Europeans had slotted nocking, and Mongols used Phillips head arrows?
I’m sorry, I’ll leave now…
From my OP:
Great Minds Run IN the Same Channel.
and
Fools Think Alike.
The first thing that came to mind was that maybe the Mongols had an unknotched, slightly pointed rear end of the arrow shaft that contained no mechanism by which a simple string could propel it, but instead was fitted into a small “cup” midlength down the string. This cup, maybe no bigger than an acorn cap, would accept either/both slightly pointed or unknotched arrows but the pointed rear arrows could only be fired from a cupped string bow.
Err… make that “This cup, maybe no bigger than an acorn cap, would accept either/both slightly pointed or notched arrows but the pointed rear arrows could only be fired from a cupped string bow.”
In such fashion, their (Mongol) arrows would only work in their bow but their bow would launch either arrow type.
OK, every single site I went to has Russian construction of bows being the same as Mongolian construction, so I’m confused as to any differences whatsoever. You keep saying Europeans in your posts, but the OP says Russians. Are the Russians of the middle ages on the European Continent? Not saying you’re wrong, just that I don’t know.
That aside, ALL the sites I visited on Mongolian bow making pointed out the Mongolians attention to detail. One example is how Crane tail feathers were the best for making arrows (well, eagles were the best, but rare) not any other part of the bird. Also wood used, different styles of heads, and the technique of using whistling arrows, etc. All this talk about the special preferences for arrow making, and not one mention of special notching. Soooo, my guess is that it has to be length. Look at the way the passage is written. If you look up “nocking” as a verb, it’s just another way of saying “loading.”
(bolding and word change mine) and
…because the notches, as well as the arrows, were oversized, and while not optimal for range and speed, still fired.
Granted, still a guess, but nothing I find says anything about the special notching in Mongolian arrows, or any major differences in construction between Russian and Mongolian bows in the Middle Ages.
No mistake, Russia was certainly in medieval times to be considered European, and is often considered to be European in the larger sense of the word in the present day also. It’s on the Eurasian landmass and could fall either way but historicall and culutrally it owes more to Europe than Asia and is treated as such.
It also takes part in the Eurovision song contest. I mean, come on, what more proof do you want! 
Dan
Well, if I had known about the Eurovision song contest, I never would have opened my mouth, I am sure.
Was the Russia of yester year from the adriatic and west? Or are we all talking about all the way to Siberia.
Also, was there another name for said Russians? I tried looking up “Slav bow and arrow” but it gave me very little to go on. If the Russians that Kahn fought were using the English type long bow, then wouldn’t the arrows they use be significantly longer?
Need more input! Kaaaaahhhhhnnnnn!!!
First, let me say that I find the “cup nock” explanation very thought-provoking and plausible, but I still haven’t seen the evidence that the Mongols actually used them. Could someone help a weary old pedant, and point me at what I missed? It’d make a wonderful example and analogy in many topics.
Second, let me note that these soldiers weren’t carrying modern slim-bladed pocket knives. They had big honking knoves for routine heavy duty use. Try re-nocking an arrow with just a few millimeters of wood on either side of the nitch, using a hunting knife in the heat of battle, with no experience. I think you’d find it neither quick or effective. The wood would have to be shaved symmetrically (for accuracy) and precisely (remove to much, and the nock will break on firing). You’d probably break most of the nock before you even got to fire them.
[In fact, I wonder if nock strength was once reason the more powerful Mongolian bows had a different nock design (probably thicker nock walls). Arrows are usually made as narrow as practical because shaft mass goes up with the square of the diameter, and high shaft mass is usually not good for range or accuracy]
Secondly, IMO we can dismiss the book passage that inspired the OP as “literary license”. It fails on many grounds, and shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
Oh sure, that makes sense – you have a centuries-old culture with a heavy reliance on on archery, especially horse-mounted archery and many crucial innovations (e.g. saddle design – and stirrups, which some claim were a Mongol invention, and were certainly not common at that time)
… and they’re going to scope out their enemies and deliberately change the arrows they’ve spent their lives becoming expert with? Small changes in design can have big effects. Consistency is the key to the art. You just don’t mess with that lightly
Let’s not forget, the Russians weren’t just one of dozens of opponents that the Mongols faced in the centuries immediately before and after the battle in question. Are we to believe that changed arrows for every conflict?
I don’t have the book, so I don’t know which battle the cited page was discussing, but it’s impostant to note that the first large-scale conflict (vs. border raids) between the Russians and the Mongols was not planned or expected by the
Mongols! Prince Mstislav gathered an army of 80,000 to fight the 20,000 raiding army of Subedei and Chepe. Subedei sent envoys, whom Mstislav killed, and Subedei replied with a message which reportedly translated to: You have killed our envoys. As you wish for war, so be it. But we have not attacked you. May the spirits be judge of all men."
The Mongols then proceeded to stomp the Russian forces, despite being outnumbered by 4-to-1. That first battle wasn’t expected -so why change their arrows?- and after that rout, I hardly think the Mongols were scared enough to change their primary weapon. Moreover:
Well, that makes sense. That’s what any soldier would do if they had the greater range. Why risk your life when you can just pick off the enemy?
But if the Mongol bows and techniques gave them greater range, why would they bother changing their arrows? Even if the Russian could fire them back, they wouldnt be able to reach the Mongol forces! Are we to believe the Mongols researched the arrow designed used by the Russians – but not their range? Range, not reuse of enemy arrows, is a critical factor in all archery battles.
{quote]In mockery, the Mongols chased down the Russian arrows; but rather than brewaking them, they fired them back at their original owners, since the notches of the arrow easily fit the Mongol bowstring."
[/quote]
Of course - why not? Wouldn’t you?
But if Mongol bows could fire Russian arrows at the longer range that kept the Mongol forces safe, then that proves that the arrow design wasn’t the issue. The weaker Russian bows couldn’t have fired Mongol arrows back, even if they fit their bows. (If the Russian arrows didn’t have sufficient range, the Mongols would have had to give up a dramatic tactical advantage by using them. If you were fighting muskets with rifles, you wouldn’t pick up a fallen musket/ammo and deliberately close to the danger range]
Did the Russians break the Mongol arrows in frustration (in substantial numbers)? I call bullshit on that too. Oh, I’m sure a lot of Mongol arrows got broken - and maybe many on purpose, but not enough to represent
-
The book’s theory clearly messes up the time sequence. Initially, the Russians were in Mongol bow range, but the Mongols weren’t in Russian bow range. The Russians wouldn’t have Mongol arrows to break unless they were under active fire! Would you stop to break enemy arrows – or would you fight or run instead?
-
The Mongols wouldn’t even have many Russian arrows, until they were in Russian-bow range - those arrows wouldn’t reach them. The Mongols didn’t drive the Russians to frustration by firing Russian arrows. They may have used them, but only after they’d already driven the Russians back far enough that the mongol front line reached the recent Russian “fire zone”. A retreating soldier under heavy fire has better things to do than spitefully break arrows.
-
If the Russian forces were in retreat against an advancing Mogol horde, most of the Mongol arrows would be in the region they’d just fled. Sure, the Russians under current active fire would be recieving Mongol arrows to break, but again, I ask – how much sense does it make to break arrows when you’re under fire/in retreat
-
Breaking Mongol arrows wouldn’t deprive them of as much ammunition an armchair reader (or author) might imagine. The Russian archers were sending a steady stream of Russian arrows to the Mongols, which (per the report) the Mongols could and did fire back. That’s some gesture of defiance: “Hah! We can force you to use our crappy arrows!” It’'s like the Russians were throwing grenades at the Mongols without pulling the pins.
-
I’d appreciate a cite that re-using arrows was an important practice in active archery combat (as opposed to gathering them up between battles, which I’ve read about in later conflicts). It’s not that I doubt the practice, but this passage makes little sense unless it was a major practice, and I’m curious how major
I haven’t been an archer since I was a kid, and I’m no military historian, either.
Everything I ever read on Mongolain archers says they had bow technology that gave them significantly greater shooting range over their European adversaries, and the exceptional ability to use that range with deadly accuracy (I had my Marco Polo phase when I was a kid, and was fascinated by the empires of Genghis and Kublai Kahn). It may be hyperbole, but written accounts given by the few who squared-off against these guys and survived describe them as having (to the European sensibility) almost miraculous archery capabilities.
They were also exceptional riders, and putting the two together made them as deadly a long-range foe as any the average European could expect to encounter in that time, perhaps the deadliest. Their horses were swift and agile, and the Mongols could shoot while riding at a gallop as well as many European soldiers could shoot on foot and stationary. Apparently they could continue hit-and-run raids on adversaries for days away from supply lines because they figured out how to nourish themselves by drinking their mount’s blood during lean periods. Again, it’s hard to know how much of this stuff Marco Polo, et al. pulled out of their respective arses, but I imagine a good portion of their admiration for the Mongol mounted bowman was well-deserved.
So, I think trying to explain Russian defeats by using incompatibilities in bow technology puts the focus on something that is really very much beside the point: The Mongols were as bad as they came, and could shoot you in the head quite capably, while moving, from three hundred yards, a full fifty yards at least beyond the maximum range of a Russian bow. In battles on the open steppes of central Asia, this gave them an enormous advantage over everyone they encountered. They were so horrifying a foe that sometimes their enemies would simply drop everything and flee like mad, breaking ranks and getting slaughtered one by one. They sound almost superhuman sometimes, but I guess they really were amazing mounted warriors.
Becoming “civilized” as they did during the reign of Kublai and into the short-lived Yuan dynasty was probably the worst thing that could happen to the Mongol Empire, from a military standpoint. IIRC, the more bandit-like outer Mongolians became increasingly separated with and fed-up by the aloof Yuan rulers, and eventually the whole thing fell apart. Then the Ming’s came in, cleaned house, and that was that.