What was the draw weight of a Hun war bow?

[Duncan]

I know this has been asked before but when I did a search I had a bit of trouble finding the answer I was looking for.
I shoot a 76# recurve and I think I could handle a war Repeat I Think I can handle one any help would be grand.
Dunc

[Andrew Hall]

Dunc

It is difficult to determine the exact draw weight of any ancient bow type, historic descriptions of draw weights are rare (non-existent from nomadic tribes), and the few surviving bows are not in a suitable state to draw.

Exact replicas are difficult to make as the thickness of the horn, core and sinew layers down the limb are rarely documented in a precise enough manner. Edward McEwan made a replica of the Yrzi bow (a bow derived from the Hunnic types but with much less reflex). The archaeological report of this bow has some thickness measurements, but the surviving limb had only the wooden core remaining for most of its length. His replica drew about 80lbs.

The bows would have varied with the strengths of their owners. All we can safely say about the draw weights is that they were likely to be quite heavy, I suspect that 80lbs may have been at the lower end of the weight range.

Regards

Andrew

[Adam Karpowicz]

Andrew:

I remember from your article in JSA-A, these "Hunnic" bows of many types varied quite widely in length - from 45 to over 60 inches. What was the length of arrows used for these bows? This would be another clue as to the draw weights. I would appreciate any examples - i.e length of bow vs length arrow etc.

These bows, generally non-contact recurves, were, I think, quite successful designs. The arrow length/draw length does determine performance however.

Adam

[Orda Khan]

The bow is from Niya Cemetery 1 Tomb M3 (95MN1M3) in Xinjiang, China. It was found in the grave of a royal couple in 1995. A sample from the grave was carbon dated to 215+/-60AD.

Overall length 61 3/4" round the curves. The following dimensions were scaled from several photos, so subject to some error. Siyah plates 15 1/2 and 9 1/4", limbs 14 3/4 and 13 1/4" and grip plates 9 1/4" long. Limb width circa 2" near grip, tapering to base of siyahs.

Found with three arrows 33.1" long, quiver with tubes of 35x3.9 and 29.1x3.1" and bowcase of 42.7x7.1". (These dimensions, together with the overall bow length, from the archaeological report on the M3 tomb in Xinjiang Wenwu 1999-2).

Here is an example.

[Nick]

This is a question often asked - draw weights of old bows. When considering the difficulties described above of estimating from the actual bows - arrows found with the bows could be valuable.

As well as length, the thickness and density of the wood could be used to calculate spine and thus likely draw-weight of the bow.

Computer analysis working on grain density, wood type, elastic modulus etc. could give an accurate estimate of arrow spine - when the arrow was new and in use.

Does anyone know if such studies have been ever carried out?

[Adam Karpowicz]

Thanks Orda.

I do not agree with this:

"As well as length, the thickness and density of the wood could be used to calculate spine and thus likely draw-weight of the bow. "

It is difficult to achieve arrow spine above 80lb in arrows 28-30+, made of wood. In mass-produced arrows of the past the issue of spine could not matter much (within reason of course). However, underspined arrows can still be shot from heavy bows with little trouble.

Adam

[jack farrell]

Adam; I think that Nick makes a good point. Eugin has demonstrated here how a strong bow can make underspined arrows dangerous to shoot with thumbring technique. These were spruce arrows supposedly of sufficient strength.

Arrows found in Xinjiang graves might be hardwood shafts and were probably not mass produced but were made for the particular bow. Barreled arrows with diameters up to 3/8 " are not unusual, 28 or 30" length.

When taken into account one might assume that the bows were stronger than one typically sees.

Strong bow shooters in UK might use an arrow of this sort for bows slightly over #100 but not as strong as #150. Jack

[Duncan]

Gentlemen
Thank you. I think that a 80 pound bow would do well. Will look for one and post it when the denero is available.

[Adam Karpowicz]

I do not see how could any kind of arrow spine matching be done for war bows. Millions of arrows were supplied by wagon trains for thousands of archers. Spine matching could be done, however, for target and hunting arrows.

I know a 3/8" thick hardwood arrow can be shot from a 140lb bow. Such arrows did not break when machine shot. Actually even pine arrows survived. I would think a barreled arrow of this thickness coud be easily shot from a 150lb+ bows with no trouble. Bear in mind the wood for old arrows was split, not sawn, as it is done today This makes the shaft stronger.

I shot regular 11/32 pine shafts of #60 spine from a 90lb bows and there was no breakage despite some rubbing of the grip (I guess I was, ahem, overbowed...).

Adam

[jack farrell]

I think that if we line up the relevant information that one can indeed get a pretty good idea of the strength of a HUNN bow by the arrow. I do not know of any information that Central Asians in the first millineum used wagon loads of arrows. Some grave arrows are crested, belonged to an individual, made for a particular bow. Quivers held only a few arrows so the function of archery was limited.

Besides split conifer and split hardwood there might also be shoots or sticks used. These would have much higher spine for their size. Without examining the arrows, determining the wood and grain pattern, the variation in spine would be great.

Putting a bow on a machine and shooting an arrow produces a theoretical model which should then be checked against actual practice of many archers to determine validity.

Has anyone else shot a bow in excess of #80 and what made a good arrow?

[Andrew Hall]

Adam
Sorry for the delay. Here are some examples of the approximate lengths of the conventional bone-reinforced "Hunnic" bows and arrows from Xinjiang.

Find - Bow length - Arrow length
Yingpan M19 - 56" - 32.25" (11/32 diameter)
Niya 95MN1M3 - 61.75 - 33.1
Niya 95MN1M8 - 60 - 31.5-31.9
Khotan - 64 (if sym) - up to 31.7
Niya 59MNM001 - 65 - 31.5
Niya 95MN1M4 - 58 - 34

The first three are asymmetric designs, the last three the almost symmetric wide-limbed type. (I have omitted the weird Yingpan M30 with its double bending sections from the list - 55", 28.5-28.9" arrows).

I don't know any details of the wood species used for the arrows.

In the second half of the first millennium, bows seem to have got shorter, with the Northern Caucasus examples:

Find - Bow length - Arrow length
River Gogops - 53.7 - No arrows
MB (Hermitage) - 52.7 - 27.5-29.5 (max diameter 9-11mm, birch)
MB (Krasnodar) - 49 - ?
Arrows in the Krasnodar collection are up to 24-31", but are not all related to their Moshcheveya Balka bow.

I am not sure how the bow/arrow length relates to draw weight, although it would certainly have an effect on efficiency.

Nick
I made an approximation of one of the larger Hermitage Moshcheveya Balka arrows some years ago and it did not bend enough to get a reading on an arrow spining jig. By extending the scale I guessed a weight in the 110-120lb range (if I remember correctly). Of course the stiffness might be significantly different with a different type of birch tree or even from tree to tree.

There is an article "Ballistic Properties of Ancient Egyptian Arrows" from JSA-A 23, 1980, which analyses a collection of ancient Egyptian arrows. The arrows were very long and thin footed reeds, and if measured on a modern spine table, would be suitable only for a 15lb bow. The Egyptians used bows effectively in warfare, so obviously they draw more than that, but how they shot such weak arrows is not known. Caution should probably be applied in using modern spine tables to assume the weight of ancient bows.

Andrew

[Adam Karpowicz]

Thanks a lot Andrew, this is what I needed. The arrow length is indeed very important for efficiency and I am trying to find the relation betw. the bow and arrow length for that reason.

Would you say the bow lengths are given with, or without the tips above the string nocks? The length above the nocks is not important for the mechanics of a bow. I imagine there would be about 1 to 2in extra length for each limb.

Adam

[Andrew Hall]

Adam

The lengths are the approximate overall lengths, with tips (reconstructed if necessary). The nock-to-nock lengths would be about 1 - 1 1/2" shorter for the earlier bows (1/2 - 3/4" per tip), 3 - 4" shorter for the later types (1 1/2 - 2" per tip).

Note that most of the archaeological reports only gave straight-line lengths in the bows current state, I had to scale from photographs to get the lengths round the curves, so treat the measurements as approximate.

Arrow lengths are overall lengths, usually without heads. Metal heads seem to have been removed prior to burial. Some of the arrows have wooden blunts, which remain.

Andrew

[Nick]

This has turned into an interesting thread - thanks to all for their input. Everyone makes good valid points - Adam, you make a good point about mass-production of war arrows. Even if this is the case, the arrows would still have to be in the right general region of specs. to allow for the average range of war-bow strengths. While the arrows may not give us an exact figure, they could indicate general range of weights e.g.90lb - 150lb. In English medieval/renaissance archery, war bows appear to be a wide range e.g. Mary Rose longbows appear to range from around 90lb to around 180lb. They probable all used the same arrows as it would have been impossible to issue each archer with arrows specific to his particular bow. But English arrows were commonly 'bob-tailed' - i.e. tapered down from just behind the head to the nock. This would help arrows to clear the handle of the bow on shooting - not relying on paradox alone.

Another factor we would need to know is the type and weight of the arrow head when assessing arrow shaft spine - as it has a great effect on it. Egyptian read arrows - like those mentioned by Andrew, from the Old Kingdom times had tiny flint heads set on a fore-shaft. I remember seeing somewhere that they used acacia wood longbows with deflexed tips - estimated to weigh around 50lb.

[Adam Karpowicz]

Thanks Andrew. It seems the bows were indeed getting shorter (in relation to arrow length). I like to think the bowyers realized the efficiency was greater for shorter bows.

As to the arrows. I remember a British film about penetration with the archer filmed from above (I think it was Mark Stretton). The bow was one of those monster bows at some 150lb. The arrow, presumably an exact replica, clearly rubbed on the grip as it passed the bow, but still flew correctly hitting the target.

Thi preoccupation with arrow spine seems to be a modern invention. In Asia, the arrows were chosen on the basis of their mass in relation to draw weights, although this probably applied to target use. It would take an exceptionally brittle arrow, possibly with wood grain problems, to shatter when shot. I would not bother with arrow spine assessments, at least for war arrows. Within reason, of course, as Nick said - a rather large range of spines could be used. I think for 90+lb bows the lowest could be #60, provided the arrow was well made.

Adam