History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum Lockedquestion about scythian, turanian and samartian

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: question about scythian, turanian and samartian
    Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 07:41
It's overgenearlization. Which people also had horse archery? In fact very few.
 
This kind of skill requires years and year of training usually from a very young age. That's why nomadic armies always had advantage over sedentary armies. Simple reason-horse archery.
 
Greeks and Romans for example were incapable of it neither did Celts, Germans, Thracians and etc...
 
The only people who developed it complitely independent without the contact with the Eurasian Steppe people were Japanese and North American Indians.
 
I also didn't get what you meant by other nomades which Dacians dealt with? There were no others in the region except Scytho-Sarmatians at that time.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 11-Jul-2008 at 07:58
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 17:49

Assyrians, Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Dacians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and a slew of other tribes and peoples all through northern and central asia.

 
"Greeks and Romans for example were incapable of it neither did Celts, Germans, Thracians and etc..."
 
Greeks didn't need it. Romans did in fact adopt it. Celts and Germans didn't really need it for the most part but for the rest they just didn't use it. Thracians did use it, the Dacian part of them anyway.
 
I guess you'd have to prove somehow that the Dacians used horse archery due to the steppe people since it isn't impossible they invented it by themselves. In any case it looks pretty bad for the Scythians to be beaten by their own tactic.
 
Dacians delt with Huns but I guess by then they'd be "Romanized Dacians." Then later the Mongols and Turks.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8682
Post Options Post Options   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 17:53
Carpathian could you share some timelines in which 'Dacians' battled the host of nations you listed above?
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 19:26
Skirmishes in the BC years 300-100. Of course they fought Huns when they came through their lands though they were known as "Ausonians" at that time by the Byzantines. Then when the Mongols came, they defeated Batu Khan in the 1200s.

"The world was filled with joy when the king from the land of Vlahs defeated the Mongols." Filip Mousket

Then of course the Turks in the medieval ages all the way through the 1800s. Mircea, Vlad, Stefan and Mihai beat them pretty soundly.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 00:57
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Assyrians, Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Dacians, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and a slew of other tribes and peoples all through northern and central asia.

 
From this "extensive" list of yours:  Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians,  Turks, Mongols - all are Eurasian steppe people, in fact founders and champions of the horse archery.
 
 
Assyrians- Assyrian "mobile" archery was mainly from the chariots. However their horseback archery was rather inferior compare to other horse archers techniques, since it required two riders. One was holding the horse of another while he was shooting the bow. Which again proves how difficult horse archery in fact is.
 
 Arabs-copied from Eurasian steppe people i.e. Persians.
 
Chinese-copied from Eurasian steppe people i.e. Dongyi, Xiongnu etc.
 
Koreans-copied from the Eurasian steppe people the same case as with China (see above).
 
Japanese-indeed Japanese horse back archery is a unique phenomenon (however, like in the Assyrian case it was inferior to the "continental" horse archery, BTW Japanese actually copied it from Amishu, though it doesn't relate to our subject).
 
Dacians ???
 
I actually read about Getae horse archers. And they lived exactly in the region of Pontic Steppe near lower Danube. Obviously their archery skills were adobted from Scythians with whom they were interacting for milleniums.
 
Dacians live on another bank of Danube and were definitely more sedentary. It's still a confusion whether they were the same people with Getae. Though most likely they were related.
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Greeks didn't need it. Romans did in fact adopt it. Celts and Germans didn't really need it for the most part but for the rest they just didn't use it. Thracians did use it, the Dacian part of them anyway.
 
"They didn't need it" Strange explanation. The truth is that you simply "can't just have it if you just want it." This kind of stuff is pretty complicated.
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

I guess you'd have to prove somehow that the Dacians used horse archery due to the steppe people since it isn't impossible they invented it by themselves. In any case it looks pretty bad for the Scythians to be beaten by their own tactic.
 
As I said the antique sources mention Getae horse archers not Dacians, so I don't have to prove much here. And secondly it's pretty obvious that they adobted the skills from their Scythian neighbors.
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Dacians delt with Huns but I guess by then they'd be "Romanized Dacians." Then later the Mongols and Turks.
 
LOL
This is simply funny. So, when the epoch of the "Romanized Dacians" actually ended. Can you prove me that there actually was anyone in Europe in the 13th century AD who called himself "Dacian."
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 01:01
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Skirmishes in the BC years 300-100. Of course they fought Huns when they came through their lands though they were known as "Ausonians" at that time by the Byzantines. Then when the Mongols came, they defeated Batu Khan in the 1200s.
 
The funniest crap I read on AE recently. Romanized Dacians defeated Batu Khan. LOLLOLLOL 
 
Next time please post this in historical amusement section of the forum.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Then of course the Turks in the medieval ages all the way through the 1800s. Mircea, Vlad, Stefan and Mihai beat them pretty soundly.
 
This doesn't relate to this topic what so ever.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 02:10
"
From this "extensive" list of yours:  Huns, Magyars, Parthians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians,  Turks, Mongols - all are Eurasian steppe people, in fact founders and champions of the horse archery.
 
 
Assyrians- Assyrian "mobile" archery was mainly from the chariots. However their horseback archery was rather inferior compare to other horse archers techniques, since it required two riders. One was holding the horse of another while he was shooting the bow. Which again proves how difficult horse archery in fact is.
 
 Arabs-copied from Eurasian steppe people i.e. Persians.
 
Chinese-copied from Eurasian steppe people i.e. Dongyi, Xiongnu etc.
 
Koreans-copied from the Eurasian steppe people the same case as with China (see above).
 
Japanese-indeed Japanese horse back archery is a unique phenomenon (however, like in the Assyrian case it was inferior to the "continental" horse archery, BTW Japanese actually copied it from Amishu, though it doesn't relate to our subject)."
 
You asked which people used it, I gave you a list of some names. I don't see where the confusion is on my side.
 
"
Dacians ???
 
I actually read about Getae horse archers. And they lived exactly in the region of Pontic Steppe near lower Danube. Obviously their archery skills were adobted from Scythians with whom they were interacting for milleniums.
 
Dacians live on another bank of Danube and were definitely more sedentary. It's still a confusion whether they were the same people with Getae. Though most likely they were related."
 
Yes they're the same people. Getae was what the Greeks used. Dacian was what they used for themselves as well as what the Romans called them.
 
""They didn't need it" Strange explanation. The truth is that you simply "can't just have it if you just want it." This kind of stuff is pretty complicated."
 
"It wasn't useful to their terrain" would have been better wording on my part.
 
"As I said the antique sources mention Getae horse archers not Dacians, so I don't have to prove much here. And secondly it's pretty obvious that they adobted the skills from their Scythian neighbors."
 
Getae = Dacians.
 
How do you know they adopted it from the Scythians? There must have been some superior edge the Dacians had in their horse archery if they were able to beat back Scythians.
 
"LOL This is simply funny. So, when the epoch of the "Romanized Dacians" actually ended. Can you prove me that there actually was anyone in Europe in the 13th century AD who called himself "Dacian.""
 
Epoc of Romanized Dacians ended? Funny, then I shouldn't exist. That's the funniest crap I've read here! And the Dacians in the 13th century called themselves Romans as they still do today. Eu sunt Roman, tu ce esti? Greeks called themselves Romans as well does that mean they ever stopped being Greek?
 
"The funniest crap I read on AE recently. Romanized Dacians defeated Batu Khan. LOLLOLLOL "
 
"The world was filled with joy when the king from the land of Vlahs defeated the Mongols." Filip Mousket
 
Again the quote from a contemporary source IIRC. Go look it up friend. "LOL"
 
"This doesn't relate to this topic what so ever."
 
Sure it does. The people I listed were (Romanized) Dacians.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 03:39
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
You asked which people used it, I gave you a list of some names. I don't see where the confusion is on my side.
 
 
As I said 80% of the people you listed were Steppe nomades, and the rest just copied their skills because they lived close to them. However, you failed to notice that the great majority of the civilizations the world has known didn't practice any horse archery at all.
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
Yes they're the same people. Getae was what the Greeks used. Dacian was what they used for themselves as well as what the Romans called them.
 
There is no a definite conclusion in this regard. You just state one of the theories.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
"It wasn't useful to their terrain" would have been better wording on my part.
 
False again because ancient Germans for example had a decent cavalry, noticed by Cezar himself. Horse archery would be just a very useful substitution for them. Also Korean terrain for example is just mountains not the steppe, yet they practice horse archery and are quite good at it. The same applies to Japanese.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

  
Epoc of Romanized Dacians ended? Funny, then I shouldn't exist. That's the funniest crap I've read here! And the Dacians in the 13th century called themselves Romans as they still do today. Eu sunt Roman, tu ce esti? Greeks called themselves Romans as well does that mean they ever stopped being Greek?
 
Romanians are not equal to Dacians and there were no any Dacians in Europe in the 13th century. The fact that Dacians were among the ancestors of Romanians doesn't mean that they existed until the 13th century AD.
 
The country of Romanians is called Romania, they speak Romanian language and study the history of Romanians. This country isn't called Dacia, no people speak Dacian language and Dacian history is only studied as a history of Romanian ancestors.
 
 
 
By contrast, Greeks always called themselves Greeks and Greek language always existed. "Romanoi" was just a designation for all citizens of Byzantinne empire of different ethnicities (including Slavs, Turks and Vlachs BTW)  but it wasn't a self-designation for Greeks per se.
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
Again the quote from a contemporary source IIRC. Go look it up friend. "LOL"
 
If your source says that Batu was defeated by Vlachs in the 13th century, then you're the greatest discoverer in the Mongolian history. Since no respected source mention, such a defeat. And never Batu himself was defeated in a battle in Europe according to all the known and accepted historical sources on the subject. Your "source" is simply somekind of fantazy or confusion.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
Sure it does. The people I listed were (Romanized) Dacians.
 
(Romanized) Dacians are not equal to Romanians per se. It's quite obvious. Romanians always has been calling themselves Romanians, or at least Moldavians or Vlachs or Munteni, but they never referred to themselves as Dacians in the Midieval period. It's a fact.
 
A Romanian wouldn't say: "Eu sunt Dac (romanizat), tu ce esti?"
 
Using your logic I can say that Romans were defeated by Americans in the WWII, because Italy was defeated indeed and Italians are the descendants or Romans.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300
Post Options Post Options   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 04:03
According to the old Norse poem "Rigstula" the first inhabitants of Scandinavia were born from the seed of a specific ancestor, named "King". (i.e."Rig"). In the poem Rig is followed as he rides through the land to form the first kingdom of the north - creating three classes of descendants, called; "Jarlar, Karar og Trelar" (i.e.: "Earls, Peasants and Serfs"). 

This most ancient of Norse poems then goes on to tell how the different "classes" had different duties within the regions of the kingdom. The Earls, for instance, would have to learn how to produce linnen and finer clothing, to create and perform poetry - as well as "ride a horse and shoot arrows"...






Edited by Boreasi - 12-Jul-2008 at 04:14
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 04:28
Originally posted by Boreasi

According to the old Norse poem "Rigstula" the first inhabitants of Scandinavia were born from the seed of a specific ancestor, named "King". (i.e."Rig"). In the poem Rig is followed as he rides through the land to form the first kingdom of the north - creating three classes of descendants, called; "Jarlar, Karar og Trelar" (i.e.: "Earls, Peasants and Serfs"). 

This most ancient of Norse poems then goes on to tell how the different "classes" had different duties within the regions of the kingdom. The Earls, for instance, would have to learn how to produce linnen and finer clothing, to create and perform poetry - as well as "ride a horse and shoot arrows"...
 
"Ride a horse and shoot arrows"  doesn't mean "shoot arrows while riding on the horseback." Wink
 
Horseback archery was absent among Scandinavians, though they were quite famous for their foot archery.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300
Post Options Post Options   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 05:59
The semantics of this peculiar passage of Rigstula may be discussed. Though, that jury is still hanging...

That the "Vikings" became known for their (foot) archery does definitely not give us the reason to claim that "horseback archery was absent among Scandianvians". The notes about horseback hunting (using bow and arrow) are definitly present in the Norse prose.  Indicating that the Rigstula refers to the specific process of "shooting-while-riding"...


Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8682
Post Options Post Options   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 06:11
That is an interesting piece of history Boreasi. The Rigstula. Do you know what timeframe the mythology harkens back to? Is it around 50 BC? Where did these horse riders practice there horseback archery. The reason I'm asking, if it's because of a migration from asian lands then to Norse territory? Did this strategy of warfare or hunting last and until what period? 
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 06:23
Originally posted by Boreasi

The semantics of this peculiar passage of Rigstula may be discussed. Though, that jury is still hanging...

That the "Vikings" became known for their (foot) archery does definitely not give us the reason to claim that "horseback archery was absent among Scandianvians". The notes about horseback hunting (using bow and arrow) are definitly present in the Norse prose.  Indicating that the Rigstula refers to the specific process of "shooting-while-riding"...


 
As I said, there are no historical sources which point that Horseback Archery was spread among Scandinavians. If it was indeed, it would definitely be noticed by the contemporary European chronists, since the horseback archery is a not a feature of European military tradition at all (unless you consider Scythians typical Europeans) and was very unusual.
 
I don't think it's plausible to prove such a thing just by referring to the obscured passage from the Ancient Scandinavial literature piece.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 08:55
"As I said 80% of the people you listed were Steppe nomades, and the rest just copied their skills because they lived close to them. However, you failed to notice that the great majority of the civilizations the world has known didn't practice any horse archery at all."
 
You said it was a unique ability. So I listed the people who used horse archery. That was all.
 
"There is no a definite conclusion in this regard. You just state one of the theories."
 
Except nobody else in history disputes this fact. Can you name an ancient source that say they are two seperate people?
 
"False again because ancient Germans for example had a decent cavalry, noticed by Cezar himself. Horse archery would be just a very useful substitution for them. Also Korean terrain for example is just mountains not the steppe, yet they practice horse archery and are quite good at it. The same applies to Japanese."
 
Nothing to do with the mountains as much as it does with the thick forests. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
 
"Romanians are not equal to Dacians and there were no any Dacians in Europe in the 13th century. The fact that Dacians were among the ancestors of Romanians doesn't mean that they existed until the 13th century AD.
 
The country of Romanians is called Romania, they speak Romanian language and study the history of Romanians. This country isn't called Dacia, no people speak Dacian language and Dacian history is only studied as a history of Romanian ancestors.
 
 
 
By contrast, Greeks always called themselves Greeks and Greek language always existed. "Romanoi" was just a designation for all citizens of Byzantinne empire of different ethnicities (including Slavs, Turks and Vlachs BTW)  but it wasn't a self-designation for Greeks per se."
 
Aside from some regional mingling the Romanians are mostly Dacian and Latin. So I don't see the issue you are trying to make.
 
Greek also used the name Hellenes...sooo yea. Nice try. :)
 
"If your source says that Batu was defeated by Vlachs in the 13th century, then you're the greatest discoverer in the Mongolian history. Since no respected source mention, such a defeat. And never Batu himself was defeated in a battle in Europe according to all the known and accepted historical sources on the subject. Your "source" is simply somekind of fantazy or confusion."
 
I think actually the confusion lies else where friend. Filip was a Frenchman of the time. In any case it explains why Batu didn't want to sack and pillage no more once he headed south.
 
"(Romanized) Dacians are not equal to Romanians per se. It's quite obvious. Romanians always has been calling themselves Romanians, or at least Moldavians or Vlachs or Munteni, but they never referred to themselves as Dacians in the Midieval period. It's a fact.
 
A Romanian wouldn't say: "Eu sunt Dac (romanizat), tu ce esti?"
 
Using your logic I can say that Romans were defeated by Americans in the WWII, because Italy was defeated indeed and Italians are the descendants or Romans."
 
We never called ourselves Vlachs until very recently actually. And only those outside of Romania do. Your example is more like a strawman I think and irrelevant.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 11:06
About Dacians and Gaetaes for the basic introduction of the problem just check the article in wiki, you can discover the names of several famous Romanian historians who wrote that those were different people.
 
Now, it's you who trying to make the issues. I just stated the fact that Dacians are not modern Romanians, which is common knowledge. At the same time it's also common knowledge that Dacians were the ancestors of modern Romanians. 
 
By contrast, you say that Dacians were alive in the 13 century AD and even defeated Batu-khan of Mongols. Well, this kind of thesis I even don't want to comment any more...
 
But if you insist we can open a new subforum personally for you under the name "Anti-historical nonsense" and you can continue discussing that topic there.
 
I wouldn't be surprised that Dacians also defeated Napoleon, George Bush and Alien invaders according to your "sources"...
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 21:12
"About Dacians and Gaetaes for the basic introduction of the problem just check the article in wiki, you can discover the names of several famous Romanian historians who wrote that those were different people. "
 
Romanian historians that just wanted to be contraversial after the revolution to make some money. I wanted sources from that time and age. In any case many more historians think of the Getae and Dacians as one in the same. Maybe you just don't so you can be contraversial?
 
"Now, it's you who trying to make the issues. I just stated the fact that Dacians are not modern Romanians, which is common knowledge. At the same time it's also common knowledge that Dacians were the ancestors of modern Romanians. "
 
Why is it that Greeks from 2,000 years ago can be Greeks of today, but Dacians and Romanians....hold on two different species of animal all together! Funny you ignored my Hellas/Greek example when it flew right in the face of your point.
 
"By contrast, you say that Dacians were alive in the 13 century AD and even defeated Batu-khan of Mongols. Well, this kind of thesis I even don't want to comment any more..."
 
The Dacians are alive today just as the Greeks/Hellenes are. If you don't like Filip's chronicle on the subject then tough. But he stated (and as a person from that time IIRC I'll take his word over yours) that the Mongols were defeated by the Vlachs. Vlachs who are Romanized Dacians, who used the same horse tactics of before and who continued to use them for hundreds of years later.
 
"But if you insist we can open a new subforum personally for you under the name "Anti-historical nonsense" and you can continue discussing that topic there.
 
I wouldn't be surprised that Dacians also defeated Napoleon, George Bush and Alien invaders according to your "sources"..."
 
I was hoping for more maturity then that especially from a moderator. Doesn't this fall under trolling/flame baiting? Something in that ball park? Now come on I don't want to have an issue with someone over people flinging arrows off of a horse 2000 + years ago. Let's just discuss and keep calm.
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 23:14
How you want me to be serious about discussing nonsense, like that Dacians defeated Batu-khan?
 
And what other reaction would you expect from a moderator on historical forum. If you want to discuss such topics we have special "reservations" where such topic could be raised i.e. "Historical amusement" and "Alternative history."
 
If you want to discuss such theories seriously please post there in the future. But don't expect people who have some familiarity with basic historical facts to take such fairy tales for granted.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 23:31
The Vlachs descended from the Dacians and used the same horse archery tactics. That is what I wanted to discuss. I'm not interested in discussing semantics with you.
 
You yourself gave examples of peoples who did not come in contact with steppe civilizations and made their own horse archery. I suggested that ths was the same for the Dacians. Why? Because the only place they could have gotten it from was the Scythians, but they showed a superiority in horse archery to the Scythians. And later their descendents showed a superiority to the Hungarians, Mongols and Turks.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 23:39

Horse archey used by Vlachs? Confused

Did you also read it in "Filip's chronicle" ?
 
Your pride about the glorious past of Romanian people is understandable. But please don't make up historical facts.
 
There are no historical references to the Vlach horse archery.
 
Even Hungarians had forgotten any horse archery skills by the time the Mongols invaded Europe.
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 12-Jul-2008 at 23:42
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
Post Options Post Options   Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2008 at 00:03

Rosetti wrote: "the bow was the most respected and used weapon of the Romanians, and it is notable that the majority of all men of 16 years of age and over could use the composite bow."

Grigore Ureche, in Letopisete, mentions the hit-and-run tactics the Moldavians used at Tannenberg, about how the riders rode away, firing their arrows at the enemy knights chasing them, then dismounted, shot out the horses from under the knights, and then charged them with spears.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.