# How fast were arrows shot from "ancient" bows?



## BartHumphries (Apr 8, 2013)

Given that the longbows recovered from the Mary Rose had an average length of 1.98 meters (about 6.5 feet), and knowing how fast the generally shorter longbows are today, how fast were arrows usually moving when shot from a traditional longbow back in "ancient" times?

What about ancient recurves, given that those apparently go back to at least 4,000 BC? About how fast were they likely to go?


----------



## GPW (May 12, 2012)

Given the same length , poundage , and arrow weight , likely as fast as they would be today if replicated ...


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

A.I.U.I., wooden bows, due to the physics top out @~180 f.p.s. --- the heavy draw weights of war bows were to wring the best performance and distance out of the heavy bodkin arrows used, which would require all the speed they could muster.

There've been replicas built, but I'm not finding chronograph results.


----------



## BowmanJay (Jan 1, 2007)

Yeah the real question here would have to be what bows are you specifically talking about? War bows were much greater poundage but then so were the shafts much bigger diameter and weight than we shoot today. Yes they did have what were reffered to as hunting bows which would have matched most of the bows we shoot today. In the SCA many of us shoot replicas fashioned after designs from the middle ages and a 140lb war bow throws a 1/2 shaft almost at speeds we would see today with modern bows. Obviously the technology of solid woods vs laminates and modern materials is different, but all in all they were quite impressive performance wise as compared to American Indian bows which were much lower poundage.


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

Note that the 180 f.p.s. number assumes all-wood construction, and typical / heavy arrow weights --- there've been reports of cane arrows used w/ Native American bows of much closer to 200 f.p.s.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Actually materials play a very small role in performance, really only adding to longevity. It's all in the design. The old English/Welsh Longbows were simply larger proportionately with larger arrows. You would see the same thing you see on a lower scale with similiar draw to length ratios and grains per pound in terms of arrow weight. Speed varied from archer to archer, but a rough guess would be a lot of bows in the 150-190 mark, with the fastest bows being really heavy with very light arrows. I'm sure some were hitting the 200 mark depending on how light they actually went in arrows (as I understand it some arrows were made from European aspen, which though stronger than the NA variety, is still very light).

As was mentioned, there are lots of bows of lots of designs. The "hybrid" design that people look down on as a "new" longbow or "untraditional" actually has more roots than the straight limbed Hill bow. The ancient Greeks used the design, as well as the Creeks. The difference in the performance of the two designs is more about preload than materials (composite vs selfbow). If you look at the Asiatic recurve, you see a design with monstrous preload, low stack, good leverage, and good dry fire. The makings of a fast bow. This comes at the cost of build and upkeep though. On the West Coast of the US though, you see another efficient design used with the West Coast tribes. Short, soft wood flatbows backed with sinew. The soft wood pulled easily into higher reflex, the flat wide limbs made them very flexible (low stacking point and durabable), was easier to work, and provided a good base for the heavy sinew. These were, by Saxton Pope's account after testing many different Native bows, the fastest bow from a random sampling of continental Native bows. All in the desin- good preload, good dry fire, low stack. If the ends were recurved/reflexed slightly differently and the bow made some what longer, you have an incredible performer.

Today, there are bowyers building tempered belly reflexed static recurves from solid wood that are hitting the 185-190 fps mark with a 10 gpp arrow at 28" draw (FF string, 5" brace ) which is above what many fiberglass composites can do. All about design, and here longevity. A well cared for selfbow can last, but an abused composite will last too.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

English warbow replicas have hit 200fps, but that is a +180# bow at 32-33" DL.

Some Asian composites have been measured as shooting in the 330-340fps range. The flight records set by Turkish archers in the 800ad time period have never been broken (or matched) by natural materials since, so they must have been shooting similar speeds. Of course this was all using tiny arrows and overdraws known as a siper. 




-Grant


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

grant: Have you seen "War of Arrows"? Decent South Korean movie. In any case, the protagonist shoots "sniper" arrows at one point - is that basically what the video shows?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> grant: Have you seen "War of Arrows"? Decent South Korean movie. In any case, the protagonist shoots "sniper" arrows at one point - is that basically what the video shows?


Yes I've seen it. Same effect, different approach. The Korean's used almost like a dummy arrow which had a trough and was attached to the release fingers, the shorter arrow ran inside it. Very difficult to use.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Fast enough to survive?


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Yes I've seen it. Same effect, different approach. The Korean's used almost like a dummy arrow which had a trough and was attached to the release fingers, the shorter arrow ran inside it. Very difficult to use.


Was the benefit of this basically a much lighter arrow combined with overdrawing (long distance)?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> Was the benefit of this basically a much lighter arrow combined with overdrawing (long distance)?


That is the general theory, it's much the same as used in many different forms of flight archery. The Koreans have always emphasized distance in their traditional archery pursuits.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

grantmac said:


> That is the general theory, it's much the same as used in many different forms of flight archery. The Koreans have always emphasized distance in their traditional archery pursuits.


Interesting, thanks for the info. Any idea how this compared with the flight range of English Longbows in their prime?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> Interesting, thanks for the info. Any idea how this compared with the flight range of English Longbows in their prime?


Substantially longer, but it's nowhere near an apples to apples comparison. Turkish and Asian hornbows could shoot a lighter arrow further but didn't produce the penetration that was what the longbow was made for. It was a completely different arms race, on one hand you have an army based on speed and the other on crushing weight. It would be pure speculation as to which was more effective and the answer is likely that both fighting styles were developed to suit the local environment.
The longbow was also much easier to produce in volume and less sensitive to environmental conditions, especially those found in Northern Europe.

-Grant


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Substantially longer, but it's nowhere near an apples to apples comparison. Turkish and Asian hornbows could shoot a lighter arrow further but didn't produce the penetration that was what the longbow was made for. It was a completely different arms race, on one hand you have an army based on speed and the other on crushing weight. It would be pure speculation as to which was more effective and the answer is likely that both fighting styles were developed to suit the local environment.
> The longbow was also much easier to produce in volume and less sensitive to environmental conditions, especially those found in Northern Europe.
> 
> -Grant


Makes sense! Any references for this offhand? I'd love to learn more history about this.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> Makes sense! Any references for this offhand? I'd love to learn more history about this.


For the Asian stuff:
http://www.atarn.org/frameindex.htm

As for the English bows:
http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

The English also had mounted archers w shorter, lighter bows, and the Mongols could dismount and go heavy too. 

The Mongols often carried two bows, light and heavy, for use w light and heavy arrows at close and long range, mounted and dismounted. The heavy bows about 75kg/165lbs draw weight. Source: Osprey Publishing, Men-at-Arms/The Mongols and Elite/Mounted Archers of the Steppe 600BC-AD1300. And something I saw on History Channel w English weapons expert Mike Loades...

Western wooden self bows were easier, quicker, and cheaper to make than Asian composite recurves. Some Asian bows were cured up to 10 yrs before use.


----------



## ArcherFletch (Jul 8, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> Makes sense! Any references for this offhand? I'd love to learn more history about this.


You can read about the historical details, but it's more fun to read historical fiction based in this time period! I recommend this series of books called "Genghis", every book is chock-full of epic battles, with tons of horseback archery, sieges, subterfuge, and survival! I mean the 2nd book in the series is called "lords of the bow" you pretty much get 4 1/2 stars right there from me!

*http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Lords...id=1366329446&sr=8-1&keywords=lord+of+the+bow*


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Anyone else think this should be a sticky? I think this information has been sought after numerous times, by myself included.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

Another good historical fiction series w an archery connection are the Parthian Chronicles by Peter Darman: 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1C3Q4HXBV0NN2Z4WTKGV

About 10,000 Parthians, mostly horse archers, destroyed 7 Roman legions (20,000 killed, 10,000 captured) at the Battle of Carrhae.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks guys for the recommendations, I'll have to get reading!


----------



## Arnvald (Aug 30, 2011)

Hi,

If you want to learn about English warbows, get the book from Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy "the great warbow"
tons of things to learn. And you have a bonus section with chronograph results for replica bows.

To give you an idea, speed reaches [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected]
Corresponding ranges are 340, 280 and 250yd

They were shot from a 150# bow, 32"DL

Imho, the second case would be an average back in time, being for a 1/2" bobtailed poplar shaft with a fluted bodkin on front.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Arnvald said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you want to learn about English warbows, get the book from Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy "the great warbow"
> tons of things to learn. And you have a bonus section with chronograph results for replica bows.
> ...


175FPS doesn't "seem" that fast at 9GPP but that's a 1350gr arrow.

Any idea if there was evidence for arrows shot from ELB warbows that could penetrate plate mail?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

CFGuy said:


> 175FPS doesn't "seem" that fast at 9GPP but that's a 1350gr arrow.
> 
> Any idea if there was evidence for arrows shot from ELB warbows that could penetrate plate mail?


We're talking about bows producing 75+ ft-lbs of KE. There are lots of folks who make videos of heavy ELB's shooting through metal and mail all the time.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

kegan said:


> We're talking about bows producing 75+ ft-lbs of KE. There are lots of folks who make videos of heavy ELB's shooting through metal and mail all the time.


Replica bows shooting through what would have been the equivalent to French armour? I'd love to see it. Apparently a few guys did some tests and found some of the bows wouldn't have been able to penetrate plate mail as well as the thick pad they wore underneath (don't remember what it was called). I've found a few videos of arrows slamming through mail but not the works.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I doubt every single bow could, some archers were naturally stronger with longer arms than others- and not every arrow was well tuned. But do be careful, not every representation is a good representation.

A couple years ago on another online forum there was a fellow who was looking to make a heavy ELB style bow for hunting deer and what not. He was just getting into archery and was seriously into the idea of using a warbow for hunting. At the time I was shooting heavy selfbows myself around 80# or so, and I wound up helping him along. He finally built a bow, and posted his "tests and findings". He said it drew a little over 75# I think at his 31" draw, and his 1000 gr arrows barely left a dent in the pieces of metal he shot at, wouldn't punch through a piece of 3/4" plywood, and barely sank half the arrow into a regular garden bale of straw. He dismissed the design as inferior, the stories just myths, and set himself out to build a horn bow for better performance... until someone asked him to post a video.

Turned out his draw was something like 28" when he pulled to his ear, where the draw weight was something like 60# (keep in mind it was almost 7' long overall so the bow was built for that extra long draw). He had no idea that he wasn't actually pulling the full weight, which wasn't even that heavy by warbow standards, until he posted a video of himself grunting it back and immediately letting go with about 6" of arrow hanging off the bow (in hindsight I also recall he plucked on every shot as well, which isn't really good for getting arrows to fly straight and hard either). 

Not everyone is as capable as Simon S. Was every bow a metal piercing leviathan? I really doubt it, but I bet there were a few guys back then who probably could have been really deadly to an armored enemy


----------



## ArcherFletch (Jul 8, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Yes I've seen it. Same effect, different approach. The Korean's used almost like a dummy arrow which had a trough and was attached to the release fingers, the shorter arrow ran inside it. Very difficult to use.


Sorry to kick the same thread but I read an interesting contradiction of this - the shorter arrows sound like they should fly faster (less mass = faster) but the drag from the guide-channel actually cancelled that out. I have also read "that makes them go farther" but I don't believe it. 

The reason I read that they used the short arrows was , the archer could carry many more arrows, they were more easily made, and most crucial, the enemy could not pick the arrows back up and use them against you. Unless of course he also had those guide-thingies


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

kegan said:


> I doubt every single bow could, some archers were naturally stronger with longer arms than others- and not every arrow was well tuned. But do be careful, not every representation is a good representation.
> 
> A couple years ago on another online forum there was a fellow who was looking to make a heavy ELB style bow for hunting deer and what not. He was just getting into archery and was seriously into the idea of using a warbow for hunting. At the time I was shooting heavy selfbows myself around 80# or so, and I wound up helping him along. He finally built a bow, and posted his "tests and findings". He said it drew a little over 75# I think at his 31" draw, and his 1000 gr arrows barely left a dent in the pieces of metal he shot at, wouldn't punch through a piece of 3/4" plywood, and barely sank half the arrow into a regular garden bale of straw. He dismissed the design as inferior, the stories just myths, and set himself out to build a horn bow for better performance... until someone asked him to post a video.
> 
> ...


Great example! Yeah I wasn't certain who to trust, usually not the sensational shows that throw the word "science" around yet have no idea what a confounding variable is.

Generally speaking though, with the right man and the right bow under the right circumstances, it was very possible then? Any idea if flight shooting produced significantly different results than closer-range?


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

Tests done by various people at various times disagree. 

Some show no penetration of plate armor past 25 yds, some show 0.5 inches at 250 yds. 

At 250 yds from 1-4 inches of penetration through jack coats (layered linen/leather) and mail.

Just as the bows, arrows, and archers differed, so did the quality of the armor. 

With thousands of archers firing 10-12 arrows a minute, some are bound to find weak spots and gaps. And the horses were never armored as well as the riders. Going down w a horse could kill you, so could falling off a charging horse, not to mention getting trampled/kicked by a wounded, terrified, horse.


----------



## John_K (Oct 30, 2011)

There are plenty of studies done on this. Most recently I read a series of articles in the now discontinued Glade magazine, in which a British longbow archer did a series of tests with longbows to measure range, arrow penetration, etc.

I don't have links to the articles in question, but in summary a war-weight arrow with a short bodkin head shot from a heavy longbow (say 90lbs upwards) could punch through plate armour of the period up to medium range without too much trouble. This was dependent on getting a square hit - angled armour would deflect arrows, and this was reflected in the changing designs of the period.

Interestingly, the best armour at stopping longbow arrows was brigandine - which is essentially steel plates sewn into a stout leather coat. However, it was calculated that the amount of energy delivered by a direct hit was more than sufficient to do serious internal damage to the target.


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

kegan said:


> Was every bow a metal piercing leviathan? I really doubt it, but I bet there were a few guys back then who probably could have been really deadly to an armored enemy


Look back to the response to the English King (Henvry VIII?) who wanted to revert his army to longbows: ``Sir, there are no more men like that in all England.'' or the inculcated training from youth (mentioned in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's _The White Company_).


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

Benjamin Franklin proposed a unit of longbowman for the revolt since the rate of fire was superior (10-12 v 2-3 shots per minute) and accuracy comparable, but couldn't find any. 

Plenty of studies, and the results are all over the place. 

Many of the tests I've seen they didn't shoot real bows at real armor at real ranges. Some tried to control for all the variables in the "lab" by using a machine to shoot arrows at different speeds/angles, and/or work out formulas to see if there was sufficient energy/momentum to do the job, run computer sims, etc.

Getting a "square" hit seemed to be the key, and that could be tricky at anything past point blank range. Actual arrows came in at various angles, and the targets were often moving. I suspect most arrows coming in at an angle and/or striking any curved armor did not penetrate much. Some armor was pretty darn good, some not so much. The padding worn under most armor protected against much of the blunt force trauma if there was no penetration. 

One "real" test I saw, several archers w 100 pound bows shot at least 25 arrows a single curved breast plate at less than 25 yds, and maybe 5 penetrated, none more than 2 inches. Lots of denting going on though.

Whatever, the Scythian, Parthian, Hun, Saracen, Mongol, Tatar, English, and Turkish archers on foot and horseback got the job done against armored men for thousands of years at places like Carrhae, Hattin, Peking, Samarkand, Baghdad, Mohi, Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, etc.


----------



## longbowguy (Nov 14, 2004)

Many of those cultures that used bows and arrows as artillery, often from horseback, like to strike their enemies from afar, well over 100 yards. To this day, their competitions extend to such distances. There are remnants of that in the fairly long distances shot in Olympic style target archery and in field archery. Recently shorter distances are common for indoor and 3D archery, closer to hunting archery especially in the US where we can bowhunt. In countries where bowhunting is illegal the longer military distances are generally preferred. One of the charms of field archery is that it encompasses both. - lbg


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

Clout shooting would be great practice for dropping arrows on an enemy formation.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

Arnvald said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you want to learn about English warbows, get the book from Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy "the great warbow"
> tons of things to learn. And you have a bonus section with chronograph results for replica bows.
> ...


Sounds about right given the 32"DL. 

From ATARN: Most bows of all kinds, selfbows and the hornbows, show very similar arrow velocity at more than about 9-10gr/lb and practically the same at over 12gr/lb. On the other hand, the short bows begin to get better at less than 5gr/lb. 

So why were horn bows more popular in Asia if they are more expensive and difficult to make? Maybe because they can be made shorter, and short bows were better from horseback, and mounted archery was more popular in Asia? The Japanese Yumi the exception. Then again, there are some Chinese Manchu bows that are pretty big...


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Longer range warfare. If you can hit enemies while riding 300 or even 400 yards away, where their arrows fell short past 200 yards, you're more deadly. When it comes to life or death, conquer or be conquered, that extra care for the bow makes sense.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

From all the reading I've done with regards to English warbow killing power the main effect was against horses. There are accounts of French knights being unhorsed 2-3 times during the battle of Agincourt. Sure there was likely to be the occasional death or serious injury caused directly to the knight but you don't need to directly kill the riders to halt a charge. The change to firearms was likely based as least partially on the disruptive effect they had on horses and also the greatly reduced training required to raise a force of musketeers. I personally don't believe the firearm gained increased performance over the longbow until after the advent of the metallic cartridge.

As for hornbow vs. selfbow:
That seems to be down to environment. Northern Europe doesn't have the species of buffalo which have the correct horns for making bows. It's also extremely damp which doesn't work well with glues.
There were enough issues getting the high altitude Italian yew used during the height of the warbow era. Attempting to get materials with an even longer supply route wasn't going to be possible.

-Grant


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

grantmac said:


> From all the reading I've done with regards to English warbow killing power the main effect was against horses. There are accounts of French knights being unhorsed 2-3 times during the battle of Agincourt. Sure there was likely to be the occasional death or serious injury caused directly to the knight but you don't need to directly kill the riders to halt a charge. The change to firearms was likely based as least partially on the disruptive effect they had on horses and also the greatly reduced training required to raise a force of musketeers. I personally don't believe the firearm gained increased performance over the longbow until after the advent of the metallic cartridge.
> 
> As for hornbow vs. selfbow:
> That seems to be down to environment. Northern Europe doesn't have the species of buffalo which have the correct horns for making bows. It's also extremely damp which doesn't work well with glues.
> ...


Yes and yes.

The Romans (and/or their auxiliaries) used horn bows in Britain, Gaul, and Germany, but when the empire fell, so did the infrastructure that could produce/support them (the archers and/or bows) there. OTOH, the eastern Europeans continued to use and produce horn bows. Hungary and the Ukraine get pretty damp, but trade for what you need is easier/closer.

I like both, but the self bow is so boring; seen one, you've seen 'em all. Way more variety (Scythian, Persian, Hun, Mongol, Ming, Turk, etc) and beauty (to my eye, YMMV) in the Asian composite recurves.


----------

