Islamic bow for I.D. and comment

[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.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

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.

Ibrahiim, sorry for the confusion, that is a quote from the research paper, I did not write it and I am not exactly sure what the writer of the quote meant. By the way, do you have any images of the arrow heads you have found? Here is an image of what looks like an ancient composite bow in use.


An archer engaged in combat using a thumb draw on what appears to be a type of Indo-Persian bow. It dates back to the 8th-9th Century AD and was taken from the ancient city of Panjikent located partially in Tajikistan's northwest but mainly in Uzbekistan's southeast according to the locals. For years it was kept in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg, Russia but now resides back in Tajik lands where it rightfully belongs.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Ibrahiim, sorry for the confusion, that is a quote from the research paper, I did not write it and I am not exactly sure what the writer of the quote meant. By the way, do you have any images of the arrow heads you have found? Here is an image of what looks like an ancient composite bow in use.


An archer engaged in combat using a thumb draw on what appears to be a type of Indo-Persian bow. It dates back to the 8th-9th Century AD and was taken from the ancient city of Panjikent located partially in Tajikistan's northwest but mainly in Uzbekistan's southeast according to the locals. For years it was kept in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg, Russia but now resides back in Tajik lands where it rightfully belongs.

I think I have a few left ... will check the store ...and take a picture.

[Gonzalo G]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

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.

It is very clear. The iconoclasts was a famous Bizantine religious current among the chrstian church. They were opposed to the representation of human beigns (oikonos=image in Greek). Their foes were those who supported the use of images of saints, etc., as a media to propagate the faith and teach the christian church's beliefs. Those last won, after a true civil war. The Jews, Muslims and Christisn Iconoclasts are against the use of human images. So, no illustrations of arab bows are usually found, because of this (no images of archers), acording with the quote from that article. Protestantism in Europe raised again this iconoclastic belief, and they refused to use images in their churches, as opposed to the catholics. In their churches you only find symbols, as the cross.

Regards

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

It is very clear. The iconoclasts was a famous Bizantine religious current among the chrstian church. They were opposed to the representation of human beigns (oikonos=image in Greek). Their foes were those who supported the use of images of saints, etc., as a media to propagate the faith and teach the christian church's beliefs. Those last won, after a true civil war. The Jews, Muslims and Christisn Iconoclasts are against the use of human images. So, no illustrations of arab bows are usually found, because of this (no images of archers), acording with the quote from that article. Protestantism in Europe raised again this iconoclastic belief, and they refused to use images in their churches, as opposed to the catholics. In their churches you only find symbols, as the cross.

Regards

Good explanation, thanks.

[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

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by 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

it ignores the use of metal lammelar armour and mail used by byzantine cataphracti and the sassanids, and turks, all of which used recurved horsebows, only mentioning the light leather lamella used by some other muslim light cavalry. they also armoured their horses.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by kronckew

it ignores the use of metal lammelar armour and mail used by byzantine cataphracti and the sassanids, and turks, all of which used recurved horsebows, only mentioning the light leather lamella used by some other muslim light cavalry. they also armoured their horses.

Light leather lamellar is a myth, anyway. The lamella need to be thick enough to be effective - about 3mm rawhide or more. All of it is overlapped to give you at least double thickness everywhere (side-by-side overlap), so rows are 6mm thick. If you again double the thickness by vertical overlap of the rows, you have 12mm, for about the same weight as 2mm iron/steel plate (without even considering the weight of the lacing).

Take that 3mm rawhide lamellar, and wear it on top of a mail shirt (as was common), and it isn't light armour at all.

[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

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

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.

Some photos of large bows being worn on horseback at http://www.manchuarchery.org/photogr...golian-archers (and when you combine it with the long heavy arrows you want for these bow, a musket, a sword, and a lance, you have a lot of stuff to carry).

Smaller is easier on horseback, but note that the bow survived for so long in the Qing army as a cavalry weapon. After pike and musket became the dominant infantry weapons, the bow remained in use by the cavalry for another 200 years. If they'd adopted the pistol as a standard cavalry weapon, the bow might have been abandoned.

The Japanese managed with an even longer bow! (Modern yumi usually vary from 2.2m to 2.5m.)

Originally Posted by Gonzalo G

Do you mean, among the Timurids?

Timurids, and also others nearby in space and time. I double-checked Timurids specifically, but it reflects much broader usage. The Central Asian standard sword suspension was edge down, hung from the belt, two hangers on the spine-side of the scabbard.

[Gonzalo G]

Thank you, Timo.

At what moment and where began those sabers be carried edge-up? In the Golden Horde they were carried edge-up, as I understand. The Russians adopted this sytsem, as also the oriental style of sabers. The Japanese carried the nihonto edge-up in the sash, but edge-down with armour.

Regards