Choice of Wood for Longbow

rtjstevens

New member
The ILAA states

M1. Bows are to be constructed only of natural wood. No laminates are to be impregnated with resin or any other material.

M2. The only deviation from natural wood allowed is the use of bamboo, (strictly a grass), for a back laminate ie. the laminate in tension. This concession is allowed for safety reasons.
However, in bows used in distance shooting no bamboo is allowed in any part of construction.

Though it does not say why some 9 years after rtjstevens wrote the above quote that the ILAA still holds onto this now old fashioned and outdated thinking, not just in regard to this topic. Is not as though the use of bamboo in bow making is new.

All materials are available for use by anyone wishing to build a bow to enter distance shooting or indeed any other competitions and it is certainly not necessarily apparent what materials have been used in the construction of any bow without taking a sample for analysis which would of course damage the bow. Its only distance shooting that is living oin the past apparently as bamboo may be a bow component in all other disciplines.

Perhaps it is time the ILAA woke up, new, or more often non-traditional materials and advances in and uses of new technology and and have been incorporated in many sports.
The earliest references to tennis are from around the 12th century and the ball was struck with the hand, now racquets of wood aluminium carbonfibre and even ceramics are allowed.
The orginal longbows were one piece of wood throughout and self-nocked ..this is no longer the case so there has been room for change in the past so why not now.



Thanks Phil; nine years ago...? I'd almost forgotten I'd written it!

You're right of course, time to move on. Original longbows weren't made of 'British" yew anyway (in the main). We now use hickory and other woods from the Americas, so it is not as if only indigenous woods were used. I can't help but think that if bamboo had been available to the ancient bow makers then they would have used it.

It does make one wonder what the definition of 'wood' is. Lignified xylem? Dicots not Monocots?

BW

Richard.
 

Phil Sheffield

New member
Thanks Phil; nine years ago...? I'd almost forgotten I'd written it!

You're right of course, time to move on. Original longbows weren't made of 'British" yew anyway (in the main). We now use hickory and other woods from the Americas, so it is not as if only indigenous woods were used. I can't help but think that if bamboo had been available to the ancient bow makers then they would have used it.

It does make one wonder what the definition of 'wood' is. Lignified xylem? Dicots not Monocots?

BW

Richard.
Lignified Xylem I believe both wood and Bamboo have. Didcot or Monocot ... even the scientists have difficulty giving an absolute definition of either. The monocots like bamboo, palm trees or banana trees do not to the best of my knowledge have growth rings. Perhaps that is what is bothering the ancient rule keepers lack of growth rings. FFS


However, Wood and Bamboo are both cellulose so it's fair to say, I think, that we are looking at some neo-luddite types splitting a very fine hair just to resist progress.
 

rtjstevens

New member
That's right Phil, monocots don't have growth rings as their vascular bundles aren't in rings - but scattered haphazardly around the stem.(Naturally there are a few exceptions such a Black Byrony).

Monocots= one seed leaf
Dicots = two seed leaves (+ leaf traces in the stem).

No doubt it will change eventually...but will need a bit more pressure I feel

BW

Richard.
 

Phil Sheffield

New member
That's right Phil, monocots don't have growth rings as their vascular bundles aren't in rings - but scattered haphazardly around the stem.(Naturally there are a few exceptions such a Black Byrony).

Monocots= one seed leaf
Dicots = two seed leaves (+ leaf traces in the stem).

No doubt it will change eventually...but will need a bit more pressure I feel

BW

Richard.
Pedant; a person that is too interested in formal rules and small details that are not important


As these apparent pedants seem to like to dictate their own choices perhaps in the pursuit of an end to ambiguity they would be good enough to publish a list specifying all the woods and other materials that may be utilised when making a bow for all classes of bows. Whilst being prepared to defend their rulings on materials they wish to exclude with arguments relevent to the 21st Century.
 

rtjstevens

New member
The best yew apparently comes form colder climes - the alps in particular - as the growth rings are closer together. There used to be a very brisk trade in such yew I seem to recall - especially to/from Italy; what we shipped over for them I can't remember.

Many of the English bows made for the 'common man' were Ash I believe.

BW

Richard.

I think many of these facts are in one of Pip Bickerstaff's books.
 

WillS

New member
I think what you'll find is that the majority of medieval military bows were made from British wood - ash, elm, yew, hazel, plum, apple, rowan... All of which have proved time and again that they can make immensely powerful bows in the right hands.

It's an unfortunate fact that the only surviving military bows are made of Portuguese, Spanish and Italian Yew, but considering how late in the period they were made it has very little bearing on the locality of bow wood used throughout the rest of the era.

Essentially, the majority of English longbows were made of British wood.

Take what is published as "fact" in older books with a large pinch of salt - testing and experimenting results in new data, and out-of-date books are written without any of it. It's Bickerstaffe who stated as a fact in one of his books that medieval natural fibre strings were unable to support bows much over 100lb which provides the base for many more of his theories, and yet we know thanks to experimental archaeology and current testing that 1.8mm hemp strings do absolutely fine on 175lb bows.
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
I think what you'll find is that the majority of medieval military bows were made from British wood - ash, elm, yew, hazel, plum, apple, rowan... All of which have proved time and again that they can make immensely powerful bows in the right hands.

It's an unfortunate fact that the only surviving military bows are made of Portuguese, Spanish and Italian Yew, but considering how late in the period they were made it has very little bearing on the locality of bow wood used throughout the rest of the era.

Essentially, the majority of English longbows were made of British wood.

Take what is published as "fact" in older books with a large pinch of salt - testing and experimenting results in new data, and out-of-date books are written without any of it. It's Bickerstaffe who stated as a fact in one of his books that medieval natural fibre strings were unable to support bows much over 100lb which provides the base for many more of his theories, and yet we know thanks to experimental archaeology and current testing that 1.8mm hemp strings do absolutely fine on 175lb bows.
I recall from something I saw at Manchester Museum, that yew bow staves were a tax levee. For each cask of wine 2-3 (can't remember which) Yew bow staves had to be brought in.
Also for each yew bow a bowyer made he had to make 2-3 (against can't remember which) of "lesser woods".

What was also interesting was that bowyers were only permitted to work during daylight, whilst fletchers had to work in shifts day and night.
 

rtjstevens

New member
I think what you'll find is that the majority of medieval military bows were made from British wood - ash, elm, yew, hazel, plum, apple, rowan... All of which have proved time and again that they can make immensely powerful bows in the right hands.

It's an unfortunate fact that the only surviving military bows are made of Portuguese, Spanish and Italian Yew, but considering how late in the period they were made it has very little bearing on the locality of bow wood used throughout the rest of the era.

Essentially, the majority of English longbows were made of British wood.

Take what is published as "fact" in older books with a large pinch of salt - testing and experimenting results in new data, and out-of-date books are written without any of it. It's Bickerstaffe who stated as a fact in one of his books that medieval natural fibre strings were unable to support bows much over 100lb which provides the base for many more of his theories, and yet we know thanks to experimental archaeology and current testing that 1.8mm hemp strings do absolutely fine on 175lb bows.
Thanks. Very interesting. Primary Sources here of course are the key.I'm on Eurostar at present so can't do any more research!

BW

RTJ
 
Top