A new(?) look on archery

[Mediolanicus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-...yt-cl=84503534

Stumbled into this. Found it very interesting. His technique is based on old texts and imaging.

[Dago Red]

Before I ever saw this guy, these techniques were discussed here in the Broken Crescent forums, in regards to accounts of Ghulams and other professional soldiers speed and accuracy with the bow in the middle ages. European accounts corroborate this, describing the fury with which the early crusaders were showered with arrows. Though disciplined and armored men took few casualties, the number of arrows and the short ranges at which they were fired could easily send "units" into disarray and set them up for defeat.

[prosperin]

I wouldn't say that those arrows really would do any damage to a crusader in a mailvest and gambeson like was suggested in the video. His shots that pierced it all were near point blank head on. Even if it did peirce, it would just be like a little pinch to the skin.

Shooting like that, with weak draw bows would only have been good for unarmored people since it's barely stronger then a hunting bow. Comparing that kind of firing to the typical longbow which Americans/british are familiar with in films, it's not the same in the slightest. The longbow had 4-7x the draw strength. It basically shot flying logs at people.

[Dago Red]

I would tend to agree, though the video tries to explicitly sate otherwise. We know the Turks of Rum practicing rapid shooting styles like this had great effect on the unarmored horde that preceded the first Crusade (absolutely massacred them), but once the more organized professional army arrived a year later the arrow showers and faints only had a terrorizing mental effect, without causing enough casualties to win them any major battles. The game effects for mods like BC can be such that some units can put out a tremendous rate of withering fire, but are only effective at harassment at longer ranges, though significant kills add up in close quarters, especially against opponents with no shields/armor.

For EB's time frame it would be cool to see some elite archers -- eastern ones at least -- have this taken into some account. The firing speeds are in general very good, I would just look at upping speeds for elites without lowering their accuracy at all.

[MIKE GOLF]

The video does make one reconsider the way historical archery was conducted, especially by those in the east who specialized in its use.

[+Marius+]

The video does make one reconsider the way historical archery was conducted, especially by those in the east who specialized in its use.

Archery was also practiced and perfected in Europe as it was in the East.

The only difference is that Europe did not have those superfancylookahhhtheyaresocooleermahgeed horse archers thus pop culture did not notice them as much(apart from ze longbows of course).

Even in the video(while showing arrow placement and technique), a good portion of the images and depictions they used are from Europe...and I doubt that you could find a decent amount of medieval warfare depictions without archers present.


All in all it is a fancy and flashy technique that is near useless in most battlefield situations and even if present in close skirmishes it would often result in a 15-25 year wait period for a replacement if one of the extremely few arches so skilled was killed.

Battles were hours/days long slow and nerve grinding engagements during which archers would have to preserve their ammunition(which was severely limited in most cases) and not a free for all epic shootout that ended after a couple minutes of choreographed theatrical play melee as hollywood would like you to believe.


We have extensive sources of both crusaders and muslims completely ignoring horse archers while getting shot at near point blank in skirmishes and battles.

Otherwise these kind of engagements would not have resulted in crusaders getting drunk while celebrating;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramla_%281101%29

again, the lighty armed crusader infantry was easily wiped out after which an army of just 260 heavy knights pulverized an armada of 10 000 muslims.

Armor ruled the battlefield, not arrows.

[Dago Red]

We have extensive sources of both crusaders and muslims completely ignoring horse archers while getting shot at near point blank in skirmishes and battles.

Otherwise these kind of engagements would not have resulted in crusaders getting drunk while celebrating;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ramla_%281101%29

They weren't celebrating for long, they were crushed at the second battle of Ramla, and then repeatedly crushed in the ebb and flow of wins and loses over the next couple hundred years -- and we know how it ends. Crusaders lose. I agree that archers were not always as effective as they intended to be, and many sources describe arrows and "darts" being ineffective at deciding battles. Those same sources often describe the terror and mayhem that Turkish archery caused, and other sources depict battles where withering archery was a decisive factor, be they in Turkic, Arabic, Persian, Mongol, or French armies (aka, the Crusader armies).

Also, the Crusaders weren't the most heavily armored fighters on the battlefield. That honor surely goes to the Khwarezm shah, among others, and it didn't help them against the Mongols.

again, the lighty armed crusader infantry was easily wiped out after which an army of just 260 heavy knights pulverized an armada of 10 000 muslims.

Armor ruled the battlefield, not arrows.

This needs a lot of unpacking.... Not all sources say 10,000. Others say 5,000, though either way, it was a "heroic" victory by any measure until you consider the circumstances, whereupon it seems a bit less miraculous. Your use of "Muslims" here is entirely meaningless. The Fatimids out of Egypt is who you're talking about, and they were absolutely nothing like the Turkic peoples the Crusaders had been fighting all the way through Anatolia before finally facing the Fatimids, who were waning badly in power, in the so-called Holy Land. The Fatimids fielded ever dwindling armies comprised of Armenians, Sudanese, Berbers, and Italian/Genoese mercenaries -- none of whom we would overtly attribute as being "Muslim." Many were of course, Arab too, though the core armored bodyguard (just as armored as any European knight at the time) were relatively small in number. More numerous militia and ahdath style levies wore little or none, and were not eager warriors to put it lightly.

These armies were generally poorly lead at this time, and badly organized as the old empire crumbled from within. The Fatimids ceased to exist very soon after this. Such armies are easily routed -- it's not as simple as 2 white knights, red capes billowing in the breeze, hacking apart thousands of infidels in single blows.

Superior leadership, high morale, and sound tactics ruled the battlefield.

[+Marius+]

They weren't celebrating for long, they were crushed at the second battle of Ramla

Yes, because 500 of them insanely charged head on against an army of 20-30 000...

and then repeatedly crushed

If by repeatedly crushed you mean winning every major battle, namely the third battle of Ramla(1105), the battle of Yibneh(1123), the battle of Azaz(1125) and winning nearly every single major engagement until Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn came along...and even he suffered more major defeats against crusaders than he had victories(his defeats, however, rightfully overshadowed by his epic victory at Hattin).

flow of wins and loses over the next couple hundred years -- and we know how it ends.

Irrelevant, come to think of it I find it very strange that you have found a need to denounce crusaders as a victorious army in an argument where I merely stated that heavily armored troops prevailed against more numerous lightly armored armies with loads of archers.

I could have equally given the same argument while citing a different battle in which Muslims carried victory in the same fashion...but something tells me you would not react the same way

Those same sources often describe the terror and mayhem that Turkish archery caused, and other sources depict battles where withering archery was a decisive factor, be they in Turkic, Arabic, Persian, Mongol, or French armies (aka, the Crusader armies).

Yes, the terror, not the casualties.
The archers and horse archers were excellent in destroying morale, discipline and troop formations/cohesion which allowed the main melee force, be it on foot or on horse, to finally deliver the death blow.

Also, the Crusaders weren't the most heavily armored fighters on the battlefield. That honor surely goes to the Khwarezm shah, among others, and it didn't help them against the Mongols.

Well it did help the crusaders since sources describe even simple gambesons/aketons as useful against the composite bow with footmen and archers alike pulling out arrows out of their clothes and continuing about their day.

As usual, I give you one of my favourites, warbow vs gambeson;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso

This needs a lot of unpacking.... Not all sources say 10,000. Others say 5,000,

...and some say 20 000...regardless it was only 260 knights charging at them.

though either way, it was a "heroic" victory by any measure until you consider the circumstances, whereupon it seems a bit less miraculous.

I swear, sometimes I feel that every time I see a crusader victory being brought up for any reason whatsoever, people immediately have the need to minimize it to the minimum veneration possible.

Quite sad actually.

Your use of "Muslims" here is entirely meaningless. The Fatimids out of Egypt is who you're talking about, and they were absolutely nothing like the Turkic peoples the Crusaders had been fighting all the way through Anatolia before finally facing the Fatimids, who were waning badly in power, in the so-called Holy Land.

My use of Muslim here is entirely for the purpose of simplicity, I was talking about the equipment and effect of the archers which were mentioned in said army.
Your need for such needless arguing still eludes me.

The Fatimids fielded ever dwindling armies comprised of Armenians, Sudanese, Berbers, and Italian/Genoese mercenaries -- none of whom we would overtly attribute as being "Muslim." Many were of course, Arab too,

Many Sudanese and Berbers of the time would indeed definitely attribute themselves as being Muslim, as for metioning Italian/Genoese mercenaries in their armies, I sincerely have no comment.

though the core armored bodyguard (just as armored as any European knight at the time) were relatively small in number.

So were the man at arms/knights...

More numerous militia and ahdath style levies wore little or none, and were not eager warriors to put it lightly.

So basically the same as any other European army of the middle ages?

Superior leadership, high morale, and sound tactics ruled the battlefield.

Absolutely

But not arrows though

[Cyclops]

This again? Irrelevant to M2TW and mods, its a guy in a gym doing trick shots with a tiny bow, and lolworthy History Channel quality commentary "forgotten....until now!".

Full lulz for the "why can't I hold all these arrows" scenes outdoors, its a classic infomercial fail.

[+Marius+]

Haha, when the video showed him dropping arrows when having a quiver on his back I expected the narrator to go full "Top-shop" and go;

"Has this ever happened to you?"

[Appius Pulcher]

I think it's a very interesting take on ancient archery, and it shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. Especially not on the grounds of it being a little to infomercial like, and not at all on the grounds that archers would need to conserve ammo. "To conserve my ammo, I am going to use a more cumbersome way of shooting my arrows"... One could might as well argue that archers did push-ups between shooting to conserve ammo.

Also, I don't accept that it would take 25 years to find a new guy able to shoot like this. It might today, but back in the day when shooting arrows was a way to make a living (as a hunter, mercenary or otherwise), it is likely that many would be interested in learning ways to shoot quick volleys of arrows at crucial moments. I don't see on what ground this should be dismissed as being next to impossible to achieve. If someone experienced in archery could explain it to me, I would change my position, but if you are dismissing this merely from the "armchair general" position, then I would say that you are merely making assumptions.

Much like the overhand/underhand spear use, I find it likely that both have its merits. Perhaps different schools of shooting arrows evolved in different places, but right now I haven't looked into the source material enough to establish this.
Either way, all that matters in establishing this, are historical (or archeological) sources. Both ways of shooting are apparently feasible, so if we want to established which was used the most, we have to primarily look at ancient depictions. This was also what was done to resolve the whole overhand/underhand issue. I intent to do this myself when I have the time, hopefully starting later today.

[delra]

This guy reminds me of Spartans in 300, breaking the line to run forward and kill enemies in slow motion.

[Sint]

Well honestly most of his claims are wrong:
Mail:
"the Franks were drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them… I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks."
Bahā’al-Dīn, "The Life of Saladin" (Ch. CXVII), in What Befell Sultan Yusuf, by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi.

"…and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him [Walter of Châtillon] with arrows. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the arrows that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again… Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described."
The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, (Ch.XVII).
Apparently not new or forgotten at all:http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/

And you can see the cut at some points in the video.

[soluuloi]

It's up to debate but the fact that there is no kind of bow that can reliably penetrate thick armors such as plate armor, the use of bow is greatly limited. The bows he used are small but it doesnt mean they are also weak. The Mongol and Turk bows have the same power with long bow but require less draw force thus allowing the archers to shoot faster and still get the same result. Since bow cannot reliably penetrate thick armors, it's best to reduce their choice of target and focus on killing their perfect targets more efficiency. If you cant kill 1 guys in heavy armor no matter what, then at least you can kill 10 unarmored guys in 30s. Also, at long as the arrow hit someone, it's counted. There's no need to kill the target outright, just wound him or make sure he cant fight efficiently is enough. Most death by arrow are from infected wound. Hollywood tactic tent to forget this.

Battles were hours/days long slow and nerve grinding engagements during which archers would have to preserve their ammunition(which was severely limited in most cases) and not a free for all epic shootout that ended after a couple minutes of choreographed theatrical play melee as hollywood would like you to believe.

Crassus thought so and the result was not pretty. However it's more about his fault than the power of bows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

[Satapatiš]

Actually, recurve bows require a similar draw force as longbows of the same strength. Making your bow a recurve does not magically reduce force needed to draw it, it just makes it small and compact enough to be used on a horseback.
But archery was never winning battles through kills.
Even at Carrhae Parthians won by breaking Roman morale, actual number of causalties caused by archers was low.

A weapon killing enemy soldiers en masse isn't always needed to win the battle. If an arrowstorm can stop enemies in their tracks and made them crouching behind their shields, or kill their horses, it's good enough. Archers may not kill too many opponents but it's all aright if they can made killing easy enough for their side or they can rout opponents.

[Sint]

ctually, recurve bows require a similar draw force as longbows of the same strength. Making your bow a recurve does not magically reduce force needed to draw it, i

I said that the bows he used for most of his shotting were not actually strong.And that the speed archery reduces range and power(Aka. not drawing it properly)As you can see when he draws it.The problem is that speed archery is absolutly worthless at more than 20 m range were thick clothing and padding can protect you. By the time you get that close the enemy foot archers who are shooting normaly are pelting you so unless you're heavly armored yourself(which accodring to him is worthless)it is not especially great against a prepared enemy and defintly not for foot archers.
The second point is that his mail his butted crap mail ,if he wanted to test he could have used real thightly riveted mail.Third the fact that many things he says are wrong:
1.The quiver came after the style to hold the arrows in the hand while shooting,not before.
2.His "new" technique is stil used...both by modern archers and native populations all over the world.
3.The concept that speed archery with a weak bow could punch through armor at ease makes no sense because heavy amror wouldn't have been used ever....the concept of having eilte heavy cavalry for the mongols would have been worthless.
The whole concept of the catapracts would have never been inveted...which is ironic because culture with horse archers did it.According to Lars 5 unarmoed archers could ride up to 50 catapracts and kill them in a minute and ride away.

If an arrowstorm can stop enemies in their tracks and made them crouching behind their shields, or kill their horses, it's good enough

You know the batttle of Jaffa?:Crusaders cover behind their shields and armor(when they had it) with spear rammed into the gorunds taking the arrows and shotting them with crossbows in return?2 dead ,more injured vs. serveral hundred enemies and more than 1000 horses dead and injured.Immobilizing only works if your enemy can't counter your archers.

But yes killing their horses is great and was done but you don't want to start doing that when they are close enough to hit you in the next 2 seconds but at rangeand even then a good padded vest can sopt arrow at least it could stop a 140lbs longbow using an arrowi with bodkin tip.And not every arrow will kill a horse and a barded horse even if it is just padding or mail and scale or even plate barding will make that a very high risk tactic unless you can position them behind your infantry.

actual number of causalties caused by archers was low.

Which is true but the exact opposite of what that video tries to prove.

[Satapatiš]

You know the batttle of Jaffa?:Crusaders cover behind their shields and armor(when they had it) with spear rammed into the gorunds taking the arrows and shotting them with crossbows in return?2 dead ,more injured vs. serveral hundred enemies and more than 1000 horses dead and injured.Immobilizing only works if your enemy can't counter your archers.

This one in bold type:

Archers may not kill too many opponents but it's all aright if they can made killing easy enough for their side or they can rout opponents.

English had Men-at-Arms to finish the job after their longbowmen and Parthians had cataphracts to work with archers. Jaffa does not prove that battelfield control with archery is uniportant or useless. It only proves that it ends useless if you don't have troops capable of taking benefits of it, or you failed to execute a combined arms approach in time.

The OP video itself is kinda pointless. Speed archery is nothing new. Just like nothing new is a knowledge that is can not be performed with a full-strength warbows and is useful only as a tool for harassing enemies. Or for trick shots.
Various native cultures were indeed fighting in a similar way, on a very short distance, but native Americans or African tribes aren't exactly known for using a body armor...

YT chainmal piercing demonstrations also tends to be useless.

I have yet to see a YT video of such test when archer is firing at proper chainmail and all test variables are set right, i.e:

- chainmail is riveted
- chainmail links aren't too big
- it's a complete mail worn by a manniquin, not a separated loose square patch of chainmail hanging... somewhere
- there's a proper padding underneath

Most of the time people are firing at small chainmal patches or cheap reproductions.

Funny how chainmail was primary method of protection used in cultures that were very often employing horse archery. One could expect that they would move away from a combination of a lamellar and chainmail if mail was that easy to pierce with an arrow...

I don't mind people doing speedshooting tricks and trick archery in general. It's a cool sport. But it becomes stupid when they're trying to present it as a some kind of scientific discovery despite actual historic sources, reenactments and surviving weapon relics stating something opposite, because:

http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/

^Yeah, pretty much this.

Killing or crippling a horse also is not doable without a strong bow. People are underestimating how durable are those animals. Even an unarmored horse could survive a blow otherwise lethal or disabling for a human. Much thicker bones, much more muscles.

Arrowstorms were massed archery. It's something performed by large units of archers firing at long distances, not by some people trying to skirmish with weak bows. Technically horse archers could skirmish using strong bows and attempting shots at a point blank distance, but that's only because they were mounted.

[k/t]

Composite bows are not recurves, but reflex.

Composite bows are more efficient (less energy is wasted by the flexing - or rather unflexing - of the bow itself) than self (all-wood) bows, so at the same draw weight they will impart a little more energy to an arrow, or, at the same power, will require a little less force to draw. The difference is not huge, though.

I actually saw that video a week or two ago. The trick shots he does are impressive, but the bow he's using is for children (in terms of draw weight). Also, the video only shows the times he got the tricks right. The hundreds of times he blew them were cut.

We might be able to learn a few things from him about shooting techniques in the past, but we shouldn't take him too seriously, especially since he obviously knows nothing about ancient and medieval warfare and engages in phony "tests".

Check out this thread from two years ago (this stuff pops up every now and then, just like the "omg, why can't longbows pierce armour???"): http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ally-realistic

[Sint]

Another fun fact : The French soldiers during Napoleons invasion of russia called the Bashkir(Horse archers used by the russains)" les Amours or les Cupidons du Nord,"aka Cuppids since they were so useless.

[Dago Red]

Fun fact, but that's more to do with the fact that those tribal horse archers were fighting against drilled line infantry whose matchlocks outranged and out"gunned" them by enormous distances -- especially when combined with cannon.

Earlier in history, the Eastern Roman Empire didn't joke as much about the Seljuks of Rum and the unarmored horsearchers from Turcoman tribes that they used to wage war against them (and win).