question on longbow

You are on the wrong forum. This is Asia Re... and not english longbow forum. I am also interested in english longbow making. It is good for begining but... A litle secret: THERE IS NO TRADITIONAL ENGLISH LONGBOW. It is only good ad. There is few rules that is comon for ELB and it is ratio of limb width and limb height must be over 5 : 8 and that crosshape is like leter D. All the rest is your inspiration. I spent over year searching for REAL ELB because I am not going to distroy a good peace of wood.

As you can see there is lot of D shapes that can sodisfy 5 : 8 rule.

Hop on over to this board. Tose boys will fill you in on everything you want to know ans morei

http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/tf/lw/threadsx2.cfm :D

jonR

There are plenty of Asian self longbows. I have seen several in China, as well as Indonesia, PNG and Philiipines.

Feel welcome to discuss longbow construction here！ :)

So for 200 years we used non traditial longbows? :?:

thank all who reply my message and help me.
I know that Chinese had long history for using and making bow. In history, there are lots of fairy-tales about archers. I had come to like ELB long before I saw some british films. In these films, the longbow archery threatened cavalry. Moreover, longbow, as for me, is maybe the most easy bow to DIY than composite and recurved bow.

Write me at hawkwind et seznam dot cz .

I make them and I shoot 100# warbow.

Considering the crossection - voctorian target bow has different profile than mediaval bows and dark ages bows also look bit different so there goes your confusion.

Jaroslav

So what is ELB crossection? It is secret more secret than aliens. If you made rectangular crossection than you have made american longbow. Is that something like confiration or what? I need fu...ng crossection and few dimensions and I can find tham in 2 years. :x

Jaroslav,

Did you post pictures of your 100# English Longbow on the net ?

A friend of mine is busy finishing his 85# ELB in France, and it already looks like a monster bow !

see pics here : http://www.archerie-primitive.com/fabri ... warbow.htm

(sorry, the text is in French ! :wink: )

Rapsod wrote:

So what is ELB crossection? It is secret more secret than aliens. If you made rectangular crossection than you have made american longbow. Is that something like confiration or what? I need crossection and few dimensions and I can find tham in 2 years. :x

This is not such a simple question. There's not just one, simple answer.

The cross-section varied, but basically it was some sort of 'D', with the straight line on the back. But you have to pay attention to the way the wood is cut (heart-wood or outer layers), and to the position of any knots (where there were branches from the stave when the tree was alive.) Ideally, knots should be avoided, or if they cannot be, then there should be knots at similar places above and below the grip.

Also, the cross section may not be the same throughout the length. (I mean apart from getting narrower towards the tips.) For example, the limb might be thicker from back to belly at the grip, but relatively flat in the centre of the limbs.

See http://www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_dec00.htm


S.

There is few things one bow must have to be called ELB. I don't know. I am confused. :?

I don't think that English Longbows have a standard. But some things are typical. For example, the limb is rather deep (like your cross-sections above) without much widening; and the string nock is made of horn and it is not cut in a cross like the Chinese longbows. The Chinese longbow is shorter than the English one; but it is very similar to prehistoric bows from Meare Heath.

There are some wall paintings from the northern Wei Dynasty, I think, showing horsmen with unstrung longbows in cases. As Stephen pointed out, Chinese long bows are slightly shorter than English longbows.

The general definition is that a longbow is a self bow of the archer's height or longer with an arched belly cross section and a flat back. As has been said, the surface fo the back is contoured to follow the grain of the wood so that no layers are broken. Separate horn tips were normal. The majority of target longbows from the eighteenth century on were deep from back to belly and narrow from side to side. However, the bows from the Mary Rose were both deep and wide, but not so wide as a flat bow. They were also longer.

The British Long Bow Society requires some specific dimensions to qualify as a long bow under their rules. This was, in my understanding, to counter archers that were switching to bows with a shallow D cross-section that were built closer to the American Long Bow or flatbow.

While the majority of longbows found at sites like the Mary Rose would fit the rules, there are also bows that would not be allowed under the modern rules.

If you are trying to recreate a medieval longbow you have greater flexibility. If you trying to build a long bow to compete in BLBS competitions then you need to check with their specific rules.

Jim

Following on from this, what would be the typical style of a Chinese bow, in terms of nock detail, cross section, weight, length, .etc? Is the Western Han style, of zhe wood, a fairly standard example? I am a Chinese history fanatic, and a prospective student in Chinese (applied to university this year), and as such I am interested in Chinese bows. However, I have no access to more advanced materials, like horn, sinew, that kind of thing - but I have plenty of wood.

What would be the typical style of a Chinese bow, in terms of nock detail, cross section?

The self longbow was much more prevalent in China that people imagine. There were a number of designs. I have drawn below the three that I am familiar with. A and B are viewed from the front while C is a side view. I should add that I have also seen longbows (c. 600BCE) with no nocks visible. I assume that it had horn or other nocks that did not survive. There was a classical Chinese word for 'string nock' （弭）. They were made from a variety of precious materials sich as bronze or jade.

Those are some pretty looking styles. "C" looks like a modern wood bowyer's style. The idea of separate nocks is intriguing, and I assume that is what is meant by Qu Yuan describing the "carved nocks" of Yi the Archer (amongst others)? Thank you again for this information.

Something to add: my drawing C is actually not very good. That bow would definitely come unstrung. The nock would have to be deeper.

Also, nock C is from the early Warring States Zeng Hou Yi burial, and the bows were bamboo composites. The other material found with those bows were bobbins for shooting tethered fowling arrows. It occurred to me last night that these bamboo composites might have had a specialized usage, as they were used in wetland areas where hornbows would have suffered from the humidity.

S.

The Chinese crossbow is shorter than the English one; but it is very similar to prehistoric bows from Sudbury and Mere Heath.

Stephen, the Sudbury bow is not prehistoric but is rather a native-american flatbow made in the XVII century.

Maybe you meant Ashcroft bow which is a narrow longbow design that was found near the Meare Heath (which is a huge flatbow)

Thanks. I've corrected that on my post. (Anyway, I don't know why I typed 'crossbow' instead of 'longbow'. :oops: )

Meare heath is not a flatbow. It is deep crossection bow. Its neither longbow as it has swan neck grip - the feature which caused it fail. But the crossection of limb is longbowlike.

It is exotic item as the comparission in proceedings of society of archery antiquities shows. It does shoot but not very well. It is hero?s bow or chieftan bow - like crown or the scepter - the weapon which only a hero is able to wield.
It is a insignia of power.

See andaman bows for comparission (now I mean culturall refference, not the design.

Jaroslav

I found this picture of the Meare Heath on the SPTA website.

[external image]

Isn't it a flatbow ? Even if too cumbersome to shoot well ?

No. Its not a flatbow. If you saw the original artifact or something more than this one most profane picture on web, you would know it as well. It has very thick profile with longbow-like crossection or keeled crossection if you want. It is an exot. It doesnt fit any cathegory.
It has this beautifull swan neck handle which is the place where it broke. The limbs arent flat, nor any close to it.

See proceedings of society of archery antiquities for more, particulary diagram concerning the dependency between width and depth on neolithic bows. It clearly shows that this bow stands out of any cathegory.


More so - it was probably shot, but its a horrible design, I doubt it was ever meant to hunt with. It is a chieftan?s or hero?s bow, as I said - item of power such as scepter or crown.

Modern U.S. makers particulary under influence of TTBB refer to big and durable flatbows as Meare heath design, but they do without knowledge of original bow or understanding its construction.
They copy just horizontal projection without any regards to profile, wood and handle.

Here are 3 relevant pages scanned by friend while ago.

http://sweb.cz/hawkwind/proc7.jpg
http://sweb.cz/hawkwind/proc8.jpg
http://sweb.cz/hawkwind/proc9.jpg

When speaking about swan neck handle I m speaking about side profile - see. The rings have been cut through, perhaps 20 rings deep.

Unfortunatelly the fine Mr. Liley replica has been lost and the replica made by people around Hilary Greenland was not very good. That means e.g. "improvement of the handle".

Jaroslav

Stephen - please how do the tips on bows without preserved nocks look like? Could there by any possibility of just fitting the string on nockless tip with proper cone shape ?

Jaroslav

I think there must gave been tips made of perishable material, such as horn.

S.

I've recently attempted to replicate this design. However i did not make the handle as Jarslav describes, nor the set back. I left handle area much as one would on longbow. The limbs are more oval in cross-section, not flat belly or back. It is made of Eastern-Red-Cedar. 74" L.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c39/t ... r-draw.jpg

I am not saying i did this correctly. It is my first attempt. I am in process of researching more at the present. But this particular design works well. It is more of a bend at handle D style long-bow, yet i incorperated the design-elements of the original. Even if merely superficil.

I do believe this bow was made purposefuly a standout. Likely as Jarslav mentions, a cheiftians bow. There, as of the present date, are no other bows quite like it.

As to the handle design one must wonder. Why? It seems so visually obvious that it would not support the level of strain place upon it. Could this original been merely a prop? A flashy decoration made to draw more attention, than arrows????

There are modern African and Ancient Egyptian self bows with no nocks or shoulders. They rely on knots and friction. The tips are smooth tapers.

Bede - that was actually my thinkin...


Jaroslav

Thimo that is good heavy bow shooting. Not quite up for english warbow, but not sporting either.
What # was the bow?

Jaroslav

It is close to 80#. It is impossible at the moment to get a really good # reading, as i'm doing it on bathroom scale using tillering stick. Makes me nearvous that i will become unwanted cross-bow shot, into ceiling. :lol: