Salam aleikum, Ibrahim, peace be upon you. I am sorry if I misuderstood the quote, I just tried to extend the scope of Ottoman and Indian Mogol-Mamluke archery to the whole nomadic peoples of Central Asia. I know arab archery is ancient and has its own traditions. And that they were an open and sophisticated people who also incorporated every scientific, cultural and technological valuable asset they found among other peoples.
Regards

P.D. Thank you for the string to the Arab archery book, but I introduced it to my web search window...and noting happened, I mean, it did not open a page with the book. Maybe I did something wrong, please advise me.

Yes, but I am at the opposite side, bordering east Texas. Very far. As for the Great Wall, don´t worry. We are already organizing teams for the national contest to see who goes up-under-around the Great Wall faster. The China lesson....

Sadly, I can't go even to the next town, less Amsterdam. Snif... :(

Ibrahimm, link not working...if it is for this book here is a link. Arab Archery An Arabic manuscript of about A.D. 1500 “Book on the Excellence of the Bow and Arrow” and the Description thereof.

http://www.freepdf.info/index.php?post/Arab-Archery

It works for me... Just copy the string straight into your web search window... It should work... :) Shoot again !

There are quite a few ways into the document and heres another https://www.archerylibrary.com/books.../arab-archery/ where you simply go down the list and press on a link ... It also has other good archery links...

Try it, I think something is missing, your linkis for the same book I posted a link to.
file:///C:/Users/Peeter/AppData/Loca...%20Archery.pdf

Put this into search as a complete string

file:///C:/Users/Peeter/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$DI00.156/Arab%20Archery.pdf



My string works but yours does not.... :shrug:

Been there, done that, it does not work, check and see if you copied it correctly.

Yes that works. It will give the entire book... I used the string you have and both that and my string are working...

Ensure you copy the string and put into web search...It works for me....

Yes correct but he used his Janissaries to do the deed ...The Mamluks were surrounded and shot to pieces. Only one got away and of the few others that were not at that wipe out... They were mostly hunted down and killed.

According to everything that I have read he used his Albanian troops, he then basically took control over Egypt and the Ottoman government could do nothing to stop him.

Wikipedia.
"The French withdrawal left a power vacuum in Egypt. Mamluk power had been weakened, but not destroyed, and Ottoman forces clashed with the Mamluks for power. During this period of turmoil Muhammad Ali used his loyal Albanian troops to work with both sides, gaining power and prestige for himself......The Mamluks still posed the greatest threat to Muhammad Ali. They controlled Egypt for more than 600 years, and over that time they extended their rule systematically south along the Nile River to Upper Egypt. Muhammad Ali’s approach was to eliminate the Mamluk leadership, then move against the rank and file. Muhammad Ali invited the Mamluk leaders to a celebration at the Cairo Citadel in honor of his son, Tusun Pasha, who was to lead a military expedition into Arabia. The event was held on March 1, 1811. When the Mamluks had gathered at the Citadel, and were surrounded by Muhammad Ali's troops, he had his troops kill them. After the leaders were killed, Muhammad Ali dispatched his army throughout Egypt to rout the remainder of the Mamluk forces."

I am sorry, estcrh, but the Mamluk Sultanate was defeated and destroyed as such by Selim I in 1516, beign the Mamluks no match for the Ottoman artillery and janissaries. Since then, the Mamluks were the already defeated and decadent subjects of the Ottoman Empire which, in the time of the French invassion, also was in decadence (as all empires will be, and vanish, sic transit gloria mundi). They were defeated on the battlefield by the Ottomans, and not by treason. Muhammad Ali Pasha only recovered Egypt. And since the Mamluks were already unruly and useless, he killed their leaders in an ambush. As many christian kings and princes did in their time in Europe. From then he was only nominal subordinate of the Ottomans, given the fact that the aforementioned empire was in total decadence, as said.

Regards

P.D. Already downloaded the book from the estcrh's link. It is the same. Thank you very much to both of you.

I agree on the anachronism, but specifically in which way Manchu bows influenced the Turk bows? By Turks you meant the Ottomans? Because there are many Turkic peoples, from nort-west China to south-west Russia, not to mention the Ottomans. Do you mean all of them?

Regards

Gonzalo, I did not say that the Egyptian Mamluks were defeated by treason, I said that the Mamluks were not defeated in Egypt by the Janassaries, the treason was Ali taking control over Egypt and proclaiming himself as the "Khedive".

It woz Ali Pasha wot done it !!!

Indo-Persian composite bow identification help
 

The bow was found in Japan, an unusual place to find an Indo-Persian bow. It is covered with illustrations, cows or bulls and military men, I am thinking that this is a Persian portrait, any thoughts would be helpful.

Ok, sorry for that, estcrh. But at that time the Mamluks were only the problematic and unruly subjects of the Ottomans, already defeated but kept by the Ottomans to manage Egypt for them. Not anymore the great Mamluks who defeated the Mongol armies. They were defeated by fireweapons and more modern tactics, since although they have some fireweapons, they didn´t learn how to use and produce them properly. That, and all the complexities involved in the decadence of their own sultanate in the 16th Century. The same happened to the so called "Tatars", Uzbeks, Kazaks, etc. with the Russian Empire, or to the Mongols with the Chinese-Manchu Empire. A mix of social, economic, historical and technological and military factors. Which, among other things, conducted to the decadence of archery.

Regards

I am not an expert on this field (or any other), but the portrait seems to be Naser al-Din Shah Qajar, though I can be mistaken. He conducted intense diplomatic activities. Maybe a diplomatic gift to Japan rulers? After all, he searched for allies on the whole world against the Russians, and the Japanese could be taken as natural allies at that moment.

Thank you for all your photographs, estcrh.

Regards

By "Turkish" here, I mean the Turkish subjects of the Ottomans. The European bows I refer to are AFAIK European subjects of the Ottomans. (For Turkic peoples outside Turkey, I'll usually use "Turkic" rather than "Turkish".)

AFAIK, the Mongol adoption of the Manchu bow was driven by the Manchu conquest of Mongolia. After the Mongolian Mongols adopted it, then it spread to Moghulistan, and next to Mawarannahr/Transoxiana (under Uzbek rule by then), and then to the Crimean Khanate. By the time the Manchu bow reaches Crimea, it's shrunk a bit (but is still a big bow) - smaller ears, smaller string bridge, and also less reflexed.

The Crimean Khanate being an Ottoman protectorate, the Ottomans are exposed to this bow. At which point, bows appear in the Ottoman Empire which are intermediate in size between the traditional Ottoman bow and the Crimean/Manchu bow. The new bows are about 50"/125cm long, as compared with the traditional 40"/100cm bows, and the 60"/160cm Crimean/Manchu bow (and the 66"-72"/170-180cm Manchu/Qing bow).

Thank you for your reply, Timo. The Ottoman bows I have seen does not have the siyah-ears big and so rigid (so it seems) like the Manchu. But I have only seen some Ottoman and Manchu bows in pictures, never seen one personally, and they look different. The Manchu bow seem more "Hunnish", but symmetrical. I have only elemental knowledge of the historic composite bow from the Orient, that's why I asked for the specific influences, like beign more robust, bigger than the originals, siyah bigger or more rigid, different profiles-curvatures-proportions, etc.
I also wonder if those Timurid warriors should carry their swords edge up.

Regards

Estcrh, you would enjoy reading James Waterson's book. It's a fascinating read and well worth the modest money. It has pride of place in my library. During their heyday the Mamluks were like the Samurai of the Islamic world, and second to none in their fighting skills to which their entire lives were devoted. As Gonzalo G mentioned, their weaknesses were a lack of willingness to adapt to new scientific advances and corruption as a result of power grabs.

Composite bows at ed-Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.)

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeolog...t%20ed-Dur.pdf

Bows in Arabia and at ed-Dur

According to pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, the bow was a frequently used weapon in Arabia (29). Originally, the Arabs used the simple, asymmetrical bow (upper and lower limbs being of different length). Later, the ‘Arab composite bow’ was intro- duced: a large, segment-shaped bow with long ears bent forwards, a descendant of the above-mentioned ‘composite segment bow’ with bone coverings. When ed-Dur was occupied (late first century BC- first half of the second century AD), this type was widely used by the Arabs (30). Surprisingly, how- ever, ed-Dur is the only site in the Arabian Peninsula where bone nock-plates have been excavated. More- over, no illustrations of the Arab composite bow have been found, perhaps because of the ‘iconoclas- tic tendencies common to Islam and to the pre- Moslem religions of the country’ (31).

Good guess Gonzalo, so this bow was made in the mid to late 1800s at the earliest, the comparison between the portrait on the bow and his photograph is very similar.

It is not in good condition, maybe someone has an idea of how to preserve it. Persian bows are rather rare.

Naser al-Din Shah Qajar (16 July 1831 – 1 May 1896) (Persian: ناصرالدین شاه قاجار‎‎), also Nassereddin Shah Qajar, was the King of Persia from 5 September 1848 to 1 May 1896 when he was assassinated.

The research paper is quite excellent however, I dont know what context you mean iconoclatic tic... "a contradiction in established beliefs"... I can say however, that I have found a lot of arrow heads around here in the desert...which proves to me someone must have been loosing some arrows off>>> a long time ago. :)

Ibrahiim, sorry for the confusion, that is a quote from the research paper, I did not write it and I am not exactly sure what the writer of the quote meant. By the way, do you have any images of the arrow heads you have found? Here is an image of what looks like an ancient composite bow in use.


An archer engaged in combat using a thumb draw on what appears to be a type of Indo-Persian bow. It dates back to the 8th-9th Century AD and was taken from the ancient city of Panjikent located partially in Tajikistan's northwest but mainly in Uzbekistan's southeast according to the locals. For years it was kept in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg, Russia but now resides back in Tajik lands where it rightfully belongs.

It is very clear. The iconoclasts was a famous Bizantine religious current among the chrstian church. They were opposed to the representation of human beigns (oikonos=image in Greek). Their foes were those who supported the use of images of saints, etc., as a media to propagate the faith and teach the christian church's beliefs. Those last won, after a true civil war. The Jews, Muslims and Christisn Iconoclasts are against the use of human images. So, no illustrations of arab bows are usually found, because of this (no images of archers), acording with the quote from that article. Protestantism in Europe raised again this iconoclastic belief, and they refused to use images in their churches, as opposed to the catholics. In their churches you only find symbols, as the cross.

Regards

Good explanation, thanks.

I think I have a few left ... will check the store ...and take a picture.

I still need to take some pictures... however, looking at a report on the UAEi ~ Quote"Broadheads were used for war and are still used for hunting. Information on regional Arabic arrowheads found from the period 100BC-150AD in the United Arab Emirates show the use of three-bladed broadheads, or trilobate arrowhead. "A trilobate arrowhead can be defined as an arrowhead that has three wings or blades that are usually placed at equal angles (i.e. c. 120°) around the imaginary longitudinal axis extending from the centre of the socket or tang. Since this type of arrowhead is rare in southeastern Arabia, we must investigate its origin and the reasons behind its presence at ed-Dur. UAE" ''Unquote.

RESEARCHERS FIND ANCIENT OFFERINGS TO A DEITY OF WAR
Archaeologists led by Guilluame Gernez of Pantheon-Sorbonne University in Paris discovered two groups of 'remarkable' objects during excavations at Mudhmar East.
The site in the Arabian Peninsula, near Adam, Oman.
Researchers found two small quivers made entirely of bronze, each including six arrows.
At just 35 cm, these quivers are small-scale replicas of real objects and are non-functional – and they're the first of this kind ever to be discovered in the Arabian Peninsula.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz4nJL0lRhl

Good find!!!!

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/2725.htm

A couple of examples:

First, some Manchu bows:
http://mandarinmansion.com/antique-manchu-composite-bow
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138178
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...-0162bow.shtml
These are big bows (170cm to 180cm long), very reflexed, long ears, prominent string bridges. The Mongolian version is similar: often a bit smaller, but still a big bows, often with shorter (but still long) ears, usually less reflexed. A couple of examples:
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138189
http://www.hermann-historica.de/en/k..._jhdt/l/138192
http://mandarinmansion.com/tigers-ta...-composite-bow

The typical Ottoman bow is very different. Much, much smaller (about 1m long), short ears, no string bridges:
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...7turkbow.shtml
https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...7turkbow.shtml

Now the in-between bow, the "Crimean" bow. AFAIK, these are Turkish Ottoman, rather than Crimean as such - the actual Crimean bow was close to the Mongolian/Manchu bow (more prominent string bridges).
150cm long, so very large: https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...artarbow.shtml
125cm long, so about halfway between the above example and a typical Ottoman bow: https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/gr...artarbow.shtml

All of the scabbards I've seen have mounts such that the sword would be hung from the belt, edge down. Most examples I've seen in art are worn that way (I can remember seeing a sketch of a miniature with the sword worn through a waist belt, but still edge down).

Another online publication of interest:

Bernard A. Boit, "The Fruits of Adversity: Technical Refinements of the
Turkish Composite Bow During the Crusading Era", MA thesis, The Ohio State University, 1991.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a243362.pdf

it ignores the use of metal lammelar armour and mail used by byzantine cataphracti and the sassanids, and turks, all of which used recurved horsebows, only mentioning the light leather lamella used by some other muslim light cavalry. they also armoured their horses.

From the representation of Mongol and Manchu mounted warriors, I believed these bows were smaller to facilitate shooting from horseback. 1.70-1.80 mt is about the size of a English longbow, isn't it? I can´t imagine carrying those long bows from a quiver suspended from the waist.


Do you mean, among the Timurids?

Thank you for the link, I´m downloading.

Regards

Some photos of large bows being worn on horseback at http://www.manchuarchery.org/photogr...golian-archers (and when you combine it with the long heavy arrows you want for these bow, a musket, a sword, and a lance, you have a lot of stuff to carry).

Smaller is easier on horseback, but note that the bow survived for so long in the Qing army as a cavalry weapon. After pike and musket became the dominant infantry weapons, the bow remained in use by the cavalry for another 200 years. If they'd adopted the pistol as a standard cavalry weapon, the bow might have been abandoned.

The Japanese managed with an even longer bow! (Modern yumi usually vary from 2.2m to 2.5m.)

Timurids, and also others nearby in space and time. I double-checked Timurids specifically, but it reflects much broader usage. The Central Asian standard sword suspension was edge down, hung from the belt, two hangers on the spine-side of the scabbard.

Thank you, Timo.

At what moment and where began those sabers be carried edge-up? In the Golden Horde they were carried edge-up, as I understand. The Russians adopted this sytsem, as also the oriental style of sabers. The Japanese carried the nihonto edge-up in the sash, but edge-down with armour.

Regards

The oldest Central Asian scabbards for curved sabres I've seen that look designed for wear through a waist sash (and therefore at least potentially edge-up) are 18th century. However, scabbards don't survive as well as swords, and the practice might be older. I've seen older Tibetan scabbards (for straight swords) that look like they're made for wear through a waist sash, edge up (maybe 17th century?).

The oldest scabbards I've seen for wear edge-up hung-from-belt are 19th century (shashka scabbards, all of them).

AFAIK, uchigatana mounts (Japanese sword mounts for edge-up waist-sash wear) appear in the 15th century, and become common in the 16th century. This was driven by the growth of infantry as armies got larger. The uchigatana/katana is an infantry sword, and the tachi is a cavalry sword.

Can you point to any art showing Golden Horde swords being worn edge-up?

Hi Timo,

It seems that I´m wrong. I have been checking Tatar sabres with scabbards, and all them seem to be carried edge-down.

I thought the tachi was not used anymore in the 16th Century, except for few exceptions.

Regards

The tachi was still in use as a cavalry sword. For example, in this picture of the Siege of Osaka Castle, 1615:
http://files.lib.byu.edu/exhibits/gu...-swords/2D.jpg
the cavalry wear tachi, while most infantry wear a katana (some armoured infantry wear tachi, too, like the musketeer near the gate at the bottom left, and the archer at the bottom extreme right).

As late as the Satsuma Rebellion, art still shows traditionally-equipped armoured cavalry wearing tachi (and modernised cavalry with Western sabres, modernised infantry with katana worn in baldrics, unarmoured samurai women fighting on horseback with katana - lots of variety).