[Warbow] Warbow Technique : How authentic ?

risinglong

New member
I'm curious as to how the modern technique of the English warbow has come about. There seems to be little information out there on the net at least. So if anybody could help with these questions I'd be very grateful:

1) How authentic is the modern warbow technique ?

By authentic I mean being close to how historians think a longbowman of the 100 years war or Tudor period would have shot.
And by modern warbow technique I mean a technique something like this:

[video=youtube;F8apzt3Tq9c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8apzt3Tq9c[/video]

2) Are there first hand medieval sources that the technique is derived from ?


Loads of thanks to anybody who can fill us in a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mezaman

New member
Toxophilus - The School of Shooting by Roger Ascham was written in 1544 and presented to Henry VIII in 1545.
You can buy this book today on play or amazon ect.
The book is not necessarily an easy read, but if you are a longbow enthusiast or bowyer it could be worth a read.

other men use other faults, as some will take their bow and writhe and wrench it, to pull in his shaft, when it flieth wide, as if he drave a cart. Some will give two or three strides forward, dancing and hopping after his shaft, as long as it flieth, as though he was a mad man. Some, which fear to be too far gone, run backward, as it were to pull his shaft back. Another runneth forward, when he feareth to be short, heaving after his arms, as though he would help his shaft to fly. Another writhes or runneth aside, to pull in his shaft straight. One lifteth up his heel, and so holdeth his foot still, as long as his shaft flieth. Another casteth his arm backwards after the loose. And another swings his bow about him, as it were a man with a shaft to make room in a game place. And many other faults there be, which now come not to my rememberence.....

the one foot must not stand too far from the other, lest he stoop too much, which is unseemly, nor yet too near together, lest he stands too straight up, for so a man shall neither use his strength well, nor yet stand steadfastly.
The mean betwixt both must be kept; a thing more pleasant to behold when it is done, than easy to be taught how it should be done.......

Holding must not be long, for it both putteth a bow in jeopardy, and also marreth a man's shoot; it must be so little that it may be perceived better in a man's mind when it is done, than seen with a man's eyes when it is in the doing. Loosing must be much like.....


There is a lot in the book and not always easy reading, the only other sources I know from that era are paintings and tapestries ect. Which aren't necessarily accurate.
 

MikeJ

New member
The other question is whether this technique is even required. There is a school of thought that gives the maximum bow poundage in use in the medieaval period at around 80 to 90#. Easily pullable by most people today with a little practice and no need for extreme technique.

A caveat to that statement, I would think it would be easier for some one who uses a V draw than a predominant target sort of T draw person, never having used a T draw I could be talking out of my hat. But so are most people who talk about historical archery, its all opinion.

As mentioned before illustrations are no good as they tend to be stylised, just look at egyptian drawings of people, all side on.

Ascham is good but he is writing at the end of the golden archery years when the bow is already being decried by contemporary reports as being in decline.

It is all interesting but very frustrating as well.
 

risinglong

New member
Thanks Mezaman and Mike,

I've read Toxophilus, but as the quotes you gave show, it doesn't give a very clear indication of the technique and the quotes there are just about all the information on technique in the book. It chucks up the question of how comic or factual is the writer's intent when he talks of people running forward on the release and arms flinging back.

Another more detailed source is "l'Art d'Archerie" written around 1515, predating Ascham's book but still late in the day. Just as Mike mentions with period illuminations and tapestries, we can't be assured of factuality just because it was produced at that time and the work is anonymous so there is little background information on the writer as far as I'm aware. However it was produced in Picardy, France that had a strong tradition of archery that continues to this day, and could be seen as coming out of that tradition.

One of the key problems I think with the subject of medieval archery is it's not the kind of subject matter someone who had the wealth and education to be able to write would have chosen to write about in depth, being the realm of the common man.

Mike, mentioned that pictorial accounts of archery of the period are stylised and so can't be trusted but also I don't think we can't completely discount them either. Contemporary illustrations such as 'The Lutrell Psalter' of around 1325, "Prayer to ward off the threat of plague" of around 1500, 'Fair at Hoboken' of 1559 and paintings of Crecy and Agincourt commonly show uniformity of stance, draw and predominantly the 'Flemish loose'.

As you say, interesting but certainly not an easy subject.
 

alanesq

New member
I have found that when you start shooting one of these bows it all drops into place:

once you get a bow and some arrows based on the Mary Rose ones (I know they are Tudor but they are the best we have to go on) and start seeing how far you can shoot the arrows and start trying to get as much power into the arrow as you can
i.e. start thinking in terms of a weapon of war rather than a target bow
then you use whatever technique gives you the most power from your bow and you soon start wanting a heavier more powerful bow.........

My long drawn out story can be seen here - http://www.alanesq.com/longbow.htm
but I now shoot a 130lb at 32" bow but I am still not overly impressed when I try shooting at a solid target or for distance and if you compared what my arrows can do compared to someone shooting a 160lb bow it would be pretty clear which one of us you would want to hire if you were planning a battle

If I could find a different way of shooting my bow which gave better results I would, as I am sure would have been the same for medieval archers.
Each archer tends to develop whatever technique works for them so there is a lot of variation but the bottom line is to get as heavy a bow as you can drawn as far back as you can to get the arrow going as fast as you can (very different to target type archery)

btw - Anyone who has not tried shooting a warbow I would urge you to give it a try - it is great fun and very different to other forms of archery :)
 
D

Deleted member 7654

Guest
I have found that when you start shooting one of these bows it all drops into place:
...
btw - Anyone who has not tried shooting a warbow I would urge you to give it a try - it is great fun and very different to other forms of archery :)
BRAVO!
Like most things once you try it the optimum method becomes apparent, or a method which will at least serve the purpose.
(There are of course notable exceptions like the one eventually found by Dick Fosbury in the high jump!).
I'm aware that my technique is far from ideal, it would however suffice in a war.
Of course this implies you havn't had the common sense coached out of you :stirthepo and try to draw a warbow starting with the left arm alread fully extended.
Del
 

MikeJ

New member
Of course this implies you havn't had the common sense coached out of you :stirthepo and try to draw a warbow starting with the left arm already fully extended.
Del
That is just brilliant, there is no way in the world starting with a straight arm is of any benefit to archery. It is what I meant to get across in my post with T draw and V draw but you have put it so much better.

Some interesting notes on the origin of this type of straight arm draw in some of Pip Bickerstaffe`s books, apparently was origin:stirthepoally developed as a " have a go day" draw by the GNAS and not meant to be used as the coached draw for beginners. :stirthepo
 

risinglong

New member
I have found that when you start shooting one of these bows it all drops into place:

once you get a bow and some arrows based on the Mary Rose ones (I know they are Tudor but they are the best we have to go on) and start seeing how far you can shoot the arrows and start trying to get as much power into the arrow as you can
i.e. start thinking in terms of a weapon of war rather than a target bow
then you use whatever technique gives you the most power from your bow and you soon start wanting a heavier more powerful bow.........
Hi Alan,
thanks for your input I enjoyed looking at your site a while ago. I found the stuff on the sidenock particularly interesting, looking forward to updates.

Of course I can see what you are saying here about the archer naturally coming up with an efficient technique once you start shooting with the period bows.

However the technique that modern archers come up with to shoot bows of such heavy poundage cannot be taken as being the way longbows were shot in the medieval period which is my point of interest.

I study Kyudo here in Japan (as well as shooting the longbow) and the Japanese decided that nocking the arrow on the opposite side with a bow whose limbs are uneven in length and profile and flinging the bow arm to the left on release is just a great idea :yummy:
I think that's a nice reminder that people have very different ideas about what the best way to shoot a bow is and if we want to consider the question of how the longbow was shot we can't assume medieval man shared what we take to be common sense in archery today.

I noticed Alan you shoot with a fairly even stance but there are others among warbow archers who shoot with the weight over the front foot, is this also just a modern creation in order to bring the back muscles into play or is there some historical evidence of this ?



BTW, drawing with a straight left arm , wow that does sound nasty.
 

alanesq

New member
Hi Alan,
I noticed Alan you shoot with a fairly even stance but there are others among warbow archers who shoot with the weight over the front foot, is this also just a modern creation in order to bring the back muscles into play or is there some historical evidence of this ?
Once you start trying to pull a bow which is on the limit of what you are capable of you soon find yourself getting into all manner of positions trying to pull it ;-)
people find different ways which work for them and so there is a lot of variation
e.g. a friend of mine tends to start with his right elbow very high and bring it down as he pulls the bow, I tend to lean right into the bow (so much so people worry I will hurt my back)

My point is that with heavy bows you dont so much make a decision to use a particular technique/style as much as just get the thing pulled back by any means possible ;-)
 
D

Deleted member 7654

Guest
However the technique that modern archers come up with to shoot bows of such heavy poundage cannot be taken as being the way longbows were shot in the medieval period...
'Can not' seems rather an extreme assertion...
I would say that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it would seem to be the only reasonable answer.
Surely it's experimental archaeology at it's best?
And as was pointed out earlier Ascham tells of the vast array of 'styles'. What was 'right in one village or county may have been considered excentric in another, and once in the heat of battle I don't s'pose archers were peering anxiously along the line to see the next fellows form!
I feel it is a mistake to assume a uniformity (of anything) in a pre-massproduction world. It's like the guys who slavishly coppy the Holmgaard bow assuming that all the bows of that period were the same...I mean the one surviving bow may have been one made as an experiment or a joke for all we know!

It reminds me of the daft convoluted theories* proposed by some academics for the depressions found in the doorways of excavated roundhouses.
Once a recreation of the settlement was built it transpired that the chickens simply liked scratching and dustbathing in the doorway, and soon a depression was formed.

Del
*Such as a place for offerings or ritual washing of hands or feet.
 

risinglong

New member
Once you start trying to pull a bow which is on the limit of what you are capable of you soon find yourself getting into all manner of positions trying to pull it ;-)
people find different ways which work for them and so there is a lot of variation
ha ha....and it sounds like things were no different 500 years ago either, quoting Roger Ascham again:

other men use other faults, as some will take their bow and writhe and wrench it, to pull in his shaft, when it flieth wide, as if he drave a cart.

Maybe that's one answer to the question of how people shot the longbow 800 years ago...there was no one way, people, just did what they could to get it back there.
But I'm not convinced by that, I can't see those veteran campaigners of Crecy sitting by and letting the young 'uns of the village just work it out at the butts every week by themselves, some standard technique must have evolved but maybe being an integral part of life at that time there was no need to commit that technique to writing.
 

alanesq

New member
There is now so little in the way of real solid information that it's all going to be best guess really :-(

I would guess that any medieval archer you asked would have strong opinions on how it should be done but probably very different to the next one you ask (much as the world of archery is now ;-)

You could probably tell where in the country an archer was from by the way they shot their bow?
 

risinglong

New member
Thanks for your input again,

'Can not' seems rather an extreme assertion...
I would say that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it would seem to be the only reasonable answer.

By 'cannot be taken' I just mean 'It can't be assumed' that's the current warbow technique is representative with that of the past.
It may or may not be.
And I think an absence of evidence would simply mean that the question is unanswerable, which may well be the case.

I feel it is a mistake to assume a uniformity (of anything) in a pre-massproduction world.
I think you're right Del, there may well have been a greater degree of regionality, I think this comes up in the question of how practising at the butts was conducted too (which is another historical hot potato).


And as was pointed out earlier Ascham tells of the vast array of 'styles'.
You mean the 'other men use other faults' quote ?
But rather than listing styles there he is listing an array of faults which is frustrating since I wish he'd said what we SHOULD do not what we shouldn't.:yummy:


Surely it's experimental archaeology at it's best?
mmm...I think experimental archaeology would be experimenting with a style based on some reliable first hand sources to see if it's shootable or complete numb nuts.


I don't want any readers to get the impression that I'm in anyway, criticising the technique that anyone has of shooting these warbows.
It's great that they are being shot at all and very exciting that people have the freedom to experiment which really makes it a very vibrant area of archery to get into.
My interest is academic. I'm just surprised that with so much effort being put into the historical authenticity of equipment that there isn't more focus on the technique by a few other oddballs.:cheerful:
 

Paradox

New member
You could probably tell where in the country an archer was from by the way they shot their bow?
I suspect that this would be the case.

Even now there's a huge variety of shooting styles within longbow archery, most of which are tolerated while people are able to shoot safely and reasonably accurately, from how much they cant the bow, their stance, to their anchor point.

I've noticed that archers from different disciplines and clubs tend to be similar, echoing possible regional differences which would have occurred in the past.

It would be interesting to know exactly how the master bowmen of their time worked, but without a convenient time machine we'll never know.

There are however some archers who look "right" when you watch them, strangely enough the kids in this vid sometimes look more natural than the adults - [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_rPxV5Jivg]YouTube - English Warbow Roving Marks[/ame].
 
Last edited:

mezaman

New member
Ascham does say it easier to describe how people shoot badly, rather than how they shoot well.
Some people say he is not necessarily accurate because he wrote Toxophilus at the end of the warbow era, but I think he quite clearly states that the bow is shot using your body strength to maximum effect. Avoiding extreme movements and stances, draw to the ear and not the pap the draw should be smooth, the holding hardly noticable to the eye and the loose not hard and not too soft.
Just to throw a spanner in the works, archers may well of shot differently in the cramped ranks of a battle, compared to a sunday afternoon shooting on the local green?
There are too many variables for there to be only one way of shooting a warbow? But there are only so many ways to move the body, so how negligable are the differences, what about endurance, fear of death, semi starvation and illness? These play a part in battle.
Just because history says longbow archers stood in ranks and shot on the battlefield, doesn't necessarily mean that every archer in every battle stood still. Try and draw and shoot whilst moving or retreating or advancing, it's difficult to maintain the same form!:eye-poppi
 

risinglong

New member
Ascham does say it easier to describe how people shoot badly, rather than how they shoot well.
Some people say he is not necessarily accurate because he wrote Toxophilus at the end of the warbow era, but I think he quite clearly states that the bow is shot using your body strength to maximum effect. Avoiding extreme movements and stances, draw to the ear and not the pap the draw should be smooth, the holding hardly noticable to the eye and the loose not hard and not too soft.
Just to throw a spanner in the works, archers may well of shot differently in the cramped ranks of a battle, compared to a sunday afternoon shooting on the local green?
Hi Mezaman,

Thanks for this nice summary of Ascham's points in Toxophilus. As you say I'm sure many strange, unorthodox shooting styles did occur in the heat of battle.

As a contrast to Ascham, and to really put the cat among the pigeons:yummy: have a look at this:

You must know also that there are several ways of loosing, but all depending on two things-on the drawing hand, for one must have and hold the string on the second joint of the first finger, and on the first joint of the third, and on the step, of which there are three kinds, that is to say, with one, two, or three steps, the one step loose is done in two ways; one is stepping forward with the foot of the bow hand side, and the other by bringing beck the arm, pushing out the bow and arrow, and at the same time stepping back with the other foot;
this step straightens the arm, but it must be a long and sharp step back.
The two other ways are by taking two steps and three steps. To shoot with two steps, a backward step must be taken with the hindermost foot, so that on bringing the front foot down, sufficient impetus is given to effect the loose. For the three step, the front foot is moved forward,
then the bow is thrust forward as explained above, and the hinder foot is brought back in such a way that when the arrow is loosed one can step forward with the front foot.'
This is an excerpt from The Art of Archery' written 45 years before Ascham, in 1515.

What are we to make of it ?
It has very specific instructions (more so than Ascham) and some of the instructions, on the draw and the 'mediterranean loose' are consistent with common shooting style today so we can't write it off as complete bananas.

But all that stepping back ? jumping forward on release ? Archery coaches up and down the country would have kittens ! ha ha.
 

gwynn

New member
The mechanical workings of the human body hasn't changed much so I think you'll find your body will find the easiest - and therefore probably the best - way of doing things.
You do it the wrong way and you won't get the performance and you'll hurt yourself.
The way the war bowmen shoot nowadays must be the way they shot then because it works. There are bound to be slight differences, as you say regional and I would imagine they would have had to have been pretty static but it has to be the same.
 

mezaman

New member
Hi Risinglong

I like that description of the draw and loose :archer:.
If we take what Robert Hardy says is the average draw weight of the Mary Rose bows 140lb, then I think it could be quite feesable that a medieval archer might need a fair amount of body motion to draw the bow repeatedly?
I don't draw a Longbow of average medieval draw weight, if I did I would use any technique I could to draw the bugger back. Hopefully without turning myself inside out during the process.
 

risinglong

New member
Hi Risinglong

I like that description of the draw and loose :archer:.
If we take what Robert Hardy says is the average draw weight of the Mary Rose bows 140lb, then I think it could be quite feesable that a medieval archer might need a fair amount of body motion to draw the bow repeatedly?
Interesting isn't it ?

Now if you take another look at Ascham's list of faults in Toxophilus:

Some will give two or three strides forward, dancing and hopping after his shaft, as long as it flieth, as though he was a mad man. Some, which fear to be too far gone, run backward, as it were to pull his shaft back. Another runneth forward, when he feareth to be short, heaving after his arms, as though he would help his shaft to fly. Another writhes or runneth aside, to pull in his shaft straight. One lifteth up his heel, and so holdeth his foot still, as long as his shaft flieth.
All that stuff about going forward and back again........
That part sounds ridiculously comic to us today because nobody now is going to make the fault of moving their feet about wildly BUT if such movement was part of common shooting technique it then follows some people would screw it up and hence suffer the scorn of Ascham in this passage.

Also note that there is nothing in Ascham that I can find that contradicts the technique ascribed in 'The Art of Archery'. On the stance he simply says:

"The first point is, when a man should shoot to take such footing and standing, as shall be both comely to the eye and profitable to his use, setting his countenance and all the other parts of his body after such a behaviour and port, that both all his strength may be employed to his own most advantage, and his shoot made and handled to other men's pleasure and delight."

"the one foot must not stand too far from the other, lest he stoop too much, which is unseemly, nor yet too near together, lest he stand too straight up, for so a man shall neither use his strength well, nor yet stand stedfastly."
So I think it's is a reasonable supposition at least that there was a level of movement in the legs at shooting that we would be surprised by.

This is why I'm not convinced by arguments that we may have the same body as medieval man and when shooting warbows of such great weight you just do whatever you can to get it back there hence the way we shoot would be the same as then because none of us are shooting in a cultural vacuum.
Like it or not, we have a heritage of target archery that stands between us and the medieval period, so it doesn't naturally spring into the mind to step about with the legs because our common sense tells us it's a technical no no. :yummy:

Consider, if you are shooting a weapon to kill someone maybe it seemed perfectly natural to the medieval mind to lunge forward at the victim with the bowhand on release rather than stand there upright as if you are taking tea on the lawn with the vicar ...ha ha :cheerful:
 

MikeJ

New member
This is why I'm not convinced by arguments that we may have the same body as medieval man and when shooting warbows of such great weight you just do whatever you can to get it back there hence the way we shoot would be the same as then because none of us are shooting in a cultural vacuum.


You cannot use this as an assumption as there is no solid proof that these bows were of a "great weight". As mentioned earlier there are sveral good arguments for them not being over 100 #. If you are going to assume things you can fit any hypothesis to fit your assumption.

I have some data somewhere on reconstruction shootings with Mary Rose arrows, I will try to dig it out. It shows ,from memory, the difference in distance between a 100# bow and a 150# bow is about 7 to 10 yards with the same arrow.

Think about it, leave the romance and macho rubbish behind. These were the weapons of the peasantry, regardless of what people want the heritage of the "warbow" to be today to make themselves feel good about shooting one or of being a "warbow" archer. They were a cheap weapon for the common man. They were supplied as replacements through the logistic system of the army at the time. They had to be immediately useable by every archer in the service of the King. People also tend to forget they were an artillery weapon and were deployed as such.

That turned into a bit of a rant there possibly, sorry . I just get fed up with all so called "warbow" discussions going the same way. If you want to gurn your way to pulling a 150 plus bow go for it, but dont try to tell me it is historically accurate just because you can do it. It MIGHT be but it is not proven one way or another.
 
Top