| Author |
Message |
|
Sean Manning
|
 Posted: Wed 28 Nov, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | But the measurements of found turkish bows when reconstructed point to a fairly heavy draw for weapons of war as well. over 100 pounds on average though not of the 150 pound average of the Mary Rose Bows. |
Against those Turkish bows preserved in arsenals we can put replica Scythian bows, and replicas of Tutankhamun's angular composite bows, both with draw weights around 20 kg. With the Scythian bows it is hard to be sure, because we have no well-preserved examples and only a handful of badly preserved ones, but Blyth made a good argument that the short reed arrows and light heads they used would not have benefited from a drastically stronger draw.
I can't recall any long European self bow from before the 16th century which was estimated to have a draw over 100 lbs. If you have citations I would be grateful. Most New World and African self bows that I have seen published had draw weights under 100 lbs, often in the 30-50 lb range. Even allowing for most of these examples being from times and places where archery was a dying skill, this is dramatically lighter than the Mary Rose examples. This suggests that 16th century English and 19th century Somalis expected different things from a long self bow.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Nov, 2012 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sean - I was looking for a bit more specific information, but here is a comment on a thread from myArmoury:
| Quote: | | There is nothing special about the construction of the Tudor longbows from the Mary Rose when compared to the preserved Scandinavian longbows. (All finds of which are longbows) The Hedeby and Balinderry bows are quite powerfull weaposn of the same design with the Hedeby bow rated at at a draweight of over 100 lbs. (No measurement has been made of the draw weight of the Balinderry bow but the size and design speaks for itself. Do note that even the 3rd & 4th century Nydam and Vismose bows are powerfull longbows which shows that the use of these bows have a long history of use in Scandinavia. |
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=153275
I have looked for more specifics, but the only thing I can find is numerous references to the Hedeby bow being estimated over a 100 pound draw.
| Quote: | | Against those Turkish bows preserved in arsenals we can put replica Scythian bows, and replicas of Tutankhamun's angular composite bows, both with draw weights around 20 kg. |
I don't disagree here - but we are looking at two different times and needs. The Egyptian and Scythian bows were from a far earlier time (Bronze age for the Egyptians, not sure when these Scythian bows were dated to but they were a bronze age and early iron age people). Armour was far less common during these times as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harri Kyllönen
Location: Finland Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Thu 29 Nov, 2012 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is going a bit OT but I found some more interesting info on Manchu bows.
| Quote: | “It is not unreasonable to say that the Sino-Tatar bow [the Manchu bow] was one of the most deadly forms
of this weapon ever devised for warfare. Though the maximum range of typical examples is only about
150-180 yards (150-165 meters), at half these distances they would hit with great force and drive their way
through almost any form of protection that their enemies might have devised.” This is quite in line with the
distances they focused on during the military examinations as explained by Jesuit Etienne Zie in the 19th
century. A translation of his account in French is published as follows in Stephen Selby’s Chinese Archery:
123 metres at the beginning of the dynasty, 77 in 1693 and 46 metres in 1760. The same book also quotes a
passage on the early Manchus: “The Manchus had long emphasized mounted archery... ...when they first
establshed their state their archery was as follows: they used bows of eight li draw weight [approx. 106
pounds]... ...whatever they hit, they pierced, and they could even transfix two men with some power to
spare.”
On draw weights, members of the Macartney mission to the Qing court in 1793 noted that their bows took
from 70 to 100 pounds in drawing them. Other period observers seem to confirm this. A 1736 inspection
report from a tour to the Hangzhou and Dezhou garrisons shows us that most were proficient with bows of
around 100 pounds, with some soldiers using bows up to 170 pounds of draw weight. Many of the very late
bows that remain to our time are much lighter, probably because they were for exclusive use on the
examinations and / or target archery rather than hunting and warfare. Some of the early to mid. 19th cent.
bows are still of considerable draw weight. Special heavy bows of up to 240 pounds in draw weight were
used in the military examination strength tests, but were generally not used for actual shootin |
http://mandarinmansion.com/articles/WTAF2008%...rchery.pdf
Looks like the bow Pope tested does indeed fit the description of "Sino-Tatar" warbows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Nov, 2012 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting, Harri.
Funny, when I think of Tatars or Tartars I think of them as the Russian name for the Mongols, as opposed to their own unique culture.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Nov, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gary,
That is likely tied to the fact the Tartars were in the Mongol army by that point in the area dominated by the Golden Horde. Perhaps some will have a better idea but my understanding is many in the army were Tartars, perhaps the majority.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 30 Nov, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Russians did use "Tatar" as a generic term for the various Turkic and Mongol steppe peoples. After the Mongol Empire fell apart, the different groups had different neighbours, and diverged. Still a lot in common, and contacts with each other. Not really a unique Tatar culture, though, but many unique different Tatar cultures, since so many different groups were called Tatars by the Russians, all the way from Poland through to Siberia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars
The Crimean Tatars are often the default group mean in the West, but that's a matter of proximity.
I don't see much good in calling it a Sino-Tatar bow; the Crimean Tatars adopted it from the Mongols, presumably though other Tatar groups living in-between. Manchu bow is better, IMO - it avoid the problem of Tatars, Mongols, and Chinese adopting the Manchu bow; "Sino-Tatar-Mongol" bow would have a quite different meaning depending on the time one is talking about.
Grayson's "Traditional Archery from Six Continents" has a Manchu-type bow from Afghanistan. Also made it into Tibet and Bhutan. 'Sino-Tatar-Mongol-Manchu-Afghan-Tibetan-Bhutanese" is rather cumbersome.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic