Military Review

To the question of a new typology of cultures: lukofily and lukofoby (part one)

“And Elisha said to him, Take a bow and arrows. And he took a bow and arrows ... "
(Fourth Book of Kingdoms 13: 15)

I always thought that when science is isolated from the people, it is bad. It is bad when a person writes in such a way that even an expert and that one understands his colleague with difficulty. It is bad when there is a science for specialists and non-specialists. And, on the contrary, it is good, when the latest achievements of experts become accessible to all. Actually, this is how this article appeared. Initially, it was a publication in one very narrow international scientific publication, which, apart from specialists of historians and cultural studies, no one reads. But its content seems so interesting that the article was somewhat adapted to IN, so that those who are simply interested in modern military история. So ... let's start with the fact that we will note the great variety of methods for the typology of cultures that exist today: truly, how many people, so many opinions, and why this is so, is understandable. This phenomenon is very diverse, and if so, then the criteria for distinguishing different types of crops can be different. These are also ethnographic criteria, which can be everyday life, economic order, language and customs. Spatial-geographical, which are based on the most diverse regional typologies of cultures: Western European, African, Siberian, etc. Chronological and temporal, due to the time of existence of a particular culture (“culture of the Stone Age”, “culture of the Bronze Age”, culture of the Renaissance, postmodern). Well, someone is trying to summarize the disparate characteristics of a particular culture in the form of the most generalized typology of cultures along the lines "East - West" and "North - South."

At the same time, just as in the case of the “Pareto principle”, the same culture, depending on the point of view of the researcher, can be included in one type of culture, then in another. As is known, V.I. Lenin singled out the types of bourgeois and proletarian culture, based on this typification class attribute. But didn’t the proletarian culture have elements of bourgeois culture, and didn’t practically all the inhabitants of Russia of that time were Orthodox (not counting foreigners, of course), that is, belonged to the same Orthodox culture?

Ancient frescoes by Tassilin-Adjer, depicting archers.

That is, it is clear that there are many typologies of cultures, and among them, what kind of their species and varieties has not been invented by cultural scientists. In the framework of the historical and ethnographic typology, this is anthropological, household and ethnolinguistic. And they, in turn, are divided into numerous subspecies. There are also cultural models of a number of famous scientists, which have already been mentioned too much to repeat them again. These are N.Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, F. Nietzsche, P. Sorokin and K. Jaspers. That is what modern students, both “techies” and “humanities”, try to study with difficulty, and, most importantly, understand and remember in the framework of the university course “Cultural Studies”. However, it is surprising that neither F. Nietzsche with his Dionysian-Apollonic dichotomy, nor K. Jaspers with four heterogeneous periods of history [1] could notice another very important typological factor in the development of human society, namely: in ancient times it divided into lukofily peoples and lukofoby peoples. Moreover, both of them gave rise to their own civilizations, which developed on the open spaces of two continents at once - Eurasia and Africa.

To the question of a new typology of cultures: lukofily and lukofoby (part one)

Wooden bow and arrows of the Ainu living in Hokkaido.

Here it is important to note those preferences that a given division of culture has over others, since some signs are naturally more significant than others. To begin with, we note: according to the latest finds of archaeologists, in Spain, bows and arrows were used already in the Paleolithic era. In the Sahara, images of hunters with bows and arrows belong to the era when the Sahara “blossomed”, and we see exactly such images on the rocks near Lake Onega and Altai, and in the Alps the famous Ottsi, a warrior and a copper-and-blacksmith century [xnumx]. That is, once a bow was common everywhere, it was used very widely, and the attitude towards it as arms for hunting and war, it was the same everywhere.

Relief from the burial temple of Ramses III in Medinet-Abu in Upper Egypt, depicting a sea battle with the "peoples of the sea." Modern processing in color. Please note that before you naval battle, but the warriors use only bow!

But then, somewhere in the region of Central Asia, something happened that caused some people, let's say, an ambiguous attitude towards the bow! The British historian T. Newark drew attention to this very important circumstance after others in his article “Why Knights Never Used Bows,” published in the Military Illustrated magazine in 1995 year. Today it is perhaps the most important issue related to the genesis of the defensive and offensive armament of cavalry warriors, as in the European part of Eurasia, and, consequently, all of its military culture and - this is unlikely to be an exaggeration - culture in general!

He notes that in the Middle Ages the most effective weapon was a bow and arrow, especially a composite bow, from which a horse was shot from the back. The greatest horse archers of the Middle Ages were, of course, the Huns, the Mongols and the Turks. Their names resurrect the terrible images of racing cavalry soldiers escaping from attack, imitating a retreat only to turn around in the saddles and lower the deadly hail of arrows from the bowstring. But, despite repeated defeats at the hands of these eastern hordes, the military effectiveness of such horse archers was never used by the military elite of Western Europe. Knights never used bows and arrows. Why?

“Throughout the Middle Ages, the knights believed that killing an enemy with an arrow from a bow was mean and did not do credit to a good warrior. The true knightly nobility goes to the winner in a one-on-one death fight with a spear, sword or mace. The use of bows and arrows was left for people below in their social status who could not fight as bravely or bravely as their gentlemen. That is why archers recruited peasants who could not buy a horse, even if their material well-being allowed them to do it; therefore, for the most part, European archers were on foot, and only social and cultural snobbery did not allow horse archers to become a characteristic part of the war in Europe.

When the West met with the East, in the fields of Western Europe or along the coast of the Holy Land, the Western knights still found themselves on equal footing with eastern horse archers, but only until they were torched until they used a bow. The principle of fair combat - one-on-one combat, an equal weapon - did not imply possession of a knight’s bow. It was the infidels who changed the laws of battle, so why did the knights remain at the same level? Apparently, defeat with dignity looked better than unfair victory. But the roots of this aristocratic prejudice do not lie in the knightly code of the Middle Ages, this was also observed in the ancient German military customs.

"Immortals" - the personal guard of King Darius. Frieze from the palace of Darius in Susa. Stored in the Louvre.

During the siege of Rome by the Ostgoths in 537, the Greek historian Procopius documented how vulnerable the German barbarians were to the horse archers. To break the siege, Bellisarius, a Byzantine-Roman commander, sent several hundred horsemen to wear down ready. They were given clear instructions - not to engage in a close battle with the Germans, to use only their bows. As ordered, the Byzantines avoided ferocious attacks ready, climbed the hill and showered enemy troops with a hail of arrows. As soon as the supply of arrows ended, they quickly hid behind the city walls, pursued by the angry barbarians. These raids proved so successful that Bellisarii used such tactics several times with heavy losses for the ready. If you believe the words of Procopius, and he was an indisputable witness to the siege of Rome, the losses were huge, and indicates that there were no horse-drawn archers, and the Byzantines had them. And this is not the only such case.

When the Goths were surrounded by the Byzantine commander Narses in 552, in the Apennina village Taginai, Procopius was again surprised that none of the barbarians had a bow. He explained this by saying that their leader ordered his soldiers not to use any weapons other than their copies for some mystical reason.

East Roman mosaic depicting the soldiers of the era of the sunset of the Empire. Pay attention to the very large shields that needed to be protected from the arrows of the Avars, the Slavs and the Arabs.

Whatever the reason, the German soldiers were killed by arrows of the Byzantine archers, both mounted and foot. But was such a catastrophic military policy widespread?

Archaeological and literary evidence asserts that horse archers were very rare in the German barbarian armies of Western and Central Europe. The cavalry retinue of the German "military lords" used only a sword and a spear, and the main part fought on foot with spears. Some of the barbarian warriors, in particular the Goths, lived in Eastern Europe for many centuries, but, despite close contact with horse archers of such peoples as the Huns and Sarmatians, they did not see the need to use the bow in themselves. The reason why the ancient Germans did not like the bow was the same as that of the knights. Archery was considered unfair!

Fanaticism, with which so denied the bow, was inherent in the whole of Germanic Europe. The Romans and Byzantines had no problems placing a large number of archers in their armies, whether they were foreign mercenaries or imperial troops - they all had a powerful composite bow. In the East, professional warriors considered it necessary and worthy of mastering horse archery masterfully. Beautifully decorated bows gave distinguished noble warriors. Eastern lords had a gilded bow as a sign of power. In the West, there were no decorated bows. A professional warrior rider or knight touched a bow only when he used it in hunting or in sport.

Arrowheads from the Metropolitan Museum in New York.

With the disappearance of the Mediterranean Roman Empire and the political rise of the German aristocracy, this fashion becomes widespread, despite all the Eastern lessons learned by the Romans and Byzantines. From this point of view, one thing is surprising: how did the Germans win a place under the sun at all? The answer to this question lies in the fact that the rapid attack in the melee wiped out any advantages of horse archers compared to the German riders. In addition to this strategy, economic and political factors, the triumph of the barbarians is not so difficult to understand. However, in the next thousand years, the inexplicable disgust of the Western horsemen to the bow cost them dearly in Spain and the Holy Land, where the Crusaders suffered greatly from lightning attacks of Saracen horse archers. When the Mongols conquered Europe, Western knighthood proved ineffective. Then only the death of the great Khan saved Europe from the subsequent accession to the Eastern Empire.

Very interesting tombstone, which we have in Russia in the courtyard of the archaeological museum in the city of Temryuk. The inscription under the relief reads: "Queen Dynamia (set the image) Matiana, (son) Zaydar, for the sake of memory." Probably, she herself also composed the text of this epitaph, and she herself also ordered that the tombstone be made to the head of the bodyguard detachment. Since Dynamia (60 BC - 12 BC) was the queen of the Kingdom of Bosporus, it is obvious that at that time her army had riders riding horses without stirrups, but using long spears and in addition, while not parting with the bows, which they kept in leather leather case with a low bowstring. (Author's photo)

(To be continued)
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 17 May 2016 07: 00
    Mughal bow made of steel (1900). Wallace Collection, London.
    The armaments of most of the infantrymen were swords, shields, spears, daggers, bows, and sometimes crossbows. The powerful composite bow of Central Asian origin has been known in India for thousands of years, but such bows are very affected by the local climate; as a result, the Mughal warriors used kamta or a simple bow, similar in design to the medieval English bow.

    It is known that even in antiquity, when the Mauryev state existed in India, archers used bows of such a magnitude that they pulled them with their legs! Well, Muslim India has developed its own type of onion, suitable for the Indian climate - steel, Damascus steel. The main occupation of the infantry was a siege, and since there were a lot of castles and fortresses in India, the Mughals simply could not do without infantry.
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 08: 50
      You also read about the "leg". I remember how it struck me back in Avdiev's book "History of the Other East"
      1. Riv
        Riv 17 May 2016 09: 37
        This, let's say, is not a very ancient product. The 15th century, not earlier. Pay attention to the carving: it is cut, but they were not able to cut it in the ancient world. Threaded connections were known, but the threads were either cast, extruded, or forged. Archimedes saw a screw? It is just forged, or cast, if made in metal. Lathes, taps and dies have not yet been invented. The first devices for threading just in the 15th century and relate.

        And in a small nut, the thread can not be carved, or cast. From the word "absolutely", just cut, or squeeze out. We take the bolt, screw it into the unthreaded hole, then unscrew it back. We look inside: it worked. Then just throw out the bolt. But it will not work to squeeze out the thread in carbon steel, only in soft one. Therefore, the threaded connections were made either one-piece (tightened the screw with all the foolishness - and for centuries), or it is such that you can stick your finger into the gap.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 20 May 2016 03: 01
      Damascus bow carving, cool. But why is it needed? You can’t twist halves strictly in one plane, by risks? This is not a bolt-nut where it will stop in any position. It's easier to forge the whole onion whole. Most likely it was. And London, so then he and London to fool.
  2. Alceers
    Alceers 17 May 2016 07: 23
    The author, I am aware that you are an ardent Germanophile, and in each of your work you tirelessly prove their highest superiority, in terms of honor and dignity, over us, ordinary Untermesh. But, this is your quality, it already affects your professional activity. If you argue in the hatred of chivalry for the bow, then how do you explain the fact that accurate shooting was in the mandatory training program for each of them? And even a cursory search in Google for "knightly virtues" also gives out skillful handling of the bow?
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 17 May 2016 08: 20
      The question is with what bow, in Europe there were horse archers, but they were forced to dismount for firing.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. bocsman
        bocsman 17 May 2016 09: 40
        [i] [/ i]
        Quote: Alceers
        And even a cursory search in Google for "knightly virtues" also gives out skillful handling of the bow?

        [i] [i] The question is with what bow, in Europe there were horse archers, but they were forced to dismount for firing.

        Here is my answer. Bone or inability to perceive from neighboring peoples a compact but very effective composite bow convenient for shooting from the saddle made the "chivalry" from which "nobility" and did not smell, except in the songs of minstrels and chivalrous novels. Come up with a version of the "ignoble" use of the bow. After all, dismounting in battle is not easy for a knight!
      3. Chiropractor
        Chiropractor 17 May 2016 11: 19
        Quote: cth; fyn
        there were horse archers in Europe, but they were forced to dismount for firing

        and why?
        Samurai have no less bows than Welsh, and they shoot arrows from a horse from it ...

        maybe the fact is that the forests of Europe were cut down only by the late Middle Ages, and when Rome was stormed, the Germans lived in the forests? The columns of Vara in the forests were chopped into cabbage.

        And in the forest, the bow is somehow not very. There is a lot of interference. Deer current in the glades lay in wait.

        The Vikings did not hold bows in high esteem - "The weapon of a coward". But later, nevertheless, in the command of the drakkar, they had five archers - a sea battle began with their skirmish.
        But, you know, pitching knocks down the sight, moist sea air spoils the bowstring ...
        1. Denimax
          Denimax 17 May 2016 13: 56
          Quote: Kostoprav
          And in the forest, the bow is somehow not very. There is a lot of interference. Deer current in the glades lay in wait.

          This is more like a reason. The battle in the meadow can quickly move into the forest, and there is not much space for onions.
        2. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 19 May 2016 18: 25
          True, the samurai have no less bows, but the design is completely different.
        3. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 20 May 2016 04: 17
          Correctly. Terms of use. In the warm southern seas, the bowstring can be dried, and in the northern dampness, not moisture.
      4. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 20 May 2016 04: 14
        "The fanaticism with which the bow was so denied was inherent throughout German Europe."
        Quote: cth; fyn
        The question is with what bow, in Europe there were horse archers, but they were forced to dismount for firing.

        That's right, with a big bow. And the steppe men had small bows and shot from the horse. Moreover, bows are mostly typesetting, having elements from different materials. Which increased the firing range, if necessary armor piercing.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 20 May 2016 03: 47
      "The reason the ancient Germans did not like the bow was the same as that of the knights. Archery was considered dishonest!"
      Here's how. The author is not adequate, the fight again got mixed up with the knights' tournaments. In a battle where victory is at all costs, a bow is a dishonest weapon. What sophisticated noble, Germanic knights. And what a love for them. And if you turn on the head, you can see that for the knight the spear and sword are universal weapons and they can be wielded with equal success against the horse and the foot. The armies, and what armies, vassal squads constantly balked at each other. The peasants are forbidden to take up arms, otherwise they will like it, they will learn and go to the senior.
      Imagine a knight chained in armor with a bow of 1,5 m (and less than a bow does not work, you need to plant the same armadillo), the horse picks with legs, both are massive, inert, not agile, and gallops towards with an shield, with a spear to an advantage. I didn’t get a couple of times and pity on the skewer. And toss the bow to take a spear, in a fighting position, at the same time and speed did not pick up to strike. So it turns out the bow is not needed by the knight. He may have shot from a bow when, but the main thing is a sword and a spear.
    CONTROL 17 May 2016 07: 26
    Yeah, lucidly stated!
    Knights destined for war, from "pure blah-a-native" motives, did not use bows, but at the same time they willingly used other throwing weapons (allowing them to hit the enemy at a distance)! Analogs of crossbows - arose almost simultaneously with bows ...
    Nobleness and war are incompatible things, especially in Europe ...
    Maybe it’s easier to search cleanly technical reasons the rare use of bows in war? For example - the manufacture of arrows, which should be hollow - for range and accuracy; and in this regard - almost one-time ...
    Thus, the reason for the spread of fragrant cosmetics in Europe is not in the "Christian faith", where "water washes away the grace of God ...", but in the absence of forests suitable for fuel (they burned out and cut down, "deforested Europe"); water needs to be heated!
    ... and the famous French cuisine, where everything is crushed to a state of puree - also because of the lack of fuel: boil and fry "mashed potatoes" - and a bunch of brushwood is enough!
    Compare Russian cuisine - a whole fork of cabbage is put into the cauldron ... whole turnips ... uncut beets ... lamb leg ... beef ham ... and the like! and - into the oven for 3-4 hours ...
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 17 May 2016 08: 43
      And where did such boilers find in Russia? So far I haven’t heard anything like this, I’m talking about boilers where beef thighs fit.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 20 May 2016 03: 57
        Quote: cth; fyn
        And where did such boilers find in Russia? So far I haven’t heard anything like this, I’m talking about boilers where beef thighs fit.

        Well, you bet you, you know, for the sake of a red word, you will not regret it and ... What beef, boran did not smell. Not nomads tea. Meat is not on any holidays, and only Cossacks need such boilers.
  4. Riv
    Riv 17 May 2016 08: 45
    Honor and blaaaagorodstvo ... :) Pinned. Of course, the reasons were completely different.

    The fact is that it is not at all easy to shoot from a bow at least a couple of hundred meters. We need training. The skeletons of Welsh archers in old burials have characteristic changes in bones. An archer must be taught from childhood, and taught to fight in a squad. Shoot in one gulp, shoot with a canopy, move on the battlefield by commands. All this is very difficult and a single archer is ineffective. And the feudal lord of that time was a fighting unit "in itself". "Fight in a crowd? This is for the peasants. And my chain mail will not be pierced by an arrow." - you can't argue if the archers are not at dagger fire range and do not hit in one gulp. You can't catch a dozen arrows with a shield, and chain mail may not save you.

    It is exactly the same on the battlefield if the archer is on a horse. From the crowd shooting at discord, there is no sense. So there was no sense in arming a medieval knight with a bow. The high cost of horses was superimposed on this. If the spaces of Eastern Europe allowed to breed herds of horses, then somewhere in Germany you can’t especially drive the herd out onto the field. A feudal neighbor will come running (it’s good to run - three hours) and privatize your herd.

    Now the second part of the Marlezon ballet: why did the equestrian archer become the king of battle? Because physics. The kinetic energy of the arrow and, accordingly, its lethal force, depends on the mass of this arrow and on the square of its speed. Square, Carl! Let's say an arrow from a bow is fired at a speed of 200 km / h. If the archer at this time sits on a horse and the horse runs at a speed of 40 km / h (normal gallop), then the energy of the arrow will increase by 44%. Almost one and a half times. And if the foot shooter didn’t break through the chain mail, then the equestrian - completely. Under Legnica, the Tatars brilliantly demonstrated this.

    As a result, light armor, bow and speed, multiplied by discipline, gave an advantage that was difficult to resist. And the European knights had nothing to multiply. Therefore: the armor is thicker and the spear is more authentic.
    1. brn521
      brn521 17 May 2016 15: 52
      Quote: Riv
      Now the second part of the Marlezon ballet: why did the equestrian archer become the king of battle? Because physics

      Let's look at the Koneluk tactics, here for example: http: //
      1) "Round dance" A ring of two rows of horses running around in a circle with a "caterpillar" and firing at the enemy on foot, firing sideways.
      2) "Tulgama" / "Tulgamysh" - coverage of a walking enemy from the flank with a call to the rear. The enemy does not have time to rebuild, which is why he suffers increased losses from shelling.
      3) Attack with a feigned retreat and ambush. Again, an attempt to break the enemy system.
      4) "Fake" with melee weapons and "removable battle" Infantry, having lost formation, is attacked hand-to-hand.
      Conclusion - the horse archer became the "king of battle" in the territories suitable for him due to his mobility, and physics and addition of velocities were not used in the main structures. The shooting was carried out sideways and back. At the same time, the complexity of synchronous maneuvering is mentioned - several leaders are knocked out and the "round dance" crumbles, and the flow of arrows sharply decreases. Now imagine the tactics of mass shelling of the enemy such that you can use the addition of speeds, and even with acceleration up to 40 km / h. There is no such. Instead of a massive shelling, as in a "round dance", you get single shots with zero sense.
      1. Riv
        Riv 17 May 2016 17: 43
        You yourself have never once mounted a horse?
        But what am I talking about? Evgeny Vaganovich, log in.
  5. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 17 May 2016 08: 45
    It turns out that the Russian combatant was more perfect in armament than a knight? Interesting. We look forward to continuing;)
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 08: 54
      This will be in the 3rd part! And it is from here that the legs of "theirs" dislike for us grow. They are also Christians, but "not the same", the same knights, but "not like that", but much more effective - it's a shame, of course!
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 17 May 2016 09: 12
        Well be patient)
    2. Knizhnik
      Knizhnik 17 May 2016 16: 04
      Perhaps the fact is that the Russians had to deal with opponents of different countries, and this undoubtedly enriches military traditions. After all, a warrior was needed who could keep up with the nomad, "kill" the European, tactically outplay the Byzantine. As a result, the requirements for equipment and tactics are appropriate.
  6. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 17 May 2016 09: 25
    Thank you very much, Vyacheslav! I liked the article very much. I especially liked the photos of the frescoes of the Egyptians and Libyans --- my favorite civilizations !!! And the Persian ones are also beautiful!
  7. guzik007
    guzik007 17 May 2016 10: 47
    Yeah, "nobility" of course. Just try, rolled up in armor, like sardine in a tin, to pull the string on outstretched arms. But with crossbows it is much easier. And no less deadly.
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 11: 16
      Again you mean armor? Where does the armor come from? Remember when the barbarian kingdoms and knights of Charlemagne appeared and when "armor". It's easier with crossbows ... haha. When the "Nuremberg gate" appeared, then it became easier! Yes! But when did he appear?
      1. Maegrom
        Maegrom 17 May 2016 14: 45
        A lot depends on the helmet, from experience. A helmet with developed cheeks prevents shooting. You can’t shoot at the firebox already.
        But it seems to me that raising ideology to the absolute is not entirely correct. A knight, even during the Crusades, was many times more likely to encounter knights in confrontations. The clash with the Arabs, too, can not be called a one-sided beating.
        There is no where to get the culture of making composite bows. While in Russia, clashes and cultural exchanges with nomads were carried out regularly, and not once in a generation according to the papal edict.
        Again, it is always more profitable to develop a strong side. The strong base of hand-to-hand cavalry, albeit partly determined by ideology, implied the strengthening of strengths. Not to mention the fact that bows with bows, and almost always came to hand-to-hand combat - both on Kalka and under Agincourt.
      2. Riv
        Riv 17 May 2016 17: 57
        People usually don’t think why did firearms very quickly supplant crossbows? It seems that it shoots more often and kills reliably, but the pistol is much more difficult to manufacture and you can't get gunpowder at once ... The point is again in physics. The crossbow bolt has a much higher velocity than the bow arrow. But he does not have a stabilizer in the form of a plumage, and in flight he begins to make oscillatory movements, as they say: "twirl ... sing." Because of this, the crossbow bolt is extremely prone to ricochets. You can shoot with long feathered bolts, but they already do not have that speed and are not effective in practice. I personally had to watch once how a severed nail, which flew out of a homemade crossbow, sank a couple of fingers into the board and ... bent.

        So imagine: it seems that he shot, hit, and the arrow cuts sparks from the cuirass and flies away. Such a surprise ... A round bullet, even if it has less energy in the first samples of pistols than an arrow, is devoid of such a drawback. Even if it fell outside the normal range, the iron will bend and break through anyway. So instead of the dubious reliability of crossbows, or familiar, but requiring a long training of bows, the cavalry began to prefer a firearm.
        1. Denimax
          Denimax 17 May 2016 22: 52
          Quote: Riv
          Usually they don’t think why, after all, firearms drove out crossbows very quickly? It seems that it shoots more often, and it kills reliably, but the gun is much more difficult to manufacture and you can’t get gunpowder at once ..

          A powerful crossbow also requires manufacture, and there is a trigger, a steel bow, a tension mechanism, and arrows also make trouble. And if the gunshot hits the target, then immediately lay in place, without options. Thrust sticks here clearly lose to the firearm.
          1. Riv
            Riv 18 May 2016 19: 48
            It is not difficult to make a torsion crossbow. Neither alloy steel nor any other modern materials are needed. The trigger mechanism is extremely simple. Arrows are somehow sharpened metal bars. They will not fly far, but they will kill from hundreds of meters. Stationary springald beat as much as half a kilometer. Nothing complicated in general.
            But try to drill, or weld the caliber barrel for the gun. Especially for the musket. Or gunpowder ... Take a look around. Do you see much sulfur? And saltpeter? Can you grind gunpowder? That's it ...
  8. Cherkashin Ivan
    Cherkashin Ivan 17 May 2016 11: 00
    The look is interesting, but in my opinion somewhat one-sided. To use bows or not is not a conscious choice of the military class, but a combination of factors affecting the spread of a particular weapon.
    1. Contempt for throwing weapons as not “worthy of a real war” did not prevent the knights from shooting with bows and crossbows.
    2. In some regions, onions simply historically could not gain distribution. The best example in my opinion is the Balearic Islands, where there were beautiful slingers who in ancient times could perfectly resist archers.
    3. An example of how the change of the enemy leads to the adoption of new tactics and weapons was given by the late Roman Empire. Throughout almost its entire history, the bow was the weapon of barbarians and allies, but not of the Roman legionnaire. In the 5th century, when confronted with nomads, the Romans widely used composite bows.
    4. And last, the bow in this article looks like wunderwaffles. But the same crusades showed that foot crossbowmen and knights can withstand the tactics of raiding horse archers. The episode with the conquest of Cyprus, where the crusaders were also opposed by horse archers, is also indicative. For the effective use of equestrian archers, it’s not enough just to put an arrow on a horse, you also need the appropriate tactics with organization.

    Sorry for such confusing explanations.
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 11: 17
      You wait until all the material comes out ...
    2. Riv
      Riv 17 May 2016 20: 50
      The Japanese do not fire more than two shots in kata kudo. Very rarely when three. Why? Imagine: you are standing in front of a building of a cigarette. In the hands of a bow. The cavalry of the Takeda clan flies at you with cries. Your bow is effective in strength at a distance of 100 meters. How many times do you have time to shoot before you are swept away?
      That's why two arrows. No longer needed.
  9. alebor
    alebor 17 May 2016 11: 06
    Interesting article. Indeed, a certain pattern can be traced - the peoples of Europe, starting with the ancient Greeks and Romans and up to the Middle Ages, for some reason somewhat neglected bows, considering them a "second-class" weapon. But here is the explanation for this disregard for "snobbery", "contempt", etc. is not an explanation. Any ideology is not born from scratch out of nowhere, it must have specific material reasons, "realities of life," so to speak.
    Maybe the reason for this was the habitat and way of life of European peoples, peoples engaged in arable farming and living surrounded by dense forests, "sedentary peoples - pedestrians"? Whereas bows became very popular among the steppe, nomadic, shepherd peoples - wonderful riders who lived in the endless, open steppes, "nomadic horsemen"? And from here the attitude to the bow was formed?
  10. Knizhnik
    Knizhnik 17 May 2016 11: 11
    In general, in the army there has always been a historically formed, materially determined division in armament, and each had its own tactical task. Why, for example, blame the "knight" for the lack of a bow, besides, if there are archers?
    If you believe the words of Procopius, and he was an indisputable witness of the siege of Rome, the losses were huge, and indicates that the Goths did not have mounted archers, but the Byzantines had them.

    That's exactly what horseand on foot were.
    The Goths considered their "trick" the lightning attacks of the riders (this allowed the researchers to call their tactics "one-sided"). The cavalry, well-protected archers were an unpleasant surprise for their enemy. But even having got acquainted with this "novelty", they did not change. The main thing is the correct application of their advantages.
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 11: 19
      Quote: Knizhnik
      The main thing is the correct application of their advantages.

      Right! But morality, traditions and all that jazz ... nobody canceled either!
      1. Knizhnik
        Knizhnik 17 May 2016 15: 50
        Sure. The Goths, in their own way, can also serve as a good example. For example, the cultivated "one-on-one" victory had a sacred meaning for them: in this way, in their opinion, the will of the gods was expressed, and sometimes the fate of a battle could be decided in one duel. Apparently, some psychological features, traditions of the people were reflected in the tradition of a crushing blow of a group of riders on good horses, well armored, with long powerful spears, with good, well-drilled maneuvering ... somehow imperceptibly familiar, in German, not is not it?
  11. tasha
    tasha 17 May 2016 12: 00
    Does it make sense to talk about the division of cultures into Lukophiles and Lukophobes? It is possible that mass love / not love for onions depends on the social system. Which gentleman will tolerate that his peasant slaves masterfully own onions? Each forest has its own Robin Hood ...
    But creating a separate structure for allowing peasants to have a bow with disabilities to the feudal lord could not afford ... wink
  12. King, just king
    King, just king 17 May 2016 12: 21
    Yo mine. Take a look, dinosaurs who remember Lenin in their works have not yet been translated.

    On this topic. And why did you, Vyacheslav take it, that Karl can say the Great, there were no archers (this is from your comments), but how do you prove it?
    You can talk about armor for a long time, saying how to shoot a knight from a bow. Indeed, in the East, too, the heavily armed cavalry did not shoot from bows, with Russian plate squads it is more difficult, I don’t know, let's just say. The British took the yeomen, solved the problem. Another question, who would shoot whom: "long bows" or light steppe cavalry (knock down the horse, let's see how the nomad runs on foot).
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 16: 36
      I didn’t take it. This was first written by Tim Newark in 1995. I developed his point of view with respect to typology in cultural studies.

      "After all, in the East, also the heavily armed cavalry did not shoot from bows."
      Shot! And had bows! What was written by Al-Tarsushi, who wrote treatises for Saladin himself.
      1. King, just king
        King, just king 17 May 2016 17: 52
        And what did he (Newark) write about?
        1. kalibr
          17 May 2016 21: 23
          About "why the knights did not use the bow" in the article, the translation of its text is given in "". My comments and conclusions are given without "-".
      2. King, just king
        King, just king 17 May 2016 22: 02
        Vyacheslav! Have you read Al-Tarsusi, or have you read "as Al-Tarsusi writes." I did not find his compositions in Russian. If you have an English edition, do not refuse to reset it, I will read it like a thread, with a dictionary.
        I, do you know, is it interesting how heavy-armed ramming horsemen fired from bows, which ones, and how they hung from them, along with a quiver of 20-30 arrows, and most importantly why?
  13. brn521
    brn521 17 May 2016 15: 24
    the losses of the Goths were enormous, and indicates that the Goths did not have mounted archers, but the Byzantines had
    And why do you need koneluki as a counterweight? Something is recalled from the history of the same Kazakhs. Konelukov can be taken on spears by cavalry. Moreover, the cavalry overbearing makes it possible to drive Konels even in spite of their overwhelming numerical advantage. Again, the armored cavalry with spears develops the success of the attack on the infantry, if the infantry could not keep the formation. The result is practically the same knights that are in Europe. That's just all this already refers to the time when stirrups were common.
    The reason the ancient Germans did not like onions was the same as that of the knights. Archery was considered dishonest!
    In principle, there are illustrations in the recent history of the world. For example, during the Second World War, the parties could use chemical agents on a much larger scale. But that would be "dishonest". Similarly, it is now "dishonest" to use chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons. Well, it means that in those days the same could have been.
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 21: 28
      Yes, you are right!
  14. Balagan
    Balagan 17 May 2016 16: 10
    Lukophiles and Lukophobes are also an interesting version of one of the classifications. Indeed, how many researchers have so many opinions. Almost like the problem of breaking an egg in Blefuscu. Although, in our time, Kalashkovophiles and Kalashnikov-Phobes can also be distinguished, well, for other weapons as well laughing
    But in general - an interesting article.
  15. ando_bor
    ando_bor 17 May 2016 21: 17
    Archery was considered dishonest!
    A complete misunderstanding of the driving forces of history is nonsense, such concepts are never driving, there are always some practical reasons, although yes, sometimes it is brought under honesty and nobility.
    1. kalibr
      17 May 2016 21: 32
      Excuse me, please, but do you think you understand them? Driving forces! But two experts, well, let's say, quite famous, do not understand? But Krylov’s fable, what about her? How can a pastry chef not appreciate a shoemaker or what? Or randomly read books give the same result as many years of constant work?

      By the way, do you know that in India the temples in Kajuraho are surrounded by a fence? Do you know why?
      1. ando_bor
        ando_bor 17 May 2016 21: 43
        I didn’t spit on all the specialists who would melt in on the proud and courageous and absolutely exceptional because of their particularly high moral qualities - there are natural reasons for everything, which is effective in one landscape and level of development, completely not effective in other conditions.
  16. brn521
    brn521 18 May 2016 10: 47
    Quote: ando_bor
    there are natural reasons for everything

    Take an example. Cannibalism is poorly distributed, and in history it has been found infrequently. What natural reasons can there be?