Islamic bow for I.D. and comment

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Turkic warriors guarding the Doors of Tamerlane. Tamerlane, anglicized form of Timur-i-Lang ('Lame Timur' or 'Timur the Lame') (1336-1404), was a Turkic conqueror, born in Kash near Samarkand. He waged several devastating wars, conquering Persia (1392-96) and northern India (1398), and defeating the Ottomans and the Mamlukes (1402)

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Turkic warriors guarding the Doors of Tamerlane.

Anachronistic art. They carry the Manchu/Qing bow, which spread west along the steppe after the Manchu conquest of Mongolia (which was post-Timurid). Bows derived from the Manchu bow were used as far west as the Crimea, from where they influence European and Turkish bows. AFAIK, the Turkish and European versions (often about 4' long) weren't as big as the Crimean ones, which were often smaller than the Manchu/Chinese ones (like 5' vs 5.5' to 6').

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

Anachronistic art. They carry the Manchu/Qing bow, which spread west along the steppe after the Manchu conquest of Mongolia (which was post-Timurid). Bows derived from the Manchu bow were used as far west as the Crimea, from where they influence European and Turkish bows. AFAIK, the Turkish and European versions (often about 4' long) weren't as big as the Crimean ones, which were often smaller than the Manchu/Chinese ones (like 5' vs 5.5' to 6').

I agree on the anachronism, but specifically in which way Manchu bows influenced the Turk bows? By Turks you meant the Ottomans? Because there are many Turkic peoples, from nort-west China to south-west Russia, not to mention the Ottomans. Do you mean all of them?

Regards

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I agree on the anachronism, but specifically in which way Manchu bows influenced the Turk bows? By Turks you meant the Ottomans? Because there are many Turkic peoples, from nort-west China to south-west Russia, not to mention the Ottomans. Do you mean all of them?

By "Turkish" here, I mean the Turkish subjects of the Ottomans. The European bows I refer to are AFAIK European subjects of the Ottomans. (For Turkic peoples outside Turkey, I'll usually use "Turkic" rather than "Turkish".)

AFAIK, the Mongol adoption of the Manchu bow was driven by the Manchu conquest of Mongolia. After the Mongolian Mongols adopted it, then it spread to Moghulistan, and next to Mawarannahr/Transoxiana (under Uzbek rule by then), and then to the Crimean Khanate. By the time the Manchu bow reaches Crimea, it's shrunk a bit (but is still a big bow) - smaller ears, smaller string bridge, and also less reflexed.

The Crimean Khanate being an Ottoman protectorate, the Ottomans are exposed to this bow. At which point, bows appear in the Ottoman Empire which are intermediate in size between the traditional Ottoman bow and the Crimean/Manchu bow. The new bows are about 50"/125cm long, as compared with the traditional 40"/100cm bows, and the 60"/160cm Crimean/Manchu bow (and the 66"-72"/170-180cm Manchu/Qing bow).

[Gonzalo G]

Thank you for your reply, Timo. The Ottoman bows I have seen does not have the siyah-ears big and so rigid (so it seems) like the Manchu. But I have only seen some Ottoman and Manchu bows in pictures, never seen one personally, and they look different. The Manchu bow seem more "Hunnish", but symmetrical. I have only elemental knowledge of the historic composite bow from the Orient, that's why I asked for the specific influences, like beign more robust, bigger than the originals, siyah bigger or more rigid, different profiles-curvatures-proportions, etc.
I also wonder if those Timurid warriors should carry their swords edge up.

Regards

[estcrh]

Composite bows at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeolog...t%20ed-Dur.pdf

Bows in Arabia and at ed-Dur

According to pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, the bow was a frequently used weapon in Arabia (29). Originally, the Arabs used the simple, asymmetrical bow (upper and lower limbs being of different length). Later, the ‘Arab composite bow’ was intro- duced: a large, segment-shaped bow with long ears bent forwards, a descendant of the above-mentioned ‘composite segment bow’ with bone coverings. When ed-Dur was occupied (late first century BC- first half of the second century AD), this type was widely used by the Arabs (30). Surprisingly, how- ever, ed-Dur is the only site in the Arabian Peninsula where bone nock-plates have been excavated. More- over, no illustrations of the Arab composite bow have been found, perhaps because of the ‘iconoclas- tic tendencies common to Islam and to the pre- Moslem religions of the country’ (31).

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Composite bows at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeolog...t%20ed-Dur.pdf

Bows in Arabia and at ed-Dur

According to pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, the bow was a frequently used weapon in Arabia (29). Originally, the Arabs used the simple, asymmetrical bow (upper and lower limbs being of different length). Later, the ‘Arab composite bow’ was intro- duced: a large, segment-shaped bow with long ears bent forwards, a descendant of the above-mentioned ‘composite segment bow’ with bone coverings. When ed-Dur was occupied (late first century BC- first half of the second century AD), this type was widely used by the Arabs (30). Surprisingly, how- ever, ed-Dur is the only site in the Arabian Peninsula where bone nock-plates have been excavated. More- over, no illustrations of the Arab composite bow have been found, perhaps because of the ‘iconoclas- tic tendencies common to Islam and to the pre- Moslem religions of the country’ (31).

The research paper is quite excellent however, I dont know what context you mean iconoclatic tic... "a contradiction in established beliefs"... I can say however, that I have found a lot of arrow heads around here in the desert...which proves to me someone must have been loosing some arrows off>>> a long time ago.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Thank you for your reply, Timo. The Ottoman bows I have seen does not have the siyah-ears big and so rigid (so it seems) like the Manchu. But I have only seen some Ottoman and Manchu bows in pictures, never seen one personally, and they look different. The Manchu bow seem more "Hunnish", but symmetrical. I have only elemental knowledge of the historic composite bow from the Orient, that's why I asked for the specific influences, like beign more robust, bigger than the originals, siyah bigger or more rigid, different profiles-curvatures-proportions, etc.

A couple of examples:

First, some Manchu bows:
http://mandarinmansion.com/antique-manchu-composite-bow
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138178
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...-0162bow.shtml
These are big bows (170cm to 180cm long), very reflexed, long ears, prominent string bridges. The Mongolian version is similar: often a bit smaller, but still a big bows, often with shorter (but still long) ears, usually less reflexed. A couple of examples:
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138189
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138192
http://mandarinmansion.com/tigers-ta...-composite-bow

The typical Ottoman bow is very different. Much, much smaller (about 1m long), short ears, no string bridges:
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...7turkbow.shtml
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...7turkbow.shtml

Now the in-between bow, the "Crimean" bow. AFAIK, these are Turkish Ottoman, rather than Crimean as such - the actual Crimean bow was close to the Mongolian/Manchu bow (more prominent string bridges).
150cm long, so very large: https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...artarbow.shtml
125cm long, so about halfway between the above example and a typical Ottoman bow: https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...artarbow.shtml

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

I also wonder if those Timurid warriors should carry their swords edge up.

All of the scabbards I've seen have mounts such that the sword would be hung from the belt, edge down. Most examples I've seen in art are worn that way (I can remember seeing a sketch of a miniature with the sword worn through a waist belt, but still edge down).

[Timo Nieminen]

Another online publication of interest:

Bernard A. Boit, "The Fruits of Adversity: Technical Refinements of the
Turkish Composite Bow During the Crusading Era", MA thesis, The Ohio State University, 1991.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a243362.pdf

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

These are big bows (170cm to 180cm long), very reflexed, long ears, prominent string bridges. The Mongolian version is similar: often a bit smaller, but still a big bows, often with shorter (but still long) ears, usually less reflexed.

From the representation of Mongol and Manchu mounted warriors, I believed these bows were smaller to facilitate shooting from horseback. 1.70-1.80 mt is about the size of a English longbow, isn't it? I can´t imagine carrying those long bows from a quiver suspended from the waist.

Originally Posted by Timo Nieminen

All of the scabbards I've seen have mounts such that the sword would be hung from the belt, edge down. Most examples I've seen in art are worn that way (I can remember seeing a sketch of a miniature with the sword worn through a waist belt, but still edge down).

Do you mean, among the Timurids?

Thank you for the link, I´m downloading.

Regards