Ancient bows-who's were best?

[Ed Neudorf]

So I've been wondering, who among the ancient cultures had the best bow? I know the English longbow has a reputation as a long range killer, but what about others? I saw a program on the Mongols the other day, and it claimed that the composite Mongol bow had a 500 yd range, which I found rather hard to believe. Has anyone done any research into this, and what did you find? It makes me curious, seeing as almost all ancient cultures had a different type of bow, who did it best?

[R.W.]

The Turks drove arrows over 900 yards with thier horn/wood/sinew composite bows.

How one would figure out whose was the "best" who be purely objective, since the Mongols never fought the English.

The composite bows were "mostly" utilized from horseback, whereas an English longbow would nearly impossible to shoot from horseback.

Both these style of bow had major impacts on the cultures of the day.

Probably would come down to which bow you would prefer to see be "the best."

[David Bartholomew]

Maybe this info/link will help (it covers "a few years"):

 http://www.petersfieldarchery.org.uk/history%20of%20archery.htm

David

[Killdeer]

Awesome link, Mr. B.

Killdeer

[Willow]

Something Ive read somewhere was that the Mongol arrows (the ones shot for distance) weighed nearly nothing so they could go super far. I think the English lonbow was best. After all, its one piece of wood made in a day. Composited bows took a year.

[tecum-tha]

The korean horn bow together with the turkish bows were the best performing ancient bows and still are. The design itself makes them superior. More energy storage than longbows. The koreans even have an ancient overdraw system and I didn`t want to be hit by one of those things.
Somewhere on youtube there is a test against a car side window. The window sees total penetration and then the arrow is burried about 4" in the offsite door. For sure I didn`t want to be the driver on this thing either :-))
I currently shoot a traditioal korean bow (made with modern materials),but looks like a horn bow.
This is my favorite bow now and I only have about 16 others, and almost all are brand longbows and recurves.

[R.W.]

I've not read anything about the Mongols "flight shooting" arrows for distance. Most of the articles pertaining to this dicipline are written about the Turks.

Also, as tecum-tha mentions, the Koreans still have archery shoots, based on ancient customs, where they shot at targets that were/are placed at about 160 yards.

A lot of Mongol and Korean arrows would have been made of bamboo, I would imagine. This would make them light, and strong, as anyone who has made 'boo arrows can attest.

How one would "test" these two different style of bows against each other, I don;t know.

You could not shoot the composite bow arrows from the long bow, as with thier light weight, the "self" bow MAY break on release. The composite bow may tolerate launching a "cloth yard arrow."

As to draw weights, both types where used with some phenomenal draw weights. . . 100 to 150 # pull bows where used as "War" bows. How would you like to shoot one of those all day?  

Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

[Jason Jelinek]

The answer is they all were the best.  The ELB stood up to the higher humidity and the mass production needed to equip a large army.  The mogol bows were pretty efficient in an area where straight trees were hard to find and needed to be shot off of horseback.  The Japanese yumi worked well again in an area where straight trees are in short supply and still allowed to be shot off of horseback.

Jason

[tecum-tha]

Tests are easily done: same draw weight bows with matching arrow with same grain/pound mass weight using the same draw length. The 10 grain/pound is good here. The faster arrow is shot from the more efficient bow.
Just a short test I did: My 60#@25"(= 69#@28") korean shoots a 550 grain arrow 220 yards. My glassbacked longbows and recurves with the same draw weight shoot about 180 yards with same mass arrow. I shot these at the same day with no wind. That tells me the korean bow is the more  efficient bow.
This thing looks like a toy but has no handshock and is accurate,too. The good thing is, that it is quite cheap :-))

[The Whittler]

How about all of the above. Each were designed for a particular purpose, so they functioned quite well for the user.

As I stated above, all of them.

Alan

[Jeremy]

'best' is subjective and depends on the environments and materials available.

'most efficient' can certainly be tested, but you have to keep in mind that certain bows would not work well, or be able to be made, in all locations.  

The bows of the Amazon are an excellent example.  They are quite long, braced at around 3" and follow the string about 2"!  Efficient, not really, but best for the year-long near 100% humidity.  Take your typical ELB or hornbow and it'll be useless in short order.

[Jeff Strubberg]

One of the coolest things about researching ancient bows is how any design that lasted for very long did so because it fit the needs and restrictions of a given environment.

Alaskan natives made bows from driftwood and sinew cabling.  

Desert tribes of the Americas made bows of inferior woods like mesquite and kept them shooting by intentionally deflexing them.

Rain forest tribes made bows of palm work by making them extremely long.  Since most of their shots are basically straight up, the extra length isn't cumbersome.

Every bow design was arrived at for a reason.  Understand the reason and you will understand the design.  I see the ELB brought up often as a great design.  That depends.  If you need a lot of bows out of limited stock in a limited time, have no idea what archer will shoot that bow, need the weapon to perform in damp weather and don't need the bow to last especially long, then the "english longbow" is a top-notch design.  If, however, you need a bow for a dry climate that is highly efficient and will last for many years, the design is terrible!

Before you can define "best", you first have to decide "best for who?".

[Angus]

Time for Prof. Angus to weigh in, here.  comparing the efficiency of the two is like comparing apples and oranges.  Both were equally efficient.  Also, you need to differentiate war bows from general service hunting bows.  We know that Welsh longbowmen could fire between 6-10 arrows per minute with the war bow.  We know they were lethal at 400 paces from battlefield accounts. We know that they could pierce 4 inches of oak.  Many of you may not know that yew in England after the first quarter of the 1300's was too spongy for decent bows.  That's why a "stave" tax was imposed on wine imported from the continent.  Prior to about 1305, the weather was warm and dry enough in England that their wine was better than French wine, but with the onset of the "little ice age", that changed.  The hayday of the longbow was during the 100 years' war.  By the time of the battle of Crecy (1346), longbows were made from yew imported from Portugal, Spain, even France!  Jeremy makes a telling point about humidity, hence the need to stop using English yew.

if you define "efficiency" as firing a faster arrow further and greater rate of fire, you'll have to give it to the Asiatic composite bow every time. Any questions of rate of fire can easily be answered by watching Lucas Novotny of Saluki Bows.  Efficiency in warfare I would also give to the composite bow.  Bear in mind that troops would not have armor sufficient to ward of an arrow-only those of higher rank!  the grunts of the day wore-at best-hardened leather and a quilted undergarment.  Either bow would be effective against that.  You'll find it's how they were employed in warfare that differentiates the bows, and here, it's apples etc.  Longbows were fired from a standing platform, composites were fired from horseback at a full gallop.  history has battles where the yeoman archer did not prevail: Genghis and the boys never lost a single one!

[Ed Neudorf]

Is there anyone making the composite type bows today that are reasonably affordable? Sounds like a neat bow to try.

[Jeremy]

True composite bows and "resonably affordable" are two phrases that are never in the same sentence!     There are a few nice glass lam versions of them out there now, but they don't have nearly the same amount of reflex in them as the horn and sinew bows.

  Here  is some info for you.

[David Bartholomew]

Killy, thank you.

I found the website pretty "neat".  And the added info about the patron saint of archery, St. Sebastian, interesting/humbling.  

David  (a.k.a. "Mr. B")  LOL

[R.W.]

Whether or not these are "affordable" I don't know.

Spitfire Horsebows sell his composite horsebows (luks) for about $750.00

They are well made, silent, with NO handshock, and are light as a feather. Mine seems to be pretty quick, but I haven't chrono'ed it, and it will be a while before I can. Waiting for some shoulder damage to be fixed.

Have a look at these on the Spitfire website, if your interested.

[laddy]

the Penabscot

[Danny Roberts]

Is that a "best" bow for hunting or military ?
DR

[R.W.]

From some things I have read, both the English longbowmen, and the composite bowmen utilised lighter bows for hunting/practise and daily use.

The monster bows were brought out for battle.

I would hazard to guess that these "warbows" were practised with. But it is no wonder that the remains of an English archer can be identified by the distortion of his spine.

Laddy,
Have you ever shot your Penobscot for distance? I have one of these, and it flings an arrow quite well. Never have let an arrow go to see how far it would go.  

Further, I would imagine that a Penobscot bow, with the back strings wound up tight, could easily acheive a pull of 80-100#. Even more, if a heavier "main" bow and "front" bow were utilized.