Why didn't the disdain for bows held by European chivalry develop elsewhere? It's not like social classes were exclusive to Europe or the feudal system.
>“When we look back upon Western warfare as it was before the introduction of firearms, of the differences we see, the one which most boldly stands out is the precedence of valor over cunning. It is out of valor that European history rises: the spear and the sword, and not, as in Asia, the bow and arrow, are its symbols. The bravest and not the most crafty are the leaders of men, and it is their example rather than their skill which dominates the battle.”
Because it's stupid
>>1154126
Bigger dicks
>>1154126
Pretty sure it started with the greeks.
![archers_446[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1govRsB.jpg "archers_446[1].jpg")
>>1154126
What disdain?
>>1154126
>Why didn't the disdain for bows held by European chivalry develop elsewhere?
A supposed "disdain" for bows is often anachronistically interpreted into the medieval mindset. Bows play a big part in English nationalism, with their victories at Agincourt and Crécy being heavily romanticised, and the victory of the English over the French also being often seen as a victory of the common man over the aristocracy, in the form of the bow taking down the armoured knight. And retroactively a disdain for bows is claimed to have existed among the 'stupid' aristocrats who fought for honour and silly chivalric ideals while the 'smart' commoner fought with whatever worked to get the job done properly. Historically, it wasn't seen that way though, and the effectiveness of missile weapons against armour is generally overestimated. If you were properly armoured you were quite well protected against arrows. Arrows were a much greater threat to infantry than to heavy cavalry. And aristocrats had no dislike for bows, crossbows and firearms. On the contrary, hunting was their most popular past time and for that they needed all kinds of missile weaponry and we have plenty of them remaining from the collections of rich princes who used them for hunting at some point or merely collected them as fancy items. A preference of European aristocrats for fighting as heavy cavalry stemmed from the fact that it worked well under European battlefield conditions and was generally the most prestigious way of fighting as it required the most expensive equipment and the most elaborate training.
>>1154126
Cultural.
>>1154225
Good answer. Upboated
>>1154225
Also, heavy cavalry cut a stunning figure on the battlefield and would often be used in decisive, glorious charges.
>>1154209
>What disdain?
This one:
>At Crécy in 1346, the historian Jean Froissart records a similar tale of mounted knights and men-at-arms hurling themselves in disorderly passion against the English archers who, having created havoc in the small killing zone of the French knightly vanguard, enabled the lowly English foot soldiers to move in for the kill. “In the English army there were some Cornish and Welsh men on foot, who had armed themselves with large knives, these advancing through the ranks of the [English] men-at-arms and archers, who made way for them, came upon the French when they were in this danger, and falling upon earls, barons, knights, and squires, slew many, at which the king of England was exasperated.” Knights were meant to kill knights; underlings were not. It was not only a breach of battlefield decorum but also a threatening rupture of the social order.
A king literally upset that his own "base villeins" are killing an enemy above their social class
>>1154306
It's because there were tacit rules of chivalry in the middle ages that dictated to limit aristocratic deaths and generally take them in for ransom.
At Crécy and Azincourt England, for the first time, broke the rules of chivalry, and to add insult to the injury took no prisoners and killed them all.
>>1154126
There was no disdain for bows among European nobility. Most learned how to shoot one from an early age just as they learned how to wield a sword or tilt with a lance.
The disdain being discussed in this thread was about the lower class archer himself because of his lower class, not because he was an archer.
>>1154306
First of all it's important to note what the actual quote is (which is also a translation - and thus should be generally distrusted).
>“In the English army there were some Cornish and Welsh men on foot, who had armed themselves with large knives, these advancing through the ranks of the [English] men-at-arms and archers, who made way for them, came upon the French when they were in this danger, and falling upon earls, barons, knights, and squires, slew many, at which the king of England was exasperated.”
This is a rather neutral description of what happened. The rest of the text however offers a lot of interpretation which doesn't stem from the quote itself. Apparently the English King wasn't too happy about what happened, but whether this was because of a "disruption of social order" is questionable.
Not to mention that this doesn't even say anything about archery.
>>1154306
Froissart wasn't there.
>>1154126
Because it didn't exist. Europe was absolutely in love with the crossbow, and the English STILL masturbate to the longbow.
because it's something far older than feudalism
>>1154652
no one denies that they were used. but they weren't loved, most professional warriors saw it as a cowards weapon, no matter how common they actually were.
>>1154355
>There was no disdain for bows among European nobility
There may not have been a disdain for bows, but there has always been an affection for swords in among Europeans, rather it be in art or literature or fantasy
>>1154734
That's not something unique to European nobility of course. Even cultures that prized the bow romanticized swords and lances.
>>1154734
Which is not peculiar to Europeans
You try being a one trick pony cavalryman in the East. See how that works out for your noble ass.
Hence nobody in Asia looked down on archery.
>>1154368
Why would he be displeased otherwise? Honest question.
>>1154126
Europeans have higher T than chinamen and thus disapprove of womanly tactics
>>1154723
>most professional warriors saw it as a cowards weapon, no matter how common they actually were.
Prove it. Plenty of professionals made their living as mercenaries with crossbow and longbow, and central europe came to raise fucking crossbow cavalry.
>>1155101
Possibly because they were worth ransom money and it was generally looked down upon murdering people whom you could also take prisoner. In any case, there's a lot of interpretation from a modern perspective into a single line. All we know for certain is that he wasn't too happy about it, but to turn this into some sort of medieval class war is pure speculation with little basis. Not to mention that this still doesn't have anything to do with archery because the text specifically tells us that the men emerge from behind the men-at-arms and archers carrying long knives - there's not one bit about archery.
>>1154191
This the disdain for bows in European warfare come from the Greeks who thought that bows were "unheroic" because their style of warfare was highly ritualized which involved champions calling out enemy champions to duel them in the battlefield.
>>1155140
Do you have any historical text to back that up? In the Iliad for example, people are praised for their skill at using the bow.
There's also a popular misconception that because the church attempted to outlaw the use of crossbows and longbows in wars between Christians at the Second Lateran Council of 1139, that its evidence for western contempt of missile weapons, but they also wanted to outlaw tournaments, something the nobility themselves cherished.
>>1155358
Wasn't that to do with limiting the number of accidental knight deaths at tourneys?
>tfw you will never be an exasperated king trying to control his rowdy knights
>>1154126
>Why didn't the disdain for bows held by European chivalry
Because thats a meme your high school history teacher told you
>>1154306
It says low born people killing Knights is a disgrace, not archery, hence talking of the daggers.
I wish Romantics would leave this board forever.
>>1155108
subreddits like /r/asianmasculinity suggest that the modern asian has lower test, however historically many asians were high test like guan yu
I think it might have more to do with the sedentary modern lifestyle and diet
The same reason Samurai held guns in disdain
>>1155162
>In the Iliad for example, people are praised for their skill at using the bow.
It was in ye olde times (bronze). The only place where that attitude survived were Rhodes and Crete.
>>1155785
Did they ?
>>1155712
>It says low born people killing Knights is a disgrace
It doesn't even say that. That's a modern interpretation. All we know is that the King wasn't happy, why he wasn't happy is something we aren't told by the source itself.
Otherwise you're right of course - no talk about archery.
>>1155768
In that specific text examples the archers aren't held responsible for this though. Not to mention that this still doesn't have anything to do with archery.
>>1155802
Then there must be some surviving text examples where a disdain for archery is shown. As far as I know, most ancient cultures held archery in high regards.
