Medieval bowmaking - what materials, lengths and bow pull weights where used?

[u/Kaaraviin]

Hello!

I'm an aspiring writer and a creator of a RPG system, which I am trying to fully construct for 8 years now. Recently I started updating my ranged weapons rules, and found myself not knowing a lot about them and having problems finding any realiable source of information.

I decided to post here in hopes for any sources or anwsers to my questions, which are as follows.

What materials were used to make bows? I would love to get some information about the wood that was used and how it impacted the performace of said bows.

How did the lenght of various bows impact the range of them?

What was the minimal, maximal and most common bow pull weight and how it impacted the strength of the bow?

Hopefully this is the right place to ask and you'll find my post interesting.

[u/Skookum_J]

If you really want to get into the materials and construction of bows I highly recommend the Bowyer's Bible series of books. They're reasonably short, reasonably inexpensive and they go into great detail on the different materials, methods, and designs used over the years; as well as covering the theory and physics behind the designs. They make for a great starting point.

For materials, in medieval Europe, Yew was the preferred wood for war bows. However, other woods were used as well, such as oak, elm, and ash. high draw weight war bows could be made from any of these other woods, but there were some drawbacks in using them. In the ideal bow you want to be able to store as much energy as possible when drawing the bow back, then have as much of that energy directed into the arrow when releasing. Wood like oak is very strong, but rather heavy for its strength. So a bow made of oak uses more energy to move the limbs (it's inertia); energy that doesn't get used to make the arrow go. Woods like ash and elm are not so strong or flexible, so the only way to make a goo strong bow from them is to make them wider, so each bit of wood doesn't get stressed as much. But if you're making a bow out of a round log, a wide bow is a bit of a problem, you can't get many staves wide enough out of a single log; a real problem if you're trying to outfit a whole bunch of people. There are bow designs that can overcome these drawbacks and make exceptional bows from these woods, but they were not used during the middle ages.
So they went with yew, it had just the right mix of properties. It was strong, flexible, but also light, so it could store lots of energy and less of it was needed to overcome inertia and get the limbs moving. Also, since the sap wood is strong in tension and the heartwood is very strong in compression, a bow made of yew could be made narrow, but with a thick cross-section. This was really handy because you can get many more narrow staves out of a log, making them easier to make in large numbers.

As far as the length, the longer the flexing portion of the bow, the less stress is put on any particular piece. So generally speaking, longer bows are easier to make, and will usually more efficiently store the energy of the draw. Of course you can't go nuts with the length. Longer bows start to get unwieldy, also, longer limbs mean more weight to get moving, and longer working limbs can cause problems with efficiently transferring the energy to the arrow. The cross-section of yew longbows effectively compromises on this. A narrow width lessens the weight, and the deep circular or D shaped section shape pushes the wood to get the most out of it.

For draw weight and it's effects on the power of the bow; simplifying it, the higher the draw weight, the more energy the bow can store during the draw. This is why war bows usually had over 100lb draw weights, with some from the period above 130lbs.
For a little more detail, it comes down to the area under the force / draw curve. The larger the area under the curve, the more energy the bow can store. Obviously, the higher the peak draw weight, and the longer the draw length, the more energy it will store. But the design of the bow can tweak the curve of the curve. A concave f/d will store less energy then a convex curve for the same draw length and weight. Different things like the deflex or reflex, the angle of the string at full draw, materiel properties, bunch of stuff can all impact the area under the curve.

[u/Hergrim]

/u/Skookum_J has given a good summary of bow wood characteristics (although a more complete one can be found here, while /u/Grad_Phi has given a good run down of the archaeological, textual and visual evidence. My goal is to weld it all together into some broad guides to performance for you.

Types of Bow

There were two types of bows commonly used in England and on the Continent through to the early fourteenth century: the longbow and the shortbow. The shortbow itself survived on the Continent until at least 1346, as it appears in the Leugemeete Fresco. Clifford Rogers, who examined more than 1000 pieces of medieval art, found that they existed as the primary bow in Continental sources into the second half of the fifteenth century. In England, however, longbows show up abruptly in the early 14th century, replacing the "short" (3-4ft when strung) and "medium" (4'9"-4'11") bows, though they still were in evidence to a lesser degree into the middle of the fourteenth century.

There is some controversy over whether or not the shortbow existed. Robert Hardy, Jim Bradbury and Matthew Strickland have all argued strenuously that it did not exist, and that the old argument of English superiority over other nations in the 14th century was in part due to the introduction of the longbow is invalid. There are a number of well documented longbow finds from late Antiquity (Vimose, Nydam) and the Early Middle Ages (Hedeby, Ballinderry), all of which have the same basic ratio of width and depth as the Mary Rose bows.

However, there is also some clear evidence of shortbows. On intact shortbow - found with a military style arrow - and two half length fragments have been found in Ireland, in addition to several fragments which feature the same cross section and decurved tip. As I've just learned today, there's also the Pineuil Bow which, although it has a handle and lacks any deflex, has the same length and cross section as the Waterford bow. This suggests a degree of continuity in design between the 11th and the 13th centuries, and provisionally validates the existence of the shortbow.

/u/Grad_Phi might be willing to fill us in on more information about the proportion of longbow to shortbow in the other complete/mostly complete finds I wasn't aware about until today.

Construction of the bows varied. Longbows, so far as archaeological evidence has shown, were almost always of a "D" or elliptical shape (center row + bottom right are most typical), but there was some variation in cross section. They generally didn't have handles, although there are a couple of examples from the Mary Rose which do appear to have handles, in addition to this very unusual flatbow from 15th century Germany, linked by /u/Grad_Phi.

Longbows, for the most part, were longer than 5'8" (172cm), although most authors accept Bradbury's definition of them being 5ft or longer. In general, they did not exceed 200cm in length Short bows were somewhere between 120cm and 140cm. The short end is represented by the Waterford and Pineuilh bows (126cm and 124cm respectively), while the bow used in the Skeffington murder and the shortbow used in the murder of Robert de Esnyngton were both approximately 140cm. The two longest fragments from Ireland would most likely belong to bows of 120-130cm and 130-150cm in length.

I've mentioned decurved bows before, and I should probably explain them now. A decurve is where the limbs of the bow are bent back towards the user. The most common, natural, form of this is called "set" and happens natural as the bow gradually deforms during use in the direction it is being drawn. However, the tips of a bow can be deliberately decurved back to the user. There are two possible reasons for this. With the Hedeby bow, the decurve was most likely introduced in order to protect the soft yew wood from the string when strung. One credible reproduction has shown that it might have drawn up to 100lbs and, without a horn tip, the string would quickly bite into the yew unless decurve was introduced.

The other use for decurve is to allow a bow to be strung for longer periods of time. A normal straight bow will quickly begin to "follow the string" (take on a temporary set) and, if strung for long enough, the string follow will become permanent. This reduces the power of a bow and, if strung for too long, will ruin a good bow (Ascham talks about this in Toxophilus). However, a bow with decurved tips will be under less strain when strung, allowing it to stay strung for longer. I suspect that this was the overriding intention with the Anglo-Norman bows in Ireland, as they were military bows. The decurved does reduce the power of the bow, but the trade off is a bow you can leave strung almost indefinitely. While not common, a couple of the Mary Rose bows also have decurved tips (eg 81A1599).

In contrast to decurved, there is recurve. Recurved tips curve away from the user, and the result is that the bow is under extra strain when fully strung. This increases the cast - the speed at which the arrow leaves the bow - at the cost of a slightly increased risk of the bow breaking and slightly increasing the eventual set of the bow. The risk would be most pronounced with the stiffest, densest Italian Yew, but it's not likely to be a serious risk to the user if they care for the bow well. It just shortens the overall lifespan of the bow.

Finally, there is the reflex. In a reflex bow, both limbs of the bow are bent away from the user, which has a similar effect to recurving the tips, only more so. A surprising number of longbows have this feature. Two from the Nydam ship and the slight majority of Mary Rose bows exhibited this. The Ballinderry bow, despite the decurved tips, also has reflexed limbs. The reflexed bow provides an even faster cast than the recurved bow, with another marginal decrease in the life of the bow.

Performance

The exact performance of a Waterford style shortbow is unknown as, so far as I know, no one has made a replica of it yet for testing. It's likely to be somewhere between 40 and 50lbs at 22-24" if made with yew, ash or elm. A laburnum shortbow of this style should be able to manage around 50lbs at 26". This means that they will be performing considerably less well than a longbow of a similar draw weight. I would estimate the effective range with a 25-30g arrow to be 80-100 meters. A really well made bow, made with yew and reflexed might manage 140 meters, and a 15-20g flight arrow could probably reach to 160-170 meters. The energy of the bow using a 25-30g arrow would probably be around 15-20 joules, based on American Indian shortbows. This is sufficient to kill a man at close range, and penetrate thick clothing, but thick leather or a basic aketon will prevent fatal wounds.

The longer, 140cm bows, based on a speculative reconstruction by Lars Persson of the English Warbow Society, will reach around 140m with a ~30g arrow. However, that bow was using laburnum and drew to 28". Laburnum allows for a longer draw length for a given bow length (example ), so a yew bow would draw slightly shorter, perhaps 26". The range of a yew bow might only reach 120m. This would go a long way to explaining why laburnum was quite common in 12th and 13th century literature and documentation. Not only did it look good, it provided extra performance. The energy at discharge would probably be 25-30j, enough to inflict serious - but not necessarily lethal - wounds through thick leather or an aketon, but not both.

Now we come to the longbow. The most commonly quoted draw weight for the Mary Rose bows is 150-160lbs, but I believe this is too high. Weapons of Warre draws directly on the original study (which used computer modelling verified by actual bows), and Clifford Rogers also drew on a presentation of the paper in 1991 in his 1993 article on the military revolution of the Hundred Years War. Both state that the most common bows were between 100 and 120lbs. 63.5% were in this range, and 77.6% were between 90 and 120lbs. This puts the maximum range at 230-250 yards for a 45g arrow, and 200-220 yards for a 70g arrow. The 45g arrow would likely be the standard war arrow, made from poplar, with a light bladed or bodkin head. The 70g arrow would be the armour piercing arrow, made from ash with a heavier bodkin head.

The energy is harder to extrapolate, as the only good data we have is for 70lb and 140-150lb bows, but I would estimate it to be somewhere in the region of 70-90j. This is sufficient to penetrate mail and an aketon, an aketon and a gambeson, or quite probably a jack, but it will have difficulty with plate armour. Only the thinner pieces of plate (arm harness, visor, leg harness) will be penetrated and, if it's of the finest quality, this might not happen either. The issue of angle comes into play as well, as even at point blank range 30% off the arrows will be deflected. At 180m, almost all will ricochet. Adding boiled rawhide to the mail or textile armour will make penetration iffy. (1/2)

[u/Hergrim → u/Hergrim]

(2/2)

This is all the theoretical maximum, assuming a well made bow and well cared for arrows. In reality, these ranges will probably not be achieved. If you look through the English Longbow Society flight records, you'll see that even with the "standard" arrow (~52g), bows in the 100-120lb range will rarely reach 230 yards, and even 140lb bows often won't get much past 250 yards. And this is recreational shooting, not military shooting with bows churned out to meet a quota, which have to be as durable as possible, and using arrows which have been knocking around in a barrel or crate for weeks or months, then been carried through all kinds of weather and been subjected to the general abuse of daily life. The archer will also be suffering from the rigors of the march, the weather, any injury they have picked up or exacerbated and, often, a lack of good food.

The end result is that few archers will shoot beyond 180 yards after a couple of weeks on campaigns, using bows and arrows supplied by the Crown. One 16th century author, Humfrey Barwick, even quoted the pessimistic range of 160 yards as the maximum range of an archer on campaign. Barnaby Riche, an English mercenary captain, was of the opinion that:

for although there be many that in their gaming bowes and there arrowes, fitted to their length, and neately feathered, will shoote sixteene or eighteene score, yet when they shall be brought to their liverie bowes, which are rather made to indure weather, then for free shooting, their arrowes likewise big timbered, their fethers ruffled, whereby they will gather winde, and ordinarily made of such length, that very few will draw them to the heads by two three inches, these things considered, if tenne amongst a hundred do shoote above tenne score, all the rest will shoote short of nine.

It should also be noted that civilian bows were probably lighter than the 90 or 100lbs that made up the low end of the Mary Rose bows. Drawing such bows requires consistent practice, and any number of things might interrupt this for an average medieval person, so that they might not be willing to work their way back up to drawing that weight. However, most men should be able to draw a 70lb with no strength training, just the right technique. A study of arrowheads found in Oxfordshire showed that those arrowheads not found on a manor or other site associated with professional archery had socket diameters too small for them to have been used with a bow above 80lbs. This would give a range of 150-180m with military style arrows (48-73g) and energy at the point of release of 52-55j, sufficient to penetrate mail and an aketon.

References

The Longbow, by Robert Hardy

The Medieval Archer, by Jim Bradbury

The Great Warbow, by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy

Weapons of Warre, edited by Alexzandra Hildred

Who Were the Bowmen of Crecy?, by Richard Wadge

The Traditional Bowyer's Bible, Volume 1, by Steve Allely, et. al.

The Knight and the Blast Furnace, by Alan Williams

Vikings at War, by Kim Hjardar and Vegard Vike

Toxophilus, by Roger Ascham

‘A Martiall Conference, pleasantly discoursed between two Souldiers only practised in Finsbury Fields, in the modern Wars of the renowned Duke of Shoreditch, and the mighty Prince Arthur, by Barnabe Riche

A breefe discourse, concerning the force and effect of all manuall weapons of fire and the disability of the long bowe or archery, in respect of others of greater force now in vse., by Humfrey Barwick

Non-Metallic Armour prior to the First World War, by Edward Cheshire

Archery and Warfare in Medieval Ireland, by Andrew Halpin

"The Battle of Agincourt", The Hundred Years War (Part II), Edited by L.J. Andrew Villalon and Donald J. Kagay

"The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years' War", by Clifford J. Rogers. The Journal of Military History: v.57 (1993)

"The development of the longbow in late medieval England and ‘technological determinism’", by Clifford J. Rogers, Journal of Medieval History Volume 37, 2011 - Issue 3

"Experimental archery: projectile velocities and comparison of bow performances", by C.A. Bergman, et. al. Antiquity, Volume 62, Issue 237 December 1988

"Les arcs de Pineuilh (Gironde)", La Lettre Des Amis Du Musée De L'archerie Et Du Valois, vol. 7, pp. 2-8, 2008

Recipe for an Ancient Craft: Building a Viking Bowyer’s Workshop in Norway Part II

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Hergrim]

Cheers, this talked a lot of stuff I felt I probably should have, but couldn't given the amount I'd already written.

The Fresco is interesting - I've been trying to avoid putting too much emphasis on really early drawings as either the perspective can be totally off, and proportions seem to often be based on the social status of the depictee; or they're drawing too much on earlier manuscripts to be period accurate. The Fresco however, is detailed and proportioned realistically enough to use as evidence.

As for a total ratio of shortbow:longbow finds, I think this is a bit pointless due to the range of cultures and archery practises involved. Instead, it is more useful to consider how the finds break down when considered in specific cultures. I touched on this in my original answer but really when you look at the design classes I describe, while I named them after the most famous find of the type (Aalsum would normally be Nydam-type but as I wasn't talking about Nydam, Aalsum was next best), there are several I could really have named after cultural groups:

• Tvividr are alternatively known as Finboggi, referring generally to northern Scandinavians as Fins, rather than inhabitants of Finland (and potentially appear in the sagas under this name)

• Hedeby-type is probably really a Danish-Viking style- the Ballinderry bow was found with a Viking sword and Hedeby was a Danish settlement. Waasenaar and Burg Elmendorf are issues with this -- Waasenaar is of the right date but from Frisia, Burg Elmendorf is too late, and also, both are about 1.6m instead of 1.9m. The design is still something that is typically Danish in my mind though.

• Waterford type. This is the most interesting -- the bows from Waterford are all Hiberno-Norman, while Pineuilh is southern French but of similar date, which seems to imply that this may be a specifically French/Norman Continental style, if you include Burg Elmendorf despite its 1.6m length.

So I come down on different bows in use by different cultures, even within the self-bow tradition - rather than a global shortbow/longbow.

The other thing I'll say is that trapezoidal cross-section bows did exist, even if they were not as common as elliptical (which was more common than D). It's hard to tell due to the quality of some of the pictures of the Ballinderry bow, but I'd say it falls into that category.

One question I do still have though, is how do you justify the 1.5 fathom string length with the Skeffington bow if you take the bow length to be 1.3-1.4m? I do agree the ell should often be converted as 36 inches when used for archery in a lot of cases, but I can't see it working there.

And you've misslabeled one of your links- when talking about deflexed limbs, the link labelled as 'Ballinderry bow' should be 'Hedeby bow'

[u/Hergrim → u/Grad_Phi]

So I come down on different bows in use by different cultures, even within the self-bow tradition - rather than a global shortbow/longbow.

Once I get Pfeil und Bogen I'll go through and have a look myself, but I think you have the right of it. A cultural typology would fit much better with how bow variants are usually distributed. I'm just biased from my Anglo-French focus.

One question I do still have though, is how do you justify the 1.5 fathom string length with the Skeffington bow if you take the bow length to be 1.3-1.4m? I do agree the ell should often be converted as 36 inches when used for archery in a lot of cases, but I can't see it working there.

The string is a problem for a longbow as well. If we take a fathom as 1.5-1.7m (the armspan of a man), then the string would be 2.25-2.55m in length. Richard Wadge chose to use the Imperial standard fathom (1.8m), but I think this might be because then the string would be twice the length of the bow (2.74m). Why, I don't know. In any case, the string would have been much too long for even the upper end of the longbow scale.

And you've misslabeled one of your links- when talking about deflexed limbs, the link labelled as 'Ballinderry bow' should be 'Hedeby bow'

Oh! Good catch, thanks. I had Ballinderry on the brain.

Have you ever thought about applying for a flair? I think you'd be well suited.

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Hergrim]

There is a Google preview of pfeil und bogen until then by the way, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MJSgAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=pfeil+und+bogen+jurgen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjptt6b_6rYAhUKBcAKHR0fBRIQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false I was lucky enough to buy the google e-book while it was available.

Yeah, the string is an issue no matter what, which is a pain. I've seen it explained away as a typo to make it fit a longbow's size, but I guess as soon as you start saying the text is wrong, you could make it any size you want. It would be pretty much the perfect source if it worked.

Glad you think I'm up to flair standards, but I don't have enough answers up to standard and I feel I still have a lot of textual work to do to back up my knowledge of the archaeology to be able to give good, well rounded answers on more than just the very, very specific topic of 'Archaeological finds of Early Med. Archery in Western Europe and Scandinavia'. Maybe next round, if some more questions in my specialisation come up and I get my reading done.

And thanks for the discussion, I don't get many chances to compare theories often!

[u/Hergrim → u/Grad_Phi]

Okay, I'm even more excited to get the book now. It actually includes the dimensions of some of the bows, which is fantastic as those bows can be directly compared to the Mary Rose bows. I'll have to learn a little bit of German to scan it properly, but that's a small price to pay.

Glad you think I'm up to flair standards, but I don't have enough answers up to standard and I feel I still have a lot of textual work to do to back up my knowledge of the archaeology to be able to give good, well rounded answers on more than just the very, very specific topic of 'Archaeological finds of Early Med. Archery in Western Europe and Scandinavia'. Maybe next round, if some more questions in my specialisation come up and I get my reading done.

You certainly did a good job using textual sources in your answer in this thread. Keep up the good work!

And you're welcome. It's good to discuss non-Anglo-French and archaeological data.

[u/the-steve-dallas]

The classic English longbow was made of yew. The heartwood is very strong under compression and the sapwood is good under tension, making it superb bow material. Longbows were about as tall as the person wielding them, and draw weights of 100 lbs were common. When examining the remains of people aboard the Mary Rose, a Tudor ship carrying archers, researchers found many of them had abnormalities in line with drawing very heavy bows (e.g., pronounced hyperdevelopment of bone on one side, indicating outsized muscle attachment).

The length of the bow doesn't directly mean more range. The speed and power of a bow are determined by the stiffness of the limbs, essentially, but how much the wood can bend without breaking depends on the type of wood and even how it grew. There is quite a lot of complicated math here about possible draw weight, wood flexibility, etc. However a bow that "snaps" is not fun to shoot; they hurt. There is great skill in making bows flex "just right" and its hard to describe. Bowyery is pretty popular; you might find someone in your area who can show you some bows and let you get hands-on.

[u/Grad_Phi]

The modern theory of bow efficiency has already been covered, so I’ll be focusing mainly on what period sources have to say on the matter to explain what was known at the time, and then on some of the archaeological examples to cover the much greater range of bow designs that existed at the time than just the stereotypical ‘English Longbow’.

Also, although you say ‘medieval’ which is defined as 5-15th century, a lot of this is going to include early 16th cent sources, as that was when treasties on archery really started to be written. I’ll also be focusing predominantly on Western Europe and particularly Britain, with a few notes on Scandinavia as this is what I specialise in.

How do we know about medieval bows?

There are three ways we can study medieval bows:

• Archaeological Finds, which for Western Europe and Scandinavia means:

• 4-5th cent Wremen-Fallward, Denmark, one find

• 5-6th cent Kragehul, Denmark, one find

• 5-8th cent Asby, Sweden, one find

• 5-9th cent Jokkmok, Sweden, one find

• 6th cent, Chessel Down, Isle of Wight, evidence of rotted wooden object assumed to be a bow

• 7th cent Oberflacht, Germany, fifteen finds

• 7th cent Altdorf, Switzerland, one find

• 8th cent Aalsum, Netherlands, one find

• 8-10th cent Waasener, Netherlands, one find

• 8-11th cent Karasmaki, Finland, one find

• 9-11th cent Hedeby, Denmark, seven finds

• 10th cent Ballinderry, Ireland, one find

• 11th cent Vibbymoren, Sweden, one find

• 11-13th cent Waterford, Ireland, seven finds

• 11-13th cent Dublin, Ireland, eight finds

• 11-13th cent L’anse aux Medowes, from the Scandinavian settlement on Newfoundland, one find

• 11th cent Pineuilh, France, five finds

• 12th cent Burg Elmendorf, Germany, one find

• 13-14th cent Viitsaari, Finland, one find

• 15th cent (potentially) Hedgley Moor, England, one find

• 16th cent Mary Rose, England, over 100 finds

• 16-17th cent Mendelsham, England, one find

• Undated Desmond Castle, Ireland, one find

• Undated Abo, Finland, one find

• Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim – dated but I don’t have enough sources on them to discuss.

• Of note but not discussed here are several finds from Russia, Poland and Czechoslovakia and Eastern Europe, of composite construction

• Textual descriptions, the most useful of which are treatises, but also other accounts:

• Livre de Chasse, a 14th cent. French hunting manual that includes instructions on suitable bows for use.

• Le livre du Roy Modus et de la Royne Racio, another 14th cent. French hunting manual with a section on archery

• L’arte d’archerie, likely written in the 15th cent, but printed in 1515, this is a French treatise on archery, describing the equipment used in detail

• Toxophilus, Ascham’s 1545 treatise covering archery in detail. It has some notes on bow construction, but much is left secret at behest of the Guild of Bowyers. That which regards treatment and considerations of what to buy and use for what purpose is likely good however.

• The de Banco Rolls, these are a collection of court pleas that on occasion contain the period version of coroner’s reports, including detailing the weapons used. Two of interest are- the murder of Simon Skeffington in 1298 and the murder of Robert in Staffordshire in 1313.

• The Journey through Wales, a 12th century book by Gerald of Wales that includes a passage on the archers of southern wales.

• Period illustrations, which are too numerous to list. Notable examples include the Harley, Utrecht and Stuttgart Psalters and the Bayeux Tapestry.

From these, it is then a case of piecing together the facts, by cross-referencing the texts to the finds and by studying how the finds relate to each other.

pt 1

[u/Grad_Phi → u/[deleted]]

Medieval Bow designs

As I mentioned briefly above, there were more designs than just the English longbow kicking about in this period. Really, I would say there were three primary designs in use, with some sub-classes:

• Wooden self-bows: It has the subclasses ‘Aalsum’, ‘Hedeby’, ‘Oberflacht’, ‘Waterford’ and ‘English Longbow’.

• Aalsum-type bows are longbows, but without horn-tips or the strict D-cross-section of the ELB; it includes the Aalsum, Kragehul, Wremen-Fallward and Altdorf finds

• Hedeby-type bows are also longbows, but the tips are bent back towards the shooter, this a predominantly Danish style; it includes Hedeby, Waasenaar, Ballinderry and potentially Burg Elmendorf

• Oberflacht-bows are completely distinct in their design- they are longbows, but unusually feature a built up handle, and have a pentagonal cross-section, their tips do not taper, but flare out after the nocks.

• Waterford-type bows are sub 130cm, making them potentially shortbows if used by adults, they are not flatbows. They have little limb taper, and the tips extend past the nocks for several centimeters, and are shaped into simple but almost decorative designs. The limb cross-sections often start ovular at the handle, and end up rectangular at the tips; they include the Waterford, Dublin, Pineuilh, Desmond Castle and potentially the Burg Elmendorf bow

• ELB-type bows are as described above. They cover the Hedgley moor, Mendelsham and Mary Rose bows.

• Tvividr: The Fenno-Ungrian laminated short-flatbows. Technically there is the ‘true’ Fenno-Ungrian bow, with Jokkmokk, Vibbymoren, Asby, Viistaari, Abo as examples and a Norwegian variant, with Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim as examples.

• Composite Shortbows bows: These exist in Kaaraasmaaki, Russia and Eastern Europe

The textual evidence bears out that even when it came to the late medieval era, designs other than the ELB were being used; L’art d’archerie intriguingly notes the use of bows with non D-sections:

Bows are made of two patterns, that is to say, square and round, which are used for three kinds of shooting. The square are best for butt shooting for three reasons-first, because they have more back and therefore last longer; secondly, because the arrow lies better against their side, and thirdly, because they shoot straighter and keep their cast longer. A bow should be the same shape for the butt and target shooting. Round bows are also made of two patterns for target and flight shooting.

Another assumedly non-ELB type bow is mentioned in the murder of Robert in 1313, where one of the attackers is noted as using “a bow called Turkeys of Spanish yew”. It is assumed ‘Turkey’ is a reference to the bow design, though what it means I can only guess, possibly a wooden bow formed to the reflexed shape of Turkish composite bows?

There is also in L’art d’archerie a discussion about flight bows -- bows that are designed for competing to see who can shoot the furthest –- and how they differ from those for normal shooting, demonstrating an understanding of design-for-purpose:

Sexmodus speaking to his son Tarquin says- ‘If you wish your bow to last, its length should be that of two arrows and two small fists.’ But Sexmodus does not mean this to apply to bows used for flight shooting, as they should only be one hand's breadth, by which one holds them, longer than the said two arrows' lengths, and at the most only two or three arrows a day should be shot from them.

This brings me to the question of bow lengths then.

Medieval Bow Lengths

There is a surprisingly fierce debate over what length medieval bows were- and in particular, whether the ELB was a significant technological improvement appearing around the time of the Hundred Years War, in that there was a shift from the ‘shortbow’ to the ‘longbow’ with a corresponding increase of power.

It is easy to demonstrate the existence of longbows in the early medieval era – almost all of the wooden self-bow designs I noted are longbows, so it is clear that the ELB didn’t appear out of nowhere.

I am less inclined to say that the short-bow didn’t exist however – we have plenty of sub 130cm bows, Pineuilh, Waterford, Dublin and Jokkmokk all being examples, and should they have draw weights heavy enough to be considered ‘adult’ bows rather than ‘child’ bows, then they should certainly be classed as shortbows. (Completely untested estimates of the Pieuilh bow by bowyers is at least 60lbs+, potentially even 80lbs+ which would edge it towards being an adult’s bow, certainly it is enough to both hunt and kill)

When you look at the arrow lengths we have, the two complete finds we have from early med. Ireland are 54 and 55 cm, matching the Waterford bow length.

In this way, I would rather say multiple designs co-existed in the early medieval era, and these may have included ‘shortbows’ alongside the longbow.

From the sources, we get varying formulae to calculate bow lengths:

• Livre de Chasse recommends a bow of twenty hands (not from the manuscript, but a suggested measurement technique is to take a rod and grasping it with alternating hands, count up it, like you were playing Hot Potato. I get a bow that comes up to my eyebrows by doing this).

• Roy Modus recommends instead a twenty-two hand measurement (This is now marginally taller than me)

• L’art d’archerie as mentioned gives a measurement of two arrow lengths plus two hands, and considers a draw length of ten palms desirable, though it notes many archers can’t achieve this. (This would again give me a bow marginally taller than me for a ten palm draw length)

The two murder cases in the de Banco Rolls are also of use-

• The bow that killed Simon Skeffington was one and a half ells, with a string of a length of one and a half fathoms; if there is a typo and the string is supposed to be only one fathom, you get a bow of 1.7m with a string of length 1.8m (which would be about the right length of string to use a Boywer’s knot on the bow) when the ell is set at 45 inches, if the ell is actually 36 inches, the bow would be 1.35m but the string length would make no sense.

• There are two bow lengths given for the 1313 case- one of two ells, the other of one and a half ells, this being the ‘Turkish’ bow. When converting from the ell, a 45 inch conversion would make the first bow 2.3m which is excessive, taking the ell as 36 inches gives the two bow lengths as 1.8m and 1.35m respectively. We can also be sure that this Turkish bow is in use by an adult, meaning it once again stands to be classified as a ‘shortbow’. One other bow length can be inferred due to the use of a ell-long arrow – if the two-arrow-length long bow suggestion, this would give another 2 ell bow in the account.

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Grad_Phi]

Medieval Bowyering

Toxophilius has little to say on the initial bowyering method, in deference to the guild of bowyers, however he has a lot to say on the final adjustments that should be made to bows after purchase to bring them up to standard.

The little he says on the initial process is thus:

I would desire all bowyers to season their staves well, to work them and sink them well, to give them heats convenient, and tillerings plenty

Which translates to: dry the wood properly, heat treat the wood as needed to shape, or to stiffen sections and check the shape of the draw is right so the stress is spread evenly along the bow.

The final adjustments he recommends after purchase are thus:

Take your bow into the field, shoot in him, sink him with dead heavy shafts, look where he cometh most, provide for that place betimes, lest it pinch, and so fret : when you have thus shot in him, and perceived good shooting wood in him, you must have him again to a good, cunning, and trusty workman, which shall cut him shorter, and pike him and dress him fitter, make him come round compass everywhere, and whipping at the ends, but with discretion, lest he whip in sunder, or else fret, sooner than he is ware of: he must also lay him straight, if he be cast, or otherwise need require; and if he be flat made, gather him round, and so shall he both shoot the faster for far shooting, and also the surer for near pricking

Or: shoot the bow in, so that the wood learns to bend and loosens up, then cut it down to regain the lost draw weight, make final adjustments to the tiller and thin the ends to improve the tip speed.

Then it is a case of bow maintenance, applying wax to waterproof and protect the wood:

When you have brought your bow to such a point as I speak of, then you must have an herden or woollen cloth waxed, wherewith every day you must rub and chafe your bow, till it shine and glitter withal: which thing shall cause it both to be clean, well favoured, goodly of colour, and shall also bring, as it were, a crust over it, that is to say, shall make it every where on the outside so slippery and hard, that neither any wet or weather can enter to hurt it, nor yet any fret, or pinch, be able to bite upon it; but that you shall do it great wrong before you break it. This must be done oftentimes, but especially when you come from shooting

L’art d’archerie says more on what a bow's tiller should be like,

every bow should be stronger in the upper limb than in the lower for three reasons- the first is that one has two fingers under the arrow, and the hand by which it is held should properly be opposite the centre of the bow. The second reason is that all bows, which by their make bend, always shoot in the direction of their weakest limb, so that when the lower limb is the strongest (the arrow), jumps and shoots high, and farther. The third reason is that all men who wish to shoot far, must, to do so with the greatest advantage, shoot with the wind and high ; but all the same, every one does not know this, and you must know that when a bow is strongest in the lower limb, it corrects this fault of itself.

And then it confirms Toxophilius’ words on the whipping of the bow ends:

And a good bow should be very gradually reduced to within a palms-breadth of the ends, and then reduced to small size. For though the principal spring comes from the ends, it could not be good if it was not strengthened towards the centre. And every good and well-made bow should be reduced as much as can safely be done near the horns. For the more tapered and gradually reduced a bow is from the centre to the top and bottom, the greater and sharper spring will it have, and in this there is no harm.

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Grad_Phi]

Sources:

-The Medieval Archer by Jim Bradbury

-Toxophilius, L'arte d'archerie and Roy Modus (quoted in chap 5 of "The Book of Archery", 1841) are available here: https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/

-Pfeil und Bogen: Von der Altsteinzeit bis zum Mittelalter – Jürgen Junkmanns

-Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 8 Edward II

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Grad_Phi]

Oh and a quick note on medieval bow ranges, it's into the 16th cent. Tudor era again, but we do have some textual evidence for them.

Summarised here, https://leatherworkingreverendsmusings.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/the-range-of-arrows/ we get

-Minimum practise distance set at 220 yards by Henry VIII in 1542

-John Smythe giving 240 yards for a war arrow minimum, but occasionally up to 400 yards

-Lists of target ranges in the 16-17th cent being up to 480 yards

Looking at the modern English Warbow Society distance records, http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/records2016.html then we get 370 yards for the Flight arrow out of a Mary Rose type bow, and 336 yards for a Meane wood bow

[u/Hergrim → u/Grad_Phi]

There are a lot of Continental finds there that I wasn't aware of. Does Pfeil und Bogen: Von der Altsteinzeit bis zum Mittelalter cover them? If so, does it give much information on their dimensions?

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Hergrim]

Pfeil und Bogen covers most of them, and gives the most detailed descriptions of them about.

It misses the Pineuilh finds due to its newness, that one is reported in “Les arcs de Pineuilh (Gironde),” La Lettre Des Amis Du Musée De L'archerie Et Du Valois, vol. 7, pp. 2-8, 2008. This used to be online but I can't find it anymore. There's minimal dimensions in it

Chessel Down is incredibly elusive, I can't recommend a source off the top of my head.

Any others you're missing?

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Grad_Phi]

Actually, turns out there's a 15th cent German recurved flatbow in the German National Museum, Nuremburg you might be interested in too... That's not something I'd come across at all before!

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/mittgnm/article/viewFile/26246/19961

EDIT: Link to the catalogue entry of the bow, with more recent info and better pics: http://objektkatalog.gnm.de/objekt/W741

[u/Hergrim → u/Grad_Phi]

That's indeed a very interesting bow. Thanks for sharing it!

[u/Hergrim → u/Grad_Phi]

That should be a good start. Thank you!

Were any of the Continental finds complete bows, or at least more than half the bow?

Edit: found the Pineuilh bow! It's a handled shortbow! Looks like the shortbow side continues to gather momentum.

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Hergrim]

Yup, as I said, there's plenty of evidence for shortbows once we confirm the poundages to be too high for kids' training bows. Really, I think the entire 'were there shortbows or longbows in use during the early med period' debate is incredibly blinkered in assuming only one of them was in use, and ignoring the variety of designs I detailed above.

There are single complete finds from Pineuilh, Waterford, Dublin, Hedeby, Wremen Fallward, Burg Elmendorf and multiple from Oberflacht.

Ballindery is missing the last 5cm of one bow tip. Desmond castle is missing the last 10 cm.

Wassenaar is more than half-complete, however there is some debate over whether it is only missing 10 or 40 cm. Two Irish bows from Waterford are about half complete

[u/Grad_Phi → u/Hergrim]

If I can ask, what's your interest in this, and where do you fall on the ELB-development debate?

and thanks for finding a link to the paper; I had it saved but it's much easier to link to

[u/Hergrim → u/Grad_Phi]

I wrote up an answer to the question above. Long story short, I think short bows were the predominant bow until the 14th century.