Some Native American designs:

Some traditional Japanese longbows that show varying degrees of r & d. I find the amount of asymmetry in some of these examples particularly fascinating:

dwcphoto wrote: These are some beautiful illustrations. Neat stuff. Folks have obviously been experimenting with trying to get more power for a long, long time. thanks, dwc

Thanks, David. If anyone comes across more examples, I’d love to see them.

And if it isn’t obvious, all of this started with a discussion with someone who was asserting that d/r longbows are a product of recent times, and “not as traditional” as the D-shaped English longbow. I replied that it depends entirely on which “tradition” you’re choosing to pay attention to, which is what got me more and more interested in finding old/historic examples. Some of these, such as the Egyptian bows, I had no idea about. It been fun learning!

The Shoshonee bow pictured above, in particular, looks strikingly like many modern r/d longbows being built today…

A Lakota longbow from the Peabody Museum:

A cool little video on the Egyptian r/d longbow and early composite bow-making materials:

Dave –

I wondered the same thing about those arrows. For those interested, this is a great link to more information about Lakota bows, and some insightful observations taken from a large, existing collection of their archery artifacts:

http://groups.creighton.edu/sfmission/museum/exhibits/bowsandarrows/signatures.html

On the subject of arrows (from the above):

“The Buechel collection has several sets of metal-tipped, bone-tipped and blunt arrows. Either three-fletched or two-fletched, using soft feathers sometimes dyed in different colors, most arrows are in the 22-23 inch range, with some a little longer…”

David Petersen wrote:

Makes me wonder if a working concept of FOC was at play even then?

Precisely why I get a such a good chuckle when I hear people say that things like FOC and short, r/d longbows are “recent inventions” and not “traditional.” 8)

Another example of a Lakota bow/arrows:

Jim – thanks so much for digging that up, and the timing couldn’t be better, as I’m working on an article and trying to hunt down every bit of info I can on the subject. There just isn’t a whole lot of good, historical info out there, largely due to the fact that few examples have survived. Apparently some remarkable, and largely intact, angular bows were discovered in Tutankhamun’s tomb, but other than a few photos, I’m still trying to find more on that as well.

I’ve seen that Mike Loades video previously, and wondered the same about the arrow speed estimate. Seems a little hard to believe…

I came across this old Damon Howatt ad the other day, and I thought this thread might be a good place for it. Not exactly a pre-20th century example of D/R, but from 1954 and an interesting example regardless:

I had never heard of this old Howatt model before – it must have been short-lived? I’d love to see one of these in the flesh, and shoot it!

From the Bayeaux tapestry:

Are these stylized interpretations of bows in use then, or are they accurate depictions of the use of short D/R bows during the Norman conquest of Britain?

This 131cm (51″) bow was recovered from a retreating glacier in Norway a few years ago, and has been dated to the early Bronze age – approx 3300 years BP. It’s incredible to think that a wooden bow that old has been found largely intact and preserved, but just as interesting (to me, at least) is the shape of the bow:

Check out the link for more info:

Steve Graf wrote:

Hmmm. If their bows are as stylized as their shooting form, I’d say this isn’t an accurate representation of archery (my snooty nose is way up in the air). Reminds me of the old “navel salute” 😀

Well, it is a woven tapestry, after all, not a photograph, so I think only so much accuracy can be expected, and I wouldn’t expect the subtleties of archery form to have been a priority in the depiction. That aside, many historians consider the Bayeaux tapestry to demonstrate a remarkable degree of accuracy on a number of subjects, given the limitations of the medium.

Of course there is some speculation involved, but the bows shown above are notably not as tall as the archer, nor d-shaped like a typical English longbow. Other parts of the tapestry clearly show a distinctly more recognizable, standard English longbow. Short composite D/R bows have been found at Viking sites at Birka and elsewhere – theorized to have been brought West through Viking contact with cultures of the East (they are know to have traveled at least as far east as Constantinople). In addition, eastern mercenaries were used in the Norman invasion of Britain as well – it’s possible that this panel of the tapestry depicts just such mercenaries.

Musing? Perhaps. But not all that far-fetched when you consider the cultural melting pot involved at the time.

Steve Graf wrote: As I recall (recollection is not my strong suit) the english longbow had not yet been developed at the time of the Norman Invasion. The bows in use at that time were shorter and weaker. Average weights being in the 50 lb range and used for hunting.

Bows had not yet become the tool of war that they would after Agencourt (I think that’s when the king added bows to the official english list of weapons for training). Thusly and therefore, the depiction of bows in this tapestry should be shorter.

I’ve been wanting to say “thusly and therefore” ever since I got up this morning 😀 🙄

It’s true that what is considered the “English” longbow as it was known in the 100 Years War had not really come into being yet, but the Saxons (and their Welsh compatriots) were already using a type of selfbow that was longer than the average Norman bow of the time. The debate about whether to classify this earlier bow as a true “longbow” continues, with cases continuing to be made for and against to this day by various historians. Regardless, it didn’t look like the bows depicted above, but was more like 5ft. long and not reflexed, and certainly seems to have been the predeccessor to the classic English longbow, if not quite there yet.

It’s also accurate that the bows used by both sides were significantly weaker than the 80-100+ lb. longbows to come along later. The Norman bow used at the Battle of Hastings was about four feet long, and drawn to the body, not to the ear as became common later. So the depiction of “shooting form” above is likely pretty accurate as well. It’s effective range against chain mail has been estimated at about 50yds.

The Normans brought many archers to the battle, King Harold brought relatively few. The Normans at the time were definitely already skilled in the use of the bow on the battlefield. Lower poundage aside, when several hundred of them are being launched at the same time, the effect can still be devastating, esp. if your opponent is mostly fighting with close-range, hand to hand tactics and has little missile capability of their own. Historians largely agree that the Norman bow (along with highly mobile cavalry) played a very decisive role in the Norman victory over the Saxons at Hastings. According to legend, King Harold himself was done in with a Norman arrow through the eye. In fact, it is thought that the decisive use of archers in the Battle of Hastings by the Normans was a painful lesson that continued to haunt the English for a long time, and prompted their own emphasis on superiority in bow warfare in the centuries to come.

Thusly and therefore, to bring it back around to the topic at hand, the bows depicted in the tapestry are very likely the well-documented short, reflexed bows of the Norman army of the time. 😉

Thanks for the link, Drew – that was a cool little video.

It’s interesting to track the shifting opinions of post-contact Europeans, and their N. American descendents, in their attitudes toward Native American skill and equipment in archery. Look for a little more detail on this in an upcoming TBM article. 😉