Well, I’m willing to be proved wrong. Do you have a cite about the type of bowstrings used by the Mongols circa 1220? I’ve looked and have had trouble finding anything one way or the other.
I asked this same question, many years ago, because it wasn’t clear how it was possible to make non-interchangeable arrows and bowstrings. At the time, I asked if the Mongols were using Phillips arrows with cross-shaped nocks while everyone else was using regular single-slot nocks.
I don’t think we reached a consensus back then.(I don’t recall anyone suggesting the nockless-arrow/cup-bowstring). Different arrow length/bow size might be a possible explanation, but I’d think that incompatible nock widths still wouldn’t keep someone from re-using arrows.
That thread was already linked in post #10, and the cup idea was proposed there. That’s probably where I remembered hearing it, though I unfortunately didn’t remember it being just some random netizen’s WAG.
The Mongols were just one of many steppe peoples/tribal confederations who over the course of centuries interacted with more settled Chinese kingdoms. Often these people were basically paid to go away by the settled kingdoms. Sometimes they would fight and the raiders brought home booty. At other times there was trade for horses, which the nomads bred and the Chinese didn’t.
None of this is direct evidence that the Mongols had enough silk to string all the bows of their army by the time they fought the Rus. But it’s far from impossible. The Mongols (ie, horse-riding nomadic pastoralists) didn’t just spring fully formed from the steppes when Genghis Khan was born.
Why should I be the one to provide a cite? You already have a cite in this thread that they definitely used silk in the 14th C, you’re the one proposing that there was a significant change in the way they made their bows from just one century before, along with your easily-disproved handwaving about the improbability of Mongolia-China trade contacts pre-Temüjin, you provide a cite to back up that assertion. When you do that, take note that Genghis Khan wasn’t the first Mongolian to rule over part of China or unite all of Mongolia into one polity, as you seem to mistakenly believe.
If there indeed was a technical solution preventing the Rus from firing back spent arrows, could it be that the Mongolians crafted their arrowheads with a thin neck which would break on impact? This would be similar to the Roman solution for their Pila (throwing spears) designed such that the spearpoint would break off on impact, thus rendering the spear unusable to the enemy (without lengthy repairs at least). I have no idea whether this is a conceivable method for arrowheads, however.
I have no idea why you’re being so aggressive. The is GQ, not Great Debates. I’m not hand-waving and at no point have I said that the Mongols had no contact or trade with China.
I am asking for evidence about the types of bowstrings that the Mongols used in the early decades of the 13th century. I’ve looked and have found nothing. I’ve found some unreliable cites that “traditional” mongol bowstrings are made from animal hide, and I’ve found other cites that the Mongols were using silk in later periods. So when did that transition happen?
The question at hand is this: was the Russian army unable to shoot Mongolian arrows because the nocks were sized for silk bowstrings being used by Mongol invaders? You seem to be saying yes, absolutely. Okay, great. I’d like to read about this. Please show me some information so that I can learn more.
Otherwise I guess stop acting like I pissed in your Cheerios?
More to the point, when did they have a **steady **enough supply of silk to string all their bows with it? Bowstrings are not permanent objects. You have to replace them from time to time, and the Mongols certainly made heavy use of their bows. If they’d made a shift entirely to silk (to the point that the design of their arrows had changed as a result), it would have had to be at a time when they could be assured of getting it regularly.
That wasn’t remotely aggressive. Having the onus for evidence returned to you is not the same as aggression.
You’re the one sustaining the debate.
“zero contact” is rhetoric. The implications are the point.
The “unreliable” animal hide cites - are they actual archaeological papers like the silk cite? No? Then why do you give them the equal credence that your needing an answer for a transition implies? William of Ockham wants a word with you - he says there was no transition - 100 years is an eyeblink for pre-industrial technology. They used silk in the 13th c, they most likely used silk in the 12th.
Nope, I’m just saying Mongols using silk bowstrings is the entirely uncontroversial part of the hypothesis, given the physical evidence and history we have.
Maybe you should stop equating opposition with aggression, instead.
How much silk do you think it takes to make a bowstring? Again, at the exact same time, Chinese silk was making it to the Scandinavian Vikings in sufficient quantities that they could make their own clothing trim with it. And yet you find it incredible that the raw material couldn’t wind up in the Chinese northern neighbour that sometimes conquered bits of China itself?
The tribes that would make up the Mongols under Genghis Khan had been raiding Chinese villages and trade caravans for centuries before his descendants invaded. Their having access to silken thread is not implausible in the least.
It book mentioned in the OP is a good read, and I highly recommend it.
Perhaps I’m being naïve, but didn’t the Silk Road (the trade network that exported silk from China) go through central Asia (the area where horse-based pastoralists lived)? Why would they not have silk? Were they too poor to buy it? Was it too well guarded to steal?