Much appreciate it. I would say your updated bow shape typology is underrated itself. It really helped me to narrow down and analyze what I was seeing.
I think the second Minoan bow (seal from Mallia) is not a reflex-deflex but what some call a "gull-wing" bow. In an unstrung state, its limbs are in fact slightly reflexed, in a shape of very shallow letter V. This same kind of bow is also present on early Bronze Age Chemurchek stelae in Mongolia and was possibly used by Celts according to one recent reconstruction. It was used much later by Athapascans in N America as well.
I have heard that one of the possible reasons that the Cretans in Xenophon's Anabasis had a shorter range in that engagement could be due to them using primarily arrows with very heavy heads. Not that much further in the text. Xenophon mentions that the Cretans were able to source arrows from the Persians and that they "practiced themselves in long-range work by shooting them into the air." which suggests that they expected these arrows to be able reach out to a longer range.
It could easily be both. If arrows had heavier heads on them, it would mostly affect launch trajectory and stability depending on how the shaft is made to accomodate a heavier head. Of course, they would also try to practice 'long-range work' but that itself also implies that they were initially not 'long range' missile fighters, but accustomed to shorter ranges anyways, and the technology of bows reflect that, but really we'd just be talking in circles about it, there's no true certainty to it.
That’s a good analysis. In any case, groupings like “Scythian” lived as a ‘comitatus’ and not as a racial group. Your comment that in warfare, the concept of bows as a threat rather than as an assault weapon is entirely correct - especially bearing in mind that arrows were tipped with poison (toxon/toxic).
To threaten is the purpose of all weapons, really. Arrows rarely kill, only if they hit a vital area like the torso and forehead, which were mostly covered by helmets and shields anyways, hence the practicality of poisons. Even then, getting shot at by an arrow which lands a hit, even if it doesn't pierce holds a psychological effect in that it's generally still not pleasant.
Great work! Such a underrated subject
Much appreciate it. I would say your updated bow shape typology is underrated itself. It really helped me to narrow down and analyze what I was seeing.
Great presentation! I apreciate your style and citations/mentions of sources.
I think the second Minoan bow (seal from Mallia) is not a reflex-deflex but what some call a "gull-wing" bow. In an unstrung state, its limbs are in fact slightly reflexed, in a shape of very shallow letter V. This same kind of bow is also present on early Bronze Age Chemurchek stelae in Mongolia and was possibly used by Celts according to one recent reconstruction. It was used much later by Athapascans in N America as well.
I have heard that one of the possible reasons that the Cretans in Xenophon's Anabasis had a shorter range in that engagement could be due to them using primarily arrows with very heavy heads.
Not that much further in the text. Xenophon mentions that the Cretans were able to source arrows from the Persians and that they "practiced themselves in long-range work by shooting them into the air." which suggests that they expected these arrows to be able reach out to a longer range.
It could easily be both. If arrows had heavier heads on them, it would mostly affect launch trajectory and stability depending on how the shaft is made to accomodate a heavier head. Of course, they would also try to practice 'long-range work' but that itself also implies that they were initially not 'long range' missile fighters, but accustomed to shorter ranges anyways, and the technology of bows reflect that, but really we'd just be talking in circles about it, there's no true certainty to it.
That’s a good analysis. In any case, groupings like “Scythian” lived as a ‘comitatus’ and not as a racial group. Your comment that in warfare, the concept of bows as a threat rather than as an assault weapon is entirely correct - especially bearing in mind that arrows were tipped with poison (toxon/toxic).
To threaten is the purpose of all weapons, really. Arrows rarely kill, only if they hit a vital area like the torso and forehead, which were mostly covered by helmets and shields anyways, hence the practicality of poisons. Even then, getting shot at by an arrow which lands a hit, even if it doesn't pierce holds a psychological effect in that it's generally still not pleasant.