Question Concerning Effective Bow Range

Oh, and one other question - Could you tell me or direct me to information concerning average speed of an arrow as it leaves some of these bows?

LogAnw622, welcome.

As to the second question-arrow speed-work through the ATARN archives and table of contents, there is at least one article on arrow speed, specifically, a Turkish bow reconstruction.

Maybe-I emphasize maybe-
http://p081.ezboard.com/bpaleoplanet69529 may have something about that, but that site usually deals with wooden bows.

As to your first: well, 1600 is a bit late. Archery was generally out of use in Western Europe, and the armor available there probably defeated all, or at least most, forms of "muscle powered" archery. Central Europe and eastward-possibly still effective, especially in Far East and India.

Armor penetration is still a vexed subject. Hardy's LONGBOW, Strickland and Hardy's THE GREAT WARBOW have much to offer on the English Longbow. I don't know about real experiments done on other armors by examples or replicas of the other bows.

Mark Stretton in England is doing a lot of careful work on arrow penetration of armour and flesh from heavy longbows. His results are being published in The Glade magazine. He differentiates between the types of reproduction armour he uses, both in regard to the manufacture of the materials and the class of armour (e.g. plate, brigandine and mail).

The most recent one I saw was on the effect of shooting at someone charging you on horseback. He set up a breast plate on a moving frame and shot at it and also timed the shots and the speed of the target. I found the article to be exceptionally well thought out and the conclusions interesting to anyone interested in the ballistics of arrows. The bow weights ranged between 85 and 140 pounds.

Getting back to the original question, The nature of the target, the type of arrow and bow and the relative motion of the target all affect the effectiveness of arrows. There isn't any one answer nor is there a ranking of various bows. Each is designed for its own area and the types of target found there. Some work better than others, but they all work.

Was reading an article by E McEwen, 1978, Nomadic Archery...where he states generally that Middle Ages self long bows shot 300 yards and that horn bows were capable of twice that distance. The main advantage, he states, was tactical; in that a long bowman was afoot and a hornbow archer was mounted. A nomad could more readily control if and when hand combat would take place, a foot archer might not.

On the Chinese bow, the foot bow would send a massive, heavy arrow far enough to do quite a lot of damage up to 60 metres. But none of these Asian bows (Chinese, Mongolian, Korean) was normally used in massive formation shooting. They were nearly always used in battle on horseback, with an effective range of 30 metres.

You can find interesting information here: http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/, especially in articles published in Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries papers.

I'm sorry, correct address is without comma
http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/

Good questions. It's kind of hard to answer, in the case of Korean horn bows, however. It's rather unlikely that a great number of archers (either mounted or foot) shot horn bows, as they were relatively expensive, so your average archer could not afford them (and it's doubtful they would have been gov't-supplied). More likely, they used simpler wood or bamboo bows. With that said, there were different types of shooting strategies employed. The first type was an unaimed longshot; it was effective against unarmored, or lightly armored forces. Another strategy was to get a more aimed, closer shot; it was more effective against improved armor, but put the archer in danger of being picked off by matchlock gunfire. The next progression was the point blank shot; essentially, one arrow/one kill--employed only when the enemy was starting to scale fortress walls. The reason for the change in strategies was a shortage of arrows, where each shot had to count.

As for Korean horn bows, they have a decent effective range--a couple hundred, up to a few hundred meters. I have measured modern Korean horn bows for speed; with a bow in the mid-50s @thumb ring draw length, and 405gr bamboo arrows, the speed was around 210fps. War arrows would have weighed more, as would the draw weight of the bows, so it would just be speculation regarding the earlier time period.


T

Also, according to McEwen, another indicator of variable ranges is the large difference in arrowhead size. The shape of the points may be according to perceived penetration qualities by the archers but the large difference in their weights correspond to the distance of the expected shot. There is a record of an order for arrowheads of 50 heavy points, 50 medium weight points, one hundred light points and two hundred very light points. The expectation is that many harassing shots can be made at great range before the enemy arrives at a really dangerous range. Several examples were given.

Stephen, Mongol points show the complete range of size and weight. And do Chinese quivers not have compartments in them which could be used to separate arrows of different type? This is not to disagree but to elaborate.

Thomas, of course arrows were always in relative short supply. Records in England demonstrate that wars were kept waiting until the necessary number of arrows were on hand. One accounting showed that the crown had less than 40 arrows for each available archer; possibly a four minute supply! -j-

Stephen, Mongol points show the complete range of size and weight. And do Chinese quivers not have compartments in them which could be used to separate arrows of different type?

Yes to both.

Hey, Jack, any chance I can get a cite on that arrow order? That dovetails right into my own research...

Though I can not remember the source below is a piece of painting to give a rather clear idea about the type of quiver that might have been used to classify the different sets of arrows.
e

Effie; perfect, well done!

Russ; The article paraphrased is : Miller,R., E McEwen and C A Bergman; Oct 1986; Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery. World Archaeolgy Magazine. V 18, #2, pp178-195.

The footnote quotes the source as; Dalley,1984. The Mari King is facing a long seige and needs more arrows. etc. -j-

Thanks bunches.

(Edited b/c I had a brain fart and equated the city of Mari with the Mari people...)

In the Military Museum I have seen cane arrows whose shafts are not proper (some of them have nearly zig-zag form). They have very heavy iron extensions ended up with integrated broadheads and very high FOC. I think their effective range must have been very short and the accuracy moderate. I guess they were shot from horse back and from very short distances.

Yucel mentions that the cane for flight arrows was imported from India. Because of this the arrows' costs was high. But I think these arrows are made of domestic cane with selfnocks (reinforced with sinew). They're cheaper war arrows.

Murat,
Do you mean the arrows are crooked? Are they illustrated in Yucel?

If these are arrows I saw there on exhibit, my impression was they were not Turkish. Very crude with large heads and long tangs exposed (stuck into the reed's end). The reed section seemed too short. But I may be wrong.

There were other arrows, pefectly Turkish or Tatar too.

Adam

Bede,

They're not illustrated in Yucel's book.

Yucel gives a lot of information about Turkish reed arrows. There were even reed arrows that were built up from reed segments, somehow similiar to modern carbonfiber arrows. Ant type of reed arrows required precise work. But that kind of "quickly-made" arrows are not mentioned. Adam may be right, maybe they're not turkish. But there is another possibility. The large armies must've need numerous arrows. Inexpensive arrows with short range might have been the answer. With their very short shaft and incredibly high FOC, they fit the turkish style horseback fighting. There is no evidence whether they're fletched with large feathers, but it would make sense.

Yucel says, cane/reed for flight arrows were imported from India and it increased the cost of the arrows. These arrows in the exhibition are not that of tropical climate and seem to be domestic.

In south-western coast there is a place called Dalyan with its famous Iztuzu beach and its Caretta carettas (with Kaunos, a beautiful Ionic acroplis next to it). Being between Mediterranian see and a Lagoon and having subtropical climate, there are a lot of local reeds. I noticed a small village next to Dalyan named "Okcular". The word "okcu" means "archer" in today's Turkish, but "arrowsmith" in old language. I couldn't find out any trace about this name.

It's known that there were villages to support the logistic needs of the Ottoman army. Some of them were in charge for shoes, some for other tackle worn on the way to battlefield. This village might have manufactured mass-produced cheap arrows during/prior to battle so that the armies load was lessened.

This is just a theorie and I cannot prove it unless it's supported by further research.

Murat; There have been several discussions here about the exact botanical species of various Turkish and Indian cane/reed/bamboo arrows. It would appear common knowledge that Persians and others used Phragmites, river cane, which grows across the world. However, it is my belief that Indo Persians also used bamboo for arrows. Some of their arrows seem to strong for Phragmites, especially in the small diameters which they used.

Do you have any information? -j-

Jack,

I agree with you. The reed imported by my ancestors should be bamboo or a similar tropical specie. I have not seen any sample of what Unsal Yucel mentioned. In exhibitions arrows made of pine are more common. If I can see and examine any I'll tell you.

Murat and Jack,
It is unlikely that tropical bamboo were used for high grade Indian arrows. If bamboo was used outside of the slopes of the Himalayas, it was most likely cooler climate bamboo like the running bamboos of China, Japan and Korea. These were available in Northern India. Many of the tropical bamboos are clumping bamboos and were used by tribal people in India for making arrows.

Whether the Turks imported bamboo for arrows or not is a very interesting question. There is a ramie string for a Turkish bow in Karlsruhe that is made in the Chinese fashion. This indicates that the Osmanli Turks could obtain Chinese archery products. However, the Chinese themselves were not using bamboo for arrows at this period (Qing). Personally, I think it would be easier to make the composite reed arrows from bamboo due to the greater wall thickness of the culms.

Murat's comment about the crude reed arrows with exposed iron tangs suggests that they are African. There is at least one quiver in the Askeri Museum that is undoubtedly African.

Reed amaji arrows from India are designed for close shooting and they are extremely well made because of the tremendous stresses they undergo. Amaji arrows were used in Iran and Turkey too. In close-in shooting they had great impact because of their weight and they also had very strong arrow heads.