mongol bows

[eastern storm]

I had a disagrment with some one who said a english long bow could out range a asian composite /mongol bow who is right and who is wrong as far as ALL the books info i have read its the composite that wins hands down.
anybody help please?

[Stephen Hummell]

The Longbow could shoot an arrow 400yds. And pierce armour.

[Stephen Hummell]

A short history of the English Longbow

By Anthony Eade a.k.a. Anton of Ravenwood



In writing this work, I have tried to create an accurate account of the Longbow's development and use from its 12th century Welsh beginnings to its eventual military demise in the 16th century. The source material used is by no means a complete list, and as such, I encourage all to perform their own research into this field. Suffice it to say, I present this work as an outline of major events to spark the imagination and to feed the soul.


Introduction
The English Longbow, more than any other weapon of its time, was responsible for vast changes in the nature of medieval warfare. In doing so, it made England the foremost power in Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries. England's armies became the most feared units in Europe, and with good cause. Almost every battle fought was won by an intelligent utilization of massed archers and men-at-arms. Upon many occasions, English troops were sorely outnumbered, only to win the day.

Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between!

Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards.

Another aspect of the Longbow was the archers themselves. Archers began training at a very early age, traditionally at the age of seven. Training at long ranges was mandatory, complete with fines for violations. Local tournaments were held regularly, and the best archers were chosen for military duty. As these were all hand-picked troops from among the best archers in England, the archer units were an elite group of infantry. These were no base peasant levies; they were all hand-picked craftsmen who well knew their worth in battle.

The average English Military Archer could fire 12 to 15 arrows per minute and hit a man-sized target at a minimum of 200 yards. The maximum range was about 400 yards with flight arrows. An archer could not even consider himself skilled at his art if he could not shoot 10 arrows a minute!
Note: From our own experiences at faire, we know that 10 aimed shots per minute at a man-sized target at half that range is quite a feat!




Origin of the English Longbow


Early 12th Century: The Longbow was developed from a Welsh bow that had been used against the English. During the numerous skirmishes with the Welsh, the English had witnessed the power of this weapon.

1252: Longbow was accepted as a formal military weapon.

C.1280: Longbow adopted by Edward I during the Welsh campaigns after seeing how effectively the Welsh used the bow.

1331-1333: Longbow used by Edward III during the Scottish Campaign.

1337-1453b: The hundred years war with France: During this time, the English and Welsh longbowmen were the most prominent part of the English army, sometimes outnumbering the Men-at-Arms by as much as 10:1. The average was a ratio of about 3:1.

1346: The Battle of Crecy: The English army of Edward III won the first major battle of the 100 Years War. The English numbered between 12,000 and 19,000 men, of which 7,000 to 10,000 were archers. The French Army, under Philip IV was made up of 12,000 mounted Men-at-Arms, 6,000 Genoese Crossbowmen, and up to 60,000 Foot Soldiers. The English were aided by a shower that morning, making a charge up a muddy hill, with the sun in their eyes and arrows raining down on them -- most difficult for the French. The opening shots were loosed by the Genoese Crossbowmen, which fell short. The English answered with five times as many arrows, which did not fall short. The Crossbowmen broke ranks and tried to flee the field. The French commander, however, was displeased with the apparent lack of courage and ordered that the Crossbowmen be ridden down by the Heavy Cavalry on their way to the English line. After 16 charges and 90 minutes, the French had lost 4000 knights, including 2 Kings, 2 Dukes, and 3 Counts. English losses were estimated at only 50 men.

1356: The Battle of Poiters: Edward III, The Black Prince of Wales, with 6,000-8,000 men defeated a French host 3 times as large. This time the French fought largely on foot, and this time, much hand to hand fighting took place, with the archers attacking the rear and flanks of the French charge. In the end, the results were much the same as at Crecy. Two thousand French Knights and Nobles, including the Constable of France, 2 Marshals, The Bearer of the Oriflamme, along with thousands of common foot soldiers were killed. One Arch- Bishop, 13 Counts, 5 Viscounts, and 21 Barons and Bannerets were killed or captured.

1415: The Battle of Agincourt: In what was perhaps the greatest victory of the Hundred Years War, a small, sick and exhausted English army under King Henry V, won an astounding victory over a seasoned French host at least three times as large. The composition of the English forces was 1,000 Men-at-Arms and 5,000 Archers divided into the traditional three "battles" with the archers in a wedge pattern flanking each "Battle". When the battle was over, between 7,000 and 10,000 French had been killed. Among those killed or captured were the Constable of France, a Marshal, 5 Dukes, 5 Counts, and 90 Barons. Fewer that 500 English had been lost during the fighting.



The Demise of the Longbow
1450: Formigny: Four-thousand French, including some well-trained artillerymen routed more than 7,000 English. Most of these were Archers.

1452: Castillon: French cannon all but annihilate 6,000 English.

1500: Introduction of firearms: Matchlock Muskets

1588: Longbow replaced by firearms during the Spanish Armada War.

1595: Longbow finally retired from military service.


Arms and Armor of the Well-Equipped Longbowman

Equipment of the 14th Century:
The more well equipped archers, the house archer, wore an Open-faced Bascinet or a simple conical helmet, sometimes with a maille Aventail, a "fall" covering the neck and/or cheeks. For body protection, the Padded Gambeson or Aketon was most commonly worn. This was a thick quilted knee length coat with long sleeves that tapered to a tight fit at the forearms, so as not to hinder the archer. Sometimes a Chain-maille shirt was worn over the Gambeson. These shirts were hip-, thigh-, or knee length, with half, three-quarter, or full length sleeves. Obviously the lighter type was more common. Leg plates, shoulder plates (Spaulders or Pauldrons) and similar plate augmentation was uncommon at this stage of history.

Equipment of the 15th Century:
During this period, the well equipped archer wore a simple open faced Salade or Sallet. Occasionally, these were visored, but one wonders as to the hindrance of such a device. The Jack, a thigh length, diamond quilted version of the Aketon, by this time had become the standard body covering. By the mid 15th Century, Brigandine had started to be used. This was a sleeveless, poncho like jack with integral overlapping plates fastened between layers of stout fabric by a series of rivets. Plate augmentation for the legs, arms, and shoulders seem to have been more prevalent during this period, but it was still uncommon.

The weaponry of the well-equipped archer remained fairly constant during this whole period. Besides the archer's longbow, and a sheaf of 24 war arrows, the archer also carried a dagger, a sword of some type (generally a short sword) and a small shield know as a "Buckler ". The English were renowned "Sword and Buckler" fighters until the 17th Century.

Through both centuries, the archer wore the badge and colours of his employer, whether lord, gentry, or city. The Livery Coat or Jacket was common. These garments were made of wool or linen broadcloth, hip or thigh length, with or without collars, and half or full length sleeves, or sleeveless. The badge was sewn or embroidered on the front and sometimes the back of the garment. A white Livery Jacket with the red cross of St. George was very common in the 15th century.

The English Longbow

The English Longbow is a "self-bow". This is a single piece of wood that is shaped and seasoned for the purpose. The wood of choice was Yew, but availability problems often required the use of Wych Elm, Elm, and Ash as substitutes. The medieval craftsmen selected the staves with great care. A master Bowyer could craft a bow in under 2 hours!

The length of the finished product was from 67 inches to 78 inches in length and up to 2 inches thick at the riser. This length was more or less fitted to the individual user. Draw weights ranged from 80 to 120 pounds. Draw length was between 29 and 32 inches, as the draw was "to the ear" or "to the breast". The limb had horn knocks inserted to protect the limb tips and to ease stringing of the bow. There was no arrow rest on the handle, it being common to ride the arrow on the index finger.


Arrows

The English war arrow was known as the Livery, Sheaf, or Standard arrow. They had a large diameter, were cut to the legal yard, and were made from a variety of woods. Aspen, Poplar, Elder, Birch, and Willow were used for flight arrows because of their weight. Heavier woods like Ash and Hornbeam were also used, primarily because though a heavier arrow would not travel as far, it had greater penetration. Fletchings were between 7 and 9 inches, and were tied and glued to the shaft.

Materials: Bows were made from Yew, Ash, Elm, and Witch-Hazel.

Arrows were made from Ash, Oak, Birch, and were feathered with gray goose, peacock, and swan.

Bowstrings were made mostly from hemp, although Flax and even Silk was used in later times. The string was about 1/8 inch in diameter, and was constructed with either single or double looped ends

Full and skeleton gloves appear to have been common, while tabs are not to be found. Contrary to popular belief, the common quiver type was a simple belt quiver or arrow bag. In the absence of this, a common practice was to simply stuff a sheaf of arrows through the belt. The back quiver was never used in warfare.




Bibliography

Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight: by D. Edge and J.M. Paddock
The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms and Armor: by Ed L. Tarrassuk and C. Blaire
A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration of Arms and Armor: by G.C. Stone
The Traditional Bowyer's Bible Vols 1 and 2
Archers Digest 2nd Edition
Target Archery: by Margaret L. Klaun
The Armourer and his Craft: by C Ffoulkes
War Through the Ages: by L. Montross
History of the Art of War: by C. Oman
Medieval European Armies: by T. Wise and G. Embleton
The Armies of Agincourt: By C. Rothero
The Armies of Crecy and Poitiers: by C. Rothero
English Longbowman: by C. Bartlett and G. Embleton

[chilliwilli]

The Mongol composite bow was much more powerful. The longbow could shoot up to 250 yards and had a pull of about 75 pounds. The Mongol bow on the other hand could shoot up to 350 yards and had a pull of 100-160 pounds. Therefore The Mongol bow could shoot farther and with more velocity and of course it was small enough to be wielded on horseback. It also used a waterproof laquer for a string making it useable under almost any weather conditions.

[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-04-2002).]

[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-04-2002).]

[Sjakihata]

Just imagine a pulle of 100-160 .. wow.

When I am practicing archery the pull is around 35-40..

I think that is why archery is reagarded as an art in Japan. WIth that heavy pull, you sure have to be a master at technique.

[eastern storm]

400yds but it was only accurate to 250 i think a kill range of 400yds especially with armour would be a struggle. as The armour penetration depended on arrow weight not velocity like composite bows
A mongol/asian bow had a lot better selection of arrows than any bow at the time plus a longbow became weaker when left strung unlike a composite bow which was opposite plus being able to fire from horseback gave alot greater mobiltiy than english bowmen. If there had been hostilty between the two then the mongol archers would win hands down[IN MY HUMBLE VIEW]. No doubt this debate has alot more life in it yet i look forward to more intresting replys on the subject.

[This message has been edited by eastern storm (edited 08-04-2002).]

[This message has been edited by eastern storm (edited 08-04-2002).]

[chilliwilli]

Yes, your right I meant the distance where you could hit a man and piercing armor beyond 300 yards using the technology at that time is extremely difficult using bow with under 100 pounds of pull. Max distance would be 400 yrds for Longbow and 500 yrds for Composite bow used by Mongols about. The Mongols had very light arrows for long distance use and heavier ones for short range use, so it may even have a slightly longer range using the lighter arrows.

[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-04-2002).]

[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-04-2002).]

[eastern storm]

Plus the mongols had a vast array of arrow heads for differant uses signals armour hunting incendaries/.The mongol bow was a class weapon that took 2 years to build incorparting rams horn or buffalo. Also it was turned back on its self making even more powerfull the arrows were made of hollow reed thus absorbing the initial shock of being let loose and giving a flatter trajectory and truer release each time it was fired.These weapons were still in use well into the seventeenth century. As guns had little or no impact on there use especially musket types with there slow rate of fire

[This message has been edited by eastern storm (edited 08-05-2002).]

[chilliwilli]

Yes and they could fire them so fast that a weapon of that calibur could have still been used up to when colonization of the new world began. Maybe even longer.

[Orda Khan]

Too much has been made of the power of the Longbow. If we compare the two bows and forget the statistics of historical battles, the Composite bow was a superior weapon.

In modern archery the draw weight is limited to 60lbs for safety, though it is still possible to purchase a Mongol bow of 160lbs made from traditional materials. The inner surface of the limbs is cladded with horn and the outer surface with sinew. When strung it forms a double recurve and the mechanics of the limbs and the limb tips work in a way that is very similar to to modern compound bows (the ones with pulley wheels and cables). The tragectory of the arrow when released is flatter and with more velocity, making it far more accurate.
When in the hands of skilled horsemen who could fire at all angles they were deadly. The Mongol tactic of highly mobile archers causing panic and confusion among their enemy and then shooting down those fleeing the charge of heavy cavalry proved the value of this extremely light weapon.

The longbow is large, unweildy and heavy. It is one piece(traditionally) in construction, using heartwood and sapwood for strength and flexibility. It does suffer with unpredictability and should always be warmed up before use. Their effective range was realistically more like 200yds. At this range mail was pierced by long bodkin arrowheads. Light plate armour was pierced by short bodkins. These arrows were so effective not due to the prowess of the bow (the Mongol bow used in the same way would be just as effective) but the combination of gravity and arrowhead design. The longbow arrow was very large and this thing whether it pierced your armour or not was capable of knocking you from your mount, causing utter chaos. The action of the heavy limbs jars the elbow tiring the arm faster than the lighter composite bow.

Fact: My Mongol bow at a draw of 45lbs will out perform a longbow of 50lbs
.........Orda

------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."

[NARF]

but the longbow was moreso used to lob arrows on the enemy wasnt it?

------------------
What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know.

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:
Too much has been made of the power of the Longbow. If we compare the two bows and forget the statistics of historical battles, the Composite bow was a superior weapon.
[/QUOTE]

Since I do not think that we have either the master weapon makers or the master archers of yore to compare the weapons and hence cannot reproduce the results we have to use historical battles to get the stats of these weapons. And really it doesn't matter technically how good a weapon design is under laboratory conditions, it is how it performs on the battlefield which is the be all and end all.

Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:

These arrows were so effective not due to the prowess of the bow (the Mongol bow used in the same way would be just as effective) but the combination of gravity and arrowhead design. The longbow arrow was very large and this thing whether it pierced your armour or not was capable of knocking you from your mount, causing utter chaos. The action of the heavy limbs jars the elbow tiring the arm faster than the lighter composite bow.
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea which weapon was superior. I actually do not care. But I do care about physics. The arrow does not gain any extra energy from gravity. In fact the higher the arc the more energy is lost due to air friction, so a high lob losses energy not adds to it. Just imagine if the flights are so big that the arrow becomes a shuttlecock.

However the weapon system bonus of a high arc is that you can fire over the heads of fellow archers and men at arms. This allows a denser rain of arrows to be shot from a single spot (they can then disperse or condense). In other words you can have deeper ranks of archers and hence field a higher ratio of archers to men at arms.

-----
To everyone:
Also do not confuse the draw weights of a bow with how much power an arrow has.

Draw weight is how much weight is required to draw the arrow back into position. This draw weight transfers energy to the arrow as the bow flexs back into its relaxed position.

The efficiency of the bow is determined by how much of the potential energy is transferred to the arrow. In other words how much of the draw goes into the arrow. A one hundred pound draw on one bow many only transfer 30 units of energy while on another design it may transfer 35.

The higher the draw weight the slower it will be to fire the bow. Other factors will be vibration of the bow after it fires... but just like a tuning fork you can stop those vibrations by touching something solid, stamina of the archer etc.

[Orda Khan]

But that is where you are quite wrong.
There are master bowyers still making composite bows to the same standard and specifications with the same materials.
This is true also of longbows. I could get one today not 30 miles away, made from one piece yew.

With regards physics, a bent stick will never out perform a work of art. The design of the composite bow is way ahead of a longbow.

When you have fired both weapons it is obvious which of the two is superior. It makes me laugh to hear all theses rediculous claims about the longbow. It was effective because the enemy had crossbows. They had not yet learnt the art of bending a stick and stringing it....strange but true.

When I mentioned gravity and arrowhead type I never once suggested the arrow gained speed! But never mind I will stick by my original statement, the Mongol bow could do the same job.
........Orda

[eastern storm]

I thought the mongols overcame this problem with arrows by using hollow reed as modern experiments have shown that reed aborbs the shock of release very quickly thus the arrow straightens out and flys more accurately.
As for comparing the two types of bow its like comparing a skoda with a merc.
As for archery makers/competions it is still a very popular past time both long and composite.and you could go to mongolia and purchase a bow if you wanted built the same way as in genghis time.

[Frantz]

every bow was good for the ones who use it better , different tactics were adopted for different weapons and since they never clashed we dont know who was better .

[MagyarKhans Cham]

http://www.mongoliatoday.com/issue/7/archery.html

http://home-4.worldonline.nl/~t543201/web-mongol/mongol-enter-index.htm

The Central Asian composite bow, like comparable weapons used by Middle Eastern and some eastern European armies, was an extremely sophisticated weapon. It needed much greater strength to pull than the famous English longbow. But, although it was much shorter, and consequently suitable for use on horseback, it had an equally long draw right back to the archer's cheek. The composite bow also gave a much more regular release of tension when loosed and thus its arrows had about twice the range, with a flatter trajectory and greater accuracy, than English infantry bows. It appears, in fact, that whereas the penetrating power of the longbow depended upon the arrow's velocity.

Because of this, its effectiveness was comparable to the crossbow which was, however, far slower to operate. Small wonder that it took a long time for gunpowder to have much impact upon the steppes and that 'Tartar' horse-arches from the Crimea, not to mention Ottoman Turks, were still campaigning effectively across eastern Europe well into the seventeenth century. The Mongol or Turkish version of the Asiatic composite bow was apparently shorter than the 'Scythian' type still used in Byzantium and Russia. But, being even shorter for use on horseback, it was thicker inspection and needed even greater strength to pull-often more than 45 kg of tension. Different peoples used different materials in the construction of their composite bows, though all were built around a wooden core. Many central Asian nomads used four pieces of ram's horn, whereas the Chinese incorporated a single large piece of water-buffalo horn. The belly of the bow consisted of strands of sinew, the Chinese using spinal sinew, the Muslims the Achilles tendon and the nomads whatever they could obtain.

[eastern storm]

As important as the bow are the arrows and as the mongols /turks/asians had a far greater variety than there european counterparts. This also gave them the tactical edge in conflict along with there horse mobility and greater understanding of tactics and attitude seem to be the deciding factors. No religon/political or moral constraints or misplaced ideolgys. To be admired by ones peers and feared by your enemies and wealth were quite adeqate reward .

[deejayvee]

Orda Khan, I've heard people say before that longbows need to be "warmed up" before use. How do you warm up a bow?

[Orda Khan]

To warm up the longbow you do precisely that. Take a cloth in your hand and rub the limbs, the heat caused by friction against the limb helps prevent an exploding bow http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif
Also work steadily up to full draw. Longbowmen also generally release fairly quickly, the bow is not held at full draw for very long

....Orda

------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."

[Oda Matsu]

"With regards physics, a bent stick will never out perform a work of art."

Oh, I don't know. I figure throwing a boomerang would be more effective than lobbing the Mona Lisa at someone.

Seriously - I thought that longbow and composite bow arrows could go out to great ranges (I heard of a Turkish composite bow that could shoot as far as 700m(!); the firer lays on his back, holds the bow against his feet while he holds the bowstring with both hands...) but that the real effective killing power didn't start until about 100m. Outside of that you might stick people, but decent armor would deflect most arrows.

From what I know of Mongol tactics, their horse archers knew this also. Their waves of arrows were menat to harass an enemy, and make them move out of a strong defensive position. Once mobile and disorganized, Mongol heavy cavalry would charge home and start a rout, subsequent to which the actual mass killing would commence (just like as in, go figure, MTW and STW). http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif