Mongolian bow ranges

[Dan Howard]

I have been reading some primary documentation about the Mongols. They seem to have carried two bows to battle - one for long ranges and one for short ranges. The range of the long-range bow seems unbelievable.

The so-called 'Ghengis Khan stele' notes a contest in which a warrior named Esungge shot a target at 335 'alds' in 1226.

It seems that an ald translates to about 1.6 meters. If this is true then the effective range of these bows was over 500 meters.

In the book 'Khökh Sudar', written by Mongolian philosopher Injinashi, is described a competition that took place in c.1194-1195. Warriors named Dzulgetii, Gölögöön Baatar, Khuildar, Subeedei Baatar, and Togtongo Baatar each hit a target three times from a distance of 500 bows.

It seems that a 'bow' is equivalent to about 1 meter. This supports the above inference that the effective range of Mongolian bows was around 500 meters, and that some warriors were skilled enough to hit targets at this distance.

Considering the range of the much-vaunted English longbow was little more than 300 meters, it seems incredible that the shorter Mongolian bows could easily out-distance them.

[Brock H]

Originally posted by Dan Howard
Considering the range of the much-vaunted English longbow was little more than 300 meters, it seems incredible that the shorter Mongolian bows could easily out-distance them.

Not necessarily. What were the draw weights of the typical Mongolian bow versus that of the typical English longbow? What was the weight of the arrows? A heavier bow could shoot the same arrow further or the same weight bow could shoot a lighter arrow further.

I suspect these long range shots by the Mongolians used lighter arrows. The bows may also have had heavier draw weights.

[Elnathan Barnett]

Originally posted by Brock H


Not necessarily. What were the draw weights of the typical Mongolian bow versus that of the typical English longbow? What was the weight of the arrows? A heavier bow could shoot the same arrow further or the same weight bow could shoot a lighter arrow further.

I suspect these long range shots by the Mongolians used lighter arrows. The bows may also have had heavier draw weights.

Also, what is the efficiency of mongolian bows? From what I have read, a recurve of the mongolian type transfers the energy of the bow into the arrow more efficiently than a longbow, so while the longbow might have a higher drawweight than a recurve, the recurve could shoot further/faster/harder per pound.

The record distance is 900+ yards, done by a Turk a couple centuries ago, so the distances noted here are not especially surprising. The Turkish ambassador to England in 1797 (?) gave a demonstration in wich he shot an arrow 600+ yards, and claimed he was out of practice.

I do wonder about the effective battle range of these bows, as all the long shots were done with light flight arrows, not war arrows. Long range doesn't always translate into effectiveness on the battlefield- read some of the accounts of the crusades, where chroniclers record times when the Europeans were shot full of arrows that didn't penetrate their armor. These aren't Mongols shooting, but I believe that Turkish and Mongol bows were essentially the same.

[Dan Howard]

I don't know these answers, which was the reason for my post.

What was the difference between the long and short-range bows?

What was the draw weight of each?

How much more efficient are recurved bows?

How useful are Mongolian flight arrows in battle?

What was the maximum effctive battlefield distance?

[Michael R. Black]

What I have read, and experienced in bow making, is that a recurve bow transfers energy more effectively to an arrow than does a straight staff bow. The bow is, however, much less forgiving to the shooter, so that the arrow can be unstable on release. Advantages in using a recurve include great efficiency per pound of draw weight, and ability to shoot from horseback.

For longbow shooters, this tendency to be less efficient can be somewhat countered by using a heavier arrow. This transfers more energy to the arrow, and technically, makes the bow more efficient. Large, heavy arrows, like those needed for penetrating hard targets, are very efficient when used with a long bow. The longbow has further advantages in being easier to make, more durable, and more efficient in wet climates, because the sinew on the back of a recurve bow is less effective in damp conditions.

Obviously, there are lots of factors involved in any culture's evolution of archery. check out the traditional bowyer's bible, which has some discussion regarding bows from different cultures, and their respective advantages.

[Scott Bubar]

Dan, for more on the Turkish flight arrows, see:

Turkish Flight Arrows

[Sal Vagos]

I believe that during the Crusades, they weren't using "bodkins" that one would normally use to penetrate mail or anything that a knight's horse would be wearing as armour. They were using "broadheads" that would "stick" but wouldn't do the job. They were probably accustomed to fighting lightly armoured opponents.

[Elnathan Barnett]

Originally posted by Sal Vagos
I believe that during the Crusades, they weren't using "bodkins" that one would normally use to penetrate mail or anything that a knight's horse would be wearing as armour. They were using "broadheads" that would "stick" but wouldn't do the job. They were probably accustomed to fighting lightly armoured opponents.

Actually, the particular reference I was thinking of was about infantrymen. It was from a Muslim with Saladin, who stated that he had seen some of Richard's infantry with "upwards of twenty arrows" sticking out of their armor "marching no less easily for all that." Just out of curiosity, how could an arrow "stick" without penetrating mail? It seems to me that they would have to burst a link in order to stick in mail, or cut into the metal ring.

Something I forgot to mention earlier, but Saracen arrows were often if not usually tang-mounted, which made them tend to split their shafts on impact. (Source: The History of Marksmanship) I know at least some of the Mongolian arrows were made the same way, whereas I have never heard of a medieval longbow arrow that was anything but socket mounted, something to take into consideration when considering their relative effectiveness.

[Felix Wang]

The Crusader infantry were wearing gambesons (with or without mail underneath); the arrows were stuck in the padding.

[Matt Easton]

The mass of the arrow and the way the arrowhead is fitted is indeed very important. Apart from the arrowheads breaking from the shaft, I have also seen lighter arrows shatter when hitting hard targets, whereas thicker shafts hold up better. Military Illustrated magazine did a good test against Roman armour using copies of Romans arrow heads. The broadheads were rubbish against most types of armour and the tang-fitted heads were not very good either, even the bodkins. Without any comparison the socket fitted bodkins outperformed all other arrows. Also, against an army almost entirely carrying shields (like the Crusaders), a higher trajectory of the heavier arrow can actually be an advantage!
The longbows of the Mary Rose varied between 75 and 140 Lbs draw weight. However, only two were 140lbs, and they were very big bows that may have been used to shoot grenade arrows, as shown in period art work. Most of the longbows were 80-120 lbs. Still pretty heavy by modern standards. Two skeletons of archers from the ship were slightly deformed from lifetimes of shooting - compressed left forearms, extended right forearms and curvature of the spine.
I do not know the standard draw weights of recurves of the period and have always wondered about that.
I minus factor to longbow arrows is that they usually had very long fletchings, which create greater drag. I do not understand why they made them so long - maybe because the very thick shafts flexed less in shooting around the bowstave, and therefore needed more to straighten them in flight, but I have never found this problem when shooting. But none of my longbow arrows are as heavy as many of the originals and I have only ever shot a 75 lbs bow maximum.
David Nicolle makes eroneous statements like the Mongols, or all peoples using the thumb-draw, had a higher rate of fire than longbow users... I don't get this. He never qualifies the statement, and English archers of the 15thC were expected to shoot a minimum of 12 arrows per minute, many archers shooting more. This is very fast and I have only ever been able to do about 10 - I can't see how recurve-users with a thumb-draw could shoot any faster...

Matt

[Scott Bubar]

My recollection of this incident is that it referred to one specific march and that the crusaders were wearing very thick felt.

It was also my impression that this wasn't tailored--they simply took a large piece of the felt and draped it like a clok so that they were covered from head to toe. The horses were similarly protected.

Unfortunately, I don't recall the source of this info.

I just hope it was a winter march!

[Dan Howard]

Originally posted by Matt Easton

David Nicolle makes eroneous statements like the Mongols, or all peoples using the thumb-draw, had a higher rate of fire than longbow users... I don't get this. He never qualifies the statement, and English archers of the 15thC were expected to shoot a minimum of 12 arrows per minute, many archers shooting more. This is very fast and I have only ever been able to do about 10 - I can't see how recurve-users with a thumb-draw could shoot any faster...
Matt

I don't understand this statement either. Recurve bows are supposedly less tolerant of errors than longbows. I would have thought that this would result in a reduced rate of fire. The thumb-draw is supposed to result in a crisper release, improving accuracy, but I'm not sure how this translates to an increased rate of fire.

[John Maddox Roberts]

The only way I can figure it is that the thumb-draw could be a little quicker and less awkward, especially from horseback. Any right-handed archer holds his bow in his left hand. The Asian archer had his quiver suspended from his belt on the right. He grasped an arrow with his right hand, laid it against the right side of the bow, drew and shot.
But the European archer, using a finger draw, shot from the left side of the bow. That meant that he grasped an arrow with his right hand, then had to reach the arrow clear around the bow to lay it against the left side before he could draw and shoot. This is more awkward and probably a bit slower than the Asian style. Certainly not decisive, though.

[Matt Easton]

John, that would be a slow way to re-nock with a longbow - the usual way is to take the arrow from the belt or quiver on the right, or the ground, then pass the head/point between the stave and the string from the right side and just slide it down until you can nock the arrow to the string.
Another possible factor behind Nicolle's statement could be that Islamic arrows were not nocked to the string so securely as western arrows, because the western two-finger draw does not grip the arrow shaft, whereas the eastern thumb-draw may secure the arrow enough on the string that a deep nock is not required. However, I still don't believe this would lead to a noticeable increase in shooting-rate.

In contrast to the earlier post on the topic, I have not found recurve bows to be less forgiving than self-longbows, but that may be true of the very short recruved - I do not know - I have only used modern long recurves and they probably handle very differently.

Matt

[Patrick Ford]

Originally posted by Dan Howard
I don't know these answers, which was the reason for my post.

What was the difference between the long and short-range bows?

A long-range bow would have been smaller and had lighter limbs. Like a Turkish flight bow, they are very reflexed and can only effectively fire a very light arrow long distances. This would have little value as a war weapon except for maybe intimidation or warning shots. Otherwise a flight bow is just for recreation or demonstration of skill. A "short-range" bow would be the war bow. It would be longer and have bigger ears or siyahs that would help propel a much heavier war arrow. Generally these types of bows only work well with heavy arrows, otherwise the energy is not expended during the shot and there is heavy hand shock.

What was the draw weight of each?

Each could have been similar going from 60-150#. The war bow would have likely been on the higher side, but a flight bow could go high too. The weight isn't as important as the design.

How much more efficient are recurved bows?

Recurve bows required more work, especially composites. They required more maintenance and needed matched arrows to make them the most efficient. Bows really are matched to the purposes and locales of the user, in the case of the Mongols, they were horsemen, and needed short powerful bows that could be shot from a horse. The composite hornbow did just that. This is rather like comparing apples to oranges. A longbow and a composite recurve are built for two entirely different things.

How useful are Mongolian flight arrows in battle?

Like I said before, the flight arrow could have been used for warning shots or signal shots. Whistling arrows have been found to help direct battle. I know china used them, but for Mongol horsemen, it might not have been as widely used.

What was the maximum effective battlefield distance?

I would guess that depends on the intent of the archer and the type of target. Firing into a crowd of soldiers the range could probably top 300-400m, but for individuals, anywhere from 30-100m

Mind you, most of this is off the top of my head and its 1AM here in NC. Hope it helps.

Patrick