Historical bows - specs and performance

Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
6,001
So I was watching the revenant last night. Great flick.

I brings up a question I have had for a while - what were the performance characteristics of historical archers and gear?

I was reading a Cormac mcarthy book about Indians shooting Cowboys with cane arrows from short bows and getting pass throughs. I read Bernard Cornwell books about archers firing 200 yards.

Any thoughts from you self bow guys? What is a good resource for this type of study?

No real purpose just curiosity.
 
I've researched this extensively while working on my doctorate. Depending on which part of history you want to look at, and which location, the technology does vastly differ. My expertise is European, since I used to teach medieval history. For that venue, if you look at the skeletal structure of the longbowmen of around the time of the 100 Years' war, you'll find increased muscle/tendon attachment points, indicating a much higher use of that body area, with a concurrent demand for increased strength. The average yew warbow was anywhere between 120 and 150 pounds of draw weight, shooting a half-inch diameter arrow! You can reference any study of the bows found on Henry VIII's flagship Lady Rose to get an idea of that type of bow. However, bear in mind that the European bows were primarily weapons to blunt horse charges and were required to deal with armor. While the men at arms were lightly armored compared to the knights of the period, one guy on a horse could literally destroy a battle line, so that's where the necessity of taking down the horse was paramount. It was the same for the Samurai of that period, and they developed special arrows for that purpose. The missile technology of the indigenous peoples of North America never evolved past the primitive, as they didn't develop a metal culture. Pharaoh's armies were much better armed thousands of years before Columbus set sail!

I'm happy to answer questions on this subject if anyone has them. After all, how can the middle ages be boring? I mean...knights in shining armor, dragons, giants, battles, sword fights, true love........right??
 
I've made a number of historical bows over the years. A few native American style bows - sinew backed shortbow, Sudbury, Cherokee, and a number of European bows - Holmgaard, Meare Hearth styles. I've shot 8 of my last 10 deer with these bows and had pass through shots on all but one of them - hit the spine on that one. If you are interested in details, I'd suggest the Traditional Bowyers Bible - 4 volume set that is likely available at your library. Shoot me a message if you would like additional resources.
 
Yeah, the bow goes back a long ways so how far back are you talking?

The indian bows in NA you mentioned are much different than the English longbow....and were used in totally different ways. The indian bows had to be a short range weapon with their configuration..... I doubt they were shooting folks at 40-50 yds.

While the English longbows were designed to shoot a heavy arrow 200yds plus.

Then you have some of the asian bows which are a totally different design- pretty evolved really..... utilizing a lever arm.
 
I'll add a bit more to my prior post: while I try to make 2 bows each winter, I am really just beyond the beginner phase. People who have more skill, brains, and experience than I do make some stunning historical bows and the performance is similar to modern trad bows. You might go to Primitive Archer website and look at the forum there. There are some exceptional craftsmen (I'll never be in their league) who willingly provide a lot of information on how to make your own gear. Best, Don, aka Smoke
 
No bigger fan of archery history than me.

That said, saying the bows of old are similar in performance to the new bows is not accurate. One only has to shoot one of those old english longbows to realize the difference. Heres a heads up if you try it; make a dentist appt ahead of time...because after shooting one of those old heavy bows you just might loosen a couple of fillings- grin
 
Some great responses up there, you can also look up the battle of Crecy and Agincourt , good Stuff !

I've always gotten a laugh out of Crecy...We know from the pay lists of Edward III that he had about 5,000 archers. At that time, the average longbowman could fire between 6 and 10 arrows per minute. So here comes the French....into at least 30,000 arrows per minute, raining down on them Have fun stormin` the castle, boys!
 
I've always gotten a laugh out of Crecy...We know from the pay lists of Edward III that he had about 5,000 archers. At that time, the average longbowman could fire between 6 and 10 arrows per minute. So here comes the French....into at least 30,000 arrows per minute, raining down on them Have fun stormin` the castle, boys!

Its even funnier than that as I recall. Didn't the French outnumber the English something like 10-1? The lords were fighting to be at the front of the pack as they thought it was going to be walk in the park. The French [again from memory] had plenty of archers and crossbowmen...but they got pushed to the back or told to stay behind as all of the gloryseekers took center stage. A classic case of over confidence that cost the French dearly.

The archers paired with swampy conditions tipped the playing field. Some of the French knights in armor drown in their own helmets once they were shot off their horses and fell in the mud.
 
"That said, saying the bows of old are similar in performance to the new bows is not accurate." I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I've owned and shot many modern trad bows and many historical bows and I don't believe you would be able to see the difference in arrow flight. Go to Primitive Archer website and have a look at some of the testing that has been done and you may change your opinion.
 
"That said, saying the bows of old are similar in performance to the new bows is not accurate." I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I've owned and shot many modern trad bows and many historical bows and I don't believe you would be able to see the difference in arrow flight. Go to Primitive Archer website and have a look at some of the testing that has been done and you may change your opinion.
You might be right.

I've done the whole longbow replica shooting in England and France or those longbows. They are slugs compared to a carbon/foam limbed recurve. I think there are carbon bows now that are 70% or less of the poundage that spit an arrow out at similar speeds. Maybe not.

Those medieval bows were designed to shoot one heck of a heavy arrow...so its a bit of an apples to oranges comparison i suppose. It seems to me that medieval bows would have a hard time matching the 200fps+ that some of the modern bows are getting easily....but I could be wrong.

i've seen the testing on some of those homebrew bows and some hit 190fps as i recall which is amazing.
 
Yes, I've shot some selfbows that would rattle your skull - but one that is well-made is really smooth. I'd urge you to try one again!
 
Yes, I've shot some selfbows that would rattle your skull - but one that is well-made is really smooth. I'd urge you to try one again!

Maybe down the road. I've had so many issues with my elbows....I'm just happy I can now shoot a stickbow again....though limiting my shooting. So smooth as possible is what is in the cards for me.

To your comment on primitive being efficient; Didn't 'The Pirates of Archery" have a competition with the different self bow guys 4-5 years ago?

I remember seeing something like that- not sure if they started it or reported it. It seems to me a few of those guys got some amazing performance- something like 185 fps with 9GPP using an Osage stave. I don't think the medieval bowyers were so focused on efficiency...but more about mass production and interchangeable.....but I might be wrong.
 
I think you are correct regarding the efficiency of medieval bows (general English longbows), although I know some would not agree. My Holmgaard (which is technically a pre-historic bow), shoot around 175 with a 9GPP - and I'm not a very good bowyer. I also have a Sudbury (Eastern Native America), that shoots a tad faster. Neither have much hand shock. I have a Meare Hearth style bow that is a rocket launcher but not so sweet to hang on to.

Anyway, thanks for the replies. I hope the elbows get to feeling better soon. Best, Don
 
Its even funnier than that as I recall. Didn't the French outnumber the English something like 10-1? The lords were fighting to be at the front of the pack as they thought it was going to be walk in the park. The French [again from memory] had plenty of archers and crossbowmen...but they got pushed to the back or told to stay behind as all of the gloryseekers took center stage. A classic case of over confidence that cost the French dearly.

The archers paired with swampy conditions tipped the playing field. Some of the French knights in armor drown in their own helmets once they were shot off their horses and fell in the mud.

Yes, exactly right. So first a disclaimer on the history here: The Big Mao here is Alex MacDonald, Prof. Emeritus of History. I have almost 35 years teaching Medieval History within the University of California system, as well as being a Student Affairs Officer. What actually transpired at Crecy is, the French men at arms were taunting the English archers by mooning them just at the opening of the battle. There's other stuff going on, like the mercenary crossbowmen not showing up at the right time and such, but basically, the rabble were working themselves up by mooning the archers. Let's just say it's never a bright idea to moon somebody who's holding a projectile weapon. They thought they were out of range, and they were pretty much right-for the most part. so somebody gets a goose-feathered shaft in the ass, and it got the rest of these morons worked up and they charged. Big mistake....... the battleground also had a bank and hill that had the effect of funneling the knights into a very narrow area where they were slaughtered by the archers. Arrows at that distance probably wouldn't pierce decent armor, but they sure brought down the horses, with more troops trampling those fallen. And at close range, a 150lb draw war bow would penetrate armor. Bad day for the French. Certainly there's other stuff going on here, but suffice it to say that's the "short version".
 
From what I've gleaned, the English longbow wasn't known for it's efficiency but rather it's ease and economy to build! The Holmgard was much more evolved but predated the English bow by quite some time.
 
Back
Top