Persiflage wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 10:26pm:


Well from the top of my head i thought it might of been something about the materials first used......then I did further reading and I thought it might be aesthetics......cause you know......Japanese..............

Persiflage wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 8:35am:

You'd be amazed at how even a pamphlet is more than most people know.  And condensing information to a short form for laymen is it's own artform.

Very interesting conversation...

Persiflage wrote on Nov 30^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:


OK, I've been busy but hopefully you're still thinking of this and willing to discuss a bit more.

I bow hunt (poorly) and I have to go to great lengths to minimize the outline of the human form. A big stick? No problem, the woods is full of them. Every broken dead sapling is a big stick. The outline of a man standing is a big problem, though.

And saying the people of one area wouldn't have found an adaptation advantageous because people in other areas didn't find it advantageous isn't convincing to me either. Are they hunting similar game on similar terrains with similar vegetation? Because hunting in mature hardwood forests requires a different approach (pun intended) than hunting on open farmland or abandoned hay fields.

So, what I'm asking is, what conditions were they hunting or fighting under? What strategies did they use? Do we know or is that lost?

I'm totally convinced by your arguments on Shinto, Horses, Materials, and Technology, but the Hunting argument still rests uneasily in my mind.

Meursault wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:


Wouldn't a long bow that you had to hold 1/3 of the way down to shoot be a bit cumbersome in bushy areas? Especially anywhere there is low hanging branches?

Meursault wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:


I wasn't really thinking about it any more, but sure 

Meursault wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:


You raise good points.  My argument was presented semi-facetiously and I may have diluted it inadvertently as a result...

On the terrain front, well, we're looking at roughly the same mix and I should have mentioned that.  Mature forest in some places, mountainous scrub in others, open grassland, riverine valleys.  Both places go up and down a lot, is what I mean to say    The main environmental difference is climate, which affects the viable construction methods of wooden weapons rather than the shape of same.

I freely concede, however, that I was more considering warfare in open terrain rather than guerrilla tactics in woodland when I made that remark.  Nice catch 

However, I'd also remark that it was just a small pillar of the argument.  Remember, I was responding to a chain of reasoning: small people preferring large bows to be intimidating, having to kneel for hunting and thus wanting an off-centered grip. 

The big question is; if warriors (psychological warfare, big bows) and hunters (shooting from crouch, short lower bow limb) had differing requirements for bows - and I'm quite prepared to concede that they did - then why didn't they use different bows?  The Chinese recurved bows (which did see use in court for a time) would have been infinitely "better" for hunting, having similar power and range but in a much more compact format. 

The thrust of my argument, which I confess may well have been lost, was that the technical argument for "why" only works - at all - if you consider that the people using the bows were thinking from a technical perspective.  If they were thinking that way, how could they have been so dumb for so long in not choosing to use more appropriate weapons that they knew about?  We can't posit that they didn't know how to make them, because they went right ahead and borrowed the same construction techniques to make their own shape of bow.  To me, that implies a dedication to the form which transcends the merely practical...  but it was only ever my own conclusion.

Returning for a moment to your own observations on terrain and appropriate hunting-craft...  Japan has very varied environments, but I can't find sources (which doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I can't find them) citing the use of regional types of bows for hunting, such as existed pretty much everywhere else.

Meursault wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:


Yikes.  That could easily occupy a wall of text bigger than the previous two    Much is known, in both instances.

Meursault wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 9:50pm:


That's okay, perhaps I'm wrong.  The question really is; do you still find the argument for the bow being that shape due to the users shooting from a crouching position to be a satisfying one?  In the context of at least 1500 years of use, in every situation a bow would be called for? 

Apologies if this all sounds a bit rushed and poorly-thought-out; that's 'cos it is!  I have a CV to write and this is displacement activity. 

Nice work, but geez who got Persi started

Meursault wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 4:47pm:


Oh, yes.  The Mongol bows later, too.  I have one of those (well, a good reproduction) and they're immense fun; crazy powerful for their size.

Meursault wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 4:47pm:


I thought so 

Meursault wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 4:47pm:


Not only "were capable of", but "did".  Bows made after the Chinese style were used in court rituals for a while.  It didn't take.

Meursault wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 4:47pm:


All I can say is: not that I have ever come across.  You have to think about the stretch of time we're discussing, too; said laws would have had to be in force for centuries... and they'd act the opposite way to most such laws around the world.  You mentioned the Sumptuary Laws (which were, incidentally, never that much enforced, in England at least).  What were they for?  Enforcing class distinctions in dress (although there's a much more interesting background to this which suggests that in many European countries they were as much for supporting businesses - and therefore tax revenues - by reducing foreign imports).

Japan had, in the Tokugawa period, sumptuary laws which were stricter and more detailed than any others recorded... but they were strictly to make all classes of person immediately distinguishable from one another by their dress.

Against that background, can you tell me honestly that you think it's possible a law would have been enforced which *prevented* common people - i.e. peasants hunting for the pot and professional hunters bringing down game for market - from using a different weapon to the Samurai?  I could see them passing laws which prevented the use of the same weapon, sure (although they never did), but not passing one which forced commoners to use a nobleman's weapon.

Meursault wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 4:47pm:


Thanks; I managed to send it off eventually...  The world had better hope I don't get the job; even *I* shudder to think what would happen if they put me in charge of something like that 

Persiflage wrote on Nov 27^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:



the primary reason the firearm replaced the bow, in spite of the rate of fire and accuracy advantages extremely well trained bowmen had over early riflemen is because of economics.


once the gun was able to be mass produced to the point that you could field armies with them, it was more cost effective to train musketeers over bowmen.  you didn't need to enact laws to ensure your populace started training army with a weapon from the age of 10 to be effective.  you could do now train a company of musketeers in a few months.  so replacing lost musketeers was a lot easier than replacing lost bowmen.


the military minds of the time recognized this fairly early on and that's why the bowmen in modern military units disappeared almost over night.

Meursault wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 7:01am:


Australian bushmen? Do you mean indigenous australian's? I don't think I have ever seen anything about them using bows, throwing sticks, and throwing spears using atlatl's yeah i've seen plenty of that. I know they use bows in PNG and some other islands like the solomons

Meursault wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 10:01am:


No worries, its just my neck of the woods is all otherwise I wouldn't know.

The Pope wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:


meh do all that with bow strength .

The throwing sticks the aborigines used were pretty amazing, and similar ones were used in parts of Africa and the western usa in prehistoric times.  Some were really heavy and quite large.

I wonder why the bow never made it down under..... hmmm  I sense that I am about to lose several hours in google.

Thanks great thread