from military museum in belgrade
Horn plates(Avar stile?), bows (Turkish?), arrows... You will see more then I do, and please share that with rest of us. Thanks
bow1-turkish, 14th century(according to museum)
bow2-serbian, 14th century(according to museum)
bow3-Turkish(according to museum)
Broadheads from early Serbian states Rashka and Zeta(Duklja) 10-13th century. According to museum they were poisoned with nalep (Aconitum divirgens).
Thanks for the pictures. The bow #2 is a typical Ottoman style bow, but could be made in Serbia. The unfinished bow #3 raises a question of bow manufacture in Serbia - perhaps the bows were actually made there? This may be an interesting area for research.
Adam
Adam
Unfinished! Right. I sow that that one is strange, but I couldn't understand why. Ottoman (that is more correct then Turkish, right? ) style bows came in Serbia with Ottoman Turk conquest of Serbian territories 1370-1480. After that Serbia were part of Ottoman empire until 19th century. So, Ottoman bow on Serbian territories is common. They maybe came even earlier with Cuman and other nomad mercenaries.
Beatiful pics Mupko ! Thats what wait from sout Slavic contry like Serbia who was so long ocupatit vith Turks ! Same i stil wait from Bulgars or Romanians archers . It is more than serious assumption , that in Serbia was bow manufaktur in this time.
Well, I was wondering where to put this, but since it is from the lands of Marko Kralevichi (in nowadays FYROM), which was actually serbian - here it is in this topic:
[external image]
St Demetrios from Krali Markovy monastery - late 14th century. Verry interesting details.
As for Bulgarian findings - there are findings of bone plates, both for syahs and handle, thumbrings and arrowheads... and that's all - there are no preserved bows, or findings of whole bows. Or at least none of which I know. There are also some paintings of warrior saints in churches (similar to this one). I'll post them in another topic after while.
Regards
[external image]
![[external image]](http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/monmarkovi/OutsideHorse.jpg){kind=link}
St Demetrios from Krali Markovy monastery - late 14th century. Verry interesting details.
As for Bulgarian findings - there are findings of bone plates, both for syahs and handle, thumbrings and arrowheads... and that's all - there are no preserved bows, or findings of whole bows. Or at least none of which I know. There are also some paintings of warrior saints in churches (similar to this one). I'll post them in another topic after while.
Regards
There are few stories about Serbian villages that made arrows for turks so why not bows. Zoran Pavlovic told me that there are documents about horn trading between Dubrovnik and Serbia.
Lord - this bone paltes is interesting - its probably bows from old Bulgars nomad tribes-not Otomans. Your pics dont open (?)
sorry -open - omly time is needed :lol:
Yes, they are definately not Otoman. Most of them are dated 7-9th c. but some are 12-13th c. Dating in Bulgarian archaeology is however something very disputable.Dusan wrote:
Lord - this bone paltes is interesting - its probably bows from old Bulgars nomad tribes-not Otomans. Your pics dont open (?)
I will post them soon.
Real reconstruction old Bulgars composite bow is for Bulgars archers challenge no 1. See how much is active all Magyars team :D
On that picture of warrior saint, like on all others, same color pattern of bow. Inner, belly side-white, and back dark-red, black, gray... Why?
I didn't post at ATARN for very long time and i missed this topic. So, will give my opinion.
@MupKO On these bows from Military museum in Belgrade. I took pictures of them years and years ago(didn't inserted them in public cause i thought that i need to respect rules of museum) and also i discussed these bows with custos mrs.Radovic and other people very known in traditional archery.
I am sure these 2 bows, even if they look very old couldn't be the bows from the time of Battle of Kosovo between Ottomans and Serbian army lead by prince Lazar in 1389.
First picture represents typical target bow (it is my opinion, the curvature of sal starts slightly from the grip portion) from later time.
Second one that has ''boat shape'' and could be war bow(though it is pretty light for war bow), have could been made in Serbia as Adam was pointing having in mind that longer form of ''serbian'' composite bows evolved in turkish style bow within the end of XIVth century as it is shown at Serbian mural painting. But i am not quite in agreement with this claim. Even if i would like that any bow of Serbian mediaeval army was entirely preserved it is the fact that there's no preserved artifacts(i do not count discoveries of bone plates for u?i/u?ice-syiahs and grip found in the remains of former medieval capital of Rashka/Serbia Ras, that proves usage of reflex bows in Serbian army back in XIIth century) , whether archeology has not given the results, whether reflex bows had great value and were transfered from father to son so it is one of the reasons of difficulty to find them in the tombs (again, it is problem of archaeology) as any property,wether that seized weapon was kept as trophy or melted again(if it was weapon made of metal) or lost in the battlefield.
Almost whole period after the Battle of Kosovo is a time of dramatic decline of the Serbian Despotate ( vassal to the Ottoman Empire) which survived its last moments(with exception of the period of its political and economical arise under despot Stephan Lazarevic, 1395-1427. )whole 70 years, that was for a time disappeared and appeared again and at the same time it was often the battlefield(place of devastation for serbian people) of two major forces at that time, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of the Despotate of Serbia and other Serbian lands with the end of the fifteenth century there was a long period of slavery and great part of serbian lands was included into Ottoman Empire and whole situation about serbian statehood was changed till XIXth c., even today there's a lot of consequences and open problems derived from Ottoman rule.
So, this turkish bow shown as weapon of Serbian army in Battle of Kosovo couldn't be part of some serbian soldier even if it had its usage in Serbian army,proved in frescoes, wether it was adopted or imported from Ottoman vicinity as it was case with Venice(these bows could be even obtained through Venice and Dubrovnik), wether it was built in Serbia (there's a lot of toponimes accross Serbia as Tulari or Tulare,villages near Prokuplje and Leskovac derived from the word tular-that one who made tul/tulajica which was medieval serbian and slavic term for quiver, or Strelari derived from word strela/strijela-arrow,Lukari-derived from slavic term for luk/bow), but more than likely it came to museum through some exchange, from some other collection cause there's no other proofs.
So, we have to do some research to prove is this authentic weapon of this time(end of XIV century) or not.
We need to assume that there's no so many artifacts related to composite bows from this time even in Turkish museums or other collections and in this case could we imagine how about the artifacts from great part of South Eastern Europe as former part of Ottoman Empire which shown deep decadence and anarchy during XVIIIth and specially XIXth century. We have to wait on archaeology or accidentally discoveries. In another way our task should be to try revitalization of possibly ''working'' bows depicted at frescoes having in mind that there's a number of stylized ones due to canons. This could be work for longer time or even for a lifetime but anyway,we need to do it soon or later, or let our descendants to do it if we couldn't finish it. Also, work of Hungarians on revitalization of their early history is more than impressive. Since we Serbs often share common history with Bulgarians, we need to realize cooperation with their enthousiasts (i see there's a number of them here at atarn and i salute them) it will be very useful for both specially according to late medieval history and mural painting which is our primary purpose(to determine what ordinary composite bow as non autochtone weapon in serbian army looked like, what typology we can accept etc).
I wouldn't like to comment third, undoubtely turkish bow, there's an noticeable error of conservator of this bow, bash/siyahs were attached later on but not properly so this bow could be never open and strung, nock for the string are at the wrong side. Other parts are almost perfect preserved, layers of sinew are very visible, horn is pretty preserved but there's no leathered cover as in other 2 bows. My opinion is that third bow is from later time.I wouldn't like that anyone accept it as carved in stone.
Mirko, hope we can start serious cooperation and to put new light on part of Serbian military history.
@MupKO On these bows from Military museum in Belgrade. I took pictures of them years and years ago(didn't inserted them in public cause i thought that i need to respect rules of museum) and also i discussed these bows with custos mrs.Radovic and other people very known in traditional archery.
I am sure these 2 bows, even if they look very old couldn't be the bows from the time of Battle of Kosovo between Ottomans and Serbian army lead by prince Lazar in 1389.
First picture represents typical target bow (it is my opinion, the curvature of sal starts slightly from the grip portion) from later time.
Second one that has ''boat shape'' and could be war bow(though it is pretty light for war bow), have could been made in Serbia as Adam was pointing having in mind that longer form of ''serbian'' composite bows evolved in turkish style bow within the end of XIVth century as it is shown at Serbian mural painting. But i am not quite in agreement with this claim. Even if i would like that any bow of Serbian mediaeval army was entirely preserved it is the fact that there's no preserved artifacts(i do not count discoveries of bone plates for u?i/u?ice-syiahs and grip found in the remains of former medieval capital of Rashka/Serbia Ras, that proves usage of reflex bows in Serbian army back in XIIth century) , whether archeology has not given the results, whether reflex bows had great value and were transfered from father to son so it is one of the reasons of difficulty to find them in the tombs (again, it is problem of archaeology) as any property,wether that seized weapon was kept as trophy or melted again(if it was weapon made of metal) or lost in the battlefield.
Almost whole period after the Battle of Kosovo is a time of dramatic decline of the Serbian Despotate ( vassal to the Ottoman Empire) which survived its last moments(with exception of the period of its political and economical arise under despot Stephan Lazarevic, 1395-1427. )whole 70 years, that was for a time disappeared and appeared again and at the same time it was often the battlefield(place of devastation for serbian people) of two major forces at that time, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of the Despotate of Serbia and other Serbian lands with the end of the fifteenth century there was a long period of slavery and great part of serbian lands was included into Ottoman Empire and whole situation about serbian statehood was changed till XIXth c., even today there's a lot of consequences and open problems derived from Ottoman rule.
So, this turkish bow shown as weapon of Serbian army in Battle of Kosovo couldn't be part of some serbian soldier even if it had its usage in Serbian army,proved in frescoes, wether it was adopted or imported from Ottoman vicinity as it was case with Venice(these bows could be even obtained through Venice and Dubrovnik), wether it was built in Serbia (there's a lot of toponimes accross Serbia as Tulari or Tulare,villages near Prokuplje and Leskovac derived from the word tular-that one who made tul/tulajica which was medieval serbian and slavic term for quiver, or Strelari derived from word strela/strijela-arrow,Lukari-derived from slavic term for luk/bow), but more than likely it came to museum through some exchange, from some other collection cause there's no other proofs.
So, we have to do some research to prove is this authentic weapon of this time(end of XIV century) or not.
We need to assume that there's no so many artifacts related to composite bows from this time even in Turkish museums or other collections and in this case could we imagine how about the artifacts from great part of South Eastern Europe as former part of Ottoman Empire which shown deep decadence and anarchy during XVIIIth and specially XIXth century. We have to wait on archaeology or accidentally discoveries. In another way our task should be to try revitalization of possibly ''working'' bows depicted at frescoes having in mind that there's a number of stylized ones due to canons. This could be work for longer time or even for a lifetime but anyway,we need to do it soon or later, or let our descendants to do it if we couldn't finish it. Also, work of Hungarians on revitalization of their early history is more than impressive. Since we Serbs often share common history with Bulgarians, we need to realize cooperation with their enthousiasts (i see there's a number of them here at atarn and i salute them) it will be very useful for both specially according to late medieval history and mural painting which is our primary purpose(to determine what ordinary composite bow as non autochtone weapon in serbian army looked like, what typology we can accept etc).
I wouldn't like to comment third, undoubtely turkish bow, there's an noticeable error of conservator of this bow, bash/siyahs were attached later on but not properly so this bow could be never open and strung, nock for the string are at the wrong side. Other parts are almost perfect preserved, layers of sinew are very visible, horn is pretty preserved but there's no leathered cover as in other 2 bows. My opinion is that third bow is from later time.I wouldn't like that anyone accept it as carved in stone.
Mirko, hope we can start serious cooperation and to put new light on part of Serbian military history.
[quote="Lord Ruthven"]Well, I was wondering where to put this, but since it is from the lands of Marko Kralevichi (in nowadays FYROM), which was actually serbian - here it is in this topic:
[external image]
St Demetrios from Krali Markovy monastery - late 14th century. Verry interesting details.
Yes, you are right bulgarian friend.It is frescoe from St.Dimitrije near Skopje. Capital of Serbian Kingdom was moved from Ras to Skopje in the time of king Stephan Urosh II Milutin(1282-1321). It was capital of Serbian Empire under king Stephan Decanski(1321-1330) and Serbian emperors Stephan Urosh IV DUSHAN and Urosh V (till 1371).It was the time of greatest power of serbian medieval state and since then,main architectural works as well as mural painting as, undoubtely, serbian heritage were concentrated in this area(Makedonija/FYROM) aswell as Kosovo and Metohija.After decadence of Serbian Empire most of serbian landowners started secession of their lands as areas indipendent from central power. It was case with mighty serbian Mrnjavcevic noble family whom Kraljevic Marko(in serbian this means prince or ''little king'' Marko, ''little(young) king'' was titulature of successor and co-ruler of emperor's throne in Serbian Empire) belonged too. He succeed the titulature of king from his father Vukashin Mrnjavcevic(died in Battle of Marica against Ottoman army in 1371), vice-ruler in Serbian Empire owing to political weaknes of last Serbian emperor Urosh V Nemanjic.
Most beautiful presentation of composite bows were depicted in the monasteries across north Macedonia(FYROM) and Kosovo&Metohija.
In the time of economical, political and military power of Serbia, rulers and landowners wanted to expose their power and this is reason because non - canon elements entered art, such as weapons, including archery. Bows of this area are most realistic.
In regards to this frescoe, bow and other archery equipements of St.Dimitrije show strongly Central Asian origins adopted wheter through military and trade relations with Byzant or through mercenaries of that time,such as Cumans, Tatars,Yassians orTurks and Bulgarian and Hungarian vicinity and influence, though there's evidence of presence of reflex bow in Serbian army centuries ago. What is interesting, and MupKo was in doubt about that, is similarity with other depicted bows, dimly color at the back and white color at the belly. Also, since painters didn't use technique to depict material in ''3D'' there's always some ''optical trick'', impression that there's circle crossection of the limbs tappered toward the end. But, after analyzis it is visible that these limbs have thickness as classical asiatic type reflex bows with normal wide back apparently exaggerated. Also painter wasn't always precise in depiction because purpose of mural painting wasn't to show weapons strongly realistic but to expose religious and biblical themes or ascetism of saints.
My opinion is that this bow is similar to magyar bows in regards to position of the ears, but shorter as it is shown at the bow of warrior saint St.Procopius in Pec Patriarchate. There's no knee or brigde to lead the string but it could easy be mongol/tatar/cuman bow style. Quiver belongs to asiatic style, similar to other ones represented at other frescoes where archery equipement appears. What make difference from classical steppe style bows comparing to all depicted ''serbian'' bows is lack of sinew to reinforce ears and grip, though there is often thin pair of red wrappings at the limbs, possibly ornament but more than likely coloured sinew.
Dimly material on the back can be leather, white one at the belly of the bows can be silk or similar material but more than likely wrapped birch bark layers, they were possibly varnished and there's a lot of people here as Adam who knows technique of covering and decoration. These bows are reach decorated, sometimes they have visibly metal parts or sometimes it is visible something like leather as backing.This means that these bows belonged to nobility as well as quivers and bowcases. If we prove it by some replica we can claim that these bows and quivers were made in Serbia as there's proof about workshops for making quivers and arrows(i've described it shortly in some of my posts) and could talk about authentical ''serbian'' bow design different from other ones.
So, MupKo, i hope we will have great task.
On Bulgarian findings, it is veeery interesting and i hope Bulgarian friends will revitalize these bows from their early medieval military history.Also, there are frescoes in Bulgarian medieval monasteries with reflex bows similar to those ones in Serbian monasteries(just read Nicolle, or Ovcharov).
Also, it is pretty difficult to talk about any bow judging by picture, there's a lot of other elements visible only in real as it is case of bow of St.Mercurius in Serbian monastery Grachanica in Kosovo.
I hope to continue discussion in the topic ''Serbian archery'' that MupKO started long time ago.There's a lot of things that we can discuss.
Greetings to all and God bless you all.
Zoran
[external image]
St Demetrios from Krali Markovy monastery - late 14th century. Verry interesting details.
Yes, you are right bulgarian friend.It is frescoe from St.Dimitrije near Skopje. Capital of Serbian Kingdom was moved from Ras to Skopje in the time of king Stephan Urosh II Milutin(1282-1321). It was capital of Serbian Empire under king Stephan Decanski(1321-1330) and Serbian emperors Stephan Urosh IV DUSHAN and Urosh V (till 1371).It was the time of greatest power of serbian medieval state and since then,main architectural works as well as mural painting as, undoubtely, serbian heritage were concentrated in this area(Makedonija/FYROM) aswell as Kosovo and Metohija.After decadence of Serbian Empire most of serbian landowners started secession of their lands as areas indipendent from central power. It was case with mighty serbian Mrnjavcevic noble family whom Kraljevic Marko(in serbian this means prince or ''little king'' Marko, ''little(young) king'' was titulature of successor and co-ruler of emperor's throne in Serbian Empire) belonged too. He succeed the titulature of king from his father Vukashin Mrnjavcevic(died in Battle of Marica against Ottoman army in 1371), vice-ruler in Serbian Empire owing to political weaknes of last Serbian emperor Urosh V Nemanjic.
Most beautiful presentation of composite bows were depicted in the monasteries across north Macedonia(FYROM) and Kosovo&Metohija.
In the time of economical, political and military power of Serbia, rulers and landowners wanted to expose their power and this is reason because non - canon elements entered art, such as weapons, including archery. Bows of this area are most realistic.
In regards to this frescoe, bow and other archery equipements of St.Dimitrije show strongly Central Asian origins adopted wheter through military and trade relations with Byzant or through mercenaries of that time,such as Cumans, Tatars,Yassians orTurks and Bulgarian and Hungarian vicinity and influence, though there's evidence of presence of reflex bow in Serbian army centuries ago. What is interesting, and MupKo was in doubt about that, is similarity with other depicted bows, dimly color at the back and white color at the belly. Also, since painters didn't use technique to depict material in ''3D'' there's always some ''optical trick'', impression that there's circle crossection of the limbs tappered toward the end. But, after analyzis it is visible that these limbs have thickness as classical asiatic type reflex bows with normal wide back apparently exaggerated. Also painter wasn't always precise in depiction because purpose of mural painting wasn't to show weapons strongly realistic but to expose religious and biblical themes or ascetism of saints.
My opinion is that this bow is similar to magyar bows in regards to position of the ears, but shorter as it is shown at the bow of warrior saint St.Procopius in Pec Patriarchate. There's no knee or brigde to lead the string but it could easy be mongol/tatar/cuman bow style. Quiver belongs to asiatic style, similar to other ones represented at other frescoes where archery equipement appears. What make difference from classical steppe style bows comparing to all depicted ''serbian'' bows is lack of sinew to reinforce ears and grip, though there is often thin pair of red wrappings at the limbs, possibly ornament but more than likely coloured sinew.
Dimly material on the back can be leather, white one at the belly of the bows can be silk or similar material but more than likely wrapped birch bark layers, they were possibly varnished and there's a lot of people here as Adam who knows technique of covering and decoration. These bows are reach decorated, sometimes they have visibly metal parts or sometimes it is visible something like leather as backing.This means that these bows belonged to nobility as well as quivers and bowcases. If we prove it by some replica we can claim that these bows and quivers were made in Serbia as there's proof about workshops for making quivers and arrows(i've described it shortly in some of my posts) and could talk about authentical ''serbian'' bow design different from other ones.
So, MupKo, i hope we will have great task.
On Bulgarian findings, it is veeery interesting and i hope Bulgarian friends will revitalize these bows from their early medieval military history.Also, there are frescoes in Bulgarian medieval monasteries with reflex bows similar to those ones in Serbian monasteries(just read Nicolle, or Ovcharov).
Also, it is pretty difficult to talk about any bow judging by picture, there's a lot of other elements visible only in real as it is case of bow of St.Mercurius in Serbian monastery Grachanica in Kosovo.
I hope to continue discussion in the topic ''Serbian archery'' that MupKO started long time ago.There's a lot of things that we can discuss.
Greetings to all and God bless you all.
Zoran
I hope that archaeology in the Balkans can solve some to the problems discussed here.
Publishing the paintings and frescoes with as much corroborating material as possible is a great help to everyone. Archery is an ancient technology in the Balkans and it would be good thing if it was studied and revived. People doing research now will be seen as saving a valuable part of world history.
Publishing the paintings and frescoes with as much corroborating material as possible is a great help to everyone. Archery is an ancient technology in the Balkans and it would be good thing if it was studied and revived. People doing research now will be seen as saving a valuable part of world history.
Yes Bede, you are right, and thank you very much on your support. You and a lot of other people from ATARN couldn't realize how much they helped us to understand so many things related to our military history(i do mean archery as a part of it) of Balkans ( i rather like to use term Nations of South Eastern Europe). Just little suggestion can open the eyes and then ''click!'' ''aaah yes, i have idea!!!''
Greetings
Zoran
Greetings
Zoran
MupKo, I'm sure about these plates are from an avar bow because they have the same shape that was found in Hungary from the age of the avars.
But as I know these are from bones instead of horn because the horn destroyed in the graves.
But as I know these are from bones instead of horn because the horn destroyed in the graves.
Yes you're right, these plates are plates from avar bow and there's very bad reconstruction of avar bow in the museum.barnabasturi wrote:
MupKo, I'm sure about these plates are from an avar bow because they have the same shape that was found in Hungary from the age of the avars.
But as I know these are from bones instead of horn because the horn destroyed in the graves.
Somebody sent me this link. I haven't watched it and I don't know if there's any interesting historical background there:
?The fall of an empire?the Lesson of Byzantium? (English, Greek and Chinese versions)
http://www.vizantia.info/docs/page299_0.htm
This is the text of the film narrative:
http://www.vizantia.info/docs/page306_0.htm
中国朋友们注意！这俄罗斯纪录片有汉语版本！
?The fall of an empire?the Lesson of Byzantium? (English, Greek and Chinese versions)
http://www.vizantia.info/docs/page299_0.htm
This is the text of the film narrative:
http://www.vizantia.info/docs/page306_0.htm
中国朋友们注意！这俄罗斯纪录片有汉语版本！
Stephen,Stephen Selby wrote:
Somebody sent me this link. I haven't watched it and I don't know if there's any interesting historical background there:
?The fall of an empire?the Lesson of Byzantium? (English, Greek and Chinese versions)
http://www.vizantia.info/docs/page299_0.htm
This is the text of the film narrative:
http://www.vizantia.info/docs/page306_0.htm
This is nice Russian documentary and brief history of Byzantium as survived Eastern part of Roman Empire that survived almost 1000 years after the fall of Western Roman Empire, focused mostly on its political and economical history but specially causes of its decline and fall. Totally historical background but without focus on its military organization. There's no anything about problems we discuss here at ATARN but it is very useful for those ones interested in Byzantine history often underrated in the eyes of Western Christian world.
Best studies about Byzantine army and its organization (specially related on archery) i found in the books by M.C.Bartusis ''The Late Byzantine army, arms and society 1204-1453'', then ''Reconstructing the reality of images: Byzantine material culture''. and specially great study about Byzantine archery ''Peri Toxeias, l'arco de guerra...'' by Giovanni Amatuccio, based on records such as ''Tactica'' by Leo VI and Maurice's ''Strategikon'', or ''Sylloge tacticorum'' and ''Ambrosiana Paraphrase'' by anonimuses, who posts here at ATARN.
There's a lot of other studies i didn't mention (e.g. Ostrogorski).
Since i am focused on bows and archery equipement from Byzantine sphere and their reconstruction, frescoes and engravings from great Byzantine cultural sphere are the first sources.
Best regards,
Agreed. It is an extraordinary chance for Chinese friends to be given this historical and cultural information in their own language.
S
S
Thanks to Zoran for appreciation for my book, "Per? Toxeias". I want take this opportunity to inform all ATARN members that the book is free readable online on Google Books.
Best wishes
Giovanni Amatuccio
Best wishes
Giovanni Amatuccio
Yes mr.Amatuccio, i found a lot of articles about Byzantine archery but ''Peri Toxeias'' book is only complete and systematized view on this problem till now as i know. Even if it is in Italian language it isn't difficult to me to translate it from part to part for my purposes using dictionary and grammar (this is the way i've mostly learned English and Dutch language) as much as i have a time.amatuccio wrote:
Thanks to Zoran for appreciation for my book, "Per? Toxeias". I want take this opportunity to inform all ATARN members that the book is free readable online on Google Books.
Best wishes
Giovanni Amatuccio
Best regards,