Roman arrowheads or not

Johan van Zyl · 1st October 2017, 11:51 AM

I definitely second what you say, Victrix! Thank you to Kronckew for this extra information.

When I first read of the spectacular finds on the Mary Rose wreck, I found myself more interested in the old longbows than in new-fangled bows with wheels & ratchets & levers! Just think how strong those old bowmen must have been to pull 80-100lbs.

I wonder how the bows of the Romans/Greeks compare to the Mary Rose longbows...

Johan

kronckew · 1st October 2017, 03:08 PM

i gather they were a LOT weaker. probably at least half. greeks and early romans were not very inclined to archers, preferring slings and javelins for missile weapons, romans hired archers after their disasters with the parthian horse and these had better recurved bows, but still nowhere near the english bows. they had a few on exhibit that were in the 120-150 lb. range. they also had one setr up in the museum at portsmouth you could try to draw. try being the operative word. i could only draw it a few inches.

skeletons of english archers showed massive bone structures developed by years of practice and massive muscle attachments to match. tudor men were required by law to practice archery on sunday after church, and frivolities like football were forbidden. many of the open parks north of central london and just outside the old walls were actually set aside for archery. archers in wartime were well paid too, if they met the required standard.

Johan van Zyl · 2nd October 2017, 10:46 AM

This is fascinating stuff, Kronckew! I have previously done some reading up on skeletal muscle attachments, especially pertaining to archeological excavations. The forensics behind this field of study is gripping.

Johan

kronckew · 2nd October 2017, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johan van Zyl

This is fascinating stuff, Kronckew! I have previously done some reading up on skeletal muscle attachments, especially pertaining to archeological excavations. The forensics behind this field of study is gripping.

Johan

you may enjoy this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ified-RSI.html

Johan van Zyl · 3rd October 2017, 03:15 PM

Very interesting indeed! Thanks for the link!

Johan

Pukka Bundook · 4th October 2017, 03:21 PM

Kronckew has it exactly right;

The English archers of the Tudor period must have looked like Quasimodo with their great muscles all geared to draw such bows.
Simon Stanley can draw and shoot a bow of 190 lbs, but doesn't like to I gather, because it Hurts!
170 lbs he can draw all day.

Always been interested in the old longbows, Have two home-mades half tillered at present, and 80 lbs pull at half draw. Need to work on them more as I'm a weed compared to our ancestors!

kronckew · 4th October 2017, 04:12 PM

simon doesn't look like quasimodo

i'd not like to get a punch from him tho.

see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR0pvYkZy7A

that also answers the question about a logbow penetration of period armour, tho the steel plate over ballistic putty didn't have a layer of gambeson over it.

1st October 2017, 11:51 AM	#1
Johan van Zyl Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: I live in Gordon's Bay, a village in the Western Cape Province in South Africa. Posts: 126	I definitely second what you say, Victrix! Thank you to Kronckew for this extra information. When I first read of the spectacular finds on the Mary Rose wreck, I found myself more interested in the old longbows than in new-fangled bows with wheels & ratchets & levers! Just think how strong those old bowmen must have been to pull 80-100lbs. I wonder how the bows of the Romans/Greeks compare to the Mary Rose longbows... Johan

1st October 2017, 03:08 PM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,152	i gather they were a LOT weaker. probably at least half. greeks and early romans were not very inclined to archers, preferring slings and javelins for missile weapons, romans hired archers after their disasters with the parthian horse and these had better recurved bows, but still nowhere near the english bows. they had a few on exhibit that were in the 120-150 lb. range. they also had one setr up in the museum at portsmouth you could try to draw. try being the operative word. i could only draw it a few inches. skeletons of english archers showed massive bone structures developed by years of practice and massive muscle attachments to match. tudor men were required by law to practice archery on sunday after church, and frivolities like football were forbidden. many of the open parks north of central london and just outside the old walls were actually set aside for archery. archers in wartime were well paid too, if they met the required standard.

2nd October 2017, 10:46 AM	#3
Johan van Zyl Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: I live in Gordon's Bay, a village in the Western Cape Province in South Africa. Posts: 126	This is fascinating stuff, Kronckew! I have previously done some reading up on skeletal muscle attachments, especially pertaining to archeological excavations. The forensics behind this field of study is gripping. Johan

3rd October 2017, 03:15 PM	#5
Johan van Zyl Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: I live in Gordon's Bay, a village in the Western Cape Province in South Africa. Posts: 126	Very interesting indeed! Thanks for the link! Johan

4th October 2017, 03:21 PM	#6
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Kronckew has it exactly right; The English archers of the Tudor period must have looked like Quasimodo with their great muscles all geared to draw such bows. Simon Stanley can draw and shoot a bow of 190 lbs, but doesn't like to I gather, because it Hurts! 170 lbs he can draw all day. Always been interested in the old longbows, Have two home-mades half tillered at present, and 80 lbs pull at half draw. Need to work on them more as I'm a weed compared to our ancestors!

4th October 2017, 04:12 PM	#7
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,152	simon doesn't look like quasimodo i'd not like to get a punch from him tho. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR0pvYkZy7A that also answers the question about a logbow penetration of period armour, tho the steel plate over ballistic putty didn't have a layer of gambeson over it.