Medieval Archery Images

The practice of martial arts, research, interpretation and modern practice. Ancient to c.1900. Worldwide, Eastern and Western.
Open to public view.

Medieval Archery Images

Postby Alina » 27 Sep 2006 02:56

I was looking for some medieval archery images. I decided not to include crossbows (which may have been a mistake since the only European archery images in the manesse codex were crossbows...except for the turk guy). The Maciejowski bible images are interesting becomes of the recurved tips of the bows - they look almost like the siyahs (lihas) on Asiatic recurves.

Two from the Maciejowski bible and one from the Manesse Codex:

Image

Image

Image
So men who are free
Love the old yew tree
And the land where the yew tree grows.
User avatar
Alina
Concubine
 
Posts: 10186
Joined: 16 Mar 2006 16:03
Location: Paleolithic

Brit Bows - short & long

Postby Jeffrey Hull » 27 Sep 2006 05:56

I dug out a book Celtic Warriors by Tim Newark, wherein he suggests that the preferred bow of the Welsh was actually a shortbow, as supported by text of Giraldus Cambrensis and illustrated version of Treaty of Montgomery from Register Liber A, and so forth.

Independant of that in a pretty good TV program about archery, I should like to say John Waller (the Elder) was asserting that the folks who brought / favoured the longbow in Britain actually were originally the Saxons and/or the Norse. If not Waller, then some guy who looked a lot like him.

Well, just some ideas to consider.
Jeffrey Hull
 

Postby Dai D » 27 Sep 2006 08:25

The type of bow used depended on location.
For example the Long Bow in the Vale of Glamorgan, Short Bow in the Valleys.
I was reading somewhere a month or two back (didn't take a ref. sorry) that the Long Bow was already established amongst the Brythonic tribes in the West prior to the arrival of the Saxons. The Saxons could well have had their own too.
Milk two sugars please

Venire a visitare se si pensa che sono abbastanza difficile
User avatar
Dai D
Major
 
Posts: 929
Joined: 05 Jul 2006 16:01
Location: On a Rig far far away

Postby Dai D » 27 Sep 2006 08:45

i've just had a quick search and come up with the following, nothing hard I'm sorry.

The so-called "English" longbow, instrumental to the victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, was first recorded as being used by the Welsh in 633 AD, when Offrid, the son of Edwin king of Northumbria was killed by an arrow fired from a Welsh longbow during a battle between the Welsh and the Mercians, more than five centuries before any record of its military use in England.

Have also found a few references to it being used "in roman times"

Found a couple of links to some pics.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgur ... en%26lr%3D

http://www.stortford-archers.org.uk/images/battle.jpg

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/isl ... rchery.jpg

The last one reminded me of what we used to do as kids
Milk two sugars please

Venire a visitare se si pensa che sono abbastanza difficile
User avatar
Dai D
Major
 
Posts: 929
Joined: 05 Jul 2006 16:01
Location: On a Rig far far away

Postby King Pellinor » 27 Sep 2006 09:54

In "The Great Warbow", Hardy and Strickland opine that there's no such thing as a "shortbow", you just have bows and crossbows. The term "longbow" is simply to clarify that the bow's not a crossbow: the bow is longways not crossways.

That is, they acknowledge that some bows are longer than others, but they don't accept that self-bows were regularly made so short that they weren't terribly effective.

They cite evidence that Norse and other bows were of the order of 6', though being at work I can't look it up at the moment.

They regard the success of the English armies using archers to be simply that they had a large supply of trained archers and used them en masse. Other countries had identical bows (note the huge trade in importing the staves), but didn't have the culture of using them and so didn't have the archers available. France and Burgundy tried to copy the English model, to the extent of requiring people to train as archers, but it didn't really catch on.
Andrew Jackson

Where is the weekend now?
Where is the whisky and beer I've tasted?
All gone the same way as the pay I've wasted.
On a Monday morning.
User avatar
King Pellinor
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 413
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 12:27
Location: Isle of Wight

Postby admin » 27 Sep 2006 11:41

Yeah, what Andrew said - evidence and archaeological fragments of 'long' bows can be found throughout northern Europe from prehistorica times onwards. Scandinavian graves sometimes contain the evidence of longbows.
It seems that the longbow was everywhere from the earliest times.

What made the 'English longbow' special was not the bow itself but rather tha archers: Law stating that every man between 16 and 60 must practice archery at least once per week, and other sports were made illegal. And any man who could not shoot a minimum of 10 arrows per minute was not allowed to serve in the army (there were archers sent home from the Agincourt campaign because they could not shoot 10 per minute!). Continual practice since childhood meant England and Wales produced exceptional archers, able to pull very high draw-weights. And of them only the best were picked for war.
It was the *institution* of archery that made English bowmen so feared, not the type of bow.
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35036
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby SCA Archer » 09 May 2007 21:21

admin wrote:And any man who could not shoot a minimum of 10 arrows per minute was not allowed to serve in the army (there were archers sent home from the Agincourt campaign because they could not shoot 10 per minute!).


That's not a lot of arrows in the air in 60 sec. I'm still practicing up and I get 6-7 off in 30 sec, reliably.
Mikey T.
sto pro vestra terra
inflecto pro vestra regina
supplex pro vestra uxor
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You have to be slow in a hurry." -- Wyatt Earp.
SCA Archer
Brigadier
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 18:01
Location: 15th Century

Postby admin » 10 May 2007 00:09

Yeah, but not with 120lbs+ ;)
I am reliably informed by the warbow guys that it is far harder to shoot fast with a heavier bow. I believe it because I can't shoot as fast with 90lbs as I can with 70lbs, and with a 50lbs bow I'm like that elf in Hawk the Slayer. :P
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35036
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby SCA Archer » 10 May 2007 05:13

admin wrote:Yeah, but not with 120lbs+ ;)
I am reliably informed by the warbow guys that it is far harder to shoot fast with a heavier bow. I believe it because I can't shoot as fast with 90lbs as I can with 70lbs, and with a 50lbs bow I'm like that elf in Hawk the Slayer. :P


Guess I'll have to pony up some cash. Buy a nice warbow. Cut down some trees to shoot from it and make an afternoon of it. Or just fly over and borrow yours. I'm not sure which is cheaper at this time.

But I'm really interested to find out. :)
Mikey T.
sto pro vestra terra
inflecto pro vestra regina
supplex pro vestra uxor
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is final. You have to be slow in a hurry." -- Wyatt Earp.
SCA Archer
Brigadier
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 18:01
Location: 15th Century

Postby Sekhemet » 23 May 2007 11:23

Still in training with a 45lb bow :oops:

Can get off about 12 in a minute, but that's not with all the arrows neatly stuck in the ground with the cock feather facing you, etc.

:wink:
User avatar
Sekhemet
Captain
 
Posts: 666
Joined: 28 Nov 2006 20:33
Location: On the war path

Postby Stevie T » 23 May 2007 12:24

admin wrote:Yeah, but not with 120lbs+ ;)
I am reliably informed by the warbow guys that it is far harder to shoot fast with a heavier bow. I believe it because I can't shoot as fast with 90lbs as I can with 70lbs, and with a 50lbs bow I'm like that elf in Hawk the Slayer. :P


I would also think it's a matter of energy levels.

I don't shoot that often and can get 15 in a minute from my 55lb bow on a good day, but I then need to go sit down as my arms/shoulders just about lock up and my fingures ache like hell (I don't use a finger tab).

I would imagine that speed shooting with 120lb plus bows is going to burn up a shed load of calories, so you might be able to whack out a fare number in a minute but then your going to be exhausted, which is no use on a battle field with the enemy bearing down on you!!
User avatar
Stevie T
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 11:55
Location: Darlington

Postby Fab » 08 Jun 2007 00:29

Image

by Hans Memling, ca 1475.
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby admin » 08 Jun 2007 00:37

Awesome, thanks! Some nice details in there.
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35036
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby Stevie T » 08 Jun 2007 10:52

Do you have a copy of Europe 1492, there is a painting of the Archers Guild in Flanders or something.

Lots of bows and stuff.

I did try searching the net for it but never found it. I'll see if I cant dig out names for you.
User avatar
Stevie T
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: 21 Dec 2006 11:55
Location: Darlington

Re:

Postby bow-toxo » 10 Jan 2013 00:28

[quote="King Pellinor"]In "The Great Warbow", Hardy and Strickland opine that there's no such thing as a "shortbow", you just have bows and crossbows. The term "longbow" is simply to clarify that the bow's not a crossbow: the bow is longways not crossways.

Response=Hardy and Strickland are incorrect. A long bow and a "shortbow" { the correct term is smallbow} aree distinguished from crossbows by the term "handbow".

don't accept that self-bows were regularly made so short that they weren't terribly effective.

Response= Smallbows were normally used in hunting. The necessarily lighter arrow could still be shot completely through a deer.

They cite evidence that Norse and other bows were of the order of 6', though being at work I can't look it up at the moment.

Response= At least two were. They are the only two bows of the Viking period found. The Roman period Danish bog find bows also were.

They regard the success of the English armies using archers to be simply that they had a large supply of trained archers and used them en masse.

Response= The English, unable to match French numbers of men-at-arms, had to alter feudal law and use commoners, necessarily cheaply armed.
bow-toxo
Private
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 08 Jan 2013 22:59

Re:

Postby bow-toxo » 10 Jan 2013 00:34

[quote="Dai D"]i've just had a quick search and come up with the following, nothing hard I'm sorry.

The so-called "English" longbow, instrumental to the victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, was first recorded as being used by the Welsh in 633 AD, when Offrid, the son of Edwin king of Northumbria was killed by an arrow fired from a Welsh longbow during a battle between the Welsh and the Mercians, more than five centuries before any record of its military use in England.

Response= I would like to know how it was determined to be a longbow, as the term wasn't even used until centuries later.
bow-toxo
Private
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 08 Jan 2013 22:59

Re:

Postby bow-toxo » 10 Jan 2013 00:37

SCA Archer wrote:
admin wrote:And any man who could not shoot a minimum of 10 arrows per minute was not allowed to serve in the army (there were archers sent home from the Agincourt campaign because they could not shoot 10 per minute!).


Response= they were tested soon after the initial landing when archers were much weakened by dysentery. They were probably being tested to see if they were still functional.
bow-toxo
Private
 
Posts: 23
Joined: 08 Jan 2013 22:59

Re: Medieval Archery Images

Postby Penderyn » 10 Jan 2013 14:52

Bow-toxo, maybe you should edit your responses to make them a bit clearer to read. It generally helps to close the quote by using [/quote]. Also "Response =" is poor, you might want to try and use words. Something along the lines of "In response to your statement" etc. is a good place to start.
It all just makes the meaning of your posts more clear. Of course there are always people who think sloppiness is perfectly OK.


To the other members of the forum, sorry the post is a bit childish and adds nothing to the discussion. But I thought why not? :twisted:
Penderyn
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 11:39

Re: Re:

Postby Jonathan Waller » 12 Jan 2013 13:18

bow-toxo wrote:
SCA Archer wrote:
admin wrote:And any man who could not shoot a minimum of 10 arrows per minute was not allowed to serve in the army (there were archers sent home from the Agincourt campaign because they could not shoot 10 per minute!).


Response= they were tested soon after the initial landing when archers were much weakened by dysentery. They were probably being tested to see if they were still functional.


What is your source for this?
User avatar
Jonathan Waller
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 16 Nov 2009 18:39
Location: London England

Re: Medieval Archery Images

Postby admin » 28 Jan 2013 13:53

Yes, always keen to see sources. Various 'historians' have quoted the 10 arrows or 12 arrows a minute thing, yet nobody seems to cite any original source text.
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35036
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Next

Return to Historical Martial Arts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests