Maximum practical draw weights for horseback archery?

There could be two different reasons for choosing a lower weight on horseback.

• You may need more energy and concentration to keep the horse in control and going in the right direction. This would be easier if you had a bow that was easier to draw.
  On horseback, you might have been shooting at closer range because you could rapidly approach the enemy and then retreat.

I have felt not appreciable difference in drawing a heavy bow on horseback, but no one was shooting at me at the time.

The manuals generally advise not trying to shoot more than about 30 metres off a horse. That seems fairly sensible. They also advise drawing about 70%-80% of your maximum power (presumably as compared with what you can do on foot.) Finally, they only advise using about 80% of full draw on horseback.

My guess is that this might have seen a well-trained professional horse archer drawing about 70#.

Would that be manuals for horseback archery in warfare or as sport?

Why was the bow to be drawn only 80%?

Did others follow that procedure? I don't recall reading any such advice in Saracen Archery, or any summaries of any other works (e.g. Korean) that make such a recommendation.

Hmm...I haven't heard about shortening the draw either, but it certainly makes sense to specifically pick a lighter bow for use on horseback. Where do these recommendations come from--that is, what specific manuals? So far I've only read Taybugha's, and Faris and Elmer's translation of the anonymous work on "Arab" archery, so I must confess ignorance about other manuals where I may be able to find more specific prescriptions for horseback archery.

oops, forgot to ask:
Does Taybugha recommend a lighter bow on horseback than on foot? I don't recall such a passage at all.l I think I would have noticed it had I come across it; even though i read him about 25 years ago.

By the way-I suspect even a well made composite pulling only 70 pounds would have been very deficient in armor-piercing capability, especially if only drawn to 80% of its draw length. Have there been tests of the efficacy of such a bow?

If I recall correctly, when Mr. Selby first brought our attention to that recommendation of shortening the draw on horseback, he cited a late Ming manual. That is not the time of the most effective Chinese military machine.

The Middle Eastern manuals don't mention shortening the draw on horseback. Taybugha does mention that a war arrow is slightly shorter than a target arrow. However, that might have been related to wearing a helmet.

Stephen's comments might be a reference to drawing to the shoulder and drawing to the ear. That might account for the percentage difference. In the Middle East, drawing to the ear was the normal draw when the manuals were written though there were variations.

In the Ming, the supply of horses was restricted, so it is possible that the manual writers were taking into account the relative inexperience of their cavalry.

The manuals are for war, not for hunting.

The author, Li Chengfen, felt that an archer on horseback needed some 'excess energy' to spare. He did not explain; but I think one thing is that it would be dangerous to be so fully drawn at full draw (arrowhead onto the finger at the grip) on horseback. Second, in terms of energy conservation, a rider has to expend some energy and attention on his horse. But then, one could say that about a foot archer and his comrades on the battlefield.

Personally, in horseback archery competitions I try to reach full draw the same as on the ground; but then I'm not on a battlefield.

Interesting topic!

I found a reference in Mark C. Elliott's book "The Manchu Way" that for the annual Imperial hunts, participants needed to be able to shoot a bow of at least 133 pounds from horseback. It needs mention that the people invited to participate were not the average cavalry soldiers the elite of the Manchu bannermen.

The hunt was a type of drive hunt where game was chased in a semi-circle and driven to an open place where it would be shot from horseback. Perhaps not the easiest way to hunt, but it served as a military drill as well as to give men an opportunity to impress the emperor with their skills.

-Peter

MJuingong wrote:

By the way-I suspect even a well made composite pulling only 70 pounds would have been very deficient in armor-piercing capability, especially if only drawn to 80% of its draw length. Have there been tests of the efficacy of such a bow?

I have never shot off horse back so I wouldn't know much about that, however, I have some experience shooting bows at armour.(not real plate armour but hardened steel with right curvature) With bow in weight around 70, not much can be expected. Usually arrow bounces off or makes small dent. I did not get good penetration until I got to 100 pound draw. Keep in mind though that these were warbows with war arrows not hornbows so results might be of slight difference. I still believe though, they shot bows close to 100 if they wanted to do some damage. (but I guess it depends what armour the enemy wears????)

Hi Alex,

Interesting to read that you did actual tests. How was the metal held? I've experienced in Chinese saber test cutting that effectiveness of the weapon also depends a lot on how the target is set up. Fixed targets are much easier to damage than those held more flexibly because some of the kinetic energy is absorbed by them.

You mention:

Alex S. wrote:

Keep in mind though that these were warbows with war arrows not hornbows so results might be of slight difference.

What exactly did you use?

Alex S. wrote:

I still believe though, they shot bows close to 100 if they wanted to do some damage. (but I guess it depends what armour the enemy wears????)

I tend to agree, one finds rather high (and very similar) average draw weights for the military in cultures like the Chinese and the Turks. Most of them around 100 pounds of draw, but some much higher even.

It depends a lot indeed. It appears from tests that lamellar armor was the most effective against arrows due to the flexibility of the different plates. Mail is easily penetrated by arrows with special sleek heads. The effectiveness of plate depends on a lot of factors among which what was worn underneath and the angle.

In many cultures there was a continuous arms race where armorers made increasingly better armors, and arrow-smiths designed arrows to penetrate the latest armors.

What also needs to be taken into account is the forging methods (and therefore hardness) of the arrowheads of the time. Those of Ming and Qing China for example were forge folded steel ones that could be hardened to a higher degree than the iron ones of Europe. The result is that a Chinese arrow of a this period could focus a comparatively large amount of energy on a smaller part. For this reason, Chinese armor piercers have thinner, narrower tips and may look less effective to the Western eye when not taking this into account.

-Peter

Peter Dekker wrote:

Hi Alex,

Interesting to read that you did actual tests. How was the metal held? I've experienced in Chinese saber test cutting that effectiveness of the weapon also depends a lot on how the target is set up. Fixed targets are much easier to damage than those held more flexibly because some of the kinetic energy is absorbed by them.

Well, by this you mean held in place? I use burlap bag filled with clothing to make sort of pillow like object, but it has 2x4 going through center to make more rigid. It was soft enough to have some give, but not much. (needed some force) To tell you the truth, it was much harder trying to get and arrow to grab the armour as most would slide off because not enough force! The tips need be very sharp and bow rather strong to accomplish penetration.

Peter Dekker wrote:

What exactly did you use?

Well it is just longbow design, in warbow fashion with no rigid handle, full compass tiller.

Peter Dekker wrote:

What also needs to be taken into account is the forging methods (and therefore hardness) of the arrowheads of the time. Those of Ming and Qing China for example were forge folded steel ones that could be hardened to a higher degree than the iron ones of Europe. The result is that a Chinese arrow of a this period could focus a comparatively large amount of energy on a smaller part. For this reason, Chinese armor piercers have thinner, narrower tips and may look less effective to the Western eye when not taking this into account.

-Peter

This would make great difference on the armour piercing characteristics. See, I used mild steel for my tips, since iron was not obtainable for me. Even with these, if penetration wasn't achieved a blunting effect would occur at the tip. If a hardened steel tip such as the one you described was used, well....this may sort of be over kill haha Do you have picture of such arrow head? I may try to replicate it and see if I can do another test.

Alex

Hi Alex, Do you know what speed and arrow weight you had in that test it would be very interesting to know.

Ah I'm sorry Puzio, but I'm not sure as I do not have chrono available to me. From what I hear, such bow shoots maybe 170-180 fps? Not 100% sure though as I've never looked into it.

One thing I can't help wondering about: would armor penetration have been that important? As far as I know, the horse-archer's primary target was the enemy's horses, and these beasts were usually unarmored or far less well-armored than their riders. Even the English longbowmen preferred to shoot their enemies' horses if these were involved in the battle at all. It's also worth noting that cataphract cavalry with armored man and horse tended to be very effective in resisting light horse archers (or should that be "lighter," since most cataphracts seemed to have been horse archers themselves?), as the Sassanid Persians' experience against their Steppe neighbors showed--which might mean that bows weren't really expected to be awesomely powerful armor-piercing weapons. After all, most horse-archer cultures had other weapons with better anti-armor characteristics, especially hand-to-hand weapons like maces, hammers, and narrow-headed battleaxe. And finally, if we have to draw yet another parallel with medieval European experience, it was the dismounted men-at-arms with their poleaxes who were universally regarded as the most effective anti-armor troops--not the archers, whose role (though important) was still largely supportive.

Essentially, I'm saying that the bow shouldn't be seen as an isolated weapon--we can only get the correct perspective if we consider it as an integral part of the archer's weapon system, which in most cases included several different tools meant for different roles. In this way the arrow's armor-penetrating capabilities might not be so important as how well it merges with the other weapons within the system; certainly it'd be quite useless to have a powerful bow if its use left the archer too tired to use other weapons in the charge or in the pursuit. (Could this be what Li Chengfen meant by "excess energy?")

As for the target of an archer, I think this depends on how much value you put on horses. I have read (please treat this as hearsay knowledge) that for a Mongolian archer to hit his enemies horse showed a lack of skill. The horse being very valuable to anyone who can capture it after its rider has been unseated.
I think this may also depend on the situation the archer is in. If facing a charge of knights, unseating one by killing his horse would create an obstacle and therefore be a detriment to the charge. However, in the instance where you have an almost Wild West shoot out between only two archers, killing the other archer's horse wouldn't necessarily stop him shooting back at you.
There is an excellent discussion of amour penetration in 'Secrets of the English War Bow', by Hugh Soar. The particular section (by Mark Stretton) concludes that blunt trauma caused by a standard medieval war arrow was quite enough to be considered a fatal blow. (I must note that he experiments using a 144 lb bow.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aznz9mj5grA
This is a movie of shooting at amour.

Some movie critique;)
I watched the movie and personally I think that despite the fact it's hard to reconstruct period archery gear due to lack of findings and documentation those tests with armour penetration aren't really satisfying. I think they should use some arrowheads matching the originals and the period.
I didn't managed to spot what head they used for shooting at the linen armour but the arrow used for the brass armour test has a medieval iron/steel head? (which in fact looks like a chain mail penetrating bodkin rather than armour piercing one they claim).
Did they say the composite bow used had draw of 160#? The man shooting it doesn't look like drawing such a heavy bow.
Just think it would be nice to see them shooting some brass arrowheads of different designs ( I don't expect armour penetration but who knows...)

Mark Stretton tests have been really well coducted I think. Recommend the book (and the Mark's articles in The Glade magazine) to anyone interested in the subject. He proved how the proper arrowhead design can greatly influence the penetration, example the head used for penetrating the flexible birgandine armour.

The penetration tests done so far have not shown that arrows can be effective against armour beyond some 50m, even with very heavy bows, unless the plates are thin or made with soft metal. There is penetration, but not enough to disable the opponent. Even at closer distances thick plate will not be sufficiently penetrated.

The quoted impact 80J and above, which supposedly causes severe trauma, does not sound plausible either. Soccer players, who often take hits in the head, would probably be all dead.

Adam

:) I don't think a test can be done that would satisfies everyone.

There are problems with the History Channel tests. The bow is quoted at 160 pounds but the arrow speed is only 90 miles per hour or 132 feet per second. Also their description of shooting at "point blank range" left a lot to be desired. Point blank for an arrow is generally defined as when the tip of the arrow at full draw is aligned with the centre of the target.

The Mark Stretton tests, as documented in The Glade magazine went into more detail than reported in Secrets of the English Warbow. One of the tests he performed was to determine the final velocity of the arrow at various distances. Shot for maximum range, a heavy arrow regained much of its initial velocity thanks to acceleration due to gravity. The mass of a heavy arrow caused it to be not quite so sensitive to drag as light one.

The accuracy may not have been what an individual sharp shooter wanted, but a shower of arrows had a good statistical chance of landing a few good impacts. People testing penetration today use shorter ranges because they are shooting single arrows and are trying to maximise their accuracy.

Another conclusion Stretton came to was that it was in the intermediate ranges that the arrows lost power the most. When the arrows were shot at low angles they did not have the opportunity of recovering any velocity.

Once the arrow leaves the bow, it does not matter whether a long bow or a composite bow shot it, only what its initial velocity was. I think there are opportunities for tests to expand our knowledge of the physical effects of bows and arrows, but they have to be properly thought out first and not some ad hoc demonstration for a television program.

I agree with modern tests being inconclusive, there are too many variables to achieve an accurate result. I do however believe that the bow played a very important role in military history and I admit to being slightly annoyed when that importance is questioned due to modern tests and theories. Even full plate armour had small areas where one piece fastened to another etc, I am sure a fair few arrows found these weak areas, if we consider an arrow storm. At Carrhae we hear reports of shields being pinned to arms and feet pinned to the ground. I am sure the fear factor certainly help in disorganising enemy formations and I am certain that not every warrior, legionary or man-at-arms owned a full set of armour.
With a 40# bow and using brass bullet piles, a friend of mine put an arrow through the side of a refrigerator he was throwing out. That surprised me I must admit :lol:

Hi again! :)

I was thinking, what about the velocity of the enemy itself??? Obviously if the enemy is on horse, they will be accelerating at a good speed. Anyone know the speed of a charging horse? We really should add this to the whole equation, this would really change the results on armour penetration I believe. Even if they are traveling only 30 miles/hour that is an extra 44 (?) feet/second to that arrow. So if the arrow is moving 180 ft/sec then that would equal to a real speed of 224 ft/sec, no? What would the joules would that equal to?

Think about it, what does more damage, a speeding car hitting a parked one or a speeding car hitting another speeding car? I don't know how such test can be done, but its worth a thought.

Alex

Mark with others have done some tests involving targets moving about 20 mph, that was the supposed speed of a charging war horse, they found arrows penetrating a breast plate at a close range even 1"-2" deeper than shooting at the same but static target.

The problem with the tests are not the results, but conclusions. An arrow, to have an immediate effect, must hit the "vitals", meaning basically penetration of breastplate. The plates were normally well above 2mm thickness, and arrows do not penetrate such plates anymore than a couple of inches, and only if shot from a very close distance. The rest of armour is thinner, so there maybe an extra inch there, but still hardly a fatal shot. Plus these must still be square hits. People can argue forever what such shots could do an enemy and never come to any objective conclusons. We do not even know if the actual "average" draw weight of longbows - listed as 150lb or 110lb, depending who is talking. Oddly enough, all tests are done with 140-150+lb bows...

There is no questions arrows could be deadly and certainly were in the right circumstances. Obviously archers aimed at flesh if they could. A friend of mine is hard at work doing all kinds of tests of penetration vs velocity at various distance, and comparing English arrows with Turksih and crossbow bolts. The resuls will be impartial, as opposed to some overenthusiastic reports. I hope he will finish soon.

Adam

I'm looking forward to the test results, I like the idea of impartial testing. Too many are taking their own bow as "superior" and only focus on what makes it so good in their testing. History has shown that other bows worked effectively in battle too. There may have been much more factors involved than the ones currently tested.

The period I study is almost exclusively Qing (but not limited to bows and arrows) and during most of this period they did not wear much armor anymore. However, it is clear from earlier times that it was indeed common to first shoot the largest (unprotected) target. If there was a horse, they shot the horse.* Sure, horses could be used after the battle, but the primary concern seemed to have always been to win the battle and then worry about the spoils.

I am looking forward to being able to test Qing bow penetration, because the bow's focus is so different from most other composite bows. I wonder how this and the size and weight of their arrows will affect how they do against armor. I expect surprising results, but no speculation can match actual field testing. The problem is, no-one seems to shoot a 100+ pound Manchu bow these days.

(*See, among others, Qi jiguang's writings.)

-Peter

Adam and others have made some valid points here. It is important to remember that actual use in battle is different from tests.

I don't agree that the major effective use of arrows is in their fatal effect. Wounding can have more damaging consequences because of the incapacity of the victim, the resources used to get them out of the battle line if they are important enough and the disruption to the battle line.

Taking out a commander as with Harold at Senlac Hill is a rare event. Usually archery caused disruption in enemy lines. In the case of the Parthians, they used to concentrate and slow down their enemies.

We tend to think from films that everyone in an ancient or mediaeval army wore the best armour of the time. In fact, none but the wealthy could afford this equipment. Organised state armies like the Byzantines equipped their men with the best armour the state could afford, but that limited the size of armies or the armoured component of them.

Armour and weapons were in a continual race to outwit each other (or at least eh people who made them were), but these things were limited by two lacks: money and knowledge.

Adam, I also think use of only such strong bows like 150# for tests can lead us wrong, people sometimes quote average pull for warbows too high I think. We don't know it.
Mark Stretton did use heavy bows for the tests but he also invited others using bows 100# which I think should be more comparable to the warbows used say during 1400's in the area.

I would just like to say I didn't like the above movie not because they didn't manage to penetrate the armour :) but because I think the tests were rather poor, just would be nice to see what would happened when 'proper' period arrowheads were used etc.

The tests you mentioned sound interesting:)

What an arrow will or will not penetrate is a complex problem. This is just an example. We friends shoot at targets made of compressed glued together layers of cardboard. When the targets are new, the arrows will sometimes penetrate 4 inches of layers. when the targets become old those same arrows will actually bounce off soft damaged places in the target.

This got me to thinking about scale armor and how the scales are somewjhat loose and do not make such a good surface for penetration. A shirt of metal plates would have been valuable and heavy but before that, heavy leather scale armor was worn. It would be interesting to make sample pieces of different armors for these tests.

The other variable would be the exact composition of the scales. Were they tempered steel? If so what kind of steel and what temper? And the points; were they good tool carbon steel like a sword or were they everyday mild steel, iron? This would make a huge difference for accurate penetration tests.

I am coming around to the thinking that bows of all strengths were available for persons of every ability in antiquity. I have now seen some pretty strong bows from Central Asia. -j-

Peter Dekker wrote:

I am looking forward to being able to test Qing bow penetration, because the bow's focus is so different from most other composite bows. I wonder how this and the size and weight of their arrows will affect how they do against armor. I expect surprising results, but no speculation can match actual field testing. The problem is, no-one seems to shoot a 100+ pound Manchu bow these days.

I expect you will get quite good results. I remember a thread on this forum talking about the penetration of a Japanese arrow and some other on target.(sorry, dont recall :?) Because of the massive size and weight of the Japanese arrow it had more energy even though it shot relatively slower than the other bow. My guess is, you wont have good distance, but within shooting range the effects would be devastating. I notice most Asian warheads have quite long tangs on them, which would add to the over all weight. Does anyone know how heavy Qing arrows were?

For all I know about damage upon close range, Simon Stanley was able to shoot through a breastplate with only the fletching holding it in place. :shock: I think the shot was a little off center if not the center of the breast plate.

Alex

FYI;Compare point weights: Scythian bronze points, 1000-500 BC; 22, 36 and 55 grains.

Mongol points 10-11 th centuries: armor piercing points 68, 69 qnd 72 grains. Long lance point 170. Most points of this era cannot be described as armor piercing but rather as broad.

Mongol 12th century armor piercing 53. Broad heads 237, 358 and 471 grains!

If one were to take WWI as an instance, horses were one of the military materiel being consumed at an alarming rate.

Peter,
Having read some accounts of the Manchus shooting in contests, I feel that the effect of the arrows at medium to short range would be formidable. the Manchus were operating in the same weight ranges as the English and the Turks. The large feathers stabilised the arrows quickly which enhanced the effectiveness at close range. perhaps the rapid disappearance of armour in the Qing was due to the effectiveness of the arrows and the simultaneous use of firearms. The Qing arrows I have are about 635 grains, but they are only military practice arrows.

I have a report of a Han Dynasty scale an lamellar armour made from steel plates that were of the hardness and consistency of modern spring steel. I have made some experiments with steel and hardened leather lamellar armour and both are effective. However, lucky shots in the gaps between sections of the armour would have always been a danger. song armour is particularly well documented (down to the number of scales in the armours for each class of soldier).

Mark Stretton made a distinction between the effectiveness of brigandine armour (small plates on the inside of a jacket) when it was worn tightly against the body in the European fashion and wen it was worn more loosely in the East Asian manner. In the first case, the bodkins penetrated the brigandine with ease, in the second they did little damage.

I have some arrows and arrow heads from the periods Jack mentioned and can confirm the weights of the Scythian ones. I have some Indo-Persian ones too and will see if I have the weights written down. I mentioned my Qing arrows above.

These are very good points about the type of armour and its quality and the mode of wearing. The results of such tests may indeed surprise us.

I would again like to stress the need to establish a some kind of "common", or "average" bow draw weight, draw length, the arrow weight plus the string type for all tests. I am sure Simon Stanley could shoot a powerful bow to a great effect, but was this actually representative of the equipment used in the past? As I understand, even the draw length for longbows has not been clearly established. The results will not be the same for a 200lb bow @ 28in (a good part of Mary Rose arrow shafts was this length) or 200lb @ 32in. I would expect the heavy Qing or Japanese bows to be absolutely astonishing at their 3 feet+ draw.

I have a question about Mark Stretton's testing for arrow velocity at longer distances (he does not write about this in the Hugh Soar's book I have). Was this based on the Doppler effect? I have not read the Glade articles.

Adam

Adam,
I will find the article and prepare a pr?cis for you. I only remember the graphs and conclusions clearly. It may take me a while to find the article.

Is seems to me that the longbow men not discusses arrow speed that much just arrow weight and how many yards they can shoot. i have been looking around to try to find out what speed you need to shoot a 1000 grain war arrow to the longbow standard of 240 yards but with no successes. of course in the old days they didn't? have a crono to test the bow for speed but there is other ways to do it maby not quite easy but possible.

If I remember correctly, Bob Kooi calculated Mary Rose bows at 100 to 172lb draw weight. I do not believe he took hysteresis (related to humidity, temperature and the time of use) into account, so these weights would be rather high. Hugh Soar gives a more reasonable range of 90 to 130lb, Somehow, probably through efforts by Hardy, the "average" became 150+lb, some claim even more than that. I have no doubts at all the bows were very powerful and there were certainly bows in excess of 200lb, but such specimens would not be common. And then there is the issua of draw length and the string type used in modern testing. I think 1000 grain shot to 240 yards needs around 180fps (I would have to check the tables to be sure), which suggests a bow 110-130lb. This is assuming it had to be 1000 grains, not less.

I want to stress I am not trying (as a hornbow maker) to degrade longbows in any way. I am very impressed with the immense power of these simple bows made of wood alone and with the prowess of the archers in shooting those monsters. But after all the years of intense interest, there is still no agreement on the (rather basic) features.

Adam

Adam all wararrows are 32" to 36" long depend who is shooting. 1300 grain to 1800 grains some can be higher. I think the chinese bows were much faster but warbow deliver more knetic energy. All warbow shooters bows weight are rated to 32" There is one person that draws to 36" nigel and shoots 150#, I think simon draws to 33" here is he 153# flatbow.

heres the picture.

Hi Marlon. I do not have a problem with the bows weights/draw lengths people are shooting now. I have a problem when someone says these bows, drawn to 32-36" and with FF strings represent historical replicas and then goes on and does penetration tests.

All bow styles can be pushed to the max, but one must draw the line somewhere when talking about historical research.

Adam

Guys, not to be rude or anything, but I think we have strayed off topic a bit, myself included. Sorry, just noticed about it, silly how this happens so often :lol:

Anyways, Im guessing it all depends on who your talking about and what time period. Mongols? Turks? Japanese? Chinese? Once we have a chosen culture, it would be easier to go into further research about their military system and with a set date, we can determine what armour they were up against etc etc...


Btw, Glennan Carney shot a 96 gram (1481 grains) arrow 233 yards with a 125-130 pound bow :) I think a 1000 grain should go a bit further with same bow....

Alex

Alex Yes Glennan shoots 133# bow.

That is interesting to know. i am of the opinion that its the arrow speed that is the important, not the type of bow.

Arrow speed and bow type are related. Bow weight is more closely related to the weight of missile that can be propelled at that speed.

Once you have achieved a certain arrow speed with a given weight of arrow, the main criterion is how often you can do it with that bow. A more efficient bow would give the archer a chance to shoot more arrows.

There might be a connection with the Chinese suggesting a lighter bow on horse back. Perhaps it was thought more practical to be able to shoot a lot of arrows without getting too tired. The horse archer can move in and out of range more easily than the infantry archer.

I want to put in a plug about steel quality as pertains to armor.

When making a crossbow spring the company that tempered it showed me how the hardness test was done. A small place on the steel was cleaned and positioned above a track. A steel ball was dropped down the track striking a solid blow to the spring. The depth of the dimple was measured by micrometer. This was important because it is not desirable to make the spring too hard. 45 on the Rockwell D scale equaled a good temper for spring steel. 45 out of 64 points.

Some American woodworking tools have an edge of 58 points, some German and Swedish tools at 60 and some Japanese tools at 62 points. The harder the edge the sharper an edge can be held and the more fragile the metal.

So if someone says that such and such armor was tempered they might have some evidence we can review.

A simple test for arrowhead metal CONTENT can be made by grinding. A simple test for hardness would be making a cutting edge and testing for durability.

I own some old points but am not ready to destroy them for testing. Maybe one. -j-

Bede wrote:

I don't agree that the major effective use of arrows is in their fatal effect. Wounding can have more damaging consequences because of the incapacity of the victim, the resources used to get them out of the battle line if they are important enough and the disruption to the battle line.

Taking out a commander as with Harold at Senlac Hill is a rare event. Usually archery caused disruption in enemy lines. In the case of the Parthians, they used to concentrate and slow down their enemies.

Very true. This is an important point that people often miss when discussing horse archers, especially heavy horse archers; in many cases the archery itself was not expected to be the be-all and end-all of their horse archery tactics, being used instead as a prelude to a charge and/or hand-to-hand combat.

Alex S. wrote:

Once we have a chosen culture, it would be easier to go into further research about their military system and with a set date, we can determine what armour they were up against etc etc...

And the tactical paradigm they expected to use! We must never forget that an archer that expected to use his bow in sustained skirmishing or massed archery duels would have treated his archery equipment and techniques differently than one who saw the bow primarily as a device for weakening the enemy prior to a charge--let alone an archer who was expected to be able to do both (like early Byzantine horse-archers).

Jack,
I did have one Javanese folded iron and nickel iron arrowhead tested. It's hardness was equivalent to a table knife. However, armour was not common in Indonesia so it would performed effectively.

I'd say that a fundamental assumption should be made when it comes to tests of arrows vs. armour for different periods, countries, dynasties, whathaveyou:
As with any "arms-race" they will constantly try to adapt to fit what resistance they are facing, both equipment-wise and tactics-wise.

This does not gainsay anything stated sofar here, really, but it is something I've found lacking in those tests I've either seen or heard of.

Thus, to chime in with a few other variables when it comes to actual warfare:
1) For shots at a distance, the question of design of helmets (thickness, where there are openings, etc) is highly important. A sharp stick hitting your eye at "only" 80 mph would penetrate quite well, to say the least. Likewise, if the helmet is too thin then something worse than migraine may well occur.
2) In most armourdesigns, protection around the head is mainly against ground-level attacks: There is always some kind of gap by the throat or the head is impossible to move. Thus, an additional area to hit specifically from a distance.
3) Wear and tear: The discussion here has mentioned questions of how different effects you get from tightly or loosely fitted armour. Add, when discussing hail of arrows, what would happen when many arrows hit the same area (say 5-10 arrows hitting the same 10-20 square inches)
4) Finally, closely related to the former: Before the most modern days there has never been an army where absolutely eveyone in a prolonged war with several battles had the most top-notch, squeaky-clean and brand new armour all the time. That little beginning of a crack from last battle may give way this time around.

Edit, as I forgot this:
Going back to original question of this topic:
There really is strong reason to believe that any draw weight would work from horseback, assuming you are a good horseman with a horse who knows to respond well. It's only a question of adapting your tactics. Heavy bow will be difficult to use to squeeze off many and fast shots, regardless of how good a technique you have, but fits perfectly for an assault head on.
It is possible - but this is only guessing - that a Parthian shot will be quite difficult with a heavy bow due to limitation of what muscles you can use, but both facing forward and to the side should not be any problem with any bow you can shoot while walking or running on the ground (thus also with a limitation on what muscles you can use since you can't use your legs as freely for leaning back or forward for help in drawing in the manner often seen by modern warbow-shooters)

Agreed. I've argued many of these points on numerous occasions.That an arrow fails to penetrate in modern tests proves nothing as far as I'm concerned, not every soldier could afford good armour, let alone a full set of the latest, most well made.
We have few facts of the weight of these bows, but I think it is safe to say the lightweight bows used by modern horsearchers are a result of the competitions; ie more shots, more points.

Orda Khan wrote:

Agreed. I've argued many of these points on numerous occasions.That an arrow fails to penetrate in modern tests proves nothing as far as I'm concerned, not every soldier could afford good armour, let alone a full set of the latest, most well made.

One also frequently finds in texts that they shot the largest target on the battlefield first. Chinese poet Dufu: "Before you shoot the rider, shoot the horse." In the battle of Liegnitz the Mongols also supposedly weakened the knights and their horses with arrows before the heavy cavalry came in.

It is already pointed out that by far not all warriors would have the latest and best armor, but even fewer would be equipped with full horse armor. And if they were, their horses would tire out much sooner than that of the light cavalry. All trade-offs. And when their horses weakened, and their response time was affected, heavy cavalry could come in with armor piercing spears. I've got an 18th cent. armor piercing "mao" spear from China, I don't think there are many armors that could hold off a full speed attack with one of those. It has a diamond cross-section, 19 mm thick, and with a separate hard steel insert at the very tip.

And even if arrows wouldn't penetrate armor, we should not exclude blunt force trauma. Lamellar armor is very good at stopping arrows in a clinical test. But how does it feel to get hit by a heavy arrow, with the plate being pushed into your body? A sword doesn't cut lamellar armor either but a heavy strike from a horse against someone in this armor could very well break bones without actually penetrating.

Orda Khan wrote:

We have few facts of the weight of these bows, but I think it is safe to say the lightweight bows used by modern horsearchers are a result of the competitions; ie more shots, more points.

My thoughts exactly. What also plays a major part is that most of us are hobbyists with a different focus. Those guys in the old days were professional soldiers whose lives depended on it. They had more reason to try harder.

-Peter

All right, all right, now I'm fairly convinced that the heaviest bows in the arsenal can be used on horseback. I still believe they'd be a sub-optimal choice compared to medium-weight bows, though....

One thing that a heavy bow restricts you from is the total number of shots. You get tired quicker. Ammianus Marcellinus said that the Roman bows were stiffer than the Persian bows, but the Persians could shoot a lot more arrows.

Procopius says that too--here's a quote from H.B. Dewing's translation of his history of the Romano-Persian (or Byzantine-Persian) wars during the reign of Justinian:

Straightway both sides began the fight, and the battle was exceedingly fierce. For the arrows, shot from either side in very great numbers, caused great loss of life in both armies, while some placed themselves in the interval between the armies and made a display of valorous deeds against each other, and especially among the Persians they were falling by the arrows in great numbers. For while their missiles were incomparably more frequent, since the Persians are almost all bowmen and they learn to make their shots much more rapidly than any other men, still the bows which sent the arrows were weak and not very tightly strung, so that their missiles, hitting a corselet, perhaps, or helmet or shield of a Roman warrior, were broken off and had no power to hurt the man who was hit. The Roman bowmen are always slower indeed, but inasmuch as their bows are extremely stiff and very tightly strung, and one might add that they are handled by stronger men, they easily slay much greater numbers of those they hit than do the Persians, for no armour proves an obstacle to the force of their arrows.

the specialties case in china?

qin and han dynastic cross bow on horseback? so it is crossbow horseback archer? the crossbow is natural enemy of horseback archer?

or the north china nomad has no heavy or good armor so a light bow like korean bow enough use for a warbow?

At least for the Chinese, I am beginning to think that there may not be a definitive answer to this. Judging from garrison inspections and sources of scholars from the era that touch on the subject, there was quite a diversity in the bows used by the Chinese military from at least the late Ming and throughout the Qing.

A nice window into the late Ming is Song Yingxing's Tiangong Kaiwu where he states that there were various classes of archers in the military:
"Tiger strength": More than 120 catties
Strong bowman: About 120 catties
Average bowman: Between 96-108 catties
Weak bowman: About 60 catties

(There seems to be a gap between the average and the weak bowman)

He explains that all bows are strong enough to be used effectively but there was a difference in the deployment of the troops. In the battlefield the stronger archers were need to pierce a man's [armored] chests and go through thin wooden shields. The weak archers were esteemed for their marksmanship and "...thus conquering through skill instead of main force"*

It is probably comparable to the wealth of different calibers used in modern warfare, all with different levels of accuracy and rates of fire. It would be similarly hard to determine what the "best" modern gun is, because a combination of different arms is often more effective. For example, the sniper can be a valuable asset to a special forces squad, but he probably wouldn't want to do without men backing him up with more rapid firing guns when situations ask for it.

*(See: Song, Yingxing, translated with preface by E-Tu Zen Sun and Shiou-Chuan Sun (1966). T'ien-Kung K'ai-Wu: Chinese Technology in the Seventeenth Century. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).

-Peter

Yet we also have reports of arms being pinned to shields at Carrhae; bows of the Huns being feared etc. We can see an element of bias in that quote also, 'used by stronger men.'

Maybe the difference could have had something to do with the temporal dimension. The Parthian archers at Carrhae fought some three or four hundred years before the Sassanids (a different dynasty with an axe to grind against the old Parthian one!) that Ammianus faced and fully half a millenium before the later Sassanids of Procopius's accounts. So I think it's quite possible that the Persian standards of bow strength and/or arrow weight had fallen in the meantime or that Roman (and maybe everybody else's) armor had developed to become more effective against archery in that timespan.

Note also that the Huns and Persians had two different (though related) horse archery cultures. The Hunnic tradition was the one adopted by the Romans in the 5th century A.D. and thus what we see in Procopius's accounts may have been a comparison between Hunnic (in Roman hands) and Persian styles!

I've been rereading some old downloads, and one of the things I stumbled across was the ATARN translation of the archery section in Qi Jiguang's manual. When I first downloaded and read it I hadn't begun to seriously study Eastern styles of archery so some of the points went over my head. Now, though, one of the points made in (translated) text caught my attention:

In horseback archery, always release when you are [at least] ninety per cent of full draw: Never forget! it is difficult to hit when the bow is just seventy or eighty per cent drawn.

It seems to advise mounted archers to choose a length of draw within a fairly narrow range that's not exactly full draw but definitely long enough to extract most of the useful energy in a bow--as corroborated by another passage:

When you . . . keep your potential energy high and restrain it on a short leash, then every shot will strike home and no-one will be able to get away from you. To achieve this, you need to keep all of your actions short of the maximum: draw but do not pull the bow to the full extent of your strength; and make sure every shot counts.

This one also has mentions the "reserve energy" idea. I haven't read Li Chengfen's work but this passage from Qi Jiguang seems to agree with him. The two were more-or-less contemporary with each other, weren't they?

I have read through the pages of this thread and have not seemed to be able to find an agreed upon practical maximum draw weight for the mounted archer.
I would be very interested what they actually were, 60-70 # 80-90# or above?
Regards,
Alan Flashing

Alan,
The problem is that the question is unanswerable. The maximum draw weight is the one the strongest horse archer with access to a strong bow used. He's dead and he didn't write anything down. Also one culture may have favoured strong bows while another favoured fast shooting.

What we are all discussing is the average maximum draw weight that we can substantiate from archaeology (did they have bows that could be made strong), literature (what did they expect people to use at the time) and modern experience (what people we know of have tried out). This will not be resolved easily either. However, we have identified some issues;

• The bows used varied by period and culture.
  The techniques of warfare varied.
  The reporting of bow strength had a nationalistic element.
  Through a period of time, different groups may have improved their bows or remained static, while their neighbours did the opposite.
  The effectiveness of bows is not just related to their draw weight so, while it is an interesting measurement, it is not the only relevant one.

Personally, I have never seen any difference made by the bow weight whether drawing on foot or on horseback with stirrups. However, I have not shot much from bareback and I found it was easier with a weaker bow, but that could have been inexperience.

Referring to the quotes from Qi Jiguang and Li Chengfen, there are two issues. One one hand they are saying 'don't exhaust yourself' There is also an element that when on horseback, don't draw too far back (i.e. arrowhead right up to the grip, as in normal shooting) because you might overdraw in the heat of the moment. On the other hand, they don't want you to under-draw and lose power and accuracy.

Bede , This sounds correct about culture and time differences as to the useful draw weight, so could we take specific cultures and time periods and come up with a generally agreed upon figure for the useful draw weight used used in mounted archery say for the Mughal period , Yuan period and so forth?
Regards,
Alan

There appears to have been a bit of an arms race from the time of the Blue Turks into the late 17th Century. Bow weights went up. Recurvature was reintroduced. The two streams of heavy arrows and long draws and light arrows and short draws separated.

Judging from Adam's assessment of the war bows in Topkapi, the Ottomans were using very heavy bows in the 16th-17th centuries. Qing books also speak of 100 pound plus bows (in one case a 250 pound bow used in a special heavy bow target competition).

After the reconstruction of the Mary Rose bows, the general impression of the strength of war bows around the world has had to be reassessed. Hunting bows don't require the power, not to target bows generally. the exception is the zarb bows for penetration shooting in Turkey.

I will make a citation here from the book ?Sultan II. Mahmud Devri ve Turk Kemankesleri? from Suleyman Kani Irtem
I translate it (I hope without mistakes):
?During festivities in the Atmeydani in Istanbul Tozkoparan Iskender rides full gallop, shoots an arrow and pierces five iron kalkans (shields) which he put together. These kalkans were displayed until the year 1000 (1591/1592?)in the Janissary training quarters, the ones who have seen the kalkans prayed for him.? (page 205)

One can only guess what poundage the bow must have, lets not forget this is the famous flight archer Tozkoparan Iskender, so he is definitely not a standard soldier..

One more small input from me regarding draw weights on horseback in old times; one should have a closer look at ?Divanu Lugati?t- Turk? from Kasgarli Mahmut (the first Turkish dictionary with examples of peotry etc.) and the ?Dede Korkut? book with stories of the Turks reaching back to pre-Islamic times. There they mention spesifically ?heavy? bows (for horseback use). So now of course it doesnt give us any indication of how heavy, but most probably one warrior possessed several bows with one being ?heavy? e.g. to pierce armour better..

cheers

Gokmen

Gokmen,
I think you have made a good point. Heavy bows have their uses and many peoples have been described as carrying more than one bow. If you had a special bow for a particular purpose like armour-piercing and another for shooting harassing arrows at long distance, you would be a more versatile soldier.

What about thinking of what we can do today and draw a line back and imagine what was used in the old days?

I am very much interested in using heavy bows with the Ottoman technique.
So far I can draw 120lbs bows. On horseback I am very comfortable with bows up to 80 lbs. 90 lbs is slower to shoot, 100 lbs is a challenge for me on horseback :)

I am just an ordinary guy training archery as a hobby.

Now, if we imagine a Seljuk warrior whose life depends on horseback archery, who grew up doing nothing else but shoot arrows on horseback, one can imagine that 100+ bows had to be normal.

Besides, I am reading in the book "Osmanli Devletinde Spor" where the sport habits of the Seljuks and Ottomans are described. People used to train with weights like today's bodybuilders (Iranian "Zurkhane" is similar). But furthermore it wasnt dead muscles, e.g. they wrestled a lot..

And once you have the strength, to draw an armour piercing 130 lbs bow in a fast rate, why should you go back down to an 80 lbs bow?

cheers

Gokmen

Gokmen, I too am keenly interested in using relatively heavy bows, would like to be proficient on horse back with an 80# bow.
Alan