Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Marc St Louis on January 27, 2011, 04:44:40 pm
-
We have a TV channel up here that has a 1 hour show called "Ancients Behaving Badly" that analyses the psychology of people of the past that held positions of power. The last one was about Genghis Khan. On this show they talked about his armies and their use of horn bows. On the show they did a comparison of the English warbow and a horn bow such as was used by the Mongols. They used a 1/8" brass plate for a penetration test saying that it was a good representation of armour. The warbow looked authentic although they didn't say what the draw weight was. They did say that the horn bow had a much lower draw weight though. Both bows took 1 shot each at the plate. The horn bow had at least 2" more penetration than the English warbow
Just thought I would share that one :)
-
Marc! Here is some input from Chinese warbow weights.
They had the same averidge weight like Turkish or Scythian archers , about 120#....
http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1946
If I calculate the same weight with an ELB, the hornbows store more energy on this weight.
-
I saw this too I think. Or something almost exactly like it. Pure tv show crap, just entertainment. No explanation of draw weight or draw length. As some warbows were surely meant to be drawn to 30" - 32", and some horn bows I have heard had drawlengths longer than that. You know, 50# at 10" and 50# at 30", the 50# at 30" is gonna have way more penetration from the increased momentum. Plus there is so many designs of hornbows, and when you bring in eurasian bows and american indian bows, there are so many different classes and designs it's hard to say what is what compared to what, IMO. And it's laughable they draw a conclusion at one shot each. ??? Oh well, picking out flaws and inaccuracies in tv specials is like fish in a barrel I guess, :). Also there is the point of that a natural materials bow is not like we think of most weapons today that are commercially mass produced. Could it be true that there are many factors that can affect the performance of one bow to another bow, one bowyer may do something one does not, and in effect dramatically effecting performance. And there is always that one bow made from that one stave you thought was garbage/firewood, that turns out simply amazing. And then the one that you worked and toiled to upmost perfection that just ended up a joke. Usually from the same tree? (probably due to my inexperience though). I don't know.
-
They showed both bows being shot and both were drawn to very close to the same draw length. The horn bow was shot with a thumb ring so whoever was shooting it was not new to horn bows and the warbow was drawn well also. In fact the arrows they used looked very similar so it could in fact have been the same arrow. It is a fact that a horn bow in England would not perform well, to humid. The focus of the show was not on the bows though, it was on the ruling body behind the bows; in this case Genghis Khan
-
I've often wondered how a battle between Comanches and the Mongols would go. Both parties excellent archers, and horsemen. Accounts that I've read about Comanches marathon stamina, and Olympian strength, bet it would be a heck of a battle.
-
forget about the t.v company propanganda,here is something to think about,the asiatic arows are a lot thinner,i mean 6-8 mm in circumfrence,then you take the extremely heavy draw weights of the bows i mean100# +.Now here is another thing the speed deamons never think of,heavy tang= more forward weight=more punch through,particulrly with an asiatic style bobkin,( how many of you have even seen one)they are designed to do their job.then you have the majra arrows (darts) and then the armour piercing ones with the bulbous heads which are meant to pumch through armour and elephant skulls.There are just too many variables and things to contemplate.
We can take 2 bows made of the same materials nd made to the same dimentions and we would still not get compaarable results.so it really is like compaaring apples to ornges,I feel i enjoy watching t.v. but when it comes to archery i trust my bow and what i feel i am capable of.
-
here is something to think about,the asiatic arows are a lot thinner,i mean 6-8 mm in circumfrence,then you take the extremely heavy draw weights of the bows i mean100# +.
I assume you mean 6-8 mm in diameter...otherwise the arrows would be thinner than any carbon arrows used today....im not sure that is possible?
In fact im pretty sure that no natural materials besides steel could handle 100#+ with a diameter of just 6 mm (assuming 28" draw)....if such an arrow could be made I doubt it could be mass produced to equip an army with.
I have no doubt that asiatic composits could and can compete, even beat most other bow designs in certain diciplines.
Cheers
-
Marc,
If you want to read of the actual effect of horn bows on armoured Knights, read the reports of the Crusades, especially of Richards march along the Mediterranean to relieve Acre, (If memory serves me correctly), read of the crusaders looking like hedgehogs after being shot multiple times but being effectively unharmed because of the poor penetration attained by the Saracens and their Horn bows. Remember that at the time the main form of armour was maille over padded jackts. Then compare this with the known results of the English weapon at such battles as Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt, Tewkesbury , etc, when armour had been greatly improved.
One wonders why they chose 1/8 brass plate is there a shortage of iron?
Craig.
-
Craig
It would depend on what draw weight the Saracens horn bows were. This was about the Mongols and their bows were apparently of a fairly high draw weight. They did another test and this one was on the type of leather armour that the Mongols used. They shot an arrow at a piece of leather in front of a pig carcass and penetration was pretty good. The Mongols apparently wore silk shirts behind their armour so they then tried putting silk behind the leather. It stopped the arrow.
I have no idea why they chose brass, perhaps it's what represented the armour of his time. The test piece was the same for both bows.
-
I'm not an expert on this subject but having shot both styles I wouldn't think there was much dispute about which was stronger ??? Correct me if Im wrong but aren't the English warbows just a straight, long bow with high draw weights. The horn bows seem so much more advanced in design and performance I would think that at the same draw weights the horn bows would really outperform. I think history shows that both were highly effective but If I had to mass produce bows for an army I might go with the English war bow due to the fact that they can be made quickly and don't require as much skill to make.
-
this sounds similar. this bowyer is lukas novotny, a master craftsmen of horn composites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGcYGwqb3So
-
It would depend on what draw weight the Saracens horn bows were. This was about the Mongols and their bows were apparently of a fairly high draw weight.
The horn bows seem so much more advanced in design and performance I would think that at the same draw weights the horn bows would really outperform
MMM! I have yet to hear of anyone who can pull a 150lb plus bow when on horseback.
The only tests I have heard of that compared performances of a number of Horn/sinew bows with an ELB not a warbow, was conducted by Saxton Pope, he was most disappointed with the performance of the horn bows, these were bows procured from the countries of origin.
I understand that Mongol bow is/was of bamboo and horn with no sinew. Was the bow used in the "test" a bamboo and horn?
WRT the use of brass I cannot believe that it could be claimed to be representative of armour used at any date. I believe that you will find that because of the ductility of the material the results would be skewed.
Craig.
-
MMM! I have yet to hear of anyone who can pull a 150lb plus bow when on horseback.
The only tests I have heard of that compared performances of a number of Horn/sinew bows with an ELB not a warbow, was conducted by Saxton Pope, he was most disappointed with the performance of the horn bows, these were bows procured from the countries of origin.
I understand that Mongol bow is/was of bamboo and horn with no sinew. Was the bow used in the "test" a bamboo and horn?
WRT the use of brass I cannot believe that it could be claimed to be representative of armour used at any date. I believe that you will find that because of the ductility of the material the results would be skewed.
Craig.
Probably because they didn't need a 150# bow to do what an English warbow did. Still I have read many times that their bows pulled from 100# to 150#. I wouldn't be able to pull any bow from horseback but I'm sure they could do exactly what was claimed
I don't think their horn bows were as you say. I have seen and read several accounts and all said the bows were horn and sinew. I have not seen Bamboo mentioned once, rather Birch was a common core wood used with Sheep horn belly and sinew backed. What sources claimed they used Bamboo?
Seeing as how both bows shot at the same material then as far as I'm concerned the test was valid.
-
I always treat anything produced for TV with more than a modicum of salt, similar things have bee sown before on TV where the director/presenter said such and such but when the truth came out is was a shere lie. MTher are a number of British wrabow archers who got involved in another TV program which proported to show that the English Warbow could not penetrate plate, the archers later reported the problems with the program and stated they wished they had never got involved in the filming.
If the producer was genuine in his wish to demonstrate the effectiveness of the mongul bow over the English warbow he would have demonstrated it using armour material as used in the day he wished to compare. He would have said what weight each bow was, would have used the type of arrow used by each bow. Instead from your explanation he said the English bow was heavier than the horn bow, he appeared to be using the same arrow, he shot at a piece of brass, claiming that said brass was a fair representation of the armour used in the day.
Now to be able to say that the brass was a fair representation of the armour used can only be said after exhaustive penetration tests on both iron/steel armour and brass, but why bother to do such comparisons when the iron/steel armour is available and must have been available to perform the comparative tests.
English Warbows perform at their best when using relatively heavy arrows, wheras generally horn bows are used with much lighter arrows.
As there are no surviving examples of a Gengis Khan era Mongul bow any claim to know the weight of such is pure speculation, as I have said I have not heard of a current horse archer that can pull and control a 150lb bow while at the same time riding and controlling his horse. I doubt that there was a need for such in the day of the Khan, their armour was not that good. I have chosen to only talk of 160 lb as it is a weight that a lot of people seem to accept as a good weight for English Warbows, not the 180 to 200 lb that mathematical modelling determines as the weight of some of the Mary Rose bows.
We know the type of armour penetrated by the English weapon, when we see such armour penetrated by horse bows using the heads and type of arrow they used then we would be able to say that is a fair test and comparison.
As for what the bow is made of watch this, listen to the words, ignore what is written om the screen and look at what the bowyer is applying glue to, if you look carefully you will see a bamboo nodes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgEp4ZAPbs0&feature=related.
Seeing as how both bows shot at the same material then as far as I'm concerned the test was valid.
All that the test proved is that at some undetermined weight for an English style bow, (was it warbow or ELB) a horn bow of a claimed lower weight could better penetrate a piece of brass with an arrow of undetermined weight.
Craig
-
craig, why do you keep mentioning that you havent heard of any current horse archers that can draw 150 from horse back? of course not, noone has time for that much practice. are you doubting that it was done in the past, when this was peoples livelyhood?
-
dang i had to check the board ,make sure i was on " bow"
-
150 lbs for someone born on a horse, probably not that impressive back then?
Worth remembering that if it wasn't for the death of Ogedai, there probably wouldn't be an English warbow, at least as we know it.
-
I saw that show, too. It was very interesting and entertaining. I was just glad to see my favorite channel discussing archery as it related to history. Jim
-
The "Mongol" bow that many of us see today is NOT the true Mongol bow used by Genghis Khan and his lads. The bow that we call a Mongol today is actually a Manchu bow. The Mongol bow of antiquity was very similar to a "Magyar" or Crimean Tatar bow. They were made with bamboo, sinew, horn and backed (protected) by birch or leather. If you go to Lukas's site and look at the Yuan Dynasty bow he has on his site it is almost identical to a bow that Kublai Khan (grandson Of Ghenghis)is depicted shooting. Grant it pictures are just artist representations but there are sevearl graves that have parts of these bows in them.
As far as the Crusaders armor not being penetrated by the Saracen bows this maybe true but also maybe an imaginative piece of propaganda. After all as a Westerner you would not want to have new "recruits" being told that the Arab weapons were more advanced than your own. One misconception about Eastern bows in general is that they are "only" efficient when shooting a light arrow. This is based on the Turkish Flight Bows of the last couple of centuries. Keep in mind that even during the height of the Ottoman Empire the war bows were larger and had bigger siyahs.
There is also much debate about the draw weight of the Mongol bows. Some believe that they shot bows of over 100# while others say about 75#. I believe there were two draw weights one for infantry or ground work while the other was used on horseback. It is said in "The Secret History of the Mongols" that each warrior went on campaign with two bows. They also had several thumb rings of different sizes to account for the thumb swelling and shrinking because of weather.
-
Adam K. has a persian horse bow in his book that is a double bow and is quoted as saying it possibly draws 300 lbs. As for the Mary Rose I've seen the quotes of 80 to125 lb. pull averagebut not 180 to 200 lb. Also the horn bows pull with little stack compared to a long bow. King Henry is said to of taken his War bow with him to France. It's weighted pull was aprox. 150 and he was a big fella.
-
Hello.I have 2 orginal Mongol bows , made in Mongolia. I must say - very slow bows.One short horsebow and one 160 cm. By draw weight 70 - 80 lb - 120 - 130 fps 9 gpp .Very hevy sijah and high mass of limbs - disaster
-
I'd be very interested to see an "original" mongol bow. I really do not believe there are any in existance? By original I mean surviving examples from the period.
With regards time to train to use a bow, I feel this arguement holds little water. Admittedly there may not be so many people with either the strength, skill or training to do this but there are absolutely some who could; if it was possible?
-
The testing that Adam Karpowicz did with his horn war bows, he mentions Crim-Tatar, seems to show speeds of about 185 fps with 10 GPP arrows. Adam is well known for his horn bows
-
Hello.I have 2 orginal Mongol bows , made in Mongolia. I must say - very slow bows.One short horsebow and one 160 cm. By draw weight 70 - 80 lb - 120 - 130 fps 9 gpp .Very hevy sijah and high mass of limbs - disaster
Were these bows made recently, Lukasz? Archery seems to be making a huge return in Mongol culture, maybe the builder was fairly new to the craft?
I'd love to see you post some of your work, by the way, Lukasz! I've heard some very nice things.
-
my mongol bow had a really high brace height, does that one have a higher brace height? i mean higher than 8 inches.. i used the same string it came with.. i never tried to make another string for it. it was kinda slow, but it had decent cast
-
For sure in old times was better Bowyers in Mongolia , I think this is some kind of product for tourist ? Bows looks realy great , very precise work but shoot bad.
-
Interesting topic!
I've read many accounts on the Mongols and they are all consistent in maintaining that the bows were powerful. At the time of Genghis Khan, the tradition of shooting composite bows had existed for hundreds of years. This leads me to believe that the quality of the average Mongol bow was very high, and that the test results are not surprising.
If the same arrow was shot out of both bows, then the speed of the arrow was greater when shot out of the Mongol bow. It's that simple. If the arrows were different, then there is no telling what the cause was for the greater penetration... and the test is meaningless without complete data on both the bows and the arrows.
As far as Comanches vs Mongols, the side with the greatest levels of morale, technology, and training would win. In this case, the Mongols would have the upper hand. JMHO
-
Lukasz;
It surprised me when you said it was slow. The horn bow I just got is screaming a 10gpp arrow. I can tell by just looking it is in the 180 fps zone or better. Being a tourist bow makes sense.
-
I know one thingl, that is a fact ! I sure wouldn't want to be on the recieving end on a volley of either bow, In a battle!! I often wondered what those poor infantry soldiers felt , when 1,000 arrows are coming down on them. Might as well hang your head and kiss you butt good bye.lol BY the way no emergency rooms back then. Den
-
Here are some measurements of some mughal arrows from the privet collection of a gentleman and I leave it to you all to draw your own conclusions.
Some Mughal bamboo arrows;
Flight? - 16.9 grams, 6mm mid shaft, 72.5 cm LOA
Bullet point- 14.0g, 6x73
Bullet- 16.5g, 7x71
Bullet- 13.6g, 6.5x72
Bodkin- 27.8g, 7x73.3
Bodkin- 26.4g, 6.5x73
Broadhead- 34.6g, 7x65.5
Broadhead- 30.4g, 6.5x67
Broadhead- 28.6g, 7x70.3
Heavy bodkin-47.0g, 7x68
Heavy bodkin-51.0g, 8x79.2
-
The bow Lukasz is shooting is made in Mongolia for "tourist" trade and is not what the Mongols conquered most of the world. The bow that is made in Mongolia now is more of a Manchurian style bow.
The bows the Mongols used were more like what we call a Crimean Tatar they were shorter and the siyahs were smaller at least that is one theory. The other theory is the bows resembled more of what we know call a Magyar bow with longer siyahs, longer riser area and shorter limbs. What is true is that they were shorter then the "Mongolian" bows of today.
-
The bow Lukasz is showing, like any bow with that much weight mass in the tips or siyas would really slow down the speed