"Bows: Effective Fire at Long Range" Topic

@Parzival: Arrows don't weigh the same, which I am sure you know. A "flight" arrow is for distance. A "sheaf" arrow is for armor penetration. The max range of the former is c. 250 yards with a c. 70 lb bow. The latter is c. 150 yards or even less….

Of course. But that doesn't alter my point. Weight is irrelevant in physics. Mass is what is relevant. The mass of the arrow determines the initial velocity imparted by the force of the bow, but the force imparted by the bow is always the same and the rate of acceleration due to gravity is always the same. The arrow of lesser mass gains greater velocity from the force of the bow, so that the vertical acceleration due to gravity is spread out over a longer horizontal distance. The sheaf arrow masses more for the simple reason that it has a hardened steel head which can punch through steel plate. Either way, a bow capable of imparting 100 lbs. of force imparts a 100 lbs. of force. The greater mass of the arrow reduces this net force slightly, resulting in lower initial velocity, but the amount of force imparted is the same.

Nevertheless, objections raised here about drag being "insignificant" are not reasonably brushed aside. Some fletching is big. It is the fletching which produces the significant drag and nothing about the arrow shaft or the point has anything to do with it. A "fluflu" arrow has large fletching which massively slows down an arrow compared to common, or "efficient" fletching. How much does fletching drag the inertia of an arrow down?…

Nevertheless, objections raised here about drag being "insignificant" are not reasonably brushed aside. Some fletching is big. It is the fletching which produces the significant drag and nothing about the arrow shaft or the point has anything to do with it. A "fluflu" arrow has large fletching which massively slows down an arrow compared to common, or "efficient" fletching. How much does fletching drag the inertia of an arrow down?…

BUT since the argument implies that the drag affects the end of the arrow's trajectory, we can see that the point is moot. At that stage, the arrow is gaining kinetic energy due to gravitational attraction. Furthermore, the situation in place is a high trajectory arc. Here's the thing; if an arrow is shot to a height of 100 feet at an angle, the arrow's kinetic energy from gravity when it returns to 0' is exactly the same as if the arrow had been dropped straight down from a height of 100 feet. To this is added the force of the bow, from which is then subtracted the drag. Are you seriously going to suggest that the drag is going to create a ground impact force in the arrow on the decent that is less than the force of the bow, when the impact force is clearly the combination of the force imparted by the bow and the force imparted (continuously) by gravity?

It's like this Bf+Gf-D=Nf. That is, on the decent, the total net force at impact is equal to the force of the bow plus the force of gravity minus the drag (friction) of air. Sorry, but that latter factor is going to be negligible on the overall penetration effect of the arrow. And, by the way, we're not talking about "fluflu" fletchings, but good old fashioned English goose feathers, with an effective cross section of may a millimeter or two at the most. (Grand total for the standard 3 fletching arrow: 6mm, and probably more like 3mm. Plus, it's not a flat leading edge, but a curved one.)

Nope, the only relevant factors in determining whether the arrow penetrates are the thickness and tensile strength of the armor's steel, the hardness of the arrow head, and the force of the bow and gravity. If the arrowhead can punch through steel at point blank range, it can darn well punch through steel when striking at maximum range.

So if a longbow's arrow can pierce a suit of armor, then a longbow's arrow can pierce a suit of armor, period. It ain't the bow that's in question, or the distance, and certainly not the drag. It's the quality of the arrowhead, the angle of impact of the arrow's tip, and whether or not the arrow hits the target.

"On the descent," not "decent." Dangnabbit.

I have to side with you on this one. Despite "spinning" advocates, who assert that the spinning of the arrow creates significant air friction that will reduce the impact energy at long range, it seems to me that such drag is less than the extra energy gained from falling. But what do I know?

The only way to be sure is to set up a target at pointblank range, see the penetration, and shoot into the same target at maximum range, then compare penetration….

google is your friend

PDF link

Fascinating piece. I found his explanations of his calculations hard to follow, as he doesn't fully define each formula or variable that he uses, and I'm simply not intuitively familiar with the formulae involved. (I'm not even certain what the one involving vsin45 is all about.)

But the different arrows and armor along with his results are fascinating. Thanks for the great link.

"The joints and gaps would all still be vulnerable being mostly of maille until the 16th century."

This is the clincher observation of any well-conceived test. I am glad to see him make it.

Some seven to fifteen percent of a cap-a-pie suit of plate armor in the HYW was vulnerable, not being plate, or, being quite thin, e.g. the sides of helmets. It was this percentage of vulnerability that saturation archery inevitably affected the most. With literally scores of thousands of arrows, even two hundred thousand and more, launched into a few thousand advancing MAA, the effect upon their cohesion was always dramatic and often decisive. By the time they arrived in hand-to-hand contact, many of them were wounded, a significant number severely, and some mortally, while the battering the whole formation had received was exhausting at the very least and fatal to combat effectiveness….

Interesting piece, thanks for sharing.

An arrow at maximum range will lose about 20% of the initial velocity. This of course a very rough approximation…

From memory… Hardy's tests show initial velocity of around 110 mph at point blank and 90 mph at max range.

The bigger (4oz) war arrows ranged about 200-250 yards… the flight arrows (2oz) flew 300- 325.

These are round numbers from memory. This is a nasty hit even at range. It will certainly knock you down unless you are braced for it.

Joe Collins

Yet the author, Matheus Bane, says: "The 110 lb longbow at full 250 yd range will equal the 75 lb
longbow in momentum at point blank range. I used 10 yards for safety reasons to simulate point
blank range."

That sounds like a LOT of drag on the arrow to me. (I don't understand his physics formulae, so I can't talk to that aspect of this assertion at all.)

That sounds like a LOT of drag on the arrow to me. (I don't understand his physics formulae, so I can't talk to that aspect of this assertion at all.)

When some limited radar testing was done, the test arrow dropped almost 20% of its velocity in less than a second of flight time:

"Range is a key factor that affects the force with which an arrow strikes. From the moment an arrow leaves the bow, there are forces of drag, which begin to slow it down. In 2003 I had the chance to gather some data on this. It was for a television programme (13) and the tests were conducted by the UK Defence Academy at Shrivenham, Oxfordshire, in collaboration with Dr Alan Williams.(14) An arrow, shot by Mark Stretton from a 150lb bow, was tracked by Doppler radar in order to measure its rate of deceleration. The deceleration was significant, slowing from 170ft/sec as it left the bow to 137ft/sec after just 0.8 of a second in flight.(15)

Frustratingly, the test did not tell us all we needed to know because the radar lost contact with the arrow before it began its descent – a malfunction that could not be corrected on the day. Clearly there would be a significant pick-up in speed as the falling arrow came under the forces of gravity. Even so, this is unlikely to have been as great as the maximum speed achieved for the first 20yd or so of its flight. The physics of arrow flight are complex and affected by many factors, which there is not space here to pursue further. I simply flag up some of the issues for consideration. However, it seems reasonable to suppose that the longbow was at its most powerful and effective at ranges up to 40–50yd, and that there was then a diminished capability until around 120yd, when parabolic shots received the assistance of gravity – albeit these are not quite as effective as shots at the closer ranges."

Notes 13-15:
"13 Weapons That Made Britain – Longbow (written and presented by the author, Lion Television for Channel 4, UK).
14 Dr Allan Williams, a leading archaeometallurgist, is Visiting Research Fellow at Reading University and consultant to the Wallace Collection.
15 A 300lb draw-weight crossbow was also tested. The fast punch of the crossbow meant that initially the bolt suffered very little drop in acceleration. It then decelerated dramatically after approximately 80yd."

Pages 66-67 of The Longbow by Mike Loades.

I admit I did not expect a 20% drop in velocity. I stand corrected on that point.
Even so, repeated blows by arrows striking at 90 mph, give or take, are nothing to sneeze at, both psychologically and physically. Add to that the high chance that penetration occurred in more lightly protected areas, and there is clearly going to be force degradation among the chargers, not to mention disruption of cohesion and formation (which is what we know happened in instances of frontal assaults against emplaced archers).
Keep in mind, too, that few knights would be in the most expensive and best armor, so the field would be a mixed bag, and its possible less well armored knights would be more susceptible to both actual damage and the psychological effects of an arrow storm. "Oh, it's all well for you in the latest thing from ArrowProof, Inc., but I've got grandaddy's hand-me-down on!"

Keep in mind, too, that few knights would be in the most expensive and best armor, so the field would be a mixed bag, and its possible less well armored knights would be more susceptible to both actual damage and the psychological effects of an arrow storm. "Oh, it's all well for you in the latest thing from ArrowProof, Inc., but I've got grandaddy's hand-me-down on!"

Indeed.

"Certainly, men were wounded and killed by arrows piercing the body; armour on occasion failed. Moreover, a man may not be completely protected by armour,either by choice – sacrificing full protection for the advantages of comfort and mobility – or because he could not afford it."

Page 71 of The Longbow by Mike Loades.

Even so, repeated blows by arrows striking at 90 mph, give or take, are nothing to sneeze at, both psychologically and physically. Add to that the high chance that penetration occurred in more lightly protected areas, and there is clearly going to be force degradation among the chargers, not to mention disruption of cohesion and formation (which is what we know happened in instances of frontal assaults against emplaced archers).

Indeed again.

"My belief is that the main function of massed archers was to deliver a consistent barrage of hits; even though few would penetrate, all would strike with a significant blunt-trauma force, landing a debilitating onslaught of heavyweight blows – blows that would soften up and weaken an enemy, sapping his stamina and will. The ability to deliver repeated hits, consistently and unwaveringly, may have been a greater contribution to military success than scoring a random number of kills."

Page 72 of The Longbow by Mike Loades.

This idea that arrows create "blunt trauma", ergo "sapping of energy", is fallacious. Arrows wounded and killed. The real danger was the sheer volume of incoming missiles, increasing the likelihood that an advance across c. 300 yards into the face of that "withering storm" would result in many if not most of the advancing targets being hit palpably in some vulnerable spot. We know from descriptions of Agincourt, for example, that arrow shot caused the French to keep their heads down, thus losing cohesion and requiring them to pause, or even fall back slightly, to redress their frontage before continuing on. All the while, they were being struck by hundreds of thousands of bodkin tipped missiles. As they entered the forward projecting "arms" of the wings of archers, even the sides of their helmets (which are among the thinnest areas in a cap-a-pie suit of plate) were getting "pierced". And in addition to the exhausting quality of continual hits, you did in fact have "a random number of kills" and serious wounding….

I used to shoot a longbow, most of our family did.
I had a 100 Lb bow, which is probably rather weak compared to professional archers.

If you shoot a wooden arrow a couple of hundred yards it sticks a fair way into dirt.
I don't know what that is equivalent to in terms of person but I should think it wouldn't be much fun.

Setting aside the likelihood you're going to have like a yard long arrow stuck somewhere you definitely don't want it.

Crowds don't take very much to get disrupted.
You'd have people getting an arrow stuck in their foot/shoulder/elbow. People tripping over arrows that were just stuck in the ground.
There would be thousands of the things. The better archers would be firing 1 every 5 seconds at longer range when they don't really need to aim much.
People at the front would shy from the missile fire.
People at the back push forward.
It'd be a pile up.
Crowds of people are perfectly capable of crushing one another without much input.
Thousands of arrows hailing down are a pretty substantial negative input IMO.

There are descriptions of the French so pressed together they couldn't use their swords.

@AONeill: A 100# longbow would be the upper limit, at the lower end, if you gather my meaning. I still can't find the reference, but iirc it was Roger Ascham, who pointed out that in the old days one man in ten could pull the stronger bow of a hundred pounds; that would be inclusive of the strongest of the stronger ten percent who could pull even heavier bows than that. But these men were not typical of the "pick of the crop" from the whole archer pool of England. Those men, if compared to other archers in the world's "archer armies", e.g. Steppes bow, Muslim archers from Sicily and S. Italy, pull a warbow of c. 70#, which is more than adequate to create the very effects that you portray in your post. The bulk of archers would never get picked for a muster.

Contrary to popular belief, usually based on personal experience, archers do not de facto grow into muscle-bound, asymmetrical freaks. Many people simply do not have the structure to begin with to grow the muscle mass required to continually upgrade in draw weight, no matter how much they practice. The assizes that made Sunday practice into law in England were intended to find "warbow" archers among the general population by growing them. Like any "crop", most are average or even poor quality, some are what you are looking/hoping for, and a few are better still (i.e. match grade or award winning quality; these find their way into the king's guard, etc.).

So the notion that most or all of England's yeomen archers were somehow "supermen" is a fallacious myth. Most were ordinary archers pulling c. 50# bows, like other "nations". Some were capable of growing into "warbow" shooters, and "one in ten" was an exceptionally strong shooter….

GWA you are quite wrong about the effect f longbow hits. There is a recorded instance of a Flemsh archer defending a wll who moved from position to pisition shooting and knocking men down. The effect of the punch fromna missile is disorienting as is the fear that it induces.mA shot that hits but does not pierce will increase a man's feeling f vulnerability as long as plenty of other shafts are headng in his direction. Arrows that are deflected off will not transmt much force to the target, gut direct hits will hurt. This hurt is a bit different from the trauma of say a blow from a sword which takes place when both sides are in close proximity and adrenalin keeps the man going. A soldier hit by bowfire is not in close proximity, there is not likely to be a red mist effect of combat, he just takes the blows cold. absorbing the energy of the missile, mitigated by the effect of armour and padding.

@Lewis: Adrenalin was lacking during an advance? I highly doubt it! "Red mist" level isn't required to dull the body's sensitivities.

Armor of the day produced the glancing surfaces to most "hits", deflecting them away and thus eliminating any chance of "blunt force trauma". If an arrow did strike solidly enough to stagger the target, it still usually did not penetrate. And if it did penetrate it almost always failed to do more than draw blood. The armor and padding soaked up all the force. An arrow getting through thin edges of plate, through the joints, sides of helmets or visor "breaths" wouldn't be doing "blunt force", it would be wounding outright by penetrating several inches into the body, often fatally.

So I am not sure what your objection to what I said is. Maybe we're just talking around each other….

So the notion that most or all of England's yeomen archers were somehow "supermen" is a fallacious myth. Most were ordinary archers pulling c. 50# bows, like other "nations".

I agree that the "supermen" are a myth, but I think you significantly underate the average archer. My son trained on a bow for a while. At the age of 14 he could pull 38lb. I'm sure if he had kept up the training he could have pulled >70lb by the age of 18. And he is not a particularly "strong" physique.

Plus we are talking about a time when most work was physical – rather than be in school at 14, sitting behind a desk, your 15th century son would have been working the fields for some years.

Working the fields does not an archer make. It makes a plowman. That's why the Sunday practicing was put into law. I don't doubt that "Major's" son could pull a 70lb bow by 18. But these neo-warbow pullers we see on the Net (YouTube), who talk about getting taxed after c. 12 shots, and therefore extrapolate their anecdotal experience to mean that Medieval yeomen somehow pulled the same kind of bows that they go for (i.e. 100lbs plus) is equally fallacious. It is typical that an archer can pull twice his "warbow" draw weight when showing off. He won't be pulling that in a battle. So the 18 year-old who can pull 70lbs but gets tired during Sunday practice is not going to get picked for the next king's army going oversea. The bow he can draw again and again for an hour or more is going to be closer to 50lbs draw weight, and therefore no "warbow". This idea that all the yeomen turned into asymmetrical buster beefcakes because they practiced all their lives is not really what happened. The practice, as I said, "grew" the archers, and the best were 100lbs draw weight class (one in ten), a portion (c. 25%) were the most usable pool, drawing 70 to 80lbs, the rest were levy quality only.

This would have been the system working at its best. Long before Roger Ascham's day most of the yeomen had lapsed into casual archers, if they shot at all, playing "games" on Sundays instead of practicing, becoming soft and indolent, etc. and etc. and etc….

Working the fields does not an archer make. It makes a plowman.

I think the point he was trying to make is that our medieval forebears were much more used to strenuous physical exercise than we are and that therefore they would find drawing a bow to be easier too.

It is typical that an archer can pull twice his "warbow" draw weight when showing off. He won't be pulling that in a battle. So the 18 year-old who can pull 70lbs but gets tired during Sunday practice is not going to get picked for the next king's army going oversea. The bow he can draw again and again for an hour or more is going to be closer to 50lbs draw weight, and therefore no "warbow".

But surely that was the whole point of insisting on regular practice? You need regular practice to first build up to a good draw weight (100lbs plus) and then you need to keep up the practice in order to maintain it.

Ask any physical education instructor …

…they would find drawing a bow to be easier too

What you are suggesting is some sort of superior physique for medieval persons. I'm not believing this. Yes, we have incredibly inert and lazy boys in the 21st century, "couch potatoes" in grade school. Fat, soft and weak. They are also highly well-fed nutritionally compared to medieval people, with no experience of famine or privation. In very quick time any couch potato can work it off and become an archer simply by doing what medieval Englishmen were commanded by law to do every Sunday. That was Roger Ascham's thesis: regular practice with the longbow would revive the decadence of English youth and turn them into men worthy of their ancestors, the yeomen archers of legendary prowess. Take away their games and dissolution and replace it with archery practice, and an amazing transformation would develop.

Today's archers are no different. It is the practice at archery that makes a strong archer, not being physically active in all other ways. I will allow that a farmer who takes up the bow is less likely to injure himself by practice than a "couch potato". But aside from that advantage I don't see medieval people producing a higher proportion of shooters pulling stronger bows than modern people can come up with.

That is the assertion that I am mainly concerned with: medieval people produced a proportion of stronger shooters than could be achieved today. There is no evidence for this.

And I don't see all practiced archers today, or at any time, shooting 100lb plus bows. There is a gradation down through the strongest to the least strong. Some people cannot pull a 70lb bow, period. They never will. And if they ever get to the point where they can pull the string back, that is not the same thing as being a shooter of a 70lb bow, it is a 50lb bow shooter showing off with a 70lb bow. That is what the majority of "showoffs" are doing with their "warbows" today: convincing themselves that they are shooters who are equal to those in medieval times who in fact did pull 100lb bows. Except that the showoffs can't keep it up, so they think that the 100lb bow shooters back then didn't keep it up either. Actually, a 100lb bow shooter had to keep it up six to a dozen shots per minute for an hour or more without tiring. In fact, he had to be able to do this when he was weakened by dysentery. I am sure that many a 100lb bow shooter took up a 70lb bow in that condition. It seems to me that the obvious precaution was to train with the heavier bow and use the lesser bow en masse under campaign conditions, in other words, to expect the worst to happen and plan accordingly. 100lb bows are all well and good under optimal conditions. But after months of camp life and poor rations, the king and his officers, the veterans, knew that their yeomen would be riddled with the "sickness of the host", or worse, and incapable of keeping up a steady shot with their more powerful warbows. They would take to the 70lb bows instead, which were capable of inflicting quite enough damage upon the enemy.

The "cleric" who wrote the Gesta as an eyewitness of Agincourt, was amazed to see their sick yeomen pull as if they were as strong as ever. What he was seeing, imho, was the main mass pulling the lesser warbow rather than the 100lb variety, and he didn't know what he was seeing….

What you are suggesting is some sort of superior physique for medieval persons.

No, I'm suggesting that any normal human male, if they consistently trained to do so could pull a 100lb bow.

But aside from that advantage I don't see medieval people producing a higher proportion of shooters pulling stronger bows than modern people can come up with.

How many modern people do you know who have trained to pull 100lb plus bows? We don't see it today simply becasue people … don't.

And I don't see all practiced archers today, or at any time, shooting 100lb plus bows.

Precisely! There are very very few, because there is this myth that most medieval archers could not pull such draw weights. Unfortuabtely the evidence from the Mary Rose bows proves otherwise.

Here's an example of one modern man who can do it. And if one can, then there is no reason why others could not train to do the same.
YouTube link
Oh, here's another one:
YouTube link
And another one:
YouTube link

Note: these appear to be just normal guys, not the "cream of the crop" just guys who have trained to pull a heavy bow.

The "cleric" who wrote the Gesta as an eyewitness of Agincourt, was amazed to see their sick yeomen pull as if they were as strong as ever. What he was seeing, imho, was the main mass pulling the lesser warbow rather than the 100lb variety, and he didn't know what he was seeing….

You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim…

BTW, Robert Hardy (seen in the first YouTube clip) is probably THE modern expert on medieval archery. If you disagree with him then you really need to back up your claims with hard evidence. An "appeal to authority" I know, but as far as I know, you (unlike Hardy) have not published a detailed treatise on the subject?

Then there is the English Warbow Society
theenglishwarbowsociety.com
This statement on their Home page is interesting:
"The Society imposes a lower limit on bow draw-weight for adult males (70lb at a measured 32" of draw), "
- 70lb the LOWER limit!!

Here are the results from a shoot held by members in 2014, a significant number of whom are pulling bows in excess of 100lbs…
link

Steady there, Major B. In my experience, whilst GWA holds strong opinions, he's open to reassessing them. He just holds particularly strong opinions when it comes to war bows and it's been discussed here so often, he may feel able to take a less rigorous approach

Like you, I reckon Medieval archers in England and Wales hefted powerful bows, but there's plenty of room for healthy debate

No, I'm suggesting that any normal human male, if they consistently trained to do so could pull a 100lb bow.

What is "normal?" Fifty-one percent, seventy-five percent, ninety percent?

Imho, if you look around at the demographic of modern archers who are trying to shoot as heavy draw weights as they can manage, you'll find a cross-section reflecting the medieval or any other archer group training to shoot powerful bows. We need to look squarely at the group who are reenactors, replicators, of the "old methods", et al. those who are getting back in touch with how it was done, with what it was done. This is a small enough group to study. But it is bound and determined to shoot "warbow" strength bows. And as I pointed out above, the videos and Webpages of the same do not reflect what you assert here.

Unfortuabtely the evidence from the Mary Rose bows proves otherwise.

Iirc, the Mary Rose bow staves range from 70lbs all the way up to in excess of 150lbs draw weights. That supports what I hypothesize about "sick" archers dropping down to what they could pull consistently in a battle. Train for really strong bows and expect to shoot something less on the day of battle.

Here's an example of one modern man who can do it. And if one can, then there is no reason why others could not train to do the same.

You just jumped off the track of my point with this: I never said that modern archers can't train to shoot heavy bows.

Taking your three anecdotal samples: the first two have lousy, even injurious form, the second in particular is doing that show off "dance" while pulling and releasing, indicating that he's putting absolutely everything he has into his shots. If he were sick with the dysentery he would not even be able to draw that bow. Ditto the first guy. The third guy is a true buster beefcakes, he draws that warbow with little perceivable effort, releases cleanly and doesn't move anything but the parts of his body required to draw and release. The video following him is all about training for perfect draw and release. That is the exact form required for accuracy (which the guy in the Hardy video does not demonstrate, barely hitting the edge of that steel plate from less than thirty feet away: and, btw, that is a fallacious demonstration, since NOBODY wore flat plates against their bare skin).

You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim…

Just the textual assertions made by the "cleric". He observed that their archers were mostly weakened by sickness and could hardly draw their bows, but when the battle came, a miracle occurred and they shot as strong and fast as ever they could before. Whether or not they had seventy pound bows to drop back to is the hypothetical part, and if so, the "cleric" not knowing about that technical detail is also the hypothetical part. Since the first two guys in your sample videos are drawing with everything they have, there is no way that they, as yeomen on the morning of Agincourt, stricken with dysentery, would be pulling those draw weights. But the "lower limit" would work for guys who train for 100lbs plus. Your first two examples would look killer if they demonstrated 70lb draw weight shooting. The third guy could probably pull 70lb in his sleep with two fingers – he's a "one in ten" guy.

Glennan Carnie, referenced in the "Gallery" of the Warbow Society, says it takes about five years to strengthen the ligaments and sinews in order to withstand the shock of releasing a warbow. "It isn't as much about muscle strength". The Society only accepts archers into their "full elite" status who can pull 100lb plus draw weight. I notice that not all of them are doing it easily, like "guy number three" in your sampling of video demonstrators. This only reinforces what I have already said about "showing off" archery versus battle archery.

This so-called Rolling Loose technique is bogus as it applies to battle archery. "Dancing" upon release is crap form, and would interfere with the archers in close formation around you. It takes up too much room and may, as they assert, achieve maximum range and penetrating power, but cannot possibly facilitate accuracy. And, imho, the "technique" is masking a real problem, and that is the fact that most of those in the Society managing to pull 100lb draw weight are doing so at the sacrifice of accuracy and without stamina. That is why I read them asserting that medieval archers were not getting anywhere near the rates of shot that have always been accepted, or rather, for as long as it would be required in order to win a battle. They tire too quickly. So they are "rethinking" the old beliefs, so that they can see themselves as modern recreations of medieval yeomen, which they, not being "one in ten" shooters, are not, by their definition. They are showing off, not demonstrating stamina with bows suited to their strength/resistance.

It has always been my contention, that most warbow shooters were shooting 70lbs draw weight, not 100lbs, in battle. So the Society ARE modern recreations of warbow shooting yeomen. They just don't need to see their deficiency with 100lbs plus as some reason to "rethink" the old beliefs. The "one in ten" guys were recruited into the elite retinues, and formed the ideal for all lesser, but capable, shooters to look up to and try to emulate.

Besides all of that, what can we do to show what percentage of archers are represented by the Society? Are they ALL top ten percent in strength? Or are a portion of them like your "number three guy"? And the rest are actually 70-80lb draw weight shooters, capable of showing off with 100lb plus bows? I assert that the latter is the case….
YouTube link

Iirc, the Mary Rose bow staves range from 70lbs all the way up to in excess of 150lbs draw weights. That supports what I hypothesize about "sick" archers dropping down to what they could pull consistently in a battle. Train for really strong bows and expect to shoot something less on the day of battle.

Wrong.
"According to Professor B. Kooi's estimations, the Mary Rose longbows varied in draw weight from 100 to 180 pounds. The biggest group of draw weights being in the 150 to 160 pound range."
link

You said:

And I don't see all practiced archers today, or at any time, shooting 100lb plus bows.

And I replied with three video examples of exactly that and references to several more.

You then said:

You just jumped off the track of my point with this: I never said that modern archers can't train to shoot heavy bows.

How is that "jumping off the track"? As far as I can see you claimed that modern archers do not shoot with 100lb+ bows and I showed several examples of those who can.

Whether they have "good form" (whatever that is) or not or do or do not "dance" is entirely beside the point.

If modern archers can shoot 100lb bows at all, how much more could medieval men, hardened to physical exertion on a daily basis and required to practice frequently with the bow, achieve?

As far as I can see you claimed that modern archers do not shoot with 100lb+ bows and I showed several examples of those who can.

? Major, I have been saying all the time, for years and years now, that "one in ten" shoot/shot 100lbs plus. How is that "modern archers do not shoot with 100lb+ bows"? I have also said in the very next breath that archers can "show off" with c. twice their normal draw weight. Those guys in the videos, and on the "warbow society" webpages, are showing off, but don't think that that is what they are doing. Their real, their "historical" draw weight, would be somewhere around half what they are showing off with.

If modern archers can shoot 100lb bows at all, how much more could medieval men, hardened to physical exertion on a daily basis and required to practice frequently with the bow, achieve?

A lot more archers, that's for sure! Therefore, a lot more archers pulling 100lbs plus. But the proportion would remain a constant. The human body will vary the same amount, if diet is considered equal. Therefore, if anything, a somewhat larger percentage of archers today could get used to a hundred pounds without compromising their body's structure, and do it far later into life, etc. But I still believe the "one man in ten" observation of my original source (Ascham, I still believe, but still cannot find).

Kooi is one estimation. Others differ. link This one is based on way too conservative estimations: link The Wiki page references surviving bows before the Mary Rose, and also samples tested to destruction. The ranges of draw weight agree with what I have been saying, starting in the 70-80lb range and going up from there. link

Here's an interesting page on modern assessment resulting in "we can't do it, so they didn't either". Vis-ŕ-vis pulling 100lb plus bows being too tiring.
link

"All five weapons are remarkably similar and may be said to be typical longbows. They are approximately six feet tall, made of the sap and centrewood of the yew tree, are rough looking, and stiff weapons pulling between 65 and 90 pounds. Given this draw weight, a maximum effective range of approximately 200 yards with a heavy war missile is not unreasonable, especially considering the performance of the present day Scottish Archers."
link

Let us not pretend that there is some sore of consensus out there. Don't ignore the bows that are shown to be well under 100lbs. What does that mean?…

But the proportion would remain a constant. The human body will vary the same amount, if diet is considered equal. Therefore, if anything, a somewhat larger percentage of archers today could get used to a hundred pounds without compromising their body's structure, and do it far later into life, etc.

And that is our fundamental point of disagreement. I maintain that a far greater proportion than your 1 in 10 would be capable of pulling 100lb+ bows in the late Middle Ages.

Kooi is one estimation. Others differ.

Hmm, the link you point to has this to say:
"The International Mary Rose Warbow Trophy will be the benchmark all-round test of the longbowman's skill; power; precision; trajectory; range; speed; distance. It will be shot with longbows ranging from 70 to 170 lbs draw-weight"

It is NOT talking about the draw weights of the bows found on the ship but the bows to be used in a commemorative tournament.

Even if you assume that the 70-170lb draw weight range is typical of the medieval period, then, assuming a normal frequency distribution of draw weights, the average weight would be 120lb, with half the bows being greater than that and the proportion of bows at 100lb+ would be something like 70% or more.

This one is based on way too conservative estimations

This one says:
"The longbows of the Mary Rose are estimated to draw at 65 to 70 pounds. "

- but that statement is just an unsubstantiated opinion and in any case is invalidated by the carefully documented study and research conducted by Robert Hardy and Simon Stanley on the actual bows.

The Wiki page

Do you trust everything you read on Wikipedia?
Be that as it may, the page actually references Strickland & Hardy p17 (ref. 9)

On that page of that book it ACTUALLY says:
"The largest weight group among the bows was in the 150-160lb range. Our later work has confirmed that these are the most likely weights of bows required to shoot the types of late Medieval arrows able to inflict the sort of damage evidenced in contemporary descriptions, and account for the outcome and death toll in many recorded battles."

Here's an interesting page on modern assessment resulting in "we can't do it, so they didn't either". Vis-ŕ-vis pulling 100lb plus bows being too tiring.

That's a fascinating article you link to. However, nowhere does it say anything about pulling 100lb plus bows being too tiring. On the contrary it says there is a need to recognise the fact that 100lb+ bows can be drawn by a growing number of modern archers and that it uses a different technique to other modern forms of archery. (Maybe that's what you were getting at with your comments about form and dancing?)
"Drawing a heavy war bow is at least as much about bone and tendon strength as it is about muscular strength "

"All five weapons are remarkably similar and may be said to be typical longbows.

But this article predates the raising of the Mary Rose which, it can fairly be claimed, turned the archaeology of the longbow completely on it's head.

Don't ignore the bows that are shown to be well under 100lbs. What does that mean?…

It simply means that bows of a lesser draw weight existed. No more, no less.

But I still believe the "one man in ten" observation of my original source (Ascham, I still believe, but still cannot find).

The quote I think you are looking for is actually from Sir Roger Williams in his military treatise, ‘Briefe Discourse of Warre', 1590, thus:

"TOuching Bow men, I persuade my selfe fiue hun∣dred musketers are more seruiceable than fifteene hundred bow-men; from that rate to the greater numbers in all manner of seruices: my reasons are thus, among 5000. Bowmen, you shall not finde 1000 good Archers, I meane to shoot strong shoots; let them be in the field 3. or 4. months, hardly find of 5000. scarce 500. able to make any strong shootes. In defending or assay∣ling any trenches, lightly they must discouer themselues to make faire shoots; where the others shot spoile them, by reason they discouer nothing of themselues vnlesse it be a litle through small holes. Few or none do any great hurt 12. or 14. score off; "
link

Interpretation of this quote hinges on an understanding of what he meant by "strong shoots". It seems clear to me from reading the whole passage that he is referring more to their accuracy than the draw weight of their bows.

So, assuming an archer unit has a mix of 70 and 100lb bows, how does that affect a volley? Wouldn't each bow strength need to use a different trajectory to the same target? Just curious… ;-)

I maintain that a far greater proportion than your 1 in 10 would be capable of pulling 100lb+ bows in the late Middle Ages.

Why? There is no way that you can determine that by today's archer demographics. And no medieval information whatsoever supports that assertion. The Mary Rose was a "flag ship" of the king. You might expect the archers aboard to be hand-picked from the very best. I've advanced this before.

…the average weight would be 120lb…

One of those links says that the average draw weight of the Mary Rose bows (some 137) is 100lbs.

But this article predates the raising of the Mary Rose which, it can fairly be claimed, turned the archaeology of the longbow completely on it's head.

No. It is sensationalized to seemingly apply to all longbows throughout the medieval period.

You really shouldn't try so hard to dismiss the presence of under 100lb "warbows".

Of course a growing number of shooters are pulling 100lb draw weights. That's the growing focus. It still doesn't show a higher percentage of regular, heavy weight bow shooters than the "one in ten". So far, I haven't seen any shooters other than that "third guy" in your above link who looks like a "one in ten" shooter. The rest are inadequately strengthened to shoot "all day" like that dude obviously could with ease. They stagger, blow hard, wince, pull faces, rock and "dance" around like the show offs that they are. And they could never keep it up long enough to defeat a French army's frontal assault, nor stand in close enough formation without knocking each other over.

Sir Roger Williams in his military treatise, ‘Briefe Discourse of Warre', 1590

Nope, that's not it, but interesting nevertheless. "Strong shoots" is absolutely talking about power and range. Any archer can be accurate with a little practice. It is the "warbow" that carries that is needed in a battle, even a late 16th century one. And Williams is right: exposed archers are dead meat when up against a levied body of musketeers. By that time the practice of archery had slipped from "national" to casual and sporting. The "archer pool" in England was practically dried up (though many thousands more than even today with a much smaller population back then). The proportions of Williams' comparisons are similar to the "one in ten" for those archers capable of "strongest shoots". He notes that scarcely 500 out of 5000 could be found in that upper category. Not even 1000 of the 5000 would be competent, and that falls very close to the twenty-five percent who pull 70-80lbs of draw weight. The rest are only good enough for sporting and hunting, not war. That is what I've been maintaining is the case the world over….

@Zyphyr: Mixed draw weights would not be in the same "units". We don't know how volley shooting was organized. I used to think that entire "wings" would shoot together. But now I hold a different view. It would make much more "command and control" sense to shoot by "centuries", i.e. by companies, than by "battles" or divisions. We should probably view the English shot issuing from King Henry V's battle line in "clumps" of arrows as each "company" volley shot on command. So the air was continuously filled with arcing clumps of a hundred arrows every c. ten seconds from each company. At long range this would mean that the arrows had scarcely finished moving as they struck, before the next volley was lofted. Spread across the entire 700-1000 yards of frontage, the view of such shot would be terrifying and awesome. It would also possess the practical advantage of preventing the French from gauging when the next volley is incoming, thus really compelling them to keep their heads down virtually all the time.

So, some ninety percent of the archer companies shot bows in the 70-80lbs of draw weight range, while a few elite units were clustered into companies of 100lbs plus draw weight bows. Or, the stronger guys simply shot the lighter bows of their lesser comrades in arms. I think a bit of both was the reality. Some very few of these elite companies probably clustered nearest the king and his biggest nobles, because these paymasters deliberately employed the very best archers their reputations could attract. Archery contests were the national sport. Our views of Robin Hood at the butts of Nottingham are actually anachronistic of a much later age, the end of the HYW and the late 15th century. The mightiest archers were like household names.

I imagine that aboard the Mary Rose there was a pecking order of friendly rivalry among the best of that crew, with every man Jack of them knowing who was the strongest, who was the best shot, who the quickest shot, etc. But in wartime, with volley shooting the standard modus operandi, they all shot together. And that meant arrows spined for standardized bows within ten pounds or so of each other. Without standard arrows, some bows become wildly inaccurate, even dangerous to use. So absolutely, especially in a huge pitched battle situation, standardized "rounds" were essential. If there were companies of those capable of the "strongest shoots", they had their own supplies of stiffer arrows….

Apropos of "spine" for arrows to be used with bows of a given draw weight, I might be mistaken about the range allowable for the more powerful bows. I lack practical experience of this specific application. Is it more likely that an arrow of a very stiff spine actually works for bows of wider range in draw weight? In other words, an arrow spined for a 100lb bow might work well enough in a bow of say 120 or 130lbs. Or an arrow spined for 150lbs would work just fine in a bow of 200lbs. I bring this up, to hypothesize why the Mary Rose bows can vary so much above 100lbs, yet there does not seem to be any significant difference in the arrows recovered from the wreck….

There is no way that you can determine that by today's archer demographics.

I didn't say there was. Neither can you say that it was only 1 in 10.

And no medieval information whatsoever supports that assertion.

Agreed. But the same is true of your assertion.

The Mary Rose was a "flag ship" of the king.

On what basis do you claim that the Mary Rose was a "flag ship"?

You might expect the archers aboard to be hand-picked from the very best. I've advanced this before.

You might. Then again you might not. There is no evidence either way. The evidence we DO have is the collection of bows recovered from the wreck.

One of those links says that the average draw weight of the Mary Rose bows (some 137) is 100lbs.

Yes, but note that it ALSO says:
"However, analysis of the wood indicated that they had degraded significantly in the seawater and mud, which had weakened their draw forces. "
link
and note the supporting reference is to Strickland and Hardy.

No. It is sensationalized to seemingly apply to all longbows throughout the medieval period.

With no evidence to the contrary … the fact remains that the majority of bows from that period that have survived have draw weights in excess of 100lbs.

Incidentally, I'd dispute the word "sensationalised". Having read the actual histirical analysis it comes over as soundly thought out without a hint of sensationalism.

You really shouldn't try so hard to dismiss the presence of under 100lb "warbows".

I'm not dismissing them. Certainly they existed. There are at least 5 that have survived to this day.

It still doesn't show a higher percentage of regular, heavy weight bow shooters than the "one in ten". So far, I haven't seen any shooters other than that "third guy" in your above link who looks like a "one in ten" shooter. The rest are inadequately strengthened to shoot "all day" like that dude obviously could with ease. They stagger, blow hard, wince, pull faces, rock and "dance" around like the show offs that they are. And they could never keep it up long enough to defeat a French army's frontal assault, nor stand in close enough formation without knocking each other over.

Inteesting, but that is all just your opinion and as far as I can tell not supported by any scientific or historical analysis.

Nope, that's not it, but interesting nevertheless.

That's a pity. So we still haven't found this reference that you claim supports your "1 in 10" hypothesis.

"Strong shoots" is absolutely talking about power and range.

Really? Did you read the whole passage?

By that time the practice of archery had slipped from "national" to casual and sporting.

So any statistical analysis of the state of archery in 16th century England (as contained in the Williams text and that you claim supports your "1 in 10" hypothesis) says nothing at all about the state of archery 100 years before, other than "it was better then than it is now".

That is what I've been maintaining is the case the world over….

What is true in one country does not mean or imply that it is the same in any other.

Mixed draw weights would not be in the same "units".

What evidence is there to support that?

So, some ninety percent of the archer companies shot bows in the 70-80lbs of draw weight range, while a few elite units were clustered into companies of 100lbs plus draw weight bows.

Again, evidence please? Without any supporting evidence tnis is just conjecture.

Or, the stronger guys simply shot the lighter bows of their lesser comrades in arms. I think a bit of both was the reality. Some very few of these elite companies probably clustered nearest the king and his biggest nobles, because these paymasters deliberately employed the very best archers their reputations could attract.

All that is pure conjecture. Please do not try and pass it off as fact.

I imagine that aboard the Mary Rose there was a pecking order of friendly rivalry among the best of that crew, with every man Jack of them knowing who was the strongest, who was the best shot, who the quickest shot, etc. But in wartime, with volley shooting the standard modus operandi, they all shot together.

Yup, you imagine …

And that meant arrows spined for standardized bows within ten pounds or so of each other. Without standard arrows, some bows become wildly inaccurate, even dangerous to use. So absolutely, especially in a huge pitched battle situation, standardized "rounds" were essential. If there were companies of those capable of the "strongest shoots", they had their own supplies of stiffer arrows….

This actually raises an interesting question. It's a bit like having a later army equipped with firearms with lots of different calibres. This was quickly recognised as a logistics nightmare and so standard weapon calibres rapidly became the norm, You are implying that 15th century armies equipped with bows somehow solved the logistic nightmare, the answer to which was then promptly forgotten again with the introduction of firearms. Hmm? I'm puzzled.

It is interesting that the bows on the Mary Rose are of different weights. Have enough f them been recovered to make a good case that the surviving staves are not of variable draw weight for some particular reason ? Are. they intended for some particular purpose or group? They are presumably hot the bows that archers in the ship were carrying in readiness to fight the French. If they are replacements then it does look as though archers carried bows of different weights, suited to their strength and when their bow broke they chose a repkacement that fitted to their build.
I don't see why meciaeval people should not be strong as they did manual exercise in a frequent basis. As a comparison, I found Maldivian fellows to be quite strong despite their short stature. Similarly with rural peopke in India who are strong despite a rather restricted diet. Archers were substantial peopleboth in physique and financial standing, , well above serfs in status. We can expect them to be reasonably fed. When William Ist plans his invasion he recruits archers from a wide region. Presumably they turn up with bows, arrows and are already experienced and trained. Similarly in England, the kings legislate to increase and professionalise archery, but it must be in existence already. Perhaps one major difference in converting bowmen fom being essentially huntsmen and castle guards to being a force on the battlefield is to move from relatively short range archery emphasising accuracy to longer range shooting with the focus on imparting punch. Use in open war would suggest that the most powerful archers would be the most useful. Because when tgey shoot en masse pinpoint accuracy is less important than power. Of course, if you are asking archers in a siege to pick men off battlements accuracy becomes very important. Now, if power is most important and if the window in which the shots must be got off is short then the archers do not need that much stamina, they need power. So, based on the illuminating discussion from agreat War Ace and the Major I would expect bows towards the heavy end of the spectrum .

With regards to the draw weights of the Mary Rose bows the lastest word is to be found in "Weapons of Warre", the MR trusts own massive study of the arms & armour found on the ship). The chapter on bows puts the average draw weight of the bows at 130lb with a spread of 95-165lb. There were also two huge bowst that would produce a draw weight of 185lb at a 30 inch draw but were probably only used with a 28 inch draw resulting in 172lb.

A major problem with the 70lb bows is that they do no do well against armour and would have been unable to perfom the feats recorded in the period sources.

Peter Jones carried out tests with a 70lb longbow at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment using wrought iron plates as targets. It was found that at 10 meters the arrow would not produce effective penetration of the 3mm & 2mm plates even at 0 degree impact, while it did produce deep penetration of the 1mm plate at 0 and 20 degrees but failed to penetrate even such a thin plate at 40 degrees. (The arrow not only glanced of, it shattered as well) Now this test did not take into account the effects of mail worn together with the plate nor the addtional protection provided by wearing padded garments under and over the armour which was common until the arrival of effective steel armour. Not to mention that few pieces of armour would have been as thin as 1mm, in fact both arm & leg harness was designed to be much thicker in the areas were you would be able to get a 0 degree impact. (I.e the exposed front part of the leg harness could be 2mm thick while the sides and rear were 1.5 to 1mm.

The problem with discussing bow pull with people who have never used a bow is that the numbers are just numbers unless you pull one.
My sister's bow was 75lb pull.
She used it at age 14.
when I used it, I over-pulled the thing and it creaked alarmingly.
I have poor upper body strength.
Anyone used to physical labour is stronger than me by a mile.
I certainly didn't train loads from childhood and a professional archer would be way way more skilled.
All pro archers would have 100 Lb+ bows IMO

Neither can you say that it was only 1 in 10.

Well, somebody back then said it, and even your Williams reference goes along with that proportion.

On what basis do you claim that the Mary Rose was a "flag ship"?

Hmm. Again, that is something I read a long time ago. I've just held onto that piece of information. But no matter, the warships were part of the "royal navy" as it were. Archers aboard any of them, I am thinking, were picked men, not the weaker sort that existed in the entire pool of archers.

Having read the actual histirical analysis it comes over as soundly thought out without a hint of sensationalism.

(Your misspelling is almost a funny. :))

Hardy comes across to me as a "fanboy" of the English legendary yeoman and his national weapon. I've read "actual historical analyses" too, as have most of us who engage in this topic and its tangents. People draw different pictures of what the analyses are telling us. I don't see, for instance, that the longbows that come from a singular find mean that the collection is typical of all longbows as a whole. And the previous existing "five" bows support my views. The variability is definitely there across the medieval period. That the Mary Rose does not show this same degree of variability should not be passed over. A singular find is just that. If, for example, we had no armor finds except a half dozen bits and pieces spanning centuries, and all of our artwork was gone except a few poorly rendered, obviously inaccurate drawings (because, let's say, the armor as drawn simply doesn't work): and then a sudden find of a mass grave occurred wherein the only armor was Milanese cap-a-pie plate, hundreds of suits of it, inexplicably buried with the corpses, a "fanboy" of the theory that "white harness" was the dominant armor type would draw an entirely wrong assertion from that singular grave find.

…that is all just your opinion and as far as I can tell not supported by any scientific or historical analysis.

It is my opinion based on video observation of recreationists doing their best so far to do the shooting as it was done. You will noticed that even when in a single rank (the only depth that I have seen heavy warbows shot from), there is little or no rocking back and forth, or dancing forward to release. They are mindful of the others standing to either side of themselves and making an effort, when done properly, to stand close together. This would be magnified ten, sixteen-fold when massed deeply as historic archers were.

Really? Did you read the whole passage?

Several times, and again just now. The telling part is this:

"In defending or assaying any trenches, lightly they must discouer themselues to make faire shoots; where the others shot spoile them, by reason they discouer nothing of themselues vnlesse it be a litle through small holes."

Williams is talking about longbowmen attacking or defending fortifications in the field, which gunners have the distinct advantage of being able to take cover. In assaulting, not so much, but defending certainly. In order for an archer to "make faire shoots", he must expose his body to view and thus presents a vulnerable target. Without the "strong shoots" the range of the bows is within effective gunnery range. "Strong" shooters can stand outside of 200 yards and actually aim "faire" beyond effective range for firearms. What Williams is observing is that even 500 gunners is better than 1500 bowmen. It would require a muster of at least 5000 bowmen to even discover the "one in ten" who could effectively counter the 500 gunners beyond their effective range. Williams is talking about power and range, "strong shoots", and accuracy, "faire shoots". An archer trying to pull a bow too strong for him would lack all capacity to aim at long range, as we see clearly by today's "warbow society" aficionados. The vast majority of them tire too quickly and can't hit a man-sized mark outside pointblank range except by luck.

So any statistical analysis of the state of archery in 16th century England (as contained in the Williams text and that you claim supports your "1 in 10" hypothesis) says nothing at all about the state of archery 100 years before, other than "it was better then than it is now".

Obviously, I disagree with that dismissal. Williams was noting the proportion of archers, not the lack of them. There were still plenty of archers, just not as many as before in the heyday. The objection Williams makes is that longbows were obsolete economically. Of what possible advantage was it to the realm to muster 5K archers only to dismiss ninety percent of them, when it took three or four months to discover the ten percent who were worth taking on? Massed musketry had become cheap by comparison and could be learned in a matter of a few days by any hicks. Archery was expensive and increasingly so. The infrastructure was going away.

Williams' proportions are insightful and back up "that other source" I would dearly love to find. Do you have any more of those? :)

What is true in one country does not mean or imply that it is the same in any other.

Actually it does. Men are just human. Diet was poor everywhere, and often masses of people didn't even have enough to eat of that. Most archers pull 40 to 50lbs draw weight. Picked men shoot c. 70-80lbs draw weight. The best of the best shoot 100lbs and up.

Yup, you imagine

I can change that to "deduce" if you like.

Everything about this topic is imagining how it could work, looking for evidence to back that up, and sticking with a theory until it is disproven by a better one. I have never said any of this stuff that I rehearse is "fact".

But it is a fact that medieval people were not as well fed as we in the "West" are, and they experienced multifarious diseases, famines and disabilities that were considered "normal". Despite that it appears from what evidence we do have, taken together, that the nature of the human body has not changed except to become generally more healthy. Strength is even denigrated in today's archers, compared to medieval strength. This is not supported by the evidence, ergo the proportion of weaker, stronger and strongest archers in an archer "population" ought to remain a constant.

Mixed draw weights would not be in the same "units".

What evidence is there to support that?

Eyewitness descriptions talk about volley shooting. In order for that to work in the required depth (e.g. Agincourt's frontage makes the English yeomen eight to sixteen ranks deep), those that cannot see the target have to elevate their bows to the same angle as the ranks in front of them, who are matching the front ranks which can see the target and establish the angle and trajectory for the whole formation. If bows of all kinds of draw weights were mixed together, the angles and trajectories would be different as well, making everyone to the rear who cannot see the target incapable of knowing which angle and which trajectory is the one that matches their bow's draw weight. Therefore it is implicit by deduction that bows had to fall within an acceptable and minor variation within a company/unit.

You are implying that 15th century armies equipped with bows somehow solved the logistic nightmare, the answer to which was then promptly forgotten again with the introduction of firearms. Hmm? I'm puzzled.

You're making more variation in archery than there was. Yes, gunnes in the early developmental stages produced all manner of "calibers". Archers, on the other hand, especially in England, practiced in order to categorize the shooters into three main groups, the "hunting bow" group at the bottom (lesser archers than even these need not apply), the "warbow group" and then the "elite group" manifested by being even better than these. So a HYW English army only had two batches of "reloads", 70-80lb spined arrows, and 100lb spined arrows. The archers shooting the lesser weight were actually capable of pulling a stronger bow under optimal conditions, but downgraded so that when campaign conditions occurred they could still shoot a warbow. The "one man in ten" who could shoot far more than 100lbs draw weight were already pulling less in a battle than they would in a contest or when practicing.

Assuming that archers took the strongest bows that they could pull into battle is a mistaken assertion. No military planning would make such a mistake as to assume that in campaign conditions that archers as a whole would remain in the peak of health. Therefore, bows and arrows were supplied that were far below what the individual archers could manage in peace time with full rations and good health. (That was a tangent, sorry, but I always love this stuff.)

So in reality, there were the two batches of arrows in supply, with ninety percent of the supply being for ninety percent of the archers. It does not stretch the credibility of the theory to assume that the ten percent were resupplied from a separate, clearly marked set of wagons.

A major problem with the 70lb bows is that they do no do well against armour and would have been unable to perfom the feats recorded in the period sources.

Maybe. But I haven't seen anything yet to show that a 70-80lb draw weight doesn't produce the kind of damage even to plate armored targets that could explain the debilitation of combat effectiveness we see in the battles of the HYW. Taking Agincourt as our best documented battle, the vast majority of French MAA arrived in melee range despite being impacted by literally hundreds of thousands of arrows. Had these all been from 100lbs plus bows, the first battle would have been literally shot down before getting close enough to melee. If Hardy's assertion that arrow penetration into the body was three or four inches through steel plate, that is exactly what would have occurred. This is why I call Hardy a longbowman "fanboy". He doesn't seem to appreciate the implication of the effect of that 100lbs plus demonstration. A 70-80lb draw weight bow does less than that, of course, but quite sufficient damage to all the other parts of the body (that your further comments allude to) that are not directly presenting several millimeters of steel plate and a glancing surface, i.e. the thinner edges, thin sides of the helmets, the breaths, and joints, the backs of the legs and butt. Seven to fifteen percent of the cap-a-pie suit (whether mild steel or Milanese tempered steel, it matters not) is vulnerable to such shooting. And the sheer volume of missiles assures than many of these weak spots got hit. Each one of them caused debilitation if not outright wounding out of the battle or even death.

So outright penetration tests of 1mm to 3mm of plate are not really showing the reality. The deadliness of the "70lb bow" was in volume of shot, not individual penetrating power at zero angle of impact.

Btw, apropos of glancing and shattering arrows. Can you imagine what a splinter of that stuff through your visor would be like? Thousands of arrows splintering on impact and producing many thousands more flying splinters: just one more factor in producing the stress that debilitated the target unit….

Similarly in England, the kings legislate to increase and professionalise archery, but it must be in existence already.

"The evidence for the Norman period strongly suggests that the normal infantry weapon was the bow." Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages -- the English Experience, Michael Prestwich page 129. In fact, there is the distinct possibility that the later archery tradition in England under the Plantagenet dynasty received its genesis with the Norman Conquest.

Now, if power is most important and if the window in which the shots must be got off is short then the archers do not need that much stamina, they need power. So, based on the illuminating discussion from agreat War Ace and the Major I would expect bows towards the heavy end of the spectrum .

Crossbows get used behind "windows", not selfbows. The longer the selfbow the more impractical to use behind a "window". (The Paston letters have an interesting passage where the ordering of crossbows is mentioned because the windows of the house were too low to render longbows useable.)

Power is all good, as long as the shooter is not straining to use his weapon. Such is the motivation of modern recreationists to duplicate the "warbow", and such is their assumption that this bow must be at least 100lbs draw weight, that many archers are convinced that stamina does not play a part as previously thought. And accuracy at range is given over to saturation shot only. But there surely were shooters of very powerful bows indeed who could aim with incredible accuracy at upwards of 200 yards. The legendary shooters who "shot for a wager" are not an invention, they are in the sources. But you can't shoot like that if your bow is too stiff for you. And modern reproductions of medieval shooting do not show very many shooters of the more powerful bows getting anything like that kind of accuracy. They are putting everything into the draw and release. And they don't keep it up for very long at a stretch….

@AONeill: That's the trouble with all anecdotal evidence, it is just that, one of a kind, and proves nothing when trying to establish the norm over a body of people numbering in the hundreds of thousands. This idea that medieval people were stronger because they did physical work only "works" so far. Of course, a modern archer can have a desk job and be just as strong as "Dickon of the Weald". Any modern athlete is the equal if not the superior of a medieval person trained in the same discipline. Yet this training does not make all equal. Once the apogee is reached, strength does not increase, rather, with time it diminishes. Were all yeomen who had trained from the age of seven equally strong then? Of course not, if the medieval world was populated by homo sapiens like ourselves. So it follows that not all archers could shoot a 70lb draw weight bow, and not all who could were capable of shooting a 100lbs plus draw weight bow.

But were all "professional archers" capable of the stronger bows? That is the core issue in this discussion each time it comes up. And the same guys line up behind their same favorite sources to make their favorite arguments. :)

I could present arguments to refute each of your bald statements above but I'm beginning to lose the will to live…

I think you are still missing a fundamental point here, though.

You maintain, and I think rightly, that bows of a wide range of draw weights existed and were in use in the late Medieval period. We seem to have agreed that the lower limit of draw weight is about 70lbs. The upper limit varies depending on what sources you follow but seems to be anywhere from 170 to as much as 200lbs. For the purposes of this post I will assume the max is the lower of these two options – 170lbs.

Note that we are talking about the population of trained archers here. That does not include the juveniles still training up to "combat weight" or the old who have lost their fighting strength.

Now GWA, you have been making a valid point about the distribution of archer ability across the population. This is something we see in all sorts of things, like human weight, height and so on. The frequency distribution of these attributes nearly always follows what is known as a NORMAL distribution:

I see no reason why archer ability in terms of draw weight should not follow such a distribution. Indeed, that has been the core of your argument all along.

Notice that with a Normal distribution, the most common value of the attribute falls halfway between the two extremes. This most common value is known as the mean.

So if we have a range of draw weights from 70lbs at the low end to 170lbs at the top end, then assuming a Normal distribution, we would expect the mean draw weight to be (70 + 170)/2 = 120.

In other words HALF of the draw weights in use would be in the range 120 – 170lbs.

This is nowhere near your 1 in 10 drawing 100lbs+. To achieve that, you would either neeed to dramatically lower the draw weight range so that the mean was something like 60lbs or alternatively provide evidence that archer draw weight did NOT follow a Normal frequency distribution.

Just how likely is it that 90% of medieval professional archers would be weaker than a 14 year old girl?
A not particularly strong 14 year old girl.

If they were suffering from dysentery or other illness who knows?