Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Mongolian Archery Question
- No offense taken and this is a discussion so
participating is not "butting in". Thanks for
the contribution. I have no problem with the
occasional collection of an arrow but I cannot
see it as a regular tactic in the heat of a
pitched battle. The Comanche and other tribes
fought differently - it was more a series of one
on one challenges - in which an individual had
more time to perform extraordinary feats and, in
fact, it was these feats which decided the
victor. I just don't see the proposition which
good be derived from the earlier posts that
carrying a small supply of specialized arrows,
using them carefully, and relying on gleaned
shafts to maintain a sustained battle as a well
planned or functional strategy much less tactic.
At 04:31 PM 7/19/2008, you wrote:
>Carolus, it is not my intent to offend or "butt in", yet I feel the
>need to interject here. You said
>"I would also question the gleaning of arrows by quick moving horse
>archers. How many would be likely to get off their horse in the
>midst of battle to retrieve arrows?"
>Why would they have to get off their horse at all? The horse archers
>of the Mongol Horde(s) were supposed to have been amongst the very
>finest of all horsemen throughout all of History -- and it has
>already been more than "documented" that even many Native American
>horsemen were able to perform "impossible" feats of skill while at a
>full gallop, and in the middle of battle (Letters of George Catlin,
>collected in "Letters and Notes On The Manners, Customs and
>Conditions of North American Indians", Vol II; the particular letter -
>No. 41 - deals with the "Camanchee" Indians). I would expect no less
>from the Mongols, including the ability to pluck arrows from the
>ground while "on their horse".
>Plus, even when under siege, it is possible to glean arrows from
>the "field" of battle -- any arrows which went over the walls would
>be on rooftops and in the streets.
>Of course, since I am not an accredited scholar, or even a college
>graduate, this is "just my opinion".
>Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
> > I would suggest that this had more to do with logistics that
> > technology. The Europeans had an admittedly non-industrial
> > production base but one geared to bulk construction of
> > munitions. The few samples and descriptions I have found reference
> > to indicate that European war arrows were so over engineered that
> > shooting a short or light shaft would have been extremely
> > unlikely. I think the tactical conditions already mentioned had
> > to do with the matter of gleaning.
> > I would also question the gleaning of arrows by quick moving horse
> > archers. How many would be likely to get off their horse in the
> > midst of battle to retrieve arrows?
> > Carolus
> > At 12:51 PM 7/17/2008, you wrote:
> > >At 02:25 PM 7/17/2008, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >I can help but wonder why you feel Europeans cound not glean
>arrows from the
> > > >field and return in volleys and in fact use any arrow. My
> > > information is just
> > > >the contrary. please enlighten.
> > > >R
> > > > They were also able to glean arrows
> > > > > from the field and return volley fire with any arrow, which
> > > > > Europeans could not do.
> > >
> > > >
> > >I have to agree. I have seen numerous illuminations showing wagon
> > >and barrel loads of arrows being distributed on the battlefield.
> > > >
> > >Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1561
>- Release Date: 7/18/2008 6:35 PM
--- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
Oh, how I disagree with you -- let me count the ways
(no citations follwing your 'opinion' lead)
I hope the citizens of the other European nations are not too
offended by your view that only England and France are important.
1) the Mongolian 'event' obviated the 'hubris' driven infighting of
the European monarchy. This allowed the Pope to demand a mediating
role that broke the power of Fredrick II (Holy Roman Emporer) and
appoint favored kings and princes throught Europe.
2) The 'too late' support of Austria came at the price of whole-sale
Christianization of entire Slavic peoples. This 'fire-hose' baptism
and later church restructuring to support massive expansion let to
power abuse and the Reformation.
3) Without the Mogol invasion the Ottoman Empire would never have
4) without the invasion the Russian states might still be just a
collection of squabling cities. Batu Khan unified Russia if nothing
5) The Mongols demonstrated the effectiveness of gunpowder explosives
to the Europeans.
6) Miltary tactics of all European armies changed after the multiple
7) the saparation of the Eastern and Roman churches might have been
resolved except for the power dynamics created by the invasions.
8) the weakening of the Baltic states and distrust of the Western
rulers prevented cooperative support during the 'years of darkness'
in the 14th century that led to the plague.
9) the breaking of Teutonic oppression of Poland and Germanic states.
10) repeating the reformation probably would never have occured
except for the Mongolian invasion.
and more ... have fun doing the research yourself.
my interest in the 'Mongolian impact' is fueled by these and many
other reasons indicating that the Mongol Invasions was one of the
MOST CRITICAL influences on the development of European cultures in
the 14-16th centuries. I have no particular love of the Mongolian
Culture or actions, but am facinated of how they defeated every
European army they met through guile, subtrafuse, courage and skill
while European leaders dithered over uniforms, sibling squabbles and
> Well written, John. You point out a number of
> the reasons I do not consider the Mongols a major
> factor in Western culture. While they had a
> significant influence on the East, they had
> little influence in the traditionally Western
> countries such as England and France except to be
> used as "bogeymen" to appear in stories to
> frighten children into behaving. The fact that
> their culture virtually disappeared into those of
> their supposed "conquered" foes and has no
> lasting influence on Western culture is why I do
> not consider them a tangible influence.
> At 06:14 PM 7/21/2008, you wrote:
> >reneshepard wrote:
> > > Okeiday, this is my tuppence on the subject, btw, I'm Rene
> > > got my first degree in Art History at OSU Stillwater, but I had
> > > I call a "secular" history major for two years at the now
> > > Phillips University in Enid OK. I have other training but it
> > > relevant here.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> First, I did not state that they were militarily
> > >> defeated. The political collapse of the Mongols
> > >> was far more devastating than anything the West
> > >> could throw at them. This does not change the
> > >> fact that they were not able to succeed in
> > >>
> > >
> > > Genghis Khan died 50 or so miles from Paris France, yes?
> > >
> >Sorry, no. To my knowledge, the closest Genghis Khan (Temujin)
> >ever came to Europe was the northern part of Persia, after which he
> >concentrated on China. Other of his forces under Subutai and Jebe
> >farther west, eventually conquering Georgia (in the Caucasus) and
> >Kievan Rus', and then were recalled to the east by Genghis Khan to
> >in China. No Mongol forces ever got close to France. The farthest
> >any of them came was somewhere around the eastern border of modern
> >Germany, during the campaign against Hungary, but that occurred
> >Genghis Khan's successor.
> >Genghis Khan probably died in China (of what, exactly, we don't
> >Some accounts say he died of wounds incurred in Egypt, but that is
> >unlikely, since the Mongol involvement (and defeat) in Egypt
> >took place after he was dead.
> >(And I apologize, but I can't cite specific references for most of
> >It's the result of many years' reading, but I don't own the
> >fields of relative expertise are mostly Western, and I only have
> >for so many books. In general I am, shall we say, somewhat wary of
> >sources, so I usually don't like using them as references.)
> > > But:
> > > Contrary to popular belief, Genghis Khan did not conquer all of
> > > areas of the Mongol Empire. At the time of his death, the Mongol
> > > Empire stretched from the Caspian Sea to the Sea of Japan. The
> > > empire's expansion continued for a generation or more after
> > > death in 1227. Under Genghis's successor Ãgedei Khan the speed
> > > expansion reached its peak. Mongol armies pushed into Persia,
> > > finished off the Xi Xia and the remnants of the Khwarezmids,
> > > into conflict with the imperial Song Dynasty of China, starting
> > > that would last until 1279 and that would conclude with the
> > > gaining control of all of China.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't consider this a footnote nor trivial.
> > > Ghengis' grandson:
> > > Kublai or Khubilai Khan (September 23, 1215 - February 18,
> > > ) (Mongolian: Ð¥ÑÐ±Ð¸Ð»Ð°Ð¹ Ñ Ð°Ð°Ð½,
> > Chinese: å¿½å¿ ç; pinyin: HÅ«bÃ¬liÃ¨), was
> > > the fifth and last Khagan (1260â"1294) of the
> > > Empire. In 1271, he founded the Yuan Dynasty, which ruled over
> > > Mongolia, China Proper, and some adjacent areas, and became the
> > > Yuan emperor.
> > >
> > > Again, only trivial footnote in Western eyes.
> > >
> >True. Actually, they also made quite an impression in eastern
> >and their rule in Russia may have set its cultural progress back
> >couple of hundred years behind the rest of Europe. Quite a few
> >westerners still remember the Mongols, and not fondly. But see
> > > The main point I'm trying to get to though is why the Mongolian
> > > archer's and the horde in general are so very important in the
> > > scheme of things.
> > >
> > > The horde were able to do what they did because of the
> > > the stirrup. Prior to there was nothing really as usefull. It
> > > the horde to put pressure on the West forcing more and more
> > > which eventually led to the accidental "finding" of the New
> > > Which was never lost, nor was it new but you get my point.
> > >
> >I think you are mistaken here. For one thing, by the 1200's when
> >Mongols irrupted, everyone in Europe and Asia had had stirrups for
> >hundreds of years. The earliest stirrups probably did originate in
> >Central Asia, but they had been introduced into Europe long ago,
> >likely by the Avars in the 600's. For another thing the Huns,
> >nomadic horse people from the steppes, had in late Roman times
> >or terrorized everyone in their path quite without the benefit of
> >stirrups. Although there is considerable dispute regarding the
> >the cultural and military impact of the stirrup ("The Great Stirrup
> >Controversy"), it is moot here because by the time of the Mongols
> >stirrups were in universal use. The great success of the Mongols
> >due, not to stirrups, but to a number of other factors, including:
> >superior bows and the skill with which they used them; their great
> >mobility against foes who, at least in the West, lacked sufficient
> >cavalry to counter it; their adaptability and their incorporation
> >conquered forces; and above all their superb tactical discipline.
> >Nor did the Mongol activities cause much in the way of migration.
> >Perhaps you are thinking of the migrations of the Slavs and Goths
> >fleeing the Huns a thousand years earlier.
> >As far as Mongol pressure leading to the eventual discovery of the
> >World: quite the opposite. The occupation of the Middle East and
> >the various Mongol Hordes actually facilitated trade between West
> >East across the ancient overland routes. The Mongols suppressed
> >and local warlords along the Silk Road, and encouraged trade.
> >diplomats visited the West, Marco Polo visited China, and trade
> >flourished. It was the *decline* of Mongol power, and the rise of
> >Turks, which eventually strangled Europe's overland trade routes to
> >India and China, prompting Europeans to seek Atlantic ones.
> > > My problem with the minimalization of the importance of this
> > > incredible culture is a habit of Western thinking even today,
> > > leads to, imo, the negative persona of the West that seems to
> > > permeate cultures outside of the West. In other words, we in
> > > tend to make other cultures somehow insignificant to our own,
> > > because it is not our own.
> > >
> > >
> >Everyone does that, not just us. In fact, Western historians are
> >means the worst offenders.
> > >> invading and conquering the West - just as Russia
> > >> successfully defended their country by planned
> > >> retreats and the use of harsh weather as a
> > >> weapon. It does, however, point out that the
> > >> culture was not strong enough to maintain a
> > >> successful occupation and did indeed become a
> > >> footnote along the way of history.
> > >>
> > >
> > > A foot note in whose history? Just because Communist China
> > > and denies any history that does not support it's bizarre
> > > nothing to negate the immense impact this culture had at the
> > > its occurance nor it's relevance to future generations. These
> > > still exist, and if you haven't noticed they have an enormous
> > > the last time I checked is a nuclear power.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >If you are still talking about the Mongols, they don't have an
> >and they are not a nuclear power. Since the decline of their
> >the 1300s, they have been overrun and subjugated repeatedly by the
> >Manchurians, Chinese, and Russians. About a third of Mongolia
> >now part of China. What's left is about twice the size of Texas,
> >is mostly desert, barren mountains, and arid steppe.
> >The Mongols did have a large impact on the history of Asia and
> >Europe, primarily because of the unifying influence they provided
> >time, and the devastation they caused in some areas. However, the
> >size of their empire -- much of which was empty wasteland -- can
> >lead one to overestimate their lasting influence. Culturally, the
> >Mongols contributed almost nothing to the lands they conquered.
> >were a primitive, nomadic people who rather quickly adopted the
> >the lands they occupied, and were subsumed into their cultures in a
> >generation or two. Their greatest positive contribution was
> >their unifying effect on some of the areas they controlled,
> >China, which helped those cultures to flourish -- after, of
> >caused the deaths of millions, many as a deliberate terror tactic.
> >The "Mongol Empire" was in fact rather short-lived. Its full
> >never a single political entity except in name. Temujin (Genghis
> >began his conquests in 1207. Upon the death of his successor
> >in 1241 the Mongols began fragmenting into several feuding "Hordes"
> >which controlled different areas. When the already-very-sinicized
> >became Great Khan in 1260, most of the empire had already
> >separate, often warring khanates, and the Mamluks were already in
> >process of conquering back the Middle East. The Yuan (Mongol)
> >China became thoroughly Chinese, but was overthrown in 1368 for
> >incompetence and bad luck. Russian forces defeated the Golden
> >1380, although some areas paid tributes for another century.
> >to, say, the Romans, the Mongols' tenure was brief, and their
> >much less pervasive. The Mongols did not impress their ideas,
> >institutions, or way of life on conquered peoples -- just the
> >in fact. They were either absentee landlords, as in Russia, or
> >their own cultural identity in the lands they occupied. Yes, the
> >did change the world, but not nearly as much as did the Greeks,
> >British, Chinese, Arabs, etc.
> >[Okay, okay, I did get those dates from Wikipedia. I'll trust it
> >that much.]
> > > The only other point I'd like to make on the subject of
> > > Mongolian/Khazak/Chin history is that the area we are
> > > huge and it's area encompass' such large diversity of peoples
> > > assume an idea could or could not have occured based on one
> > > one time or one generation is absurd. We could dig for years
> > > mountains of archeology and information and never come to any
> > > conclusion. Thus if someone like Kinjal has a tale to tell,
> > > without citations, I for one will read what they have to say and
> > > weigh it based on my own experiences. And while citations can
> > > some reading more profitable, sometimes, it is just more fun,
> > > less antagonistic to listen/read the story and enjoy.
> > >
> > >
> > > :)
> > > Rene
> > >
> > >
> >That approach to history has some merit, but also many drawbacks.
> >need to be very wary of the philosophy that "to assume an idea
> >could not have occured based on one battle or one time or one
> >is absurd." If I understand you properly, you are saying that we
> >accept that certain events and ideas *may* have occurred in the
> >even without any evidence that they *did* occur. While such
> >cannot logically be disproved, this approach makes history into an
> >absurd, meaningless shambles. If we follow it far enough, we have
> >credit the possibility that the Assyrians freed prisoners who could
> >recite sonnets in Elizabethan English, or that preliterate Celts
> >worshiped a giant cream-puff. Therefore, we ask for evidence, the
> >solid the better, before we accept something as "history". Without
> >evidence, it's only conjecture -- which is fine, as long as it's
> >presented as such. We need conjecture, and open minds, but they
> >enough by themselves.
> >As far as source citations: I think the general feeling on this
> >that when covering well-known ground, or matters of only casual
> >interest, none of us wants to be bothered with providing, or being
> >interrupted by, a lot of citations -- although we do appreciate
> >told when we are listening to speculation or the poster's pet
> >rather than knowledge gathered from more accepted sources.
> >for one feel that when the subject matter is new or controversial a
> >citation or two is appreciated, and asking courteously for one is
> >certainly not out of line. Most of us respect the idea of "history"
> >enough to want it tied to something more than a good story. Of
> >poster is never required to provide citations, but I consider it
> >courteous to do so if possible when asked. And, naturally, a
> >cannot, or will not, back up his or her historical pronouncements
> >accept with good grace that others may not buy what he is saying.
> >course, one is never obliged to credit the reliability of any
> >source, either, but some evidence is better than no evidence.