OLIN 
 
 U 
 
 873 
 
 .P34 
 
 1907ca 
 
 \ 
 
'Sd Ih 
 
 Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924102030891 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 1 
 
 02 030 891 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wf*"^ 
 
 mfff 
 
 
 
 IWI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED m USA 
 
In compliance with current 
 
 Copyright law, Cornell University 
 
 Library produced this 
 
 replacement volume on paper 
 
 that meets the ANSI Standard 
 
 Z39.48-1992 to replace the 
 
 irreparably deteriorated original. 
 
 2006 
 
Huntington Free Library 
 
 Native American 
 Collection 
 
 y^i^i i-irwroag^ 
 
 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 LIBRARY 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 TO THE BOOK OE 
 
 AND 
 
 ANCIENT PROJECTILE ENGINES 
 
 BY 
 
 SIR RALPH PAYNE-GALLWEY. BT 
 
 TWENTY-EIGHT ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 LONGMANS, GRiE^J, AND GO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW. LONDON 
 NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 
 
 ' '■■'■''',' '. " . '.'l90,7- ' 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 TO THE BOOK OF 
 
 THE CROSSBOW 
 
 AND 
 
 ANCIENT PROJECTILE ENGINES 
 
 BY 
 
 SIR RALPH PAYNE-GALLWEY. B^ 
 
 TWENTY-EIGHT ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 
 
 1907 
 All rights reserved 
 
CONTENTS OF THE APPENDIX 
 
 THE CATAPULT AND BALISTA 
 
 Introductory Notes on Ancient Projectile Engines. 
 
 The Catapult ........ 
 
 The Ballsta. . ...... 
 
 PAGE 
 
 5 
 II 
 
 19 
 
 THE TURKISH COMPOSITE BOW 
 
 Thk Turkish Bow. Construction and Dimensions 
 
 The Bow-string ........ 
 
 The Arrow ........ 
 
 The Method of Stringing a Turkish, Persian or Indian Bow 
 The Horn Groove .,...,.. 
 The Thumb-ring ........ 
 
 Composite Bows of various Oriental Nations 
 The Range of the Turkish Bow 
 
 J 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 9 
 II 
 12 
 16 
 19 
 
 A 2 
 
Since my recent work on the crossbow and ancient projectile 
 weapons was issued/ I have obtained additional information 
 concerning the catapult and balista of the Greeks and Romans. 
 I now, therefore, print, in the form of an Appendix, a revised 
 account of the construction of these two engines. Their history 
 and effects in warfare I have already dealt with. 
 
 I also append a treatise fully describing the structure, power 
 and management of that remarkable weapon the Turkish composite 
 bow, which I only cursorily alluded to in my book on the 
 
 crossbow etc. 
 
 R. P. G. 
 
 Thirkleijv Park, 
 
 Thirsk : 
 
 Jan. 1907. 
 
 1 The Crossbow, Mediaval ami Modern, Military and Sporting: its Construction, History, and 
 Manaeemcni. With a Treatise on the Balista and Catapult of the Ancients. 220 illustrations. Messrs. 
 Longmans & Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON ANCIENT 
 PROJECTILE ENGINES 
 
 Of ancient Greek authors who have left us accounts of these engines. 
 Heron (284-221 B.C.) and Philo (about 200 B.C.) are the most trustworthy. 
 
 Both these mechanicians give plans and dimensions with an accuracy that 
 enables us to reconstruct the machines, if not with exactitude at any rate with 
 sufficient correctness for practical application. 
 
 Though in the books of Athensus, Biton, Apollodorus, Diodorus, 
 Procopius, Polybius and Josephus we find incomplete descriptions, these 
 authors, especially Josephus, frequently allude to the effects of the engines 
 in warfare ; and scanty as is the knowledge they impart, it is useful and 
 explanatory when read in conjunction with the writings of Heron and 
 Philo. 
 
 Among the Roman historians and military engineers, Vitruvius and 
 Ammianus are the best authorities. 
 
 Vitruvius copied his descriptions from the Greek writers, which shows us 
 that the Romans adopted the engines from the Greeks. 
 
 Of all the old authors who have described the engines, we have but copies 
 of the original writings. It is, therefore, natural that we should come across 
 many phrases and drawings which are evidently incorrect, as a result of repeated 
 transcription, and which we know to be at fault though we cannot actually 
 prove them to be so. 
 
 With few exceptions, all the authors named simply present us with their 
 own ideas when they are in doubt respecting the mechanical details and per- 
 formances of the engines they wish to describe. 
 
 All such spurious information is, of course, more detrimental than helpful 
 to our elucidation of their construction and capabilities. 
 
 It frequently happens that in a mediaeval picture of one of these machines 
 some important mechanical detail is omitted, or, from the difficulty of portraying 
 it correctly, is purposely concealed by figures of soldiers, an omission that may 
 be supplied by reference to other representations of the same weapon. 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY NOTES 
 
 It is, indeed, impossible to find a complete working plan of any one of 
 these old weapons, a perfect design being only obtainable by consulting many 
 ancient authorities, and, it may be said, piecing together the details of con- 
 struction they individually give. 
 
 We have no direct evidence as to when the engines for throwing projectiles 
 were invented. 
 
 It does not appear that King Shalmaneser II. of Assyria (859-825 b.c.) 
 had any, for none are depicted on the bronze doors of the palace of Baliwat, 
 now in the British Museum, on which his campaigns are represented, though 
 his other weapons of attack and defence are clearly shown. 
 
 The earliest allusion is the one in the Bible, where we read of Uzziah, who 
 reigned from b.c. 808-9 to b.c. 756-7. ' Uzziah made in Jerusalem engines 
 invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot 
 arrows and great stones withal.' (2 Chronicles xxvi. 15.) 
 
 Diodorus tells us that the engines were first seen about 400 B.C., and 
 that when Dionysius of Syracuse organised his great expedition against the 
 Carthaginians (397 B.C.) there was a genius among the experts collected from 
 all over the world, and that this man designed the engines that cast stones and 
 javelins. 
 
 From the reign of Dionysius and for many subsequent centuries, or till 
 near the close of the fourteenth, projectile-throwing engines are constantly men- 
 tioned by military historians. 
 
 But it was not till the reign of Philip of Macedon (360-336 b.c.) and that 
 of his son Alexander the Great (336-323 b.c.) that their improvement was care- 
 fully attended to and their value in warfare fully recognised. 
 
 As before stated, the Romans adopted the engines from the Greeks. 
 
 Vitruvius and other historians tell us this, and even copy their descriptions 
 of them from the Greek authors, though too often with palpable inaccuracy. 
 
 To ascertain the power and mechanism of these ancient engines a very 
 close study of all the old authors who wrote about them is essential, with a 
 view to extracting here and there useful facts amid what are generally verbose 
 and confused references. 
 
 There is no doubt that the engines made and used by the Romans 
 after their conquest of Greece (b.c. 146), in the course of two or three centuries 
 became inferior to the original machines previously constructed by the Greek 
 artificers. 
 
 Their efficiency chiefly suffered because the art of manufacturing their 
 important parts was gradually neglected and allowed to become lost. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTES 7 
 
 For instance, how to make the skein of sinew that bestowed the very Hfe 
 and existence on every projectile-casting engine of the ancients. 
 
 The tendons of which the sinew was composed, the animals from which 
 it was taken, and the manner in which it was prepared, we can never learn 
 now. 
 
 Every kind of sinew, or hair or rope, with which I have experimented, 
 either breaks or loses its elasticity in a comparatively short time, if great pressure 
 is applied. It has then to be renewed at no small outlay of expense and 
 trouble. Rope skeins, with which we are obliged to fit our models, cannot 
 possibly equal in strength, and above all in elasticity, skeins of animal sinew or 
 even of hair. 
 
 The formation of the arm or arms of an engine, whether it is a catapult 
 with its single upright arm or a balista with its pair of lateral ones, is another 
 difiiculty which cannot now be overcome, for we have no idea how these arms 
 were made to sustain the great strain they had to endure. 
 
 We know that the arm of a large engine was composed of several spars of 
 wood and lengths of thick sinew fitted longitudinally, and then bound round 
 with broad strips of raw hide which would afterwards set nearly as hard and 
 tight as a sheath of metal. 
 
 We know this, but we do not know the secret of making a light and 
 flexible arm of sufficient strength to bear such a strain as was formerly applied 
 to it in a catapult or a balista. 
 
 Certainly, by shaping an arm of great thickness we can produce one 
 that will not fracture, but substance implies weight, and undue weight prevents 
 the arm from acting with the speed requisite to cast its projectile with good 
 
 effect. 
 
 A heavy and ponderous arm of solid wood cannot, of course, rival in 
 lightness and effectiveness a composite one of wood, sinew and hide. 
 
 The former is necessarily inert and slow in its action of slinging a stone, 
 while the latter would, in comparison, be as quick and lively as a steel 
 spring. 
 
 When the art of producing the perfected machines of the Greeks was lost, 
 they were replaced by less effective contrivances. 
 
 If the knowledge of constructing the great catapult of the ancients in its 
 original perfection had been retained, such a clumsy engine as the mediseval 
 trebuchet would never have gained popularity. The trebuchet derived its 
 power from the gravity of an immense weight at one end of its pivoted 
 arm tipping up the other end, to which a sling was attached for throwing a 
 stone. 
 
 As regards range, there could be no comparison between the efficiency of a 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY NOTES 
 
 trebuchet, however large, as worked merely by a counterpoise, and that of an 
 engine deriving its power from the elasticity of an immense coil of tightly twisted 
 sinew. 
 
 It is certain that if the latter kind of engine had survived in its perfect state 
 the introduction of cannon would have been considerably delayed, for the effects 
 in warfare of the early cannon were for a long period decidedly inferior to those 
 of the best projectile engines of the ancients. 
 
 Notwithstanding many difficulties, I have succeeded in reconstructing, 
 though of course on a considerably smaller scale, the chief projectile-throwing 
 engines of the ancients, and with a success that enables them to compare 
 favourably, as regards their range, with the Greek and Roman weapons they 
 represent. 
 
 Still, my engines are by no means perfect in their mechanism, and are, 
 besides, always liable to give way under the strain of working. 
 
 One reason of this is that all modern engines of the kind require to be 
 worked to their utmost capacity, i.e. to the verge of their breaking point, to 
 obtain from them results that at all equal those of their prototypes. 
 
 A marked difference between the ancient engines and their modern 
 imitations, however excellent the latter may be, is, that the former did 
 their work easily, and well within their strength, and thus without any 
 excessive strain which might cause their collapse after a short length of 
 service.^ 
 
 The oft-disputed question as to the distance to which catapults and 
 balistas shot their projectiles can be solved with approximate accuracy by 
 comparing their performances — as given by ancient military writers — with the 
 results obtainable from modern reproductions. 
 
 While treating of this matter we should carefully consider the position and 
 surroundings of the engines when engaged in a siege, and especially the work 
 for which they were designed. 
 
 As an example, archers, with the advantage of being stationed on high 
 towers and battlements, would be well able to shoot arrows from 270 to 
 280 yards. For this reason it was necessary for the safe manipulation of the 
 attacking engines that they should be placed at about 300 yards from the outer 
 walls of any fortress they were assailing. 
 
 As a catapult or a balista was required not only to cast its missile among 
 the soldiers on the ramparts of a fortified place, but also to send it clear over the 
 walls amid the houses and people within the defences, it is evident that the 
 
 ^ Again, though my largest catapult will throw a stone to a great distance it cannot throw one of nearly 
 the weight n should be able to do, considering the size of its frame, skein of cord and mechanism. In this 
 respect it is decidedly inferior to the ancient engine. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTES 9 
 
 engines must have had a range of from 400 to 500 yards, or more, to be as 
 serviceable and destructive as they undoubtedly were. 
 
 Josephus tells us that at the siege of Jerusalem, a.d. 70 ('Wars of the Jews,' 
 Book V. Chapter VI.), stones weighing a talent (57! lbs. avoirdupois) were 
 thrown by the catapults to a distance of two or more ' stades.' 
 
 This statement may be taken as trustworthy, for Josephus relates what he 
 personally witnessed and his comments are those of a commander of high rank 
 and intelligence. 
 
 Two or more 'stades,' or let us say 2 to 2 J 'stades,' represent 400 to 
 450 yards. Remarkable and conclusive testimony confirming the truth of what 
 we read in Josephus is the fact that my largest catapult — though doubtless 
 much smaller and less powerful than those referred to by the historian — throws 
 a stone ball of 8 lbs. in weight to a range of from 450 to nearly 500 
 yards. 
 
 It is easy to realise that the ancients, with their great and perfect engines 
 fitted with skeins of sinew, could cast a far heavier stone than one of 8 lbs., and 
 to a longer distance than 500 yards. 
 
 Agesistratus,^ a Greek writer who flourished B.C. 200, and who wrote a 
 treatise on making arms for war, estimated that some of the engines shot from 
 3} to 4 ' stades ' (700 to 800 yards). 
 
 Though such a very long flight as this appears almost incredible, I can 
 adduce no sound reason for doubting its possibility. From recent experiments 
 I am confident I could now build an engine of a size and power to accomplish 
 such a feat if light missiles were used, and if its cost were not a consideration. 
 
 ' The writings of Agesistratus are non-extant but are quoted by Atheneeus. 
 
 «r:=jSJ*^:-»'^=> 
 
s= 
 o 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 & 
 o 
 
 ►J ■ 
 
 H 
 Pi 
 -»; 
 
 Ph 
 
 O 
 
 g 
 
 3 
 
 n 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o ^ 
 
 in c: 
 O S 
 
 t3 ■ 
 
 Ch 
 
 <! 
 H 
 
 <: 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 I 
 
 
THE CATAPULT {WITH A SLING) 
 
 The mediaeval catapult was. usually fitted with an arm that had a hollow or 
 cup at its upper end in which was placed the stone it projected.^ I find, how- 
 ever, that the original and more perfect form of this engine, as employed 
 by the Greeks and ancient Romans, had a sling, made of rope and leather, 
 attached to its arm.^ (F'g- i- opposite page.) 
 
 The addition of a sling to the arm of a catapult increases its power by at 
 least a third. For example, the catapult described in Chapters LV., LVI., of 
 my book,^ will throw a round stone 8 lbs. in weight, from 350 to 360 yards, 
 but the same engine with the advantage of a sling to its arm will cast the 8-lb. 
 stone from 450 to 460 yards, and when its skein is twisted to its limit of tension 
 to nearly 500 yards. 
 
 If the upper end of the arm of a catapult is shaped into a cup to receive 
 the stone, as shown in figs. iB/-, 192, pp. 267, 277 of ' The Crossbow,' the arm 
 is, of necessity, large and heavy at this part. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the arm is equipped with a sling, as shown in fig. i, 
 opposite page, it can be tapered from its butt-end upwards, and is then much 
 lighter and recoils with far more speed than an arm that has an enlarged 
 extremity for holding its missile. 
 
 When the arm is fitted with a sling, it is practically lengthened by as much 
 as the length of the sling attached to it, and this, too, without any appreciable 
 increase in its weight. ^ 
 
 The longer the arm of a catapult, the longer is its sweep through the air, 
 and thus the farther will it cast its projectile, provided it is not of undue weight. 
 
 ' See Tke Crossbow, etc., Chapters LV., LVI., illustrations 193 to 202. 
 
 ^ In mediaeval times catapults which had not slings cast great stones, but only to a short distance in 
 comparison with the earlier weapons of the same kind that were equipped with slings. I can find no 
 allusions or pictures to show that during this period any engine was used with a sling except the tre- 
 buchet, a post-Roman invention. All evidence goes to prove that the secret of making the skein and 
 other important parts of a catapult was in a great measure lost within a couple of centuries after the 
 Romans copied the weapon from their conquered enemies the Greeks, with the result that the trebuchet 
 was introduced for throwing stones. 
 
 The catapult was gradually superseded as the art of its construction was neglected, and its efficiency 
 in sieges was therefrom decreased. 
 
 The catapults of the fifth and sixth centuries were very inferior to those described by Josephus as 
 being used at the sieges of Jerusalem and Jotapata (a.d. 70, A.D. 67). 
 
 ' The Crossbow, etc. 
 
 B 2 
 
12 
 
 THE CATAPULT 
 
 The difference in this respect is as between the range of a short sling and 
 that of a long one, when both are used by a school-boy for slinging pebbles. 
 
 The increase of power conferred by the addition of a sling to the arm of a 
 catapult is surprising. 
 
 A small model I constructed for throwing a stone ball, i lb. in weight, 
 will attain a distance of 200 yards when used with an arm that has a cup for 
 holding the ball, though when a sling is fitted to the arm the range of the 
 engine is at once increased to 300 yards. 
 
 The, only historian who distincdy tells us that the catapult of the Greeks 
 and Romans had a sling to its arm, is Ammianus Marcellinus. This author 
 flourished about 380 a.d., and a closer study of his writings, and of those of 
 his contemporaries, led me to carry out experiments with catapults and balistas 
 which I had not contemplated when my work dealing with the projectile engines 
 of the ancients was published. 
 
 Ammianus writes of the catapult ^ : 
 
 ' In the middle of the ropes ^ rises a wooden arm like a chariot pole . . . 
 to the top of the arm hangs a sling . . . when battle is commenced a round 
 stone is set in the sling . . . four soldiers on each side of the engine wind the 
 arm down till it is almost level with the ground . . . when the arm is set free 
 it springs up and hurls forth from its sling the stone, which is certain to crush 
 whatever it strikes. This engine was formerly called the " scorpion," because 
 it has its sting erect,^ but later ages have given it the name of Onager, or wild 
 ass, for when wild asses are chased they kick the stones behind them.' 
 
 Fig. 2. — Catapult (with a sling), see opposite page. 
 
 A. The arm at rest, ready to be wound down by the rope attached 
 to it and also to the wooden roller of the windlass. The stone may be seen in 
 the sling. 
 
 The upper end of the pulley rope is hitched by a metal slip-hook (fig. i, 
 p. 10) to a ring-bolt secured to the arm just below the sling. 
 
 B. The position of the arm when fully wound down by means of the 
 windlass and rope. See also EE, fig. 3, p. 14. 
 
 C.^ The position of the arm at the moment the stone D leaves the sling, 
 which it does at an angle of about 45 degrees. 
 
 ' Roman History, Book XXIII., Chapter IV. 
 
 ■' i.e. in the middle of the twisted skein formed of ropes of sinew or hair 
 
 =■ Tlie upright and tapering arm of a catapult, with the iron pin on it^'tnn fn. n,. i r ,. ,. 
 
 here fancifully likened to the erected tail of an angry scorpion with ils stbg pro'rudiig °' '''" '""«^' " 
 
THE CATAPULT 
 
 13 
 
 
 11 
 1 \ 
 
 
 1(1 ii 
 
 Fig. 2.— Catapult (with a Sung). Side view of frame and mechanism. 
 
 Scale : ^ in. = i ft. 
 
14 THE CATAPULT 
 
 E By pulling the cord E the arm B Is at once released from the slip-hook 
 and, taking an upward sweep of 90 degrees, returns to its original position at A. 
 
 G « 
 
 The Sling (open). 
 [F. Its fixed end which passes through a hole near the top of the arm. 
 G. The leather pocket for the stone. 
 
 H. The loop which is hitched over the iron pin at the top of the arm 
 when the stone is in position in the sling, as shown at A and B, fig. 2, p. 13.] 
 
 Fig. 3.— Catapult (with a Sling). Surface view of frame and mechanism. Scale ; i in. = i ft. 
 The arm EE is here shown wound down to its full extent. (Compare with B, fig. 2 p. i-x) 
 
 I. I. ]^, .. . 
 
 h Ihe side-pieces. 
 
 III. IV. The large cross-pieces. 
 V. The small cross-piece. 
 The ends of the cross-piece beams are stepped into the side-pieces. 
 
THE CATAPULT 
 
 15 
 
 AA. The skein of twisted cord. 
 
 BB. The large winding wheels. The skein is stretched between these 
 wheels, its ends passing through the sides of the frame, and then through the 
 wheels and over their cross-bars. (Fig. 6, p. 17.) 
 
 By turning with a long spanner (fig. i, p. 10) the squared ends of the 
 spindles DD, the pinion wheels CC rotate the large wheels BB and cause the 
 latter to twist the skein A A, between the halves of which the arm EE is placed. 
 
 FF- The wooden roller which winds down the arm EE. (Fig. i, p. 10.) 
 
 The roller is revolved by four men (two on each side of the engine) who fit 
 long spanners on the squared ends of the iron spindle GG. 
 
 This spindle passes through the centre of the roller and through the sides 
 of the frame. 
 
 The small cogged wheels, with their checks, which are fitted to the ends of 
 the spindle GG, prevent the roller from reversing as the arm is being wound 
 down. (Fig. i, p. 10.) I 
 
 HH. The hollows in the sides of the frame which receive the lower 
 tenons of the two uprights. Between the tops of these uprights the cross-beam 
 is fixed against which the arm of the catapult strikes when it is released. 
 (Fig. I, p. 10.) 
 
 KK. The hollows for the lower tenons of the two sloping supports which 
 prevent the uprights, and the cross-beam between them, from giving way when 
 the arm recoils. (Fig. i, p. 10.) 
 
 Fig. 4.— One of the Pair of Winches of a Catapult. Scale : jij in. = i in. 
 
 1. Surface view of one of the winches and of the thick iron plate in which 
 the socket of the large winding wheel of the winch revolves. 
 
i6 THE CATAPULT 
 
 II. View of a winch (from above) as fitted into one of the sides of the 
 frame of the catapult. One end of the twisted skein may be seen turned round 
 the cross-bar of the large wheel. 
 
 III. Side view of the large wheel of a winch. 
 
 IV. The cross-bar of one of the large wheels. These pieces fit like 
 wedges into tapering slots cut down the barrels, or inside surfaces, of their 
 respective wheels. 
 
 V. Perspective view of the wheels of a winch. 
 
 The winches are the vital parts of the catapult, as they generate its 
 projectile power. 
 
 They are employed to twist tightly the skein of cord between which the 
 butt-end of the arm of the engine is placed. 
 
 The cord composing the skein is stretched to and fro across and through 
 the sides of the catapult, and alternately through the insides of the large wheels 
 and over their cross-bars ; as shown in fig. 3, p. 14. 
 
 Fig. 5. — The Iron Slip-hook, 
 
 This simple contrivance not only pulled down the arm 
 of a catapult but was also the means of setting it free. 
 However great the strain on the slip-hook, it will, if pro- 
 perly shaped, easily effect the release of the arm. 
 
 The trajectory of the missile can be regulated by this 
 
 Fig. 5. form of release, as the longer the distance the arm is pulled 
 
 down the higher the angle at which the projectile is thrown. 
 
 On the other hand, the shorter the distance the arm is drawn back, the 
 
 lower the trajectory of its missile. 
 
 The slip-hook will release the arm of the engine at any moment, whether it 
 is fully or only partially wound down by the windlass. 
 
 The slip-hook of the large catapult shown in fig. i, p. 10, has a handle ie 
 lever, 10 inches long, the point of the hook, which passes through the eye-bolt 
 -secured to the arm, being i in. in diameter. 
 
 Fig. 6.— The Skein of Cord, see opposite page. 
 in se«io„M .S'lltr "°""' "''' "^ ""''-"^'^ "' *= '-«= -•'-'^ (^O-" 
 
THE CATAPULT 
 
 17 
 
 B 
 
 Fig, 6. — The Skein of Cord. 
 
 C. The skein as it appears when tightly twisted up by the W|inches. 
 Compare with A A, fig. 3, p. 14. 
 
 Cord of Italian hemp, about ^ in. thick, is excellent for small catapults. 
 For large ones, horsehair rope, ^ in. thick, is the best and most elastic. What- 
 ever is used, the material of the skein must be thoroughly soaked in neat's-foot 
 oil for some days previously, or it is sure to fray and cut under the friction of 
 being very tightly twisted. Oil will also preserve the skein from damp and 
 decay for many years. 
 
 HOW TO WORK THE CATAPULT 
 
 There is little to write under this heading ; as the plans, details of construc- 
 tion and illustrations will, I trust, elucidate its management. 
 
 The skein should never remain in a tighdy twisted condition, but should 
 be untwisted when the engine is not in use. 
 
 Previous to using the catapult its winches should be turned with the long 
 spanner, fig. i, p. 10, first the winch on one side of the engine and then the 
 one on the other side of it, and each to exactly the same amount. 
 
 Small numerals painted on the surfaces of the large wheels, near their 
 edges, will show how much they have been revolved ; in this way their rotation 
 can be easily arranged to correspond. 
 
 As the skein of cord is being twisted by the very powerful winches, the arm 
 will gradually press with increasing force against the cross-beam between the 
 
 c 
 
i8 
 
 THE CATAPULT 
 
 uprights. The arm should be so tighdy pressed against the fender, or cushion 
 of straw, attached to the centre of this beam, that it cannot be pulled back the 
 
 least distance by hand. . 
 
 If the skein of my largest catapult is fully tightened up by the wmches, 
 three strong men are unable to draw the arm back with a rope even an mch 
 from the cross-beam, though the windlass has to pull it down from six to seven 
 feet when the engine is made ready for action. 
 
 When the skein is as tight as it should be, attach the slip-hook to the ring- 
 bolt in the arm and place the stone in the sling suspended from the top of the 
 
 arm. 
 
 The arm can now be drawn down by means of long spanners fitted to the 
 windlass. Directly the arm is as low as it should be, or as is desired, it should 
 be instantly released by pulling the cord fastened to the lever of the slip-hook. 
 
 The least delay in doing this, and the resulting continuation of the 
 immense strain on the arm, may cause it to fracture when it would not other- 
 wise have done so. 
 
 The plans I have given are those of my largest engine, which, ponderous as 
 it seems — (it weighs two tons)— is, however, less than half the size of the 
 catapult used by the ancients for throwing stones of from forty to fifty pounds 
 in weight. 
 
 As the plans are accurately drawn to scale, the engine can easily be repro- 
 duced in a smaller size. 
 
 An interesting model can be constructed that has an arm 3 feet in length, 
 and a skein of cord about 4 inches in diameter. It can be worked by one man 
 and will throw a stone, the size of an orange, to a range of 300 yards. 
 
 The sling, when suspended with the stone in position, should be one third 
 the length of the arm, as shown in fig. 2, p. 13. 
 
 If the sling is shortened, the ball will be thrown at a high elevation. If the 
 sling is lengthened, the ball will travel at a lower angle and with much more 
 velocity. 
 
THE BALISTA 
 
 Frc. 7. — Balista for discharging heavy Arrows or Javelins. 
 Approximate scale : j in. = i ft. 
 
 This engine is here shown ready for discharge with its bow-string drawn to 
 its full extent by the windlass. 
 
 The heavy iron-tipped arrow rests in the shallow wooden trough which 
 travels along the stock. 
 
 The trough has a strip of wood, in the form of a keel, fixed beneath it. 
 This keel travels to or fro in a dovetailed slot cut along the upper surface of the 
 stock for the greater part of its length. (F, fig. 8, p. 21.) 
 
 c 2 
 
20 THE CATAPULT 
 
 The arrow is laid in the trough before the bow-string is stretched. (A, B, 
 
 fig. 8, p. 2 1.) 
 
 The balista is made ready for use by turning the windlass. The windlass 
 pulls back the sliding trough, and the arrow resting in it, along the stock of the 
 engine, till the bow-string is at its proper tension for discharging the projectile. 
 
 (Fig. 7, p. 19.) 
 
 As the trough and the arrow are drawn back together, the arrow can be 
 safely laid in position before the engine is prepared for action. 
 
 The catch for holding the bow-string, and the trigger for releasing it, are 
 fixed to the solid after-end of the wooden trough. (Fig. 8, p. 21.) 
 
 The two ratchets at the sides of the after-end of the trough travel over and 
 engage, as they pass along, the metal cogs fixed on either side of the stock. 
 (Fig. 8, p. 21.) 1 
 
 By this arrangement the trough can be securely retained, in transit, at any 
 point between the one it started from and the one it attains when drawn back to 
 its full extent by the windlass. 
 
 As the lock and trigger of the balista are fi.Ked to the after-end of the 
 sliding trough (G, fig. 8, p. 21), it will be realised that the arrow could be dis- 
 charged at any moment required in warfare, whether the bow-string was fully or 
 only partially stretched. 
 
 In this respect the balista differed from the crossbow, which it somewhat 
 resembled, as in a crossbow the bow-string cannot be set free by the tricrcrer at 
 an intermediate point, but only when it is drawn to the lock of the weapon. 
 
 It will be seen that the balista derives its power from two arms ; each with 
 its separate skein of cord and pair of winches. 
 
 These parts of the balista are the same in their action and mechanism as 
 those of the catapult. 
 
 Fig. 8 (oPFOSixp page). -The Mechanism of the Stock of an Arrow- 
 throwing Balista. 
 
 A. Side view of the stock, with the arrow laid in the sliding troucrh 
 before the bow-string Is stretched. '"^ 
 
 B. Surface view of the stock, with the arrow laid in the slidino- trouo-h 
 before the bow-string is stretched. '^ '^ 
 
 C. Section of the fore-end of the stock, and of the trough which slides in 
 and along it. 
 
 » When the bow-stiing has been released and the arrow rii^rV,ar„o^ »i 
 cogs on the stock of the engine. This allows the trc^Xo be st ff ' h' ''"''l''' "''" "'"'"'^ '^'^' °^ ^'^« 
 A, B, fig. 8, p. .1. It is then ready to be drawn bacHfail for t£ neTshot "' '"''°" " ^'"^^■" '" 
 
THE BALISTA 
 
 21 
 
 G 
 
 Fig. 8. — The Mechanism of the Stock of an Arrow-throwing Balista. 
 
 D. Surface view of the trough, with the trigger and catch for the bow- 
 string. 
 
 E. Side view, showing the keel (F) which slides along the slot cut in the 
 surface of the stock as the trough is drawn back by the windlass. 
 
 G. Enlarged view of the solid end of the trough. This sketch shows the 
 catch for the bow-string, the trigger which sets it free, the ratchets which engage 
 the cogs on the sides of the stock, and the slot cut in the stock for the dove- 
 tailed keel of the trough to travel in. 
 
 Balistas were constructed of different sizes for the various purposes of 
 siege and field warfare. The smallest of these engines was not larger 
 than a heavy crossbow, though it more than equalled the latter in power and 
 
 range. 
 
 The small balistas were chiefly used for shooting through loopholes and 
 from battlemented walls at an enemy assaulting with scaling ladders and 
 movable towers. 
 
 The largest had arms of 3 ft. to 4 ft. in length, and skeins of twisted sinew 
 of 6 in. to 8 in. in diameter. 
 
 Judging from models I have made and carefully experimented with, it is 
 certain that the more powerful balistas of the ancients could cast arrows, or 
 rather feathered javelins, of from 5 to 6 lbs. weight, to a range of from 
 450 to 500 yards. 
 
22 
 
 THE BALISTA 
 
 Fig. 9. — Balista for throwing Stone Balls. Approximate scale : J in. = i ft. 
 This engine is here shown with its bow-string only slightly drawn along its stock by the windlass. 
 
 It will be seen that this engine is almost identical in construction with the 
 one last described. (Fig. 7, p. 19.) 
 
 The difference is that it propelled a stone ball instead of a large arrow. 
 
 The ball was driven along a square wooden trough, one-third of the 
 diameter of the ball being enclosed by the sides of the trough so as to keep 
 the missile in a true direction after the bow-string was released. 
 
 The bow-string was in the form of a broad band, with an enlargement at 
 its centre against which the ball rested. 
 
THE BALISTA 
 
 23 
 
 The description given of the mechanism and management of the engine 
 for throwing arrows can be applied to the construction and manipulation of this 
 form of balista, which was also made of large and small dimensions. 
 
 Small engines,' with arms about 2 ft. in length and skeins of cord about 
 4 in. in diameter, such as those I have built for experiment, will send a stone 
 ball, I lb. in weight, from 300 to 350 yards. 
 
 There is little doubt that the large stone-throwing balista of the Greeks, 
 and Romans was able to project a circular stone, of 6 to 8 lbs. weight, to a 
 distance of from 450 to 500 yards.' 
 
 Fig. 10. — The Sliding Trough of the Stone-throwing Balista. 
 
 A. Surface view, with the stone in position. 
 B. " Side view, with the stone in position. 
 
 C. Front view of the stone as it rests in the trough against the enlarged 
 centre of the bow-string. 
 
 D. Enlarged view of the solid end of the sliding trough. This sketch 
 shows the ball in position against the bow-string ; the catch holding the loop 
 of the bow-string, and the pivoted trigger which, when pulled, releases the catch. 
 One of the pair of ratchets which engage the cogs on the sides of the stock, 
 
 ' The balls used by the ancients in their catapults and balistas were often formed of heavy pebbles 
 inclosed in baked clay, the reason being that balls made in this way shattered on falling and hence could 
 not be shot back by the engines of the enemy. The balistas for throwing arrows, and those employed for 
 casting stones, were fitted with axles and wheels when constructed for use in field warfare. (Pages 260, 273, 
 300, The Crossbow:) 
 
24 THE BALISTA 
 
 as the trough is drawn back by the windlass to make ready the engine, is also 
 shown. The trough has a keel to it, and slides to or fro along the stock in the 
 same manner as in the arrow-throwing balista. (Fig. 7, p. 19.) 
 
 Compare with figs. 7, 8, pp. 19, 21, for further explanation of details. 
 
 For a detailed account of the history and effects in warfare of catapults, 
 balistas, and other ancient projectile engines, refer to Chapters LII, LIII, LIV, 
 and LVIII of ' The Crossbow.' 
 
A TREATISE 
 
 ON TURKISH AND OTHER ORIENTAL BOWS 
 
 OF MEDIEVAL AND LATER TIMES 
 
 The Turkish Bow. Construction and Dimensions 
 
 The Bow-string ..... 
 
 The Arrow . . ..... 
 
 The Method of Stringing a Turkish, Persian or Indian Bow 
 The Horn Groove .,.;... 
 The Thumb-ring ....... 
 
 Composite Bows of various Oriental Nations . 
 
 The Range of the Turkish Bow ..... 
 
 3 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 II 
 
 12 
 
 i6 
 19 
 
 D 
 
m 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 < 
 
 H 
 K 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 D 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 pq 
 
THE TURKISH BOW— CONSTRUCTION AND DIMENSIONS 
 
 Length of bow, measured, before it is strung, from end to end along its 
 outer curve with a tape, 3 ft. 9 in. (AAAAA fig. i, opposite page.) 
 
 Span of bow, measured between its ends when strung, 3 ft. 2 in. 
 (BB fig. I.) _ ^ 
 
 Length of bow-string, 2 ft. 11 in. 
 
 Greatest width of each arm of bow, i-|^ in. 
 
 Thickness of each arm, at a distance of 6 in. from the centre of the handle 
 of the bow, \ \n} 
 
 Circumference of each arm, at a distance of 6 in. from the centre of the 
 handle of the bow, 3 in. 
 
 (The arms of the Persian, Indian, and Chinese composite bows have a width 
 of from \\ to 2 in.; and though the span of these bows, when strung, is from 
 4 to 5 ft. and more, they do not shoot a light arrow nearly so far as the 
 shorter, narrower, and in proportion far stronger and more elastic Turkish 
 ones.) 
 
 The strength of the bow, or the weight that would be required on the centre 
 of the bow-string to pull it down from the bow to the full length of the arrow, is 
 118 lbs. (This is without taking into account the additional two or three inches 
 the point of the arrow should be drawn within the bow along the horn groove.) 
 
 Weight of bow, avoirdupois, 1 2\ oz. 
 
 Though I have carefully examined over fifty of these small Turkish bows, 
 I have never seen one that exceeded \\^ in. in width at its widest part, or if 
 measured with a tape along its outer curve, when unstrung (AAAAA, fig. i), 
 was over 3 ft. 10 in. in length. Bows that are 4 or 5 in. longer than the dimen- 
 sions here given are invariably of Persian or Indian manufacture, and are very 
 inferior in the elasticity that is requisite for long-distance shooting, though in 
 decoration and construction they often closely resemble Turkish bows. 
 
 ' In the very powerful bows, such as the one shown in Fig. 15, p. 21, the thickness at these parts is 
 from I to if in. 
 
 D 2 
 
4 THE TURKISH BOW-ITS CONSTRUCTION 
 
 The bow is chiefly constructed of very flexible horn and sinew These 
 materials were softened by heat and water and then longitudinally glued to a 
 slight lath of wood, varying from i to i in. in thickness (except where it formed 
 the handle of the bow), and from i to i in. in width. 
 
 This strip of wood formed the core or mould of the bow, and extended at 
 each of its ends for 3 in. beyond the strips of horn and sinew that were fixed 
 on its opposite sides, and which slighdy overlapped it. (Fig. 2, p. 5-) ^ "e 
 projecting ends of the wooden strip were enlarged so as to form the solid 
 extremities of the bow in which the nocks for the bow-string were cut. 
 
 (CC fig. 3. P- 6.) r u u 
 
 The two curved horn strips, which in part comprised the arms ot the bow 
 '(on its inside face when it was bent), were cut from the horn of a buffalo or an 
 antelope, and average about i in. in thickness. 
 
 The thicker ends of these pieces meet at the middle of the handle of 
 the bow and their tapered ends extend to within 3 in. of its wooden points. 
 (EE fig. 3, p. 6.) 
 
 The sinew that represents the back of the bow is from the great neck 
 tendon of an ox or stag. This was probably shredded longitudinally, and, after 
 being soaked in elastic glue, compressed into a long flat strip about ^ in. 
 thick, which was first moulded in a pliable state to the wooden core and 
 then glued to it. It thus formed the back of the bow when it was bent. 
 (DDD fig. 3, p. 6.) 
 
 The bark of the cherry-tree, or thin leather or skin, was next glued over 
 the sinew to preserve it from injury and damp. The horn parts, oir inner face 
 of the bow when it was strung, were not covered with bark or skin, a feature of 
 the Turkish bow that, together with its small size, distinguishes it from the 
 bows of India and other Oriental countries.^ 
 
 In the best Turkish bows this outer coating of bark, leather, or skin, was 
 lacquered a brillicint crimson and elaborately decorated with gold tracery, the 
 date of the bow being always placed at one of its ends and the name of its 
 maker at the other. 
 
 The horn and sinew (the materials which really form the bow and crive it 
 its power and elasticity) may be likened to a tube, the small centre of which is 
 filled with wood. (Sections, fig. 2, opposite page.) 
 
 ■ Though the horn strips which form the belly, or inner surface when it is strung, of a Chinese or a 
 Tartar bow, are neither covered nor decorated, the great size of these weapons easily distinguishes them 
 from those of Turkish manufacture. (Fig. 13, p. 16.) 
 
THE TURKISH BOW-ITS CONSTRUCTION 
 
 Fig. 2. — Sections of a Turkish Bow. 
 Half full size. 
 
 I. Section of bow at 6 in. from one of its ends. 
 
 II. Section of bow at half-way between the centre of i|:s handle and one 
 of its ends. 
 
 III. Section of bow at the centre of its handle, which is here thickly 
 covered with sinew. 
 
 IV. Longitudinal section of bow at half-way between the centre of its 
 handle and one of its ends. 
 
 Light shading, AAAA. The compressed sinew forming the back of 
 the bow when it is strung. 
 
 Dark shading, BBBB. The horn forming the inner surface of the bow 
 when it is strung. 
 
 Lined centres. The thin lath of wood to which the horn and sinew parts 
 of the bow are moulded and fixed. 
 
 The thin wooden lath, in places only \ in. thick, bestowed no strength on 
 the bow, as it was merely its heart or core to which the two curved strips of 
 horn and the long band of sinew were glued. (Fig. 3, p. 6.) 
 
 As it would have been very difficult and tedious to shape so fragile a lath 
 in one length to suit the outline of the finished bow, this lath was always made 
 in three pieces, which were fitted together at their joints and then secured with 
 glue. (Fig. 3.) 
 
 The middle piece formed the core of the handle of the bow and the other 
 pieces the core of its limbs. (Fig. 3.) 
 
 The extremities of the two outer pieces of the wooden core were enlarged 
 to form the strong projecting points of the bow in which the nocks for the 
 bow-string were cut. (CC fig. 3.) 
 
6 THE TURKISH BOW-ITS CONSTRUCTION 
 
 E ^— — — — - C 
 
 Fig. 3.— Longitudinal Plans of the Parts of a Turkish Bow. 
 
 AAA. The three pieces of thin wood that formed the core of the bow. 
 Surface view. (The two outer lengths of the core were steamed into a curve as 
 showri in CCC.) 
 
 BBB. The pieces glued together. Surface view. 
 
 CCC. The pieces glued together. Side view. 
 
 DDD. The strip of sinew that was glued to the core, and which formed 
 the back or outer surface of the bow when it was reversed and strung. 
 
 EE. The two strips of naturally curved horn that were glued to the core, 
 and which formed the belly or inner surface of the bow when it was reversed 
 and strung. 
 
 THE BOW-STRING 
 
 The main part of the bow-string was composed of a skein of about sixty 
 lengths of strong silk and was ingeniously knotted at each of its ends to a 
 separate loop, formed of hard and closely twisted sinew. A loop and its knot 
 is shown in fig. 4, opposite page. 
 
 These loops could not fray or cut, as would occur if they were made of silk 
 and they fit into the nocks of the bow. The loops rest, when the bow is strung! 
 upon small ivory bridges (fig. i, p. 2) which are hollowed out to receive them 
 and which, in this way, assist to retain the bow-string in its place. Though 
 these httle bridges are not always present on Turkish bows, they are invariably 
 
THE TURKISH BOW— ITS BOWSTRING 
 
 7 
 
 to be found on those of Persian, Indian or Chinese construction, their greater 
 length requiring the assistance of bridges to l^eep their bow-strings in a correct 
 position. 
 
 I. A loop and its knot as first 
 formed on one end of the skein of the 
 bow-string, 
 
 II. The loop drawn up, but not 
 tightened. 
 
 III. The loop drawn up tight and 
 its loose ends secured. 
 
 As shown in III, the projecting 
 ends of the length of sinew which 
 forms the loop are cut off to within a 
 third of an inch of the 'knot. They are 
 singed at their extremities, so as to form 
 small burrs which prevent the short 
 length of strong silk, which lashes them 
 together, from slipping off 
 
 The ends of this last small lashing 
 
 are placed beneath the wrapping of silk 
 
 to be seen on the skein near the knot 
 
 in III. 
 
 In this way the knot of the loop is rigidly secured against any chance of 
 
 drawing when the bow is in use. 
 
 (The bow-strings of all Oriental bows, with the exception of the Tartar and 
 Chinese, were made as above described.) 
 
 Fig. 4. — One of the Loops of hard and 
 closely twisted sinew which are knot- 
 ted to each end of the middle part 
 or skein of a turkish bow-string. 
 
 Scale ; Half full size. 
 
 THE ARROW 
 
 Length of arrow, 25^ in. to 25! in. 
 
 Weight of arrow, avoirdupois, 7 drs., or equal to the weight of two shillings 
 and a sixpence. 
 
 The balance of the arrow is at 12 in. from the end of its nock. 
 
 Shape of arrow, ' barrelled,' and much tapered from its balancing-point to 
 its ends : its sharp ivory point being only \ in. in diameter (where it is fitted to 
 the shaft) and \ in. in length. 
 
8 THE TURKISH BOW— ITS ARROW 
 
 The part of the shaft to which the feathers are attached is -^ in. 
 in diameter, and the centre of the shaft -^ in. 
 
 Though I have carefully measured and weighed about two hundred 
 eighteenth-century Turkish flight arrows, I have scarce found a half-dozen that 
 were ^ in. more or less than from 25^^ in. to 2^f in. in length, or that 
 varied by even as little as -| dr. from 7 dr. in weight. In regard to their 
 balancing-point these arrows are equally exact, as this ]Dart is invariably from 
 1 1^ in. to 12I in. from the nock. 
 
 It is evident that the old Turkish flight arrow was made to a standard 
 pattern that experience showed was the best for long-distance shooting. 
 
 The light and elegantly shaped wooden nock of an old Turkish arrow 
 (fig- 5) is quite unlike the clumsy horn nock of the modern European one. 
 
 The latter cannot withstand the recoil of the Turkish bow and soon splits 
 apart, though in the thousands of times I have discharged Turkish arrows 
 I have never known one to split at the nock. 
 
 It will be noticed that the shape of the Turkish nock — with its narrow 
 entrance that springs apart to admit the bow-string and then closes again — 
 
 enabled an archer, even on horse-back, 
 ^i~ii, .ii i . ri . M i ; ,, i I r,i« .i iiMm. , . i» . . . i ain iiiiiiii...,^^^^^ A to Carry an arrow ready for use on the 
 
 string of his bow. 
 ^ A. The butt end of the arrow, 
 
 with the projecting wooden halves of 
 the nock shaped and ready to be glued 
 to the shaft. 
 
 B. The halves of the nock glued to 
 
 _ ^ ^ the shaft. 
 
 i'lG. 5. — I HE Construction of the Nock of ^ ' 
 
 A Turkish Arrow. C, D. The feathers glued to the 
 
 Scale : Half full size. shaft. 
 
 ^ , .' The feathers (3) of a Turkish flight 
 
 arrow, though stiff, are as thin as paper, and are a^ in. long and i in. high near 
 the nock. They were often made of parchment.' 
 
 The dark band of shading to be seen round the nock in C and D is a 
 wrappmg of fine thread-like sinew. This sinew, after being soaked in hot glue 
 was wound to a th.ckne.ss of about ^ in. all over the nock and it thus held the 
 halves of Che latter securely to the shaft. 
 
 When dry, the wrapping of sinew was cut out where it crossed the openintr 
 for the bow.str.ng. I. nevertheless gave a great increase of strength tlh! 
 .h,„ project,ng halves of the nock, as it covered the. on their oute'surface! 
 
 ^ Parchment feathering increases the rane-e nf fl' t, 
 this is, that parchment is so thin and smooth that it nff. ^"T, ^^ ^' ^^^'^ '^'''^ ^^"^^- ^he reason of 
 
 at the same time it is much harder, as well as much mo4 Jn'LlSg, tt"' fe^her.''"'"" '° "' "'"' "'"" 
 
ORIENTAL BOWS— STRINGING 9 
 
 with a sheathing that was very tough and elastic, and as smooth as glass to the 
 touch. This wrapping was, of course, applied before the feathers were glued on. 
 So careful were the Turks in the construction of these arrows, that even 
 the halves of their nocks were made from wood with a natural curve to suit 
 the finished outline. It is possible, of coujse, they would not otherwise have 
 withstood the violent shock of the released bow-string. It may be said that 
 every inch in length of a Turkish bow or arrow was named in a manner that 
 could be recognised or referred to. In a general way the parts of an arrow were 
 known as follows : — 
 
 The enlarged centre .... The stomach. 
 From the centre to the point . . . The trowser. 
 From the centre to the nock . . . The neck. 
 
 THE METHOD OF STRINGING A TURKISH, PERSIAN OR 
 
 INDIAN BOW 
 
 In these days no person I have ever heard of can string a strong Turkish 
 bow — diminutive as this weapon is — without much personal assistance, or else 
 by mechanical means, yet formerly the Turkish archer unaided could do so 
 with ease. 
 
 This he achieved by a combination of leg and manual power. 
 (Figs. 6 and 7, p. 10.) 
 
 With the longer reflex bows, the Chinese for instance, this operation is 
 fcomparatively easy, as the hand can reach one end of the bow and draw it 
 inwards for the loop of the bow-string to be slipped into the nock. 
 
 The Turkish bow, being so short, necessitates a great effort of strength on 
 the part of the archer to bend it between his legs and, at the same time, stoop 
 down to fit the bow-string. From constant practice, the Turk of former days 
 knew exactly how and when to apply the muscular force of leg and arm 
 necessary to string his bow — a performance that no modern archer could 
 accomplish with a bow of any strength. 
 
 Leg and manual force combined is the only possible method of stringing 
 a strong reflex bow, unless mechanical power is utilised : it was the hereditary 
 custom of the Orientals. In the operation, there is always the risk of twisting 
 the limbs of the bow, from a lack of the great strength of wrist required to 
 hold them straight during the stringing. If the limbs of the bow are given 
 
 E 
 
lO 
 
 ORIENTAL BOWS— STRINGING 
 
 the slightest lateral twist as they are being bent, the horn parts^ are certain to 
 splinter, and the bow is then useless and damaged beyond repair. ^ 
 
 The difficulty of reversing and stringing a very stiff bow with such a reHex 
 curve that its ends nearly meet before it is bent may be imagined. 
 
 De Busbecq tells us that some of the Turkish bows were so strong that it 
 a coin was placed under the bow-string at one end of the bow, as it was being 
 struno-, no one but a trained archer could bend the bow sufficiently to set free 
 the coin so that it fell to the ground. 
 
 Fig. 6. 
 
 Fig. 7, 
 
 Fig. 6 shows an Oriental reflex bow being gradually reversed preparatory 
 to fitting on its bow-string. 
 
 Fig. 7 shows a similar bow when reversed sufficiently to fit its bow-string. 
 
 Though this illustration is from an ancient Greek vase, it will be noticed 
 that in it the power of the leg and arm is applied in precisely the same way as 
 in the more modern example given. 
 
 ' The only safe method for a modern archer to adopt in order to string a powerful reflex bow is 
 to use strong upright pegs, the size of tent pegs, inserted in smooth ground or in holes in a board, the 
 bow resting during the process flat along the ground or board. Insert one peg against the inner face of 
 the handle of the bow and then pull the ends of the bow back by degrees, placing a peg behind each of its 
 ends as you do so to retain them in their acquired positions. The outer pegs can be shifted towards you as 
 the bow is gradually bent, first at its one end and then at its other one. Finally, when the bow is fully 
 bent the bow-string can be fitted across it from nock to nock and the pegs removed. To unstring the bow 
 grasp its extremities and, with the palms of the hands uppermost, bend it slightly across the knee at the 
 same time shifting with the thumb one of the loops of the bow-string out of its nock. 
 
THE HORN GROOVE 
 
 The thin horn groove which the Turk wore on the thumb of his left hand when 
 flight-shooting is shown in fig. 8. 
 
 This ingenious contrivance enabled the archer to draw the point of his 
 arrow from 2 to 3 in. within the inner surface of his bent bow. He was thus 
 able to shoot a short and light arrow, that would fly much farther than the con- 
 siderably longer and heavier one he would have had to use if he had shot in the 
 ordinary manner without the grooved horn. 
 
 The groove in the horn guides the arrow in safety past the side of the bow, 
 when the bow-string is released by the archer. ^ 
 
 The Turk, in fact, shot a short and light arrow from a very powerful bow, 
 v/hich he bent to the same extent as if he used an arrow 3 in. longer, with 
 its proportionately increased size, weight, 
 and frictional surface to retard its flight. 
 
 In the former case it will easily be 
 understood that a much longer rang-e 
 could be achieved than in the latter. 
 
 Of this increase in length of flight 
 conferred by the use of the grooved horn, 
 the following experiment is conclusive 
 evidence. 
 
 I lately shot from a Turkish bow 
 twelve arrows, each arrow being three- 
 quarters of an ounce in weight and 
 28J in. in length. 
 
 These twelve arrows were individually 
 drawn to the head and the distance they 
 reached averaged 275 yards. 
 
 I then reduced the same arrows to a ^he bow is shown fdly bent and ready for 
 
 release, the point of the arrow being drawn 
 length of 25^ in. each, and to a weight back for a couple of inches inside the bow. 
 
 of half an ounce each. 
 
 They were now shot from the same bow, over the same range and 
 under the same conditions of weather, but their points were drawn 2\ in. 
 within the bow along a grooved horn. The distance they then travelled 
 averaged 360 yards. 
 
 E 2 
 
 Fig. 8.— The Horn Groove. 
 
12 ORIENTAL BOWS— THE THUMB-RING 
 
 The Turk, as was the custom of Orientals, shot his arrow from the right- 
 hand side of his bow, as shown in fig. 8, p. ii.' 
 
 The bow is here represented as fully bent, the point of the arrow being 
 drawn back along the groove of the horn for a couple of inches within the bow. 
 
 The horn is attached to the thumb by a small leathern collar.- 
 
 A short plaited cord of soft silk is suspended from the fore-end of the 
 horn and is gripped between the fingers of the archer as he holds the bow. 
 
 This cord enables the archer to keep the horn in a level position on his 
 hand. It is fixed to a small strip of leather which is glued beneath the horn. 
 
 The horn is usually of tortolseshell, very highly polished. It is from 
 5 to 6 in. long, i in. wide, ^ in. deep inside and yV ^n. thick. 
 
 It is slightly sloped from its centre of length to each of its ends, so that 
 when the arrow is projected it touches the hard and smooth surface of the horn 
 very lightly, and with, therefore, the least possible friction to retard its flight. 
 
 As the horn groove is only one-sixteenth of an inch thick, the arrow, as it 
 is drawn back or shot forward, may be said to fit close against the side of the 
 bow. 
 
 TUB THUMB-RING. 
 
 The Turk pulled his bow-string with a ring of ivory, or of other hard material, 
 fitted on his right thumb. (Fig 9, p. 13.) Its manipulation is shown on p. 14. 
 
 It might be supposed that the strain of the bow-string on the ivory rino- 
 would cause the edges of the latter to injure the flesh and sinews of the thumb''; 
 this is not, however, the case in the least. 
 
 I find I can bend a strong bow much easier, and draw it a great deal 
 farther, with the Turkish thumb-ring than I can with the ordinary European 
 finger-grip. 
 
 The release to the bow-string which is bestowed by the small and smooth 
 point [in Turkish "lip "] of the thumb-ring, is as quick and clean as the snap of 
 a gunlock when a trigger is pulled, and very different in feeling and effect 
 from the comparatively slow and dragging action that occurs when the release 
 takes place in the European way from the leather-covered tips of three fingers. 
 
 ^ To discharge the arrow from the left-hand side of the bow as is the ri,.,fom ;„ ,11 17 
 the leather ring and the grooved horn will have to be fitted to the lll^^TZllll^r^'^^ '''^'''' 
 
ORIENTAL BOWS-THE THUMB-RING 
 
 13 
 
 The range of a flight arrow when shot from a bow by means of a thumb- 
 ring is always much beyond that of an arrow shot with the three fingers in the 
 usual manner. 
 
 With the thumb-ring the feathers of an arrow can be placed close to its 
 nock, as the usual space of about i| in. need not be left on the shaft at the 
 butt-end lest the fingers holding the bow-string should crush the feathers of 
 the arrow — a precaution that is necessary in all European archery. 
 
 There is no doubt that the closer to the nock the feathers of an arrow can 
 be fixed, the farther and steadier it will travel. 
 
 The handle of an English bow, or of any other bow that is loosed with the 
 fingers, is placed below its centre so that the arrow can be fitted to the middle 
 of the bow-string, a point which is just above the hand of the archer as he 
 grasps the bow. 
 
 A bow held below its centre can never be pulled really true, the limb below 
 the handle being shorter than the one above it. | 
 
 In a Turkish bow the handle is in its exact centre of length, and the pro- 
 jecting point, or lip, of the thumb-ring engages the bow-string close to its centre. 
 
 For these reasons the bow is equally strained, each 
 of its limbs doing its proper share of work in driving the 
 arrow, an advantage that is very noticeable in flight-shooting, 
 and would probably also be at the target. In the method of 
 loosing used in modern times the bow-string lies across the 
 three middle fingers, its outline, where the arrow is nocked 
 on the string, taking the form of two angles connected by 
 a straight line 2I to 3 in. in length. 
 
 With the thumb-ring the bow-string is drawn back to 
 one sharp angle close to the apex of which the nock of 
 the arrow is fitted, so that every part of the string is utilised 
 in driving the arrow. (Fig. 12, p. 14.) 
 
 The ease with which a strong bow can be drawn with 
 the thumb-ring, and the entire absence of any unpleasant 
 strain on the thumb, is remarkable. This proves how effec- 
 tive the Oriental style of loosing a bow-string was, compared 
 with the one practised by European archers. 
 The ring was usually of ivory, its edges being round and smooth where 
 they came in contact with the skin of the thumb. 
 
 A covering of soft leather was sometimes glued all over the sloping outer 
 surface of the projecting lip of the ring. 
 
 The leather assisted the archer to hold the ring firmly with his forefinger, 
 so that it could not slip under the strain of pulling back the bow-string. The 
 
 Fig. 9.— The Turk- 
 ish Thumb-ring. 
 (Scale, half full 
 size.) 
 
14 
 
 ORIENTAL BOWS— THE THUMB-RING 
 
 projecting lip of the ring bestowed the leverage which enabled the archer to 
 draw the bow-string of a powerful bow. 
 
 Thumb-rings of silver or of agate were often permanently worn by Turkish 
 archers of position, both for ornament and for use. 
 
 These rings were finely polished and frequently inlaid with gold. 
 
 Fig. io. 
 
 Fig. 12. 
 
 Fig. II. 
 The Turkish Thumb-ring and its Manipulati 
 
 ON. 
 
 Fig. IO. The position of the hand when the arrow is first i^n.r^ . .u 
 bow string, the latter being hitched behind the lip of the LltrJr^ f 
 
 of the arrow should be close against the Ho of tlV l'""''''''"^' ^he nock 
 
 about an eighth of an inch of tfe angle fo Id itheT' " -^"^^ "'''" 
 fully drawn, as shown in fig. 12. '''" bow-string when it is 
 
 Fig. II. View of the thumb, with the rina A ' 
 to closing the forefinger and thumb '" P°^'^'°" preparatory 
 
 [B. Section of the bowstring as hitched behind the projecting lip of the 
 
 C. The base of the forefinger, or the part of it which presses tidn] 
 
 the slopmg surface of the lip of the rin^r ;„ f.. . r t ^ ^ °'^'='" 
 when the bow is being bent J ^' °"' °^ '^^ bow-string. 
 
ORIENTAL BOWS— THE THUMB-RING 15 
 
 Fig. 12. The base of the forefinger pressed against the ring, the hand 
 closed, and the bow-string and arrow being drawn back by the thumb-ring. 
 
 h should be noted that no part of the hand is utilised in holding the ring 
 
 and in drawing the bow-string, except the thumb and the base of the forefinger. 
 
 When the pressure of the forefinger is taken off the ring (by separating this 
 
 finger and the thumb) the bow-string instantly pulls the lip of the ring slightly 
 
 forward, and at the same moment slips off it with a sharp ' click.' 
 
 The archers of other Oriental nations besides the Turks employed thumb- 
 nngs of various shapes and dimensions to suit the construction of their bows 
 bow-strmgs and. arrows. All thumb-rings were, however, more or less similar' 
 and were all used in the manner I have described. 
 
 It is, indeed, impossible to shoot an arrow by means of a thumb-ring 
 except as I have shown, and as a very short practical trial will prove. 
 
 If the ring is applied in any other way it either flies off the hand when the 
 bow-string is released ; the thumb is injured ; or the bow-string escapes from its 
 hold when only partially drawn. 
 
 In one of the Turkish manuals on Archery translated by Baron Purgstall 
 (p. 22), many illustrations are given of the construction of the Turkish composite 
 bow, but, unfortunately, minor details are omitted, though doubtless they 
 were common knowledge when the Ottoman author wrote. 
 
 Without these details the correct formation of the bow cannot be ascertained. 
 The chief omissions are (i) The composition of the very strong and elastic glue 
 with which the parts of the bow were so securely joined, (2) The treatment of the 
 flexible sinew which formed the back of the bow — whether, for instance, it was 
 glued on in short shredded lengths or was attached in one solid strip. 
 
 All we know is that the sinew was taken from the Ligamenhmi Colli oi an 
 ox or stag, a very powerful and elastic tendon which contracts or expands as the 
 animal raises or lowers its head to feed or drink. 
 
 When the sinew which comprises the back, or outside when it is struno-, of 
 a Turkish bow — however old it be — is dissolved in hot water, it disintegrates 
 into hundreds of short pieces of from 2 to 3 in. long and about \ in. in diameter, 
 each as ductile as indiarubber and almost unbreakable by hand. 
 
 The component parts of a Turkish bow, consisting of a thin strip of horn, 
 one of wood and another of sinew (fig. 3, p. 6), are so pliable when separated 
 that they can almost be coiled round the fingers, though if the same pieces are 
 glued together they form a bow of unrivalled strength and elasticity. 
 
i6 
 
 ORIENTAL BOWS 
 
 TARTAR, 
 UNSTRUNG. 
 
 CHINESE, 
 UNSTRUNG. 
 
 CHINESE, 
 STRUNG. 
 
 3 
 
 xn 
 
 TL 
 
 Scale : One inch = one foot. 
 Fig. 13. 
 
 Figs. 13, 14. The Comparative Dimensions of Reflex Composite 
 Bows of VARIOUS Nations. — The structure of all these bows is similar in that 
 they are composed of sinew, wood and horn, i.e. sinew on the back of the bow. 
 
ORIENTAL BOWS 
 
 PERSIAN, 
 UNSTRUNG. 
 
 17 
 
 TERSIAN, 
 STRUNG. 
 
 INDIAN, 
 UNSTRUNG. 
 
 INDIAN, 
 
 STRUNG. 
 
 TURKISH, 
 
 UNSTRUNG. 
 
 TURKISH, 
 
 STRUNG. 
 
 I 2 
 
 I I I I I N I I I I M I I M I m1 I I I 
 
 J 
 
 Scale: One inch = one foot. 
 Fig. 14. 
 
i8 ORIENTAL BOWS 
 
 naturally curved horn on its inner face, and a thin core of wood between the 
 horn and sinew. 
 
 Though the range of the Turkish bow — whether with a flighting or with a 
 war arrow — far exceeds that of the other bows depicted, yet the Persian and 
 Indian weapons are capable of shooting to a long distance, certainly much farther 
 than any European longbow. 
 
 The great Chinese or Tartar bow requires a very loner arrow, which from its 
 length is, of necessity, a heavy one with a thick shaft. It cannot be propelled, 
 as a result, farther than from 250 to 260 yards. One distinctive feature of 
 Chinese, Tartar, Persian or Indian bows is the formation of their bow-strings. 
 These are invariably from j to ^^ in. in thickness, and are always closely 
 wrapped round, from end to end, with soft cord or coloured silk of about the 
 substance of worsted. 
 
 The Turkish bow-string is -J in. thick, and is merely served round with fine 
 silk for 3 in. at its centre of length, with three or four shorter lashings at 
 intermediate points. 
 
 THE LENGTHS OF THE ARROWS FORMERLY USED IN WARFARE WITH" THE BOWS 
 
 GIVEN IN FIGS. 1 3 AND 1 4. 
 
 Chinese or Tartar bow . . . . 3 ft. 
 
 Persian . . . . . . 2 ft. 8 in. 
 
 Indian . . . . . . 2 ft. 6 in. 
 
 Turkish ^ . . . ' . . . . 2 ft. 4^ in. 
 
 ' The long Turkish war arrow was drawn to the head as in an ordinary bow. The grooved horn was 
 only used with the short and light flight-arrow. 
 
THE RANGE OF THE TURKISH BOW 
 
 In 1795 Mahmoud Effendi, 
 Secretary to the Turkish Am- 
 bassador in London, shot a 
 25! in. flight arrow 480 
 yards. The bow he used is 
 similar to the one shown in 
 fig. I, p. 2, and is now pre- 
 served in the Hall of the 
 Royal Toxophilite Society, 
 Regent s Park. 
 
 Mahmoud Effendi ac- 
 complished this feat — which 
 was carefully verified at the 
 time — in the presence of a 
 number of well-known mem- 
 bers of the Toxophilite Society 
 of the day, including Mr. T. 
 Waring, the author of a work 
 on Archery. 
 
 Joseph Strutt, the his- 
 torian, was also a spectator, 
 and describes the incident in 
 his book entitled ' The Sports 
 and Pastimes of the People of 
 England.' 
 It is beyond question that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with 
 bows precisely similar to the one shown in Fig. i, but of much greater power, 
 flight arrows were shot from 600 to 800 yards by certain famous Turkish archers. 
 The achievements of these celebrated bowmen were engraved on marble 
 
 ^ There are many country residences in England at which the author has made very long shots with 
 a bow and arrow, and where trees have been planted to mark the distances. Among others ; Glynllivon 
 Park, Carnarvon ; Broomhead Hall, Sheffield ; Onslow Hall, Shrewsbury ; Norton Priory, Runcorn ; The 
 Hendre, Monmouth, and Harpton Court, New Radnor, may be named. 
 
 F 2 
 
 The Author. Shooting with 
 A Turkish Bow.' 
 
340 
 
 yards 
 
 3o8 
 
 ., 
 
 286 
 
 1. 
 
 290 
 
 .. 
 
 310 
 
 M 
 
 20 THE TURKISH BOW— ITS RANGE 
 
 columns erected at the ancient archery ground near Constantinople, and these 
 records are still in existence.^ 
 
 The only trustworthy evidence of unusual ranges attained with the English 
 
 lonebow is as follows : 
 
 1798. Mr. Troward 
 
 1856. Mr. Horace Ford 
 
 1881. Mr. C. J. Longman 
 
 1891. Mr. L. W. Maxon 
 
 1897. Major Josfeph Straker 
 
 It is not probable that the English bowmen of mediaeval days were able to 
 shoot the arrows they used in warfare farther than from 230 to 250 yards. Nor 
 is it likely that they could send flight arrows to longer ranges than those given 
 above, as heavy yew bows, strong as they may have been, were unsuitable 
 for the purpose.2 It was from their great elasticity, as much as from their 
 strength, that composite bows derived their wonderful power. 
 
 When, too, the composite bow was strung, its bow-string was much more 
 taut than was that of any European bow, as the latter was merely bent out of a 
 straight line, whilst the former was bent from a sharp reflex curve, which it was 
 always striving to resume when in use. 
 
 Though many nations formerly used composite bows of horn and sinew, no 
 people attained such dexterity in their manipulation, or constructed them of such 
 marvellous power and efficiency, and at the same time so small, elegant and 
 light, as did the Turks. 
 
 It should not be supposed, however, that because these bows were so dimi- 
 nutive in size, they were mere playthings for shooting a flight arrow to an 
 immense range. They were powerful weapons of warfare, and, as I have 
 proved in practice, those of only moderate power are capable of sending an iron- 
 shod arrow weighing 5s., or one ounce, to a distance of 280 yards. Bows that 
 could shoot a flight arrow 600 yards, and more, would certainly be able to drive 
 an ounce arrow 360 to 400 yards— or much farther than was possible with the 
 old English longbow and its war shaft. 
 
 I have obtained with much difficulty during the last few years about a score 
 of composite bows of Turkish manufacture from various parts of the Ottoman 
 Empire. Not more than three or four of these have, however, proved service- 
 able, owing to their age, as no bows of the kind have been made for over a 
 hundred years, the art of their construction being long since neglected and lost. 
 
 ' See The Crossbow, pp. 28, 29. 
 
 - In King Henry IV., Second Part, Act III., Scene 2, Shakespeare makes Shallow exclaun of 
 Double that the latter could shoot a flight arrow from 280 to 290 yards. In the time of Shakespeare 
 (1564-1616) It was, therefore, considered a notable feat to send an arrow to this distance. 
 
THE TURKISH BOW— ITS RANGE 
 
 21 
 
 With the bow depicted in Fig. i, I shot six arrows in succession to ranges 
 exceeding 350 yards, the longest flights being 360, 365 and 367 yards. This 
 public record was established July 7th, 1905, at an archery meeting held at Le 
 Touquet, near Etaples in France. The ground selected for the trial was per- 
 fectly level ; there was no wind, and the distances were accurately measured by 
 several well-known members of the Royal Toxophilite Society who were present. 
 
 With the same bow I have, in private practice, thrice exceeded 415 yards, 
 and on one occasion reached 421 yards. ^ 
 
 Though this bow is a powerful one for a modern archer to draw, it is a 
 mere plaything compared with other Turkish bows of the same length, but of 
 far greater strength, which I possess. 
 
 Some of the latter are so curved in their unstrung state that their ends 
 nearly meet, and are so stiff, when strung, that I cannot draw them to more than 
 
 Fig. 15. Sketch of a very powerful Turkish Bow with its Arrow and Bow-string. 
 
 half the length of a 25^-in. arrow. Fig. 15 shows a bow of this kind in my 
 collection. 
 
 Such bows as these require a pull of 1 50 to 160 lbs. to bend them to their full 
 extent, which quite accounts for the marvellous, but well authenticated, distances 
 attained in flight-shooting by the muscular Turkish bowmen of bygone days. 
 
 Though 367 yards is a short range in comparison with that which the best 
 Turkish archers were formerly capable of obtaining, it is, so far as known, much 
 
 1 I presented this bow, and some of the arrows I used at Le Touquet, to the members of the Royal 
 Toxophilite Society. These are now preserved in the club house of the Society in Regent's Park, the fine 
 hall of which contains an unrivalled collection of archery implements and curiosities. 
 
22 
 
 THE TURKISH BOW— ITS RANGE 
 
 in excess of the distance any arrow has been shot from a bow since the oft- 
 quoted feat of Mahmoud Effendi in 1795, p. 19. 
 
 Full corroboration of the wonderful flight-shooting of the Turks may be 
 found in some treatises on Ottoman archery which have been translated into 
 German by Baron Hammer-Purgstall (Vienna, 1851). 
 
 In his directions concerning the selection of suitable bows and arrows for 
 the sport, one of the Turkish authors quoted by Purgstall writes : ' The thinnest 
 
 ) 
 
 Turkish Cavalry Soldiers with their Bows. 
 
 From an illuminated Turkish MS. in the Sloane Collection, B.M., dated 1621 No s2^8 
 These reproducuons plamly show how small was the size of the bow formerly used in ."arfare 
 by Turkish soldiers. ".luctre 
 
 and longest flying arrow has white swan feathers shaped like leaves ' and this 
 arrow, with a good shot, carries from 1,000 to 1,200 paces.' 
 
 The orthodox length of a pace is thirty inches, and thus even i,ooo paces 
 or the lesser range mentioned, would exceed 800 Eno-Hsh yards ' 
 
 Augier Ghislen de Busbecq (1522-1592), a Belgian author and diplomatist, 
 clescnbes the Turkish archery he witnessed when ambassador to the court o 
 Solyman, and the well-mgh incredible distances to which he saw arrows propelled. 
 
 ' Anglice, Balloon feathers. 
 
THE TURKISH BOW— ITS RANGE 23 
 
 Full information to the same effect, with excellent diagrams, may be found 
 in a Latin MS. on Turkish archery by J. Covel, D.D., Chaplain to the Embassy 
 at Constantinople 1670-1676.^ 
 
 Another treatise (in Turkish) entitled ' An Account of some famous Archery 
 Matches at Bagdad (1638-1740), dedicated to the Governor of that city by the 
 author, M. Rizai,^ may also be consulted, as it gives the exact ranges of the 
 longest-flying arrows. 
 
 It should be remembered that many years ago flight-shooting was a very 
 popular recreation of the Turks, that every able-bodied man was a practised 
 archer, and that every male child was trained to use a bow from the earliest 
 possible age. 
 
 The origin of Turkish and other highly finished composite bows, and the 
 approximate date when they were first used in sport and warfare, it is now 
 impossible to determine. Bows that are undoubtedly of this kind and which 
 are of excellent shape and design, are depicted on some of the most ancient 
 pottery existent, and are also referred to in some of the oldest writings we 
 possess. 
 
 For a full account of Ottoman archery and the extraordinary feats of 
 Turkish bowmen, see pp. 27, 28, 29, 30, The Crossbow. 
 
 ' MSS., B.M., 2291 1, folio 386. 2 Sloane MSS., B.M., 26329, folio 59. 
 
 PRINTED BV 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE ANU CO. LTD., NEW-STKEET SQUARE 
 
 LONDON