Crimean Tartar Bows

I think you do make your point, but actually you are bringing up all the reasons one could think of yourself :). I read (as you did) production took place in Istanbul for the Tartars by the same bowyers who made the osmanli bows. I think this was a reasonable buissness since the bowyers in Istanbul had probably a better supply for the needed materials and maybe a higher proficiency in building the bows anyway. While the tartars where themselves paying for the weapons delivered, maybe with there loyalty to the sultan.
Why they prefered the relatively long an unefficient design over the osmanli bows? Why do people nowadays buy anything other than compound bows? Maybe tradition, maybe the preference to a longer drawlength, maybe durability. I also asked myself the same question. But the point is that people don't always make reasonable decissions :). Maybe somebody else here in the forum can point out some advantages/disadvantages of the two designs.

regards Kevin

A longer bow shoots a heavy arrow better.

Like Jack says. The Crimean bow is a war bow. The one in the Grayson collection is 62 inches long with 35 inch arrows.

But then it should be possible to shoot a 35 " arrow with a 56 inch osmanli bow. To the best of my knowledge there are no bows of such length in the topkapi palace collection (ottoman design). So if the turkish bowyers did not build bows of such length in ottoman design there is maybe a reason for that!? Maybe the inherent design advantage (stability) of the ottoman bows with the bending sections near grip turns into opposite in a longer bow!? But then there are the long mongolian bows of the 12 century which are somewhat alike the ottoman design but longer (bow of chagan chad)

regards kevin

But in Adam K.'s research about the Ottoman bow, it said that the Ottoman bows were able to shoot the heavy arrows as efficiently as the Crimeans. Did you guys see that? it is on the ATARN website.

Fenris wrote:

So if the turkish bowyers did not build bows of such length in ottoman design there is maybe a reason for that!? Maybe the inherent design advantage (stability) of the ottoman bows with the bending sections near grip turns into opposite in a longer bow!?

I would go with the plain weight of the limbs because I think increasing the lenghts of the bow just adds too much weight, if you want to use it for longer draws.
The Ottoman bow bends near the grip - and gets enough bending close to 80 degrees between kasan and the grip. You already get the full bend from such a short bending section so you increase the length with the stiff part of the limbs for longer draws. By extending the lever on the bending section - a bow with the same cross sections in the bending area would have less drawweight per physical weight and perform worse.
The crimean Tartar bow has a longer stiff section at the grip reducing the drawweight same, than extending the kasan and tip lenght, but the grip doesen't move - so the performance reducing is not that big.

I hope this is understandable and not too obvoiusly wrong :)

Efficiency is very specific term which refers to the ratio between stored energy and kinetic energy of the arrow. Efficiency in combat is another issue. Just get a stronger bow and it will be more efficient in combat. Draw the bow you have longer and you have also more penetration and more range.

A longer bow with long siyahs and setback handle will store more energy than a bow with high brace height. Also a longer arrow means more energy stored. With a heavy arrow the efficiency will increase, so the longer bow will get the benefit of his draw/force static curve and higher stored energy. The arrow will have more kinetic energy than the smaller bow with smaller/lighter arrows and higher brace height. In this sense even the turkish bow will have the best efficiency as energy ratio, the energy in the arrow shot by the longer bow (as manchu or krimean) will be higher.

good point.

however Adam arguments that penetration is better for a thin (and short) arrow.

plus:
this is not adressing the initial question (sorry)
but a nice quote from arab archery on war composite bows :

The bow for warfare should be, in strength, equal to that of the archer himself, with short siyahs-lest they hit the shield or whatever the archer carries-and a straight grip. It should have more horn than wood and, likewise, more sinew than wood. Furthermore, it should not be excessive in recurvature, so that it may be quickly strung and quickly unstrung. Recurvature (ta?jir) is the curving of the bow toward its back when unstrung, and is the opposite of incurvature (inhina?) which is the curving of the unstrung bow toward its belly so that it appears to the eye almost strung. It should have more horn than wood because both the weight of the bow and its force depend upon the horn-the more horn it has, the stronger it is-although it is then more apt to become crooked in regions of unsuitable climatic conditions, while the more it has of wood and sinew, the straighter it remains, although its strength is then diminished. Therefore, one should strike a happy medium inclining toward the sparing use of horn.

8)

I agree with everyone here. Most bows have similar performance with heavier arrows. Once the arrow weight becomes really great (very long with heavy tips), the longer and wider bows perform better, because there is more material to do the work.

As to the issue of penetration - yes, the thin Ottoman arrows penetrate better through armour, however, the thin arrows tend to break often hitting the metal plate. For that reason, the penetration could not be relied upon, unless the armour was of poor quality. The archers aimed at horses to pin down the knights (for example the battle of Nicopolis in 1396). I have my doubts if the arows were ever made to reliably penetrate well made steel armour and that includes the British longbow arrows.

Adam

@Adam
When you say that longer+wider bows perform better with real heavy arrows due to more material for the work, does that mean:
-longer+wider arms have probably less stringfollow+set than thicker but less wide arms
-therefore they store more energy than less wide arms, while the dry fire speed goes down due to the weight
-still they can give enough energy to the heavy arrow since it's velocity will be low anyway (and the slow moving arm can still tranfer the energy)

!?

regards Kevin

Yes, all of the above.

Adam

Sorry for being redundant, but due to the language barrier let me make sure I got this right: Crimean bows are generally more effective with energy transfer thus consistently are more apt to penetrate. But my original question goes unanswered: Why did the Crims stick to their bows, and why would the Ottomans encourage their creation, even suggesting that some Turks used the bows in the capitol. Why?

:D if we dont think about eficienci- Crimean tatar bow was in fact oldest evolution variation of old turcic bows. No unknown for Osman turks, but like oldest model.

Why make bows in centrum ? Like today. Evrybody who can -live and work in capitol town in his country - better in capitol town biggest and stronger country and best choice - live in centrum of empire - New York ! -ops- :lol: Istambul !
People always think that best products are from most valuable centrum corporation. Anyway biznisman in centrum hawe closer to people form sultan head-quarters - closer to big order...

What Dusan said. Ottomans did not "encourage" or "suggest" anything. At that time (late 18th/early 19th c.) the Tatars were the major (only?) users of bows in combat. Elsewhere, incl. Turkey, firearms dominated.

Adam

Are there any texts or sources of information that has helped the understanding of Crimean archery or design or both?