English War bow and Mongol Composite bow

[bigdummy]

Do you think the Turkish recurve was substantially different and superior to the Mongol recurve?

Is there any reason to believe the Turkish bow (or any bow) could penetrate plate harness at more than point blank range? I'm always dubious of such claims, but I know it's one of those internet fault lines. But the Ottomans seemed very quick to adopt firearms.. how late were they still using horse archers?

I bought this book "The Crooked Stick, a History of the Longbow" by Hugh D.H. Soar, do y'all consider that a good source?

I have the English Warbow on order.

BD

[janner]

Well, sources on the Third Crusade (both Muslim and Christian) describe guys in normal mail continuing to march and fight normally with ten plus arrows sticking out of them, ie they didn't penetrate the hauberk.

I'm a tadge busy right now, but I'll try and dig up something more substantial for you.

[admin]

>>Do you think the Turkish recurve was substantially different and superior to the Mongol recurve?

Not necessarily superior, but probably more developed, yes. Different, yes. It was way shorter, with a different curve and different ends.

>>Is there any reason to believe the Turkish bow (or any bow) could penetrate plate harness at more than point blank range?<<

I suspect there is evidence for and against, just like with all arrow vs armour discussions. At the end of the day, it depends on so many factors, especially the armour in question and specifically where the armour is struck and by what. Some specific pieces of armour, whether it is 15thC or 17thC, can be very thin. It doesn't necessarily need to penetrate a breastplate or helmet skull.

>>how late were they still using horse archers?<<

Not sure, but they were still using them in the 17thC.

>>I bought this book "The Crooked Stick, a History of the Longbow" by Hugh D.H. Soar, do y'all consider that a good source?<<

Pretty good. 'The Great Warbow' is the best book on the subject IMO.

[bigdummy]

Well, sources on the Third Crusade (both Muslim and Christian) describe guys in normal mail continuing to march and fight normally with ten plus arrows sticking out of them, ie they didn't penetrate the hauberk.

I'm a tadge busy right now, but I'll try and dig up something more substantial for you.

Yes, that was before the Ottomans though.

BD

[bigdummy]

What do y'all think of flatbows?

The wiki makes some bold claims

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatbow

...of which I am pretty dubious, but it makes me wonder a bit about Native American (Indian) bows, some of which were apparently militarily effective. Any thoughts here? Anybody know anything about range, draw strength etc.?

Or about Saami / Finnish bows?

BD

[janner]

Well, sources on the Third Crusade (both Muslim and Christian) describe guys in normal mail continuing to march and fight normally with ten plus arrows sticking out of them, ie they didn't penetrate the hauberk.

I'm a tadge busy right now, but I'll try and dig up something more substantial for you.

Yes, that was before the Ottomans though.

BD

Sorry, I'd understood that this was Turkish recurves in general and not only Ottoman ones.

[Jonathan Waller]

Native flat bows are often backed with sinew, this does increase power a bit like backing an English longbow, though is more normally done to decrease the likelihood of the bow breaking.

On Turkish bows I would suggest that what we know is of the late period. Thee obviously was some development over time, as there was with the EWB, though if the changes wee as great as have been suggested in the past now seems unlikely.

best

[bigdummy]

It's clear that the European crossbow improved dramatically from the early Medieval period through the Renaissance, as did firearms of course.

BD