Storm wrote:What I don't like is the following statement: "many experienced horseback archers shoot bows around 35# because, after years of experience, they have formed the opinion that these are most efficient for the job."
Whether you like it or not, that is the case. I just can't understand it how on the one hand you have never tried horseback archery and yet still think pure theory is enough to assess the challenges of the sport, without having gathered the personal experience which might just give you better insight than a thousand books will do. If you just tried it you might begin to understand why these people say this, yu might feel for yourself the big difference. But you don't want to try, and so you won't understand. That is no basis for a productive discussion, that's just dogmatism. And that's why I give up discussing that with you.
Historically, horseback archers from different cultures and periods converge on a draw weight range of 90 to 120 lbs.
I ask again - where are the archaeological hard facts for that? A bowyer friend (Snake-Jo, perhaps he is on this forum too) of mine is one of the few people to have handled several archaeological bow remains, ones which can possibly be attributed to horse archers. These were around 50#, the strongest being 80#, which someone who had been practicing that kind of thing from horseback since childhood, and for many hours daily, may have been able to handle. It may also have been a training bow to use daily on foot, a few of my colleagues do that nowadays too. That's just it - even if you have bow remains, you don't know if they were really in everyday or warfare use, or rather "show" or training weapons.
Somebody complained on the other post that they are annoyed at people
"stating as fact (such as Kassai, on a documentary I've seen) that the absolute maximum old time military horse archers would use is 40 lb". On the other hand, several people here (some of them with no horseback archery) are happy to blithely quote much higher draw weights as "fact" with not much to back that up either. I have the feeling people pick out what they want to believe from the historical sources, things which historians would be very careful to take at face value.
The archaeological record will never suffice to get a complete picture. But Kassai at least has a wealth of experience, and is probably one of the few people who spends as much time in the archer's saddle as those from the steppe cultures. He at least knows from experience what is possible, what is effective, and what is neccesary. I am sure he would have no problems shooting 80# from horseback, if he thought it correct, or if he just wanted to impress... It may well be possible to shoot very high draw weights sideways from horseback (if you have a very well-behaved horse...), but it simply isn't effective, because it compromises far too much. And it is simply not necessary. The whole point of horseback warfare is that you don't have to shoot someone from 200 metres away. You can get closer to the enemy and then get the hell out of there again quickly. And you have to be agile enough with your bow to be able to shoot in all directions. And if you shoot accurately, you can do plenty of damage with a 40# bow.
Just a little exercise for some people here who want to try something new: Find a friend who has a motorbike, sit on the back. Don't put your feet on the footrests. Or if you prefer to emulate those who had proto-stirrups (or horseback archery today), stand up slightly, so you are hovering slightly over the seat. Ask your friend to drive at 60 km/h (sorry, don't know what that is in miles, you'll find it), preferably on a dirt track. And then take that 80# or whatever bow of yours, turn right round and try to do a parthian shot accurately. Full draw please, no cheating. Then turn to the right and try to shoot a target "over the horse's neck" as it were. Keep at it for a while, preferably a few hours. Try again tomorrow. And then think about how it might be if you had to handle a horse at the same time.
