Turkish Bow best in world

[mehmeTcc]

I don't know it is feasible or not, but I have fantasies about reviving Old Turkic Script and integrating it to Modern Turkish.

Come on, isn't that looks cool?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Indeed turks had the best bows in the world.this combination of superb bows and good horses ,plus a cavalry and archery tradition inherited from steppe days were a major factor for turkish victories during the middle ages.
At the battle of nicopolis 1396 bayezid's jannisary archers caused huge losses among the crusader knights with their bows behind stakes.

 

[Targon]

Alienoz

Well , there is a spesific kind of composite bow too commonly called as Turkish/Ottoman bow.

BordoEnes

Stupid westerners sometimes thinks all steppe nomads are Mongolians.

 

[kobiraaz]

yes why not mongol bow?? As far as i know Mongols used this kind of composite bow first made of animal ligaments?? Mughal raiders from north also used this type of bow against local army!

 

[Targon]

As I said there is a spesific kind of composite bow called Turkish bow and the first post is mainly about it.

About the Mongol thingy, its all because stupid westerners mistaking steppe peoples=Mongolians, Mongols were not even around when Turks and other steppe peoples were riding around, shooting their composite bows, until the period they united and rose, they were mostly small vassals of the Turkic dynasties.

 

[TR.1]

Atillas army was before any mongols was ruling, mongols was badass soldiers but they acted dumb and their empire was so short, but most of the commander's in the Mongol army was Turkish and he incorporated Turkish law because mongols didn't have laws which was a big problem.

 

[Targon]

Atilla's army was a mix of many different peoples, he united a very huge area. success was a problem for all steppe dynasties, thats why most of them were short living, no most of the commanders were not Turkic but yes they had Turkic soldiers and commanders too in their armies.

Over nationalism is bad.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Attila's army was a federation of turkish,magyar[current hungarian] bulgar and avar tribesmen.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Attila's army was a federation of turkish,magyar[current hungarian] bulgar and avar tribesmen.

Add Slavs, Alans, Germans as well.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

yes slavs and alns definitely.though he fought against germanic tribes too.

 

[Targon]

Turkics, Finno-Ugric speakers, Proto Mongols, Slavs, Germanics, Caucasians, even the remnants of Iranian nomads.

 

[TR.1]

Atilla's army was a mix of many different peoples, he united a very huge area. success was a problem for all steppe dynasties, thats why most of them were short living, no most of the commanders were not Turkic but yes they had Turkic soldiers and commanders too in their armies.

Over nationalism is bad.

over nationalism ? wtf are you talking about you should go and play robocop and watch cartoon little boy . your should leave these places for people who know ill show you know how dumb you are , whatever i said is from a professor who is known as one of the best proffesors of turkish history dumbass.

We should put a filter to filter out the kids and low IQ cartoon kids.

this guy knows even proper chinese just to read proper archives . he knows chinese , english , russian , french and all types of turkish languages .

Prof. Dr. Ahmet Taşağıl
Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Bölümü

 

[Targon]

Don't waste your time bro, all of your claims are stupid and has nothing with real history, everybody with an amount of historical knowlodge knows that, you're just making yourself look more stupid(nothing new, you're always doing this by stupid natioalist arguments)

If you seriously claim success problem was something spesific to Mongols, or Huns were entirely made up from Turks, or most of the commanders of Mongols were Turkic, there is someone really dumbass, either you, or that professor, not everything proffessors says are true, in many cases political stances of proffessors largely effects their claims, I have these kinds of proffessors in my university too, although I think that guy not claimed any of these, thats just what you understood from his talkings)

 

[TR.1]

So what your saying is true and mine and where i got this information from which are people who spent more than 20 years researching wrong? a person who has cartoon pictures talking to me about history ? no go and play toys.

 

[Targon]

You have your own brain right ? can't you research yourself ?

The claim is Mongols were dumb because they had success problems and short living, then why most of the Turkic dynasties had the same problem ? even in the Islamic period until the establishment of Ottoman success system ?

Another claim is most of the commanders of Mongols were Turkic, according to what ? vast majority of the known commanders of Mongols were ethnic Mongols, simply check the campaigns of Mongols, there was some Turkic commanders and bureacrats too.

Another one is Huns were entirely Turks, explain please, are the remnants of Huns in Eurasia(which were a mix of Uralic, Iranian, Turkic, Slavic elements) came from sky ? or the accounts of Slavs, Germanics, Caucasians fighting in the Hunnic armies fake ?