Draw strength of Chinese, Mongol and Manchu bows

Altaica Militarica · Post by **Altaica Militarica** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:27 am

Dear colleagues!

There is a problem with draw strength of Mongol/Manchu/Chinese bows. E.g. Meng Hong wrote that the draw strength of Mongolian bow (1221) exceeded 1 shi (common understanding of this measure of weight is 71 kgs). It is stated in "Sanchao beimeng huibian", that Nuzhen bows were of 7 dou and Song bows were of 10 dou. Commom meaning of dou is 6,2 kgs!

What is the real draw weight of all these bows?

I found a statement of late Russian scholar of Buryad origin N. Munkuev that 1 shi was equal of 29,96 kgs. One of rare meaning of dou is 1,5 kgs or 2,5 cutties.

Are there any ideas regarding the matter?

Best regards,

Alexey.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:27 pm

recently there was an exhibition of mongolian culture in Bonn, Germany.
They had 2 bows, too, and stated an estimated draw weight of 60-70 lbs.
The better preserved bow was very think, made of black horn and when unstrung bent into a real C-shape.
But what surprised me most was the length of the arrows: at least 1 meter (only the fletching was more than 20cm long, the iron tip 10cm ), and a diameter on the nocking point of 1-2cm.

comments, anyone ?

Uli

Altaica Militarica · Post by **Altaica Militarica** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:34 am

Dear Uli,

When were those bows made? In what period? Whicn pound do you use - 0,4 kgs, 0,45 kgs or 0,6 kgs (so called cutty or Chinese pound)?

What is the app. weight of those arrows?

Best regards,

Alexey.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:41 am

All the historical weights in Chinese texts are a complete mess. I think that the weights given in the bow industry were not the same as those used for normal measuring of weights.

Manchu bows had huge, heavy arrows. I doubt if they would have been very effective at under 60#.

S

Altaica Militarica · Post by **Altaica Militarica** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:55 am

But what is regarding distances listed in "Zhengnan shefa"?

I think "bu" here is 1,5 or 1,6 meters as the usual pass of a man varies from 0,7 till 1 meter and so it could not be used in measurement of distance during military exams.

Dear Stephen, could you tell me the name of the Ming manual whish prescribed to shot from 30 "bu" for mounted archers?

Best wishes,

Alexey.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 7:33 pm

Sdrawstwui Alexey,
Sorry I cannot answer all your questions, but they told us that 60lbs = 30kg.

Uli

Altaica Militarica · Post by **Altaica Militarica** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:10 pm

Uli wrote:Sdrawstwui Alexey,
Sorry I cannot answer all your questions, but they told us that 60lbs = 30kg.
Uli

Thank you a lot. So, I see there are non-standard measures used for that bow. But in "Meng-da bei lu" (appr. 1221) it is stated that Mongolian bows were of 1 shi (29,96 kgs). It correlates with your data very well!

Thank you again,

Alexey.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:43 pm

Hey Alexey,

I found a photo of the bow + arrow + clothes set I was talking of.
There is no description of draw/weights but interestingly it says arrow length = 105 cm (!)

Uli

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:49 pm

and, some interesting pictures (iranian and european, 13-14. century)

Question: As you can see, they show the mongol bows without string bridges (!) like the hungarian and cotan ones - ideas, anybody ?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:44 pm

Uli; The clothes and archery gear are from the late 1800s, were the most modern for that era; Qing Chinese style, ie Manchurian. The artwork represents a much earlier period, maybe from around the time of the Mongol invasion. -j-

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:23 pm

The painting appears to be a section out of a Shahnama, perhaps the Demotte. It may have been painted in Tabriz in the mid 1300s. It is doubtful that the artists were very aware of string bridges (artistic styles were often conservative), though the earliest representation of one is in another Ilkhanid miniature in the World History of Rashid ed-Din from 1310-30. However, the overall shape of the bows was similar to the picture you have.

At this time the last third of the ear was recurved at a slight angle. The more Turkish style of ear started to appear in the 1400s. String bridges were never universal. The Krim Tatars, Persians and Bashkirs used them in the west, the Koreans, Ming and Qing used them in the east.

Mongols used them in the Qing armies, but the Omnogrov bow did not have them. It was in a different style from modern Mongol bows, but did look like the early Chinggisid bows.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:34 am

The kit in the first photo looks like 19th Century Tibetan.

Mongol bows of the time of the Mongol Empire did not have string bridges. It is only the modern ones, modelled on Qing bows, that do.

On the photo captioned "Mongol army (Iranian drawing, 14th century)" I am quite curious about the way the bow holsters point forward and touch the foreleg of the horses. What do you think of that, Bede?

S.

Uli · Post by **Uli** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:45 pm

thanks for your comments guys !

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:07 am

Stephen,
The painting of this period emphasises the shortness of the stirrup leathers and the artists had problems with proportions. This was added to by the habit of experimenting with the angles that the horsemen were portrayed from.

The normal position for the bow case in Iran and Central Asia at this time was facing backwards. I think it might have something to do with the use of hand weapons and the desire not to have the upper bow tip crowd the other weapons. The Ming and Qing as you know favoured the bow case to face forward. There were probably practical reasons for this too.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:42 am

Forward-pointing bow-holsters are completely unfamiliar to me. I find it hard to imagine using one that way around.