War Archer!

[boatman]

The military historian John Keegan recognises that there is a certain level of conflict that can be identified as war. Below this war horizon are skirmishes and killing raids between villages. Although any sort of bow might be used in these I maintain that for "war" higher poundages were regarded as essential.
I had an interesting conversation with a Kenyan archaeologist who wondered about the broadheads being produced and sold from the UK. In Britain these are for show and reenactment target shooting but in Kenya they are fitted to arrows and shot at people, admittedly from any weight of bow. So, yes, they are lethal but in war?

 

[sandbender]

"...war horizon..."

'War Horizon' what a fantastic bit of newspeak!

My understanding is that Mongolian, Turkish and Hungarian bows had a much higher poundage than folks might imagine, over 50/60 pounds in most cases.

Chalk and cheese really, the longbow in war is designed to take down charging heavy cavalry, the Hungarian bow to harass and kill a static or slow moving enemy, encouraging them to break formation and pursue.

Enjoying this thread, lots of interesting links.

 

[boatman]

Do you class all conflict as war, a street fight to nuclear exchange? Military horizon if you prefer. Moot point whether the longbow was designed for use against heavy cavalry particularly, it was very effective at Sluys and against Schiltroms.

 

[Steve27752]

This may have been posted before, but I thought it was amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

 

[sandbender]

This may have been posted before, but I thought it was amazing.
[video=youtube;BEG-ly9tQGk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk[/URL][/video]

Merged with this earlier thread.

 

[santaman2000]

Do you class all conflict as war, a street fight to nuclear exchange? Military horizon if you prefer.....

Really depends on context doesn't it? A band of 20 - 50 nude warriors fighting a similar sized and armed band in the Amazon Rain Forest in the 1300s might be considered a war whereas it would have just a village feud in the Europe in Middle Ages.

The threshold is obviously different corresponding to the time and place.

 

[boatman]

The point that Keegan makes is that war is not just fighting. Village conflicts in New Guinea, for example, can be lethal but are self-limiting. In some areas if you kill someone you withdraw from the fight. Extirpating another village might be war but raiding their yam plantation might not.

 

[santaman2000]

The point that Keegan makes is that war is not just fighting. Village conflicts in New Guinea, for example, can be lethal but are self-limiting. In some areas if you kill someone you withdraw from the fight. Extirpating another village might be war but raiding their yam plantation might not.

Exactly. Each and every one of those examples might be considered war or not, dependent entirely on the time (historical) and place.

 

[boatman]

Broaden a definition enough and it can cover everything but doesn't help.

 

[santaman2000]

Broaden a definition enough and it can cover everything but doesn't help.

Nor does overly narrowing it. We lost over 58,000 in Vietnam and by current standards that wasn't a war. By comparison the Spanish-American War only lasted a couple of months with only slightly more than 3000 killed (in combat and by disease) yet that qualified as a war.

 

[boatman]

Both waged by a standing army with organised logistical support.

 

[santaman2000]

Both waged by a standing army with organised logistical support.

Exactly so. Yet the smaller one was a war while the larger one wasn't. My point is that exactly what constitutes a "war" is highly subjective. The real difference between the two example cited is that one had a formal declaration of war from congress while the other didn't. That minute difference is an American idiom though and not definitive throughout the ages.

 

[boatman]

Perhaps Vietnam wasn't a war because of the absence of strategy.

 

[mountainm]

I've lost the point of the argument in the battle raging over the semantics of the word War. Who will be triumphant? Will this conflict ever resolve itself? A fight over a battle to see if a war is indeed a war, or is it just a contest, tussle or simply a mere argument?

War huh?

Good God

What is it good for?

 

[pysen78]

I read an article on the war/conflict in Ukraine. They were citing a British authority on the subject saying something to the effect that "It's difficult even in theory to define what constitutes a war. It's certain however, that if you find yourself in it, you'll know"

 

[sandbender]

I read an article on the war/conflict in Ukraine. They were citing a British authority on the subject saying something to the effect that "It's difficult even in theory to define what constitutes a war. It's certain however, that if you find yourself in it, you'll know"

As I live next door to said conflict I will stick my hat in and say that yes that is a war.

I think the issue is that whereas in earlier times an occasional war was looked on as being a good thing as it...

"...chaseth away idleness, setteth all on work; and particularly this giveth satisfaction to ambitious and stirring spirits; it banisheth Luxury, maketh your people Warlike, and maintaineth you in such reputation among your Neighbors, that you are the Arbitrator of all their Differences..."

Times have changed though, the reasons why a state finds itself in a war are more and varied and yet people as a whole (certainly in those parts of the world with access to a relatively free media) consider war an aberration. Yet those running the show have to justify the military to-ings and fro-ings and do so by describing those activities as 'conflicts', 'actions' and whatever.

One hundred years ago if some young British Officer had machine gunned a couple of thousand whomevers as they charged his position, that would definitely have been a war, in his memoirs at least.

Anyways, we are now well off topic, lets stick to Archery, its use in war ancient or otherwise and if folks want to persue the war/conflict thing please start another thread. If nothing else folks who want to read about archery won't have to filter through all the irrelevant posts.

Thanks.

 

[boatman]

So we cannot discuss the "War" bit of war archery? Perhaps you would like to start another thread titled something like "killing people with bows and arrows"? That would cover it?

 

[sandbender]

So we cannot discuss the "War" bit of war archery? Perhaps you would like to start another thread titled something like "killing people with bows and arrows"? That would cover it?

Was I not clear with...

"lets stick to Archery, its use in war ancient or otherwise"?

I'm as curious to read about the bows use in conflict (or war) as many.

 

[sunndog]

War huh?

Good God

What is it good for?

An opportunity........not missed

 

[boatman]

The title was war archery and an early discussion was on the weight of the bow used in the demonstration and its practicality in conflict. A definition of what we mean by war would seem reasonable. A light bow might work for individual injury or assassination but would be very rarely found in the ranks of a formed army, mounted or not. Unless of course examples can be given.

In fact why not contribute to the discussion instead of trying to suppress other peoples' thoughts on the subject?