Homemade English Longbow - Hazel ~85lbs

[hyzer]

I used to shoot my long bow at a range where they mostly taught Olympic style shooting which uses a recurve bow, stabilizer, and sight that moved up or down depending on the distance. They would routinely outshoot me, but I think I had more fun.  They shot the same target distance over and over.  Meanwhile I was shooting targets from 10 to 60 meters.   Didn't always hit the far targets but from 10 to 30 meters I had a fair chance to score pretty well.  They always were asking how I aimed.   

[Stoney]

hehe Dred


Stoney, it depends what you mean by effective.

the 85lb bow in the vid is capable of launching an arrow 150 yards. If it hit you there it would be extremely effective. The weight of the metal tips mean that a high angle shot accelerates with gravity on the downward passage of the arch. At that sort of range you would be, let us imagine, using 200 archers to fire into a rank of 200 enemy. Very effective indeed.  For single shots at a single man from 150yrds; very useless without extreme skill or luck. At max range I can drop 3 arrows into a 5m circle no problem, but that is not what I would consider effective for killing single targets.

As far as target shooting is concerned I have found myself to be effective at 30m and possibly a little beyond firing at a human sized target. Someone with more strength could probably do better than me with this bow. If you wanted to go hunting with this longbow you would have to stalk your prey or make a hide (large - 8ft tall min) to wait in and get real close.

Both instances are useful.  I've often wondered how effective archers were in warfare that I've read about.  Keegan gives us some of the best examples of actual medieval combat in "The Face of Battle" in his description of Agincourt, but I've often watched movies, even ones that tried to "get it right" and wondered just how effective massed archers could be.  Do you have any idea of the ability of a bow this size and its armor penetration value (meaning standard chain mail or equivalent)?

[mechanic]

That is a very good question and one I have not fully tested at all.

Medieval longbows in their peak of performance still have alot of trouble piercing the plate armour that was being developed towards the end of the medieval period. From direct fire at close range a bodkin point may or may not have killed an armoured knight. At long range a falling shot would almost certainly not, unless it hit a weak spot by the joints or face-slits, etc.

here are a few quotes from a random source that I have read recently. I cannot say how reliable the sources are.

At the siege of Abergavenny in 1182 the Welsh arrows penetrated an oak door four inches thick. They were allowed to remain there as a curiosity, and Gerald (Giraldus Cambrensis) himself saw them six years later in 1188 when he passed the castle, with the iron points just showing on the inner side of the door. A knight of William de Braose was hit by one which went through the skirt of his hauberk, his mail hose, his thigh, and then through the leather and wood of his saddle into his horse; when he swerved round, another arrow pinned him the same way by the other leg.

The longbow had a long range and high accuracy, but not both at the same time. Most of the longer range shooting mentioned in stories was not marksmanship, but rather thousands of archers launching volleys of arrows at an entire army. Longbowmen armies would aim at an area and shoot a rain of arrows hitting indiscriminately at anyone in the area, a decidedly un-chivalrous but highly effective means of combat. An archer could hit a person at 165 m (180 yards) "part of the time" and could always hit an army.

The longbow was also used against the English by their Welsh neighbours. The Welsh used the longbow mostly in a different manner than the English. In many early period English campaigns, the Welsh used the longbow in ambushes, often at point blank range that allowed their missiles to penetrate the English Knights' armour and generally do a lot of damage. One famous Welsh longbow victory was on 22 June 1402 when Owain Glyndwr fought a battle against the English at Bryn Glas. He strategically placed his longbowmen on top of a high hill, so that his longbowmen had a better range than the English longbowmen, who were overwhelmed down on the low ground. The result was a conclusive victory for the Welsh.

In a modern test, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus chain armour.[23] (Bodkin points have been described as "armour-piercing", but the latest research is that they were not made of hardened steel and were not designed for this purpose.)[24]
Even very heavy draw longbows have trouble penetrating well made, tough steel plate armour, which was used increasingly after 1350. Armour of the Medieval eras was not proof against arrows until the specialized armour of the Italian city state mercenary companies.[25] Archery was ineffective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 1300s, though never to all soldiers in any army. Strickland and Hardy suggest that "even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from bows of poundages in the mid- to upper range possessed by the Mary Rose bows would have been capable of killing or severely wounding men equipped with armour of wrought iron. Higher-quality armour of steel would have given considerably greater protection, which accords well with the experience of Oxford's men against the elite French vanguard at Poitiers in 1356, and des Ursin's statement that the French knights of the first ranks at Agincourt, which included some of the most important (and thus best-equipped) nobles, remained comparatively unhurt by the English arrows."

I think I will do some penetration tests with this bow and post the results. It must be noted that despite my estimate of 85lbs, this relates purely to the force required to draw the bow, and not the acceleration or range of the projectile. For example, a modern composite bow of 85lbs would be vastly more powerfull than my lovingly carved stick.

[Stoney]

It must be noted that despite my estimate of 85lbs, this relates purely to the force required to draw the bow, and not the acceleration or range of the projectile. For example, a modern composite bow of 85lbs would be vastly more powerfull than my lovingly carved stick.

Perhaps, but your bow is much more representative of the period bows than any compound bow manufactured today...  Thanks for the post regardless.  If arrows fired from a longbow could penetrate a 4-inch thick oak door, I'd think mail or thin plate would be easily penetrated.  Of course, that's assuming the "4-inch thick oak door" story is true.

[AKH]

Both instances are useful.  I've often wondered how effective archers were in warfare that I've read about.  Keegan gives us some of the best examples of actual medieval combat in "The Face of Battle" in his description of Agincourt, but I've often watched movies, even ones that tried to "get it right" and wondered just how effective massed archers could be.  Do you have any idea of the ability of a bow this size and its armor penetration value (meaning standard chain mail or equivalent)?

The longbow was the big stick on the medieval battlefield: Crécy and Poitiers being prime examples.

In the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuirasses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal.

Modern tests:
leather armour: http://www.youtube.com/user/bigbowbrum#p/u/0/tDvTXprbAO4
butted chain: http://www.youtube.com/user/bigbowbrum#p/u/7/-4gPgHyaG1Q
plate: http://www.youtube.com/user/bigbowbrum#p/u/8/q-Xp56uVyxs

Archers were inexpensive when compared to men-at-arms, but had to be well practiced to be effective:

"Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery."

It was the introduction of high-quality plate armour that led to the longbow becoming obsolete.

[mechanic]

Interesting though, that in the Napoleonic wars, the unarmoured infantry would have suffered catastrophic losses if faced by a company of longbows. Rapid fire and stealth compared to a musket. The only problem with that idea was that the skills required had been lost with the longbows themself and no-one could use one effectively anymore. Add to that, it takes a relatively short time to train a man to fire a musket, as opposed to the years of dedication it took to train a man to be proficient with a longbow.

I am currently rendering a video of penetration of the hazel longbow. It's going to take a few hours to render and upload it to youtube. I will post it here as soon as I can.

[mtnman]

Wow!  Nice job BatfinkV!

I just received a new longbow a few days ago.  It's a modern store-bought one though.  I'm in the process of switching from right-handed to left-handed shooting.  I'm left-eye dominant, but have always shot right-handed.  Since I haven't shot much for the last few years, and my son is now getting started, I decided to re-teach myself.  I'm a long way from re-taught so far though, lol!

When I get it figured out I'll get back to making some of my own, left-handed this time.  Have you seen the pictures I've posted of mine?  I also do a little knapping, and can turn out a fair stone point.

Strings-  A real nice traditional string can be made from the neck skin of a snapping turtle, if you have any of those around.  They still stretch if they get moist, but are easier to make than hand-twisting one from sinew.

Bummer on the broken bow, but I'm sure you know the saying "a strung wooden bow is already 9/10's broken..."  They all break eventually.  But then again, they do grow from trees...

[mechanic]

Not many turtles over here, snapping or otherwise hehehe!

Left handed is something I have been trying to force myself to practice. I prefer to shoot right handed but I can see how lop-sided my shoulder muscles are. I hope to build up my left shoulder and right forearm equaly to their opposites. The only problem is I am too lazy to actualy 'train' and usualy am just shooting for fun (I have more fun shooting righty!) It's actualy quite natural either way once I got over the awkward stance. Thanks for the reply sir, and good luck in the switch over.


Penetration results

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGPZlsyiWlM

Not sure how much this helps concerning medieval armour. It does at least show that light protection is almost useless. I would like to find a piece of leather to test but have nothing that I want to damage.

What are your thoughts, Stoney? Or anyone interested's thoughts?

[Stoney]

Not many turtles over here, snapping or otherwise hehehe!

Left handed is something I have been trying to force myself to practice. I prefer to shoot right handed but I can see how lop-sided my shoulder muscles are. I hope to build up my left shoulder and right forearm equaly to their opposites. The only problem is I am too lazy to actualy 'train' and usualy am just shooting for fun (I have more fun shooting righty!) It's actualy quite natural either way once I got over the awkward stance. Thanks for the reply sir, and good luck in the switch over.


Penetration results

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGPZlsyiWlM

Not sure how much this helps concerning medieval armour. It does at least show that light protection is almost useless. I would like to find a piece of leather to test but have nothing that I want to damage.

What are your thoughts, Stoney? Or anyone interested's thoughts?

Well, between yours and the links AKH posted, I'd say my preconceptions of their effectiveness are very understated.  What I would be curious of is the difference in the "direct" fire technique shown in these videos versus the "indirect" method that massed archery would have used.  Would the arrows maintain this same sort of penetration capability?  If so, then holy cow!  No wonder they were so feared.  That's some serious firepower.

[BnZs]

Interesting though, that in the Napoleonic wars, the unarmoured infantry would have suffered catastrophic losses if faced by a company of longbows. Rapid fire and stealth compared to a musket. The only problem with that idea was that the skills required had been lost with the longbows themself and no-one could use one effectively anymore. Add to that, it takes a relatively short time to train a man to fire a musket, as opposed to the years of dedication it took to train a man to be proficient with a longbow.

I am currently rendering a video of penetration of the hazel longbow. It's going to take a few hours to render and upload it to youtube. I will post it here as soon as I can.

Most people with a little training can hit a 24'' inch circle every time with a smoothbore at 50 yards. Doing the same consistently with a bow is much harder. Musket innaccuracy is actually greatly exaggerated in pop culture, actually most humans will be more accurate with them than they will be with bows. Still, one would think it wouldn't take THAT long to train men to be effective archers in large groups firing volleys.

I imagine a huge part of the equation is cost, cost of ammo (arrows) if not the bows themselves. A few years ago I figured up the cost of arrows made from bought components that I assembled myself, and it came to $2.50 apiece. Rifle cartridges are alot cheaper than that. I imagine a similar economic dynamic might have applied to lead balls and powder charges vs. arrows back in the day.

Another factor is wounding effectiveness. I'd expect a large % of those hit by an arrow in someplace other than a vital organ to live and maybe even be able to keep fighting Whereas a large caliber musket ball would likely at least cripple you wherever it struck. Arrows simply don't have much stopping power when they don't hit the heart/lungs or sever a blood vessel large enough to cause rapid bleed out.

[mechanic]

English longbowmen smeared their tips in excrement. I imagine that most wounds would have been at least very serious if not fatal.

[BnZs]

English longbowmen smeared their tips in excrement. I imagine that most wounds would have been at least very serious if not fatal.

Nasty! But that's at least a few hours for infection to set in though, and realistically, not much material would stay with the arrow in flight...and fibers from filthy uniforms being driven into the wounds by musket balls is probably at least as likely to cause infections.

The absolute worst vector for infection was of course the hands and instruments of physicians of this period. You had a decent chance of surviving a flesh wound IF you could successfully avoid medical treatment...

In the period before proper disinfection was fully understood, ANY wound could become serious, however, the massive damage a ball can cause starts out far more serious than an arrow wound, especially a wound from a bodkin point as opposed to a broadhead.

In hunting, double-lung penetration is considered the ideal for killing deer because it has a drowning as well as an exsanguinating effect. Wounds in other places can often lead to lost game. There is evidence that deer often recover from flesh wounds from arrows.


Although this two part article focuses on hand-held bladed weapons and not arrows, they illustrate that the stopping power of such is generally far less than most assume.


http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php

I think between economics and lethality, it becomes clear why bows lost out to early firearms despite their far inferior rates of fire and other disadvantages.

[AKH]

Well, between yours and the links AKH posted, I'd say my preconceptions of their effectiveness are very understated.  What I would be curious of is the difference in the "direct" fire technique shown in these videos versus the "indirect" method that massed archery would have used.  Would the arrows maintain this same sort of penetration capability?  If so, then holy cow!  No wonder they were so feared.  That's some serious firepower.

No, they wouldn't, but men and horses would still go down.  The closer they got to the lines, the more casualties they would suffer, until they reached a range at which their primary armour was ineffective and the real slaughter would begin.

Also, due to the greater range of the longbow, lightly armoured missile troops were unable to close to return fire without suffering significant casualties.

I imagine a huge part of the equation is cost, cost of ammo (arrows) if not the bows themselves. A few years ago I figured up the cost of arrows made from bought components that I assembled myself, and it came to $2.50 apiece. Rifle cartridges are alot cheaper than that. I imagine a similar economic dynamic might have applied to lead balls and powder charges vs. arrows back in the day.

Guns were state of the art, involving advanced technology that was both effective and highly lucrative for those with the knowledge, skill and nerve to make use of it.  Bows and arrows are relatively easy to make, from what where common, inexpensive materials (but aren't now.)

Most arrows were recovered from the field after the battle.  If damaged, they are easy to repair, so they can be used many times.

The warbow's demise was simply due to the facts that it was becoming increasingly ineffective and that archers had to be highly skilled.     

[mtnman]

On the American frontier, the bow was more effective against muzzle loading muskets and rifles than is often credited as well (although the most feared weapon on the frontier was neither; it was the tomahawk).

For one, rate of fire is about 6 times higher with a bow.  I fire muzzle loaders a lot, and am pretty quick when it comes to measuring powder and loading "out of the bag".  Even so, I have trouble getting an aimed shot off in less than 40 seconds.

The early militia was expected to be able to load and fire quickly, but the vast majority of Americans weren't in the militia...  Against small 1-15 man groups, and using guerrilla-type warfare, that quicker rate-of-fire was an advantage.

Another advantage was stealth.  Several archers could fire once or twice each and not immediately give away their position.  Dropping selected members of the opposing party, they could possibly even remove several opponents before the alarm was raised.  I've had the misfortune of missing several deer while hunting with a longbow or recurve.  Often the arrow flight is the loudest noise (unlike those clanky new-fangled training-wheel bows).  Several times I've missed a deer from the "right", and had the deer look to the left (where the arrow hit) wondering what was up.  Meanwhile, with the deer facing away I nock another arrow...  I've even hit deer, and had them jump toward me, and away from the arrow that passed through it and clanked against the ground on the opposite side.

The arching flight of the arrow is another advantage, when your opponents are forted-up behind a low obstacle (fallen tree or rock).  Unlike a bullet, an arrow can be "lobbed" quite effectively.

Another aspect to consider is that while animals are dying due to massive blood-loss, and can take a while to do so (traveling quite some distance), people go into shock very quickly, even from minor wounds.  You can die (or at least be incapacitated) from shock, even if the wound isn't fatal...

[mtnman]

On the American frontier, the bow was more effective against muzzle loading muskets and rifles than is often credited as well (although the most feared weapon on the frontier was neither; it was the tomahawk).

For one, rate of fire is about 6 times higher with a bow.  I fire muzzle loaders a lot, and am pretty quick when it comes to measuring powder and loading "out of the bag".  Even so, I have trouble getting an aimed shot off in less than 40 seconds.

The early militia was expected to be able to load and fire quickly, but the vast majority of Americans weren't in the militia...  Against small 1-15 man groups, and using guerrilla-type warfare, that quicker rate-of-fire was an advantage.

Another advantage was stealth.  Several archers could fire once or twice each and not immediately give away their position.  Dropping selected members of the opposing party, they could possibly even remove several opponents before the alarm was raised.  I've had the misfortune of missing several deer while hunting with a longbow or recurve.  Often the arrow flight is the loudest noise (unlike those clanky new-fangled training-wheel bows).  Several times I've missed a deer from the "right", and had the deer look to the left (where the arrow hit) wondering what was up.  Meanwhile, with the deer facing away I nock another arrow...  I've even hit deer, and had them jump toward me, and away from the arrow that passed through it and clanked against the ground on the opposite side.

The arching flight of the arrow is another advantage, when your opponents are forted-up behind a low obstacle (fallen tree or rock).  Unlike a bullet, an arrow can be "lobbed" quite effectively.

Another aspect to consider is that while animals are dying due to massive blood-loss, and can take a while to do so (traveling quite some distance), people go into shock very quickly, even from minor wounds.  You can die (or at least be incapacitated) from shock, even if the wound isn't fatal...