The Armour Archive

David Teague wrote:
and where did you get that ship????

ehhe jeffj bought it for us ehehe jk

Wolf wrote:

David Teague wrote:
and where did you get that ship????

ehhe jeffj bought it for us ehehe jk

HA! If that's the case, tell him to save that money for our new house!

Charlotte J wrote:

Wolf wrote:

David Teague wrote:
and where did you get that ship????

ehhe jeffj bought it for us ehehe jk

HA! If that's the case, tell him to save that money for our new house!

Did I forget to mention it, Char?

James B. wrote:

David Teague wrote:and where did you get that ship????

They are replicas of the 3 that started the Jamestown settlement 1607. Thoght almost 140 later than we are playing I figured an up close shot would look cool.

It does look cool, just run it though the watercolor filter in photoshop and vola... instant old tyme painting for your walls.

While it sucks to be a reenactor in the US with the whole middle ages, dark ages, roman thing.... it really sucks to be stuck in Alaska...

At lease you have ships only 140 years out of date for photo ops.... we are stuck either a Renfaire or Highland Games in a friggin baseball field for a backdrop....

I hate you guys....

Cheers,

As far as the length of the arrows, I have heard that they are longer than 30" and even as much as 38-40"/ The one thing that I am working on doing, (but do not have a strong enough bow) is that I have heard that they "set" across their chest instead of at their chin. Obviously they were much shorter than us (I am 6'5" and pull at close to 30") and this would have let then use more of their bodies to pull the massive bows they have. I used to use a longbow but have moved to an old recurve until I can get a stave and make my own. Just curious, how strong is everyone's bow? I personally feel comfortable with up to about a 65# bow (at 28" so I have to be careful about overdraw). I was just wanting to compare our bows to what they would have used back then. The strongest bow that I have seen used modernly is a 90# horsebow.

I use a 45lb bow with 28" arrows. I dont do re-enactment but i am always striving to get a higher draw-weight. (gets pretty costly unless i make them)

OswynHaddock

This thread on firestryker may give you so insite into arhery of the time:

http://www.wolfeargent.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 7&t=000304

OswynHaddock wrote:I was just wanting to compare our bows to what they would have used back then. The strongest bow that I have seen used modernly is a 90# horsebow.

On the documentary - "Weapons that Made England" on the "Bow" episode they had a reenactor that used a 150# longbow. They admitted that this was the "strongest" bow they knew of in the reenactment community.

I find this post facinating as I am trying to find a few bowmen for my nonprofit/living history group. If you are in the Wisconsin area, drop me a line

Strongest bow find is from the Mary Rose and it was tested at 104 pounds even after being under water for hundreds of years.

Actually it's more than that. Flonzy, you might be thinking of my 104lb yew longbow.

Part of the problem has been how to account for both the water logging and cellular degeneration. The latest data based on the revised Dr. Kooi model is that the bows ranged from approx 110-180 with 150-160 being the most common. And there were a couple of tests done to verify that 150 is very possible. The other factor to consider is that a yew bow weakens with time and use. So a 150lb bow now could have easily started as a 200lb'r.

The average Mary Rose arrow shaft was 30 inches and 0.5 inches in diameter. Take into account a 3-4 inch point (tip). And the fletchings were 6 inches long. However, these were bulk supply shafting. So individuals with longer draws would have had to adjust accordingly.

As to the hand position of release. the chin or lip is a modern release. If you look at paintings from the period, most show a draw closer to the ear. Drawing to the chest might increase pull strength for distance shooting, but you would lose accuracy (sighting along the arrow).

As I had posted on the FS forum, a new book was just released in the UK. "The Great Warbow" by Strickland and Hardy. It is currently available only from Sutton Publishing directly or Amazon.co.uk.

It definately expands and clarifies where Hardy left off in his "Longbow" book. And includes details and historical example to show the impact of the bow and regional differences. It also clarifies and shows the latest research and testing data on the Mary Rose material, now that the bow staves have been stabilized and dried after treatment.

A worthwhile point is that there are other single longbows or fragments of such that have been recovered from earlier periods. But none have been able to be dated or directly connected to a specific battle or date so their data has limited value other than a regional design.

I have a copy of the warbow book, just got it from the RA.

Info is always updating Thanks for that Friedrich, I will have to check that book out.

Its a great book, goes into loads of detail. i'd say more but i only read about 10 pages so far.

James B. wrote:Strongest bow find is from the Mary Rose and it was tested at 104 pounds even after being under water for hundreds of years.

That was the highest tested weight. But I beleive one of the bows was predicted by model to pull as much as 165 lbs, but was too damaged to be tested. It is, apparenlty, a monster of a bow!

Wow, this is all over the place, but it’s about archery, so it’s all good.

OHâ€â€

Yeah, at my group its 45lbs and up for longbows, its mainly longbows wiht beginners using the carbon fibre crap things. I've been to a efw traditional shoots (won a few times too) and the weights are generally in the 45-55lb range. Longbow archery is really popular over here.

Longbow archery is really popular over here.

Hmm, I wonder why...

thomas james hayman
Archive Member
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
Posts: 2832
Location: Bradford, England

Haha...

-Gregory-

Thomas, you won? Hat's off to you. I could only manage midfield at best. Going to a traditional shoot this weekend, but last year there was only 2 other longbows seen out of about 100 people. Which remends me...

Dinuba Greg--there a shoot in Los Olivos this weekend, about a 2.5-3 hour drive from you. You could take that turkish bow for one last outing.

Well, it was clout, the set on my bow allows me to drop at 140yds or there abouts. I'm not too bad at target either. I think it was the Panda bowmen shoots in '03.

David Teague wrote:It does look cool, just run it though the watercolor filter in photoshop and vola... instant old tyme painting for your walls.

Actually I have found that the watercolor filter does not garner a realistic result.

A combination of the Angled strokes filter and the Texturizer makes for a much more believable image.

OswynHaddock wrote:As far as the length of the arrows, I have heard that they are longer than 30" and even as much as 38-40"/ The one thing that I am working on doing, (but do not have a strong enough bow) is that I have heard that they "set" across their chest instead of at their chin. Obviously they were much shorter than us (I am 6'5" and pull at close to 30") and this would have let then use more of their bodies to pull the massive bows they have. I used to use a longbow but have moved to an old recurve until I can get a stave and make my own. Just curious, how strong is everyone's bow? I personally feel comfortable with up to about a 65# bow (at 28" so I have to be careful about overdraw). I was just wanting to compare our bows to what they would have used back then. The strongest bow that I have seen used modernly is a 90# horsebow.

One shouldn't hold too strongly to the perception that "they were much shorter than us".

As to draw points, it's my experience that drawing to the chest is a weaker motion than drawing to the chin/jaw/ear. In drawing with the elbow high and clear, you're much better able to make use of the broad muscles across your back. When drawing a heavier bow, I find it very useful to start from a bent forward position and bend the bow as I straighten my back, rising up to obtain target. This allows me to make efficient use of the back muscles.

I shoot a 65 pound and a 75 pound "longbow" (modern materials, not selfwood "D" shaped versions).

Gavin

Wow. Some great photos.

But in the interest of "journalistic balance", it behooves us to consider conditions on the other side.

InsaneIrish wrote:

David Teague wrote:It does look cool, just run it though the watercolor filter in photoshop and vola... instant old tyme painting for your walls.

Actually I have found that the watercolor filter does not garner a realistic result.

A combination of the Angled strokes filter and the Texturizer makes for a much more believable image.

I think the water color filter is cool... and it looks like a water color... not an oil painting... see below.

SPIFFY!

David:

I guess it is just personal preference. I just don't think the PS watercolor filter gives the impression or real watercolor very well. It is to blocky IMHO

I've never been to keen on most of the photoshop filters. They're fun to play with, but as far as making something permanant, they don't do much for me.

What I *do* like to do is pull down the saturation of color.

I think the difference between these two pictures is stunning (cropping aside). And so did the drugstore that wouldn't let my aunt copy these photos, because they were "professional".

• Duplicate the picture layer
• Use watercolor (or drybrush) filter on the lower of the two layers
• Fade the opacity of the upper (unfiltered layer back until just a hint of it shows over the watercolor layer.

That will allow some detail to be put back in that the artistic filter typically obliterates. And then I often UP the saturation a bit to enhance the illustrative effect and diminish the feeling it is a photo.

Example:

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/finkas/Example.jpg[/img]

In the example above. I added a feathered oval of the face as an unfiltered layer at 50% layer opacity over a layer where the entire photo was subjected to the watercolor filter. Then I flattened the file, masked off the face again with a feathered oval, inverted selection then upped the saturation.

Cheers,
Tim

Note Tim choice of which photo to photoshop....

I sometimes feel like a kid with crayons when I dink around with photoshop... with a master painter in the house....

My wife is a award winning Graphic Designer...

Think she helps me at all?

No...

She has the Mac... I have a PC... with Photoshop 4.0...

I had to recruit a local graphic artist to join my LH group so we can get good posters and other artwork for our demos....

Cheers,

DT