This is a classification system for the side view of a bow. More classifications should be considered. For example, West European bows are mainly "straight bows". The side view is not enough to classify them. The front view of Holmegaard bow, Meare Heath Bow, Mary-Rose bow, and Oberflacht bows are all straight bows, but they are different in other profile views. Other views are not selected here because this is a classification based only on the side view. There is no universal classification. Just like when you organize your folders you can choose based on size, name, date, etc but you cannot choose two simultaneously
His classification describe shape first then string contact or not. Also yumi has static like tips. So it should be reflex straight reflex with static tips with string contact
What a great idea, it would be interesting to look at those types with in there geographic and historical context. And to see if or how some of those design concepts interelate.
I found that this ocvers almost all the historical bows, missing as the only big one the Yumi and Kyudo bows for good reason. The major Bow I have seen you missed it even in talking about the Penobscot Bow or the Ancient lever bow/adjustable weight bow. There was some tribe in the USA/North America that used a bow in the Penobscot design, I think? The one historical bow I find the coolest is this bow from South America that used the ram/mountain goat horns and part of the skull in middle to make actually tested 60--90 pound reflex deflex nearly touching limb bows or in modern language a nearly recurve bow. They had limited wood in the Andie's, so they used bows of this material from the horns. I saw this in a documentary in the early 2000's that had some of the last of the people living the way the people of the Andie's did in pre European contact with the great Aztec culture. They hunted several different animals just fine with them in that segment, with the most interesting being a type of South American Vulture how they took that from the sky.
Well done, Jack. It is great to see your hard work in trying to sort out the bow shapes finally being published in a video. I think it will be quite useful. And as you and others indicated, it can be expanded to include front view, materials, etc. I like the possibility to further include a short-hand connotation as well (e.g., like the Oakeshott sword system). - You developed a system which has great potential to be used. I am looking forward to seeing it applied by others.
Good work. I like it a lot. I have just some suggestions. 1) Better visual representation. String lenght should keep same lenght in full draw. 2) List of cultures (including period) wich used them. It doesn't have to be complete list and it could be done with help of others. It is very well thought out, but to be accepted and used as source it has to be presented in very clean way and also needs to be evolution of current classification model (wich is cultural). You know, if you find your currently used terms in there (Korean Bow, Manchu Bow, Medieval Mongol Bow, English Longbow) you would like it much more.
So a Qum Darya-Type ("Hunnic") bow would be an Asymmetric Reflex Straight with Static Tips and String Contact? Or an Asymmetric Reflex Deflex Reflex with String Contact and Static Tips?
Useful classification. A suggestion for simplifying the shooting style's, on the bow hand specify arrow on thumb/hand. So you can have thumb draw, arrow over thumb/thumb draw arrow over hand. 3 finger, hand etc etc.
Excellent! This classification makes good sense. I naturally tended towards a similar nomenclature. I'm sure many other people tend towards this type of classification without thinking it through as well as you have. Dropping the recurve description is very valid.
Your classification reminds me of the one in the book "Traditional Archery from Six Continents" by Grayson, Charles E.; French, Mary; O'Brien, Michael J. figure 1.3 on page 5. I like your more detailed mention of the tips by string contact but think there could be even more description of the tips - straight, reflexed, deflexed, recurved, decurved, working, static, with pad, bridg, string grooves ... . I don't like your replacement of the term recurve with a second reflex as it is very descriptive of the shape of the limb between the handle and the tips and reflex is already taken by the direction of the limb in relation to the handle. Also the shape from the front (straight, tapered, pyramidal) can be a mayor aspect and I think it would need to be included in a classification as well as the handle (front, center, back, arrow pass, handedness). I guess the hard part is to decide the cutoff between classification and description and can vary depending on motivation and audience.
Maybe using the terms like a toolbox it would be better to write out the combinations and assign index numbers. This way the classification of bows would be more like the oakeshott classification of swords and would be a lot quicker to write. Type I-I-I vs. plain stickbow with no handle Type II-IV-V vs. Bow with handle on belly without arrow pass, reflexed recurved lightly tapered limbs, working recurved tips with pad Type II-II/I-i vs. asymmetrical bow with recurved top limb and straight bottom limb
yes, i see similarities but only after some folks mentioned to me the book. i didnt realize this book exisited until after i made mine. It is sad that their classification was never adopted in mainstream use. Regarding my original classification, it has the words recurve and decruve. all you have to do is replace the words "with string contact" with recurve and you get the original version. the word reflex and deflex is based on the math terms not the archery terms (A reflex angle is any angle that is more than 180 degrees (half circle) and less than 360 degrees (full circle). The recurve word is almost exclusively used for archery. thanks for the input on the tapered and pyramidal terms, these can be included. so an egyptian bow can be replaced with pyramidal instead of deflex for the first word, or angular. my classificaiton has this kind of flexibility. arrow pass, handedness, front and center are features that can be added as well, but it would very much complicate the system. the one i introduced is as simple as possible so that it can reach out to a wider audience without being overwhelmed. feel free to modify my classification.
This table is amazing! I have started on an overview for my bows and needed to classify them. Most of them are ‚Reflex‘ 😁 So I will use this classification system to distinguish. It needs a bit of practice to name the classes fluently 😄 Thank you so much, dear Jack! That was much work and shows your passion! ☺️🙏
It looks like a really good classification system, The only thing you might add is a som of the Native Americans made a big bow with a smaller bow on the back which might be called a double bow, but I don’t know what to call them, so they need to be classified so I know what to call them, I really like your classification because it makes perfect sense and it’s easy to see from the side view
I’m a long time compound shooter with a couple PSE 40” Citations for target and two PSE EVL 34’s for hunting and I keep coming back wanting to look into others such as the Mongolian style bows and have learned a lot from your videos.
@@HistoricalWeapons Yep thanks, I am happy I could help by adding in some types of Static tipped flat bows on reddit with the discussion on the bows, as some cultures did make them with some still being made today.
For a technical classification this system is great, but for convenience's sake I'd probably still expect the ethnic classification to be more practical for most people.
@@HistoricalWeapons Do you mean a synonym with less relation to prejudice? Probably something like "style" "conventional", "generalized". Like "the conventional shape of an Ottoman bow..."
@@HistoricalWeapons Use the Full word of Manchurian bow to describe that, a Mongolian and era of bow that we are talking about, and so on do not use things like Crab bow without the words Mogul or Korean Crab bow for that type as there are several types of the bow using same name in different styles.
Good video, these things need to be cleared up. I've seen some videos by well known bowmakers where the description goes against the traditional convention. IE. they describe a reflex deflex bow which is actually a "deflex" "reflex" bow. We all need to be on the same page with this. Starting from the handle and moving outwards has always been the standard way. We should , for instance , be able to describe a bow over the phone and instantly get the picture. Well done.
thanks, i think as long as convention is specified before an academic discussion, then it is appropriate. for colloquial use in conversation it can be confusing. but these occur everywhere in classifying any object, in fact we still cant decide which side of the road to drive on, or if its Celsius or Farenheit
I had an indian bow from the surinam alalaparu and an indian bow from the mexican wuahaka ( don t know if the spelling is right) and they were straight and did not have any pre strong rope,so the rope(they used that) hung loose around the bowtips. They were good bows but kinda simple...I do not see these in your roster please look in these simple indian bows.
@@HistoricalWeapons they were completely straight...the surinam bow was 1.90 meters and the mecican around 60 centimeter,it was used to shoot plants...I was told. Both of them were very good bows but the mexican was flat and very primitive the surinam was beautiful wood and there are pics from that kind of bow if you would look for them....indigenous population of surinam.
@@kristandevries4835 if they are completely straight then they are simply straight bows in this classification. I might make one based on culture in the future
I wonder if you could shorten the names by using a notation system A for *A*ssymetric S for *S*traight D for *D*eflex R for *R*eflex s for Static Tips (*S*tatic) c for String Contact (*C*ontact) That way the "Reflex Deflex Reflex with static tips with string contact" would just be "RDR sc"
Technically a typology & not a ''classification''! Your not the 1st to use this model of side view typology but it is the most comprehensive one I have seen while simple to read. It's quiet well done.
What this is called specifically is (Bow shape typology). Seems a tad pedantic on my part but it might help you to make a future more complete catalogue of (Bow shape typology) as I'm impressed you managed to make this while not knowing it existed. I look forward to see what you may add in this topic. Kind regards!
@@HistoricalWeapons Do you have a link you are unworried about sharing on UA-cam or is there one in you account description . I will look . I will send a link to dr Roland Bohr he is a professor at u of w . He’s best source of advice
Hey Jack . This idea might be worth looking at publishing an article . Dr bohr at u of w . Would be better positioned to advise how to do that . Though I doubt anything would be done any time soon . Publishing acedemic studies seems very slow moving . And finding a sponsor . But being an engineer might give you a perspective That intrigues anthropologists
Very interesting. At 5:00 you mention that most asiatic bows are somewhat asymmetric to accommodate a higher nocking point. My question (being new to all this) is: Why do they have a higher nocking point? Thanks.
Very difficult to classify all bows since have been used by almost all cultures in human history. I would like to share your work (naming the author properly) on my "Archery Research Centre" network if you agree. Great job!
I do like your system, except that I prefer to keep the term recurve for the tips. I would go handle--straight, deflex or reflex. Limb--straight, deflex or reflex. Tip--working recurve or static recurve, with or without string contact. I don't find 'recurve' to be a modern term. It seems to me that it would predate 'reflex' and 'deflex'.
This classification system makes lots of sense but is quite a mouthful for some of the designs. A potential way to implement this system would be like how animals have both a latin name and a common name. So each bow type would still be called its common name in casual conversation, but listed as your classifications in more official contexts
thanks for your input, i have no intention to implement this classification in colloquial conversational use. it is for people interested to study bows in the academic world, who want to be specific. for regular everyday use, Horsebow word is fine.
its difficult to say, for max distance id say the bottom right one is, for extremely light arrows. for heavy arrows id say the manchu one. for most efficient resources id say the d longbow
Hi man! Love your vids. I've got a question; I'm been looking for a small asiatic horsebow that looks precisely like either the reflex deflex reflex w/string contact or the reflex reflex as shown in your handy classification image. Are there any bows like this on the market? Small, 20-30ish lbs draw weight at an acceptable price? Again, your videos continue to feed my horse archery addiction, love em', thanks.
Which one is the horsebow? Just kidding... Previous efforts have focused on construction and/or materials. Other's origin or use. Shape is yet another. Lots of overlap. What _is_ a Hill style longbow with recurved tips, sinew back, and horn face? What if I add siyahs (contact or not)... could follow biology with kingdom, phyla, group, order, family, and genus? Then again, a Chihuahua and Great Dane are both Canis Familiaris and look how different they are.
there is NO universal classification that fits all. this one is based on side profile, not material. i think jack will make more vids on other classifications such as material, cross section, and culture.
I really enjoyed this video! I do have one question though. Do these types all apply on both short and long bows? Which are those that only apply to one or the other?
Good attempt mate. very limiting though. But to be honest, there is no perfect way to classify the bow types. You also have construction types and cross sections to take into account, which really do make a big difference in the type of bow. For example, the straight bow, describes the medieval English long bow, the Victorian English long bow, the American long bow (flat bow) and others, and yet they are all very different in construction and cross section. But I do get were you are coming from and appreciate what you are trying to do and think you did a pretty good job.
In that new movie "prey", the Amerinds draw with hand completely backwards. Seems like a good way to draw farther back like thumb draw but with 3 fingers.
I don't fully understand the concept of string contact... From what I know of Yumi, the only contact point of the string and the wood is at the knots. But I do not think this is what you meant.
Cool,video i use a simple boot lace leather pouch,about 26-28" long,hold above head pouch in one hand, 3/4 swing. Extremely Accurate at 60 feet, maybe not so strong as long ones.
This isn't to take anything away from the accomplishments but I remember envisaging 90% of this in my head at about the age of 10. This isn't too say I'm some super brain hominid, merely that it's not just obvious, it's actually really fucking intuitive and it's honestly baffled me how we still classify based on culture. It's always just seemed very lazy and deliberately inefficient for the sake of providing convenience to people of very little knowledge on the subject that likely aren't even that interested anyway. So why do we do it? Why has it persisted?
Paddle limb self bows, like all the examples found in the Pacific Northwest? They were short with short draw lengths but relatively high draw weights. This was achieved despite the paddle limbs being soooo thin because the paddle shape, the rectangular cross section and the fact that most native bowyers of the PNW would actually counter brace the bow when they were almost done tillering and let it sit strung in the opposite direction for about three months. Then they would finish tiller and apply 3 or 4 thick layers of sinew, relying more on the woods memory of it's time counter braced and the gargantuan amount of sinew to provide the super thin limbed bow durability and a high draw weight. Despite being so short they were not used much on horseback as the tribe to the Pacific Northwest weren't horseman. The shortness of the bow was needed in the thick vegetation. The short draw length allowed the Archer to have a dynamic fluid anchor point and they often cantedf the bow anywhere from 45° to completely sideways
thanks for the comment, yes these are fascinating bows but what is the side profile? my classification here specifically is side profile. i can make a classificaiton on cross section another day.
@@HistoricalWeaponsI'd recommend picking it up. Mike's a very entertaining author. And the book is very detailed. Lots of pictures and colourful imagery. It's one of those books that makes you want to put it down and go shooting immediately lol
Imagine a very curvy bow and this dude naming it "The Reflex Deflex Reflex Deflex Reflex Deflex Reflex Deflex Bow". Good and intertaining video but I would make this a littlebit more clear and just name all of this variants with a name not longer than 2 words cuz oh mom it's bad for the ears in some case.
The classification you call "your classification" is on the internet for many years already. I printed exactly these drawings for my information materials long time ago. So whats the sense about doing that?
i drew those drawings myself with the exception of the first 6, which is originally from callum-blees, and i received permission by him. the classification by the original drawings are different, it does not specify asymmetry, does not specify static tips, and does not specify with string contact. it also uses recurve and decurve.
well done and it makes sense and its about time that somebody does this. I hope we will find soon a standard classification for the bows. Thank you
thanks for watching and feel free to use my classification if your interested
omg its armin
@@HistoricalWeapons what's up bowmaster.. I've never seen any evidence of long bows in Asia? You?
@@tonymaurice4157 plenty, if you mean a long wood bow. Does not need the same horn style as English
@@HistoricalWeapons I've never seen any in Asia. Mulberry and elm but they seem to be under 60 inches
This is a classification system for the side view of a bow. More classifications should be considered. For example, West European bows are mainly "straight bows". The side view is not enough to classify them. The front view of Holmegaard bow, Meare Heath Bow, Mary-Rose bow, and Oberflacht bows are all straight bows, but they are different in other profile views. Other views are not selected here because this is a classification based only on the side view. There is no universal classification. Just like when you organize your folders you can choose based on size, name, date, etc but you cannot choose two simultaneously
Makes sense
Good work
What about compass bows?
Fabulous Video. You have really thought the subject out. An item for your consideration about the yumi: reflex with string contact, straight, deflex.
His classification describe shape first then string contact or not. Also yumi has static like tips. So it should be reflex straight reflex with static tips with string contact
thanks for watching! i think yumi depends a lot on what century of yumi
I was just looking for this kind of video! Thanks Jack!
glad you found it helpful
Very well done. Comprehensive and straight forward. I hope it catches on 😁
thanks for the feedback
This deserves a lot more views man. We need to share it
Thanks for watching
great video Jack. thank you for sharing your terminology on this subject. it is very interesting to learn about this.
What a great idea, it would be interesting to look at those types with in there geographic and historical context. And to see if or how some of those design concepts interelate.
thanks max for watching
Good job Jack
thanks for watching
I found that this ocvers almost all the historical bows, missing as the only big one the Yumi and Kyudo bows for good reason. The major Bow I have seen you missed it even in talking about the Penobscot Bow or the Ancient lever bow/adjustable weight bow. There was some tribe in the USA/North America that used a bow in the Penobscot design, I think?
The one historical bow I find the coolest is this bow from South America that used the ram/mountain goat horns and part of the skull in middle to make actually tested 60--90 pound reflex deflex nearly touching limb bows or in modern language a nearly recurve bow. They had limited wood in the Andie's, so they used bows of this material from the horns. I saw this in a documentary in the early 2000's that had some of the last of the people living the way the people of the Andie's did in pre European contact with the great Aztec culture. They hunted several different animals just fine with them in that segment, with the most interesting being a type of South American Vulture how they took that from the sky.
Thanks for watching! Making South American bows soon
Seems like a great way to classify bows.
thanks for watching!
Well done, Jack. It is great to see your hard work in trying to sort out the bow shapes finally being published in a video. I think it will be quite useful. And as you and others indicated, it can be expanded to include front view, materials, etc. I like the possibility to further include a short-hand connotation as well (e.g., like the Oakeshott sword system). - You developed a system which has great potential to be used. I am looking forward to seeing it applied by others.
Thanks for the feedback
I totally agree. The archery world has needed this for a long time.
This is such valuable information, so comprehensive! Thank you so much for sharing your system of classification
Glad it was helpful!
Extremely valuable work and video ! Thanks for sharing !
thanks for watching
Good work. I like it a lot. I have just some suggestions.
1) Better visual representation. String lenght should keep same lenght in full draw.
2) List of cultures (including period) wich used them. It doesn't have to be complete list and it could be done with help of others.
It is very well thought out, but to be accepted and used as source it has to be presented in very clean way and also needs to be evolution of current classification model (wich is cultural). You know, if you find your currently used terms in there (Korean Bow, Manchu Bow, Medieval Mongol Bow, English Longbow) you would like it much more.
Thanks for the feedback
So a Qum Darya-Type ("Hunnic") bow would be an Asymmetric Reflex Straight with Static Tips and String Contact? Or an Asymmetric Reflex Deflex Reflex with String Contact and Static Tips?
Asymmetric Reflex Straight with Static Tips . only string contact if the string touches the siyah after the string nock
I believe it’s the first one but no string contact.
Remember these are cookie cutter models and you need the original archeological finds to be accurate about classification
Useful classification.
A suggestion for simplifying the shooting style's, on the bow hand specify arrow on thumb/hand.
So you can have thumb draw, arrow over thumb/thumb draw arrow over hand. 3 finger, hand etc etc.
Shooting has nothing to do with this video mate
thanks
@@HistoricalWeapons Should be easier to translate than right/left when you have right handers and left handers.
@@mrln247 thanks
Very useful distinction! Thanks!!
thanks for watching
This is great! Thanks Jack!
Thank you for watching
Excellent! This classification makes good sense. I naturally tended towards a similar nomenclature. I'm sure many other people tend towards this type of classification without thinking it through as well as you have. Dropping the recurve description is very valid.
Thanks for watching
Ian from forgotten weapons should do a video with you
Gun Jesus meet Bow Buddah
Interesting idea
@@少年阳光 lol
Your classification reminds me of the one in the book "Traditional Archery from Six Continents" by Grayson, Charles E.; French, Mary; O'Brien, Michael J. figure 1.3 on page 5.
I like your more detailed mention of the tips by string contact but think there could be even more description of the tips - straight, reflexed, deflexed, recurved, decurved, working, static, with pad, bridg, string grooves ... .
I don't like your replacement of the term recurve with a second reflex as it is very descriptive of the shape of the limb between the handle and the tips and reflex is already taken by the direction of the limb in relation to the handle.
Also the shape from the front (straight, tapered, pyramidal) can be a mayor aspect and I think it would need to be included in a classification as well as the handle (front, center, back, arrow pass, handedness).
I guess the hard part is to decide the cutoff between classification and description and can vary depending on motivation and audience.
Maybe using the terms like a toolbox it would be better to write out the combinations and assign index numbers.
This way the classification of bows would be more like the oakeshott classification of swords and would be a lot quicker to write.
Type I-I-I vs. plain stickbow with no handle
Type II-IV-V vs. Bow with handle on belly without arrow pass, reflexed recurved lightly tapered limbs, working recurved tips with pad
Type II-II/I-i vs. asymmetrical bow with recurved top limb and straight bottom limb
Recurve is used in modern archery and well defined as Olympic sport hence avoid
yes, i see similarities but only after some folks mentioned to me the book. i didnt realize this book exisited until after i made mine. It is sad that their classification was never adopted in mainstream use. Regarding my original classification, it has the words recurve and decruve. all you have to do is replace the words "with string contact" with recurve and you get the original version. the word reflex and deflex is based on the math terms not the archery terms (A reflex angle is any angle that is more than 180 degrees (half circle) and less than 360 degrees (full circle). The recurve word is almost exclusively used for archery. thanks for the input on the tapered and pyramidal terms, these can be included. so an egyptian bow can be replaced with pyramidal instead of deflex for the first word, or angular. my classificaiton has this kind of flexibility. arrow pass, handedness, front and center are features that can be added as well, but it would very much complicate the system. the one i introduced is as simple as possible so that it can reach out to a wider audience without being overwhelmed. feel free to modify my classification.
This table is amazing! I have started on an overview for my bows and needed to classify them. Most of them are ‚Reflex‘ 😁
So I will use this classification system to distinguish.
It needs a bit of practice to name the classes fluently 😄
Thank you so much, dear Jack! That was much work and shows your passion! ☺️🙏
Glad you find it helpful and I enjoy your videos too!
@@HistoricalWeapons Thank you so much, dear Jack! ☺️🙏🙏🙏
It looks like a really good classification system, The only thing you might add is a som of the Native Americans made a big bow with a smaller bow on the back which might be called a double bow, but I don’t know what to call them, so they need to be classified so I know what to call them, I really like your classification because it makes perfect sense and it’s easy to see from the side view
I’m a long time compound shooter with a couple PSE 40” Citations for target and two PSE EVL 34’s for hunting and I keep coming back wanting to look into others such as the Mongolian style bows and have learned a lot from your videos.
glad you enjoyed the videos
great info and much needed. will it be available on a standalone website to get it out to the major bowyers?
Feel free to post it anywhere with mention of my UA-cam channel
@@HistoricalWeapons Yep thanks, I am happy I could help by adding in some types of Static tipped flat bows on reddit with the discussion on the bows, as some cultures did make them with some still being made today.
For a technical classification this system is great, but for convenience's sake I'd probably still expect the ethnic classification to be more practical for most people.
Horsebow will stay forever as continence word
im planning to make a ethnic classification too, but is there an alternative word to stereotypes?
@@HistoricalWeapons Do you mean a synonym with less relation to prejudice? Probably something like "style" "conventional", "generalized". Like "the conventional shape of an Ottoman bow..."
@@colbunkmust yes i think the word generalized is best here, if i make a classification system based on culture of a specific period
@@HistoricalWeapons Use the Full word of Manchurian bow to describe that, a Mongolian and era of bow that we are talking about, and so on do not use things like Crab bow without the words Mogul or Korean Crab bow for that type as there are several types of the bow using same name in different styles.
I like it 👍 very logical, and well presented. Thank you Jack
Thanks for watching
Dude is a legend!
You Deserve more subscribers 👍
Thanks for watching
Yea that classification system was a mess I didn't even bother with it so good on ya making it make more reasonable
Which one is a mess
Culture classification can be effective, generalizations are to be expected but the names can be shortened
Good video, these things need to be cleared up. I've seen some videos by well known bowmakers where the description goes against the traditional convention. IE. they describe a reflex deflex bow which is actually a "deflex" "reflex" bow. We all need to be on the same page with this. Starting from the handle and moving outwards has always been the standard way. We should , for instance , be able to describe a bow over the phone and instantly get the picture. Well done.
thanks, i think as long as convention is specified before an academic discussion, then it is appropriate. for colloquial use in conversation it can be confusing. but these occur everywhere in classifying any object, in fact we still cant decide which side of the road to drive on, or if its Celsius or Farenheit
This is good.
thanks for watching
Where can we access this classification as a picture or file?
Atarn just search side profile
@@HistoricalWeapons you mean the facebook group?
@@oackman9250 yes
I had an indian bow from the surinam alalaparu and an indian bow from the mexican wuahaka ( don t know if the spelling is right) and they were straight and did not have any pre strong rope,so the rope(they used that) hung loose around the bowtips. They were good bows but kinda simple...I do not see these in your roster please look in these simple indian bows.
hi, what is the shape of these bows?
kristan his classification is based on shape and not culture
@@HistoricalWeapons they were completely straight...the surinam bow was 1.90 meters and the mecican around 60 centimeter,it was used to shoot plants...I was told. Both of them were very good bows but the mexican was flat and very primitive the surinam was beautiful wood and there are pics from that kind of bow if you would look for them....indigenous population of surinam.
@@kristandevries4835 if they are completely straight then they are simply straight bows in this classification. I might make one based on culture in the future
we don’t use Indian in the international community to describe indigenous American bows
Omg! I’ve been using these diagrams ever since I first encountered these online a few years ago. You made this system? 🙏 thank you man you rock!
I wonder if you could shorten the names by using a notation system
A for *A*ssymetric
S for *S*traight
D for *D*eflex
R for *R*eflex
s for Static Tips (*S*tatic)
c for String Contact (*C*ontact)
That way the "Reflex Deflex Reflex with static tips with string contact" would just be "RDR sc"
This is a great idea
never seen u this nerdy bro
Very cool.
Thanks for watching man
Excellent work ! 🏹✔👍
thanks for watching
I love what you’ve done I’ve been having this conversation for years with our flight archery group how could I get some copies of this chart.
Awesome you can find it an atarn Facebook group and search side profile
Well done. We need more things like this for the archery community
Technically a typology & not a ''classification''!
Your not the 1st to use this model of side view typology but it is the most comprehensive one I have seen while simple to read.
It's quiet well done.
What this is called specifically is (Bow shape typology).
Seems a tad pedantic on my part but it might help you to make a future more complete catalogue of (Bow shape typology) as I'm impressed you managed to make this while not knowing it existed.
I look forward to see what you may add in this topic.
Kind regards!
Bow Buddha is back!
Lol
Is this a reference to gun Jesus
Thank you for your hard work. Is the chart available for download?
Yes visit atarn at Facebook and search side profile
@@HistoricalWeapons Thank you.
@@darkpassenger65 did u find it
Are you considering academic publishing ?
I.e. a paper or article ?
im considering it, what tools do i need?
my university background is in engineering not history
@@HistoricalWeapons
Do you have a link you are unworried about sharing on UA-cam or is there one in you account description .
I will look .
I will send a link to dr Roland Bohr he is a professor at u of w .
He’s best source of advice
@@nair.127 I didn’t publish any papers
Hey Jack .
This idea might be worth looking at publishing an article .
Dr bohr at u of w .
Would be better positioned to advise how to do that .
Though I doubt anything would be done any time soon .
Publishing acedemic studies seems very slow moving .
And finding a sponsor .
But being an engineer might give you a perspective That intrigues anthropologists
It would be great to have the classification system in the form of a PDF book or website as a reference. 🏹
hi prehaps ill make it in pdf format
Very interesting. At 5:00 you mention that most asiatic bows are somewhat asymmetric to accommodate a higher nocking point. My question (being new to all this) is: Why do they have a higher nocking point? Thanks.
You sound like you have an engineering background
Yes
Very difficult to classify all bows since have been used by almost all cultures in human history. I would like to share your work (naming the author properly) on my "Archery Research Centre" network if you agree. Great job!
Please do! show me link thanks
I do like your system, except that I prefer to keep the term recurve for the tips. I would go handle--straight, deflex or reflex. Limb--straight, deflex or reflex. Tip--working recurve or static recurve, with or without string contact.
I don't find 'recurve' to be a modern term. It seems to me that it would predate 'reflex' and 'deflex'.
yes but modern archers folks will rage
Professional
This classification system makes lots of sense but is quite a mouthful for some of the designs. A potential way to implement this system would be like how animals have both a latin name and a common name. So each bow type would still be called its common name in casual conversation, but listed as your classifications in more official contexts
thanks for your input, i have no intention to implement this classification in colloquial conversational use. it is for people interested to study bows in the academic world, who want to be specific. for regular everyday use, Horsebow word is fine.
Is the reflex reflex with static tips the most efficient one?
its difficult to say, for max distance id say the bottom right one is, for extremely light arrows. for heavy arrows id say the manchu one. for most efficient resources id say the d longbow
@@HistoricalWeapons Then why make the Mughal bow then? What advantages does it have in ballistic performance?
@@spectre9065 its like a mini manchu bow. because culture and art are also important
awesome. Thank U. REMEMBER : dont say Recurve whe you respect the history -- nice, i like it
Can you make about a video about history of horse archer how they were used and effective and how to counter them.
someday
Slingers archers
Reflex deflex reflex. I would like to know more about it could you make a dedicated video on it?
You make good vids man
Thanks for watching
Hi man! Love your vids.
I've got a question; I'm been looking for a small asiatic horsebow that looks precisely like either the reflex deflex reflex w/string contact or the reflex reflex as shown in your handy classification image.
Are there any bows like this on the market? Small, 20-30ish lbs draw weight at an acceptable price?
Again, your videos continue to feed my horse archery addiction, love em', thanks.
Professionally done
Thanks
now i need a tutorial on how you made an arrow for a heavybow🤣
Which one is the horsebow? Just kidding... Previous efforts have focused on construction and/or materials. Other's origin or use. Shape is yet another. Lots of overlap. What _is_ a Hill style longbow with recurved tips, sinew back, and horn face? What if I add siyahs (contact or not)... could follow biology with kingdom, phyla, group, order, family, and genus? Then again, a Chihuahua and Great Dane are both Canis Familiaris and look how different they are.
there is NO universal classification that fits all. this one is based on side profile, not material. i think jack will make more vids on other classifications such as material, cross section, and culture.
What you described does not
Exist in history hence irrelevant
Your hill style with sinew back with recurve tips with horn face is not a historical bow so it doesn’t need to be included here
Yeah I agree classifications can get complicated
where can i find this classification chart?
In ATARN Facebook I posted an image of it
Look up side profile
I really enjoyed this video! I do have one question though. Do these types all apply on both short and long bows? Which are those that only apply to one or the other?
what about the penobscot bow?
Good attempt mate. very limiting though. But to be honest, there is no perfect way to classify the bow types. You also have construction types and cross sections to take into account, which really do make a big difference in the type of bow. For example, the straight bow, describes the medieval English long bow, the Victorian English long bow, the American long bow (flat bow) and others, and yet they are all very different in construction and cross section. But I do get were you are coming from and appreciate what you are trying to do and think you did a pretty good job.
Thanks yes there’s no universal classification. I might make video on another criteria like cross section in future as well as classifying crossbows
In that new movie "prey", the Amerinds draw with hand completely backwards. Seems like a good way to draw farther back like thumb draw but with 3 fingers.
It’s a Scythian reverse draw
What category do korean traditional composite bows belong to?
some variation of reflex reflex with static tips
aka reflex recurve
When are we going to get an arrow chart for the different styles of arrow? ;)
whole different thing might do one day, but i want to make crossbow categorization firtst
I don't fully understand the concept of string contact... From what I know of Yumi, the only contact point of the string and the wood is at the knots. But I do not think this is what you meant.
Cool,video i use a simple boot lace leather pouch,about 26-28" long,hold above head pouch in one hand, 3/4 swing. Extremely Accurate at 60 feet, maybe not so strong as long ones.
Hows the development going? This would be great as a poster if fancied up a bit :D
This isn't to take anything away from the accomplishments but I remember envisaging 90% of this in my head at about the age of 10. This isn't too say I'm some super brain hominid, merely that it's not just obvious, it's actually really fucking intuitive and it's honestly baffled me how we still classify based on culture. It's always just seemed very lazy and deliberately inefficient for the sake of providing convenience to people of very little knowledge on the subject that likely aren't even that interested anyway. So why do we do it? Why has it persisted?
Paddle limb self bows, like all the examples found in the Pacific Northwest? They were short with short draw lengths but relatively high draw weights. This was achieved despite the paddle limbs being soooo thin because the paddle shape, the rectangular cross section and the fact that most native bowyers of the PNW would actually counter brace the bow when they were almost done tillering and let it sit strung in the opposite direction for about three months. Then they would finish tiller and apply 3 or 4 thick layers of sinew, relying more on the woods memory of it's time counter braced and the gargantuan amount of sinew to provide the super thin limbed bow durability and a high draw weight. Despite being so short they were not used much on horseback as the tribe to the Pacific Northwest weren't horseman. The shortness of the bow was needed in the thick vegetation. The short draw length allowed the Archer to have a dynamic fluid anchor point and they often cantedf the bow anywhere from 45° to completely sideways
thanks for the comment, yes these are fascinating bows but what is the side profile? my classification here specifically is side profile. i can make a classificaiton on cross section another day.
Mike Loades 'War Bows' has a chapter on composite bows that essentially does this exact thing. Any chance that's where you drew your inspiration?
no my inspiration is from talking to other people in the ATARN community
@@HistoricalWeaponsI'd recommend picking it up. Mike's a very entertaining author. And the book is very detailed. Lots of pictures and colourful imagery. It's one of those books that makes you want to put it down and go shooting immediately lol
@@Drewsel yes I have read the book in a library. I personally enjoyed the book
Thanks. I would have thought that diagram was easy to find. Probably wouldn’t have if you didn’t make it
EXCELLENT IDEA ! ! !
Send this to the Smithsonian to see if they will except the classifications ! ! !
Brilliant 🙂😎👍
I learned enough about bows just now to understand I know almost nothing about bows
Always more to learn
Forgotten weapons of archery
Has anyone even seen an asymetric bow with siyahs? Like a manchu bow but assymetric?
Yes Hunnic
@@HistoricalWeapons I would've never thought. i'll check it out
we need to help share this
Thanks for watching
well presented man
Thanks for watching
What u gonna make next
Informative
🎉
can you make it in chinese
Not right now
Ok no worries
1. Shape of the bow
2. Materials used(combination of the materials used)
😏
legendary!
Yes
✨Inuit bow ✨ 👶👏
Well thought out
Thanks for watching
Good video
Thanks for watching
Imagine a very curvy bow and this dude naming it "The Reflex Deflex Reflex Deflex Reflex Deflex Reflex Deflex Bow". Good and intertaining video but I would make this a littlebit more clear and just name all of this variants with a name not longer than 2 words cuz oh mom it's bad for the ears in some case.
The classification you call "your classification" is on the internet for many years already. I printed exactly these drawings for my information materials long time ago. So whats the sense about doing that?
i drew those drawings myself with the exception of the first 6, which is originally from callum-blees, and i received permission by him. the classification by the original drawings are different, it does not specify asymmetry, does not specify static tips, and does not specify with string contact. it also uses recurve and decurve.
Wow
thumb up
Ok
Nice
wow
Thanks for watching
i got a reflex deflex reflex reflex reflex straight deflex deflex deflex recurve decurve!!!!!!!! it was just a natural stick off a tree i found...
Wow
Nice
Thanks