Norman short bows?

[Mirimaran]

Hi all,

I was reading a back issue of Renaissance Magazine today and found an article about the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, and a bog find of bows and arrows. Here is a link to an SCA site that isn't as comprehensive as the magazine article. I thought it would make for good conversation, as I think we've touched on the subject before.

Ken

http://www.scatoday.net/node/15263

This is the article from the magazine...

Renaissance Magazine
Issue #76, page 18.

"Irish bog yields clues about Norman archers:
"Excavations of waterlogged peat bog deposits in Dublin and Waterford, Ireland,
have yielded bows, arrows, and an array of arrowheads that may give insight into
the type of equipment used by Norman archers during their invasion of England in
1066 and for almost two centuries afterwards.

"No bows or arrows from eleventh century England have survived. Although the
artifacts found in the Irish bogs date to the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland
nearly a century after the Battle of Hastings, they are recognizably the type of
Norman shortbow depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, in which the right-handed
archers are seen with the elbow of the drawing arm in the low position, with the
string hand anchored just to the left of the breastbone in the classic position
for drawing the shortbow with its short arrow.

"The recent discoveries are the first known material evidence of the form and
dimensions of the Norman weapons. Based on the evidence found in Waterford,
where one complete bowstave of yew wood and parts of six others were found, as
well as a complete arrow shaft fitted with a bodkin head and fragments of other
arrows, the Norman shortbow was about four feet long, with arrows about two feet
in length. The bowstave was about an inch wide and two-thirds that in thickness,
with a draw weight of now more than 45-50 pounds. Experts say that the bow would
have been a highly effective weapon for the chase and for military use at close
and intermediate range against the lightly armed infantry of the time"

[Manveruon]

This is absolutely fascinating! I would LOVE to know more about this find! I wonder if there's anyone out there who has tried to replicate them yet.

[RangerKellen]

I too would love to know more!

[Southwind]

the Norman shortbow was about four feet long, with arrows about two feet
in length. The bowstave was about an inch wide and two-thirds that in thickness,
with a draw weight of no more than 45-50 pounds.

...well, that makes me feel better about myself

the right-handed
archers are seen with the elbow of the drawing arm in the low position, with the
string hand anchored just to the left of the breastbone in the classic position
for drawing the shortbow with its short arrow.

Huh. Seems like your accuracy would be pretty bad that way. Why chest and not chin?

[Peter Remling]

[quote=
Huh. Seems like your accuracy would be pretty bad that way. Why chest and not chin?[/quote]

Predominently because drawing to the chest useing the shorter draw length needed for a 2' arrow. Measure it with a yardstick, my draw length is between 30 and 31" with a modern bow, drawing to the chest with left arm slightly cocked brings it down to about 26".

[Jon]

Wow... very interesting. 45-50 lbs is not a lot at all, but then I guess much of the infantry didn't wear maille? If that's enough for deer though, I guess it would be enough for man...

[Fox]

This is probably not really relevant, but when I was a child I would frequently hold the bow cross-ways to the body at a 45 degree angle and draw to the chest. It cuts down on the power, but the accuracy was very good. It forces you to make "instinctive" shots. It also makes for a quick shot.

[Manveruon]

Yeah, and I suppose you could eventually find an anchor point on your chest, just the same as you do drawing to your face. The only difference is that you wouldn't be able to sight down the arrow shaft, but since I shoot mostly instinctively anyway, this might not be an issue for me. I'd be very interested in trying to get myself a bow of these specs and see what I could do with it.

And as for draw weight, I'd imagine that if you're not shooting a huge volley against heavily armored cavalry across a rather wide battlefield, the poundage behind your arrow wouldn't have to be quite as much as the typical English warbow to do plenty of damage - even against maille. But there are others here who are more knowledgeable on that matter than me.

[Greg]

A 30-40# bow with a proper bodkin can go through maille, usually without issue. And if it doesn't, the point can penetrate skin without breaking links if it's tapered long enough. Maintaining power over a long distance was the critical factor in english warbows, and damage at those ranges was a result of inertia, not initial draw weight. Essentially, as I understand it, the arrow's weight is what is delivering the force at that point, 200+ yards downrange. Getting that heavy arrow MOVING from the get-go is what the heavy poundage is for. A short-draw welsh bow like this could be VERY effective, in my opinion. You just use it for its designated purpose. Over time, I'm sure an accurate enough shot could be developed for hunting and generating a clean, ethical kill. Just don't expect it overnight, and expect that you're going to have to change the way you shoot. Instinctive arcers may have to resort to a form of gap shooting.

[Manveruon]

Personally, I think I could learn to shoot from the chest without a huge degree of difficulty, but I shoot instinctively as it is. In fact, trying to learn to sight as I shoot is actually proving to be the really hard one for me. When you say gap shooting, to what are you referring specifically? I always understood gap shooting to be when an archer sights down the shaft to place the tip of the arrow visually right on top of the bulls-eye, then looses, and wherever the arrow hits, the archer adjusts accordingly to close the "gap," so to speak. I'm not sure shooting from the chest would allow for that, but I've never really tried it before.

Also, just in case anyone has a spare $500 lying around, I found this beauty on the interwebs yesterday while looking up info on Norman short-bows:

http://www.custommade.com/norman-short- ... amjhunter/

[Jon]

I'm not sure if this info is true, so correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it nuns who sewed the tapestry? If so they would not have had a close understanding of how an archer shoots, and may therefore not have shown the technique properly. I'm guessing they wouldn't think twice about exactly where they drew too.
Also, if you've ever tried sowing a tapestry ( ) you'd find out that it's pretty difficult to depict lots of small details in one place... do you see what I mean? Like it's easier and simpler to show them drawing to the chest rather than getting the shaft muddled up with the face, neck, etc.

[deadextra]

The first documentation which is certainly the Bayeux tapestry being was the inventory of the Bayeux Cathedral in 1476. Because of that, we really can't say for certain who made the tapestry or where it came from originally.

What is definite is that it was created in many separate panels by the specifications of a master artist and then later assembled. This is because of the clear joins in the backing fabric and embroidery, and even in some places differences in color of a character that straddles the joint.

I think that the tapestry should be treated with a grain of salt, just like any illuminations or the fantastic Maciejowski Bible. Supposing back and forth is fine for a bit, but before long it is better to get out and test how all of your different ideas actually work.

[Straelbora]

The first documentation which is certainly the Bayeux tapestry being was the inventory of the Bayeux Cathedral in 1476. Because of that, we really can't say for certain who made the tapestry or where it came from originally.

What is definite is that it was created in many separate panels by the specifications of a master artist and then later assembled. This is because of the clear joins in the backing fabric and embroidery, and even in some places differences in color of a character that straddles the joint.

I think that the tapestry should be treated with a grain of salt, just like any illuminations or the fantastic Maciejowski Bible. Supposing back and forth is fine for a bit, but before long it is better to get out and test how all of your different ideas actually work.

I agree with your assessment that images from this period should be taken with a grain of salt. The bulk of people in Europe in the 'Dark Ages' through the Medieval period weren't exposed to a lot of information, and were generally illiterate and lived and died within probably a few dozen miles of their place of birth. Hence the illustrated Bibles with scenes from the ancient and Classical Mediterranean and Near East populated by people in the clothing style of contemporary Europe.

I guess the real test is the sort of Sutton Hoo one- what physical remains have been found to back the images in the illustrations.

[Southwind]

Seconded on not taking images literally.

As a musician... you would not believe how common it is to see an inaccurate rendition of an instrument being played. For example, flutes will be drawn with the embouchure/lip plate on the very end of the instrument, or being held in the wrong place (usually too close to the mouth end). Harps sometimes have the strings running in the wrong direction. Violins will be in the wrong place relative to the player's chin, and the bow will be held wrong.... and so forth.

Sometimes artists do their research and get it right, other times - well, you can just tell.

That's why I was skeptical of the chest anchor point. I've seen some pretty bad representations of archery in contemporary figurines, too.