As the definition of small stuff goes, it is any cordage of less than one inch in circumference. This would equate to less than 3/8ths of an inch in diameter. As might be suspected from the name, bowstrings are cordage specifically designed and used to draw back the arrow and bend the wooden bow so that when released, the bow will flex back to its original shape and the arrow will fly a specific distance and at a specific speed based on the draw weight of the bow, the weight of the arrow, the wind conditions, and the weight of the bowstring.

     In order to properly discuss bowstrings, there are other factors which must also be investigated. The first of these is the bow itself.

THE LONGBOW

     The British yeomen were reputed to have been formidable archers who used, almost exclusively it seems, the long bow or bow stave. The major problem the recreationists have in duplicating these bows is that there are only a very few which survive today. Those that do survive came from a recovered sunken ship called the MARY ROSE. The treasures discovered on that find represent the only complete medieval bow staves in existence. At that, there are only about 40-50 of them (http://www.regia.org/saxarch.htm). In fact, the very lack of long bows in the archaeological artifact collections resulted in the title -THEY DIDN'T HAVE BOWS, DID THEY. The article is interesting in that it covers historical written and artistic material which evidence bows as a major military weapon and provides some explanations as to why bow staves did not survive to be found today.

     Welsh bowmen, according to written accounts, used wild elm for their bows. Furthermore, these bows were not smooth and polished, but rough and lumpy. This indicates they understood the importance of following the grain of the wood which resulted in bows which were stout and strong, although not aesthetically pleasing (http://www.regia.org/saxarch.htm). The second best wood for the making of bows appears to have been the Yew.

     The longbow has been referred to as the machine gun of the Middle Ages because the possessed a rapid rate of fire and a long range (http://snt.student.utwente.nl/campus/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). However, there appears to be some disagreement as to what they looked like. On the continent of Europe they would have exceeded four feet in length (http://snt.student.utwente.nl/campus/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). The bow staves used by the mercenary troope of Sir John Hawkwood in the 14th century were reputed to have been as tall as or a little taller than his yeoman solders. The Royal Antiquities Society of Great Britain claims the weapons were, "of five or six feet" in length (http://snt.student.utwente.nl/campus/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). To be classified as a true longbow, the bow must be as tall as the archer. However, any bow over 5-1/2 to 6 feet would have been called a longbow (http://www.gci-net.com/~users/w/wolfsoul/medieval/longbow/the-longbow.html).

     There is also some argument as to the draw weight of the bows. The estimates range from 80 to 110 pounds (http://snt.student.utwente.nl/campus/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). This is important to know because it directly effects the size of the bowstring needed to draw back the bow. Bowstrings must have a breaking strenght of at least 4 to 5 times the draw weight of the bow. The long bows of the Mary Rose are estimated to draw at 65 to 70 pounds (http://snt.student.utwente.nl/campus/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). This seems the more reasonable estimate and corresponds to the draw weights of bows made with modern composite materials.

     Here are some things we can conclude about the longbow based on the documentary and archaeological evidence:

1. There was no standard to the size of the long bow;
2. The Longbow was made from the center and sap wood of the wild elm, yew and other appropriate woods;
3. The longbow was not smooth and polished, but followed the grain of the wood to keep its strength and durability; and
4. There appears to be a conflict as to the draw weight of the longbow, but 65-70 pounds appears most reasonable.

     Arrows are more plentiful in the archaeological record. They were made mainly out of hazel, pine, ash, and in later medieval times aspen arrow were the mainstay (http://www.regia.org/saxarch.htm). A few horn or bone nocks have survived. However, it is probable that the nock was generally carved directly into the arrow itself (http://www.regia.org/saxarch.htm). The Charter House Arrow, for example, is 30.5 inches long with a shaft that varies from 1.07 centimeters wide to .756 centimeters at the nock (http://snt.student.utwente.nl/campus/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html). This means that the bowstring would, of necessity, have been less than 4-5 mm wide (no more than 1/8th to 3/16ths of an inch thick).

THE BOW STRINGS

     Where there is a scarcity of longbows from the Middle Ages, there is a total lack of bow strings. Therefore, all we have to go by is an occasional mention in various written materials and other historical, archaeological, and pollen studies. In fact, the subject is so confusing that Philip D. Hartley had to write a second article to correct his first article concerning the English longbow, and in particular the bow strings (http://www.regia.org/saxarch.htm).

     In SOME SPECULATIONS ON THE NATURE OF LONGBOWSTRINGS, which was originally published in the JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF ARCHER-ANTIQUITIES, VOL.27, 1984, Mr. Hartley tried to come to a conclusion as to what materials were used to make bowstrings. He concluded that true hemp was not known in England at that time. Therefore, he concluded that a "nettle hemp" and flax were used (http://www.regia.org/saxarch.htm). However, in his FURTHER SPECULATIONS ON THE NATURE OF LONGBOWSTRINGS in Vol. 29 (1986) of the same publication Mr. Hartley had to recant his claim that there was no true hemp in England. Mr. Hartley had quoted from THE FLETCHERS AND LONGBOW-STRING MAKERS OF LONDON (1968) which related to the bowstring rules of March 21, 1499. The rules require Well-chosen English hemp - not 'tubbed'hemp, nor Colleyn' hemp." He discovered English hemp is Cannabis sativa and Colleyn hemp would have been hemp from Cologne, Germany.

     http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dgholden61/string.htm is very interesting in that it is entitled TRADITIONAL BOWSTRING MAKING, but discusses only the FLEMISH style of bowstring making. The Flemish string is quite common in European bows, however, it is a very weak string. Normally, a bowstring needs to be only about 4 times the strength of the bow's draw weight. However, the Flemish string requires a total number of threads comprising it that equal a minimum of 5 times of the draw weight (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dgholden61/string.htm). This makes the string thicker and heavier than other types of strings. One of the ear marks of the Flemish string is that it is looped at one end, and the other end is left free to be tied to the proper length for the bow (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dgholden61/string.htm).

     Tabo Shodai (http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/archery/14428) has a very interesting article entitled TRADITIONAL AND PRIMITIVE STRINGS. In this article he mentions that the best materials for making bowstrings are Fast Flight, B-50, linen, and hemp. Fast Flight and B-50 are modern materials and will not be mentioned further. Linen and hemp, on the other hand, are traditional materials which would have been used as the major bowstring materials during the Middle Ages. However, Mr. Shodai does fail to mention another possible material, sinew.

     There are three traditional methods of making strings. These are listed as: 1. Endless Loop; 2. Reverse Twist; and 3. Flemish. Of these methods, the so called "reverse twist" would have been the strongest and best method for the heavy English longbow (http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/archery/14428).

     The endless loop bowstring is the easiest to make, but must be made to a specific size to fit the bow. Not practical for mass production. It is also not the strongest type of string.

     The so called "Reverse Twist" is not a true method of string making. Mr. Shodai is correct that the method wanted is the same method as is used in making rope (http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/archery/14428). I believe Mr. Shodai's problem is a lack of knowledge of the proper rope making terminology. Ashley is very specific in describing backhanded or reverse-laid rope (Mr. Shodai's Reverse Twist). It is more pliant that plain laid rope, and less liable to kink when new, "but it does not wear well, is difficult to splice, and takes up moisture readily." (Ashley 1944, 23). Even though bowstrings are heavily waxed, wear would open bare string in places, and rain (quite common in England) would then make the string almost useless. Therefore, this would not be the best method for making bowstrings.

     What Mr. Shodai probably wanted to say was the bowstring was made as plain laid or z-laid string. This makes the strongest string for the bows. The reason for this is based on the natural bast fibers of the hemp. "Microscopic examination of these fibers after treatment reveals a fibrillar structure, the fibrils of flax and ramie being arranged in left-hand spirals, while those of hemp and jute are in right-hand spirals." Therefore, Hemp will be strongest when the yarn is spun in the direction of the fibrils (right). This means the strands will be left hand twisted resulting in a string of a right hand twist, again in the natural direction of the fibrils. Please note that this makes the strongest and lightest string. The string weight is important because a heavy string slows down the arrow (http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dgholden61/string.htm).

     It is important to note the following about bow strings of the period.

1. Only one bow string has been found from the middle ages. It was found in the Mary Rose under the cap of the person assumed to be its owner. However, it is in such bad condition that it can not be determined whether the bowstring was an endless loop, twisted, or flemish.
2. The long bows of the period were all made by hand to different lengths. This means that a finished bow string would not have been possible to make without the actual bow it was to fit. Therefore, it is most likely that the bow strings were merely cut to a certain length or were supplied with one end eye spliced. We do know that they were supplied in quantity, and this would be the only possible way to do this. http://www.gci-net.com/~users/w/wolfsoul/medieval/longbow/the-longbow.html gives the number of bows, strings, and arrows received at the Tower of London in 1359. There were 50,000 bowstrings. This indicates that the bowstrings were at least cut, and may have had one end finished (eye spliced). The yeoman would have had to finish the string to his particular bow.
3. The strings had to have been made from hemp or linen; had to have been large enough to pull a minimum of four times the draw weight of the bow; and they had to have been small enough to fit the end of the period arrows (a maximum of 4 to 5 mm).