Horse Archery Thread

**bluesky** · 03-10-2012, 02:48 PM

What do you think about mounted archery?

**Onur** · 03-10-2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by bluesky

What do you think about mounted archery?

Whats the point? Why would anyone hate it anyway?

The spirit of a bulgar awaken in you?

**bluesky** · 03-10-2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Onur

Whats the point? Why would anyone hate it anyway?

The spirit of a bulgar awaken in you?

Yeah the spirit of the non-turkic white bulgars

**~~Magyar the Conqueror~~** · 03-10-2012, 03:20 PM

It was a good way of fighting.

**Onur** · 03-10-2012, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Magyar the Conqueror

It was a good way of fighting.

Yes indeed;

[YOUTUBE]2yorHswhzrU[/YOUTUBE]

**Onur** · 03-10-2012, 06:47 PM

Muslim Arabian/Iranian expansion to the west has been stopped by the Khazar empire in 9th century and Arabs started to enslave Turks from Khazar lands, islamize them and use them as soldiers as a solution to that. This is what Arabs wrote about them in ~800 AD;

books.google.com/books?id=7m0MAQAAIAAJ

**Soul System** · 03-10-2012, 06:47 PM

From what I recall, it required constant training from an early age on to become an archer, because specific muscles and of course accuracy had to develop.

If it is added to horseriding, we have a highly specialized warrior here. I guess nomads could develop these skills, but agricultural Europe would not have been able to, if only for the costs of horses. One horse took as much land to feed as was enough to feed a family of four peasants.

It was a form of fighting adapted for those who could have the skills and the equipment in the first place. And then it was devastating.

If I recall correctly, Native Americans were not horseback archers (for lack of a saddle) but rather mounted archers (using the horse as a means of transport but not a means of combat - correct me if I'm wrong !), and it required the first revolvers to finally get rid of the threat.

**Sarmatian** · 03-11-2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Soul System

From what I recall, it required constant training from an early age on to become an archer, because specific muscles and of course accuracy had to develop.

If it is added to horseriding, we have a highly specialized warrior here. I guess nomads could develop these skills, but agricultural Europe would not have been able to, if only for the costs of horses. One horse took as much land to feed as was enough to feed a family of four peasants.

It was a form of fighting adapted for those who could have the skills and the equipment in the first place. And then it was devastating.

If I recall correctly, Native Americans were not horseback archers (for lack of a saddle) but rather mounted archers (using the horse as a means of transport but not a means of combat - correct me if I'm wrong !), and it required the first revolvers to finally get rid of the threat.

Yes it required a lifetime passion and sufficient resources.

And yes, mounted archers where horses were used for means of combat only existed in Eurasian Steppes and included as far as I know Scythians, Sarmatians, Slavs, Turks and Mongols.

**Damião de Góis** · 03-11-2012, 02:03 PM

It was only effective in the open, in the stepes of Asian and Eastern Europe. That's why the Huns got their asses kicked by the Goths in the west.

**Sarmatian** · 03-11-2012, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by AlexDelarge

It was only effective in the open, in the stepes of Asian and Eastern Europe. That's why the Huns got their asses kicked by the Goths in the west.

It was effective everywhere but the west lack of resources to maintain it. So I'm pretty sure when Huns moved westwards they had to give up at least part of their mounted force.