draw weights on horseback

Don't forget the Scythian bow: http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1929

Daniel

.... Maybe 40# were only possible for the Amazons? .. Or female archers where technique played a more important role than power and body armor was not that common?

R

Reto wrote:

.... Maybe 40# were only possible for the Amazons? .. Or female archers where technique played a more important role than power and body armor was not that common?

R

':D'Reto: very witty and concise':D'


I attend regular training run at a maximum distance of 500 m. I know what is on the 42 km marathon run?

Angela writes:

All of these bows contain plenty of modern materials, including your Kaya, and the biocomposites. So what? Doesn't matter to most people in this thread, so why single out horseback archers for your criticism of putative historical incorrectness? If you feel "historically correct" shooting a bow made constructed with plenty of modern materials.

I want to complete the marathon course (however, I have modern clothes and shoes). But I have to train regularly and a lot of running. Only when I have the strength and stamina to get to your destination (otherwise there is no chance to complete the full marathon).

We have just a little muscle ... That is the reason for using a bow 30-35 lbs ...

By the way - it's not criticism. I ask ...

My English is poor. But perhaps it is understandable. :D :D

Reto wrote:

.... Maybe 40# were only possible for the Amazons? .. Or female archers where technique played a more important role than power and body armor was not that common?

R

You are forgetting the bronze scale armour bikinis!

Daniel

My main point in the old discussion was actually not historic draw weights. If you want to be historically correct then that is something else, but I would be much more sceptical of written sources if I were you. One should not take everything at it's face value. Archaeological records are more interesting, although these are also limited. People in steppe cultures probably rode and shot from an early age, and practiced much of the day, and had very other reasons for doing so - their life depended on their proficiency. You cannot expect people today to emulate these people.

What annoyed me in the other thread was that several people (I don't know the extent of their experience in mounted archery) are insisting those of us doing modern horseback archery (although we like the traditional touch, we have no asperity toward historical authenticity) should be shooting much stronger bows, that it would be much better to shoot 60# and more from horseback, and that the majority of experienced horseback archers is obviously mistaken etc. I have tried to explain why mounted archery is not simply archery with a moving target, but nobody really commented on the explanations, just continually propagating strong draw weights from horseback. Perhaps we will meet sometimes and then these guys can show us just how easy it is...

Angela wrote:

...People in steppe cultures probably rode and shot from an early age, and practiced much of the day, and had very other reasons for doing so - their life depended on their proficiency. You cannot expect people today to emulate these people.

What annoyed me in the other thread was that several people (I don't know the extent of their experience in mounted archery) are insisting those of us doing modern horseback archery (although we like the traditional touch, we have no asperity toward historical authenticity) should be shooting much stronger bows, that it would be much better to shoot 60# and more from horseback, and that the majority of experienced horseback archers is obviously mistaken etc.

I think it's a similar story of a soldier running from the battle of Marathon 42 km. Thousands of years, people thought that it is a legend ... Finally, someone tried. This is it.

In fact, nobody needs to run 42 kilometers. But it is a challenge ...

I have to start by saying that I do not have experience in horse archery at all. For this reason, I can only comment on the archery side.

Angela, You are saying that you have no asperity towards historical authenticity. I can understand and respect that. Since I am inspired by historical authenticity, I cannot clearly understand your point of view and what are you looking for when you shoot.

What I see in most modern horse archery is the following: the goal is to hit the target in it's center from horseback, as fast and as much as possible in a single pass from a relative small distance. It does not matter at all how hard the arrow strikes or what kind of arrows are used, if the technique is good or not, if the arrow fishtails or not and so on. Not even the horse speed is that important.

The way I would like to see it is totally different. The force of impact, arrow trajectory and speed of the horse would be at the utmost importance. Then comes the distance of shooting, and at the end the speed of shooting. But again, I am guided by historical facts.

Now, coming back to the draw weight subject. First let's set a framework. I would say that a bow is right for an archer when he/she can shoot it accurately on the ground, from a steady position, is able to hold the full draw for about 5 seconds without shaking, and is able to shoot at different positions around his body without moving the feet and without affecting full draw. If I for example could not do these things on the ground, I would never take that bow on a horse, even if I were a skilled rider. I do not think that the fact of being on the horse should dictate the bow one should use.For these reasons I have not referred to a precise poundage. Everyone should choose a bow for their own strength, but I have seen cases where some horse archers are clearly much stronger then their bows. In my opinion some horse archers, as well as many other archers too, ignore the proper techniques of shooting a bow, and choose to shoot lighter bows because their technique does not allow them to shoot the bow that they could. It is the easier way to use a lighter bow then to correct the technique. And coming back to actual numbers, I refuse to accept that all those shooting 35-40# bows on horseback shoot it because of their physical limits. Among pedestrian archers there is a sound distribution in bow poundages against archers weight, following the laws of statistics. For horse archers the things are different. There are horse archers shooting strong bows, but they are not that many.

It has been said on the other thread (Kaya thread) that it is harder to shoot accurate with a lighter bow and therefore this is the skill that should be perfected. I do not agree with this statement at all. One can do anything with a light bow, draw it in every possible position, shoot with bad technique and still hit the target. Check youtube for trick shooters hitting falling aspirins drawing their bows behind their backs. Is that proper technique? Clearly not but the bow allows them to do that because it is light.

One should ask himself: "Why am I shooting a bow? Do I just want to hit the target? Do I care how I hit it? Does it really matter that I hit it or not?" Here is a famous quote: "Sometimes we hit the target but we miss the self".

I cannot directly influence the horse archers today because I am not a horse archer, but I hope these words will reach some of them.

Storm wrote:

Angela, You are saying that you have no asperity towards historical authenticity. I can understand and respect that. Since I am inspired by historical authenticity, I cannot clearly understand your point of view and what are you looking for when you shoot.

Quite simple. Due to my work in archaeology, it is my opinion that there is no such thing as historical authenticity. There is just too much we don't know. And even if one did know it all, it would be impossible to really "live" such a culture. It would be little more than a dressing-up game and I see little point in that. Many of us will incorporate some of the traditions of horseback archers (mainly those with simply practical value, e.g. bow type, quiver type, saddle type etc.) but we wouldn't presume to call ourselves "authentic" or anything like that. Just because you dress up as a Scythian or a Hun and shoot a bow in the strength you think a Scythian or Hun might have shot, that doesn't mean you have any inkling what it was like to really have lived in that culture.

I shoot from horseback because it is quite simply a wonderful sport!! Does it need any more reason?

I cannot directly influence the horse archers today because I am not a horse archer, but I hope these words will reach some of them.

You say yourself that you have no experience in horseback archery - yet you want to tell others how things should be done, based on your theory and personal preferences. Sorry, but I find that a bit presumptuous. As I have tried to explain several times, what you call "historical facts" is a very vague construct (I deal with that day in day out). To be honest, I think the least one should at least try to gather quite a bit of practical experience first. Because then you may start to see things in a different light, and suddenly see the point of some things. There are things you cannot read in books or glean from the historical record, you have to experience it. But I have tried, several times, to explain that horseback archery is not just a matter of getting on a horse and doing exactly what you do on the ground, but that is obviously not what some people want to hear.

What I see in most modern horse archery is the following: the goal is to hit the target in it's center from horseback, as fast and as much as possible in a single pass from a relative small distance. It does not matter at all how hard the arrow strikes or what kind of arrows are used, if the technique is good or not, if the arrow fishtails or not and so on. Not even the horse speed is that important.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Try participating in the hungarian style competition with a bad technique, wobbly arrows and a runaway horse, you would realize very soon that these factors matter very much. Again here, a bit of practical experience would put the record straight very quickly.

To be honest, I have had enough of having to justify the way I (and many others) carry out my sport - all because I dared ask whether the new Kaya bows are available in 35#. I give up on this thread, I just don't see the point. You can discuss the theory of mounted archery as much as you like, I prefer to just get on my horse and shoot my bow.

Yes, I was actually referring to Hungarian style competition. You are right that I don't have the experience, but I can form my opinion based on what i see around. Check the link below to see what others with some years of experience in this style are saying:

http://ijaszutja.hu/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=73

I have nothing with you shooting a 35#. My wife also shoots a 35# bow. What I don't like is the following statement: "many experienced horseback archers shoot bows around 35# because, after years of experience, they have formed the opinion that these are most efficient for the job." The job being high scoring in the Hungarian type competition. This part is usually left out and people outside the world of archery or who are just starting out, but most importantly, archers who are not familiar with horse archery, are led to believe that there's no point in shooting anything beyond that from the back of a horse. This type of competition does not give a chance to other styles, therefore it is not objective. It adds constraints to horse archers instead of expanding their horizons. It limits variety and personal styles.

yet you want to tell others how things should be done

No, you got me all wrong. I am telling others that there are other ways but it looks like they don't want to hear that.

I think Jchocz summarized it best. He said more in a sentence than I did in half a page. My respects!

In fact, nobody needs to run 42 kilometers. But it is a challenge ...

There are two camps (or even more) to the discussion. We should have two or more categories of horseback archery competition then - one for light, medium and heavy draw weight. They are not mutually exclusive but complementary.

Historically, horseback archers from different cultures and periods converge on a draw weight range of 90 to 120 lbs. Given modern lifestyle is a lot more sedentary than what it used to, we can't expect most folks to adopt very high draw weight on horseback.

Storm wrote:

What I don't like is the following statement: "many experienced horseback archers shoot bows around 35# because, after years of experience, they have formed the opinion that these are most efficient for the job."

Whether you like it or not, that is the case. I just can't understand it how on the one hand you have never tried horseback archery and yet still think pure theory is enough to assess the challenges of the sport, without having gathered the personal experience which might just give you better insight than a thousand books will do. If you just tried it you might begin to understand why these people say this, yu might feel for yourself the big difference. But you don't want to try, and so you won't understand. That is no basis for a productive discussion, that's just dogmatism. And that's why I give up discussing that with you.

Historically, horseback archers from different cultures and periods converge on a draw weight range of 90 to 120 lbs.

I ask again - where are the archaeological hard facts for that? A bowyer friend (Snake-Jo, perhaps he is on this forum too) of mine is one of the few people to have handled several archaeological bow remains, ones which can possibly be attributed to horse archers. These were around 50#, the strongest being 80#, which someone who had been practicing that kind of thing from horseback since childhood, and for many hours daily, may have been able to handle. It may also have been a training bow to use daily on foot, a few of my colleagues do that nowadays too. That's just it - even if you have bow remains, you don't know if they were really in everyday or warfare use, or rather "show" or training weapons.

Somebody complained on the other post that they are annoyed at people "stating as fact (such as Kassai, on a documentary I've seen) that the absolute maximum old time military horse archers would use is 40 lb". On the other hand, several people here (some of them with no horseback archery) are happy to blithely quote much higher draw weights as "fact" with not much to back that up either. I have the feeling people pick out what they want to believe from the historical sources, things which historians would be very careful to take at face value.

The archaeological record will never suffice to get a complete picture. But Kassai at least has a wealth of experience, and is probably one of the few people who spends as much time in the archer's saddle as those from the steppe cultures. He at least knows from experience what is possible, what is effective, and what is neccesary. I am sure he would have no problems shooting 80# from horseback, if he thought it correct, or if he just wanted to impress... It may well be possible to shoot very high draw weights sideways from horseback (if you have a very well-behaved horse...), but it simply isn't effective, because it compromises far too much. And it is simply not necessary. The whole point of horseback warfare is that you don't have to shoot someone from 200 metres away. You can get closer to the enemy and then get the hell out of there again quickly. And you have to be agile enough with your bow to be able to shoot in all directions. And if you shoot accurately, you can do plenty of damage with a 40# bow.

Just a little exercise for some people here who want to try something new: Find a friend who has a motorbike, sit on the back. Don't put your feet on the footrests. Or if you prefer to emulate those who had proto-stirrups (or horseback archery today), stand up slightly, so you are hovering slightly over the seat. Ask your friend to drive at 60 km/h (sorry, don't know what that is in miles, you'll find it), preferably on a dirt track. And then take that 80# or whatever bow of yours, turn right round and try to do a parthian shot accurately. Full draw please, no cheating. Then turn to the right and try to shoot a target "over the horse's neck" as it were. Keep at it for a while, preferably a few hours. Try again tomorrow. And then think about how it might be if you had to handle a horse at the same time.

Angela wrote:

Whether you like it or not, that is the case. I just can't understand it how on the one hand you have never tried horseback archery and yet still think pure theory is enough to assess the challenges of the sport, without having gathered the personal experience which might just give you better insight than a thousand books will do.

... That is no basis for a productive discussion, that's just dogmatism. And that's why I give up discussing that with you.

I am sure he would have no problems shooting 80# from horseback, if he thought it correct, or if he just wanted to impress...

... The whole point of horseback warfare is that you don't have to shoot someone from 200 metres away. You can get closer to the enemy and then get the hell out of there again quickly. And you have to be agile enough with your bow to be able to shoot in all directions. And if you shoot accurately, you can do plenty of damage with a 40# bow.

Use a simile. Today's tank weapon is a very modern destructive device. Allows you to shoot while driving (the stabilizers, laser tracking ...). The tank from World War II could also shoot while driving (hit the target site was more a coincidence ...). Shooting from the tank in World War II in motion rather because spread terror. If you wanted a tank gunner to hit the target, had to stop and shoot at the target site. Today the use of weapons against the tank can be taken as a yardstick!

Modern archery from horses (Kassai, etc.) is especially attractive. Kassai doing a good thing especially in the promotion of horse archery. He invented the style. Comparison to the shooting of a motorcycle is good. However, it corresponds to reality in history? Today all of this rather claim to be the appropriate style of historical reality.

Horse allow more rapid approach to the destination. Archer for a little while to stop and shoot the horse. Then it is not ruled out the use of heavy bows. On the other hand, rapid approach to the objectives and rapid gunfire while driving has a strong psychological effect ... Even not rule it out.

The whole point of horseback warfare is that you don't have to shoot someone from 200 metres away. You can get closer to the enemy and then get the hell out of there again quickly. And you have to be agile enough with your bow to be able to shoot in all directions. And if you shoot accurately, you can do plenty of damage with a 40# bow.

Try getting close to foot archers then; consider that a horse archer is a much bigger target and cannot hide behind a shield.
Shooting in all directions...yes it would be nice to see. For now I am only seeing shooting from front left to back left.

As for damage with 40#. A chain mail would stop that. Also, try shooting real arrows that weigh 30+ grams with that bow instead of the low weight and diameter carbon arrows . Maximum range would be around 150-170m then. With that weight, even if it hits it won't do much damage. War arrows were much heavier.

Try reading Arab Archery and Saracen Archery for information about bow and arrow weights, horse archery, technique and many more. The first one was written in a time where horse archery was at it's peak in warfare (around 1500), containing knowledge accumulated in hundreds of years. Archeological facts cannot provide such detail. A bow found in a grave might be a ceremonial bow, hunting bow and so on. You cannot be sure that it was a war bow. By the way, in which areas have you discovered the bows and remains you are talking about?

Angela - there are a couple of things I'd like to say here.

First off, I recall reading that below 60 lb or so, a horn sinew composite is actually pretty inefficient. Wooden bows, I think, are more efficient at these poundages.

Secondly, I'd like you to take your 40 lb bow, and shoot it at several layers of steel plate, or whatever. Horse archers did encounter armoured enemies. The Parthians at Carrhae were reported to pin the Romans to their shields and pin them to the ground. Do you think this might be possible with a 40 lb bow?
(I'm not saying it absolutely won't because I've never tried it. But it would be nice to hear if it did work or not)

Also, at the distances used in modern HBA competitions, any military horseback archer would be an easy target for a javelin, arrow (fired from presumably a much heavier infantry bow), musket ball, enemy rush, whatever. When you're seven metres from the enemy line, it may well be better to save on ammunition and go in melee.

There are a couple of other problems I have with Kassai's autheniticity in HBA, but this thread is about draw weights so I won't go into them here.

Angela wrote:

Somebody complained on the other post that they are annoyed at people "stating as fact (such as Kassai, on a documentary I've seen) that the absolute maximum old time military horse archers would use is 40 lb". On the other hand, several people here (some of them with no horseback archery) are happy to blithely quote much higher draw weights as "fact" with not much to back that up either. I have the feeling people pick out what they want to believe from the historical sources, things which historians would be very careful to take at face value.

I am not quoting these figures blithely. They're published. Adam measured 43 bows at Topkapi Palace and has probably handled many more. That's dozens of bows compared to just several. Please provide some more published references on archaeological finds that quote a large collection of bows having a 40# draw weight at most.

It seems you are cherry picking what you want to believe: If figures quoted don't match your expectations, you either state that the draw weights are an exception (rather than the rule), or state that historical people trained really hard --- in which case you're implicitly acknowledging that high draw weights were used on horseback. Which is it? You use the argument that you're practicing modern horseback archery so high draw weights are not important, and it's okay if you're not historically authentic. Yet at the same time, you say that the collective experience of modern horseback archers suggests that historical archers couldn't have shot heavy poundages, which would suggest that your draw weights are historically authentic. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You can't say you're not trying to be historically authentic, yet argue that what you're doing is historically authentic --- that would be hypocritical.

We get it: you're an experienced unbiased skeptic, and the rest of us are obviously biased n00bs. But you're relying heavily on modern experience which may or may not be authentic depending on when it's convenient for you. You're not providing published archaeological evidence that constructively supports an alternate view. Even your contact with Snake-Jo suggests poundages were 50# and up. Can you provide more details (may even published figures) about this and other archaelogical finds?

..... In the past there were tribes/people where women were not allowed to touch bows, otherwise the bows lost its power. Is there some truth in?
Anyway nowadays it is different an men can hardly win a battle against women, no matter of experience, brainpower or simply by arguing. Let us give forfait.

R

Reto wrote:

..... In the past there were tribes/people where women were not allowed to touch bows, otherwise the bows lost its power. Is there some truth in?
Anyway nowadays it is different an men can hardly win a battle against women, no matter of experience, brainpower or simply by arguing. Let us give forfait.

R

Women are also people! Women today are struggling in the ring (karate, boxing, wrestling ...). It does not matter whether archery (no horses, horse ..) makes a woman or a man. My interest is closer to the historical concept of archery. But I am not the extremist views. I think Kassai introduced a style that everyone repeated. But it is an artificial style of archery without effect. Many people, however, consider this style of authentic (corresponding to reality). It's ancient history. Nobody knows for sure. Our body has a little physical exercise (we have a little muscle, not training enough). That is our problem (for most modern people). Use one premise - is shot while riding a horse at full speed ... Maybe the error is here. This is a problem for the best archers. In history, but shot from the horse's entire army. Was it possible?

From what distance from the archer shot the horse? 7m, 10 meters or 20 meters? A small distance - the spear in the eye ... Long distance - is my shot effective? Many questions and few reasonable responses.

Regardless of the bow weight, Kassai has done a remarkable job of promoting horseback archery as a sport. Let's not forget that the word 'sport' is the important factor when we consider style,technique and hardware.
Unfortunately, the man himself has tried to sell this style off as 'the way things were' and thus has dented his credibility somewhat ... but not totally.
To compete successfully in one of his competitions, I can see the benefit of a lightweight bow; rapid fire at three targets while on the canter is no doubt made easier with less resistence. Since the goal is to score with as many arrows as possible, it makes sense to use equipment that helps achieve this, even down to aluminium arrows. It is also more than possible that use of heavy bows, even by an archer who can ride, would require the kind of commitment that involves a lifetime's training and therefore a rare thing indeed.
The spectacle is still very impressive and inspiring. It takes incredible skill and I would not dream of criticising the competitors. Good grief! 35-40 pounds, this is around an average in gents barebow these days ... the wonder of carbon arrows! Give a bow of this weight to many lady archers and they will tell you it's too heavy before they try to draw it.
Just as we see different strength levels now, they have always existed and bows have always been made in various poundages. However, to kill a man in battle or a stag in the hunt requires a little more than skinny arrows so I doubt that anyone would opt for a 40 pounder.
Kassai seems to enjoy the lifestyle but staying in touch with reality is also a consideration. Modern horsearchers are not a tribe of steppe warriors, he is not a latterday Attila the Hun, just another sportsman competing in a modern sport.

Several important points have come up in this thread and I think that perhaps people are discussing several topics thinking that they are talking about the same thing.

Regarding the potential strength of female archers, I have seen a Mongolian woman archer draw to the full a 103 pound bow with ease. When I tried I could not get it past my left shoulder. Most of the male archers present could not fully draw the bow. While women on average may have less physical strength than men, there are always exceptions. Skill in archery often plays a bigger part than brute strength. It is wise to develop the skill first and the strength later.

There are clearly two types of horse archery being discussed here. One is sport archery and the other is the historical archery used in warfare. In sport archery on horseback, the aim is to hit the target and not to penetrate layers of steel. Under those circumstances and because of safety and arrow retrieval issues, it is better to used a light bow and heavy arrows. While a heavy bow may in the short term disguise a certain type of problem, this does not mean using a light bow would make the problem worse. Instead, in training using a light bow is a way to perfect technique so that when a heavy bow is used it is used effectively.

Some people clearly want to see how heavy a bow can be used on horseback to understand the limitations of historical archers. This is a noble experiment, but once the answer is found it will have only limited use. It will show that a bow of such and such a weight was practical or not. Most of what is written about the use of horse archery in warfare is pure speculation. As more things are discovered the quality of the speculation may improve, but outside of the Strategikon we lack historical detail of how horse archery was used in battle. This has led to some amazing theories, but few of them stand up to close observation. Historians in the past have been very short of detail when they described battles. If you doubt that, go back to the original Latin texts on the Battle of Carrhae and see how little detail there was and how ambiguous it is. There are books written on ancient warfare that have paragraph after paragraph on how the Parthians used their cataphracts and how the horse archers were used, but it is all based on a few sentences.

I am a poor horseman, but I have ridden and shot bows from horseback many years ago. I have seen Kassai shoot in person and have also seen an all girl team of Japanese yabusame archers perform when I went to two international horse archery festivals in Iowa. The major difference I saw was that the Japanese shot at a gallop and everyone else was shooting at a fast canter. The Japanese used the standard three target set up which did not require turning in the saddle, but it did require more precise shooting because they shot when directly opposite the target. Kassai shot a remarkable number of arrows in the pass he made of his target.

Orda Khan wrote:

Regardless of the bow weight, Kassai has done a remarkable job of promoting horseback archery as a sport. Let's not forget that the word 'sport' is the important factor when we consider style,technique and hardware.
Unfortunately, the man himself has tried to sell this style off as 'the way things were' and thus has dented his credibility somewhat ... but not totally.

Yes, this is a good justification. It is a sport of discipline and little relevant historical reality. This corresponds to the equipment. In the Czech Republic we have the discipline - a quick archery target practice (45 seconds, 18 m distant target). Are important to target interventions. Also, no historical comparison. But it is attractive. I like it.

Most archers shoot 45 seconds with about 10 arrows and the length of the drawing is 20-25 inches. The real effect is small. Success is an arrow in the target (without the deep penetration).

Therefore, I say - it is another archery (historical pattern is not). But I'll be glad when more archers will try and promote the style of nearby historic style. Bede but rightly says - the lack of objective information (texts and images - written and painted often at other times, the author used the older material ...). These are just experiments.

We therefore use the term - close to historic style.

Let the humorous image (archer). Unfortunately, it is real. Thus easily create a rumor about the correctness of using a bow. Someone feel free to publish as historically correct. More people would then repeat.

[external image]

Justin Ma wrote:

It seems you are cherry picking what you want to believe

Certainly not. I am an archaeologist, I have to be critical of EVERY source. That includes written and image sources and grave goods. Written sources are ALWAYS to be taken with caution, and concerning bow finds and their reconstructed draw weights, I have stated several times that one cannot know what they were actually used for: Horseback archery, archery on foot, training, show, grave goods? That is why I am not so eager as some to accept such sources as pure fact, but try to see them from as many viewpoints as possible and take ALL posssibilities into regard. Including the practical point of view, such as experimental archaeology, or simply trying out replicas. On the other hand one has to accept that the puzzle will always be missing parts.

Justin Ma wrote:

Yet at the same time, you say that the collective experience of modern horseback archers suggests that historical archers couldn't have shot heavy poundages, which would suggest that your draw weights are historically authentic. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You can't say you're not trying to be historically authentic, yet argue that what you're doing is historically authentic --- that would be hypocritical.

Kindly stop twisting my words. I have NEVER stated that what I am doing is authentic. I have tried to get just the opposite through to you - that there is, in my opinion, no such thing as complete historical authenticity. I never said that no ancient horseback archer shot more than 40# (or I would hardly have quoted Snake-Jo). On the other hand, I don't believe the other extreme which others are postulating here, namely that horsebows 90-120# were standard throughout antiquity. And I say that because I believe it is would compromise some of the other advantages of horseback archery - and to understand that, one has to try it! Neither the one nor the other can be proved with certainty, because the archaeohistorical record is simply not sufficient. But I have tried to convey that several times and see that it is pointless.

I wasn't even the one who started on this whole sorry argument, I simply wanted to know where to buy this darn bow - and was suddenly challenged to defend myself why I and many others use lighter bows from horseback. That, and nothing else, is what I have been trying to explain for pages and pages now, but it seems that some people don't want to know - especially those who have never tried it. That's what I find a bit hypocritical. Live and let live!

You and anybody else who think horseback archery should be done differently (as oppose to the forms practiced traditionally in Korea, Japan, Hungary and subsequently in other countries too) are welcome to try out your version, organize competitions, do workshops, ground associations etc, gather practical experience and then use that to complement your theory-based ideas. That would be interesting and beneficial for all of us. I mean that honestly.

I won't bother you any further with my obviously unwelcome opinions, it's a waste of my time and yours. Thanks to those who gave me the URLs of the bow suppliers for the new Kaya. Will be looking into that in the future, or perhaps the Hwarang after all, have to think for a bit which is to be this year's "christmas present to self"... :)

Angela wrote:

...That would be interesting and beneficial for all of us. I mean that honestly.

I won't bother you any further with my obviously unwelcome opinions, it's a waste of my time and yours. Thanks to those who gave me the URLs of the bow suppliers for the new Kaya. Will be looking into that in the future, or perhaps the Hwarang after all, have to think for a bit which is to be this year's "christmas present to self"... :)

On the contrary. Each view is good. We look after all different views, because the facts are missing. The whole debate was in doubt about the strength of the bows on horseback. It is normal that there are doubts. Write your views. All we can think about it. Only such a debate will be enriched.

Angela, didn't you say you were done with this thread two or three posts ago? :) You're very passionate and knowledgeable about what you're doing, and I respect that. I apologize for my unfairly harsh comments.

I know things are uncertain, but it's fun to try to understand. I agree practical experience is important. And I'm still interested in learning details about written and archaeological sources which support the hypothesis one way or the other (such as the finds you mentioned).

If I was taking up horse archery I would listen to those that have experience ... like Angela .

Justin Ma wrote:

Angela, didn't you say you were done with this thread two or three posts ago?

I was, because I wasn't getting the impression that all the people in this debate were really interested in discussing this in a realistic and objective fashion, and being open for other's argumentation (I listened to your arguments and described why I find them less convincing - my arguments, on the other hand, are either described as "cherry picking" or ignored completely). But when I am wrongly accused of something or cited wrongly, I like to put the record straight. No hard feelings, apology accepted.

Justin Ma wrote:

And I'm still interested in learning details about written and archaeological sources which support the hypothesis one way or the other (such as the finds you mentioned).

Although I have little interest in carrying on the discussion as it was, I'm glad to share the basis of my thoughts on this matter (since you ask nicely :wink:).

As mentioned before, I am very wary about taking ancient written and image sources at their face value. Of course for many topics they are the only sources we have, but we always have to ask what is behind it, and how credible they really are (people in antiquity were no less prone to bragging than people are nowadays).

Same goes for actual bow finds. Both calculations and reconstructions can give an approximate idea of draw weight. But these are only of interest if one is sure that the bow was actually used (and from horseback) and not just grave good or ceremonial ?show? weapon. Unfortunately, many finds fall into the latter group, especially for nomadic cultures who left behind no settlements (and therefore no ?everyday? goods), but whom we know only from their graves. While bows from grave goods are likely to give a good idea of construction type, they need not necessarily have corresponded to actual strengths. It?s relatively easy to identify a bow which was not used (due to nonfunctionality), but it?s much more difficult to prove the opposite. Same applies for the Xinjiang ?Scythian? bow described by Karpowicz and Selby in the article posted earlier by Daniel T, and for the Topkapi bows. Archaeological objects are worth much less without knowing their context, and that goes for most artifacts (that is why the complete documentation of a whole archaeological site, and not just digging the objects out, is so important).

The study which I find particularly interesting in the face of this discussion was published as a book chapter two years ago-unfortunately only in German (I think so, anyway). Those of you who don?t understand German can still look up the illustrations of the reconstructed bows and look up the tables (page 27 onwards).

The author was authorized by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) to study the bow remains recovered from the Scythian burials Arzan 2 (2001) and Olon Kurin Gol (2006). From their measurements and documentation, they reconstructed the Olon Kurin Gol bow and tested its efficiency, including shooting at a variety of shield types with different arrow weights. These are to my knowledge the only surviving (and accessible) Scythian bows which are complete enough to allow measurements. The Subeixi bow (which is described in the next chapter of the same book, by H. Riesch and J. Rutschke, the latter being my aforementioned fellow mounted archer Snake-Jo) does, in my opinion, not actually count as Scythian (although the time period is similar), and, in the authors opinion, may non-functional due to the over-thick arms (not actually sure if this is the right term in English...), causing it to break sooner or later (I think this may be the same bow as the Xinjiang?)

? Bow from Kurgan Arzan 2 (Tuva, late 7th century B.C.). Bow was made only of wood, no sinew or horn. It was constructed from several layers of wood and wrapped with bark. In the opinion of the authors, this bow was not functional, as the arms were very thick, causing the bow to have such high draw weight that the risk of the wooden bow breaking when drawn would have been very high. In the opinion of the authors, this bow may have been made purely as a grave good (page 32 last paragraph). In my opinion, the arrows support this theory: They iron arrowheads had intricate inlays made of pure gold. Fitting for a king?s burial, but probably not the thing one would use for shooting at enemies. The arrow shafts were only 45-60cm long. A sketch of this bow in situ and a reconstruction sketch are to be found on page 33.

? Bow from Olon Kurin Gol (400-300 B.C.), Pazyryk Culture, Altai. Construction is the same as in Arzhan: Several layers of wood stuck together and wrapped with bark, approx. 128 cm long. The thickness of the bow is, in the author?s opinion, appropriate for normal use. The arrows found in this grave were longer than those in Arzhan, between 68-75 cm (the size of the goryt supports this). The initial calculations from the bow dimensions led to a draw weight estimation of under 280 N (62#) at a draw length of 65 cm; later reconstructions of this bow by the author showed considerably lower draw weights, namely 100 N (=22# !) at 68cm. Again, one might ask whether this bow may also have been purely a grave good, but that simply goes to show that one has to ask this question of all bows from a funerary or unknown context (and not "cherry pick" any of them, be it the 22# or the 120#!)

? On the discussion about draw weights, the authors say following as an introduction (Cited from page 34, the translation is mine, I have tried to translate as accurately as possible): ?it is often claimed that ancient and medieval lows had high draw weights. These assumptions are based on the fact that English longbows, drawn to 76cm, needed a draw strength of 390-780 N, constituting a draw weight of 40-80 kp, sometimes even more (Hardy 1992, Rees 1993, Strickland-Hardy 2005). A further indicator of high draw weights comes from an Assyrian relief, which shows two archers stringing a bow (images to be found in Bulanda 1913 and Marcotty 1997). Archaeologists retrieved 15th and 16th century English long bows from the wreck of the Tudor warship Mary Rose (Stirland 2001, Strickland-Hardy 2005). These finds allowed an estimate of draw weight s which ranged from 390 N and 735 N. The draw weight of the Germanic bow retrieved from the Nydam boat was considerably lower (Beckhoff 1963, Paulsen 1995, Raddatz 1963). Some of the Alamanic bows (Riesch 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2002) which were found as grave goods do not seem to be constructed for everyday use, but as grave goods only. The reconstructions (of Riesch) show that the arms were too thick to bend properly, the reconstruction broke when drawn. With an arm diameter of over 9cm2, the Arzhan bow (which has a drawn length of approx. 95 cm), this bow is also not appropriate for real use. ? The authors believe the Assyrian bow to have been drawn by two men due to the construction particularities, not due to an excessive draw weight.

? The author cites Karpowicz, who showed that draw weights over 315 N bring no particular increase in range or initial speed. This is because higher draw weights need thicker arms, which reduce arrow speed after release. Karpowicz therefore recommends an optimal draw weight of 265-295 N at a draw of 75 cm. Asbell (2000) also contradicts the generally accepted assertion that a hunting bow must have at least 245 N ? Draw weights of 200 N are enough for large game such as deer and elks.

? The extremely high draw weights of the English long bows can be observed as shoulder joint arthrosis. Stirland (2001) reports that a high degree of degenerative joint disease was indeed observed in the shoulders of the Mary Rose skeletons. The same cannot be said for Scythian skeletons. The male and female Scythian skeletons studied by Michael Schulz (a very experienced palaeopathologist) showed signs of a good musculature within the normal range, but no abnormal degeneration, whereas the knees and hip joints did show signs of abnormal strain (probably due to riding). As the bow was one of the most important weapon for these cultures, the author deduces that the draw weights of these bows are unlikely to have been particularly high.

? Godehardt states that a short wooden bow without horn backing can be used up to a draw weight of 300 N, and that he does not believe that ancient horseback archer used higher draw weights (page 36)

? Reconstructions were tested against reed shields, which are typical of the time (Scythian and Sassanid, e.g. Dura Europos, Pazyryk Kurgan) from a distance of 12m. The bows used were drawn to 58-59 cm, with an actual draw weight at that length of 212-228 N (=47-51 #).

? The shield showed various penetration depths mainly depending on the arrowhead type: The rhomboid and triangular arrowheads showed a high degree of penetration even at low draw weights and short draw. Bearing in mind that the bamboo used for the reconstruction was likely to be stronger than the material used originally, such arrows would have had little difficulty penetrating such shields. Only the ?three-winged? arrowheads were less effective.

? Most interestingly, the bow with the lowest draw weight, nr. 203, had the highest arrow speed and showed the highest effectivity in target shooting.

The list of cited literature can be found on page 56 onwards.

So what are my conclusions from this:

? The only actual finds all seem to be non-functional, and vary greatly in reconstructed draw weight. You can measure all the historical bows in the world: If you?re not sure how they were used, the knowledge you gain from these is limited.

? At least for the time in question, draw weights of over 60# were not necessary: With the right arrowheads, bows of 45-50# could pierce the typical reed shields.

? Palaeopathological evidence shows that the bows regularly shot by the central Asian horse archers were no way near as strong as those known for English longbow archers: The latter left their mark in extensive shoulder joint degenerative disease. The Scythian skeletons showed signs of good musculature, but no abnormal joint degeneration.
In addition, my experience in horseback archery leads me to believe that a high draw weight (one where you ?really have to put your back into it?, if you get my meaning) would be counter-productive from horseback, as explained earlier in this thread. I stress that I am not an expert and that this is simply my personal opinion, although I know that it is shared by many horseback archers who are a lot better than I am.

Therefore I believe that the horseback archers would most likely have used bows between 45-55#, maybe 60# from horseback. But, in my opinion, certainly not the cited 90-120#.

Ant to avoid any further heated discussion, that is my opinion, if someone has good reasons for believing something else, each to their own.

Very cool reference. Thanks for sharing. :)

Angela wrote:

? Most interestingly, the bow with the lowest draw weight, nr. 203, had the highest arrow speed and showed the highest effectivity in target shooting.

Are these the results from Table 1 (p. 40)? I can't read German, but it looks like the arrow speed for nr. 203 (188.8 N -> 42#) is 41.3 m/s (135.5 fps). However, the entry for nr. 103 (235.6 N -> 53#) seems to have the highest arrow speed at 44.6 m/s (146.3 fps), though the nr. 102 bow (219.6 N --> 49#) isn't far behind at 44.5 m/s (146.0 fps). Maybe I'm misreading it.

Very interesting information. Thank you Angela!

One comment:

The author cites Karpowicz, who showed that draw weights over 315 N bring no particular increase in range or initial speed

As far as I know Adam is building very strong composite bows for flight shooting. The statement above also contradicts these tests: http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performanc ... h_bows.htm

Also, do you have any information on the shaft diameter (if any) found in Scythian graves? Maybe the arrow tip can provide some information here.

Justin Ma wrote:

Angela wrote:

? Most interestingly, the bow with the lowest draw weight, nr. 203, had the highest arrow speed and showed the highest effectivity in target shooting.

Are these the results from Table 1 (p. 40)? I can't read German, but it looks like the arrow speed for nr. 203 (188.8 N -> 42#) is 41.3 m/s (135.5 fps). However, the entry for nr. 103 (235.6 N -> 53#) seems to have the highest arrow speed at 44.6 m/s (146.3 fps), though the nr. 102 bow (219.6 N --> 49#) isn't far behind at 44.5 m/s (146.0 fps). Maybe I'm misreading it.

Not sure myself - the conclusion about the lighter bow being faster was the author's conclusion (page 50 right hand side), not mine. His exact words (my translation): "Surprisingly for us, thet composite bow nr. 203, which had the lowest draw weight according to figure 12, often showed higher "throw speeds" (not sure how to translate wurfgeschwindigkeit, that would be arrow speed measured very close to the bow) with all arrows as compared to the somewhat stronger bow nr. 101, while the two othr composite bows 201 and 202 were lower than the comparable but sinew-backed bows 101 and 102. Respectively, bow nr. 203 shows the highest effectivity (table 15). The shape of the bow is similar to nr. 204, showwn in figures 8, 9 lower and 10, while bows 201 and 202 (figs 8-9 upper and middle) have a shorter handle with more angular curves above and below. Whether this or the greater mass (and therefore inertia) of bows 201 and 202 accounted for the relatively higher effectivity of bow 203 cannot be ascertained, as the bow broke during the first stringing after the winter season." Natch.

As far as I know Adam is building very strong composite bows for flight shooting. The statement above also contradicts these tests: http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performanc ... h_bows.htm

The author quotes Karpowicz and his Turkish bow reconstructions several times. Possibly they mean some kind of draw weight-effectivity radio, or the most effective draw weight for a specific range? To be honest, I am absolutely clueless about bow building, physics etc, there are several such graphs in the article and there is much talk of physical properties, but I have no idea what they all mean... I don't have the origical publication by Karpowicz which Godehard is referring to, but it will be in the references list, perhaps someone has it?

Also, do you have any information on the shaft diameter (if any) found in Scythian graves? Maybe the arrow tip can provide some information here.

I am pretty sure I have something on that, will check it later. I remember the diameter was surprisingly low, but I will get back to you with figures. But here again we have the problem of not knowing whether they were really used that way or just for grave goods. I think the Olon Kurin Gol arrows didn't even have metal tips.

This is interesting because on another forum I just was reading the "virtues" of heavy bows. One thing I can tell you from hunting experience with a a 45# bow is here in North America with the right arrows it will go through game like a knife through butter. Granted there are no armor coated animals here but a 45# bow with the right arrow combination will kill any animal in NA. I know a little different then horse back archery but I think we in general under estimate the power of a "light weight" bow.

I am not saying that, that our ancestors used 45# I believe they used bows in the 80+# range. These were people born and breed to the bow their lives depended on their ability with that weapon not only in warfare but on the hunt. It stands to reason they shoot the heaviest draw weight possible.

Now as far as armor penetration I would be very interested in seeing some studies. I think the one thing we forget is much of the knowledge our ancestors had in building a composite bow figurtively and literally went to the grave with them; so are bows we make today as efficient as those who depended on the bow for their lives? I am not talking down anyone's work just making a statement about what we have today vs what our ancestors relied upon for the lives.

I think it is interesting the bowyers today making these bows are always evolving as the technology of these weapons is "rediscovered." I was just having a disscussion with a friend about how Grozer and Kassai bows have come light years ahead in the last few years in regards to pleasntness to shoot and efficiency. Maybe someday we will have a Magyar or Hun bow that is as good as the "real deal." Again I am not knocking anybody's work I think Adam showed us with his Scythian Bow we can come close if not an actual bow by the careful study of the archelogical and historical data.

I am not saying that, that our ancestors used 45# I believe they used bows in the 80+# range. These were people born and breed to the bow their lives depended on their ability with that weapon not only in warfare but on the hunt. It stands to reason they shoot the heaviest draw weight possible.

In my opinion it stands to reason that they should shoot the most effective draw weight, not the heaviest, and when shooting from horseback the two are not necessarily the same. The most effective one is the strongest you can shoot from horseback without compromising the other advantages (and the mobility and flexibility you need to profit from those advantages). Most people seem to forget that horseback archery is not just archery from a moving platform. The bow is only part of the weapon.

I think we in general under estimate the power of a "light weight" bow.

I agree with you on that one.

You talked about 45lb wood bow vith wood arrows , JBL - or..? I am litlle tired from this "lightweghits " bla,bla...

Its very sad that one of "profesionals" archeologist or historician (In global very rare Atarnos here :? ) have this conviction. I think we dont need discusion vith "profesional"or "unprofesional" arguements shots. I think - like in most questions -please use common sence !

People in practise real life was not stupid 5000 years ago like today (or same :D )When hunting was only "game " today- in old times its -like war- life or death question!
If soldiers -mi live was in dangerous situation (if i was in Afganistan -for ex.) i dont use litlle berreta revolver but seriouz machine gun - or if situation is very bad - maibe Phantoms vith rockets -its more better !

In another point if i hunt small bird or rabbits i dont use big arrowheads, more -no iron heads- only wod blunt.
Stop this no logical arguements blabla. Once you fight , Angela- real fight, or stai aginst bear orl lion, thats no matter if you hunt antilop, you meet him,- good haewy bow was your adwantage.
Any argumennts dont broke this - very common logic.

And Kassais or not Kassai, sports or not or what you doing ...Thats every person reason why making what he makeng Thats no mi problem.
But please dont tell us nothing more about your 38lb or lowest war or hunting bows...

Another point on 315N hornbow. It has been stated over the years that a hornbow has no efficiency advantage over a selfbow at low pondages, but it improves greatly after a certain poundage. I cannot remember the source or the exact "threshold" , but it was somewhere around 60lbs I believe. Can anyone confirm this?

Even by the data in this book, these low poundage hornbows are not even a match to modern selfbows of the same poundage (which are probably comparable to ancient ones). If that is the case, why would someone go the trouble of building a hornbow, instead of a much easier to make selfbow?Good wood was not an issue for scythians. It looks like size was an important aspect but the hornbow has a lot of disadvantages too.

Dusan two things please read my entire post I talked about my belief that our ancestors used heavier bows then that, and yes it was with wooden arrows. When you go out into the woods and hunt tell me how the heavy bows work for you you will kill with a million pound pull bow and I will kill with a 45# bow and we will both come home with dinner. Dead is dead it is not like you blow your game up with a larger poundage bow the animal is killed by a puncture wound, if the arrow passes through vitals the animal will die whether it is 100# or in the case of the deer my daughter got two years ago 35# with wooden arrows, guess what it is about shoot placement. I was offering "real" world application.

For some reason in your eyes you are less than a man if you aren't drawing some gorrila weight. My point is in the REAL world of hunting 45# will kill. I have an idea I will use my hunting set up anyone who doesn't believe the power of the bow can stand in front of me at 35 yds and we will experiment on penetration. I bet I get a pass through like I have done with a deer since I was 10.

There is no doubt in my mind two things in regards to our ancestors: they shot heavy bows and, the bows we make today are no where near as good as what they made. If we can't replicate a proper English war bow a relatively simple bow to make how do we expect to make a proper Composite war bow?

:D JBL i believe you. If you are lucky you can kill only vith hand :lol:
I dont stay in haevy bows"gorilas" position because i think its "cool" and macho look :lol: Like i say- common logic. Nothimg more or less.
I think here is nothing to discuss...

Jeeez, I give up. What a waste of time. Obviously Dusan is too busy in his daily "shooting antilope and lion from horseback" practice to read the discussion points carefully.

But please dont tell us nothing more about your 38lb or lowest war or hunting bows...

Don't worry, I won't tell you anything any more, as rational and substantiated arguments are wasted on you. Instead, I will go and blow up some rabbits with the nuclear warhead I purchased yesterday.

Dusan wrote:

Any argumennts dont broke this - very common logic. Like i say- common logic. Nothimg more or less. logic logic logic

[external image]

Thank you , Angela. Better jump on horseback and shoot all theeem... :lol:

Speaking about logic, Angela said once that shooting with a light bow is more difficult than shooting a heavier one. "If somebody shoot good with a 25 lbs bow, he will shoot great with a 40 lbs" or something like this, I replicated from my memory.
So, the conclusion is very simple, you must to choose a light bow because is a challenge. Shooting heavy bows on horseback is easier, the bow is doing your job and nobody likes to take the easy way.

i like the way how Angela show Adam work, but only what he likes, I wonder why he knows nothing about the Scythian reproduction of Yanghai bow made by Adam.

Yes, there is a logical mechanism. If you believe something, you can use your brain to demonstrate it with upstanding arguments.
And if you are pushed to the wall, you have the supreme argument: "you are not a rider".

As Dusan said, if you are on the horseback and you fight for your life, you will get the strongest bow. And the longest arrow. That because the enemy can shoot you back. Is common sense.

Only Kassai imagination show us the fighting between huns and stupid orangutans, like indians running in circles and hunting buffaloes in north America.
Yes JBL, for hunting buffaloes is enough 40 lbs. For fighting with warriors a 40 lbs bow is an useless tool.

But I am not a rider. So...

Ginni please read both my posts and what I have said about heavier draw weights. In neither one of them did I say anything about fighting a battle with a 45# bow. I did talk about the ability of a 45# bow to kill in a hunting situation. I have never shot at an animal or person wearing armor so it is an argument that I can not make. For the record I am not a horse archer nor have I shot a human.

Again I am confident if you grew up with the bow as the ancients did an 80-100# draw weight for the battle field on ANY platform was not a problem and you probably shot it well. Of course if you were in battle you would want the heaviest draw weight that is out there. If you didn't you probably died well.

I think we are arguing three diferent things at once on this thread. The first is what the draw weights of the ancients used, the second what draw weight to use on horse back today and thirdly which bow is harder to shoot a light bow vs heavy. I can only argure with experience on the later.

In target archery (non horse archery) it is a proven FACT by Olympic coaches and World Class archers that a lighter bow is harder to shoot not physically but from a point of view of putting the arrow on the target. I will say that again not from a physical stand point but from an accuracy stand point. The reason for this is when you shot with a lighter bow any change in form will be transmitted through the bow to the arrow. There just is not enough power in a light weight bow to overcome bad form, poor loose or poor grip.

I have been told by an NFAA champion to beware of the archer who can shoot a 25# bow well because when he/she moves up in weight if he/she can physically handle the weight of a heavier bow they will be unbeatable. Point being the mechnaics (not the muscle) it takes to shoot a light weight bow well have to be finer tuned because a 25# bow does not have the "muscle" behind it to overcome a mistake in mechanics. It is simple physics. That is why many TARGET not BATTLE FIELD archers train with light weight bows when they have form problems.

Excellent point JBL!
I had that feeling when shooting olimpic style, a 45 lbs is too heavy for me.
Is another style and if you want to get the up level of performance, well, you need a light bow, that means 40-45 lbs.

Hunting is another issue, for small game is enough a sling shot, for a hog you need a bow, for a ground shooting ... let say a big boar, is required a stronger bow.... let say 60 lbs.

But if you want to kill men? Tough, even with light armour and some skill in fighting... with 40 lbs bow you can rest in history as fell dealer but not as warrior.

Ginni I agree on all points with fingers I never shot as well as with the thumb lock (that is why I don't shoot that style anymore)and it maybe just because of the weight issue. In NA 45-50# will kill all game animals. I still like around 60# for hogs but for white tail deer as I stated before my daughter got a clear pass through with a 35# Osage Orange sinew backed bow and a wooden arrow. She just had a good shot.

Just chanced on this thread after being away.

Horseback archery has been with us for thousands of years and hundreds of thousands have been involved. They will have pulled every-which draw weight of bows.

My personal (quite extensive) experience of horseback archery is that the speed of the arrow counts. You don't want to think so much for compensating for converging trajectories. While speed is a product of the efficiency of the bow; by and large, heavier bows shoot faster. Some Ming instructors also advise against a very full draw on horseback (fear of over-drawing?) so that the bows may have been heavy; but they were not always used at full potential.

And of course, the real challenge of horseback archery is in training and riding the horse. Details of the bow become rather secondary. :wink:

A 45# bow with the right arrow will harvest mostly deers in NA. For big and wild boar, you will need at least 60# plus quarter shot placement. Boars' vitals are further to the front, encased by shoulder bones. A perpendicular shot with a 45# into a big boar will do zip and makes the animal come after the hunter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfpzDYogmnM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHO6Tsx ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OZmOPxV ... ure=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ1Mg0a7 ... re=related

jbl wrote:

This is interesting because on another forum I just was reading the "virtues" of heavy bows. One thing I can tell you from hunting experience with a a 45# bow is here in North America with the right arrows it will go through game like a knife through butter. Granted there are no armor coated animals here but a 45# bow with the right arrow combination will kill any animal in NA. I know a little different then horse back archery but I think we in general under estimate the power of a "light weight" bow.

I am not saying that, that our ancestors used 45# I believe they used bows in the 80+# range. These were people born and breed to the bow their lives depended on their ability with that weapon not only in warfare but on the hunt. It stands to reason they shoot the heaviest draw weight possible.

Now as far as armor penetration I would be very interested in seeing some studies. I think the one thing we forget is much of the knowledge our ancestors had in building a composite bow figurtively and literally went to the grave with them; so are bows we make today as efficient as those who depended on the bow for their lives? I am not talking down anyone's work just making a statement about what we have today vs what our ancestors relied upon for the lives.

I think it is interesting the bowyers today making these bows are always evolving as the technology of these weapons is "rediscovered." I was just having a disscussion with a friend about how Grozer and Kassai bows have come light years ahead in the last few years in regards to pleasntness to shoot and efficiency. Maybe someday we will have a Magyar or Hun bow that is as good as the "real deal." Again I am not knocking anybody's work I think Adam showed us with his Scythian Bow we can come close if not an actual bow by the careful study of the archelogical and historical data.

Arrow penetration against hardened armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZu ... re=related

Arrow penetration against non-hardened armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpcpBrsQ4w

WarBow my quote and I should have attributed it is from "Hunting the Hard Way" by Howard Hill. He knew alot more about hunting the animals in NA with a bow then I or most people.

Of course the hogs he shoot were feral pigs not the Russian boars that have been introduced here in NA. Also if you want to see some hogs that have been taken with 45# bows go to the "traditional" hunting sites there are plenty of pictures. Personally I agree with the 60# bow at my draw length for hogs.; I want to cover up for any mistakes I might make with a lighter bow:)

Thanks for links on armor penetration.

I'm seriously starting to lean towards the opinion that battlefield horseback archery had at least two noticeably different forms. One, the "lighter" form, involves a great deal of mobility and the ability to sustain the barrage of arrows for a fairly long time. I'm pretty optimistic that a very well-trained archer back then could have managed this with a bow weighing some 60 to 80 pounds, perhaps even 90 pounds, but beyond that it gets a bit dodgy. It's also plausible that some archers might have chosen a somewhat lighter bow (I find weights as low as 45-50 pounds still conceivably, if barely so) for suppressive effect since if you want to scare the enemy into hunkering down behind his shield then it doesn't matter that you're not using your heaviest bow since the poor bastard on the receiving end wouldn't know the difference anyway.

The other form--let's call it the "heavy" form as a shorthand, though we shouldn't interpret this so rigidly along the light/heavy cavalry divide since some types of heavy cavalry (Mamluks? Sassanids?) apparently preferred the "light" form--was executed by a cavalry formation whose mission was simply to charge headlong into the enemy, skirmishing be damned. In this situation the focus is on rapid shooting with the heaviest bow that the archer can manage on horseback in the short period of time between the commencement of the charge and the impact against the enemy formation (which preferably would have started fleeing when you hit them). I see the Manchus as the most prominent exponent of this form since they're the ones for whom we have relatively copious textual evidence for the use of very heavy bows (over 100 pounds) on horseback.

If we have to draw an analogy with modern warfare, I'd say that the comparison between the two different forms is like that between an assault rifle (M16, AKM) and a battle rifle (M14, FAL). The light form, like the assault rifle, is handier and easier to manage in automatic fire, but the heavy form (and the battle rifle) delivers more punch against tougher targets when rapid, sustained fire is not a priority.

I am reading the new translation of the Taktika of Leo VI by Dennis at the moment. This is a ninth century Byzantine manual for generals. While the discussion of archery in it owes a lot to Maurice's Strateikon, there is detail that is interesting.

Archery skills are highly regarded, but it is assumed not all archers have the same skill levels and beginners are naturally assigned lighter bows. There are also not put in the front lines. The charge started with archery and finished with a lance has prominence. Lances had shoulder straps so that they could be carried while shooting. The skill to quickly re-case the bow while riding was trained for so that it could be removed from the hand. Rapidity of shooting and strong bows were repeatedly mentioned by Leo.

McEwen in Nomadic Archery may have been the first to note in print the division of military archery in its later life into the heavy arrow close-range school and the light arrow long-range school. The Crimean Tatars, Persians, Manchus and the Japanese are in the former groups and the Turks and the Moghuls are in the latter. There seems to a relationship to how guns were used in the armies in some cases and not in others. As Adam Karpowicz pointed out in his book, we should not underestimate the effectiveness of Turkish bows shooting heavy arrows nor the abilities of small diameter arrows to penetrate targets. It is only the people who chose longer heavy-limbed bows who set limitations on themselves. Probably they did this because their primary use was on horseback at closer range. Long distance harassment may not have been an option.

That might have been where I got the notion of a heavy/light divide in horse archery practices, since I'm pretty sure it's not my own original thought.

Now I'm wondering about which primary source is it (if any) that mentions a recommendation for archers to carry both a shorter, faster bow for horseback use and a longer, heavier one for dismounted shooting. Something Mongol or Tatar, perhaps?

There are several historians who chose to interpret the original texts and make them more "sensible". Carrying both a strong and a light bow is recommended in some compilations. I think Marco Polo or one of his contemporaries mentioned have heavy and light arrows. The former were for close range and the latter were for distance shooting.

One thing that non-archers don't take into account is that over the course of a campaign the archers would get weaker. The regular practice that could be undertaken in peace time would not be possible. Men became restless, so much so that one of Chinggis Khan's rules was to march without the bit in the horse's mouth to prevent unauthorised hunting. (I have tried this out with a Mongol style bridle and you could still steer the horse, but did not have as much control.) Over a period of month's, the soldier's efficiency would suffer and his condition would be reduced. Bad food and constant riding would weaken him. Having two bows of different strengths might be a practical solution. Nomads were better off than settled soldiers, but a long campaign would take its toll.

So many points have been raised in this thread, many of them apparently without realising that they are separate points.

1. The most obvious point to make is that horseback archery is a sport and those competing are not engaging in historical reenactment. They are trying to win a competition that has very clearly defined rules and objectives. Historical accuracy is neither here nor there, although most make some nod towards it.
Another way of looking at it is this: we get to these events by aeroplane and then by one or other form of motorised transport. We then get on a horse with modern tack and ride it down a track that hass been roped off so the horse only has one way to go. We shoot arrows that may be carbon, metal, machine dowelled wood or bamboo, generally with plastic nocks and machined points, using bows that may well be made from fibreglass and use artificial strings. The targets are made of foam and do not move. They are at a known distance, generally under 50m at the furthest. The target may even be a disc at the top of a pole. We do this to a stopwatch. When we finish we get off and go to the bar.
And you're think this is historically inaccurate because of the draw weight???

2. Historically accurate for what period and people?

Dusan raises the point about if he went to Afghanistan he would want a big machine gun. Well, a machine gun won't penetrate a tank's armour, so wouldn't you rather have a few dozen bazookas? Of course you wouldn't-the Taliban are not in tanks. Their armour consists of a few layers of cloth. What you want is an effective, reliable and accurate rifle.

In the same way, the fact that a bow of 50#, say, wouldn't penetrate plate armour is utterly irrelevant to the majority of history's horseback archers. Those professional archaeologists and historians for whom you have so much scorn know what you appear not to, which is that plate armour wasn't around until the middle ages and even then it wasn't exactly standard.

Take an early nomad. His fights are against rival nomads, who may have a breastplate and helmet or may not, and against farming villages, where they may well have no armour at all. So why would he possibly want a 90# bow? A 50# may well be entirely accurate for that period.

Even when a horseback archer was fighting mediaeval western armies, most of the enemy were not in high quality plate armour, covering horse and rider. The ability to penetrate it was nice but not essential, especially since you were probably going to outrun any attempt to engage you in melee.

3. No sensible warrior would go to war with a bow at his maximum draw weight, at least not without a spare. By the time you get to battle you may well be tired, hungry, wounded, ill etc. Even modern pampered professional sportsmen will tell you that you rarely get to play at 100%, so imagine how it was back then. You want some slack so you can shoot when below your best. Sure, have a heavy one, but have a lighter one as well.

4. The point has already been made that for supressing enemy troops, you don't need power, because the enemy just know that there are arrows everywhere. This applies all the stronger when you bear in mind the earlier point about the lack of armour among most enemy troops.

In short, Dusan's "common sense" needs to have a little more informed thought. Perhaps a professional historian or archaeologist could help with that?


Now I happen to believe that the standard draw weight was considerably more than 35-40#. I believe that those peoples who regularly fought armoured men may well have shot 90# or more. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have relied exclusively on bows at their maximum draw weight but they probably have them.
I am strengthened in this view by knowing those who do shoot bows of that weight from horseback, including qabak, and you don't get much more awkward a shooting position that that. I am open to archaeological evidence to the contrary...

All of which is utterly irrelevant to the modern sport of horseback archery, just as my other sport, lacrosse, is not concerned by the fact that we no longer hit each other on the head with big wooden sticks in matches involving whole towns. It's a sport. Not reenactment.

i know some east Iranian bows were from about 80 to 200 pounds, for hunt.

Is that for horseback?

depending on what to hunt, horse bows of my family were from 80-150 modern pounds.

they are originally written in "MAAN" a persian weight measure, i found 2 different conversions on the internet, due to the geographical location i think these measures are about correct, I hope! but for me they are a bit unrealistic.

Are you using the Tabrizi man?

Bede wrote:

Are you using the Tabrizi man?

No actually i used the Shahi "MAN" to convert, i calculated it to about 6.1 kilos,

but i am not sure about it at all, since my calculations result in rather unrealistic numbers, according to the little knowledge i have gained in the last few days on the internet, there are no bows with poundage of more than 110 , so i think my calculations may be wrong since mine go up to 200+.

Zarasp, I would believe that your calculations are quite accurate, the range of 80 to 150# appears to be very credible.

What bows was the statement that there are no stonger bows than 110# reffering to? Up to 200# sounds possible, I don't have a clue if for horseback use too, though. You can find a lot of biased statements, or some that don't have any reasonable back up.

Arab Archery mentions bows between 30 and 200 rotls, but with greater granularity in the 60-100 range. values of 80 or 100 are the most common, while 150 and 200 are mentioned, but nothing in between them. I would assume that bows of 150 or 200 rotls were used by stronger men and were not the norm.

According to the author, one rotl weights 5760 grains (troy pound), so converting into today's pounds, we get the following results:

80 rotls - 66 #
100 rotls - 82 #
150 rotls - 123 #
200 rotls - 165 #

I find it very plausible that bows in the 65-80# would be quite common as it is what a average built man can handle with ease.

Suggested arrow weights are in the 350-500 grains range, while war arrows are mentioned between 700 and 900 grains.

The man Is still used in India as a weight measurement,and the old pehalwans(wrestlers) still use weights measured in man's as the standard for measuring their training equipment.I have personaly seen and held swords weighing 2 Man and the warriors that used them are noted for their prowess with these.
I do agree that bows with such heavy weights as 200 would not be practical on horseback unless used by someone of exceptional strength.
P.J.

Ashbow wrote:

Zarasp, I would believe that your calculations are quite accurate, the range of 80 to 150# appears to be very credible.

What bows was the statement that there are no stonger bows than 110# reffering to? Up to 200# sounds possible, I don't have a clue if for horseback use too, though. You can find a lot of biased statements, or some that don't have any reasonable back up.

hey thanx! i am glad that its a correct measurement, i am VERY new to the current worldwide market, and archery on internet, i stated that because of the current market....

PjSingh wrote:

The man Is still used in India ....and the old pehalwans....
P.J.

wow , interesting similarities, Pahlaw, is a old word we use to describe a strong warrior type man, also family name, the words Pahlawi & Pahlawan have same roots,

it might be interesting for you that in Iranian Shahne families (including mine),a male child learns Pahlawi language, although i am told it is not used since Sassanid times, other rather mysterious traditions include long beard & hair...

:D interesting language similarities... this Pahlaw word must be very old, because i think ,our slawic word "Pohlav?r" -same lik yours- strong man -leader- is not chance...

today i went to see a professor of Ancient Iranian culture & literature, as a part of the reasearch we are doing for our horseback archery school,we found some very interesting things in books, regarding archery & persian traditions in warriorship, i will post them very soon!

as a note: he also showed me a book of old Persian words, used in countries like Poland, Hungary & Slovakia. "there is a deep connection which goes way back befor the time of Ottman empire", he said.

I know -its off topic , but this linguistic game was more than 5000years old - not only 400 from the Otomans... :D

Sorry to necro thread, but is the general feeling in the horsebow world that bows shot from horse back are hardly over 100lb as that doesn't seem to be very heavy.

Is there any period evidence that we can use to determine the weight.

Update:

I have talked on the phone last week to a very old man who i have never met but i hope to visit in the near future, he knew my family very well when he was young (he is my grandmothers uncle).

although we had a difficult time talking since he cannot hear well & needed an assistant , i think he might have a better answer for the conversion of the old units, when he heard that i used "maan" he said with laughter "bow is not measured like barley" , apparently they kept a separate measuring unit, i hope to visit him & talk to him in person.

on an unrelated topic , he is an extremely fun person to talk to, he just moved to live with my grandmother & her daughters, because he cannot live alone anymore, he asked me about women in the capital & if i can find a good young wife for him :lol: , he still remembered in much detail the horse that my grandfather gave him as a present, talking to him reminded me of how fun & healthy the non-city life was.

Zarasp I'm very happy to hear good news from yoعز

I wanted to know do you have any bows from your grandfather?

I am curious to know if archeology has found that historical arrows agree with the use of draw weights over 70#? If the archeology is yielding thin, low-spine arrows, I think we could have a mismatch in evidence. I realize that we can?t measure the spine of an ancient arrow, but I believe we could at least surmise a range by looking at the diameter, length, wood species, and construction.

I bring this up because of my personal experience with wooden arrows. My three-finger draw is just over 28.5 in. But, my thumb draw with the same bow is 32.5 in. Thus, my thumb draw arrows are 33.5 inches. If I were to use a 70# bow with 33.5 inch arrows, the wood arrows would need a spine of 90 ? 95#!

To use a bow heavier than 70#, the horseback archers of old either used thick arrows or short arrows in comparison with what we use today. I saw some pictures in another post that showed 24? historical Turkish arrows. 24 inch arrows imply a 23? inch draw for horseback archery.

So, if we have a 70# bow being 70 pounds at 28 inches, and it is only drawn to 23 inches, that would make it about 45-50# at that draw length. Is it possible that both sides of this discussion are right? Is it possible, that the historical bows were indeed heavier at 28 inches, but were not actually used at that length because of limitations to the arrow shafts?

I read some great archeological research posts in this thread. For those who have the archeology background, what does the historical arrow shaft evidence support? Thanks.

Do you mean the arrows would break ? I made 33 inch bamboo arrow (10-8mm diameter) with a ~20 gram warhead and shot it repeatedly with a 80lbs@28 bow but at 30-31" draw - no problem only the arrow is of course not as fast as the lighter ones. there is however some fishtailing for 20m or so (the fletching is quite short)

I wasn't originally thinking the arrows would break, but thank you for bringing up the point. Also, thank you for giving me an excellent example of the strength of the bamboo arrows. I am definitely impressed.

Overall, I am curious as to the arrows that the archeologists find with these 70+ pound horseback archery bows. Do these historical arrows have the length, girth, and construction to support that they were being shot at higher than 70#?

Certainly bamboo is pretty strong stuff. I have 60-70lb spine bamboo arrows that are significantly thinner than 5/16" wood shafts.

I'm also curious about arrow spine but I suspect there may be a shortage of evidence.

Out of interest, are you sure that the 24" arrow was for horseback? I mention it because Turkish flight archery used arrows that were far too short for the bow. The archer wore a device on his bow hand/arm that acted like a shelf for the arrow, allowing a 24" arrow (say) to be drawn well past 24".

Nope, I am not sure in the least as to the use of the arrow. I have next to zero knowledge of historical bows and arrows. As you mentioned, the arrow I measured may have been a flight arrow for use with a siper; however, the fletching would have been unusually large for this purpose.

The arrow to which I referred earlier may be a poor example or be completely irrelevant to horseback archery. It's mention only served to suggest that an assumption of historical bows being consistently drawn to 28" may not be accurate.

I am hoping an archeology guru will chime in with some measurements from a few digs. I hope that if enough of a bow survived for draw weight measurements to be taken, then there is a good chance that any accompanying arrows would have also survived.

examples of archeological finds from MN:
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2109&start=15
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t ... c&start=15
rather strong arrows or ?

Thank you for the links. Fascinating!

Those arrow builders had some amazing skills!

Just looking how thick arrows are and making assumptions on the bow poundage might be deceiving. Look at standard Ottoman war arrows, which might be 0.8-0.9cm thick and 70cm long. But bows were 100lbs+

Archaeological evidence? Evidence is in the Topkapi and Military Museum in Istanbul. Just read Adam Karpowicz's book.

More texts which give us clues: http://atarn.org/islamic/persian.htm

G?kmen