Arrow penetration against hardened armor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZu ... re=related
Arrow penetration against non-hardened armor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpcpBrsQ4w
draw weights on horseback
-
jbl
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:05 pm
- Location: Indiana
WarBow my quote and I should have attributed it is from "Hunting the Hard Way" by Howard Hill. He knew alot more about hunting the animals in NA with a bow then I or most people.
Of course the hogs he shoot were feral pigs not the Russian boars that have been introduced here in NA. Also if you want to see some hogs that have been taken with 45# bows go to the "traditional" hunting sites there are plenty of pictures. Personally I agree with the 60# bow at my draw length for hogs.; I want to cover up for any mistakes I might make with a lighter bow:)
Thanks for links on armor penetration.
Of course the hogs he shoot were feral pigs not the Russian boars that have been introduced here in NA. Also if you want to see some hogs that have been taken with 45# bows go to the "traditional" hunting sites there are plenty of pictures. Personally I agree with the 60# bow at my draw length for hogs.; I want to cover up for any mistakes I might make with a lighter bow:)
Thanks for links on armor penetration.
-
Hyarmendacil
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:12 am
- Location: Indonesia
I'm seriously starting to lean towards the opinion that battlefield horseback archery had at least two noticeably different forms. One, the "lighter" form, involves a great deal of mobility and the ability to sustain the barrage of arrows for a fairly long time. I'm pretty optimistic that a very well-trained archer back then could have managed this with a bow weighing some 60 to 80 pounds, perhaps even 90 pounds, but beyond that it gets a bit dodgy. It's also plausible that some archers might have chosen a somewhat lighter bow (I find weights as low as 45-50 pounds still conceivably, if barely so) for suppressive effect since if you want to scare the enemy into hunkering down behind his shield then it doesn't matter that you're not using your heaviest bow since the poor bastard on the receiving end wouldn't know the difference anyway.
The other form--let's call it the "heavy" form as a shorthand, though we shouldn't interpret this so rigidly along the light/heavy cavalry divide since some types of heavy cavalry (Mamluks? Sassanids?) apparently preferred the "light" form--was executed by a cavalry formation whose mission was simply to charge headlong into the enemy, skirmishing be damned. In this situation the focus is on rapid shooting with the heaviest bow that the archer can manage on horseback in the short period of time between the commencement of the charge and the impact against the enemy formation (which preferably would have started fleeing when you hit them). I see the Manchus as the most prominent exponent of this form since they're the ones for whom we have relatively copious textual evidence for the use of very heavy bows (over 100 pounds) on horseback.
If we have to draw an analogy with modern warfare, I'd say that the comparison between the two different forms is like that between an assault rifle (M16, AKM) and a battle rifle (M14, FAL). The light form, like the assault rifle, is handier and easier to manage in automatic fire, but the heavy form (and the battle rifle) delivers more punch against tougher targets when rapid, sustained fire is not a priority.
The other form--let's call it the "heavy" form as a shorthand, though we shouldn't interpret this so rigidly along the light/heavy cavalry divide since some types of heavy cavalry (Mamluks? Sassanids?) apparently preferred the "light" form--was executed by a cavalry formation whose mission was simply to charge headlong into the enemy, skirmishing be damned. In this situation the focus is on rapid shooting with the heaviest bow that the archer can manage on horseback in the short period of time between the commencement of the charge and the impact against the enemy formation (which preferably would have started fleeing when you hit them). I see the Manchus as the most prominent exponent of this form since they're the ones for whom we have relatively copious textual evidence for the use of very heavy bows (over 100 pounds) on horseback.
If we have to draw an analogy with modern warfare, I'd say that the comparison between the two different forms is like that between an assault rifle (M16, AKM) and a battle rifle (M14, FAL). The light form, like the assault rifle, is handier and easier to manage in automatic fire, but the heavy form (and the battle rifle) delivers more punch against tougher targets when rapid, sustained fire is not a priority.
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I am reading the new translation of the Taktika of Leo VI by Dennis at the moment. This is a ninth century Byzantine manual for generals. While the discussion of archery in it owes a lot to Maurice's Strateikon, there is detail that is interesting.
Archery skills are highly regarded, but it is assumed not all archers have the same skill levels and beginners are naturally assigned lighter bows. There are also not put in the front lines. The charge started with archery and finished with a lance has prominence. Lances had shoulder straps so that they could be carried while shooting. The skill to quickly re-case the bow while riding was trained for so that it could be removed from the hand. Rapidity of shooting and strong bows were repeatedly mentioned by Leo.
McEwen in Nomadic Archery may have been the first to note in print the division of military archery in its later life into the heavy arrow close-range school and the light arrow long-range school. The Crimean Tatars, Persians, Manchus and the Japanese are in the former groups and the Turks and the Moghuls are in the latter. There seems to a relationship to how guns were used in the armies in some cases and not in others. As Adam Karpowicz pointed out in his book, we should not underestimate the effectiveness of Turkish bows shooting heavy arrows nor the abilities of small diameter arrows to penetrate targets. It is only the people who chose longer heavy-limbed bows who set limitations on themselves. Probably they did this because their primary use was on horseback at closer range. Long distance harassment may not have been an option.
Archery skills are highly regarded, but it is assumed not all archers have the same skill levels and beginners are naturally assigned lighter bows. There are also not put in the front lines. The charge started with archery and finished with a lance has prominence. Lances had shoulder straps so that they could be carried while shooting. The skill to quickly re-case the bow while riding was trained for so that it could be removed from the hand. Rapidity of shooting and strong bows were repeatedly mentioned by Leo.
McEwen in Nomadic Archery may have been the first to note in print the division of military archery in its later life into the heavy arrow close-range school and the light arrow long-range school. The Crimean Tatars, Persians, Manchus and the Japanese are in the former groups and the Turks and the Moghuls are in the latter. There seems to a relationship to how guns were used in the armies in some cases and not in others. As Adam Karpowicz pointed out in his book, we should not underestimate the effectiveness of Turkish bows shooting heavy arrows nor the abilities of small diameter arrows to penetrate targets. It is only the people who chose longer heavy-limbed bows who set limitations on themselves. Probably they did this because their primary use was on horseback at closer range. Long distance harassment may not have been an option.
Bede
-
Hyarmendacil
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:12 am
- Location: Indonesia
That might have been where I got the notion of a heavy/light divide in horse archery practices, since I'm pretty sure it's not my own original thought.
Now I'm wondering about which primary source is it (if any) that mentions a recommendation for archers to carry both a shorter, faster bow for horseback use and a longer, heavier one for dismounted shooting. Something Mongol or Tatar, perhaps?
Now I'm wondering about which primary source is it (if any) that mentions a recommendation for archers to carry both a shorter, faster bow for horseback use and a longer, heavier one for dismounted shooting. Something Mongol or Tatar, perhaps?
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
There are several historians who chose to interpret the original texts and make them more "sensible". Carrying both a strong and a light bow is recommended in some compilations. I think Marco Polo or one of his contemporaries mentioned have heavy and light arrows. The former were for close range and the latter were for distance shooting.
One thing that non-archers don't take into account is that over the course of a campaign the archers would get weaker. The regular practice that could be undertaken in peace time would not be possible. Men became restless, so much so that one of Chinggis Khan's rules was to march without the bit in the horse's mouth to prevent unauthorised hunting. (I have tried this out with a Mongol style bridle and you could still steer the horse, but did not have as much control.) Over a period of month's, the soldier's efficiency would suffer and his condition would be reduced. Bad food and constant riding would weaken him. Having two bows of different strengths might be a practical solution. Nomads were better off than settled soldiers, but a long campaign would take its toll.
One thing that non-archers don't take into account is that over the course of a campaign the archers would get weaker. The regular practice that could be undertaken in peace time would not be possible. Men became restless, so much so that one of Chinggis Khan's rules was to march without the bit in the horse's mouth to prevent unauthorised hunting. (I have tried this out with a Mongol style bridle and you could still steer the horse, but did not have as much control.) Over a period of month's, the soldier's efficiency would suffer and his condition would be reduced. Bad food and constant riding would weaken him. Having two bows of different strengths might be a practical solution. Nomads were better off than settled soldiers, but a long campaign would take its toll.
Bede
-
Chaka Zulu
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:09 am
- Location: Sussex, UK
So many points have been raised in this thread, many of them apparently without realising that they are separate points.
1. The most obvious point to make is that horseback archery is a sport and those competing are not engaging in historical reenactment. They are trying to win a competition that has very clearly defined rules and objectives. Historical accuracy is neither here nor there, although most make some nod towards it.
Another way of looking at it is this: we get to these events by aeroplane and then by one or other form of motorised transport. We then get on a horse with modern tack and ride it down a track that hass been roped off so the horse only has one way to go. We shoot arrows that may be carbon, metal, machine dowelled wood or bamboo, generally with plastic nocks and machined points, using bows that may well be made from fibreglass and use artificial strings. The targets are made of foam and do not move. They are at a known distance, generally under 50m at the furthest. The target may even be a disc at the top of a pole. We do this to a stopwatch. When we finish we get off and go to the bar.
And you're think this is historically inaccurate because of the draw weight???
2. Historically accurate for what period and people?
Dusan raises the point about if he went to Afghanistan he would want a big machine gun. Well, a machine gun won't penetrate a tank's armour, so wouldn't you rather have a few dozen bazookas? Of course you wouldn't-the Taliban are not in tanks. Their armour consists of a few layers of cloth. What you want is an effective, reliable and accurate rifle.
In the same way, the fact that a bow of 50#, say, wouldn't penetrate plate armour is utterly irrelevant to the majority of history's horseback archers. Those professional archaeologists and historians for whom you have so much scorn know what you appear not to, which is that plate armour wasn't around until the middle ages and even then it wasn't exactly standard.
Take an early nomad. His fights are against rival nomads, who may have a breastplate and helmet or may not, and against farming villages, where they may well have no armour at all. So why would he possibly want a 90# bow? A 50# may well be entirely accurate for that period.
Even when a horseback archer was fighting mediaeval western armies, most of the enemy were not in high quality plate armour, covering horse and rider. The ability to penetrate it was nice but not essential, especially since you were probably going to outrun any attempt to engage you in melee.
3. No sensible warrior would go to war with a bow at his maximum draw weight, at least not without a spare. By the time you get to battle you may well be tired, hungry, wounded, ill etc. Even modern pampered professional sportsmen will tell you that you rarely get to play at 100%, so imagine how it was back then. You want some slack so you can shoot when below your best. Sure, have a heavy one, but have a lighter one as well.
4. The point has already been made that for supressing enemy troops, you don't need power, because the enemy just know that there are arrows everywhere. This applies all the stronger when you bear in mind the earlier point about the lack of armour among most enemy troops.
In short, Dusan's "common sense" needs to have a little more informed thought. Perhaps a professional historian or archaeologist could help with that?
Now I happen to believe that the standard draw weight was considerably more than 35-40#. I believe that those peoples who regularly fought armoured men may well have shot 90# or more. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have relied exclusively on bows at their maximum draw weight but they probably have them.
I am strengthened in this view by knowing those who do shoot bows of that weight from horseback, including qabak, and you don't get much more awkward a shooting position that that. I am open to archaeological evidence to the contrary...
All of which is utterly irrelevant to the modern sport of horseback archery, just as my other sport, lacrosse, is not concerned by the fact that we no longer hit each other on the head with big wooden sticks in matches involving whole towns. It's a sport. Not reenactment.
1. The most obvious point to make is that horseback archery is a sport and those competing are not engaging in historical reenactment. They are trying to win a competition that has very clearly defined rules and objectives. Historical accuracy is neither here nor there, although most make some nod towards it.
Another way of looking at it is this: we get to these events by aeroplane and then by one or other form of motorised transport. We then get on a horse with modern tack and ride it down a track that hass been roped off so the horse only has one way to go. We shoot arrows that may be carbon, metal, machine dowelled wood or bamboo, generally with plastic nocks and machined points, using bows that may well be made from fibreglass and use artificial strings. The targets are made of foam and do not move. They are at a known distance, generally under 50m at the furthest. The target may even be a disc at the top of a pole. We do this to a stopwatch. When we finish we get off and go to the bar.
And you're think this is historically inaccurate because of the draw weight???
2. Historically accurate for what period and people?
Dusan raises the point about if he went to Afghanistan he would want a big machine gun. Well, a machine gun won't penetrate a tank's armour, so wouldn't you rather have a few dozen bazookas? Of course you wouldn't-the Taliban are not in tanks. Their armour consists of a few layers of cloth. What you want is an effective, reliable and accurate rifle.
In the same way, the fact that a bow of 50#, say, wouldn't penetrate plate armour is utterly irrelevant to the majority of history's horseback archers. Those professional archaeologists and historians for whom you have so much scorn know what you appear not to, which is that plate armour wasn't around until the middle ages and even then it wasn't exactly standard.
Take an early nomad. His fights are against rival nomads, who may have a breastplate and helmet or may not, and against farming villages, where they may well have no armour at all. So why would he possibly want a 90# bow? A 50# may well be entirely accurate for that period.
Even when a horseback archer was fighting mediaeval western armies, most of the enemy were not in high quality plate armour, covering horse and rider. The ability to penetrate it was nice but not essential, especially since you were probably going to outrun any attempt to engage you in melee.
3. No sensible warrior would go to war with a bow at his maximum draw weight, at least not without a spare. By the time you get to battle you may well be tired, hungry, wounded, ill etc. Even modern pampered professional sportsmen will tell you that you rarely get to play at 100%, so imagine how it was back then. You want some slack so you can shoot when below your best. Sure, have a heavy one, but have a lighter one as well.
4. The point has already been made that for supressing enemy troops, you don't need power, because the enemy just know that there are arrows everywhere. This applies all the stronger when you bear in mind the earlier point about the lack of armour among most enemy troops.
In short, Dusan's "common sense" needs to have a little more informed thought. Perhaps a professional historian or archaeologist could help with that?
Now I happen to believe that the standard draw weight was considerably more than 35-40#. I believe that those peoples who regularly fought armoured men may well have shot 90# or more. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have relied exclusively on bows at their maximum draw weight but they probably have them.
I am strengthened in this view by knowing those who do shoot bows of that weight from horseback, including qabak, and you don't get much more awkward a shooting position that that. I am open to archaeological evidence to the contrary...
All of which is utterly irrelevant to the modern sport of horseback archery, just as my other sport, lacrosse, is not concerned by the fact that we no longer hit each other on the head with big wooden sticks in matches involving whole towns. It's a sport. Not reenactment.
-
Zarasp
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:11 pm
- Location: Iran Tehran
-
Chaka Zulu
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:09 am
- Location: Sussex, UK
-
Zarasp
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:11 pm
- Location: Iran Tehran
depending on what to hunt, horse bows of my family were from 80-150 modern pounds.
they are originally written in "MAAN" a persian weight measure, i found 2 different conversions on the internet, due to the geographical location i think these measures are about correct, I hope! but for me they are a bit unrealistic.
they are originally written in "MAAN" a persian weight measure, i found 2 different conversions on the internet, due to the geographical location i think these measures are about correct, I hope! but for me they are a bit unrealistic.
Last edited by Zarasp on Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
Zarasp
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:11 pm
- Location: Iran Tehran
No actually i used the Shahi "MAN" to convert, i calculated it to about 6.1 kilos,Bede wrote:Are you using the Tabrizi man?
but i am not sure about it at all, since my calculations result in rather unrealistic numbers, according to the little knowledge i have gained in the last few days on the internet, there are no bows with poundage of more than 110 , so i think my calculations may be wrong since mine go up to 200+.
-
Ashbow
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:17 pm
- Location: Poland
Zarasp, I would believe that your calculations are quite accurate, the range of 80 to 150# appears to be very credible.
What bows was the statement that there are no stonger bows than 110# reffering to? Up to 200# sounds possible, I don't have a clue if for horseback use too, though. You can find a lot of biased statements, or some that don't have any reasonable back up.
What bows was the statement that there are no stonger bows than 110# reffering to? Up to 200# sounds possible, I don't have a clue if for horseback use too, though. You can find a lot of biased statements, or some that don't have any reasonable back up.
-
Storm
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:20 am
- Location: Romania
Arab Archery mentions bows between 30 and 200 rotls, but with greater granularity in the 60-100 range. values of 80 or 100 are the most common, while 150 and 200 are mentioned, but nothing in between them. I would assume that bows of 150 or 200 rotls were used by stronger men and were not the norm.
According to the author, one rotl weights 5760 grains (troy pound), so converting into today's pounds, we get the following results:
80 rotls - 66 #
100 rotls - 82 #
150 rotls - 123 #
200 rotls - 165 #
I find it very plausible that bows in the 65-80# would be quite common as it is what a average built man can handle with ease.
Suggested arrow weights are in the 350-500 grains range, while war arrows are mentioned between 700 and 900 grains.
According to the author, one rotl weights 5760 grains (troy pound), so converting into today's pounds, we get the following results:
80 rotls - 66 #
100 rotls - 82 #
150 rotls - 123 #
200 rotls - 165 #
I find it very plausible that bows in the 65-80# would be quite common as it is what a average built man can handle with ease.
Suggested arrow weights are in the 350-500 grains range, while war arrows are mentioned between 700 and 900 grains.
-
PjSingh
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:11 pm
- Location: ohio
The man Is still used in India as a weight measurement,and the old pehalwans(wrestlers) still use weights measured in man's as the standard for measuring their training equipment.I have personaly seen and held swords weighing 2 Man and the warriors that used them are noted for their prowess with these.
I do agree that bows with such heavy weights as 200 would not be practical on horseback unless used by someone of exceptional strength.
P.J.
I do agree that bows with such heavy weights as 200 would not be practical on horseback unless used by someone of exceptional strength.
P.J.
pjsingh