A war of bows and arrows in the heart of Kenya's crisis
These are some pictures I found on the internet under the above heading about the civil war that erupted in Kenya some time ago, showing a battle between armies of light infantry, archers.
[attachment=7123]battleI.jpg[/attachment]
These are the Masai skirmishers swarming down the hillside.
[attachment=7124]battleII.jpg[/attachment]
These are the Kalenjin skirmishers charging up the hillside.
Because of the projectiles, the warriors are not fighting in a close ordered mob (latin drungus) or wedge formation (Latin cuneus, formation said to have been used by the Celtic and Germanic warriors) but in extended order, because an archer (or a javelin-thrower) could not have missed such a crowd even if shooting with his eyes clsed.
It may look like theatre, but it was deadly warfare, people getting killed every day.
Maasai in the old days were famous spearmen. They would have considered bow-and-arrow fighting to be beneath their dignity. And where are their shields? I know the British colonial authorities banned shields, but surely they should have been revived as symbols of national pride by now. Thureophoroi should not fight as mere saggitarii. How the mighty have fallen!
Any way you look at it, whether in the 1st or the 25th Century, an arrow through the carotid is the end of your line. I didn't see any guns, but maybe I overlooked it. I did notice that there were very few arrows in each archer's possession. If I were one of them, I'd want a big bunch of projectiles, wouldn't you?
Maasai in the old days were famous spearmen. They would have considered bow-and-arrow fighting to be beneath their dignity. And where are their shields? I know the British colonial authorities banned shields, but surely they should have been revived as symbols of national pride by now. Thureophoroi should not fight as mere saggitarii. How the mighty have fallen!
John, when I was in Kenia, the Masai I saw around the lodge and in the photo-opp village carried shields, had the oranje loincloth and dreadlocks and were armed with the huge bladed spears. Very unpractical when carrying the suitcases of the tourists.
However, the Masai guides that guarded our more humble tents and the herders that guarded the cattle nearby looked like the Masai on these photos, in worn western cloths and colourfull woolen blankets. They were heavilly armed, not with the heavy spears but with peculiar "corkscrew" javelins of square diameter, not with shields but with bow and arrow, and usually with a machete or an ax stuck in their belt.
Shields, they told me, are essential for fighting lions, but they were more concerned with robbers and cattle-rustlers.
Nobody told them that the bow was a servile weapon. Your assumption that this weapon would have been beneath their dignity is based on what? Hellenocentrism perhaps?
By the way, not guns were used according to the article. Guns are around in the North because of nearby Somalia, but most Kenians are fortunately too destitute to own a gun.
When I was in Kenya in the mid-80s I saw a few Maasai with the small "dancing shields," but not the big, old-fashioned war shields. I bought one of the old spears with a blade like a Mycenean sword. It's in my office as I write this. I was told that in the old (pre-colonial) days the Maasai would never have used the bow, which they identify with the hunting tribes. The Maasai were strictly cattle herders and raiders and they despised anyone who hunted or farmed. Well, they pretty much despised everybody who wasn't Maasai. The other people consider the Maasai insufferably arrogant and think it's funny that they're such tourist favorites.
Quote:Any way you look at it, whether in the 1st or the 25th Century, an arrow through the carotid is the end of your line. I didn't see any guns, but maybe I overlooked it. I did notice that there were very few arrows in each archer's possession. If I were one of them, I'd want a big bunch of projectiles, wouldn't you?
I think that hunters have often carried just a few arrows, because it is more convenient than a big quiver and is sufficient for taking animals one at a time. So possibly most of them didn't own a big war quiver and a big bundle of arrows?
Nullis in verba
I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
So what do they do when their 3 or 4 arrows have been launched down range? I guess they might be able to pick up the enemy arrows and send them back---
I was told that in the old (pre-colonial) days the Maasai would never have used the bow, which they identify with the hunting tribes. The Maasai were strictly cattle herders and raiders and they despised anyone who hunted or farmed.
John, I am sorry, I stand corrected.
My suspicion was aroused by the fact that, outside of Europe, I have never encountered this concept of the bow as a servile weapon. It would be remarkable if the morality of the Greeks would fit so well with the morality of the Masai.
I saw a bow in the ethnographic museum of Rotterdam with the caption "Masai bow, 19th century", and that made me wonder. Did you ever read King Solomon's Mine by H. Rider Haggard? It includes a battle-scene between two armies of spear-armed African warriors, obviously inspired on the Zulu warriors. The battle is the glorious grand massacre the 19th century romantics believed ancient battle to be, with two phalanxes of spearmen mowing each other down without either party giving in. I suspect such romanticists projected such perceptions of ancient Greece on both the Zulu and the Masai, and that made them so famous among the Europeans. Perhaps now, the formerly colonised proudly repeat these projections of the colonists, just like the West African ideal of the nègritude is in fact a thinly veiled ethnic stereotype created by the European colonial powers to justify their exploitation of the Africans. So perhaps this notion of exclusive spearmen was originally cooked up by romantic Hellenophile British.
I did see large, convex shields, at the lodge. They were all damaged by lions. I was told that, when the Masai teenagers were no longer allowed to hunt lions to prove their manhood, they would squat under these large shields, with a spear in their hands. A lion would pounce and be caught on the spear and the boy would say that the lion started it. When the governement no longer bought this story, they proved their manhood by placing a stone on a rhino's back, but just then they had run out of rhino's. So when we went to Tanzania, I saw the teenagers hanging around in bars in all their finery, looking for trouble, just like teenagers everywhere else.
Eduard,
That is a very interesting idea, and I think you may be onto something. The whole idea of exclusive tribal practices may be European in origin. In shops and museums I always saw the massive, Mycenean-looking spears like mine labeled "Maasai warrior spear," while the similar but more attenuated spear with its leaf-shaped point was labeled "Samburu spear," yet I saw members of both tribes carrying both types of spear when out guarding their livestock or just lounging around (something they do a lot).
Early explorers of East Africa mention encountering Kikuyu warriors looking much like Maasai: wearing the red kilts, hair dressed in hundreds of elaborate braids and dyed red with ocher, but armed with the traditional Kikuyu weapons: short spears and bows. I suspect that the Kikuyu imitated the Maasai simply because they thought it was a cool way for warriors to look, much as Kelts and Germanics in border areas adopted each others' style and dress. Or else the Maasai have retained customs once widely practiced.
Yes, I read "King solomon's Mines" and Haggard's even better (in my opinion) "Allen Quatermain" which features actual Zulu and Maasai. Haggard was pro-Zulu, so they were noble warriors while the Maasai were bloodthirsty demons. Great Victorian boy's adventure stories, but not to be confused with reality.
