As some will remember last year, on the old forum, there was a discussion about how powerful and effective Japanese bows were - basically, is the Powerbow classification justified. The discussion trailed off with, IMO, no real solid answers. Certainly no real information appeared to be available on things like draw weight of the yumi :-[ Thought it might be worth having another look at it.
Some of the discussion revolved around the construction of the yumi as this evolved over time. This evolved from a basic self bow with the addition of a number of bamboo strips over time to a quite complex construction. However, the dates at which these various iterations of the yumi were introduced was not clear - and even then, the lack of any real information on the strength of the bow makes even this less than definitive.
The progression of the yumi is from a basic self bow (marugi yumi) to a self bow with a more refined cross-section (kiyumi) to one with a single strip of bamboo added (fusetake yumi) to one with a second strip of bamboo added (sammai uchi yumi) to one with the wood encased with 4 strips of bamboo (shihochiku yumi) and finally to one mainly of bamboo with some wood (higo yumi). I've taken this from Friday's work.
Reading Mike Loades warbow book - which usefully adds the yumi to his work on the longbow, crossbow and composite bow so all are covered by 1 well informed author - he sees the introduction of the more complex types of yumi to be quite late. Turnbull states that as late as the Mongol invasions of Japan (late C13th CE) the yumi only had a single added strip of bamboo - this is later than Friday has in his Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan where he sees a 2nd bamboo strip added at the turn of the C13th with further additions in the C15th.
Alas what this means in terms of power is still rather vague. Friday states that Japanese bows were "distinctly inferior to those used by horsemen on the continent" and that the kuyimi and fusetake yumi were "particularly weak". Loades is not so specific but sees the yumi, even in its most developed form, being of around the same sort of draw weight as the steppe composite bow on average. Loades also notes that the bows issued to the ashigaru would have been of the more basic types with lower draw weights (but that wouldn't be a list issue as, IIRC, they have Bow not Powerbow anyway).
So overall I'm not quite sure where we stand as hard evidence on the weapons seems a bit vague.
I suspect that the answer to classification is a question that RJC asked that was never really answered (that I can recall). This is one of actual effect in battle.
Basically are there any accounts of cavalry being shot down en masse by Japanese bowmen in a way that would justify Powerbow of any sort (and because some lists allow it, Skilled Powerbow)?
My recollection is that the only possible example was shooting down of unarmoured types, for which the classification would not be needed.
Certainly the improvement in the bows developed in line with the development of the Kyudo schools. Leslie had some good data on that last time.
Indeed I think we had a lot of evidence last time actually. Maybe worth revisiting dates for cut overs from Bow to Powerbow and Experienced to Skilled.
Certainly the Minamoto ones I saw demonstrated matched a Longbow pretty much exactly and that was the subject of a great Quest TV programme on JAP once.
The issue on battle reports is that they had very different arrows for different purposes. Not sure that was the case with the longbow so much, as it faced cavalry and heavy armour more systematically.
Draw weight comparison isn't straightforward. It is arrow dispatch momentum that matters. Whole point of the composite is more of that for less draw weight. I think again I posted a load of stuff last time in general about composite vs. longbow.
Open to any further ideas.
Si
A few notes before I go and do some actual work :P
Loades covers kyudo quite a bit and it appears that a lot of the development was later than our period (post 1600) and not really military - so we probably have to be a touch careful with it.
As far as I can see military arrows are basically bodkin variants and pretty similar to other cultures - which as they have the same function is not really surprising.
Draw weight isn't everything, however, it is a useful indicator. Based on the Turnbull and Friday comments noted above about the design of yumi in use at the time of the Mongol invasions and its inferiority compared to those used on the continent at the time, I'd suggest that for the Heian and Kamakura lists we're looking at Experienced Bow as the classification.
I think it was more when the schools started. Leslie had some good data.
Certainly they actually peaked in the Sengoku period. So late in our army list book.
I did see the Minamoto one equal a long bow. So from then on stay PBw and maybe Experienced. Skilled later.
So I would concur that the earlier ones may be better as Bow. I do recall reading somewhere that in the early development of Horse and Bow era tactics they outranged the Emishi and that was one of the reasons for its initial development as a HA longbow. That was why I kept the PBw earlier in the initial draft.
The armour arrows were near identical I agree. They had a range of lighter versions with wide heads and lighter metals for unprotected targets. And some very cool ones that whistled in the air to cause morale stress. I think there is a great piccie somewhere in a Turnball book. Not that it matters much fore the decision but fun.
Not wedded to anything pre Minamoto era. Let's dig a bit more and play it out. I don't recall what happened to the bit of the Mongol invasion that made it ashore. Any accounts you know of?
S
Mulling this over further.
I think Skilled should stay pre the official schools. While these consolidated the fighting method formally the Horse & Bow doctrine emerged much earlier and was practiced extensively. This also ensures the emerging Samurai can deal with the Emishi threat they were created to counter once past the early stages.
What we are missing in the stages of the Yumi development.
So I think we should have the following as a migration in the lists:
Heiin Experienced Bw
Kamakura Skilled Bw
Mormachi Skilled PBw
Sengoku Skilled PBw
Si
I think the Emishi are a bit of a red herring in all of this. From what I can see they were defeated by about 800 CE which is at a period when the Japanese were using (following Turnbull Friday) fairly weak bows - they were, I believe, pretty much defeated by the the large militia armies covered by the Yamato list in MeG and not by the much smaller bushi + followers armies of the Heian period. Also worth noting that the vast majority of Emishi in their list are Unprotected which rather makes a difference :D
Of course, one of the issues we have in rating Japanese bowmen is the apparent lack of data on their physical characteristics in the way we have on, say, the English bows thanks to the finds on the Mary Rose. Hence why I think that to get a plausible classification we really need to look at the battle accounts to draw conclusions - which can be tricksy ???
BTW, as an aside, this also does rather raise the question as to whether the Skilled Powerbow in some English lists are in fact justified ... unfair just to look at the Japanese 8)
It does indeed and I pondered the same thing.
Si