With such a short draw length, it seems rather like a hand drawn cross bow. The extensions would serve to keep the string away from your arm. My first thought was Crappy Artist - drew the bow backwards, but then Greek artists were top notch observers and would not have made such a rookie mistake.
To speculate, i think those smaller hooks may actually be recurves inside the decurves. the hooks at the tips could potentially counter the string angle disadvantage of the decurves. If they are meant to be string nocks, then there is way too much unnecessary mass beyond the nocks. So I don’t think the hooks at the tips were used to hold the string. You make some good points similar to the argument for the native american decurves you mention, but I disagree with your point that these decurves are providing leverage. Lever tips are a misnomer. What they do is give the string more mechanical advantage over the limb. Decurves result in a mechanical disadvantage, which is the opposite of what you’re saying. There aren’t any true levers in a bow. Great video. It’s awesome seeing someone explore this design
AT FIRST IT LOOKS LIKE THE BOW IS A FAIL> But when its un-strung if the limbs are straight or the pitch forward that would mean thats it's a brilliant design. It could work with a short or a long draw.
As a composite, the Hellenic style bow would have been easier to produce with the same practical results. The curve existed only to provide a brace height. I doubt the curved part contributed to power at all. But the straight flat most likely composite part would have been very powerful. It never occurred to me before this video, but I may try to make a flat bow with no curve at all and incorporate a rigid curved part attached just to provide a brace height. Should be interesting.
Bows at this time did not get over 100 ibs as far as I know. Before the hundred years war 70-80 ibs was the norm. Didn't need any more. When the hundred years arrived and armour like plate armour was the norm bows got massively heavier literally twice as heavy.
Clearly, not all archery is made the same, which is something that people just can't seem to wrap their heads around. "Effective" archery is not always defined by velocity, distance and power; it's defined by application. From what evidence we have, archery in the early Iron Age of Greece wasn't necessarily restricted to the realm of long distance fighting. It would seem that some archers (when accompanied by shield wielding javeliners) tended to fight at extremely close quarters, on top of fighting on high ground and in mountain passes and in the context of combined arms warfare and the limitations of access to certain materials, effective tactical application of archery is a very complicated equation. So is it the most efficient bow ever? Well if you define efficient simply by the hard factors listed above, then of course not, but it clearly didn't need to be. If you wanted to get superficial, English Longbows are technically not as effective as Turkish reflex bows, but that alone doesn't make them unusable and a bad idea like some people here seem to think about this bow. Self bows in general tend to suck actually, if your definition of good archery is about what a composite bow can do, but clearly cultures across the world still used self bows and longbows for varying reasons. On top of the idea that most bows and arrows no matter the efficiency often cant penetrate most kinds of armor anyway, but on the other hand neither do spears and swords! Yet nobody is doubting the idea that spears and swords were used on the battlefield. In either regards, I am very thankful that you're applying theory to experimental archaeology to a topic that is highly misunderstood. I've been dabbling in reconstructive efforts of Ancient Greek archery (aside from Byzantine Archery) and am wondering about how I could get my hands on a bow such as this one.
you can't possibly get a more ineffecient bow design. the only rationale I can think of that makes sense for this is that they didn't have good quality wood in the area. There are similarly deflexed bows that were built out of acacia or willow from the US I think. Either that or some artist drew the bow strung backwards and a bunch of others thought it looked cool and took to drawing the same thing.
I get that, but then we have to think about it as a means to an end. Easily constructed, reliable, and effective. At the time those may have been the priorities. I imagine the power inefficiency may have contributed to accuracy. I am gonna build one and see for myself. Think I will make mine out of a fiberglass rod.
I've read that this was precisely the reason for the early Hellenic deflex bows: low quality wood requiring the deflex in order to make the bows useable without excessive risk of breakage. Later, Hellenistic-era bows were Scythian and Persian-style composite weapons.
I'm sorry, I appreciate the passion behind this project, but I simply don't buy the idea that bows like this were ever used. Almost certainly the artists just didn't know anything about bows. Maybe they saw an unstrung recurve and simply didn't understand what they were looking at (you still sometimes see recurves strung backwards in museums today). The only alternative is that some bows like this really were built (maybe also made by people who didn't understand composite recurves), but there's no way they ever saw much successful use in war. They might have been tried, but they certainly would have failed, and there's a good reason why this design never caught on. This is the most inefficient possible design for a bow. A simple short, straight self bow with lower draw weight (like the native American ones you mention) would still be more effective that this. It doesn't matter how high the draw weight is when the design is so inefficient - the bow has to be able to actually transfer that stored energy into the arrow. Those heavy, slow, backwards siyahs more than negate any increased draw weight. Plus the power stroke is tiny, it barely looks like 10 inches, if that. I've seen crossbows with longer power strokes, and they have to have insanely high draw weights to compensate.
Congratulations , keep up the good work my friend you are the best !!!
Looks about as fast as a 20 pound bow. lots of close ups, no long range shots with you & the target in view.
With such a short draw length, it seems rather like a hand drawn cross bow. The extensions would serve to keep the string away from your arm. My first thought was Crappy Artist - drew the bow backwards, but then Greek artists were top notch observers and would not have made such a rookie mistake.
To speculate, i think those smaller hooks may actually be recurves inside the decurves. the hooks at the tips could potentially counter the string angle disadvantage of the decurves. If they are meant to be string nocks, then there is way too much unnecessary mass beyond the nocks. So I don’t think the hooks at the tips were used to hold the string.
You make some good points similar to the argument for the native american decurves you mention, but I disagree with your point that these decurves are providing leverage.
Lever tips are a misnomer. What they do is give the string more mechanical advantage over the limb. Decurves result in a mechanical disadvantage, which is the opposite of what you’re saying. There aren’t any true levers in a bow.
Great video. It’s awesome seeing someone explore this design
Αυτό είναι βιντεάρα!
AT FIRST IT LOOKS LIKE THE BOW IS A FAIL>
But when its un-strung if the limbs are straight or the pitch forward that would mean thats it's a brilliant design.
It could work with a short or a long draw.
As a composite, the Hellenic style bow would have been easier to produce with the same practical results. The curve existed only to provide a brace height. I doubt the curved part contributed to power at all. But the straight flat most likely composite part would have been very powerful. It never occurred to me before this video, but I may try to make a flat bow with no curve at all and incorporate a rigid curved part attached just to provide a brace height. Should be interesting.
Bows at this time did not get over 100 ibs as far as I know. Before the hundred years war 70-80 ibs was the norm. Didn't need any more. When the hundred years arrived and armour like plate armour was the norm bows got massively heavier literally twice as heavy.
Clearly, not all archery is made the same, which is something that people just can't seem to wrap their heads around. "Effective" archery is not always defined by velocity, distance and power; it's defined by application. From what evidence we have, archery in the early Iron Age of Greece wasn't necessarily restricted to the realm of long distance fighting. It would seem that some archers (when accompanied by shield wielding javeliners) tended to fight at extremely close quarters, on top of fighting on high ground and in mountain passes and in the context of combined arms warfare and the limitations of access to certain materials, effective tactical application of archery is a very complicated equation.
So is it the most efficient bow ever? Well if you define efficient simply by the hard factors listed above, then of course not, but it clearly didn't need to be. If you wanted to get superficial, English Longbows are technically not as effective as Turkish reflex bows, but that alone doesn't make them unusable and a bad idea like some people here seem to think about this bow. Self bows in general tend to suck actually, if your definition of good archery is about what a composite bow can do, but clearly cultures across the world still used self bows and longbows for varying reasons. On top of the idea that most bows and arrows no matter the efficiency often cant penetrate most kinds of armor anyway, but on the other hand neither do spears and swords! Yet nobody is doubting the idea that spears and swords were used on the battlefield.
In either regards, I am very thankful that you're applying theory to experimental archaeology to a topic that is highly misunderstood. I've been dabbling in reconstructive efforts of Ancient Greek archery (aside from Byzantine Archery) and am wondering about how I could get my hands on a bow such as this one.
This will piss people off
you can't possibly get a more ineffecient bow design. the only rationale I can think of that makes sense for this is that they didn't have good quality wood in the area. There are similarly deflexed bows that were built out of acacia or willow from the US I think. Either that or some artist drew the bow strung backwards and a bunch of others thought it looked cool and took to drawing the same thing.
I get that, but then we have to think about it as a means to an end. Easily constructed, reliable, and effective. At the time those may have been the priorities. I imagine the power inefficiency may have contributed to accuracy. I am gonna build one and see for myself. Think I will make mine out of a fiberglass rod.
I've read that this was precisely the reason for the early Hellenic deflex bows: low quality wood requiring the deflex in order to make the bows useable without excessive risk of breakage. Later, Hellenistic-era bows were Scythian and Persian-style composite weapons.
I'm sorry, I appreciate the passion behind this project, but I simply don't buy the idea that bows like this were ever used.
Almost certainly the artists just didn't know anything about bows. Maybe they saw an unstrung recurve and simply didn't understand what they were looking at (you still sometimes see recurves strung backwards in museums today).
The only alternative is that some bows like this really were built (maybe also made by people who didn't understand composite recurves), but there's no way they ever saw much successful use in war. They might have been tried, but they certainly would have failed, and there's a good reason why this design never caught on.
This is the most inefficient possible design for a bow. A simple short, straight self bow with lower draw weight (like the native American ones you mention) would still be more effective that this. It doesn't matter how high the draw weight is when the design is so inefficient - the bow has to be able to actually transfer that stored energy into the arrow. Those heavy, slow, backwards siyahs more than negate any increased draw weight. Plus the power stroke is tiny, it barely looks like 10 inches, if that. I've seen crossbows with longer power strokes, and they have to have insanely high draw weights to compensate.