Questions Concerning the Designs of Bows...

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:21 am

First question: What makes the Crimean Tatar so unique from the Turkish/Ottoman bow? Weren't they from the same Empire?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:51 pm

The Crimean Tatars were more of a client state rather than a fully administered part of the empire. In general empires were more heterogeneous than nation states.

The Ottoman Empire was not as intent on enforcing uniformity as some others since it contained many nationalities and religious and cultural groups. The Crimean Tatars provided valuable cavalry and were in a position to cause problems for Polish and Russian states who where a major threat to the northern borders of their empire.

The Crimean Tatars also represented a vigorous and independent archery tradition so it would be unlikely that they would conform to an Ottoman standard. At the same time, the Ottomans were replacing archery with firearms. There were recruiting horse archers because they were not able to supply enough of their own.

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:18 pm

But mechanically is it superior in any way or is the Turkish more efficient period?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:26 am

People who use them tell me that for most shooting circumstances they are more comfortable to use which brings greater accuracy. They are a war bow rather than a flight bow and that is what they should be compared to. Turkish war bows were very efficient but their shorter draw limited the size and weight of their arrows. Tatar bows could shoot a heavy arrows as effectively as a Turkish bow up to medium range which where most horse archery was done. The smoother draw would have ensured archer comfort and probably greater accuracy as I mentioned before.

I would imagine that the Turkish bows had a greater extreme range, but after the invention of effective firearms, that job would be taken over by guns and the medium to short range would be the most used for bows.

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:46 am

Yes I am buying a Crimean Hybrid Bow from Lukas Novotny and they are AMAZING to shoot. Since I have a longer drawlength as you mentioned, it is much more comfortable to shoot the Crimean bow as opposed to a Turkish/Ottoman bow.

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:47 am

Here is another question conceerning Persian bows:
The Iranian Persian bows were made of water buffalo horn strips correct? As opposed to a whole piece like the Turks used right?
If so, did that make the Persian Bow's durability any less or better?

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:05 am

Persian bows were made of strips of horn starting at four pieces, two on each limb, and going up in numbers depending on the width of the limbs. They had wider and thinner bending sections than Turkish bows and the whole of the limb was encased in sinew.

This style of construction is stable and, though it takes longer initially, it seems just as robust as the Turkish style. Adam commented in his book that you might expect less string follow with the thinner limbs. I know of reproduction Persian bows that were still shootable after forty years.

WarBow · Post by **WarBow** » Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:25 am

What draw weight did you order?

mongolianarcher wrote:Yes I am buying a Crimean Hybrid Bow from Lukas Novotny and they are AMAZING to shoot. Since I have a longer drawlength as you mentioned, it is much more comfortable to shoot the Crimean bow as opposed to a Turkish/Ottoman bow.

WarBow · Post by **WarBow** » Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:30 am

Heavier and longer arrows also maintain more momentum than a shorter and lighter Ottoman Turkish arrow.

Bede wrote:People who use them tell me that for most shooting circumstances they are more comfortable to use which brings greater accuracy. They are a war bow rather than a flight bow and that is what they should be compared to. Turkish war bows were very efficient but their shorter draw limited the size and weight of their arrows. Tatar bows could shoot a heavy arrows as effectively as a Turkish bow up to medium range which where most horse archery was done. The smoother draw would have ensured archer comfort and probably greater accuracy as I mentioned before.

I would imagine that the Turkish bows had a greater extreme range, but after the invention of effective firearms, that job would be taken over by guns and the medium to short range would be the most used for bows.

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:58 am

I ordered 45# because I don't want a heavy-weight bow for horseback.

mongolianarcher · Post by **mongolianarcher** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:59 am

Hmm so Persians were masterpieces of art as it seems. It also seems Persians get less credit than the Turkish Bows allow it..

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:15 am

Partly this is due to the lack of material in western languages. This deficiency will be remedied over the next few years as more Persian archery manuscripts are being translated. It is clear from the number of Persian words used in Arabic and Turkish archery literature that Persian archery had a profound effect on other archery cultures. This is backed up by frequent references to famous Persian masters in the Arabic and Turkish literature.

Personally, from the translations I am editing, I can say there are some very thoughtful old works on archery from the Iranian cultural orbit. They have direct relevance to the understanding of the better known Arabic and Turkish works.