|
Post by ShooterMike on Jun 20, 2007 16:20:24 GMT
Rammstein, Sometime your witty sarcasm is lost on the internet. I think we need a big gnarly "sarcasm" emoticon.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 20, 2007 16:39:54 GMT
well I could have inundated the post with smileys but then it would look corny
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2007 17:05:49 GMT
Huns were the ones that used composite bows on horseback. For a brief info about Hun's bow go to www.archeryinfo.info/MongolBowTactics.html scroll down to the part Editorial-The Archer. Moreover the Mongols improved the Hun bow into the existing Mongol bow and that was during Genghis Khan's reign. We all know that Genghis Khan ruled "on a horseback". I guess it was possible for Genghis Khan and his troops to pull a 160lbs bow on a horseback because they were nomads. they didn't have our luxury, we can live in a nice house made of bricks while they had to pack their houses whenever they were ordered to. They didn't have any modern time heatings they had to chop their own firewood before they could warm up or even eat dinner. They drink horses milk, which was said able to increase stamina and health and so forth and forth and forth. So basically what I'm trying to say is that,compared to us, their living conditions help in producing stronger people (soldiers in particular) which are able to pull a 160 lbs bow on a horse back. Well that's just what I think.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 20, 2007 17:26:43 GMT
It's already generous saying that a person can pull a 160 lb bow in perfect conditions - meaning on foot with perfect footing and training for their entire life. There are maybe a handful of people in the world today who could do that. The reason why a bow gets its stability and power in the first place is from exceptional footing. On horseback you essnetially remove this advantage and consequentially the bow has to be weaker. Remember that the mechanics of firing on horseback are different than on foot and the bows needs to compensate power for stability. Just because they train in mounted archery doesn't mean they can do something humanly impossible. I can jump off of a building for years and I will NEVER be able to fly.
Tsafa can probably give you a good muscular analysis of firing a bow.
Neither did the longbowmen and they were only able to do this with stable footing, as said earlier.
on the subject of diet - the mongol diet was said to consist of mares milk and horse blood, both of which could be used indefinately as milk and blood both regenerate. However, their diet was exceptionally poor nutritionally and prooves even further that this type of superhuman activity is impossible. Modern day humans may be pampered but we are a far cry from helpless. If we can't do something, it isn't likely that someone living in harsher times could succeed *much* better (although there wouyld be a noticable difference).
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on Jun 20, 2007 17:48:29 GMT
I read through the above site in a lot of detail. They claim this design can be built up to 70 lbs max pull weight in one example. About 60 lbs. in others. The great thing about the design is that it exherts full pull weight against the arrow through most of the string travel, thus greatly increasing the arrow velocity. Their claim is that a 40 lb Mongol bow can shoot an arrow at a higher velocity than an English longbow of twice that weight.
It seems pretty well designed. I would encourage anyone who's interested to read through the site.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 20, 2007 17:54:07 GMT
A recurve will always beat a selfbow in efficiency, but maybe 130-150%, certainly not 200%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 1:14:25 GMT
...I've seen crusade documentories stating that crusader's swords were heavy, unbalanced, and clumsy... I don't know if this is true...it sounds too farfetched to me. I don't think I was clear. The Turks were using the footbows against the Crusaders. This was at one on the ambushes on the way to Constantinople. As far as clumsy, slow and unbalanced, most recent documentaries are more up to date and accurate. The Crusaders overcame very large odds to capture Odessa, Acer, Tyree and Jerusalem and a few other cities. They then held on to those cities for about 100 years while greatly out numbered. btw, I know you are being sarcastic and don't think they were slow and clumsy. I agree, a sarcastic icon would be helpful. Regarding, human strength, I think that modern nutrition, better knowledge of health, and modern training is producing the strongest people that have ever lived. Pulling a 160 lb bow is not a mater of pulling the string straight back. Doing so only uses the small rear deltoid muscles. You have to point the bow down and pull your elbow back over your head using the larger lattisimus dorsi muscles. These are the same muscles you use when doing pullups. It is impossible to do this while seated. Here are two vids of me executing the method needed to pull a heavy bow. I should mention, that toughness and strength are two different things. Being able to fight in a dessert with little food and water is a whole other issue. mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/longbow/bow10.MPG mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/longbow/bow11.MPG Here is a link to my bow webpage. I have posted this stuff before, but it has been lost somewhere in th 5 pages we are up to. mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/longbow/longbow.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 1:24:06 GMT
I have that History Channel Documentary on DVD. It came with "Medieval 2 Total War" I bought from Gamestop for the pc. It was a limited edition. I haven't watched all of it yet just act 1. The Byzantiums basically tricked the generals of the first crusade and I don't know what happens next, I will watch it tonight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2007 23:04:21 GMT
Some interesting info: I used to doubt the claims of draw weight, until I heard about some remains of English archers that were discovered and examined. I don't recall the name of the sight...anybody? Anyway, when they examined the skeletons, they found they all had consistent deformities of the shoulder and other bones from years of pulling very heavy longbows!
Anyone know the story? I think I have it in a book somewhere, I'll try to look it up.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 21, 2007 23:18:03 GMT
Yup, I've seen that too.
You often find archers with deformities like enlarged (left?) arms and bones spurs and all of that. I used to doubt the draw weight too thinking that there is no way to accurately measure weights from a bow that is 600 years old. However, you have to see some masters at work firing 150 lb bows to believe it ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2007 0:45:31 GMT
You guys are talking about the raising of the Mary Rose. That was Henry VIII's Flagship. Going on memory here, I recall that about 80 longbows were recovered from the ship. Initially it was said that the bows had draw-weights that ranged from the lightest being 100 lbs and the heaviest being 180 lbs. These figures were based on constructing similar bows of the same material and wood thickness. As Rammstine pointed out, I also have low confidence in how this information was computed. Salt water does a lot of weird things to wood over 500 years. They tried to factor in 500 years of swelling and rotting. Figuring out the original density and elasticity is a guess. Then you have to try to guess the draw-length of each bow. A bow typically looses or gains 6% of draw-weight of every inch it is underdrawn or overdrawn. So a 150 lb bow at a 31 inch draw is a 100 lb bow at 26 inches. There are a lot of uncertainties in figuring out historical draw weights. On the issue of bone spurs and building up of bone mass there is nothing unusual about that. Anybody that works out with heavy weights has built up bones. Back in my college days (1992) my friend's sister worked for a young bone doctor. We passed by to see her and started talking with the doctor. He took a look at us and wanted to know what kind of weights we were lifting. We told him our squatting numbers and he asked if he could x-ray our knees for his own personal research. Most people have round knees, ours had been built up so that they were nearly square in response to heavy weight training. Bones are every bit as live as your skin and muscles and they get stronger under stress. Doctor said he saw no problems but there have been cases where the bone starts growing into the surrounding nerves and pinching them. I have had no such problems. The reason why the skeletons on the Mary Rose seemed disfigured is because archers usually shoot from only one side.... the side that is eye dominant. This caused increased bone density on one side and shortening of the back tendons on the other. This can be avoided by shooting from both sides as I do and overall training the body evenly. So what is my personally opinion on historical draw-weights. I think most English military archers pulled 90 to 120 lbs in time of war. Yes they might be able to pull more as I can, but accuracy suffers. Good arrows are expensive and take a lot of time to make today. They would have been even harder to make 500 years ago. The stiffness of the arrow has to be matched up to the draw-weight of the bow. The shaft must be straight and the feathers of the same bird wing and perfectly lined up to give the right spin. The arrows are more important then the bow. There is only so many arrows a person can carry, I do not think they would have picked bows so heavy that they could not handle accurately. I can draw a 130 lb bow straight back in the Victorian style. I reason I could pull 150 lbs in the medieval style for a few arrows. Normally I practice with just a 65 lb bow for accuracy. After an hour of practice I usually have to stop as my arrows start flying all over the place from being tired. Now I'm only 5'10" 210 lbs, I imagin a big 6'6" 300 lb man might be able to handle a 150 lb bow with consistant accuracy. I am certain there may have been a few 150 lb bows on the field, but I think very few. I hope you guys actually read all this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2007 5:02:22 GMT
I see all your points. All I'm saying is, I've been shooting a bow for years, and doubt if I have any of these abnormalities. Therefore, either they had to be shooting really heavy bows, or they were just shooting constantly. Probably a bit of both.
One more point. You mentioned the difficulty of accuracy with heavy bows. I would ask you to keep in mind that the English war bow was used mainly in massed, volley fire, at as far a distance as possible. Therefore, that method of warfare would seem to me to favor weight and power over accuracy. Just a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2007 5:34:51 GMT
I can see military archers favoring penetrating power over accuracy. I can also see them shortening their draw-lengths as they get tired or if more accuracy is required. Referencing what I said earlier, a bow that is 150 lbs when anchoring to the ear at 31 inches, is only 100 lbs when anchored 26 inches to the eye. This is is a useful option for additional accuracy or when tired. You might say that a bow has built in versatility.
What is the draw-weight on your bow shilohlee? What kind of bow do you use?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2007 23:22:08 GMT
Oh, Ive shot everything from 50-70 lbs, compounds and recurves. I currently shoot a 50 lb wooden recurve exclusively. It's stated as 50 lbs at 28 in, but I draw to about 31 in, so I get a bit more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2007 18:35:44 GMT
I can see military archers favoring penetrating power over accuracy. I can also see them shortening their draw-lengths as they get tired or if more accuracy is required. Referencing what I said earlier, a bow that is 150 lbs when anchoring to the ear at 31 inches, is only 100 lbs when anchored 26 inches to the eye. This is is a useful option for additional accuracy or when tired. You might say that a bow has built in versatility. In The Archers Bible by Fred Bear I remember reading the draw weight increases by about 2 1/2 pounds for each inch past 28 you overdraw. Perhaps that is for recurves and for lesser draw weights than 150lb. long bows though. An extra 50lbs in 6 additional inches of pull is alot of extra ommph...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jun 25, 2007 18:42:21 GMT
Some extra "Oomph!" for you my friend
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2007 23:27:26 GMT
In The Archers Bible by Fred Bear I remember reading the draw weight increases by about 2 1/2 pounds for each inch past 28 you overdraw. Perhaps that is for recurves and for lesser draw weights than 150lb. long bows though. An extra 50lbs in 6 additional inches of pull is alot of extra ommph... Yep, 2.5 lb is right for most bows people shoot. Most people don't go past 45 lbs draw-weights. So 45x.06 is about 2.5 lbs per inch. As the draw-weight goes up the pressure for each additional inch scales up. My 65 lb gets 4 lbs for each additional inch. When you get up to 150 lbs now you gain of loose 9 lbs for each additional inch. The pressure per inch must go up in order to accommodate more weight over the same distance. Nice vid Rammstine
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2009 7:07:44 GMT
I posted a new video on strength training for heavy bows.
It turned out dark because the mats on the floor and the weights are black, plus it is night outside, but I think the basic idea comes across of how to do the exercise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2009 22:29:24 GMT
Awesome. I'd like to do w/out all the bone spurs and enlarged areas so I train for both sides, at least in the weight room.
Bill, PM comin your way.
|
|