Mongolian arrows. Mongolian bow: why the Mongols had no equal in battle

03.03.202127.05.2017

In the distant XIII century, such weapons as the Mongolian bow became a breakthrough in military craft. In terms of its characteristics, it significantly exceeded its counterparts made in Europe. The main secret Mongolian bow was that it was composite. In this article, we will talk about how to make a Mongolian combat bow on your own.

Necessary materials:

ash, birch or larch wood
horn plates
sinew or fiberglass
isinglass
kapron thread
tools
press

First of all, you need to prepare all the necessary materials. From wood, you will need blanks from ash and birch. In this case, it is best to use the birch that grows in the lowlands. This is due to the fact that such trees are straighter and they have much fewer knots. It is also worth using only the part of the tree that was facing north - on this side the fibers are denser. By the way, if there was no ash at hand, then it is quite possible to replace it with larch.
In the original "recipe" of the Mongolian bow, there are horse or cow tendons, but in their absence, you can use fiberglass. If it is planned to use completely natural ingredients in full accordance with the old recipes, then the tendons must first be separated from the animal carcass and allowed to dry thoroughly. Then they must be split into separate fibers, from which the bowstring was subsequently made.
Bull horn can serve as a material for horn plates. These plates will act as a kind of energy accumulator. To make them, a well-dried horn must be sawn lengthwise and boiled. Then the resulting workpiece must be put under the press until it dries completely.
You need to make all 5 parts of the Mongolian bow (two shoulders, two tail elements and the middle part). Important point: birch wood is used for convex parts, and ash or larch for concave parts. The length of the entire bow usually does not exceed 70 cm.
Each part of the bow must be "picked up" from several layers of wood, which is punctuated by three successive layers of fiberglass and horn plates. Glue is used to connect the layers together.
After all parts of the bow are ready, it must be connected to each other using the same glue. In this case, the joints between the parts must be protected by winding a nylon cord.
After all parts of the Mongolian bow are glued together, the finished bow must be left to dry for a period of 6 months to 1 year. And the bow in it

Do you want to know what a real Mongolian bow is, what it looks like, what its arrows look like, what it was made of? In this case, read our article on this topic, which shows how to make such a bow with your own hands, in detail in the video. We will also tell you what the tips for the Mongolian arrows were like. After reading our article, you will not regret the time spent, it will not be wasted!

About the design of the Mongolian bow

The design of the Mongolian bow appeared in the 12th century, before the conquests of Europe and Asia by the Mongols. It differed from other models in many ways, especially because the Mongolian bow is a complex structure, and its manufacture requires special skill.

Bone overlays, wooden layers, string tendons were pressed under strong pressure, then the bow was dried for a long time, sometimes for a couple of years. The bow had a relatively small size, about 110-120 cm, with enormous power, and it could be further increased by adding bone lining on the shoulders of the bow.

The Mongolian bow had good flexibility, so the bowstring was pulled tighter, and as a result, it gave the arrow a lot of momentum. Very often it was used by horse archers, because it was possible to conduct aimed and rapid fire (up to 12 shots per minute).

Special attention should be paid to the firing range, which reached 300 meters, and when conducting aimed shooting 150-200 meters. The Mongolian bow was equal in power to the arquebus, but surpassed them in rate of fire. On the battlefield, the Mongols, thanks to these important qualities of their weapons, shortened the distances by pouring a hail of arrows on their opponents.

About arrows for the Mongolian bow

From their counterparts, arrows for the Mongolian bow differed fundamentally. The tips had a flat shape, trefoil or spatula. With this shape, the arrows flew at a higher speed than arrows with a tip of 3 blades, also, thanks to a flat tip, a greater number of arrows were placed in the Mongols' quiver.

They weighed about 15 grams, with a feather width of 25 cm. But at the same time, it is known that there were also huge tips up to 15 centimeters, with a feather width of 5 cm and a total weight of 40 grams. Such dimensions were explained very simply - they were used to destroy enemy horses.

The Mongolian cavalry used bows for several hundred years, then developed in many countries. Today, the traditional Mongolian bow is a recurve, compound bow, having the main distinguishing feature - a short bow can be drawn much more strongly.

Mongolian bow at present

The appearance of the Mongolian bow was taken from the time of Khan Batu, and recreated at the present time. Most often it is made from natural materials of beech, birch or walnut, it is used for decoration. Genuine Leather, more often from kapron.

It is about 120 cm long, has an initial boom speed of 80 m / s with a flight range of 260 meters, and an aimed shooting range of about 40 meters. For how to make Mongolian, see the video below.

The Mongolian bow has a reverse kibiti bow. This means that both the bow itself and the ends of the bow are curved outward in a special way. Traditional manufacturing techniques for these weapons included the use of wood, birch bark, and reinforcement with horn overlays.

Unlike other bows, they had an additional lateral bend in the form of an overlay made of leather, wood and horns. It was arranged to protect the nomad from the return blow of the bowstring on the wrist of the left hand, which largely determined the methods of firing shots. Including, striking contemporaries, the traditional shooting of nomads from behind. That is why the Mongols did not need traditional bracers used by other peoples.

Making this bow is a long, patient process. It was created from several layers of wood, covered with birch bark on the outside. A rather small (up to 170 cm long) bow of the Mongols had incredible lethal power, piercing not only the armor of European knights, but also the warrior himself through and through.

The Mongolian bow consisted of three main elements: wood, bone, horn and glue. The bow was made by a special craftsman. All other parts of the Mongol archer's equipment, such as a quiver, bow or bow case, arrows, were also made by specialist artisans. The quiver and bow were made of specially dressed leather. The skin was soaked for seven to ten days in a wooden barrel of salt water, then brushed, stretched and kneaded to the desired state. The quiver consisted of two wooden planks connected by a wooden frame and covered with leather. The belt for carrying the quiver was thrown over the right shoulder and the quiver hung at the right hip. The number of arrows in a quiver could be different - from four to fifteen, depending on the type of hunting and the type of arrows. The headband was cut from one large piece of subtriangular leather, with the seam located on one side and only up to the middle of the cover. In the upper, narrow part of the bow there was a loop through which the shooter's belt was threaded. The cover was worn on the left side in an inclined position, as the most convenient for riding a horse. The bow in the sheath was in a taut state, with the string down, the tree up, and was only half covered with a sheath.

Contrary to popular belief, the Mongols almost never used poison arrows. Their weapons were already deadly enough. Arrowheads had a wide variety of weights, sizes and configurations. Many of them were not just a part of the weapon, but also a kind of traditional mascots of nomads.

The bowstring was made from the vertebral tendons of animals. They were divided into threads, twisted together, getting a tight and elastic bowstring. To avoid injuries during shooting, the nomads used a special ring that protected the fingers of the right hand.

The technology for making Mongolian-type bows was extremely complex and required high technical development. Master archers possessed excellent knowledge of the properties of all the composite materials from which the bow was made: various types of wood, horns, bones, birch bark tendons, glue, varnishes, etc. For the manufacture of the wooden base of the bows, the best types of wood were selected High Quality, for overlays - horn and bone plates without the slightest flaw. The most carefully selected tendons and birch bark, varnishes and raw materials for the preparation of glue.

In Western and Central Asia, the technique for the production of composite bows has reached such perfection that when dressing onions, the climatic features of the regions where they will be used, the purpose of the bow for certain purposes, and the individual addition of the archer were taken into account. Depending on these factors, the ratio and quality of its constituent parts, the length, width, magnitude of the bend and the shape of the bow were determined. Its power, the amount of effort applied to stretch it and keep it taut, depended very much on the design features and shape of the bow. 31 It has been experimentally proved that with the optimal ratio of bow and arrow, the correct distribution and combination of composite materials, the size and shape of the bow depended on its range, arrow flight speed, its penetrating ability and stopping effect.

WITHtrills

The manufacture of arrows, hollow inside, provided a whistle during the flight. This brought mortal horror to the enemies of the nomads. This, of course, is the similarity with the whistle of a certain type of Mongolian arrows, called "singing death." Both of them believed that whistling arrows scare away evil spirits. Mongolian arrows made a sound with a kind of whistle located at the tip. The most powerful Mongolian bow, as many historians believe, had an arrow range of over 300 meters.

The end of bow making was accompanied by a special ceremony of opening the bow, which consisted of pronouncing a wish-blessing erool, where praise for the virtues of the bow was combined with wishes of good luck to its owner. Following the pronunciation of the wish-blessing, a libation was made on the “head” of the lukaairag, for which the shooter chose one of the ends of the bow, to which the hadak accompanying the wishes was attached. The libation was carried out with the help of a ritual wooden spoon, on the deep part of which there were nine or twelve small pits. The ceremony ended with refreshments for those present. The first use of the arrow was also accompanied by wishes and a redemptive anointing.

In relation to the bow, the Mongols had a number of prescriptions and prohibitions, which subsequently passed to the gun. These include, first of all, the prohibition to step over the bow (gun), as well as rubbing the bow (or gun) in case of misses with the blood of predatory animals, so that the weapon becomes more deadly.
Archery to this day remains one of the favorite traditional entertainments of the Mongols and, along with national wrestling and horse racing, plays a significant role in the annual folk festival nadam, whose roots are associated with military sports and go back to the distant past of the Mongolian people.

The latter evidence deserves closer attention. The fact is that many contemporaries call the bow the main weapon of the Mongols. So, Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting testify: “Their customs are archery ...”; and further: “If we turn to the most important of their types of weapons, then bow and arrow will come first(highlighted by us. -Yu.K.), and the saber - on the next one after them. The captured Englishman mentioned above also speaks of this: “... they tirelessly and bravely fight with spears, clubs, axes and swords, but preference for bows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) and accurately, with great skill, they shoot from them ... ". Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich P Hohenstaufen also writes about this in a letter addressed to the English King Henry III: “... bows are the most familiar weapon for them(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), along with arrows and other throwing weapons ... ". The Dominican monk Vincent of Beauvais notes the same: “... most of all they rely on bows and arrows... "(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), and Premonstratensian monk Hetum Patmich: "Tatars are excellent riders and are proficient with weapons, especially bows and arrows"(highlighted by us - Yu.K.). And here is the testimony of the Venetian Marco Polo, who, as you know, lived among the Mongols for a long time, serving Khan Kublai: “... in more than that they use a bow(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), because they are dexterous shooters.

Light Mounted Archer- the classic appearance of the Mongol warrior. Equipment will be considered here. The dressing gown is wrapped on the right side, tight trousers, leather boots with thick soles. Fur-trimmed hat. A saber and a saadak hang on the belt. The quiver is hung on a belt over the shoulder and thrown over the back on the right side. The warrior is armed with a short Mongolian bow.
1. Mongolian bow in a loose state. When pulling the string, the bow had to be bent against its natural curvature. 2. Mongolian arrowheads. 3. Mongolian robe. The method of wrapping it on the right side is shown. 4 and 5. Two styles of Mongolian hairstyles. 6. Mongolian boots made of thick leather. 7. Quiver.

At this point it is worth dwelling in more detail. The fact is that if we turn to the testimony of a number of contemporaries, we can see that the Mongols paid quite a lot of attention to shooting training. “As for their black Tatars shooting from a horse, they are tied to the back of a horse even in infancy. ... At 3 years old they are tied with a rope to the pommel of the saddle, so that there is something to hold on to with their hands, and they let the crowd rush at full speed. At 4-5 years old they are given to hold a small bow and short arrows, with which they grow up. ... All of them are swiftly worn on horses, while they stand on their toes in stirrups, and do not sit, so their main strength is in their calves, and there is none in their hips at all. They are as fast as a running whirlwind and mighty as a crushing mountain. Since in the saddle they turn to the left and turn over to the right with such ease as if the wings of a windmill, they can, turning to the left, shoot to the right, and not only there - they also aim backwards, ”report Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine says practically the same thing: “Men do nothing at all, with the exception of arrows ... they hunt and practice shooting, for all of them, young and old, are good shooters, and their children, when they are two or three years old, they immediately begin to ride and manage horses and ride them, and they are given a bow according to their age, and they learn to shoot arrows ... ". And here is what Benedict Polek reports (in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia): “Men make only arrows and practice archery. They also force three or four year old boys to exercise in the same way. Vincent of Beauvais says the same thing in his encyclopedia: “They amuse themselves with wrestling and archery, which they consider to be the best entertainment, as well as military exercises.” Zhao Hong also indirectly confirms this: “Tatars are born and grow up in the saddle. By themselves they learn to fight."

Young Mongolian warrior
The Mongolian warrior was inseparable from his horse. The horse harness is decorated, the tail is braided. A method of archery from a saddle is shown. Two warriors are practicing archery, trying to hit a wooden block.
Box 1. Mongolian saddle. It had a solid construction, was made of wood and was soaked in sheep fat to protect it from rain. The saddle had a high front and back pommel, providing the archer with a secure fit and the ability to turn the body in all directions.
Box 2. paisa (label). Khan in Karakoram had an efficient courier service. Thanks to couriers, the khan quickly learned about all the news and immediately transmitted orders to all parts of his vast empire. The gents, who served as the khan's eyes and ears, wore a label made of iron or silver, which showed the status of the person to whom the report was delivered. One such label has survived to our time.

Most likely, this practice was one of the first reforms of Genghis Khan. We find indirect confirmation of this from Marco Polo: “It happened that in 1187 the Tatars chose a king for themselves, and he was called Genghis Khan in their language ... Genghis Khan saw that he had a lot of people, armed him with bows and their other weapons and went to fight foreign countries". Rashid ad-Din confirms this assumption in his story about Genghis Khan: “He also said ... the emirs of the army should properly teach their sons throwing arrows, horseback riding and martial arts and exercise them in these matters.” An indirect confirmation of this can be seen in the words of Genghis Khan himself, which Li Zhi Chang quotes when describing his conversation with Chang Chun: “... we are Mughals, with early years We are used to shooting from horseback and we cannot suddenly leave this habit.

In any case, during the period of the Great Conquest, the Mongols in the eyes of contemporaries were firmly associated precisely as archers. So the great Galician boyar Yuri Domogaroch, a participant in the battle on the Kapka River, whose words are recorded in the Chronicler of Daniel of Galicia, directly says: Moreover, among Armenian authors, the definition of "arrows" is often given as a synonym for the term "Mongol". So Vardan Areveltsi (1198-1271) in the work "Collection of History", speaking of the Mongols, calls them "the people of shooters", and in another work, "Geography", he calls the city of Samarkand captured by the Mongols - "the capital of the people of shooters" . Syuni Bishop Stefanos Orbelyan (d. 1304) in his work “History of the Sisakan Region” also calls the Mongols “the people of shooters”, and Mongolia – “the country of shooters”. The prominent statesman of Cilician Armenia Smbat Sparapet (1208-1267) also calls the Mongols "the people of shooters" in his work "Chronicle", who personally visited the Mongolian capital Karokorum twice. And speaking of the military formations of the Mongols, he calls them "troops of shooters." And one of the most famous Armenian historians, a contemporary of the capture of Transcaucasia by the Mongols, Kirakos Gandzaketsi (1200-1271), in the "History of Armenia" calls the Mongols - "tribe of shooters". In turn, another prominent Armenian historian Grigor Aknertsi, better known as the monk Magakia, directly titled his work “History of the people of the Shooters”. The Armenian tradition of calling the Mongols "the people of shooters" or simply "shooters" is also given by the Fleming Willem from Rebrek.

Mongols in the Middle East, 1220.
G1: Mongolian heavily armed horse archer.
The peculiarity of the equipment of this warrior is a powerful leather scaly carapace and a pointed helmet with a silk lining. A surcoat is thrown over the shell, which prevents the metal from heating up in the sun. Mongolian bow with the largest shoulder angle. The reins of the horse are connected by a thin rope to the wrist. This rope does not allow you to completely lose nro-water during archery.
G2: Mongolian light warrior.
Mongolian scout and skirmisher. Unlike the heavily armed warrior who prepared for the campaign, this one was in the war straight from the field. The Mongolian short horse is a relative of the Przewalski's horse.
G3: Persian foot archer.
The deceased Persian foot archer had a helmet characteristic of his time, a heavy linen overshirt and a silk undershirt. The bow is clearly Persian tin.

Many of the contemporaries characterize the Mongols not just as shooters, but as excellent shooters. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine: "... all of them, young and old, are good shooters ...". Juvaini: "... if they wish, they can shoot down the stars with arrows...". Matthew Paris: "...are amazing archers...". Stefanos Orbelyan: "... skillful (here we mean the people. - Yu.K.) in throwing arrows ...". André of Longjumeau: "They don't use ballistae, but they are excellent archers." Friedrich II Hohenstaufen: "These tartars, incomparable archers ...". Hetum Patmich: “The war with them is very dangerous, because in one such, even a small war, more people die than in any clash with any other people. And this happens for the most part due to the fact that they shoot strongly and accurately”; and further: "It is very dangerous to pursue them, because, turning around, they begin to shoot arrows and thus injure and kill people and horses." Marco Polo: "They know how to shoot deftly ...". The same is noted by Smbat Sparapet in a letter to the Cypriot king Henry II de Lusignan: "They are excellent arrows ...".

Moreover, a number of contemporaries directly distinguish the Mongols as archers against the background of other peoples. Thus, a Georgian anonymous author, a contemporary of Tsar George IV Lasha (1213-1222), reports: “At the same time, they gained courage and were chosen archers(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), flawlessly shooting from their tight bows with heavy arrows, the impact of which could not withstand any armor. They were especially dexterous on horseback, because they grew up on horseback, they did not know armor, except for a bow and arrows. And here is how the impressions of Russian warriors from the first clashes with the Mongols are recorded in the Chronicler of Daniel of Galicia: The Hungarian Dominican monk Julian, who visited the South Russian steppes twice, in 1235 and 1237, specifically noted in a message to the papal legate Salvio de Salvi: “They say that they shoot further than other nations can. At the first clash in the war, their arrows, as they say, do not fly, but, as it were, pour like a downpour. With swords and spears, they are rumored to fight less skillfully.

Mongolian light horseman, Rus'.
An episode of a long chase, which the Mongols could undertake after the battle, was spotted by a Mongol cavalryman in the coastal thickets of a hiding Russian warrior. The Mongol wears a robe captured during the Khorezm campaign; a warm sheepskin coat is put on under the robe. Hat with fur-trimmed earmuffs. The appearance of the Mongol was recreated according to the "Saray Album" (Istanbul). Attached to the saddle is a coil of rope, an axe, and a wineskin with sour milk. The armor of the Russian warrior is depicted in accordance with the samples presented in the Kremlin Armory. The weather shown in the illustration corresponds to the authors' ideas about the "harsh Russian winter"!

In turn, Bishop Stefan Vatsky, in a letter to Parisian Bishop William III of Auvergne, also notes: “They are more skilled archers than Hungarian and Comani, and their bows are more powerful.” Friedrich II of Hohenstaufen writes about the same to the English King Henry III: "... bows ... which they constantly use, which is why their hands are stronger than those of other people, then they utterly defeated the Cumans." Here is how Getum Patmich, one of the statesmen of Cilician Armenia, described the Mongols: "And they have already become so accustomed to the art of shooting that they have surpassed the rest of the world's population in it."

As you can see, if we turn to the tactics of the Mongols, it becomes obvious that their shooting combat prevails over everything else. Direct indications of this can be seen in Marco Polo: “In battles with the enemy, they gain the upper hand like this: running away from the enemy, they are not ashamed, running away, turn around and shoot. They taught their horses, like dogs, to turn in all directions. When they are driven, they fight gloriously on the run, and just as strongly, as if they were standing face to face with the enemy; runs and turns back, shoots accurately, beats both enemy horses and people; and the enemy thinks that they are scattered and defeated, and he himself loses, from the fact that his horses have been shot down, and the people have been pretty much killed. Giovanni from Pian del Carpine also speaks of the same: “... whenever they see enemies, they go at them, and each one throws three or four arrows at his opponents ...”; and further: "... they do not willingly enter the battle, but wound and kill people and horses with arrows ...". He is echoed by Benedikt Pole: “When they have to come together with enemies, many of them arm themselves big amount quivers and arrows, and before the enemy's arrows reach them, they release their own, even if it is premature and they cannot shoot arrows accurately. And when they can reach the enemy with arrows without hindrance, they say that it resembles rain rather than flying arrows. And this happens because of the extreme density of flying arrows.

This also follows from the course of the battles, a number of which have come down to us in more or less detailed descriptions. For example, Muhammad al-Nasawi, speaking about the battle of Isfahan on August 25, 1228, in which the Mongols defeated the last Khorezmshah Jalal ad-Din Mankburni, describes the heroic resistance of the latter’s troops in this way: “But the khans and emirs, commanders of the left wing, stood firmly, until his death, remaining true to his oath. Only three of them survived: Kuch Tegin Pakhlavan, Hajib al-Khass Khanberdi and Emir Ahur Odek. Ahash-Malik fought until fell, studded with arrows, like a hedgehog with needles(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), and died for the faith. In turn, Juvaini, describing the battle of the Mongols with the Jin, which took place near the river. Huang He in 1231, testifies: "... the Mongols knocked them down with a hail of arrows, and they stretched out on damp earth ...". A similar situation can be traced during the capture of the passes through the Carpathians by the Mongols, which was described by Master Rogerius, who was in Hungary in 1241 as an envoy of Cardinal John of Lucy: “... on the twelfth day after the onset of March, there was a battle with the Tatars at the pass, and when almost all his people were severely wounded with arrows and swords, he left with a few of them ... ". We see the same thing when he describes the battle of the Archbishop of Kaloch, Ugrin Kzak, with the Mongols approaching the city of Pest: “... he wanted to fight the Tatars. Note, shading their backs, began to gradually retreat. The archbishop, seeing this, began to pursue them at full speed. Having reached the swampy area, they quickly passed it. The archbishop, without turning, for he was very close to them, hurriedly entered the swamp, and since he and his people pressed the ground with the weight of their weapons, he was no longer able to cross the swamp or return. Tatars, quickly returning, surrounded the swamp and, sending arrows with rain, they were all killed there(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) ". The same picture is observed in the Battle of Liegnitz, which took place on April 9, 1241 between the Mongols and the united Polish army. Her detailed description came to us in the work of Jan Dlugosh: “The crusaders and foreign knights broke the first ranks of the Tatars with spears and moved forward. But when it came to hand-to-hand combat - with swords, the Tatar archers surrounded the detachments of crusaders and foreign knights from all sides so that other - Polish - detachments could not come to their aid without putting themselves in a dangerous position. Detachment that faltered and eventually lay down under a hail of arrows, like tender ears under hail, for many among them were people without shields and shells. And when the son of Diepold, the Moravian margrave, Boleslav and others fell there knights from the front, the rest, which were also thinned out by Tatar arrows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.), retreated to the Polish detachments. The situation is repeated in the battle of the river. Shio, which took place on April 11, 1241 between the Mongols and the united Hungarian-Croatian army and a detailed description of which was left to us by Thomas of Split: “They sent a cavalry detachment forward ... Having lined up and successfully positioned themselves, they opposed them in full armor and in strict order . But the detachments of the Tatars, without waiting hand-to-hand combat and, as usual, pelting enemies with arrows, hastily rushed to run "; and further: “... the Tatar horde, as if in a round dance, surrounded the entire camp of the Hungarians. Some, pulling their bows, began to shoot arrows from all sides, others hurried to set fire to the camp in a circle. ... Enemies, scattered everywhere, did not stop throwing spears and arrows. ... They did not defend themselves with weapons from a shower of arrows and spears, but, substituting their backs, completely collapsed under these blows(highlighted by us. - Yu.K), as usual, acorns fall from a shaken oak. And these are the descriptions of the same battle by Master Rogerius: “ Tatars... surrounding him, began to shoot at the Hungarians arrows that hit like hail. ... The arrows fell so often that they darkened the sky for the combatants and flew through the air like a swarm of beetles and locusts.. ... And if the Hungarians interspersed from different places went into battle, then Tatars. meeting them, arrows forced them to flee from battle formations(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.) ... ". In turn, Rashid ad-Din, describing the battle of the Mongols with the Mamluks, which took place in 1260 in the area of Ain-i Jalut, testifies that the vanguard of the Mamluks fled without even entering into a firefight with the Mongols: “The Mongol army attacked, firing from bows, and Kuduz dodged and fled. Armenian author of the XIV century. Nerses Palienz, describing the battle that took place between the troops of Ilkhan Ghazan and the Mamluks in the area of Jabal al-Salihiya, near the city of Damascus, on February 12, 1300, reports: “On the day when the Sultan’s army was preparing for battle, his soldiers prepared felt scarecrows, hung sparkling things on them so that they shone in the sun, and stuffed scarecrows on 10 thousand camels, and they all lined up in a row, while the soldiers themselves hid behind the camels ... since the Mongols, that is, the Tatars, except for arrows, had nothing else(highlighted by us. - Y.K.), the Muslims were waiting for them to shoot their arrows at felt stuffed animals that were put on camels”; and further: “It happened at three o'clock in the afternoon, and until nine o'clock in the evening arrows flew in the air, and the sun was darkened from them, and people were in the shade from the density of arrows. With these arrows, the army of the Sultan was defeated and put to flight. And here is the description of Hetum Patmich of the battle that took place between the same opponents near the city of Homs, Syria, in 1301: “... the Tatars, united, shot arrows and killed many enemy horses, while those Saracens who approached from the rear, the advance detachment, stumbled. Therefore, of the many Saracens, only a few left alive. Many Saracens were mortally wounded by arrows, from which they died."(highlighted by us. - Yu.K.). Here it is worth making a digression. The fact is that the last two battles, although they took place at the beginning of the 14th century, but, in our opinion, they still reflect the Mongol tactics, since the military reforms of Ilkhan Ghazan, which, apparently, were carried out at the very end of his reign, should have markedly changed the military affairs of the Khulagid.

A noteworthy fact is that during their companies, the Mongols took care not only of the replenishment of arrows - the most consumable material, but also of the replenishment of bows, bowstrings for them and quivers. Thus, in the biography of Khitan Xiao Baizhu in Yuan-shi, an episode from his grandfather's track record is given: kind". Benedict Pole speaks of the same thing in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia: “They also carry with them to in large numbers weapons, bows, quivers and arrows. This indicates that the shelling was very intense, and even the guns themselves could not withstand it.

From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that in battle the Mongols relied precisely on remote shooting combat. And it was the remote shooting battle of the Mongols that caused concern among their opponents. This is directly indicated in the “Secret Tale” by the words of the Naimans: “They say that in the northern side there are some insignificant Mongols there, and that they allegedly frightened the ancient glorious great Van Khan with their sidak ...”; and further: “Whatever these Mongols are, we will go and bring here their sidak. ... Let's take away from these, what are they, Mongols, their saidaks! . Direct confirmation of this can be seen in the testimonies of contemporaries. Thus, the Armenian historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi writes: "... the sound of their quivers terrified everyone." The Croatian priest Foma Splitsky echoes him: “... the deadly Tatar arrows shot straight at the target struck for sure. And there was no such armor, shield or helmet that would not have been pierced by a blow from the Tatar hand. This is also mentioned in an anonymous essay about the Tatar invasion of Poland, Moravia and Hungary, compiled shortly after the events described, which is partially preserved in the Paris Codex: “Fear and trembling, Moravia, seized you, a violent enemy surrounds you and oppresses you from everywhere . With a bow and a sword, he destroyed your strong ones, he does not spare either sex or age ... ". And here is what Giovanni of Pian del Carpine recommended: “Everyone who wants to fight them should have the following weapons: good and strong bows, ballistae, which they are very afraid of, a sufficient number of arrows, a good iron club or a long-handled ax ..., also swords and spears with a hook, to be able to pull them off the saddle, since they fall off it very easily, knives and double armor, since their arrows do not easily pierce them, a helmet and other weapons to protect the body and horse from weapons and arrows » . And these are the recommendations of Benedict the Pole in the retelling of the Franciscan C. de Bridia: “... ambushes should be set up on the flank on selected horses. And the ballistarii, located in front of the army and spaced in at least three [rows], must throw arrows before they can reach the battle order of the tartars, [that is] in the best way and in time so that their own battle ranks either run or are brought into confusion. If the enemies turn to flight, the ballistarii with archers, as well as those who are in ambush, pursue them, while the army gradually moves behind them. If there are no other ballistarii [for pursuit], then riders on armored horses move forward. Shielded by very powerful shields closed in front of the horses, they suddenly confuse the Tartar archers. But the recommendations included in the “Military Instructions” (“Praecepta bellica”), which were compiled in May - June 1241, in Esslingen, in the curia of the German king Conrad IV, to counter the Tatars: “1. Let the sovereigns themselves they are not looking for Tatars in the field, ... 2. Let the ballistarii be with them. .. 5. Also, let anyone who has an income of three marks take with him a shield called “setsishilt” (here we mean large, as a rule, easel, “pavez” shields. - Yu.K.) ” .

Thus, from the above it is clear that no heavily armed cavalry of the Mongols, if they had any, made any impression on their opponents and allies. In the eyes of contemporaries, the Mongols were only archers, but incomparable archers. This feature of theirs was the key to the success of the Great Conquest.

Summing up, the following conclusions should be emphasized:

1. A rather harsh habitat, lack of sources for obtaining metals and a trade blockade by neighbors did not contribute to the development of the Mongols in cultural and economic terms, as a result of which they looked backward compared to other peoples of the region.

2. The shortage of iron and the prohibition of neighbors selling weapons to the Mongols forced the latter to cover the shortage in weapons by all available means, as a result of their use of leather armor, bone arrowheads, etc. The Mongols' iron armor appears only during the capture of large states - the Jin Empire and Khorezm. But due to the primary destruction of the production bases of the captured states, the wear and tear of metal armor was not covered. According to contemporaries, only commanders and the highest aristocracy were armed with iron armor, which is confirmed archaeologically.

3. According to contemporaries, the main weapons of the Mongols were the bow and saber, which could be supplemented with an ax, club, palm tree and combined spears. At the same time, spears are not mentioned first in the list of weapons.

4. The sources clearly indicate that the Mongols used the spear exclusively for inflicting a simple thrust. At the same time, there is no exact evidence in the sources that they used a ram spear strike. The refusal of the Mongols to use shields during field battles, as well as the medium-sized breeds of Mongolian horses, indirectly indicate that the Mongols did not use massive ram spear strikes.

5. During the capture of the Far Eastern states, it is possible that large horses and horse armor came to the Mongols for the first time, there is no clear evidence of this. Only after the capture of Khorezm did contemporaries note the appearance of a large horse population among the Mongols. The beginning of the campaign against Khorezm coincides with the appearance on the pages of the chronicles of references to well-armed or even heavily armed Mongols detachments. But these detachments were temporary and formed only in certain cases. The temporary concentration by the Mongols of warriors with armor to solve special problems is also confirmed by the practice of their battles.

6. Contemporaries of the Mongols claimed that it was the bow that was their main weapon. This is confirmed by the constant training of the Mongols in shooting, noted on the pages of the chronicles. The overwhelming majority of contemporaries pointed out that the Mongols stood out from the background of other peoples precisely by skillful shooting. This is confirmed by the course of those battles, of which detailed descriptions have come down to us, as well as by the supply of consumables during the campaigns.

Thus, our analysis of written sources demonstrates that the Mongols did not have heavily armed cavalry, as well as the prerequisites for its appearance, which refutes the conclusions obtained by M.V. Gorelik. In the future, continuing to study this issue, we plan to highlight the features of the Mongolian archery and their shooting tactics.

Anninsky S.A. News of the Hungarian missionaries of the XIII-XIV centuries about the Tatars and Eastern Europe // Historical archive. T. III. - M.; L, 1940.
Artemiev A.R. Armament of the Tatar-Mongolian warriors in the campaign against the Volga Bulgaria and Rus' in 1236-1241. // 100 years of Hun archeology: Nomadism - past, present in the global context and historical perspective: Hun phenomenon. T. D. Ch. 1. - Ulan-Ude, 1996.
Artemiev A.R. Problems of identifying the Mongol-Tatar weapons complex among the ancient Russian materials of the 19th century. // Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: to the 80th anniversary of Valentin Vasilyevich Sedov. - M., 2004.
Artemyeva N.G. Items of protective weapons from the Krasnoyarovsk settlement // Russia and the Asia-Pacific Region. No. 4. - Vladivostok, 1999.
Artemyeva N.G. A new type of Jurchen shell // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 1. - Vladivostok, 2002.
Artemyeva N.G., Prokopets S.D. Protective weapons of the Jurchen warrior // Russian archeology.. - 2012.-№1.
Ata-Melik Juvaini. Genghis Khan. History of the Conqueror of the World.-M., 2004.
Bakhruishn S.V. Scientific works. T.Sh: Selected works on the history of Siberia in the 16th-16th centuries. - M., 1955.
Belorybkin G.N. Zolotarevskoe settlement. - SPb., 2001.
Vincent of Beauvais. Historical mirror // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Witt V. O., Zheligovsky O. A., Krasnikov A. S., Shpayer N. M. Horse breeding and horse use. - M., 1964.
Guyton. Flower garden of the history of the lands of the East // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Galastyan A.G. Armenian sources about the Mongols. - M., 1962.
Gapitsko-Volyn chronicle. - St. Petersburg, 2005.
Guillaume de Rubruk. Journey to the Eastern Countries // Travels to the Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Gordeev N.V. Russian defensive armor // State Armory of the Moscow Kremlin. - M., 1954.
Gorbunov V.V. Spears of warriors of the Srostka culture // Equipment of Eurasian nomads. - Barnaul, 2005.
Gorelik M.V. Medieval Mongolian armor // Third International Congress of Mongolian Studies. -Ulaanbaatar, 1978.
Gorelik M.V. Early Mongolian armor (IX - 1st half of the 16th centuries) // Archeology, ethnography and anthropology of Mongolia. - Novosibirsk, 1987.
Gorelik M.V. Steppe battle (From the history of military affairs of the Tatar-Mongols) // Military affairs of the ancient and medieval population of North and Central Asia. - Novosibirsk, 1990.
Gorelik M.V. Helmets and falchions: two aspects of the mutual influence of the Mongolian and European weapons business // Steppes of Europe in the Middle Ages. T. 3: Polovtsian-Golden Horde time. - Donetsk, 2003.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian Costume and Weapons in the 12th-14th Centuries: Traditions of Imperial Culture // Golden Horde Heritage. Materials of the International scientific conference"Political and socio-economic history of the Golden Horde (XIII-XV centuries)". March 17, 2009 Issue. 1. - Kazan, 2009.
Gorelik M.V. Mongolian plate cavalry and its fate in the historical perspective // Warfare of the Golden Horde: problems and prospects of study. Materials of the round table held within the framework of the International Golden Horde Forum. Kazan, March 29-30, 2011 - Kazan, 2011.
Gusynin V. A. The Far Eastern complex of armor plates from the Zolotarevsky settlement // Bulletin of military-historical research: International collection of scientific papers. Issue. 3. - Penza, 2011.
Giovanni des Plano Carpini. History of the Mongols // Travels to Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Ye Lun-li. History of the Khitan state (Qidan Guo Zhi). - Monuments of writing of the East. T. XXXV.-M., 1979.
Jean de Joinville. The book of pious sayings and good deeds of our holy King Louis. -SPb., 2012.
Juse P.K. Materials on the history of Azerbaijan from Tarikh-al-Kamil (complete collection of history) Ibn-al-Asir.-Baku, 1940.
Ivanin M. I. About the military art and the conquests of the Mongol-Tatars and the Central Asian peoples under Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. - St. Petersburg, 1875.
Ilminsky NI. Extracts from Ibn el-Atir about the first invasion of the Tatars on the Caucasian and Black Sea countries, from 1220 to 1224 // Scientific notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences: on the first and third branches. T. II. Issue. 4. - St. Petersburg, 1854.
"History of the Tatars" by brother Ts. de Bridia I / Yurchenko A.G. Christendom and the "Great Mongol Empire" (Materials of the Franciscan mission of 1245). - St. Petersburg, 2002.
Kirakos Gandzaketsi. History of Armenia.-M., 1976.
Book of Marco Polo II Travels to Eastern Countries. - M., 1997.
Kozin S.A. The Secret History: The Mongolian Chronicle of 1240 under the title Mongrol-un niruCa tobCiyan. Yuan chao bi shi: Mongolian everyday selection. - M.; L., 1941.
Kuleshov Yu.A. Production and import of weapons as a way to form the Golden Horde weapons complex // Golden Horde Civilization. Issue Z. - Kazan, 2010.
Kuleshov Yu.A., Gusynin V.A. Finds of helmets of the "Jin type" from the territory of Eastern Europe // Military affairs in the Asia-Pacific region from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century. Issue. 2. - Vladivostok, 2012.
Kushkumbaev A.K. The Institute of Batteries and Military Affairs of the Nomads of Central Asia. - Kokshetau, 2009.
Kushkumbaev A.K. Bow and arrows as part of the Golden Horde weapons: issues of study and methods of using combat weapons // Issues of the history and archeology of medieval nomads and the Golden Horde: Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the memory of V.P. Kostyukov. - Astrakhan, 2011.
Kychanov E.I. History of the Tangut state. - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Kychanov E.I. Tangut (Xi Xia) sources about the Tatars // Mongolica - VIII: dedicated to the 190th anniversary of the Asian Museum - the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the RAI (SPbF IN RAS). - St. Petersburg, 2008.
Lenkov V.D. Metallurgy and metalworking among the Jurchens in the 12th century (based on research materials from the Shaiginsky settlement). - Novosibirsk, 1974.
Lee Zhi Chan. Journey to the Zalad monk Chang Chun, described by his disciple Zhen Chang Zi named Li Zhi Chan //Works of members of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Beijing. T. IV. - St. Petersburg, 1866.
Lin Kyun-i, Munkuev N.Ts. " Brief information about Black Tatars” Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting // Problems of Oriental Studies. No. 5. - M., 1960.
Malyavkin A. G. "Jin-shi". 1 quan // Collection of scientific works of Przhevaltsev. - Harbin, 1942.
Matthew of Paris. The Great Chronicle // Russian Spill: Arabesques of History. The world of Lev Gumilyov. -M., 1997.
Matuzova V.I. English medieval sources of the IX-XIII centuries - M., 1979.
Munkuev N. Ts. Men-da bei-lu (“Complete description of the Mongol-Tatars”), - M., 1975.
Nefedov S.A. The Mongolian bow and the Mongol conquest // The role of the nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the development of world military art: Scientific readings in memory of N.E. Masanova - Collection of materials of the international scientific conference in Almaty, April 22-23, 2010 - Almaty, 2010.
Inventory and sale at public auction of the remaining estate after the murder of Mikhail Tatishchev accused of treason by the people in 116 // Provisional of the Imperial Moscow Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Book. 8. - M., 1850.
Patkanov K.P. History of the Mongols monk Magakia, XIII century. - St. Petersburg, 1871.
Patkanov K.P. History of the Mongols according to Armenian sources. Issue. 1. - St. Petersburg, 1873.
Penskoy V.V. The Great Gun Revolution. - M., 2010.
Ponaryadov V.V. Medieval techniques for using a spear in equestrian combat according to Muslim military treatises of the 13th-15th centuries. // Military Archeology: Collection of materials of the Problem Council "Military Archeology" at the State Historical Museum. No. 3. - in the press.
Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Persians. War with vandals. Secret history. - M., 1993.
Prokopets S.D. A new type of design for the Jurchen helmet // Eighth Far Eastern Conference of Young Historians. Collection of materials. - Vladivostok, 2004.
Prokopets S.D. New finds of protective weapons from the Krasnoyarovsk settlement // Archeology, ethnology, paleoecology of Northern Eurasia and adjacent territories. Materials of the XLVII regional (III-th All-Russian international participation) archaeological and ethnographic conference of students and young scientists of Siberia and the Far East (Novosibirsk, April 3-7, 2007). - Novosibirsk, 2007.
Prokopets S.D. Reconstruction of the method of attaching armored plates in the armor of a Jurchen warrior // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. No. 1. - Vladivostok, 2009.
Prokopets S.D. Production and turnover of protective weapons among the Jurchens of Primorye // Bulletin of NGU. Series: History, Philology. T. 9. Issue. 3. - Novosibirsk, 2010.
Rayid-ad-Din. Collection of annals. T. 1. Book. 1M.; D., 1952.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 1. Book. 2. - M.; L., 1952.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 2. - M.; L., 1960.
Rashid al-Din. Collection of annals. T. 3. - M.; L., 1946.
Ricoldo de Monte Croce. Journey through the Holy Land // Book of wanderings. - M., 2006.
Surovtsov M.N. On the dominion of the Khitans in Central Asia: a historical and political review of the activities of the Khitans from the initial news of the appearance of the people and the founding of the Liao dynasty by them - until the fall of this latter in the West // History of the Iron Empire. - Novosibirsk, 2007.
Usama ibn Munkiz. Book of Edification. - M., 1958.
Thomas of Split History of the Archbishops of Salona and Split. - M., 1997.
Hogolboon Lhagasuren. Medieval burials of the Mongols (XII-XIV centuries) / Dissertation ... cand. ist. Sciences. - M., 1994 // Archive of the IA RAS, No. R-2/2557.
Khrapachevsky R.P. Golden Horde in the sources. T.III. Chinese and Mongolian sources. - M., 2009.
Khrapachevsky R.P. The armies of the Mongols during the conquest of Ancient Rus'. - M., 2011.
Khudyakov Yu.S. Tips of spears and "palm trees" from medieval sites of the Baikal, Transbaikalia and Mongolia // Archaeological monuments of the Middle Ages in Buryatia and Mongolia. - Novosibirsk, 1992.
Tsalkin V.I. Pets of the Golden Horde // Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Department of Biology. T. LXXII (1). - M., 1967.
Tsulaya G.V. Georgian book legend about Genghis Khan // Soviet ethnography. - No. 5. - M., 1973.
Shavkunov V.E. Armament of the Jurchens in the 12th-13th centuries. - Vladivostok, 1993.
Shavkunov V.E. On the issue of the protective armor of the Jurchens of Primorye // Asia-Pacific Region: Archeology. Ethnography. Story. - Vladivostok, 2008.
Shavkunov V.E., Mezentsev A.L. Jurchen helmet // Local history bulletin. Issue. I, Vladivostok, 1993.
Shihab ad-Din Muhammad an-Nasawi. Biography of Sultan Jalal ad-Din Mankburna. - Baku, 1979.
Yurchenko A.G. Christendom and the "Great Mongol Empire" (Materials of the Franciscan mission of 1245). - St. Petersburg, 2002.
Bedrosian R. Het'um the Historian "s: "History of the Tartars" -http://rbedrosian.com/hetumtoc.html
Erdenebat Ulambayar Altmongolisches Grabbrauchtum: Archaologisch-historische Untersuchungen zu den mongolischen Grabfunden des 11. bis 17. Jahrhunderts in der Mongolei: Katalog der Grabfunde. - Bonn. 2009. Dissertation PhD. // Der Philosophischen Fakultat der Rheinischen Friedrich - Wilhelms - Universitat zu Bonn.
Mecherzynski K. Jana Dlugosza kanonika krakowskiego Dziejdw polskich ksiqg dwanaicie. T. II. Ks.V-VIll. - Krak6w, 1868.
Semkowicz A. Krytyczny rozbi6r Dziej6w Polskich Jana Dlugosza (do roku 1384). - Krakow, 1887.
Strakosch-Grassmann G. Der Einfall der Mongolen in Mitteleuropa in den Jahren 1241 und 1242. -Innsbruck, 1893.

The invention of the bow, ancient throwing weapons long-range, completely overturned pre-existing ideas about hunting and war. At first glance, this is a very simple weapon in its design. But over the millennia of its history, the bow has been repeatedly improved, going from an ordinary wooden stick with a bowstring to a rather complex device made of various materials.

Appearance and development

The principle of the bow is very simple. A flexible stick bent in an arc tends to straighten. If its ends are pulled together with a bowstring, then when straightened, it imparts energy to the arrow, sufficient to make it fly at a distance significantly exceeding the throwing range of the dart.

According to their design, bows are divided into:

simple, consisting of a single piece of wood;
reinforced, in which a solid wooden base is reinforced in certain places with overlays made of plates of wood, horn or bone;
complex, in which the bow shaft consists of more than one layer of material, and the wooden base is a piece that is solid along the entire length of the bow;
composite, in which the bow shaft is assembled from several short parts made of various materials, each of which is characterized by special physical properties.

The technology for manufacturing reinforced and composite bows appeared in ancient times in the Middle East, where there was always an acute shortage of high-quality wood. The nomads from the Great Steppe, for their part, very early began to experiment with the use of various materials in the design of the bow and achieved significant success in this search.

Image of Amazons shooting Scythian bows

In the era of classical antiquity, a small Σ-shaped double-curved "Scythian" bow became widespread. Images of the "Scythian bow" are presented on dozens, if not hundreds of monuments of art, from Southern Europe and the Middle East to Central Asia, and on all monuments it looks almost the same. Judging by these images, the length of the "Scythian" bow could vary on average from 60 to 110 cm, which made it possible to use it effectively both on foot and on horseback. Small in size, the "Scythian" bow was a very powerful weapon. According to an inscription from Olbia, Anaxagoras, the son of Dimagoras, shot from such a bow at a distance of 521 m.

Further development of production technologies led to the appearance first of the bow of the Kushan-Sasanid, and then the Hun type - larger and more powerful, parts of which were made from various types of wood, tendons and horn overlays. Alternating with the help of overlays on a wooden base, hard (horns and handle) and flexible (shoulders) parts of the bow, the steppe peoples achieved excellent results in archery.

Design

The study of the remains of bows and finds in the workshops where they were made make it possible to identify the design, material and recreate some of the preliminary operations for their manufacture.

At the first stage, the base of the bow, or kibit, was made of wood, to which the rest of the details were then attached. The wood for the base did not have to be particularly strong, since the elements made from it experienced minimal stress compared to other parts. Usually maple and birch were used as the material. The wooden base was first soaked in cold water for about two days, then steamed for about two hours, given it the necessary shape using wooden patterns, and finally dried for two weeks.

Parts of the wooden base of a composite bow

At the second stage, the ends of the bow were made. To make them as rigid as possible, they were reinforced on both sides with a pair of bone linings. Then the ends of the bow were attached to the base at an angle, the junction was wrapped with leather thread, and the whole structure was left in a warm and dry room for about a year.

At the next stage of production, parts made from horn were glued to the inside of the wooden base of the bow. When pulled, the bow is subjected to loads that are different in its different parts. Outer side the bow experienced deformation in tension, the internal one in compression. Compared to wood, which deforms at only 1 percent compression, the horn shrinks 4 percent before deforming. To achieve this result, a force of approximately 13 kg/mm2 should be applied. In addition, the horn quickly returns to its original shape after the force acting on it is removed.

For the manufacture of bows, the horns of a buffalo, a long-horned bull or a mountain goat were best suited. During processing, the horn was first cut to the required length. Then, if it was bent, it was steamed and straightened, keeping it in a special wooden form. The surfaces of the materials in contact were processed with a serrated scraper, after which glue was applied to them, and the parts were firmly connected to each other. The resulting element was bent in the desired direction and dried in this form for two or more months.

At the last stage of production, the onion is bent forward with its horns and dried in this form for a year.

When the limbs of the bow were completely dry, tendons were attached to their outer side. This material is characterized by increased strength with a tensile force of about 20 kg/mm2. For the manufacture of bows, the dorsal tendons of a cow or deer were used, which were dried and then kneaded.

The tendons were attached to the wooden base with glue, which was boiled from dried fish bladders. Such glue was more moisture resistant and elastic than casein glue, which was boiled from animal skins and bones. Before gluing, the ends of the bow were tied, and it was pulled in the opposite direction. On the basis as possible more once the adhesive composition was applied, then the tendons were glued. All this was dried, and the bow was tightened even more, then another part of the tendon fibers was attached, and so on until the ends of the shoulders were connected. Ultimately, the weight of the tendons was up to half of the total mass of the bow. When the process was completed, the master pulled the bow into a ring and left it to dry for another year.

A quiver for arrows and a saadaq of a Turkish bow from the 17th–18th centuries

After the glue had completely dried, the bow was covered with strips of boiled birch bark or thin leather to protect it from moisture, and they could also be varnished and painted. The entire process of making a bow took the master from one to three years, and individual parts had to be made at a certain time of the year.

The result of these painstaking efforts was an unusually flexible and powerful bow. Without a bowstring, it had a reverse curvature, the tendons were very tense. Such a bow resisted tension from the very first millimeters. With the bow fully drawn, the limbs curved outward and acted as levers, bringing the tension of the bowstring to its maximum. When tensioned, the horn worked in compression, and the tendon worked in tension. Both materials sought to return to their original state and increased the power of the bow and the energy it imparted to the bowstring. In addition, due to the greater flexibility of the composite bow, it was possible to draw very strongly without the risk of breaking it. This further increased the energy of the bow and the initial speed of the arrow.

A quiver with arrows and a saadaq, Russian production of the 17th century

When compared with a simple, composite bow, it had significantly greater strength and durability, which allowed it to serve its owner for several decades. The fact is that a simple bow is rather short-lived. In a stressed state, the tree quickly lost its elasticity and deformed, so that the bowstring was pulled on the bow only immediately before the battle.

Composite bow could for a long time be in a tense state without the risk of losing their properties. On a campaign, this made it possible to wear it almost constantly in a combat-ready state, although, of course, during long-term storage, the bowstring was removed from such bows. In battle, a drawn bow was usually carried in a saadaq, a flat triangular-shaped case. Saadak was hung on the left on the same belt on which they wore a quiver with arrows.

Composite bow loose, with string drawn and in position before firing

bowstring

The bowstring, when pulling the bow, experienced a huge rupture load, so the technology for making it was as important as the technology for making the bow itself. As a rule, bowstrings were made from linen, cotton or silk yarn, as well as from sheep's intestines dressed in a special way. The strongest bowstrings consisted of about 60 twisted fibers and were up to 3 mm thick.

Archers always carried one or more pieces in reserve, including special types of bowstrings designed for certain weather conditions. For example, a horsehair bowstring was good in frosty weather, but, unlike a bowstring made of leather or tendon, it easily absorbed moisture and stretched. For fastening to a bow, the bowstring was tied at each end with a complex knot with the formation of a separate loop from a strong and tightly twisted tendon. This method of fastening prevented its wear. The ends of the string were inserted into special notches on the bone horns of the bow.

Various techniques for tying a bowstring and the method of attaching it to the ends of the bow horns

To draw the string of a powerful compound bow, the shooter needed to apply a force equivalent to 50-75 kg. It required a lot muscle strength and constant training. According to Eastern treatises on archery, the tension could be carried out in one of three ways. Pulling the bow with a “jerk”, the shooter raised his hands up, then lowered them down, simultaneously spreading them to the sides: pulling the bow, aiming at the target and shooting were carried out in one continuous movement. When “holding”, the bow was smoothly pulled, followed by a pause for aiming and a shot. By “deception”, the bow was pulled halfway, then a pause was made and a “jerk” shot followed.

The Mongols pulled the string with the thumb. At the same time, the arrow was placed to the right of the bow, which made it possible to avoid injury to the forearm in case of careless or inept handling of weapons. In addition, such a grip did not lead to an overstrain of the hand, which is important when drawing a tight compound bow. For ease of pulling the string on thumb put on a bone or horn ring. The descent of the bowstring was made by a small smooth ledge, the so-called "ring lip". As a result, the load on the hand was reduced, and the shot itself took place smoothly and without jerks.

Various types bowstring capture: 1 - Persian; 2 - European; 3 - Mongolian

In Western Europe and in Rus', the bowstring was pulled with the index and ring fingers, and the arrow was held between the index and middle fingers. In this case, the arrow was located to the left of the bow, so the left forearm was easily injured in case of careless or inept handling of weapons.

Arrows

Arrows for a bow could be reed, reed, birch, poplar, walnut, willow. From poplar they made heavy arrows for close combat, from willow - light arrows for shooting at extreme distances. Cane arrows had the longest range, but they were the most fragile and quickly broke. To straighten a wooden shaft blank, it was heated over a fire and leveled by hand. The length of the arrow was equal to the distance from the shoulder to the end of the middle finger, or from the armpit to the end of the middle finger, or from the elbow to the other elbow, if the fists were pressed against each other. The arrow had a plumage of two or four feathers connected so that it twisted slightly in flight. Feathers of geese, swans, owls and other large birds were used for plumage. Sometimes plumage could be made from thin sheets of parchment.

Arrows and their tips of various types

Arrowheads come in various sizes and shapes. The socketed tips were attached to the shaft with a metal sleeve, the petiolate ones were inserted into the tip of the shaft with a thin spike and secured in place with glue and tendon fibers. The latter greatly outnumbered the others. Arrows were carried in a cylindrical quiver, made of wood, birch bark and leather. The quiver could hold about 20 arrows. Steppe nomads, as a rule, carried arrows with the tip up, so that the archer could choose the type of arrow he needed by touch. To prevent the plumage of arrows from wrinkling in the quiver, its lower part was made wider than the upper one.

Application

The composite bow was a formidable weapon capable of hitting the enemy at a great distance. In terms of firing range, it was a third superior to a simple bow, being able to send arrows to a distance of 375 meters and even further. However, the effective range of the composite bow was 175 meters, and the effective range was from 50 to 75 meters. At this distance, the arrow pierced chain mail. A well-trained archer at this distance can hit the center of a target about a meter in diameter.

Indo-Iranian archer, 17th century

At greater distances, shooting was carried out "in the squares" and for "harassing fire", forcing the enemy to stay at a considerable distance. With an increase in distance and shooting "in areas", the effectiveness of the shelling decreased. When conducting staged experiments, an experienced archer at a distance of 90–270 meters accurately hit a target 45 meters along the front and 18 meters in depth, imitating a detachment. At a distance of 300 meters and beyond, the percentage of hits fell by half.

A study of the sources shows that when firing at accumulations of enemy manpower, horse archers fired from a long distance in a volley, sending arrows with great frequency, almost without aiming. The rain of arrows falling from the sky produced a strong psychological effect on the enemy and inflicted significant losses on him. By maintaining a high rate of fire for some time, they tried to force the enemy to counterattack in a position that was unfavorable for him, or to retreat.

Turkish archer in a 17th century miniature

The individual training of archers was very high. Professional archers were able to shoot sitting in the saddle, standing on their feet and squatting. They knew how to throw an arrow over the fortress wall and let it go under the raised shields. At a normal pace, the archer had to fire 12 shots per minute, and if necessary, twice as much. It was expected that a well-trained rider, galloping, should be able to release five arrows while reducing the distance with the enemy from 30 to 5 meters. To maintain a high rate of fire, he kept the arrows ready in his left hand.

Literature:

Gorelik M.V. Weapons of the Ancient East (IV millennium BC - IV century BC). M.: Nauka, 1993. - 349 p.
Litvinsky B. A. Temple of Oxus in Bactria (Southern Tajikistan) in 3 volumes. V. 2: Bactrian weapons in the Ancient Eastern and Greek context. M.: Eastern Literature, 2001. - 528 p.
Medvedev A.F. Hand throwing weapons (bow and arrows, crossbow) VIII - XIV centuries. M.: Nauka, 1966. - 180 p.
Nikonorov V.P., Khudyakov Yu.S. Maodun's Whistling Arrows and Attila's "Sword of Mars": Warfare of Asian Xiongnu and European Huns. St. Petersburg, 2004. - 320 p.
Payne-Galloway R. Book of crossbows. History of medieval throwing weapons. M., 2007 - 415 p.
Shokarev Yu. V. History of weapons: Bows and crossbows. - M.: AST, 2006. - 176 p.