Bow Design

[TheFatboy]

So many different designs, varying from one nation to the other. Turkish, Persian, Scythian, Korean, Mongol... but what is the major difference?

For example... from what I read, the short, Turkish bows seem to be the fastest shooters. Yet, the Mongol design with it's larger siyahs, defeated knights in plate armor. Are the Turkish bows faster, due to the small siyahs? Are the Mongol bows, with their larger siyahs, better at transferring more energy into heavy war arrows? These are but some of my speculations.

To my joy, there are a great bunch of competent bowyers here on TradGang, and I heartly welcome those who can answer but a few of my questions regarding bow design  

[Pat B]

I would imagine each bow type was developed for a specific reason or use...for target, for flight, for hunting or for war. It's use would dictate it's design. Available materials would also have an effect on the design for the ancient bows.

[TheFatboy]

Doesn't seem like they were short on materials though, if they could support an army with composite bows.

As far as I know, the Mongols used birch, maple or oak for the gluing surface, the core, but I still wonder why the siyahs were larger, as I've read that adding weight to the tips slows cast considerably. Surely, the Mongols must have known. Which is why I'm wondering about the upsides of larger siyahs  

[Don Stokes]

Talked to the Crown Prince of Mongolia when he visited the annual archery trade show in the mid-90's. His bow, which he made himself, was ibex horn, bamboo, and sinew. He showed me a picture of himself in a full wolf-skin suit, hair out, astride his Belgian horse, wearing a jeweled sword. He described his wolf-hunting technique of riding into a pack and dispatching as many as possible with the sword, and shooting the escapees with arrows as they ran off. I imagine it was quite a sight, him on his big Belgian surrounded by his entourage on Mongol ponies.

He wasn't interested in my Superceders- too short! He said he made arrows that reached from his lowest rib to the ground, to get the right length.

Even the Crown Prince made his own archery equipment. He explained that part of himself went into the equipment, so everyone has to make their own in that culture. A mystical thing.

[TheFatboy]

You talked to the Crown Prince of Mongolia? Wow, Don, that's freaking awesome!  :D

And what a story. Can't believe he actually made it himself. Usually kings and princes get those kind of things for free.

Thanks for sharing!

[dutchwarbow]

most hornbows, exept from maybe the turkish and indo-persian flightbows, are develloped for warfare. They're devellopped to have maximum performance at incredible drawweights, launching heavy arrows over a long distance. There are records of chinese bows drawing 150#@28", wich would be way over 200# at their drawlength of 36". They were used by develloped civilisations, not by hunter-gatherers.

the wooden bows were especially made for hunting. They have excelent performance at lower drawweights (30-100#), are easy to make, and are reliable under almost all circumstances. At really high drawweights they will be outperformed by hornbows. This has one big reason:

if you have 2 wooden bows, one being 30#, the other 60#, the latter will be twice as heavy, if well made. You get the additional strength by adding length+thickness or width to the limbs, so the stresslevel remains the same.

if you have 2 hornbows, one being 100#, the other 200#, the latter will be just slightly heavier. The horn-wood-sinew combination can take incredible stress, but you need alot of mass for stabilisation of the siyahs. Wether you make a 100# or a 150# doesn't really matter, as long as you can keep your siyahs stable. This makes lighter hornbows relatively heavy in the outterlimbs, so they don't have an extraordinary performance.

Tim baker made a 50# red oak bow, wich shot 167fps, one fps faster than the turkish h/s bow with a similar drawweight. At 150# the red oak bow would've been 3 times as heavy, the turkish bow would be less than twice as heavy, and outperform the wooden bow. in addition, for these heavy bows you need top-quality wood, wich isn't always available.

the short turkish flightbows were made for shooting very light arrows over a long distance. they needed light limbs for this. The mongolian bows were made to launch heavy, long wararrows. The big siyahs gave them a way better f/d curve, so they fellt lighter than they actually were, making it possible for the archers to draw heavier drawweights and shooting relatively accurate with these incredible strong bows. Also their excessive drawweight and drawlength required more limb than the lighter, shorter-drawn turkish flightbows. These longer limbs were also safer, wereas a break in a flightshoot isn't lifethreatening, a breaking bow in a battle is.

Nick

[Ryan Yoon]

I'm not so sure about speed between individual horn bow styles but at hunting weights, a well made wood bow will shoot just as fast as a horn bow. Also I think a lot of turkish archery is flight shooting and therefore claims of speed may be made with lighter than hunting weight arrows although that is just my assumption. If making a hunting weight horn bow, the best reason I see for making one is because they look sweet. Personally I think the korean style is the coolest but I'm also half korean.

[TheFatboy]

Thank you Nick. Very informative, indeed. Not to mention that I'm very grateful that you confirmed my suspicions about the large siyahs and the heavy war arrows.

 

[ichiban]

to understand the diffrences in compisite bows you do indeed have to look at there uses, but keep in mind that the arrow is also important the turk flight bows shot light arrows some made of pine. in regard to the ears although tip weight slows cast the ears at a brace create the equivelent to reflex so long ears equils high reflex, but also produces stability issues. the only other thing i can say about compisites is have a look at the old koran bows, amazing reflex, super short length an entire proces to get the strung requring heating and cauls and massive stability issues for what?? target shooting, it dosent make sence to me, besides that there compisites are also geographicly out of place.

[Don Stokes]

Fatboy, it was an incredible experience. The first day of the show he was in full official regalia, a long robe with lots of gold brocade and a fez-looking hat. The next day my brother and I noticed him in the lobby with his interpreter (he spoke broken English), looking like he just stepped out of an Abercrombie and Fitch (sp?) catalog. Bill and I just went up to him and started talking, and that's when he told us about his bow and showed us the picture. When describing his bow, he drew a picture of an ibex, 'cause he didn't know the English name and neither did his interpreter.

Later, back in the booth with Dan Quillian, Dan pointed out that in his home country, he could only be approached by someone who prostrated themselves in front of him. He seemed comfortable with the situation, and used his pretty blond Brit interpreter to make sure we understood him. At one point, to illustrate one of the differences in Mongols and other folks, he grabbed her hand and inserted one of her fingers deep into his ear canal, showing us that Mongol ears are made differently, with a straight-through ear canal that made their ears work better when out on the Steppes, where they had to hear at long distances. I can only imagine what else that poor woman had to endure.

[TheFatboy]

Let's hope she was well paid.

Sounds interesting about their ears. We Scandinavians have wider nosepaths, so we can breathe better in cold weather. Just like native africans have flatter nosepaths, so they can... well, I forgot now. But all these natural "fittings" are really interesting.

[divecon10]

Only u could know these things Don.
With regard to the Mongol bows. Aside from a saber apparently they always carried two bows, one for firing from horseback, the other for greater precision, when on foot. They had three quivers with differing caliber of arrows for various ranges and targets. One type could penetrate armor another for unprotected enemy.  the front rank troops had also full armor (leather plates) and lance while skirmishers had javelin  They seemed to carry every conceivable thing required e.g.Each trooper carried a complete set of tools, individual camp kettle, an iron ration for his own use in the field, a water tight skin bag with a change of clothes which could also be inflated for crossing rivers etc.What a well oiled machine. Of course there had been many innovations through trade long before this time. The early Turko-Scythians appear to have moved west, the latter south, probably due to pressure from the nomadic tribes to the east, of whom they were part. Incredible the developments that progressed over time. Even before the time of Alexander there is remarkable account of the Rhodian archers who were able to hold the Persians at bay, during the retreat of the 10,000, with their terrific accuracy with which must have been very powerful bows as their opponents were not yet able to get within their range. Surely the Persians took note from this episode so by the time of Alexander they had perhaps better bows.
Interestingly as Nick points out, later Ottoman-turks rulers took great pride having composite bows made that were obviously stout enough to fire an arrow 300 paces or more.