Reinventing the fastest forgotten archery

[Chiteng]

OK. OK. You're right!

But the Agincourt outcome wasn't based solely on the idiocy of the French nobility, now was it?

You could make a good case

 

[peter grimes]

Video is interesting, but the words "lars" "anderson" are said way too many times! Yes, that's the guy doing it, we got it the first time. Or the second. Third, fourth...

Completely agree. But I'm not even sure the claims made in the dialogue are supported by the video - they say "Lars Anderssenn fires 10 arrows in 2.4 seconds" but I cannot see 10 arrows in the video. Perhaps they are fired, perhaps not. Lars Anderssenn says that better video quality would address this, according to Lars Anderssenn.

I've seen this. It's pretty crazy, but I doubt it was a standard technique in battle. For one thing, he's using a bow with between 30 and 35lbs. of draw, which is several times weaker than your average war bow. Most of the bows on the Mary Rose were well over 100lbs. in draw weight. And shooting this way would exhaust both you and your quiver in under a minute, not a good thing on the battlefield.

[snip the rest]

Whatever, man - this video didn't mention anything at all about English longbows, Agincourt, Mary Rose, or Your Average War Bow. As you yourself acknowledge, he was using an tool completely different than the one that you go on at erudite length to describe... Why?

It was specifically dealing with something else. As interesting as your commentary is here, it doesn't seem to me - who knows nothing of these things - to be at all relevant.

 

[Benefactor]

Whatever, man - this video didn't mention anything at all about English longbows, Agincourt, Mary Rose, or Your Average War Bow. As you yourself acknowledge, he was using an tool completely different than the one that you go on at erudite length to describe... Why?

It was specifically dealing with something else. As interesting as your commentary is here, it doesn't seem to me - who knows nothing of these things - to be at all relevant.

They seem to be pointing out this type of archery would be practically useless in a "typical European Medieval war", most bows were (as far as I know) basically useless against the best armour. I think it's at least alluded to in the video that he is using a technique that was more common in the Middle East, where the armour worn would have been much lighter than the fancy European stuff due to it being much hotter there.

Impressive as it is, it's probably not very well remembered because regular archery is hard enough to learn and this looks a lot harder, it also doesn't seem amazingly accurate or particularly powerful. Although it is definately very fast and faster, lighter bows would have been more useful against faster less heavily armoured targets.

 

[Borachio]

 

[Phrossack]

Whatever, man - this video didn't mention anything at all about English longbows, Agincourt, Mary Rose, or Your Average War Bow. As you yourself acknowledge, he was using an tool completely different than the one that you go on at erudite length to describe... Why?

It was specifically dealing with something else. As interesting as your commentary is here, it doesn't seem to me - who knows nothing of these things - to be at all relevant.

Some people started talking about how armies of archers must have been so powerful, and some began to mention Agincourt, so I wanted to nip it in the bud. Certain myths about history are pet peeves of mine, and the myths of weak, clumsy armor and the tank-busting English longbow are among them. Sorry for the rant; I couldn't help myself, but I just needed to let it out.

One last ramble:

I think it's at least alluded to in the video that he is using a technique that was more common in the Middle East, where the armour worn would have been much lighter than the fancy European stuff due to it being much hotter there.

Actually, armor in the Middle East was just as good and as common as it was in Europe until the Europeans started making suits of plate armor. It's a common misconception that the heat of the Middle East dissuaded people from wearing armor; Sassanid cataphracts were some of the most heavily-armored warriors in history, and the Turks and Mamluks were quite content to wear heavy, all-encompassing suits of mail reinforced with plates.

 

[Borachio]

Yep. You must blame me for the Agincourt thing. Just tell me I'm wrong, please. I can take it, by necessity.

 

[innonimatu]

I've seen this. It's pretty crazy, but I doubt it was a standard technique in battle. For one thing, he's using a bow with between 30 and 35lbs. of draw, which is several times weaker than your average war bow. Most of the bows on the Mary Rose were well over 100lbs. in draw weight. And shooting this way would exhaust both you and your quiver in under a minute, not a good thing on the battlefield.

The mail used in the test could not possibly be accurate, as properly-made mail can easily resist most attacks with swords, spears, and arrows. This article by Dan Howard gives a good overview of mail. I find that armor is much more misunderstood by most people than archery; in movies, armor almost never protects the wearer at all, and many believe that knights could barely move in their armor and needed cranes to lift them onto their horses, which is completely untrue.

Finally, English war archery wasn't like this. Their archers shot in massed volleys at fairly long range with very heavy bows rather than rapidly at close range with weak bows. And at Agincourt and Crecy, English archery doesn't seem to have killed too many men; at Agincourt, the French knights were superbly armored (though many non-knights were not), so the bulk of those killed or maimed by arrows seem to have been horses. The French, however, had to slog through a quagmire before meeting the English lines; the exhausted French suffered many losses in the melee, and thousands were taken prisoner only to be executed. At Crecy, the English had the high ground and the sun to their backs. The French deployed their Genoese crossbowmen, but they had left their pavises behind, and after suffering from English archery from their superb position, the Genoese pulled back. The enraged French saw this as cowardice and charged through their own crossbowmen, killing many in the process and causing chaos. The English had little difficulty winning as a result of poor French leadership and an excellent position, not because their bows were effective against plate armor (they really weren't). Most "tests" of the English bows have been at almost point-blank range against a firmly secured slab of steel plate that is not of armor quality or shape, and has no padding behind it; mail and plate usually, if not always, had layers of padding to absorb blows.

Good contribution, thank you! The distance at which the arrow would fall is obviously important and those "tests" often shown in TV programs really irritate me. I mean, the thing probably matters more for bullets but any small projectile that requires launching with an initial high speed has an effective range for a given amount of damage.

I do want to ask one thing: were all ancient bows likely to have been heavy bows? The english longbows may not be the best example of the typical bow.

 

[Benefactor]

Actually, armor in the Middle East was just as good and as common as it was in Europe until the Europeans started making suits of plate armor. It's a common misconception that the heat of the Middle East dissuaded people from wearing armor; Sassanid cataphracts were some of the most heavily-armored warriors in history, and the Turks and Mamluks were quite content to wear heavy, all-encompassing suits of mail reinforced with plates.

I've learned something here .

 

[Phrossack]

Good contribution, thank you! The distance at which the arrow would fall is obviously important and those "tests" often shown in TV programs really irritate me. I mean, the thing probably matters more for bullets but any small projectile that requires launching with an initial high speed has an effective range for a given amount of damage.

I do want to ask one thing: were all ancient bows likely to have been heavy bows? The english longbows may not be the best example of the typical bow.

Thanks! As to draw weights, they varied from archer to archer most of the time. The English were fond of heavy longbows; those found on the Mary Rose have had varying estimates for draw weights over the years, but they seem to have averaged around 150lbs (60 kg.). Some information can be gained from Chinese military examinations. We know that Song exams required candidates to be able to shoot horse bows between 90 and 120lbs (40.8-54.4kg), and heavier ones were used on foot. Most surviving Ottoman bows are about the same. The Manchus, like the English, liked heavy bows with heavy arrows; their heaviest war bows were probably around 190lbs (86 kg), though (supposedly) a champion archer won a contest in 1728 with a bow of an almost unbelievable 240lbs (109kg)!

Of course, bow draw weights varied greatly from archer to archer, place to place, and time to time. The English had heavier bows than most, though they were by no means the only ones with such strong bows.