Again and again with your mental limitations. Let me repeat . . .
Cast iron was important to because it led to industry production and further inventions. One example: cast iron produces tools for a variety of functions. Because your provincial brain cannot see this, I'll give you ONLY one example. China's mass production cast iron allowed society to improve its agriculture and its industry or tool production. Think about agriculture (thiiiink, thiiink), then think about my previous post on factors that affect your strength (hint: it has to do with good nutrition).
We already talked about this. Learn to read with comprehension and analysis. Train on increasing your memorization skills.
Ancient Europeans vs Persians
Greece- kept the Persians from conquering Greece.
Macedon- marched to India
Rome- marched to the Persian Gulf.
No Middle Eastern army ever invaded South east Europe after the Greco-Persian Wars until the rise of Islam and then they couldn't hold it.
Use your poor reading comprehension skills and do your absolute best to focus on my previously typed words: Parthia, which is a specific ancient Persian empire that effectively used hit and run with an unidentified composite bow to safely penetrate the melee-based, armored ancient Europeans. Parthia and ancient Europe could not conquer each other. Spell it: P-A-R-T-H-I-A. Say it with me: Paaar-theeee-uuuuh. Par-thee-uh. Parthia.
Janissaries were elite troops, the average draw weight of the Turkish bow was 111lbs.
Ancient China also had elite troops, and they had various troops with various training standards.
Read AGAIN my sources about the Qin army. Do you know what an average means? Median? Mode? Standard deviation? Bell curve? Skewed curve? Control for quality, and then the average can be increased or decreased. The Qin army had production systems to control for quality. If you had read my previous sources you would have figured this out.
Look at the weight classes.... In the 3 heaviest classes China didn't even place and only 1 Asian did.
Once again, your provincial brain missed my point that regular people can be trained to use a powerful composite bow.
Notice how these guys Olympians could lift enormous amounts of weight. They could surely handle a 90 lb to 160 lb composite bow, or more. Regular people with training can handle a 90 lb to 160 lb composite. Notice how Mongols did it. Go to Mongolia and check out Mongolian people. Then compare to China. Check out their genetics. No wait, I'll save you money, time, and effort. There are already studies on this. Look them up. Notice how Mongols and Chinese have very, very similar genetics (G-E-N-E-T-I-C-S. Ji-ne-tics. Genetics). They can and have a long history of using powerful bows and xbows.
There is zero evidence than ancient vs Greek/Roman or Medievil vs Mongol that the archers could penetrate the heavy armor worn by Europeans at anything but close range.
Once again, your provincial brain screws you over. The shooters were close and far enough to effectively hit-and-run. Read up on previous sources talking about Mongol hit-and-run. It worked as a leading weapon.
1. I never said the bow was inferior, i said it was only effective at close range.
2. sources already provided
3. I never said all bronze was superior to all Iron.
4. master archers throughout history have done without rings- it is not needed to be master archer. Did a bit of research, and the reason the thumb ring is used is because of the Asian thumb draw style. Europeans use a 3 finger draw and don't need to protect the thumb.
Well, I continue to bear witness to your limited reading comprehension skills. Maybe it has something to do with your genetics, because there are scientific theories and laws proving specific genes in organism's genome play critical roles in the phenotype of intelligence. It's not all environmental factors. Oh, uh, Inframan is big words again!
Again I repeat myself.
1. Close range = close enough to hurt and far enough to keep a distance from being easily hacked or stabbed. Mongols in Europe, Parthians using their composite bows against invading European army, Turks, and ancient Persians vs Xenophon's ancient European army. Hit-and-run with good bows have good results. Parthia? Sogdiana? Turks? Mongols? Powerful composite bows with hit and run? Penetrating armor and shields?
2. Read again. Your sources are outdated about ancient mines. My source is up to date about newly discovered ancient mines, and the author researched various factors on the change of bronze to iron, not one provincial factor.
3. We were talking about ancient bronze compared to ancient iron. You know ancient bronze? Ancient iron? Adjective + Noun? Modifier + Subject/Object? Reading comprehension? Critical analysis? Ahhhh, so that's what those wacky symbols in front of you mean.
I said bronze, overall, was inferior to iron. You said the opposite: bronze had good hardness and good softness; iron was too brittle; thus bronze is better than iron. Then you cherry picked good bronze vs poor iron from a provincial collection of societies to prove your point.
Did liberal-sympathy in education standards donate you high GPAs? Did someone tell you you were special, so you think every idea and every nonsense that comes out of your head and mouth is profound?
It's horrible how much America has degraded its high school diploma and bachelor's degrees over time to make sure as many people as possible have one even if they don't deserve one.
4. You are off topic. We were talking about shooting rings, and you said some crap that shooting rings were for "hasty raised" people and shooting w/o rings was for "trained professional archer"(whatever crap that means). I said shooting rings help with improving the draw, the hold, and release (obviously with proper training).
By the way, trained professional archer? That's like saying high-temperate, hot object; or the decisional decider possessing decisiveness decisively decides on decisions. Uh, uh, Inframan is using confusing words again! Here, try these: feline cat. Canine dog. Meat-eating, carnivorous predator, uh wait, my bad. Forget that last one. It has too many big words. You link reinforcing adjectives to clarify a vague point or for artistic expression.
Then I gave you video and document evidence that shooting rings have benefits effectively used by effective archers of the past (Mongols and Turks) and of today, and shooting rings require more training than some techniques without rings.
Then I told you to argue with experts on shooting rings and composite bows. I want to see that debate. Still don't see it (note how the colloquial language is understandable here).
Can you make 1 post without a logical fallacy please. That the Europeans preferred melee does not mean their missile weapons were inferior. It means the style of warfare they chose worked for them in thier setting. In the see saw of history no Asian army ever penetrated as far into Europe as European Armies penetrated in to Asia. Missile troops maneuvered into melee die. The Romans burnt the Persian capitol 3 times! No Persian solider who wasn't a salve or a diplomatic Guard ever even saw Rome.
Once again your provincial brain leads to straw man arguments. I never said ALL Europeans lack of good ranged caused them to emphasize melee. We were discussing specific cases. In general, it could have been the other way around. It could have been due to other factors. Correlation does not equal causation. Get this through your provincial mind. Correlation does NOT equal causation. Big words. Seek help of dictionary and textbooks. To learn how to use them, talk to your intelligent classmates, teaching assistant, or professor.
Notice how ancient Middle Eastern and Central Asian empires with evidence of good bows and hit-and-run tactics were able to defend themselves against invasions from ancient Europeans. Read the previously listed sources again. REMEMBER how we have been discussing the effectiveness of good composite bows and xbows.
And who marched from where to where? Alexander reached India vs Asian bows and Rome reached Basra. Persia could not even occupy all of Greece.
Again I say, show me evidence these enemies of Alexander used good bows with good hit-and-run tactics.
Alexander never fought against the Parthians who lived in another time period and who had composite bows of unknown draw weight and hit-and-run attacks. Note how 9,000 Parthian soldiers effectively used their good bows with hit and run to pierce European armor and defeat a much larger army even though they were only protected by 1,000 heavily armored soldiers against at least 36,000 Europeans who primarily used melee warfare. 10,000 Europeans were able to escape. Concentrate on good bow, arrow, mobile range, armor, and penetration.
Do you know what an invasion is (hint: human rights)? Just because you invite someone to invade America does not make it a non-invasion or a welcoming ceremony. If the US president commits treason and invites people to invade America, it is still an invasion. The US colonials were invaded by Great Britain when the US colonials declared independence. Tell historians and true American patriots this wasn't an invasion because the British royalty owned Americans and their land. Listen to their response. OK, understand? Do your utmost to pass this second lesson: learn about the invasion of human rights, such as privacy. Class dismissed. Go do your homework.
Notice how the Persians had to get close. That the Cretans were overmatched could by numbers not range. As far as range is concerned all we know is that it was farther than hand range, but references to actually penetrating armor all all accompanied by a close range reference. If the retrateatign parthians had killed (ie defeated the armor of the hoplites) Xenophon would ahve said killed their pursuers. he didn't he said wound which implies what it means wounds not killing.
Again with your brain limitations. Read Xenophon's whole story (which I provided in my previous statements), or my previously provided quotes straight from his book. He clearly wrote the Greek javelin throwers, slingers, and archers had inferior RANGE than the Persian slingers and archers, which is why the Greeks hired overrated Rhodians who were more of a gimmicky one-hit-wonder than a reliable, effective tactic to out-shoot Persian slings and archers.
Still no proof that ancient European mobile, ranged weapons equaled or surpassed good composite bows and crossbows. Still no proof that good bows/xbows could NOT penetrate European armor at advantageous distances. Notice how they were close enough to do signifcant damage, yet far enough for hit-and-run.
You said you were a student of the Univ of Central Arkansas or something like that with multiple bachelor's degrees and high GPAs, thus your tuition gives you access to most or every library in the US, and vast Internet resources. The US has an vast collection of books from the past to today. Go do a search.
From now on, I am going to ignore anything you say that is provincial, cherry picking, a straw man argument, or flat out stupid.
