Talk:Mongol bow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

Contents 1 External pics? 2 Mongol bow vs. English longbow 3 Duplication and mislabelling? 4 Water Buffalo 5 decorations

[edit] External pics?

What's with the external links to images? Can't one be grabbed under fair use? Additionally, is there like a "requests" place on commons for pictures? It doesn't seem like getting a free pic of a Mongol bow would be that tough. Milto LOL pia 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't use the images under fair use because we are not commenting on the images themselves (or their overall context). See Wikipedia:Fair Use for more details. Vectro 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol bow vs. English longbow

This article cites that the draw strength of an English longbow was LESS than that of the Mongol bow. From the Wikipedia article on the English longbow (which has references addressing this point) and actually the reference that is used for this article next to this point, I gathered that the longbow actually had a much greater draw strength (150-180 lbs), but had a lower range because of the Mongol bow's better construction.

That should be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.74.101.130 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

But now it doesn't make sense and is confusing (I mean the sentense) so I'm going to change it so it does. Ok? Ok. BTW, I'm going to say the draw strength is comparable to the longbow not greater or lesser than, cause the wide range of the possible numbers. K? If you don't like it change it back and leave a msg here. Ok? ParallelPain 06:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

K done. BTW I added the 80yard accurate range thing I found on either the archery or longbow pages.ParallelPain 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication and mislabelling?

Most of this page is duplicated on the Composite bow page. Also, this page seems to be describing the Qing (Manchu) bow, with string bridges, not the sort that Chingiz Khan and his people actually used. As far as I know they used bows like the Hungarian ones. I've also heard that the very strong Chinese bows were used to test strength, rather than for hunting or war, but I'd love some good information.

On the other hand there is some good stuff. I'd suggest removing the duplication. Richard Keatinge 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

edited for spelling mistakes

still needs more edits for spelling and grammar though 130.217.159.233 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your information about the type of bow is incorrect. The Mongols used exactly what is described in the article (which also correctly explains the difference to the Hungarian type). I'm not aware of a "very strong Chinese bows" either. It is inevitable that there is some overlap with Composite bow, although there may be ways to find a better balance between the articles. You're welcome to fix any grammar and spelling problems you find. But when changing the actual content, please make sure to cite reliable published sources. --Latebird 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Selby's Archery Traditions of Asia (http://www.atarn.org/commercial/traditions.htm) is such a source. I propose to re-insert comments on the historical development of the Mongol bow. The author is one of very few world experts on the subject, and the posts I cited earlier do give links to sources, original artwork and so on - but I suppose that putting those in would count as original research. However, this book doesn't mention the exercise bows, so I'll leave that out until I can dig up something more reliable.Richard Keatinge 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you're actually getting close to convincing me... ;) Do you have that book/catalog? It looks very interesting indeed. --Latebird 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do, but no working scanner. It is indeed interesting, and well-presented. I'll give the scanner a kick and see if it works better.Richard Keatinge 09:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kicking doesn't help, sorry. I'll make the changes though. Richard Keatinge 09:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water Buffalo

But it's true!!! Water Buffalo horn preferred over Ibex horn!! Bowyers traditionally brought them in from China. Can't remember where my original information was from but did a quick google and hit a confirmation. I am sure there is more. Cheers.--Tigeroo 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately my best "arguments" are really original research, because the bow maker I met in UB told me some very different stories than the one in your source (it's called marketing). But hey, I've been surprised before! Just try to find some less casual sources than a travel report. And whichever animal they used, they must have killed millions of them over the centuries... --Latebird 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It may depend on exactly which Mongol bow we're talking about. Water buffalo seems to be about the best but not every impoverished nomad would be able to get it! On the other hand if you're Khan of all China you could presumably have any kind of horn you wanted, and so could a lot of your army. Csaba Grozer's website says that the horn of Hungarian grey cattle is good, and other nomads have used various horns from sheep and whatnot, but they are not usually available in such convenient long bits. With the globalization of the modern horn market I presume that the few modern traditional Mongol bowyers can now get water buffalo horn if they want it. What goes for certain Mongol bows/bowyers at one time and place may not go for all of them. Could I therefore suggest that any comments should be specific to time and place, as well as being referenced? Richard Keatinge 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. What this article lacks is the morphology of the Mongol bow through history. Mongols bows are "still" in use hunting. We are not talking about a bow that was necessarily limited to war and is stuck in a historical narrative.--Tigeroo 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] decorations

I may be wrong, but I do not think it is easy to engrave a bow with a feather. My understanding is that either actual feathers were used as decoration, or that (images of) feathers were engraved. Can someone with an actual clue please try to sort that out? Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)