The Victorian Era Longbow

Joe(thebow)M · The Victorian Era Longbow

Was wondering what the average LB draw weight of Victorian Longbow Archers may have been from that time period?

I notice in todays world many Recurve Bows are advertised as target bows and start out with a #35 pound pull.

Was this common with the longbows of the Victorian Age I wonder?

I read where Horace A. Ford (1840's, 50's, 60's), felt that for a 28" arrow, the draw weight of the bow should be in the 48 to 55 pound pull range.

I wonder if a #35 longbow (most likely of Yew) would be able to compete and hold its own in a 144 arrow York Round from 60, 80, and 100 yards, or would the heavier pull weight be required?

This I expect is not an easy question to answer unless someone has already don the test, but I was just wonding?

Thanks!

segolden

Ford's book is the only source I personally have from the era for weight of draw but, having seen ELB competition in the SCA, 35# would seem to be a little under-powered for anything beyond 60-yards. I never saw anybody using less than 45#, though I'm sure the longbow competitors up here can say for certain, as I seem to recall most are in the 50-60# range these days. I remember Howard Hill commenting on the fact that, until he and the other early bowhunting pioneers came along, most archers were shooting much less than 80#, for what that's worth.

Joe(thebow)M

I also think that a #35 pound bow would be under powered for beyond 60 yard target work, but then I can't say for sure as I have never target shot that far in my life with a longbow, at least not at the type of targets we're talking about in a York Round.

I would think Ford's reference to bow poundage would be based solely on the York Round, but I also remember reading that a doctor friend of Ford's saying that he felt the reason Ford's string hand shook so much in later years was because of the excessive heavy pull weight of his (Ford's) bow, which he (the doctor) if I remember correctly stated was #51 pounds?

A #45 pound pull weight would seem almost minimum IMHO, but then as I said before,,, I just don't know.

Thanks for the input, Segolden!

segolden

I know from my own experimentation with a 45# ELB that 90-yard work is possible, and I found out why wood arrows are almost mandatory, as light carbon just doesn't stay stabilized in any kind of wind. Alloy works well as does wood, 450-to-550 grains with either, but the heavier draw weights allow a heavier arrow with smaller fletching, so I'm not going to be able to do anything at that level until my Phoenix arrives. Managed to hit a car-door-sized target several times out of twenty, that's about all.

Joe(thebow)M

I come last · Re: The Victorian Era Longbow

[quote="Joe(thebow)M"]Was wondering what the average LB draw weight of Victorian Longbow Archers may have been from that time period?

I notice in todays world many Recurve Bows are advertised as target bows and start out with a #35 pound pull.

Was this common with the longbows of the Victorian Age I wonder?

I read where Horace A. Ford (1840's, 50's, 60's), felt that for a 28" arrow, the draw weight of the bow should be in the 48 to 55 pound pull range.

I wonder if a #35 longbow (most likely of Yew) would be able to compete and hold its own in a 144 arrow York Round from 60, 80, and 100 yards, or would the heavier pull weight be required?

This I expect is not an easy question to answer unless someone has already don the test, but I was just wonding?

Thanks!

[/quote]

Hello, Joe.

A couple of points to be considered, here.

The first, is that modern recurve bows, being made of various kinds of synthetic materials, and, being recurve bows, are far more efficient that Victorian Longbow style bows. The efficiency of a modern recurve bow, is probably more like a modern American Flatbow style bow, which incorporates fibreglass laminations.

As an example, I previously had a 50lb red oak warbow style bow, which was relatively slow, and I could not make the required clout distance (here in Australia, that is 145m, which is about 160 yards). With that bow, to hit a target at 60m (about 66 yards), I had to aim about two to three target butt heights above the top of the target butt I was trying to hit.

When that bow broke, so as to be able to make the distance for clout, I bought a Victorian Longbow style bow, that was rated at 62lb at 31". With that bow, I am able to make the clout distance, and I get about the same range as I was able to get, with a "club longbow", that is an American Flatbow style bow, rated at 40lb at 28". My draw length is about 32".

To hit a target at a distance of 60m, I am (depending on the wind) aiming about halfway up the target face. At 70m, I had been aiming at the top edge of the target butt. As the bow can make the Australian clout distance of 145m, it would be able to make the distance of 90m, which is the longest distance shot in the York round. Whether I would be able to hit a target at that distance, due to the angle at which I would be shooting, is another matter. I doubt that I would be able to hit a target at 90m with that bow.

Now, that 62lb bow, is made of a variety of eucalypt. It is not yew. I have had (and worn out and broken) warbow style bows made of hickory, at 40-50lb, that have shot faster and further, than the 50lb red oak bow.

The point here, is that the efficiency of a bow, depends on the material used in the bow; in the case of English Longbow style bows, on the wood(s) used in making a bow.

Draw length indicates only how much weight an archer is likely pulling, and, not the speed or distance of a bow, unless compared with a bow of the exact same style, and the exact same material. The style causes a difference in efficiency; a warbow style bow, which, by definition, is a compass bow; it bends through the whole length of the bow, is less efficient than a Victorian Longbow style bow, which, by definition, has a handle that is stiffened so that it does not significantly bend, and bends only in the limbs and not in the handle, the design of the Victorian Longbow style bow, having been created to make it more efficient than the warbow style bow.

Apart from all of that, as you have referred to the Victorian Longbows, as used during the Victorian era, from what I understand, those bows were mostly made of one of yew, elm, or ash, from what I understand, from the references. So, once again, as the wood used in the making of the bow, varied, so would the ability of a bow to cast an arrow the distance of 90m or 100 yards, the longest distance shot in the York Round.

Also, I understand that the longbows as allowed by the GNAS and thence by the British Longbow Society, both of which are oriented around the Victorian Longbow style bows, allow for the bows to be laminated which may make the bows more efficient than the Victorian Longbows as used during the Victorian era, and the modern strings would likely make the modern Victorian Longbow style bows, more efficient than the Victorian Longbows as used during the Victorian era.

So, unless you can find an archer nowadays, who uses a historically accurate, Victorian Longbow style bow, and that archer shoots the York round with the historically accurate bow, I believe that it would be unlikely that you would be able to obtain an accurate and reliable answer to your question.

It is a bit like the premise that the warbows that were found on the Mary Rose, were evidence that the warbows had draw weights of a minimum of 150lbs. The 150lb minimum premise, was based erroneously on modern parameters and, not on parameters that would have been applicable at the time opf the Mary Rose.

So, whilst one solution to your question, may be to find some of the people in the GNAS, who have shot the York Round, or the FITA 90m round (previously named the Men's FITA round), with a longbow, or, someone who has shot in the Antient Scorton Silver Arrow Tournament, which is shot at the distance of 100 yards, and ask them what poundage bows they use, the bows that they use, are highly likely to be far more efficient than the Victorian Longbows that were used in the Victorian era.

I believe that the bst source for an answer to your question would likely be someone like Robert Hardy (or, the answer may lie in his book "The Longbow: A Social and Military History"); an authority on longbows. Hugh Soar may similarly be a good sourc, for the answer to your question (or, once again, maybe the answer may lie in his book "The Crooked Stick".

Whilst the above material does not answer your question, hopefully, the information is helpful to aid you to find the anwer to your question.

Blackcat

Don't know if it helps but I have a 30# tri laminate longbow and have shot a full windsor (upto 60 yards) no problem. At that comp a guy had an all yew longbow 60# which he shoots at all rounds and it easily makes the distances and numbers of arrows, he seems to tire long before the bow does.
I have also shot my little 30# bow at 2 clouts and make the 120 yrds required for the ladies rounds with no loss of power etc, infact got not to bad a score for a first timer. I have also shot a field round with 80 yard target and scored at this distance. Would also like to say my bow was 3rd hand had developed quite a caste to the limbs, so I personally don't think poundage is as much an issue as we are sometimes lead to believe.
I am willing to be corrected, but so far my experiences have shown otherwise.

The Victorian Era Longbow

Re: The Victorian Era Longbow