Arrows in Bow Hand: Points turned up or down?
I've been experimenting with various arrow in hand techniques lately and find that the easiest for me at the moment is to hold the arrows points turned up and fletching down with my gripping bow hand. I was wondering though what this Parthian archer was doing with his arrows:
[external image]
So are the points turned up or down? Or is it inconclusive from the depiction?
[external image]
![[external image]](http://imageshack.us/a/img407/7716/screenshot20130124at835.png){kind=link}
So are the points turned up or down? Or is it inconclusive from the depiction?
Real archers using sharp bladed arrows would have been more likely to hold the arrows with the points up simply to reduce injuries. On a horse without stirrups in hunting or battle conditions, the chances of accidentally stabbing yourself or your horse with the arrowheads is too great a risk to take. On the other hand, shooting blunts or target points would not be so risky.
That's an interesting point (no pun intended). I know points down is used by modern horse archers with a med draw. Naturally barbed or triangular points would be inappropriate for this back in the day. However I could easily see bodkin points being used points down style.
Its difficult to tell from the Parthian depiction above, but I get the feeling arrow points up is at use here.
Its difficult to tell from the Parthian depiction above, but I get the feeling arrow points up is at use here.
I do not see any arrowhead in the picture and no answer is bulletproof. The advantage of holding the arrows in the bow hand with the heads downwards is an easier nocking of the next arrow, because it is closer to the other shooting movements. With the heads upwards you have to make a longer movement. In this case you see no nock near the grip. If the arrowheads were downwards, this archer would not benefit of any advantages of heads down I know.
If I were in the situation of that archer, I would consider positioning the arrowheads downwards, with no nock near the bowhamdle as a mistake.
If I were in the situation of that archer, I would consider positioning the arrowheads downwards, with no nock near the bowhamdle as a mistake.
Bodkin points are very sharp and I for one would not like to puncture myself with one. It might not be fatal but it would hurt.
It is important to remember the difference between what could be done and what is likely to be done. I think archers and army commanders would prefer the safer option over the speedier one. The Plains Indians in America held arrows and bows together while shooting on horseback. Did they have a preferred style?
It is important to remember the difference between what could be done and what is likely to be done. I think archers and army commanders would prefer the safer option over the speedier one. The Plains Indians in America held arrows and bows together while shooting on horseback. Did they have a preferred style?
Apparently, arrows in mouth...
I did some experimentation with various arrow types I have made over the weekened. I felt my bodkin point arrow worked fine with arrow points down. I also have a point with a small trianguar medieval style broad head that was easy to nock from the points down in hand position.
However, the medieval style triangular head I had with a very wide width I certainly wouldn't recommend and it was too cumbersome due head weight and width to effectively pull off from the points down position. I'd say the wider the head, the less chance of this technique being used.
I often times question though what is historically accurate among some modern day mounted archers technique wise. I think points down could have been utilized and maybe was but the real question is, over the thousands of horse archers that emerged over time during the historical period the martial tradition was in effect, was such a technique ever really used?
One thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as complete uniformity to approach across the various steppe societies over the long duree regarding these techniques. We tend to assign certain idiosynchrecies to some groups (like Scythians, Huns etc.) but do we always factor in the individual factor? Is it really wise or safe to assume everyone among steppe group "A" did the same thing over and over based on depictions made of them that would have been made by outsiders who weren't necessarily a part of the culture or even knew everyone of those societies at the time and what they were always doing?
I question it personally but also question the historical reconstructions.
I did some experimentation with various arrow types I have made over the weekened. I felt my bodkin point arrow worked fine with arrow points down. I also have a point with a small trianguar medieval style broad head that was easy to nock from the points down in hand position.
However, the medieval style triangular head I had with a very wide width I certainly wouldn't recommend and it was too cumbersome due head weight and width to effectively pull off from the points down position. I'd say the wider the head, the less chance of this technique being used.
I often times question though what is historically accurate among some modern day mounted archers technique wise. I think points down could have been utilized and maybe was but the real question is, over the thousands of horse archers that emerged over time during the historical period the martial tradition was in effect, was such a technique ever really used?
One thing I have learned is that there is no such thing as complete uniformity to approach across the various steppe societies over the long duree regarding these techniques. We tend to assign certain idiosynchrecies to some groups (like Scythians, Huns etc.) but do we always factor in the individual factor? Is it really wise or safe to assume everyone among steppe group "A" did the same thing over and over based on depictions made of them that would have been made by outsiders who weren't necessarily a part of the culture or even knew everyone of those societies at the time and what they were always doing?
I question it personally but also question the historical reconstructions.
are you a rider?
:)
any horse would jump or go crazy with the lightest touch of a bodkin on their neck or shoulders. This might end your life on the battlefield. They can sense a fly landing on their skin.
anyway if this technique was so successful the Mongols, Ottomans, Persians etc would have used it too but literature and historic miniatures suggest they didnt, instead they had 2-3 arrows in draw hand. But often then didnt at all and used the quiver.
:)
any horse would jump or go crazy with the lightest touch of a bodkin on their neck or shoulders. This might end your life on the battlefield. They can sense a fly landing on their skin.
anyway if this technique was so successful the Mongols, Ottomans, Persians etc would have used it too but literature and historic miniatures suggest they didnt, instead they had 2-3 arrows in draw hand. But often then didnt at all and used the quiver.
I think you missed my point. I question historical sources but also recent techniques used. Some modern day horse archers use arrow points down but they are not letting even those tips touch the horse anyway.
Do historical sources even mention which direction the arrow points are turned? :)
Do historical sources even mention which direction the arrow points are turned? :)