Performance of Turkish Bows
What surprised me most about Adams analysis was how an English war bow (reproduction) performed so similarly to a Turkish war bow ( repro).
Is it possible that if one of Adam's repros was taken to a dry weather climate that there would be a dramatic increase in performance? I think an increase would be in order but not a dramatic one.
Should we model a theoretical encounter between the Brit yoemen and Turkish warriors. Actually it happened and with a Turkish historian present to record the battle. -j-
Is it possible that if one of Adam's repros was taken to a dry weather climate that there would be a dramatic increase in performance? I think an increase would be in order but not a dramatic one.
Should we model a theoretical encounter between the Brit yoemen and Turkish warriors. Actually it happened and with a Turkish historian present to record the battle. -j-
Jack,
Don't leave us hanging...
Don't leave us hanging...
We have at least Nicopolis where Turks met western armies including bowmen...
Victory to the turks, but not due officially to their bows.
Victory to the turks, but not due officially to their bows.
Jack, note the English bow in question (I believe you mean the one by Pip) was pulled to 32", not to 28" as the Turkish bows. This increases efficiency of any bow quite a bit (mybe even more than 10%). I also would not generalize, this bow seems to be an exception, I just felt obliged to mention it, see other self - longbws.
On a positive note, heavy English arrows, shot form those very heavy longbows, could knock a knight down, even with no penetration to speak of. Turkish arrows were more like precision killing devices. A friend of mine is reseraching these things as we speak and the results will be presented soon...
Adam
On a positive note, heavy English arrows, shot form those very heavy longbows, could knock a knight down, even with no penetration to speak of. Turkish arrows were more like precision killing devices. A friend of mine is reseraching these things as we speak and the results will be presented soon...
Adam
It's a very interesting article. Many thanks to Adam for his courtesy, it's released for publishing in Turkey too. The translation is completed and the article will be published in the "Journal of Ottoman Science" in the October issue.
Sorry, the correct translation for the journal is "J of studies in Ottoman Science".
http://www.bilimtarihi.org/OBA/oba.htm
http://www.bilimtarihi.org/OBA/oba.htm
Adam,
Excellent article. I would like to cite it in an upcoming article of my own on the battle at 1205 Adrianople, in whatever form you would prefer.
As a followup question, have you chrono'd said Crimean Tatar bow? I don't recall seeing chrono reports before, and, along with your article, that data would be very, very useful for my work.
Thanks again, this is great work.
Excellent article. I would like to cite it in an upcoming article of my own on the battle at 1205 Adrianople, in whatever form you would prefer.
As a followup question, have you chrono'd said Crimean Tatar bow? I don't recall seeing chrono reports before, and, along with your article, that data would be very, very useful for my work.
Thanks again, this is great work.
Review of THE BATTLE OF ARSUF, by W F Patterson,1965, JSAA, V8,pp20-23. According to Patterson, this was one of the greatest battle of archers ever recorded.
On August 22, 1191, Richard Coeur-de-Lion entered the Third crusade by marching his army of 100,000 along the coast from Acre to Jerusalem. His adversary, Saladin, led a Saracen army made up of warriors of central Asian origin from various Turkic tribes who were determined to stop Richard from reaching Jerusalem. In a previous battle Saladin had employed 70 camels bearing 400 loads of arrows to replentish his archers.
While Richard marched along the coast to prevent encirclement and with the baggage to the center, most of the archers and crossbowmen to the rear, the calvary to the flank and the infantry forming an outerwall along the length. The English wore halberks, which were full coats of mail with thick quilted gambesons beneath them while marching in the hot sun.
A vanguard of mounted Saracen marksmen harassed the moving army from the rear with a shower of arrows forcing the English to march backwards until reaching the woods of Arsuf where Saladin had prepared for the main attack. All the while, the events were being recorded by Beha ed-Din, Saladin's secretary, who noted the apparant ineffectiveness of the Saracen arrows against the armor of the crusaders; "I saw men with from one to ten arrows sticking in them continuing to march."
Then the main attack occured when 10,000 Turks, "swept rapidly down upon our men hurling darts and arrows. That day our own losses and the suffering of our horses, who were pierced through and through with arrows and darts showed how persistently the enemy kept up the attack." according to the Intinerarium.
Wave after wave of attacks were beaten back until finally, no longer willing to be restrained, the Hospitallers knights charged through an opening in the infantry, reformed and attacked again and yet again, driving the Saracens into the woods.
The exhausted Crusaders marched on to the walls of Arsuf and then to Jaffa without further incident.
On August 22, 1191, Richard Coeur-de-Lion entered the Third crusade by marching his army of 100,000 along the coast from Acre to Jerusalem. His adversary, Saladin, led a Saracen army made up of warriors of central Asian origin from various Turkic tribes who were determined to stop Richard from reaching Jerusalem. In a previous battle Saladin had employed 70 camels bearing 400 loads of arrows to replentish his archers.
While Richard marched along the coast to prevent encirclement and with the baggage to the center, most of the archers and crossbowmen to the rear, the calvary to the flank and the infantry forming an outerwall along the length. The English wore halberks, which were full coats of mail with thick quilted gambesons beneath them while marching in the hot sun.
A vanguard of mounted Saracen marksmen harassed the moving army from the rear with a shower of arrows forcing the English to march backwards until reaching the woods of Arsuf where Saladin had prepared for the main attack. All the while, the events were being recorded by Beha ed-Din, Saladin's secretary, who noted the apparant ineffectiveness of the Saracen arrows against the armor of the crusaders; "I saw men with from one to ten arrows sticking in them continuing to march."
Then the main attack occured when 10,000 Turks, "swept rapidly down upon our men hurling darts and arrows. That day our own losses and the suffering of our horses, who were pierced through and through with arrows and darts showed how persistently the enemy kept up the attack." according to the Intinerarium.
Wave after wave of attacks were beaten back until finally, no longer willing to be restrained, the Hospitallers knights charged through an opening in the infantry, reformed and attacked again and yet again, driving the Saracens into the woods.
The exhausted Crusaders marched on to the walls of Arsuf and then to Jaffa without further incident.
yup, I read it in "The Great Warbow" by Strickland & Hardy.
Jack,
The battle of Arsuf occurred during the Third Crusade and preceded the development of the Turkish bow as we know it. The majority of the combatants on Salah ed-Din's side were Arabs and Kurds. His Mamluks were Turkish, but from the Qipchaq steppe rather than the Turks in Anatolia.
Richard used mainly crossbowmen rather than longbow men.
Nicopolis is another matter. The several battles there are some ways paralleled the experience of the English fighting the French. The book, The Great Warbow, in many ways resusitates French honour in the battles in the Hundred Years War. English historians in the past protrayed the French as incapable of tactical innovation, but the truth is very different. On the other hand, the intelligent English combination of arms is well explained.
The battle of Arsuf occurred during the Third Crusade and preceded the development of the Turkish bow as we know it. The majority of the combatants on Salah ed-Din's side were Arabs and Kurds. His Mamluks were Turkish, but from the Qipchaq steppe rather than the Turks in Anatolia.
Richard used mainly crossbowmen rather than longbow men.
Nicopolis is another matter. The several battles there are some ways paralleled the experience of the English fighting the French. The book, The Great Warbow, in many ways resusitates French honour in the battles in the Hundred Years War. English historians in the past protrayed the French as incapable of tactical innovation, but the truth is very different. On the other hand, the intelligent English combination of arms is well explained.
The typical Turk-Crusade army war was the encounter of the I. Crusade with Seldjuk Turks. This is the earliest info about Anatolian Turks' fighting styles. The historians reported a 3-hour uninterrupted arrow shower that made the Crusade army desperate and disable it to fight or even move. The Crusade army survived by the unexpected support of another force under the commandement of Guy des Lusignan.
Seldjuk Turks represent the "passing phase" of my ancestors in becoming true Islamic warriors since it's very well known that many of the warriors were still Shaman. Their tackle was similar to that of Turkistan's (T?rk Ok?uluğu, Y?cel), bows must have been identical or similar to Mongolian type with rigid siyahs.
Late Turkish-Ottoman style bows are more developed. The siyahs disappeared and the cast certainly got better. Adam's bows are the "ultimate ones" among the bows of Central Asia. After Sultan Selim II conquered Egypt the Kıptschak bowyers must have immigrated to Istanbul, the capital city of Ottoman Empire and their skill might have influenced the development of Ottoman bows.
A last word about Kıptscahks: It does not make sense to discriminate them from the late Anatolian Turks (Seldjuks, Ottomans and us). The book Kitab fi ilm-an n?şşab, the 14th century Kiptschak archery treatise can easily be read and understood even by today's Turks (although the title and script were of Arabic). I would speculate that Kıptascak Turks' bows was not too much diffferent then that used by Seldjuks.
Seldjuk Turks represent the "passing phase" of my ancestors in becoming true Islamic warriors since it's very well known that many of the warriors were still Shaman. Their tackle was similar to that of Turkistan's (T?rk Ok?uluğu, Y?cel), bows must have been identical or similar to Mongolian type with rigid siyahs.
Late Turkish-Ottoman style bows are more developed. The siyahs disappeared and the cast certainly got better. Adam's bows are the "ultimate ones" among the bows of Central Asia. After Sultan Selim II conquered Egypt the Kıptschak bowyers must have immigrated to Istanbul, the capital city of Ottoman Empire and their skill might have influenced the development of Ottoman bows.
A last word about Kıptscahks: It does not make sense to discriminate them from the late Anatolian Turks (Seldjuks, Ottomans and us). The book Kitab fi ilm-an n?şşab, the 14th century Kiptschak archery treatise can easily be read and understood even by today's Turks (although the title and script were of Arabic). I would speculate that Kıptascak Turks' bows was not too much diffferent then that used by Seldjuks.
I don?t think that battles and wars can tell much about the qualities of bows. There is too much influence of strategies, the whole equipment, conditions like the weather.........
We have to take much more care on the materials we use. We can do all right but nowadays nobody seems to be able to built a horn-or longbow throwing an arrow 840m.
I guess the scientific approach we are used to cultivate is to external.
The choice of the material is the key. Waterbuffalo-horn is the ultimate material for hornbows, but waterbuffalo-horn is not waterbuffalo-horn, every serious hornbowyer has done this experience.
In my archery-community we do every now and then chrono-tests.
Our best selfbow is made of black-locust, 28", 45lbs, it shots 25gram-arrows with 160fps, it outperforms every other even much stronger bow, even a 65lbs osage-orange bow.
One of the best hornbows I did, was made of the horns of a male moufflon and sinew like the Nez Perce-indians did their sheephorn-bows: this little bow(90cm) throws a reed-arrow 297m with 48lbs and 25"-draw.
I guess we have to find out all the datas of the materials we use, like origin, the age and gender of a buffalo, the time when the wood, horn sinew...was cut, the quality of glue...... But nowadays it is really difficult to check this out, when I got my waterbuffalo-horns from Martin Hyslop, I don?t know much about them. So I have to rely on my experience and my intuition as a bowyer. I?ve begun to record every data of my materials I?m able to obtain just as every impression of them.
Thanks to Adam for his serious work.
But I don?t agree with him that the material for the core is not so important. My experiences with cores made of mountain- and rock maple are outstanding. What I know is that the most famous turkish flightbows were made with maple cores?
Michael
We have to take much more care on the materials we use. We can do all right but nowadays nobody seems to be able to built a horn-or longbow throwing an arrow 840m.
I guess the scientific approach we are used to cultivate is to external.
The choice of the material is the key. Waterbuffalo-horn is the ultimate material for hornbows, but waterbuffalo-horn is not waterbuffalo-horn, every serious hornbowyer has done this experience.
In my archery-community we do every now and then chrono-tests.
Our best selfbow is made of black-locust, 28", 45lbs, it shots 25gram-arrows with 160fps, it outperforms every other even much stronger bow, even a 65lbs osage-orange bow.
One of the best hornbows I did, was made of the horns of a male moufflon and sinew like the Nez Perce-indians did their sheephorn-bows: this little bow(90cm) throws a reed-arrow 297m with 48lbs and 25"-draw.
I guess we have to find out all the datas of the materials we use, like origin, the age and gender of a buffalo, the time when the wood, horn sinew...was cut, the quality of glue...... But nowadays it is really difficult to check this out, when I got my waterbuffalo-horns from Martin Hyslop, I don?t know much about them. So I have to rely on my experience and my intuition as a bowyer. I?ve begun to record every data of my materials I?m able to obtain just as every impression of them.
Thanks to Adam for his serious work.
But I don?t agree with him that the material for the core is not so important. My experiences with cores made of mountain- and rock maple are outstanding. What I know is that the most famous turkish flightbows were made with maple cores?
Michael
The decline in velocity when the bow is held to full draw 2 seconds is interesting. I believe I have read that holding a wood selfbow at full draw will have the same effect.
So: for shooting, does this mean that an archer taking deliberate aim must allow for trajectory differnces caused by loss of initial velocity?
And, what are the implications for wood or composite crossbows?
The initial velocities from the small bows noted is impressive. But, what are the speeds at distance? How do the arrows penetrate, and on what materials?
So: for shooting, does this mean that an archer taking deliberate aim must allow for trajectory differnces caused by loss of initial velocity?
And, what are the implications for wood or composite crossbows?
The initial velocities from the small bows noted is impressive. But, what are the speeds at distance? How do the arrows penetrate, and on what materials?
If you draw and hold for 2 seconds consistently, then you will not know that your bow has lost velocity. Your aim will be normal to you. Some authors recommended saying certain religious phrases to time the period you held the arrow.
None of the old authors recommended long holding times. They also suggested quick draws and releases for flight shooting so they were aware of the problem. In warfare, you would be shooting either at masses of people, where you could afford a quick inaccurate draw, or at individuals where you would take as much care as you could.
Murat,
I think you were describing what in the West is called the Battle of Dorylaeum, which was fought in the First Crusade. Guy de Lusignan was not born then. The Seljuk state in Anatolia was fragmented at the time and not very organised. The Crusaders were fighting against one of the most powerful western Seljuk leaders, but he had nowhere near the resources of the Osmanli sultans.
By the time the Nushshab was written, there had been a considerable convergence of the Qipchaq and Anatolian cultures, though most Qipchaqs were under the control of Chingisid descendants. The literary language was probably heavily influenced by Turco-Iranian culture. In addition, the book was a version of the work produced in the Mamluk Sultanate by Taybugha. Many Mamluks passed through Anatolia on the way to Egypt and Syria.
None of the old authors recommended long holding times. They also suggested quick draws and releases for flight shooting so they were aware of the problem. In warfare, you would be shooting either at masses of people, where you could afford a quick inaccurate draw, or at individuals where you would take as much care as you could.
Murat,
I think you were describing what in the West is called the Battle of Dorylaeum, which was fought in the First Crusade. Guy de Lusignan was not born then. The Seljuk state in Anatolia was fragmented at the time and not very organised. The Crusaders were fighting against one of the most powerful western Seljuk leaders, but he had nowhere near the resources of the Osmanli sultans.
By the time the Nushshab was written, there had been a considerable convergence of the Qipchaq and Anatolian cultures, though most Qipchaqs were under the control of Chingisid descendants. The literary language was probably heavily influenced by Turco-Iranian culture. In addition, the book was a version of the work produced in the Mamluk Sultanate by Taybugha. Many Mamluks passed through Anatolia on the way to Egypt and Syria.
Also, Crusading archery was negligible at Nicopolis, where Bayazid played an average hand very well (his forces were somewhat weaker than those arrayed against him), and the Burgundians' failure to listen to heed Sigismund's warnings turned the battle on its ear. Ottoman tactics in this period were very similar to those of the English (or perhaps we could say that those of the English were a similar but much less mobile variant on that of the Ottomans).
I have always, always been surprised that nobody's made a movie out of this one, as there were heroic actions on all sides. Perhaps the actions of the Serbs on behalf of the Sultan are simply too politically incorrect nowadays. Anyway, the English longbow was a complete non-factor in that fight.
I have always, always been surprised that nobody's made a movie out of this one, as there were heroic actions on all sides. Perhaps the actions of the Serbs on behalf of the Sultan are simply too politically incorrect nowadays. Anyway, the English longbow was a complete non-factor in that fight.
Murat, what about 13th-century Kipcaq bows? I've been told that the Cuman weapons best equate to those of the Crimean Tatars, but perhaps that is later? Should I look to the C-T, or the Seljuks/Ottomans for parallels?
Thanks.
Thanks.