Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

accomplisments with the horsebow vs longbow

Expand Messages
  • Kirby cambel
    I am having a discusiion with someone on mongols horsebow vs the english longbow with the british. my friend is stating the mongols accomplished more than the
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 13, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I am having a discusiion with someone on mongols horsebow vs the english longbow with the british. my friend is stating the mongols accomplished more than the english ever did because of the skill they had with the horsebow...i think the english did more with the longbow as it allowed them to cement themselves and lay the foundation for the british empire. The british lasted till the 20th century and conquered or occupied 1 quarter on the world. at its height the mongols only controlled 16% and lasted only two years from my research. Can anyone here help or refute my arguement?
    • kburgess1@comcast.net
      ok ... are we talking bows only or will firearms be included ? the 2 years that you mention , Genesis Khans death or the full dominance of china, most of
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 13, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        ok ... are we talking bows only or will firearms be included ?  the 2 years that you mention , Genesis Khans death or the full dominance of china, most of modern Russia,over half of the middle east and a goodly part of eastern Europe ?


        From: "Kirby cambel" <otlcp1@...>
        To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:40:48 PM
        Subject: [SCA-Archery] accomplisments with the horsebow vs longbow

         

        I am having a discusiion with someone on mongols horsebow vs the english longbow with the british. my friend is stating the mongols accomplished more than the english ever did because of the skill they had with the horsebow...i think the english did more with the longbow as it allowed them to cement themselves and lay the foundation for the british empire. The british lasted till the 20th century and conquered or occupied 1 quarter on the world. at its height the mongols only controlled 16% and lasted only two years from my research. Can anyone here help or refute my arguement?

      • James Koch
        Kirby, ... Actually the English were never particularly successful in terms of military archery. They ultimately lost the hundred years war, though the
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 13, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Kirby,
          >
          Actually the English were never particularly successful in terms of military archery.  They ultimately lost the hundred years war, though the longbow did allow them to win a few famous battles.  The final English defeat happened when they ran into a French infantry armed with early firearms.  The British established their empire later in the age of cannon and harquebus.   The Mongols on the other hand used mounted archers to conquer much of Asia.  The Mongolian empire actually lasted for centuries.  What is this two year number you mention?  I assume it is some sort of time at peak of expansion. 
          >
          Jim Koch "Gladius The Alchemist"
          >
          >
          >  At 08:39 PM 10/13/2011, you wrote:
           

          ok ... are we talking bows only or will firearms be included ?  the 2 years that you mention , Genesis Khans death or the full dominance of china, most of modern Russia,over half of the middle east and a goodly part of eastern Europe ?


          From: "Kirby cambel" <otlcp1@...>
          To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:40:48 PM
          Subject: [SCA-Archery] accomplisments with the horsebow vs longbow

           

          I am having a discusiion with someone on mongols horsebow vs the english longbow with the british. my friend is stating the mongols accomplished more than the english ever did because of the skill they had with the horsebow...i think the english did more with the longbow as it allowed them to cement themselves and lay the foundation for the british empire. The british lasted till the 20th century and conquered or occupied 1 quarter on the world. at its height the mongols only controlled 16% and lasted only two years from my research. Can anyone here help or refute my arguement?

        • John Rossignol
          That s really comparing apples to oranges. Here are some reasons why: 1) At the respective times that archers formed an important part of their armies, the
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 13, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            That's really comparing apples to oranges. Here are some reasons why:

            1) At the respective times that archers formed an important part of
            their armies, the British and the Mongols fought different foes, under
            different social, geographical, economic, political, and social
            conditions, and with different goals in mind. There is no meaningful
            way to compare these factors.

            2) Once the Mongols had subdued their nomadic neighbors and turned their
            attention to cultures with fortresses and walled cities, their army was
            no longer composed solely of mounted archers. Without the infantry,
            siege engineers, etc., that they pressed into service from more
            civilized peoples, the Mongols could not have made many of the conquests
            they did. Perhaps more important than the particular weapons the Mongol
            armies used was the strict tactical discipline they imposed on their troops.

            3) While the Mongols did not, as you say, retain control of the furthest
            extent of their conquests for very long, this was not as much a military
            issue as a political one, involving power struggles back in Mongolia.
            And for a long time they still did retain a varying degree of control
            over vast areas, including much of Russia, China, and the Middle East.
            (It is perhaps poetic justice that political back-biting prevented the
            Mongols from attempting to subjugate more of Europe, since it was also
            political disunity and back-biting that had prevented Europeans from
            organizing an effective military counter to the Mongols.)

            4) The foundations of the British Empire were not laid by armies with
            long-bowmen, but in a later day by ones with muskets and cannon,
            supported by the British navy. Despite their great "longbow" victories
            during the Hundred Years' War, by the end of the war in 1453 the English
            had been entirely expelled from France, and had lost even the small
            French territories they had held prior to the war.

            The beginning of the British Empire was the subjugation of Ireland in
            the 1500's. By this time the era of the longbow armies had already
            passed, and the missile weapons used were cannon, crossbows and
            arquebuses. The greatest part of the "First British Empire" -- the 13
            American Colonies -- was gained by relatively peaceful colonization, not
            warfare. Later territories were acquired and held by musket and cannon,
            and by skillful manipulation of native rivalries.

            5) There is some merit to the argument that the Hundred Years' War
            helped "cement" the English as a nation, but this is actually more true
            of their opponents, the French. The English were well on their way to
            national cohesion before Edward III started the war in 1337. But just
            as strong an argument could be made that in subduing his early political
            opponents among the Mongols, and successively forging neighbors them and
            their neighboring steppe tribes into a tightly-disciplined and effective
            army, that Temujin (Ghengis Khan) "cemented" the Turkic steppe peoples
            into a Mongol nation.

            -John


            On 10/13/2011 4:40 PM, Kirby cambel wrote:
            > I am having a discusiion with someone on mongols horsebow vs the english longbow with the british. my friend is stating the mongols accomplished more than the english ever did because of the skill they had with the horsebow...i think the english did more with the longbow as it allowed them to cement themselves and lay the foundation for the british empire. The british lasted till the 20th century and conquered or occupied 1 quarter on the world. at its height the mongols only controlled 16% and lasted only two years from my research. Can anyone here help or refute my arguement?
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.