Archery: Thumbring?

[jonwr]

I don't like the rings with a groove as the string seems to slip too easily.
But that said Korean archers use two types of lipped rings and I 've been trounced by a couple of them.
As I said mine is almost flat, maybe only 1/8" thick and the string lays behind the rear edge of the ring on the skin itself.. Basically my style is more to give an even clean release without tearing your thumb nail off.
As to the riding and shooting. If you look at pics or modern day practitioners the all seem to ride with short leathers. On my Mongol saddle you are basically standing to shoot. Rider and horse need to be in total balance and TRUST each other.
You have to learn two different skills then combine them at the same time.
Floor exercises using bend legs and body twisted to your bow side and the rear help a great deal in getting your shooting confidence.
As you can tell I really love mounted archery. I would really like to try Yabusami sometime but no schools anywhere near me.
Jon R.

[ratty]

I don't like the rings with a groove as the string seems to slip too easily.
But that said Korean archers use two types of lipped rings and I 've been trounced by a couple of them.
As I said mine is almost flat, maybe only 1/8" thick and the string lays behind the rear edge of the ring on the skin itself.. Basically my style is more to give an even clean release without tearing your thumb nail off.
As to the riding and shooting. If you look at pics or modern day practitioners the all seem to ride with short leathers. On my Mongol saddle you are basically standing to shoot. Rider and horse need to be in total balance and TRUST each other.
You have to learn two different skills then combine them at the same time.
Floor exercises using bend legs and body twisted to your bow side and the rear help a great deal in getting your shooting confidence.
As you can tell I really love mounted archery. I would really like to try Yabusami sometime but no schools anywhere near me.
Jon R.

its hard to tell but the thumbring on the left has a step not a groove,ive honestly never hurt my thumbnail did your thumbring fit correctly?

[jonwr]

Sorry I should have quantified that. I meant when I was shooting with a bare thumb. Thats when my nail went missing. :oops: Heres a link to the fellow who taught me.
http://www.spitfirehorsebows.com/tradition.asp
Jon R.

[jonwr]

Ratty
When you say War bow do you mean Long/self bow or infantry /archer composite.
As you know they both have different dynamics. The former relies on massive weight to propel a heavy shaft. The later due to it's design and material make up is more efficient.(IMHO)
Foot archers could use heavy composite bows against Cavalry and infantry. Mounted archers seem to have been used to provide rolling arrow storm to break up or disrupt infantry formations. Or as a screen working with their own cavalry. They make good ambushers as well.
A really heavy composite bow isn't really needed for such tasks. A #60 bow will ruin your or your horses day. Just by sheer arrow volume makes coming to grips a tad risky.
The Chinese used heavy composite bows I believe. But I seem to remember that they were employed by foot archers.
A lot of the super heavy Asian bows were used for the testing and training of soldiers.
Hope I didn't ramble on too long.
Jon R

[ratty]

Ratty
When you say War bow do you mean Long/self bow or infantry /archer composite.
As you know they both have different dynamics. The former relies on massive weight to propel a heavy shaft. The later due to it's design and material make up is more efficient.(IMHO)
Foot archers could use heavy composite bows against Cavalry and infantry. Mounted archers seem to have been used to provide rolling arrow storm to break up or disrupt infantry formations. Or as a screen working with their own cavalry. They make good ambushers as well.
A really heavy composite bow isn't really needed for such tasks. A #60 bow will ruin your or your horses day. Just by sheer arrow volume makes coming to grips a tad risky.
The Chinese used heavy composite bows I believe. But I seem to remember that they were employed by foot archers.
A lot of the super heavy Asian bows were used for the testing and training of soldiers.
Hope I didn't ramble on too long.
Jon R

its quite difficult talking about poundage of bows because so many are measured in different ways.

for eg, most bows now are measured at 28" today

so if you mean most horse bows were 60# at 28"
being drawn to the chest / behind the ear or to the ear they would be more like 90# at 32"+ i would agree

or are you saying they were 60# at 32"+ which would be about 40# at 28" if so I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree

warfare archery is very different to recreational archery these men would have trained most of there lives to shoot bows from horses. bow weight wouldn't be a problem to them.there lives were so very much more than trying to hit a target,it was getting as much power as possible to penetrate there enemy.

[Richomeres]

Hi there,

I think Jon's comment was fairly overdue here.

I shoot a modern 75# hunting recurve for sports and use a 60# Mongolian for re-enactment; and, yes, on tournaments at times used to I sneer a little at guys, broader than I am, using a 45# recurve. But in my opinion this whole draw weight discussion is the all male game of length and size.

Do not get me wrong: heavy weight bows where certainly existent Roman times..., but do not confuse the conditions then with those in late medieval England for example. The armour of a French knight at Agincourt was surely harder to pierce than that of a miles at Carrhae. Armour and weapons developed in interaction: a stronger armour leads to a stronger bow and vice versa.

Some remarks concerning the use of heavy (Roman) bows:

1) If you have a body of archers screening an area, trying to hold the enemy at bay, you want them to get as much arrows into the air as possible (a minimum of 10 - 12 arrows per minute would just be fine).
How long could you hold this cadence with a 100# bow?

2) Archery uses muscles and movements people do not use every day. Thus archers have to be trained. You can make a rifleman in weeks, an acceptable archer needs months if not years and the heavier the bow, the longer it takes. As with all target-oriented shooting, the goal is to hit the mark. An archer hitting the target with a 60# bow is better off than the guy missing it with a 100# bow. Especially if the target is coming up to you with a sword.

3) Units of massed archers shoot balistically. The arrow climbs to the peak of its steep trajectory and is then pulled back to earth by gravitation. Mass and speed of the arrow will penetrate the target. As far as I remember my physics lessons: at some point the speed of a falling object does not increase anymore, so there is no use in shooting the arrow higher than necessary.

4) In my opinion the aimed, direct shot was the exception for the rank and file archer in field battle. The missile units were support for the heavy infantry, preparing the enemy formation for the attack. Like a chain, a battle line is only as strong as their weakest part. A man with an arrow wound at his leg may not be fatally wounded, but he can be easy prey for any able bodied opponent in close combat and, even if he survives the battle, he has a good chance of dying weeks later of infection and fever.

5) Maybe direct shots were the job of specialists, sort of Roman "snipers".
Here heavier bows to pierce armour would make sense along with hand picked arrows (compared to the rank and file).

6) As Jon already pointed out: the ratio of "firepower" to draw weight for a composite bow is higher compared to a self bow.

Again: yes heavy weight bows are fun, but have thy really been used by the Romans in large number?

Cheers,

Helge Dunbar

[jonwr]

Helge
Thanks for the kind comments.
Ratty
No disagreement here. I pull #50 @31' my thumb touches the rear of my ear. I have never done a force draw curve on the bow but I would say it goes #45-47 @ a 28" draw
I believe but don't know that perhaps most Steppe bows during their heyday pulled #70-#80 to the ear.
Again I agree that life long practice and using the bow every day increases your ability to shoot heavy weights. But the arrow swarm can be accomplished without recourse to #100 bows.
I used to shoot with an elderly Korean gentleman who shot an #85 bow and mad it look effortless. I would have had a job using both hands and feet to pull it to it's 32" draw.
But again 50 years of practice and correct form were on his side.
I liked big bows too once but now they are not that much fun for me to shoot.
Jon R

[Sean Manning]

Choice of arrows matters too. I agree, some archery traditions do emphasize rate of fire and others range and power. I'm not sure where the styles of different types of Roman archer would fit: I suspect we don't know.

This is a tangent, but I can't resist.

Do not get me wrong: heavy weight bows where certainly existent Roman times..., but do not confuse the conditions then with those in late medieval England for example. The armour of a French knight at Agincourt was surely harder to pierce than that of a miles at Carrhae. Armour and weapons developed in interaction: a stronger armour leads to a stronger bow and vice versa.

As far as I know there is no evidence that the draw weights of warbows got heavier over the middle ages. Certainly, the self bows Europeans were using in the Neolithic had no essential differences from the bows they were using in AD 1545, so the bowyers of any period could have made a 100+ lb warbow like those the medieval English loved for anyone skilled enough to use it. I suspect that the real difference was between a professional archer with a bow designed for war and someone who just hunts or target shoots occasionally using a hunting weapon.

[ratty]

Hi there,

I think Jon's comment was fairly overdue here.

I shoot a modern 75# hunting recurve for sports and use a 60# Mongolian for re-enactment; and, yes, on tournaments at times used to I sneer a little at guys, broader than I am, using a 45# recurve. But in my opinion this whole draw weight discussion is the all male game of length and size.

Do not get me wrong: heavy weight bows where certainly existent Roman times..., but do not confuse the conditions then with those in late medieval England for example. The armour of a French knight at Agincourt was surely harder to pierce than that of a miles at Carrhae. Armour and weapons developed in interaction: a stronger armour leads to a stronger bow and vice versa.

Some remarks concerning the use of heavy (Roman) bows:

1) If you have a body of archers screening an area, trying to hold the enemy at bay, you want them to get as much arrows into the air as possible (a minimum of 10 - 12 arrows per minute would just be fine).
How long could you hold this cadence with a 100# bow?

2) Archery uses muscles and movements people do not use every day. Thus archers have to be trained. You can make a rifleman in weeks, an acceptable archer needs months if not years and the heavier the bow, the longer it takes. As with all target-oriented shooting, the goal is to hit the mark. An archer hitting the target with a 60# bow is better off than the guy missing it with a 100# bow. Especially if the target is coming up to you with a sword.

3) Units of massed archers shoot balistically. The arrow climbs to the peak of its steep trajectory and is then pulled back to earth by gravitation. Mass and speed of the arrow will penetrate the target. As far as I remember my physics lessons: at some point the speed of a falling object does not increase anymore, so there is no use in shooting the arrow higher than necessary.

4) In my opinion the aimed, direct shot was the exception for the rank and file archer in field battle. The missile units were support for the heavy infantry, preparing the enemy formation for the attack. Like a chain, a battle line is only as strong as their weakest part. A man with an arrow wound at his leg may not be fatally wounded, but he can be easy prey for any able bodied opponent in close combat and, even if he survives the battle, he has a good chance of dying weeks later of infection and fever.

5) Maybe direct shots were the job of specialists, sort of Roman "snipers".
Here heavier bows to pierce armour would make sense along with hand picked arrows (compared to the rank and file).

6) As Jon already pointed out: the ratio of "firepower" to draw weight for a composite bow is higher compared to a self bow.

Again: yes heavy weight bows are fun, but have thy really been used by the Romans in large number?

Cheers,

Helge Dunbar

1) If you have a body of archers screening an area, trying to hold the enemy at bay, you want them to get as much arrows into the air as possible (a minimum of 10 - 12 arrows per minute would just be fine).
How long could you hold this cadence with a 100# bow?

im not super human, by no means im 5ft 9" tall and just under 15 stone, i can shoot 12 arrows a minute with someone passing them me , from my 120# hungarian at 34" and im sure i could sustain it for quite a while. honestly it realy is technique its not as impossible as people think.

i dont think we should try to down grade any warbow or the people that used to shoot them,because it seems like an impossibility to (us/you and me / modern archers).

obviously none of us can be sure of what poundage bows they shot during this time ,and no dought foot archers probably shot heavier bows than horse archers, we know heavy projectile machines were used by the romans such as the scorpion ect so they knew how effective heavy projectiles were.
i just find it hard to beleive they shot arrows that would almost defianatly bounce off light armour and shields from a horse. if were talking 45# bows.


this is an interesting discussion

[Virilis]

Yes, as Ratty said, this is really interesting :wink: !

I must share the views of Ratty. Think about the assyrians, for example. They had very powerful composite bows which they used in their siege operations too. To shoot the defenders off the walls of the besieged town a 50 pound bow just wouldn`t do! In addition they hunted lions and before modern super-sharp cutting arrow-points the bows must have been quite powerful!

The extra power of a high-poundage bow is simply an advantage which you can`t ignore if you want to wipe out every f.......g enemy from the field :wink: ...

[jonwr]

Maybe I should explain myself. I shoot a #50 not for historical reasons but because it does what I want.
I can shoot all day and every day with out stain or pain There have been many days when Ive shoot a 30 target field course twice in a day.
And I'm sure there are some heavy bow pullers that have done the same. Not bragging just saying.
Talking of penetration are we saying 14th C plate or leather/ fabric mail?,
If I was face with an Armour clad sword wielding enemy and had my #50 bow, I would wait until hes' 25 yards out and shoot for the face. If the first didn't stop him I'm sure the next couple would make him look for an easier foe.
As to Cavalry.Shoot the horse.
I just never really wanted to put in the time needed to consistently shoot #100 bows. Nothing against those who do (more power to them ) but it just wasn't something that fitted into my archery goals.
Happy Holidays to all.
Jon R

[Virilis]

Jon, I totally agree with you too :wink: ! I shoot also 50 and 70 pound bows, it is fun and they are real weapons too, especially with sharp modern cutting arrow tips (which I don`t have & need)!

These heavier bows started to interest me as a by-product of my late roman re-enactment hobby and I regularly shoot with different bows of different weight depending on my "mood". It is great to shoot a little target from 20 metres with a lower poundage bow and sometimes it is time to shoot big targets from 100 metres away with a heavy bow. There is no big idea behind it, it is just good clean fun :wink: !

[Robert]

We had a somewhat similar discussion in another thread. I must say there is much to be said for Helge's arguments for the common miles trained to use the bow as an axillary weapon. Certainly Eastern archers only showed up way after second century along the Northern Limes and we know of earlier use of archery by the Romans (arrowhead finds). It is VERY difficult to make a smooth shooting self-bow way over 50 # drawweight, I am convinced most bows around at the time were self-bows (which may have had horn or sinew re-enforcement on the back facing the target, making them composite but not yet recurve).
The composite recurve > 80 # "war-bows" needed much care and were notoriously difficult to make, maintain, string and shoot. They are great for defense, long range sniping and the likes, but for a good barrage putting the fear of Zeus into your average Germanic or Calladonian rabble, lesser weights work just fine. A 50 # bow will, at moderate elevation, carry 150 meters any old day and still pack enough punch to truly ruin your day, as this is by no means a ballistic trajectory but still carries force from the shot itself. The point on it will do much for its penetrating capabilities on arrival, bodkins make short work of shields and mail.

On the thumbrings, there has been quite some discussion on the identification of the English find as a thumbring, it certainly does not resemble any of the implements shown in the pictures AFAIK.

[ratty]

Maybe I should explain myself. I shoot a #50 not for historical reasons but because it does what I want.
I can shoot all day and every day with out stain or pain There have been many days when Ive shoot a 30 target field course twice in a day.
And I'm sure there are some heavy bow pullers that have done the same. Not bragging just saying.
Talking of penetration are we saying 14th C plate or leather/ fabric mail?,
If I was face with an Armour clad sword wielding enemy and had my #50 bow, I would wait until hes' 25 yards out and shoot for the face. If the first didn't stop him I'm sure the next couple would make him look for an easier foe.
As to Cavalry.Shoot the horse.
I just never really wanted to put in the time needed to consistently shoot #100 bows. Nothing against those who do (more power to them ) but it just wasn't something that fitted into my archery goals.
Happy Holidays to all.
Jon R

Talking of penetration are we saying 14th C plate or leather/ fabric mail?,

im talking about shields and armour of the time , mail has never been good at stopping arrows and was never designed to.a target pile will go through mail.

please dont think i am confusing knowledge of medieval english warbows with composite bows before and of the roman period.

I just never really wanted to put in the time needed to consistently shoot #100 bows. Nothing against those who do (more power to them ) but it just wasn't something that fitted into my archery goals.

i totaly respect your decision please dont think im trying to make everyone shoot heavybows :lol: i enjoy target shooting with a light bow as much as anyone else

i just beleive warbows of the period were heavier draw weight than people seem to think

[ratty]

We had a somewhat similar discussion in another thread. I must say there is much to be said for Helge's arguments for the common miles trained to use the bow as an axillary weapon. Certainly Eastern archers only showed up way after second century along the Northern Limes and we know of earlier use of archery by the Romans (arrowhead finds). It is VERY difficult to make a smooth shooting self-bow way over 50 # drawweight, I am convinced most bows around at the time were self-bows (which may have had horn or sinew re-enforcement on the back facing the target, making them composite but not yet recurve).
The composite recurve > 80 # "war-bows" needed much care and were notoriously difficult to make, maintain, string and shoot. They are great for defense, long range sniping and the likes, but for a good barrage putting the fear of Zeus into your average Germanic or Calladonian rabble, lesser weights work just fine. A 50 # bow will, at moderate elevation, carry 150 meters any old day and still pack enough punch to truly ruin your day, as this is by no means a ballistic trajectory but still carries force from the shot itself. The point on it will do much for its penetrating capabilities on arrival, bodkins make short work of shields and mail.

On the thumbrings, there has been quite some discussion on the identification of the English find as a thumbring, it certainly does not resemble any of the implements shown in the pictures AFAIK.

It is VERY difficult to make a smooth shooting self-bow way over 50 # drawweight

wow wink:
i made an ash one last year and it was realy easy, infact my friend has just made one at 120# and it was his second bow he ever made.

The point on it will do much for its penetrating capabilities on arrival, bodkins make short work of shields and mail.

to get a bodkin to come down with enough force to penetrate a sheild you would need to get the height and the arrow would need the speed and a stable flight on the way down and most of all you would need around a 50g arrow to inflict a descent impact ,now to get 50g arrow in the air you need alot more than a 50lb bow to do it if you want it to fly more than 80/100yds.



oops i think were slipping off topic abit :wink: back to thumbrings