Military Review

On the issue of a new typology of cultures of onions and onions (part three)

77
"... I will drink my arrows with blood, and my sword shall be filled with flesh, .."
(Deuteronomy 32: 42)



Last time we stopped at the fact that we tried to prove the validity of the culturological typology of “lukophiles and lukofoby”, that is, divisions of cultures that took place in the past, into peoples who worshiped the onions, and peoples who considered him unworthy weapons. For the first time why the knights did not use the bow, the English historian Timothy Newark drew attention. But he stopped there. We continued to consider his concept in terms of spreading love and hatred of the bow, not only in relation to the knights, but also simply peoples (and civilizations), conditionally dividing them into lukofilov and lukofobov. Today we will see what can give us extrapolation of this dichotomy on history human development.

Referring to the data of archeology and written sources, we can conclusively assert that from the American continent to the outskirts of Eurasia in the Stone Age, the bow was truly a mass weapon. It was used on the Andaman Islands, in Japan, in India, in Africa, the Aztecs and Mayans, the inhabitants of ancient Spain (where they found the most ancient European onions in the swamp!) - in short, it was just well spread very widely. Only some nations did not use it, but not at all because they had some kind of prejudice against it. For example, the Masai in Africa do not use onions, but they use a spear with a wide tip - this is the specificity of their hunting practice. We see the same thing with the aborigines of Australia. They simply did not need a bow.


St. Sebastian, pierced by a multitude of arrows, became a peculiar symbol of his era. The emperor Diocletian ordered to execute him this way, but ... after all, the Romans themselves did not use onions. So the execution was carried out by their mercenaries.

But the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, and Indians used onions, and the last bow was almost deified. Enough to read the "Mahabharata" to see this. Onions are found in the ancient legends of the narts who lived in the Caucasus, but one could not even remember about the peoples of Siberia and Central Asia. But ... it was here in the dark of the centuries that something happened that caused one of the peoples who lived in this particular area, to have a kind of “dislike” for the bow. Or, let's say, the opinion that this weapon is unworthy of a real man and a warrior! What kind of people was it, and when did this division happen? Well, first of all, neither Cimmerians, nor Scythians, nor Sarmatians can be counted as lukofob. But the Dorians, who came to Greece from the north, what about them? Before them, the Greeks readily used bows. But ... after the Dorian conquest of Greece, everything changed, as proved by the plays of Euripides, and the ancient Greek ceramics. On them you will see the hoplites and horsemen with spears and shields, but the archers are all barbarian mercenaries. Scythians - as evidenced by the inscriptions, that is, people of the second grade. Not citizens! However, perhaps it all started a little earlier or later?

On the issue of a new typology of cultures of onions and onions (part three)

Scythian arrowheads were bronze, vtulchatymi and had a side spike for non-recoverability.

Here, probably, you should refer to the Atlas of World History, edited by Jeff Barraklou, a professor at the University of Oxford, and the Times Books in 2001. It gives a chronology of various events that took place in different regions of the planet at the same time . With it, it is convenient to carry out comparisons. It reads: 2200 - 2000's. (Indo-Europeans) the future ancient Greeks conquer mainland Greece. Meanwhile, the Minoan civilization is developing in Crete. Then it dies as a result of the eruption of the Santorini volcano, and Crete after 1500, the Achaeans seize. Then there is the separation of the Slavs from other Indo-European peoples. And here at the end of the XII century. BC. the Dorian Greeks come, trash the Mycenaean civilization and seize Crete.

And now let us remember the 490 year and the battle of Marathon, where the Greek hoplites defeated the Persian archers. It took about 700 years, and all this time the Greeks (these are completely different Greeks, descendants of newcomers from the north, and where did they come from?) Didn’t treat the bow too well, did they? And they had their own cavalry, but they never shot from the saddle!

We will see that the Huns are ready to win, and they move to the mouth of the Don, and from there a part is ready to go west, and a part to the east and defeats the Romans in the Battle of Adrianople in 378. . Oe., and they do not shoot bows from a horse, which is noted by all Roman historians. T. Newark also writes about this when he says that the Gothic tactics of war preceded knightly, that is, it was a fight with a sword and a spear. Well, the Chinese are unimportant riders, around 300, they invent a high saddle with stirrups. That is, what happens: somewhere in the wilds of Central Asia, where the Goths once lived, for some reason this strange idea arose that the bow is not a man’s weapon, and only the warrior who fights the enemy with a sword and a spear. At the same time, the Goths, naturally, lose to the Huns (that is, they lived not far from them) and leave the latter to the west. Lucophiles remain in the east, including China and Japan, while goto go-gots go to the west, who later created the basis for European Gothic culture with their conquests. But the Romans did not love the onions, but adopted this dislike from the Greeks. That is, this lukofobiya arose long before the ready, and there was a people (what kind of people?), Which transferred it to the Greeks. But u ready, let's say, she reached the maximum. That is, we have a long historical process that engulfed both parts of Asia and Europe, and gradually led to the serious social changes that T. Newark already wrote about in 1995 year.


The Assyrians very early began to use horse archers who shot from a horse. But first the reins were held by another rider! Fig. Angus McBride

When and where exactly happened, and what happened such that turned away and ready, and those who lived in this region before them, from the bow, we, most likely, will never know. Although this could write an excellent historical novel. But you can try to trace the migration path of ancient lukofobov through the funeral inventory. If the burial is male, there is a sword, a spear, a shield in it, but there are no arrowheads, then the conclusion is obvious - “lukofob” is buried here.


Assyrian horse archer against Arab riflemen on camels. Over time, the Assyrians mastered the art of riding so that their riders began to act like Scythians. Fig. Angus McBride

Well, now let's think about the fact that any, in general, culturological typology is dichotomous. For example, Apollonic and Dionysian, Atlantic and Continental, forests and steppes, and so on. But a good theory should also explain a lot, and in this case, yes, indeed, it is the typology of lukofilov and lukofobov that allows you to answer one very important question: why does the West not like Christian Russia, where does it come from? Everything is clear with the East: religion, violation of the chivalrous tradition of not shooting from a horse - this is the reason to “get angry” for centuries. But our ancestors were Christians ...


Bayesian embroidery. Norman knights, ahead of which are archers, attacked the infantry of Harold. It was the archers who played the main role in this battle, but ... traditionally it is believed that it was the cavalry!

To begin with, we note that the Gothic military culture had no effect on the Slavs. So they Black Sea Steppe corridor to the west and left. This was followed by centuries when barbaric kingdoms were created in Europe, and in our country our ancestors reflected Avars and Pechenegs, Polovtsy and Mongol-Tatars. And in this struggle with the East, they took from him all the best. Maybe they did not know how to shoot from a horse with such skill as these peoples. But they did not shy away from this art - that is what is important! And even having become Christians, our distant ancestors-warriors of princes had a bow and arrows in their arsenal! And having met with “brothers by faith” on the battlefields, they appeared in the eyes of the latter not only apostates, but also - perhaps it was even worse - people professing a “barbaric principle” not covered by any external piety - “the end justifies the means "" It is profitable for me to shoot a bow from a horse, which means I shoot! "


Remarkably draws English artist Graham Turner. But ... what do we see in his drawings? Knights whose horse armor covers the neck and cereals of their horses. What for? Who will beat in the battle with a sword on the rump? But everything becomes clear if we refer to the manuscripts of those years. The arrows of the archers are the reason for such a strange "booking." They rained down from above like rain and, ... gaining a very high speed, put deadly wounds to the horses, and the light-wounded horses simply lay down and could not run any farther!

Recall our epics. There, the use of the bow and arrows by the warriors is not condemned at all, but the epic words are “the voice of the people”. That is, our ancestors did not see that the knight shoots a bow, sitting astride, nothing shameful; both bows and arrows entered our horsemen’s panoply for a long time! What many foreigners who visited Muscovy wrote about. They say that they ride hollowed stallions, drive them with whips and skillfully shoot a bow both forward and backward. Moreover, it took the description of the local cavalry of the seventeenth century, they wrote about it ... Well, how could it be transferred and put up with it? And even when the original reason for this “dislike” was already forgotten, the memory of her and the fact that “you can expect everything from these Russians” was preserved and passed on to the descendants of “knights-ready”.


However, he has something to draw. In the Metropolitan Museum in New York alone, several complete knightly armor, including horseback, is displayed.

Well, and we ourselves have contributed a lot to this - well, so that they think about us that way, so that the “dislike” of the West can also be explained by this very long cultural tradition. And, by the way, our domestic historians still well understood and wrote, in particular, Klyuchevsky, in pre-revolutionary times, that we represent a unique culture and surpass the West with light weapons, and the East, respectively, is heavy, but not so much that it interferes with us. to fight with those and with others not only on an equal footing, but also to excel both.


Pay attention to how the knight’s horse is protected from the front. The mask, bib and plates protect the head, neck and chest. But his neck is also protected from above.


“Nakrupnik” had the shape of a bell to protect the horse's legs and divert the arrows to the sides.

Hence the spread in Russia of knight’s sword and oriental sabers, bows and arrows, and ... crossbows, light oriental mail and heavy lamellar armor, which sometimes were as good as knight’s armor. Well, who will like this exclusivity, when people most of all love you to be like everyone else, and exclusivity and exclusivity are usually not forgiven to anyone! And, as you can see, it is the typology of “lukofily-lukofoby,” moreover, precisely with reference to our history, that allows us to give a truly comprehensive answer to many questions of our history!


Here it is, our pre-Petrine local cavalry, who knew how to shoot backwards at a gallop just as well as the Scythians!


And these are the figures of the Zvezda company. What are not knights? And with bows in hand!
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. V.ic
    V.ic 25 May 2016 06: 46
    +7
    Before them, the Greeks willingly used bows. But ... after the Doric conquest of Greece, everything changed, Author Vyacheslav Shpakovsky

    Hercules was a Dorian, not a Pelasgian. How did he exterminate the Stimphalian birds? Spitting, blowing gas, or still bow and arrow?
    1. Riv
      Riv 25 May 2016 08: 10
      +9
      Dorian ... Pelasgus ... These are modern terms after all. Generic relations did not imply any kind of developed ties between separate clans. The maximum "unifying link" at that time was the policy. That is, some Myrmidon did not consider himself to be any such Dorian, but knew his clan and the area in which several more friendly clans live. A day's journey in any direction is already "the other world".

      And Hercules, for that matter, was considered the son of Zeus. This put him outside of tribal relations. You can use such a bow, and in general you can do anything. He is what was called in Russia: "geek". No responsibility to anyone. Can go to the mercenaries, or perform feats, or kill their children. Those who wish to doubt his divine origin apparently did not heal for a long time ...

      In general, the ancient Greeks dislike of the bow was most likely due to two reasons: the inability to make bows and arrows and ... simply the inability to shoot. The ancient Greek shot from the chest, and pulled the string with a pinch grip, holding the arrow by the shank. This method requires immeasurable power, who are not in the know, and Hercules is not everywhere.
      1. kalibr
        25 May 2016 09: 22
        0
        You noticed it well! Plus to you for the knowledge of the texture.
      2. V.ic
        V.ic 25 May 2016 10: 31
        +2
        Quote: Riv
        Dorian ... Pelasg ... These are, after all, modern terms.

        Indeed, respected, if we consider 1962 as modern. I personally taught the history of the ancient world from the textbook "History of the Ancient World" by Fyodor Petrovich Korovkin. I learned about the Pelasgians and Dorians from there. From there, by the way, and the conquest of the Peloponnese by the Dorians.
        Quote: Riv
        A day's journey in any direction is already "the other world".

        You won’t get away with it during the day.
        Quote: Riv
        And Hercules, for that matter, was considered the son of Zeus. This put him outside of tribal relations. You can use such a bow, and in general you can do anything. He is what was called in Russia: "geek"

        In vain the hero was offended, dear! Lepchet would be called "bastard" in French.
        Quote: Riv
        In general, the ancient Greeks dislike of the bow was most likely due to two reasons: the inability to make bows and arrows and ... simply the inability to shoot.

        Well, do not complicate, you should not multiply the entities ... They were not that "stupid" ... It's just that the bow is a device for hunting small game, which was exterminated in Greece, the undergrowth of which was banally eaten by goats. By definition, there could not be archers in the polis structure, since there were no objects for hunting. Artemis is still an ancient deity, when women were forced to take up arms to search for food.
        And finally: remember how Achilles was struck.
        1. 19001900
          19001900 25 May 2016 19: 15
          +1
          So if the Greek literature is remembered there are full of characters who know how to handle bows and arrows, that in "Odessa" (Odysseus himself and his other half with all the grief of applicants for her husbands), that in "12 feats of Hercules" True, they are not all ordinary Greeks. The small spread of the bow was most quickly due to the high cost of the metal used for the arrowheads. There is almost no metallurgy. Imagine the budget and spending of the war of that era of armor - layers of cloth and leather, shield - rod, leather and wood. What is metal ???? spearhead !!! sword ??? and even then not all, helmet ??? Well, such a chic rarely anyone could afford, but it's all reusable. And then how can you imagine throwing out a couple of kilos of metal "wai wai ruin" here and you don't want to fight. So in those days, the Bow and Arrows (with a bronze tip) could only afford to know and she was not supposed to fight as a simple war by status. By the way, the same Nemean lion, perhaps not so thick-skinned, was just the shepherds' arrows without a tip.
      3. Cossack Ermak
        Cossack Ermak 25 May 2016 23: 01
        +3
        Finish about the dislike of the Greeks to bow. Reread Illiad and Odyssey again. When Odysseus returned, his wife Penelope arranged a simple competition among the suitors. You just had to pull the bowstring over the bow of Odysseus. No one could handle it. Even his son. And I recall Odysseus was the king. So to shoot from a bow is a royal, not dumb business for those times. By the way, when Odysseus pulled his bow, he shot the grooms. In the Odyssey, this act is not presented as shameful, but rather glorifies Odysseus. So that the author is not a hunchback.
      4. gladcu2
        gladcu2 27 May 2016 15: 32
        0
        Riv4

        Most likely the Greeks did not know how to make bows. And they were not particularly necessary.

        To begin with, in their area there are not trees, but only cramps. Then nature gave a 3-time harvest a year, which changed their lifestyle from hunting to settled. Yes, and grazing sheep did not require long crossings. The renewal of vegetation is quick. And the lifestyle and technology of neighbors affects weapons. Such as preparing professional soldiers requires an additional resource, and the hunters were absent from which, in general, they recruited archers, respectively, and the popularity of the bow was not high. It hardly makes sense to attribute to the West a special morality.

        By the way, throwing military weapons were present. A commoner used everywhere sling.

        Well, about the moral of the western and eastern. There are infinitely many mutual claims.

        And in general, all the arguments of the author, this assumption or opinion, does not look convincing. Even looking at the horse’s armor is absolutely not a fact that it is protection against arrows. Well, a falling arrow still does not accelerate, but loses kinetic energy compared to the energy that threw this arrow to a given height.
    2. kalibr
      25 May 2016 09: 20
      0
      An excerpt from Euripides was given in previous material. Just about him ...
    3. Vend
      Vend 25 May 2016 10: 29
      +1
      Quote: V.ic
      Before them, the Greeks willingly used bows. But ... after the Doric conquest of Greece, everything changed, Author Vyacheslav Shpakovsky

      Hercules was a Dorian, not a Pelasgian. How did he exterminate the Stimphalian birds? Spitting, blowing gas, or still bow and arrow?

      The Argonauts also shot back from them from bows. Although this whole argument seems far-fetched to me. One generates the other. All piercing spear and all protective shield.
  2. Metlik
    Metlik 25 May 2016 06: 49
    +1
    Universal soldier or specialized warrior? Armament for all occasions or improvement in a certain type of battle? It should be borne in mind that the eastern and western armies used different tactics. The west is characterized by a straightforward, planned battle. The East uses military tricks, ambushes, and false retreats. When you do not know what to expect from the enemy, you need to be prepared for everything.
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 25 May 2016 08: 07
      +2
      "Straightforward and planned"? Well straightforward, but where is the plan? In the European armies, it was not always possible to decide who would command, and the knightly militia and a herd of peasants led to slaughter is generally a fairy tale in terms of discipline. "Go there and pile on everyone who is not ours" does not pull on planning. Yes, there were exceptions, but they were exceptions.
    2. Riv
      Riv 25 May 2016 08: 21
      +2
      Here the approach is a little different. Let’s say you set the combat mission to the battalion. You do not indicate in the order that weapons should be taken as weapons? And so it is clear that they will go with the staff. Alexander of Macedon also set the phalanx tasks, not focusing on such trifles. And any commander has always sought to unify the weapons of his fighters.

      But since combat tasks are always different, the types of troops for their implementation also need different. Or you need to choose some kind of universal weaponry so that the fighter can fulfill, if not all the orders, then at least most of them. And then adapt the tactics to the opportunities available.

      So the equestrian archer in light armor is precisely the most versatile warrior. High maneuverability, the ability to fight at a distance and impose your own fighting style. The phalanx cannot be composed of them, but this is not necessary. A modern analogue is airmobile parts.
    3. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 25 May 2016 13: 57
      +3
      It should be borne in mind that the eastern and western armies used different tactics. The west is characterized by a straightforward, planned battle. The East uses military tricks, ambushes, and false retreats.
      At that time, tactics grew out of available weapons, and not vice versa. She at that moment is secondary. It is now at the academy or Moscow Region that they can come up with new tactics and order specialized weapons from the military-industrial complex for it. At that primitive time, tactics developed at random. Of the many fights using available weapons. History knows very few examples when armaments and large units were created centrally, under again, from scratch, invented tactics.
      even the reforms of Philip of Macedon with the introduction of sarisses are a rather small (albeit very effective) evolution of the existing phalanx.
      1. Riv
        Riv 25 May 2016 15: 03
        +1
        The fact is that weapons are not invented in the singular. Wunderwafel does not exist. Here's an example of clever heads came up with a tank. At first, the military simply drove him forward, pouring lead around the district until it got stuck. In response, anti-tank rifles and grenades appeared, a class of anti-tank guns stood out. The infantry changed its behavior on the battlefield. The tankers moved on to deep breakthroughs, since the technology was improving and could travel for hundreds of kilometers. In response, units specializing in the fight against such breakthroughs appeared, and the infantry was armed with grenade launchers.

        Etc. That is, the appearance of more advanced weapons models changes tactics and this, in turn, leads to the modification of weapons.

        And the fact that in the ancient world tactics did not change much, because the weapons remained approximately the same. Does it make a big difference how long your spear is, or what shape your shield is?
        1. Fat
          Fat 25 May 2016 22: 11
          0
          Quote: Riv
          And the fact that in the ancient world tactics did not change much, because the weapons remained approximately the same. Does it make a big difference how long your spear is, or what shape your shield is?

          It’s very funny, but such subtleties and shallows are essential ... Especially the length of the spear and the formation. And the "tower" shield? ... Well, don't simplify so much ... It's too easy to get confused and make the wrong conclusions. In terms of intelligence, ancestors were not inferior to modern people at all.
          1. Riv
            Riv 25 May 2016 22: 47
            +1
            So after all, a modern regiment can be equipped with flintlock guns, or slings. This is not the case.

            In fact, the development of military affairs is subject to certain laws. This was noticed by the ancient Greeks. Weapons are being improved, tactics are changing, but the basic principles remain the same. For example, the principles of concentration of forces, or the division of the army into various types of troops - they are thousands of years old. The length of the spear during this time has changed repeatedly.
  3. shinobi
    shinobi 25 May 2016 07: 25
    +2
    Here, in general, you can add a comparison with modern snipers as an organization of dislike. Under equal conditions, in the absence of long-range heavy weapons on the sides, separating snipers with competent command can associate any assault.
    1. igordok
      igordok 25 May 2016 08: 06
      +2
      Quote: shinobi
      Here, in general, you can add a comparison with modern snipers as an organization of dislike. Under equal conditions, in the absence of long-range heavy weapons on the sides, separating snipers with competent command can associate any assault.

      And at the same time, the enemy will consider sniping a non-gentlemanly, barbaric kind of struggle. And a captured sniper will be shot on the spot.
    2. alebor
      alebor 25 May 2016 11: 22
      +1
      By the way, in the Middle Ages, after the appearance of firearms, the shooters of the "fire battle" were very disliked and the captured were treated very cruelly and much less humanely, compared to other categories of prisoners.
      1. Kombrig
        Kombrig 25 May 2016 21: 27
        0
        Quote: alebor
        By the way, in the Middle Ages, after the appearance of firearms, the shooters of the "fire battle" were very disliked and the captured were treated very cruelly and much less humanely, compared to other categories of prisoners.


        By the way, they don’t like especially dangerous shooters at all ages, like in the Middle Ages they chopped fingers from archery arrows, and in modern times they hit machine gunners and snipers from everything that shoots, well, they don’t want to be captured at all ..)))
    3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Cherkashin Ivan
    Cherkashin Ivan 25 May 2016 07: 46
    +13
    I could hardly read it. But since I started this trilogy (I really hope that there will not be a fourth part, with all due respect to the author) I decided to finish reading.

    I will not comment on everything, otherwise the text will be larger than the article in volume. But:

    1. The statement that the Goths decided on their attitude to the bow and generally decided how they would fight in Asia, and then stubbornly stomped into Europe for hundreds of years, does not hold water. During their migration, they could change their religion and lifestyle and production methods 10 times, whatever they wanted, they would survive and if circumstances required it, tribes of fighting swimmers would appear in Europe.

    2. The Greeks had bows and they used them in battle. The bows were inferior, shot from the chest, but they were. So it’s impossible to talk exclusively about mercenaries archers. Here are just the main striking power of the city militia were armed primarily with a spear and that was enough for them.

    3. To say that the lack of onions, tips, etc. in the tomb says that the deceased was a "lucophobe" at least strange. The iPhone 6 and the Golden Kalash of that time were put in the tomb. I don’t think that they could put a wooden shovel or pitchfork in the tomb, but no one says that there’s a terrible “shovelophobe” in the tomb.

    Thus, we can draw the opposite conclusion that onions were very common, but you can not.
    1. andj61
      andj61 25 May 2016 09: 41
      +3
      Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
      I don’t think that they could put a wooden shovel or pitchfork in the tomb, but no one says that there’s a terrible “shovelophobe” in the tomb.

      good
      It should also be noted that a good onion is a high-tech product, and perhaps many simply could not make it properly. The Welsh yew bow was used purely from wood, and the Welsh archers formed the basis of the free peasants, who made a decisive contribution to the victory at Agincourt over the French knightly cavalry. By the way, the bike goes about the sign V - Victor. Like, after the Agincourt, the French were captured by English and Welsh archers, who awed the French, these two fingers were chopped off on their right hand so that they could not use their bows in the future. Archers, knowing this, teased the French before the battle, showing them intact fingers - “Fear, enemies!” bully
      But the training of archers also took a lot of time compared to the training of a spearman. And many of those who did not use the bow en masse simply could not make it properly, and the "school" of archer training requires decades, if not centuries of experience.
      And this is if we are talking about a "simple" yew bow, and a composite bow is much more difficult to make, and its cost simply went off scale. For poor medieval Europe, this also played an important role.
      And the attitude to the war in Europe was different: the main thing was courtesy, the idealization of knights, etc., but not the struggle for survival, as, for example, in Russia on the border with the steppe - there was a real frontier, and mores were quite others.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 25 May 2016 14: 12
        +2
        and the "school" of training archers requires decades, if not centuries of experience.
        And most importantly - social conditions. For years, no one from the nobility has been taught slaves or smerds to learn how to shoot from a bow. At least from a sense of self-preservation.
    2. kalibr
      25 May 2016 09: 45
      -2
      Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
      The Greeks had bows and they used them in battle. The bows were inferior, shot from the chest, but they were. So it’s impossible to talk exclusively about mercenaries archers. Here are just the main striking power of the city militia were armed primarily with a spear and that was enough for them.


      In addition to your words, how can this be confirmed? You see, an analysis of Greek ceramics was carried out. On all images of archers (except Odessa) are not Greeks.
      1. Cherkashin Ivan
        Cherkashin Ivan 25 May 2016 10: 22
        +2
        Let's think logically. There was a "Greek" type of archery, there was a different "Scythian" type.
        Examples on shards seek laziness. There are many references to Cretan archers for example. Are they sufficient Greeks for you?
        1. kalibr
          25 May 2016 10: 27
          0
          "Mass" is not about anything. And there is no need to look for shards. Everything has already been found before you. You will not find anything new.
          1. Cherkashin Ivan
            Cherkashin Ivan 25 May 2016 10: 49
            +2
            I get the impression that you are too lazy to use the search on the Internet. It is not difficult to type "Cretan archers" in the search bar and find out at least about mercenaries in the army of Alexander the Great.
            1. kalibr
              25 May 2016 12: 49
              +1
              I have slightly different sources. About the Internet as a source, I have already written here.
              1. Cherkashin Ivan
                Cherkashin Ivan 25 May 2016 13: 47
                0
                After reading your articles, it is very interesting to know what sources you use. I am a simple man, I do not have a collection of Greek amphoras, and I can’t recognize the nationality of a naked man with a bow on a picture painted on a pot.
                So you have to use the Internet in which your creation I met.
                But this is all the lyrics. I claimed that there were Cretan mercenaries in the army of Alexander the Great, do you disagree with this?
                1. kalibr
                  25 May 2016 16: 33
                  0
                  Why don't you agree? I can quite agree, it just didn't matter to me, so I can't give a link to the source. And my sources were named at the end of the SECOND ARTICLE on this topic. In addition, this article is essentially a truncated conclusion of three works: my doctoral dissertation, the monograph "The English-language historiography of knightly armament" (Germany), and the monograph "Knightly armament" (2013. M: Lomonosov). More links are given in them. Actually, there are a lot of links in the text, and at the end there is a voluminous historiography. I do not recommend a German book to you - it is very expensive, but "Lomonosov" has probably been posted on the Web by someone, and there you can find it so as not to buy it. These are my sources. Yes, the Internet, of course, has to contact different people and ask them for information. When there was a cycle of articles about Troy here - I had to contact one Englishman, one American and a bunch of Greeks - the links were at the end of the articles.
  5. baudolino
    baudolino 25 May 2016 08: 24
    0
    The article is interesting. But it seemed that the author considers Asia ready, despite their Scandinavian origin.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Rarog
      Rarog 25 May 2016 14: 24
      +1
      The ancestors of almost all modern Europeans came from Asia, Altai is most often mentioned. According to DNA genealogy data, it was from the Altai region that carriers of the R1a haplogroups kept their way (the Aryans are most numerously represented by the Slavs - about 50% of the modern representatives of the Western and Eastern Slavs, the Baltic states - about 30%, less than the Germans - about 15%, and then descending ; we are talking about Europe, therefore I do not mention Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan and India), R1b (Erbins - Western Europeans to a greater extent), N1c (Finno-Ugric - Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Mari, etc.).
    3. Rivares
      Rivares 25 May 2016 18: 57
      +1
      Quote: baudolino
      But it seemed that the author considers Asia ready, despite their Scandinavian origin.

      And where did the Scandinavians come from?
      1. Rarog
        Rarog 25 May 2016 19: 50
        +1
        Quote: Rivares
        Quote: baudolino
        But it seemed that the author considers Asia ready, despite their Scandinavian origin.

        And where did the Scandinavians come from?


        Adherents of Russophobic - Norman theory, ardent supporters of rudbekionism would say that they have always been there, for they are the legendary Hyperboreans. smile
  6. Maegrom
    Maegrom 25 May 2016 08: 34
    +4
    To use in the series of illustrations a box from the figures of the Zvezda firm? !!!!
    Despite the fact that the equipment of the local cavalry in the figure above does not pull modern chivalry. There are many preserved or reconstructed kits, and they must be compared taking into account the time of use. One thing is 13, another is the 15th century.
  7. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 25 May 2016 08: 36
    +7
    Good stuff.
    A lot of. In detail. Tearful and furious.
    From everything that I read, I brought out only one (which I liked) - ".. Well, who will like this kind of exclusivity, when people most of all like you to be like everyone else, and exclusivity and exclusivity are usually not forgiven to anyone! as you can see, exactly typology of “Lukophiles-Lukophobes", moreover, precisely in relation to our history, allows many questions of our history give a truly comprehensive answer!"
    ...
    It turns out that in Russia they skillfully and very successfully came to the SYNTHESIS of martial cultures of Eurasia. And also, incidentally, and other cultures, not just military ones.
    This conclusion is very good.
    ...
    Now about the sad.
    1. Why St. Sebastian killed by the mercenaries of the ancient Romans, CLOTHED IN MEDIEVAL CLOTHES? As far as I remember, the Romans staggered like homeless people, wrapped in pieces of rags, tables there, togas, tunics. Plebs is generally shown only with a started bandage and strap. And here are the mercenaries of the Romans. Dressed like the best dandies of the Middle Ages.
    Some trouble. Either with the authorship of the drawing, or with dating .... why? Events, drawing, chronology ...
    ...
    2. Somehow it is very complicated that everything happens in history - then some crazy create a culture, then others come - destroy everything and create it again, then others come - destroy everything and create. Then the fourth, then the fifth. Either the Greeks are ancient, then the Achaeans, then the Dorians. Some shoot with bows, others do not.
    Something badly linked such a strip of hair with human nature.
    Came to destroy - destroy. Then they usually fall off.
    And if he came to create, then they don’t destroy it. Who wants to live in the ashes? Or do double jobs?
    So I imagine, the Mongols have not yet captured Kozelsk and kicked the baby, and the construction contractors among the Mongols already share grandmothers.
    Something like this story reminds me of exercises in elegant literature. Although in life I know that everything is much simpler.
    .
    3. Some people like bows, others not.
    And if you just look at the area of ​​forests, forest-steppes and steppes? Doesn’t it become clear that foresters-goblin will obviously possess worse onion than the inhabitants of forest-steppe regions. And the inhabitants of the steppes and deserts need either such powerful bows that they can’t be pulled as it should, or to nothing at all (like the native people of Australia and the Masai - try to flood the lion with a twig).
    Yes, and the inhabitants of the coast on which bow? Whom should they shoot? Jellyfish
    ...
    4. The Romans did not like bows. May be. I didn't live with them, I don't know. But in this "literature" about the Romans, the THROWING weapons of the Romans are very seriously considered. Which were used even in naval battles, and not so that on land - ballistas, scorpions, onagers. This is not a BOW, but the principle is the same. Isn't it surprising.
    ...
    5. Pull a long-range, powerful bow - you must be a strong man himself. Long arms, a powerful back, eye and a lot of free time to practice skills. Because archery is not to spoil the enemy with a long piece of wood from a horse. And as a result, it turns out that in a strong culture, with established military traditions of distinguishing the estate - WARRIORS - bows are widespread. But decadent cultures, democratic ones, so to speak, do not even have bows. And during the battle there is no time to choose what to use - they grab either the better you own or that turned up by the arm.
    So archers who thinned at a distance the graceful, indestructible knightly cavalry, then they can still taunt these ... knights.
    And how should the knights treat archers after such a "sinking"? I was getting ready, I was getting ready, I didn’t sleep nights, I learned to turn the shaft ... and here on you, they lit an arrow in the eye, and the whole calico. Sadness, however.
    ...
    Such considerations.
    1. kalibr
      25 May 2016 09: 27
      +1
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      1. Why St. Sebastian killed by the mercenaries of the ancient Romans, CLOTHED IN MEDIEVAL CLOTHES? As far as I remember, the Romans staggered like homeless people, wrapped in pieces of rags, tables there, togas, tunics. Plebs is generally shown only with a started bandage and strap. And here are the mercenaries of the Romans. Dressed like the best dandies of the Middle Ages.
      Some trouble. Either with the authorship of the drawing, or with dating .... why? Events, drawing, chronology ...

      As a rule, medieval painters painted what they saw around themselves; they did not know what could have been otherwise before.
      1. Chiropractor
        Chiropractor 25 May 2016 11: 48
        0
        Why didn’t they know? Trajan’s column did not seem to disappear. Look - shake on the mustache ....

        And then how did you know? In the Renaissance current unearthed? That is, mountains were thrown into the Dark Middle Ages, and then they decided to arrange PCBs? ...

        What did the idea of ​​the Renaissance begin with? With the Idea of ​​the Golden Age of mankind - they say there was a time, people lived, not like you, unwashed ... And let's build this century. The Pope said that yes, they say, was the Golden Age until you sinned to me here. And this century was here in Rome. Then some began to argue. At one time, Pap even drove to France - you have different bad illnesses in Rome, and the Golden Age was here in the Empire of Charlemagne - now, look what ruins are beautiful! But the Germans were offended and said: right now, our Empire is the coolest - so the Holy Roman Empire is the Golden Age. But a thousand years ago, you just forgot ... People who came from Spain (where they started to be cut) reconciled everyone - they say that the Golden Age was in Rome, but we taught them how to live the Greeks, and everyone knows that we were taught the Greeks when Jordan went to Spain ...

        I do not argue that the artist painted on a given topic with the details that he saw before his eyes. The monk sat in his monastery, staring out of the window at the city. And then the order is to visualize the fact. Well. how could ...
        But about Greek philosophers and mathematicians only in the Renaissance began to gush about in the circles of then scientists. And, as an example, in the 18th century, in textbooks, solving an equation with one unknown was not solved by simple division, sorted out the options and multiplied. And with such mathematics, the calculation of building a bridge and other architectural and applied masterpieces took tens of years ...
        1. kalibr
          25 May 2016 13: 11
          0
          Not all the monks who wrote the incunabula were in Rome and saw this column. And illustrators, and even more so ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Fat
      Fat 25 May 2016 22: 44
      0
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      3. Some people like bows, others not.
      And if you just look at the area of ​​forests, forest-steppes and steppes? Doesn’t it become clear that foresters-goblin will obviously possess worse onion than the inhabitants of forest-steppe regions.

      Doesn't become! The woods-goblin hunters have excellent bow skills, but the bows and "ammunition" are somewhat different. The objects of application are different. Or to bring down a wild bull in the steppe, a thick-skinned one, or a bird in a swamp and a squirrel with a marten, an arrow with a blunt point. And somehow it so happened that there is not enough decent timber in the steppe ...
  8. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 25 May 2016 08: 37
    +13
    Yes, the author writes complete nonsense. There were no such "lukophiles" and "lukophobes" - everything was determined by the methods of combat adopted by this or that nation, as well as the resources that these nations possessed. All historians write about this. Nomads who were on mobile vehicles and who used the tactics of raids, lures and ambushes needed light and long-range weapons, and so the bow was their favorite weapon. As for the knights, all the authors write that the "dislike" of the western knights for the bow is connected precisely with the heavy armor of the soldiers and the fact that it is simply impossible to shoot from a bow in armor. Therefore, during the time of chivalry, the bow was in service with lightly armed soldiers, who were of lower status than the knights, on the one hand. On the other hand: foot, lightly armed archers during the numerous battles and skirmishes of that era suffered heavy losses, which led to the fact that the armies of those eras experienced great difficulties in recruiting light infantry and therefore, for example, in England, a law was passed not only allowing , but even forcing peasants and other ordinary people to teach their children archery, in order to replenish the ranks of the army on occasion. The fact that the long English bow weapon was quite cheap and could be made in artisanal conditions also played a role, but the most important thing is that archery, despite all its skill, it is quite possible to learn yourself, that is, professional training is not required in camps or schools for training, such as fencing and spear fighting. Hence the fact that the bow began to be considered a "despicable" weapon-weapon of "commoners". For the same Vikings, the "dislike" for bows (although they used them when it was possible) was explained by the specifics of their campaigns - in sea conditions it was difficult to keep both the bowstring and the bow itself from moisture and they could "fail" at the most inopportune moment, and therefore , the Vikings relied on more reliable weapons. There were two eras of medieval weapons in Russia. The first is the period of "Norman armor" and the second is the "period of Tatar armament". These epochs were associated with the main enemy with whom they had to fight and from whom they gained experience and adopted combat techniques and weapons. As in the first and in the second period, Russian soldiers were forced to use the bow as, on the one hand, it remained the main simple weapon of hunting, and besides, they had to fight against a nomadic enemy - Polovtsy, Pechenegs, etc. I don't understand what has to do with it. "lukophiles" and "lukophobes"? There is always a healthy plagiarism in a war - if you lost to the enemy once or twice, then you adopt his methods of fighting and his weapons, which turned out to be more effective, that's all.
    1. kalibr
      25 May 2016 09: 37
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Yes, the author writes complete nonsense.

      Do not judge rashly, says the Gospel and Cardinal Richelieu.
    2. potroshenko
      potroshenko 25 May 2016 12: 23
      +2
      Monster_Fat
      Write everything correctly. The author skidded somewhere, before there were interesting articles, and now the Slavs have gone 1500 years BC. and genetic hatred for them of ready-knight-lucophobia.
      1. kalibr
        25 May 2016 13: 26
        0
        Alex, why are you so inconsiderate. About the Slavs, I did not come up. Source named, right? As well as about the Lukophobian knights. You are simply given information from the front line of science. It is important to be able to adequately evaluate it, possess sufficient knowledge for this, is not it?
        1. potroshenko
          potroshenko 25 May 2016 14: 54
          +4
          1. Do you think the source you quoted is adequate? About the fact that 1500 BC. no, as you wrote, "separation of the Slavs" as the Slavs themselves were not, I can later cite dozens of scientific sources.
          2. And what, then, is the "source" of this text of yours?
          And even when the original reason for this “dislike” was already forgotten, the memory of her and the fact that “one can expect everything from these Russians” was preserved and passed on to the descendants of the “knights-ready”

          Maybe someone defended a peer-reviewed scientific work about the transmission of genetically transmitted "dislike" to Russians because of their use of bows or something else?
          3. I believe that information from the front line of science should also be taken critically and look for facts and evidence. Even if not facts, but at least a serious theory that has been tested by criticism of other modern scientists. What do you think?
          1. kalibr
            25 May 2016 16: 07
            0
            I think so too, but what is the problem. I already wrote about the Slavs here - look through the profile. About 1500 years from the Atlas of World History. By Jeffrey Barraclow, Oxford, Richard Overy. King's College London University, Norman Stone, Bilkent University, Ankara, Jeffrey Parker, Ohio University. The base article was titled: Timothy Newark. "Why the knights didn't use bows." A link to it was at the end of the second text. What else does?
    3. Fat
      Fat 25 May 2016 22: 53
      +1
      Yes, in general, I agree with you, but here
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Yes, the author writes complete nonsense.

      you bent too cool. An interesting point of view, which has every right to be, as it has reason and harmonious logic.
  9. Boozer
    Boozer 25 May 2016 10: 49
    0
    No East
    And there is no West.
    There is no end to the sky.
    No East
    And there is no West
    Father has two sons.
    No East
    And there is no West.
    There is
    Sunrise and sunset
    There is a big word -
    LAND!
  10. vitvlad
    vitvlad 25 May 2016 13: 26
    +2
    sorry, could not stand it
    1.Goth Scandinavians. "Getika" to help the author. what else is Central Asia.

    2. The Greeks and Germans, as noted above, did not develop shooting for sure because of the terrain. the Greeks have mountains, the Germans have a forest.

    3. The term "Gothic" of Renaissance origin, it has the same relation to the historical Goths as to the modern subcultural "Goths". to the latter even more, because of the "gothic novel"))

    4. innovators of military affairs - Iranians, both south of the Caucasus (Aryans) and north (Scythians, Sarmatians). And shooting from the saddle ("ride a horse, shoot a bow, tell the truth"), and heavy cavalry are their invention. In the south, the Parthian arrows and the Sassanid cataphracts held back Rome quite successfully, despite the difference in weight classes. In the north, the Sarmatian cataphracts drove out the Scythian riflemen. My hypothesis is that the Middle Ages, as a new tactic in comparison with pedestrian antiquity, was established because cataphracts proved their effectiveness, and metallurgy at that time already allowed everyone to acquire the necessary technologies. True, before classical feudalism there was EVPN and the Dark Ages with a leapfrog of tactics and weapons, but in the end it was the heavy cavalry that became firmly established.

    5. The West does not actively love us from the 17-18th century. before that sluggish - schismatics, and to hell with them. but from that moment on he considers us to be upstarts. we were excellent candidates in the colony, and then suddenly the food about ourselves imagines something and objects. who will not get angry from this?
    1. kalibr
      25 May 2016 16: 50
      0
      Probably, you should reread Newark in the original, but I don’t have it at hand, since 1995 it has worn out to holes. I had to throw it away. But his magazine "Military Illustrated" is probably on the Web. You can search and see.
  11. Alekst
    Alekst 27 May 2016 10: 25
    0
    The article and comments are very interesting to read, even if something is doubtful ...
  12. Logos
    Logos 27 May 2016 15: 26
    0
    To begin with, we note that the Gothic military culture did not affect the Slavs. So they left the Black Sea steppe corridor to the west. Then centuries followed, when barbarian kingdoms were created in Europe, and our ancestors reflected Avars and Pechenegs, Polovtsy and Mongol-Tatars in our country. And in this fight with the East, they took from him the best


    At the time when the Goths were in contact with the Slavs (3-5 AD), Slavic culture was too primitive (even for barbarians) to adopt anything from the Goths. Then the invasions of the steppe peoples - the Huns and after them the Avars - fell upon Europe. Little is known about the relationship between the Huns and the Slavs, but there is still a lot of evidence about the relationship between the Avars and the Slavs. The Avars tortured the Slavs and forced them to go on campaigns with them, where they used them as "cannon fodder". But the Slavs and the Avars did not learn anything in the art of war - the archaeological excavations of the Prague and Kiev cultures are striking in their poverty and primitiveness, even against the background of not too civilized Germanic barbarians. And the Byzantine authors of a later time mentioned the primitive weapons of the Slavs
    More or less worthwhile weapons among the Slavs appear with the emergence of the first Slavic states: Itself and later Bulgaria (by the way, these states were created not by the Slavs, but by foreigners on a Slavic substrate). The armament of the Slavic cavalry warriors differed little from the Western armament up to the Mongol invasion. This is especially true of Russia. Russian warriors wore swords of the "Ulfbert" type, chain mail and shields of the Norman type. Eastern armament began to prevail only after the Mongol invasion and only in the territories that fell into the sphere of influence of the Mongol-Tatars. Western Russia, not conquered by the Mongols, and later subordinated to Lithuania, retained the western type of weapons
    Now a few words about the heroes. Epics about them began to be recorded only in the 19th century and only on the territory of Russia. Western Slavs, as well as Ukrainians and Belarusians, had no legends about heroes. And the very word "hero" came into Russian either from the Mongols, or from the Turkic tribes, this word is clearly not of Slavic origin (in the pre-Mongol era the word "knight" was used)
    The descriptions of the battles of that era also speak of the fact that before the Mongols in Russia preferred the spear and sword to the bow. For example, the famous "Battle on the Ice": there the warriors of Alexander Nevsky preferred to fight the Germans hand-to-hand
    1. kalibr
      28 May 2016 07: 15
      0
      Quote: Logos
      The descriptions of the battles of that era also speak of the fact that before the Mongols in Russia preferred the spear and sword to the bow. For example, the famous "Battle on the Ice": there the warriors of Alexander Nevsky preferred to fight the Germans hand-to-hand

      And where were the arrows from, which, according to the Livonian Chronicle, were defeated by the knight brothers?
  13. Logos
    Logos 27 May 2016 15: 43
    0
    Like, they ride on stalled stallions, chase them with whips and masterfully shoot from the bow both forward and backward. Moreover, this is a description of the local cavalry of the seventeenth century, they wrote about it ...

    As far as I remember, many Western authors showed up in a very contemptuous way about the noble local cavalry: they say they prefer to shoot from the bow, they don’t stand melee and run from the battlefield. The kings of the Romanov dynasty seemed to have the same opinion, since all 17 attempted to reorganize the army according to Western standards, until Peter the Great finally succeeded