Bows

Hmm, we are disagreeing to agree I think. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was arguing about the virtue of one bow against another, I may have a preference, but that was not the case. It is a fascinating hobby is it not?
However, does anybody know anything about modern rules in archery?
Here it is a free for all in my circles, you use simply what you prefer or what you deem is most accurate for YOU.
What about turning up to the Olympics for example with a Turkish compound bow? English winter weather permitting I'll be out with my Yew device this weekend made circa 1965.
 
I believe that there is definite agreement in general on a couple things: The English Longbow and Mongolian bow are probably the two most outstanding bows in post-modern history. The Turkish composite is a decendent of the Mongolian, though I don't know how similar the Turkish and Mongolian are.

We seem to agree to disagree over which has the greatest range, but we agree that both are capable of penetrating heavy medieval armor. The ability to fire their bow from horseback was an added bonus that the English Longbow doesn't offer.
 
I dissagree that the composite bow is an ineffective weapon with a lot of history around it being made up.

But otherwise I think we agree on other terms.

It is quite a fun hobby, you should try it.

turkish/composite bows are.. well tempermental and would not be the best for a competition.

The are essentially different weapons that could be used side by side. The distance is a side effect of the evolution and development of the bow, I doubt that the mongolian bows shot much further then the english bows, but the length is the difference.

War bows generally did not exceed 300-400 yards in distance, but a sport that has been practiced by the turks called flightshooting is where the refinement of the hornbow was seen, allowing them to reach remarkable distances. The korean hornbow evolved as a target bow, rather then a flightbow and the efficientcy comes from its evolution as people made bows better and better.

The cause of a lot of the arguements is the hornbow has been generalized, only recent bows, (from the time of the start of flightshooting to 1700-1800s) has the turkish bow been able to achieve such distances. In previous bows, such as the mongolian and earlier turkish and korean bows, they were built for durability rather then distance.

The turkish flightbow and the mongolian hornbow are two completely different animals. The turkish being 36 inches long, and the mongolian bow being around 60 inches.
http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/groups/g_11653709/By+Lukas+Novotny.jpg?bcK7ufBBY2QT9hmr
Turkish
http://www.traditional-archery-scandinavia.com/finnisch/images/mongolian1mongolian_bow____.jpgMongolian bow[/url]
 
There are some good books for people who'd like to learn more about how and why various bow types work. Archery - the Technical side is a classic from the '40's by renowned American physicists, articles by Tim Baker in the Traditional Bowyer's Bible-series are another, easier to get source that's largerly based on the first mentioned work.

There is no question that the Asiatic composite bow is a superior weapon to an English longbow, in terms of cast per pound. A 60-pound composite will shoot an arrow with up to 50 % more KE than a similar-weight longbow. A 120 lbs. war longbow will of course be more powerful than a typical Turkish flight composite you can see in archery books and museums (and what Saxton Pope based his theories about the composites' poor performance with heavy, English arrows on) , but not a war composite bow. Very few war composites have survived, but those few indicate that many had just as incredible poundages as the European war bows. Pound for pound, composites are more effective, and they pack their punch into a much more compact package than selfbows; try lugging a 80", wrist-thick piece of timber in a tight spot, then try a 48" composite. Longbows are much more cost effective: a skilled bowyer could produce four war bows from a single good (seasoned) yew trunk in a couple of days, the composite bowyer would need dozens of hours of work per bow, spread over months or even years, and harder-to-get materials.

The Mighty Longbow was nothing new in Europe in medieval times, as many authors would have it. The Vikings and the Germans, among others, used man-tall, very heavy yew longbows already in the Iron Age. What was exceptional in Medieval Europe was the Brits' systematic and successful endeavour to produce large numbers of achers who could effectively use 100+lbs. bows in combat (the average modern woodbow shooter has all he can take in a 70lbs. stick).

Almost all of the old and all of the modern distance shooting records have been made using flight arrows, not war or even target arrows. Flight arrows use very low mass and thin, headless, rear-balanced shafting to reach those distances. The record bows, themselves, are typically made fast at the cost of dependability, a tradeoff no warrior would make. The real-life, combat distances achievable with either longbows or composites are much inferior to what you can read on the 'Net.

The English Longbow Standard Arrow (a standardized Medieval war arrow) distance record, made with an almost 200-pound ELB, and shot by probably the world's greatest modern war bow shooter, Simon Stanley, is 273 yards. So much for the "400 yard Longbow shots".

I have no knowledge of any verified tests made with a war composite and appropriate war arrows. Based on the performance of other types of composite gear , the extreme range of Asiatic war composites (there were many types, used with many types of combat ammunition) would probably be somewhere between 250 and 400 yards.
 
Bows are next to impossible to compare because the user is what counts. An amateur could probably propel an arrow two feet, while an expert could send an arrow 400 yards. So point is now moot. Bows can not be compared because there range cannot accurately be determined. A English bow, a composite bow, and mongolian might have the same range. The only things you can accurately compare are weapom that are not based upon a users skills. For instance a gun could be compared and a crossbow can be compared, but a bow can not be compared because one man might be able to launch it to the moon while the other man might be hard pressed to send it four feet/
 
The other thing about the effect on battles seen by these bows is the manner in whicht hey were employed. European armies of massed unorganized warrior bands, were vulnerable to massed bowfire. The near easter armies, with an enphasis on light cavalry, were far more cabable at dealing with bowfire, and it never had the chance to become a defining factor.
 
The archer is important, but not as important as you say. The bow type doesn't make too much difference either. The Yew englishlongbows were not very efficient, but you could get a dozen from a tree, and had plenty enough power to take out armored troops.

The hornbow is quite a bit more efficient, but it was not a main combat weapon. Often times only higher ranked officers had them.

The bows are used for different purposes, one for horseback, and one for the ground soldier.

The thing that makes a difference is how you employ the weapon. Dosn't matter how fast the hornbow shoots, if you are outnumbered you're still dead.
 
ur indiction that asian bows are not as effective as european bows is absurd.

both types have their own advantages and disadvantages.

you can't classify all asian bows as smaller and weaker:

for example the chinese and mongols:

short recurved bows are meant for light assult infantries and bow armed calvary, which has devesting effects as they are accurate and good for medium range duels

the chinese has a wide bow, called the leg bow, it is strung by the leg instad of the arms, and is fired upwards by a calculation to reach the enemy in long range, it is very effective as an artillery piece since its long range often benefits the desruction of calvary 400 m away

the chinese rocket arrows, very cool, is like a kytusha but armed with arrows, these definetly own when faced in close range

most historical bows could be seen on the movie hero*


european army bows are alot more suited to infantry use and most are regular curved bows used by the french and germans

english long bow amazes me, it is very powerful and it is very cool to use one, it is devesing aginist charging hordes of calvary and is easy to operate

russian slavic bows are often short to be used bo calvary


dont be biased please, both sstyles of bows are great
 
The longbow was actually a Welsh design, now even today they can tell by Bowman's skeleton when they dig up an old battle field because his shoulder joints are so large from all this work over the years in drawing the bow. The pure long bow was made out of the Yew tree because this tree contained its own composite properties, which gave its strength and resilience. Now if you are ever in Edinburgh and visit the castle have a look if you can at the inside of the main gates and if I remember rightly it is the one on the right and there still sticking through this very heavy oak gate which is about 9 inches thick are the remains of arrow heads that were fired by the English hundreds of years ago that actually penetrated the gate, now even a modern bullet would have a problem with this feat. The only thing that stopped the continuous use of the longbow was that it took years to train a bowman, but you could train a person to use a musket in a few hours, okay they could fire as fast as a bowman but they could still kill you. About the range of these things just read about some of the more famous battles that they were involved in and how the bowman of the handled them.
 
:rambo: hey just because a gun onli has effective range of 300 metres, a bow and arrow, theoretically, should be able to kill at at least 320 metres becase a bullet is blunt, therefore increasing the power needed to penetrate skin. an arrow, however, being sharp can cut into something much easier than a blunt object. think brick bolster against woodworking chisle. not much force needed to cut paper with the chisel, but need to hit the bolster fairly hard to cut the paper. i speak from experience, as i have seen the effectof a sharp chisel on human flesh. it cut my dads little fingernail right off. :rambo:
 
A bullet at its extreme range will run out of power eventually and will no power to penetrate, The same thing will apply to an arrow unless it has been fired high and its weight will make the wound
 
ye but say you fired a blunt arrow and a sharp arrow, using exactly the same draw power, and fired them into two identical steel cans from 300 metres away, on a straight line, an the blunt arrow may penetrate one layer of the can, but not the other. a sharp arrow would probably penetrate both layers, and go even further. they did it onece, at about 300 metres into replica medieval armor, and it punctured straight through. it would have gone further, but for the flights. they wer testing the range of a trebuchet, and that was its usable limit. any further and the stone would have fallen short, or not done the damage wanted.
 
point taken.
but wen u think about it, its just a comparison.
the blunt arrow being the bullet, the sharp arrow being, well, the sharp arrow. get my drift
by the way wen i fire arrows i always fire by pulling back the string and arrow, not pushing the bow out. just wanted to say that...
:biggun:
:stupid:
:m16shoot: :sniper: :biggun: :rambo: :9mm: :2guns: :santam16: :tank:
 
you require greater pressure on a larger area to penetrate, and guns provide that pressure. but get a bullet and a decent sharp arrow, press your finger against both and press your finger against each, using the same amount of pressure and see which one draws blood quickest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top