Talk:Horseback archery

Created to give more information on modern horseback archery. Thanks to Robert Schreiner in NZ for his contributions (and also some training whilst back in NZ). Image of Lajos used with Robert's permission (as it is also used on his website horsebarckarchery.co.nz)) Lovas 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal didn't use horse archers in their campaings but numid and hispanic cavalry wich was equiped with javelins, not bows. I have deleted it. --Bentaguayre 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Should this article be merged with Horse Archer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.213.69 (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kassai

This article bothers me since I feel that the article puts entirely too much emphasis on Kassai and his modern archers... and not enough on the importance of the historical archery... What do you guys all think? V. Joe (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Horse archer

That's why the material from Horse archer needs to be merged in here, as the two topics are really the same. This is the more general title, but the content there is wider in scope. Btw.: The German de:Berittenes Bogenschießen does a very nice job of outlining the history and the many different modern varieties. --Latebird (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Turn into one good article by merging, prevent content fork, and give more balance to this article.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Good idea, there is no real difference of subject. Using some headings from the German article seems a good idea, but I don't see many references in it. (Also I notice an article on Bogenreiter, but I'll leave the possible merge issues to those who can do more than stumble through the German language.) What title? Horseback archery strikes me as better English but I suspect that Horse archer is much more widely used. I'd vote for Horse archer, with a redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's some discussion about the title on Talk:Horse archer. "Horse archer" seems to derive primarily from relatively modern military use. "Horseback archery" sounds more general to me (including historical and sports use), but then, I'm not a native speaker here. Thanks for digging up de:Bogenreiter, which is indeed redundant as well, and horribly written on top of that. --Latebird (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think of it as a subject — Horseback Archery as if titled like it was an Olympic event (maybe one day). Latebird, your english usage/thinking is correct (fine). ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rethinking, what about Mounted archery? It would allow us to include a very short section on archery from the backs of camels (Arabs) and elephants (Indian rajas), and round out the historical section with mention of the probable chariot-mounted predecessors of cavalry archers. It's definitely a term in use, with Google showing 10,800 hits for "Mounted archery" (but twice that number for horseback archery and three times for horse archer). Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, Horse archer civilizations contains practically no valuable information and is more or less a contradiction in terms; as far as I know, no Civilization has made mounted archery a central element of their culture. I suggest that it, too, should be a redirect to this new article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The military types seem to think that "mounted" means anything moving on horseback, even if it fights as normal infantry. But I'm not sure if we should let that keep us from using a more general title. On the other hand, elephant mounted (and to a lesser degree camel mounted) archers may not have the same tacitical maneuverability as horseback archers do, so they don't quite play in the same league.

About the other article: It's not like nomadic societies are uncivilized by definition. But mounted archery was a tool for warfare, and not the defining element of any culture (just the element most visible to their enemies), so that Horse archer civilizations is an unsuitable title anyway. Since there is indeed nothing worth salvaging in the content, the only alternative to deleting it would be a redirect to Eurasian Nomads, as was suggested before. --Latebird (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Richard on both counts. "Mounted archery" keeps the article general enough to include non-military mounted archery (hunting, entertainment, demo, exhibition, sport). I came across Egyptian illustrations of hunting using chariots and archery today...

..I also came across an art plate by Angus McBride today with Carthaginian War Elephants at the Battle of Zama (202 B.C.) with archers on them..that seems to conflict the Wikipedia article on war elephants. I'll continue to see what turns up. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much Hungarian & Scythian, etc.

This article seems to reflect the beginning of horseback archery as this steppes of Russia thing. Balderdash! Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians (just to name a few) are preceding cultures with horse archery, the Chinese probably. It is also a bit of a shame that there is nothing in here about Native American cultures and their usage. Since the Spaniards weren't horse archers, we can safely deduce that they didn't pass this on as a culture to the natives...the horse? yes. Native Americans formed their own unique horse culture and have some interesting techniques of their own.

I think that it is the gist of those who have been discussing here that we will do a merge and then begin a rewrite & probably a new title. I would wait until the newer article is made before making a decision to add Hungarian categories to it.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

..and this article was created today:Hungarian cavalry which needs a serious wikification but I am glad to see some minor balance in that article for the brief mentions of other cultures.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)