Strength and Penetration of Scythian Bows

[MJuingong]

Thank you. Perhaps I missed it, but I see no passage relating to "short drawing". Did I miss something?

[Stephen Selby]

As far as Li Chengfen is concerned, it is the comment:

In my travels and among my sharp-shooting friends, I have some who can fully draw a bow of ten ?li? (54.6 Kg). But in their day-to-day practice, they never draw more than nine. This illustrates the desire to co-ordinate bow, arrow and strength.

But there is more on the subject in other authors. I'll try to draw them together here.

[Nick]

As far as I can see, this argument will continue to and fro – between those who insist that the bows of old were all prodigiously strong, and those who say they weren’t so strong after all. The only way to prove it will be through empirical tests based on replicas made to exact dimensions and as near as possible identical materials - as has been done with English bows.

I think there are a number of elements to this argument. There are some people who are drawn to the ‘they don’t make ‘em like they used to’ kind of opinion – to regard people of today as too physically degenerate. While it is true in this day and age there are probably examples of the most appalling physical unfitness ever seen – I think a strong person now is pretty much like a strong person 500 or 1000 years ago. Also it is fairly obvious that a full-time professional archer will be more adept at all elements of archery than someone who just does it as a recreation.

I feel bows would have varied a lot in strength depending on their intended purpose in the past i.e infantry, artillery, cavalry, hunting bows, and also bows intended as sidearms so to speak – for use by a person for whom the bow was not their primary weapon.

Maybe a point to ponder would be: if people in the past are meant to be have been so much tougher and stronger than now, why are not other tools and implements proportionately heavier and larger? You could get more work done faster – using your strength, with heavier axes, picks, shovels and sledgehammers etc. If anything tools from the past tend to be look smaller and lighter than those today (probably more efficient!).

[Adam Karpowicz]

Thanks Stephen. The principles of spine matching are well summarized here.

Obviously heavy bows were used in combat. The shorter arrows for such bows would have the required higher spine weight.

Could you plese give the date for this? And how long is 9li?

Adam

[Fox]

Folks,

I share what have been said. Since Nov 2003, I shot regularly (weekly) and worked from 30lb to now 50lb bows. My right thumb skin is still on its way to be thickened to take 50lb. My left thumb can only take 35lb. Though I use thumb ring, I find the skin thinckening is essential to be a good archer?! Anyway to build up thumb for drawing heaving bow?

Fox

[MJuingong]

Mr. Selby:

Thank You. But I must admit that my reading of theLi comment referred to weight of pull, not length of pull.

Vty,
MJuingong

[redhawk]

hi you all,

I think we are talking of drawweights of every kind of ancient bows.

First of all:100lbs is not 100lbs.The law of the lever tells another story.100lbs is 100lbs if you don?t move this weight.But if this weight is moving or is moved it starts to be a different thing.
Every archer will affirm that a 100lbs longbow with a 28" draw is weaker than a shorter bow with the same drawweight at a 24" draw.
Every bowyer will make a heavier string for the shorter bow as for a longer bow with the same drawweight.
The same drawweight produces more energy within the shorter bowlimbs.

Anyway I?ve studied all your contributions seriously and learned a lot and there is still much more to learn and to do.

I still believe that the bow for the common daily use in a nomadic life of a horse archer has had a drawweight from 45-70lbs.It?s enough to crash a shield with some arrows shot by an experienced archer.
All the old bows in museums,in private collections(Grayson,Pope) almost never have a drawweight more than 70lbs.The Turkish bows are really an outstanding work of art and craftmanship,but not at all the average bow.

7 years ago I had the opportunity to have a look at 2 replicas of Turkish flight bows done by the well reputated Helmut Mebbert,cause the stupid son of the actual owner of these bows has tried to draw the bows backwards and the hornstrips had partially separated from the wooden cores.It was not so difficult to repair them,and I was allowed to shoot these bows:57lbs at 28",49lbs at 28".The first bow shots a flightarrow 316m,the second one shots the same arrow 285m.Thats really enough.

If we look at the education of nomadic children in the past,we see a lots of archery-games with the focus on mobility and firepower,thats what Diana has posted.

The best archer in our archery-community here in my hometown is shooting with the worst bow(longbow,ash,28",45lbs) and he even doesn?t spine his witchhazel-arrows! But he is shooting every day for at least 1-2hours.He even shoot out every kind of modern bows.That the result if you practice a lifelong.You don?t need a heavy bow to hit your marks.

I would say kill is kill.And a being stroke by a deadly arrow will not discuss the drawweigth of the bow that shots the arrow,it will admire the skill of the archer?

[Stephen Selby]

Li Chengfen (Ming) commenting on Qi Jiguang (Ming):

General Qi [Ji-guang] said, ?When you fire in the face of the enemy, as long as you keep up your courage, keep the level of your strength stable, keep your potential energy high and restrain it on a short leash, then no-one will be able to get away from you. In the face of the enemy, you are forced to draw, of course. But do not pull the bow to the full extent of your strength; and make sure every shot counts. Only with your arms straight and even can you take a firm stance: this will enhance your potential energy. Then you need to wait until the enemy is within about ten paces. Fix it so that you are sure of hitting with a single shot, then you are sure to make a kill. Even if you are afraid the enemy is almost upon you, even if you fear the points of the first blades upon you, [wait for that moment] and then shoot to kill and your skill will be rewarded ten-fold.

Although the bow and arrow are long-range weapons, long-range weapons can be put to short-range use. If your strength gives you a range of a hundred paces, you can shoot at fifty paces; if you can only manage fifty paces, you should shoot at twenty five. The length of your range can be regarded as your ?potential energy?; the use at short range can be regarded as ?restraining it on a short leash.? (?Strength with a range of a hundred paces? means an effective shooting range of a hundred paces.) If you adjust your shooting so that you shoot with just half of the strength available to you, that leaves you with power to spare and you will not be plagued by errors and losses.

So when you are involved with the enemy in cavalry warfare, shoot the largest target on the field: don?t feel that you always have to shoot at people. The famous poem goes:

[?When you pull a bow, then pull a bow that?s strong,
And when you fire an arrow, fire the one that?s long!]
Before you shoot the rider shoot the horse,
First take the leader, ere you take the rebel throng!?

[jack farrell]

I do not mean to monopolize but in ARAB ARCHERY, a Moroccan text from the 1520s, the author seems to be in complete agreement with Li Chengfeng.

Some draw weights mentioned for the Khurasanian #22,45 and 52. For the Persians; 52,60, and 112. Other archers; #52,60, 67,75, 112 and 150! Competition bows; #75.

He claims that archery instructors the "world over" state the practical range of a bow shot is 45 bow lengths, with a maximum range of 100 bow lengths. (pp 172-174)

This would appear to verify everyone's theories. There were archers of all ability levels in antiquity. If one went to battle, one might like to take along anyone who could shoot well. -j-

[Adam Karpowicz]

Redhawk, you misunderstood the point: we are talking about the weight of bows at every draw length, be it 28 or 24". And Mebert is not an example to follow, I have heard his bows were rather poor. He was no closer to the 10th c. archers than you or I. We all like to make bows we can use too. There is no fun in making a bow good only for the wall.

Indeed, all archery texts warn against overbowing. And target or practice bows were always made particularly weak. What we want to know is the *average* weight of a war bow, an want to define the average, not the range of all possible bow weights (as in Jack's post). If a bow feels like a toy to you, even if it is nice to shoot with, you will not take to battle.

There is no doubt on my mind the 50lb bows were such toys for the ancients. A life spent on physical exercise has its consequences. How can you possibly compare that with the recreational archery of today?

For credible penetration reseach one must be realistic about the *average* bow weight, or be more specific about what is tested. And above all let us not forget this is a hobby and we are supposed to have fun.

Take it easy

Adam

[jack farrell]

Adam; I think we are all having fun. But to answer the question of what ancient war bows were like we need some kind of proof. As my friend, archeologist Lee Patterson says, "don't give me your theory without offering some proof. That is just an opinion."

An average bow would be to take all the known specimines added together and divided by the number. Would that be useful? Or the median would be the most mentioned number. Again, maybe not so good?

What we have also not asked ourselves is the draw weight of professional archers of today, FITA archers shoot alot of arrows. Maybe add 10-20%for war bows because it is so stated in old texts. Surely it would be difficult to believe that the human physique has degenerated over the last millinum. We skew the scientific value of a conclusion by assuming the ancients were better than us. What they had was a continuity of fantastic bow making. -j-

[Adam Karpowicz]

Well Jack, have a look at the dimensions of old Turkish and Tatar bows. And consider the draw weight of the English longbows as found with the Mary Rose. And the draw weight of some of the Chinese war bows.

Now, we need a proof that archers in other countries were weaker.

Adam

[Jaroslav]

FITA is artificial thing. The technique they use is just about good for light sporting bow. They just hold too long, they draw with rigid bowhand, using only relatively small muscle group on shoulder.
Heavy bow technique is aplicabe for any kind of bow - it uses large muscles of breast and back to get the bow drawn. It utilises different principes to achieve degree of accuracy - heavy bow archer loses his arrow when his frame achieves full limit and the most important factors are probably dynamics and good rhytm. Rhytm being perhaps most important factor.

Just somebody make some replicas and get the arrows shot! Nothing else will end this discussion.

I ordered some horn from Peter Cua and I have to send him money finaly to get 2 pairs! Then I gonna make one heavy beast.

This short and rather scrappy quality clip of me shooting 100# bow which I shot to study what I actually do.
Its a longbow, but the drawing part is probably universal to any heavy weapon. The arrows are 32 1/2??, I m getting the thing to 30?? as I m just a small lad.

Its 10 Mb if you are interested in downloading it:

File is on this link:
?HPIM0522.AVI

?http://mail.volny.cz/fs/275f2948aed42f5 ... 7363d03d1f

Password: taarzu369

Jaroslav

[Adam Karpowicz]

"Just somebody make some replicas and get the arrows shot! Nothing else will end this discussion. "

Right. I have come close however. I have just finished modelling the Subeixi bow as described by Stephan and Bede on ATARN. The software was provided by Dave B. (you know who Bede) and allows to input dimensions, shape, material properties and string tension. I have used it before with good success for self and sinewed bows, composites and fibergalss laminates. Since it does not allow for some details and triangular limb cross-sections, I reduced the thickness accordingly, also reduced the cross-section to account for the silk wrapping.

To err on the conservative side, I modelled the sinew and horn to be almost 1cm thick, not likely the case in any bow. This greater thickness of horn and sinew, with only a thin lath of wood in between, reduces the stiffness of the bow (sinew and horn are about 5x less stiff than wood) and threfore the draw weight. I used the draw length of 31" (about 80cm) as it would be for the eastern Scythian bows. The stresses in the bow are not too much even at this draw length. Also, I used low string tension at brace (something rather for a 40lb bow) to make sure the results are not exaggerated in any way.

I got in excess of 100lb for this bow with about 2" total string follow in the unbraced position. With no string tension (the bow is in effect as if at brace when unstrung), not likely to be the case, the bow was about 85lb.

With no horn, only sinew and wood, the bow would be more than 150lb weight.

Anyway, I knew (as I said before) the bow had to be more than 80lb. Now it seems it is more like 100+lb. Woudn't the western Scythians be as strong as the eastern?

Of course if the Subeixi bows are grave goods, we are back to where we started.

Adam

[Stephen Selby]

Adam, does the computer model produce any graphic output to show what it might look like as it is pulled back?