Smaller Bow Strings

Historic questions, thoughts and other interesting stuff

Moderator: Moderators

Bo-Jangles
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:12 pm

Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Bo-Jangles » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Hi to all the members
This is my first postand I know very little about the art of archery. I was wondering if anyone on the site could help me. I am in the process of writing a book amd about two years ago I stumbled on a Web Site with a fairly old reference to what a (medieval?) archer carried in his string pouch.
The article had a graphic of an archer in his livery and described what he carried and wore.
I was particularly interested in the leather string pouch, which was described as goose greased, it explained that the pouch carried additional strings which were also goose greased, but what really interested me was the mention of much shorter goose greased strings that were also carried in this pouch.
I downloaded this site to my old computer but for some reason failed to back it up on disc. Unfortunately the house suffered a lightening strike in the last few months and my computer and all my data was fried and I lost this unsaved information. I was wondering if someone had come across this site and could direct me to it. I would be extremely grateful.
Kind regards and early thanks
Bo-Jangles



User avatar
Colin Middleton
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Colin Middleton » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:55 pm

That's a new one on me.

Colin


Colin

"May 'Blood, blood, blood' be your motto!"

Image

Langley
Post Centurion
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: West Midlands

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Langley » Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:06 pm

Did a quick look for this in Ascham without finding it but did come across this quote. "But if anie such strings in time of service did happen to breake, the soldiers archers had alwaies in readiness a couple of strings more readie whipt and fitted to their bows to clappe on in an instant." Sounds like they had one or two extra strings already fitted to the bow but not nocked. Now there is a thing I have never seen a re-enactor do! One point - Ascham says "though it be little, yet [is] not a little to be regarded." He means the string is apparently a minor item rather than short. Is there confusion arising from this use of the word little? A possibly use for short (broken?) strings might be to fasten bracers - just a suggestion, no evidence!
You can get a copy from http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/topics/so ... us1545.pdf



Phoenix Rising
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:58 pm

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Phoenix Rising » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:37 pm

'Though it be little, yet [is] not a little to be regarded'

Perhaps Ascham meant that although it might be a small thing, it should not be overlooked? Agree it depends very much on the translation of the word 'little' in this case. We do know that archers would carry spare strings, perhaps not all were the same length, as also the bows themselves were not uniform length either (hence the laid in loop at one end and the other left without one, so a bowyers knot could be tied to suit the length of the bow).

Might also perhaps refer to lengths of string / cord that could be used as 'whipping' for the centre serving (the re-enforced part of the bow string that takes the nock end of the arrow and hence also a lot of wear). Archers can do without it, but it is better to have it, so in that regard it wouldn't be essential, if that is what Ascham meant by 'little to be regarded'.

Possibly... :wink:



Bo-Jangles
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Bo-Jangles » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:33 am

Hi Everyone.
Thanks for everyone's input and help, unfortunately as you have discovered there is very little info about this anywhere, I know I read it on the web (from a very old book or another scripting. It was I believe pre, Roger Ascham). Maybe I should have said shorter strings as opposed to smaller. Incidentally when I say shorter I mean very much shorter by at least half of an accepted string length, This is I believe, where you get the term second string, I have my reasons and it answers the Archers paradox. I thank you all very much for your endeavours.
As I said in my first post :crazy: ? I know next to nothing about Archery my concern is to its ancestor twice removed.
Thanks once again.
Bo-Jangles



User avatar
Brian la Zouche
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:07 am
Location: Ashby dela Zouch, Leics
Contact:

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Brian la Zouche » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:13 am

'half length string' ............... hmmmmmmmmm chocolate teapot comes to mind

and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer's_paradox or for a more in depth explaination >

http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/kosp97.pdf



Bo-Jangles
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Bo-Jangles » Fri May 03, 2013 5:50 pm

Hi Brian (probably from Ashby)
Thanks for the chocolate teapot remark. I must say I was intrigued by the two sites offered, Paradox & Kooi. Intrigued that was before I started laughing especially the Kooi, what a long winded way of proving zilt. Strangely enough the depictions of the paradox site has an eerie realism, if you look at them in a different way. Seeing that most Archery sites I have visited state that an arrow is pushed from a bow :wasntme: As for the spining, I did learn something there; as I was obviously mistaken that the correct terminology was splining. I do thank you for that. I regard the Kooi explanation as a long winded way of getting a theory completely wrong. I will not bother your site again but I do wish you all the very best in your endeavours. As a passing shot, it may surprise you to know, that the bow does not push the point of an arrow, but in reality pulls the flight, also the second string is the first string and the first string is the second. Chocolate fireguard time, me thinks?
Ta-Ta



User avatar
Brian la Zouche
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:07 am
Location: Ashby dela Zouch, Leics
Contact:

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Brian la Zouche » Fri May 03, 2013 9:21 pm

ah bless............. its great people have different views and thoughts............ :crazy: other wise the world would be very boring



Bo-Jangles
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Bo-Jangles » Fri May 10, 2013 1:08 pm

Thanks anyway.



Bo-Jangles
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: Smaller Bow Strings

Postby Bo-Jangles » Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:27 am

Just a final passing (Parthian) shot, of course all you archers do realise that the Bow is nothing more than the culmination and or combination of two derivatives of the sling and should not be looked at in any special way, which of course means that it should not be a participating sport in the Olympics, not that you can even consider the machine used today a bow. The original is the true sport not its offspring. Just thought you would like to know this.





Return to “General History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests