Draw weights

[Alina]

I was wondering if anybody knows the draw weights one could expect of an asiatic recurve bow intended for war during the medieval period. I have heard they can range as high as the Mary Rose longbows, but I haven't seen any academic articles or extant bows which prove that. Thanks,

Alina

[Bede]

Have a look at some of Adam Karpowicz's article both on this site and in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries. He has both examined original Turkish bows and built and tested replicas.

[Adam Karpowicz]

Yes, I researched this subject for a while. An article will be published soon in Antiquity (now going to proof) about draw weight estimates for Ottoman bows. An average weight of over 40 (non-flight) bows from Topkapi Palace was 120lb. With bows below 70lb and over 150lb removed, the average weight was 110lb +/-SD of 20lb. This is at 28in draw length, as compared with replicas of known weight. Very short bows may have even higher weight due to stacking.

As to other types, I know of a Crim-Tartar bow estimated at 120lb and I have no doubt it is true as I have seen many such bows. The older bows shown by Stephen on this site are probably in the same range.

Adam

[Stephen Selby]

Look up the description by Busbeq under 'Islamic Archery' on atarn.org . He mentions that the draw weights were so heavy that untrained people could not pull back far enough to release a coin inserted between the string and the siyah.

[Alina]

Wow. Thanks guys! I was having this discussion with a few friends who are longbow proponents, and we realized that none of us had any data on the composite bows of the East. Now we do

[jack farrell]

I would like to ask about possible sampling error. Would bows in Turkish museums represent the best available samples and not necessarily common items? How do these items relate to items in other museum collections? Germany or Austria, for example.

When texts refer to "sharpshooters" being sent out ahead of regular troops can one assume that these guys were shooting stronger bows than average? Can an entire army be made up of superior archers?

When a find such as the MaryRose is brought up, a warship on its way to battle, there is no doubt that its armaments were intended for battle, at least by those on board, if not for general use. But if one finds a piece on a museum shelf, how does one know that that bow was not intended for some specially trained aristocrat? After all, the flight records were not necessarily made by typical cohorts. -j-

[Adam Karpowicz]

Museums collect bows from many sources, and if (relatively) large number is examined, then one can be reasonably sure of the results. I have examined many Tartar type bows in Polish museums (these bows were definitely well used war bows) which also confirm these draw weights. Flight bows (if identified) were not counted.

I am not sure if I understand your question about sharpshooters. I would think they were exceptional target archers using regular bows.

Adam

[Bede]

Jack,
I too would like to know what you mean by sharpshooters. There are several words used in Persian and Turkish texts that refer to exceptional archers, but they are each specific to a certain type of shooting.

What texts are you referring to? I remember the Turks using mounted skirmishers, but they were often deli horsemen who were not missile troops, but foreign mercenary light cavalry. Later after the amalgamation with the Crimean Khanate, they used Tatar horse archers to raid behind enemy lines and disrupt their communications.

[jack farrell]

For instance Unsal Yucel makes many references to sharpshooters; "ok atisi", is that correct? Resim 39 and 40 are two illustrations back to back. Not the same word as archer. These appear to be favored individuals. There are many others in that book. Shall I look for others?

It may be possible to find provenience cards on museum bows, though maybe unlikely. Bows belonging to upper class individuals would not be "average". Highly decorated bows might not be average.

Vienna has some undecorated war bows. There are others. Are Tatar bows being grouped together with Ottoman?

I understand that it would be difficult to identify a statistically significant number of typical Ottoman war bows. A worthwhile project nevertheless. -j-

[Stephen Selby]

Jack raises an interesting point. But there may be no way to answer it. For example, the exhibits at the armoury in Krackow are said to be war booty. On the other hand, my collection is just what one collector could trawl up from around the region.

I suspect my bows - nearly all of which are broken in some way, were kept in families because they were mementos of a loved family member. I do not have the impression that these family members were specially trained or stronger than the average.

S

[Bede]

Stephen,
You have a point. However, if a specific range of weights is present in a museum collection of bows, it does give some indication of what bows were being used. To come with average bows from that data would be difficult because a museum collection is not a random selection. collectors would weed out the ones they don't have any interest in. Plain bows would survive if at one time they were associated with someone or some ever that was important. I think this is Jack's point too.

Regarding Yucel's term, I will look it up. I am relying on my memory here, but I think the term sharpshooter comes from the Sharps rifle and the implication was similar to the general term sniper (i.e. a person who was expert at hitting other people on demand) as opposed to a marksman who could shoot and hit anything. In Persian, they differentiate between people who can hit small targets, people who can pierce armour and those who are expert with special forms of arrows.

i think it is safe to say that people were using much heavier bows than we are used to. Chinese, Turkish and Persian references to extremely strong bows are supported by the fact that the English were using them too. Adam's examination of bows in museums also supports this. Some work I have done on Indo-Persian arrows suggests that many of the armour-piecing type were very stiff and could have been shot from very heavy bows.

[Adam Karpowicz]

I am not sure why decorated bows would be heavier - these bows were still well used. Actually many bows I have examined were not decorated.

When flight bows are excluded, then there are war, target and practice bows left. There could also be bows for darb shooting - displays of penetration etc. As I said, I eliminated bows above 150lb, assuming these would be special practice or darb bows (note 150lb is still below what is claimed for English longbows). Target bows (which I did not eliminate) would be of lesser weight, as usual, than war bows. It means the averages are not excessive at all.

I mentioned the Tartar bows in Polish collections, because bows there were indeed used for war, also by Poles until the end of 17th c.

I really do not want to get into another discussion about draw weights. I think it would be helpful, if the proponents of weak composite bow theory come forward with valid data to prove the point.

Adam

[jack farrell]

To all; I certainly do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings by making this discussion. Read on if you wish to discuss draw weights of war bows.

My thesis is that war bows including composites of antiquity came in all draw weights, as suited the archer. Some examples, though not at all an exhaustive list.

1. English law required all free males between the ages of 12 and 60 to own a bow and arrows and practice at least once a week in public. One can only assume this was to prepare the populace to be part of a militia. Therefore any male capable of making a decent bow shot was eligible for military service. Did an adolescent male shoot the same bow as a mature yoeman?

2.G N Pant, Indian (India) Archery, tells how women archers were important in battle. that it was believed that the army with the largest number of archers was the most likely to prevail. Women archers, sometimes as many as 20,000 of them, carried two quivers with 60 arrows in each quiver into battle.

An archer's practice was considered to be 400 shots a day, or at least half that if necessary. These were bamboo bows, possibly "bows constructed of a new method" of the Danurveda, maybe laminated bamboo something like Jaap's type. Were these heavy draw weight bows?

He gives names for bows from 12 kg to 120 kg. This is a large variation.

3. The king Tut bows is a collection that started when he was only several years old and worked up to his death at about 20 years. Nearly all of these bows, about 25 of them, by comparison to other angular composites, is of light draw even though he was expected to lead the Egyptian army into battle one day. Would they send him out with a strong war bow which he could not draw?

Museums want the finest examples of any craft. Legends are made of the greatest warriors. While we admire ancient history, let us not make Titans of the ancients but accept their accomplishments as human and within limits. For every superior warrior there were probably several mediocre ones who fought for the same cause, we just didn't save their bows. -j-

[Adam Karpowicz]

Jack:

I realize now I owe you an apology: I have not sufficiently explained the nature of the statistics involved. What it means is that about 2/3 of the bows were between 90 and 130lb. The remaining 1/3 was composed of weaker bows, I recall a 40lb-er and a few 60-70lb too, although there were more heavier ones. It is clear there were indeed weaker bows in the bunch, and as you say, must have suited some archers as well. Yes, the variation was quite substantial - almost exactly as in your example of 12 to 120lb: 40 to 240lb.

Your example with English is however confused in my opinion. From what I read, the soldiers were archers selected from a larger populace, well accustomed to the use of bow since chidhood. Thus, among the professionals, you have those heavy bow users as in Mary Rose. The same situation we have here: bows used by professionals who most likely were even more accustomed to bows than the English. These men did archery for a living and the rewards were good. Does it say all of them, the English and the Ottomans used only the monster bows? No, some did not and I am sure there were examples of lesser bows in the MR too.

I would not think the women archers would be too frequent in history, and certainly not so in the Islamic times. I am sure though they would still fit into the statistics somehow.

The example with king Tut only proves to me there could be decorated bows which were weak at the same time. In any case, one specimen is not statistics.

Again, yes, there were weaker bows too and certainly used by some in battle. The average weight is rather high, I do not believe it is excessive however, for a professional (and deadly) archer.

Adam

[Stephen Selby]

For the record, the lightest composite (horn/sinew) bow in my collection is 12#. It was made for the annual offering to the Ancestor Craftsman of Chinese bowyers, Xuan Yuan. Perhaps the original intention was for it to be burned. However, my one is in fine condition, though its construction is a bit strange.

The heaviest bow is around 200# and was made for a circus performance. Chinese Qing Dynasty bows come in the following varieties (excluding children's bows) with the following approximate draw-weights:

Votive (temple offerings)
Bamboo practice bows (25#-35#)
Horseback archery bows (45#-70#)
Pebble bows (35#-50#)
Infantry bows (50#-100#)
Strength bows (80#-200#)

My impression is that bows made in Beijing were heavier than those made in the Western centres such as Xian and Chengdu. I have one 'Southern Bow' (may be Ming) from Zhejiang or Fujian which is relatively light and thickly lacquered, with short siyahs.

S