Why Manchus didn't prefer long Selfbows?

In Europe, The simple D-section longbow, without time-consuming reflex and recurve processes, nor sinew backing, was an effective weapon for situations in medieval warfare, against armoured enemies. So, why Asian Armies didn't adopt simple longbows for warfare? Why spend so much time with steam bending, sinew, and horn? - Here we are comparing the Asiatic composite bow versus the European longbow.
According to Peter Dekker, a Manchu bow researcher, the main reason is behind the culture.

[@viktormunch7014]

It's simple. Try use a longbow during horseback riding.

[@elmohead]

+That Archery Channel The English didn't shoot their longbows from horsebacks. They shoot in volleys with both feet planted on the ground. Different warfare tactics, different war environments.

[@igot2remember]

+That Archery Channel Please read both mine, and the reply that MrLantean gave me, as to the very simple answer of why east Asian army did not bother with the long bow.

[@epic0wnag]

+That Archery Channel The Yumi is not a self bow, and it's handle is in the lower third of the bow's length. I'm not sure if that could work well on a wooden bow.

[@MrLantean]

+epic0wnag The Yumi is actually a laminated bow as it is made from binding several strips of bamboo together. It is also the largest bow ever created and is even longer than the famed English longbow. The location of the handle and its unique assymetrical design allows the weapon to be used effective on horseback despite its great size.

[@ScipioWasHere]

It's also because size isn't everything. I can say this because I am Asian.

[@storm0fnova]

recurve bows are just more efficient. when the guy said both arrows will kill you. well that depends on how much armor you are wearing. and a stronger bow may mean the difference of a kill shot and a mere scratch.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

It's worth considering what the Longbow has over the Recurve; it's cheap enough for the peasants to use, so the Crown could have cheap soldiers who were better trained than the norm for the time and place, without highering mercenaries. It's also better at dealing with wet and humid conditions. We also dont know, as far as im aware, the draw weight of the asiatic bows. Longbows, being used by foot archers, could be made to high draw weights by length and thickness, efficiency be damned. How heavy could horse archers draw in comparison to foot archers? Tbh i dont know, but its a point of consideration

[@F3EDER]

@@internetenjoyer1044 Mongol bows were far superior in strength. Draw weight is known and were considerably higher than that of your average longbow.

[@lostsaxon7478]

@@F3EDER not true at all, they also shot much lighter arrows and the bows themselves were far more susceptible to elemental factors. The bows were good for their purpose and the English longbow (average about 160lbs with much heavier arrows) were good for their purpose.

[@chroma6947]

@@F3EDER If you seriously think mongols could pull a 200lb horsebow to full draw while on horseback you are mistaken. A longbow of that weight requires a certain stance where you lean into the bow.

[@abisalpha]

@@lostsaxon7478 You are wrong, the Mongols used Both Light and Heavy Arrows, as a matter of fact, they had two types of bows, a shorter one for light arrows and a bigger one for heavy arrows and their bow poundage's were between 100-150 Lbs both on foot and on horseback, with the most average being 110-130 lbs and a Composite horn bow outperforms an English longbow for the same poundage so he's not wrong when he says that they were superior in strength

[@Prideace93]

Actually short reflex bow or composite bow are far stronger than heavy English longbow. The draw weight may be the same but the acceleration isn't

[@kaikart123]

Yep, efficiency matters

[@caseysmith544]

This is true however the English used Yew wood in the day due to how the good the wood was for bows, still the other bows in recurve or reflex styles were more efficient in FPS or MPS. The reason the Archers with Longbows were so good was that they used from 150 to 200 pound bows in some cases to compensate for the lack of acceleration with at least the minimum being 120--125 pounds and the archers for the castle/army started at age 4 or 5. Once the Yew was used upwith only English having the wood/getting the wood after a war for it the other places often went with a big longbow in the flatbow design like in France though not like the modern ones, the handle was more like an English longbow type with the limbs not tapering until 1/3 to 1/2 the way up the limbs and went to a wider squared off end.

[@stav1369]

Pros and cons exist for longbows (selfbow) and composite reflex/recurve. Longbows were comparatively easier to craft. The longbow can be made in mass faster and are relatively more reliable at draw weights/power (less chance of breaking) Traditional Recurve bows are more efficient though. Pound for pound a recurve bow will fire weight appropriate arrows faster then a selfbow, thus generating more power. Traditional composite bow are more prone to damage though in wet and humid weather. The natural glues came come undone. There is no better or worse bow just slightly different weapons that have their advantages in different environments. For the record, while the Longbow is regarded as the European bow, many European nations (especially Eastern Europeans) also used recurves.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

agreed

[@agar2134]

English longbow is equivalent to ak47 while composite to AR15

[@landsknecht8654]

​@@Jurk844 not really a composite bow is not good in the weathering of Western Europe. Western European climate composite material can fall apart relatively easily if you don't contain it well and or maintain it well. And yes, making something in mass production that still works very well is a benefit. Not only that but the English Longbow took way less maintenance. Also keep in mind these same composite bows that the Crusaders run into didn't do much to them against their mail armor. So that indicates a lot of things including the fact that not all composite recurve bows are the same when a cheaper Longbow was probably more powerful than some of those, also the fact that Armour work very well against these things.

[@landsknecht8654]

@@Jurk844 "During the 3rd Crusade, Bahā'al-Dīn, Saladin's biographer, wrote that the Norman crusaders were: ...drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them... I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks." So we know that the Arabs were using composite recurve bows as well. Now mail armor is not the best against arrows but it did protected from them pretty decently, and arguably pretty comparable to SOME lamellar armor types. To penetrate 5mm or 7mm flat ring mail armor with the arming jacket under it the guy has to be pretty close range to do so. Also you got to look at the terrain it's not just the weather I left a lot of things out because I'm trying to keep it short. Europe had composite crossbows as well, and some used composite bows like the Hungarians. Kult of Athena on KZbin show the proper tests on mail where they put it on a dummy that flexes like a person. Because the dummy flexes like a person, they had a very, very hard time piercing the chain-mail with a sword and even with a spear. As for the theater of Europe yes Europeans did use some composite crossbows like the "Byzantines" (Eastern Romans) and the Hungarians. Many of the German and Italian crossbows were made out of composite prods as well. It's just recurve composite bows were not that particularly useful when you have thick forests and about 10,000 castles in a land mass in the size of Germany vs in an open field like most of Ukraine and Hungary or other places. So if you're going to mass-produce bows for an army longbows are a very good option, it's very cheap and it's very effective for the price and arguably the effectiveness can be comparable to at least SOME composite bows. On top of that Warbows & Longbows requires much less maintenance, and the rest of your investments goes into great fortification, very good armor, and other things instead of spending a lot more money on composite bows. The Hungarians adopted that form of Warfare in the 1270s-1280s. (although to be fair, the Hungarians probably still made a lot of composite bows in the 1280s, but did turn their focus on fortification, better armor and more Knights)

[@lemagicbaguette1917]

I learned stuff today. Thanks, guys :)

[@JackOatway]

The perfect recurve bow here is this man's beautiful moustache

[@tanm444]

There is a lot of unchecked information flowing around this video and comment section. so I will clarify. Traditional longbow, a simple stick with string, was used in Traditional Asia. both China and especially in Japan(Yumi). Traditional longbow is inefficient (as their mechanic to delivering power) compared to the composite bow. simply, in order to increase its power longbow need to increase its size while composite bow can achieve more power by combining different material to increase its elastic. so why use an inefficient bow? because it's easy to maintain. the composite bow needs delicate care. temperature, humidity, small physical damage could destroy the bow. so like England where humidity is mostly high or when there is the rainy season, the composite bow was not an adequate weapon. also, material availability is not related to it either. the composite bow can be made from goat, cow, and often instead of a horn, rips of the animal were used. It's just Asia was more advanced in bow making technology. this video is very eurocentric as they try to understand everything from Europe's perspective. yew wood is not the only material that can make bow. plz

[@YY-ug9mv]

Yup,composite/reflex bow of the turco/mongol nomads was just superior.Why you the lesser one.

[@marcofearg9956]

But, there were compound bows in southern and eastern europe too, romans and greeks used them.

[@niklashenritzi2084]

your information is unchecked composite bows were in use by normans, western and eastern romans and other medieval european people there is tons of evidence in historical art e.g bayeux tapestry

[@tanm444]

@@niklashenritzi2084 you are correct, nomans, romans, and many eastern european countries in medival age used composite bow. mainly they have border with nomad tribes of stepps so techonlogy spread through skirmish and war. There is no denying that european composite bow was developed independent from asia in some extend but advacne bow making came from asia ex) Huns. Monghols.

[@niklashenritzi2084]

@@tanm444 true the asiatic nomads were the kings of the bow

[@samuellee3729]

Also, it can be hard to find a piece of wood long enough for a longbow in Mongolia, but the Mongols had plenty of horn and sinew.

[@samuellee3729]

@Jozef Wicks-Sharp yeah I know that. There were many styles of bow that can be called mongol

[@Gabrong]

These bows were made in places where wood was abundant. The "there is no tree" argument doesn't hold up.

[@samuellee3729]

@@Gabrong Have you seen the Eurasian steppes? There is wood, just not that big of pieces.

[@Gabrong]

@@samuellee3729 I am familiar with the steppes, thank you. But these bows were made in regions, where you can find any type and volume of wood you just want.

[@samuellee3729]

@@Gabrong well like I'm not saying there weren't trees its just that I'm pretty sure that even if those trees were big, they either were very twisty so you have to work with shorter pieces of bow wood or they weren't a suitable type anyway. Either that or they just had a lot of horn and sinew and decided to use that.

[@srinjoyroychoudhury7034]

I just want to say that Indian armies made massive use of their own version of the long bow called the Vainava. It was made of a single piece of bamboo. They used the Vainava while on Chariots instead of composite bows.

[@anachronisticon]

It was said by Alexander the Great's historian Arrian that they use their foot/feet somehow in stringing or drawing the bow. I can't make any sense of this myself, do you know anything about it?

[@mattisbette3932]

​@@anachronisticon Using the legs or feet to string a bow isn't that uncommon. Drawing a bow with your feet however is something I only ever saw in flight archery, where you lie on your back and push your feet against the bow while pulling the string with your arms. How this would be useful on chariots however isn't clear to me.

[@fsdds1488]

Selfbows were definitely employed in antiq Chinese armies up to Tang Dynasty, The Six Codes(唐六典) recorded the official standard that selfbow being an infantry weapon, has to made from timber of Chinese Mulberry. And these selfbows could be in longbow sizes as depicted in tomb murals of the period.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

Interesting can you show source

[@fsdds1488]

@@HistoricalWeapons Most of my understanding on Chinese selfbows comes from this Zhihu article. zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/85690375 I was not particularly knowledgeable on this topic, so I think you might need to ask someone else if you want extra sources.

[@fsdds1488]

@@HistoricalWeaponsYou can also see the Han Dynasty and Spring and Autum period selfbows here. www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=46691.0

[@xjoseywales]

Great video, so glad I found this channel.

[@ronstoppable1133]

"why go for an elaborately built weapon when there are cost effective ways to do it?" Qing Emperor: Because I can

[@stevenseagull7589]

The title: "Why Traditional Asian Armies didn't adopt longbows for war?" Yumi bow: *am i joke to you?*

[@HistoricalWeapons]

longbow in this context is not the same. a long bow is not a longbow, by historian's definitions

[@stevenseagull7589]

@@HistoricalWeapons Oh sorry, misunderstood.

[@hongockimquang1994]

Yumi is an entirely different creature... Our outer world rules dont apply to most things in Japan.

[@likesmilitaryhistoryalanmo9568]

This bow has always fascinated me.

[@papaburger]

I think it depends on the availability of special matreials such as yew, tree bamboo , horns, sinew, glues ... etc . It also depends on the weather ( wet vs. dry .. etc ) .

[@Daylon91]

It does not. A bow is a spring. The composite is technically more efficient at the cast because of the way it is shaped and the more flexible and durable materials. A longbow is a bent stick which in order to have a heavy draw had to be over 6.5 ft and about the width of your arm meanwhile composite bows were half the size and more efficient.

[@chanachailumpun3844]

@@Daylon91 Weather plays important role on some espects of bows actually, moistures in air can affected sinew and glue that used in composite bow, that's why you rarely see composite bows in wetter parts of Asia. Longbow are mostly one piece which make it likely more resistant to damage and required less maintainance, then again, in could simply be differance in evolution or idea of making bows.

[@Daylon91]

@@chanachailumpun3844 the weather is a very big issue with composite bows you're right. The Turks had a campaigning season from May to Sept. At least I think it was the Turks

[@aslof1069]

@@Daylon91 The Manchu bow is copied version of the Mongol bow with a few changes. And these bows are recurved composite bows. That is why it offers more power and more compact built.

[@Daylon91]

@@aslof1069 yes sir that's what I meant just didnt spell it out

[@fadzleya.rahman7956]

In ancient China, proficiency in archery is one of the main criteria in becoming a state official. In Europe, it was skill with horse and lance instead. Archery was viewed almost with contempt in Europe (with England as exception) and the role of archers was usually relegated to lowest class of peasantry.

[@fadzleya.rahman7956]

***** Was becoming a Chinese official essentially signing yourself up to voluntary conscription? Maybe, if the participants in this exam seek a position in a military. But archery in itself was considered one of the Confucian six noble arts.

[@fadzleya.rahman7956]

Thanks for the correction.

[@umarmars47]

Baik lah bang

[@henkez6960]

@James Wang That is so fascinating, I never knew this. Thanks.

[@ianzen]

James Wang I'm Chinese and I'd never thought of it that way. From what we are taught in school it always seemed like Qing's military might was what united China, but as you have pointed out it was the intangible Confucianism that glued and molded China's civilization.

[@vincentlee7359]

Gakgung and Sukgung bows cam shoot up to 380m and 400m respectively. Also the difference between the English Long bows and the Asian bows is the acceleration is only at the beginning for the English bow, while the acceleration is throughout for the Asian bows with the addition of stored energy from the material used in the bow.

[@martinan22]

Arrows were still very expensive for long bows. So maybe a better question is, maybe the English used longbows because they did not know the technology to make more efficient bows?

[@timothyoreilly6571]

Archers in England were peasants. Every man in England was required by law to practice archery to be levied in case of war. They were mostly farmers. The elite in Europe did not shoot bows in war, they rode horses as lancers, as he said different focus.

[@alexanderflack566]

They had the technology. Composite crossbows were in use through most of Europe, and the English considered the Turkish bow to be better from a performance perspective (meaning they knew about it and tested it). However, it wasn't better enough to justify switching to it, especially since the performance difference was reduced with heavier arrows. Also, the climate of England is not particularly friendly to the glues used in composite bows, which are water soluble. Personally, from the tests I've seen, most composite bows (Mongol, Hun, Hungarian, Ming, angular (i.e. Egyptian), Assyrian, etc. are comparable in performance to well made English longbows (of good quality yew, which admittedly is nearly impossible to find these days due to most of them being cut down in medieval and Renaissance periods to make bows). The Manchu bow beats the hell out of all of the above with regard to kinetic energy with heavy arrows for a given draw weight and draw length, just because of its (high-maintenance) design. Turkish bows (which are also high-maintenance, to the extent that they used a different, lower performance design for military use compared to their flight and target bows) beat all of the above (except the Manchu) to a lesser extent with most arrow weights, but is probably the best traditional bow design by far with extremely light arrows. Basically, the super high performance bows are made possible by composite construction, but not every composite bow has that kind of performance, and that performance is more expensive and higher maintenance.

[@Daylon91]

@@alexanderflack566 which composite bows dont have the performance of the yew? The Yumi looses its arrows faster than the longbow. Not much faster but still. The design of the bows comes into play. A bow is a spring. If u look at the yew bow in the beginning it didnt have recurved tips but then to up the performance they recurved the tips possibly from meeting eastern nations. Alexander the Great had to incorporate Persian archers into his army because they outperformed his Cretan archers with their self bows. So Alexander used his Cretans for spying etc. To match composite bows in speed you have to increase the poundage of a bent stick.

[@alexanderflack566]

@@Daylon91 The obvious response to that claim is to point out that a yumi of equal draw length stores ~25% more energy than a longbow just due to draw length, so if it's getting less than 25% more KE out, its materials and design are in fact less efficient. But I'm also wondering where you get the numbers; I've never seen any comprehensive testing of traditionally made yumi, much less warbow weight yumi. Also, the numbers I've seen from longbows show that what type of yew is used and where it's from are very important to performance; in one test, I saw a Swiss yew bow substantially outperform a Pacific yew bow with a draw weight some 15# higher, despite being made by the same bowyer and shot by the same archer using the same arrows. So, what are your sources here?

[@Daylon91]

@@alexanderflack566 Mike Loads did a test of a 50 ib Yumi and a 50 ib longbow. A Yumi typically had a weight of around 80ibs. Yew is different around the world. There is your answer lol not much thinking required

[@CountryMaster16]

im wondering i was thinking about buying a kassai mongol/hungarien style bow eigther with 60lb or 90lb i would like to know what is the coutcome a longbow, same drawweight against a mongole style with the same against a chronograph? could have never found a proper vid or somethign on it. also what weight and thickness of arrows would you guys recoon for a mongol bow of 80lb drawweight?

[@2bingtim]

The Kassai bow should be more efficient than a longbow, meaning the arrow goes further for the same draw weight. Longbows are pretty good with heavier arrows though.The modern repro horse bows like Kassais' are also more robust than longbows & need less looking after. With a longbow you should work up to full draw length in stages, drawing a few inches, relaxing it again, drawing again a few more inches-until you reach your own draw length-before it's safely ready to shoot. And you should never draw it further than your normal maximum draw as the wood becomes "trained" to that.Other bows don't need this. Also make sure any bow you fancy will allow you to shoot all day without straining or injuring you. I hope I'm preaching to the converted, but many people start off with too strong a bow for them & struggle. Start light & build up gradually to stronger bows as your body grows into the strength required. I've been weedy most of my life, but while I could draw 60lb+, I couldn't shoot more than a dozen arrows without damage, so 40lb or just over was my practical limit, & now days ill health keeps me at a lot lower draw.

[@dm8994]

When it comes to the longbow, you can think of it as not shooting arrows but mini spears.

[@KBKim-jt6uj]

Why? bc it's much more lighter and smaller which you can easily carry and using on horseback, while it's power similar or more powerful.

[@Daylon91]

It's much more efficient at the cast then a bent stick. Simply the design and the superior materials

[@jonajo9757]

@@Daylon91 B-But my glorious Mary Rose longbow...

[@jonajo9757]

@THE GREAT EMPEROR "...Asiatic bows relied on skills rather than muscle..." *Yumi that ranged between 70 to near 200 lbs, 166lbs Mongolian composites, 82lbs Manchu, 200+ Manchu bows:* Am I a joke to you?

[@haberquepqsacalale8080]

Que tipo de madera usaban para hacer sus arcos Cada región tenía su variedad de arcos

[@realThomastheCat]

English Toothpicks vs. Superior Mongolian Engineering

[@Daylon91]

@Protherium lmao the longbow is a bent stick. Doesn't matter bow many pounds it is, it is less efficient than ANY composite bow. The English used their bows because their peasantry were all militiamen who were archers and the longbow takes a day or two to make compared to weeks and months.

[@titot2370]

Protherium the asiatic recurve designs are still seen today in modern hunting recurve bows. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Long bows were also used in China up till about 2000 years ago. They just chose to move towards the recurve design as it was much more efficient. It’s wrong to assume that the long bow is English and the recurve design to be Asian. Bow design moved at different rates all over the world based on materials available, intended purpose and cost of construction as well as frequencies of conflict and success during those conflicts.

[@titot2370]

Protherium don’t get me wrong, I love shooting my longbow above my other bows. It’s not as fast, but I love the feel of it’s simplicity. Would I go Huning with it? Probably not as I wouldn’t get through thick scrub carrying it and it’s not particularly accurate at range. For ease of carry and functionality, I would prefer my recurve bow. If I was looking for meat, I’d take my compound bow. Edit: just bought a keshig “mongol” bow and love the speeds I’m getting out of a 50lb bow with smooth effortless draw. Not sure how these long bamboo arrows will fly with broad heads. Would love to see how it will go in the bush.

[@samaromin4426]

​@Protherium LOL its like arguing with flat earth tards, just accept that recurve bow is better than longbow in terms of power, speed and accuracy. also the draw weight of recurve is lighter but still produce power, just look at longbow all weight will be at the whole stick, while recurve bow the weight transfers from its limbs and also distance record shot right now is shot by recurve bow, and dont even try to say that older long bows are better than modern ones, what is that a down grade ?? a game that got nerfed ?

[@samaromin4426]

@Protherium so much to say proves that you dont own both bows la la, also try to beat the world record with your long bow LOL

[@JSharap]

Mongolian/korean/chinese horseback bow feels more like compound bow than recurve bow. Makes it easier to hold the draw and aim especially if the draw weight is about 80lbs or more.

[@alexanderflack566]

Korean, Manchu, Chinese, Ottoman, and much later period Mongolian bows, sure. Not so much for Mongolian bows during the height of their conquests, which used non-contact siyahs and thus stack as much or more than a longbow of comparable draw length and weight.

[@spectre9065]

They are basically super recurve bows. The tips were pointed away when unstrung just like normal recurves, but the limbs also had reflex to them when unstrung. This further adds to the tension of the bow in its resting position and consequently efficiency. i.imgur.com/nx1Wz3i.jpg This is what an ordinary recurve bow looks like unstrung www.manchuarchery.org/images/bows.jpg This is a Manchu bow unstrung

[@kino266]

I really want to buy a composite bow but I can't decide which culture i should choose.. (Mongolian, Turkish, Korean, Hungarian..) Does anyone know differences between them or how to choose?

[@hwachahistorychannel1617]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWfQo6eretWLf9U watch this

[@Eresmoji]

Choose mongolian because they Had a very big Kingdome so the bows of mongolians Must bei good

[@Ilyas-ty6cy]

@@Eresmoji That not how it's works.

[@birocsabal]

The money-part could be true in China, but among steppe people all free man had his own hornbow, just like american frontiersmen had their guns in 18-19th centuries. On the other hand, yes, we have depictions of longbow-shaped bows from Manchuria/ Northern China, but it's undecideable whether they were composit or selfbows.

[@jpavlvs]

Most cultures use materials that are local to them. In Western Europe the Yew, Hickory, elm and other woods were available that performed well. In Japan a lot of Bamboo is used.

[@JP-rf8rr]

jpavlvs I was under the impression that hickory is an American wood.

[@MrLantean]

Actually hickory belongs to genus Carya which has a number of species. Five to six are native to China, India and Indochina, as many as 12 are native to USA, 4 are native to Mexico and 2 to 4 are native to Canada. In other words, hickory is actually an Asian as well as an American wood but not European wood.

[@suunraze]

Extra energy in the arrow is always good when talking about war. So I wouldn't say it wasn't "strictly necessary." More energy = more range and more armor penetration

[@JunaidKhan-pq8ji]

2:12 400 million tax payers? Moreover, the fact is that the Asian composite bow shot heavier projectiles further with lesser strength as compared to the Welsh/English longbow.

[@Daylon91]

The longbow is the least efficient of all bow designs simply because of its shape. A bow is a spring and a spring that is more compressed and made out more flexible durable materials is more efficient thus ANY recurved bow.

[@tedarcher9120]

@@Daylon91 Not true though. The longer the bow, the more efficient it is, because longer bow curves less when drawn, and there is less if a difference between initial and final draw weight. Longbow is somewhat less efficient than recurve, but it is much more efficient than other single piece bows

[@Daylon91]

@@tedarcher9120 the longer the bow/wider limbs the less efficient. The power of the string would be gone into the limbs more than into the arrow. A long draw length is what makes all the difference. A bow is a spring. So the smaller and more curvy and flexible spring will be more efficient than a long spring bent once

[@Daylon91]

@@tedarcher9120 the longbow/flatbow is the least efficient out of all bows because of its size. Instead of the momentum going into the arrow more the force would be spread out to the limbs.

[@tedarcher9120]

@@Daylon91 the longer the draw, the bigger the difference between minimal and maximal draw weight, which reduces efficiency. Yes, longbow has longer limbs, but they move at lower speed and wood is lighter than bone.

[@yuanfu1472]

Considering how much armor soldiers are wearing at the time, the crazy efficiency makes a lot of sense.

[@Aaron-ud6wk]

That top limb looked off tiller. Could be the angle though.

[@Intranetusa]

Indian armies and armies in southern China did adopt longbows (including longbows of self-bow designs). Indian longbows were huge bows that could be made of wood, bamboo, or even occasionally steel (mainly for ease of maintenance and storage). There is a historical account of Indian longbowmen during the Battle of the Hydaspes between Alexander of Macedon and King Porus (a ruler of a small Indian kingdom in modern day NW Pakistan). Southern Chinese armies (including various tribes in the region) used longbows as well. IIRC, this was because the longbow was easier to produce and easier to maintain in the humid, subtropical climate of that region.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

agreed but the question remains, why didnt others such as northern chinese use self bows? it could potentially lower the upkeep and cost of troops, and great to supply emergency militia (mixed with composite bows). I thought some general would of considered it to "cheap out"

[@ZhangLee.]

@@HistoricalWeapons northen chinese did use self bows :V it not even a question as archaeological evidence date back to spring and autumn period prove Chinese did use self bows

[@HistoricalWeapons]

@@ZhangLee. agreed

[@ZhangLee.]

selfbows or longbow already exist since spring and autumn period they didn`t need to " adopt " :V

[@Intranetusa]

@@ZhangLee. The word "adopt" has multiple definitions - it doesn't only mean "to take from somewhere else." I am using the definition of "adopt" that simply means "to use." So the southern kingdoms during the Spring and Autumn kingdoms "adopted" the longbow or "used the longbow."

[@assaultspoon4925]

Manchu bows (and most other Chinese bows) were renown for the great size, weight, and power of the arrows they fired. Some tests have shown 50# manchu bows to be delivering similar energy to 90# English Longbows, and such an effect would only translate greater as draw weight increases to warbow levels. Smaller Asian bows, such as Korean and Turkish bows could fire extremely light arrows at extremely high velocities due to the lightness of their limbs. Korean Archers in particular were known for opening fire from as far as 300 meters because of how far their bows could reach compared to any invading nation's weapons. Asianic bows are also renown for how far they could be drawn, despite being a fraction the length of English longbows. This meant they could have short ones, ideal for horseback archery, and long ones(which were still shorter than most longbows) which would be ideal for longer and heavier arrows. Yes, their bows were very expensive, but horseback archery was a big component of asian warfare, and foot archers could enjoy the benifits of either arrow speed or arrow weight I generalize of course. Longer bows were often used on horseback, and shorter ones on foot, and even Longbows were dabbled with on horseback before it was decided that foot archery was more suited to that style of warfare

[@r6guy]

the heaviest arrows from the mary rose were around 1500 grains. most asian cultures used arrows that were far heavier. up to 3000 grains in china and mongolia while korean and japanese arrows were known to go up to 4000 grains. the length of the arrows also tended to be the same or longer than the ones used by the english as well.

[@xeastvoodoox]

@@r6guy whats your source?

[@titot2370]

r6guy that may also be due to their extra length due to different drawing styles.

[@matushonko7223]

Who preffered laminated recurves over "english" style- everyone who could afford it

[@alexanderflack566]

No, it was specifically cultures that used large scale mounted archery, or otherwise had their archery tradition derived from mounted archery. To my knowledge, no culture which favored foot archery used primarily composite bows, with the possible exception of some Native American tribes (who used them primarily for hunting, so size was a concern).

[@matushonko7223]

@@alexanderflack566 I don't know of any culture which would use wealthy class as foot archers, thus these were usually cheap units composed of common folk- with no money to spare on expansive bows; besides, you could afford to wave around with 2m long piece of wood, something that can not be said about mounted troops

[@alexanderflack566]

@@matushonko7223 I don't know about "wealthy," but Qing dynasty China, the Ottomans, the Japanese, and various other cultures used composite bows on foot as well as mounted.

[@matushonko7223]

@@alexanderflack566 not sure about ottomans, but to the best of my knowledge in the armies of the other two only the elite used them (the elite corps, the samurai), what i am saying is that composite bows were superior in just about evey aspect, but orders of magnitude more costly; thus, whoever had the tech and funds used those

[@alexanderflack566]

@@matushonko7223 Ashigaru used yumi. Every one of those groups that I mentioned, and many more, employed both foot and mounted archers with composite bows. So, you're flat out wrong about that, and you're also exaggerating the cost of composite bows (every Mongol warrior had two or more, and they weren't exactly a ludicrously wealthy society, especially before their conquests). They're not as inexpensive as self bows, but the English could certainly have afforded to use them if they had wanted to. Composite- and steel-prod crossbows are more expensive than composite bows, and many places fielded thousands of soldiers with those, despite most of the wealth that the society put into its military going to heavy cavalry. So either they massively outspent everyone east of the Byzantines when it came to military spending, or your claims about cost of composite bows are inaccurate (or European nations were more wealthy than nations who controlled large portions of the Silk Road, which is...unlikely). The thing is, you're misunderstanding the underlying causes here. Those societies I listed all used mounted archery, which is why they started to use composite bows in the first place. The only other reason a society dropped self bows in favor of composite bows was because they did not have good wood for self bows readily available to them (for example, the Egyptians, although composite bows are also easier to use in a chariot, which I would count as "mounted" as well). Why don't you find a culture that used composite bows, but _didn't_ use mounted archery? You're also wrong about performance. Certain composite bow designs were better, but those were better than most composite bow designs as well. Taking a more average composite bow design (early Mongol, angular, Hungarian, Hun, something like that) and comparing it to a well made longbow made from good quality yew gives pretty similar results, from what I've seen. It's just that most people didn't have access to the best self bow material, and didn't want a self bow for size reasons anyway.

[@chroma6947]

People in these comments are going off modern misconceptions. The high ranking archers who owned a horse could bring it with them on campaign, they most often dismounted to fight like later dragoons but if they had to they would shoot off horseback. At the battle of blanchetaque they did this while in a river. Is it as convenient as a horn bow? No. Is it doable? Yes.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

As Dekker mentions, the performance advantage from a well-made Manchu-style bow is apparently huge. Based on that test as well as others of high-quality composite bows, the question should be why didn't the English & other European armies adopt composite bows. 150lb Manchu-style bows would have done a number on cheaper European plate armor or even the thinner plate of the best harness. I suspect both economics & environment explain the English warbow. Western European weather isn't ideal for maintaining horn & sinew. It sacrifices power for lower cost, reliability, & lower maintenance.

[@alexanderflack566]

Leaving aside my suspicions that the actual performance difference is much less than his testing suggests, there are other reasons. First of all, nobody had bows that good with heavy arrows at the time, although the Ottomans might have come pretty close (of course, they used lighter arrows which were good for distance but poor at armor penetration, so the strong performance of Ottoman bows with heavier arrows might not have been known). The Manchu bow didn't exist until long after the English had adopted firearms as their missile weapon of choice, even if they had somehow become familiar with Chinese military archery during the height of longbow use. One could as easily ask why the Mongols didn't use Manchu bows during their conquests, since Manchu bows are far superior to what the Mongols had at the time, and they already had a strong tradition of manufacturing and using composite bows. Simply put, the design elements that gave the Manchu bows their performance had not been discovered, so nobody had bows like that yet. Second, it would not have made a difference against plate armor, in all likelihood. As I recall, the test results in The Knight and the Blast Furnace show that the energy required to penetrate typical mild steel plate armor is well within what the higher poundage English longbows can deliver, but the weak point is the arrow. Even a half inch diameter ash shaft will break on initial impact with a mild steel breastplate of typical thickness, and a broken arrow shaft absorbs enough energy that no traditional bow will deliver enough extra energy to overcome that. The only possible way that a Manchu bow and arrows could perform better than a longbow for such a purpose is if bamboo shafts are significantly more durable than ash shafts (entirely possible, from what I've heard) and have comparable or heavier weight per unit length (doubtful, given the fact that they're hollow). Even then, the advantage would be in having a superior (for the task at hand) shaft material that is unavailable to the English, rather than how good the bow is. Plus, Manchu bows can't shoot as far as longbows since they can't safely use lighter arrows the way longbows can, which isn't a problem for mounted archers or in shorter range engagements, but is a significant disadvantage for those (such as the English) who frequently used foot archery in large, relatively flat, open fields. If both bows can reliably penetrate textile armor and mail, but neither can reliably penetrate plate armor, why should they go for the one which has higher cost and shorter maximum range, even if it can deliver better penetration in some scenarios?

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

​@@alexanderflack566 There's an ongoing debate about the history of the Manchu bow, which some folks dispute whether that's even an appropriate term for it. User heavenlykaghan over at Historium argues that the same basic design dated back into the Han era & cites a Liao-dynasty bow (much later than Han but still earlier than when English archers became famous) of similar dimensions. Earlier Chinese big-ear bows might not have been quite as optimized for heavy arrows as classic Manchu/Qing ones, but the evidence indicates they were at least pretty close. The same Historium user estimates 220 J (162 foot-lbs) for Song composite warbows at the specified draw weight of 158lbs. Based on Peter Dekker's test, it could be even higher, assuming very heavy arrows: perhaps 247 J (182 foot-lbs) for a 150lb bow. By contrast, yew longbow replicas manage perhaps 150 J at the most at 150lbs, & at lower velocities than the big-ear composite should based on the available evidence & our estimates. (A yew longbow shooting as many grains per pound of draw weight as a big-ear composite would have an extremely sluggish release velocity based on Dekker's test, but could get a bit more kinetic energy that way.) We're looking a power increase of at least 33%, & likely 50% or more when comparing Manchu bow to English bow. That's significant. You don't seem to be remembering *The Knight and the Blast Furnace* correctly. Alan Williams underestimates the power of the English bow a bit in that book but considers it insufficient to penetrate decent armor. & Machu arrows had shafts of birch, popular, & oak according to Dekker. They weren't bamboo, & they were generally heavier (80-120 grams) than English arrows. Getting back to armor, 247 J would defeat 2 mm of air-cooled medium-carbon steel, assuming a perpendicular hit at reasonably close range (193 J to pierce). Manchu bows still wouldn't have much chance of defeating 2+ mm of hardened steel (263+ J), but they'd have greater odds of overcoming thinner &/or lower-quality plates. Manchu bows apparently shoot heavy arrows rather fast (190 fps in Dekker's test), so range shouldn't be too low with arrows designed for distance. Again according to Dekker, Manchu arrows tend to be built to stabilize quickly for close range shooting at the cost of distance & this became more pronounced as time went on in the Qing era. Also, some Manchu arrows were as light as 35 grams, so it possible they can still shoot lighter arrows a little faster. (We need more tests for sure.) The Manchu design has certain disadvantages (cost, maintenance) & you're correct that there's no evidence the English had any exposure to it. Some knew Turkish bows, but as you say all or nearly all Turkish arrows appear to have been relatively light, so European observers would have had no reason to think Turkish bows more powerful (even though they would have been slightly more powerful than yew longbows with heavy arrows). It's just an interesting hypothetical. Modern compound bows are even better, of course: perhaps 285 J (210 foot-lbs) from a 150lb bow, at 330+ fps. With a longer draw & heavier arrows, you could probably make a 150lb compound bow capable of shooting through 2.5 mm hardened steel (360ish J), if only barely.

[@alexanderflack566]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Do you have a picture of the Han Era bow in question? None of them that I know of had the proper siyah angle to have that effect on the draw force curve. Here's what I mean: Manchu www.manchuarchery.org/bows Yuan www.afarchery.com/newsinfo/615881.html Turkish (for comparison) www.atarn.org/islamic/Performance/Performance_of_Turkish_bows.htm It's that concave down portion of the draw force curve, present only in bows with contact siyahs and aggressive siyah angles, that causes the bow to store significantly more energy for a given draw weight and length (it also makes it easier to injure yourself in the early part of the draw, since the draw weight steps up before your back muscles can really apply themselves). This is not present in older Chinese bows, nor in older Mongolian bows. It's not about the size or construction, it's about the design. Just having big siyahs doesn't do it if they're parallel to or angled toward the string, they have to be angled forward so that the mechanical advantage comes into play later in the draw. Alan Williams was working from the older assumption that English longbows were in the 100-120# range, whereas we now know that the average and higher draw weights were significantly higher than that. From Joe Gibbs' testing (kzbin.info/www/bejne/haqolGuqoKx1gMU), we know that 160# English longbows can approach 140 J of kinetic energy at close range. As I recall, that is above what Williams estimated as the minimum energy necessary for an arrow to penetrate, at least for the thinner plates or for lower quality plate. As far as the difference in energy between the Manchu and English bows, it really doesn't matter if the arrow breaks [Edit: I was probably unclear here; what I meant is that the energy difference between Manchu and English bows will not make an appreciable difference in determining whether or not the arrow penetrates if the arrow shaft snaps immediately on impact]. That is going to absorb enough energy to ensure that penetration doesn't occur in either case. Unless Manchu arrow shafts were either significantly larger than half an inch in diameter or heavily reinforced in the first few inches in a way that would prevent them from breaking when they hit steel plate, I don't think that they would fare any better than English kit did against breastplates. That being said, it's a test I would like to see as I believe they would stand a better chance than other warbows, I just don't think it would be enough without significant changes to the arrows as well.

[@timothym9398]

To be fair, a sinew and horn bow only holds up so well in soggy ass England. I mean it can be done, but with a hell of a lot of extra work and maintenance. Can't exactly toss a bunch of them in a closet somewhere and expect to come back to them as anything other than a mess of mildew and sinew about to fail.

[@lo3572]

Alexander Flack the composite bow is thousands of years old.

[@normanm5254]

Knowing the velocity doesn't really help much without knowing the weight of the projectile. 50lb less pull but 190 ft/s vs 50lb more pull but 170 ft/s might be from the weight of the arrow. If the arrow used for the recurve is lighter, then it would explain the improved velocity. For example, to put it into a modern perspective, s.S. Patrone 8mm Mauser (used by the Germans in WWII) had about 2500 ft/s velocity from a 24" barrel. M2 Ball .30-06 (used by the Americans in WWII) had 2800 ft/s from a 24" barrel. Initially, you'd think that the .30-06 must be hotter, but the 8mm used a nearly 200gr projectile while .30-06 used a 150gr projectile. In truth, 8mm Mauser was more hotly loaded than M2 Ball .30-06 in WWII even though the ,.30-06 casing was physically larger and could hold more powder. They did not load .30-06 to its full potential, but 8mm was, so even though it has 300 ft/s less, it actually is hotter than .30-06. If you put a 150gr bullet on an s.S. Patrone 8mm Mauser cartridge, the muzzle velocity would likely be up around 2900 ft/s at least, more than M2 Ball .30-06's velocity with its 150gr bullet.

[@devonhuxtable4989]

He said that both bow tests were shot with the same arrow.

[@thousandnations1soul450]

let's use the mongolian bow as an example . 1. They were water resistant 2. Can be shot forward and backwards from horseback unlike the long bow which was too long . 3. Way more distance . 4. The shape gives it more torque the list goes on

[@tslmiami6288]

I guess you all are comparing Horsebows to what we would call a simple STICK BOW... I can tell you the 300 to 500 dollar horse bows of a certain "legend" of today shoot like shit compared to my Martin Savannah reflex/deflex long bow....

[@ozansalmanoglu5177]

they weren't water resistant. rain ruined them actually

[@Finnv893]

I can also tell you for certain that my 500$ pse pro shoots way...way better than your pos martin whatever longbow

[@credinzel6996]

Also Mongolian bow *Proceeds to get destroyed from simple Indian humidity.*

[@scramjet7466]

its efficient because it has a higher draw-weight at lower pull. ie it accelerates the arrow better for longer time. whereas a simple bow like longbow has very low resistance therefore low acceleration at lower draw length, so when the arrow is released, near the end of the resting position of the string there is very little acceleration. what facilitates this is the first reflex at the handle and the second reflex at the siyahs. the siyahs make the limbs bend a lot more for a given length of draw.

[@paradox_1729]

Steady your camera and stop interrupting when the person you are talking to is talking.

[@808souljahxl5]

"Why Traditional Asian Armies Didn't Adopt The Longbow For War." Japanese: 🙄

[@HistoricalWeapons]

I changed the title

[@julianmartinez3048]

Composite bow was the weapon from the steppes. You just can't fire a longbow from a horseback (apart from the japanese asymetric bow). Chinese, Persian and Indian archers were basically assimilated steppe people (usually assimilated conquerors). Also, when you're fighting on horseback, especially against infantry, you don't need that much range. You close in and retreat riding. Rate of fire was more important than range or accuracy, for they close in, fired 20-50 arrows in some minutes, and then retreated to get more arrows and change horses. A composite bow took up to a year to make, but it lasted a lifetime. English longbows (actually of welsh origin) were much cheaper, but didn't last that much. Even though Western armies faced horse archers in the crusades and in eastern Europe, they never adopted this fighting style. It requires a lifetime of training and lots of horses.

[@abisalpha]

you can shoot long bows from horse back, there are even historical depictions of it also regarding the Japanese asymmetric bow, that lower limb is about as long as the lower limb of an English longbow, if it can be done with a Japanese bow, then it certainly can be done with a longbow

[@robsarchery9679]

nice

[@timmy101able]

Why do you whistle when you speak?

[@TheDave570]

well there isn't many trees growing on the steps !! They developed the design according to the materials they had to work with, also asian archers where mounted exclusively, where as european archers where used as infantry !!

[@TheVeganeater]

It's a race that loves and appreciates nature class and perfection. The stick and string is early hunter technology . The Asians took it to the next level.

[@Baamthe25th]

3:15 Did you mean efficient ?

[@djuzi4514]

Simple answer is the composite bow is shorter and therefore can be used in mounted archery. The composite bow originates from nomadic steppe peoples who practiced horse archery. Also the animal glue used to hold the composite bow together is soluble in water, making it less than ideal for use in northern/western Europe, whereas a self bow could be used more reliably in this environment. The composite bow was used in eastern European countries like Hungary, as well as by the Byzantines and Ottomans, so it was known in Europe. But it is more frequently found in more arid environments.

[@MrLantean]

Composite bow is suited for both infantry and mounted archeries. It is often said that the damp climate of Western Europe is the reason why composite bow is not adopted by Western European archers. I do not think that is the sole reason. Composite bows are used even in more humid climate. Southern China is more humid than Northern China and yet archers use composite bows. The bows are treated with a special kind of oil or lacquer to prevent moisture from seeping in and disintegrate the glue that bind the horn, wood and sinew composition. I believe that the reason may due to economy rather than weather. Composite bows require more materials for construction. Bowyers need to process the animal sinew and to prepare glue for binding the materials together. The process and bow construction takes estimated a week and the finished bow is put aside for the glue to set it which takes several months before it is ready. With the mount of time for making one composite bow, a bowyer can easily produced dozens of wooden self bows and they only take around a week to dry up before they are ready to be used. Also using more materials for composite bow construction make them more expensive. To Western European archers, the simpler wooden self bows are adequate enough to inflict damages. Western European mounted warriors engage in combat using swords, axes and lances but not the bow as they do not have mounted archery. However, Western European bowyers use composite materials for making crossbow prods. To prevent glue from disintegrating by moisture, composite prods are treated with a special kind of oil. Crossbows are expensive and only elite units are armed with them.

[@TheVeganeater]

Start with a stick and string and be satisfied with it or advance technology and perfect it

[@akg7465]

Yup, the main advantage is in the compact size and lighter weight for equivalent draw weight. This allowed for greater firing speed and mobility---e.g. can be used on horseback or while moving quickly, whereas the longbows used for war in Europe were much heavier and cumbersome. The other reason is simply access to materials: just one look at the Mongolian steppes and you would understand very quickly why, in a region where you can ride days without seeing a tree, these pastoral nomads came up with the composite structure using horn and sinew instead of carving it out of a full piece of wood...

[@dongf2618]

the problem is they do use wood. The wood is actually the base of the bow. The other materials were there to help the wood bend without snapping in two while adding strength to it.

[@Asiandynamo]

To the guy asking questions, read a fucking history book.

[@Jhakaro]

Its hard to hear but he didn't say english longbow was designed for lighter arrows did he? Because if so, it's generally the exact opposite way around with composite bows used for lighter arrows and distance against less armoured enemies Vs longbow with heavy arrows, shorter distance but better chance of penetration against heavier armoured foes.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

relative to manchu arrows. machus ares heavier than english arrows

[@qiangluo1974]

i believe the major reason is that Manchu bow at same draw weight can shoot heavy arrow at much higher velocity. i think Peter Dekker had stated very clearly in this video. another reason is the easier to access material. in china we probably don't have access to good consistence grain yew wood. i myself grown up at manchuria, over here summer is rather short, and winter is long dry and cold. we got a lot of dense forests but once you cut open the wood, the grain isn't very strait. however we got a lot of land to raise cattle, good quality horn are much cheaper and easier to access.

[@MrLantean]

+Qiang Luo Yew is common name for various coniferous trees and shrubs in the genus Taxus. In East Asia like China, Korea and Japan, there are several types of Yew trees available. It is unknown whether that yew are used for bow construction in East Asia. The European Yew is the most famous one and best longbows are often made from them. Unfortunately yew is a slow growing tree and takes a long time to mature. Also much yew is knotty and twisted and therefore unsuitable for bowmaking as most trunks do not give good staves and even in a good trunk, much wood has to be discarded. One of the best material for bow construction is bamboo. Bamboo grows abundantly in East Asia and it rivals yew in term of flexibility and resistance to pressure. In East Asia, mounted archery prevailes. Simple wooden longbows is ill-suited due to its length. Wooden bows have to be of a specific length or it will break during a full draw if its length is shorter. That's why composite bows are created. The properties of wood, horn and sinew allowed bows to be shorter, more compact but more powerful than wooden longbows. Composite bows are more versatile than wooden longbows as they are suited for both infantry and mounted archers.

[@qiangluo1974]

+MrLantean thats very good point. manchu bow are almost as large as longbow. its usually 5 foot tall and above. from the look its more of a infantry bow than horse bow. however paintings showing mass of horse archers shooting such big bow in battle.

[@MrLantean]

Qiang Luo Of all the composite bow design, the Manchu bow is the biggest in size, making it as large as a wooden longbow. However it is also compact enough to be used effectively on mounted archery. Its large size indicates that it is design to use heavy arrows to kill large prey animals. Hunting is used to train mounted achers. After Manchu conquest of China and Mongolia, bowyers were ordered to contruct only Manchu bows. That's why modern composite bows in China and Mongolia are of Manchu design.

[@qiangluo1974]

the long thick horn or ear is quiet heavy. it give good initial momentum for lunching heavier projectiles.

[@qiangluo1974]

manchu bow can be used on horseback. but it isn't ideally suit for the common hit and run tactic used by nomads. its too long and can get caught by yourself and horse quiet easily. if you are a right hand person riding a horse, its come nature for you shoot at enemy coming from your left. however when shooting to your right you need switch hand, raise and turn your bow before you can turn your body, draw and aim. this can be difficult with such a long bow.

[@dazaessox]

Like every weapon that existsMost weapons derived from farm workersAnd hunting So most weapons were made from the materials that came to hand

[@hwachahistorychannel1617]

why use a sword when a wooden club is cheaper? Same difference here

[@tvan718]

Archers were not the elite. They were commoners that had little fighting experience. So they stayed to the rear filling the air with arrows. They were paid less, but were critical in battle.

[@Not-Just-Cars]

+tvan718 depends on which culture.

[@jaewoo123]

+tvan718 That may be so in europe, but in asia, for my argument specifically korea, a common soldier was trained in the way of the bow and the sword. so yes we had footsoldiers on ground running forward with spears but they were mostly for defense, arrow fodder, and backup troops when the battle was getting further into the enemy's side of the battlefield. the real offensive soldiers were the more or less elite, charging forward on horse while shooting their bows, then cutting down enemies by sword, then bringing out the bow again and using baby arrows to snipe retreating soldiers. another use of the bow was in naval warfare, where bows were used to launch regular or flame arrows at opposing ships until the ships got close enough for ramming or close enough for swordsmen to climb aboard the opposing ship for capture. the semi-elite did this, noble families learned archery (and swordsmanship), and the truly elite, those nobles who proved military prowess and intelligence became generals and strategists. and a lot of military perfection did go on in these wealthy nations. ex. england lacked resources, they were on an island. the romans before them had a huge empire with access to many different resources and what did they develop? chariots, ballistas, and other large weapons and non weapons that required intricate engineering. similarly the asians could get a lot of materials because of the diversity of the land they lived on (deserts, mountains, forests, the ocean nearby, new resources coming in through the silk road). they had the resources to develop things like the first missile. yes, it wasn't ballistic but they literally would make an archer's arrow with a tree trunk, stuff it in a cannon, and it could create holes in army formations or bring down an entire warship or two.

[@scratchyrick]

as said above it depends on the culture. Manchu archery is being discussed here. A little more study needed I think. Not all archery is the same as crecy

[@Mark-pf9st]

It really depends where in Asia. If it were in Central Asia like Mongolia, then practically everyone and their mother was an archer. In Japan, archery was reserved mostly for the samurai and common foot soldiers were given either spears or guns.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

1:32 answers the question ...Please post your ideas/theories below. Feel free to join the discussion.

[@5tonyvvvv]

+That Archery Channel Did they ever make simple self bows? what wood?

[@Aaron-ud6wk]

5tonyvvvv Nearly every culture on this planet made wooden self bows at one time. That was the precursor to the horn now.

[@5tonyvvvv]

what woods did they have for self bows????

[@staceyhernandez5592]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZ7bgoeeYs-ogdk

[@alexanderflack566]

I would like more information on your tests. What materials were the bows made from, what was the weight of the arrow(s) used, what draw lengths were used for each bow, etc. The only tests I've seen that I would describe as accurate are the ones Joe Gibbs did with a 180# yew longbow and a 180# Tatar bow, both drawn to the same length, both using a 63 g arrow, and the result was essentially identical (209 versus 211 fps) arrow speeds. All other tests have been like yours, in which there are too many unknowns to make any kind of accurate judgment of the quality of the test, or like Armin Hirmer's, in which the longbow was made of the wrong material and the draw weights of the bows used were extremely low (and he did not draw the bows to their proper lengths because he was trying to equalize the draw weights of different bows, which doesn't really work since a 40#@28 drawn to 28 is going to store less energy than a 40#@32 drawn to 32). Personally, assuming I'm capable of handling the same draw weight with any type of bow, I could probably deliver the most kinetic energy with a yumi, followed by a Manchu bow - but not because they're composite. An English longbow scaled up to about 85" could probably do about the same. It's simply a matter of draw length. The recommended draw length for someone my size in kyudo, should I ever get the opportunity to try it, is about 39-41". The maximum draw length for a Manchu bow is about 36". Most composite bows (Hun, Mongol, Tatar, etc.) as well as the English longbow fall around 30-32" in draw length, with Turkish and Scythian style bows falling slightly short of that.

[@mutmainnahmajene8052]

I hope you dont lie sir, no wood stronger than horn or sinew

[@pandaril92]

I think it would be an interesting question the other way around: why didn't the Europeans adopted the more complex, more versatile recurve, composite bow models? I mean a recurve can deliver an arrow at the same speed as the longbow with lower poundage, AND it can be used from horse. Not like it would be unheard of that Europeans adopt something that is more complecated to make and more fuss to use than a longbow (see: gunpowder weaponry)

[@HistoricalWeapons]

much easier to answer: they are cheaper and easier to make. composite bows take a year to make. a longbow take a day to make. horn is mostly used for crossbow prods

[@williamdiep8466]

Duh. Stronger and can be fired on horseback. This guy is a typical person these days that can't give a straight forward answer...

[@Marmocet]

They're not "stronger", bows aren't "fired", and longbows can be and were shot from horseback. Longbows are generally better at shooting heavy arrows greater distances than composite bows. They're simpler, easier and cheaper to produce, and they can operate reliably in humid environments and across big temperature changes without any of the risk of delamination that composite bows have.

[@alexanderflack566]

@Abu Troll al cockroachistan Self bows do fine when shot immediately after rain, as far as I know; it was one of the notable aspects of Crecy that the rain hurt the performance of the mercenaries' crossbows, but the longbows were not particularly affected.

[@alexanderflack566]

@Abu Troll al cockroachistan I don't think all of them were protected with laquer; it probably depended on the culture. I will point out that the Europeans had the ability to make composite bows, since they made crossbow prods using the same materials and techniques. They started to use mostly steel prods for military applications while retaining composite construction for their expensive hunting crossbows, almost certainly due to the greater vulnerability of composite bows to adverse conditions and lack of maintenance; the steel prods certainly did not boast superior performance. As for the strings, it's not much of an issue as I understand it, assuming the archer keeps the string properly waxed. Personally, I've never gotten to test that because my strings have all been synthetic rather than natural materials. Another point to consider is that the higher performance composite bows also required a lot more maintenance, to the point that the Turks had different designs for military and non-military applications, due to the fact that they were willing to sacrifice some performance in wartime in order to have bows that were less likely to develop problems and which required less maintenance.

[@jonajo9757]

@@Marmocet *Laughs in Manchu bow*

[@ultranium7414]

@@Marmocet lmao even the short turkish bow will shoot a heavy arrow further than your long bow, longbows arent effective on horseback

[@lifes40123]

Longbow, big, clumsy, and only as strong as it is big. And the vast landscape of Asia had the materials and warfare terrain for the purpose of composite bows. Europe didn't . Composite bow, compact, but can store just as much power or even more in some cases

[@MrLantean]

The simple longbow is actually a type of bow known as self bow which is made from a single piece of wood. All primitive bows are self bows. Wooden bows require a specific length in order to function and will break if the specific length is shorter. The longbow needs to be large in order to be strong and powerful. Composite bows are made from the combination of wood, horn and animal sinew bound together using fish glue. The recurved shape helps to make the bow more compact and more powerful as it stores more energy and delivers energy more efficiently than the equivalent straight-limbed bow, giving a greater amount of energy and speed to the arrow. However the main drawback of the composite bow it takes more time and specialize skills to construct. The combination of wood, horn and animal sinew is a delicate process and the bow will fall apart if not incorrectly. Once it is done, it will be set aside for the glue to dry up and set in and it will take months for that to happen. Wooden longbows take less time and easier to construct. A skilled bowyer will use estimated 2 hours to carve the selected wood into a bow and it take around a week for it to dry up before they are ready to be used.

[@tuguldurotgondorj6542]

Simple answer: longbows are shit compared to asian bows period

[@chroma6947]

What about the price difference of £2500? The longbow cost £30-£40 back in 1300s. Peter converted the cost of a manchu bow it was £2500-£3000

[@thinzki44]

Japanese using longbow, Filipino's Short bows and medium Bows.

[@Eresmoji]

You mean Mongolians

[@TruthBeliever5557]

Myth, you forgot Arabs and Hindustanis did adopt longbows in warfare, and even in those days when persians had composite triangular bows.

[@mathiaslist6705]

I think he got the whole elite issue wrong ... even Ishi used sinew backed bows and bows with different layers like two woods were common in northern areas ... laminated bows are said to have derived from bundle bows. So the simple longbow has just a manifacturing advantage and is basically a pretty low-tech thing. Even flatbows are more complex. A poor man could have made such a bow. It just would have taken more time than a simple longbow and that's all.

[@margilvale7648]

need to have used both bows, but the choice is when you hunt, and when you ride a horse, the long bow is not good it is cumberson

[@Excalibure666]

Being wealthy and rich is one reason. But not the main reason. Main reason is Asian armies were basically very strong on horse. Then they needed short bows to use easily on horse back. Simple wooden bows wont be efficient if they made short. Then they invented recurve, composite bows. So they can be used on horse back, and powerful enough to kill.

[@donaldthegreat5809]

So what he basically saying is, You know shit happens when a pre industrial Empire has 400 million tax payers!!!😂

Horse Archers, how could they use a 6 feet bow? Asian bows are more than often used on horsebacks, thats what make them elite. Also Ottomans relied heavily on the bowmen on their navy and corsair fleets.

[@assaultspoon4925]

They were also more standard equipment in a lot of asian armies than european, since archery was very common spiritual activity for average citizens, even when compared to europe's archery heavy cultures. If every soldier had to carry a longbow, rather than a horsebow, or shortbow, it would make it cumbersome to hold anything else with it. The thumb and pinch pull were also very common in Asian archery, and both are ideal for shorterbow usage, since they avoid string pinch

[@vermouthstone9446]

This thing comes from the nomads on the grassland; The power of the longbow comes from the fine bow material, yew; The arrow used for the horn bow is longer, heavier, and easier to use immediately; The main foreign enemies of the ancient Chinese dynasties were northern nomads, so their military customs, weapons and armors were more nomadic. Ancient Chinese military books and poems emphasized that warriors should be good at Mounted archery（弓马娴熟） and Be encouraged to use Strong bow and heavy arrows（弓当挽强箭当用长--DuFu）。

[@HistoricalWeapons]

yew is not mandatory and plenty of other woods and laminated options exist such as mulberry backed with bamboo

[@vermouthstone9446]

@@HistoricalWeapons You mean tea pole bamboo（Pseudosasa amabilis ）Do you know how thick this kind of bamboo can grow? Make a fishing rod at most, mum。。。 You mean boxwood？make slingshot？ Italy yew energy storage density 1.3% No need compound process。。

[@muhammadhidayat4253]

There is no horsebow terms in Mongolia it is mongolian bow in two kinds first composite bow Made from horn bamboo and sinew and the second bamboo bow with the same style recurved with stiff siyah, Mongol life is on horseback then all bow must be used on horseback

[@HistoricalWeapons]

We use horsebow in an international context to represent "double tipped static reflex composite bows "

[@muhammadhidayat4253]

@@HistoricalWeapons horsebow terms is new to Asian , western Made it , bow is a bow that in many style and kind such in Arabia there is a Hijazi simple self bow and another place is syrian composite bow, another country like Korean there is hornbow and bamboo bow in the same style. The same thing of all bow i mentioned they all also used on horse back and field, one example of arabian selfbow has only lenght three cubits and one finger thats about one and half meter.

[@dongf2618]

@@muhammadhidayat4253 there was a distinction between horse bow and foot soldier bow in Asia. Their sizes and draw-weights are different as well.

[@muhammadhidayat4253]

@@dongf2618 what you call horsebow different with what they call, a shortbow with stiff siyah they call it.

[@boahkeinbockmehr]

Well the english longbowman were also considered elite troops, so they were anything but poor. The main reason why the composite bow never became popular in europe is, that it was glued together and therefore was realy succeptable to humidity. Hence you find this type of bows in arrid areas (middle east, eurasian steppe) where there also often was a lack of wood. After all this type of bow was well known to the europeans at least from the crusades onwards, but yet it never caught on...

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

They were free yeomen. But they weren't "elite". They were middle class. The elites were still the man at arms and on top were the knights.

[@boahkeinbockmehr]

@@Janibek35 i'd recommend you to look into the battle of the Lechfeld, when the later founder of the hre Otto the Great defeated with around 10k troops (of which many were the prototype of what would eventually evolve into the medieval knight) a multiple number of pagan Hungarians (sources say 100k, but that is probably exaggerated, however after their total defeat on the battlefield there were still roughly 20k left fleeing, so you can guess how big their actual number was). The Hungarians were reknowned and feared mounted archers and fought in the usual style of Eurasian steppe nomads with their favoured weapon being the composite bow. During the battle a summer storm struck and the rain rendered the Hungarians' bows useless in the middle of their assault by dissolving the glue leading to a total defeat for them. Are you sure the composite crossbows were used in northern Europe outside of siege defenses or not more likely (my personal unfounded wild guess) in the Mediterranean?

[@hamzahheryadi6750]

NtN ?

[@papahizqil1503]

Asian composite bows are more attractive

[@Cponyman49]

Short and stocky vs long and lanky maybe ? Body types I mean.

[@sergelengerelmaa2450]

Mongol bow beats both manchu bow and longbow

[@MrLantean]

The Mongol bow is also a composite bow like the Manchu bow. Modern Mongol bow is modeled after the Manchu bow. This is due to the policy of the ruling Manchu or Qing Dynasty that ruled China, Mongolia and lands above the Amur River. The Manchu ruler decreed that all bowyers in China and Mongolia must construct only Manchu bows. As a result, modern composite bows in China and Mongolia are modeled after Manchu bow design.

[@gusjeazer]

nobody knows what type of bows the mongolians shot before the Qing Dynasty forbade them to make bows.

[@MrLantean]

gusjeazer There are pre-Manchu or Qing Dynasty depictions of old Mongol bows. One such depiction is an il-Khanate depiction of Hulagu Khan, drinking water while holding a bow. The bow is smaller in size and does not have any string bridges like the modern Mongol bow. Perhaps the bow design that is most similar to the old Mongol bow design is perhaps the Korean bow. Korean bow is smaller and does not have any string bridges.

[@gusjeazer]

MrLantean Possibly but nobody knows for sure. Depictions is all we have, we don't know what materials they used, etc. It is also a fact they had multiple types of bows. Usually a horseman had a small horsebow and a larger more powerful one for on foot...

[@MrLantean]

gusjeazer I still believe that the Korean bow may be the most similar to the old Mongol bow. The old Mongol bow is also a composite bow and all composite bows construction regardless of design have the same basic materials of wood, horn and animal sinew bind together using glue especially made from fish swim bladders. Actually the two bows used by horsemen have lower and higher draw weights. The lower draw weight bow is used to shoot lighter arrows like whistling arrows or used to injure their adversaries. The heavier draw weight bow is used to shoot heavier arrows with the intention to kill their adversaries.

[@jmso8096]

English longbow is cheaper and way easier to make as well.

[@dk418]

sounds like that was the only benefit.

[@alexanderflack566]

@Abu Troll al cockroachistan That would not work particularly well. To shoot warbows safely, you need a full draw to get the weight onto your back muscles (so short drawing as you are suggesting is a very bad idea), plus the shorter draw length will reduce the amount of kinetic energy you're delivering significantly. A 100#@22" shortbow will only deliver about two thirds the kinetic energy of a 100#@30" longbow, and will have lower efficiency as well.

[@alexanderflack566]

@Abu Troll al cockroachistan It's a matter of how much weight is on your muscles at what point in the draw. It doesn't matter whether you hold it for a few seconds or a microsecond, you're still applying a specific amount of force, and if the force is too great it can cause injury. Horseback archers (and longbow archers) had bows with 28-32+ inch draws; they shot 100# or more at 30", but at 20" their muscles are only pulling part of that. If you try to pull a weight at 20" that you struggle with at 30", you're going to get hurt.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

@@dk418 Possibly the longbow deals better/lasts longer in wet and humid conditions

[@dk418]

@@internetenjoyer1044 That is true.

[@serba73]

the shorter the bow the easier to use on a horseback.

[@user-bn5us1ry3l]

Asian army used short horn bow over the horse.

[@HaykAmirbekyanTKD]

whats it called? a Ching bow?

[@RemoveChink]

Manchu bow

[@thetreekeeper143]

You forgot to mention that a Asian composite bow was used for running horseback. Its much more difficult with a long bow. Its wrong to think that the rich were the one to have these bows. The mongols made these bows themselves out of materials they had.

[@redhongkong]

oriental army has high % of shield soldiers. face to face skirmish does nothing other than wasting arrows and soldiers. bow are best for ambush/defending military structure. high penetration crossbow/rapid firing crossbow are better for soldiers / heavy draw weight short hunting style bow are more preferred for generals in order to shoot over horse back.

[@igot2remember]

Very simple answer. The composite bow is simply better than the long bow. Even though it was more complicated, and harder to make. It was shorter, which allowed arrow to be shot from horse effectively compare to the longbow, and had simply more power to penetrate armor. Have you ever wonder how the mongols was so easily able to massacre the European knights when they conquered east Europe, and Russia? How they so easily destroyed the Muslim empire when European crusade couldn't even put a dent in it? Armor penetrating composite bow. It was simply just that much better.

[@MrLantean]

+igot2remember The composite bow is created primarily for military use. In East Asian warfare, horse archery prevails. The special properties of horn and sinew which has greater compression and tension resistance than wood allows the composite bow to be shorter but more powerful than wooden longbows. Fans of the longbows have insisted that the longbow is more powerful because of its greater draw weight and poundage and its bigger size. They insist that the videos that demonstrate the difference between the composite bow and the longbow are inacurate as the draw weight is not mentioned and the longbow does not represent the longbow used by Medieval English archers. In Europe, achery becomes obsolete when firearms are introduced. In East Asia, composite bows were still being used despite the introduction of firearms. It is learned that the use of the bow on horseback is more effective than the use of firearms. As a result, the bow continued to use in East Asia until the mid 19th century when breach loading rifles were introduced.

[@cool06alt]

first, there is no "muslim empire" that exist; its just multi fracturate sultanate that already exausthed of crusades. even so, mongols is probably the worst when it comes to adaptation in terrain; they suck at nava invasion, cant fight well in desert since no grass for their horse; and even more suck if they eccounter terrain. So when baybars come with his own version of horse archery (combination of arab archery and turkish military tradition), experimental hand cannon and of course the deadliness of nubian archer; the mongol simply lose at battle of ain jalut. Second, yeah composite bow is simply better than single wood bow; even if you enlarge its size. Some turkish bow for example, have a draw weight that match longbow; up to 160 lbs (but its actually for a flight shooting than a warbow). Interestingly; it also got korean composite bow characteristic; which shape describe like crescent when unstrung (hilal kuram) and also there is one above that i mention shaped like a boat when unstrung (tekne kuram).

[@shrekas2966]

igot2remember mongols never fought knights. naybe a few ones in poland. Hunarians mastered horse archery before mongols moved to steppes. Only when hungary adopted western knights, they won second mongol invasion.

[@charliekhosravi4509]

Shrekas 2, you forget the battle of Mohi when 50,000 Hungarians (with knights) faced Subatais Mongol force of about the same size.

[@charliekhosravi4509]

If the Mongols were so bad why did they crush all their enemys, Genghis Khan and Subatai were never defeated.

[@ifrit177]

Good video. Some of the statements here are correct, but others are missing some key historical facts. The manchu bow was invented in 1636 at the earliest. By this time Europeans had abandoned bows in favour of fire arms. (Ironic given that fire arms were developed in China and then 50 or so years later brought to Europe and the middle east, where they were made into effective weapons of war, and perfected in Europe). In addition Europe in the 1200s to the 1400s underwent an infantry revolution where foot solders armed with steel spanned crossbows (far more powerful than any hand drawn bow, and much more importantly, easier to master) as well as mobile infantry using pike made horse archery largely ineffective. A good example of this is the first and second Mongol invasion of Hungary 1241 and 1285. In the first invasion the mongols were able to roll over russia and eastern hungary easily, and burned Pest. These regions were backwards and had 'almost no towns or cities fortified by stone walls'. they had only small millitias with no armoured knights. The only places the Mongols could not take were the 8 castles in eastern Hungary. The mongols were unable to push into western Hungary beyond pest, where a more modern army and defenses existed. The second invasion of hungary in 1285 was a total failure, mainly becasue the King of hungary had instituted several refomrs, including over 100 new stone castles like Spiš Castle (now in Slovacia) , city walls, allowing the middle class to join the armies of the time, allowing the Knights of St John (a crusader order) to establish themselves in the east of the country, and hiring 1000 corsbowmen who had proved deadly in defeating mongol hors archers. Note, that no bowmen were hired. The English continued to use long bows until the early 1600s but only because of specialist training in their use that english bowmen undertook and becasue of their use of massed archery formations, and becasue England was late in adopting the European Infantry Revolution. Smaller english armied of the 1400s were often 75% archers, the idea being that they overwhelm the enemy with concentrated fire. They were also as stated in the video, extremely cheap. Eastern (and I'm aware thise term covers a massive area and many different cultures, technologies, and time periods) archery was for the most part based on horse archery, this involved using high accuracy shooting with relatively few arrows (pictures and first hand accounts show mongol and other horse archers carrying 3 arrows plus one on the bow) compared to the massed fire of european archery. As the video states the bows were hard to make, expensive, and reserved only for a small number of elites. They also had a tendancy to break in damp climates because the glue dissintegrated. This above all other reasons is why European, and interestingly Japanes and Korean Bows do not use this technology. Too much moisture in the atmosphere badly degrades traditional composite bow materials, particularly the glue. The best surviving examples of englsih long bows were found on the wreak of the Mary Rose, a flagship of Henry VIII. The bows varied massively. Some were so large as to be impossible for a modern man of above average strength to draw, while many in fact shoed signes of being recurved. In fact we see many examples of bows in europe being recurved although usually still made from single staves rather than glued together. Really the answere to the interviewer's question of why Europeans didn't adopt these weapons is simple: 1. They did not exist until 1636 when Europe had already advanced to guns. In fact even earlier composite bows were outdated technology by the 1200-1400 in europe where crossbows became the prefered ranged weapon. 2. Horse archery was not effective in European conflicts as the mongol invasions of Hungary and teh fact that horse archers did not allow the Ottoman Turks or the Mongols to conquer any european countries. Europe has been the scene of some of the most bruital and prolonged warfare in human history, if horse archery or composite bows had provided any advantage to any state in Europe they would have been adopted, which is exactly what happened with gun powder, as we all know too well. 3. some degree of recurve bows were in use, but the technology and materials used in the construction of asian bows was either unavailable in Europe or ineffective in the climate i.e. the glue. hope this helps.

[@sampacs]

He's giving wrong answers. Curved bow fires longer range shot and more penetrative power, enough to go thru opponents skull. To say archers in Asia were elite and able to spend more money in fancy looking design is complete bs.

[@MbisonBalrog]

They did use war bows

[@glathir3574]

So considering the bow is that powerful if you can master speed shooting like Lars with that bow at 70-80 lbs draw than you could have destroyed people back in the day easily. And not armors wouldn’t be able to stop it.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

im working on speed shooting with 100lbs

[@u06jo3vmp]

The Manchurian bow only developed in 16th century, by the time the English had long ditched the bows and started using guns. The Manchurians only developed this bow because they didn't have guns, and they had to fight the Ming Chinese who did. So of course it's more advanced than longbows.

[@MrLantean]

Ming Dynasty military texts: Wu Bei Yao Lue and Wubei Zhi have illustrations of many types of bows used by Ming soldiers. Some of the big-siyah bows portrayed bore great resemblance to Manchurian big siyah bows. Most like that Manchurian bows are modeled on big siyah bows used by Ming soldiers.

[@chroma6947]

Stop spreading nonsense. Henry 8th mid 1550s famously made the all men above 16 must own and shoot a longbow. 1600 it stopped being used due to shortages.

[@amhy4253]

In fact, ever since the Song Dynasty(around1000AD), crossbow became very common in Chinese army. Long range, powerful penetration, almost no downside except slow reload and unusable on horseback, but all the downside are compensated with a defensive tactics against the Mongols. After the Mongolian left, the Ming Dynasty start putting arquebus and crossbow together as fire project forces, given the invading Manchurian a hard time. Their bow is less destructive in comparison, but still a thing for mounted archer, so smaller bow is needed.

[@dongf2618]

I think crossbows became very common in China in the warring states period.

[@jeffreychow1881]

Chinese had long bows too

[@LordLebu]

japanese still used the yabusame

[@sidewinderAUT]

A Yumi isn't exactly a longbow. It's not made from one piece of wood (so it takes just as much effort as a hornbow to build, way more than a simple longbow) and it's asymmetrical, which is why it can be shot from horseback.

[@MrLantean]

The yumi is a type known as laminated bow as it is made by laminating different materials together. The yumi is creating by laminating several strips if bamboo. Although technically not a longbow, it is however very long and even longer than the famed English longbow. It is also unique in achery as it is perhaps the only known 'longbow' being used effective on horseback while in Asian mainland, the recurved composite bow is created and used instead.

[@LordLebu]

I thought it was one piece

[@ven6880]

Mongolian army took over asia and some of Europe.thats where those bows origin from .it waz them who took that bow style all over asia .and everybody try to copy it. bamboo and horn and sinew was the secret.

[@tamaszlav]

Yes, Mongolia is the 13th century gave all athose 5th-10th century nomadic people the bow.

[@KBKim-jt6uj]

Koreans, Mongolians, Manchurians, GokTurks share same anchestors.... all originated from nomad people

[@dongf2618]

The art of making composite bows were known a millenia or two before the Genghis Khan.

[@YY-ug9mv]

Because turkish bow is half the size and twice the power.Why would they use something worse.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

it takes a year to make. a longbow takes a day to make. more importantly, the longbow shoots heavy arrows about the same as composite bows, only 20% slower on average. logistically which one you choose would depend on your tactics and strategy

[@asdbasdfww8380]

because longbow was weak.

[@alanOHALAN]

Japanese horse bows are short bows. Composite bows are more powerful and smaller, it was evolved from the simple bows aka long bows, not the other way around.

[@jamisont2]

wrong. they used long bow on horse. japanese didnt use composite bow at all, japanese bows are compound bows.

[@MrLantean]

The Japanese longbow is known as yumi. It is longer than the English longbow and yet Japanese mounted archers are able to use them effectively. The yumi is a type of bow known as laminated bow which is made from several strips bamboo.

[@ryanb1874]

Go to make good use of all those yak horns

[@SouravBagchigoogleplus]

Indian use longbow and Indian are Asian. Because Indian archer mount on Chariot and elephant

[@Indygenous]

Sourav Bagchi indians are not asians. Theyre more close to being middle eastern. You guys are not asian. Stop with this delusion. And your country wreaks like shit.

[@PaladinPoppie]

Indygenous Hate to burst ur bubble.... But, They are Asian. 🤣🤣🤣

[@Daylon91]

Until you adopted the "crab bow"

[@rebel.mma.youtube]

When u got a moustache to sound like u know what u on about

[@Daylon91]

He does though. The longbow is the most basic bow. It is literally a bent stick as compared to a design that recurved away making it more efficient plus the more flexible and durable materials. A bow is a spring. The smaller and more compact the more efficient.

[@meguto]

guys, i'm sorry but you do not deeply know specifications of a horn bow. first of all the bow you hold in your hands is a very very bad one. cause it's very very long, it's for a man who has 42" draw length it would be ok =)) horn and sinew is to make bow shorter and a horn bow is made for a specific archer. every bow has it's own stacked draw length and it must be matched with the archer, the release must be at stacking point. if it's not, you can not see differences in between a horn bow and any other bow, because efficiency of horn bow is changing regarding the draw length. so i can grant in aid that a composite bow is much efficient than a wood bow. also re-curve is another points which helps for efficiency. there is another important point about the efficiency is draw weight. composite bows are starting to be more efficient over 80 lbs. under 80 there is no difference in between horn bows and composite bows. generally bows under 120 lbs are calling light bows in Turkish Archery. Archers are using light bows for war and flight archery(but much much shorter shape for flight archery) competitions but for target competitions and training they were using bows over 120 lbs. when we return the main differences, English long bow is a defensive weapon but Asiatic horn bows are offensive weapons which are using on horses. where are to many advantages of horn bows on a battlefield which is not impossible to explain in a single comment but to summarize that they are shorter and faster but too courteous and effecting by weather conditions too much. you cant use a horn bow in too cold, it would be broken, or in hot it would decrease the draw weight.

[@MineOfTheLegends]

He did not understand the benifit of horn bow of the Asian at all therefore he try to answear like push around the bush

[@sovernsectwarren]

The Western armies could have stuck to the simple D longbow also because selfbow's (single piece wooden bows) can handle being used in the rain and various weather conditions whereas from what I have read these bows would fail in poor weather or if it was raining. If the English tried using one of these bow's the tides of history could be changed since some of the biggest battles were fought in rainy muggy conditions where these types of bows tend to fail. Some other things to consider that generally speaking a longer bow is more forgiving and easier to obtain accuracy with since there's less string angle than the traditional recurve. From what I've read there were not many trees that were large enough to be suitable for bow's in the areas where these bows were predominately crafted and used. One thing to note is that selfbows can also be made short if your stave has some reflex/deflex and depending on how you craft it and how long your draw length is. Honestly in a war situation I don't see a traditional recurve having many advantages over the simple D bow. Yes you might gain 20fps of arrow speed using the same weight arrow using one of these bows but they are also harder to obtain accuracy with since the string angle is sharper at full draw. There's a reason why the archers in the Olympics use 68"+ bows. Longbows are the rifles of bow's whereas short bows are the pistols and are much harder to obtain a clean release and accuracy with. I'm also curious as to how this bow design would stack up to another European self bow design known as the Holmegaard which is popular in flight archery due to it's high efficiency.

[@Intranetusa]

The Roman Empire stationed Syrian archers with composite bows in Britain, so composite bows could likely handle English weather just fine with proper maintenance.

[@sovernsectwarren]

@@Intranetusa You're right. I think the biggest reason why the Syrians, Turks, and Mongols used composite bows is because they didn't have a lot of great bow wood and/or shorter bows are better on horseback.

[@dgriswold93]

I find the "results" from those tests quite suspicious. 190 fps at 15 gpp??? All but the very fastest modern recurve bows struggle to reach 190 fps at 10 gpp.

[@dgriswold93]

+John Riggs Hey John, First off, I really enjoy your videos. Its important to keep in mind that we are not talking about flight bows here, nor bows that shoot light arrows fast, like a flight bow. As I understand, one of the biggest advantages of horn bows is that they can shoot lighter gpp than selfbows, I believe they are also a bit more efficient. Have you seen Adam Karpowicz's numbers with his Turkish war/target/flight horn bows? The gap between them and selfbows becomes almost negligible at heavier arrow weights. However this is when being compared to some of the best shooting selfbows. Also keep in mind he used a shooting machine. These Qing bows shoot heavy arrows very well. I just have a hard time believing some of the numbers Peter Dekker has come up with after tests. I'm not calling him a liar, but there could be some inconsistencies in the testing that could cause some dramatic results. What those might be? I have no clue, but for now I will remain skeptical. And yes I am aware of Monus Jozsef's record shot, it is very impressive.

[@dgriswold93]

+Defenestrator29A The bow used in the test was drawn to 32 inches, a long draw increases efficiency. There is no indication of how far the longbow was drawn. I would guess ~28 inches. Adam Karpowicz's test reveal Turkish bows shooting with up to 94% efficiency at a 30 inch draw. It would likely surpass the Qing bow's efficiency at 32 inches, though it probably would be bad for the bow to be pulled that far. All that said, I really don't care how bows COULD perform, I care about how they DID perform. Could you draw a English longbow to 34 inches and increase performance? Yes, but we know they didn't draw past ~31.5 inches. Could Turkish bows shoot better at 32 inches? You bet, but we know most arrows max out a 29 inches. People always try to compare bows as if they were used the same way. Compare a Turkish bow at the traditional maximum draw length of 29 inch draw with a Mary Rose bow at the same, the Turkish bow will out shoot it. Increase the longbow to its maximum traditional draw length and the gap will shrink. The same goes for arrow weight. I don't care how hard a 1500 grain arrow hits out of a heavy Turkish bow, because their war arrows max out at about 650 grains. I hope I am making sense.

[@WillBlueAnimalTraining]

@@dgriswold93 eastern bows shoot faster cause of Khatra as well as longer draw :) some of this info i nvid was a lil missleading but it was short and the interviewer didnt let the guy talk really.

[@WillBlueAnimalTraining]

@@dgriswold93 and damn u know the science :'D

[@assaultspoon4925]

@@dgriswold93 Most tests i've seen of modern fiberglass and laminated manchu bows put fps between 150 and 190, where 190 is firing arrows much too light, and 150 much too heavy. From a high quality horn bow, shooting an arrow perfectly matched 190 seens attainable, but speed and range has hardly ever been the talking point of Manchu bows The main "draw," has always been how they make big ouchie arrows go and hit things very hard. Korean bows on the other hand, those are some speed demon stick flingers