heyy Ich brauche bis morgen früh die Besonderheiten an Straßburg… wer kann mir schnell eine Antwort oder ggf. eine seriöse Quelle geben? Es sollten so allgemeine Informationen dabei sein, wie z.B. die Geschichte von Straßburg etc… DANKE im Vorfeld ❤️
Was ist in den Jahren wichtiges passiert? Kriege,Erfindungen, Besondere Ereignisse.. Was war typisch für diese Zeit?
Hi, ich mache eine GFS über die Pest in Europa. Ich habe jetzt schon viel recherchiert, doch mir ist aufgefallen, dass auf manchen Seiten steht, dass die Pest in Europa von 1347 bis 1353 ging. Auf einer anderen Seite stand von 1348 bis 1353. In einem Video stand von 1346 bis 1353. Was stimmt jetzt?
Da ich an einer Geschichte schreibe, würde ich gerne mehr über das Leben einer jungen Dame erfahren, welche die Tochter eines Marquess im 19.Jahrhundert England ist. Wichtige Aspekte wie Bildung, Heirat, Zeitvertreib würde ich mich da sehr interessieren. Dazu, wäre es in Ordnung gewesen, wenn die Tochter eines Marquess jemand vom unteren Rang geheiratet hätte?…
Der Kommunismus und der Antifaschismus sind zwei unterschiedliche politische Ideologien, die jedoch beide gegen den Faschismus und andere Formen von Autoritarismus kämpfen. Der Antifaschismus ist eine politische Haltung oder Bewegung, die sich gegen den Faschismus und seine Auswüchse wendet. Antifaschisten und Antifaschistinnen setzen sich aktiv für eine pluralistische, demokratische Gesellschaft ein und treten gegen Rassismus,…
(1 votes)
Loading...
Cabeza de Vaca was a conquistador of the first hour. He reported a battle against the Indians in the Florida swamps. There a tree had saved him. There was an arrow in that tree. The tree was as thick as its calf and the arrow had gone through and stuck in it. So the impact force of these long arches was enormous! But the security of the Indians was unmatched.
The Mongolians had very good shooters in their ranks. But the great mass of the Mongolian warriors were only good average. They lived in their homes as shepherds. They also went hunting, but they didn’t live by hunting. This results in a few extremely good shooters. The big rest better shot the enemy with the others in a salve.
The Indians were not shepherds. These were hunters and already as children their targets were the birds in the sky. If they were older, they shot butterflies or fast dragonflies. You have to meet such a goal first!
After the Spaniards brought the horse to America, the Indians also learned to shoot in the gallop. At the time, their arches became smaller and smaller because they did not impede them as much as the long arches they had used before. It did not last long, the arches of the Indians had the same shape as the arches of the Mongolians. The same living conditions lead to similar results 🙂
Thanks for your post you see what the rest of the chat says
If you are interested, here is a very good book on the subject. The transition will be described how the Indian pedestrians became riders and how they learned to meet their goal from the horse.
https://www.wattpad.com/1123995919-re-gro%C3%9Fe-geist-den-indianern-das-pferd
Yeah, that’s the general opinion. But if one approaches the matter with the logic, there is a completely different picture.
Hello to some comments. Don’t be an attack. But some things can’t be right.
You can forget that. Then the tree must have been morsed. If you don’t even go through the crossbow arrow. And I speak from experience. I’ve been shooting crossbows for many years and I’ve been shooting bows for many years and that also with train weights around the 60lbs. If an arrow hits a tree, it will be stuck. Even crossbow arrows shot with a 270lbs crossbow did not go through.
Get the arrow out again is another thing. It’s then concreted into the wood.
I wrote down what Cabeza de Vaca reported. I’d like to believe that an arrow doesn’t go through solid wood. But he’s been through this in the Florida swamps. I have no idea if he was sitting behind a banana store when the arrow hit. Maybe he thought it was a tree.
Possible… I guess here’s a moron tree and he left this detail. Sounds more impressive without this detail. 😉
Can’t stand flat on the basis of a people. There are people everywhere who have more or less talent for archery. It’s like all things.
As far as training is concerned, I would see spontaneously but probably English archers in an advantage. The English archers were their own profession in the Middle Ages. That’s why they’ll have trained every day. However, they also had to weigh 100lbs on average. You don’t just talk like that. You have to shoot a lot and regularly. Who doesn’t do this will get such a bow quite quickly no longer properly stretched. For comparison: I shoot regularly with train weights of 55 – 60lbs. These are quite strong train weights. The highest weight I’ve pulled so far was 70lbs. That was pretty good. A little more maybe up to 75/80lbs I could still span. What’s wrong with me? This only creates someone who deliberately increases the tensile weight in pieces and then shoots regularly with such weights. I think there would be 2 – 3 months in which you don’t shoot that you can’t put the 100lbs on the spot.
The archers at that time have shot a lot with very high tensile weights. Were all first-class archers.
It is true for all these peoples. Warbows used in battles always had high train weights, not only in the English.
Once accepted 300 perfectly trained fusoldata from every folk meet on a free field to each other who would win I know the mongols and turk nomads are riders but we say without horses
Whatever you take: it doesn’t make any sense in connection with this question. How good is a archer depends not on where he comes from but on his training ì
In addition, the rider arches are shorter and I think the train weights of these arches were lower than those of the English long archers. Nen 100lb’s bow can be mastered without a horse, as I said, is one thing for itself. That means that you would deprive the riders of what they need to be effective.
But if that’s the premise, the ridden archers will be jacked without a horse.
I don’t know. You can’t say that. They were feared because they were ridiculed and their strategy in the fight was designed for ridden archers. That would be as if you let a Formula 1 driver compete with a Trappi and then ask who is better.
There were pardoned shooters in all archery peoples. The first of which this is mentioned were the Nubis who constantly settled with the old Egyptians. They were supposed to have been extremely true and were therefore feared. The Romans also felt this later when they moved from Egypt to the south. The Egyptians took over the composite sheet from the Hyksos and developed it further. When the Egyptians, as the only great power at the time, victoriously refused the storm of the sea peoples, they also owed it to their archers. The production of such a sheet lasts 18 months! The Middle Europeans and Englishmen were lucky enough to have the natural wood coating of the egg, similar to a glued composite sheet. Nevertheless, the arrows with good composite sheets are faster and thus also more powerful. Especially with bodkin tips. By the way, a European long arc is only effective in our climate. In the desert, or the Arctic, or in extremely humid climates, it is not particularly good, as the wood constantly absorbs moisture or releases. There was something like composite arches, by the way, with almost all the natural people who had the resources for it. In ancient England the youth was obliged to practice with the arches to always have enough good shooters. The Englishmen won many battles by their very good archers. The Japanese samurai were also exceled shooters, which were also true of the horse. They had to train for years, with increasing distances until they were perfect. On pictures you can sometimes see samurai with arches that were shorter than above, so that they were more handy when shooting the horse. These were technical leaks! The Araucans in South America, a wary Andean people had excellent arches, with great force. They could not be defeated by the Inka or by the Spaniards. So there were good shooters everywhere.
I do not think that there can be a conclusive answer because the different peoples acted at different times and with different arches. Mongols and Persians, for example, were pardoned archers; Englishmen and whalers had wide range with their long arches, but were slow and largely unprotected when the opponent managed to take their range advantage …
Long speech in a short sense: the question cannot be answered.
A question that is impossible to answer, because the skill of an archer was not dependent on his nationality.
So I mean that not old but a army throughout an example of the Middle Ages, England had the best to protect throughout Europe as they train their very well while in Bohemia, for example, the hardship was better emptied than that was part of their fighting tactics and their culture the specialization on a weapon was different from land to land so it is dependent on nationality a mongol in the 12th. century could have started with the long-fashioned in Europe little than with its wide-bow as the rider-cheek part of the Mongolian war service is and the mongols with it I repeat it HÄNGT DOCH VON DEM LAND AB IN DEM MAN GEBOREN WIRD
First of all, don’t address me with “age,” Du Flegel and second, whatever you mean, it’s irrelevant. This has already been made clear to you by several other users, although in other words. Your conclusion that a Mongolian with a long arch could not have started is true, but does not mean that he had been superior to a long arch – shooter with his bow or vice versa.
Your last sentence seems to me like that with the foot ramping of a soaking child in his first trotting phase.
And once asked if you think it better to know than all other users, why did you post this question [which is already evidenced by your inconvenience]?
ALlE in your question from different countries listed archers could have been equally good – each one with the bow familiar to him.
The South Koreans. See WM