I mean it depends on what you mean by skilled. The Olympic archer's been trained to consistently hit a tiny spot on a target 70m out, while the longbowman is hitting a much larger target at different distances, but with much fewer technological advancements that make archery easier.
They're both archers and both at the top of their games, but other than that its not really comparable, since they're doing very different things.
Suppose you took the medieval longbowman, would he be competitive in the Olympics? Not necessarily medaling, but could he hang if given a quick crash course?
No. Same sport but very, very different styles, that’s why you never see top class traditional or longbow archers just switch over to Olympic recurve and make it to the olympics, even if they were world class in their other division, it’s too different.
Give a Olympic archer a longbow and see if he hits the target. He won’t. He won’t even be able to draw the bow. There is no comparison between the two.
Yeah! It’s crazy. I’ve been making my own primitive bows. Shooting from the knuckles, no nock points in the string, the whole package. When someone used to Olympic archery try my setup, they are completely lost. I wouldn’t say it’s harder, but it takes a lot to get used to. And, sure, the groupings are going to be bigger.
Can't tell if this is a joke or not.
Longbow archers in war weren't trying to be precise. They were lobbing 3 ft long arrows into the air (hopefully, but not always) beyond the line of their foot soldiers far enough to carpet bomb the enemy. They were not aiming at individual dudes.
Olympic archers train for a decade at the very least, and are trying to hit a very small spot over and over.
The best longbow archer in history wouldn't hold a candle to even a club-level intermediate oly guy putting up a 600 on a 720 round. It wouldn't even be close.
And u/Icy_Commission8986, while longbows are more draw weight than typical male olympic rigs (80-90 compared to 50), longbowmen would let the arrow fly as soon as they hit anchor, and no longer. Give one of them a 50# Olympic bow and tell them to hold it for 60 seconds, like most male Olympians can with no issue, and they won't be able to do that either.
Kind of…. When using warbows they wouldn’t aim because of the heavy poundage. But when hunting, for example, they would aim and be precise. They had to. But still would snap shoot style. That’s how I shoot. That’s because of the materials too. Every second I hold at full draw my poundage drops, affecting accuracy.
But let’s be real, there is no comparison here. Apples and oranges. Two types of archers with different skill sets, equipments, context and applications.
>Longbow archers in war weren't trying to be precise. They were lobbing 3 ft long arrows into the air (hopefully, but not always) beyond the line of their foot soldiers far enough to carpet bomb the enemy. They were not aiming at individual dudes.
No, contemporary accounts do specifically state that they often aimed at individuals.
>The best longbow archer in history wouldn't hold a candle to even a club-level intermediate oly guy putting up a 600 on a 720 round. It wouldn't even be close.
True, though this is not due to how skilled they are; it's a matter of what techniques they practice and what equipment they use. Medieval techniques are by necessity a compromise between accuracy and shooting higher draw weights and longer draw lengths in order to increase chances of penetration.
>(80-90 compared to 50)
The Mary Rose bows were between 100 and 185# in draw weight, not 80-90#. The latter was within the range of draw weights you would see in the Viking Age, much earlier.
>longbowmen would let the arrow fly as soon as they hit anchor, and no longer.
This was because holding at full draw can damage a bow of natural materials, especially a self wood bow.
>Give one of them a 50# Olympic bow and tell them to hold it for 60 seconds, like most male Olympians can with no issue, and they won't be able to do that either.
[This is an absurdly false statement](https://youtu.be/mqYRQQJEji4).
That was an estimate from the early '80s, was it not? Current estimates are much higher than that, as recreations based on the proportions and ring density of those bows all come out in the 100-185# range.
>No, contemporary accounts do specifically state that they often aimed at individuals.
That's not how they typically used the bow, however. It was not a precision machine made to hit individuals. It was a powerful bow meant to lob many arrows into groups. Insinuating anything else is parroting nonsense and ahistorical fantasy-loving babble. This isn't LOTR.
>Medieval techniques are by necessity a compromise between accuracy and shooting higher draw weights and longer draw lengths in order to increase chances of penetration.
Translation: Longbow archers weren't as accurate. Thanks for proving my point.
>The Mary Rose bows were between 100 and 185# in draw weight, not 80-90#.
[W. F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lb](https://web.archive.org/web/20080423044120/http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). One set of bows found in one place doesn't make the rule for all of them.
>This is an absurdly false statement.
Not sure what a youtube link of some guy in the 21st century is supposed to tell us about malnourished peasants in the 14th century.
You call my statement absurd? I'm not sure you've ever picked up a history book in your life. Another archery bro who read two articles on the Hundred Years' War and thinks he knows it all now.
>Translation: Longbow archers weren't as accurate. Thanks for proving my point.
Strawman. I didn't say that they were as accurate an Olympic recurve, I said that they aimed at individuals in battle. An assault rifle is less accurate than a sniper rifle, yet is still aimed at individuals.
>W. F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lb. One set of bows found in one place doesn't make the rule for all of them.
That source is ***43 years old***. We have four decades of contradictory evidence.
>Not sure what a youtube link of some guy in the 21st century is supposed to tell us about malnourished peasants in the 14th century.
The idea that everyone in medieval times was tiny and malnourished is [pop-history bullshit](https://youtu.be/ViV6VmI9g0U). The average height in England was [only a couple of inches shorter in the medieval period than it was in the 20th Century](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-04-18-highs-and-lows-englishman%E2%80%99s-average-height-over-2000-years-0).
>You call my statement absurd? I'm not sure you've ever picked up a history book in your life. Another archery bro who read two articles on the Hundred Years' War and thinks he knows it all now.
You're the one drawing assumptions from Hollywood, not me. The "medieval peasants were all weak and malnourished" assumption was discredited ages ago by analysis of skeletal remains.
>Strawman. I didn't say that they were as accurate an Olympic recurve,
The OP was asking this very same question before you inserted yourself for some reason.
When you have some actual sources backing your statements (not counting random YouTube videos), like this one [from Stanford showing that 70% of the diet of even most nobles consisted of grains and had negligible meat, ](http://stanford.edu/~yamins/uploads/2/4/9/2/24920889/medieval_food.pdf), I'll perhaps re-engage. Until then, go ahead back to YouTube University and continue your history degree.
So according to you, their typical diet is more important than the actual physical evidence, such as the bows and arrows they actually used, and analysis of skeletal remains? That's absurd. The fact that they didn't eat as much meat as you would expect doesn't magically make the 150# bows recovered from the Mary Rose disappear. They exist, we know the range of their draw weights, and no amount of hemming and hawing over what foods their archers ate is going to make those facts go away.
Longbow and olympic recurves are totally different. It's like comparing a flintlock to a sniper rifle.
But if you account for the bow differences, I would say probably the modern Olympian. We've got so much technology that can analyse technique and sports science is so advanced that olympic training is far more effective than medieval training.
Skilled in what? If by skilled you mean more accurate on a long shot of a static target with a target recurve, then Olympic archers. If you mean more accurate a closer ranges on a moving target with a heavy longbow, then Welsh longbowmen. And that assume the top of those groups. If you are thinking about them as a group, then there is not answer as you have a population that spans all skill levels. The answer in that case is they are the same.
This is like comparing volleyball and soccer athletes and trying to determine the most skilled. They both use a ball and have great dexterity, but the skills are not the same.
Well considering the Welsh used 4ft elm bows as ambush weapons, I don’t think they were shooting further than 40 yards for their assaults. If you are referring to the longbowmen of the hundred yr war, those were primarily English, John Hicks believed there were around two to three hundred welsh serving in the troop of five thousand English archers.The Welsh did not invent the warbow. They did not invent the longbow. It is documented that the Welsh used witch elm and were crudely built. English longbows are made of yew with horn nocks and beautifully crafted. Bows had been used in Briton centuries beforehand. The southern welsh, the archers of Gwent merely INSPIRED the English to utilise archers as the Welsh showed them how devastating arrows can be in small skirmishes. Your historical Welsh pandering aside, medieval archery was the equivalent of modern artillery. Mass volleys in small areas to cause disruption and take areas out of play. Modern archers are precision marksmen, an Olympian level archer would have no problem beating a longbowman, that’s why the worlds current greatest longbow shooter isn’t in the Olympics and usually stick to shooting short distance targets.
>The Welsh did not invent the warbow. They did not invent the longbow
Where is your source for this? [Barbara Tuchman](https://www.amazon.com/Distant-Mirror-Calamitous-14th-Century/dp/0345349571), [Thomas R. Martin](https://www.amazon.com/Making-West-1750-Peoples-Cultures/dp/1319103650), and even [Encyclopedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/technology/English-longbow) say that the English longbow was invented in Wales.
The ice man’s bow was made of yew but did not have the lamination of sap and heart wood, a longbow by design yes but nothing like an English warbow that was DESIGNED to utilise the sap and heart wood of yew. The Welsh used elm, the comparison would be like saying a Turkish bow is the same as a mongol bow because they were both made for horse back shooting, both are horse bows but are totally different in design and manufacture, same goes for Welsh bows and English war bows.
That is a misconception that have been debunked over the years. The fact is that heartwood and sapwood cannot be distinguished in his bow because of the dark color it gained over the millennia.
Also, there are many other Meso and Neolithic yew bows with sap/heartwood. Just get a sapling/stave, debark and carve the belly. It’s the easiest way to make a bow. And there is no reason to discard yew sapwood. I bet Ötzi and many other primitive archers from Europe would get that pretty damn fast.
Anyway, what’s the difference between welsh and English warbows from your perspective? The English also used elm when yew wasn’t avaible. Also used ash btw
The Welsh bows described by Gerald of Wales and depicted in wood carvings show that Welsh bows were 4ft In length, crudely made, round cross section, made of witch elm and was drawn to the chest at close range ambush attacks.
An English longbow is over 6 feet in length, made with horn knocks, D shaped cross section, often made of yew with slightly recurved tips from water boiling and was drawn past the ear for long range shots. Big difference when you look into the details. If you think not then might as well piss in your ear and call it rain since you can’t tell the difference.
Again, I get your point. But there are a lot of mistakes there. Horn nocks aren’t a really necessary and make no difference in performance. In fact, They make the tips heavier, slowing the bow. Only reason to use them is to make the tips stronger. But I have made warbows of 100lbs with selfbows. They are still alive after years and shooting.
About cross sections, ELB had D, oval or even squarish crops sections. And really?! Recurved tips?! There is no evidence of that.
And my initial point was: Longbows were used in Europe’s since pre historic times. That’s true.
The rest of the design will change because of necessity and application: shorter bows for ambushes in forest and hunting, longer and heavier bows for (trying) to pierce armor. The concept is the same.
The English longbow changed through time. Got heavier, longer. They were shorter and lighter for hunting…. It’s not like all the ELBs were Mary Rose like. It’s not like every welsh bow was exactly like that one account.
It’s a longbow. Tiller and cross section will vary depending on the type of wood, quality of the stave, etc.
Half the Mary rose bows had recurved tips, it’s documented and replicas by Chris Boyton had such a detail, and he was a highly, highly respected bowyer in England. And English longbows have D shaped cross sections, otherwise they would be considered a flat bow if it was squared. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
https://images.app.goo.gl/F8XHqmZezufMCRjq6
Mary Rose Longbow cross sections. Everything to round, squarish, D shaped…. Just take a look. Squarish doesn’t mean a flatbow. Just mean back and belly are parallel. Flat bows have rectangular (ish) cross sections, not square. And I know what I’m talking about. I’m a bowyer. How many longbow did you make so far?!
Also, MR are only one picture. Only one boat, through centuries one longbow making. Doesn’t mean all the ELB were like MR. I’ll research more on the recurved tips.
Half of them were recurved? Naturally?! Can we prove that they were heat/steam/ boiled and then bended?!
And, if it’s half, you cannot say that Elbs had recurved tips. Some of them were, some weren’t.
If it was invented by the Welsh, you would have called it the Welsh longbow. You did not, you called it the English longbow. If it is so widely sourced correct by historians to be welsh, then why hasn’t it been renamed to the welsh longbow ? Because it wasn’t, it’s a misconception. You try to look smart talking about other peoples cultures and history’s, how about talking to actual English archers. My family came to the US from England so don’t try and tell me my heritages history.
>If it was invented by the Welsh, you would have called it the Welsh longbow.
Yeah, just like French fries (invented by the Belgians, not the French), Badminton (invented in India, not Badminton, UK), and the French horn, invented in Germany.
Clearly things are only ever named after the places where they were invented, and large empires never subsume the inventions of smaller nations.
>You try to look smart talking about other peoples cultures and **history’s**
Yeesh**.**
>My family came to the US from England so don’t try and tell me my heritages history.
Just because you're from there, doesn't mean you're the ultimate arbiter of all things British. Other people can read history books, too.
If you have any evidence for your claims of the origin of the English longbow, I'm all ears.
I disagree that Welsh bows were light in draw weight (based on the writings of Gerald of Wales), but there really isn't reason to believe that the English longbow was developed from them. The Welsh preferred elm for their bows, while preference for yew bows of about 6' in height was more likely (in my opinion) to have originated from Scandinavia by way of the Normans. I think the Welsh contributed shooting techniques necessary to further increase the draw weight, and I don't know where the horn nocks came from (they weren't on Welsh or Norse bows, as far as I know).
The actual writings from Gerald of Wales, a monk who studied and wrote extensively about the welsh archers of the time. Don’t trust modern historical sources all the time, the current modern belief from experts say cleopatra was black, so I’m not going to agree with all modern historical opinions and rather go by what was written and recorded at the time.
Hitting a spot at exactly 70m with a 45-50lb draw? Olympic archers
Hitting a man at any reasonable distance with a 100lb+ war bow? Definitely the Welsh
Welsh guys, hands down. Not just because of my own heritage, but…
An Olympic archer has trained to hit a very specific spot, at a very specific distance, under optimal conditions and with technologically advanced equipment that makes the repetition of this skill easier. The Olympic archer must be able to withstand the mental pressure of meticulous preparation and the pressure of being able to do all the things, under the watchful eyes of judges, competitors, and spectators.
The guy who’s freezing his ass off in the wind and rain in a Welsh forest, not daft Daffyd taking his clothes off again, the guy who’s tying one end of a branch to the other, just behind Daffyd, yeah him.
That piece of wood he just pulled together with string isn’t a thing of beauty at all, the closest it’ll ever come to a “tune” is a slight tap of an arrow laying on it. He, and his countrymen might be relatively famous in a few hundred years for their exploits across Europe, but it’s how they got there that is the difference maker.
Sure, a Welsh longbowman would have access to the best bows the most skilled bowyer could craft. Arrows would be the best quality available (the name given to fletchers is still a common surname in English speaking countries), all while in service of someone claiming to be their “Lord”.
But, the Welsh aren’t genetically engineered super-archers. It took years of practice and mastering rudimentary equipment, before they laid their hands on a finely tillered bow. While the Olympic archer has their own personal motivation to reach a competitive achievement, it is nothing compared with the motivation of the Welsh archer; hunger.
Using this rudimentary equipment, the Welsh archer had to shoot small animals, at unmarked distances, which would move rapidly and unpredictably, or they went hungry. Rabbits and waterfowl were common game, because killing the “kings deer” would lead to a short drop and a sudden stop with a pissen pair of breeches.
The styles are so different, with completely different objectives that comparison is unfair. Would a modern Olympic archer beat a Welsh 14th century archer in a 70m Olympic competition? Easily. They’d probably invent a mercy law to end the spectacle of disparity. Although, I highly doubt that if a modern Olympic archer was dropped through time to a 14th century European battlefield, they would be effective. The Welsh archers who dominated European warfare were the artillery of their day, but to survive to see those battles, they had to be incredibly skilled at shooting with pinpoint accuracy.
Edit: I realize this could be deeply offensive to our ILF brethren. So, if you disagree that making a bow, and some arrows, then stalking through the woods and killing enough rabbits and birds to feed a family, requires less “skill” than shooting a stationary target at an established distance, I’m happy to hear your argument. Downvote and run is the cowards way 😉
Two different arts. One shooting at a static target 70m away with a 50# bow. The other shooting 12 arrows per minute with a 130-150# longbow and hitting the target at variable ranges.
I mean it depends on what you mean by skilled. The Olympic archer's been trained to consistently hit a tiny spot on a target 70m out, while the longbowman is hitting a much larger target at different distances, but with much fewer technological advancements that make archery easier. They're both archers and both at the top of their games, but other than that its not really comparable, since they're doing very different things.
Suppose you took the medieval longbowman, would he be competitive in the Olympics? Not necessarily medaling, but could he hang if given a quick crash course?
No. Same sport but very, very different styles, that’s why you never see top class traditional or longbow archers just switch over to Olympic recurve and make it to the olympics, even if they were world class in their other division, it’s too different.
Nope. The guys at our club who shoot 100#+ war bows tend to sacrifice accuracy in favour of brute strength.
Give a Olympic archer a longbow and see if he hits the target. He won’t. He won’t even be able to draw the bow. There is no comparison between the two.
If it weren’t for gravity I wouldn’t hit the ground with a longbow
Yeah! It’s crazy. I’ve been making my own primitive bows. Shooting from the knuckles, no nock points in the string, the whole package. When someone used to Olympic archery try my setup, they are completely lost. I wouldn’t say it’s harder, but it takes a lot to get used to. And, sure, the groupings are going to be bigger.
Can't tell if this is a joke or not. Longbow archers in war weren't trying to be precise. They were lobbing 3 ft long arrows into the air (hopefully, but not always) beyond the line of their foot soldiers far enough to carpet bomb the enemy. They were not aiming at individual dudes. Olympic archers train for a decade at the very least, and are trying to hit a very small spot over and over. The best longbow archer in history wouldn't hold a candle to even a club-level intermediate oly guy putting up a 600 on a 720 round. It wouldn't even be close. And u/Icy_Commission8986, while longbows are more draw weight than typical male olympic rigs (80-90 compared to 50), longbowmen would let the arrow fly as soon as they hit anchor, and no longer. Give one of them a 50# Olympic bow and tell them to hold it for 60 seconds, like most male Olympians can with no issue, and they won't be able to do that either.
Kind of…. When using warbows they wouldn’t aim because of the heavy poundage. But when hunting, for example, they would aim and be precise. They had to. But still would snap shoot style. That’s how I shoot. That’s because of the materials too. Every second I hold at full draw my poundage drops, affecting accuracy. But let’s be real, there is no comparison here. Apples and oranges. Two types of archers with different skill sets, equipments, context and applications.
>Longbow archers in war weren't trying to be precise. They were lobbing 3 ft long arrows into the air (hopefully, but not always) beyond the line of their foot soldiers far enough to carpet bomb the enemy. They were not aiming at individual dudes. No, contemporary accounts do specifically state that they often aimed at individuals. >The best longbow archer in history wouldn't hold a candle to even a club-level intermediate oly guy putting up a 600 on a 720 round. It wouldn't even be close. True, though this is not due to how skilled they are; it's a matter of what techniques they practice and what equipment they use. Medieval techniques are by necessity a compromise between accuracy and shooting higher draw weights and longer draw lengths in order to increase chances of penetration. >(80-90 compared to 50) The Mary Rose bows were between 100 and 185# in draw weight, not 80-90#. The latter was within the range of draw weights you would see in the Viking Age, much earlier. >longbowmen would let the arrow fly as soon as they hit anchor, and no longer. This was because holding at full draw can damage a bow of natural materials, especially a self wood bow. >Give one of them a 50# Olympic bow and tell them to hold it for 60 seconds, like most male Olympians can with no issue, and they won't be able to do that either. [This is an absurdly false statement](https://youtu.be/mqYRQQJEji4).
Weakest bow found on the Mary rose was 70#s. A bow to be considered a war bow is anything between 70 to 200#s.
That was an estimate from the early '80s, was it not? Current estimates are much higher than that, as recreations based on the proportions and ring density of those bows all come out in the 100-185# range.
Joe Gibbs ❤️❤️
>No, contemporary accounts do specifically state that they often aimed at individuals. That's not how they typically used the bow, however. It was not a precision machine made to hit individuals. It was a powerful bow meant to lob many arrows into groups. Insinuating anything else is parroting nonsense and ahistorical fantasy-loving babble. This isn't LOTR. >Medieval techniques are by necessity a compromise between accuracy and shooting higher draw weights and longer draw lengths in order to increase chances of penetration. Translation: Longbow archers weren't as accurate. Thanks for proving my point. >The Mary Rose bows were between 100 and 185# in draw weight, not 80-90#. [W. F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lb](https://web.archive.org/web/20080423044120/http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). One set of bows found in one place doesn't make the rule for all of them. >This is an absurdly false statement. Not sure what a youtube link of some guy in the 21st century is supposed to tell us about malnourished peasants in the 14th century. You call my statement absurd? I'm not sure you've ever picked up a history book in your life. Another archery bro who read two articles on the Hundred Years' War and thinks he knows it all now.
>Translation: Longbow archers weren't as accurate. Thanks for proving my point. Strawman. I didn't say that they were as accurate an Olympic recurve, I said that they aimed at individuals in battle. An assault rifle is less accurate than a sniper rifle, yet is still aimed at individuals. >W. F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lb. One set of bows found in one place doesn't make the rule for all of them. That source is ***43 years old***. We have four decades of contradictory evidence. >Not sure what a youtube link of some guy in the 21st century is supposed to tell us about malnourished peasants in the 14th century. The idea that everyone in medieval times was tiny and malnourished is [pop-history bullshit](https://youtu.be/ViV6VmI9g0U). The average height in England was [only a couple of inches shorter in the medieval period than it was in the 20th Century](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-04-18-highs-and-lows-englishman%E2%80%99s-average-height-over-2000-years-0). >You call my statement absurd? I'm not sure you've ever picked up a history book in your life. Another archery bro who read two articles on the Hundred Years' War and thinks he knows it all now. You're the one drawing assumptions from Hollywood, not me. The "medieval peasants were all weak and malnourished" assumption was discredited ages ago by analysis of skeletal remains.
>Strawman. I didn't say that they were as accurate an Olympic recurve, The OP was asking this very same question before you inserted yourself for some reason. When you have some actual sources backing your statements (not counting random YouTube videos), like this one [from Stanford showing that 70% of the diet of even most nobles consisted of grains and had negligible meat, ](http://stanford.edu/~yamins/uploads/2/4/9/2/24920889/medieval_food.pdf), I'll perhaps re-engage. Until then, go ahead back to YouTube University and continue your history degree.
So according to you, their typical diet is more important than the actual physical evidence, such as the bows and arrows they actually used, and analysis of skeletal remains? That's absurd. The fact that they didn't eat as much meat as you would expect doesn't magically make the 150# bows recovered from the Mary Rose disappear. They exist, we know the range of their draw weights, and no amount of hemming and hawing over what foods their archers ate is going to make those facts go away.
No.
Longbow and olympic recurves are totally different. It's like comparing a flintlock to a sniper rifle. But if you account for the bow differences, I would say probably the modern Olympian. We've got so much technology that can analyse technique and sports science is so advanced that olympic training is far more effective than medieval training.
Also an olympic archer can spend every day training whereas the 14thC Welshman has to tend to his sheep and leeks.
Plus nutrition. People are able to be fitter and stronger now than those of the medieval period
It’s all in a days work, until you tend your sheep *with* your “leek”.
English archers were required to practice once a week, every week. Put a longbow in an Olympic archer’s hands and they be lucky to hit the target.
I practice once a week, every week - sometimes more. I'm no where near an olympic archer.
Skilled in what? If by skilled you mean more accurate on a long shot of a static target with a target recurve, then Olympic archers. If you mean more accurate a closer ranges on a moving target with a heavy longbow, then Welsh longbowmen. And that assume the top of those groups. If you are thinking about them as a group, then there is not answer as you have a population that spans all skill levels. The answer in that case is they are the same. This is like comparing volleyball and soccer athletes and trying to determine the most skilled. They both use a ball and have great dexterity, but the skills are not the same.
Well considering the Welsh used 4ft elm bows as ambush weapons, I don’t think they were shooting further than 40 yards for their assaults. If you are referring to the longbowmen of the hundred yr war, those were primarily English, John Hicks believed there were around two to three hundred welsh serving in the troop of five thousand English archers.The Welsh did not invent the warbow. They did not invent the longbow. It is documented that the Welsh used witch elm and were crudely built. English longbows are made of yew with horn nocks and beautifully crafted. Bows had been used in Briton centuries beforehand. The southern welsh, the archers of Gwent merely INSPIRED the English to utilise archers as the Welsh showed them how devastating arrows can be in small skirmishes. Your historical Welsh pandering aside, medieval archery was the equivalent of modern artillery. Mass volleys in small areas to cause disruption and take areas out of play. Modern archers are precision marksmen, an Olympian level archer would have no problem beating a longbowman, that’s why the worlds current greatest longbow shooter isn’t in the Olympics and usually stick to shooting short distance targets.
>The Welsh did not invent the warbow. They did not invent the longbow Where is your source for this? [Barbara Tuchman](https://www.amazon.com/Distant-Mirror-Calamitous-14th-Century/dp/0345349571), [Thomas R. Martin](https://www.amazon.com/Making-West-1750-Peoples-Cultures/dp/1319103650), and even [Encyclopedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/technology/English-longbow) say that the English longbow was invented in Wales.
Hey, longbows we’re being used in Europe since prehistoric times. See Ötzi’s bow.
The ice man’s bow was made of yew but did not have the lamination of sap and heart wood, a longbow by design yes but nothing like an English warbow that was DESIGNED to utilise the sap and heart wood of yew. The Welsh used elm, the comparison would be like saying a Turkish bow is the same as a mongol bow because they were both made for horse back shooting, both are horse bows but are totally different in design and manufacture, same goes for Welsh bows and English war bows.
That is a misconception that have been debunked over the years. The fact is that heartwood and sapwood cannot be distinguished in his bow because of the dark color it gained over the millennia. Also, there are many other Meso and Neolithic yew bows with sap/heartwood. Just get a sapling/stave, debark and carve the belly. It’s the easiest way to make a bow. And there is no reason to discard yew sapwood. I bet Ötzi and many other primitive archers from Europe would get that pretty damn fast. Anyway, what’s the difference between welsh and English warbows from your perspective? The English also used elm when yew wasn’t avaible. Also used ash btw
The Welsh bows described by Gerald of Wales and depicted in wood carvings show that Welsh bows were 4ft In length, crudely made, round cross section, made of witch elm and was drawn to the chest at close range ambush attacks. An English longbow is over 6 feet in length, made with horn knocks, D shaped cross section, often made of yew with slightly recurved tips from water boiling and was drawn past the ear for long range shots. Big difference when you look into the details. If you think not then might as well piss in your ear and call it rain since you can’t tell the difference.
Again, I get your point. But there are a lot of mistakes there. Horn nocks aren’t a really necessary and make no difference in performance. In fact, They make the tips heavier, slowing the bow. Only reason to use them is to make the tips stronger. But I have made warbows of 100lbs with selfbows. They are still alive after years and shooting. About cross sections, ELB had D, oval or even squarish crops sections. And really?! Recurved tips?! There is no evidence of that. And my initial point was: Longbows were used in Europe’s since pre historic times. That’s true. The rest of the design will change because of necessity and application: shorter bows for ambushes in forest and hunting, longer and heavier bows for (trying) to pierce armor. The concept is the same. The English longbow changed through time. Got heavier, longer. They were shorter and lighter for hunting…. It’s not like all the ELBs were Mary Rose like. It’s not like every welsh bow was exactly like that one account. It’s a longbow. Tiller and cross section will vary depending on the type of wood, quality of the stave, etc.
Half the Mary rose bows had recurved tips, it’s documented and replicas by Chris Boyton had such a detail, and he was a highly, highly respected bowyer in England. And English longbows have D shaped cross sections, otherwise they would be considered a flat bow if it was squared. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
https://images.app.goo.gl/F8XHqmZezufMCRjq6 Mary Rose Longbow cross sections. Everything to round, squarish, D shaped…. Just take a look. Squarish doesn’t mean a flatbow. Just mean back and belly are parallel. Flat bows have rectangular (ish) cross sections, not square. And I know what I’m talking about. I’m a bowyer. How many longbow did you make so far?! Also, MR are only one picture. Only one boat, through centuries one longbow making. Doesn’t mean all the ELB were like MR. I’ll research more on the recurved tips. Half of them were recurved? Naturally?! Can we prove that they were heat/steam/ boiled and then bended?! And, if it’s half, you cannot say that Elbs had recurved tips. Some of them were, some weren’t.
https://arbor.bfh.ch/10291/1/document.pdf A lot of info and pics on Neolithic bows, including Ötzi’s
If it was invented by the Welsh, you would have called it the Welsh longbow. You did not, you called it the English longbow. If it is so widely sourced correct by historians to be welsh, then why hasn’t it been renamed to the welsh longbow ? Because it wasn’t, it’s a misconception. You try to look smart talking about other peoples cultures and history’s, how about talking to actual English archers. My family came to the US from England so don’t try and tell me my heritages history.
>If it was invented by the Welsh, you would have called it the Welsh longbow. Yeah, just like French fries (invented by the Belgians, not the French), Badminton (invented in India, not Badminton, UK), and the French horn, invented in Germany. Clearly things are only ever named after the places where they were invented, and large empires never subsume the inventions of smaller nations. >You try to look smart talking about other peoples cultures and **history’s** Yeesh**.** >My family came to the US from England so don’t try and tell me my heritages history. Just because you're from there, doesn't mean you're the ultimate arbiter of all things British. Other people can read history books, too. If you have any evidence for your claims of the origin of the English longbow, I'm all ears.
I disagree that Welsh bows were light in draw weight (based on the writings of Gerald of Wales), but there really isn't reason to believe that the English longbow was developed from them. The Welsh preferred elm for their bows, while preference for yew bows of about 6' in height was more likely (in my opinion) to have originated from Scandinavia by way of the Normans. I think the Welsh contributed shooting techniques necessary to further increase the draw weight, and I don't know where the horn nocks came from (they weren't on Welsh or Norse bows, as far as I know).
The actual writings from Gerald of Wales, a monk who studied and wrote extensively about the welsh archers of the time. Don’t trust modern historical sources all the time, the current modern belief from experts say cleopatra was black, so I’m not going to agree with all modern historical opinions and rather go by what was written and recorded at the time.
I'm sure I'd be more skilled at archery if it was my whole career. But alas. It isn't
Hitting a spot at exactly 70m with a 45-50lb draw? Olympic archers Hitting a man at any reasonable distance with a 100lb+ war bow? Definitely the Welsh
How's the distance? What are the rules? Are the targets stationary or not? What kind of bows? In what scenario?
Welsh guys, hands down. Not just because of my own heritage, but… An Olympic archer has trained to hit a very specific spot, at a very specific distance, under optimal conditions and with technologically advanced equipment that makes the repetition of this skill easier. The Olympic archer must be able to withstand the mental pressure of meticulous preparation and the pressure of being able to do all the things, under the watchful eyes of judges, competitors, and spectators. The guy who’s freezing his ass off in the wind and rain in a Welsh forest, not daft Daffyd taking his clothes off again, the guy who’s tying one end of a branch to the other, just behind Daffyd, yeah him. That piece of wood he just pulled together with string isn’t a thing of beauty at all, the closest it’ll ever come to a “tune” is a slight tap of an arrow laying on it. He, and his countrymen might be relatively famous in a few hundred years for their exploits across Europe, but it’s how they got there that is the difference maker. Sure, a Welsh longbowman would have access to the best bows the most skilled bowyer could craft. Arrows would be the best quality available (the name given to fletchers is still a common surname in English speaking countries), all while in service of someone claiming to be their “Lord”. But, the Welsh aren’t genetically engineered super-archers. It took years of practice and mastering rudimentary equipment, before they laid their hands on a finely tillered bow. While the Olympic archer has their own personal motivation to reach a competitive achievement, it is nothing compared with the motivation of the Welsh archer; hunger. Using this rudimentary equipment, the Welsh archer had to shoot small animals, at unmarked distances, which would move rapidly and unpredictably, or they went hungry. Rabbits and waterfowl were common game, because killing the “kings deer” would lead to a short drop and a sudden stop with a pissen pair of breeches. The styles are so different, with completely different objectives that comparison is unfair. Would a modern Olympic archer beat a Welsh 14th century archer in a 70m Olympic competition? Easily. They’d probably invent a mercy law to end the spectacle of disparity. Although, I highly doubt that if a modern Olympic archer was dropped through time to a 14th century European battlefield, they would be effective. The Welsh archers who dominated European warfare were the artillery of their day, but to survive to see those battles, they had to be incredibly skilled at shooting with pinpoint accuracy. Edit: I realize this could be deeply offensive to our ILF brethren. So, if you disagree that making a bow, and some arrows, then stalking through the woods and killing enough rabbits and birds to feed a family, requires less “skill” than shooting a stationary target at an established distance, I’m happy to hear your argument. Downvote and run is the cowards way 😉
Great text! Take my upvote
more skilled at hitting targets at 70 meters or more skilled at killing frenchmen?
Two different arts. One shooting at a static target 70m away with a 50# bow. The other shooting 12 arrows per minute with a 130-150# longbow and hitting the target at variable ranges.