Talk:Mongol bow

message: What's with the external links to images?  Can't one be grabbed under fair use?  Additionally, is there like a "requests" place on commons for pictures?  It doesn't seem like getting a free pic of a Mongol bow would be that tough.  Milto LOL pia 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use the images under fair use because we are not commenting on the images themselves (or their overall context). See Wikipedia:Fair Use for more details. Vectro 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External pics? 

message: This article cites that the draw strength of an English longbow was LESS than that of the Mongol bow. From the Wikipedia article on the English longbow (which has references addressing this point) and actually the reference that is used for this article next to this point, I gathered that the longbow actually had a much greater draw strength (150-180 lbs), but had a lower range because of the Mongol bow's better construction.
That should be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.74.101.130 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K done. BTW I added the 80yard accurate range thing I found on either the archery or longbow pages.ParallelPain 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongol bow vs. English longbow 

message: Most of this page is duplicated on the Composite bow page. Also, this page seems to be describing the Qing (Manchu) bow, with string bridges, not the sort that Chinggis Khaan and his people actually used. As far as I know they used bows like the Hungarian ones. I've also heard that the very strong Chinese bows were used to test strength, rather than for hunting or war, but I'd love some good information. 
On the other hand there is some good stuff. I'd suggest removing the duplication. Richard Keatinge 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your information about the type of bow is incorrect. The Mongols used exactly what is described in the article (which also correctly explains the difference to the Hungarian type). I'm not aware of a "very strong Chinese bows" either. It is inevitable that there is some overlap with Composite bow, although there may be ways to find a better balance between the articles. You're welcome to fix any grammar and spelling problems you find. But when changing the actual content, please make sure to cite reliable published sources. --Latebird 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Latebird, you are so wrong! The old empirical Mongol bow was different from the one used today at Nadaams which is a clone of the Mandshu (Qing) bow with Mongolian Ibex horn used instead of Buffalo.The old bow was a true horse bow (!!!!) while the modern bow is far to large to be used comfortably from horseback using the ancient Mongolian tactics such as shooting backwards in a faked retreat. It is only used standing nowadays.Please do some research first before making such bold statements.Archery, and bowyery has been outlawed in Mongolia after they have been defeated by the Qing armies and only re_emerged in the 19th century with many of the bows supplied by Beijing bowyers.The design was then adopted by Mongolians for their sport events today.Hungarian bows are irrelevant in this context as the are differnt to modern and empirical Mongol bows.Reenactment bows sold in Hungary bear little historical accuracy though this is what they claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.19.189 (talk • contribs) 23:57, September 16, 2008
Stephen Selby's Archery Traditions of Asia (http://www.atarn.org/commercial/traditions.htm) is such a source. I propose to re-insert comments on the historical development of the Mongol bow. The author is one of very few world experts on the subject, and the posts I cited earlier do give links to sources, original artwork and so on - but I suppose that putting those in would count as original research. However, this book doesn't mention the exercise bows, so I'll leave that out until I can dig up something more reliable.Richard Keatinge 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Now you're actually getting close to convincing me... ;) Do you have that book/catalog? It looks very interesting indeed. --Latebird 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication and mislabelling?

message: But it's true!!! Water Buffalo horn preferred over Ibex horn!! Bowyers traditionally brought them in from China. Can't remember where my original information was from but did a quick google and hit a confirmation. I am sure there is more. Cheers.--Tigeroo 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately my best "arguments" are really original research, because the bow maker I met in UB told me some very different stories than the one in your source (it's called marketing). But hey, I've been surprised before! Just try to find some less casual sources than a travel report. And whichever animal they used, they must have killed millions of them over the centuries... --Latebird 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. What this article lacks is the morphology of the Mongol bow through history. Mongols bows are "still" in use hunting. We are not talking about a bow that was necessarily limited to war and is stuck in a historical narrative.--Tigeroo 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Water Buffalo

message: I may be wrong, but I do not think it is easy to engrave a bow with a feather. My understanding is that either actual feathers were used as decoration, or that (images of) feathers were engraved. Can someone with an actual clue please try to sort that out? Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  decorations 

message: It seems to me from all the above that there is nothing very special about "the Mongol bow" (or bows). The originals seem to have been part of the general development of the composite bow in Asia, and the modern variety is simply a copy of the Manchu weapon. Also, most the good stuff is already duplicated on Composite bow, [Arrow]], Bow string and other pages. Rather a lot is not good; it seems to represent modern syntheses (or fantasies) based on second-hand accounts of generic composite bows. I suggest merging the good stuff into Composite bow and making this page a redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 77.176.29.126, you have convinced me. I will have a go at redrafting the article in the light of all the above, and we will see what develops. Oh, and why not sign up for an account? It does give edits an initial hint of credibility. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, greatly improving the article, thanks! --Latebird (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Composite bow]] and delete?

message: Please could we have referenced edits, with some idea of what specific bows and dates are under discussion? 
We still have comments that are not referenced and not specific about date or provenance. This is an area with a lot of secondary sources, most of whom I suspect are quite confused. They may have based their ideas to some degree on a composite bow of some sort, possibly on a bow made sometime by someone in or near Mongolia, but overwhelmingly on each other; I guess that many of the comments do not originate from actual Mongol bows at all. I have left them in so far, in the hope that someone better-informed will oblige. But nobody has done so for some months, and I am tempted to remove, for example, the factoids about preferred feathers and wood, string material, how to string the bow on horseback, and also the section about tactics which would be better if integrated into Mounted archery, and so on. Any comments before I do so? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Carry on Richard, according to what I know, the preferred Mongolian choice for bow strings is silk and not horse leather which can be used to make the fastening loops of the bowstring. The article about feathers seem wrong.It doesn't mention vulture feathers at all.Also, what does fletching have to do with bows.This belongs to "arrows".Please leave the section about the string bridge because it is very typical for this kind of bow and the section seems ok, even if it could be done better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.133.31 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, the string is synthetic (one transparent wire coiled around another one for thickness, not sure about the exact material). Traditionally, it was made not of hide, but of cattle guts stretched and twisted. I've never heard of silk, and would expect that to be a legend. The feathers on the arrows I've seen were indeed from from Cinereous Vulture (Tas in Mongolian), which is probably the most common choice when the prestiguous but rare eagle feathers are not available. Unfortunately though, my information is directly from the bow maker and not from a written source, so it is also problematic to use in Wikipedia without further verification. --Latebird (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Referenced edits please

message: Not much here on the actual Mongol Bow. It's more about other bows that may have been influenced by the Mongols. Not much help with jargon. Someone needs to go back to Strunk and White. Malangthon (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this about, really?

message: "The bow is usually stored in a leather case for protection when not in use."  Is it stored strung or unstrung? Kdammers (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Storage