"… I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword will be filled with flesh,.."
(Deuteronomy 32:42)
Last time we stopped at the fact that we tried to prove the validity of the culturological typology of "lukophiles and lukophobes", that is, the division of cultures that took place in the past into peoples who worshiped onions and peoples who considered them an unworthy weapon. For the first time, the English historian Timothy Newark drew attention to why the knights did not use the bow. But he stopped there. We continued to consider his concept in terms of spreading love and hatred of onions not only in relation to knights, but also simply peoples (and civilizations), conventionally dividing them into lukophiles and lukophobes. Today we will see what extrapolation of this dichotomy to the history of human development can give us.
Turning to the data of archeology and written sources, we can conclusively assert that from the American continent to the outskirts of Eurasia in the Stone Age, onions were truly a mass weapon. It was used in the Andaman Islands, in Japan, in India, in Africa, the Aztecs and Mayans, the inhabitants of ancient Spain (where the most ancient European bow was found in the swamp!) - in a word, it was just very widespread. Only a few peoples did not use it, but not at all because they had any prejudice against it. For example, the Maasai in Africa do not use a bow, but they use a spear with a wide tip - this is the specificity of their hunting practice. We see the same in the aborigines of Australia. They simply did not need the bow.
St. Sebastian, pierced by many arrows, became a kind of symbol of his era. Emperor Diocletian ordered to execute him in this way, but … after all, the Romans themselves did not use onions. This means that the execution was carried out by their mercenaries.
But the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Indians used the bow, and the latter almost deified the bow. It is enough to read the Mahabharata to be convinced of this. The onion is found in the ancient legends of the Narts who lived in the Caucasus, but about the peoples of Siberia and Central Asia one could not even remember. But … it was here, in the darkness of centuries, that something happened that caused one of the peoples who lived in this area, a kind of "dislike" for onions. Or, let's say, the opinion that this weapon is unworthy of a real man and warrior! What kind of people were they, and when did this division take place? Well, first of all, neither the Cimmerians, nor the Scythians, nor the Sarmatians can be ranked as lukophobes. But here are the Dorians who came to Greece from the north, what about them? Before them, the Greeks willingly used bows. But … after the Dorian conquest of Greece, everything changed, which is proved by the plays of Euripides and ancient Greek ceramics. On them you will see hoplites and horsemen with spears and shields, but archers are all barbaric mercenaries. Scythians - as evidenced by the inscriptions, that is, people of the second class. Not citizens! However, perhaps it all started a little earlier or later?
Scythian arrowheads were bronze, socketed and had a spike on the side for anti-handling.
Here, perhaps, one should refer to the Atlas of World History, published under the editorship of Oxford University professor Jeffrey Barraclow, by Times Books in 2001. It gives a chronology of different events that took place in different regions of the planet at the same time … It is convenient to make comparisons with it. In it we read: 2200 - 2000. (Indo-Europeans) future ancient Greeks conquer mainland Greece. Meanwhile, the Minoan civilization is developing in Crete. Then she dies as a result of the eruption of the Santorini volcano, and after 1500 Crete is captured by the Achaeans. At the same time, the Slavs became isolated from other Indo-European peoples. And here at the end of the XII century. BC. the Dorian Greeks come, smash the Mycenaean civilization and conquer Crete.
Now let's remember 490 and the battle of Marathon, where the Greek hoplites defeated the Persian archers. About 700 years have passed, and all this time the Greeks (these are completely different Greeks, the descendants of newcomers from the north, and where did they come from?) Did not treat the bow too well, did they? And they had their own cavalry, but they never fired from the saddle!
Still ahead along the "timeline", and we will see that it is the Huns who defeat the Goths, and they move to the mouth of the Don, and from there part of the Goths goes to the west, and some to the east and defeats the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 already on … e., and they do not shoot from a bow from a horse, which is noted by all Roman historians. T. Newark writes about the same when he says that the Gothic tactics of war preceded the knightly one, that is, it was a battle with a sword and a spear. Well, the Chinese are unimportant riders, around 300 they invent a high saddle with stirrups. That is, what happens: somewhere in the wilds of Central Asia, where the Goths once lived, for some reason this strange idea arose that a bow is not a man's weapon, and only that warrior who fights the enemy with sword and spear. At the same time, the Goths, of course, lose to the Huns (that is, they lived nearby) and leave the latter to the west. In the east, the Lukophiles remain, including China and Japan, but the Lukophobes-Goths leave to the west, who later created the basis for the European Gothic culture with their conquests. But the Romans did not like onions either, but adopted this dislike from the Greeks. That is, this lukophobia arose long before the Goths, and there was a people (which people?) Who passed it on to the Greeks. But for the Goths, let's say, it reached the maximum. That is, we have a long historical process that covered both parts of Asia and Europe, and gradually led to those serious social changes, which T. Newark already wrote about in 1995.
The Assyrians very early began to use horse archers, shooting from a horse. But first, another rider held the reins! Rice. Angus McBride.
When and where exactly happened, and what happened that averted the Goths and those who lived in this region before them, from the bow, we most likely will never know. Although an excellent historical novel could have been written about it. But you can try to trace the migration path of ancient lukophobes through the funeral inventory. If the burial is male, it contains a sword, a spear, a shield, but there are no arrowheads, then the conclusion is obvious - a "lukophobe" is buried here.
Assyrian horse archer against Arab camel shooters. Over time, the Assyrians mastered the art of riding so much that their riders began to act like the Scythians. Rice. Angus McBride.
Well, now let's think about the fact that any, in general, culturological typology is dichotomous. For example, Apollonian and Dionysian, Atlantic and continental, forests and steppes, and so on. But a good theory should also explain a lot, and in this case, yes, indeed, it is the typology of lukophiles and lukophobes that allows us to answer one very important question: why the West does not like Christian Russia, where does it come from? With the East, everything is clear: religion, violation of the knightly tradition not to shoot from a horse - this is a reason for you to "get angry" for centuries. But our ancestors were Christians …
Bayesian embroidery. The Norman Knights, in front of whom are the archers, attack the infantry of Harold. It was the archers who played the main role in this battle, but … traditionally it is believed that it was cavalry!
To begin with, we note that the Gothic military culture did not have an impact on the Slavs. So they left the Black Sea steppe corridor to the west. Then followed centuries, when barbarian kingdoms were created in Europe, and our ancestors reflected the Avars and Pechenegs, Polovtsians and Mongol-Tatars. And in this struggle with the East, they took all the best from him. Perhaps they did not know how to shoot from a horse with such skill as these peoples. But they did not shy away from this art - that's what is important! And even after becoming Christians, our distant ancestors, the warriors of the princes, had a bow and arrow in their arsenal! And having met with "brothers in faith" on the battlefields, they appeared in the eyes of the latter not only as apostates, but also - perhaps it was even worse - as people professing a "barbaric principle", not covered by any external piety - "the end justifies the means ! " "It is beneficial for me to shoot from a bow from a horse, so I shoot!"
The English artist Graham Turner draws wonderfully. But … what do we see in his drawings? Knights, whose horse armor covers the neck and croup of their horses. What for? Who will beat in the rump with a sword? But everything becomes clear if we turn to the manuscripts of those years. Archers' arrows are the reason for such a strange "armor". They poured down from above like rain and … gaining a very high speed, inflicted mortal wounds on the horses, and lightly wounded horses simply lay down and could not run further!
Let's remember our epics. There, the use of bows and arrows by heroes is not at all condemned, and after all, epics are "the voice of the people." That is, our ancestors did not see anything shameful in the fact that the knight shoots from a bow while sitting on horseback; both bows and arrows entered the panoplia of our horsemen for a long time! Many foreigners who visited Muscovy also wrote about this. They say, they ride on grooming stallions, drive them with whips and skillfully shoot from a bow both forward and backward. Moreover, this is taken from the description of the local cavalry of the 17th century, they wrote about it … Well, how could it be transferred and put up with it? And even when the original reason for this “dislike” had already been forgotten, the memory of it and the fact that “everything can be expected from these Russians” was preserved and passed on to the descendants of the “knights-ready”.
However, he has something to draw from. In the Metropolitan Museum alone in New York, several full knightly armor, including equestrian ones, are exhibited at once.
Well, and we ourselves have contributed a lot to that - well, so that people think about us in this way, so the "dislike" of the West can also be explained by this very old cultural tradition. And, by the way, our Russian historians, even in pre-revolutionary times, understood this well and wrote, in particular, Klyuchevsky, that we are a unique culture and surpass the West with light weapons, and the East, respectively, heavy, but not so much that it hinders us to fight with both those and others not only on equal terms, but also to surpass both those and others.
Notice how this knight's horse is protected from the front. The mask, bib and plates protect the head, neck and chest. But his neck is also protected from above.
The "caper" had the shape of a bell to protect the horse's legs and to divert arrows to the sides.
Hence the spread in Russia of the knightly sword and eastern saber, bow and arrows and … crossbow, light eastern chain mail and heavy plate armor, which sometimes were not inferior to knightly armor. Well, who will like this kind of exclusivity, when people most of all love you to be like everyone else, and exclusivity and exclusivity are usually not forgiven to anyone! And, as you can see, it is precisely the typology of "lukophiles-lukophobes", moreover, in relation to our history, that allows us to give a truly comprehensive answer to many questions of our history!
Here it is, our pre-Petrine local cavalry, who knew how to shoot back at a gallop no worse than the same Scythians!
And these are figures from the firm "Zvezda". What are not knights? And with bows in hand!
