Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors)

Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > ¿Whatever happened to the spearthrower? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 6:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Allee wrote:

Another thing that may be of influence is the mentality of warrior elites from smaller societies vs that of soldiers in larger state level societies. If we look at the Celts from the La Tene period, they had bows and used them for hunting. They never seem to have applied it to warfare though. Some of this may have been a result of factors that I already mentioned, but they also had a certain mentality that most likely played a part as well. To them warfare was a very personal thing and a way to gain respect, honor, recognition, etc for acts performed on the battlefield. You don't get that from being one of a bunch of guys shooting a volley of arrows. So I think it is something that would be pretty common when you have warrior elite in a smaller society to have a more personal and self driven style about the warfare.


This is an truly well thought out post, and this last point is one that is quite correct, but I nonetheless have a minor query.

What was the mindset of cultures such as the Japanese and the Mongolians, and others, to whom you still had warrior elite who sought glory, but to whom the queen of weapons was the bow?

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Shamsi Modarai




Location: On wuda bearwe, under actreo in þam eorðscræfe.
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Reading list: 16 books

Posts: 110

PostPosted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 9:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would ask what kind of glory did they seek and how then did they attain that glory using their bow? Was the bow used in a more "personal" or more "glorious" manner (than compared to a row of archers)? Big Grin
Wa bið þam þe sceal of langoþe leofes abidan.

~ The Wife's Lament
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 10:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shamsi Modarai wrote:
I would ask what kind of glory did they seek and how then did they attain that glory using their bow? Was the bow used in a more "personal" or more "glorious" manner (than compared to a row of archers)? Big Grin


( EDITED to respond more directly to the question:
Oh, there might be more one on one use of the bow at long range and finishing with hand to hand combat if no serious wounding or killing occured. At least I think this would be true with early Samurai that considered the bow to be their first weapon and the sword as the back-up weapon. )

Well when both sides of a conflict or a particular culture accepts projectile weapons as " honourable " it just become the norm I guess.

The nature of weapons also changes what is considered " bravery " in battle: As an example 18th century soldiers calmly receiving musket fire standing strait up while reloading are showing as much courage as close quarters hand weapons fighter but with different skill sets and hazards.

The added factor of randomness of being killed by a projectile could easily be considered by a warrior culture based on hard earned skills acquired in close fighting as "unfair " since a warrior of minimal skill could kill a master !

Another example of bravery or folly are the WWI soldiers charging trenches in the face of artillery and concentrated machinegun fire ?

Also when in modern times projectile weapons are almost the only weapons the parity of risk and skill can be seen as in balance and more skilful tactics and weapons competence can make a big difference even though the random nature of projectile hits make things very unpredictable: Luck or bad luck is always a factor but projectile intensive warfare increases the importance of luck for the survival of the individual soldier, but less so for large groups of fighters where overall fighting qualities can tilt thing in the direction of the better trained, equipped or lead fighters. ( not always soldiers though ! ) ( Opinion )

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!


Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Wed 06 Dec, 2006 10:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Shane Allee
Industry Professional



Location: South Bend, IN
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 506

PostPosted: Wed 06 Dec, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Every culture is going to be different and the warrior class will develop different codes if you will. For the Japanese, Mongolians, the Steppe tribes, as well as I'm sure several others the bow was a major part of the culture. This along with for example horseback riding found its way into being a major part of the way they conducted warfare and that warrior code. I think we see a major difference in the way that these people use and view the bow and arrow when you compare it to other groups who used it as more as just simply as tool. Really when it comes to the Samurai, we probably see much the same type of reaction to firearms that others had to the bow.

There are other examples that stand out as being different. I remember several years ago watching an anthropology video about one of the few remaining tribal societies. For some reason I'm thinking New Guinea, but I probably totally off on that. At the time at least they frequently had battles between tribes using reed javelin type weapons, maybe even thrown with something like the atlatl. Like I said it has been a long time. It was a very serious battle to them, but it wasn't effective in killing. Had it been, none of the tribes would have been able to sustain themselves from the resulting loss of life. As it was they mostly only had minor injuries and once every so often something that resulted in a death. That death would be fuel the fighting until they got revenge for that death, the endless cycle goes from there. So I mean there you have a small warrior elite class using those type of weapons, it has just developed in a way that they can sustain themselves. Of course you still have warriors trying to best others and seeking individual glory.

Shane
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 07 Dec, 2006 3:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shane Allee wrote:
The sling still has that high learning curve, but one of the advantages is that it doesn't require specially crafted tools. At least not to the extent of the atlatl anyway. So one of the things that you have happen is that the atlatl would have been more of a tool specifically for hunters. The sling on the other hand would have been something that would have found its way very early on into the hands of children. . .

. . . Archers are going to be easier to train then slingers would be since the learning curve isn't as high to effectively use a bow and arrow. Plus once you reach that point, the resources for ammunition shouldn't be as much of a burden as they would have been to smaller level societies.


I feel that I must dispute this claim because, being both an archer and a slinger myself, I can attest that the basics of either method (that is, between archery and slinging) can be learned within six weeks with sufficiently constant practice. And I didn't feel that one was significantly more difficult with the other--the two systems have considerable differences, with slinging requiring a whole-body movement while archery mostly needed a firm and static lower body combined with limited movements of the upper body. But, I repeat, neither was significantly more difficult that the other.

Achieving mastery of either technique, of course, can only be accomplished after years of practice, but that level of skill would not have been strictly necessary either for a skirmisher or a man supposed to stand in a massed missile line.

The assertion about slings requiring more space to use in a line is also inaccurate. Archers need a lot more space than most people think, because they wouldn't have been carrying only one bow and one arrow--there would have been the quiver and spare arrows to take account of, then the space needed to bring the arrows from the quiver to the bow, and finally the space needed for a smooth draw. release, and follow-up. Then we can't forget the spae needed to recover arrows that accidentally fell on the way from the quiver to the bow, during the nocking process, and from failed releases. An experienced archer may take only a relatively small lateral space, but he would have needed at least three or four meters from back to front. Incidentally, so would have a slinger using the overhand or underhand throwing method--by swinging the sling in a strictly vertical circle, I found that I needed about the same space I would have taken up in archery. So a slinger and an archer of equal skill wouldn't have had marked differences in performance in either skirmishing or massed missile action while loosing at will.

The perceived difference in range between the bow and the sling in ancient Europe was probably due to differences in technique. An arrow loosed on a high arc and a slingstone lobbed high using the underarm technique would have been equally capable of reaching the enemy at great distances. Hunters who were used only to shooting animals at short range wouldn't have had any experience with shooting high with either the arrow or the sling, whereas professional warriors (especially Cretan, Rhodian, and Balearic mercenaries) would have known how to shoot high. This is how I see the numerous accounts of the slings outranging the bow--and in Xenophon's Anabasis this was sometimes explicitly stated, where the professional Rhodian slingers easily outranged the non-professional tribesmen they met along their journey north.

However, there was one thing that actually mattered in massed missile actions. A bow's drawing motion is mostly linear with a minimal circular component, and the arrow can be held static at full draw for a second or two while waiting for the command to loose. A slinger did not have that luxury because he would have had to move constantly during the whole silinging process, so slings would have been somewhat less effective for massed volleys released at command for repelling an enemy at point-blank range.

Of course, the best weapon of all for this last task is firearms, because they require relatively little exertion to aim and hold prior to the moment of firing--at least when compared to the bow, the sling, and the javelin.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > ¿Whatever happened to the spearthrower?
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum