Talk:Horses in East Asian warfare
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Perhaps some of the chapter headings in Johnson's Horses of the German Army in World War II suggest a useful framework for improving this article's coverage -- possibly helpful in terms of horses in any of the armies of East Asian warfare?
- Suitability of different breeds?
- Employment of horses?
- Selection and training of personnel?
- Supply in the field?
- The veterinary service?
- The remount system?
This heroic bronze honors Maeda Toshiie who rides astride a war horse carrying heavy burden. I am uncertain of its arguable relevance in the context of this article, so I'm posting it here where others may comment. --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure that it's not actually a 'heavy burden'. It's some sort of caparison or decoration. I've checked some of my books on feudal Japanese warfare and samurai arms and armour but haven't been able to find a name for it yet. Knyght27 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is a Horo, a sort of silk balloon meant for protection against arrows
- Yes, in my opinion. Please feel free to add material which expands the scope of this article. --Tenmei (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know that it wasn't sourced, but deleting the Mongolia section altogether was a bit hasty. Tagging it would have been a better solution. It's pretty obvious that with the exploits of Genghis Khan and his grandson Khublai Khan the Mongols' role in using horses in East Asian warfare shouldn't come into question. For God's sake they were reputed as the best mounted horse archers of the period. It's like questioning or asking for a source for the fact that armored tanks were used at all by Nazi Germany in World War II.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What kind of horses were the Chinese warhorses?
The article says: "The Chinese warhorses were culled from the vast herds roaming free on the grassy plains of northeastern China and the Mongolian plateau. The hardy Central Asian horses were generally short-legged with barrel chests." The "Central Asian horse" seems to be a description of the Mongolian horse, which is said to be the origin of most Chinese horse breeds (Chinese Guoxia), but the copy isn't clear. --BB12 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the source, it doesn't go any further than this, and we can't venture into WP:OR territory. Keep in mind that "breeds" as we understand horse breeds today really didn't exist until the 18th century. Before that, horse types were at best landrace breeds. Montanabw(talk) 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The article says, "(Other than the domestic Mongolian horse, the wild Przewalski's Horse also living in that region has never been domesticated.)" This sentence makes no sense at all. I'm pretty sure it means that the "domestic Mongolian horse" is domesticated (of course!), and that wild Przewalski's horse has not, but there seems to be something else of importance here. --BB12 (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll tweak that; the theory that the Przewalski is an ancestor to the Mongolian horse has been disproven. This article could use some work, unfortunately I'm not the one with time or motivation to do it. Montanabw(talk) 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
East Asia only
Decide whether this article is only on East Asia or Asia in general. If it's the former then Burma, Vietnam, and arguably even Mongolia should be removed. Personally I think it should be renamed "Horses in Asian warfare" since I don't see any basis for restricting it to "East Asia" other than some people's incorrect stereotype-based worldview. Morinae (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Depends on your definition: "Asia" includes the Middle East and so on, we aren't including, say, Iran or trans-Ural Russia... Open to discussion of a possible rename, but intent is to encompass the "Orient" -broadly speaking... many traditions quite different from the Near East. Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think Central Asia, trans-Ural Russia and the Middle East can be excluded since those would warrant separate articles. These areas are commonly not included in "Asia" even in academic usage, particularly in the case of the Middle East. After all it's a distinct cultural region with its own field of study, and most Middle Eastern people see themselves as such. But as it is, Southeast Asia already appears to be included. Just the east, south and southeast sub-regions (the "Orient" or "Far East" if you will) would be fine under the proposed title. Morinae (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- This article actually discusses Burma, China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam. East Asia used on wiki encompasses China, Mongolia, Japan and the Koreas. East Asian cultural sphere includes Vietnam, and the East Asia article notes it could be placed there. Really, the only nation mentioned here that isn't considered "East Asia" geographically is Burma/Myanmar, but it's one small paragraph and notes the Chinese influence on the area. So I guess I fail to see a problem here. If you have an issue with the nations of Southeast Asia mentioned, we could rename it "Horses in East and Southeast Asian Warfare," but that's clunky, though it leaves open room to add sections on Thailand and so on. That pretty much covers the content here. We aren't including the MIddle East here, nor South Asia (which has its own article, History of the horse in South Asia). Montanabw(talk) 05:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually the paragraph on Burma does not mention Chinese influence whatsoever but only says that their horses are "smaller than the Chinese breed". If Chinese influence is going to be taken as "East Asia", than surely the Malay Archipelago should be included? After all, indigenous Indonesian and Malaysian horse breeds were all of Mongolian stock prior to the much later introduction of the Arabian, and horsemanship in the region was influenced by China. Actually the same is true for most of Southeast Asia. That's kind of my issue here. We can't just pick and choose certain Southeast Asian countries to categorise as "East Asia" while ignoring the rest. Burma's inclusion in particular is opening a can of worms since it has never been East Asian in any way. An alternative would be to have a separate article for horses in Southeast Asian warfare. But if the title is retained, Burma should not be included. And I would argue for Vietnam as well since this isn't called "Horses in warfare of the Sinosphere". Morinae (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- So write it up. I'm all for improving the article, and if one section becomes unduly large, then we can talk about a split. Or we can spin off Burma to southeast Asia, but it's only a paragraph, which is probably why it got lumped in here - nowhere else to put it. This isn't an article where I've done much, my focus was Horses in warfare and most of the spinoffs have been the work of people with military history on a given reason, I just eyeball for the horse-related stuff, mostly. Another option is a History of the horse in Foo approach, which incorporates both war and other aspects of horse culture in a given area (i.e. South Asia, etc...) Montanabw(talk) 08:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)