Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Any earlier historical examples of compound/reverse bows? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
T. Brandt





Joined: 29 Nov 2014

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sat 29 Nov, 2014 7:52 pm    Post subject: Any earlier historical examples of compound/reverse bows?         Reply with quote

So, somewhere in the 1950s, the compound bow was formulated. Around 1900, the Penobscot bow made itself known to the world. And just recently, reverse-draw crossbows (and bows, oddly) are making their appearance.

Now, the question is... have any of these formats been seen before the twentieth century, even if only as bespoke or experimental pieces? Humans are no more creative now than they were a thousand years ago, after all.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,494

PostPosted: Mon 01 Dec, 2014 2:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Medieval Chinese multi-bow artillery crossbows:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=284513
http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewar...gzinu.html

Cable-backed bows, if you include them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable-backed_bow

When you include pulleys and cams, those add weight, and they add the weight at the ends of the limbs, where extra weight hurts performance. With modern materials, they can be made light and strong, and the benefits of the design outweigh the penalty of that extra weight. It would be harder to reach the break-even point with pre-modern materials.

We have a trade-off like this in the long-siyah reflex-recurve composite bow - the siyahs (the rigid ears at the tips of the limbs) work as levers, but they add weight to the limb tips. For designs with long siyahs, you don't get much benefit until you exceed 50lbs or so of draw weight (that's the approximate break-even point most often given by others).

Think about the weight in pre-modern pulleys, and the losses due to friction (these days, we have good bearings, but Medieval cams and pulleys did not (by modern standards)).

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.


Last edited by Timo Nieminen on Fri 05 Dec, 2014 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
T. Brandt





Joined: 29 Nov 2014

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 11:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks for the reply. I guess I made the (sophomoric) mistake of assuming that just because it's more technologically complicated and produces better results now doesn't mean it would do the same centuries ago.

Kind of like how a steel bowstring, despite being more technologically intensive, is actually less ideal than a fibrous one (under most circumstances).
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,494

PostPosted: Fri 05 Dec, 2014 7:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are two key elements in the success of the modern compound bow:
1. Modern materials. This gives us lightweight pulleys, thin strong strings, and durable bearings.
2. Modern precision manufacturing. This gives better quality bearings, and allows the whole thing to be made much, much more cheaply.

The individual elements were all there: pulleys, cams, roller bearings. It's a question of making them well enough and light enough. Those individual things all worked for many different jobs.

Somebody would still need to invent it. Maybe somebody did. And discovered that it didn't work very well. A lot of technology was passed down from master to apprentice, from craftsman to craftsman, without being written down. It's very easy for unsuccessful inventions to vanish from sight with that kind of system.

There are other technologies we have today where the pieces were there for a long time before they became good enough to be practical. In some cases, the invention preceded practicality by many decades. Slow and steady improvement in materials can make a big difference in the end. Revolutionary change gets a lot more press than evolutionary change, but evolutionary change matters a lot.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 5:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Precision manufacturing to tight tolerances is far more important for compound bows than it may seem at first. A local bowyer in Indonesia experimented with making a compound bow out of wood and bamboo last year and it worked -- giving the desired feeling of let-off at the end of the draw and providing an improvement (albeit a marginal one) in arrow speed over ordinary bamboo-limbed recurves made to similar specifications. However, the alignment between the parts proved hard to keep consistent, and the bow had to be readjusted every few shots to maintain its speed and accuracy.
View user's profile Send private message
T. Brandt





Joined: 29 Nov 2014

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 2:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette, I'm sorry, but I find that absolutely fascinating. What material was used for the bowstring?
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,494

PostPosted: Sat 06 Dec, 2014 2:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

That's interesting! Do you have any further info or references?

Alignment would be easier if axles and bearings are made wider/thicker/longer, but then weight goes up a lot, and performance goes down.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Tue 09 Dec, 2014 12:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Not much. It wasn't that special as a bow -- if I recall correctly, the maximum draw weight was only 40 pounds or so, and the full-draw weight somewhat less than 30 pounds (but I don't remember the exact number of the latter). The limbs were of bamboo while the riser was made out of a tropical hardwood. I'm not sure about the type of wood used for the pulleys/cams but it was a good deal lighter (both in colour and in specific gravity) than the one used in the riser. The string was Dacron since the bowyer wanted to be on the safe side.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Any earlier historical examples of compound/reverse bows?
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum