# Anyone out there actually interested in the history of our sport?



## kerrye (Sep 1, 2010)

Guess not.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

I've always wondered why some things took so long to develop.

Like the arrow shelf and pistol grip. Did they exist before the 1950s?

I've got a Hun style horse bow w a locator grip and arrow shelf; why didn't the Huns? 

The bow is a simple machine, just two levers joined by a handle. Why did it take thousands of years for somebody to add a pulley to them in the compound bow? Pulleys have been around a long time...


----------



## SpiritArcher (Aug 18, 2011)

BrokenArrows,

You pose an excellent question. Before the invention of the compound bow, the biggest technological advancement prior to that was the development of the recurved limb. What an innovation. A design so simple and elegant, yet able to fire an arrow with greater efficiency and speed than the straight limb design that had been around for centuries. I've read that Allen was inspired by the old Hoyt Pro Medalist and its integrated stabilizers but I fail to see how we get to pulleys and cables from there. I would love to go back in time and pick Allen's brain to see how he came up with the idea. 

Anyone out there have any insights?


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

I wondered why some stuck w self and/or longbows long after they knew of composite and/or recurve bows. 

I know self bows were more popular than composite bows in damp, humid climates because the water soluble glues holding the composite bows disolved when it got wet. Why they were painted, varnished, and covered w leather. I suspect it was also a matter of logistics and economy. A self longbow is easier, quicker, and cheaper to make. 

When reading Homer's Odyssey about Penelope's suitors having such a hard time stringing Odysseus's bow, I wondered if it was more than just the draw weight of the bow. Maybe Odysseus had an eastern style composite recurve they were not familiar with. Some of those are a challenge to string, and can even be a two man operation or require tools and forms.


----------



## SpiritArcher (Aug 18, 2011)

I would suspect that because of their proximity to the middle east and their experience fighting against the Persians that the Greeks would have adopted the technology. I recall some of decorations on Greek pottery showing archers with a recurved composite bow. 

What I find interesting is that King Richard the Lionheart and the English army would have encountered mounted archers using composite recurved bows when fighting Saladin. Yet, Richard's grandson Edward used archers armed with longbows when he started England's campaign against the French. I have no doubt that they would have captured an archer or two or maybe got their hands on these weapons but I think that they would have been unable to mass produce the composite bows in numbers necessary to field a retinue or two of archers given the raw materials they had access to.


----------



## patiodadio (Jan 7, 2013)

I am very interested in the history of archery ! Here is a little part of my touch with archery history...
I think it was about 1972 or maybe 74, I and some of my buddies were shooting recurves (I had a Browning Nomad Stalker) The movie Deliverance had come out and we all thought we were cool. We heard they had one of those new fangled "compound" bows at a sporting goods store in the next town. We all loaded up and made the trip to look at it. Seems like it was a Bear Whitetail but I'm not 100 % sure about that. Anyway, I said " These things will never catch on!" :grin: Along about 1980 I got my first compound, a Pro-Line Tornado and everyone thought it was amazingly fast, maybe 200 fps. I had a few more compounds and I my last one was a TTS Quadraflex, the hottest, fastest, coolest bow at the time. It had split limbs ! Wish I had a picture. That's my brush with archery history, I would love to learn more about any aspect of old bows, arrows etc.


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

Thread w/ some links and book titles:

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1973921


----------



## Darth Tom (Jan 21, 2012)

Very interested indeed, and one thing that is worth mentioning in regards to medieval archery is the importance of mercenary armies at the time.

There were knights, but only a handful of them. Reconstruction of knightly combat (if that's the term) suggests that armoured knights fought quite short battles, which may at times have been quite formalised rather than melee. The development of full plate armour also made them near invulnerable, so frequently knight to knight battle ended with the loser being captured and ransomed. The idea that knights rarely died in war is further supported by the horror surrounding Henry V's actions in France: both the execution of his captured knights (ok, fair enough) but also the devastating effect of his archers at Agincourt where it is considered that most of a generation of French aristocracy died - you just can't have many battles like that before the system collapses. 

The other part of a medieval army was the peasant rabble, which was poorly equipped and trained. Really, they were there to make up the numbers because having more than the opposition can always be handy. 

So what you need is a core of trained, disciplined troops who can actually be relied upon to fight and fight well. The result was the various mercenary armies which sprung up throughout Central Europe (the Flemish, various German states and the Swiss are particularly famous examples; the Papal Guard today are employed on a long-standing Swiss contract). These are the people who developed the effective crossbow, pike and broadsword tactics. However closer to home for us, it's worth mentioning that the famous longbowmen of the English armies were typically Welsh mercenaries (Wales was not subject to the English king for much of this time, to the point that the modern visitor still sees some magnificent castles that were built to defend against these same people). 

Of course, one of the problems with mercenaries is that once you've paid them to fight, you end up paying them even more to stop; this is undoubtedly part of the reason there were so many wars in Europe during this period. Granted, there were some religious disagreements and the like, but the social impact of ceasing to pay an army that owes no loyalty and find them something better to do may well have contributed. For an individual story, have a Google for Grutte Pier.


----------

