Talk:Bow and arrow/Archive 1

message: Removed:
"Rojoe is a great bow hunter."
Is this a joke someone placed here, or is there a reason for it? As far as I can tell, it's not relevant, and if it does contain something useful, it's not placed in context in order to make it comprehensible. Tom M 22:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it refers to the curve of the wood on the cut surface, like a lens. 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rojoe is a great bow hunter - removal

message: The ballista description sounds like it was written by a dumb person. --Lomacar 03:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballista 

message: North America was settled by Paleo-Indian peoples during the late Pleistocene (about 20,000 years ago) who did not possess the bow and arrow.  Was archery developed independently by Native Americans?  I placed this same query in the discussion of the article on Archery Jay Gregg 18:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: America was settled with at least three different waves before the arrival of Europeans(Newfoundland,Carribean)/Chinese(Peru).
It must have started at least after 18000 BCE (marker-mutation on Y chromosome) from Asia and the last one of these waves arrived around 9000 BCE. 1000 BCE came the Inuit, Yupik and Unungun, but they are usually not counted. The oldest pictures of bows are found in the Pyrenees, dating back 15000 BCE and 11000-9000 BCE some remains are found in what is today Northern Germany and Denmark. The Inuit even had crossbows for whale hunting. So there is a chance, that the second wave (Apache and Comanche are descendants of these) brought some kind of bow along.
But the history of settlement is varied and there are possibilitys of a small and very early European immigration based on the Kennewick-man and mitochondrial DNA-findings in Native Americans (mitochondrial DNA is just passed on by the mother, European immigrants usually did not allow their few women to the natives for reproduction).
I have found some statements, that the bow used by Indians in North America is an Asian doublebow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.101.225.125 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2006
::But no very old bows have so far been found in the americas. Not even older than 1000 years, in fact 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement to America 

message: Is it just me or is the last sentence of the Yumi bow paragraph sexist?
It basically is saying that broken thumb section of bow is a problem to woman because they can't take the pain.
:If that is a historical observation (i.e. real attitude of Japanese warriors in the past), it should remain, but be noted as such.  We shouldn't attempt to rewrite history just because our cultural attitudes have changed. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yumi Sexist? 

message: Are the flat bow and korean bow a subtype of some other, such as long bow or composite bow?  If so, let's reflect that.  Also, as all these types have main articles, can we tighten up the entries here and summarize them to make this article read more like an overview? ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  types of bows 

message: In the Middle Ages, European powers made effective use of the longbow as a major weapon of war. It was an extremely effective weapon in battle and could penetrate armor from a considerable distance.
I saw a history TV programme about longbows recently in which the Royal Military College of Science tested a longbow's ability to penetrate armour of the time. They showed that it could penetrate it, but only at a range of 20 m or less. So, 'considerable distance' is not really true. Blaise 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a History Channel show which used modern forensic techniques to examine historic battles. One episode was on the Battle of Hastings where an army of organized English peasants defeated the French "army" made up of individual nobles wearing steel plate armor, some on foot and more on horseback. They found that there were three primary factors which led to the English victory. One was the mud, it stuck in heavy globs to the steel armor boot plating of the knights on foot. Second was the terrain, the English were on top of a low and narrow ridge which caused a 'bottleneck' the French had to advance through in order not to have the disavantage of attacking from low ground. Third was the effect of the thousands of high-trajectory longbow fired arrows on the French horses. With hundreds of horses down from arrow strikes, the French couldn't advance, leaving them vulnerable to further arrow attacks and close in hand to hand fighting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penetration of armour 

message: The statement "The oldest bows known so far come from the Holmegård swamp---" begs the question, how old were these bows?  If they know they are the oldest, they had to date them.  That data should be included here. Olan7allen 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to answer, I know. ... the Holmegaard bows are from about 6000 BC. — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no, rather older, about 8000 bc. 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "from the Grotta dell'Addaura in Italy" - But at least the italian article about this grotta makes no reference to bows or archery. What is the reason for its inclusion as proof for the oldest bows here? 80.126.21.216 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Bows 

message: Any chance anyone has an authoritative source denouncing the 'shortbow' as a DnD-derived neologism?
Theblindsage 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortbow