distribution and quality on average, the bows would need to be the most powerful. It just makes sense. The same happened to firearms. They needed to improve a lot to get through that late period anti bullet armour. The right tool for the right job.
A good point but I wonder how much armour would have been worn about ship. Fighting on ships is not like a battlefield, agility would have been much more important (sailing ships have cluttered and complicated decks) so would there be as much armour used? No armour except brass alloy chainmail has been recovered and weapons, like the sword and the pikes were not optimised for anti armour. My hunch is that the archers would have been used against sailors (unarmoured probably) who were controlling the enemy ship and probably at range with the aim being to immobilise the enemy vessel so to make more effective the guns. All speculation of course!
👍🏻 yes, and interestingly leather & studded jacks were common and prevalent, the Museum of London has a very short leather Tudor jack. And with regard to bowmen on ship, I'll be shooting a film about the Battle of Sluys for Friday.
“He has to fight the enemy, he can’t be fighting his own equipment “- Professor Tobias Capwell
very interesting
About the poundage and spine...
Are the numerous arrows and longbows aboard the Mary Rose generally matched in spine? I mean, based on what you would expect from the arrow remains dimensions. It could indicate customization and shaving if the arrows were underspined as was, I'd think.
Thanks Kevin. Another way of coming at this problem is to ask: Were the archers on the Mary Rose as good as the archers at Agincourt? At the time of the Mary Rose (1545), the musket was beginning to replace the bow as at the weapon of choice, although bow was a significant weapon of war for another 100 years. It is reasonable to speculate if the number of archers in England, and the quality of those archers, had fallen in the 130 years since Agincourt. My guess is that the quality of the archer is more important than the poundage of the bow - which is something you often mention.
That's for sure, good point 👍🏻
Hi Kevin, this video has got me thinking about some physics. When an arrow is in flight, it has kinetic energy, that is converted to force when it hits something. The kinetic energy of an arrow is equal to half of its mass x its velocity squared. So as far as impact force is concerned, the speed of the arrow when it hits, is the dominant factor. Now, the higher the draw weight of the bow, the faster the arrow, but equally important is the relative speed of the target. If the target is an armored knight galloping towards you at 30mph, an arrow traveling at 120mph will create the same force on impact as if it were traveling at 150mph. Do the calculations and you discover that the force upon impact is 50% greater than when hitting a stationary target. I haven’t seen anything exploring this issue. What do you think?
The man he mentions shooting with in this video, Mark Stretton, has done some testing on the matter. The answer is yes! It does in fact make a difference. Mark has a blog you can search for as well covering that very topic.
I'm not a physicist, but it sounds good. Did you know that the arrow has a secondary kick? As it hits the target, it actually flexes and gives it an extra knock.
Thanks Drew - I'll take a look at Mark's blog as well - I haven't seen him in years.
The Mary Rose bows seem to cover a range of draw weights and personally I would expect the bows carried at Agincourt to have covered much the same range. I don't think the conduct and arrangement of battlefields had changed much despite the advent of gunpowder - still plenty of unarmoured horses and incompletely armoured men to shoot at. And the men using them came from the same background in terms of health, diet and conditioning by the same heavy work. There's just no obvious reason for them to have changed - why fix what isn't broken?
I have mixed feelings about the idea of archers customising their "issue" bows. I'm sure that some would, but can't help feeling that it might not have been encouraged as it's easy to spoil the tiller of a bow by unskilled shaving, possibly leading to early failure, and they would pretty much be restricted to a knife or an axe to do the job. No sand paper back then! We'll probably never know as todays used / broken bow heats tomorrows breakfast...
Enjoy your videos. Horace Ford wrote in his book "Archery Theory & Practice" that the best bow he ever used was a 68" long 55 pound draw weight Yew Bow to shoot the York Round of 144 arrows. He was Britians best for 11 years, then his hand tendons had enough.
I know exactly where Horace is coming from, and there's nothing better than to shoot a sweet bow that's matched to you. 👍🏻
I’m convinced that the barrel chested powerful war bow men that when they had used up their arrows threw down their bows and picking up war hammers , maces and bollock daggers and went in close ….the french knights who had endured the charge and arrow storm whilst having restricted vision and with nervous tension and adrenaline bursting through their veins were by now exhausted…but the lightly armoured longbowmen had agility and power in the mud of agincourt ……resulting in the massacre that happened….
Hi Kevin i saw show once that tested a few Mary Rose bows until they failed and i don't remember the failing weight of the heavy ones but what impresses me where several bows where 45#. it was figured not all where archers on board but even a cabin boy or cook could shoot guys off the rigging with them. so heavy bows yes and lighter bows yes. a 45# bow will put an arrow right through a man, i'd say because it could put a arrow through a deer which is about as thick as a man. geese. thumbs up. i must be getting old these kinds of thoughts are kind of a turn off now. good shooting.
Great comment Gary and I believe you're right, that the poundage would have varied to suit. 👍🏻
Regarding Agincourt. I’ve watched a few vids on the effectiveness of longbows on armoured knights and read a lot of comments and most of them are concerned with arrows penetrating breastplates, and i envisioned the Hollywood rain of arrows landing sort of randomly among the crowd.
Then i saw your yarn about shooting blunts at a couple of reenactors, which i found quite amusing.
If all the archers were capable of placing their shots and they picked the most vulnerable places, then the archers would have been a lot more devastating to the French and the argument over penetration would be moot?
Yep, for sure 👍🏻
Hey loving this channel! I was curious, during the famous battles of Crecy, Agincourt etc., were longbowmen given commands to fire their arrows in a volley together or was it more fire at will, or a combination of both? Thanks.
Hi Pen, it was down to local company level and co-ordinated by their commanders, e.g. the Earl of Oxford moving his archers into the marshy ground at Poitiers to outflank the French. It's my belief that the command would have been a mix of both volley and fire at will depending on what conditions/tactics were required.
I wonder how the training and practice of the Agincourt bowmen compared to that of the Mary Rose bowmen?
I'm sure they varied enormously as did their users young men still growing and strong men so proud they had a bow no other man could draw
Never heard of an armourer putting weights on a rifle, I spent 13 years in the RAF and obviously had a lot of interaction with armourers, had quite a few as friends as they were a technical trade like me.
I was part of a tight knit unit in Belfast in 1979, we were often attached to different units and in one of these there was a group of 3 extremely forward looking armourers, and as my rifle was with me for the best part of 2 years, they simply stripped down my SLR, measured me perfectly and made it so that it was so weighted and balanced. It was the best rifle I ever had.
It was 45 RM Commando that put me onto the fact you could make such adjustments. 👍🏻
Wonderful answer! Interesting as buggary, even tho inconclusive. It's how a lot of history has to be answered, if truthful. Highly educated opinions and theories. Based on their actual facts. 👍
Do you think that bowmen of the time where expected to draw a minimum poundage? Great video, glad I found your videos after seeing you all the years ago at Warwick!
Hi Charles, thanks for watching.
In my opinion, no. Bowmen would have to pass a competency test and if they failed they would be sent home. The key thing being accuracy. If they could hit the targets, at the distance required, the poundage was irrelevant.
@@thehistorysquad That makes a lot of sense. Sounds a lot like our weapons qualifications in the Army. Ta!
I don't know why I never thought of this. It's common sense, really. Fitting the weapon to the user makes MUCH more sense than the other way around. It also allows you to have far more shooters on hand.
Yep, bang on 👍🏻
Did you ever hear about Karl der Große, Carolus Magnus?
He tried learning to write, but he always broke the feather, because he was trained since his childhood, to handle swords, axes,
I m convinced people back then were way stronger than today!
The only thing I care about is whether or not Marie Rose bow as powerful as Honoka/Kasumi bows? 🌹🌹🌹
As long as they achieve the same aim
I wonder if the best way to describe the power of a bow at Agincourt or on the Mary Rose (or when/wherever) is to say that they were, "As powerful as they needed to be."
I love it!
We don't really know the draw-weights of the Mary Rose bows, because the modern replicas were made of inferior wood, and thus were less powerful than the originals. Additionally the fine-grain wood in the MR bows had a greater restoring force, so the limbs of the bows moved faster when returning to their original position, giving a higher 'muzzle-velocity' for a given draw-weight.
As far as the bows at Agincourt, it seems more likely that they'd have maybe four classes of bow, of increasing power. An archer would ask "Can I have a Category 2 bow" for example, knowing that it would be roughly correct for him.
History will attest that they were powerful enough!
I would guess that the Mary Rose bows on average would have been at least as heavy as, and probably heavier than anything that had gone before. By that time the longbow was declining in its effectiveness due to improving armour and tactics. It was now a bit of a niche, specialist weapon, and Henry XIII was an archery enthusiast, so the archers on board would have been the crème-de-la-crème. Just as now, when very few of us have to fight or exercise physically in our daily lives, yet the elites in these fields are faster and stronger than all those who have gone before.
As I remember, the yew employed was all imported, top quality stuff, and a number had been adjusted after nocking, possibly by the users. Material had been removed towards the ends, ‘whip-ending’ to improve the cast.
I’ve often considered the question of how on earth archers could operate with any sort of accuracy using the hotch-potch ammunition available, different types of wood, some stripped, some from dowels. The tolerances in shaft, head and fletching can’t have been very tight. I think the best of them must have had an almost unconscious feel for how each arrow was going to fly when held in the hand.
Thanks for you input Callum 👍
As an American Mary Rose does have the same romance it would to a Brit . And my knowledge of the ship is limited to little more than the 10x30 foot section I saw through a mist of saltwater and liquid plastic ( or whatever it was that they used ) a few rusty cannon and trinkets of the crew .
But it seems to be that something thing that has been under water for 450 years is going to be pretty hard to gage the tensile strength. As well if you had a bow that was at Agincourt maybe with an inscription ‘ property of Dafydd Gam , reward if found ‘ that bow would be dried out at impossible to gage the tensile strength as well . And the best you could do would be a comparison of a modern copy , traditionally made, of an Agincourt bow against a modern copy of a Mary Rose bow . And even then as I think you basically were saying, is that you would be only comparing one bow against one bow , not a type of bow against another type of bow.
Great comment Phil, thanks 👍🏻
@@thehistorysquad thanks for the thanks .
Now that really makes sense and makes you think. Were the Mary Rose bows just blanks??? Shot gun stock blanks look nothing like the finished product?? Until the gunsmith shapes it. Now this will be a conversation down the pub after quiz finishes. Thank you.
Thanks for listening 👍🏻
Idk what the bows at Agincourt were but going by the type of wood & measuring the diameter of the Mary Rose bows we do now know that the weights varied quite a bit. You have some that were just around 100lbs or so, a few as high as 210 & everything in between. However we do have sources from the medieval era that say that to participate in a hunt amongst the gentry a bow had to be at least 130 if i remember correctly. Take from this what you will but in my opinion the bow wights on the battlefield & in hunting in Europe probably varied by time, place etc. Im half Native American & our bows tend to be around 75-100lbs but my ancestors practiced mounted archery & speed shooting against organic armor/shields. Which influenced the tool/weapon choices as well as being varied based on the size of the man etc.
I wonder if a large volley of arrows would travel farther or maybe the centre ones would go farther than a single shot?? Similar to shot from a cannon the centre of mass travels farther than the outside resembling an inverted cone if you could see it.
So. At what point in an arrows flight, especially lofted shots, is the force of the bow replaced by gravity and terminal velocity?
As long as a bow can get the arrow up there, it's own weight will finish the job. Yes/ no?
I'm no scientist, but believe it would be after the arrow has arced.
It's difficult though, as far as I can tell, long distance shots weren't really that common. If you look at contemporary artwork/manuscripts the bowmen are illustrated shooting level. This is a great question though, so if you don't mind, I'll include it in one of my Q&A Time videos. Thanks for watching. 👍🏻
@@thehistorysquad no worries, thank you for answering so quick.
They land with almost the same force as they had when the left the bow. One critique of Agincourt suggested that they weren't shot at maximum range as they would be ineffective as they would be falling vertically! That's nonsense of course, when shot at maximum range they hit the ground at about 45 degrees.
Exceĺlent topic for conversation. I heard somewhere that when shooting for range, 12 arrows was the limit that archers could reliably shoot before they were physically exhausted. Is that anywhere close to true?
Hi Stephen, thanks for watching and your comment.
I my personal experience, you can get off 2 sheaves (48 arrows) quite quickly, but then you are starting to strain. People forget that the main archery shoots in the battles were very short, and when it slowed down, the bowmen could pick their targets. Hope that helps.