We have stats for longbow and the shortbow in the Book, but what about other types, like recurve bows, horseman bows and composite bows?

Are they any different from the stats already there?

Ideas anyone?

Any bowyers here? :)

Im no bow expert but i was under the assumption that short bows were basically the same as those used by horsemen and i think recurve bows are a relatively new invention, but i wouldnt swear by it. As far as composite bows go, i would guess that they probably have longer range and/or a heavier pull.

Short bows may or may not be the same type of bow that's called the horseman bow; I do not now, that's why I asked. :)

Concerning the recurve and composite bows, they have both been known since about 2500-2000 BC.

I assume at some point we'll hear the familiar

"Oh, look for that in The Flower of Battle"

;-)

Until then, make up your own, I guess.

-James

Had a long discussion on another site about this, but here goes.

The longbow was the bow that evolved probably from bows used by the Welsh in the 12-13th centuries, who in turn probably took the idea from invading Ivanians. It was a self boe, with some composite charactersitics due to the wood used (sapwood-heartwood). It was perhaps about 4 feet long at the time of the Welsh, growing to over a mans height in the 15th century (it seems this is pretty well near the time period represented by TROS).

The shortbow is a name used in RPG's and some wargames to describe a self bow of shorter length than the long bow. It also lumps with this many bows used on horseback. It is an incorrect terminology to use for both types.

The "Horse" (also referred to correctly as short) bow was of course shorter to be used on horse, and was usually recurve, commonly composite constrution. Recurve is the ends of the bow bending to point away from the user when unstrung if held at the grip. This "recurve" puts much stress on the wood, but also makes a bow with a better draw weight than a self bow. These were often composite in construction, as this type of construction allows the bow to handle the stresses better.

The major factor that determines how powerful a bow is is the draw weight when an arrow designed for the bow is pulled back to full draw. Other factors are weight/length/aerodynamics of arrows, and the distance the bow is drawn back. It sounds redundant, but it has something to do with the way power is transferred to launch the arrow. Think of the different types of power in a short compact baseball swing and a large looping one.

Composite bows have more to do with the construction than length, though were rarely longbow length.

One would also think that a short bow of a heavy enough draw weight would loose arrows as hard/long as a longbow with the same draw weight. This is true to a point, although not entirely. The real issue is it as the bow gets shorter, it was harder to construct one with enough draw weight that was both strong and "springy". You could make it longer for more draw weight, or use recurve & or composite construction.

Think I'll stop here, started to ramble...

Why is a long bow a type of self bow?

My understanding was that the distinguishing feature of the long bow was that it was drawn to the ear while the self bow was drawn to the torso.

Is that incorrect?

The self bow is made from a single piece of wood. Laminated bows are from wood of different types glued together and composite bows are laminates of different materials (bone, sinew, wood, horn, etc). All three types of construction can be made into any type of bow, but historically most composite bows are recurved. Long bows can be either reflex or deflex (curved towards the belly or back when unstrung). Japanese bows are laminated reflex longbows made of bamboo for example.

The draw position is purely a matter of training and use of the bow. Northern European archers tend to draw to the cheek or ear while those from ancient persia or the steppes of russia tend to draw to the breastbone. Turkish archers draw to the face, but use a thumb ring instead of the three finger draw. It's all a matter of what you are trained to use.

I use these subtle differences to give archers from different areas their cultural feel.

Agree on the points made.
One thing that should considered is that historically bows are made generally from materials that are obtainable in the ares where the bowyer is. Yew is basically the most effective material for making a self bow, such as the longbow. Horn and sinew composites used by steppe hore peoples are made that way because there is little access to suitable tree woods to make bows.

Short bows can be much stonger than longbows, but they are more likely to break as the stress' placed on the bow are incresed by a shorter length, so it is easier to produce a more powerfull bow with a longer length. Of course a more powerful bow generlly requires a thiker string and heavier arrows that wil reduce cast (distance the arrow travels) and its power.

Also the way a bow is drawn has a lot to do with the power will have. Forexample the way that the japanese draw their bows makes it harder to draw hevier draw weights, tough not impossible.

Jonathan

deltadave wrote:

The draw position is purely a matter of training and use of the bow. Northern European archers tend to draw to the cheek or ear while those from ancient persia or the steppes of russia tend to draw to the breastbone. Turkish archers draw to the face, but use a thumb ring instead of the three finger draw. It's all a matter of what you are trained to use.

Check out http://www.atarn.org/ a great site about asian bows. And the asian martial archery tradition.[/code]

Turin wrote:
I have seen some contemporary illustrations (illustrated by comtemporaries of the subjects of the illustration) showing northern european archers drawing to the chest. These are pre 1300 AD, so these apply to those pre 1400's English Longbow types. I wonder if the drawing to ear or cheek was something that came with this long longbow.

Also, thank god no one has mentioned the Japanese Longbow and stated longbows can be used from horseback. Yes it could, but it was constructed much differently than most bows, the grip being almost 2/3 of the way down to the bottom. A bit of an abberation regarding bows. I also wonder if the draw weight was really that high, as the inefficiency of bamboo may have required a very long bow for modest draw weights.

James Buchanan wrote: I assume at some point we'll hear the familiar

"Oh, look for that in The Flower of Battle"

;-)

LOL!

I am _so_ looking forward to that book, Brian. :)

Counting down...

Me too, and it's due out when? GenCon Indy? or perhaps GenCon Anaheim....


2005

:)

A chest draw works well when one is shooting for distance and if you are doing so on the move, as in the illustrations on the bayeux tapestry, The way the bow is drawn is dictated by how one is using and where, it also depends on the range one is trying to get etc.

As to Japanese bows I have not seen one that drew more than 60lbs or so, they may of course be those, but I 've not seen the. Now 60lb is the lighteset longbow is would normally shoot. When I have shot with Yabusame archers from the Nikko Toshugo shire, both here and in Japan, these guys who regulary shoot, could not draw my longbow, certainly not with a Japanese style draw. They could when they tried with a European draw. Agaib though Japanese archery was used in a different way to that of the English and other longbow using nations.
Jonathan

Turin wrote: deltadave wrote:
I have seen some contemporary illustrations (illustrated by comtemporaries of the subjects of the illustration) showing northern european archers drawing to the chest. These are pre 1300 AD, so these apply to those pre 1400's English Longbow types. I wonder if the drawing to ear or cheek was something that came with this long longbow.

Also, thank god no one has mentioned the Japanese Longbow and stated longbows can be used from horseback. Yes it could, but it was constructed much differently than most bows, the grip being almost 2/3 of the way down to the bottom. A bit of an abberation regarding bows. I also wonder if the draw weight was really that high, as the inefficiency of bamboo may have required a very long bow for modest draw weights.