网帖翻译

Matt Potter
, studied History & Latin American Studies at University of Oregon3y
Because horse archery is not an optimal style of warfare in the majority of Europe.
Let us put this statement sharply into context; a society’s warfare is intrinsically lixed to its culture, its economy, its politics, and its geographical locale, with all of these factors interacting and intersecting. Charlemagne’s military forces were influenced not only by the restrictions of his largely autonomous empire, but also by the past Roman tradition many German societies had adopted. History can have a huge impact in the way warfare is waged, but it is only one of many factors
The horse archery associated with the Mongols was unique in its discipline, which compounded to make their armies especially effective tactically. I could write a monograph detailing why the Mongols were able to overcome many disadvantages of ‘steppe warfare’, but let us examine your focus; horse archery.
In order to produce a high quality horse archer, the chosen warrior must be learning to ride by about the time he can walk. He must become intimately familiar with horsemanship and horse care, so that he can ably minister to his mount even in the most dire circumstance. He must develop the muscles in his back, shoulders, hips, knees, and chest, to properly control a galloping steed while drawing a powerful bow and aiming it accurately. The economic infrastructure required to support this system of training is almost exclusive to nomadic pastorialism. Why? Because in order to produce large quantities of this combatant, he must also be an economic participant.

因为在欧洲大部分地区，骑马射箭并不是一种最佳的战争方式。
让我们把这句话特别突出地放置在背景中；一个社会的战争与它的文化、经济、政治和地理位置有着内在的联系，所有这些因素都是相互影响和交叉的。查理曼的军事力量不仅很大程度上受到他的基本盘自治帝国的限制，而且也受到许多日耳曼社会过去采用的罗马传统的影响。历史会对战争方式产生巨大影响，但它也只是众多因素中的一个
与蒙古人有关的马术射箭的训练是独一无二的，这使他们的军队在战术上特别有效。我可以写一本专著，详细说明为什么蒙古人能够克服"草原战争"的许多缺点，但让我们看看你的重点：马术。
为了培养高素质的马术射手，被选中的战士必须在会走路的时候就开始学习骑马。他必须对骑术和马匹的护理非常熟悉，这样即使在最危急的情况下，他也能熟练地照顾他的坐骑。他必须发展背部、肩部、臀部、膝盖和胸部的肌肉，以正确控制一匹奔跑的骏马，同时拉开一张有力的弓并用它准确地瞄准对手。支持这种训练体系所需的经济基础设施几乎是游牧民族的专利。为什么呢？因为为了大量生产这种战斗人员，他也必须是一个经济参与者。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

A horse archer has little to no real place in a settled farming community. In the roving steppe, however, he is perfectly suited. He can hunt, he can defend his family, he can herd his flocks, and he can escape ably should he need to.
In comparison, a knight living in 12th century France was similar. He was a valuable member of his lord’s mesnie, an administrator and steward, a tourney participant, a legal witness in court, and a social pillar for legal cases.
Geography is important, because geography is a significant factor in how societies develop, morph, and change. Economic survival is the primary motivator for societies; feeding yourself. In mountains, mining communities dig for coal, iron, copper, tin, and a hundred other minerals, then trade for food from their neighbours, while simultaneously growing their own crops in what land they can.
Do you see? Europe does not have the economic backing for horse archers. Even the warrior-class of the medi nobility were based on a settled agrarian community. A valid question is to ask why did the nobility of western Europe overwhelmingly favour heavy armour and melee proficiency over light armour and archery?

马弓手在定居的农业社区中几乎没有什么地位。然而，在漫无边际的草原上，他是完美适应那里的。他可以打猎，可以保卫自己的家庭，可以放牧羊群，而且在需要的时候，他可以很好地逃跑。
相比之下，生活在12世纪法国的骑士也是如此。他是他领主的一个重要成员，行政官和管家，是骑士大赛的参与者，是法庭上的法律证人，是法律案件中的社会支柱。
地理很重要，因为地理是社会如何发展、变形和变化的一个重要因素。经济生存是社会的主要动力；养活自己。在山区，采矿社区挖掘煤、铁、铜、锡和其他上百种矿物，然后从邻居那里换取食物，同时在他们能够种植的土地上种植自己的农作物。
你看到了吗？欧洲并没有支持弓骑兵的经济模式。即使是中世纪贵族的武士阶层，也是以定居的农业社区为基础的。一个更有效的问题是，为什么西欧的贵族们绝大多数都喜欢重甲和近战，而不是轻甲和射箭？

The answer is that European warfare was very, very different to steppe warfare. While the vast plains of Russia, Lithuania, and Hungary still lend themselves to a modified form of horse archery, once we hit west of the Pannonian Basin and the forests of Poland, it rapidly loses its military edge. In these forested, mountainous, river-covered lands, heavy armour is vastly more useful, because closing with the enemy is far more likely. Defiles, ravines, passes, river fords, and hill crests mean that ambushes and simply stumbling into the foe is incredibly likely. Road systems developed between cities that meant the easiest way to move was along these well-trodden paths; running headlong into your foe. Furthermore, Germanic and Iberian military traditions were founded on Roman and Greek ideals of heroism; this dovetailed with the previous notion to create a warrior elite that saw the ideal fighter as up close, personal.
Yet, at the same time, the horseman has his place, because while the steppe is wide and sweeping, it lacks truly high quality ‘horse country’. That is, arable land that produces grass consistently, year round, and doesn’t go fallow in a few seasons of grazing. Areas such as Lower Holstein, Picardy, Andalusia, and to some extent Aquitaine, are bountiful economically; here you graze a lot of horses year in, year out. Infact, you can breed broad-chested horses.
All these factors interlock. Good horse country, generally, separated by significant mountain ranges, large areas of hilly terrain, morphed with a fundamentally agrarian society, with many societies focused the idea of a ‘warrior elite’ supported by a working peasantry. Thrown into the mix is the historical context of Rome and Greece, idolising melee combat.
Horse archery just does not work as well in Europe. Furthermore, on its own, horse archery generally doesn’t work. The Mongolians used the classic tactic of ‘softening up’ with their light cavalry, before picking a point in the enemy line and smashing through. Their better generals relied on the mobility of the troops to stretch out and isolate parts of the opposition, then use combinations of their light and heavy elements to smash the foe piecemeal. This is seen at Liegnitz and at Kalka, the use of mobility and combined arms to break melee opposition of great ferocity.
But how effective is a mounted horse archer against, say, this?

答案是，欧洲的战争与草原战争非常、非常不同。虽然俄罗斯、立陶宛和匈牙利的广阔平原仍然适合采用改良的骑马射箭战术，然而一旦我们进入潘诺尼亚盆地以西和波兰的森林，它就迅速失去了军事优势。在这些森林、山地、河流覆盖的土地上，重型装甲的作用要大得多，因为与敌人进行接触战的可能性要大得多。隘口、峡谷、山口、河道岔口和山顶意味着伏击和跟敌人面对面厮杀的可能性极大。城市之间的道路系统的发展，意味着最简单的移动方式是沿着这些良好的路径一头撞上你的敌人。此外，日耳曼和伊比利亚的军事传统是建立在罗马和希腊的英雄主义理想之上的；这与前面的概念相吻合，就创造了一个战士精英群体，他们认为理想的战士就是要武器碰武器，一对一。
然而，与此同时，骑士在欧洲也有自己的位置，因为虽然草原宽阔无垠，但它缺乏真正高质量的"马国"。即，可耕地一年四季都能持续产草，并且在放牧的几个季节不会休耕。诸如下荷尔斯泰因、皮卡迪、安达卢西亚，以及在某种程度上阿基坦等地区，在经济上是富饶的；在这里，你可以一年到头放牧大量的马匹。事实上，你可以在这些地方培育出高头大马。
所有这些因素交织在一起。这些好马之乡总的来说被重要的山脉、大面积的丘陵地形所分隔，与基本的农业社会相融合，而这些社会又都很注重由有工作的农民支持的"战士精英"的想法。再加上崇尚近战的罗马和希腊的历史背景，就更是如此了。
骑马射箭在欧洲并不那么好用。此外，就这个战术本身而言，骑马射箭一般不会奏效。蒙古人使用的经典战术是用他们的轻骑兵"诱敌"，然后在敌方阵营中选取一个点进行猛攻。他们更好的将领则依靠部队的机动性来分割包围对手的一部分，然后利用轻重元素的组合来将敌人各个击破。这在列格尼茨和卡尔卡战役中都可以看到，利用机动性和联合武器来打破非常凶猛的近战对抗。
但是，一个骑马的弓箭手在对抗比如说下面这玩意儿的时候能有多大效果？

This is Carcassone, and it is far from unique. Against this, a horse archer is not militarily effective; he requires men who can scale ladders, trebuchets that can hammer at the walls and towers, sappers who can dig trenches up to the walls, and experienced melee combatants to exploit a breach.
Would a nation of horse archers have changed the nature of the Mongol invasion? Say, the invasion under Batu and Subetei in 1241? Yes. There would have been another battle where the Mongols utterly annihilated their opponent. The Mongolian war machine was FORGED in steppe warfare. It was hammered into shape by the Merkit, the Naiman, the Tartars, the Tayichi’ud. After Khwarezmia, Jebe and Subetei decisively defeated the Cumans, the Volga Bulgars, the Qipchaks, and the Alani. Indeed, fighting the Mongols at their own game was obxtively militarily insane.
I hope this goes some way to explaining your question. I think it is a very good question, and one that requires examination of historical notions such as geographic determinism. I’ve tried to iterate that geography was one of many factors that effected the way warfare was waged, but it must be stated that I have made many generalisations in this answer - for this I apologise. Certain societies buck the trends I outline in this post, but I have tried to focus on the societies of France, Germany, Poland, and Northern Italy in the mid 13th century.
At the heart of it is the fact that people adapt to the world they live in. Horse archery was an adaption to the great Eurasian steppe, not Europe.

这里是卡尔卡松，它远非独一无二。面对这座城堡，弓骑兵在军事上并不奏效；他需要能够攀登梯子的人，能够锤击城墙和塔楼的投石机，能挖壕沟的工兵，以及经验丰富的近战格斗者来利用突破口。
一个由弓骑兵组成的国家会改变蒙古人入侵的结果吗？比方说，1241年拔都和速不台领导的那次入侵？是的。会有另一场不同的战斗，在这场战斗中蒙古人将彻底消灭他们的对手。蒙古人的战争机器就是在和蔑儿乞人、乃蛮人、鞑靼人和泰赤乌人等草原部落的草原战争中千锤百炼锻造出来的。在灭亡了花剌子模之后，哲别和速不台又决定性地击败了库曼人、伏尔加保加利亚人、钦察人和阿兰人。事实上，在蒙古人擅长的领域中与他们作战，实在是一种疯狂的军事行为。
我希望这能在一定程度上解释你的问题。我认为这是一个非常好的问题，而且需要对地理决定论等历史概念进行研究。我尝试说明地理是影响战争方式的许多因素之一，但必须说明的是，我在这个答案中做了许多概括性的解释--对此我表示歉意。某些社会与我在这篇文章中概述的趋势背道而驰，但我试图把重点放在13世纪中期的法国、德国、波兰和意大利北部的社会上。
总的来说，核心是人们适应他们所生活的世界。骑马射箭适应的是欧亚大草原，而不是欧洲。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Ahsani Hafizhu
What about the huns? They wrecked europe using horse archers.

匈人怎么说？他们用弓骑兵摧毁了欧洲。

Mandalia Hardy
Probably euro-centric counter argument is forests didn’t grow and Romans can’t build fortifications of any kind.

用欧洲中心论的观点反驳就是森林还没有长出来，罗马人无法建造任何形式的防御工事。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Regolo Gellini
Remarkable work for which I thank you . While the historical facts you mention explain just about everything the Mongols were good at, you omitted to delve into the technology of the Mongols . Perhaps on purpose :)
I mean their particular arc, which was composite and therefore shorter and far better suited to horse archery than the long bow. Again, many thanks for your exposé that really filled in my scant knowledge of the subject .

我感谢你的杰出工作。虽然你提到的历史事实解释了蒙古人擅长的一切，但你忽略了蒙古人对技术的深入研究。也许是故意的:)
我指的是他们特殊的弓，这种弓是复合的，因此比较短，比长弓更适合在马上射箭。再次感谢你的回答，你的回答确实填补了我在这个问题上知识的匮乏。

Balazs Bernath
Very educative answer, congratulations! Some minor remarks:
River Danube is a major divider, kind of ‘End of the World’ seen from east and west alike. Climate, terrain, vegetation is very different the two banks. Romans have built the limes of province Pannonia along the Danube long before the Mongols. Of course Romans could lead short raids east of the Danube but the area was not appropriate for their lifestyle and most importantly they could not secure it.
Later nomadic Hungarians moved to west until the end of their world, but they could not conduct nomadic life west of the Danube. Of course Hungarians could lead raids west of the Danube and they did so regularly during the 10th century, but they could not occupy the territory. And in the 11th century they had to adapt their lifestyle for survival.
Interestingly two centuries later when the Cumans fled from the Mongols and sought asylum in the Hungarian Kingdom their nomadic lifestyle led to many conflicts with the then settled Hungarians.
The Mongols raided Europe twice but they did not conquer it. And soon the remedy was found and widely used in Europe: Fortification.
Note, mounted archer tradition did not vanish fast, Hungarian light cavalry used bows until the 16th century. But it was not their main weapon any more and did not help against the Mongols.
Indeed, climate, geography, flora and fauna are the mold for any culture and its warfare. E.g. Vikings could settle on Greenland during the brief Medi Warm Period, but did not adapt and perished when the Little Ice Age kicked in. Inuits, however, have seen them arriving, flourishing and dying.

很有教育意义的回答，祝贺你！你的回答很好。不过我有一些小意见。
多瑙河是一个主要的分界线，从东边和西边看对面都像是"世界的尽头"。两岸的气候、地形、植被都非常不同。罗马人早在蒙古人之前就在多瑙河沿岸建立了潘诺尼亚省的边境墙。当然，罗马人可以在多瑙河以东进行短期突袭，但该地区不适合他们的生活方式，最重要的是他们无法在该地区确保自身安全。
后来游牧的匈牙利人迁往西部，直到他们探索的边界，但他们无法在多瑙河以西进行游牧生活。当然，匈牙利人可以在多瑙河以西进行突袭，他们在10世纪经常这样做，但他们无法占领该地区。而在11世纪，他们为了生存不得不调整了自己的生活方式。
有趣的是，两个世纪后，当库曼人逃离蒙古人并在匈牙利王国寻求庇护时，他们的游牧生活方式导致了与当时已经习惯定居的匈牙利人的许多冲突。
蒙古人两次突袭欧洲，但他们并没有征服欧洲。而且欧洲很快就发现了补救措施，并广泛使用，即：防御工事。
注意，骑马射箭的传统并没有迅速消失，匈牙利轻骑兵在16世纪之前都一直使用弓箭。但这已经不是他们的主要武器了，在对付蒙古人的过程中也没有什么亮点。
事实上，气候、地理、植物群和动物群确实是任何文化及其战争模式的塑形模子。例如，维京人在短暂的中世纪温暖期可以在格陵兰岛定居，但没有适应，在小冰期开始时就灭亡了。然而，因纽特人却可以在当地见证他们的到来、繁荣和死亡。

Sebastián Arboleda
This is quite true, and the best example of this are the Magyars. They started off as steppe warriors but as they settled into the puzsta and Christianized, they pretty much became another standard European army. Adapt or die.

非常正确，其中最好的例子是马扎尔人。他们一开始是草原战士，但当他们在普兹塔定居并信仰基督教时，他们几乎成了另一支标准的欧洲军队。所以说，要么适应，要么消失。

Richard Rotella
Very informative review. I have been to the Great Wall of China several times. Long stretches of this phenomenon extend on the crests of undulating mountains, along some of the most inhospitable terrain for horses imaginable….steep 75 degree rocky slopes, covered with thick brush and brambles. How an invading Mongol cavalry could ever get close to the foot of the Wall, let alone carry out a siege boggles the mind. Indeed there were many gaps in the Wall through which horsemen could gallop, but there are also miles of Wall that appear to be a labor in vain, since the mountains themselves are already a natural barrier. Could you please explain why the Wall was not built along flat “horse-friendly” land. The Chinese could not have been that clueless.

非常翔实的评论。我曾多次去过中国的长城。它在起伏的山峰上延伸，沿着一些对马来说本来就难以通过的地形修建，比如....陡峭的75度岩石斜坡，覆盖着茂密灌木和荆棘的地方。入侵的蒙古骑兵本来就难以接近长城脚下，更不用说进行围攻了，所以这实在是让人摸不着头脑。的确，长城上有许多空隙，骑兵可以驰骋其中，但有几段很长的长城似乎是在做无用功，因为山脉本身就已经是一个天然屏障了。你能解释一下为什么长城不是沿着平坦的"适合骑马的"土地修建的吗。中国人不可能那么无知。

Matt Potter
What we now think of as the Great Wall was constructed by the Ming Dynasty, the direct successors to the Mongol Yuan Dynasty. They were built to prevent invasion and to reinforce the narrow passes to prevent unmounted combatants from scaling these peaks.
Furthermore, the Mongol Invasion of Jin had several instances, notably the Battle of Yehuling, where terrain deemed impassable and inhospitable to horses was scaled by them to achieve tactical surprise. Mongol horses are able to clip through snow to reach the grass beneath, making them able to reach some areas deemed impassable - though the slopes you describe are obviously impassable to any man.
Lastly, it was a matter of prestige. The image of huge segments of wall perched atop skyscraping mountains is daunting today, but in the 14th and 15th centuries, it was a fundamental declaration of the power of this new dynasty.
The Great Wall of China was, from what I was taught, not purely a practical structure, but one heavily steeped in the culture of China. It was a seal of approval, a statement of intent. Security, permanence, divine mandate.

我们现在所认为的长城是由明朝建造的，明朝是蒙古元朝的直接继承者。它们的建造是为了防止入侵并巩固几个狭窄通道的防守，以防止未骑马的战斗人员攀登这些山峰。
此外，蒙古人入侵金国时有几个例子，特别是野狐岭之战，被认为是无法通行和不适合马匹的地形被蒙古人翻越，达到了战术上的出其不意。蒙古马能够穿过雪地到达下面的草地，使它们能够到达一些被认为无法通行的地区--尽管你所描述的长城所在的山坡显然是任何人都无法通行的。
最后，这是一个威望的问题。今天，巨大的墙段矗立在高耸的石岭之上的形象令人生畏，但在14和15世纪，它是这个新王朝权力的基本宣言。
从我所了解的情况来看，中国长城并不纯粹是一个实用的结构，而是一个深受中国文化熏陶的结构。它是一个认可的印章，一个意图的声明。安全、永恒、天命所在。

Quanicus
Why build a wall along flat horse-friendly land? That just invites attack by the horsemen while you build the wall. Also, why rely on a natural mountain range which can be scaled? If you’re going to use a set of mountains as a defensive at all, you must have some kind of fortified structure on top of it.

什么要在平坦的适合马匹的土地上建一堵墙？这只会在你建造城墙时招致骑兵的攻击。另外，为什么要依赖那些可以攀登的天然山脉？如果你打算使用一组山脉作为防御，你必须让它难以翻越。

Matt Riggsby
MA Archaeology, Boston University
Horse archery is a perennial Central Asian thing. It wasn’t just the Mongols who did it and did it well. It’s everybody who came sweeping out of the plains of Asia every now and again: Scythians, Parthians, various flavors of Huns and Turks.
The answer is largely rooted in geography. There’s a large expanse of Asia which isn’t great for agriculture and forests which could provide construction materials (relatively long, cold winters, and fairly dry as well), so urban societies were slow to grow up there. This left those grasslands free for horse-riding nomads. There was enormous room to graze herds of horses, and hunting was a common pastime, so everybody living there was fairly naturally both an experienced rider and an experienced archer.
Europe, on the other hand, is rather more broken up by mountains, hills, and rivers, and the climate is pretty good for agriculture. It’s pretty good for the development of settled and urban societies, so that’s what grew up there. Horses were relatively rare and expensive because they competed with land which could be farmed and support a large population.
Settled societies in places like Europe, China, and Persia were often vulnerable to fast-moving, skilled mounted archers out of Central Asia in the short run, but they won anyway. Not because they won the wars, but because they won the peace. When those mounted archers took over, they’d put themselves on the top of the heap of whatever place they conquered, and over the course of a few generations, they’d be absorbed. When the Mongol empire shattered at the end of the 13th century, rulers of three of its four major divisions eventually converted from Tengrism, their native religion, to Islam, the majority faith of those places, and the Yuan dynasty ended up becoming as Chinese as any other. Central Asian mounted archers were a formidable military force, but couldn’t stand up to the cultural might of the nations they conquered.

骑马射箭是中亚地区的老传统了。不仅仅是蒙古人擅长。时不时总有人从亚洲的平原上冲出来。斯基泰人、帕提亚人、各种各样的匈人/匈奴人和突厥人。
这个问题的答案在很大程度上取决于地理环境。亚洲有大片不适合农业和提供建筑材料的森林（相对漫长、寒冷的冬天，而且相当干燥）生长的土地，所以城市社会在那里发展缓慢。这就为骑马的游牧民族留下了这些草原。那里有巨大的空间来放牧马群，而且狩猎是一种常见的消遣方式，所以生活在那里的每个人都很自然地成为了经验丰富的骑手和射手。
另一方面，欧洲被山脉、丘陵和河流所分割，气候对农业相当有利。它对定居和城市社会的发展相当有利，所以这就是那里的发展趋势。马匹相对稀少和昂贵，因为它们要与可以耕种和支持大量人口的土地竞争。
欧洲、中国和波斯等地的定居社会在短期内往往容易受到来自中亚的快速移动、熟练的骑射手的攻击，但最终他们还是赢了。不是因为他们赢得了战争，而是因为他们赢得了和平。当那些骑马的弓箭手接管时，他们会把自己放在他们征服的任何地方的顶端，在几代人的时间里，他们会被吸收。当蒙古帝国在13世纪末瓦解时，其四个主要部分中的三个的统治者最终从他们的本土宗教--腾格里信仰改信伊斯兰教，而伊斯兰教是他们征服之地的多数信仰，元朝最终也成为了与其他任何中国王朝一样中的一个。中亚的骑射手是一支强大的军事力量，但无法抵御他们所征服的国家的文化力量。

Ismail C
Interested in history
Mounted archers were common form of warfare in Steppes ever since Scythians. It was not a Mongol invention. Most of the Mongol military tactics and war styles were known in Asia ever since Xiongnu.
However, Steppe warfare was suitable only far open fields where horses could run freely. Only Ukraine and Hungary were suitable for steppe warfare in Europe. That is why all nomadic people invading Europe were centered in Hungary.
Forget about Europeans shifting to mounted archers, nomads shifted to infantry armies in Europe. Best example is Ottoman Army. Ottomans were a nomadic tribe and their army was mounted archers in the beginning. They had to change their army to an infantry dominated army when they started fighting in Balkans.

自斯基泰人以来，骑马射箭就是草原上常见的战争形式。这并不是蒙古人的发明。大多数蒙古人的军事战术和战争方式自匈奴以来早就在亚洲广为人知了。
然而，草原战争只适合在马匹可以自由奔跑的开阔地带进行。在欧洲，只有乌克兰和匈牙利适合进行草原战争。这就是为什么所有入侵欧洲的游牧民族都以匈牙利为中心。
先不说欧洲人转向骑射手，游牧民族在欧洲也转向了步兵军队。最好的例子是奥斯曼军队。奥斯曼人是一个游牧部落，他们的军队一开始是骑射手。当他们开始在巴尔干地区作战时，他们不得不将军队改为以步兵为主的军队。