Draw weights

Have a look at some of Adam Karpowicz's article both on this site and in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries. He has both examined original Turkish bows and built and tested replicas.

Yes, I researched this subject for a while. An article will be published soon in Antiquity (now going to proof) about draw weight estimates for Ottoman bows. An average weight of over 40 (non-flight) bows from Topkapi Palace was 120lb. With bows below 70lb and over 150lb removed, the average weight was 110lb +/-SD of 20lb. This is at 28in draw length, as compared with replicas of known weight. Very short bows may have even higher weight due to stacking.

As to other types, I know of a Crim-Tartar bow estimated at 120lb and I have no doubt it is true as I have seen many such bows. The older bows shown by Stephen on this site are probably in the same range.

Adam

Look up the description by Busbeq under 'Islamic Archery' on atarn.org . He mentions that the draw weights were so heavy that untrained people could not pull back far enough to release a coin inserted between the string and the siyah.

Wow. Thanks guys! I was having this discussion with a few friends who are longbow proponents, and we realized that none of us had any data on the composite bows of the East. Now we do :wink:

I would like to ask about possible sampling error. Would bows in Turkish museums represent the best available samples and not necessarily common items? How do these items relate to items in other museum collections? Germany or Austria, for example.

When texts refer to "sharpshooters" being sent out ahead of regular troops can one assume that these guys were shooting stronger bows than average? Can an entire army be made up of superior archers?

When a find such as the MaryRose is brought up, a warship on its way to battle, there is no doubt that its armaments were intended for battle, at least by those on board, if not for general use. But if one finds a piece on a museum shelf, how does one know that that bow was not intended for some specially trained aristocrat? After all, the flight records were not necessarily made by typical cohorts. -j-

Museums collect bows from many sources, and if (relatively) large number is examined, then one can be reasonably sure of the results. I have examined many Tartar type bows in Polish museums (these bows were definitely well used war bows) which also confirm these draw weights. Flight bows (if identified) were not counted.

I am not sure if I understand your question about sharpshooters. I would think they were exceptional target archers using regular bows.

Adam

Jack,
I too would like to know what you mean by sharpshooters. There are several words used in Persian and Turkish texts that refer to exceptional archers, but they are each specific to a certain type of shooting.

What texts are you referring to? I remember the Turks using mounted skirmishers, but they were often deli horsemen who were not missile troops, but foreign mercenary light cavalry. Later after the amalgamation with the Crimean Khanate, they used Tatar horse archers to raid behind enemy lines and disrupt their communications.

For instance Unsal Yucel makes many references to sharpshooters; "ok atisi", is that correct? Resim 39 and 40 are two illustrations back to back. Not the same word as archer. These appear to be favored individuals. There are many others in that book. Shall I look for others?

It may be possible to find provenience cards on museum bows, though maybe unlikely. Bows belonging to upper class individuals would not be "average". Highly decorated bows might not be average.

Vienna has some undecorated war bows. There are others. Are Tatar bows being grouped together with Ottoman?

I understand that it would be difficult to identify a statistically significant number of typical Ottoman war bows. A worthwhile project nevertheless. -j-

Jack raises an interesting point. But there may be no way to answer it. For example, the exhibits at the armoury in Krackow are said to be war booty. On the other hand, my collection is just what one collector could trawl up from around the region.

I suspect my bows - nearly all of which are broken in some way, were kept in families because they were mementos of a loved family member. I do not have the impression that these family members were specially trained or stronger than the average.

S

Stephen,
You have a point. However, if a specific range of weights is present in a museum collection of bows, it does give some indication of what bows were being used. To come with average bows from that data would be difficult because a museum collection is not a random selection. collectors would weed out the ones they don't have any interest in. Plain bows would survive if at one time they were associated with someone or some ever that was important. I think this is Jack's point too.

Regarding Yucel's term, I will look it up. I am relying on my memory here, but I think the term sharpshooter comes from the Sharps rifle and the implication was similar to the general term sniper (i.e. a person who was expert at hitting other people on demand) as opposed to a marksman who could shoot and hit anything. In Persian, they differentiate between people who can hit small targets, people who can pierce armour and those who are expert with special forms of arrows.

i think it is safe to say that people were using much heavier bows than we are used to. Chinese, Turkish and Persian references to extremely strong bows are supported by the fact that the English were using them too. Adam's examination of bows in museums also supports this. Some work I have done on Indo-Persian arrows suggests that many of the armour-piecing type were very stiff and could have been shot from very heavy bows.

I am not sure why decorated bows would be heavier - these bows were still well used. Actually many bows I have examined were not decorated.

When flight bows are excluded, then there are war, target and practice bows left. There could also be bows for darb shooting - displays of penetration etc. As I said, I eliminated bows above 150lb, assuming these would be special practice or darb bows (note 150lb is still below what is claimed for English longbows). Target bows (which I did not eliminate) would be of lesser weight, as usual, than war bows. It means the averages are not excessive at all.

I mentioned the Tartar bows in Polish collections, because bows there were indeed used for war, also by Poles until the end of 17th c.

I really do not want to get into another discussion about draw weights. I think it would be helpful, if the proponents of weak composite bow theory come forward with valid data to prove the point.

Adam

To all; I certainly do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings by making this discussion. Read on if you wish to discuss draw weights of war bows.

My thesis is that war bows including composites of antiquity came in all draw weights, as suited the archer. Some examples, though not at all an exhaustive list.

1. English law required all free males between the ages of 12 and 60 to own a bow and arrows and practice at least once a week in public. One can only assume this was to prepare the populace to be part of a militia. Therefore any male capable of making a decent bow shot was eligible for military service. Did an adolescent male shoot the same bow as a mature yoeman?

2.G N Pant, Indian (India) Archery, tells how women archers were important in battle. that it was believed that the army with the largest number of archers was the most likely to prevail. Women archers, sometimes as many as 20,000 of them, carried two quivers with 60 arrows in each quiver into battle.

An archer's practice was considered to be 400 shots a day, or at least half that if necessary. These were bamboo bows, possibly "bows constructed of a new method" of the Danurveda, maybe laminated bamboo something like Jaap's type. Were these heavy draw weight bows?

He gives names for bows from 12 kg to 120 kg. This is a large variation.

3. The king Tut bows is a collection that started when he was only several years old and worked up to his death at about 20 years. Nearly all of these bows, about 25 of them, by comparison to other angular composites, is of light draw even though he was expected to lead the Egyptian army into battle one day. Would they send him out with a strong war bow which he could not draw?

Museums want the finest examples of any craft. Legends are made of the greatest warriors. While we admire ancient history, let us not make Titans of the ancients but accept their accomplishments as human and within limits. For every superior warrior there were probably several mediocre ones who fought for the same cause, we just didn't save their bows. -j-

Jack:

I realize now I owe you an apology: I have not sufficiently explained the nature of the statistics involved. What it means is that about 2/3 of the bows were between 90 and 130lb. The remaining 1/3 was composed of weaker bows, I recall a 40lb-er and a few 60-70lb too, although there were more heavier ones. It is clear there were indeed weaker bows in the bunch, and as you say, must have suited some archers as well. Yes, the variation was quite substantial - almost exactly as in your example of 12 to 120lb: 40 to 240lb.

Your example with English is however confused in my opinion. From what I read, the soldiers were archers selected from a larger populace, well accustomed to the use of bow since chidhood. Thus, among the professionals, you have those heavy bow users as in Mary Rose. The same situation we have here: bows used by professionals who most likely were even more accustomed to bows than the English. These men did archery for a living and the rewards were good. Does it say all of them, the English and the Ottomans used only the monster bows? No, some did not and I am sure there were examples of lesser bows in the MR too.

I would not think the women archers would be too frequent in history, and certainly not so in the Islamic times. I am sure though they would still fit into the statistics somehow.

The example with king Tut only proves to me there could be decorated bows which were weak at the same time. In any case, one specimen is not statistics.

Again, yes, there were weaker bows too and certainly used by some in battle. The average weight is rather high, I do not believe it is excessive however, for a professional (and deadly) archer.

Adam

For the record, the lightest composite (horn/sinew) bow in my collection is 12#. It was made for the annual offering to the Ancestor Craftsman of Chinese bowyers, Xuan Yuan. Perhaps the original intention was for it to be burned. However, my one is in fine condition, though its construction is a bit strange.

The heaviest bow is around 200# and was made for a circus performance. Chinese Qing Dynasty bows come in the following varieties (excluding children's bows) with the following approximate draw-weights:

Votive (temple offerings)
Bamboo practice bows (25#-35#)
Horseback archery bows (45#-70#)
Pebble bows (35#-50#)
Infantry bows (50#-100#)
Strength bows (80#-200#)

My impression is that bows made in Beijing were heavier than those made in the Western centres such as Xian and Chengdu. I have one 'Southern Bow' (may be Ming) from Zhejiang or Fujian which is relatively light and thickly lacquered, with short siyahs.

S

I think we are in danger of confusing the issue here by covering too wide a historical perspective. The Dhanuveda is very ancient and refers to early Indian archers using bamboo bows. The text that was translated on this site was corrupt by which I mean that it had many later additions. When the original parts were written, armour was unknown in India. It does stress the importance of archers, the title means the bow scripture. While women warriors are mentioned Indian texts, they are usually bodyguards protecting the inner part of the palace and not field troops.

Tutankhamen bows were probably the personal possessions of the Pharaoh and likely build to his needs at the various times in his life he used them. He was not a very robust individual and probably could not draw a very heavy bow. It is unlikely he ever intended to lead his troops into battle.

I agree with Jack that a wide range of bow weights would have been used and they would have been suited to the individual. In the Strategikon of the Emperor Maurice, he writes that the strongest archers should be up the front and the beginners should be down the back with weak bows. Stephen pointed out to me that this seems counterproductive, but I suppose they were learning on the job and only shot arrows at high elevations of the heads of the troops in front of them.

Adam is right too, the English archers were not a militia, but were professional soldiers and the records of their pay still survive. Later Persian and Indian texts show an acute awareness of the positioning of expert archers in the battle line. The Ottomans were renown in Europe for the professionalism of their troops.

I have to check an account I have, but I remember the report of exceptionally strong bows being used in target completions by Manchu bannermen. The Kangxi emperor's letters about hunting also indicate the use of very strong bows.

However, everyone from the Emperor Maurice down recommends using a bow that you control, not one that is so strong to it controls you.

No reason for apologies at all, we are just friends having a discussion. Adam, thankyou for letting me make my point about sampling.

I only mentioned the Dhanurveda as a source describing built up bows which might be considered composite for the discussion. I did mean women archers in battle, possibly Hindus.

Tut was not a robust guy but all pharoes were groomed for battle, this can be demonstrated redundantly. Whether they led, followed or read about it later is all open to debate. The decoration on his bow might be a good reason to exclude them from any analysis. But as McLeod points out, even his puniest bow falls within the paramaters of bows used in Africa for hunting.

I also believe that it can be shown that initiates were taken by English into battle.

My point now is another possible source for statistical error. Namely, the exact construction technique of a composite bow, which can probably be only approximated at this late date.

While making angular composites(will show soon) I was completely surprised that a very thin slice of Ibex horn could easily be rolled into a complex knot. Honestly, I have only cut up one waterbuffalo horn and its texture was plastic, even thin slices were springy and rigid. Ibex-goat horn- had the same feel as longhorn cattle horn. My thinking is that it does not have nearly the compression resistance of waterbuffalo.

Indeed Adam, my bow lacked the draw weight guessed at, maybe because of design reasons, or general lack of reflex, but maybe it is because of the difference in compressive strength of Ibex as compared to WB.

You demonstrated to me convincingly that maple is superior to Ash, wild ungulate sinews are preferrable to domestic. Therefore consideration must be made to horn species. Horn is not horn. And if I am not mistaken, WB is not the preferred species for Turk bows.

This is just an observation; when the tests come it I want credit for mentioning it first. Ha. -j-

Water buff was the preferred species, the second was longhorn cattle from a certain area in Turkey. I am surprised you found cattle horn to be so flexible, this was not my experience.

You make a good point about the ibex, this should be taken into account for other replicas. On the other hand, if horn is thin, it should not matter that much. This kind of changes can be calculated in to make sure the replicas are not too far off.

Adam

Hi guys, long time no see.

About the draw weight of the example bows you had the pleasure to examine, will the age of the bow had anything to do with such heavy draw weight?

I mean as the glue and wood age, would they have become harder, less elastic and more brittle,which contributes to the immense draw weight? 120 lbs is alot of weight. Its like trying to pull a woman up using one hand. How many shots can a good archer possibly do?

Its frightening to think about power it generates....

Just some thoughts.

cheers

Old bows were measured, then the dimensions compared with new replicas of known draw weight.

Adam

From what I have heard of compression test of horn, there is not a lot of variability in compressive strength. They are all made of keratin. However, this is not the same as flexibility. Even Payne-Gallwey was impressed with the flexibility of the buffalo horn when removed from the bow it was part of (

The component parts of a Turkish bow, consisting of a thin strip of horn, one of wood and another of sinew (fig. 3, p. 6), are so pliable when separated that they can almost be coiled round the fingers, though if the same pieces are glued together they form a bow of of unrivalled strength and elasticity.

Page 15. A Treatise on Turkish and other Oriental Bows of Mediaeval and Later Times).

The change of structure of the Egyptian army during the new Kingdom meant that in the start of the period the Pharaohs took a major role in military operations. However, Tutankhamen's father Akhenaton was noticeably uninterested in military pursuits. The one reproduction angular bow that I have shot, based on one of the Tutankhamen bows, looked thin and weak, but shot extremely well. It could project a long heavy arrow as well as any bow of the same weight. I think that these bows are underestimated when you just look at pictures. At short draws they are under-stressed, but they really perform at the draws Egyptian arrows suggest. For a detailed view of how the New Kingdom army worked, I can recommend War in Ancient Egypt by Anthony J. Spengler, Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

I understand the flexibility in this context means stiffness (modulus). I have doubts about Payne-Gallwey's tests - I suspect he separated the materials in water, possibly hot water (this is why he had those rubbery fragments for sinew). Moisture-laden horn is indeed very bendy. It also applies to green horn as I have determined when using goat horn, fresh from the animal, which later stiffened considerably. Perhaps your bow, Jack, will gain a bit of weight as it dries, after all.

I could not resist checking this business with horn and made some calculations. If the modulus of horn is halfed in a flight bow, to make the horn much more flexible (not likely, even for ibex), the draw weight drops only by a few percent. It is because the horn is only a part of the total thickness of limbs. So, I doubt if it really matters which horn is used for the composites, unless the horn is very thick, although it would be better to test.

Adam

The weakness of Payne-Gallwey is not just what state the horn was in when he was describing it, but also the fact we have no idea of what thickness it was to begin with. Adam has suggested before that Payne-Gallwey may have used hot water to disassemble a bow. This would make the flexibility of the horn greater.

One of my friends did some compression testing on cylindrical horn sample pieces. He could not get a large range of types of horn and I don't think that he did bending tests. It is a worthwhile idea to run a series of tests on the main types of horn for bow making. Aside from different species, it would be useful to compare different parts of the horn, horn from animals of different ages and also horn that had been treated differently such as boiling, heating etc.

Edward McEwen made angular composite bows up to 80-90 pounds at 28 inches. He said they performed extremely well at longer draw lengths.

It would be interesting if Jack tested the performance of his bow at six monthly intervals. If Adam is right, there might be a measurable improvement in performance.

I haven't seen any publications another area that might be interesting is in the microscopic cross sections of various horns to see if they differ in structure.

Very interesting discussion Gents. When the weather warms up a bit I will post on my latest bow. It was shot alot last fall, is now approaching one year since its last sinewing.

What would one think of as green horn? Mine was from a mature animal which died of natural causes several years before being cut. -j-

Horn dries slowly, I think green would mean about 6 months. Your horn is fully dried after several years.

Adam

As you all know, the debate over the original English warbow pulls has been going on at least since the 1920's, with the common argument against the high poundage claims being mostly the very low number of modern archers capable of shooting even a 80# bow accurately. Therefore, the low pull theorists say, the drawing abilities of the Medieval archers on average cannot have been very high, even though there had been exceptional archers like Simon Stanley today capable of the famous 120 to 170# pulls.

Nowadays, however, there's a "second generation" of modern English warbow shooters emerging. Their experiences may shed light on the potential ancient composite bow pulls, too. More and more (mostly English) archers are drawing and shooting longbows in the 100 - 130# range, and most of them are self-admittedly not exceptional in physique. What's astounding to me, is the fact that many of them haven't been shooting any bow for more than a few years, and initially struggled with 50# weapons like any average male. Yet, with a couple of years of dedicated warbow practise, quite different from the modern target style, these 160-pound guys are pulling weights close to their own mass.

Just thinking of the days when bows were the long range weapon, with an actual need for extremely strong archers, the peer pressure in the ranks of those young men with the sole goal of pulling at least the same as the next guy, and I feel certain the 120# average pulls emerging from the bow data on both Europe and Asia are very realistic no matter how far from common archery practise today.

Tuukka,
You have a valid point. If you look back in archery literature, you see a gradual change in the nineteenth century from believing that people used to have very strong bows to a belief that what contemporary archers were shooting was probably what ancient archers used.

I think that was a first step in the rational analysis of historical archery. You must start from evidence. Up until the Mary Rose bows and skeletons were excavated, there was not any unequivocal evidence for the use of very heavy bows. Composite bows were not a good example because there were so many ways of altering their draw weights that earlier authors were uncertain.

More historical literature is now available and it is better understood because of a developing understanding of the context. For instance, Manchu documents in China refer to one occasion where an archer competed in a target competition for heavy bows with the equivalent of a 200 pound bow. Adam Karpowicz has demonstrated Turkish bows perform well at higher poundages by building detailed replicas and testing them in an objective manner with a shooting machine which eliminates the archer as a variable. There have always been difficulties in cultures that have a long tradition of archery literature because weights and measures changed over time and in other places. It was hard to identify which ratl (Middle Eastern weight) or tan (Chinese weight) was meant in a given document.

All this doesn't mean we should all be shooting 120 pound bows or that our ancestors did. There would have been a spread of archers in armies between the strong shooters, the accurate shooters and those who just made up the numbers. A strong, accurate shooter would be an asset to any army.

I think an important point to consider here is the exact type of shooting required for military archery - and how it would influence bow weights used. Speaking from my own experience of English war-bow 'replica' shooting, I find that my English 'war-bow' of just over 100 pounds was OK for 'roving marks' style shooting - generally at longer ranges. However, I do not find it easy to use much more than about 60 pounds for closer range target type shooting and field archery (in composite bow or longbow), unless I can find alot of time for practice. I find the heavier bow too clumsy and difficult for this kind of shooting. Military archers would be required mainly to excel in long-range shooting - so heavier bows would be preferable. A great deal of individual accuracy was not generally required as archers would mainly be shooting into the mass of the enemy. It is also intresting to note that when target shooting with the longbow ('prick shooting') became more popular in the 16th century, it was not approved of by supporters of military archery. It was considered that it encouraged men to use lighter bows. The truth is that the pursuit of fine accuracy does favour more moderate bow weights and that too much draw weight is counter-productive. There has been a general downward slide in bow weights in target archery for a long time now - that is still continuing.

While I completely agree with Tuukka, I do not believe target archery (as Nick is saying) has to be done with light weight bows. the key factor is practice and the drawn weights are relative to the archers' strength. If an archer draws 100lb, his target bow may indeed be best at 60lb, but for a 150lb archer, this wll raise to 100lb. In any case, it is an open question if the ancients actually used lighter bows for target practice at all - perhaps they had only one "heavy" bow to use, given the expense in manufacture.

I believe it was a well known American archer (I forget the name) who stated that any healthy male should be capable to work up to a 100lb. I was too a 50lb archer for several years, then began using an exerciser to practice off-season. The progress is very fast at first, then it slows down somewhat. I can now draw over a 100lb, but my heaviest target bow is 85lb. I have no doubt at all I can still go up, if I wanted, although more practice is necessary. A 50lb bow feels like a pleasant toy, allows me to hold at full draw forever, and I understand why this tendency to go down with the weight.

Instead of endless discussions as to what were the draw weigths, how about actually making an effort to try? I guarantee after 6 months of exercise the draw weight will go up by 20lb, and after another year up by 40lb. Obviously, the ancients had plenty of time to practice and the tougher individuals would join the army.

Adam

In which way is it best to weight train for archery? Do I have to splash out on some equipment or can I just practise pulling a heavyier bow than I usually shoot.

I ask because I am relatively skinny but I can pull a much heavyier bow than Lads who beat me in other strength sports,

Mike

Start draw with "hands up" ie arrow pointing upwards, like the mongols or koreans for example. Keep your arms up (arrow in eye level) and in a straight line (no ellbow drop) when drawing.
Tilt the bow hand. Pressure of bow grip against thumb muscles, not against the whole palm.
This technique seems to train potent muscles that we dont use in everyday life.
My very time saving practice was to draw a heavy bow 6-10 times a day and hold it for some seconds. this took me from 35lbs (struggeling) to 80lbs (easily) within 3-4 months.

;-) Uli

Kani describes the Turkish flight archers training with a light bow, drawing and shooting into a close target called a sack (torba). The target was on a stand, the arrows were unfletched and the archer stood close to the target.

Periodically the archer would change to a heavier bow. The idea was that you could train your muscles to work in the right way and build their strength up gradually. This is an old technique in the Middle East, China and Japan. There was also a form of weight training with a hand piece, a weight and a cord.

The problem some people felt was that, in drawing and letting down the bow, you were building up muscles you didn't need in shooting. You also developed a pattern of behaviour that could lead to creep and other effects on your shooting. However, in combination with shooting practice, weight training using a bow can help.