How does ancient archery compare?

[Leon.R]

I had a look and wonder how does the ancient bow and arrows compare to todays traditional gear?
More a hundred or even a thousand years ago.
They did not have the advantage of modern materials and tools but they seem to kill both humans and animals all the same.
KE and all the other factors some people worry about did not come in to it, or did it.
Did they tune bows like we do or did they just work on it so long they knew where they were going.
Egiptian war bow shot a 154 - 216 grain arrow, dont know the draw weight but thats not much...
English war bows were high poundage but how did that transfer to the arrow?
Just wondering - any thoughts?

[robtattoo]

Originally posted by Havoc1:

English war bows were high poundage but how did that transfer to the arrow?

Really, really well!  

[Leon.R]

For some reason I think you have one?  

[ISP 5353]

The French would agree.

[Brian Krebs]

OK peoples - there was a bow found in a bog in Denmark or Sweden; one of those type countries that dated back over 5000 years. It had snapped in half; and a bowyer had the opprotunity to take pictures of it; and it showed how complex the thinking was on its construction; how the right stave had been picked to complement the bow as it was drawn.. I don't remember to much of the details; but at one time there was at least one bowyer that was making copies of it.
 It was a fine bow by todays standards.
Hep me out now.. wid the details...  

[TonyW]

Ötzi, the glacier man

How did he die? Ötzi lived in a violent era where people changed their way of living compared to the preceding millions of years. There used to be nomadic tribes but about 5000 years B.C. the tribes started to settle and live mainly of the farmland and perhaps also from hunting. Storaging provisions meant more visible differences between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' which caused conflicts.

The arrow head in his back tells us something about the killer.

Professor Harm Paulsen has replicated Ötzis bow and some arrows (including the arrowhaed of the assasin!) to learn from its effectiveness. He wanted to reconstruct the situation of the assasin shooting at Ötzi, on the spot on top of the mountain where Ötzi was probably shot.
The target was a piece of a pig which was covered with a goat skin like the jacket that Ötzi wore. The research of the arrowhead in Ötzis body revealed that the arrow was shot from the direction: 25o below him, behind him to the left.

From that position it appeared that the arrow (length: 60 cm) with a force of 23 kg could easily bridge over the 27 m and after that stick in Ötzis body.
The arrow missed Ötzis heart on just 10 cm, which revealed an excellent sharpshooter. A champion archery couldn't equal this outstanding performance with his modern-day equipment...

According to A. Pedrotti there were 2 sorts of arrowheads known from that time:

the diamond-shaped type, which was used to hunt game
the spades-shaped type, which was used to settle conflicts
The arrowhead in his body revealed the second type.

[Bjorn]

There have been episodes on the History Channel about horn bows, with supposed tests etc. One claimed speeds exceeding 300 fps with a horn bow as I recall; but no indication about how that speed claim was established.
The period 1000 BC to 1600 AD had a very dependent and sophisticated relationship with archery for hunting and warfare.
I think we might be surprised by the level of the bowyers craft, especially during that period.

[Angus]

A good question, Havoc!  they compare quite favorably with what we shoot today, with our stuff requiring less work in both the creation end, and the maintanance end.  Many of my students (I teach Medieval history) believe our ancestors used crude, weak things compared to today's modern junk, and I tell them to think on these: an x-ray analysis of a Hoplite helmet (remember the movie "300"?) reveals metal more consistently uniform in thickness than we can manufacture today; Genghis Khan, employer of the short horse bows, NEVER lost a battle.  Every single portrayal of armor piercing points I have seen on the docudrama channels used a needle bodkin (pierces chain mail easily) on plate armor.  It always shatters upon impact, rarely puncturing the armor.  Try using the true, diamond-profile hardened plate-piercers and see what happens!  There's a reason the Prince Henry employed at least 5,700 archers at the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt.  There also was a reason that Joan of Arc's guard were usually Scots archers.  How many of us regularly practice the art of "wand shooting", where you shoot at a reed sticking up from the ground at distances up to one hundred paces.  And regularly hit the thing?  I haven't chrono'd my horn horse bow yet, but the thing shoots a light arrow quite a bit faster than either my recurves or my longbow.  If memory serves, the longest flight cast made is with a horn bow design-4/5 of a mile.  That'll reach out and touch someone!  Bjorn has nailed this thought with his comment that we'd be surprised.  I also think we'd be shocked at the prowess exhibited by our ancestors of the bow; after all, they regularly hunted birds, and brought them down!  It's the rare archer today who can be consistent with that shot, even with those wire points!  From my perspective, it's a really humbling experience to compare myself to our ancestors, even though I'm completely traditional, I'll probably never be able to fill those shoes; makes my respect for and admiration of our ancestors that much more tangible!

[Apex Predator]

I know the English fired very heavy long shafts with small cross section points from these war bows. I can't imagine a 200 grain arrow being effective at war.

[baretraks]

I've had this same argument with a few friends of mine on wether or not the gear a thousand years ago would compare....
The truth is, that ancient people didn't view archery as a hobby, they didn't just do it on the weekends, it wasn't simply a passtime.
To these people, it was simply life and death. These weapons were meant to feed and protect their families and if they were not properly constructed or maintained it meant that someone was going hungry.
Todays mass production has not revolutionized the archery scene, only changed it into something different. I have no doubt that a properly constructed Osage self-bow, coupled with a perfectly matched set of wooden arrows tipped with obsidien napped heads will perform with the top fiberglass bows out there.

[La. bowhunter]

I think the bows of old were probably at least as good as ours. If you stop and look at some of the other things that were built back then you will see pyramids, huge statues, building with indoor plumbing. I dont know how they did it but their technology seems to be as good as ours without all of the technical tools available to us.

[brettlandon]

I believe that we are steadily becoming dumber and dumber.  There are several reasons I believe this not the least of which are my children and their friends.  There is also this great rush we live in and call life.  Sometimes we have become so reliant upon technology and education (learning what someone else learned or thought they did) that we limit ourselves from good thought (ideas) and discovery.
Our ancestors were under no such restrictions.  I don't know about how an American Indian selfbow, or a Mongolian Horsebow, or an English Longbow might stack up against some of the fine fiberglass/bamboo/carbon fiber bows being constructed today, but, I can tell you this...  The hunter's of yesteryear were probably superior to all but the most committed and exceptional of us.  Their bellies and maybe their lives depended upon their skill with their bows and arrows.  I can think of no better motivater to excellence than one's life (or belly).
I think it would be an error in judgement to think that out tackle/skill set is greater than theirs.  We may have certian advantages in technology and education, but their advantage was simply time-in-the-field and intimate familiarity with their gear.  After all, if they had not achieved excellence with their designs and craftsmenship and execution, many of us might not be here.  Jus' my two cents worth.        

-Brett

[robtattoo]

Originally posted by Apex Predator:
I know the English fired very heavy long shafts with small cross section points from these war bows. I can't imagine a 200 grain arrow being effective at war.

According to the British Longbow Society, a standard war-arrow (Standard Arrow) is/was a minimum of 31-1/2", 3/8-1/2" diameter & made from either ash or poplar & should have a minimum weight of 53g (808gn) Compared to a medieval arrow this would still be classed as a lightweight! According to historical record 3oz was about the 'industry standard' for an arrow for War. Warbows are not as heavy in reality as many folks think. 100# was not uncommon, but 130# would be exceptionally heavy. 80-90# bows are among the most common weights found. Tales of 180#+ bows are purely fabrication & have no basis on proveable historical fact.

The Danish bow mentioned earlier in the thread would be the Holmgaard Bow. It's discussed at length in one of the Bowyer's Bibles (memory fails me as to which one. Sorry!)

English Warbows are still alive & well today in England & have quite a following. The BLBS has a class & holds shoots regularly, specifically for Warbows, including Clout shoots, Wand shoots & roving marks (basically really, really long range stumpin' ie; 200yds+!) There are a few really good discussion boards regarding Warbows, for those who wish to find out a little more (from guys that know a heck of a lot more than me!  :D )

[Brian Krebs]

Not the bow I was talking about... there was quite a story in a bow magazine about it at one time.....

[Brian Krebs]

the 'holmegaard bow'

 http://students.kennesaw.edu/~bberger/page2.shtml

[Leon.R]

I agree with most of the comments, I think we are using and improving our equipment to compensate for the lack of skill.
What I mean is our ancesters were better at it than us out of nescesity, they had to be good or hungry/dead as Brett said.
To us its a hobby and you dont get in the practise and practical experiance.
If it was your only way to get food and arrows took a long time to make you would miss less and shoot better instinktively.
They shot higher poundage bow on a daily basis so I dont think you would have been hunting with 40# bows

[Tom Leemans]

Good materials (of any type) well tillered, make an effective weapon, no matter when it was made. Those ancient bows had no idea what technology they were made with.

[TonyW]

Remember that small groups of hunters trailed large migrations of animals. One shot, one kill was not the rule then. Like a wolf pack, tribal hunters often weakened the prey with wounds, and then feasted on the animals that couldn't keep up with the fittest. Don't forget about the "poison arrow frogs" of South America or the variety of poisons used by African tribesmen. I don't think the weak reed arrows of the original safari archers needed 80 pound draws.
Ishi, perhaps North America's last real tribal hunter, actually preferred a bow with a draw weight in the mid-forty pound range.

[ChuckC]

Our society is different, we have changed  We could not compete with those of old at the conditions they faced, but neither could they compete with us currently.  Conditions are different.  In this world there are still societies that live day to day using bows and other "primitive" weaponry.  They face the same or similar challenges that they faced throughout history.  Many of these people are now having tough times because their world is changing and they are not always able to make the needed changes.

You can't easily compare then to now, Us to them. Then was different than now.  
ChuckC

[Mark Baker]

Given the same materials, per the local regions, we can't build equipment that works any better today.   Period.  It is one of the things that has drawn my curiosity towards this...that primitive man had it figured as well as we do, in design and performance for the available materials.  

As far as effectiveness...there are many on this site today  who prove it's effectiveness still, each year.    As if it had to be proved.