What are REAL Medieval WARBOW ARROWS like? Matt Easton & Will Sherman (Medieval Arrows)
2024 ж. 18 Ақп.
49 096 Рет қаралды
What real original medieval war arrows survive and what do they tell us?
Will Sherman's Medieval Arrows: www.medievalarrows.co.uk/ & / medievalarrows
Were Steel Arrow Heads used by English Archers? • Were Steel Arrow Heads...
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
www.pinterest.co.uk/matt_east...
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/
#medieval #archery #longbow
A little surprised that Todd didnt crawl through the window in the back when Will dared to utter the word "testing"
I like how all these men started this as a passion/hobby and ended doing very important experimental archeology as never was did before.
On the subject of the variety of arrows found on the Mary Rose, I'm reminded of something Othias of C&Rsenal said about Great War firearms - that everyone underestimated how many guns they would need and wound up pulling obsolete stuff from armories and just buying up everything on the market that was available. The result is that there was a huge variety of rifles and pistols used by all the combatants during the war. I bring this up to say that yes the variation in arrows and bows could be situational specialization to use at different ranges or types of targets, but it could just as well be a "we have to have this many bows and arrows on board, just buy everything we can find."
I suspect this may be the case. Armouries get an order for arrows of type X at quantity Y for the civic requirements. They reply we don't have the capacity for that, we can do a quarter that many of type X, or give you Y quantity of Type W, but not both. The royal procurer then says sure, give me Y+20% of type W and I will call it a fulfilled contract because fast is more important than good in their context.
This was the case especially with pistols, a lot of countries were in desperate need for them with the increasing amount of rear eschelon troops, tank crews, artillery crews, vehicle crews etc, that many countries just used everything they could find if it was at least somewhat of a caliber they could use. If someone was analyzing the small arms of major conflicts we've had a few hundred years from now, answer to a lot of their questions would be "logistics."
The variety of arrows found on the MR was beacause they were livery arrows. Civilian arrows pressed into service because there were no sheaf (war) arrows. If you look at the Anthony roll (Wiki) it tells you they were "Livery arrows in sheafs"
Chinese 'Manchu' bows are large high poundage bows of at least comparable weights to Englsih Warbows and (north of 150lbs in some cases). They use tanged heads. I suspect ease of manufacture /mass production would indeed be the most likely answer to why sockets are chosen. Making the tangs right is fiddly, then they need binding with glue and sinew afterward so more steps/faff/time/materials for what probably amounts to marginal if any performance gain.
Always enjoy when Will makes an appearance, he's super knowledgeable and very well spoken.
You can tell when people really know stuff because they are clear and open about which things are certain facts and which things have uncertainty to them
Just got back into historic archery after years, now planning to make arrows, and just like that Matt Easton drops this gem. Weird how things can synch up like this
I really appreciate the Dublin and Waterford bows, and the concept of shortbows, getting a shout out. Good to see archaeology triumphing over the concept of the eternal longbow
I remember making saxon reenactment arrows we were taught not to saw a notch for nock but to burm down with hot nail, as the fire hardening would prevent splitting of nock
Will used to be my guitar teacher. I remember Will, myself, and my Dad getting into archery all about the same time, and getting together to shoot. Amazing to see how well he's doing now and the level of expertise he has - he's a super great guy!
it's also prudent, imho, to think about the logistics of the tech. Bodkins can be banged out much faster than most other types of heads, which is an economy of time issue, and the lack of barbs, blades, or prongs, means they are more likely to survive to be recovered and reused, especially when banging into other metal in the form of armor, only bending or losing their tip, which could be ground or hammered back into shape in relatively short order. it's also possible that other designs of head would be shot, lose their particular protrusions, then get ground down into a bodkin to be recycled. In other words, they may have been "anti-armor" because they were the design most likely to survive contact, rather than the design most likely to penetrate.
Sure, but that brings up the question of what kind of arrow head could possibly be more effective for penetrating armour than some type of bodkin? Everything is almost useless against plate, but bodkin is actually pretty good against mail. It's hard to imagine a more complicated design that would be more effective for simply penetrating armour.
@@HawkOfGP the idea that bodkins are for armour penetration, especially mail, is very much a modern one but we really don't have much evidence to support that. I don't know of any period sources that refer to them as such and due to the expense, modern tests against authentically made mail are extremely rare. But those few tests we do have shown that well-made mail can be resistive against relatively high power (by medieval standards) arrows and bolts at short ranges, and can can even stop lance hits from horseback. Therefore, it’s a reasonable assumption that the lower power bows used in earlier periods would have had more difficulty penetrating any form of metal armour. So we need to get away from fixating so much on armour penetration and consider what other possible purposes each head may have had. One theory that has been going around for a while is that bodkins were long-range arrows. The head shape appears to cause less drag giving them somewhat more range than the larger broadhead style. This may explain why hardened bodkins are so rare whereas we have a number of sources referring to hardened broadheads.
@@dgmt1 "modern tests against authentically made mail are extremely rare. But those few tests we do have shown that well-made mail can be resistive against relatively high power (by medieval standards) arrows and bolts at short ranges, and can can even stop lance hits from horseback. Therefore, it’s a reasonable assumption that the lower power bows used in earlier periods would have had more difficulty penetrating any form of metal armour." You're making the assumption that all ancient and medieval mail was made to a certain standard of protection, but frankly that's not true, butted mail and mail made of low quality metal existed as historical armor. "Mail" is such a varied type of armor because there are so many different material and dimensional factors to how effective it can be. The gauge of wire, size of the ring, method of manufacture(punched from sheet or wound from wire), method of assembly(butted, riveted, or alternating rivet and solid), method of weaving and quality of the material all drastically change mail's efficacy in protection and flexibility.
Also the bodkins have nothing projecting, so they can be packed tighter together, making them ideal to transport & issue en mass. They can be stuffed behind a mans belt & drawn out without catching on anything, unlike barbed broadheads.
@@2bingtim quite true! they'd also be stackable in the narrow-style quiver that some archers favored, and in a regular quiver they'd lay more uniformly, so you could likely get more into a quiver of the same dimensions.
37 minutes on arrows? Yes please.
As a traditional archer, I enjoy this, on the attachment of the arrow head, I'd like Will to say something about the attachment of socketed heads, so that they might come off, if they struck something, to stop them being shot back at you, lots of people keep repeating stories, but nobody who is a fletcher, the short arrows are interesting, it should never be forgotten even low weight bows can kill you, if arrows have a sharp tip.
You do hear a lot of stories about heads "designed" to come off once they hit somebody, but tests have shown over and over again that heads not fixed securely are far less effective than ones that are. Energy loss on impact is hugely important, and even the slightest material failure such as the tip bending or the socket opening can result in a shot being wasted, so heads that move on impact as a result of not being firmly attached are far less effective than ones that are. Because of this, some heads (we don't know how many military ones, but there are some military heads and many hunting ones) were not only glued but also pinned to the shaft to avoid this. We also have records of glue for the arrowheads being stored, and the Mary Rose arrows had fish glue on the cones from the heads themselves.
@@MedievalArrows could be a good subject of a video, against some meat targets and ballistic gelatine, with and without strongly glued tips, I honestly dont know, and dont want to repeat myths, so thank you for your reply, another good video, could be to look at how some of those more crazy shape broadheads actually impact the same kind of targets again, especially, if they are going to be banned!
interesting about the early medieval arrows being shorter, during viking reenactment the "archery" officers were saying everyone had to have 30" arrows, and tall thin bows, i had a much shorter 4ft bow and 24" arrows, much faster to shoot with chest draw, could shoot and reload much quicker while moving, and most importantly 24" arrows were much easier to have in a cloth back quiver, which again increased releoading speed, and a back quiver did get in the way of movement, on a battlefield could run and still draw and shoot...i never got why there was so much hate for short arrows/short bows/back quivers
having grown up in a competition archery family, I find it difficult to imagine pulling an arrow back by pinching it with thumb and fore finger unless the bow was very weak.
I can do 70 with my finger and thumb
I totally nerded out on this.
Damage vs penetration. With people wearing no to light armor, broad tips to cause damage is the thing. With people wearing heavy to full plate armor, narrow tips to cause penetration is the thing.
I received one of Will's rather lovely Agincourt arrows in the post today, so good timing with the video! 😂 You really feel the heft of the thing and it's plain to see the optimisation that has been involved to produce a lethal munition.
Another reason for tapering your shaft is to increase penetration. Basically punch a hole, and then pull a small arrow through the hole.
Isn't one reason why modern arrows often have smaller fletchings related to the cutout/shelf present in modern bows, which reduces the archer's paradox, the arrow doesn't have to flex around the bow shaft, and thus is less wobbly during flight?
Thanks Will and Matt for this awesome video.
Very interesting video thanks ! Lovely arrows !!! It must be difficult to find swan feathers nowadays.
Great vid, a very interesting subject and your usual quality presentation. I enjoy it when we look into historic items in general but weapons in particular and discover just how fit for purpose and well engineered they are....a layman sees an arrow but it's so much more than that, how the shaft shape and fletchings are crafted to suit whichever purpose the head is designed for.......these are incredibly well conceived - and the hours of work involved per arrow really does show that these differences brought genuine results on the battlefield. The various types of arrow in the Mary Rose puts me in mind of different weapons systems employed in modern combat groups....for example, in a single platoon you can have assault rifles, heavier belt fed guns and sniper rifles - we're possibly seeing the same differentiation in bows and arrows. Great stuff, more deep dives please.
Tanged vs. Socketed: Tanged arrow points are stronger -- they're less likely to break on impact. That's easy to mess up though: if there's a gap behind the tang it'll be weaker, if it's unreinforced it can be weaker. Typically Turkish / Eurasian / Asian / Chinese etc. arrows were tanged. Socketed are easier (cheaper) to make, and also may be why English arrows tend to be thicker at the head: it's harder to make a small socket by hand. Socketed arrows tend to break at the base of the socket because the side works as a knife against the wood. Edit: another important note on tanged heads is many archeological finds are 'wrong' in that they're too short. Most of the thin metal tang rusts away so they look much shorter and weaker than they really were. Peter Dekker from Mandarin Mansion talks about this in his youtube interview with ... I think Thumbshooters UK?
Socketed arrows, especially the way they are often fitted today, involve creatinf a step, ie. a stress riser, in the wood. A tanged arrow, fitted into a split rather than a saw cut, wouldn't do this.... Interesting point!
Superb video!
Those short arrows are so interesting and I’ve never learned of those before in this region and era. Even eastern/mogolian style short bows had long or normal sized arrows because of the full draw length. Super interesting and helpful ❤️
A quick question regarding the materials used for the arrows. I know the longbows would be made from billets of wood from a full grown tree (in order to have the sap and heart wood) rather than just cutting down some random sapling but could the material of the war arrow shafts be made from coppiced/pollarded branches or would they be from full sized trees with the wood split then lathed to become round.
I love that we got skeletons surviving...
I wonder if in the early days or in small skirmishes that archers would be mixed in with melee infantry. Say in the second row, with a small, short draw bow with only enough power to outrange enemy spearmen and create gaps for your melee buddies to exploit. Only later and on larger scales archers become more like artillery and a separate unit where maximum range is key.
This is what I think too. It's fairly effective
In those "Early days" of archery there was still mega fauna around such a mammoth, wooly rhino, aurochs etc, so very heavy bows obviously useful as well as using javelins & atl atls.
Here is a question. Flint will kill a deer or an unarmoured man just as well as iron. When did flint napping finally die a death? When people find flint heads they seem to assume they are Pre-Roman, pre-iron and pre-bronze age but I'm not convinced they fell out of use as quickly as we thought.
i guess at least for the military use, iron arrow tips were quicker made than napping a flint tip, often in one or two heats when the smith is good. napping an arrow head can be a bit more complicated, but in a use where delivery of many arrows on time is not important, hunting for example, they might have used flint heads, sometimes
I'd imagine they found use for a long time in hunting through much of the Bronze Age at least. Because while copper/bronze is superior, there would be a transition period from very little material being available to the metal being so ubiquitous you could afford to toss it in a trash heap. For some time it must have remained more practical and economical to make and use stone arrowheads, especially in more remote settlements that didn't develop bronze industries as early.
@@bl4cksp1d3rThe thing about napping is that it can be a community effort. Even children can do it and they probably did. Smithing heads is much more intensive of energy and resources. That's why I think a lot of heads that are claimed to be ancient probably aren't.
@@DiscitusCopper and bronze might be superior for penetrating armour but flint is 100% the better cutting edge. That's why I'm not convinced it fell out of use the way we think it did. Arrow heads are a tool box, why waste resources if you have free materials? I don't think there was ever a period prior to the industrial revolution where steel or iron that could cut was so cheap it was disposable.
@@zoiders Its funny you mention that because, if we look at native north american cultures especially around the great lakes.......in many places where stone wasn't available we have an entire copper culture. Knives, arrow heads, spears, jewelry, tools.......all made from natural copper deposits. Oddly enough they're used in more ancient times and as we progress to more modern pre-contact era......stone was used more even though copper was superior. As trade routes open up.....and stone is available to everyone they seem to mostly abandon the copper and go back to stone(although copper was never fully abandoned). My theory is that the copper was just too labour intensive and resource heavy to produce and thus more expensive. Stone was cheap and easy for anyone to work so it took over again. Until European contact, then native peoples were all gaga over copper and steel again since it no longer took as much effort to create. They could just trade for it. Cost and ease of access and manufacture really does matter and I suspect a lot of rural folks were still using stone points. They work just as well and if you're near the source of stone it's free. A good knapper can crank out quite a few points around the fire at night easy enough. Why use expensive metal points when they'll just get lost or damaged anyway?
After listening to Mr. Easton, Cutler, and others as well as doing some archery hunting in the American Midwest I've often wondered if anyone has considered the amount of trees in the area when these shorter bow were used? Traversing wooded areas with anything over 5 feet makes walking thru underbrush a nightmare. I'm hoping to find a 35 pound bow with a 24 to 26 inch draw that is 48 inches or less in overall length.
Yes, Malcom PI talked about this on his channel. For some indigenous groups in the Americas, longbows were for winter, shortbows were for summer.
Turkic or Indo-Persian recurves are awesome for that. Korean too.
After this video, Matt had to stand under a cold shower shouting "Ooh-er MISSUS!" from all the unexpressed innuendos... Butt, you say?? The... ring... of the... butt?? They needed the horn because the wood wasn't hard enough?? Hellooo nurse!!
Looking forward to the arrowhead tests!
Arrows vs Armour III ! I'm in.
For me, always a pleasure to watch a video about medieval archery. So many thanks for this video:) About the topic of socketed or tanged arrowheads, I might have an observation. In the early middle ages, all of the Hungarian arrowheads had tangs, not socket. Scientists mostly agreed on the fact, that these arrowheads were mounted on arrow shafts made from some kind of tree sapling (hazel tree sapling for example). In most cases, the interior of these saplings is much softer then the outer layers. So you can easily mount an arrowhead, with a much simpler construction. This probably would be very important, if you have smaller amount of metal to work with, or if you need to make arrows in a quicker way. I do not know, if this was the case in other parts of Europe but definitely was a thing between early Hungarian arrow makers.
You talk about tapering and distal taper. With swords, do we know when blades began to have distal taper? Was there a time when distal taper was just a thing you would find on expensive swords? Would there be cheaply produced authentic historical swords which had no tapering?
Wow, thanks! That was the video I was waiting for for years! Super interesting!
Haha, Tod! As there was no preview to give it away, I had actually thought it was one of his videos indeed. So when you came up, it was rather surprising... ⚔
That makes good sense. For most of history this is how bows were drawn. Go no further than native tribes and their usage of bows from around the world. They look almost comical, that is how little they draw it.
I keep wanting Dungeons and Dragons to learn more from Tod, Will, Joe, Matt, etc, or I guess really from archeology but MAN. That would be so complex....
An excellent discussion! I'd heard of Will before, but I'd never heard from him and I will say I'm favourably impressed (Not that any one will care 😊) Looking forward to your next talk!
Outstanding vid, great information thank you both!.
Nice arrows
Great job show on arrows & bows
great vid, thanks
Henry V shooting his bow said bury me where this arrow lands.
That was said of Robin Hood.
"The head's a really interesting point . . ." I'm sure this was unintentional, but I chuckled anyway.
On some context on the greater impact of missile warfare during the Late Middle Ages I heartily recommend Schwerpunkt's series
Thanks for the video & the good information
Around 16:55 I noticed the similarly between the arrow and early bombs dropped from airplanes in wwI and wwII. Could mean the design was meant for "lobbing " more than straight shooting
Modern recurve arrows are also tapered, at least the high end ones are. Interestingly the compound ones usual aren't, maybe because they're not as interested in getting the archers paradox to work in their favour.
Fascinating
Lots of variety from west to east. Turkish war arrows from 24-28 inches and 350-650 grains, Manchu arrows up to 40 inches and 1,500 grains or more.
Turkish had all sorts of arrows, they really had it down to an art form, from very light, very short flight arrows, that could go very long distance, other for rapid shooting and against horses, armour, confined spaces, etc, we simply dont know the Western analogues, other than what we see on art work. Chinese and Koreans etc, had some very big bows, that would need monsters to pull and other recurves that allowed very long draw lengths, basically, there is no one size fits all, depends on the applications, we just dont know. Think of it like modern ammunition, 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, 50 cal etc.
Great vid. Cheers.
It doesn't make sense to hunt pigeons with a war bow. That does not mean a man that had been shat upon would not do it, especially if drinking was involved.
This was really interesting, thanks guys.
The functionality of an individual arrow head is important, but these would not have been always used singly; a volley of 20-30 arrows would be lethal whereas a single arrow might cause a minor injury; but repeated minor injuries can have extra effects -sword handles made slippery by blood, the psychological effect of getting hit by an arrow when many more are coming etc
Tanged Vs socket is very peculiar and interesting question
I wonder if it simply comes down to the stock material available
@ThomasRonnberg that was one of my thoughts initially, but some of the more common tanged heads are made from the same starting stock as late medieval socketed heads.
@@MedievalArrows Thank you for taking the time to share that information. Interesting.
One thing that's not clear to me: I understand how shooting an arrow made for a lighter draw-weight bow with a very heavy bow would just damage the arrow and send it off track. But what's the risk of shooting an arrow made for a heavy bow with a lighter bow? Except maybe being slightly less optimal in distance I don't see the downside. So why didn't everyone used the biggest arrows? (Except hunting game or practice shooting of course, I am talking about battlefield time.) And thank you for your always so interesting videos!
Look up “archer’s paradox.” The arrow bends when shot, and then straightens out. You want the final straightening at the perfect spot to make the shot work. It’s not dangerous, but can slow your shot down.
@jamespuckett9753 just a note on this, as it comes up SO much! Archer's Paradox actually doesn't have anything to do with bending/straightening. It's simply the fact that when the archer is aiming at the target, the arrow is pointing way off to the side. The paradox occurs BEFORE the arrow is released. There is bending that happens, but it's not related to any paradox. The reason not to shoot heavy arrows from a light bow is that they won't have enough energy to be useful at the other end. As soon as they get slightly too heavy for the bow, they just drop with no real power and you may as well throw them by the time they reach the target!
@@MedievalArrows Thank you very much for your answer! If we had to ball park it roughly, what is the draw weight range of bows for which the same arrow can be used? (e.g. if I have an arrow perfect for my 80 pounds bow, is it still OK to shoot it with a 81 pounds bow? 85 ? 90 ? 100 ? ... (And same in reverse I suppose))
Arrow velocity is pretty crucial for accuracy and efficient shooting in general. Modern compounds are way faster than pretty much any traditional bow, and still modern shooters and hunters often claim that they try to get even more velocity. You can shoot 1400 grain arrow out of 40 pound bow, with good energy, but it will be very sluggish, with poor trajectory and it will need lots of time to reach even 40 meters away. It would have like about 28 m/s velocity tops, which would be enough for maybe 100 meters of range, probably not even that. You will have no range, accuracy and enemies will see your arrows comings.
@KamiSeiTo it's hard to say really, because it depends on so many factors. Wood species, wood quality, head weight, bow performance, bow age... I could make a set of arrows for a customer with an 80lb bow, and I'd make them to suit what I know an 80lb bow *should* be, but if their 80lb bow is 10 years old and is actually more like a soggy 70lb bow those arrows won't be very good. An arrow made of really good ash that are spined for an 80lb bow should be fine out of a 100lb bow, but if the wood isn't great, or the 100lb bow is actually more like 110lb, or they're drawn further/shorter etc... its a real minefield!
I want to know the measerments of the taper and for which purpose it is. Nice video but we need to know even more nerdy details!
Well, now I would love to see Tod do an arrows vs armor test of that short chest drawn bow and short arrow versus gambeson or maile like the illustration from Durer shows.
Informative.
I am frequently surprised that given the historical productioen of millions of swords, spears, bows, arrows, armour,. swords, polearms and other materiel there are so few examples surviving. ONE medieval arrow? No British armour? The only long bows are on the Marie Claire? Long bow construction almost extinguished the Yew tree in Europe making millions of bows but the only samples on the Marie Claire. Interesting. Thank you.
Rule of Thumb, medieval mass-production was still small workshops hand making everything things were still measured in finger widths and arm lengths identical perfectly calibrated machine stamped yardsticks marked in 32nds of an inch.
awesome, thanks
Interesting video!
now that is extremely interesting, the arrow length and drawing to the chest. i began studying and practicing arabic archery at the end of last summer, so i surely am no expert. however of the little from the lottle i have so far learned in arabic archery there is a technique called "shooting from the heart" which is generally theorised amongst those far more knowledgeable than i to be a close quarters technique. i have been wondering if maybe it was also the first shot in a medieval "double tap". however i have found the technique to be surprisingly accurate for i. of course there's most likely many more excellent examples of people regularly using and practicing that particular technique but a favourite of mine to watch performing it is the ex Finnish horseback archery champion, Mihai Cosmei. watch his video on here titled "ten arrows in ten seconds" for an awesome display of the technique at a fair enough range and then consider that he used that same technique for every arrow thrown in competition! anyway, Thank You kindly for the food for thought, no rain forecast until early evening here in penzance i can see i having a great day in the garden now so, many many Thanks for that Brother man. 😁🏹😎
I shoot thumb draw now, and have various bows, including Turkish and Mongolian etc, you can practice this speed shooting technique, as part of instinctive shooting, a way of visualising it is to line up your bow hand, arrow and heart towards what you want to hit, the hardest part is nocking quickly and it is easier to have slightly wider short nocks, watch for bounce backs and recommend eye protection, rubber tips etc, until you have mastered it, when you have got it off, try some broadheads, you will be surprised how far they penetrate even from the shorter draw.
As a modern day primitive archer I found this very interesting
I´d like to learn more about the classification of arrowheads. If there is a type 16, there must be at least 15 other types!
There are two main classifications of arrowheads. The first is by Ward-Perkins, and was made in 1940 as a way of cataloguing the heads in the Museum of London. Its still the most common typology, and only features numbers (Type 16, Type 8 etc) The second is more recent, from the 1990s and is by Oliver Jessop, using letters before the numbers to determine if a head is military, hunting or multi-purpose (M4, M7 etc) Most people use the London Museum typology, but both are missing quite important heads, and both have issues so it's very common to see people use both if a set of heads requires both typologies to catalogue them. If you do a Google search for "medieval arrowhead typology" you'll find good images of both - or just go to my website! My arrowhead shop page has an extant example of every London Museum type, and even the Jessops typology listed alongside where possible.
Those stubby arrows would be a lot easier to handle in close ranks, and the bows could just be very firm as you are only using the strongest part of your pull and for shooting volleys you dont need precision as much as you need to carry many and shoot often.
Very cool
For the algorithm!
Long live the algorithm!
Which bit of the arrow would you want to carbon date for an accurate age? I'm guessing the shaft is going to give you the age of the tree, the arrow head could give anything from the age of the charcoal to the age of the coal, I guess that dating the glue, binding or flights would give the most accurate date for when the arrow was constructed?
Height of the Mary Rose crew ranged from 5'3" to 6'0", with average of 5'7". So two inches shorter on average, compared to modern UK men.
Thanks. Though I should have also mentioned here that height makes proportionately less difference to arm span, so for example I am taller than Will, but we have similar arm span. So I think this average shift would make minimal difference to arrow lengths.
@@scholagladiatoria arm , torso and leg length ratios vary considerably betweeen individuals. However when we look at large sample sizes, the correlation between average height and reach is reasonably consistant. For example looking at the average height and reach by weight class of all UFC fighters we get; 125lbs 66.2"/28.6", 135lbs 68.8"/29.4", 145lbs 70.3"/28.3", 155lbs 71.8"/29.5", 170lbs 73.6"/29.7", 185lbs 75.2"/31", 205lbs 76.2"/31.6", 265lbs 77.4"/33.1". The height difference of medieval populations does tend to be heavily exaggerated and was likely only 1-2" different from now (depending on the nutrition available to the general population at the time). Based on that we could guess that on average their reach would have been about 0.5-1.0" less that of modern English people which, as you implied in the video, isn't that much.
You interupted him when the talk reached the glue - Would be nice to hear about the different type of glues, and how the experiments turned out. And whats a "type 16"( obviously its a designation. But what abou all the other types, and who implemented the system with numbers for the types? When was the various types used?)
If one looks at the ancient bows that the ancestors of the Celts & Anglo Saxons were still kicking around the Cuacuses one will see this short bow tradition as well.
I love the fact the arrow was found on a roof😂
I found on 1399 Wilton dyptique painting an arrow with compound glue on it. Any sources older than that?
Just thinking a puff of feathers from a 130 lb bow shot pigeon. POOF!!
Just what I need. 😄👍
Hi Matt Easton & Will Sherman, very interesting. I wondering if there is a book or a website which explain what arrow head is a N2 or Type 9. I have C Rau but that is good for the heads but does not assign a type too an arrowhead.
Skeletons surviving? How do you keep them alive? LOL
With milk, probably
Necromancy
I'm afraid I have to disagree on the Westminster arrow being military (9.02). It displays none of the historical chacteristics of a sheaf arrow. The sheaf arrow was not whipped and waxed, nor did it have horn inserts. When Edward III ordered his million arrows they were designed as cheap single shot missiles. If you were to take ten turns of twine on each arrow it would take 280 miles of twine,... an unessessary expence for single shot missile. They were bult to price and in 1338 the price was a halfpenny. A fully fletched arrow like the westminster would cost 2d and an arrow for the King cost 3d. These were known generically as broadheads also bearing or livery arrows. The 36" war arrow is known as a standard arrow or sheaf arrow and flight arrow is...wait for it...a flight arrow on which huge sums were wagered. Standard .14. A kind of arrow (distinguished from ‘bearing arrow’ and ‘flight’). Obs. Perh. short for ‘standard arrow’, which occurs in later citations of 16th c. documents. See quot. 1465. [1465 Ir. Acts, 5 Edw. IV, c. 4 (1786) I. 29 It is ordeyned‥That every Englishman‥shall have an English bow‥with twelve shafts of the length of three quarters of the standard.]* 1557 City of Lond. Jrnl. 17 lf. 46 in Vicary's Anat. (1888) App. iii. 177-8 Who will comme‥and take a longe bowe in his hande-having the standarde therin therefore prouyded,‥shall haue for the best game a Crown of golde.‥ And for the best game of the bearing arrowe, he shall haue [etc.].‥ And for the best game of the flight, he shall haue [etc.].‥ And‥there shalbe a trumpett blowen at euerye shott, aswell of the standarde, as of the arrowe or flight. 1598 Stow Surv. Lond. 77 Of old time‥the Officers of the Citie‥were challengers of all men‥.............to shoote the Standarde, broade arrow, and flight, for games. [1682 W. M. (W. Wood) Remembr. Show & Shooting, 1583, 51 Then came the Duke‥bearing a Standard Arrow in his hand.]* *To Shoot the Standard arrow (military) the broad arrow (generic name for all livery and hunting arrows) and flight arrows for competition. * Three quarters of the Standard arrow would be 27" that would be the minimum, nothing to stop you tipping up with a 32" shaft.
Day X of trying to figure out how I should balance various medieval weapons, for modding purposes, for the purpose and fun of historical accuracy. Relative historical accuracy.
Hey you! Yeah you, random person reading this comment. Yes you specifically! I need your help. What kind of shirt is Will wearing? I've been looking for a shirt just like that for years but I don't know where to find one or what it's called. I know it's a stupid question but you'll make someone's day.
I just got back into traditional archery. And now days the "experts " are shooting 500 grain arrow with 600 grain points with 45 lb bows ! Why are we moving away from lighter arrow with weaker bows ? I think it's kinda like heavier bullets at subsonic speed .
A thought: is Will aware of/has he examined the 14th century longbow and arrow held in the Museu Martim Goncalves Macedo?
I've not examined the bow, but the arrow is a modern replica
@@MedievalArrows Ah, that's disappointing. Thanks for the heads up!
With a bone insert you can use a faster thinner string.
What about the Arrow that was found in a thatch roof barn that Richard Head had spoken of
where should the point of balance of arrows be? how far from the tip?
At 18:50 you're looking at an arrowhead. You and Will agree that the barbs were brazed on. Why braze them on instead of sawing the barbs in with a thin saw?
Generally because the arrowhead is made of a softer iron and the barbs are hardened steel.
@@robo5013 That makes sense, thank you.
I would guess that tang would let the arrow penetrate deeper, less resistance then a socket.
Probably the arrows were made by different fletchers. And the shape is indicadive of who made it.
Would the short arrow and bow be used on horseback? (sorry if this is a silly question)
People are significantly taller today on average, which means longer arms, thus longer arrows
The tanged waterford arrow looks very much like the ones used in Tod's video on fire arrows. Being from a siege situation this be reasonable?
was the mary rose arrows not usual, because it was said that those heavy arrows were not found anywhere else ?
We don't know if they were unusual really. As stated in the video - we have very few surviving medieval arrows outside of the Mary Rose, and among the thousands of Mary Rose arrows there is a lot of variation.
What does "braised on" (brazed?) mean if its not welded?
would tanged arrow heads stay in there target after pulling out the shaft, causing more problems ?
Wouldn't it be possible that as they needed a LOT of arrows, they asked several different arrows maker and each one had "access" to only some specific arrow heads from their local blacksmith? Admitting blacksmiths were not all able to make all kind of arrowheads, but just 2 or 3 types :)
The heads weren't made by blacksmiths, they were made by arrowsmiths. This was a skilled, guild-controlled military trade, not somebody who usually made nails and hinges knocking them out at times of campaign. Arrowsmiths were required to know numerous patterns, which were set by law for different jobs, developed over hundreds of years in answer to increased effectiveness of armour.
@@MedievalArrows Interesting, thanks :)
Interesting hearing you talk about the bias towards the idea of tapering on the arrow shaft. I think that bias is prevalent within many fields of scientific inquiry (ie. towards linear vs towards exponential or other non-linear) until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My interest in climate change led me to becoming a secondary school science teacher and , to the point, I see throughout the scientific community the bias towards seeing the data and effects of climate change as a linear process and progression. Whereas I see it as exponential. I know my comment isn't concerned with the content of this video, but I was prompted by the bias coincidence and that I think that this bias may get us humans into a heck of a lot of trouble when it comes to an issue as potentially destructive as climate change/global warming. Apologies to all those who think I'm wasting their time and head-space with my rant, but this comprehension of a built-in bias struck me as a bit of a light-bulb moment, and I think I'm talking myself more than I'm talking to any of you (ie. writing this has coalesced my thoughts to be more concrete in my own head-space). Cheers Matt
Humans like patterns and will see them even if they are not really there. "This, then that, then the other" rather then "this, that and those all at the same time" The default setting for all science should be "We don't know...... But the evidence seems to show X (at the moment)."
Once you deal with history long enough you deal with the fact that temperatures go up and down, we have left the little ice age which meant abnormally cold weather for centuries, and the current warm period historically led to golden ages, but will turn around in a few centuries. I see absolutely no evidence of things being exponential, indeed China is getting colder and Russian attempts to facilitate warming are unlikely to bare fruit. The whole thing sounds very much to me like the scientific nonsense that saturated fats were behind obesity and red meat was the devil. Having dealt with academia I must say I wouldn't trust them more than I could verify as they are pulled along by funding, the pre-conceived notations of colleagues and chasing the bandwagon of popular topics (because that's were the funding and prestige lays), there are also whole departments who basically specialise in nonsense (sociology and education first among them).
@@vorynrosethorn903 Increased regional cold is also a feature of climate change/global warming. Thank the Jet-streams for that. But if you can't see that (NASA data, NOAA data, Scrips data, UK Met data, Aust. BOM data, Danish Climate Institute data) we have had the highest average global temperatures for 24 of the last 25 years, going back 2000 years, then nothing will convince you. You are a classic case of "no I don't need to look at the data, you can see it with your own eyes". Don't believe those trusted scientific institutions, you know better mate. Stay in your bubble. At least I won't be competing with you when push comes to shove.