"Our views of Ancient archery wrong?" Topic

I think this might have been posted before, but in case it hasn't:
link

Right or wrong, still a cool video.

Xin

Wow!!!!!!! Thank you for that link!!!!

Very interesting .

I'm making myself a new bow to start training this way. I will let to know in 5 years how it works out :)

That's STAGGERING.

Thanks for that, Xin!

He should have been on one or two Mythbusters episodes I can think of.

Is it really true that the effectiveness of archery depended on the accuracy of the individual archer?

In the 1800's the long pattern Brown Bess was the British infantryman's weapon. By our standards it was not an accurate shot. The actual weapon was not the individual gunner, it was the firing line. 200 men firing their Brown Bess' at once made a very effective weapon.

Same with archery. Was most ancient archery in the ninja style as shown by the talented individual in the video? I would have thought that massed archery was the actual weapon, just as the British firing line, much, much later.quantity has a quality all of its own.

Just a thought.

Another take YouTube link

x42

Holy crap. That is unbelievable. I am rethinking ancient archery for sure now.

I've seen the like several/many times already. Always interesting and impressive how some individuals can increase their shooting skills to a prodigious level. That is not typical, note, "individuals" and "prodigious" are not terms applying to a mass of men, which is what ancmed missile "fire" always was. Even skirmish lines of open order shooters are a mass of men, not the effect of individuals so much. However, the very best shots would be in the front ranks in any army. And when it came to very close-up shooting, they would be deadly indeed. Volley shooting is much, much slower than such individuals are trained for. And when the target is too close for effective volley shooting, that is when the individual shooter comes into his own, shooting "at will" as fast and accurately as he can….

I am with Bowman on this. It was an kill zone area affecr weapon.

Two thoughts:

First, when it comes to wargaming, much depends on scale.
Yes, granted, when it comes to massed ranks, long-range area-denial shooting is the order of the day and individual rapid-fire skills like this are not relevant to the overall effect.
BUT – equally, at a 1:1 skirmish level, an archer with Mr. Andersen's skillset would be nothing short of devastating.

Second, reservations about the lack of power (&, therefore, armour penetration) – as pointed out in the Schola Gladiatoria video – are really only applicable to eras and cultures where the use of armour and/or large shields was commonplace.
There are plenty of settings from Biblical to Colonial warfare where this sort of rate-of-fire would be a hugely significant factor.

WOW – unbelievable.

I kept trying to spot tricks or special photography, but this is truly awesome.

Thank you for posting the link – I've already watched it twice and expect I'l go back to it again.

Tony

Individual archery has always been a theatrical skill, from India to Europe to Asia, to Africa, to the western plains of the USA… firearms took this skill away.

I'm happy that some are recreating the art of archery. But still it isn't necessarily ground breaking as ancient combat revelations go… everybody knows that extreme martial individual skill does not equate to massed armies…. and these skills were written about in India, long ago.

Samurai armies are neither all Samurai-- and especially not all ninjas .. and yet hobbyists seem to continue to breed that mythology, that their shooting is so much more accurate and faster than any other. It's more individualized, that's for sure..

Romans subjugated individual prowess to the team killing power of the legion-- to the point where gladiator legions supposedly fielded of the best hand to hand fighters simply were butchered by veteran frontier legions.

Mr. Anderson's Saracen tactics do prove why western knight had so much trouble with them, as well as any army that had to deal with Skythians, Saka, or any of the other dozens of tribes of famous steppe horsemen with bows… including the Dakotas…..

@ Bowman--

You know the story how British conservative politicians wanted rearm British light troops with longbows instead of wht they felt were ridiculously expensive rifles in the Napoleonic Wars?? Sharpe's Bowmen….

Great post. I've seen it before but it's always amazing.

One thing I wonder about that video. In a lot of the shots there does not really seem to be much power in the shot. Now with a sharp pointy thing I admit you probably don't need much up close, but all those shots are at what – 10 yards?

When looking at use in war at distances of 50-100 yards seems it would be a different kettle of fish…

An arrow loses a LOT of energy with range and, at the kind of ranges he is shooting at, a man with a shield and sword or spear is likely to survive long enough to get him.

As a skirmishing skill this would be very useful, on the battlefield with men all around you, useless.

As to the Syrian 'arrow storms' the narrator refers to, Crusaders report their effects as minimal.

Nice video and great skills.

However, I am Bowman and others that it doesn't translate at all to ancient armies in the field. He'd be a useful man to take along on foraging parties, and for some skirmish work, but otherwise, he's have no real impact on the battle.

As gamers, we field armies of maybe a few hundred minis at most. However, ancient armies had thousands of men, and archers could be field in groups of a hundred or more, where their massed fire was more inportant than individual prowess.

The arrow storm was designed so much to kill, but to hopefully wound some, and mostly to disrupt deployment, maneuver, etc. The literal showers of arrows could also cause a morale failure amongst lower quality troops, cavalry, etc, and if they panicked and fled, it would likely disrupt the main bodies of infantry behind or alongside them.

I think with few exceptions in historical contexts, most bows were not very good against people who had a fairly large shield and at least a helmet for armor.

Thats why we see societies that we know valued archery as a skill not really use many archers in battle, such as the Mediterranean civilizations. Against a shield wall or phalanx they just are not very useful because a lot of the bows employed were fairly light and could not stand a reasonable chance of hurting the fellow with the shield or body armor, and the helmet protected the head fairly well.

Still these civilizations did value archery as a skill as seen in many contexts, and some of them had very powerful bows, such as was shown in the Odyssey where other warriors could not even string Odyssey's bow, but I think these were mostly for the countless skirmishes conflicts have that are never recorded, and siege type events, and not for the proper battle where Javalin armed skirmishers would be much more effective against troops with armor and shields.

I assume that bows used for area saturation quickly ran out of arrows. Logistics…

Thats why we see societies that we know valued archery as a skill not really use many archers in battle,

Except, of course, the English …

I was waiting for the longbow segment too.

You know the story how British conservative politicians wanted rearm British light troops with longbows instead of wht they felt were ridiculously expensive rifles in the Napoleonic Wars?? Sharpe's Bowmen….

Not politicians. This whole thing is based on letters to the Times by a couple of elderly country vicars with too much time on their hands, too much 18th Century university education, and no concept of modern warfare.

As noted his rapid fire and shooting on the move would seem to be more appropriate to skirmishing or horse archery.

Don't really see a unit of foot archers running, jumping, hanging upside down, etc. in the middle of a battle line.

Amusingly what archery I have done was with the arrow on the hand side of the bow. Shows how little I knew…

Pretty sure most archers hit on a 4+, but the Str vs Toughness, not to mention armor save, will reduce the overall effectiveness.

Ok, I'll stop.

According to what I've read, for medieval "arrow storms" of the type used by English longbowmen in the HYW, the archers pushed the bowstave away, rather than drawing the bowstring, and had arrows lightly stuck in the ground next to them, as opposed to drawing them from a quiver.

This supposedly increased RoF significantly.

English longbowmen in the HYW, the archers pushed the bowstave away, rather than drawing the bowstring,

They would probably have both drawn the string back AND pushed the stave away in one smooth flowing motion.

He's shooting low poundage bows, 30-35lbs, to get that speed. Amazing it certainly is, but it would be interesting to see what he could do with a 60lb or higher bow.

He's certainly an impressive trick shooter, but I don't think much of what he says really impacts how we should view ancient shooting. It puts a different spin on Hollywood shooting, but as others have said bow fire in battle was very different to the sort of shooting we see Lars doing.

He's shooting low poundage bows, 30-35lbs, to get that speed. Amazing it certainly is, but it would be interesting to see what he could do with a 60lb or higher bow.

Excuse my ignorance. I assume that a higher poundage bow imparts more kinetic energy on the arrows. So if you are shooting at medium armoured enemy at a suitable distance, I assume the 60 pound bow will be more effective?

Plus, he does not draw the 30-35 pound bow back all the way to get more power. He is going for speed. I would think that it would be more difficult to do this with a 60 lb bow because of the additional strength needed to draw the bow. He claims that he gets decent penetration power against chain mail at a very close distance.

He's a very skilled trick shooter; this has no real practical application on the battlefield.

It certainly makes Legolas's archery more believable.

The shield surfing or Mumakil trunk sliding is another story.

Xin

Bowman – yes, in essence the heavier the draw the faster and farther the arrow goes. I'm not sure what a typical poundage would have been for a horsebow in antiquity but more than 35lbs for sure. A medieval longbow would be 100+ in a military context. And as others have noted he's shooting at targets only 15 ft away.

In regards to the basic question, I would have to say "Yes they are wrong". So many examples of variations from mechanics used in different rules.
Viking examples include several examples of Vikings using powerful 'longbow' ranges is their ship to ship combat. So did the English and Welsh get the longbow concept from the Vikings among them? Always and intriguing question to me.
The native American tribes had several recorded situations of longbows powerful enough to be 'longbow' rated.
In Desoto's expedition, when fighting the Chickasaw and Choctaws, a native arrow is recorded as penetrating the Spanish soldier's leg, passing through the saddle blanket and wooden saddle; to finally wound the horse.
The Texas located Cado tribes hunted buffalo on foot and used 6 foot bows to kill them. A charcoled sharpened/hardened arrow capable of penetrating the thick hide of a buffalo at more than 40 yards.

Grozer bow's website (they make tradotional style horsebows) says Magyar/Turkish bows would have pulled 55-90lbs, so double what Lars Anderson is using.

Yes, a 30-35 lb. draw-weight bow is a relatively weak bow, typical of target bows intended for older children and adult female casual archers. It's pretty much what you get from your bottom-of-the-line fiberglass target bow. Range is short and arrow velocity is low… not that you'd want to be on the receiving end of the shot! But the thin, foam targets he uses reveal the weakness of the power; a typical modern hunting bow would likely send the arrows completely through those flimsy targets, whereas his are stopped almost immediately.

Having said that, his skills are impressive, especially his shooting on the move at moving targets. The guy practically is Green Arrow!

Time to get out my own old crappy fiberglass 35 pounder and see what I could learn to do…

I know in some places hunting regulations require at least a 40 lb bow to hunt big game.

My son has a 35 lb bow, and it is fun to shoot. It is better to start on a low poundage bow and develop good fundamentals before moving to a bow with a higher draw weight. Shooting a 60 lb bow is not easy, it takes a lot of practice you must develop the proper muscles to be able to shoot successfully.

I've been watching this more, and Lars Andersen can sacrifice a bit of speed, use a heavier bow, and gain the deadliness of a full impact energy shot. Nothing else that he does is sacrificed with a "warbow" of 70 to 80 pounds, which is sufficient to kill and wound effectively in war. I would guess that his rate of shot with a "warbow" is about half his highest "showing off" rate of shot. Big deal! We are still talking about getting off some half a dozen arrows before your normal archer can shoot and reload. And as good at pinpoint accuracy as he is, he wouldn't even need a "warbow" up close. Anyone who can split an incoming arrow can put a rapid series of arrows into brainpans right through the eye sockets….

We are still talking about getting off some half a dozen arrows before your normal archer can shoot and reload.

Given that a "normal" archer could shoot 10-12 arrows a minute, are you saying that Lars could shoot half a dozen arrows in 5 or 6 seconds with a 70lb bow?

At c. 4:30 in the video, he puts three arrows into the chest of a moving manikin. Big arrows, heavy bow at full draw, thus a slower rate of shot. So, yes, an arrow every second. He shoots even faster than that….

Another point. It is similar to the problem that modern infantry can only carry about 200 rounds of ammunition on them. So if they go blazing it around as quickly as possible, they run out of ammunition in a manner of minutes.

Even with some reload carts handy, firing off a ton of light arrows, at something less then full strength, and needing something on the order of 1000 arrows per archer to keep the barrage going, seems a bit problematic.

Another take on the archery video…

link

jfleisher,

I am unsure if the author of the linked article even watched the film, or some of Lars's other films.

He is super critical of Lars accuracy, questioning if he could even hit a target at 20 feet. The fact that there are parts of him shooting targets at a healthy distance for a bow (and shooting them quickly too), he also demonstrates remarkable accuracy, such as splitting an arrow on a knife, while moving, or turning to shoot another arrow out of the air, while its coming at him, or putting three arrows in three different foam skulls eye sockets while moving pretty quickly.

This linked article is mean spirited and reads like something written by a jealous child who is upset at the skill level possessed by this individual, rather than an actual critical review of his abilities.

It also makes a great number of inaccurate claims, and is generally poorly written.

Anyway, on the subject of the English, the Longbow existed in England for probably thousands of years but it only played a significant role in English warfare for about 300 years.

The English valued individual marksmanship, much like the Mongols, and many of their archers were very proficient marksmen. This, combined with an era where men at arms did not commonly use large shields contributed, I think, greatly to their success. Lighter armed troops also did not have shields commonly because of the requirement for a heavier two handed weapon such as a Bill to defeat armored troops, or a pike to keep knights at bay.

Traditional archery which called for volleys of arrows is not very effective against pike men or against knights, but an arrow fired directly at an armored target by a very powerful bow can cause serious damage even if it can not get through the armor just because of the force involved. and English archers were renowned for their accuracy.

So the English Longbow became as popular as it was in England because it was a very effective tool in the hands of the English for a very specific and over all pretty short period of time.

Anyway, on the subject of the English, the Longbow existed in England for probably thousands of years but it only played a significant role in English warfare for about 300 years.

ONLY 300 years!!

This, combined with an era where men at arms did not commonly use large shields contributed, I think, greatly to their success.

The only large shield suitable for use while mounted was the kite shield favoured by the Normans. As armour technology improved and mail was replaced (partially at first and finally by the 15th century, fully) the size of the shield decreased. Thus the men at arms did not have reduced protection from arrows.

Traditional archery which called for volleys of arrows is not very effective against pike men

Tell that to the Scots at Halidon Hill (1333) and Homildon Hill (1402).

Traditional archery which called for volleys of arrows is not very effective against knights,

And tell THAT to the French at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt!

It also makes a great number of inaccurate claims, and is generally poorly written.

What claims does the article make that are inaccurate?

OTH Halidon Hill was decided by a long fight at close quarters after the Scots had moved down a steep hill, crossed a bog and advanced up a steep hill. Following their route tired me out pretty thoroughly and I was carrying nothing heavier than a DSLR camera.
It's easy to get carried away with longbow romance; there are n't that many longbow victories (and who's even heard of Dupplin, which is a really impressive one). Most fighting in England, France or Scotland was carried out by parties of mounted men-at-arms with not an archer (or other infantryman) to be seen, which perhaps explains why – despite the longbow – the English lost their wars in France and Scotland.

OTH Halidon Hill was decided by a long fight at close quarters after the Scots had moved down a steep hill, crossed a bog and advanced up a steep hill.

On Halidon Hill:
"the Scots who marched in the front were so wounded in the face and blinded by the multitude of English arrows that they could not help themselves, and soon began to turn their faces away from the blows of the arrows and fall."
Lanercost Chronicle

there aren't that many longbow victories (and who's even heard of Dupplin, which is a really impressive one).

I've heard of Dupplin Moor, but of course, that battle was really between two rival Scots armies than between Scots and English. "In this battle…more were slain by the Scots themselves than by the English. For rushing forward on each other, each crushed his neighbour, and for every one fallen there fell a second, and then a third fell, and those who were behind pressing forward and hastening to the fight, the whole army became a heap of the slain." (John Capgrave)

I've already cited the most famous warbow victories at Crecy, Poitiers and Agnicourt.

Most fighting in England, France or Scotland was carried out by parties of mounted men-at-arms with not an archer (or other infantryman) to be seen, which perhaps explains why – despite the longbow – the English lost their wars in France and Scotland.

The battle of Castillon that sealed the fate of the English in France and finally closed the Hundred Years War was lost because of the effective battlefield use of artillery by the French.

In the Wars of the Roses, there were very few instances of men-at-arms fighting mounted. Most of the time they fought on foot supported by archers and billmen.