09-19-2006, 09:06 AM
I certainly won't argue about the precise length of a self wood war bow, and I am fascinated to hear about the very short 50lb bow - any more info Charles?
However, I still stand by my main observation about length. For a self wood bow, draw length and draw weight are linked, and In the Roman context, I would take a lot of persuading that Roman military bows had a draw weight as low as the 40-50 lb range.
It depends very much on the archer's tactics and methods, and whether the expected enemy were usually armoured and/or shielded. But what evidence we have from European and Asian contexts, such as the Mary Rose, various 'Viking' finds, surviving Tartar, Chinese, Mongol and Korean military bows, is that draw weights around 120 – 150 lb (approx 55 – 70 kg) were the norm. Some English longbows from the Mary Rose, and surviving Mongol bows seem to have had draw weights up to and beyond 180 lb (80+ kg). I have my doubts about the extreme weights; they are often, of necessity, based on reconstructions, and there are always problems interpreting ancient weights and measures. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the ballpark is not far wrong. These sorts of weights would be virtually impossible to attain with a short self bow and I remain unconvinced that any image that I, personally, have seen of Roman archers shows such a bow.
Do I know that Roman bows were all composite? No. Is there any evidence that that they used self bows? No. Is it probable that they did, at least occasionally? Yes. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that, and the Roman Empire was too wide, long-lived and diverse, and contained too many good bow woods for them to be ignored.
I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I don't know the rules under which re-enactors operate, but if I saw a re-enactor with a (long) self wood bow, I would be interested, but not offended.
However, I still stand by my main observation about length. For a self wood bow, draw length and draw weight are linked, and In the Roman context, I would take a lot of persuading that Roman military bows had a draw weight as low as the 40-50 lb range.
It depends very much on the archer's tactics and methods, and whether the expected enemy were usually armoured and/or shielded. But what evidence we have from European and Asian contexts, such as the Mary Rose, various 'Viking' finds, surviving Tartar, Chinese, Mongol and Korean military bows, is that draw weights around 120 – 150 lb (approx 55 – 70 kg) were the norm. Some English longbows from the Mary Rose, and surviving Mongol bows seem to have had draw weights up to and beyond 180 lb (80+ kg). I have my doubts about the extreme weights; they are often, of necessity, based on reconstructions, and there are always problems interpreting ancient weights and measures. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the ballpark is not far wrong. These sorts of weights would be virtually impossible to attain with a short self bow and I remain unconvinced that any image that I, personally, have seen of Roman archers shows such a bow.
Do I know that Roman bows were all composite? No. Is there any evidence that that they used self bows? No. Is it probable that they did, at least occasionally? Yes. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that, and the Roman Empire was too wide, long-lived and diverse, and contained too many good bow woods for them to be ignored.
I don't want to ruffle any feathers, and I don't know the rules under which re-enactors operate, but if I saw a re-enactor with a (long) self wood bow, I would be interested, but not offended.
[size=150:16cns1xq]Quadratus[/size]
Alan Walker
Pudor est nescire sagittas
Statius, Thebaid
Alan Walker
Pudor est nescire sagittas
Statius, Thebaid
