Talk:Parthian shot

Parthian shot

Your image is not a Parthian shot, which is done shooting away from the riding direction. What you show the archer is shooting forward. the Parthian is well documented in post-Parthian, Iranian manuscripts. Source: C. Zutterman, The Bow in the Ancient Near East, A Re-evaluation of Archery from the late 2nd Millennium to the End of the Achaemenid Empire, IrAnt 38, 2003, 119‒166, esp. 141. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C2:23C2:F201:E8BE:BE94:6A5E:8FC3 (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Psrsian shot: D. Head, The Achaemenid Persian Army, London, 1992, fig. 21b.

Cataphracts?

"This tactic was used by most Eurasian nomads, including the Scythians, Huns, Magyars, Turks and Mongols, and it eventually spread to armies away from the Eurasian steppe, such as the Byzantine cataphracts and Sassanid clibanarii." Can anyone provide a citation for this tidbit? It seems to me that both of those units would be too heavily armored to do much rotation of the body in the saddle. --Quuxplusone 07:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Parthian shot?: see Plutarch, Lives, Crassus, 24-25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C2:23C5:9E01:5889:24A3:14E4:FE0B (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC) nearly forgot: the image does not show a Parthian shot which is made during a geigned retgreat. The archer shoots backward, i.e. over the horse's croup.

saddle not invented?

The photo caption says the saddle had not been invented; this is patently untrue. The Romans and Celts against whom the Parthians fought at Carrhae had saddles; I'm betting the Parthians, whose gear in many ways was superior, did too. Perhaps stirrups are meant? But see Bill Thayer's note to the entry "Ephippium" from Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities," here. This is in relation to a depiction of a Parthian horse on a Roman coin, which suggests the Parthians may even had had stirrups. See also this page. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Chronology?

"If chronology were to be the source, it would appear that the English usage of "parting shot" actually preceded the use of the phrase "Parthian shot"."

What in the world besides chronology should be the source of what preceded what in time? GeneCallahan (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Statements consisting only of original research may be removed." God forbid that any intelligent, educated, objective individual be allowed to share observable facts with others. How did this pompous, pseudo-academic policy become part of Wikipedia? And how on earth does WikiP think that discoveries are made? Should all research be secondary? In what universe would that be possible? An appalling and grossly anti-intellectual policy.

It's not "anti-intellectual". It's to stop people who don't know what they're talking about filling up Wikipedia with stuff they "know" is true or "heard someone say". Actual historians, linguists, and other intellectuals are free to examine primary sources and reveal their findings in reputable publications. Wikipeadia editors can then report their findings - making clear who said it and where, so other readers can then check that they actually did say what has been written here. Iapetus (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Uyghurs

In Mahmud al-Kashgari's Dīwān ul-Lughat al-Turk (a medieval dictionary of his Turkic language) this tactic has been mentioned: "when Alexander approached the land of the Uyghurs, he encountered with 4,000 khaqan soldiers who could shoot both ahead and back ..." --Z 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dubious Etymology

The etymology that parting shot is derived from Parthian shot lacks a citation in the text, and is apparently not supported by the evidence: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/parting-shot.html. For the time being, I have only added the {fact} tag, but it should probably be removed. JustinBlank (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadly parting shot redirects here, to add to the confusion. Greglocock (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)