Military Review

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

73
"He sent out his arrows and scattered them ..."
(Psalm of 17: 15)



Of course, the knights were aware of the power of the bow. There were projects to prohibit the use of bow and crossbow on the battlefield. In 1215, crossbowmen, along with mercenary warriors and surgeons, were recognized as the “bloodiest” warriors. These bans did not have a practical impact on the use of archers in battle, but prejudice was born in the minds of the professional military elite - the bow is not suitable weapons to protect honor.

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

Battle of Beit Khanum. From the “Big Chronicle” by Matthew of Paris. Around 1240 - 1253 (Parker Library, College of "Body of Christ", Cambridge). Retreating under the arrows of the eastern archers and captive knights of the crusaders - this is the best evidence of the effectiveness of eastern bow!

Fortunately, the bulk of the Western knights in their countless wars dealt with opponents armed just like them. But for those who fought in Palestine, such a knightly prejudice was of fundamental importance. Starting from the 12th century, in the Holy Land and throughout the Mediterranean, they begin to hire Saracen archers, such mercenaries were called turcopols, and Frederick II used them many times in Italian campaigns. In the Mediterranean, the skillful skills of archers and crossbowmen took shape in the Late Middle Ages, so that archers became the main contingent in most Western armies.


Archers on the thumbnail of the "Maciejowski Bible." Pierpont Morgan Library.

However, they did not shoot from the saddle. They dismounted as soon as they arrived on the battlefield. Their horses provided mobility during the march and gave them the opportunity to pursue a fleeing enemy, but no one expected them to mount archery, that is, infidel tactics. Therefore, despite the hiring of Saracen archers, one can see that the general prejudice of the knight’s class against horse shooting dictated tactics even to socially lower strata who, of course, were not put in such difficult conditions. Due to the lack of interest that the knights showed in bows, the skill of horse shooting in the West never reached such heights as in the East. It also deprived the Western armies of the tactics of hitting heavy horse archers, warriors dressed in armor and using first a bow, and then a spear and a sword.


Mongolian bow and arrows. When not in use the bow is bent in the opposite direction. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

Only a few exceptions to this rule only reinforced the view that for a professional equestrian warrior, especially belonging to the knightly class, it is baseless to wear a bow. In the VI. the chronicle of the Franks Gregory of Tours mentions Count Ludasta, who wore a quiver over the chain mail. On all other grounds, the count was a member of the military elite of the Franks: he had a helmet, armor and, no doubt, he rode a horse. But he also wore a bow. This item may have been added to show that it was “parvenue”. He quickly rose from the cook and the stableman to the count and therefore did not have the decency of a true noble warrior. He was accused by the historian of spreading rumors that the queen had an intrigue with the bishop.


Stone arrowhead. The era of the late Paleolithic.

In the Middle Ages, knights with a bow were a literary and artistic device, symbolizing cowardice and ignorance, outside of any real connection with what is happening.


Siege of Avignon. Miniature from "The Chronicle of Saint-Denis." Around 1332 -1350 (British Library). Artist Cambrae Missal. Attention is drawn to the great similarity of this miniature to Assyrian reliefs, where the frequent plot is the siege of the fortress and the archers who bombard it.

In a letter to Abbot Furland, the emperor Charlemagne advised him to support his army with horsemen equipped with a shield, spear, sword, dagger and bow and arrows. Such a precedent did not convince anyone, and this was considered part of the general revival of Roman culture promoted by the retinue of Charlemagne. The following proof that the Carolingians had horse archers, is the illustration in the Golden Psalter of the 9th century. In one of her miniatures among a detachment of horsemen-spearmen army of the Carolingian army that attacked the city, one heavily armed soldier is shown in a typical mail shirt, wearing a helmet and a bow in his hands. But on the battlefield, judging by the late medieval manuscripts, cavalry archery for noble warriors becomes possible only if they participate in the hunt. In the psalter of Queen Mary, kept in the British Museum, there is a detail showing the king shooting at a grotesque creature from the back of a horse. It is possible that such a horse shooting in such a case was suitable. It was a world separated from the battle, as it was not the people who were killed, but the animals. But it is possible that both of these details were based on figures from oriental manuscripts used as a curious artistic trick.

The final origin of the noble Germanic prejudice can be traced to the Celtic art of horse shooting. This was the influence of the Greek battlefield. In a play written by Euripides in the 5th century BC, one of the heroes defamed Hercules ’valor:“ He never wore a shield or spear. He used a bow, a coward's weapon - to strike and run. Luke does not make heroes. A real man is the only one who is firm in spirit and dares to stand against the spear. ” Hercules' father says in his defense: “A man skilled in archery can send a hail of arrows and keep something else in reserve. He can keep his distance so that the enemy never sees him, only his arrows. He is never substituted to the enemy. This is the first rule of war - to harm the enemy, and as much as possible, while remaining unscathed by himself. " That is, such an opinion existed among the Greeks already then, and they also belonged to the people of lukofobami. The Romans also considered the bow to be a cunning and childish weapon and did not use it themselves, but hired (by necessity) detachments of archers in the East.

Tim Newark quotes Xenophon as saying that "for inflicting the greatest harm to the enemy, the saber (the famous Greek masterpiece) is better than the sword, because using the rider's position to deliver a chopping blow to the Persian saber is more effective than with the sword." Instead of a spear with a long shaft, which is inconvenient to handle, Xenophon recommended two Persian darts. A warrior armed with them can hurl one dart and use another in close combat. “We recommend,” he wrote, “to throw the dart as far as possible. This gives the warrior more time to turn the horse around and grab another dart. ”


European paveza arbaletchika XV century. from the Glenbow Museum.

Throwing darts becomes a characteristic battle tactic for all pre-Christian western cavalry warriors, including the early Romans, Celts and Germans. In early medieval Europe, equestrian warriors who throw spears, we meet up to the battle of Hastings. A tapestry from Bayeux shows several Norman knights throwing their spears at the Anglo-Saxons, while the rest left their spears for close combat. The archers on the tapestry are practically all infantrymen and, in addition, are depicted on the hem, that is, outside the main field.


Battle of Crecy. The famous miniature from the Chronicle of Jean Froissart. (National Library of France)

The emergence of stirrups in Western Europe was a turning point in stories cavalry But the stirrup at first did not change the course of equestrian combat. The transition from javelin throwing to owning them took centuries, and in this a prejudice about the new, again, rather than the introduction of the stirrup, played a big role. Even when other types of long-range missile weapons were invented, prejudice against the bow as against “the most cruel and cowardly weapon” continued to exist, which is why the knights and noble warriors refused to use it. Such was the influence of this purely aristocratic prejudice, born of German military democracy in ancient times. He determined the nature of warfare for a whole thousand years - the most remarkable case of social fraud, outweighing any military logic, says T. Newark [3].


Barbut - helmet crossbowmen and archers 1470 Brescia. Weight 2,21 kg. Metropolitan Museum, New York

The validity of these views of the English historian seems quite obvious, especially in comparison with the combat technique and the nature of defensive weapons among the peoples of the East, where excessively heavy all-metal armor never existed because the main weapon of the battle throughout the Middle Ages was the bow. This is particularly evident in the example of samurai and ashigaru in Japan, which Stephen Turnbull constantly writes about, and where the concepts of “archery” and “fight” have always been the same!


Hugh de Bob flees from the battlefield of Bouvin (1214). "Great Chronicle" Matthew Paris., Approx. 1250 (Parker Library, Body of Christ College, Cambridge). It is believed that this is an evil satire on this cowardly knight. After all, none of the characters depicted in this miniature has a quiver of arrows!

The British historian D. Nicole, who also paid a lot of attention to this issue, wrote about the coincidence in the battle tactics of the Mongols and riders of the 13th century Baltic peoples, who used darts for throwing on a gallop. Attacking, throwing an enemy with darts and immediately pretending to retreat are the attack methods of the Estonians, Lithuanians and Balts, which is why they used the saddle of the corresponding sample [4].

So, it is precisely in the field of the use of strike and throwing weapons that “watershed” lies, which today, according to most British historians, determines the nature of the development of protective weapons in the whole of Eurasia.

The works of English-speaking researchers confirm the fact that it was the lamellar armor that was the most ancient and widespread. But the chain mail - and in this they align themselves with the judgment of the Italian historian F. Cardini, is the result of the development of the ritual vestments of ancient shamans, magicians and sorcerers who sew metal rings on their clothes to protect them from evil spirits and intertwine them. ring protection. Subsequently, the warriors who fought on horseback and do not use bows and arrows, appreciated its flexibility, which made the chain mail comfortable to wear, while the horse archers (and first of all the nomads) needed to think about how to defend themselves from arrows launched from powerful onions from a distance. Where, how and why this separation took place, the historical point of the above “watershed” itself is unknown to us today, but this does not mean that it does not indicate the object of the search for ancient artifacts. Perhaps it will be the finds of cult burials with a large number of metal rings, both connected to each other and sewn in rows on the skin. If there are bone or stone arrowheads in the same burials, which, however, can be considered exceptional success, the conclusion will be obvious that such protection was very reliable at that time, and this could give rise to confidence in the extremely high protective capabilities of chain mail . The plates sewn on leather or fabric base were more accessible, common, one might even say, “traditional.” Because of this, they were used exactly where they were really needed, then, as the chain mail personified not only physical, but also magical protection, even in the Middle Ages, this was no longer remembered.


Absolutely unique miniature, and one of a kind (!), Which depicts a knight, shooting from a bow from a horse, and having at the same time a quiver. That is, it is really a horse archer, which is absolutely atypical for a Western European knight! What made him do this and, most importantly, why this was reflected in this miniature, is unknown. Interestingly, this miniature also belongs to the 1298 Chronicle of Colmariens (British Library). That is, the sea battle, and this knight painted the same artist. And how to know what he had on his mind? After all, in other manuscripts on miniatures of other artists, including the same time, we will not see anything like this. That is, it belongs to the category of single sources!

Actually knightly armor lasted the longest time precisely where the development of society was slow compared to the rapid progress of market relations in Europe. For example, in North Africa and in Tibet, where armor was worn even in 1936. So, in the Caucasus, we have steel helmets, elbow pads, chain mail and shields — that is, The “white” and noble weapon was used by the Imperial Convoy of the Russian Tsar from the mountain peoples right up to the middle of the XIX century, that is, almost as long as in Japan.


French bascinet 1410. Weight 2891,2 Metropolitan Museum, New York.

It can be concluded that this typology, based on the division of cultures on the basis of recognizing the bow as a worthy weapon, also has the right to be present among numerous cultural typologies, and its use allows you to take a fresh look at many phenomena in the culture of past centuries. After all, the same hatred of the western knights for their eastern opponents, practically in the same knightly armament, was, as we see, based not only on differences in faith. Eastern horsemen, who did not see anything shameful in using a bow against their peers, looked in the eyes of Western knights also immoral people who violated the customs of knight war and therefore unworthy of their knightly attitude! Even greater hatred, however, was deserved in their eyes by those who were not directly "warriors of the East", but used bows and arrows along with ordinary knightly weapons, that is, they borrowed the very best both here and there, and, therefore, were higher traditional chivalrous prejudices. So, it would seem that from this purely technical aspect there is also a difference in the forms of thinking, which is also of fundamental importance for improving the typology of cultures in all their specific diversity.

1. Jaspers K. History of history and its purpose // Jaspers K. Sense and purpose of history, 1991. C.53.
2. Shpakovsky V.O. The history of knightly weapons. M., Lomonosov, 2013. C.8.
3. Newark T. Why knights never used bows (Horse Archery in Western Europe) // Military illustrated. 1995. No.81, February. Pp 36-39.
4. Nicolle D. Raiders of the Ice War. Medieval Warfare Teutonic Knights ambush Lithuanian Raiders // Military illustrated. Vol. 94. March. 1996. Pp 26 - 29.
Author:
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. igordok
    igordok 18 May 2016 06: 40
    +1
    Somewhat off topic. I found the tips about which he spoke at http://topwar.ru/92455-unikalnoe-mesto-bitvy-v-rossii.html#
    The field is literally covered with tips, grass breaks through the tips, and the soil is almost invisible. The main legend is that it was a sacrificial field. A sacrificial animal was launched at him and killed from a bow. And to go in and even more so to take something on the field was a taboo.

    Another use of the bow is for sacrificial killing.
    1. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 18 May 2016 12: 01
      +1
      And I kind of like the topic:
      let's better analyze civilizations on the basis of the priority development of the struggle (as evidence of the presence of a culture of wearing armor) or shock equipment (clearly the destiny of the armless).

      Practical application - the area of ​​the conquerors and the defeated will become approximately clear ...

      Samurai are conquerors. Okinawans are defeated.
      Belt wrestling (and the armor must be with a belt!) - the conquerors. Viet Dao - the vanquished ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Maegrom
    Maegrom 18 May 2016 06: 42
    +8
    And how do the piloms of Roman legionaries fit into this logic. In your opinion, to use bows as weapons of the army is enough to want. For example, I do not use aviation to get to work, but I am not an air mob. There are many reasons, including the traditionalist, but by no means fundamental, limiting the use of bows as the main weapon. To have bow cavalry, you need the skill and experience of both horse riding and archery. The fact that in some conditions it is difficult to master, in others it is a cultural tradition. Nevertheless, a mixture of Greek lucophobes and Latins eventually mastered cavalry in Byzantium under changing conditions. The later noble cavalry used pistols and muskets without a shadow of doubt, maintaining continuity with the knightly culture. The former, in the end, became even acceptable in duels of honor - duels.
    1. kalibr
      18 May 2016 07: 25
      -4
      Quote: Maegrom
      In your opinion, to use bows as weapons of the army is enough to want.

      This in your opinion is so. The article is written just about this. As for aviation ... and you can not. Even if you want. And the knights could, but did not want to. Something wrong with the logic, right? However, she is poorly taught in our high school, and students of technical specialties do not really like her.
      1. Cherkashin Ivan
        Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2016 08: 00
        +3
        Could shoot from a bow or just from a saddle, this is not a horse archer at all. Of course, knights could shoot from bows and pretend to be horse archers, but this is ersatz. You can’t shoot bows in Europe of the wrong system with an English long horse, while others were weaker. There is no shooting skill at full speed, and most importantly, the terrible discipline of the chivalrous militia and its small numbers.
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 20 May 2016 04: 44
          0
          You can’t pierce a weaker armor from a bow, and if so, you didn’t need it.
      2. Maegrom
        Maegrom 18 May 2016 08: 04
        +5
        Knights could, because possessed a serious material resource, but why? You have perfectly described the absence of a cause. And how could the Greeks, the early Roman units? Where would archers be taken if there is no tradition of constant use? And the reforms were carried out already in the army with the formed tactics and tradition. But even those did not shun throwing weapons, as I wrote. You have not refuted any of my examples.
        P.S. Your transition to personality is incorrect, you do not know anything about my education or work.
        1. kalibr
          18 May 2016 12: 03
          -5
          I'm not going to refute anything. And personalities, well ... for cakes and shoemakers, as Krylov wrote, you can also have your own opinion. But you are clearly not a culturologist or a medievalist.
          1. Maegrom
            Maegrom 18 May 2016 12: 24
            +5
            No. But unlike the well-educated medievalist cultural scientist Caliber, I do not put the cart in front of the horse and hypothesis above facts. And the facts speak about the flexibility of the worldview under the influence of objective reality, which I pointed out and that you "are not going to refute", and the formation of culture and worldview is not suddenly, but as a result of a complex process of the relationship of the community of people with the surrounding reality.
            1. King, just king
              King, just king 18 May 2016 12: 50
              0
              "... about the flexibility of the worldview under the influence of objective reality .."

              Strongly said, however, plus.
              1. kalibr
                18 May 2016 12: 59
                +1
                Empty, but loud, words always make a strong impression, it’s not for you to consider specific thumbnails. And about the flexibility of the worldview ... THREE GROUPS OF BELIEVES were born in the Paleolithic - animism, totemism and magic. And ... until now, two of them are present in ALL WORLD RELIGIONS, and one has become the basis for many names of Russians! Such flexibility ...

                Does minus signify there were more groups? Or less? Or is it a purely personal relationship?
                1. Maegrom
                  Maegrom 18 May 2016 13: 40
                  0
                  That is, you think, since you deny the flexibility that our prime minister is sincerely sure that he came from a famous animal? Ask him at the meeting, since they are part of the academic community)))
                  1. kalibr
                    18 May 2016 13: 48
                    +1
                    Is our prime minister included in it? He has a different party.
                    1. Maegrom
                      Maegrom 18 May 2016 14: 06
                      0
                      Humor, your cap. For humor, unlike science, assumptions are permissible.
            2. kalibr
              18 May 2016 13: 15
              0
              Quote: Maegrom
              a well-educated culturologist-medievalist Caliber

              You have correctly noticed this. I have just received a grant from the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation for a book where this point of view is being developed in relation to samurai knights. So historians of a very decent rank have already said their pros.
              1. Maegrom
                Maegrom 18 May 2016 13: 42
                +2
                Congratulations, sincerely! But as an argument in the argument, Academician Fomenko is worthy.
                1. kalibr
                  18 May 2016 13: 51
                  0
                  Here you are mistaken. Fomenko just as a historian, historians do not recognize. But the experts were historians, and if you know how reluctant our government is to part with money for private individuals, then you can imagine who acts as experts there. This is a sieve with very small holes!
      3. Maegrom
        Maegrom 18 May 2016 09: 00
        +2
        Another point: it is impossible to represent ideology as the main basis of practice, in my opinion, in addition to a number of events in recent history, more often than not, ideology serves to preserve a certain way of life, forming itself and then modifying, over time, on the basis of practice. Therefore, the knights were able to remain knights even with a musket in their hands.
        1. potroshenko
          potroshenko 18 May 2016 12: 32
          +3
          The author even began to wear chain mail because of magical properties.
          1. kalibr
            18 May 2016 13: 05
            0
            Not with me, but with the Italian historian Cardini, it’s another matter that I agree with him and whose work you, of course, have not read. Everyone else, of course, is free to think anything.
            1. Kombrig
              Kombrig 20 May 2016 23: 17
              0
              Quote: kalibr
              Italian historian Cardini


              ... Cardini, not a typo? .. maybe Carpini? By the way, I also met a version about the magical properties of iron, and chain mail in particular ....
      4. potroshenko
        potroshenko 18 May 2016 12: 28
        +5
        Something wrong with the logic, right? However, she is poorly taught in our high school, and students of technical specialties do not really like her.

        It is strange to see rudeness from you. So did not last long within the framework.
        The person reasonably questioned your theory of not using bows out of "prejudice."
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. kalibr
          18 May 2016 13: 06
          -4
          I don’t see rudeness in telling a person that he is not an expert in some subjects, there’s nothing to be ashamed of, but it makes no sense to stay in some kind of framework with non-specialists in a subject they’re unfamiliar or completely unfamiliar with.
          1. Maegrom
            Maegrom 18 May 2016 14: 02
            +2
            You, as a person well acquainted with the topic - how many times in practice shot from a bow, in what type of armor? How deep have you tested your case in practice? Have you tried to stand under the fire of archers? I am not only familiar with the theory in this case. The only thing is that I have no experience of riding, equestrian combat, shooting during horseback riding, historical reconstruction - the model is greatly simplified, but not at all. How much can your ideas be used in forecasting research results, modeling? How can you attach your ideas to the state of culture and worldview of the people, you can get a result that converges with reality? I do not see such a convergence. I gave examples.
            1. kalibr
              18 May 2016 14: 54
              +2
              You know, I didn’t do anything like that. But both Tim Newark and I looked ... oh, how many miniatures we looked at + he texts and at first he came to this conclusion, then the vast majority of English historians. I found his ideas interesting. I, in turn, shoveled a lot of material. Everything matches. Therefore, I do not need to wave a sword and shoot arrows to prove something there. Now all this has already reached such a level that apart from me, other people are working in this direction, developing it and deepening it. Here's what I can say about this. There will be one more material with some conclusions. The trouble is that in our country mathematics is considered a science (it's hard to think, not everyone knows!), And history "can be learned", so they write ... who knows what. can not be helped.
              1. Maegrom
                Maegrom 18 May 2016 15: 11
                +5
                You generalize the attitude of people. Nowadays, projects popularizing academic history are rapidly developing, for example, Goblin's dead end or the "homeland of elephants". And that is precisely why criticism "from below" cannot be dismissed. Many people love and take history at their own level. And the more important is not to be afraid of disputes. You are not Oleg Kaptsov in terms of the provocative nature of the article, there are not so many people who need additional clarification. And if you enter into a dialogue, then it is worth answering the question. I would not write here without seeing the author in the comments.
                1. kalibr
                  18 May 2016 16: 54
                  -1
                  I do not refuse dialogue, but ... I can not conduct it where I do not see it. To ask a question you need to know half the answer. There is something wrong, the answer turns into enlightenment, but they don’t pay me for it. And I don’t dismiss criticism, I just know the amount of evidence, and you don’t know it, that's all. Therefore, take it all as is, as one more information for consideration, and that’s all. I just can't waste my time explaining something more.
              2. Maegrom
                Maegrom 18 May 2016 15: 40
                +1
                In other words, and to summarize, I want to say - shown in the article - a special case of a much more complex phenomenon of the mutual influence of the worldview adopted in this society and objective circumstances, as well as an illustration of the inertia of the worldview. Moreover, the topic requires further development. In formulating the general law of such an interaction, a simple solution to all the conflicts that are still possible when using a particular law is guessed.
                1. kalibr
                  18 May 2016 16: 55
                  +1
                  It may well be that you said it well! And the fact that the topic requires further development is undoubted. The Socialist-Revolutionaries generally said the movement toward the goal is everything, the goal itself is nothing!
                2. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 18 May 2016 22: 43
                  +5
                  I’ll insert my five cents in your dialogue. As dialectics and all sorts of logics with materialism teach us: being determines consciousness. Therefore:
                  1. What natural and climatic, and therefore affordable material and technological conditions have formed the eastern and western models of warfare?
                  2. Accordingly, what types of armor are most adapted to these manners of battle?
                  Traditions and mentality are already derivatives of the best way of life in certain conditions.
                  Western Europe: dense forests, partly with rugged terrain, partly with a vast rugged coast. Accordingly, people have adapted to such a life. There are no prerequisites for mass beam combat initially. The main thing is close range combat. The conditions of movement and visibility conditions of the armies when approaching are suitable.
                  East (radial East) - vast open steppe, semi-desert and desert spaces. Without a bow, you frankly sweat it to get to the enemy at a strike distance.
                  In those places where, as in Europe, it is densely forested and difficult to cross - India, Southeast Asia with its jungle - infantry was very developed everywhere, like a short-range striking force. The culture of using onions as weapons of large armies in these regions is clearly correlated as brought in from external invasions from the more arid plains of Asia.
                  For the mountainous part of the continent, comparison also gives the same trend: the Himalayas and Tibet. Neighbors and in both cases it is highlands. But Tibet is a vast alpine open space. And the Himalayas (The same Nepal) are a mess of gorges, jungle, etc.
                  In Tibet, the strike and defensive complex is similar to the steppe. In Nepal, the main one is for close combat.
                  Africa: for the people of the jungle - a spear and a shield. For peoples in open spaces, bows are an important part of weapons.
                  I think in this direction and it is worth developing a theory.
                  As for the European knights. Who are they from the beginning, before they become a privileged layer of society? - heavy shock cavalry. Iranian cataphracts also did not shine on the battlefield with archery.
                  No one will immediately wonder why the Airborne Forces prefer parachute systems over diving systems. With that, it is quite acceptable if a paratrooper in private can be involved in diving.
                  1. potroshenko
                    potroshenko 19 May 2016 11: 14
                    0
                    I’ll insert my five cents in your dialogue.

                    This is the real state of affairs.
          2. potroshenko
            potroshenko 19 May 2016 10: 55
            +1
            I don’t see rudeness in telling a person that he is not an expert in some subjects, there’s nothing to be ashamed of, but it makes no sense to stay in some kind of framework with non-specialists in an unfamiliar subject

            To tell a person that he is not an expert and say that he has problems with logic and education are completely different things. You are now trying to abandon the meaning of your words, but the Internet remembers everything. You are rude and do not know how to lead a discussion.
            You think that your opinion, based on the work of one historian, is correct, but hundreds of other experts on the history of weapons do not even consider your theory.
  3. Alceers
    Alceers 18 May 2016 07: 13
    +6
    In the garden elderberry, and in Kiev uncle. The author of the facts you have cited, there is no way the picture you stated in the title looms. You yourself contradict yourself. It turns out that Lukophobes use them normally, and Lukophiles do not shy away from spears with swords. In short, the descriptive part of your opuses is quite on the level, but I beg you, do not try to analyze. Not yours at all!
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 11
      +1
      There was no social base in Europe for mass archers. In addition to England with their large stratum of free farmers - the Yeomen.
      In the steppe or desert, however, a nomad with only a sword or a club, without remote weapons - no one at all. Well, he saw the enemy for 3-4 km. So what? Kizyaki to scare him away? Without onions in such open spaces can not live.
  4. Cherkashin Ivan
    Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2016 07: 40
    +11
    The article deals with the adoption or not of equestrian archers, and not archers in general. I will not express all my nit-picking. The main thing is that in Europe there were no prerequisites for the emergence of horse archers. The overwhelming majority of horseback archers were nomads from childhood who were familiar with both bow and horse. At the same time, the elite of the armies, where the majority were equestrian archers, were analogues of knights (heavy armor, ramming a spear strike as the main battle technique. Thus, to assemble an army of ready-made equestrian archers in the steppes of Mongolia and train those in Europe for different things. And remember the sizes of these European armies, how many horse archers could there be? What would be their effectiveness in unit use?
    The only example I know of when horse archers were "raised from scratch" is Byzantium (this example has already been mentioned). But here is the influence from the neighbors.
    Hungarians, Mongols and Crusades are clearly not a good reason for changing tactics in Europe, and most importantly spending a lot of money on it.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 May 2016 08: 15
      +7
      There is always confusion in the article - an attempt to pull factual material into the existing, and true in a certain context, theory of lucophiles and phobes.
      The theory would have played in completely different colors with a culturological emphasis and analysis of the circumstances of the emergence of military traditions.
      1. igordok
        igordok 18 May 2016 08: 49
        +1
        Unfortunately, they often confuse cause and effect. Perhaps the thesis that the bow is not a knight’s weapon is just an excuse.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 20
      +2
      The main thing is that in Europe there were no prerequisites for the emergence of horse archers.
      This is the main idea.
      Hungarians, Mongols and Crusades are clearly not a good reason for changing tactics in Europe, and most importantly spending a lot of money on it.
      And most importantly, to equip Smerds without exception with ranged weapons and train them to use is a good way to lose their privileged caste position. And where can they all get a very expensive rolling stock - horses. Moreover, horseback riding should be practiced regularly and from an early age. And what will the peasants contain these horses for? And how quickly armed, horse-drawn and trained peasants will stop paying taxes? And then they will hang on the nearest bitch their master knight? There were no so blissful idiots among the nobility in Europe.
      The only example I know of when horse archers were "raised from scratch" is Byzantium (this example has already been mentioned).
      Something else there, the French king was experimenting with the ordinance companies of archers, looking at the British. But something did not work out.
      All the horse archers in the chivalrous copies of the French or Burgundian gendarmes were essentially motorized infantry. Like the unforgettable equestrian crossbowmen. We arrived at the place and in the battle ... Without horses. Although in some situations they could have fired once or twice from the saddle.
  5. King, just king
    King, just king 18 May 2016 08: 40
    +5
    Siege of Avignon. Thumbnail from the Chronicle of Saint-Denis. Around 1332 -1350

    If the author completely trusts the medieval miniature, then let him explain to the community how the "non-knights" in chain mail armor, in surcoas, shoot with bows so cheerfully. Who are these two? If these are not knights, then why are these two pretty comrades like two peas in a pod similar to equestrian ones? And if these are knights, then why do they shoot from bows, on foot?

    And if the author of the miniature was in parallel how to draw, then why such trust in medieval drawings?

    Citizen Wilhelm, what was the Norman rabble on the troughs of that time, such as archers? Not at all. And Hastings, judging by the docks, was won due to mounted archery. Who shot Harold’s eye?

    My personal opinion, this is all about nonsense. The kings of England, they understood perfectly well about archers, in France a bet was made on a crossbow, and it did not materialize.
    And about the shooting of heavy cavalry ... Well, look at the knight in plate armor. Well, give him a quiver with 20-30 arrows, and a bow in the bend. I would like to see this art.
    The tactics of the knightly cavalry did not provide for archery of ram-riders. Therefore, during the battles in the East, the light "shooting" cavalry from the Turcopols was formed, there were few of its own people. And in battles in the West, they got along with foot militia-archers.
    1. kalibr
      18 May 2016 12: 08
      0
      Quote: King, just king
      If the author completely trusts the medieval miniature, then let him explain to the community how the "non-knights" in chain mail armor, in surcoas, shoot with bows so cheerfully. Who are these two? If these are not knights, then why are these two pretty comrades like two peas in a pod similar to equestrian ones? And if these are knights, then why do they shoot from bows, on foot?

      Knight was not made armor ...
      1. King, just king
        King, just king 18 May 2016 12: 48
        +1
        Well, let it be rich squires, or squires of a wealthy knight, so be it. But almost all the knights served as a squire, i.e. are these two shooters an exception?

        Yes, and dressed a little expensive for squires.

        Vyacheslav. My personal opinion is a series of three articles about onions, which turns out to be unsuccessful. The logic of conclusions is not lame - it creeps. Moreover, looking at the comments, you constantly have to not justify yourself, but constantly fight back with new arguments, which are not always successful.
        1. kalibr
          18 May 2016 13: 33
          0
          I do not fight back. This is the "public version" of a scientific article that has already been published in scientific journals and will still be published. To understand everything in it, well, you need to have a certain level of systemic knowledge. Whoever does not have it, then, yes, this is difficult, and you cannot explain it. But this is always the case: the new is born as heresy, and dies as a prejudice!
          1. Maegrom
            Maegrom 18 May 2016 14: 17
            +1
            So tell me, if you think that I did not understand? In my opinion, the article was written in understandable Russian, unlike some of my comments)). The problem is not in the text of the article, not in the argumentation, it’s all great, but precisely in the logical connectives and in the conclusions, which are far from always applicable to the freely chosen moments of history.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 30
        +1
        Knight was not made armor ...
        Let me disagree. Initially, under Charles the Great, during his military reform, it was just the same: armor, spear, shield and horse.
  6. Djusha
    Djusha 18 May 2016 08: 51
    0
    Luke decided the matter in several battles of the hundred-year war, but it all ended with the liberation of France. So, whatever one may say: a bow is an auxiliary weapon.
    And these few successful cases are not even about the bow, actually, but about the technological advantage. High-alloy steel began to be used for arrowheads, which easily pierced the armor of that time. When the armor was changed, the bow had no success.
  7. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 18 May 2016 08: 57
    +4
    Lukophobes, if of course they were, drove themselves into a historical impasse. To argue which weapons are more noble and which ones are nonsense, arising against the background of a simple inability to cope with this most effective weapon. Why did the bow give way to the firebrand? Preparing an archer is a long and expensive undertaking, and motivation is still needed. Hunting. A French serf would never be able to become an archer. A free English could. And the nomads were able to grow beautiful archers. To learn to shoot from an arquebus or a musket and other buzzers is much faster than from a bow.
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 May 2016 09: 43
      0
      And where did you read about training English archers? I read about hiring quite prepared fighters. Practice and the need for skill, in contrast to cleared from the forests of France, they had.
      1. Maegrom
        Maegrom 18 May 2016 10: 10
        0
        http://geoecograph.blogspot.ru/2015/07/Kak-Evropa-lishalas-lesov.html
      2. V.ic
        V.ic 18 May 2016 14: 35
        +1
        Quote: Maegrom
        And where did you read about training English archers?

        Arthur Conan Doyle The White Squad? / in the eight-volume edition, in my opinion, was the name "White Scarves"? I don't remember exactly, I read it as a child /.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 18 May 2016 14: 41
          0
          This is not a source, but I have already admitted to a mistake defined by the state. the program existed, did not immediately remember.
      3. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 38
        0
        Read the decrees of the English kings about the practice of archery.
    2. Logos
      Logos 18 May 2016 18: 16
      +3
      .To learn to shoot from an arquebus or a musket and other peeps is much faster than from a bow.

      The first muskets required more than a dozen consecutive operations for their loading and represented a danger to their owner no less than to the enemy. A little mistake - and it will explode in your hands. And they were very expensive. A country such as England, until the end of the 16th century, could not establish mass production of firearms and bought it on the continent. And because the musket for a long time was the weapon of well-trained professionals, often even of noble origin (remember Dumas musketeers?)
      It was given to recruits from the common people only in the 17th century, when it was significantly improved and made easier and safer to handle. But the 17th century is already the complete absence of a bow on the battlefield in Europe, which was supplanted back in 16. So the ease of handling a musket in the 17th century could not at all serve as the reason for his triumph over a bow in the 16th century.
      By the way, in the same 17th century, the musket fell into the hands of natural archers - the Mongol tribe of the Dzungars. And they immediately began to triumph over the tribes, still armed with a bow.
    3. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 37
      +2
      To learn to shoot from an arquebus or a musket and other peeps is much faster than from a bow.
      a French peasant would also not be able to become an arquebusier. Who will trust weapons from him? Nafig-nafig, away from sin. Only the development of cities with a free population gave the social soil from which these characters came from.
  8. Free wind
    Free wind 18 May 2016 08: 59
    +4
    It’s hard to understand what the author wanted to say. the bow was very revered by the Greeks and many legendary warriors owned it, remember about Odysseus, but were not particularly afraid of it, remember 300 Spartans and their answer to the Persians, we will fight in the shade. Mounted archery, no matter how sophisticated it is, is ineffective.
    1. King, just king
      King, just king 18 May 2016 09: 18
      +1
      How is this ineffective? The application was small, that's all. Hastings - net win by mounted fire.
      When 2 arrows are stuck in a 10 cm thick shield, go fight.
      The film "Braveheart" is historically rather poor, but the mounted shooting is shown beautifully.
      1. Maegrom
        Maegrom 18 May 2016 09: 38
        +3
        Unlike pylums, hardened and thrown at point blank range, arrows break perfectly and are removed from the shield.
        1. King, just king
          King, just king 18 May 2016 09: 48
          0
          Yeah, the cavalry are attacking you at this time, or the light infantry is throwing darts, and you (not you in the sense, but that poor fellow) are breaking your arrows. But how can arrows be easily removed, along with tips?
          1. Maegrom
            Maegrom 18 May 2016 10: 16
            +4
            No, they break down with the weapons in hand, unlike pilum, the tip is short, if it breaks through the shield, but most likely it breaks through, you can quickly remove it in the direction of the body after breaking the shaft, but this is not necessary right away, they are not so heavy. Not just the Romans lengthened the tips of the pilums elongated - not a cheap pleasure.
            1. King, just king
              King, just king 18 May 2016 13: 00
              0
              To chop with a sword or break flexible arrow shafts with your hands?

              And tell me, citizen of "Maegrom", did you do it, why write so cheerfully?
              1. Riv
                Riv 18 May 2016 19: 57
                0
                Who told you that arrow shafts were so flexible? If the arrow bends, then it cannot be shot from the bow. Flies off the bowstring - and that’s it.
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 47
          0
          This is only if they stopped shooting at you. And if you are constantly raining rain from arrows, as soon as you try to look out from behind a shield ...
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 46
        0
        According to estimates, in the battles of Agincourt or Cressy, when mounted on squares, the density of arrows that stuck into the ground reached 60-80 per square meter (and these rods are almost a finger thick). According to some accounts, there were so many on the way of the attacking French that these arrows were a very tangible obstacle to the advancement of not only the infantry, but even the knightly cavalry.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 43
      +1
      Mounted archery, no matter how sophisticated it is, is ineffective.
      Yes and no. Excellent equipment and training minimize losses (hoplites). But the uninterrupted long massive shelling from bows completely deprives the infantry of mobility on the battlefield. In principle, a dense box infantry can move. But the strike distance will never come close to equestrian archers. If those are not suckers.
      But long tension and being at the limit of attention and physical strength for many hours, often in the hot sun, quickly exhausts all combat readiness from a purely infantry army, which found itself in eastern conditions.
  9. tasha
    tasha 18 May 2016 09: 54
    +1
    Once again, I express my doubts about the need to create and develop a new typology based on the principle of using / not using a bow. At all times there was such a thing as "fair" fight. And numerous chronicles, chronicles, books and newspaper articles praised just such fights as an example to the younger and future generations.
    An example of the West European knights and their attitude to the bow is something from the category of historical anecdotes.
  10. Knizhnik
    Knizhnik 18 May 2016 10: 10
    +6
    Before evaluating, you must decide for yourself how seriously you should judge the written. If, as a popularizing article, then definitely "plus".
    The tactics of battles in Europe, as a rule, boiled down to breaking through the enemy’s defenses with a powerful blow, reaching the center of construction (commander’s headquarters), destroying the system, as a result of which deprived of the ability to defend and panic. For a breakthrough, it was difficult to come up with something better than heavily armed cavalry. In addition, the tradition of victory in a sacred knightly duel deciding the outcome of the battle was preserved for a very long time, gradually transforming into a means of psychological pressure. So, often before the main battle, before the eyes of the main troops, knightly fights took place, and the number of participants could have been greater (remember the Battle of the Thirty during the Hundred Years War). One can imagine how such victories (or defeats) influenced the morale of others. Therefore, the knights rightly considered themselves the smiths of victory. The onion was the main (and not auxiliary) weapons of the common people, archers, whose actions were not considered decisive in battle.
    There was no hatred of the knights, about which the author writes, it should rather be called a neglect, but there was hatred of the Saracen horse archers during the Crusades, which pretty much spoiled the blood of European soldiers, which left an imprint on later traditions. In this sense, the battle of Dorileum during the 1st Crusade is very indicative, when horse archers, avoiding (cowardly, according to the knights) direct skirmishes, showered with clouds of arrows completely exhausted knights; their horses got even more, so after the battle many had to move on foot. The ensuing battle of Antioch, where the knightly cavalry brought victory, only reinforced existing prejudices.
    The battles of the century-old wars showed the importance of the bow: Cressy, Poitiers, Agencourt. It was unlikely that a commander would have been found at that time, had he even been thrice a knight who would have neglected such a unit in his troops.
    1. King, just king
      King, just king 18 May 2016 17: 04
      +1
      Fight 30 is not an indicator at all. They stumbled, by and large from the boredom caused by the truce, and the fact that the Anglo-other rabble got the French robbery.
      But then minstrels and troubadours then tried ...
  11. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 18 May 2016 11: 15
    +1
    Thank you very much for continuing the excellent article, Vyacheslav!
    About Hercules: How can he not fight with a bow if, according to Greek mythology, the ancestor of Scythians was the son of Hercules and Echidna! After all, the Scythians were the coolest archers! And how many of their images are in various sources! But the Scythian horsemen with bows inspired the Greeks with such horror that the Greeks considered them grotesque creatures --- partly people, partly horses.
    It was at lectures at the Hermitage Theater. There has been such a streak in my life that I have never attended lectures. Art of Ancient Russia, Problems of the ancestral homeland, Mythology of the Ancient World, Mythology of Ancient Russia, Renaissance art, Japanese engraving, as well as space exploration, History of the Jewish people, well, languages ​​...
    Well, even for different religions.
    I would like to resume again, but somehow it does not add up.
    1. kalibr
      18 May 2016 13: 25
      0
      You can only envy ...
  12. Amestigon
    Amestigon 18 May 2016 11: 26
    +6
    In general, a somewhat strange division into lucophobes and lucophiles. Archers are a type of army. No more and no less. A tanker should not be able to shoot with a sniper rifle. A knight should not be able to shoot from a bow. It is not intended for this. All his weapons do not allow to do this normally. Huge destruction, which was enough for 500 meters, saddles with high bows, excellent for horse riding, but making the warrior extremely clumsy, lances of 4 or more kg in weight, etc. What nafig bow.

    By the way, the eastern peoples also had their own shock cavalry and they also did not have bows.

    Well, European knightly states did not have horse archers simply because there was neither tradition nor technology (an English bow for firing from a saddle would definitely not work). And the base of the army was precisely the knightly cavalry. The real knights never bet on all the others (England was an exception for quite objective reasons), and they treated them quite scornfully.
    1. Knizhnik
      Knizhnik 18 May 2016 12: 53
      +2
      +1 With a small correction - knights were able to shoot from a bow, at least for the sake of hunting
      1. Luka Mudischev
        Luka Mudischev 18 May 2016 13: 37
        +1
        Exactly, in Disabled in Paris the whole hall is filled with hunting crossbows. So the medieval ones were quite able to use them and actively used them, though not in war.
        1. Maegrom
          Maegrom 18 May 2016 14: 08
          +1
          In war too, but not knights.
          1. Luka Mudischev
            Luka Mudischev 18 May 2016 14: 18
            +1
            Yes, of course, I forgot to insert "aristocrats" after "medieval". And of course, a hunting weapon is quite suitable for shooting two-legged game.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. King, just king
            King, just king 18 May 2016 17: 08
            0
            Citizen "Maegrom". So what about chopping arrow shafts? Themselves chopped, or so, words ...
          4. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 18 May 2016 23: 59
            0
            In war too, but not knights.
            Wrong. And the knights as well. Especially in serf battles or naval battles. Just a knight is a heavy cavalry. With its very specific purpose. This is, first of all, not an individual fighter (although by virtue of the feudal way of picking each of them is a pro), but group tactics. Everything is imprisoned for this. Therefore, as a pro, every knight knew how to use a bow or crossbow, but as a heavy cavalryman, in battle he became an equestrian for ramming.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  13. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 18 May 2016 13: 24
    +1
    Quote: Maegrom
    And where did you read about training English archers? I read about hiring quite prepared fighters. Practice and the need for skill, in contrast to cleared from the forests of France, they had.

    In France, it was full of forests in those days. We hire READY fighters. Hee hee They were just born READY. laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Maegrom
      Maegrom 18 May 2016 14: 27
      0
      He raised the information, really forgot about compulsory education at the state. basis. You're right. True forests are much smaller than in England, see the map here. Taken from serious work, but the original could not be found.
      1. Cherkashin Ivan
        Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2016 16: 35
        +1
        I don’t quite understand why there is a forest? If as a source of raw materials for onions, then by. The English yew did not differ in quality, and besides, it was quickly cut down.
        The famous English bows were made from imported raw materials (mainly Portuguese). There was even a special collection from ships, which was paid by yew wood.
        1. Amestigon
          Amestigon 18 May 2016 16: 41
          +1
          Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
          I don’t quite understand why there is a forest? If as a source of raw materials for onions, then by.

          As I understand it, forests are meant as a shooting range because due to the presence of game there is an opportunity to learn how to shoot from a bow in the process of hunting. True, this skill could not become widespread, since commoners were forbidden to hunt in the lordship of the seigneur.
          Although maybe I misunderstood.
          1. Cherkashin Ivan
            Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2016 17: 07
            +3
            Here, too, I can not agree) As you said yourself, hunting is not for commoners. Otherwise, the sheriff and the rope. And aristocrats hunters in battle on a horse with a spear go. Therefore, this version was not considered at first.
            And as far as I remember, they supported the fighting efficiency of the English archers through training and tournaments. Hence the prohibitions on football (I don’t remember about other games). To not distract from the bow.
  14. Logos
    Logos 18 May 2016 18: 05
    +3
    In my opinion, the author confuses hot with bright) "Lukophobes" were aristocrats from almost all countries of Eurasia. European aristocrats, Mongol baaturs, noble wars of the Arabs and Turks - they all preferred to fight in close combat with spear and sword. The bow and arrows were left for the common people, who were not able to buy chain mail and a sword.
    The difference between the eastern army and the European army was only that the European common people went on foot with their bows on foot, and the Asian (due to the prevalence of nomadic traditions) often on horseback. And light horse archers were not at all the elite and main striking force of the armies of the East. For the same Mongols, mounted archers served as bait for the main forces of the enemy - and when the enemy rushed to pursue them and upset their ranks, a heavy shock cavalry came into play, hidden for the time being in ambush.
    This is precisely how the Mongols defeated the knights at the Battle of Legnica - the knights rushed to chase the Mongolian horse archers (and they were not disturbed by the Mongol bows, supposedly piercing any armor for 200 m) and received a blow to the flank from the Mongol heavy cavalry. The battle was won by hand-to-hand combat
    In the same way, the Kulikovo battle was won by hand-to-hand fighting - the Russians used their own ambush technique against the Tatars. In general, the miraculous Mongolian bow, supposedly breaking through everything and everything for hundreds of meters, is found only in the tales of some cabinet historians who do not even try to explain why, in the presence of such miraculous weapons, the Mongols nevertheless fought hand-to-hand, and when the first hand gun appeared in a later period (17th century - civil wars in Mongolia) immediately changed their miraculous bows to primitive modfs and squeaked

    As for the "lukophobia" of the European aristocracy, it should be noted that sports archery was a popular pastime of European aristocrats, right up to the invention of the game of tennis and golf. There was no "lukophobia" - just the bow was not as effective as some people paint it
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 18 May 2016 20: 31
      0
      I agree with your assessment. A bow is not a child prodigy. It was difficult to handle, very expensive (composite bow) and moderately effective tool of war. In the 16th century, in Europe, it was already of little use, since some single armor kept even a musket bullet practically at point blank range, there is nothing to say about the arrow.
      But it is interesting that in the era of the Napoleonic wars there was talk of returning bows and crossbows to the army of England and France, respectively. I don’t know why they couldn’t return to the crossbow, but the English had a bummer. Bows remained and shooting competitions from them, too, but the quality and strength of the bows themselves, the accuracy of their use from different distances (the battlefield is not a target at a certain distance) and the skill of mounted shooting were lost. And most importantly, the shooters themselves were already an order of magnitude smaller than in the Middle Ages.
      And so there was a rational grain, a soldier of the beginning of the 19th century only protected the fabric (except for cuirassiers), and I think it would be a pleasure to shoot at defenseless dense buildings.
      1. Logos
        Logos 18 May 2016 22: 51
        +3
        In 1812-13, Napoleon's soldiers met on the battlefield with Kalmyk horse archers (Kalmyks are a Mongolian tribe in the citizenship of Russian tsars since the 17th century). The French called them in mockery "Cupids", especially these archers did not show themselves on the battlefield. It was also around this period that the United States fought wars with Indian tribes. And the wars were waged like this - as long as the Indians had enough gunpowder and bullets, they partisan and quite successfully, as soon as the ammunition began to run out (because they were bought from those very pale-faced people with whom we were fighting) they began to be forced to use bows and lose the war. Indians (born warriors and hunters) in war preferred even the inferior gun to the best bow
        Also during this period, Russia waged war in the Caucasus. The Caucasian highlanders were familiar with compound onions, but they used the muskets that the Persians and Turks supplied them with. As soon as the Russian military managed to block the supply of weapons and ammunition to one of the tribes, it usually capitulated. For some reason, it never occurred to anyone in the Caucasus to fight with bows instead of muskets, although men studied military affairs there from early childhood.
        Now what about "defenseless dense structures". The probability of hitting a tall figure from a musket at a distance of 200m is 15%. This means that you would get a swarm of bullets, of which every 7 would hit the target before you got close to effective archery range. There is no need to tell stories about archery at 300 + m, at such a distance they shoot light arrows with a low lethality. A normal arrow with a strong shaft and heavy tip will fly much less distance

        Z.Y. It is also good to mention the example of Turkish Janissaries. Janissaries studied military affairs from an early age, from 6-8 years old, and they initially studied archery - Janissaries were created as a corps of foot archers. But as soon as the first more or less reliable firearms appeared, the Janissaries were immediately re-equipped with them and the Janissaries from auxiliary units turned into the main striking force of the Turkish army, displacing the sipes (Turkish local cavalry) as such. It was in the 16th century, and this weapon was the food or arquebus - the ancestor of the musket. So the bow didn’t even lose the competition to the musket, but to his weaker ancestor, and he lost to the hands of the wars, who trained from a very young age
        1. Cherkashin Ivan
          Cherkashin Ivan 19 May 2016 11: 53
          0
          The idea of ​​returning to bows is not mine. It arose because of the imperfect firearms of the time.
          The examples you speak of are conditionally indicative. The Indians and the Highlanders did not lose because there were not enough guns or there was an excess of bows.
          The Zulus did not hold out for a long time because the assegai excelled firearms.
          I agree with the distance difference in the effective fire distances between bows and shotguns. But the rate of fire here is on the side of the bow.
          1. Logos
            Logos 21 May 2016 14: 23
            0
            As far as I know, this idea in the 18th century in the North American colonies was expressed by politicians and cabinet scientists, not by the military or the inhabitants of the frontier. European aristocrats who were familiar with bow (since it was popular as a sport) and with a musket (in military service) were also not seen in their commitment to returning the bow to the army.
            The only valid criterion for comparison is practice. And practice has shown that it was the Indians who preferred European muskets to their Indian bows, rather than white settlers bows to muskets. If the bow were more effective than the musket, everything would be the other way around, and the American rangers and cowboys would not be stopped by the need to study archery for a long time, since a typical inhabitant of the American frontier grew up in a dangerous environment from childhood and was accustomed to gun ownership
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 19 May 2016 00: 13
        +3
        A bow is not a child prodigy.
        In the case of the Mongols, the prodigies were the Mongols themselves with their numbers, discipline and controllability on the battlefield. Europeans were able to reach such heights only in modern times with regular armies. As a result, one knight was worth ten Mongols. And on individual training, and equipment. But a thousand Mongols already quite competed with the chivalrous army. Tumens swept away everything in their path.
        (except cuirassiers)
        And in those, the whole horse, arms, legs and face are not covered from the bow by anything.
        shoot at defenseless dense buildings I think it would be a pleasure.
        If not for the range of the actual fire, then yes. Only a volley from a gunshot on the battlefield brought results at a much greater range. I agree with the rate of fire. As with the advantage of the bow in an irregular war for that period. All sorts of ambushes, pursuits, raids and unexpected attacks. Noiselessness and the absence of smoke are the pluses of the bow.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 19 May 2016 00: 03
      +2
      There was no "lukophobia" - just the bow was not as effective as some people paint it
      I will add that it was only effective against worse equipped infantry and horses on which the knights rode. Not all knights could already cover the whole horse with a quality bard.
  15. Logos
    Logos 18 May 2016 18: 34
    +1
    the nature of defensive weapons among the peoples of the East, where overly heavy, all-metal armor never existed

    This is not true. Heavily armed cataphracts appeared in the East, and even in an era when even the word "knight" did not exist in Europe. Another example: the Mongols, according to Plano Carpini, not only wore lamellar armor themselves, but also dressed their horses in armor - and this was in an age when European knights did not yet equip their horses in armor. Naturally, we are talking about the rich noble Mongols, the poor, according to the same Karpini, could only afford an ax (instead of an expensive saber) and a bow from weapons. And since the poor common people are always outnumbered in numbers than the rich, it is not surprising that in the Mongol army, light horse archers numerically prevailed over heavy-weights clad in armor. But this does not at all indicate their greater efficiency.
  16. Logos
    Logos 18 May 2016 22: 22
    +3
    Quote: King, just king
    To chop with a sword or break flexible arrow shafts with your hands?

    And tell me, citizen of "Maegrom", did you do it, why write so cheerfully?

    This is where the arrows were flexible shafts ??? The more flexible the shaft, the greater the longitudinal-transverse vibrations the arrow will experience and the less energy and less accurately it will fly.
  17. Logos
    Logos 18 May 2016 23: 22
    +1
    By the way, "the bow is the weapon of cowards." If the bow was such an effective weapon, the knights would not say so, but immediately adopted it. After all, the nobility spoke so about firearms, but in the end they themselves armed themselves with them - the first musketeers consisted of noblemen, not peasant recruits, noblemen better off hired into dragoon regiments and armed with a carbine and a pistol. In England, among the aristocrats of the era of Henry 8, even at one time there was a fashion to order portraits of themselves along with personal firearms "like me and my dear pistol." By the way, it was still the 16th century - a century when the English bow was still in service with the English army, but it had already begun to give up its positions to the firearms. In England, in general, the bow lasted a long time, especially in the Elizabethan era - the main argument in its favor was its cheapness, in contrast to the expensive firearms at that time
  18. Luka Mudischev
    Luka Mudischev 19 May 2016 14: 15
    0
    Quote: Logos
    In 1812-13, Napoleon's soldiers met on the battlefield with Kalmyk horse archers (Kalmyks are a Mongolian tribe in the citizenship of Russian tsars since the 17th century). The French called them in mockery "Cupids", especially these archers did not show themselves on the battlefield. It was also around this period that the United States fought wars with Indian tribes. And the wars were waged like this - as long as the Indians had enough gunpowder and bullets, they partisan and quite successfully, as soon as the ammunition began to run out (because they were bought from those very pale-faced people with whom we were fighting) they began to be forced to use bows and lose the war. Indians (born warriors and hunters) in war preferred even the inferior gun to the best bow
    Also during this period, Russia waged war in the Caucasus. The Caucasian highlanders were familiar with compound onions, but they used the muskets that the Persians and Turks supplied them with. As soon as the Russian military managed to block the supply of weapons and ammunition to one of the tribes, it usually capitulated. For some reason, it never occurred to anyone in the Caucasus to fight with bows instead of muskets, although men studied military affairs there from early childhood.
    Now what about "defenseless dense structures". The probability of hitting a tall figure from a musket at a distance of 200m is 15%. This means that you would get a swarm of bullets, of which every 7 would hit the target before you got close to effective archery range. There is no need to tell stories about archery at 300 + m, at such a distance they shoot light arrows with a low lethality. A normal arrow with a strong shaft and heavy tip will fly much less distance

    Z.Y. It is also good to mention the example of Turkish Janissaries. Janissaries studied military affairs from an early age, from 6-8 years old, and they initially studied archery - Janissaries were created as a corps of foot archers. But as soon as the first more or less reliable firearms appeared, the Janissaries were immediately re-equipped with them and the Janissaries from auxiliary units turned into the main striking force of the Turkish army, displacing the sipes (Turkish local cavalry) as such. It was in the 16th century, and this weapon was the food or arquebus - the ancestor of the musket. So the bow didn’t even lose the competition to the musket, but to his weaker ancestor, and he lost to the hands of the wars, who trained from a very young age


    That's right, there was no place for Kalmyks on the battlefield. But in the pursuit of the French retreating from Moscow, in the disturbing night attacks, they showed themselves very well, since they were created for this. Something like "night coffee grinder" Po-2. In "normal" warfare, combat value tends to zero, but disturbing nightly raids on the Germans are just what we need.
  19. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 24 May 2016 10: 35
    0
    For some reason, when analyzing the "fire" effect of bows, everyone forgets that bows were different in different eras.

    For example, in the era of the confrontation between the Roman principate and Parthia, Roman archers always lost Parthian. Later - in the era of Roman dominance and Sassanian Persia - the situation was leveled, they began to fight on equal terms, because the Romans adopted the eastern bows and changed the structure of the troops.

    The same is true for the example of the Classical Middle Ages - if in the 10-12 centuries the bow arrows (that of the European and the Levantine) as a whole did not cause serious harm to hardened soldiers, then from the 13 century the situation has changed radically (by the way, this also causes the evolution of defensive weapons in Europe) .