Hello everybody,
As Stephen says we have some problems in reading the old texts and it's sad that we don't have any "master" anymore who knows every details of the technique.
Still we are lucky that all the Ottoman texts (and some Maemluk texts) are available. The Arabic alphabet and the Old language can of course be read by many people in the new generations. It's not a riddle.
Additionally we have samples in the museums and some photographs taken in the late 19th and early 20th century. The archery tradition was interrupted in 1925, so it hasn't been too long to recover it with all the details. Of course it'll take time and effort.
For now, under the light of old texts, researchs in the museums, examining old photographs and consulting with experinced experts like Adam Karpowicz and Bede Dwyer (they helped and are still helping a lot, thx!) and trial-and-error, we have come a long way. I can't say we've mastered all the aspects of Turkish archery 100 percent but undoubltly we are on the right way.
Please find here a discussion in Leatherwall, the forum of www.stickbow.com. Except the participation of some very arrogant guys, the discussion is worth to read and is good to express our arguments and the way we've come.
http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/tf/lw/th ... CATEGORY=5
Best regards to all.
Murat
Turkish technique
-
Murat ?zveri
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Istanbul,Turkey
- Contact:
-
M Hardman
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:48 pm
- Location: Bristol, England
Murat, having watched your videos on youtube, I have a question for you if you are willing to answer.
I see that nearly all of the archers featured draw till the nock rests roughly under the eye or a slight variation on the theme. This is different to my technique -based on a mostly unguided interpretation of Klopsteg's 'Turkish Archery and the Composite bow' - where my lock's thumb brushes the earlobe. I have found that this method comes most naturally for me.
Does your right hand still touch your right ear? Or is that a feature of flight shooting alone? Alternatively are the differing styles just the result of different teachings within the tradition itself? (I regularly receive conflicting advice from modern coaches, I have no reason to think it was any different then either).
Many thanks
Mike
I see that nearly all of the archers featured draw till the nock rests roughly under the eye or a slight variation on the theme. This is different to my technique -based on a mostly unguided interpretation of Klopsteg's 'Turkish Archery and the Composite bow' - where my lock's thumb brushes the earlobe. I have found that this method comes most naturally for me.
Does your right hand still touch your right ear? Or is that a feature of flight shooting alone? Alternatively are the differing styles just the result of different teachings within the tradition itself? (I regularly receive conflicting advice from modern coaches, I have no reason to think it was any different then either).
Many thanks
Mike
-
Murat ?zveri
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Istanbul,Turkey
- Contact:
Hello Mike,
It's true that in old treatises the draw is described as "thumbring touching the ear lobe". In Kitab fi ilm ann?şşab, a 14th century Maemluk treatise and Talhis-i Resail?'r rumat by Mustafa Kani, an Ottoman 19th century treatise it's described the same (the latter being the base of Dr. Klopsteg's book). Two other sources indicating the same draw are the "Turkish Letters of Busbecq" and an old lyric text ("...arrowhead to the (bow)hand, thumbring upto the ear").
BUT the examination on arrows in the museums resulted that the draw must have been shorter, 26 to 28 inches. As you might know, an overdraw, called "siper", was used to shoot flight (and maybe target ) arrows. But the war arrows tipped with broadheads (no possibility to shoot with a siper) are short too. The bows also reveal stacking after 28-29 inches, although can be drawn further, so we are sure that the draw was shorter.
"Why do the old texts suggest a draw to the ear?". The answer of this question is speculative, but I can say because the authors have used Arabic sources to harvest the fundamantals. In the forewords of both books it's mentioned clearly. The longer, long-eared type bows were widely used by Mongols and Seldjuks. The bow morphology must have been influenced severely through the interactions between SEldjuks-Persians-Eyyubis-Maemluks and Ottomans. And so could that be for the shooting technique.
As a 1,86 m tall man, my draw is around 27 1/2 inch when I draw to the corner of my mouth. The draw must be somewhere between the corner of the mouth and the ear. A smaller archer can draw further, of course. And let me tell you that some other kind of bows used in Ottoman army, like Crimean Tatar bows are longer and permit a longer draw (their arrows are longer too). Crimean Tatars were the aliences of the Ottoman Empire and a fragment of the imperial army. But the typical, relatively shorter Turkish-Ottoman bows and arrows that were used and are now exhibited in Topkapi palace museum are for shorter draws.
In some old depictions longer draws can be seen while in some others the draw is obviously shorter. It's clear that some battle equipment like helmets with ear-guards would have avoid the archer to draw to the ear lobe. The typcial Turkish sishak, for example, proves that the anchor was somewhere in front of the ear.
Archery was very popular in Ottoman Empire. In "tekke" where archery was taught and practised systematically, there were shooting ranges (talimhane) for recreational shooters. It makes sense that the bows used in talimhane were longer bows (probably drawn longer) for ease of handling and accuracy in amateur hands.
Photographs taken in 1930's (and just two taken in 1907) show an anchor around the corner of the mouth as well. the reason I prefer to use and teach a corner-of-the-mouth-anchor is that its easier to reproduce.
As Bede highlighted your bowhand's position is more like in the Korean style. If you can keep your thumb relaxed, it won't be scratched by fletching. The index finger and thumb must be kept relaxed while the other three fingers hold the bows firm but not too strong. Rotate your hand slightly clockwise so that the the palm-finger connections face the middle line of the back of the grip.
I hope it helps.
Good luck.
M.
It's true that in old treatises the draw is described as "thumbring touching the ear lobe". In Kitab fi ilm ann?şşab, a 14th century Maemluk treatise and Talhis-i Resail?'r rumat by Mustafa Kani, an Ottoman 19th century treatise it's described the same (the latter being the base of Dr. Klopsteg's book). Two other sources indicating the same draw are the "Turkish Letters of Busbecq" and an old lyric text ("...arrowhead to the (bow)hand, thumbring upto the ear").
BUT the examination on arrows in the museums resulted that the draw must have been shorter, 26 to 28 inches. As you might know, an overdraw, called "siper", was used to shoot flight (and maybe target ) arrows. But the war arrows tipped with broadheads (no possibility to shoot with a siper) are short too. The bows also reveal stacking after 28-29 inches, although can be drawn further, so we are sure that the draw was shorter.
"Why do the old texts suggest a draw to the ear?". The answer of this question is speculative, but I can say because the authors have used Arabic sources to harvest the fundamantals. In the forewords of both books it's mentioned clearly. The longer, long-eared type bows were widely used by Mongols and Seldjuks. The bow morphology must have been influenced severely through the interactions between SEldjuks-Persians-Eyyubis-Maemluks and Ottomans. And so could that be for the shooting technique.
As a 1,86 m tall man, my draw is around 27 1/2 inch when I draw to the corner of my mouth. The draw must be somewhere between the corner of the mouth and the ear. A smaller archer can draw further, of course. And let me tell you that some other kind of bows used in Ottoman army, like Crimean Tatar bows are longer and permit a longer draw (their arrows are longer too). Crimean Tatars were the aliences of the Ottoman Empire and a fragment of the imperial army. But the typical, relatively shorter Turkish-Ottoman bows and arrows that were used and are now exhibited in Topkapi palace museum are for shorter draws.
In some old depictions longer draws can be seen while in some others the draw is obviously shorter. It's clear that some battle equipment like helmets with ear-guards would have avoid the archer to draw to the ear lobe. The typcial Turkish sishak, for example, proves that the anchor was somewhere in front of the ear.
Archery was very popular in Ottoman Empire. In "tekke" where archery was taught and practised systematically, there were shooting ranges (talimhane) for recreational shooters. It makes sense that the bows used in talimhane were longer bows (probably drawn longer) for ease of handling and accuracy in amateur hands.
Photographs taken in 1930's (and just two taken in 1907) show an anchor around the corner of the mouth as well. the reason I prefer to use and teach a corner-of-the-mouth-anchor is that its easier to reproduce.
As Bede highlighted your bowhand's position is more like in the Korean style. If you can keep your thumb relaxed, it won't be scratched by fletching. The index finger and thumb must be kept relaxed while the other three fingers hold the bows firm but not too strong. Rotate your hand slightly clockwise so that the the palm-finger connections face the middle line of the back of the grip.
I hope it helps.
Good luck.
M.
-
Jason DuLac
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:42 pm
- Location: MA USA
Hi Murat!
First, THANKS again for posting your excellent information!
This is 'Cleenrelees' from the Leatherwall (one of the 'non-arrogant' ones!
) I try to weed through some of the ego there to harvest the useful bits of information on thumbring techneque and history. I'm also 'Rhysthurin' on youtube and have one thumbring video of my form when I shot 'western style' bows with the thumbring. Your excellent, open minded input continues to be of great use and interest to me here.
Anyway, as I've been learning the thumb draw I've been trying out different anchor points and found that, as you mentioned, each has advanteges for different types of shooting. I've been shooting split finger for 30 years and differing anchor points are serve similar different purposes there too.
Corner of the mouth thumbring (as you've been using) has simlar qualities as 'three fingers under' in which the archer put all three fingers under the nock and the nock goes under the eye. This creates quick target aquistion and great accuracy at close range. Good for hunting white tail deer in Massachusetts, USA! I also think that it is good for begining archers because the arrow, being closeer to the eye, takes some of the guess work out of aiming and tends to create earlier successes with hitting the target. After the brain starts to develop a sense of where the arrow will go, the archer can alter or lower their anchor. Kind of like a stepping stone to lower anchor points.
The down side is that it takes long distance targets out of the 'site window'. I imagine that this is not such an issue with the thumbring as the aiming methods tend to be more 'instinctive' (and I use that term loosely). The shorter draw length also decreases the length of the power stroke which reduces speed GREATLY. Of course their are many factors affecting speed, including arrow mass, bow wieght 'stack', etc. I find that the slight increase in arrow mass with a longer arrow has less affect on arrow speed than the increased draw length it allows for. Of course the siper allows for the best of both worlds.
Lower anchors, or and or longer draws:
More arrow speed and a bigger site picture window are the big advantages that I can see, especially for longer range shooting. Also my body tends to feel a bit more comfortable (accept for the more accute angle of my injured drawing hand elbow) with a lower anchor point.
The disadvanteges are basically the opposite of the advanteges of the higher anchor, in that there is less of a 'connection' between the archer and the target making for quick, more 'instinctive' shooting more difficult.
Unrelated to most other people is that I've recently injured my draw arm elbow. This injury has made me more aware of the higher amount of stress on the elbow in the longer/lower draw. I had been vassilating between different anchor points over my 2 year thumbring shooting career. So now that I am returning to shooting after a month of elbow rest, I will be drawing to the corner of the mouth for all the above reasons. Not the least of which is the lower level of elbow stress.
Jason DuLac
First, THANKS again for posting your excellent information!
This is 'Cleenrelees' from the Leatherwall (one of the 'non-arrogant' ones!
) I try to weed through some of the ego there to harvest the useful bits of information on thumbring techneque and history. I'm also 'Rhysthurin' on youtube and have one thumbring video of my form when I shot 'western style' bows with the thumbring. Your excellent, open minded input continues to be of great use and interest to me here. Anyway, as I've been learning the thumb draw I've been trying out different anchor points and found that, as you mentioned, each has advanteges for different types of shooting. I've been shooting split finger for 30 years and differing anchor points are serve similar different purposes there too.
Corner of the mouth thumbring (as you've been using) has simlar qualities as 'three fingers under' in which the archer put all three fingers under the nock and the nock goes under the eye. This creates quick target aquistion and great accuracy at close range. Good for hunting white tail deer in Massachusetts, USA! I also think that it is good for begining archers because the arrow, being closeer to the eye, takes some of the guess work out of aiming and tends to create earlier successes with hitting the target. After the brain starts to develop a sense of where the arrow will go, the archer can alter or lower their anchor. Kind of like a stepping stone to lower anchor points.
The down side is that it takes long distance targets out of the 'site window'. I imagine that this is not such an issue with the thumbring as the aiming methods tend to be more 'instinctive' (and I use that term loosely). The shorter draw length also decreases the length of the power stroke which reduces speed GREATLY. Of course their are many factors affecting speed, including arrow mass, bow wieght 'stack', etc. I find that the slight increase in arrow mass with a longer arrow has less affect on arrow speed than the increased draw length it allows for. Of course the siper allows for the best of both worlds.
Lower anchors, or and or longer draws:
More arrow speed and a bigger site picture window are the big advantages that I can see, especially for longer range shooting. Also my body tends to feel a bit more comfortable (accept for the more accute angle of my injured drawing hand elbow) with a lower anchor point.
The disadvanteges are basically the opposite of the advanteges of the higher anchor, in that there is less of a 'connection' between the archer and the target making for quick, more 'instinctive' shooting more difficult.
Unrelated to most other people is that I've recently injured my draw arm elbow. This injury has made me more aware of the higher amount of stress on the elbow in the longer/lower draw. I had been vassilating between different anchor points over my 2 year thumbring shooting career. So now that I am returning to shooting after a month of elbow rest, I will be drawing to the corner of the mouth for all the above reasons. Not the least of which is the lower level of elbow stress.
Jason DuLac
-
M Hardman
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:48 pm
- Location: Bristol, England
Thankyou for your answers Murat, I much appreciate them.
The photo I posted at the start of the thread is very old, from when I just began thumbring shooting. The photo below is more recent, and I've been shooting gloveless for several months or so now.
I've found that the shot is better (faster and more accurate) when the hand is only just brushing the ear so you anchor more by feeling the weight of the bow and how your shoulder is positioned.
As for technique in warfare, I know at least with longbowmen, the anchor was more aside the face or ear, rather than on the chin (which was only adopted when archery became a pastime so far as I can see). I think perhaps this was because a follow through from a chin anchor would hit the cheek guard on a helmet. I'd imagine that this would apply to thumb techniques as well, possibly the longer draw (not touching the ear just using muscle memory) is a military draw for power and distance on the battlefield.
Also, if it is sure that the shape and size of the equipment did not change, the size of the people may have? As you said, shorter people draw farther relative to their bodies, I know for sure that the average height of the male has been steadily increasing since the middle ages. Maybe a slow change in stlye occured as people slowly got taller on average through the ages.
(btw I don't mind being told I'm wrong, so please correct me if anything I've just said is rubbish)
The photo I posted at the start of the thread is very old, from when I just began thumbring shooting. The photo below is more recent, and I've been shooting gloveless for several months or so now.
I've found that the shot is better (faster and more accurate) when the hand is only just brushing the ear so you anchor more by feeling the weight of the bow and how your shoulder is positioned.
As for technique in warfare, I know at least with longbowmen, the anchor was more aside the face or ear, rather than on the chin (which was only adopted when archery became a pastime so far as I can see). I think perhaps this was because a follow through from a chin anchor would hit the cheek guard on a helmet. I'd imagine that this would apply to thumb techniques as well, possibly the longer draw (not touching the ear just using muscle memory) is a military draw for power and distance on the battlefield.
Also, if it is sure that the shape and size of the equipment did not change, the size of the people may have? As you said, shorter people draw farther relative to their bodies, I know for sure that the average height of the male has been steadily increasing since the middle ages. Maybe a slow change in stlye occured as people slowly got taller on average through the ages.
(btw I don't mind being told I'm wrong, so please correct me if anything I've just said is rubbish)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Murat ?zveri
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Istanbul,Turkey
- Contact:
Hi Cleenreleese! Nice to see you here.
I'm sad of hearing about your elbow injury. I hope it'll be fine soon.
As you say; the draw, release (3-finger or thumb) and of course the equipment should be evaluated under the conditions they were created. Central Asian nomads needed shorter bows to use on horseback, developed (or adopted) composite bow technology and reflex-recurve design. Shorter bows required a release which should have avoided finger pinch, so thumbrelease and thumbrings have evolved.
The fighting/hunting strategies should be considered too. As you mentioned, "3-finger under" could be a great release technique when it comes to shooting at deer size targets from tree stands. The target is stationary and the distance is close. Nomadic style hunting was based on chasing the game animal on horseback and killing it with bow n arrrow, spear or even sword. This kind of drive hunts require higher skill in instinctive shooting at moving targets. Thumbrelease allows easier and faster re-loading of the bow, especially when two spare arrows are held in the string hand. Like all the other hunting techniques, it can be projected to battle fields and used as an effective strategy against the enemy.
In general, nomadic archery is based on an offensive attitude. Shorter draws and snap shooting instinctively is the core of the concept. Western archery, both hunting and fighting, is mainly based on shooting at stationary or slowly-moving targets. A longer draw and a more solid anchor make sense. GAP shooting or higher anchors towards the eye can also be replaced easily with instinctive shooting based on muscle memory.
Equipment also bring some limitations or advantages. Shorter bows (particularly Turkish bows) with shorter draws are efficient both with lighter and heavier arrows. Longer bows in general are more efficient with heavier arrows. Especially slower selfbows like ELB need to launch the heavy arrows only with longer power strokes. Shorter composite bows are faster and so are their shorter (and lighter and heavy spined) arrows. They all compensate the shorthened power stroke.
Mike,
You may be right in considering the relationship between the draw length and the size of people. I remember that this has been discussed somewhere in atarn. In my opinion people were not uniform or homogenous in size. It should be true at least for Ottoman Empire where people of various ethnic roots and from different nations have lived.
I also realised that the shot is better when the string hand brushes the ear. This seems to be not too much different than the classical follow-through in 3-finger release. The so-called "plucking" is one of the common mistakes that we all make sometimes. The hand must be close to the face in release.
I'm sad of hearing about your elbow injury. I hope it'll be fine soon.
As you say; the draw, release (3-finger or thumb) and of course the equipment should be evaluated under the conditions they were created. Central Asian nomads needed shorter bows to use on horseback, developed (or adopted) composite bow technology and reflex-recurve design. Shorter bows required a release which should have avoided finger pinch, so thumbrelease and thumbrings have evolved.
The fighting/hunting strategies should be considered too. As you mentioned, "3-finger under" could be a great release technique when it comes to shooting at deer size targets from tree stands. The target is stationary and the distance is close. Nomadic style hunting was based on chasing the game animal on horseback and killing it with bow n arrrow, spear or even sword. This kind of drive hunts require higher skill in instinctive shooting at moving targets. Thumbrelease allows easier and faster re-loading of the bow, especially when two spare arrows are held in the string hand. Like all the other hunting techniques, it can be projected to battle fields and used as an effective strategy against the enemy.
In general, nomadic archery is based on an offensive attitude. Shorter draws and snap shooting instinctively is the core of the concept. Western archery, both hunting and fighting, is mainly based on shooting at stationary or slowly-moving targets. A longer draw and a more solid anchor make sense. GAP shooting or higher anchors towards the eye can also be replaced easily with instinctive shooting based on muscle memory.
Equipment also bring some limitations or advantages. Shorter bows (particularly Turkish bows) with shorter draws are efficient both with lighter and heavier arrows. Longer bows in general are more efficient with heavier arrows. Especially slower selfbows like ELB need to launch the heavy arrows only with longer power strokes. Shorter composite bows are faster and so are their shorter (and lighter and heavy spined) arrows. They all compensate the shorthened power stroke.
Mike,
You may be right in considering the relationship between the draw length and the size of people. I remember that this has been discussed somewhere in atarn. In my opinion people were not uniform or homogenous in size. It should be true at least for Ottoman Empire where people of various ethnic roots and from different nations have lived.
I also realised that the shot is better when the string hand brushes the ear. This seems to be not too much different than the classical follow-through in 3-finger release. The so-called "plucking" is one of the common mistakes that we all make sometimes. The hand must be close to the face in release.
-
ginni
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: romania
- Contact:
Murat,
As I know, the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians, all are shooting with long and very long draw.
Maybe because they have bamboo and they can make long/stiff, light arrows?
With wood is not possible to make a long, stiff and light arrow, and that can be a reson for shorter draws, to keep lighter arrowes.
Just an idea.
As I know, the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians, all are shooting with long and very long draw.
Maybe because they have bamboo and they can make long/stiff, light arrows?
With wood is not possible to make a long, stiff and light arrow, and that can be a reson for shorter draws, to keep lighter arrowes.
Just an idea.
-
Murat ?zveri
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Istanbul,Turkey
- Contact:
Turks have used longer bows too, probably with longer draws. In old Uygur and some Seljuk depictions longer bows with long, rigid ears can be seen.
I don't know why the bow and arrow got shorter in Ottomans. Spine and weight of the arrow can not be the only answer or maybe it is. The advantages and disadvantages of both systems must be examined throughly and compared with each other.
M.
I don't know why the bow and arrow got shorter in Ottomans. Spine and weight of the arrow can not be the only answer or maybe it is. The advantages and disadvantages of both systems must be examined throughly and compared with each other.
M.
-
Orda Khan
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:45 am
- Location: Wales
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Some comments:
If you test the same archer who can both shoot with three fingers and a thumb ring using the same draw length and arrow, the arrows shot with the thumb ring have a higher velocity. I have tested this repeatedly with a chronograph. As pointed out, the archer can make a difference if they are uncomfortable with either technique.
The development of longer and shorter draws at either end of Eurasia is a long drawn out process and is not uniform. In Turkey, shorter arrows were used, but in neighbouring Iran, long arrows were used. The Krim Tatars used long arrows, but sometimes ad their bows made in Istanbul. The avalability of bamboo us unlikely to have had any effect. The Qing, the Mongols and the Krim Tatars made wooden arrows, not bamboo ones.
Even Taybugha acknowledged that war arrows were shorter than target arrows. The difficulty of shooting wearing a helmet probably altered the draw length of armoured archers.
Another issue is the number of arrows that could be carried by an archer. The Turkish arrows were both shorter and lighter because even the arrow heads were smaller. Even Manchu target arrows were almost 50% heavier than the average Turkish war arrow. The Turks started shooting at longer range, the Manchus closed in first.
There are so many factors involved that it is difficult to make a simple explanation.
If you test the same archer who can both shoot with three fingers and a thumb ring using the same draw length and arrow, the arrows shot with the thumb ring have a higher velocity. I have tested this repeatedly with a chronograph. As pointed out, the archer can make a difference if they are uncomfortable with either technique.
The development of longer and shorter draws at either end of Eurasia is a long drawn out process and is not uniform. In Turkey, shorter arrows were used, but in neighbouring Iran, long arrows were used. The Krim Tatars used long arrows, but sometimes ad their bows made in Istanbul. The avalability of bamboo us unlikely to have had any effect. The Qing, the Mongols and the Krim Tatars made wooden arrows, not bamboo ones.
Even Taybugha acknowledged that war arrows were shorter than target arrows. The difficulty of shooting wearing a helmet probably altered the draw length of armoured archers.
Another issue is the number of arrows that could be carried by an archer. The Turkish arrows were both shorter and lighter because even the arrow heads were smaller. Even Manchu target arrows were almost 50% heavier than the average Turkish war arrow. The Turks started shooting at longer range, the Manchus closed in first.
There are so many factors involved that it is difficult to make a simple explanation.
Bede
-
Adam Karpowicz
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Canada
The issue of short vs long arrow/bow is related to penetration. At the same energy, a thin arrow will out-penetrate a thick arrow in flesh and chain mail. Tests on armour have been encouraging as well (I am not at the liberty to elaborate).
The Ottoman arrow with a bodkin-like tanged head is about 1/2 the diameter at the point end of an English war arrow. Such thin arrows can not be made long, because the spine would be too low for good flight and durability. Therefore the arrows had to be short. Now, there is no sense shooting such short and light arrows from a longer bow, because the efficiency is small. One needs shorter limbs in a bow and the Ottoman style bows are a perfect eample of this. Moreover, as a side benefit, the short bows are still efficient enough at arrow weight approaching 10gr/lb, while longer bows require greater arrow weight for better efficiency. This may explain the path leading to the development of the Ottoman bows and, beyond the warfare applications, to the flight bow. These bows could have been longer initially, but the gradual development led to the style we now see in museums.
Why then the longer composites existed at all? It seems the Crim-Tatar bows were actually not that long, as I mesured a few an average was around 52-4in ntn and the shortest was some 45-6in as reported in the Medici collection. Some of the ancient Turco/Mongol types are not particularly long (according to Andrew Hall article in JSA-A). The western Scythian was short as well. Korean bows are only 46-9in. The longest seems to be the Manchu bow, but I wonder if post-17th c. bows are a good example of war bows in any case.
Adam
The Ottoman arrow with a bodkin-like tanged head is about 1/2 the diameter at the point end of an English war arrow. Such thin arrows can not be made long, because the spine would be too low for good flight and durability. Therefore the arrows had to be short. Now, there is no sense shooting such short and light arrows from a longer bow, because the efficiency is small. One needs shorter limbs in a bow and the Ottoman style bows are a perfect eample of this. Moreover, as a side benefit, the short bows are still efficient enough at arrow weight approaching 10gr/lb, while longer bows require greater arrow weight for better efficiency. This may explain the path leading to the development of the Ottoman bows and, beyond the warfare applications, to the flight bow. These bows could have been longer initially, but the gradual development led to the style we now see in museums.
Why then the longer composites existed at all? It seems the Crim-Tatar bows were actually not that long, as I mesured a few an average was around 52-4in ntn and the shortest was some 45-6in as reported in the Medici collection. Some of the ancient Turco/Mongol types are not particularly long (according to Andrew Hall article in JSA-A). The western Scythian was short as well. Korean bows are only 46-9in. The longest seems to be the Manchu bow, but I wonder if post-17th c. bows are a good example of war bows in any case.
Adam
-
Orda Khan
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:45 am
- Location: Wales
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Adam's logic is impeccable, but the variation in Krim Tatar bows while it exists does not indicate they used short arrows. The Krim arrows I have seen are long and have bladed heads with reinforced points.
Penetration is not the only goal of a war arrow. The arrow only needs to penetrate far enough to reach vital organs or arteries. Having more than 20 inches of half inch thick timber with a sharp arrow head attached waving around in front of you probably has as great a psychological effect as it does a physical one. Most of the Qing arrow heads used in warfare seem to be narrow and parallel edged. I think the edges were sharp as well. After the conquest of the Ming, the main wars the Qing fought were with the Western Mongol tribes who were not wearing armour.
Penetration is not the only goal of a war arrow. The arrow only needs to penetrate far enough to reach vital organs or arteries. Having more than 20 inches of half inch thick timber with a sharp arrow head attached waving around in front of you probably has as great a psychological effect as it does a physical one. Most of the Qing arrow heads used in warfare seem to be narrow and parallel edged. I think the edges were sharp as well. After the conquest of the Ming, the main wars the Qing fought were with the Western Mongol tribes who were not wearing armour.
Bede
-
M Hardman
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:48 pm
- Location: Bristol, England
An example of wararrows having an effect on morale (and horses) would be of Agincourt.
At Agincourt most of the damage was not done by the actual direct killing from war arrows, the most damage was done by the noise created as the arrows fell in great swarms and richoched off the plate armour worn by the French men-at-arms and knights. This noise spooked the horses and caused a huge crush of French soldiers in the mud. (also lots of mistakes made by the french generals caused this, but being English I'd like to glorify the longbow a bit ). It should be remembered as well that there would be shock trauma from anything hitting you at great speed, even if it did not penetrate.
I know nothing about how the bow was used by military of the Turkic (?) nations though.
Having made a few alterations to my technique, I can draw to my ear and still only have a drawlength of roughly 29 inches. I'm 6'2''. This only 1-2 inch shorter draw does seem to allow a more relaxed shot. I've yet to try it at a longer distance.
Mike
At Agincourt most of the damage was not done by the actual direct killing from war arrows, the most damage was done by the noise created as the arrows fell in great swarms and richoched off the plate armour worn by the French men-at-arms and knights. This noise spooked the horses and caused a huge crush of French soldiers in the mud. (also lots of mistakes made by the french generals caused this, but being English I'd like to glorify the longbow a bit
). It should be remembered as well that there would be shock trauma from anything hitting you at great speed, even if it did not penetrate.I know nothing about how the bow was used by military of the Turkic (?) nations though.
Having made a few alterations to my technique, I can draw to my ear and still only have a drawlength of roughly 29 inches. I'm 6'2''. This only 1-2 inch shorter draw does seem to allow a more relaxed shot. I've yet to try it at a longer distance.
Mike
-
Adam Karpowicz
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Canada
The Crim-Tatar bows perform best with longer arrows. It is because this design, with the reflex grip, requires a longer draw for best performance. This applies regardless (within reason) if a bow itself is short or long. A longer arrow is of course heavier.
I would think penetration is the most important element for war arrows, although it may not be the only advantage. It is similar to hunting: good penetration can make a marginal shot a killing one, and most shots would probably be marginal in combat. The psychological effects, while present, would not be of much value for professional, battle hardened troops. If an arow did not penetrate far enough to kill or disable, it would be pulled out and the fight would continue. Injuries are not likely to be felt in the heat of battle as much and these people were a lot tougher than us...
Adam
I would think penetration is the most important element for war arrows, although it may not be the only advantage. It is similar to hunting: good penetration can make a marginal shot a killing one, and most shots would probably be marginal in combat. The psychological effects, while present, would not be of much value for professional, battle hardened troops. If an arow did not penetrate far enough to kill or disable, it would be pulled out and the fight would continue. Injuries are not likely to be felt in the heat of battle as much and these people were a lot tougher than us...
Adam