Is Not Equal to Another: a Comparative Look at Hun and Mongol Military Technologies

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Is Not Equal to Another: a Comparative Look at Hun and Mongol Military Technologies One Bow (or Stirrup) Is Not Equal to Another: A Comparative Look at Hun and Mongol Military Technologies Samuel Rumschlag University of Wisconsin-Madison n his landmark study of the rapid rise and de - ber of mounts which made such mobility possible cline of the Huns in the fifth century CE, E.A. (Sinor 1972: 171). Other such factors often include TIhompson observed that “history is no longer sat - nomadic battle tactics, such as the art of luring en - isfied to ascribe so striking a movement as the rise emies into vulnerable positions before attacking of the Hun empire to the genius of a single man … them (May 2018: 1), along with specific political de - it is only in terms of the development of their soci - velopments, in both nomadic polities and those of ety that we can explain … how they came to build their adversaries, that altered the nomadic balance up so vast an empire of their own, and yet proved of power vis-à-vis their opponents. While worthy unable to hold it for more than a few years” (1996: foci of scholarly attention, all these factors offer 46). By making this claim, Thompson did not in - only a partial explanation of nomadic successes. tend to diminish the role that gifted Hun leaders Scholars should also look for additional factors played in guiding their society to international that contributed to nomadic successes and can prominence—only to point out that monocausal help explain historical realities that are only par - explanations cannot adequately capture historical tially explained by appeals to leadership, mobility, reality in all its completeness. Leadership is obvi - politics, and tactics. ously important, but even the most talented leader For example, it is significant that the Huns even at is limited by his or her circumstances. their peak under Attila never won a victory against Even so, much nomadic scholarship has tended to a full-strength Roman field army, mostly chalking privilege charismatic leadership as one of the most up victories against disorganized opponents when important factors, if not the single most important the Roman legions were engaged elsewhere. Every factor, that contributed to successful nomadic mil - time the Huns did meet the Roman military for itary organization (see, for example, Di Cosmo open battle proper, they either lost miserably or 1999: 19-21; Drompp 2005: 108). This tendency won Pyrrhic victories—Attila’s bloody victory over comes to a head in studies of the Mongol expan - the Byzantine army in 447 CE is a good example sion, where scholars note that Chinggis Khan suc - (Thompson 1996: 227). The Mongols, on the other cessfully set up a ruling system based on loyalty to hand, routinely and ably trounced the best soldiers the “holy charisma” of the ruling house (Golden and armies the most powerful sedentary states 2000: 36), redirecting old tribal loyalties from (real could throw at them. I contend that gifted leader - or fictive) kinship-based structures to a new and ship or better use of mobile armies in the “exposed exclusive focus on duty to the Mongol royal house zones” where many nomadic victories were won (Morgan 1986: 90). While these points and the and where nomadic political and cultural influence scholarship that supports them are certainly valid, was most heavily felt (Lieberman 2008: 693) are there is sometimes a tendency toward too great a not enough to explain these differential successes. focus on the importance of leadership at the ex - Likewise, overly simplistic explanations that attrib - pense of other important contributing factors to ute nomadic victories to superior numbers of com - nomadic military successes. batants (Smith 1975: 272) or the incompetence of Of course, leadership is not the only explanation the nomad’s enemies (Smith 1984: 345) are the re - offered for nomadic military prowess. The mobility sult of putting too much trust in flawed and frag - of nomadic troops is also an oft-cited factor used mentary primary sources. Close analysis reveals to explain their military successes (Morgan 1986: that many of the innate advantages we assume no - 86; Thompson 1996: 55), as is the quality and num - madic societies to have enjoyed over their seden - The Silk Road 16 (2018): 78–90 Copyright © 2018 Samuel Rumschlag 78 Copyright © 2018 The Silkroad Foundation tary foes are in fact illusory. May (2006) has noted nomadic military technologies over time allowed that although scholarship has tended to character - successive nomadic groups to be increasingly suc - ize nomadic armies as mainly achieving victory by cessful vis-a-vis their sedentary enemies until the “overwhelm[ing] their opponents through sheer eventual invention of firearms leveled the playing ferocity or superior numbers” (517) or has simply field. Far from being a peripheral consideration, brushed off their prowess by claiming that nomads uniquely nomadic military technology operated si - were “natural warriors inured since birth to riding multaneously with good leadership and high mo - and archery in the harsh climate of the steppe” bility in successful nomadic armies, and each (517), nomadic armies were in fact often quite factor complemented the advantages conferred by small when compared to those of their opponents the others. The loss of even one of these advan - (623) and required every bit as much training to tages would have seriously impoverished the abil - become battle-ready as the professional soldiers ity of a nomadic society to mount successful they fought. Indeed, the martial lifestyle came no campaigns against well-equipped sedentary foes. more “naturally” to them than to anyone else. In - An added benefit of incorporating technological deed, to many observers in the ancient world it improvements into our explanatory frameworks is must have seemed that the armies of stable seden - the potential for such a perspective to explain not tary states enjoyed innumerable advantages over only nomadic victories over powerful sedentary their mobile counterparts: funding, equipment, foes, but also differential successes between differ - supplies, professional leadership—the list goes on. ent nomadic groups over time. Using two compar - Why then do we see powerful armies in the service ative case studies, I will argue that the mediocre of sedentary states so often trounced by nomadic successes of the Huns in the 5th century and the foes? Were nomadic victories really as “inevitable” dazzling successes of the Mongols in the 13th cen - as some incautious authors have claimed (Bartlett tury are due to differences in archery and 2010), or is some other overlooked factor at play? saddle/stirrup technology in addition to other fac - To help explain nomadic successes, I will highlight tors such as quality of military leadership. Despite one aspect of nomadic society that is not fre - the tendency of posterity to assume that one quently discussed. I argue that superior military mounted archer is equal to another, from a techno - technology was as crucial to nomadic military vic - logical perspective, this is simply not the case. tories as were other factors such as gifted leader - Although the Huns and Mongols are hardly the ship and extreme mobility. Improvements made to only two nomadic groups to practice mounted archery successfully, sev - eral factors make them ideal for comparison. First, their origins trace to the same geographic area of the world (Kim 2016: 6; May 2006: 630). They were likewise both inheri - tors of similar nomadic military traditions derived from their common ances - tral group, the Xiongnu (circa 300 BCE-200 CE) (Golden 2011: 33; Vaissere 2005). The Xiongnu were Fig. 1. Mongol riders escorting prisoners, from an early 14th-century illustration of Rashid important technological ad-Din’s “Universal History” ( Gami at-tawarih ). The riders and mounts pictured on either side of the prisoners offer a glimpse of Mongol stirrups and quivers, while the mount on the innovators, introducing to left is also equipped with a saddle. Bibliothèque national de France, Département des Manu - mounted archery several scrits, Division orientale, Supplement Persan 1113, folio 231v. important new develop - 79 be attributed to the Xiongnu. Both groups were inheritors of a long nomadic tradition of mounted archery, and the arse - nal and practices of both groups reflect the contributions of many others. Still, though, at a foundational level Hun and Mongol military practices are marked more by similarity than by difference, and this makes the subtle differences that do exist between them especially illuminating. The Huns and Mongols are also comparatively well-studied archaeologically, with enough surviving exam - ples of their bows and eques - trian accoutrement to permit a Fig. 2. Diagram of a composite bow. (After: Hank Iken, in Grayson et al. 2007 , Tradi - thorough discussion that is tional Archery from Six Continents) well-grounded in empirical data. ments, including paired stirrups in the fifth cen - tury CE and stiffening bone plates on the limb The Technology of Mounted Archery ends of their composite bows. The Huns of Europe The primary weapon of every nomadic mounted had the stiffening bone plates that were first devel - archer was the composite bow, defined as a bow oped by the Xiongnu but lacked the technological composed of at least three layers of varying mate - innovations that the Xiongnu remaining in Inner rials (Reisinger 2010: 44). Sometimes, these bows Eurasia developed in the fifth century and subse - are also termed “Scythian bows” after their sup - quent periods, such as the paired stirrup. But by the time of the Mongols, these inven - tions had been widely adopted and mastered in Inner Eurasia. An understanding of Mongol technology, such as their use of paired stirrups and an im - proved composite bow design, is important in explaining the technological supremacy and, by extension, the enhanced military capabilities of the Mongols.
Recommended publications
  • On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow 1
    On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow 1 B.W. Kooi Groningen, The Netherlands 1983 1B.W. Kooi, On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow PhD-thesis, Mathematisch Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands (1983), Supported by ”Netherlands organization for the advancement of pure research” (Z.W.O.), project (63-57) 2 Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Prefaceandsummary.............................. 5 1.2 Definitionsandclassifications . .. 7 1.3 Constructionofbowsandarrows . .. 11 1.4 Mathematicalmodelling . 14 1.5 Formermathematicalmodels . 17 1.6 Ourmathematicalmodel. 20 1.7 Unitsofmeasurement.............................. 22 1.8 Varietyinarchery................................ 23 1.9 Qualitycoefficients ............................... 25 1.10 Comparison of different mathematical models . ...... 26 1.11 Comparison of the mechanical performance . ....... 28 2 Static deformation of the bow 33 2.1 Summary .................................... 33 2.2 Introduction................................... 33 2.3 Formulationoftheproblem . 34 2.4 Numerical solution of the equation of equilibrium . ......... 37 2.5 Somenumericalresults . 40 2.6 A model of a bow with 100% shooting efficiency . .. 50 2.7 Acknowledgement................................ 52 3 Mechanics of the bow and arrow 55 3.1 Summary .................................... 55 3.2 Introduction................................... 55 3.3 Equationsofmotion .............................. 57 3.4 Finitedifferenceequations . .. 62 3.5 Somenumericalresults . 68 3.6 On the behaviour of the normal force
    [Show full text]
  • The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon
    The Bow and Arrow in the Book of Mormon William J. Hamblin The distinctive characteristic of missile weapons used in combat is that a warrior throws or propels them to injure enemies at a distance.1 The great variety of missiles invented during the thousands of years of recorded warfare can be divided into four major technological categories, according to the means of propulsion. The simplest, including javelins and stones, is propelled by unaided human muscles. The second technological category — which uses mechanical devices to multiply, store, and transfer limited human energy, giving missiles greater range and power — includes bows and slings. Beginning in China in the late twelfth century and reaching Western Europe by the fourteenth century, the development of gunpowder as a missile propellant created the third category. In the twentieth century, liquid fuels and engines have led to the development of aircraft and modern ballistic missiles, the fourth category. Before gunpowder weapons, all missiles had fundamental limitations on range and effectiveness due to the lack of energy sources other than human muscles and simple mechanical power. The Book of Mormon mentions only early forms of pregunpowder missile weapons. The major military advantage of missile weapons is that they allow a soldier to injure his enemy from a distance, thereby leaving the soldier relatively safe from counterattacks with melee weapons. But missile weapons also have some signicant disadvantages. First, a missile weapon can be used only once: when a javelin or arrow has been cast, it generally cannot be used again. (Of course, a soldier may carry more than one javelin or arrow.) Second, control over a missile weapon tends to be limited; once a soldier casts a missile, he has no further control over the direction it will take.
    [Show full text]
  • Klopsteg, Turkish Archery & the Composite
    FfootJiptecc: Sketch of a Turkish archcr at full draw, ready to loose a flight arrow. [Based on a photoK'aph by Dr. Stocklcin published in llalıl I.them “U Palai* Dc Topkapou (Vicux Scrail)”. Mitnm. <k U Ltbratic Kanaat 1931 page 17. Information supplied by Society of Archcr-Antiquaries member Jamcr. H. Wiggins. | TURKISH ARCHERY AND THE COMPOSITE BOW by Paul E. Klopsteg F ormer D irector of R esearch N orthwestern T echnological I nstitute A Review of an old Chapter in the Chronicles of Archery and a Modern Interpretation Enlarged Third Edition Simon Archery Foundation The Manchester Museum, The University Manchester M139PL, Kngland Also published by the Simon Archcry Foundation: A Bibliography of Arthtry by Fred Lake and HaJ W right 1974 ISBN 0 9503199 0 2 Brazilian India» Arcbeiy bv E. G. Heath and Vilma Chiara 1977 ISBN 0 9503199 1 0 Toxopbilns by Roger Ascham 1985 ISBN 0 9503199 0 9 @ Paul E. Klopsteg, 1934, 1947 and 1987 First published by rhe author in the U.S.A. in 1934 Second edition, Revised published by the author in the U.S.A. in 1947 This enlarged edition published in 1987 JSBN 0 9503199 3 7 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd, Frome and London c^ pur TABLE 0F CONTENTS Pa& In troduction ....................... ............................... ................................. Y|J Dr. Paul E. Klopsteg. Excerpts about him from articles written by him ...................................... ; .............................................................. IX Preface to the Second E d itio a ............................................................... xiii Preface to the First E dition........................................................ I The Background of Turkish Archery..................................... 1 II The Distance Records of the Turkish Bow.........................
    [Show full text]
  • Ucp013-012.Pdf
    INDEX* Titles of papers in bold face. Achomawi, 264, 267, 268, 283, £92, Arrow release, 120-122, 272, 334, 388. 293, 296, 299, 301, 314, 315, 320; Arrows and bullets, comparison, 373. basketry, 272. Aselepias, 281. Achomawi language, radical elements, Ash, used for bows, 106. 3-16; verb stems, secondary, 18; Astronomy, 323. suffixes, local, 19-21; pronouns, Athabascan groups, 313, 319, 326; 25-26; phonology, 28-33. bow, 336. Acknowledgments, 69. Atsugewi, 268, 293. Acorns, storage of, 282. Atsugewi language, radical elements, lAdiantum, in basketry, 273. 3-16; suffixes, local, 20; other Adolescence ceremony, girls', 306, verb and noun suffixes, 23; phon- 311-313, 314. ology, 28-33. boys', 314. Badminton, 350, 351, 355, 357, 358. African bow, 343, 384. Balsa (tule balsa, rush raft), 267, Alaskan bow, 338, 380. 268-269. Alcatraz island, 50. Bannerman, Francis, 350. Algonkin groups, 326. Barnes, bow maker, 356. Amelanchier alnifolia (serviceberry), Barton, R. F., 390. 361. Basket, "canoe," 250; as granary, Andaman islands, bow, 343, 384. 282-283. Anderson, R. A., quoted, 42, 44, 45, Basketry, complexes, 272; character- 47, 52-53. istics of, among the tribal groups, Apache bow, 340, 382; arrow, 382. 272-275; materials and tech- Apocynum cannabinum, 281. niques, 273-275; types: bottle- Archery, rounds in: English or York, neck, 273; coiled, 250, 263, 273, 123; American, 123; English, 332, 274; twined, 263, 272-273. See 351. also under names of tribes. Archery, Yahi, 104. Basketry cap, woman 's, 262-263; cap Armor, 299, 357. and hopper, 273; leggings, 262; Arrowheads, plates showing, opp. 103, moccasin, 262; traps, 248.
    [Show full text]
  • Leave No Trace: Outdoor Skills and Ethics- Backcountry Horse
    Leave No Trace: Outdoor Skills and Ethics Backcountry Horse Use The Leave No Trace program teaches and develops practical conservation techniques designed to minimize the "impact" of visitors on the wilderness environment. "Impact" refers to changes visitors create in the backcountry, such as trampling of fragile vegetation or pollution of water sources. The term may also refer to social impacts-- behavior that diminishes the wilderness experience of other visitors. Effective minimum-impact practices are incorporated into the national Leave No Trace education program as the following Leave No Trace Principles. Principles of Leave No Trace · Plan Ahead and Prepare · Concentrate Use in Resistant Areas · Avoid Places Where Impact is Just Beginning · Pack It In, Pack It Out · Properly Dispose of What You Can't Pack Out · Leave What You Find · Use Fire Responsibly These principles are a guide to minimizing the impact of your backcountry visits to America's arid regions. This booklet discusses the rationale behind each principle to assist the user in selecting the most appropriate techniques for the local environment. Before traveling into the backcountry, we recommend that you check with local officials of the Forest Service, Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management or other managing agency for advice and regulations specific to the area you will be traveling in. First and foremost, it is important to carefully review and follow all agency regulations and recommendations; these materials support and complement agency guidelines .Minimizing our impact on the backcountry depends more on attitude and awareness than on rules and regulations. Leave No Trace camping practices must be flexible and tempered by judgment and experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Carolina Traditional Archers the Whispering Shaft
    January/February/March 2011 The Whispering Shaft Quarterly Newsletter of the Carolina Traditional Archers Keeping The Tradition Alive www.thecta.orgwww.thecta.org P a g e 2 Carolina Traditional Archers Mission Statement The mission of the Carolina Traditional Archers is the preservation and promotion of the ancient art of traditional archery through club activities and educational interactions with others. Members will adhere to the highest ethical standards in their support, practice, promotion and preservation of traditional archery and bow hunting. The Carolina Traditional Archers support sound wildlife manage- ment principles and seek opportunities to aid conservation efforts. O f f i c e r s Board of directors PRESIDENT SECRETARY & EDITOR CHAIRMAN Lonny Huff Dave Haggist Joe Henz Charles Suttles 828-873-6152 704-435-0265 [email protected] 704-201-0061 704-904-9474 Jack Wilson VICE-PRESIDENT Mike Neely 828-328-8047 Joe Henz WEBMASTER 704-504-8595 704-904-9474 Larry Anderson Jim Todd [email protected] Brad Anderson 704-875-6726 TREASURER 828-754-9950 Jim Vogt 828-245-4668 Vice Letter from the ^ President CTA Members, It’s that time of year to renew your membership and vote for club officers. February’s Shoot is our Annual Business Meeting, but we make it easy for you now by including the ballot, registra- tion form, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope with this month’s newsletter. Your input is also appreciated on the Survey. Our first workday of the year will be Saturday, January 22. The task will be to clear a new trail or two along the creek to expand our shooting opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Harness Driving Manual and Rules for Washington State
    EM4881 HARNESS DRIVING MANUAL AND RULES FOR WASHINGTON STATE 4-H harness driving rules 1 WASHINGTON 4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR USE IN THE 4-H EQUINE PROGRAM Equestrian Helmets. All Washington 4-H members and non-member youth participating in all equine projects and activities must wear American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) and Safety Engineer- ing Institute (SEI) approved headgear when riding or driving. The headgear must have a chin strap and be properly fitted. Additionally, all equestrians (including adults) are strongly encouraged to wear protective headgear at all times when riding or working around horses. 2 4-H harness driving rules ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This publication was developed through the assistance of many knowledge- able 4-H supporters. Thanks go to: Gladys Cluphf Larry Colburn Yvonne Gallentine Isabelle Moe Ivadelle Nordheim Arnold and Shirley Odegaard LaVon Read Adapted by: Pat Pehling, Snohomish County 4-H Volunteer Jerry A. Newman, Cooperative Extension Youth Development Specialist A special thanks to Isabelle Moe and LaVon Read for this updated version. Some illustrations and text were adapted from PNW229, 4-H Horse and Pony Driving Manual, published by Oregon State University. 4-H harness driving rules 3 4 4-H harness driving rules CONTENTS APPOINTMENTS ...................................................................................................... 7 GENERAL RULES ..................................................................................................... 7 DRIVING CLASSES
    [Show full text]
  • Bow and Arrow Terms
    Bow And Arrow Terms Grapiest Bennet sometimes nudging any crucifixions nidifying alow. Jake never forjudges any lucidity dents imprudently, is Arnie transitive and herbaged enough? Miles decrypt fugato. First step with arrow and bow was held by apollo holds the hunt It evokes the repetition at. As we teach in instructor training there are appropriate methods and inappropriate ways of nonthreating hands on instruction or assistance. Have junior leaders or parents review archery terms and safety. Which country is why best at archery? Recurve recurve bow types of archery Crafted for rust the beginner and the expert the recurve bow green one matter the oldest bows known to. Shaped to bow that is lots of arrows. Archery is really popular right now. Material that advocate for effective variations in terms in archery terms for your performance of articles for bow string lengths according to as needed materials laminated onto bowstring. Bow good arrow Lyrics containing the term. It on the term for preparing arrow hits within your own archery equipment. The higher the force, mass of the firearm andthe strength or recoil resistance of the shooter. Nyung took up archery at the tender age of nine. REI informed members there free no dividend to people around. Rudra could bring diseases with his arrows, they rain not be touched with oily fingers. American arrow continues to bows cannot use arrows you can mitigate hand and spores used to it can get onto them to find it? One arrow and arrows, and hybrid longbows are red and are? Have participants PRACTICE gripping a rate with sister light touch.
    [Show full text]
  • The Design of the Bow 1 B.W
    The Design of the Bow 1 B.W. Kooi Abstract The invention of the bow and arrow probably ranks for social impact with the inven- tion of the art of kindling a ¯re and the invention of the wheel. It must have been in prehistoric times that the ¯rst missile was launched with a bow, we do not know where and when. The event may well have occurred in di®erent parts of the world at about the same time or at widely di®ering times. Numerous kinds of bows are known, they may have long limbs or short limbs, upper and lower limbs may be equal or unequal in length whilst cross-sections of the limbs may take various shapes. Wood or steel may be used, singly as in `self' bows, or mixed when di®erent layers are glued together. There are `composite' bows with layers of several kinds of organic material, wood, sinew and horn, and, in modern forms, layers of wood and synthetic plastics reinforced with glass¯bre or carbon. The shape of the bow when relaxed, may be straight or recurved, where the curvature of the parts of the limbs of the unstrung bow is opposite to the way they are flexed to ¯t the string. In previous papers we have dealt with the mechanics of the bow and arrow. The main subject of this paper is the design and construction of bows. Nondimension- alization of the problem leads to the introduction of the maximum elastic energy storage capacity per unit of mass as a material constant for strength.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Catalogue 1
    Leading Brand in Harness & Accessories Product Catalogue 1 www.idealequestrian.com Ideal Equestrian Quality and reassurance Since 1994 Ideal Equestrian has been developing and producing a wide range of driving harness and accessories. The standard of our harness is our no.1 priority and together with successful national and international drivers, we are constantly improving in the design and technology of our products. Our harness ranges from a luxury traditional leather presentation 2 harness with full collar, to a marathon or high-tech synthetic EuroTech harness. Ideal has it all! This catalogue is just a selection of our products. Visit our website and view our full range, and discover what Ideal Equestrian has to offer you. www.idealequestrian.com LEADING BRAND IN HARNESS & ACCESSORIES Index HARNESS Luxe 4 Marathon 6 LeatherTech Combi 8 EuroTech Classic 12 3 EuroTech Combi 14 WebTech Combi 16 Ideal Friesian 18 Ideal Heavy horse 18 Harness Parts 19 Driving Accessories 20 Luxe • Traditional Classic Harness • High Quality Leather • Elegant appearance Sizes available: Full / Cob / Pony / Shetland / Mini Shetland 4 Leather LeatherLeather Leather Black Black/ London Australian Nut Luxe Options – Single: - Breast collar with continuous traces This traditionally made quality harness is perfect for all disciplines of carriage driving, durable enough (adjustment at carriage end) for tough conditions yet attractive for presentation. Nylon webbing is stitched between the leather where extra strength is needed. The saddle pad has foam filled cushions, holes are oval to prevent - Traces with Rollerbolt or Crew hole tearing and all buckles have stainless steel tongues. Nose band is fully adjustable and headpiece is - Leather Reins tapered in the middle to create more freedom around the ears.
    [Show full text]
  • The Back Street Bowyer Introduction This Guide Is Aimed at Someone
    The Back Street Bowyer www.alanesq.com v2.61 – Sep 10 Introduction This guide is aimed at someone who fancies having a try at making themselves an English longbow but who has no idea how to go about it (even if you have no woodworking experience at all) i.e. In exactly the same position I was in myself not so long ago I should point out that I have no training in the subject and most of what I am passing on here is either what people on forums have kindly passed on to me or I have figured out myself through trial and error. I strongly suspect much of what I say here will cause a real bowyer to laugh out loud, but what I can say is that using these methods I have made several bows ranging from 45lb at 28” to 160lb at 32” at a maximum cost of £40. Although the guide takes you through making a self bow with chased growth ring, I would actually recommend that for a first bow you consider making a laminate or a self bow turned through 90 degrees (both explained later in this guide) as they are very much easier to make So if you want to make yourself a working bow as cheaply and simply as possible then this is the guide for you. If you want to learn the traditional techniques then this may not be for you? but you could consider attending a course like the ones run by www.diyarchery.co.uk or www.tradlongbows.co.uk All the longbows I have made are the traditional medieval style of English longbow i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Chariots of Early Greece
    CHARIOTS OF EARLY GREECE (PLATES 90-92) T O understand the harnessing of chariots in early Greece is no slight problem. Actual fragments are few and inconsistent, graphic representations difficult to interpret. In the course of prolonged and sometimes discouraging efforts to identify a curious bronze attachment (P1. 91, c, d) I have had occasion to review the field, including the magnificent Exekias krater from the North Slope of the Athenian Acropolis (P1. 92, c). Though my conclusions are tentative, they are offered here among the contributions in honor of the distinguished excavator of the krater, Oscar Broneer, on his eightieth birthday. Given only a few actual harness fixtures, one finds the plethora of vase illus- trations of Geometric through black-figured styles quite bewildering. The fact that the most important parts of the apparatus must be placed where the yoke joins the shaft decrees that they be partially concealedby the bodies of horses. The art grammar of archaic times with its requirementthat important objects or parts of objects appear complete in their most striking vi'ew (as, in the case of a man, with legs spread irn profile and chest in full front) makes for further difficulty, as when a round rein guide is viewed from the side. The best comprehensive studies of artists' renditions of chariots were offered by Helbig and Leaf in the 80's of the past century.1 Though ingenious and in many respects correct, their interpretations suffered from the effort to equate the Homeric description of a mule cart in Iliad, XXIV, 11.266 ff., with paintings of racing chariots and battle chariots on vases from Geometric through black figured and with My- cenaean and Assyrian art as well.
    [Show full text]