Maximum practical draw weights for horseback archery?

[Hyarmendacil]

What would be the heaviest draw weight that a military archer would be able to comfortably manage to horseback--specifically, what's the upper limit, if any, recommended by surviving manuals from the various Asian cultures? I'm particularly curious about whether the Chinese tendency to use relatively light bows has anything to do with making sure that the archer's technique is as applicable to shooting on horseback as on foot, and whether any other cultures follow the same rule of thumb.

I also have a suspicion--though backed by no scientific data--that the optimum draw weight that an archer can handle on horseback would be lower than that he could handle on foot, at least in military and flight archery and other kinds of archery where a greater draw weight for the bow does confer some sort of advantage. Does this suspicion have any basis in reality, though?

[Bede]

There could be two different reasons for choosing a lower weight on horseback.

• You may need more energy and concentration to keep the horse in control and going in the right direction. This would be easier if you had a bow that was easier to draw.
  On horseback, you might have been shooting at closer range because you could rapidly approach the enemy and then retreat.

I have felt not appreciable difference in drawing a heavy bow on horseback, but no one was shooting at me at the time.

[Stephen Selby]

The manuals generally advise not trying to shoot more than about 30 metres off a horse. That seems fairly sensible. They also advise drawing about 70%-80% of your maximum power (presumably as compared with what you can do on foot.) Finally, they only advise using about 80% of full draw on horseback.

My guess is that this might have seen a well-trained professional horse archer drawing about 70#.

[Orda Khan]

Would that be manuals for horseback archery in warfare or as sport?

[MJuingong]

Why was the bow to be drawn only 80%?

Did others follow that procedure? I don't recall reading any such advice in Saracen Archery, or any summaries of any other works (e.g. Korean) that make such a recommendation.

[Hyarmendacil]

Hmm...I haven't heard about shortening the draw either, but it certainly makes sense to specifically pick a lighter bow for use on horseback. Where do these recommendations come from--that is, what specific manuals? So far I've only read Taybugha's, and Faris and Elmer's translation of the anonymous work on "Arab" archery, so I must confess ignorance about other manuals where I may be able to find more specific prescriptions for horseback archery.

[MJuingong]

oops, forgot to ask:
Does Taybugha recommend a lighter bow on horseback than on foot? I don't recall such a passage at all.l I think I would have noticed it had I come across it; even though i read him about 25 years ago.

By the way-I suspect even a well made composite pulling only 70 pounds would have been very deficient in armor-piercing capability, especially if only drawn to 80% of its draw length. Have there been tests of the efficacy of such a bow?

If I recall correctly, when Mr. Selby first brought our attention to that recommendation of shortening the draw on horseback, he cited a late Ming manual. That is not the time of the most effective Chinese military machine.

[Bede]

The Middle Eastern manuals don't mention shortening the draw on horseback. Taybugha does mention that a war arrow is slightly shorter than a target arrow. However, that might have been related to wearing a helmet.

Stephen's comments might be a reference to drawing to the shoulder and drawing to the ear. That might account for the percentage difference. In the Middle East, drawing to the ear was the normal draw when the manuals were written though there were variations.

In the Ming, the supply of horses was restricted, so it is possible that the manual writers were taking into account the relative inexperience of their cavalry.

[Stephen Selby]

The manuals are for war, not for hunting.

The author, Li Chengfen, felt that an archer on horseback needed some 'excess energy' to spare. He did not explain; but I think one thing is that it would be dangerous to be so fully drawn at full draw (arrowhead onto the finger at the grip) on horseback. Second, in terms of energy conservation, a rider has to expend some energy and attention on his horse. But then, one could say that about a foot archer and his comrades on the battlefield.

Personally, in horseback archery competitions I try to reach full draw the same as on the ground; but then I'm not on a battlefield.

[Peter Dekker]

Interesting topic!

I found a reference in Mark C. Elliott's book "The Manchu Way" that for the annual Imperial hunts, participants needed to be able to shoot a bow of at least 133 pounds from horseback. It needs mention that the people invited to participate were not the average cavalry soldiers the elite of the Manchu bannermen.

The hunt was a type of drive hunt where game was chased in a semi-circle and driven to an open place where it would be shot from horseback. Perhaps not the easiest way to hunt, but it served as a military drill as well as to give men an opportunity to impress the emperor with their skills.

-Peter

[Alex S.]

By the way-I suspect even a well made composite pulling only 70 pounds would have been very deficient in armor-piercing capability, especially if only drawn to 80% of its draw length. Have there been tests of the efficacy of such a bow?

I have never shot off horse back so I wouldn't know much about that, however, I have some experience shooting bows at armour.(not real plate armour but hardened steel with right curvature) With bow in weight around 70, not much can be expected. Usually arrow bounces off or makes small dent. I did not get good penetration until I got to 100 pound draw. Keep in mind though that these were warbows with war arrows not hornbows so results might be of slight difference. I still believe though, they shot bows close to 100 if they wanted to do some damage. (but I guess it depends what armour the enemy wears????)

[Peter Dekker]

Hi Alex,

Interesting to read that you did actual tests. How was the metal held? I've experienced in Chinese saber test cutting that effectiveness of the weapon also depends a lot on how the target is set up. Fixed targets are much easier to damage than those held more flexibly because some of the kinetic energy is absorbed by them.

You mention:

Keep in mind though that these were warbows with war arrows not hornbows so results might be of slight difference.

What exactly did you use?

I still believe though, they shot bows close to 100 if they wanted to do some damage. (but I guess it depends what armour the enemy wears????)

I tend to agree, one finds rather high (and very similar) average draw weights for the military in cultures like the Chinese and the Turks. Most of them around 100 pounds of draw, but some much higher even.

It depends a lot indeed. It appears from tests that lamellar armor was the most effective against arrows due to the flexibility of the different plates. Mail is easily penetrated by arrows with special sleek heads. The effectiveness of plate depends on a lot of factors among which what was worn underneath and the angle.

In many cultures there was a continuous arms race where armorers made increasingly better armors, and arrow-smiths designed arrows to penetrate the latest armors.

What also needs to be taken into account is the forging methods (and therefore hardness) of the arrowheads of the time. Those of Ming and Qing China for example were forge folded steel ones that could be hardened to a higher degree than the iron ones of Europe. The result is that a Chinese arrow of a this period could focus a comparatively large amount of energy on a smaller part. For this reason, Chinese armor piercers have thinner, narrower tips and may look less effective to the Western eye when not taking this into account.

-Peter

[Alex S.]

Hi Alex,

Interesting to read that you did actual tests. How was the metal held? I've experienced in Chinese saber test cutting that effectiveness of the weapon also depends a lot on how the target is set up. Fixed targets are much easier to damage than those held more flexibly because some of the kinetic energy is absorbed by them.

Well, by this you mean held in place? I use burlap bag filled with clothing to make sort of pillow like object, but it has 2x4 going through center to make more rigid. It was soft enough to have some give, but not much. (needed some force) To tell you the truth, it was much harder trying to get and arrow to grab the armour as most would slide off because not enough force! The tips need be very sharp and bow rather strong to accomplish penetration.

What exactly did you use?

Well it is just longbow design, in warbow fashion with no rigid handle, full compass tiller.

What also needs to be taken into account is the forging methods (and therefore hardness) of the arrowheads of the time. Those of Ming and Qing China for example were forge folded steel ones that could be hardened to a higher degree than the iron ones of Europe. The result is that a Chinese arrow of a this period could focus a comparatively large amount of energy on a smaller part. For this reason, Chinese armor piercers have thinner, narrower tips and may look less effective to the Western eye when not taking this into account.

-Peter

This would make great difference on the armour piercing characteristics. See, I used mild steel for my tips, since iron was not obtainable for me. Even with these, if penetration wasn't achieved a blunting effect would occur at the tip. If a hardened steel tip such as the one you described was used, well....this may sort of be over kill haha Do you have picture of such arrow head? I may try to replicate it and see if I can do another test.

Alex

[Puzio]

Hi Alex, Do you know what speed and arrow weight you had in that test it would be very interesting to know.

[Alex S.]

Ah I'm sorry Puzio, but I'm not sure as I do not have chrono available to me. From what I hear, such bow shoots maybe 170-180 fps? Not 100% sure though as I've never looked into it.