Feed-back on batmunkh bows

[mongolianarcher]

Does anyone know where I could get one of the higher quality, slimmer mongolian bows? Because all the ones I found on the internet are clunky.

[Stephen Selby]

There can be different ideas of what constitutes a 'Mongolian' bow: either Empire period of modern period. If you have a design you want followed, you can ask Csaba Grozer to build you a hornbow.

[Dusan]

Or sombody here in Atarnet - who know how build bow like this . Grozer laminat bows was good but sorry Stephen , his "hornbows" was worse than all novices bows what i see here.

[Claeys Christophe]

Or sombody here in Atarnet - who know how build bow like this . Grozer laminat bows was good but sorry Stephen , his "hornbows" was worse than all novices bows what i see here.

Hi Dusan,

This is a strong statement.

How can you technically assess that Grozer hornbows are worst that the novices bows that you see on Atarn ?

When looking at a pic of a finished bow, I can see indeed if a bow looks nice, if its shape is roughly similar to its ethnic family, if its finishing is pretty... but that's all.
To assess a bow, I personaly need to shoot it !

And so far, Grozer bow I have been shooting shot straight and fast enough for my needs and taste.

I'm sure that there exist better hornbows, and I'm sure there exist also many worst - or just broken ones.

[Dusan]

Well , in global you are right. Bow must be shot.
First at all - i trust Grozer like very succesfull bow biznisman. When i start 10 years ago interesting about composites i buy some of his bows. To this day i have 6 bows from Grozer production and some people around me have another 20- 30 bows include "biokomposites" and "hornbows". Than i can say - i have personal experience vith his bows.

Two mi friends - one of its was multiple national champion in traditional archery shooting fromCzech rep. -Misa . Last year visit Grozer ranch and shooting from his "hornbows". I talked vith friends . Second- Gator personaly owned Hun hornbow from Grozer.

1.This bows was slow, heavy(mass) bad shooters... thats personal experiences - from trustworthy archers.

2. I can say only from pics mi personal opinion. When you detail look at "hornbows" and his laminated or "based" (polyester ) bows , you must see construction similarity- same shape , same curvature in bending section same wide and thick-haevy material in ka
san eye- where kasan or siah glued in arm
- same mistakes in construction. Its lokks like Grozer only change materials /epoxy ,polyester lamelas was changed vith horn plate and some sinew...) and pressed all in same form. This is no serious komposites technik. This is mass production vithout understant base principals komposite construction !
If you "only" glued horn in wood plate and than some sinew in belly - this is not komposite bow- this is somthing what looks like... - from distance.
If you more read in Atarn , you maybe more understand that tru, good composite bow was very delicate , comlicated thing , where you must go to the extrem borders of materials posibility. And all materials must be in extrem ,minimum waight mass and more and more...
Not only glued 3 natural components . This can do it everybody... Like todays mongols- for example. Or like some Atarns too...
Maybe i help you understand what i mean . Your sentens : "its shape is roughly similar to its ethnic family" i understand like joke .

[Stephen Selby]

I have won three international gold medals in horseback archery using Grozer's horn bow (Hungarian style). Agreed that the construction is heavier than some, but it is exceptionally stable in all weathers and temperatures. I have an equivalent horn bow from Lucas Novotny, which is very fast and light; but it lacks the stability I need for a competition bow.

[Dusan]

Congratulation Stephen, you are talented archer You certainly know old tru, that if sombody long trained vith comon broken brunch he can be a super archer ... Especialy in today modern horsbackarchery- where sportsmans shoot in 5-15 m distance vith 25 lb bows...
You ,like man who was start this fantastic site was in complicated situation .like historician and archeolog you try know max about best performance old composite bows and i beliew, , you know how delicate and unstabil can be the best from this bows.
In another point - like modern sportsman you dont need quality horn composite bow. More of this - he was bad for you- because in this modern sport was better for you light waight - somthing like- composite bow- stabil - like you say. Or ,in another words- no composite.

Because all composite bows advantage was gon : Heavy weight (more than 80) , long distance shooting, deep penetration, long time string bow vith still ucefull shooting ...
Now is question which person win on you ?

[mongolianarcher]

Sadly Dusan is right,
Horse archery today doesnt really need horn bows because horn bows offered more power advantages, while nowadays we arent shooting at targets hundreds of yards away on horseback. The need for tradition is gone.

[Peter Dekker]

I think that sur shooting has had a continuous uninterrupted history. It is unlikely to be a Manchu contest since many of them are illustrated. Peter Dekker might know if there was a similar Manchu contest.

I think that the sur shooting was indeed a Mongolian practise, and not a Manchu practice. There are numerous references to various Manchu archery games and practices but none describes anything like sur shooting.

There is a Manchu arrow referred to as Mongo yoro in the Manchu language, meaning "Mongolian arrow". It reminds of the arrows used in today's sur shooting but with a bigger and heavier tip. It was described as being used to shoot animals on rocky terrain, killing by blunt force trauma rather than penetration. Other advantages are that these arrows are more durable, and keep the skin of the animal intact so it could be used or sold.

The Mongolians were known to eat small vermin that they shot on the steppe. I think sur shooting may have derived off this form of hunting as it follows roughly the same principle. Even if the arrow bounced, small animals could still be killed or immobilized by them.

On Mongolian bows, indeed they follow a Chinese model and it is suggested that the Qing prohibited the use of bows and arrows by the Mongolians. I personally think many Mongolian tribes put down bow and arrow on their own initiatie, because:

1. When looking at Qing records of captured equipment in fights with Mongolian tribes it amazes me than none of the equipment found in their camps in the 18th century contained bows and arrows. It appears that most Mongolian forces at the time already moved on to firearms that they obtained over the silk road. It seems to me that after the incorporation into the Qing armies, Mongolians once again started picking up bows for warfare.

2. The Qing could only prohibit the use of bows in the areas they controlled. and even then Qing control over Mongolian tribes was not very strict, and often left to local native landlords. On the whole, not much changed for Mongolians on the lowest levels, they were for the most part allowed to remain the same. Those areas that still rebelled against the Qing, and were outside of Qing control attacked with muskets, sabers and lances.

3. Another group of Mongolians was incorporated in the Qing eight banner army where they had eight separate banners for Mongolians. They used native Dzungar spears along with Qing bows and muskets. The native spear tells me they could keep using the equipment they were good with. Then why the Qing bow?

The most logical explanation for the above is that they abandoned the bow themselves (at least for military use) before being re-introduced to it by Chinese.

-Peter

[Bede]

Peter may be right about the military use of bows. My own studies of Qing art representing the fighting against the Western Mongol tribes such as the Oirat have found no illustrations of the Mongols using bows in battle.

This does not mean that they did not use bows, but that the overall impression they made on the Qing was of musketeers. Also one must remember the Manchu obsession with their own archery prowess. It is possible that they did not bother illustrating details that did not agree with the majority impression. However, I would have thought that if archery was still prominent among the Western Mongols, the Manchus would have been happy to show them being beaten by the Manchu horse archers.

There could have been another issue since the Eastern Mongols allied and submitted to the Manchus much earlier. They may still have military archery at the time.

[Peter Dekker]

Digging through some more sources I did find some references to bows still in use. A Kangxi era emissary to the Turguts reveals that there was a friendly match between Qing archers and Torgut archers. Also notable is that the emissary was solely armed with bow and arrow, they talked about other weapons with the torgut khan but admitted they did not bring any of that kind. This was around 1712. The Torguts were very interested in the Qing bows, and also inquired about the emperor's proficiency in archery. (With the current emperor being Kangxi, that was rather good.)

Another hint is an Oirat arrow described in the 1752 Huangchao Liqi Tushi. It may have been adopted by the Manchus after their encounters with Oirats in the Western frontier. These battles also spawned Qing interest in chain mail which they brought back as trophy.

But, interestingly, the Oirat arrow is not classified as a military arrow.

-Peter