User talk:Richard Keatinge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--Elkman 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you were attempting to do with the Bicycle helmet article, but you deleted the lower half of it, including the categories and interwiki links. Please be more careful. — Jun. 18, '06 [17:10] <freak|talk> (embarrassment, got muddledRichard Keatinge 12:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
Contents |
[edit] Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish bow knot by Tirion Keatinge.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you uploaded the same image twice: as Image:Turkish bow knot by Tirion Keatinge.png and also as Image:Turkish bow knot by Tirion Keatinge.PNG. The latter copy of the file has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 17:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD: Geoffrey Sampson
I have proposed the Geoffrey Sampson article, which I created a few weeks ago, for deletion. As you have edited it, I thought you might like to know. You may wish to comment here: [1]. Regards, ElectricRay 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Composite bow
Hi, Richard Keatinge. I realised your work on the article and decided to ask for your advice. I added an information on Kurgan traditions related with the composite bow but later decided to remove it [[2]]. I'd like to have your opinion on that. E104421 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Composite bow
Hi, Richard Keatinge. I realised your work on the article and decided to ask for your advice. I added an information on Kurgan traditions related with the composite bow but later decided to remove it [[3]]. I'd like to have your opinion on that. E104421 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work and thanks for asking. My feeling is that this is mostly good stuff, but when I remove items already covered elsewhere in the article or in e.g. the thumb ring article, there is a lot less. Such items might include:
Among the steppe peoples this asymmetrical design appear to be limited to the Huns the West we draw bows with three fingers in the "Mediterranean draw." In the East, by contrast with the West, bows were drawn with the thumb, locked under the first three fingers. The thumb was protected by a ring of bone, horn, ivory or even stone. As a result, in the West the arrow is shot from the left side of the bow, while in the East it is shot from the right.[1]
(may be relevant, but the thumb draw can be locked with one, two, or three fingers. Leather tabs were most usual according to the author of Arab Archery. Also the identity of Huns with asymmetric bows is not clear at all.)
- - The Scythians used small trilobate arrowheads and later adopted larger trilobate ones, probably to pierce the armor of the Sarmatians with whom they increasingly came into conflict before being displaced from the Black Sea area by the second century BC. Hun arrowheads are leaf-shaped as were those of the Mongols. Steppe warriors used bone arrowheads across the centuries. Ammianus Marcellinus, writing of the fourth-century Huns, says: "What makes them most formidable of all warriors is that they shoot from a distance arrows tipped with sharp splinters of bone instead of the usual heads . . ," (Ammianus Marcellinus, 31). Arrowheads of steppe tribes were generally attached by a tang sunk into the arrow shaft rather than by a socket fitted over the end of it as was done in the West, though early Scythian and Sarmatian metall arrowheads used sockets, and later changed to the tang, probably to ensure that the shaft split after striking a target to prevent its being shot back. Arrowheads with tangs may have been suggested by bone or horn arrowheads, which had to be affixed this way.[1]
(This Hildinger doesn't seem to have used a bow much himself. I'm not trying to insert OR, but tangs don't split arrows and - despite Ammianus - bone arrowheads are not superior to metal.)
- - Because the steppe warrior had great mobility on the battlefield and such an ability to cover distances in a short time, the military style of these peoples was one of wide-ranging, quick conquests and an unwillingness to come to grips with an enemy until victory was certain, in contrast to the Western armies that preferred to fight at close quarters and relied on the shock of their attack. The Western knight's actual technique dewscend back to the Sarmatian methods learned in the N.Pontic steppes, a mailed rider charging with a heavy lance, but this steppe technique fit in well with the Western preference for shock combat. Still, when this style of warfare met that of the nomad horse archers the effect could be terrible.[1]
(Often said, but the couched lance depends on stirrups, and has rather little to do with composite bows.)
Central bowstave was cut from maple, cornus or mulberry wood. The wood was in five sections joined together with fishtail splices about three and a half inches long. In the winter, when weather was cool and humidity higher, horn from long-horned cattle was glued to the belly of the bow, and it was tied into an arc against the shape it would be drawn into to create a recurved shape. The bow was dried for about two months. Then was applied sinew from legs of cattle, which is more important for the bow's performance than the horn. These sinews are beaten into fibers that are then soaked with glue and applied in two layers on a warm day. The bow is tied again into an even more extremely recurved shape with a cord holding the tips together and tied to the handle of the bow and dried for another two months. In extreme recurving, the horn plates of the two limbs meeting at the center of the handle slightly separate. A small shim of hard wood or bone called in Turkish "chelik" is inserted here.[1]
(On the above, I get the impression that Hildinger is perhaps a rather simplistic text; he is giving details that may be accurate for one source, but, to nitpick, the V-splices are not as far as I know found in early composite bows; many forms of wood are suitable although the Turkish bowyers preferred those mentioned; many forms of horn are suitable but that of most long-horned cattle is not; sinew can be applied in two or more layers; extreme recurving is not found in all composite bows; cattle sinew can be used but so are the sinews of other ungulates, and the chelik is fairly specific to the Turkish bows.)
some four millennia ago, uses different materials to withstand tension and compression. composite bow is of three-part construction: a thin central stave of wood is laminated with sinew on the back and horn on the belly. Their production was elaborate.[1]
There is also a certain amount of material which I would think not directly relevant to the bow article itself, and might fit in better in other articles:
- Kurgan traditions are indelibly connected with the "Scythian" cap, that first appeared not only in Greek literature, but also on Greek pottery and goods made by Greek artisans for sale on the Black Sea steppe, a felt hat that came to something of a point which usually fell forward, and a favorite weapon of the mounted horsemen, the bow[1]. The army of steppe warriors moved three or four times as fast across the countryside as their opponents, even if they were outnumbered. The steppe warrior, mounted on his tough pony and trailing a string of remounts, could effectively threaten a significantly more numerous enemy by relying on his speed alone, and his speed was only one of several advantages he held over sedentary peoples. Steppe peoples rode geldings and mares.[1]
Domestication of horses naturally leads to the development of horse furniture. The Scythians are generally credited with making the first saddles with any real support.[1]
There is no solid evidence of stirrups use by steppe people, at least in the West, until the Avars seem to have introduced them in the sixth century. As a result, the Byzantine or East Roman cavalry adopted stirrups at that time.[1]
- - Steppe warriors had wonderful mobility on their ponies, and a wonderful weapon, too: the bow.
When the bow has dried, comes the tillering, or adjusting of the bow so that the limbs curve uniformly when drawn, until the bow arms are adjusted to bend evenly at full draw. Failing this, the bow would not shoot accurately.
- Strips of thin leather were applied in diagonals to cover and waterproof sinew. Now the bow was finished and would exhibit qualities that made it superior to the self bow. It was mechanically superior. Sinew has a tensile strength four times that of wood, and horn has a compressive strength about twice that of hardwood. Composite recurved bows are shorter than self bows of any power, and are handier, especially for men on horseback. And, to top it off, the draw weight does not increase proportionately as the bow is drawn further back, as it does in a self bow where the weight "jumps" suddenly at the end of the draw, resulting in the recurved bow being easier to shoot accurately. The composite recurved bow is a markedly better weapon than the simple self bow.[1] (There's already a brief mention at the start of advantages and disadvantages. Sinew and horn are also much heavier than wood. I have no idea where Hildinger could have got the idea about accuracy from. And leather is not always applied; birch bark has been used instead, and the bows are perfectly usable without any sort of waterproofing.)
This leaves a limited amount of material that might improve the article:
Scythian bows were rather short and tended to an extreme recurved shape, resembling cupid's bows; Mongol and Tatar bows were quite large, over five feet in length. The Hun bow was between 130 and 140 centimeters long and asymmetric: the upper limb was longer than the lower.
Recurved composite bow took a good deal of work to make, and was a valuable weapon. When bow pieces are found in the graves, they are not from a single bow, but are mismatched pieces of different, broken bows. Serviceable bows were not buried with their owners.[1]
(Usually, that's true, but there are a couple of probably-intact bows from Hungary.)
Elaborate rules of thumb were developed for the use of composite bows, formalizing what a steppe warrior learned from his fellows.[1]
I hope this helps.
- Hello, Richard Keatinge. Thanks for your detailed analysis. These paragraphs were actually prepared for the Kurgan article. However, the article is not developed enough to insert a new section on the composite bow. In addition, the composite bow article is more informative than the edits form Hildenger's book. Since i'm not an well-acquainted with the topic, i though these paragraphs would fit the composite bow article well. Yes, you're quite right in your evalution that the Kurgan tradition related parts were not suitable for the composite bow article either. Futhermore, as you already pointed out, Hildenger's book is confusing. I realised this after reading your comments and the composite bow article in detail again. I think it would be better to insert a brief paragraph to the Kurgan article on composite bow, and then addressing the composite bow article for the interested reader. Thank you again for your help. Cordial Regards. E104421 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Taxonomy
Saw you making some edits related to Ice Age stuff in the horse articles. You wouldn't happen to know anything about taxonomy, would you? Some seriously anal-retentive taxonomy spats have been going on for a long time over at Equidae and Evolution of the horse and I do not know that particular topic well enough to weigh in. All I DO know is that more footnotes couldn't hurt. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, not really. I just removed a comment that was obviously completely wrong, and unreferenced. Taxonomy is a subject that I avoid. Too much scope for anal-retentive arguments. :-) Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bike Helmets
RK,
Got your message and subsequent reversion. Thanks for communicating. Cheers! SingCal 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
