Hi everyone,
This is my first post and I'm very glad and priveliged to have found this incredible place for traditional archery.
I have been reading many articles on the various bows used by the Hungarians, Turks, Huns, Mongolians, etc. And came across a wikipedia article stating that the asymmetrical Hun has less accuracy than a symmetrical Hungarian bow, and that the Hungarian is an improvement over the Hun.
Is there any truth to this?
The asymmetry Hun is less accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hun_bow
The Hungarian is an improvement over the Hun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_bow
I thank you in advance for any replies.
raygun
Hungarian bows an improvement over the Hun bow?
-
raygun
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: Singapore
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I read both entries and I think that they are more inaccurate than the bows they criticise.
Asymmetry in itself does not affect the accuracy of a bow if the limbs are correctly tillered. The degree of asymmetry present in Hunnic and Sassanian bows was not sufficient to make much difference to shooting from horse back. While both of these cultures did not use stirrups (as far as we can tell from the archaeologocal record), it is unlikely to have affected the design of the limbs of their bows.
Unequally sized limbs had a vogue that lasted for hundreds of years. The surviving bows are not well enough preserved to show why it was done. To analyse the comparative effectiveness of bows, you have to know a lot more about them than we currenlty know about the either the Huns or the Magyars.
It is easy to assign technological reasons to the rise and fall of cultures, but it is much more difficult to prove them. We do not know why the English did not use longbows from horseback often, but it wasn't because they did not work. (If you look at the lower limb length of Japanese bows compared to the average height fo people during the Sengoku Jidai period, there may not have been that great an advantage for the samurai either, but the bows still worked.)
Likewise, the changes in the style of Magyar bows may have not had much to do with their successful conquests. It is more likely that it was demographic features and different tactics. The Huns and the Avars were both small tribal elites who organised large armies of subjugated tribes. These were not uniformally equipped like modern armies. The Magyars may have been better organised and more numerous.
Even our knowledge of the type of bows people used is often restricted to a few accidental survivals. In the case of some of these cultures, most archaeologists think that the buried bows were broken and sometimes parts of separate weapons.
It is hard ot compare the effectivness of weapons used several hundred years apart and it is worse when you are trying to do it from a thousand years in the future.
Asymmetry in itself does not affect the accuracy of a bow if the limbs are correctly tillered. The degree of asymmetry present in Hunnic and Sassanian bows was not sufficient to make much difference to shooting from horse back. While both of these cultures did not use stirrups (as far as we can tell from the archaeologocal record), it is unlikely to have affected the design of the limbs of their bows.
Unequally sized limbs had a vogue that lasted for hundreds of years. The surviving bows are not well enough preserved to show why it was done. To analyse the comparative effectiveness of bows, you have to know a lot more about them than we currenlty know about the either the Huns or the Magyars.
It is easy to assign technological reasons to the rise and fall of cultures, but it is much more difficult to prove them. We do not know why the English did not use longbows from horseback often, but it wasn't because they did not work. (If you look at the lower limb length of Japanese bows compared to the average height fo people during the Sengoku Jidai period, there may not have been that great an advantage for the samurai either, but the bows still worked.)
Likewise, the changes in the style of Magyar bows may have not had much to do with their successful conquests. It is more likely that it was demographic features and different tactics. The Huns and the Avars were both small tribal elites who organised large armies of subjugated tribes. These were not uniformally equipped like modern armies. The Magyars may have been better organised and more numerous.
Even our knowledge of the type of bows people used is often restricted to a few accidental survivals. In the case of some of these cultures, most archaeologists think that the buried bows were broken and sometimes parts of separate weapons.
It is hard ot compare the effectivness of weapons used several hundred years apart and it is worse when you are trying to do it from a thousand years in the future.
Bede
-
abr
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
- Location: New Jersey
It is interesting to note that Grozer currently makes bows based on both the Hunnic and Hungarian models. On his website it is his opinion that the Hun bow shoots somewhat faster than the Hungarian style and has less hand shock because of its asymmetry. I am not an expert and do not know the extent to which Grozer's bows are exact replicas of these bows but I think this accents the inaccuracy of the mentioned articles.
Arnie
-
jack farrell
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:40 am
- Location: Texas
Just to elaborat on what Bede has said; I have made three reproduction prototypes of very early Sakian asymetric longbows. I say long bows because the origionals were composites of complex shape but were at 180cm in length. My aim was to get a feel of the engineering before making a horn version.
The greatest surprise was that the bow shot like any other. The feel is very different, like shooting a bow made from two radically different halves, which they are. But in order for the bow to tiller, basically the two halves must balance. When the string returns to the resting position, all else is equal. The upper limb is greatly beefier than the lower, more than one would think. And the angle of the siyahs is different in order to balance.
This makes a really sexy bow but the question would be why? My only conclusion is to facilitate shooting on horseback. During the late BC to early AD period, the Sakians of Central Asia were well armored. What was wanted was a heavy bow to shoot heavy arrows. Some surviving arrow points are large and heavy. The quivers are small to hold maybe ten arrows. This is a clear break from the Scythian period which had ended only several centuries previously where composite bows were small, arrows were short, and quivers held 100-200 arrows and more.
If I might hazard a guess as to why nomads evolved from shooting copious numbers of poisoned arrows from a long range at eachother to shooting a few heavy arrows from a close range, it would be to save the horses which made up their most tangible wealth. Capturing horses was a common reason for conflict among nomads.
Feel free to comment. Jack.
The greatest surprise was that the bow shot like any other. The feel is very different, like shooting a bow made from two radically different halves, which they are. But in order for the bow to tiller, basically the two halves must balance. When the string returns to the resting position, all else is equal. The upper limb is greatly beefier than the lower, more than one would think. And the angle of the siyahs is different in order to balance.
This makes a really sexy bow but the question would be why? My only conclusion is to facilitate shooting on horseback. During the late BC to early AD period, the Sakians of Central Asia were well armored. What was wanted was a heavy bow to shoot heavy arrows. Some surviving arrow points are large and heavy. The quivers are small to hold maybe ten arrows. This is a clear break from the Scythian period which had ended only several centuries previously where composite bows were small, arrows were short, and quivers held 100-200 arrows and more.
If I might hazard a guess as to why nomads evolved from shooting copious numbers of poisoned arrows from a long range at eachother to shooting a few heavy arrows from a close range, it would be to save the horses which made up their most tangible wealth. Capturing horses was a common reason for conflict among nomads.
Feel free to comment. Jack.
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Arnie,
I haven't heard of people looking for bows with hand shock to increase their accuarcy. There is sometimes a confusion about the speed of the arrow and the accuracy of the bow. With flight bows, where arrow speed is the primary goal, accuracy is compromised. However, if you have two target bows which only differ in arrow speed, the faster bow will be more easily shot at different distances because you do not have to make as great an adjustment in elevation when aiming.
Gr?zer's bows are made in a commercial context. He is trying to make salable bows which are reasonable replicas of particular bow types. However, he is not trying to make exact replicas for scientific tests. What we know of Hunn and Magyar bows are based on finding the bone plates that reinforced the ears and grips. Little is known of the cross sections of the working limbs or the degree of reflex in their manufacture. Both of these features dramatically affect their performance.
From the look of some bone laths, the Magyar bows look as if they may have been more robust. This could mean they had stronger limbs. They may have shot heavier arrows and been more effective for that reason. Careful studies of arrowhead weight and design would help in this kind of discussion.
I haven't heard of people looking for bows with hand shock to increase their accuarcy. There is sometimes a confusion about the speed of the arrow and the accuracy of the bow. With flight bows, where arrow speed is the primary goal, accuracy is compromised. However, if you have two target bows which only differ in arrow speed, the faster bow will be more easily shot at different distances because you do not have to make as great an adjustment in elevation when aiming.
Gr?zer's bows are made in a commercial context. He is trying to make salable bows which are reasonable replicas of particular bow types. However, he is not trying to make exact replicas for scientific tests. What we know of Hunn and Magyar bows are based on finding the bone plates that reinforced the ears and grips. Little is known of the cross sections of the working limbs or the degree of reflex in their manufacture. Both of these features dramatically affect their performance.
From the look of some bone laths, the Magyar bows look as if they may have been more robust. This could mean they had stronger limbs. They may have shot heavier arrows and been more effective for that reason. Careful studies of arrowhead weight and design would help in this kind of discussion.
Bede
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Jack,
I think that the fewer heavy arrows carried by the heavy cavalry might reflect that their targets were other heavy cavalry or armoured soldiers.
It would be interesting to know if early heavy cavalry followed the Byzantine practice of shooting a few arrows and then charging home. Wearing armour suggests that you are going to get close to your opponent or that his long range weapons are very effective. Some of the Central Asian artifacts show armoured warriors using the complete set of weapons: bows, spears, swords, axes and maces.
Since the Sarmatians preceded the Huns onto the western steppe and the Huns dominated the remaining Sarmatians, did that mean their archery was superior to the Sarmatian armour or that the tactics were more effective?
I think that the fewer heavy arrows carried by the heavy cavalry might reflect that their targets were other heavy cavalry or armoured soldiers.
It would be interesting to know if early heavy cavalry followed the Byzantine practice of shooting a few arrows and then charging home. Wearing armour suggests that you are going to get close to your opponent or that his long range weapons are very effective. Some of the Central Asian artifacts show armoured warriors using the complete set of weapons: bows, spears, swords, axes and maces.
Since the Sarmatians preceded the Huns onto the western steppe and the Huns dominated the remaining Sarmatians, did that mean their archery was superior to the Sarmatian armour or that the tactics were more effective?
Bede
-
raygun
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: Singapore
A big thank you to all who replied.
Its interesting to think why the Huns went with an asymmetrical design instead of making the bow smaller like a Turkish bow. I wonder during their time, how would they ensure that the asymmetric design is balance with regards to accuracy, speed and feel.
About shooting from horsebacks, would an asymmertic design be necessary? It seems that the Japanese did pretty well with their gigantic Yumis on horseback without too much problem, imo.
cheers
raygun
Its interesting to think why the Huns went with an asymmetrical design instead of making the bow smaller like a Turkish bow. I wonder during their time, how would they ensure that the asymmetric design is balance with regards to accuracy, speed and feel.
About shooting from horsebacks, would an asymmertic design be necessary? It seems that the Japanese did pretty well with their gigantic Yumis on horseback without too much problem, imo.
cheers
raygun
-
Stephen Selby
- Posts: 1452
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:10 pm
- Location: Hong Kong
- Contact:
I want to throw in a further idea to explain the prevalence of assymetrical horn bows.
From my study of Scythian bows in China, I should like to suggest that some people found that it was better to use the short inside and long outside surfaces of a single horn rather than the equivalent pieces of two opposing horns.
Long horn was a scarce material in some places. Small horn plates were sometimes used; but presumably would be more prone to breakage.
If you have two horns available, you have to choose either to make one big bow and one small bow using opposing horns, or else to make make two assymetrical bows. I think that the Saka people in Xinjiang around 800BCE, who used ibex horn, went for one-horn-two-segment construction.
As to Japanese bows, I think that the design just reflects a desire for long bows, but with reasonable ground clearance for the lower limb. An 18th Century Yumi is 2.2 metres strung. The 17th C Japanese male was not tall in stature, and could not comfortably hold 1.1 metres of bow off the ground.
As others have observed, assymetrical bows shoot as accurately as symmetrical one.
S.
From my study of Scythian bows in China, I should like to suggest that some people found that it was better to use the short inside and long outside surfaces of a single horn rather than the equivalent pieces of two opposing horns.
Long horn was a scarce material in some places. Small horn plates were sometimes used; but presumably would be more prone to breakage.
If you have two horns available, you have to choose either to make one big bow and one small bow using opposing horns, or else to make make two assymetrical bows. I think that the Saka people in Xinjiang around 800BCE, who used ibex horn, went for one-horn-two-segment construction.
As to Japanese bows, I think that the design just reflects a desire for long bows, but with reasonable ground clearance for the lower limb. An 18th Century Yumi is 2.2 metres strung. The 17th C Japanese male was not tall in stature, and could not comfortably hold 1.1 metres of bow off the ground.
As others have observed, assymetrical bows shoot as accurately as symmetrical one.
S.
-
Romain
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:28 am
- Location: Beijing
-
redhawk
- Posts: 618
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:45 pm
- Location: GERMANY,Schopfheim
- Contact:
hungarian Bows................
A very sense-making and useful idea!
I remember a study at the University of Northern Dakota on asymmetrical
sinew-backed bows of the Hidatsa-Indians. The study came to the conclusion, that an asymmetrical bow straightens the curve of the arrow-flight. Years ago I?ve made such a bow and I couldn?t agree?
Don?t forget the English longbows with their differently tillered limbs.
Every bow with the handle right in the center of the bow bends asymmetrical when drawn( if you look at the arrow as a kind of center-line).
Michael
I remember a study at the University of Northern Dakota on asymmetrical
sinew-backed bows of the Hidatsa-Indians. The study came to the conclusion, that an asymmetrical bow straightens the curve of the arrow-flight. Years ago I?ve made such a bow and I couldn?t agree?
Don?t forget the English longbows with their differently tillered limbs.
Every bow with the handle right in the center of the bow bends asymmetrical when drawn( if you look at the arrow as a kind of center-line).
Michael
-
Adam Karpowicz
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Canada
I doubt if one horn was ever meant to be used for one bow, for all kinds of reasons. Besides, horns come in many lengths and many would be too short anyway.
However, the idea to maximize the lengths of materials (to minimize stress and allow the use of long arrows), by using short horns for lower limbs of assymetric bows is very good. This way shorter horns would not be wasted.
This reasoning applies only to the composites, of course, not to self- ot wood laminated bows.
Adam
However, the idea to maximize the lengths of materials (to minimize stress and allow the use of long arrows), by using short horns for lower limbs of assymetric bows is very good. This way shorter horns would not be wasted.
This reasoning applies only to the composites, of course, not to self- ot wood laminated bows.
Adam
-
jack farrell
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:40 am
- Location: Texas
There is good merit to what Stephen says. Even an Ibex horn has twist and I have noticed that the twist may return somewhat to the finished bow. If opposing horns, those making a pair, are used in bow manufacture, the returning twist throws the string off the centerline. When only one horn is used, the returning twist is in the form of a propeller and the string remains centered.
Since the stirrup was not known in the BC period, it would be impossible for the archer to rise up above the saddle to clear the lower limb from the horse's neck.
Stephen; is 800 BC a bit early for a this type of bow?
Since the stirrup was not known in the BC period, it would be impossible for the archer to rise up above the saddle to clear the lower limb from the horse's neck.
Stephen; is 800 BC a bit early for a this type of bow?
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
When you shoot from horseback, you do not have to hold te bow vertically. Because of this, the length of the lower limb is irrelevent. However, the length of the draw is affected if you cant the bow too far.
Canting the bow is an advantage if you are wearing any kind of helmet or large hat. I have shot bows from horseback both using a saddle and stirrups and bare back, and it is quite easy to tilt the bow to avoid the horse's back and it is necessary to do so to avoid its neck if you shoot forward.
Canting the bow is an advantage if you are wearing any kind of helmet or large hat. I have shot bows from horseback both using a saddle and stirrups and bare back, and it is quite easy to tilt the bow to avoid the horse's back and it is necessary to do so to avoid its neck if you shoot forward.
Bede
-
Stephen Selby
- Posts: 1452
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:10 pm
- Location: Hong Kong
- Contact:
-
paku
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:48 pm
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
There is an other point. I noticed (and I think many others) that the horns from the same animal are not perfectly the same strength. Using paired horns it is always easier to make a good strip from one of the pair but not from the other. The cause can be that the animals are probably also left and right ?handed?. Is it possible that horns were matched according to this principle? This can be also a reason to build asymmetric bows and supports Jack?s idea too. A try to post soon pictures of a replicated Hungarian asymmetric bow. In advance I can tell you it was a pain to saw off two inches from a good horn strip to match the dimension of the lower limb.
S?ndor
S?ndor