Bow plans

Those dimensions will make a 200lb bow and the kasan will break at brace.

Thanks for your feedback. Should I halve the thicknesses to get it in the 90 - 110 range?

Why will the kasans break?

30-32mm width, 4-5mm horn, 4-5mm wood and 2-3 mm sinew, 43-46 long. Kasan 15-17 cm, ear 3-4".
Short and thick stronger and of course, long thin weaker.
A 70 lb well built is as a 90-100 elb, 100 lb is more then the most warbow shooter can do with 140 lb :)
50 lb hornbow gives the 40 Joule many hunting countries claims.

In a higher weight bow it makes far more sense to v-splice the joints. You are just spreading the shearing forces over a wider area. Plus you cover the belly side of the splice with horn. It ties the whole joint together better.
A lap joint only has one way to start failing. A v-splice with a horn bottom and sinew on top has more back-up before it can fail.
It's how it has been done for centuries.

Redhorse and Patrick are very right about the dimensions and construction of this type of hornbow.

But as usual hornbows are over- estimated in this forum. There are a lot of historically based and modern selfbow- designs performing as well or outperforming hornbows(Holmegard, skinny tip bows). Hornbows are suffering from their physical weight a lot. Hornbows are much more an affair of politics and military strategies.
I don?t argue against hornbows, as a serious bowyer, I just want to tell the truth, no fairytales.

Michael

"There are a lot of historically based and modern selfbow- designs performing as well or outperforming hornbows(Holmegard, skinny tip bows). "
Are there? I have not find any wood bow that do that. There is some laminated bows that do high speed but I don't believe any have beat 200fps. Some have been close to 190 at one shot but that destroys the bow.

Redhawk,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying many horn bows are being outperformed by modern efficiently constructed self bows. If that is the case I have two comments.

1. Most traditional self bows were not made to the standards of the modern ones I have seen made by people like Steve Gardner. The traditions of self bow making have been improved by modern engineering knowledge. The ideas exist in ancient self bows, but there are not enough surviving to know whether the ones we have are good examples or bad ones of the design.

2. Most modern-made horn bows are underpowered. Horn and sinew do not start to out-perform wood until they are highly stressed. Adam Karpowicz has proved that once you start making traditional Turkish bows with strengths above 90 pounds draw weight that their arrow velocities are a considerable improvement on both lighter horn bows and most self bows. It is important to note that Adam is using traditional designs and methods without trying to improve them with modern knowledge.

When I go to the flight shooting in Utah, I get to see some of the most beautiful self bows shot. These are made by people like Steve and Dan Perry. However, flight shooting is a specific discipline of archery and the goal is to produce bows that shoot light arrows a long way. This means the design of the bows is optimised in a way that might not be suitable for war or hunting bows. You can incorporate some of the solutions that work in flight bows into the other types and improve them.

The best self bows in flight shooting often self-destruct after a few shots because they are very close to maximum performance and right on the edge of their structural strength. However, well made self target bows can easily perform as well or better than light weight modern horn and sinew composites. I think this is true even with light hunting weight bows. At those weights, people shoot horn and sinew bows because they want to and for the romance of it. Since few of us are living by our hunting skills with the bow, perhaps most of us choose a bow for its appeal to our interests rather than its ultimate performance.

Here's a picture of how I'll be building it up with different pieces. Either this or made from one solid piece of wood shaped down and then with the tips reinforced with horn. The curves will be more consistent with the picture I posted in the first post in the real thing, this was done very quickly on MS Paint.

[external image]

Well said Bede, I am reading a lot of "anti-hornbow propoganda" from America. It is true that the latest straight bow designs are very efficient, but these designs have been taken to their full potential, whereas ,due to the dificulties of construction horns bows havenot, the potential for improvement and new ligther weight designs are very much alive and their elegant beauty is unmatched by the straightbows, like you say efficiency is,nt everything!!!. Not forgetting that maybe one of the overiding design factors of the hornbow is that is meant for shooting off horseback!!, this would be more difficult with longer bows. Another thought is maybe hornbows are designed for stronger more well trained warrior archers not merely for hunting purposes!! I believe these bows to be warrior bows and it is therefore difficult for the common man to use them properly, he would tend to use weaker ineffective versions. There are very few warriors left in modern society, perhaps it would be wise to put as much time into are own developement as warriors as we put into the making of bows, then the hornbow vs straight bow would be a different story

About "anti-hornbow propaganda" it?s some time seems to be a cultural and or religious issue, probably dates back to the crusades.

In the UK the english longbow is somewhat of a national weapon. Loads of people here actually believe it was more powerful than 18th - 19th century muskets, and was only superceded in modern times. This isn't helped by English history teachers who all try to prove that it was the best weapon known to man until modern times and video games where longbowmen can kill insane amounts of soldiers at ridiculous ranges.

Each nation is proud of its own achievements and popular culture often outstrips the real world. What gets in the way is that we inherit many impressions of history based on older interpretations that have filtered into popular culture.

Part of what we are doing here is trying to find the facts about the history of archery. We also are attempting to find things we can test by experiment. The many bowyers that write into this forum are examples of people who are furthering our knowledge by practical experiment.

We are not going to be right about everything. Our ideas will be changed every time some archaeologist digs up another bow. However, we are getting closer to understanding how people made and used bows and there are many areas that will be improved by our investigations.

My statement is no propaganda, I?m just stating facts.
I appreciate very much Bede?s statement, he comes very close to my experience. But I?ve to ask him, if he knows how many shots could be done with a hornbow made for extreme flight- shooting?

Don?t take me wrong, I?m argueing as an experienced bowyer, I know the facts, till the 50-60lbs- range, well and clever done selfbows are performing like hornbows!
Have a look at actual flight- archery, there are selfbows(60lbs) casting an arrow about 350yards. J. Kaapedrayer shots with a reconstruction of an Osmanian bow about 330yards, I?m not to much sure if Jaap used natural glues.
I don?t believe it anymore that the Osmanian flight- bows could cast an arrow at about 900yards. I don?t believe it anymore till a real reconstruction has prooved this range. I guess these 900 yards to be a propaganda for the Sultan. I want to see facts and done this range by a nowadays bowyer, maybe Adam will be able to get it.

Most of you know, that I?ve done hornbow- reconstructions for years.
But last spring I met a hornbow vs selfbow- discussion in the PALEOPLANET, at first I argued as a hornbowyer, side by side with Redhorse, but the arguements of the selfbowyers made me think and I begun to make these selfbows with the skinny tips of well- choosed and designed woods like hawthorn, euonymus, blackthorn.........and some more, all are able to perform as good as hornbows.............my wife finally asked me: don?t you think these bows are as beautiful as hornbows? She added: don?t mind, but when I see you doing these selfbows, the making of a hornbow seems to be a kind of occupation- programm for the people.............She made me thinking too.

I don?t want to see this discussion to get out of our hands as it seems to be usual when this discussion arises in other forums.
I want to see facts. Every type of bow has its own place in history and is a beauty for its own and we should avoid to take this type better than the other, we need a clear look at the history otherwise we will be doomed to repeat it.

Michael

Selfbows can do good but I don't think any have made over 180 and survive that. It would take a two wood bow to shot faster then that.
But a ordinary hornbow makes over 180, it does not need to be built by a pro. I have done this and Puzio have done that, with bows that are not close to the old design. I have not yet seen a authentic horn bow. But if I can get good speeds so what would not the real bows do?
Yes it takes time to make a horn bow, actually up to 3-4 weeks.
But most of that is just drying time. Not labor. And think about the time, if the bow will be faster with the longer oldtimers drying time, how fast could my bow be if I wait the oldtimer time?
And ones the bow is done (by a pro) it can last for ever. So some time spent in making is less then make a new selfbow after every speed shoting :)

Some other ideas. There is no superior wood for self bows in Central Asia. Although their development was early and then parallel to horn bow making, there was no excellent wood for a self bow.

Point two; in Europe a man with an array of weapons and a horse was a knight. Giving horses to commoners was to free them to their own political will. A knight was kept in control by giving him land to return to. Nomads did not operate on the same basis. They were pastoralists who moved about. By European reckoning, nomads would have had the status of knights.

It only seems natural, given both the wet climate and availability of excellent bow making materials, that Europeans would have favored self bows. Alternately, Central Asians had little choice from earliest times to develop some alternative to the self bow. Horn, sinew and good core wood were available to nomadic types.

Necessity, the mother of invention. -j-

Oh no , Jack. I know you search good no conflict answer. But , no superiopr wood for selfbows in Central Asia is mistake. Why Central Asia ? We talking about Eastern Asia. Mongolia, Nord east China - this territory is for me mother of composites (not only horn composites ) bow.From another point of view, selfbows was use paralel vith composites too. You can see this bows in sculptures from India to Korea. And sorry , but if in country is bamboo - you have the best material for selbow in the world.

I was little disgust from Redhorse post. Fue month ago i was in hot discussion in Paleoplanet too. Not very friendly discussion vith very personal emotion attacs... Mi handycap is wron english. I can sign all Bedes post.
Redhorse attitude is surprise for me. Man , you working on composite bows reconstruction for years- most - you cooperate vit historical Museum and archeologist personaly .... Only one answer is for me logical. Your bows was bad. (personaly -no one from your bows look good. But before i think -Ok- its only bad look, mybe his bows was good shooters...) :shock:

I appreciate what you say Redhawk, and I agree that around the 50-60lbs range self bows are very effective. My main point is that the horn bows where warriors bows. In old warrior communities men where trained from an early age and on a regular basis, these guys where powerfull, they where not shooting 50-60lb bows, these weaker bows where used by hunters maybe, but not warriors who needed to peirce armour, we are talking miimum 100lbs. So it is pointless to compare bows with a different purpose. It is like comparing a rifle to a pistol trying to say which is best!!!If we had trained since childhood every day for years and needed to defend our country from armoured warriors we would not be making 50lb bows. The next point is these bows where designed for horseback , so again we can not compare non mounted bows. Look in the Dhanurveda on this site, the ancient Indian text, it recommends horn bows for horse or elephant back and bamboo for the foot soldier!! My 3rd point is , maybe the old skills to make these horn bows hasnt fully returned yet, so the bows tested so far do not reoresent their full potential? There is plenty of good wood in Asia, I have travelled in the Himalayas and ithey are full of hard wood trees, a huge variety, wood for self bows was definately available,and I am sure they experimented, but they chose the horn bow because it met their needs

We can make good looking replicas, but do they shot?
We can paint the bows with natural color and varnish, but do they shot?
We can cover them with silk, birch or leather, but do they shot?
If they don't shot good they are not wort much.
If they shot good, who cares how they look?
But till that day we must take the time it takes to solve the secret in the making.
We know so little still, take the handle. Were should it stop according the the bow length or kasan length? A half inch more or less fade make a big difference in working limb.
The beauty comes when every part is correct for that bow.

I agree Redorse, Adam Kaporwicz has done an amazing job reconstructing bows of the Turkish traditions and that area of the world, But what do we know of the bows of India and china,whose cultures are much much older? It is too early to make correct comparrisons we dont have all the information. I llike the the stories of the legendary mystical bows of the past, they sound almost magical in their claims of performance. It is necessary to be practical to be successful, but it isnt necessary to destroy the potential for magic and mystical power, that certanly exists in this world, as does the magical bow. I for one will not give up that quest, Science thinks it can explain everything, but it cant, and even if it could what a boring predictable world it would become !!!! :o

Bamboo is generally not available across Central Asia, especially timber bamboo, good for self bow making. I do not believe than even the best timber bamboo compares to yew or osage, for example.

South America has some of the best hardwood stands in the world, yet the best bow wood coming out of there is black palm, which I do not think can compare to yew or osage or some others like European ash.

I would like to know about the bow woods of India even though this area is not within the area of the Turkic tribes. The use of bamboo self bows in this area seems to point to a lack of superior hardwood. The excellent horn bows of India show distinct similarities to Turkic types. It is not known at present which way the influence passed.

Please post if you know of an Asian or Central Asian hardwood which has world class properties which would have compared to European bows. -j-

Not all "secrets" is open - its true , but in 90 % -thanks for many people - we today know how.Other 10 % is "only" work an practic experience. I play this"game" about 7-8 years and to this day i dont show nothing from my work. I was dont satisfied.

I mean its time ask Adam Karpowitz question , who tired me long time. Adam you try shoot your 100-130lb Otomans bows in Flyght shooting ? And vith what result ? I dont believe that from your bows is only one , machine chrono result vith graphs and matematik equation.

Jack, bamboo is for me better material then all yew or osage orange wood. You still talking about central asia. Mother land of Turcic tribes was in monglia and east north CHina. Same like Skitas. From thius territory expand nomads vith his bows to central asia and India.

Maybe I should say it as follows: why do actual hornbows made by well- reputated bowyers don?t perform as history is telling us?
Does anyone of you really believe in the 900 yards- shot?
Nowadays made selfbows are able to outperfom historical selfbows!

Redhorse, you?re right in stating that 2 lams will outperform selfbows, as Scandinavian and Siberian bowery have proofed.
Nowadays lams(no artificial fibres) done in designs based on historical models(Holmegard.....) outperform hornbows. Look at Dan Perry?s bows.
But you are wrong in stating that selfbows with more than 180f/s will break after a few shots.
Adam Karpowicz has stated in the mentioned PALEOPLANET- discussion that it is very difficult to make a hornbow shooting faster than 200f/s.
He stated too, that the making of hornbows needs well organized societies, I would add that the making of hornbows could be a kind of
forerunner of assembly line work.

For sure there is a lot of magic in hornbows, but this magic is within other bows too. Above all horn is a symbol for male power.
I believe in magic, but as a bowyer I can?t believe that it is possble neither to somehow double the cast of a bow nor to shoot a bow with a weight of more than 120lbs from a horseback by using some magic.

I?m not sure if hornbows were above all done by people living in regions where bow- woods where not available. Why have Native Americans made bows of sheephorn in Idaho? What about Scythians living in the Altai- region?

Nowadays it is a matter of taste which type of bow you use.
In past times it seemed to be much more a matter of your environmental and social conditions.
The hornbow is a bow of aggressive well organised societies(kingdoms...........tyrannies)
The selfbow is much more an expression of the free will of individuals, remember Robin Hood(whether the story is true or only a myth).
It has often been said the end of the selfbow has come, but it was reborn again and again.

Michael

Nowadays made selfbows are able to outperfom historical selfbows!

Do we know that or guess?

But you are wrong in stating that selfbows with more than 180f/s will break after a few shots.

Adam Karpowicz has stated in the mentioned PALEOPLANET- discussion that it is very difficult to make a hornbow shooting faster than 200f/s.

What I do belive is that 200 fps is faster then 180, and still someones claim selfbows to shot faster then hornbows.

Och, sorry Redhorse. Only now i see mi mistake vith Redhorse-Redhawk... I mean Redhawk :oops:

What about the 900yards?

I?ve posted that selfbows within the 60lbs- range could perform as good as hornbows.
I?ve posted that in flight-archery J. Kaapedrayer shot with a hornbow about 330yards, a selfbow made by Marc St.Louis shot a bit more. I want to know what you think of it. That?s all............

Michael

[quote="redhawk"]What about the 900yards?

I think that far :)

I?ve posted that selfbows within the 60lbs- range could perform as good as hornbows.

Or that a 60lb hornbow is not a "hornbow"

I?ve posted that in flight-archery J. Kaapedrayer shot with a hornbow about 330yards, a selfbow made by Marc St.Louis shot a bit more. I want to know what you think of it. That?s all............

330 is not so long, I made my first and only one flight shot with my 80lb and 380 grains catalog carbon arrow, 250 m. So with something like 200 grains it would be close. But I don't shot flight so what do I know :)

The wonderful, yet at the same time frustrating fact about history is that we will never know for certain. Even if a modern bowyer reconstructs a bow using ancient methods, can we trust the resulting performance to reflect a bow that was made perhaps, over a thousand years ago?
Was an ancient hornbow better than an ancient selfbow? Nobody knows and I don't really care, they both performed in the capacity for which they were designed. We hear all to often about the affect that damp weather has on the hornbow, yet this didn't seem to bother Attila. Likewise, the percentage of yeoman archers to men-at-arms in English armies must say something about longbow performance.
Using flight or target archery to judge comparisons is flawed from the start, that much I agree. The bow was not invented to see how far it could cast an arrow.

The hornbow is a bow of aggressive well organised societies(kingdoms...........tyrannies)
The selfbow is much more an expression of the free will of individuals, remember Robin Hood(whether the story is true or only a myth).

My personal believe is exactly on the opposite side.

I think the hornbow is the bow of the freedom, the bow of the free horseman who ride across the infinity of the fields of grass, the bow of the highest mountains, the bow of a egalitarian society.

The long bow is the bow of swamp and dark woods, the bow of the outlaws and robbers, the symbol of the must cruel and unjust monocracy.

I do not enjoy these discussions, but feel compelled to join, since my name has been mentioned a few times. Redhawk you qouted my statements incorrectly. By saying it is difficult to make a 200fps/10gr/lb/28in hornbow implies it has been done (presumably by me). The fastest bow I tested was (if I remember) 189fps. Now, with proper conditioning in the heat box and an FF string the 200fps is perhaps within reach.

The opinion that only "organized societies" could produce hornbows comes, I believe, from Tim Baker. What I say is that the production of hornbows is best done in an assembly line type work, but I do not say hornbows could not come about without such methods of production. The main advantage of hornbows is the ease of achieving the final product: a well functioning bow. The task, consisting mainly of relatively simple operations, which did not even require much thought on the part of the workers, or even any particular knowledge of bow mechanics, making use of pre-selected components, led to predictable and consistent results. Plus the bows of any weight could reliably be made to order. As we know, this is not the case with selfbows, given the variability in the material itself. In short, the hornbow is an equivalent of a fiberglass bow. And this is the main advange, not the need for speed (this being perhaps a byproduct). I want to say it very clearly: I do not believe the ancient were as concerned as we seem to be now about making the fastest bows. If someone wanted a faster bow, he would simply shoot a heavier one. The preoccupation with speed came recently, after the engineering research were done in modern times, later popularized by the TBB series. I do not believe such thoughts ever entered the mind of the first hornbow maker.

Dusan, I have not shot the heavy bows for flight, because I can only draw 90lb on a good day. I plan to upgrade my machine to shoot such bows for distance. Please remember Harry Drake shot 600+ with a hornbow and Dan Perry 500+m. I see no reason why 900 yards is impossible with a light arrow and by a skilled archer who is trained in the use of the overdraw.

Adam

A personal friend of mine has made a bow,all horn,no sinew or wood and it shot 240 fps consistently with a 600 grain arrow.The bow was entered in the ambush challange in the bowyers journal and pulled out of the competition because too many people were crying and moaning, generaly going on that its not possible,the bow later blew but because it was shot too fast in extreme cold without exercising the limbs.

There are some things that I wish to add to the discussion here to get some of the fact right.

I was competing with Jaap Koppedreyer when he shot his 40 pound reproduction Turkish bow. This bow was built with small kasans. In that sense it was not an optimised design for flight shooting. The horn and sinew were not fully stressed. Jaap with using a Flemish twist string which is a design that is not suited to flight shooting. He was using an experimental siper that had not been fully customised. He still shot a reasonable distance.

It is important to remember that the modern bowyers making horn, wood and sinew composites are still improving their skills. It is not enough to make something that looks the same as an old bow. It has to perform the same.

I have also been standing next to Marlon Torres when he was shooting 135 pound and 150 pound long bows, both in the flat bow design and the Old English design. These bows are very powerful, really hard to draw and difficult to control at full draw. The different way that the force builds up when you draw a longbow and a recurved and reflexed composite really makes shooting one easier than the other at high draw weights. There are many complications when you try to compare bows of different designs. This is made harder when different shooting techniques.

If a bowyer makes better all wood bows than he makes horn, wood and sinew composites, then there is nothing wrong with him saying that in a forum. However, it is ambitious to assume from that experience that the same results would occur for everyone trying the same thing. It is a worthwhile idea to explore and experiment with though. Periodically we have to challenge accepted beliefs otherwise we might find ourselves not progressing in our knowledge at all.

Regarding PJs post: is there a picture of the all horn bow before it died?

The bow is stillin 1 piece and i will take a picture of the bow whn I go to see him and post it here.

Good first article.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dQT9kr ... t&resnum=9

"The fastest bow I tested was (if I remember) 189fps. Now, with proper conditioning in the heat box and an FF string the 200fps is perhaps within reach. " Adam

The 67,4lb bow in your test made 185,9 with 11 grains. With 10 grains it should have done over 190. So even if you have not tested 10 grains arrows you may have had bows that break the 200.
From my experiments I have notice that everything need to be set up perfect, just by changing brace height could make 5fps.
The longer warbows seems to be faster with heavy arrows and the flightbow faster with light arrows. So for 200fps shot the longer bow and for distance the short bow.

One ancient Chinese source said that a 'fast' bow was suitable for a 'slow' archer', and vise-versa. But I don't really know what they meant.

In ancient times, as Adam said, nobody was interested in how fast bows could shoot and there was no way to measure speed. They measured bow weight and arrow weight (not spine.) Of course speed is a function of these issues; but in ancient China nobody was interested in doing the sums.

Of course they was interested in speed in ancient times. Only that they had no crono to measure trough. So they did that with weight and mass.

Thank you Adam for answer

Thanks Bede post we now know, that J.Koppedreyer shoot vit only 40 lb not very perfect reproduction- from this point was 330 y excelent distanc. I dont understand Redhawk, why you use this funy example ? :lol:

40lb and 330y is excellent. We need the double weight for that distance :)

Of course ancients were interested in arrow speed. Composite bows improved and arrow speed increased. One needs a chrono to PROVE this but not to be aware of it.

Just like paradox was known before it could be proved.

As far as wood bows, Mesolithic and Neolithic bows demonstrate all the finest qualities of self bows.

It is fascinating how this thread has changed ...

I?m not really an expert on this but some things wer neglected so far in my opinion.

1. The flight shooting by the ottoman turks has been the result of centuries of development, hundreds of bowyers, fletchers, stringmakers and thousands of archers were involved in this... This immense amonunt of experience can not easily be duplicated today with only a few people doing practical hornbow archery. What is achieved today with modern reconstructions of horn bows is another quality as the one that people could achieve centuries ago when the horn bow was at it?s zenith. Maybe Korean bowyers and archers could get close to the 900 yards of the ancient turks... It?s not only replicating the bow, the arrow probably is much more important and, of course the skill of the archer. I see no reason to doubt the recorded distances in turkish flight shooting. There are the steles in Istanbul and we have also historical
records.

2. Flight shooting is only one facette of archery, we shouldn?t take it too important when regarding the qualities of a bow type (in fact, flight shooting is only a game or sport). It should not be forgotten that the main purpose why the horn bow was invented and used was horse archery... The hornbow can be built shorter than any other bow and as such it is best suited for shooting from horseback. For this reason it was invented two times, at around 2500 BC in Asia, and about 4300 years later again in North America...

3. When one compares the selfbow and the hornbow, one important feature of the selfbow is it?s easy and fast manufacturing. I don?t think it made ever sense to make hornbows if it wasn?t for the purpose of using it on a horse. The selfbow is good enough for every hunting or military use when the archer is standing on his feet... As far as I know today the hornbow as made by the old was indeed superior to the best selfbows, but that cannot compensate for the 10 - 20 times more work to make one ...

4. I think people were always interested in arrow speed, it was the motor of development in bows and arrows. We can see that stone age bowyers were always trying to make better bows, the sections and outlines of their bows underwent a lot of changes. While the first bows in Europe were made of elm, people discovered very quick that yew was superior and by the time of it?s first postglacial appearance nearly all bows were made only from yew.

5. There is an ancient method of comparing arrow speeds that is mentioned in Saracene archery, I think. It consisted of shooting a known distance while observing the greatest height of the flying arrow using some crossbar on two wooden poles. The arrow that flew under the bar was faster as one that had a higher elevation.

Every bow type has to be judged in its context, taking into account for what purpose it was built for and in which environment it had to be used... The self bow is unchallenged for its ease of construction, but it can?t be made short enough for the use on a horse. The hornbow is the best choice for horse archery ,for a foot soldier or hunter it?s manufacture is simply too much work....


Best regards, JJ

As to speculations on the very long ranges attained by the Ottoman archers of the past as far as I?m concerned at least one of our Turkish friends trains himself seriously for flight archery as it was done in the past with siper and appropriate to the task draw weight hoping to use a proper composite horn/wood/sinew flight bow able to withstand launching very light arrows soon so I hope that we will have some reliable results to compare with the distance of old in the near future.

any serious historical study will reveal that human beings are getting weaker,there are countless examples, look at the bows of the mary rose, and that was only a few hundred years ago, go back a few thousand years and bows for war and the men who shot them would have been very strong, I find no problem to accept shooting an arrow 900 yds. Has anyone read any vedic texts? these are the oldest written histories of life on earth, going back minimum 5000years, the mahabharata and ramayana are full of archery tales and the feats of ancient warriors . By modern standards not many people would be able to accept these feats, but who knows, there is a lot of ancient stuff that cant be explained today!!. But if people where stronger, their minds would have been stronger and their focus too, so anything could have been possible. I think this disscusion goes beyond archery and bow making, and maybe it is the enjoyment of the quest for something beyond the realms of what seems possible that seems to fascinate some people, because they feel the potential is there inside them to acheive it.This could be more rewarding than just churning out farly good self bows.
But on a practical note, it is obvious these bows where meant for use on chariots and horses, thats how wars used to be fought and apart from hunting thats what bows are for in the real world of survival

I dont agre JJ, that hornbow flyght shooting is only game or sport. Maybe you forget, but ancient warbow sense is not in target shooting. His sense is in masive looong distance shooting. Todays mashinegun. In stand or in horse back. Of course in horse back have second big advantage. Nomads species speed atack, shooting in short distance and speed retreat.
But long distance shooting is very importent. From this reason is sport flyghtshooting logical evolution from war training shooting.

Another question is weapon special for horsarcher. Why? Because is short ? I ask you , if you are war archer and you haevnt more arrows . What is best bow for your fight or run, English 190cm yew bow or 110cm short hornbow ? :P I know that for this situation some of long bows have in one of tips litle blade...
I mean , that hornbows was short not only for horsearchery. His short light arms is superb for speed lash shot- especialy in long distance. And short "fps" too. If situation need shooting big arrows vith big arrovheads - archers use bigger , longer and haevier bows-again hornbows. (Chines- for aex. maybe mongols too.)

I would like to diverge further and elaborate on JJ;s statements about Native Americans.

There is ample archaeological proof that the "horse bow" well preceded the second arrival of the Horse in America. For instance, the Navajos called wood long bows "hunting bows" and short sinew backed bows "war bows". Backed bows are thought to be relatively late arrivals from Canada and the Arctic but still preceded the horse.

Members of the Numuna, Utes, also made backed bows but others, Comanches, never did make backed bows. Both tribes were enemies of Navajos. Comanche used osage wood bows exclusively and were the most successful tribe on the Southern plains. Navajos and Apaches lacked osage bows and so made backed bows from inferior materials which may have outperformed osage bows.

Even into the late 19th century, many plains tribes traveled long distances to make war on foot. Kiowas and Osages are two examples of peoples who preferred this method; both shooting wood "horse bows".

One may be surprised of the similarities between NA tribes and Asians.

In a way I agree with Redhawk that bow types are a type of cultural patrimony. But I am sure that all the time would not have been invested in composites had they not out performed self bows. -j-

Shooting under a rope was mentioned in Saracen Archery and it was also practised by the English longbow men. It is a simple way to compare velocities. If you can shoot the same weight arrow faster, it will hit harder so it has a practical outcome that was easily checked.


Inuit (Eskimoes) had sinew backed bows that were quite short. There were no horses or horseback archery (or even caribou-back archery). Jack is right about short sinew-backed bows preceding the introduction of horse though how widespread they were is another matter.

On the other hand, the Manchu and the Japanese used longer bows on horseback and were successful.

Long range harassment is useful against unarmoured enemies and horses. What part it played in warfare is hard to determine. However, it is one area where flight shooting skills could be put into practice. There are accounts of archers provoking the other army into attacking before they are ready. Shooting at large groups requires less precision in aiming and more in calculating range.

However, it is worthwhile remembering all the stories of incredible accuracy the exist in archery literature. Archers want to hit their targets. they do now and they did in the past.

Foot archers in India often used bamboo longbows. They were often recruited from forest tribes where such bows would be very useful. They also were not paid very much. Horse archers were richer and could afford better weapons. A composite bow was an investment and could be used for many years.

Jack , those are some good points, but I like the last one best. Who would have bothered making horn bows if self bows were good enough? most inventions arise out of necessity. ( unless they were just bored , with too much time on their hands.!!!)
Didnt the Japanese even shoot their 'very long' bow from horse back , I think I heard?

Some of you are yet taking me wrong, even I?ve several times posted my deep admiration of hornbows, above all about the design of Osmanian hornbows. I posted several times that I guess Osmanian hornbows and Holmegaard selfbows to be the most clever and best bow- designs ever.

I don?t need such a big number like these 900yards or statements like this bow is better than that bow for to appreciate it, sorry but that?s somewhat boring.
If I see a real bow or a pic of a bow or some grave- findings of a bow, o.k I want to check the facts, I want to make it or to shoot it, let?s go and give it a try.

Thank?s for some updates, I checked too the shot of Jaap was 313yards, the weight of the bow is about 42lbs.
But the record for selfbows with a weight below 50lbs is about 35?yards, shot by one of the Perrys.
For to be serious Adam should post the details about the hornbows shot by Harry Drake and Dan Perry, drawweight, drawlength, kind of string and all the additionally equipment usually used by Drake and Perry.

I guess the problem is the wide space between what is somehow told and what?s fact, space enough for speculation, imagination, magic, myths dreams........I would like to check this wide space for making bows better..

Michael

....And of course, the use of materials such as FF string and carbon arrows which makes the whole thing quite meaningless in my opinion.

Redhawk,I hope I dont take you wrong? practical demonstration is all important and I too would like to see the real figures and details of the bow tests, I want to make the most efficient bows possible, I was just trying to add a spiritual dimension to the process, but maybe thats just for me personally and not for everyone , just probing where people are coming from really, maybe I should stick to practicalities ?

Some updates;

H. Drake has also made a yew- selfbow(recurve, 75lbs?) reaching about 600yards.

By the way I have discussed the topic with Murat ?zveri, he updated me as follows:
The furthest recorded shot with an Ottoman flight bow was done by T. Iskender, a very well trained and capable Ottoman soldier, reaching 845m.
The calculated drawweight for the bow should be about 130lbs.

I guess that Adam Karpowicz is capable to make the bow, but where is the bowyer to shoot it?

Michael

Michael, sorry-so naive. This is bow problem ? This is about archer... :lol:

Dusan, you?re right, where is the archer?

Everywhere. Only people must training vith good construct composites . Not vith 50-70 lb children replicas , Michael... And good funcional heavy replicas is now only fue in world. C?mon and help us . Stop working on bad looking light children bows :lol:

If a bowyer is able to do a 40lbs-replica all right, there is no problem to do the same bow heavier. That?s a matter of knowhow and well raw- materials.
I don?t think that you are calling the majority of the ATARN- members children- archers. Ask them who is used to shoot bows heavier than 65lbs.
A good archer is not as much a macho as you may think.

Michael

Och- this is not about macho. Or who have bigger arms :lol: Michael, you personaly startting doubt composite sporting shooting records and same way war bows too.Now you understand, that you need perfect balances composite bow (and succesfull working 60lb bow is only 1 step to do 130lb bow...) and archer in perfect condition. I have respect for all composite bow replicas makers, but realy dont understand why this people doing this light waight replicas ,if wasnt a bowsellers. I understand if one buy this bow for target shooting practice vith touch of romantism. But man who interested more in Atarnet about history , who talking about war bow practice shooting , curiouse about this "extraordinary" performance and the and working on 60lb replica . Full happy, show his masterpiece...Happy that horn dont crash, or glue hold wood vith horn good. Why ?

In best dayis in history of Otoman composite bows, was 60lb bow for childrens , womans an maybe for starting training.

It is easy to pick out the archers on the Mary Rose. They are the ones with the deformed skeletons. I do not know if detached tendons can be detected on a bone. -j-

Yes, you are right, Jack. Old archers can we today recognize from his skelet -bones . Many of them was found in England. But , i mean that today is not necessary hard training from 10-12 to 40 years. If you are in good condition (work, sport etc.) half year of intensive training can very helkp to shoot heavy bows. We are today very lazy and dont use ours body and muscles not more than 50 %.

These are the 2007 flight records for Unlimited Longbow:
Unl Am. Longbow 481-0-0/439.83m Simon J. Stanley
Unl English Longbow 371-1-4/339.65m Alistair Aston

I am not sure where the figure for Harry Drake with a long bow came from. Judging from what I have seen, it is an unlikely distance. I will be meeting some of his friends in a few weeks and will ask them.

Bede, I?m also not sure where the number of Harry Drake?s shot with a yew- recurve came from. But I met it almost everytime when there is a discussion about flight- shooting records.
This is the point, these numbers are handled with a lot of myth around.
I want to get a clear look on the subject.

Michael

Dusan wrote:

In best dayis in history of Otoman composite bows, was 60lb bow for childrens , womans an maybe for starting training.

I'd seriously doubt that. Giving a 60lb. bow to a beginner or a child would quickly destroy his/her stance and bone structure. Such a weight might be puny by the standards of a military archer or high-performance flight shooter but it'd still be more of an "intermediate"-level bow than a beginner's.

We need to keep open-minded on that. From what I read about the Janissaries, they had some extreme forms of training (like Spartans) and maybe they did subject children to excessive demands.

Hyarmendacil, you living in country, wher maybe stil working childrens... Fue decads ago , children and young people working very hard in Europa too. We are very quickly forget, how hard man must work and how strong was in this years his body. Even mi grand mother or father must everyday walking 10-15 km to school , summer, winter... If i told mi daughter that she must buy somthing to the shop about 500m around she col mi sadist father :lol: .

Michael,
In the flight shooting world, only properly recorded shots count. Everything else is fantasy. It is the nature of these things that stories grow with the telling. The fish that got away is bigger. The shot that no one saw went farther than any other. We humans are not very good at judging distances.

Current flight records are on the web if anyone wants to look them up.

I think you are right Dusan, modern people are mostly weak and lazy because nowadays machines do all the hard work for us!! and also they dont get the proper nutrition, so they use weak bows. In Scotland they have the broad sword of Robert the bruce, it is so heavy a modern man man could never use it, and that is under 500 yrs old I believe

Her is another problem. Everybody say about dangerous destroy bone, tendon sistem, about health of archer. All its true - in todays relative piece machine world. But 100-150 years ago nobody interesting about warior health . Nobody asking him , how he feeling ? Man have only action value. Must be ready to fight. Only 20 years ago , when i was in army , colonel teach us that soldier in first atac line have 80 sec. live. Thats man live value for army . Who can ask you in this situacion , how your healthy :lol: And 1000 years ago , when you was slave or like slave ..." Master , i have pein in mi arm, i cant shoot. Thats ok boy, you must rest a little, i immediately call a doctor..." Och no...

Dusan,
In a system like the Mamluk one in Egypt and Syria, the attitude was a little different to the one you describe. Boys were bought from slave dealers at the age of 8 or 9 years. They were transported from the Black Sea coast and usually passed through several hands. Their cost in Egypt was very high. Then they were trained by professional military instructors for up to ten years. Their food and housing were supplied by their owners. They were taught religion and the Arabic language. At about 18, they were freed and enlisted into the bodyguard of their owner. There was a huge investment in their training. These warriors were not just cannon fodder to be expended carelessly.

Their training involved a gradual build up of strength and concentrated on skill development.

In England, the archers were free men who trained together shooting in their villages. They were paid professionals and there was an incentive to shoot heavy bows because the archer's career would be enhanced. I have read the medical reports published on the Mary Rose archers and, while they had stress induced spinal deformities, they were generally very healthy. They were usually better nourished and taller than the other soldiers and sailors found in the wreck. They were probably viewed by their contemporaries in the same way we look at a professional athlete.

Yes Bede , you talk about special sistem training high quality profesionals-special forces, But i talk about meny others common soldiers.Most of them was not volunteer. Anyway, life was most harder in this times.Nobody in army ask you , if it good for you or not. Another point is that in every power sistem was warrior like hero very popular.Nomad social sistem stay in warior herros and stand suffering and pain . You can see in today Hollywood films. I have friend - profesional soldier. He was in Kosovo, Afganistan ... Very hard training + like you say abot Mameluks (or Janisarys)-all servis - food, medicine etc. But today in 35 years , he have big healthy problems vith , spine, tendons in arms and legs and more tropical illness then ever i heart.

Yes; but Bede's point -- with which I agree -- is that archers were not usually used as 'cannon fodder'. In terms of military tactics, good archers and good horsemen were treated like today's jet fighter pilots. The Chinese military manuals (e.g. Li Chengfen) imply that an archers skills should be developed and maximized, and not be crudely exploited.

I agree.All what i try say is , that hard training vith lot of pain and suffering is real live for todays soldiers and for 1000 years ago 2 time more. From this point is for some people impromprehensible shoot 140lb bow.

Bede wrote:

I have read the medical reports published on the Mary Rose archers and, while they had stress induced spinal deformities, they were generally very healthy. They were usually better nourished and taller than the other soldiers and sailors found in the wreck. They were probably viewed by their contemporaries in the same way we look at a professional athlete.

I do not know the medical reports, I just saw a documentary.. I think it was called Ghosts of the Mary Rose.. where this was discussed. I suppose everything was presented very simplified for a broad audience, but I didn't get the impression that there was any proof that the skeletons with deformations were archers. It was presented the other way round, these skeletons show deformations, hence they must have been archers. So is there actually any real evidence?

Daniel

I believe that there were comparisons with modern archers who shot heavy bows. this was done to confirm if the people with the deformations could have had their problems caused by archery. The conclusion was that the deformations were consistent.

Unfortunately, no one was found bow in hand proving definitely that he was an archer. However, the balance of probabilities favour that deduction at the moment.

Another point about the poor guys who were cannon fodder in mediaeval armies is that the methods of recruitment and training were not like modern conscript armies. In the West, the development of professional armies was paralleled by the gradual introduction of conscript armies. This developed in the 17th through to the 19th centuries. The modern methods of mass training and high levels of discipline are just that, modern.

In the mediaeval period, soldiers fell into different classes. You had nobles who were professional warriors with the resources to buy good equipment and pay for training. There were mercenaries who owned their own equipment and worked for pay either as individuals or as part of a company. There were feudal retainers who owed military service to their feudal lords. There were town militias raised by the towns to defend their walls. Finally, there were the peasant levies, raised to provide untrained infantry and function as servants and helpers to the other fighters. At all levels in this structure, people could just walk away if you didn't pay them or mistreated them. Dukes and counts regularly revolted. mediaeval kings did not have anywhere near the authority that later kings did.

Among the nomads, there were similar structures, but without the towns or the peasants. Most nomad societies were hierarchical and had the equivalent of nobles and retainers and mercenaries. By the nature of their lifestyles, nomads had developed many military skills. They also had the advantage of mobility. This was a double edged sword though because if your nomad allies were dissatisfied they would just leave or change sides. This happened even during battles as the Byzantine Emperor found at the battle of Manzikert.

Life was very tough. People starved, were beaten up, robbed and were murdered.

There is an interesting account of a German captive, Johannes Shiltberger, who in the XIV c was put to service with the Mongol and Tatar armies. He was given a spear and forced to run before the professional troops with other slaves as essentially the "cannon fodder". Once he proved his worth, he was given a horse, presumably joining the pros, or rather the regular mounted troops. It seems these slaves were not allowed to have a bow. The constant warfare among the nomads made most of them very capable soldiers. In the Ottoman times akinji troops were usually the first to go before the core of the army, although these were free men, not slaves.

I doubt if any of us now would survive in those times for very long.

Adam

Most things in this world come down to money unfortuneately and good quality bows would not be given to the "cannon fodder" Like today and always highly trained soldiers are given the best equipment, and these soldiers are an expensive investment with expensive weapons , that arent sent to their death lightly. Also highly trained and disciplined men are usually more intelligent so why should we presume they foolishly deformred their bodies with inncorrect training procedures? I have practised archery and martial arts for over 20 yrs and it is always considered counter productive to use too heavy weapons to soon or to push the body too far, if we understand this now why wouldnt they understand this then? Only foolish men or captured slaves end up as cannon fodder and these men cant gennerally be compared to self-motivated trained warriors. So the use of heavy bows does not imply that those warriors had deformed bodies. Sensible training from a reasonably early age with discipine and determination will easily enable a healthy man to use a 100lb plus bow.

I think using the word "deformed" might be suggesting that these people were somehow disadvantaged by the changes to their spines. The medical reports are describing a condition that did not seem the bother the people who had it. Arthritis and joint pains were the lot of those who were lucky enough to get old. No one was doing studies at the time saying to archers: watch out you might end up with odd sized shoulders. I believe there are other studies of the remains of specialists that show employment related changes in the body that were accepted as normal in that group.

If there was no perceived disadvantage, why would anyone care? The Mamluks and other Oriental horse archers had to regularly use swords and two handed spears. Perhaps their training was more scientifically directed than either nomad horse archers or English longbow men.

To give an example where dangerous practices were ignored. There was a decorative metalworking technique called fire gilding where a mercury gold amalgam was painted onto metalwork and then the mercury was evaporated by heat leaving the gold behind. The practice was used for centuries killing a large proportion of the craftsmen using it. It was only stopped when a better way was found and society's attitude to the wasting of low paid workers was changed.

Live was tough in the good old days and cheap too.

Dusan wrote:

Hyarmendacil, you living in country, wher maybe stil working childrens...

Well, I'm living in a third-world country where walking long distances is often a better option than braving traffic jams, and lots of cleaning jobs at home are still best done by hand rather than with electrical tools like vacuum cleaners or rotary mops. And I can tell you that all that physical work doesn't make one an archer since the muscle and bone structures utilized in backbreaking day-to-day work are quite different from those employed in archery.

dragonman wrote:

In Scotland they have the broad sword of Robert the bruce, it is so heavy a modern man man could never use it, and that is under 500 yrs old I believe

This is probably apocryphal. The sword popularly ascribed to Robert the Bruce is nowadays seen by serious scholars of arms an armor as (amost certainly) a bearing-sword or a parade-sword not meant for combat, and its unusually large size and great weight are meant solely for looking impressive at the head of a parade. Not to mention that the design is centuries too late to be accurately ascribed to a 14th-century king like good old Robert. Real medieval longswords/greatswords seldom went over four pounds in weight--most of them actually weighed less than three and a half pounds, with a balance that made them very handy even in the hands of a reasonably fit modern man--and even the huge specialized two-handers of the Renaissance almost never went above six pounds.


English longbowmen were an elite of sorts, too. Not quite as elite as aristocratic men-at-arms, but certainly not expendable cannon fodder.

Just adding more fuel to the fire....

I beg to differ with the remark above that heavier swords were for display or parades only,For example the Khanda belonging to Deep singh is over 9 pounds as well as the talwar(shamsheer)belonging to Hari singh Nalwa who was a general in Maharaja Ranjeet singh's army is well over 10 pounds and the various nicks and cuts on the swords show that they were used in battle.Same goes for the bowsthat were attributed to these warriors is that they were well above the draw weight of the average bows used at the time,although the bows have not survived but the documntation about these is still present in the sikh meuseum in the Golden temple,India.

Umm, most european one-handed swords weighted about 1000-1200 g (2.2 - 2.5 lb), most of the hand-and-half swords were about 1100 - 1300 g. Their balance point made them quite handy and fast weapons. Those were the warswords in Europe. Forget about the 5 kilo sword, and the Konnan-like warrior. This is hollywood bullshit.
But it is true, that the warriors of this time were stronger. After all, most of the knights (e.g. nobles) as well as most of the nomads were trained for war and/or weapon usage since childhood. In the I.33 codex it is said, that in order to be good warrior you have to train every day, and the king's guards have to train twice a day.

By the way wasn't this topic about bow plans?

I'm not a bowmaker or bow expert but we have serious research on Okmeydani (arrow square & archery guild) where place of Turkish Flight Shooting in many years. First of all if someone says there is an Sultan's propaganda, I have to tell that registered 3375 archer recorded in manuscripts (at least we knew exact) and 300 erected archery monuments in 50 different ranges that shows flight shooting records in Istanbul Okmeydani. But only 3 (three) Ottoman Sultan has record: Selim III, Murad IV and Mahmoud II... There is no Mehmet II (conqueror of Istanbul and founder of archery guild), Suleyman "The Magnificent" or any other "famous" Sultans.

Because of Okmeydani Archer's Guild has a strict written rules and if anyone try to spoil that this is the very big crime and protected by laws. So, first rule of "Flight Club" is at least 2 eyewitnesses must be ready at the point the shot was performed and at least 2 referees (airmen) must be stay where near arrow fell. And nobody can enter that area. Second rule of the Club is these eyewitnesses has some specs and NOT any bow or arrow makers can do that (for protecting objectivity). This is the reason: The Sultan Selim's record written in Klopsteg's book not "confirmed" because of there is no legal referees.

On the other hand these all records carefully recorded to logbooks and there is special laws against any mistakes & faults. We have these books today. Last but not least all peoples are equal and Sultans (or any governors) has no any authority in Okmeydani (only have special small-house for rest). This feature is only valid for Okmeydani and not for any other guilds, society or place in Empire. Authority was the Sheikh of Meidan (Head of the Guild) and his board (4 people).

The point where the shooting was made called 'foot stone' and the directions specified by erected stones called 'main stone' were named as 'range'. A marble column, 'range stone' that bears the name of the archer, his profession, the date of the shot and the distance on the shooting face was erected. These are already proof of that distances. Please be think today's all confirmed distances & records may discuss after 200 years later as the same at now like yours. And nobody can exactly say this distances are not true. It not seems fair.

Today, we can examine some archery monuments (range stones) and we know one foot stone still in here. And we can easily measure between foot stone and monument stone (begin and end) via very sensitive satellite images with hi-tech of Municipalty's Map Department. It shows us the unbelievable distances but only unbelievable for "today". Please come here and see this evidences. Guidance and meals for free of me...

One of our Institute's member Dr. Aksoy (he is also bowmaker) translating the old Turkish Archery manuscripts to new Turkish. That's are like treasure for us because of we're learning many of info about bow making and especially training methods & techniques. I can say the Turkish Archer's education was very very tight and disciplined. And flight shooters like as "F1 Pilot" and their training are very special... Special teachers, special bows, special nourishment etc. Their bows already like a "F1 Race car" and in the edge as the same. For that, every flight shooters has a less 3 or 4 bows. Because of that bows was blew naturally. Not like the other target or war Turkish bows.

There we go, thanks for posting Metin. It does not sound like us, the bunch of hobbyists "training so hard" a couple of weeks before the shoot off, does it?

Have you tried to check the distances with a good GPS perhaps?

Adam

Exactly. Serious "meshk"s (trainings) takes at least 3 (three) years according manuscripts. That kind of trainings were completed approx 12000 kepaze (draw empty bow), 6000 torba gezi (shot pointless & featherless wooden arrows to small sacks filled cotton seed in short distance) and 3000 hava gezi (shot pointless & featherless wooden arrows to air or 45 degreed sacks). And every morning draw an empty bow 66 times before all. Old Turkish Archers also have a proverb: "If you leave the training one day, archery will leave you 10 days"

Yes, I also checked distance with GPS and via Google Map. But Map Department's measuring is very sensitive and more scientific than all other methods.

I'm sorry all explanations are in Turkish but you can see that distances & monuments via Google Map made by me:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... &z=15&om=1

I want to add something about flight shooters' training according to "Kavsname" (book of bow-archery) by Kemankesh Mustafa Efendi (17th century) that we recently translated it. First of all many of the competitors had not a job except archery. Rich men and VIP peoples like "vhezirs, pasha etc" were sponsored these archers for only archery. And favorite topics of talks were about these competitions & records between them. On the other hand according the Kavsname, string type and release technique (opening fingers) seriously affects to distances. And last actual proverb that Metin told before like that ?if someone leaves the bow for a day, Bow leaves him for 10 day" sincerely

Thanks for the very detailed update, Metin and Arsilan, that?s makes sense.
No open space for romantic warriors.
What about T. Iskender, mentioned by Murat ?zveri?

Sorry for my Sultan- statement, but I?m a basic- democrat.

Who is the archer, who meets this challenge?

Michael

Thanks for the courtesy. No problem, Okmeydani already very democratic area and we're son of our fathers.

Tozkoparan Iskender is the record-holder archer and his registered record is 1281 gez (a gez is about 66 cm) dated 1550. Another big archers Bursali Suca, Deve Kemal, Lenduha Cafer, Havandelen etc. are our archery heroes like him. They are also rival archers if any little fault there were always objections. Old manuscripts says these kind of hard discussions in flight shooting competitions. And they have also special supporters like today?s famous soccer players.

Thank you very much, Metin, for your thorough information!

Will we meet you again (and other turkish archers) at this years WTAF? I?ll bring my turkish horn bow ;-)))

Best regards, J?rgen

yes, everything is possible,with determination and constant practice!! ( it would certainly help to have a rich sponsor!!!!)
what is the WTAF and where is it?

WTAF is the 3rd World Traditional Archery Festival in Taean, Republic of Korea, September 11th-17th.
An international meeting of archers, bowyers, and archery historians with seminar, archerys demonstration and a tournament.

Lord Ruthven wrote:

Umm, most european one-handed swords weighted about 1000-1200 g (2.2 - 2.5 lb), most of the hand-and-half swords were about 1100 - 1300 g. Their balance point made them quite handy and fast weapons. Those were the warswords in Europe. Forget about the 5 kilo sword, and the Konnan-like warrior. This is hollywood bullshit.

I saw the 5 kilo sword in a museum in Jaipur today. A guide had said that it was actually held by the elephant's trunk and shattered helmets. It also wasn't particularly sharp.

The same guide then said that crescent moon arrows were used for cutting people's throats, so I'm not sure whether to believe him on the sword either ...

By the way wasn't this topic about bow plans?

Yes. I think that only lasted a few posts :( [/quote]

daryush wrote:

In the UK the english longbow is somewhat of a national weapon. Loads of people here actually believe it was more powerful than 18th - 19th century muskets, and was only superceded in modern times. This isn't helped by English history teachers who all try to prove that it was the best weapon known to man until modern times and video games where longbowmen can kill insane amounts of soldiers at ridiculous ranges.

I know this post is a little old, but I've only just found it...

What do you mean by 'more powerful'? Are you suggesting that a battalion of 14th century English archers couldn't have massacred a battalion of Napoleonic troops with their muskets?

dragonman wrote:

In Scotland they have the broad sword of Robert the bruce, it is so heavy a modern man man could never use it, and that is under 500 yrs old I believe

If it is under 500 years old then it certainly isn't Robert de Bruce's...

A friend of mine has a massive tulwar that was for a man with a large hand. It is perfectly balanced, but beyond the strength of an ordinary man. However, if you examine the methods that Indian wrestlers use to build their strength, particularly the wrist exercises used with heavy clubs, you can see the training and the type of men this kind of weapon was meant for.

The tactical use of such a weapon is hard to imagine. Two things are obvious, no matter how strong, no one can make it change direction quickly and also its wielder would be exposed to archers in open battle. However, defending an internal corridor that restricted missile weapon use, this would be a formidable object which could smash through shields and armour. There are English accounts of the wars in the 1850s of sepoys striking so hard with their swords that their opponent was thrown to the ground, shield and all. Imagine someone the size of a professional Indian traditional wrestler with a sword of comparable size. These men are fast and strong.

My friends grandfather was Col,Kesri singh,a very well known hunter and also organised plenty of Tiger shoots for the king of Jaipur as well as king George when he visited India,He related an incident on a tiger shoot when the tiger doubled back and attacked the beaters in an attempt to break out,One of the beaters was a swordsman of repute and a retired soldier always carrying his sword,unfortunately the tiger tried to breakout next to where this man was standing who attacked the tiger with a sword and severed the spine with one stroke paralysing the tiger in place which was then dispatched with a shot to the head.

Guys. This sword is ceremonial, believe me. I'm a member of a european historical medieval fencing club and we study medieval sword fight according to the medieval codexes, and practice with wooden wasters and metal swords. In some of the codexes, by the way, there are written accounts of complete decapitation trough the chainmaile coif, splitting of heads trough the helmet, etc., with normal swords, and sometimes even with messers -really long one edged knives. So it doesn't need a special heavy sword for this.
Besides, you need not only to hit your enemy, you need to be fast to avoid his hits, to defend yourself. The sword isn't statical weigth, it is always moving. And its center of graviti isn't exactly in the hand. If you try and fight as if you're fignhting for your life, after only 2 hours or so you will be exhausted. And that is with 1200g one handed sword (Nevermind if it is Xa or XII by Oakeshott classification). So 5 kilos are too much even for a Zweihander /Claymore. But, according to Oakeshott, there were 5 or even 7 kilo swords, used only for ceremonial purpoces. It can be seen that they are not warswords in the wearing (or the absence of it), and in the way they was made.
Yes, there were very strong men. Yes, they had non-typical longer and heavier swords. But 5 kilo sword, even zweihander is too much even for a giant like one of those.

By the way - the topic was about bow plans. That is quite interesting topic on itself. May someone split the two topics?

Best regards
Alexander