Sorry but the yumi would always be inferior to the longbow if you ask any bowyer or archer. It was primarily and art form and was also used for was but its long reflexed shape dramatically slowed down the arrows shot so it needed to be in the 100lbs range to be truly effective.
@minxel16 Primarily an art form? NOW it is primarily an art form, but it was not "primarily an art form" when they actually used the bows in wars. Throughout Japanese history, up until the end of the Sengoku jidai, bows dominated the battlefields. I also don't see how the reflex shape has anything to do with slowing the arrows down. The first samurai had very weak yumi, which could barely penetrate the armour of the time at point blank range. But even the later bows were maybe around 60-90 lbs.
@Gilmaris the long design made it slower since more weight was being propelled. The refloex made up for some of this disadvantage. If you know any kyudo students which was also practiced during the sengoku periods, they will tell you that their bow is treated as an other half and its spirituality has remained important throughout history. Not every instrument created gilmaris is made solely for war, that's what interests me about the yumi rather than its physical properties
@minxel16 Oh, I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you said that because it was a *reflex* bow, the arrow was slowed down. Anyway, all martial arts given the suffix "do" rather than "jutsu" from Edo onwards have great focus on the spiritual aspect, much greater than the arts' martial origins. "-do" arts are pretty much all post-Sengoku, and Kyudo is no exception: the martial art used in war was Kyujutsu, with the exact same aim as archery everywhere else. War is, if nothing else, pragmatic.
I am going to respect your conclusion that the longbow is a better weapon. In my conclusion, the recurved composite bow is the most power bow ever created. The longbow was phased out as weapon after the invention of the gun. The composite bow was retained as a weapon alongside with the gun. In Mongolia, there are still many craftsmen making the traditional composite bows. In Japan there are still master craftsmen making the Yumi.
@MrLantean I never concluded either was better-this would be a narrow minded approach. I concluded that it had a shorter range but was more powerful at these ranges able to punch through more steel. The horsebow or hornbow I concluded was weaker but due to its highly reflexed shape was able to have greater velocity and propel the arrow further but at the cost of using lighter and thus less powerful arrows.
@minxel16 I find your comments rather narrow minded. You insisted that the hornbows only use light-weight, weaker arrows and only the longbow has the capability to pierce steel armor. I never criticize the longbow is a weaker weapon but you kept criticing that the hornbow is a much weaker weapon. The horsebow is one of the weapons that allows the Mongols to built the largest empire in history.
@nicholassinclairswan If you merged all the lands that the British controlled, then the British has the largest empire by landmass. But the Mongol Empire is the largest continuous landmass from Korea all the way to parts of Eastern Europe.
The Yumi is a distinctively Japanese. It is the longest bow ever created and even longer than the English longbow. It is the main weapon of the samurai before the famed katana replaced it. Samurai horse archers are able to wield them on horseback. They are among the few horse archers who use longbows on horseback. Most horse archers turned to hornbows for horse archery.
For people who dont know. The yumi doesnt have a draw rate nearly as stong as a longbow I say about 80lb or a lil bit more but a longbow has up to 100-110lb draw rate and comparing the arrows are usless because they are used to kill but have diffrent effects upon impact. The arrow for the longbow is ment to pierce armor cue to heavy armor knights. The Yumi's arrow as less effect on pierce but with its design like all asian bows were ment to cause heavy bleeding and painfull when it's pulled out.
@PebBleishRock There are tests to compare the yumi and the English Longbow in the National Geographic documentary 'Samurai Bow'. The arrows for the yumi have the capability to pierce plate armor and the penetration is deeper compared to the arrows for the longbow. The yumi is more powerful because of its recurved shape and it is made from bamboo which has greater flexibility and tension-resistance than yew.
@MrLantean Firstly as a bowmaker I can tell you that bamboo has less flexibility than yew although they are both strong in tension and compression(yew)-yew has greater elasticity and the english longbow was actually recurved like the yumi at the tips giving it more speed. I'm sorry but the yumi had less range mostly 200yds effective compared to 300yds for longbow and its lighter arrows meant less penetration than the heavier arrows of the 160lbs warbow so they must've used a weak bow in the test
@minxel16 The person that uses the longbow for the test is Mike Loades, an expert in ancient weapons. He would use the best longbow for the test instead of a weak bow that you claim. Your belief in the superiority of the longbow is probably due to its legedary status. Its havoc on French knights is legendary. I used to believe that until I have seen the performances of other bows that convinced me that there are other bows that are equally or more powerful.
@MrLantean Firstly-I've seen his show and he uses a custom 'longbow' only 60 pounds not the type of the day at 160lbs! And he only compares it to the crossbow which he concludes is more effective at close range but not at long range but only hints that the recurves added speed to the hornbow. I'm a bowyer and know what does what in terms of bow making so after much experience with materials and reading TBB series it becomes evident which bows are for what purposes.
@minxel16 Mike Loades is a weapon expert and surely he will use the type of the 100 Years War. He has consulted many bowyers on the type of bows he will be using. Do you make horn bows as well? Then you should know only certain types of horns that are able to withstand compression and tension.
@minxel16 160 lbs, that's a bit on the high end, isn't it? I realize this reflects the Mary Rose find, but how representative are the warriors of a flagship of warriors in general? Estimates for longbows have been anywhere from 80 to 160 lbs, and you're not going to tell me that longbows were standardized at 160 lbs.
@Gilmaris hey have found bows from many wars including the war of the roses which have topped the 160lbs mark. True I was doubtful at first but there is a high standard among those who trained with them. If you look at medieval tapestires you can see the bows at least 1.1inch thick and heavy men straining under their weight. !60 could possibly not be the standard but the standard was certainly very high and the nreflexed tips of lighter bows made up for sheer force with increased velocity.
Central Asian composite bows beat them both to a pulp. They were the most powerful weapons that could be carried by a single soldier until the birth of the rifle. And according to some Mongol texts, an archer once set an arrow flying 800 yards. They packed so much more draw strength than a longbow and a yumi combined.
@TempestDust True, the recurved compsite bow is the powerful ranged weapon ever created before the rifle. It is originally created for horse archers and chariot archers. Archers from Korea all the way to North Africa and the Lower Balkans used them. The record for the composite bow is 972 yard, shot by the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul in 1798.
@MrLantean saying most 'powerful' ranged weapon is shady-it could go the furthest-but light-weight flight arrows cannot penetrate medieval armour like the english longbow could, just at a shorter range.
@minxel16 The English longbow is more famous because of its legendary status during the 100 Years War. Arrows shot from the composite bow have deeper penetration than arrows shot from the longbow. There is a documentary 'The Moghuls' where there is a test to compare the English Longbow and a composite bow of Indian design. The test shows that arrows from the composite bow have deeper penetration.
@MrLantean one test probably with a 60lbs longbow-think about a 160lbs warbow shot at 200metres which shot heavier arrows than the horn bow so according to tests the arrow would have pentrated more steel than any other asian bow could. One thing many people get confused by is that a further shooting bow is a more powerful where it is rather the opposite-the slower shooting english longbow was designed to shoot heavier arrows at shorter distances so had more power and vice versa for the horn bow.
@MrLantean A longer firing bow doesn't mean a more powerful one. The reason why the horn bow could be shot further was because it had faster limbs at the time of release and also shot lighter arrows. The english warbow had slower firing limbs so was better suited to heavier arrows which could be shot less far but had increased force/penetration at these distances. You say something extremely stupid as most powerful before the rifle-what about the trebuchet?-a whole load more powerful
@minxel16 The horn bow generated and stored more energy than a selfbow like the longbow. It also has a higher draw weight due to its recurved shape and stores more energy for a given final draw-weight. When released, all the energy is transfered to the arrow, allowing it the travel faster and further. If you shoot a bodkin point arrow from a horn bow at a plate armor, it will have a deeper penetration than being shot from a longbow.
@MrLantean Stored more energy is true for a given draw weight-but you could generally give yew higher-draw weights significantly since its high elasticity so it ends up although less efficient with more energy being transferred to the arrow. The horn bow usually had much lighter draw-weights and was more of a speed bow especially since it was much harder to lean in-to the bow on horseback which meant lighter-further shooting arrows but with less force.
@TempestDust than a 'longbow' and 'yumi ' combined-don't thinks so. The longbow was the only bow able to penetrate damascus steel armour since it had the heaviest arrows which went less far than the asian composite bows but had deeper penetration at the shorter range it was shot at.
@minxel16 I respected the longbow as a great weapon but you claim that it is the only bow that is able to penetrate steel armor. There are other bows that could do the same thing. There two types of composite bow: a light one for flight archery and a heavier one for killing. Arrows for the heavier composite have the capability to pierce steel armor. Mongol horse archers were able to kill many knights with their composite bows during their invasion of Poland and Hungary.
@MrLantean I quoted 'more steel' than any other asian bow could simply because even for the mongolian equivalent of having heavier arrows-it was far more powerful but shot slower and less far. At my local archery club we shoot a variety of different bows, and one of the members who's chinese is relgious to hornbows but hes never heard from history or family of using a 1/2 inch shaft that the warbow uses. The best armour of the time was proven to withstand the mongol bows
@minxel16 The 1/2inch shaft that the warbow uses is design to pierce European plate armor in European warfare. Asian armor is primarily a lamellar and scale type. They have small metal plates sewn together on lacquered leather. This type armor provides protection that is as good as a European plate armor but with more flexibility, mobility and lighter weight. Do you know that the Chinese even has paper armour that has the ability to even stop a crossbow bolt?
@MrLantean The only records of chinese armour protectiong them were of the light-weight arrows used in the siege of Shanxi worn by the archers. It was more wood layers than paper-mulberry but an english longbow could easily pierce that depth with its heavy arrows. It was 3 inches thick! As for lamellar armour it was stronger than chain mail-but not nearly as deflective as plate armour or as strong which should seem obvious. It was designed to be light. In power european bows were superior.
@minxel Lukas Novotny, an American bowyer, uses an English Longbow and a composite bow of Indian design to test their effectiveness in piercing plate armor. As you said, the arrow from the longbow is 3 inches thick. But the arrow from the composite bow is 2 inches thicker. Then he uses double plating to stimulated plate armor worn over chainmail. The arrow from the longbow is an inch thick but it is 2 inches thicker from the composite bow. This test can be seen from a documentary 'Mughals'.
@MrLantean Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever-an arrow isn't a few inches thick! I said that the paper armor was 3 inches. Longbow arrows. Mail was usually only added by the groin if plate was worn and this american sounds dubious-no offence, but he probably knows less about the english warbow than guild members do here in england and he was probably using a lighter weight one for biased tests-which they usually do in these series.
@minxel16 Sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I meant how deep is the peneration made by two types of bows. The arrow from the longbow managed to penetrate 3 inches deep but the one from the composite bow managed to penetrate 2 inches deeper. Although Lukas Novotny specialised in horn bows, he also produces longbows as well. It seems that you always claim that a lighter weight longbow is used for every test to compare different types of bows. You want the longbow to be the best bow.
@MrLantean I know that the warbow is more powerful since it uses heavier arrows and although they fire slower they have more impact. As you said he specialises in horn bows which gives away a lot about his opinions. I don't feel any bow is superior but am just acknowledging that the warbow is more powerful whilst the hornbow shoots further even with a given arrow due to its highly reflexed shape. You cannot rely simply on one test made by Lukas Novotny, that is why I have regarded many.
@minxel16 From what i have read, the reflexed shape generates and stores more energy during the full draw. A bow's power is determined by length, size, shape and materials for its construction. Many composite bows are double recurved making the weapon more powerful. The warbow is a selfbow, carved from a single piece of wood. Because of it , its length and size have to specific otherwise it wil break during a full draw. That's why it is an infrantry weapon and rarely used on horseback.
@MrLantean You have clearly little experience in this field. one life lesson: go and do it if you really want to learn something llike I have as a bowyer. Yes recurves stored more energy-not generated at full draw for a GIVEN WEIGHT but since sinew and horn(and wood) as a combination became slower at higher weights due to their heavy mass, only 100lbs and lower bows could be constructed whilst being efficient. If you knew about a selfbow-you would know that there are many designs unable to brek
@minxel16 As a bowyer, are you specialised in English Longbows? Then your experience in producing and testing longbows may resulted in your bias conclusion of the longbow's superiority. Perhaps you have little experience in producing and testing horn bows. Western Europe did not have horse archers. Warriors on horseback fought with swords, axes and lances but not the bow. To foot achers, a longbow is sufficient enough on battlefields. As a result, hornbows are nonexistence in the west.
@MrLantean I don't specialise in any bow yet since I compare the different designs and see which one does what and so on. I have read thousands of pieces about these two bows alone and a fgood number of books written by experts such as Traditional Bowyers bible series. I never mentioned warbows on horseback which you seem to think I did, its quite obvious both limbs were too lon apart from the assymetric shape of the yumi with one limb shorter.
@MrLantean Hornbows and longbows are separated geographically because of the materials used-not the general shape. The english made use of the elasticity of yew by making it thick and thin since increasing thickness dramatically increases power and yew can withstand this strain. The turkish made highly reflexed horn which was great in compression whilst sinew was great in tension and pulled the bow into a reflex shape. You were left with a WEAKER bow but a much FASTER one at full-draw.
@MrLantean yew which is the primary wood for the english longbow is so much more elastic than horn and that is why there doesn-t need to be specific dimensions since it can take a LOT of strain. Since english warbows during the hundred years war were buklt up to 160lbs-although they were less efficient, they could store more energy than a hornbow: take this a 60% efficient bow of 200J of energy can store 120J whilst the 80%efficient(hornbow) at 120J could just store 96J
@minxel16 "Damascus steel armour"? What on earth are you talking about? The longbow was able to penetrate maille armour, yes, but not plate except *maybe* at point blank range.
@Gilmaris Have you ever seen medieval tapestries? or seen livery arrows punch through plate armour. I guess not. If you really want to find evidence got the british armoury museum or warwick castle where you see the 100#ers show their power. And this I have personally seen done where the bodkin completely passes the plate at a range of 50metres.
@minxel16 Then I have to inquire, what sort of plate? Not just the gauge, but the temper as well. As for medieval tapestries, they show all sorts of things. They were not made on the battlefield, and I doubt they were made by anyone present at the battles they represent either. In medieval art you see swords splitting helms, swords cleaving maille-clad people in two, etc. etc. Artistic depictions should be taken with a grain of salt. Even Biblical figures are presented in plate armour, ffs.
I like english longbows better because they are better equipped for hunting.
DaddyWarbucks452 7 months ago
Sorry but the yumi would always be inferior to the longbow if you ask any bowyer or archer. It was primarily and art form and was also used for was but its long reflexed shape dramatically slowed down the arrows shot so it needed to be in the 100lbs range to be truly effective.
minxel16 9 months ago
@minxel16 Primarily an art form? NOW it is primarily an art form, but it was not "primarily an art form" when they actually used the bows in wars. Throughout Japanese history, up until the end of the Sengoku jidai, bows dominated the battlefields. I also don't see how the reflex shape has anything to do with slowing the arrows down. The first samurai had very weak yumi, which could barely penetrate the armour of the time at point blank range. But even the later bows were maybe around 60-90 lbs.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
@Gilmaris the long design made it slower since more weight was being propelled. The refloex made up for some of this disadvantage. If you know any kyudo students which was also practiced during the sengoku periods, they will tell you that their bow is treated as an other half and its spirituality has remained important throughout history. Not every instrument created gilmaris is made solely for war, that's what interests me about the yumi rather than its physical properties
minxel16 9 months ago
@minxel16 Oh, I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you said that because it was a *reflex* bow, the arrow was slowed down. Anyway, all martial arts given the suffix "do" rather than "jutsu" from Edo onwards have great focus on the spiritual aspect, much greater than the arts' martial origins. "-do" arts are pretty much all post-Sengoku, and Kyudo is no exception: the martial art used in war was Kyujutsu, with the exact same aim as archery everywhere else. War is, if nothing else, pragmatic.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
I am going to respect your conclusion that the longbow is a better weapon. In my conclusion, the recurved composite bow is the most power bow ever created. The longbow was phased out as weapon after the invention of the gun. The composite bow was retained as a weapon alongside with the gun. In Mongolia, there are still many craftsmen making the traditional composite bows. In Japan there are still master craftsmen making the Yumi.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean I never concluded either was better-this would be a narrow minded approach. I concluded that it had a shorter range but was more powerful at these ranges able to punch through more steel. The horsebow or hornbow I concluded was weaker but due to its highly reflexed shape was able to have greater velocity and propel the arrow further but at the cost of using lighter and thus less powerful arrows.
minxel16 9 months ago
@minxel16 I find your comments rather narrow minded. You insisted that the hornbows only use light-weight, weaker arrows and only the longbow has the capability to pierce steel armor. I never criticize the longbow is a weaker weapon but you kept criticing that the hornbow is a much weaker weapon. The horsebow is one of the weapons that allows the Mongols to built the largest empire in history.
MrLantean 9 months ago
@MrLantean actually the British empire was the largest empire by landmass.
nicholassinclairswan 5 months ago
@nicholassinclairswan If you merged all the lands that the British controlled, then the British has the largest empire by landmass. But the Mongol Empire is the largest continuous landmass from Korea all the way to parts of Eastern Europe.
MrLantean 5 months ago
The Yumi is a distinctively Japanese. It is the longest bow ever created and even longer than the English longbow. It is the main weapon of the samurai before the famed katana replaced it. Samurai horse archers are able to wield them on horseback. They are among the few horse archers who use longbows on horseback. Most horse archers turned to hornbows for horse archery.
MrLantean 10 months ago
For people who dont know. The yumi doesnt have a draw rate nearly as stong as a longbow I say about 80lb or a lil bit more but a longbow has up to 100-110lb draw rate and comparing the arrows are usless because they are used to kill but have diffrent effects upon impact. The arrow for the longbow is ment to pierce armor cue to heavy armor knights. The Yumi's arrow as less effect on pierce but with its design like all asian bows were ment to cause heavy bleeding and painfull when it's pulled out.
PebBleishRock 1 year ago
@PebBleishRock There are tests to compare the yumi and the English Longbow in the National Geographic documentary 'Samurai Bow'. The arrows for the yumi have the capability to pierce plate armor and the penetration is deeper compared to the arrows for the longbow. The yumi is more powerful because of its recurved shape and it is made from bamboo which has greater flexibility and tension-resistance than yew.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean Firstly as a bowmaker I can tell you that bamboo has less flexibility than yew although they are both strong in tension and compression(yew)-yew has greater elasticity and the english longbow was actually recurved like the yumi at the tips giving it more speed. I'm sorry but the yumi had less range mostly 200yds effective compared to 300yds for longbow and its lighter arrows meant less penetration than the heavier arrows of the 160lbs warbow so they must've used a weak bow in the test
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 The person that uses the longbow for the test is Mike Loades, an expert in ancient weapons. He would use the best longbow for the test instead of a weak bow that you claim. Your belief in the superiority of the longbow is probably due to its legedary status. Its havoc on French knights is legendary. I used to believe that until I have seen the performances of other bows that convinced me that there are other bows that are equally or more powerful.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean Firstly-I've seen his show and he uses a custom 'longbow' only 60 pounds not the type of the day at 160lbs! And he only compares it to the crossbow which he concludes is more effective at close range but not at long range but only hints that the recurves added speed to the hornbow. I'm a bowyer and know what does what in terms of bow making so after much experience with materials and reading TBB series it becomes evident which bows are for what purposes.
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 Mike Loades is a weapon expert and surely he will use the type of the 100 Years War. He has consulted many bowyers on the type of bows he will be using. Do you make horn bows as well? Then you should know only certain types of horns that are able to withstand compression and tension.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean They used a standard slow 60lbs longbow not the heavy reflexed warbow of 160lbs
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 160 lbs, that's a bit on the high end, isn't it? I realize this reflects the Mary Rose find, but how representative are the warriors of a flagship of warriors in general? Estimates for longbows have been anywhere from 80 to 160 lbs, and you're not going to tell me that longbows were standardized at 160 lbs.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
@Gilmaris hey have found bows from many wars including the war of the roses which have topped the 160lbs mark. True I was doubtful at first but there is a high standard among those who trained with them. If you look at medieval tapestires you can see the bows at least 1.1inch thick and heavy men straining under their weight. !60 could possibly not be the standard but the standard was certainly very high and the nreflexed tips of lighter bows made up for sheer force with increased velocity.
minxel16 9 months ago
Central Asian composite bows beat them both to a pulp. They were the most powerful weapons that could be carried by a single soldier until the birth of the rifle. And according to some Mongol texts, an archer once set an arrow flying 800 yards. They packed so much more draw strength than a longbow and a yumi combined.
TempestDust 1 year ago
@TempestDust True, the recurved compsite bow is the powerful ranged weapon ever created before the rifle. It is originally created for horse archers and chariot archers. Archers from Korea all the way to North Africa and the Lower Balkans used them. The record for the composite bow is 972 yard, shot by the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul in 1798.
MrLantean 11 months ago
@MrLantean saying most 'powerful' ranged weapon is shady-it could go the furthest-but light-weight flight arrows cannot penetrate medieval armour like the english longbow could, just at a shorter range.
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 The English longbow is more famous because of its legendary status during the 100 Years War. Arrows shot from the composite bow have deeper penetration than arrows shot from the longbow. There is a documentary 'The Moghuls' where there is a test to compare the English Longbow and a composite bow of Indian design. The test shows that arrows from the composite bow have deeper penetration.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean one test probably with a 60lbs longbow-think about a 160lbs warbow shot at 200metres which shot heavier arrows than the horn bow so according to tests the arrow would have pentrated more steel than any other asian bow could. One thing many people get confused by is that a further shooting bow is a more powerful where it is rather the opposite-the slower shooting english longbow was designed to shoot heavier arrows at shorter distances so had more power and vice versa for the horn bow.
minxel16 10 months ago
@MrLantean A longer firing bow doesn't mean a more powerful one. The reason why the horn bow could be shot further was because it had faster limbs at the time of release and also shot lighter arrows. The english warbow had slower firing limbs so was better suited to heavier arrows which could be shot less far but had increased force/penetration at these distances. You say something extremely stupid as most powerful before the rifle-what about the trebuchet?-a whole load more powerful
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 The horn bow generated and stored more energy than a selfbow like the longbow. It also has a higher draw weight due to its recurved shape and stores more energy for a given final draw-weight. When released, all the energy is transfered to the arrow, allowing it the travel faster and further. If you shoot a bodkin point arrow from a horn bow at a plate armor, it will have a deeper penetration than being shot from a longbow.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean Stored more energy is true for a given draw weight-but you could generally give yew higher-draw weights significantly since its high elasticity so it ends up although less efficient with more energy being transferred to the arrow. The horn bow usually had much lighter draw-weights and was more of a speed bow especially since it was much harder to lean in-to the bow on horseback which meant lighter-further shooting arrows but with less force.
minxel16 10 months ago
@TempestDust than a 'longbow' and 'yumi ' combined-don't thinks so. The longbow was the only bow able to penetrate damascus steel armour since it had the heaviest arrows which went less far than the asian composite bows but had deeper penetration at the shorter range it was shot at.
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 I respected the longbow as a great weapon but you claim that it is the only bow that is able to penetrate steel armor. There are other bows that could do the same thing. There two types of composite bow: a light one for flight archery and a heavier one for killing. Arrows for the heavier composite have the capability to pierce steel armor. Mongol horse archers were able to kill many knights with their composite bows during their invasion of Poland and Hungary.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean I quoted 'more steel' than any other asian bow could simply because even for the mongolian equivalent of having heavier arrows-it was far more powerful but shot slower and less far. At my local archery club we shoot a variety of different bows, and one of the members who's chinese is relgious to hornbows but hes never heard from history or family of using a 1/2 inch shaft that the warbow uses. The best armour of the time was proven to withstand the mongol bows
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 The 1/2inch shaft that the warbow uses is design to pierce European plate armor in European warfare. Asian armor is primarily a lamellar and scale type. They have small metal plates sewn together on lacquered leather. This type armor provides protection that is as good as a European plate armor but with more flexibility, mobility and lighter weight. Do you know that the Chinese even has paper armour that has the ability to even stop a crossbow bolt?
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean The only records of chinese armour protectiong them were of the light-weight arrows used in the siege of Shanxi worn by the archers. It was more wood layers than paper-mulberry but an english longbow could easily pierce that depth with its heavy arrows. It was 3 inches thick! As for lamellar armour it was stronger than chain mail-but not nearly as deflective as plate armour or as strong which should seem obvious. It was designed to be light. In power european bows were superior.
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel Lukas Novotny, an American bowyer, uses an English Longbow and a composite bow of Indian design to test their effectiveness in piercing plate armor. As you said, the arrow from the longbow is 3 inches thick. But the arrow from the composite bow is 2 inches thicker. Then he uses double plating to stimulated plate armor worn over chainmail. The arrow from the longbow is an inch thick but it is 2 inches thicker from the composite bow. This test can be seen from a documentary 'Mughals'.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever-an arrow isn't a few inches thick! I said that the paper armor was 3 inches. Longbow arrows. Mail was usually only added by the groin if plate was worn and this american sounds dubious-no offence, but he probably knows less about the english warbow than guild members do here in england and he was probably using a lighter weight one for biased tests-which they usually do in these series.
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 Sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I meant how deep is the peneration made by two types of bows. The arrow from the longbow managed to penetrate 3 inches deep but the one from the composite bow managed to penetrate 2 inches deeper. Although Lukas Novotny specialised in horn bows, he also produces longbows as well. It seems that you always claim that a lighter weight longbow is used for every test to compare different types of bows. You want the longbow to be the best bow.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean I know that the warbow is more powerful since it uses heavier arrows and although they fire slower they have more impact. As you said he specialises in horn bows which gives away a lot about his opinions. I don't feel any bow is superior but am just acknowledging that the warbow is more powerful whilst the hornbow shoots further even with a given arrow due to its highly reflexed shape. You cannot rely simply on one test made by Lukas Novotny, that is why I have regarded many.
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 From what i have read, the reflexed shape generates and stores more energy during the full draw. A bow's power is determined by length, size, shape and materials for its construction. Many composite bows are double recurved making the weapon more powerful. The warbow is a selfbow, carved from a single piece of wood. Because of it , its length and size have to specific otherwise it wil break during a full draw. That's why it is an infrantry weapon and rarely used on horseback.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean You have clearly little experience in this field. one life lesson: go and do it if you really want to learn something llike I have as a bowyer. Yes recurves stored more energy-not generated at full draw for a GIVEN WEIGHT but since sinew and horn(and wood) as a combination became slower at higher weights due to their heavy mass, only 100lbs and lower bows could be constructed whilst being efficient. If you knew about a selfbow-you would know that there are many designs unable to brek
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 As a bowyer, are you specialised in English Longbows? Then your experience in producing and testing longbows may resulted in your bias conclusion of the longbow's superiority. Perhaps you have little experience in producing and testing horn bows. Western Europe did not have horse archers. Warriors on horseback fought with swords, axes and lances but not the bow. To foot achers, a longbow is sufficient enough on battlefields. As a result, hornbows are nonexistence in the west.
MrLantean 10 months ago
@MrLantean I don't specialise in any bow yet since I compare the different designs and see which one does what and so on. I have read thousands of pieces about these two bows alone and a fgood number of books written by experts such as Traditional Bowyers bible series. I never mentioned warbows on horseback which you seem to think I did, its quite obvious both limbs were too lon apart from the assymetric shape of the yumi with one limb shorter.
minxel16 10 months ago
@MrLantean Hornbows and longbows are separated geographically because of the materials used-not the general shape. The english made use of the elasticity of yew by making it thick and thin since increasing thickness dramatically increases power and yew can withstand this strain. The turkish made highly reflexed horn which was great in compression whilst sinew was great in tension and pulled the bow into a reflex shape. You were left with a WEAKER bow but a much FASTER one at full-draw.
minxel16 10 months ago
@MrLantean yew which is the primary wood for the english longbow is so much more elastic than horn and that is why there doesn-t need to be specific dimensions since it can take a LOT of strain. Since english warbows during the hundred years war were buklt up to 160lbs-although they were less efficient, they could store more energy than a hornbow: take this a 60% efficient bow of 200J of energy can store 120J whilst the 80%efficient(hornbow) at 120J could just store 96J
minxel16 10 months ago
@minxel16 "Damascus steel armour"? What on earth are you talking about? The longbow was able to penetrate maille armour, yes, but not plate except *maybe* at point blank range.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
@Gilmaris Have you ever seen medieval tapestries? or seen livery arrows punch through plate armour. I guess not. If you really want to find evidence got the british armoury museum or warwick castle where you see the 100#ers show their power. And this I have personally seen done where the bodkin completely passes the plate at a range of 50metres.
minxel16 9 months ago
@minxel16 Then I have to inquire, what sort of plate? Not just the gauge, but the temper as well. As for medieval tapestries, they show all sorts of things. They were not made on the battlefield, and I doubt they were made by anyone present at the battles they represent either. In medieval art you see swords splitting helms, swords cleaving maille-clad people in two, etc. etc. Artistic depictions should be taken with a grain of salt. Even Biblical figures are presented in plate armour, ffs.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
lol "built to kill" really? what else would a bow be built for?
dragonking700 1 year ago
"The Samurai Bow ... is a killing machine"
Well duh!
papalevies 1 year ago
@papalevies the longbow is the medieval machine gun
minxel16 10 months ago
But Japanese must keep trying more an more !
mavin174 1 year ago
respect !
mavin174 1 year ago