Bulgarian findings regarding composite bows

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:34 pm

The Hunnic bow of the Roman era has a superficial resemblance to Qing-Manchu type bows. But there is at least 1200 years separating the types and the constructions are very dissimilar. See Andrew Hall's two articles in JSAA for numerous fine illustrations of Hunnic type bows. One will find his articles most informative.

If one is not so familiar with a violin, then it would look like a mandolin.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:03 pm

I went to the German site and others which reenact events at Roman forts in Germany. Very interesting. Of course, machine translations do not convey technical meaning so well so the arguments are difficult to follow. frankly, I was embarrased by the man who built a Chinese type bow to equip a Roman soldier. I did not see this man whit his outfit but must imagine that this bow is a poor historic representation of an original.

Roman history is not my specialty but this I do know. They subjugated the Sarmatians of the Caspian sea area and impressed many archers into their auxiliaries, among others. These archers were brought to Britian to fight the locals. Bone ear laths, the only remains of their bows, have been found in numbers of Roman era forts as far north as Scotland. This presumably prompts the quote that Hunnic type bows were such a successful, long-lived design that their remains are found from Korea to Scotland.

An easy, commercially available prop would be a Hunn or Magyar reproduction from a manufacturer or else a more accurately home made version. Hunnic type bows do not have bridges, Qing Chinese do.

JJ · Post by JJ » Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:40 am

This is a misinterpretation from some relief depiction, I guess. Nobody used string bridges in Roman time. The hornbows of this period are Hunnic type, non-contact siyah bows, of course.

daryush · Post by **daryush** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:49 am

On a similar note, it always really annoys me how re-enactors press absolute authenticity in textiles, weapons, stitching (always requiring 100 % authenticity) but then go and equip themselves with poorly made, fibreglass "Scythian" "Tatar" or "Mongol" (all of which are entirely incorrect for late Roman)

/speaking from personal experience here.

Kalojan · Post by **Kalojan** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:12 pm

I am also using a fiberglass-bow (can't afford for 1000? an ottoman hornbow), but I look at least that the Bows should be of the "authentic Type"..meaning, that an ottoman is not using a Magyar Bow, but a Crimean Tatar or a Turkish one....