zraver=The bow technology was copied from the horse peoples so it should come in pretty close to the 90-130 pound draw area on foot, although pre-stirrup cavalry probably could not get a full draw very easily.
Sources? There are different types of bows, including varieties of composite bows. Not all are the same.
The Caroligians (Charlemagne the Great) are in a historical crossroads- Western Rome has just died, but the onslaught of the Vikings has not yet begun the darkest part of the dark ages. Rome and Roman technology and even language and custom were still very common.
Still isn't part of ancient times. It is still the beginning of the medieveal period. We're talking ancient. Charlemagne the Great was a medieval figure.
Effective is the operative word here. Could Mongol bows defeat European armor? yes, that is not in discussion, but at what range. What we know, limited as it is by time. is that the Mongols could not just ride up, and shoot down a European Army. Battles would last hours and cover miles upon miles. This strongly implies that both sides needed to be close. If the Europeans could not get their lances into flesh- they lost. But the Mongols needed to be close to in order for their bows to penetrate. Gunning down knights from 300 yard simply did not happen. The Mongols probably had to wait to under 100 yards for a reliable chance of penetration and then run like hell to get back out range of the lances. As the knights destriers got tired the knights had no way to change mounts. While the Mongols could drop back to the remount herd and get a fresh horse and more arrows. The mobility of the Mongols is what allowed them to win. I will also point out that when the knights went careening off across the field- they left the infantry and missile troops behind. This means forces that started out close in numbers soon had a massive numbers advantage for the Mongols who could now deal the the smallest and most important piece of the European armies in detail.
If 166-draw-weight medieval Mongol bows can penetrate heavily armored medieval Europeans, then ancient Chinese bows and crossbows with 90lb to 160lb to more draw weights should have no problems penetrating heavily armored Europeans. That is what we have been discussing.
I already talked about the merits of hit-and-run tactics, especially why combined with ranged weapons (go back and read my comments). No need to repeat me.
Around 1800 BC, for reasons yet unknown to archaeologists, tin became scarce in the Levant, causing a decline in bronze production. Copper, also, came to be in short supply. As a result, pirate groups around the Mediterranean, from around 1800–1700 BC onward, began to attack fortified cities in search of bronze, to remelt into weaponry.
Bronze was much more abundant in the period before the 12th to 10th century and Snodgrass[9][10] suggests that a shortage of tin, as a result of the trade disruptions in the Mediterranean at this time, forced peoples to seek an alternative to bronze. That many bronze items were recycled and made from implements into weapons during this time, is evidence of this.
# A.M.Snodgrass (1967), "Arms and Armour of the Greeks". (Thames & Hudson, London)
# ^ A. M. Snodgrass (1971), "The Dark Age of Greece" (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh).
Your sources are out of date compared to my source (
), which included updated information about the discovering of lots of ancient copper and tin deposits in the Middle East and Europe. You previously claimed it was the lack of copper or tin that resulted in bronze scarcity and the rise of iron. My source says bronze weapons were replaced by iron weapons because of various reasons (and they are still being debated): a limiting agent that was depleting copper mines, depleting tin mines, or fuel; trade disruptions; and early Chinese figured out how to make good iron in large quantities before other people in the world. Here are some quotes about this from my source (Did you even read my sources?):
"Sometime after 1000 BC, knowledge of iron-forging techniques reached China from the West. The Chinese then applied their superior furnace technology to take iron-working to new levels of expertise. They were the first to cast iron into useful objects, because they could routinely melt iron on a large scale. . . . The Chinese iron industry grew quickly. By 512 BC the Chinese were casting all kinds of iron objects, including large cauldrons.
. . . .
"The Chinese invented sophisticated bellows for their iron furnaces before 100 BC, so that a single continuous stream of air entered the furnace, rather than intermittent puffs. The process uses a lot of fuel, but gives higher temperatures. This invention is, for practical purposes, a blast furnace; by 100 AD the Chinese were driving blast furnace bellows with water wheels. This technology was not invented in (or transmitted to) the West until the 15th century.
. . . .
"The fact is that Chinese iron was stronger than the best contemporary bronze alloys by about 450 BC, and thereafter iron became the dominant metal, even for everyday tools.
. . . .
"As I mentioned earlier, cast iron is too brittle for everyday use that involves impact, especially for armor and weapons. It is too high in carbon. About 300*400 BC, the Chinese learned that if a cast iron object is reheated to 800° or 900° in air, it is decarburized, that is, it essentially has some of the carbon burned out of the surface layer. This process forms a skin of lower-carbon iron (steel) over the cast iron core. The finished tool is hard and wear-resistant, and for most uses is comparable with the end product of Western forging, in which a skin of steel is formed over a core of wrought iron by forging. But the Chinese technology was far more efficient. The Chinese cast objects already had the precise shape required, whereas Western smiths had to produce the right shape by hammering wrought iron on a forge. The Chinese could effectively mass-produce cast steel-jacketed tools of all kinds, while Western smiths had to make them one at a time. By about 250 BC, one iron works in Szechuan employed 1000 people, and the Chinese were producing much more iron by casting than by forging.
. . . .
""Henan # 3" represented an even greater technological breakthrough. In this complex the Chinese did not reheat cast iron to make a steel jacket, but melted cast iron and "puddled" it. The molten iron was stirred to allow air to come into contact with it, turning the whole melt directly into steel, or into wrought iron (shu thieh, or ripe iron). The process was not re-invented in the West until the 18th century."
-----------------------
Notice how I said your arguments are provincial. It's because they are. Look at comprehensive information. People shifted to iron because, overall, iron was better than bronze. Read what I wrote in the past.
After all this debate, I have listed lots of sources of the draw weight and design of ancient Chinese bows and crossbows. There is data on the draw weights of Mongol bows and Turkish bows. There is historical data about Parthian composite bows shooting through ancient European armor. You still have not listed ONE source with quotes about the usage, draw weight, and design of ancient European bows or crossbows.
Even the Parthians when forced to stand and fight, found their bows so effective when they had the tome and room to use them, could not stop the legions.
Parthians and ancient Europeans armies fought to a draw. Neither side conquered each other or prove dominance over the other.
Combining shooting with hit-and-run is basics, just like getting close to use melee weapons. Duh. Notice how the ancient Chinese understood this. Did you read my sources on seven military classics? Did you ready my source on light, mobile ancient Chinese armies.
Notice how your sources reaffirmed my claim about the draw weights of good composite bows (90 to 166 lbs).
From (1):
"The thickness of limbs for the flight bows was close to published measurements.6,7 These bows turned out to be over 100lb draw weight. Other bows, seen by the author in museums, had even thicker limbs.7, 8 It can be estimated Turkish bows in the range 90 to 160lb were common. The masses of tested bows were comparable to masses of old bows.4"
From (2):
"The draw weight of the 46 Ottoman bows varied between 40 and 2401b with a mean of 1201b and the standard deviation of 441b (median 115lb). For a more realistic assessment, six low weight bows at and below 701b can be eliminated, since it is unlikely that these bows, although suitable for hunting, would be acceptable for warfare by a trained soldier. Ten bows at and above 150lb can also be removed from the group, since only unusually strong individuals could make use of them. For example bows above 180lb were most likely used for show of strength by exceptional athletes (pehlivan), or for exercise rather than warfare. This leaves 30 bows, with a mean draw weight of 111lb and the standard deviation of 171b. Therefore the realistic range of draw weights, to include the majority of Ottoman bows, would be from around 90lb to 130lb, possibly to 140lb for the shortest bows."
. . . .
"The draw weight, of 110-201b, appears exceedingly high by today's standards. However, it should be borne in mind that the archers were professionals, accustomed to constant practice since childhood (De Busbecq 2001) and well used to physical exertion. The slave collection system of the Ottomans (devsirme) allowed for inclusion of only the strongest individuals, who would then join the ranks of Janissaries, after years of physical labour (Imber 2002). There are written accounts of exercises with bows of increased strength until even the heaviest could be drawn effortlessly (Rycaut 1995). Since the ability to use heavy bows is based not only on strength, but in a large part on skill, physically fit men who practice for many years are certainly capable of such effort."
Notice how in my previous replay I talked about ancient Chinese soldiers have to undergo training and pass requirements. Notice in my previous reply I listed a website by students (
). One student claimed that some ancient Chinese soldiers were required to pull a bow with a draw weight of 200 lbs (this student listed sources). Then consider how a few powerful ancient Chinese bows and crossbows required the usage of legs, trunk, and arms to be drawn. You can find this from historians and archaeolists in China.
Rice is still the staple food, and not the best food for muscle growth. What modern athletes can do with nonstop conditioning, medically monitor diets etc can't really be used as a reference. Generally speaking the bigger the man- the more muscle mass.
Do you even know what a staple food is? Grains, potatoes, yams, and other sources of carbohydrates are staple foods for the vast majority of civilizations. Ancient China had agricultural technology on par or superior to the rest of the world. Strength is due to genome and phenotypic expression influenced by various environmental factors. Here are most factors determining strength: size, quality of muscle (fast twitch, medium twitch, and slow twitch for humans), quality of tendons and ligaments, bone quality, type of food, type of physical activity, proper rest, technique, injuries, and proper stretching and warming up before exersion.
As the Olympics show, the Chinese have the genetics for great strength.
Notice how ancient Chinese armies had standards and training for their soldiers. They were also backed by a good agricultural economy combined with a good industry.
Some Chinese were required.... Just like some of the Janniseries of the Ottomans pulled special super heavy bows for distance competitions. There were probably similar occurrences and special bows for every archery centered peoples.
BTW, the wiki on the English long bow says the examples from the Mary Rose had draw weights in excess of 160lbs.
Thanks for repeating my argument that ancient Chinese could handle powerful bows and crossbows.
Once again, we are talking about ancient weapons. There is a good relation between the ancient Chinese bow and the medieval Mongl bow based on design, origin, and draw weight. The sames goes with medieval Turkish bows. The English longbow is a medieval tool.
Junior in a BA program at the University of Central Arkansas. But this is a bit misleading because I am not an 18 year old fresh out of high school. Rather I am a mid-late 30's man who has been reading history for nearly 20 years. I also won a competitive full ride honors scholarship and carry a 4.0GPA in my history major 3.8 CPA is both my polisci and honors minor.
So what makes you think you know more than these people who have backed my claims and not your provincial ideas? Did you read my sources created by other students, teachers, and professors about the superiority of ancient Chinese metallurgy, about powerful bows and crossbows from ancient China that are well recorded, about Chinese military system, about the BENEFITS of shooting a bow or crossbow with a shooting ring, about the many people throughout history and up to now who still use a shooting ring (ring shooting is harder than it looks, NOT your ridiculous claims about "rushed raising" vs "trained professional"), etc.? Go back and read the whole thing again.
Publish some research papers and let me see it go under peer review. I want to you publish papers on your claims: (1) ancient Chinese bows and crossbows were inferior to ancient European armor, bows, and crossbows; (2) all ancient people shifted from bronze to iron and tin because they ran out of tin and copper resources; (3) all bronze weapons were superor to all iron weapons during ancient times; and (4) ring shooting is for "rushed raising" people, and shooting w/o a ring is for "trained professional."
SCYTHIAN-STYLE BOWS DISCOVERED IN XINJIANG - (The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies - CAIS)©
Did Alexander ever face a composite bow with a draw weight of 90 lb to 166 lb or more? Did the bow shoot arrows that penetrated Alexander's soldiers' shields and body armor? What about Alexander's bows? My sources showed he had them, but no info on draw weight and design.
Still no specific info on the superiority of ancient European slings, bows, and crossbows for mobile units.
From the above source on Scythian bows:
" If the materials are really silk and Chinese lacquer, then the use of these materials clearly suggests Chinese craftsmanship. Silk wrapped and lacquered bows have been excavated in Warring States and Han tombs [v]. However, the bow was found in a cemetery primarily containing people of European features [vi]. Whether the bow was finished or recovered by a Chinese artisan or complete constructed by one is hard to say at the moment. However, Stephen advised me that the thread could not be identified under the layer of lacquer and the nature of the lacquer itself has not been determined yet. The bow is dated approximately 600 BCE, but may be later. The Scythians were prominent in the West between 750 BCE and 300 BCE. After that time they went into decline though enclaves survived into the current era in the Crimean peninsula.
. . . .
"Warlike horse nomads [of Iranian Stock] are first mentioned in the West in Assyrian documents in the eighth century BCE. These Cimmerians were eventually over thrown by the tribes the Greeks called Scythians. They raided extensively in the Near East and eventually allied with [their Iranian cousins] the Medes of western Iran to destroy the Assyrian kingdom."
------------------------
Read the whole source and notice how the author talks about the detailed variations in bow design.
Notice how the Scythians were a branch of of the Persian ethnic group? Did you read that. Notice how the author believes ancient Scythians brought this type of composite bow to the West.
Now give me source and quotes about the draw weight, design, and performance of ancient European mobile ranged weapons against composite bows with draw weights of 90 lb, 160 lb, and more.
Every source you listed to me about ancient people shows that the ancient Europeans, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, could NOT outshoot their ancient enemies in the Middle East. They had to rely on melee as their main weapon, because their mobile ranged weapons were not good enough as a primary weapon against foreigners.
I know lots of good sources saying ancient artillery and siege weapons were superb for ancient Europeans and other civilzations, but what about slings, bows, and crossbows? Ancient Europeans got outshot most of the time in fights requiring mobility. Notice how ancient Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and Chinese societies had powerful composite bows/crossbows and effectively used them as a leading weapon.
You still don't have evidence that ancient European mobile ranged weapons were on par or superior to ancient Chinese mobile ranged weapons. Give me draw weight, design, projectile design, producton capacity, and usage (battlefied results).
A couple of important things I need to remind you of... again.
1.Crassus was an idiot and led his army to disaster.
2. The Romans who rallied fought their way free and 2 years later smashed the Parthians
3. Rome Went East after the battle and Reached Basra in Modern day Iraq.
4. Rome won more than they lost vs the Persians.
5. Accounts from the battle show that the Romans had their feet nailed to the desert and their arms nailed to their shields, but very little reference of arrows penetrating shield and armor and the vast majority were sold into slavery indicating there was not a lot of death on the battlefield.
The Parthians' composite bows of unknown draw weight and specific features DID shoot up the armored and turtled Romans.
Again, read my source from wikipedia again (
"Marcus Crassus commanded seven legions, the strength of which has been estimated variously from 28,000 to 40,000, along with 4,000 cavalry and a comparable number of light infantry. The Roman army vastly outnumbered the force they faced. Although the sandy, open desert landscape favored cavalry over infantry, the primary value of the Gallo-Roman cavalry was mobility, not force. By contrast, the thousand heavily armored Parthian cataphracts carried a long heavy lance (kontos), the reach of which exceeded the Gallic spear, and the 9,000 Parthian mounted archers were equipped with a compound bow far superior to that used in Europe, with arrows continually replenished by foot soldiers from a camel train.
. . . .
"A military historian describes the scene: 'They soon glimpsed the enemy horsemen only as fleeting shapes through an almost impenetrable curtain of sand and dust thrown up by their myriad hooves, while arrows whistled out of the gloom and pierced shields, mail, flesh and bone.[102]'
"With casualties mounting, Publius decided that a charge was his only option, but most of his men, riddled with arrows, could not respond to the call.
. . . .
"Most of the Roman army was killed or enslaved, except for about 10,000 led by or eventually reunited with Cassius, whose escape has sometimes been characterized as a desertion.[105] It was one of the worst military disasters in Roman history."
My source on Rhodian slingers (
), which was written by an ancient Greek who fought in this battle, shows they only scared away the Persian archers ONCE. After that, the ancient Persians won most or all ranged battles. Their slings and bows had superior range, and it gave them enough range to penetrate Greek shields and body armor force the invading Greek army to retreat.
It's clear you did not read or comprehend the whole thing. Read until comprehension.
------------------------------------from the above link:
"They [the Greeks] had not advanced far on their route when Mithridates [the Persian leader] made his appearance again, with about a couple of hundred horsemen at his back, and bowmen and slingers twice as many, as nimble fellows as a man might hope to see. He approached the Hellenes as if he were friendly; but when they had got fairly to close quarters, all of a sudden some of them, whether mounted or on foot, began shooting with their bows and arrows, and another set with slings, wounding the men. The rearguard of the Hellenes suffered for a while severely without being able to retaliate, for the Cretans had a shorter range than the Persians, and at the same time, being light-armed troops, they lay cooped up within the ranks of the heavy infantry, while the javelin men again did not shoot far enough to reach the enemy's slingers. This being so, Xenophon thought there was nothing for it but to charge, and charge they did; some of the heavy and light infantry, who were guarding the rear, with him; but for all their charging they did not catch a single man.
"The dearth of cavalry told against the Hellenes; nor were their infantry able to overhaul the enemy's infantry, with the long start they had, and considering the shortness of the race, for it was out of the question to pursue them far from the main body of the army. On the 10 other hand, the Asiatic cavalry, even while fleeing, poured volleys of arrows behind their backs, and wounded the pursuers. . . ."
. . . .
"At present the enemy shoot and sling beyond our range, so that our Cretan archers are no match for them; our hand-throwers cannot reach as far; and when we pursue, it is not possible to push the pursuit to any great distance from the main body, and within the short distance no foot-soldier, however fleet of foot, could overtake another foot-soldier who has a bow-shot the start of him. "
[Notice how the Greeks lacked archers, slingers, hand throwers, and javelin throwers that could defeat Persian slingers and archers. When the Greeks realized this, they sought and got the help of Rhodian slingers who shot very far because they used much smaller projectiles than the Persian slingers. No details on specific range and performance of ranged weapons. No mention of powerful composite bows.]
. . . .
"When they were close, he [Greek leader] halted some of his regiments at the rear and wheeled others into position on either flank, but hesitated to attack, having no mind apparently to run any risks, and contenting himself with an order to his slingers to sling and his archers to shoot. But when the Rhodian slingers and the bowmen[5], posted at intervals, retaliated, and every shot told (for with the utmost pains to miss it would have been hard to do so under the circumstanecs), then Tissaphernes with all speed retired out of range, the other regiments following suit; and for the rest of the day the one party advanced and the other followed. But now the Asiatics had ceased to be dangerous with their sharpshooting. For the Rhodians could reach further than the Persian 16 slingers, or, indeed, than most of the bowmen."
[Later on, the Rhodians replenished their lead projectiles. The rest of the battle was mostly long-range with a few minor melee. After this one minor Rhodian victory with no information on casualty, there were more long range fights. The Persian slingers and archers won most or all of these long-range fights, even though the Greeks had Rhodian slingers.]
[Still no specific details on draw weight and design of Persian bow and arrow.]
-------------------------------------
Once again, you still have no proof ancient European mobile ranged weapons (javelins, slings, bows, and crossbows) were superior or equal to good composite bows and crossbows, the type commonly used in ancient China.
You said you had access to most or every campus library and vast online resources. Go use your student ID or admission to find sources and quotes on the draw weight, design, and usage of ancient European bows and crossbows. Add in arrows if you can.
So far, lots of good historical evidence shows good bows/xbows like the ones found from possibly Parthia, Mongols, Turks, and ancient China most likely had the advantage in mobile ranged warfare against ancient Europeans when it comes to tools, production, and usage. These good bows/xbows were capable of penetrating ancient body armor and shields from Europe.
I know some idiots will think I am implying ancient European armies were lousy. I am not saying that. I have great respect for European history and all people's history. I know ancient Europeans had EXCELLENT, and most likely the best, overall melee. Read carefully what I am saying about ancient ranged weapons.
