This is such an obvious use case for horses in battle. Why didn't Europe develop horse archery?

This is such an obvious use case for horses in battle. Why didn't Europe develop horse archery?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Woods keeps kids from growing up doing thid

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Horse archers are pretty much useless against infantry who can outrange and outshoot them using heavier bows.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's pure speculation. Even if it were true there are still obvious benefits to having horse archers.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Post skin

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why would you post the one unit more susceptible to horse archers than infantry?

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            That why the Mongols lost to them? It turns out that heavy cavalry and horse archery need very different horses, and heavy cavalry ones are much faster.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              When did the Mongols ever face the French in battle? Your age of empires sessions aren't actual history moron.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They fought the Poles and lost.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They lost by *checking notes* completely massacring the Poles and easoly returning back to their homeland due to their customs.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's about as believable as the lesser Southern Chink species' claims that they totally discovered America in giant aircraft-carrier-sized wooden boats, they just got bored and went home and destroyed all records of it.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'd say Franks kill Mongols in aoe2

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They fought the Poles and lost.

                That why the Mongols lost to them? It turns out that heavy cavalry and horse archery need very different horses, and heavy cavalry ones are much faster.

                Mongols crushed Knights. Every time they faced them. Maybe some post actual Mongol armies made of russoids was defeated in later times. But archers as a whole were hard counters to men at arms. Also you literally posted a gendarme which is not a knight or men at arms, but a proffesional Post medeivel heavy cavalry unit. Comparing an 15th century calvalryman to an 11th century one is moronic.

                This is wrong. Western armies won and lost battles with the Mongols including defeating an effort led by Subutia at the high of their power in Bohemia. The Mongols never had any lasting success in Europe. They had initial success with raids against fractured kingdoms with limited aims, then came back with significantly larger hosts (three times larger for Poland), decisively lost to a more unified force, and never came back.

                The Mongols had nothing like the domination they had over China, Russia, and the Arabs, they had some successful, and also some utterly failed raids.

                Russians used military technology, horse breeds, and organization more similar to the Arabs at the time they fought the Mongols.

                The second Mongol attempt at Hungary ended in a decisive defeat of the Mongols. The Mongols also lost despite outnumbering their opponents 2:1 in Poland. This was the largest invasion of Poland, three times the size of prior attempts, which were not aimed at taking large amounts of land. The Mongols tried a punitive major invasion of what was not even a top tier European power, with much more favorable terrain for them than Germany or France, and lost decisively with high fatalities.

                Even earlier, when the Mongols were more successful in Hungary, they tried to get Bohemia, with Subutai commanding, and they lost.

                Pic also includes a battle were starving and disease ravaged western knights defeated a large Seljuk host twice their size that was utilizing horse archers for most of its horse component. Heavy armor + faster horses led to an encircling maneuver and charge that ended the battle in extremely high losses for the Seljuks. Hence why they couldn't raise another host. The Crusades would go on to rout another army twice their size at Ascelon, which is why they were able to keep the land at all. The reputation went the opposite way, the horse archer dominant Turks feared the "Iron Men."

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                BTW, I will even allow that the Latins were the cultureless, savage barbarians in the First Crusade. Europe was a cultural and economic backwater with a highly fractured political system that led to constant low levels of conflict. This resulted in military innovation and a strong martial tradition though, which let them be successful against numerically superior forces, even those fielding horse archers.

                This was less the case by 1200-1300, with trade rebounding and scholasticism setting the grounds for what would eventually lead to the scientific revolution centuries later.

                The European military tradition began pulling ahead a bit before 1100, but this trend accelerated later.

                And don't tell me about the Ottomans. The Ottomans got to Anatolia and got assimilated. Anatolia was a core part of Europe in the ancient world and it being Muslim doesn't negate it's being part of Europe. Spain was Muslim for plenty of time. You'll note that the Ottomans got stopped in Europe over and over, then rolled back, whole expanding more easily in other directions.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                All of inner Anatolia was genocided by the Turks.
                The evidence is the urban churches that numbered in the many hundreds before invasion. Within a generation or two there was about two dozen. That's not the result of assimilation. No one changes cultures in a couple decades. It was a result of genocide. Those not killed fled to the Greek cities that survived on the coast.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Turkish culture and language spread much further than their genes from central asia. Turks today are the most closely related to anatolians of the past.

                The turks did not genecide every single village and city they acquired over a period of several centuries, They enslaved them and raped the women, spreading anatolian genes through their population faster than their turkic genes from central asia.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It wasn't just the Greeks by the way. The Armenians got wiped out by the Turks too everywhere their was grass and not mountains.
                >The turks did not genecide every single village and city they acquired
                No but the Anatolian highlands that were particularly well suited to their native steppe way of life were absolutely wiped out in under a century.
                Again the Church records don't really lie. Hundreds of metropolitans were just fricking gone in a few decades in a timeframe too short for assimilation to have occurred.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Hundreds of metropolitans were just fricking gone in a few decades in a timeframe too short for assimilation to have occurred.

                The conquest of anatolia took 200 years

                However, despite the suffering of the local Christian populations at the hands of the Turks and in particular the Turkoman tribesmen, they were still an overwhelming majority of the population 50 years after the Battle of Manzikert. [22]
                The Turks seem to have been aware of their numerical inferiority during this time period as evidenced by the fact many Turkish rulers went to lengths to disarm their Christian subjects.
                There is also evidence that the Turks resorted to kidnapping Christian children and raising them as Turks, as attested by contemporary chronicler Matthew of Edessa.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                lmao, this is pure christcvck cope.

                The Ottomans incentivized adopting islam and turkish culture and it happened quickly, no your religion isnt special.

                Btw in some cases local nobility weren't even required to adopt islam to keep their position. The idea that conquerors genocide everybody is really stupid, the whole point of taking over an empire is to take over an empire, not a wasteland.

                Also, just use your eyes, modern Turks and Greeks look identical

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >christcvck
                Post gun

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lol ata turk used turkmen as an insult to the eastern bit of turkey

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that the Ottomans got stopped in Europe over and over, then rolled back
                Not until the 17th century. During the 15th century multiple crusades were launched against them and got raped. Additionally even if you consider them culturally European (which they weren’t) they fought in an Eastern style especially during their rise to power where the backbone of their army were mounted horse archers like the sipahis and akinjis.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >After the division of the empire
                >Only 30-50 thousand
                Compared to Mongol efforts against China and Persia these were just raiding parties. The Mamluks winning at Ain Jalut doesn’t mean that they were superior soldiers, it means they defeated a small force of a divided empire that didn’t or couldn’t put all of its efforts against them. Europe survived for the same reason. If the Mongols focused on Europe over the near and far east it would have been razed.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The Mongols would have won if like, things were different and they didn't lose like they did in real life.
                Mmmhmm
                >Mongols and the Chinese were using 600,000 man armies in 1200! Just like China's 500,000 vs 450,000 man battles in 250BC. No way all these numbers are incredibly inflated!

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Chinese and Mongols inflate numbers but Europeans don’t
                LMAO. Fact is the Mongols invested immense effort and spent generations constantly fighting deeper despite military setbacks before finally defeating the So g.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Compared to Mongol efforts against China and Persia these were just raiding parties
                Not really. The mongols toppled Khwarezm, and empire of millions, with a handful of troops.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A handful
                More than every invasion of Hungary combined

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They lost. Does it feel bad knowing they both Whites and Japs, honorary Aryans both raped your heros bug? Yes, they were gods to you subs, but they just ended up butt fricked when they went too far east or west.

                This is why no one can remember the Mongol conquest of Europa or Nippon, it was attempted on several occasions and failed.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >After the division of the empire
                >Only 30-50 thousand
                Compared to Mongol efforts against China and Persia these were just raiding parties. The Mamluks winning at Ain Jalut doesn’t mean that they were superior soldiers, it means they defeated a small force of a divided empire that didn’t or couldn’t put all of its efforts against them. Europe survived for the same reason. If the Mongols focused on Europe over the near and far east it would have been razed.

                It does say citation needed for invasion of Hungary.

                The Mongol invasion of Europe in 1240-1242 was done with at most 30.000 horsemen entering Europe.

                Jami al-Tawarikh (by Rashid al Din)

                The Successors of Genghis Khan, translated by John Andrew Boyle

                Page 33

                “He dispatched Ghormaghun Noyan and a group of emirs with thirty thousand horsemen to deal with him. He dispatched Koketei and Sübedei Bahadur with a like army against the Qipchaq, Saqsin, and Bulghar;”

                The number of the in the Second Mongol Invasion of Poland was around 11.000 (apparently from the Annals of Altaich) as it was the reasonable number because of the way the Mongols conduct it.

                The Routledge Handbook of the Mongols and Central-Eastern Europe
                2021

                Page 141

                "The question of the size of the invading army is hard to asses by the existing sources. The narratives speak about the innumerable army, including the families, with camps stretching miles in each distance, with only one reasonable number: eleven thousands. Even though the scale of the invasion was certainly much smaller than the army amassed by the Great Khan in the 1241-2, the cooperation of Nogai, the most important figure in the western part of the ulus of Jochi, and rising star – Tola Buqa, combined with Russian allies certainly wasn’t just a small border intrusion, it numbered in hundreds, if not thousands."

                Only 1 routes of entry in 1285 vs 4 routes of entry in 1241.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The post your quoting says the THIRD invasion of Poland was three times larger and defeated and that the first two were small and not aimed at holding large areas. I don't get why you think pointing out that the SECOND invasion was a smaller raid, what Anon said, refutes this.

                Imagine going scrambling through books only to fail to actually refute the main point that you would know is true if you had a basic understanding of the Mongols as a real empire and not some EBIN FRICKING COOL GUYS. Which is that they weren't invincible. They tried to enter Europe and had mild successes but we're largely unsuccessful because they LOST every major attempt to take and hold land. This is ostentatiously true and nothing you wrote even challenges this.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also, if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd realize that the 1241 invasion IS the same invasion with the raid into Poland and the attempt to enter Bohemia.

                That is, it larger because it was an attempt to do what the Mongols did before and take a large area. Thus the entire invasion force can be larger whole the forces engaged by Poland alone can, and were,. significantly smaller.

                That force STILL gave up in Bohemia after defeats.

                The later attempts were focused on using a larger number of men for smaller geographic areas. Using 90,000 men in multiple groups across a front from the Baltic to the Black Sea is not the same as using 50,000 just got modern day Hungary, etc. That's where you're getting confused.

                And, so, the third Polish invasion, by all accounts, was the largest by a factor of around three. It has a 2:1 advantage in troops. It LOST.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                > with much more favorable terrain for them than Germany or France

                Not really, both Germany and France of the 13th century had less forest than in 2020 and had larger open area than Poland or Hungary. France had 400.000 km2 open area, larger area than Poland, while Germany had over 40% of its area being grassland in the 13th century.

                Source for Germany:

                Der Deutsche Wald by Jens Mutke and Dietmar Quandt

                (modified graph from)
                Kultur- und Vegetationsgeschichte der Kalkmagerrasen bei Kallmünz by Peter Poschlod, Christoph Reisch, Petr Karlik, Josef Simmel

                For France:

                Quelques éléments d’histoire forestière et généralités sur la forêt en France et dans le monde
                by BTSA Gestion Forestière
                1996

                "Au XIIIème siècle, on estime que la forêt française ne couvre plus que 13 millions d’hectares (soit un taux de boisement voisin de 25 %) et que 40 millions d’hectares servent à l’agriculture."

                "In the 13th century, it is estimated that French forests only covered 13 million hectares (i.e. an afforestation rate close to 25%) and that 40 million hectares were used for agriculture."

                http://foret.chambaran.free.fr/index.php?page=historique

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Mongols won battles vs euro knights easy peasy. (Though this not only because of the horse archery superiority bu also because euors military organization and discipline were shit unlike with Mongols. Euros fought like a crowd, Mongols fought as an army.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                What battle did the Mongols encounter full plate armored cavalry in?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes fellow mongol.We were never beaten that's why we all speak mongolian in europe.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Mongols crushed Knights. Every time they faced them. Maybe some post actual Mongol armies made of russoids was defeated in later times. But archers as a whole were hard counters to men at arms. Also you literally posted a gendarme which is not a knight or men at arms, but a proffesional Post medeivel heavy cavalry unit. Comparing an 15th century calvalryman to an 11th century one is moronic.

                moron
                Not every army was full of knights
                In equal numbers, knights buttraped mongols

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Based on what I can remember reading, the battles where the Mongols had the most advantage were the opposite of hills and forests and mountains.

                Horse archery could be useful for relatively arid environments, rolling hills, plains, and steppes, etc. Once everything is forests and hills and mountains and its wet and muddy and there are bogs- things get very bad for you very quickly. On top of that you need to siege castles in these areas, absolutely hellish for a military so dependent on horse archers.

                Relatively good battlefield conditions, fighting against Europeans with small numbers of knights commanding mostly fodder peasant conscripts were fricking amazing for Mongols. They could just tear right through and gang up on the few well armored knights.

                But large numbers of professional soldiers and mercenaries, lots of heavy cavalry in terrain that's not conducive to that style of warfare, well that explains why they couldn't make it past Hungary.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also: professional pikeman/ professional infantry in the first place. Tight formation, big sturdy shields and long spears that could be braced against the ground to stop cavalry charges- which the Mongols still did, again it wasn't just horse archery- but horse archery was always something they could fall back on. Well then you've got trouble no matter where you are- your only benefit is that you can run away and go burn down villages and they can't chase you down so easily.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They got crushed by Austrians and Croatians anon.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Mongols crushed Knights. Every time they faced them. Maybe some post actual Mongol armies made of russoids was defeated in later times. But archers as a whole were hard counters to men at arms. Also you literally posted a gendarme which is not a knight or men at arms, but a proffesional Post medeivel heavy cavalry unit. Comparing an 15th century calvalryman to an 11th century one is moronic.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Second Mongol invasion of Hungary
                >Reformed hungarian army with western style knight crushes the mongols.The larger amount of knights is cited as one of the reasons for the victory.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not real Mongols, conscripts from the empire. Same as with the Vietnamese invasions. Though Vietnam was real fricking jungle so real Mongols would be wasted.

                Name a battle with the majority actual Mongol troops that men at arms won. Not just Russian and turks as slave troops. A real Mongol army only invaded Europe once. Simply too few and needed elsewhere in the empire usually for dumb civil wars.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Vietnam was real fricking jungle so real Mongols would be wasted
                Their horses would overheat, lose weight, and die in droves.
                South Asia is very bad equine and bovine country.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not real Mongols, conscripts from the empire. Same as with the Vietnamese invasions. Though Vietnam was real fricking jungle so real Mongols would be wasted.

                Name a battle with the majority actual Mongol troops that men at arms won. Not just Russian and turks as slave troops. A real Mongol army only invaded Europe once. Simply too few and needed elsewhere in the empire usually for dumb civil wars.

                Vietnam surrendered and payed regular and massive tribute to the Mongols, but viet's will claim they "won" because the Mongols left instead of killing every single man woman and child (the Vietnamese always do this)

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                source?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nice cope

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >11th century
                >Mongols in Europe
                >Not knowing the key Western war of the 11th century was Latins invading the Levant, then held by Steppe archer invaders and winning decisively despite infighting and supply lines across the entire continent and losing a third of their men to plague mid-way.
                >This included routing a 40,000 man army with less than half that at Antioch.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            what exactly do you think baby mongol arrows are going to do to plate armor, anon?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >shoot the horse and kill/incapacitate it
              >knight falls, breaks his neck on impact and is crushed by the horse

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >aim at horse
                >hit horse plate armor
                >get impaled by lance
                there was an attempt...

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the one unit more susceptible to horse archers
            Late period plate armor like this would get a few scratches at worst.Eariler heavy cavalry was also able to beat horse archers like it did at the Battle of Lechfeld and they were armed with mail and not plate.Mail also performed well during the crusades:
            >The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville
            >A street ran straight through the village, so that one could see the fields on either side. In this street was my Lord Walter of Chatillon with his naked sword in his hand. As often as he saw the Turks entering this street, he charged upon them, sword in hand,and hustled them out of the place; and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat−of−arms again; stand up in his stirrups, and brandishing his sword at arm's length cry, "Chatillon! knights! where are my paladins? " Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.
            and
            >The Life of Saladin
            >The enemy had already formed in order of battle; the infantry, drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt. This was called the gambison or pourpoint and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them. They shot at us with their great arbalists, wounding the Moslem horses and their riders. I saw some (of the Frank foot- soldiers) with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.

            When did the Mongols ever face the French in battle? Your age of empires sessions aren't actual history moron.

            They fought european armies moron.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Armor didn't go from maille to plate
              There was ~200 year evolutionary period
              While European metalurgy and blacksmiths couldn't produce a chest size plate of iron until the late 1300s they could make smaller pieces
              These were then segmented together
              I don't know if they were inspired by it but they were certainly repeating the same logic as the Romans famous Lorica Segmata
              Initially these smaller segments were sandwiched into the surcoat producing the Armored Surcoat
              This then evolved into the Coat of Plates
              This didn't go away once full torso Cuirasses appeared, the improvements in metalurgy allowing them be made also allowed the simpler smaller plates to be mass produced allow them to become armor regular infantry and it continued to be refined into the Brigandine

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never said that it did.And all of my examples used mail.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            That why the Mongols lost to them? It turns out that heavy cavalry and horse archery need very different horses, and heavy cavalry ones are much faster.

            Why are there people posting on /k/ that don't know the Mongols had plenty of heavy cavalry? Get the frick off my board.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >heavy cavalry
              >on slow horses barely larger than ponies
              Wow, they had pre Waring States era Japanese tier heavy cavalry.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              The mongols didnt have shit, they used Turks who already had heavy calvary traditions. Always moronic for people to claim innovation for the Mongols when they personally never adopted or started any of the changes that made the empire last as long as it did. Chink infantry, archers and horses carried the east, and Turk everything carried the west which is why every successor state adopted a Turkic tongue as their official language in a generation

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Where did the chink horses come from anon? What did the steppe nigs trade for their wine and virgin boy eggs? Yr right about the turks though. But mongrels did have heavy cav tradition, it just wasnt a thing in present day mongolria, but was present in neighboring tribes that were over run by the horde.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Where did the chink horses come from anon?
                China is really fricking big, in case you weren't aware

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                And where did their horses come from? At least the ones used for war

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Chinese breeds were larger and stronger than mongol ones. The Chinese horse stock was small but derived from horses taken from Bactria which originated from Thessalian stock, Mongol horses were never in demand to either the Turks to the west, or Jurchens and chinks. This is mostly because Mongol breeds were meant to small and hardy to survive the cold Mongol winters and traverse bad terrain and thus were more akin to donkeys in build and were pretty primitive looking. Compare pic related to a massive Euro destrier and you'd know why they never developed an organic heavy calvary group

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine the midget trying to outrun or charge against a long legged Euro war horse? There's a reason the Mongols were beaten back by the horse fricking Huns and Poles who actually had a strong heavy calvary culture

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Steppe horses were the best in the world. That was the Mongol's only real power. Chinese horses were swamp ponies that got wrecked in every battle.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                According to whom? Steppe horses were never considered good and their main positive trait was how easy it was to capture wild horses on the steppe since they bred so fast on it. But they never developed any true innovations when it came to breeding since it requires multiple generations of carefully culling weak young and feeding it a high protein diet which you'll never get a Turk or Mongol to do (white people just REALLY love horses), so while the west had huge warhorses that would charge a pike and then bite off the ears and noses of everyone it gets near to, you have basically ponies in the steppe who can barely support heavy armor on the rider, this is also why mongols needed soo many spare horses because they got fatigued fast by the rider. And also behold the main breed that would have constituted the Mongol horde, imagine trying to make that charge a line of heavy German pikemen, not happening.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, you're wrong. Don't know who the frick told you this. Steppe horses were OP and the poorest Mongol had many of them. Chinese horses sucked and they always had to fear the steppe people because of it.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're wrong and have not showed anything that could prove it otherwise, nor could you since the only good native breeds are from central Asia and from Persian and Greek stock, not natural native to the steppe that does not favor strong horses since being tiny and fast breeding works better in a evolutionary sense

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also in another timeline, we could have seen the equivalent of the American mustang on the steppe, but good Euro and Arab horses were so high valued, that they would never let one roam and breed like crazy in the wild, instead opting to work it till it fell dead. American mustangs are what you get when you introduce euro perfected horses into an steppe where they can actually breed and iron out the flaws not visible in settled society.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Where did the chink horses come from anon
                Greece.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            A late medieval/early renaissance Western heavy cavalryman is to a horse archer what a tank is to a broomstick

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he fell for israelitellyhood communist subhuman third world brownoid propaganda.
            Mongols never met plated armored European knights, and in the few occasions when they met chain-mailed European knights, they were handily defeated. VatBlack folk aren't Europeans and don't fight like Europeans do.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Mongols never met plated armored European knights
              well yeah, they didn't exist when the mongols attacked Europe you dumbass.

              The Romans never met the full power of the Royal Navy when they invaded England either. So?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                So the plate armored knights would wipe the floor with the Mongols horse archers, unlike what this subhuman poster was trying to imply

                Why would you post the one unit more susceptible to horse archers than infantry?

                Or are you a subhuman too?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So the plate armored knights would wipe the floor with the Mongols horse archers
                Maybe, maybe not. Heavier armor didn't seem to help anyone deal with horse archers. The only real major successes against them before guns were adopted were through combined arms warfare, Romans and Alexander were able to successfully counter and destroy steppe nomads regularly.
                >b-but muh knights muh white ppl
                quit acting like a Black person

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Maybe, maybe not. Heavier armor didn't seem to help anyone deal with horse archers.
                have a nice day. Heavier armor is the fricking reason why archers went out of style in continental Europe in favor of crossbows and firearms.
                What the frick kinda proof do you have for ridiculous claims like >Heavier armor didn't seem to help anyone deal with horse archers?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Christ you're an angry little moron.
                >Heavier armor is the fricking reason why archers went out of style in continental Europe in favor of crossbows and firearms.
                That'd have more to do with crossbows and firearms being way easier to train to use. No need to mutilate your fricking skeleton to pull a full moron weight longbow when anyone can use a crossbow or gun.
                >Heavier armor didn't seem to help anyone deal with horse archers?
                Easy, even the armor you think is insufficient pretty much entirely countered horse archers arrows. During the crusades there are multiple accounts of crusaders being shot full of arrows like pincushions but being relatively unharmed because the arrows could not penetrate the padding underneath. And of course in spite of this the crusades failed and as you pointed out eastern Euros failed to handle horse archers and wound up regularly dominated by them.
                >b-but that doesn't matter heavier armor would make the knights go super aryan and totally win because reasons even though armor wasn't the problem in the first place
                ok little buddy

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the crusades failed
                Not because of horse archers
                >eastern Euros failed to handle horse archers
                No. VatBlack folk, who aren't european, failed. Eastern Euros handled them just fine.
                Still no proof for

                >So the plate armored knights would wipe the floor with the Mongols horse archers
                Maybe, maybe not. Heavier armor didn't seem to help anyone deal with horse archers. The only real major successes against them before guns were adopted were through combined arms warfare, Romans and Alexander were able to successfully counter and destroy steppe nomads regularly.
                >b-but muh knights muh white ppl
                quit acting like a Black person

                >Heavier armor didn't seem to help anyone deal with horse archers
                God what a moronic "opinion"
                Post skin post hair post vote history post DNA test

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Here's my eye. I am white, and you are a Black person.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am white
                >Heavy armor doesn't help against horse archers
                >horse archers dominated eastern europe
                >plate armored knights may not wipe the floor with mongol horse archers
                >>muh knights
                heavy_doubt.jpg

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's the probably the mongol/tartar/magyar/moor/cuman/turk/albanian genes

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Post eye., you won't because it's brown

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Reminder that Celts used to be subhuman too despite having light colored eyes.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >mudskin calling others subhumans
                lel

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you shill for horse archers you're subhuman, yes.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                confirmed brown eyes
                >shill for horse archers
                if pointing out the obvious is shilling, then sure I'm shilling. Horse archers dominated a stretch of land from Hungary clear to China from the domestication of the horse clear to the adoption of firearms by Europeans. Nothing could displace them despite numerous attempts. Heavily armored cavalry was used regularly against them and was not met with major success. They also regularly spilled out and conquered massive swathes of land all across the world. The reason you speak the language you do is because steppe nomads conquered and utterly replaced the original Europeans.

                It's also true that whenever nomads settled in Europe they gave up horse archers eventually. Hungarians, East Germans, Bulgars etc all wound up indistinguishable from other Europeans over time. But I don't think it's so simple as "muh knights would win because they just would ok"

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Horse archers dominated a stretch of land from Hungary clear to China from the domestication of the horse clear to the adoption of firearms by Europeans. Nothing could displace them despite numerous attempts. Heavily armored cavalry was used regularly against them and was not met with major success.
                Simply falsehood after falsehood. Cavalry dominated that land. Heavily armored, lance-armed cavalry, like the Mongols and Jurchens were using. Not unarmored horse archers.

                However, since their metallurgy isn't as good as Western european metallurgy, their lance-armed heavy cav would lose against European lance-armed heavy cav. End of. Horse archers aren't even in the equation.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >horse archer=unarmored
                lmao moron
                >However, since their metallurgy isn't as good as Western european metallurgy
                so you are telling me the people who controlled Persia, you know the place where Damascus steel was being forged, yeah those guys had inferior metallurgy to the Europeans who were importing it.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >so you are telling me the people who controlled Persia, you know the place where Damascus steel was being forged, yeah those guys had inferior metallurgy to the Europeans who were importing it.
                Yes.
                Are you brown?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, we've been over that already. Reminder, you do have brown eyes.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >muh damasked steel
                tell me you ain't joking. It's literally brownoid cope.
                >oh our steel was so great, folded over 6 gorillion times, cut through whitoid armor
                >oh you want us to make one now? uh... secret technique, uh... not for the eyes of the white devils, uh... we forgor how to make it

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >muh damasked steel
                >It's literally brownoid cope.
                Then why were Europeans importing this steel?
                >oh you want us to make one now?
                >secret technique, uh... not for the eyes of the white devils, uh... we forgor how to make it
                Many Persians were white at this time however. They had not been nearly as Arabified yet.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Europeans imported many things, from chinaware to the bubonic plague. Doesn't mean it's good.

                I mean yes, which is why so little made it to Europe, damascus steel was only superior to early Euro steel but by the early 300's they had surpassed it

                this

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It should be obvious that one of the most striking aspects of damascus steel is its appearance, regardless of its performance. That alone is a valid reason for it to be exported to Europe.

                >but by the early 300's they had surpassed it
                And then promptly fell behind it for 1000 years.

                Surely it doesn't jog your brain too much to realise he meant the 1300s with 300's? That's roughly when Europe's metalurgy began making huge leaps either way.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Surely it doesn't jog your brain too much to realise he meant the 1300s with 300's?
                Nah, I thought he really did mean 300s. And he'd be right. The Roman Empire was making a frickton of steel. Right up until they weren't.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Many Persians were white
                ???
                ?????
                Of course it's a brownoid. Dunno why I even wondered. Only brownoids shill for horse archers and damasked steel

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >?????
                >literal Aryans
                >not white
                lel

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Nordic.
                None of the above? Not white.
                Go pound sand, shitskin.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're so full of shit it stained your eyes brown

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cry about it and keep LARPing, Mohamed.
                Cope, seethe, sneed, dilate, etc.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                This

                >?????
                >literal Aryans
                >not white
                lel

                Finns are white but not Aryan, Persians are Aryan but not white. But yeah I agree with the other anon, my personal white definition is just Anglos, Danes and the Dutch

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Persians are Aryan but not white
                correct, but they once were white.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they once were white
                >WE WUZ WHITE N SHIEEET
                Pure, unadulterated brownoid cope.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Says the mulatto with brown eyes.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Mohamed cope
                How was prayer? Did you barter for your neighbors goat?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How was prayer?
                Do you not pray today? I will pray for you.

                You may be a non-white, but you aspire to whiteness and that is good.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the brownoid also le reddit spaces
                Double shitposter.
                Nobody follows your dirt religion except your fellow brownoids mohamed, but enjoy. Hope you got a good deal on your goat.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Nobody follows your dirt religion
                Ah right, because popularity decides truth. You must be a woman then!
                >Hope you got a good deal on your goat.
                Thank you, I hope you eventually break free from the rentoid lifestyle and become able to own livestock as well.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                this much projection is crazy when like 90% of mudslimes under the age of 40 live with their parents still

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >sees strong family structure
                >gets mad

                good luck with your corn syrup

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >strong family structure
                You squabble with your brown parents every day because you're too poor to sustain yourselves. I wish all mudslime trash died in nuclear fire.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's hilarious you still think I'm a muslim. Though frankly I consider them as most certainly superior to an atheist like you who does not pray.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ironically, that sort of arrangement has more in common with the old school american farmer way of living than it does leaving out at 18 to go rent an apartment in a city. Kind of hard to keep property in the family if the family isn't fricking there.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's more like their parents still live with them no? I thought that part of the world was all about members of the family across multiple generations all share the same house. In a way making the sons as much of an owner as the father and grandfather. Yes it's still thirdie shit at the end of the day but its also still comparing apples to oranges

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In a way making the sons as much of an owner as the father and grandfather.
                Thirdie cope for being incapable of establishing independence on top of generational wealth.
                >Mehmet, my son, we must live together to maintain our family and cultural traditions
                >Also can you buy my medication?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >incapable of establishing independence on top of generational wealth
                exactly the opposite, dipshit
                saving on housing costs and pooling overheads is one of the fastest and most assured ways to snowball generational wealth, cause each nuclear family doesn't have to shell out for a house unnecessarily and common areas / resources achieve higher utilisation rates
                it's not a thirdie thing, peasants across the world have done this, and it'll be all the more important in "first worlds" like West Europe as housing skyrockets

                no wonder you're poor

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Poor brown hands living at home with mom typed this post.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yup.
                I did buy a house though; rent it out to poor saps like you.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >he invested in residential real estate instead of commercial
                >and he brags about it
                >while living with mommy and daddy
                Lmao
                It’s amazing how much you can glean from poor brown people when they try to brag.
                Post skin and gun safe, poorgay.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >look at my gacha collection, said the mutt, trying to larp
                Oh sweaty, you can't fake it till you make it you know
                Residential rents are going up while commercial brick and motor continues dying as online formats take over
                You'd know this if you were anywhere near having a decent portfolio
                Now run along back to your wagecuck job, I have a business to run
                Toodles

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >noguns
                >brown skin
                >poor
                >lives at home still
                Cope: The Post

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you own the house you moved out into, fine, but taking pride in paying rent is moronic

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bought and paid in full, Anon.

                Actually, I live at my granddad's house
                We have been doing this a long time, and have gotten very good at it
                Generational wealth, sweaty 😉

                >granddad’s house
                Gross. This is why you losers continuously whine and b***h about never getting pussy.
                >Y-yeah, haha, let’s go back to my place… hopefully pops isn’t still up watching the nightly news
                One gun worth more than $2000 Anon, let’s see it. Just one.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why should I b***h? You think we live in a wooden cookie-cutter suburban shack like you Americans like to put up? Ours is a large country home, with land, extensions, dogs, privacy
                I have one floor to myself, my own apartment, all mod cons; my parents have theirs on their floor, and ne'er shall twain meet if we don't wish it
                My girl and I frick whenever we like, and when we get married there's rooms for the children too
                And all this cause our other properties are bringing in rent. Of course my parents can live in any one of their houses any time, or I can move out and live in the flat I bought, but why should I?
                Got to keep the assets working yknow
                And frankly it's more comfy here

                >One gun worth more than $2000
                Mmhmm
                That what you spend your money on huh
                Children's education paid for?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that rant
                >that cope
                Could have just saved time and told us you’re a noguns thirdie, Anon.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I-I-it can't be true
                Seething lol

                Australian, actually. Can't be arsed to get the stuff out the safe, it's somewhere in the shed. I'm not the gun nut of the family.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, I live at my granddad's house
                We have been doing this a long time, and have gotten very good at it
                Generational wealth, sweaty 😉

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >woman
                I’d be surprised if you could tell one apart from your goat.
                >own livestock
                Degrading way to refer to your family tbqh.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I mean yes, which is why so little made it to Europe, damascus steel was only superior to early Euro steel but by the early 300's they had surpassed it

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but by the early 300's they had surpassed it
                And then promptly fell behind it for 1000 years.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                proofs? Why didn't Western armies in the 1300s proliferate the use of damasked steel if it's so good?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >so you are telling me the people who controlled Persia, you know the place where Damascus steel was being forged, yeah those guys had inferior metallurgy to the Europeans who were importing it.
                Yes, damascene steel was a lucky accident due to the ore there.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is what dominated the steppes, not horse archers

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Horse archers dominated a stretch of land from Hungary clear to China from the domestication of the horse clear to the adoption of firearms by Europeans. Nothing could displace them despite numerous attempts. Heavily armored cavalry was used regularly against them and was not met with major success.
                Simply falsehood after falsehood. Cavalry dominated that land. Heavily armored, lance-armed cavalry, like the Mongols and Jurchens were using. Not unarmored horse archers.

                However, since their metallurgy isn't as good as Western european metallurgy, their lance-armed heavy cav would lose against European lance-armed heavy cav. End of. Horse archers aren't even in the equation.

                It was a one-two punch kind of thing, harass and confuse opponents with horse archers, sweep with heavy cavalry. Steppe heavy cavalry would not have been able to deal with organized infantry formations on their own, not in the way they did.

                Christ you're an angry little moron.
                >Heavier armor is the fricking reason why archers went out of style in continental Europe in favor of crossbows and firearms.
                That'd have more to do with crossbows and firearms being way easier to train to use. No need to mutilate your fricking skeleton to pull a full moron weight longbow when anyone can use a crossbow or gun.
                >Heavier armor didn't seem to help anyone deal with horse archers?
                Easy, even the armor you think is insufficient pretty much entirely countered horse archers arrows. During the crusades there are multiple accounts of crusaders being shot full of arrows like pincushions but being relatively unharmed because the arrows could not penetrate the padding underneath. And of course in spite of this the crusades failed and as you pointed out eastern Euros failed to handle horse archers and wound up regularly dominated by them.
                >b-but that doesn't matter heavier armor would make the knights go super aryan and totally win because reasons even though armor wasn't the problem in the first place
                ok little buddy

                Look at the battle of Dorylaeum, once European heavy cavalry shows up, the Seljuk horse archers had to flee.
                >crusades failed
                That had little to do with the effectiveness of horse archers, besides when European heavy cavalry and Middle Eastern horse archers first clashed it was in the beginning of the First Crusade, which was a resounding success despite being clusterfrick that made the Iraq War look well thought out.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Euros didn't have much infantry use until 15-16s century.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        moron.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Genoese crossbowmen BABYYY

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      why bother wasting arrows on eurocucks with heavy armor, whne you could simply burn thier houses and fields, anon? that`s so obsious to be frank

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Says the guy who never made it west of Hungary LMAO.

        Also
        >using compound bows in europena climates

        LMAO, have fun with your bow literally falling apart within a couple weeks.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >using compound bows in europena climates
          Yeah, like the Romans, ancient Greeks, Russians, Hungarians,... basically everyone but the inbred islanders, really.
          Selfbows are easy and quick to make just requiring non-shit wood. They're the poor man's bow.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Horse archers are pretty much useless against infantry who can outrange and outshoot them using heavier bows.

        That's pure speculation. Even if it were true there are still obvious benefits to having horse archers.

        the hordes advantage would still be :
        a better strategic mobility (quicker and a capacity of retreat). however, going to Europe has several problems : it's not an open location like the steppes, and if don't take the castles or fortified towns as you advanced, you're at risk of getting buttfricked.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a better strategic mobility (quicker and a capacity of retreat).
          English and French longbowmen rode on horseback dismounting before battle. It got to the point where the ordonnance archers abandoned the bow wholesale to become lancers eventually.

          The only advantage of horsearchery is tactical mobility which is only useful if your opponent has to close the gap. If your opponent can just outrange you than your tactical mobility means nothing because they will just shoot you down.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, but they can't retreat in vast steppes.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the horses clear the 100ft advantage that the longbows had within seconds
      >ride right up to and flank the scattering longbowmen in a few more seconds

      Uh huh.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer%27s_stake

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >europe, in it’s nonstop thirst for constant war for thousands of years, somehow didn’t come up with a counter for cavalry at all!

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      They did you morons. The French, Russians, germs spanish, and like half of everyone else all used horse archers. Also this foot bow meme is just that. You don't think people tried having foot archers and shields to protect them from the Mongols? Also most foot bows did not outrange Mongol composite bows.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Western, central and most of eastern Europe is not a wide and open steppe. While horse archers were a good skirmishing forces, the relative close engagement ranges that predominated the european terrain favoured more melee armed light cavalry.
    The eastern european powers (like the poles and lithuanians) adopted horse archery - specifically to combat the threat of the nomadic peoples.

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >what are Scythians

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Euros are virgin agriculturists. They didn't have natural horse archers. Also euro archery sucked big one, they didn't have proper composite recurve bows to use on horseback, only primitive sticks.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      And yet the world belongs to agriculturalists to this day while pastoramemes are a dying breed

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >And yet the world belongs to agriculturalists to this day while pastoramemes are a dying breed
        Only a truly cynical man would call what modernoids are doing "living"

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Blame that on industrialization and whatever kind of capitalism we have today.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The only affluent population breeding above replacement rates are rural conservative whites in America, there are over 150 million of them and their birthrate is 2.7. The steppe seems to have had a birthrate crash in 2000 down to 2.0 but then it rebounded, but those whites have held the same birthrate for a century so they aren't going anywhere.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    they did but in a 'dragoon' capacity, they would use horses to tactically deploy on a battlefield and then dismount and arch on foot

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      No they didn't.Mounted archer in this context referred to soldiers that owned a riding horse.They did not use them during battle.Owning a horse was a big advantage while the army was on the march so they were paid more.They were not dragoons.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Owning a horse was a big advantage while the army was on the march so they were paid more.They were not dragoons.
        That's literally dragoon definition

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Dragoons used their horses on the battlefield to redeploy .

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            dragoons in modern sense is a soldier that has a horse and can be use both as infantry and cavalry operations.
            the English chevauchée were clearly a precursor, but yes, they mostly fought on foot. as the English tactics was defensive.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes they did John Hawkwood and other Condottiori did this all the time in the Italian Wars

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did. The English chevauchees would on occasion shoot enemies from horseback, and mounted archers were part of almost all skirmish warfare in some form.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Euro mounted skirmishers
      Point and laugh. Point and laugh.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Mounted Yeomanry =/= Horse Archers. They're more like dragoons who dismounted to fight. Its impossible to use longbows on horseback.

      Eurobenises did use crossbows on horseback though.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Euro mounted skirmishers
      Point and laugh. Point and laugh.

      That is the point. Euros can't into real. archery. So instead of the proper bow euoros used from horseback cuck crossbow with 3 times less muzzle powe, 1.5 times less muzzle velocity and 10 times less fire rate. And still found it userfull. Asian Horse Archers are marvel superheroes comparing to these cuck horse crossbowmen.
      Spanish morons hadn't ejustven that they threw sticks from horseback [...]. Still counted as good for euro warfare.
      Just laugh.

      the point your all missing is the social organization : the English were easily the best archer in Europe because their king was some authorian frick who could order his peasants to train in archery every Friday. the French king couldn't. as for the mongol, they learned archery and horsemanship in the steppes, hunting and shepherding. not to mention mongol were tribal vs mostly feudal society

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the French king couldn't
        lolwut?
        the French weren't any less authoritarian or exploitative than other medieval kingdoms
        get your head out your republican frog-kissing arse

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          no, the English was for more authoritarian than the French or any other European king of the time. the Plantagenet dynasty is the very proof of it. they had much more authority.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you say...

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Magna Carta
              The king had far less power, the French did form their own archery corps, the free archers. They were shit, but the professional ordonannce archers were in every way the equal of the English.

              England was created by William through an invasion and a subjugation. it's political power is far more vertical, it was created from the top (king) to the lower (normand aristocracy, then English aristocracy, then English peasants), meanwhile in France, the power had to be build up by the king slowly after Philippe the first. it was more horizontal and the king had less traditional power

              1.the king John got the Magna Carta because he had more power than the French king, which allowed him to screw up even more. every mesure he took to finance his campaigns on the continent couldn't be implemented by the French king, his vassals would tell him to frick off, stuff like taxes on wedding, and an harsh judicial system, paying to marry a young noblewoman. it was precisely because they gave him so much power and so muck failure he got the Magna Carta impose on him. the Magna Carta also allows the king to raise taxes in case of war, something the French king couldn't do

              2. the free archer are a prefect exemple of it. the English king could force his subject to take archery training every Friday, having a large pool to recruit his archer. the French king tried to do the same, but couldn't force people into regular training : hence a failure.

              at the end it goes like that : French king 1100 (very weak, very horizontal in power)< English king in 1100 (very powerful, very vertical).1200, English king fricks up, noble revolt. got imposed the Magna Carta. still has more marge of action Than the French monarchy.1330,1456 hundred year war : the French monarchy reform itself, manage to because absolute, meanwhile the English king is complete submitted by the parliament (nobility), noble revolt (war of the roses.)

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Magna Carta
            The king had far less power, the French did form their own archery corps, the free archers. They were shit, but the professional ordonannce archers were in every way the equal of the English.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The English weren't authoritarian until the French invaded them and put one of their own on the throne.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The French were terrified of armed peasants, the English weren't because even their rebellious peasants loved the king and just hated the men around him.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >these pathetic crossbows (about 3 times less powerful than recurve bows) were considered useful by euros military
    Just laugh.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      crossbows can be used by anyone with little training and without a great deal of strength

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        That is the point. Euros can't into real. archery. So instead of the proper bow euoros used from horseback cuck crossbow with 3 times less muzzle powe, 1.5 times less muzzle velocity and 10 times less fire rate. And still found it userfull. Asian Horse Archers are marvel superheroes comparing to these cuck horse crossbowmen.
        Spanish morons hadn't ejustven that they threw sticks from horseback

        >Euro mounted skirmishers
        Point and laugh. Point and laugh.

        . Still counted as good for euro warfare.
        Just laugh.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The crazy thing is Euro archers were good, their crossbowmen were also powerful, and then to top it off, they developed the world changing firearms.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >euoros
          >3 times less muzzle powe, 1.5 times less muzzle velocity
          >ejustven
          Chink bugman detected, micropenis opinion discarded

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >euros cant into real. archery.
          How dare you say that. The English practiced with the heavy longbow so much that the skeletons dug up from the period have altered proportions for the dominant drawing side of the body.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          And those superhero archers did frick all to euro armor during the 1st and 2nd crusades. Read a book chang

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      oh yes its totally not practical to hold "your round" in the chamber to be able to just bring it up and shoot instead of having the fumble around with a bow while also trying to ride.

      Crossbows were more tacticool

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      You could keep a "relatively" powerfull crossbow loaded and ready to shoot for a long time, it was easyer to shoot competently. Whinches and other loading mechanisms enabled some ridiculous power at the cost of a very slow firing speed.

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Effective horse archers require an enormous amount of skill, training and of course maintenance of their equipment (including multiple horses for every archer). Training especially was important, as horse archery skills quickly deteriorate without regular practice. For settleted peoples, this requires and huge amount of time and money, which can be better spent elsewhere (e.g. buying mercs from Nomad societies).

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    1) Terrain. Europe is cris crossed with forests and rivers. Its like how Mongols & Steppenigs got fricked in Southern China until they learned how to fight like the Chinese. Its a big reason why static melee battles is pretty common in Europe contrary to the big roving highly mobile horse archer skirmishes of the steppenigs.

    2) Much of Europe's available landspace is dedicated for farmland & cattle/livestock. Grazing land for horses is at a premium. Meaning horses are at a premium. Meaning whatever cavalry you're gonna raise is most likely gonna be limited to heavy shock cavalry which is the mainstay of Medieval European battlefield cavalry.

    3) The Europeans that were near the Eurasian steppes did raise horse archers. Russians & Poles & Hungarians for example.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Only the wealthy had horses for battle. Why would they bother with a homosexual bow and arrow?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The idea that bows are gay weapons for the weak is a modern invention.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        the classical greeks would like a word with you.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >creampies your entire village with fire arrows
      >doesn`t elaborate further
      heh, nothing personal

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    European horses were too large. It wouldn't have been effective.

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    they did
    it just wasn't terribly common because Euro bows tended to be fricking huge and hard to use on a horse

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      what an absolutely moronic post

      composite bows existed and were well known in europe throughout recorded history. crossbows until the 1400s used composite prods

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's just certain types of self-bow like the Welsh warbow. The advantages of a self-bow are that they're cheaper and faster to make than a composite bow, and (because they contain no glue) they're less likely to fall apart after extended exposure to the wet environment of Western Europe. Europe *did* have composite bows, but they were expensive to employ because of the above reasons, so they weren't typically used en masse.

      This is such an obvious use case for horses in battle. Why didn't Europe develop horse archery?

      To understand the horse archer, you must first understand the steppe. It's big. Huge. Largely undeveloped. A nomadic people can grow pretty large out there, but survival requires learning horsemanship and archery (e.g., "While you studied the plow, I studied the bow"). So, you end up with a large manpower pool of men who are good with horses, archery, and more often than not archery from horseback.

      The problem is, mass horse archers don't work well off the steppe--logistically. Each Mongol had something like a dozen horses on campaign. Once you get off the steppe, finding enough grazing for them becomes difficult, and the farther west you go, the worse it gets.

      Foot archers also have an advantage over horse archers: you can pack them in a lot more densely, which means that each Mongol could be facing several archers. Of course, the Mongol could always run away, but if the objective is to take the land the foot archers are holding...

      And, finally, because of its geography, western Europe was castle-happy. Horse archers don't do well against fortifications. The Mongols were able to take *some* fortified cities thanks to siege experts they picked up as mercenaries or slaves, but besieging castles in rough terrain that couldn't provide sufficient grazing for millions of horses was very challenging for them.

      Recommended reading: The Art of War in the Western World, by Archer Jones.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Archer Jones
        Clearly longbowman propaganda

        Jokes aside, this
        Mongols were ridiculously resource intensive

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          I would have added A History of Warfare by John Keegan, but I haven't finished it yet. He goes into significant detail regarding the nature of the horse invaders from the steppes--which is a recurring theme throughout Eurasian history.

          I'm not certain that I agree with all of his extrapolations, but the most interesting point I've read so far was that the chariot age lasted a thousand years because that's how long it took mankind to breed horses that were powerful enough to carry riders anywhere but over their rear haunches, which is a poor position for controlling the horse or fighting from. Hence, the smaller, weaker horses of the era towed lightweight wheeled fighting platforms, instead. That possibility had never occurred to me, and on the surface, it seems to make perfect sense.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    steppeBlack person armies got rekt whenever they tried to go deeper into europe, which was dominated by huge numbers of fortifications and infantry fighting in tight formations with lots of missile weaponry.

    if your cavalry are few, expensive and of high social status, they're gonna want to fight in heavy armor and with lances to maximize their own chances of survival as well as the amount of pussy they get.

    settled societies only really used horse archers to patrol loosely populated areas against steppeBlack folk.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Except you know not

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Horses are expensive
    Archers are expensive
    Horse archers are extra expensive

    Also archer cavalry was used in Europe.

    It was just fricking elephants in Spain.

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Much like professional knights and English longbowman, you must train from birth to be a useful horse archer. It is one of the hardest skillsets to build in ancient warfare. It combines archery, which by itself takes decades to master and horseback riding- which also takes decades to master. The reason why the mongol's were so good at it was because it was also one of their primary methods of food acquisition. It was a cultural and ethnic default that you would become a master horse archer. If you didn't, you were nothing in that society.

    By the way, the idea that the Mongols were lightly armored is demonstrably false. They were also quite proficient in mounted combat in the first place, but a neophyte Mongol warrior was always training with a recurve bow from birth just to start with, as soon as they could ride- it would be practice with mounted archery. They also used a complex form of battlefield communication involving flags, eventually incorporated bombs and Chinese siege technology as well.

    Everything was mobile, Yurts, livestock, and when speed and pressure was necessary they would just keep hordes of extra horses, use them for milk and eat them on the go. The weakness of the Mongol empire was its total landmass and inability to communicate from long distances. Mongols would eventually just stay and adopt the culture of the people they conquered instead of the other way around. There was also difficulty when they faced well designed European castles and well armored European knights. Everyone says that they went back because the big khan died but right around that exact same time the Europeans were beginning to form a unified alliance against them which is a really funny coincidence if you ask me.

    Generally their success was do to a well equipped force with good tactics and a large supply of soldiers who were by default masters of the most devastating form of ancient warfare, which was mounted archery.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There was also difficulty when they faced well designed European castles
      Mongols sieges and sacked Baghdad, which was a larger and more sophisticated fortress than anything comparable in Europe at the time, and a larger battle and siege than anything in European history as well.
      They would have very easily been able to siege most anything in Western Europe.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        So why did they fail to take any stone castles in their first invasion of Hungary?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >successfully besieging one castle = successfully besieging any castle
        lol if only warfare worked that way

        fact is that the Mongols were ground down by the disproportionate casualties they took going through Eastern European fortified towns

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Baghdad was run by a moron with a shit army and was a walled city not a fortress. European castles were significantly better than anything the Arabs ever built, Arabs primarily won through taking control of the land and starving out or eradicating the power base of enemies rather than directly storming castles. Arabs were never master siege engineers nor castle builders, Europeans were much better at both. Korean castles vs European castles is a much closer comparison.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Mongols didn't give a shit about some new euro alliance. They left because Europe was a poor backwater compared to Asia. and they had the largest empire to ever exist as it was to try to maintain. The leaving because ogedai died thing is I agree bullshit. But Subotai's last words on the topic was changing his assessment of total euro conquest down to 5 years from like 15. They defeated the largest army in Europe since the fall of the western Roman empire, why would they be afraid of anything else in Europe.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Forests, forests on hills is what stopped the Horde.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because China doesn't have trees.......

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Southern China does, which is why the Mongols had trouble with it.

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Composite bows never took off in Western Europe like they did in the East. A big part of this is the climate; rain is much more frequent near the coastlines, so gluing a series of flats together doesn't retain its strength as well. As a result, western archery was tied to longbows and crossbows, neither lends itself particularly well to cavalry (though crossbows were used as a shock weapon prior to charges, in some cases).

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did you moronic historylet
    Also cavalry isnt just horse archers

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >cavalry isnt just horse archers
      Learn to read

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Horse archers and light cavalry was an important part of the 100 year war. The French and English would use them to raid vulnerable settlements close to the front.

  22. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Redditors/asian cucks and their mongol worship ITT

  23. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't Europe develop horse archery?
    They did, you moron. The Pontic Steppe is in Eastern Europe

  24. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that horses eat grass really can't be emphasized enough.
    When you're running an actual farming based civilization instead of a steppe motorcycle gang the majority of manpower you can field will be footmen. You can't afford too just put everyone on a horse because horses eat too much grass.
    So if your cavalry force tries to do that thing where they shift to reverse gear and shoot arrows backwards, the other 75% of the army who eat the food crops you grow instead of grass are going to say "where are you going m'lord" right before they get mowed down by the enemy's shock cavalry.
    So maybe you run around with a small, elite army of only horse archers. But it turns out there's a castle every 200 fricking yards in Europe, and a small army ultra-specialized in only being good open field battles is basically just going to be avoided, outlasted, and attired to death.
    This relegates horse archers to a skirmishing role in a form of warfare where it was usually much more decisive to spend your grass on shock charges to break the enemy footmen.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You can't afford too just put everyone on a horse because horses eat too much grass
      Horses also eat oats, especially warhorses who work hard.
      In addition to eating several kilograms of hay every day, a warhorse would also eat (ideally) at least half a kilo or more of a good-quality grain such as oats.
      And obviously you need lots of spare horses, otherwise your elite horse army quickly becomes an infantry-and-cavalry army as horses take casualties - and the attrition rate for horses on campaign was as much as for people. And horses had to be trained for riding and for combat, a process which took at least a year if not more.

      Hence in some ways it might be said the Mongol army was an inefficient one; it could have fielded a much larger army if it had adopted a more traditional infantry-cavalry mix.

  25. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did. The premise of this thread is dumb and wrong.

  26. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >le mongols!!
    >le steppe!!
    >le horde!!
    >le passably white chinks!!
    >le horse archer!!
    >le gingis khan XD!!
    kys, """""""""""""""""""""""""""you""""""""""""""""""""""""
    (not you as in you since you're a moronic american, possibly underage) didn't even make it to actual europe so grab your little gay homosexual bow, pull the string with a meme draw for 3 lb bows and have a nice day if you manage with your homemade epic recurve trickshooting maple wood stick.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus the cope. Mongols are overrated but they didn’t suffer any defeats in Europe until the collapse of the Mongol Empire as a single polity. Euros were’t too tough for Mongols, they were too far away.

      Grabted the idea that the Mongols could have overrun Europe in 5 or 15 years is absurd. The fact that it wasn’t a united polity meant that it would have been harder than China as they would have had to carry out hundreds of sieges to reach the Atlantic instead of breaking a few cities and everything collapsing as the central government falls.

      If the Mongols threw the resources they did at China at Europe they would have taken it, but at the cost of Persia and Northern China which would rebel or collapse to invasion as so many Mongols were deployed so far from their territory.

      The only region the Mongols were regularly defeated even at their height was India.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >too far away
        now that's cope

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Just conquer an area on the opposite side of the globe from your main population centers with medieval technology
          Yes Rome didn’t decide that Pictland wasn’t worth the trouble for the distance and resources, they feared the Pictish warriors and their woad paint.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting example, the Romans invaded the north multiple times trying to control it and eventually invested the very significant trouble and resources to build and garrison a frickoff wall across the entire island. A Pict fighting 1v1 final destination on a hypothetical flat plain is not a good warrior, but a Pict in Pictland is.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Not really. Rome won pretty much every major battle. The region was just annoying to conquer for the resources it offered. Better to spend four legions fricking up the Parthians a little than fully pacifying the Picts.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Arguably, the Mongols were already sitting on more land than they could utilise, but that didn't stop them. Until the conquest became more difficult than they could manage.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Its actually grassland for their frick huge horse herds, tards. God i wish i couldve riden with subotai and jebe. Feasting on a giant wooden dias while your enemies were getting slowly crushed underneath you is pure /k/ino

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Its actually grassland for their frick huge horse herds
            Only what I've been saying all along

            And where did their horses come from? At least the ones used for war

            >China has no horses, only Mongolia
            Please

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Huh? The Mongols suffered several serious defeats in Europe even if we're only looking at the 13th century, though I'm sure you'd want to claim that doesn't count because they weren't at their "height." Fact is, some of the affected Eastern European kingdoms (Hungary in particular) reformed their armies and built better fortifications after the first Mongol invasion in the 1240s and were able to beat them the next time the Mongols invaded. Also, about Europe supposedly being "too far away," the Mongol armies were uniquely resistant to logistical difficulties imposed by distance due to their great skill at living off the land and generally being able to gather sustenance in-situ, as long as they were on terrain not too dissimilar from what they were used to in Central Asia. This was one of their biggest strengths as a military force, compared to the armies of more settled cultures which relied more on baggage trains and lines of supply to keep the army going.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Also, about Europe supposedly being "too far away," the Mongol armies were uniquely resistant to logistical difficulties imposed by distance due to their great skill at living off the land and generally being able to gather sustenance in-situ, as long as they were on terrain not too dissimilar from what they were used to in Central Asia. This was one of their biggest strengths as a military force, compared to the armies of more settled cultures which relied more on baggage trains and lines of supply to keep the army going.

          Wrong. The Mongols were more resistant to logistical difficulties due to their lifestyle, but that doesn't make them immune to those problems. The Mongols were tiny in population compared to their neighbors and conquered subjects, which made ruling their vast territories incredibly difficult. It's why genocide was a major military and political policy for them, because it made occupied territories easier to govern and manage.

          That being said by the time the Mongols reached Europe they were already stretched thin, with most of their forces occupied with the invasion of China. This made the campaign in Eastern Europe very difficult for them and it also didn't help that the Mongols were absolute morons when it came to governance and administration, and always struggled to use the full potential of their conquered subjects beyond using them as cannon fodder.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't read my post thoroughly enough. I didn't say "immune," I said more resistant to logistical problems from vast distances than most other armies (including European ones), so trying to excuse their failures by saying Europe is "too far" is essentially just a cope.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Also, even if the Mongol forces in EE could be said to be "stretched thin" by their standards, they could still represent a significant force from the perspective of Europeans of the time, give the relatively small average size of medieval armies compared to what came before (Rome) and after (early modern era, Napoleonic period, etc). A few tens of thousands of men was a pretty serious fighting force in 13th century Europe.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don't bother. This is clearly a Chinese guy flailing for reasons to say "actually, even though the Mongols attempted to get into Europe, facing third rate European powers while doing so, and lost on several occasions, never succeeding, it doesn't count.

          He's citing random book pages that don't even support his argument, which makes me think he is ESL.

          Mongols had little success in Europe, unless you count Russia as Europe, that's a historical fact.

  27. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't Europe develop horse archery?
    Same reason slings fell out of style despite usually being superior to bows in range, accuracy, and firepower with metal, standardized bullets. The reason is because of the training needed. Cultures heavily oriented around horses spent literally their entire lives learning to be consistent and effective shooting from horseback. Most labor in the pre-modern era goes into just producing enough food to survive, and few powers had the ability to invest the people and time necessary to train peer capabilities.

    Europe did employ horses (and chariots) to ferry around missile troops, which is a much less intensive way to improve infantry mobility. But still pretty damn expensive (horses are resource-intensive).

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The reason is because of the training needed...few powers had the ability to invest the people and time necessary to train peer capabilities.
      Not a sufficient explanation.
      Europe certainly didn't have the ability to give the entire population a lifetime on the back of a horse the way a steppe tribe did.
      But there was always a class of people whose entire life was war.
      And those people generally chose to go into battle as heavy shock troops in Europe, instead of horse archers.

  28. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why didn't horse archers prevail in heavy woods and mountains

  29. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The more relevant question is why didn't horse archers ever breach into Europe permanently? They've been there literally forever on the steppes. Before there were Turks there were Mongols and before there were Mongols there were Huns and before there were Huns there were Scythians. But they never made it into western Europe. Even groups that did begin as steppe nomads with horse archers adopted European methods after settling in Europe.

  30. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Feudal system.

  31. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Horse archers worked well in steppes.
    Europe was mostly swamps, forests and mountains. Almost exclusively, really.
    Also heavy bows frick them.
    Think before you make a shit thread next time, moron.

  32. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The mongols used large armies of infantry. Cavalry were a minority in many of their invading armies. And much of the cavalry they did have were heavy cavalry not horse archers. Horse archers suck ass at taking castles, they also kind of suck against disciplined heavy infantry too. Heavy infantry was more or less impregnable to hand bows of any type and as long as they didn’t rout or overcommit cavalry was nearly useless at destroying them. That’s more or less how all of Byzantium’s wars with Persia went, either the heavy infantry stayed in formation and it was indecisive or a Byzantine victory or they broke/chased and all died. Anyways mongols used a shitton of various arms and armors the meme that 100% of Mongol armies were horse archers that could 360 no scope is bullshit.

  33. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Without reading the rest of this thread I'm going to assume it has to do with the economic / agricultural model each cultural region had. Distances are shorter in Europe, I mean for frick's sake what you guys call a country over there is a small US state. Nobody needs to ride horses so nobody did and it was more of an upper class thing. In a pastoral/nomadic society everyone could be expected to know how to ride a horse and most adult males probably owned one or more. These sorts of things have an impact on what everyone shows up to war with when called upon.

  34. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Europeans are cucks obsessed with "muh chivalry"

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      this
      >be 16 y.o peasant eurocuck
      >sent to the war by a local feudal
      >die from repeated raides unable to do anything with muh.heavearmor.jpg acompanied with el.longspears.png
      >???
      >profit

  35. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >they did
    >also get a better weapon you memetard

  36. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty sure a few kingdoms used them
    >Kievan Rus
    >Hungarians
    >Poland
    >France

  37. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Europe did develop horse archery. But Europe was just not the place where horse archery could really shine. Logistically it seems more suited to nomadic civilizations than settled civilizations too.
    And let us not forget that in the case of the mongols it was their heavy cavalry, the lancers that did most of the killing too. Horse archers were scarier during foraging than during pitched battles.

  38. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >fricking horse archer shills on my /k/
    Well, time to kill them by the hundreds in Bannerlord again.
    God Bless Vlandia.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >bannerlord
      Just two more weeks until finished

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Too be fair its very playable for early access.

  39. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    horseback archery evolved from the hunting styles of steppe peoples, with vast, vast swathes of open fields where just a few feet of clearance and enhanced mobility made all the difference. You can see this with the Mongols, Tartars, Huns, etc.

    tl;dr mounted archery wasn't a useful skill in places with mountains, swamps, dense forests, etc so it didn't get developed into a military style like it did in the Steppes.

  40. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did, they just never built their entire armies around it the way steppe peoples did.

  41. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The climate fricks up the glue on those bows. They had a limited range for a reason.

  42. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Muh Horse Archers
    Every fricking time.If heavy cavalry is so bad why did every nomadic empire use it?Why did they create Cataphracts?

  43. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    cause it's ineffective against a halfway competent opponent.
    The huns who allegedly led to the downfall of rome, lost the only major battle to the romans, and couldn't break the roman line, which just formed a shieldwall and had archers with larger longer range bows behind it.
    Similarly, the one country in main europe the mongols managed to plunder was hungary, because the king got scared and sat in a wagnofort. When some hungarian knights charged without orders, they easily slaughtered mongol cav.
    >TLDR; Armor, shields, longbows are all hardcounters

    >main physical disadvantage
    To be used on horseback, the bow must be small, thus, shorter range and force. In effect mongol tactics work for massacring barely dressed central asian peasants who havent fought a real war in a hundred years, but whenever the mongols ran into the Europeans or the japanese, they were generally slaughtered with ease

    >why didn't europe
    it did. Not just horse archers, but horse crossbow and riflemen. The battlefield application is just very limited if you fight against a real army

  44. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Subhuman-kun, Rome used composite bows.
    More in the east admittedly, but they did.
    Mounted medium cavalry with asymmetrical composite, sometimes.

  45. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Camel cavalry is superior to horses.

    >hardier than horses and consumes much less water and food and less picky about it's diet.
    >larger wider feet than horses allowing to traverse sand and mud easier than horses.
    >can carry 40% of body weight compared to only 20% of body weight for horses.
    >large and strong enough to mount heavy siege weapons like ballistas and small cannons.
    >taller than horses to give sight and melee advantage over horse cavalry.

    Camels rule and horses deserve to go the glue factory.

  46. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aryans were the first to have domesticated animals which is why we can drink milk. Aryan Scythians were horseback archers. Also I dare all brown poos to read the indian rig vedas. They speak of invading aryans fair of cheeck driving out the dark skinned dasa natives who indra hates.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Aryans were the first to have domesticated animals which is why we can drink milk.
      That's not true at all. There were at least two cattle domestications one occurring in India long before the Aryans, and one in the middle east. Likewise goats and sheep were domesticated in the middle east.

      Aryans however domesticated the horse and invented the wheel, we don't have to make up shit about our stone age ancestors they did plenty of things for real.

  47. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm surprised that Chang over here hasn't started talking wonders about the miraculous Chinese super crossbows.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The repeating crossbows that chinese generals thought of as toys and useless for warfare?The ones that had a draw weigth so low that they had trouble penetrating clothes at low ranges?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *