A 160 lbs Bow Pull

[oldgoat]

They also began their training with bow and horse when they were 3 years old. The younger women in the tribe were given this task. One thing that is not often brought up is that the women in these plains tribes were also very capable archers and horsemen. In fact it was also their duty to protect the tribe when the men were away raiding and hunting.

I also agree that we really can't comprehend how tough these people where. They had no modern amenities. They scraped and fought for their survival constantly. This, as every army they went up against found out, made them incredibly hard and capable men.

And with the very rare exception they were worn out and died very young before arthritis kicked in! Also didn't have the crappy toxic processed diet wee do and their bodies were probably more resilient because of it as let's face it, even though Darwin wasn't around yet, his theories rang true and there weren't very many weak ones that survived childhood!

 

[paleraider]

And with the very rare exception they were worn out and died very young before arthritis kicked in!

I am not sure I agree with this aspect. Even with all of our modern medicine, nutrition, and amenities we have not really moved the overall longevity of our species. People of today live as long on average as people throughout history. What makes it look like we are living longer is we have greatly reduced infant mortality. Infant mortality took quite a toll in the ancient times. Hence people would have 10+ children as more than half of them would not make it past 5-7 years of age. Also there as a much higher chance in dying in wars and skirmishes then there are today.

 

[ben h]

I am not sure I agree with this aspect. Even with all of our modern medicine, nutrition, and amenities we have not really moved the overall longevity of our species.

Are you serious? Figuring out how to make clean water added nearly 30 years to the average life expectancy alone, modern medicine has added to that. I think in the middle ages the average life expectancy was something like 35 and now it's mid 70's, so I'd say that's significantly higher.

 

[paleraider]

As stated that average was brought down due to infant mortality. If nearly half the people are dying when they are children due to illness or malnutrition then the average would be much lower. Vaccinations have done all the heavy lifting of moving the average life expectancy. Yet given that it doesn't mean that the life expectancy of people who made it past that age is any different then our current life expectancy.

The idea that we are living longer is nice and makes us feel superior but it is in no way born out by the data.

 

[Shooter19802003]

I am not sure I agree with this aspect. Even with all of our modern medicine, nutrition, and amenities we have not really moved the overall longevity of our species. People of today live as long on average as people throughout history. What makes it look like we are living longer is we have greatly reduced infant mortality. Infant mortality took quite a toll in the ancient times. Hence people would have 10+ children as more than half of them would not make it past 5-7 years of age. Also there as a much higher chance in dying in wars and skirmishes then there are today.

There is a lot of truth here. Don't confuse longevity with quality of life. Yes, our quality of life has gotten better.

 

[sneaky]

I have always been a bit skeptical of those accounts. It just seems crazy that those archers were so capable and no one, using contemporary gear designs can match the performance. Not even with modern gear.

I am pulling a compound bow with a 70% let off that draws half that weight. 160 pounds is crazy.

modern day archers don't devote their entire life to the discipline either. "You had one job..." is not what those archers wanted to hear after a miss.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Put me down as skeptical too. The 180# in the vid was 'Estimated" The ones they tested to 30" was 34 kilos....76#.

I doubt the archers in those days were coming to a full 30" DL....

In the vid they said they found bowstings..... but none were capable of anything like 180#.

If they were really experts they would be able to tell by the arrow spine as its crucial in a bow with no cutout. They have 2,000 arrows....easy to test and see what they spine out at.

Or it could be like a couple of the guys I've sen at Trad tourneys bragging "I shoot a 70# longbow"...but then they don't come anywhere near full draw.

Edit; I'm looking at this wrong. The heavy bow guys weren't shooting MOA accuracy.....and poor arrow flight from the bow would correct itself at the 200-400yd distances they were raining these arrows down. Its not out of the question to think there were guys capable of shooting them....as in those days they wanted a heavy arrow thrown as far as possible.

I was surprised to learn [from some 100# longbow guys] that once you get up into that 100+ bow range, sure they shoot logs, but spine wasn't as finnaky as I would have guessed. They say bow efficiency drops for longbows at those heavy weights.

Come to full draw with a 70# longbow....28" or in my case 30". It doable if you train a little bit. Speculating here but coming to full draw with 160# that last 3"-4" would be tough. Even if you train, I'm a pretty big guy, decent strength in my youth....and I bet I could have pulled a 160# bow ....to MAYBE 24".....no way I'm holding it at full draw -30"- and aiming.

They identified the archers from the Mary Rose by their disfigured spines and shoulder blades from drawing so much weight. I believe the specs when i hear them.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[ben h]

As stated that average was brought down due to infant mortality. If nearly half the people are dying when they are children due to illness or malnutrition then the average would be much lower. Vaccinations have done all the heavy lifting of moving the average life expectancy. Yet given that it doesn't mean that the life expectancy of people who made it past that age is any different then our current life expectancy.

That's a solid point, a lot of young kids dying will certainly skew the average by a ton. if one person makes it to 70 and 10 kids die before they are 5, that puts the average around 11 which is misleading.

Intuitively I still think the ability to clean water has more to do with the increased life expectancy than vaccinations, but I'd have to look into it to be positive.

Well played.

 

[wintermute]

Is there a chance that these bows had a 100Lbs. + full draw but in tactical/combat situations were snap-shot (for lack of a better term) at a lesser draw (and therefore less weight)? Do anthropologists measure these things by the full pull weight of recovered bows or do they go off of primary source written material that mentions the actual implementation of the weapons? These goes more for mounted archers (like the Mongols) and less for the en-masse bombardment done by English bowmen (though I imagine they as well may have drawn and fired differently as the situation dictated. For example a line of archers Vs. a skirmish).

 

[Formidilosus]

Are you serious? Figuring out how to make clean water added nearly 30 years to the average life expectancy alone, modern medicine has added to that. I think in the middle ages the average life expectancy was something like 35 and now it's mid 70's, so I'd say that's significantly higher.

What is interesting is that the steppe tribes as a whole, and the Mongolians specifically knew about clean water. While they were renowned for never bathing, they were also renowned for the importance of sanitation with regards to human by products and their water supply. Things the Europeans didn't understand.

Their mortality was do to infants as stated and war- not their living conditions. Take the infant mortality out as well as gross trauma from battle, and they lived about as long as us. The chief difference being that while modern 1st and 2nd world humans have a gradual slide from "heathy" to wasted away starting in their 20's until they die, humans from antiquity before agriculture pretty much stayed extremely fit and healthy until they just didn't wake up one morning. They didn't understand old age like we tend to think of it- i.e. "I'm 50 and old". You can still see the same thing with the few hunter gather cultures that still exist- 60 year old men with abs that hunt as hard as the 20 year olds.

modern day archers don't devote their entire life to the discipline either. "You had one job..." is not what those archers wanted to hear after a miss.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

What's interesting to me is how so many miss this. It's an argument that accompanies both the English archers and the steppe horseman. There are a lot of people that "study" both that claim because modern humans can't use bows that powerful, and despite proof to the contrary, that they couldn't either. Which is insane. Modern humans grow up eating cheetos and playing video games. These people were tied to a sheeps back before they could walk. The moment they could use their hands they were given a bow and learned to use it. I'm not a big fellow and I have no problem with an 80lb asiatic bow with thumb draw and I've only been doing it for two months.

Is there a chance that these bows had a 100Lbs. + full draw but in tactical/combat situations were snap-shot (for lack of a better term) at a lesser draw (and therefore less weight)? Do anthropologists measure these things by the full pull weight of recovered bows or do they go off of primary source written material that mentions the actual implementation of the weapons? These goes more for mounted archers (like the Mongols) and less for the en-masse bombardment done by English bowmen (though I imagine they as well may have drawn and fired differently as the situation dictated. For example a line of archers Vs. a skirmish).

Yes to all. They know from what was written about the steppe people and drawings (since none of them wrote themselves) that they drew to their ear or past for most. For the Mongols they had two bows that they carried along with a bunch of different arrow types. The idea that they couldn't and didn't pull 100+lbs is ludicrous. One, we know from the recovered bows what they were. Two, we know from what was written that they were able to fire from extremely long range (some of the battle areas are still marked) and still penetrate armor. And three, it's just not that hard to pull 100lbs. Literally every dude I work with has no problem with an 80lb bow and a couple of weeks of practice.

 

[Beendare]

They identified the archers from the Mary Rose by their disfigured spines and shoulder blades from drawing so much weight. I believe the specs when i hear them.

And you are probably right the more I look into this....a fascinating subject. The heavy warbows were used more as an artillery weapon...not designed for pinpoint accuracy

Then you see pics of April Moon...a flight shooting champion [1981] that was known to draw 100# bows for competition....she was all of about 5'4" and 110#.