Hunnic Bows

[Ron Andrea]

In The Sarmatians: 600 BC -- AD 450 (Oprey Press, 2002), R. Brezezinski and M Mielczarek mention "Hunnish" bows, as follows:

During the 1st century AD a powerful new type of bow gained popularity; this is known today as the 'Hunnish' bow, though evidence of its Huns origins is inconclusive. Measuring 120cm (48ins) or more in length, it was much larger than the Scythian bow, and also of composite construction with prominent bone laths on the ears. It was usually asymmetrical in shape, with the top half above the grip being longer. Significantly more powerful than its predessors, the Hunnish bow could draw arrows of 80cm (32ins), with heavier heads than seen previously.

Can anyone shed light on where these "Hunnish" bows came from or why they were noticeably more powerful, as the earlier Scythian design was already recurved and composite construction? Just the larger size? Different wood?

Finally, did the Romans adopt this new design, or leave it to the barbaricum and foederati?

[Treveri Gaul]

Salve Ron.

You have good question. This Hunnish bow was make 4 different wood.

www.horsebackarchery.com . In this website you found the Hunnish bow.

[Ron Andrea]

Salve Vallus.

Great link. Thank you.

Their mention of using “four different woodsâ€

[varistus]

Cannot understand this, since the Romans copied so many other ideas.

[Ron Andrea]

Varistus,

Don't know that the Romans didn't. That's part of my question.

BTW, please include your real name in messages.

[Treveri Gaul]

Thanks Ron.

I'm so pleased to have been of help. Hungaryan bow better with Hunnish bow. Shoot spacing: 250 meter. Hunnish cavalry shooter Three times shooting per minutes. Three enemy soldiers dead. The iron arrow starting speed equal to gunbullets speed. The arrow had traversed his breast from iron-shirt.

You see in hungaryan website many bow. Duplicates The original bow. New substances make new bow. Do you interested the Hunnish/Hungaryan his armament?

[Ron Andrea]

Vallus,

In fact, I read somewhere that the range, accuracy and lethality of long bows equaled that of firearms until the nineteen century when rifled, breech loading weapons replaced smooth-bore, muzzle-loading muskets. hock:

That's hardly applicable to Roman Army Talk except for us to keep in mind that ancient battle fields were every bit as dangerous as modern ones...without the benefit of modern medicine. Through World War One, as many soldier died off the battle field as on.

That background explains my interest in a bow--the Hunnish bow--described as a "powerful new type".

Nope, not interested in Hunnish or Hungarian armor...yet. :wink:

(BTW, I visited Budapest for a week each in the 1993 and 1994 with Habitat for Humanity. Loved it. Nice Roman ruins, too.)

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

IIRC the extra power of the Hunnish bow over the earlier skuthian bow is due to the long "extensions" (no idea of the proper term) that the bows have at the end of the limbs and the angle they are at compared to the limbs. It also made the bow longer.

The later Mongol bow had, IIRC, these "extensions2 at an even greater angle which gave even more power.

The Romans certainly did use the Hunnish bow - does Prokopios refer to it?

[Ron Andrea]

Nicholas,

Yes, I believe you are correct.

Brezinski and Mielczarek (The Sarmatins: 600 BC -- AD 450, Oprey press, 2002) refer to "prominant bone laths at the ears." I assume the "ears" are the part of the bow which curved forward.

Interestingly, all the bows we've discussed--Scythian. Hun and Hungarian--seem to be of the recurve, or reflect (depending on source), design. Each design cited is progressively longer than the previous with the Hunnish bow being asymmetrically longer above the grip--supposedly to allow use mounted without stirrups.

Do you have a citation in Prokopios?

What does "IIRC" stay for?

[Conal]

If I Remember Correctly :wink:

[Richomeres]

Ron,

if you are interested in bow physics, you shold get a copy of "The traditional bowyers bible" vol. I, Jim Hamm (ed.). There you will find an essay by Tim Baker "Bow design and performance".

Cheers,

Helge

[Quadratus]

Folks

What evidence is there for the form of Hunnish bows? For example, I have frequently seen statements about them being asymmetrical. On what is this based? As far as I know, the only archaeological evidence for Hun bows are the horn and bone laths from the ears (siyahs, svarves or whatever else you like to call them), and these need careful interpretation before any conclusions can be drawn. In particular, one should not jump to the conclusion that any two laths came from the same bow without firm evidence.

Are there archaeological sources I haven't found (which is quite likely!), or are there contemporary images or accounts? I would be grateful for any help in this area.

[Treveri Gaul]

Salve Alan.

You have interested question. We know from archaeological sites How was the hunnish bow. It's good archaeological find, whay? The hunnish bow animal moistened with fat. In 1970 years It worked the hunnish replicate bow.

see you.www.grozevarchery.com

Regards :wink:

[Ron Andrea]

Excellent question, Allen.

In The Sarmatians: 600 BC -- AD450 (Brezinski & Mielczarrek, Osprey Publishing, 2002), a diagram on page 44 of an assymetric bow, case, and two quivers is ascribed "after Legacy of the Desert King, China National Silk Museum, Hangzhou, 2000." That's not definitive, but is indicative.

Thanks.

[Quadratus]

Thanks guys.

I am not just being awkward. I am concerned that, the more I go into the history of the composite bow, the more I come to realise that there is a lot of conjecture, and not much evidence in a number of areas. In particular, coming at it from the archery side, few people appreciate the difference between survivals and reconstructions. For example, traditionally made Sino-Mongol, Turkish, Korean and Crim Tartar bows survived well into modern times, and there are thousands of examples. Similarly, there are hundreds of well preserved ancient Egyptian bows, so we know a lot about them.

However when it comes to Assyrian, Hunnish, Avar and a host of other bows, there is very little evidence and a great deal of conjecture. The waters have been muddied by the reconstructions offered by the likes of Grozer and Kassai. They are great fun to shoot, and I have 2 myself, but they are (as the makers freely admit) just impressions – in some cases very vague impressions indeed. The prime case is the so-called Magyar bow. Whenever I see a ‘modern’ Hungarian/Magyar bow. the string comes straight down from the nocks without touching the 'ears' (siyahs, szarvs - the stiff bits at each end, whatever you like to call them). In every other type of stiff-eared bow I am aware of, the string touches the ear, either on a string pad like the Mongolian or Tartar bows, or on the ear itself like traditional Korean bows. When I finally found a translation of part of the original 1930's work by Sebestyen Karoly, on which all later reconstructions are based, it clearly states that he assumed that the string only touched the bow at the nocks and all subsequent calculations and designs were based on this, but he doesn't say why this assumption was made. Pictures? Writings? Archaeological evidence I'm not aware of? I am a beginner in this field, so there might well be plenty of evidence and its just that I haven't found it yet

So I am still hunting evidence for all types of ‘extinct’ bows, and would be grateful for any assistance.

Valete