I have been practicing traditional Asiatic archery. There is a bunch of stuff in that article that is misleading.
First, the composite bow design used by the Mongolians was widely use as far as the region of the Ottoman-Turks … but also the Manchus, Chinese, Koreans.
Second, the recurve and reflex shapes of the bow is not what gives the bow its power. It is siyahs at the tip, which do not bend, and acts as a lever on the bendable parts. There is a tradeoff. The larger the siyah, the more mass the bow has to overcome to fire these arrows, so the draw weight need to be significant enough to warrant the use of a siyah. Turkish and Chinese composite bows start outperforming longbows of the same draw weight at around 40-50 pounds, while the Manchu horn bows start outperforming longbows at 70-80 pounds. According to those who test it out, the performance gap is exponential.
Third, the most powerful of the Asiatic bows are probably the Manchu bows. They double-down on making long, aggressive (forward angle) siyahs, and even innovating string bridges to increase brace height and help prevent the bows from unstringing themselves. They were not designed to shoot arrows fast. Like most Asiatic composites, these were designed to shoot very heavy, long arrows with great penetration power. Manchus also love their horses, archery, and the hunt.
A hundred years after the Manchus conquered China and founded the Qing dynasty, their archery traditions were in decline. The Qing emperors recruited Mongolians to be trained in the Manchu ways of archery to keep their traditions alive.
There is a lot more to it as well — such as the thumb draw and use of thumb rings; the variations of khatra, etc; how modern Mongolian archers competing in the Mongolian Games are switching away from thumb draw.
Lastly, a note on the Chinese. With early access to metallurgy and ideas on standardized parts, the Chinese “superweapon” was the crossbow. At no point in the Chinese history were there armor that could protect someone from a crossbow, and its effectiveness was likely a factor in the slow adoption of firearms.
First, the composite bow design used by the Mongolians was widely use as far as the region of the Ottoman-Turks … but also the Manchus, Chinese, Koreans.
Second, the recurve and reflex shapes of the bow is not what gives the bow its power. It is siyahs at the tip, which do not bend, and acts as a lever on the bendable parts. There is a tradeoff. The larger the siyah, the more mass the bow has to overcome to fire these arrows, so the draw weight need to be significant enough to warrant the use of a siyah. Turkish and Chinese composite bows start outperforming longbows of the same draw weight at around 40-50 pounds, while the Manchu horn bows start outperforming longbows at 70-80 pounds. According to those who test it out, the performance gap is exponential.
Third, the most powerful of the Asiatic bows are probably the Manchu bows. They double-down on making long, aggressive (forward angle) siyahs, and even innovating string bridges to increase brace height and help prevent the bows from unstringing themselves. They were not designed to shoot arrows fast. Like most Asiatic composites, these were designed to shoot very heavy, long arrows with great penetration power. Manchus also love their horses, archery, and the hunt.
A hundred years after the Manchus conquered China and founded the Qing dynasty, their archery traditions were in decline. The Qing emperors recruited Mongolians to be trained in the Manchu ways of archery to keep their traditions alive.
There is a lot more to it as well — such as the thumb draw and use of thumb rings; the variations of khatra, etc; how modern Mongolian archers competing in the Mongolian Games are switching away from thumb draw.
Lastly, a note on the Chinese. With early access to metallurgy and ideas on standardized parts, the Chinese “superweapon” was the crossbow. At no point in the Chinese history were there armor that could protect someone from a crossbow, and its effectiveness was likely a factor in the slow adoption of firearms.