Archery

[Jim Webster]

People have probably seen this video on facebook by noe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk&x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

actually Jim, no I hadnt so thanks for the link! Utterly brilliant video of what's possible for an archer and puts my own pathetic 'skills' with the bow to shame 

I could send down about 10 arrows in a minute with reasonable accuracy at 20 paces...um...thats about it 

[Erpingham]

I could send down about 10 arrows in a minute with reasonable accuracy at 20 paces...um...thats about it 

Well, he operates at the same sort of range as you   Perhaps it was his tendency to dress in black but he most reminded me of the sort of tricks ninjas are alleged to have got up to. 

Leaving aside the trick shooting, does the video raise any interesting questions about military archery?

[Jim Webster]

I think it might explain why chariots were so feared. If the archers mounted in them had that rate of fire, and given the number of arrows that a chariot could carry (and swing back for a reload) I think those who've compared them to the helicopter gunships of their day could be right 

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

Yes, I would say the rate of fire and the accuracy achieved by this chap if replicated by several hundred if not thousand archers would put the fear of the gods into all. Just think if this chap can do all this in the modern era what could be achieved with archers who basically practised all their life especially the nomads

[barry carter]

It is probably more relevant re: horse archers and as has been pointed out, chariots. Disciplined shooting by large bodies of archers on foot would be a different matter. It certainly pushes the topic of logistics into focus. The image of the arrows tumbling out of the quiver on his back is golden.

[Erpingham]

Just think if this chap can do all this in the modern era what could be achieved with archers who basically practised all their life especially the nomads

If it were just about doing it all your life, bus drivers would give Lewis hamilton a run for his money.  I tend to go for the theory that most people who do things for a living, be they drivers, lawyers or soldiers, are proficient.  Only a few go on to be exceptional.  So we need to separate this man's exceptional stunts from what he is saying about basic technique.  For example, the arrows in the hand, which I thought was just convenience, he feels is the secret to rapid short range shooting.  We do see the arrow in the hand technique used through history, but do we have evidence eg from archery manuals to say it was used to give this rapid fire effect?  He also believes that short range rapid fire, rather than longer ranged deliberate shooting was the norm.  Can this be supported from archery manuals?  I've certainly seen opinions to the contrary - that horse archers didn't get in too close until they'd weakened their enemies then they attacked with melee weapons.

[Erpingham]

The image of the arrows tumbling out of the quiver on his back is golden.

Except that back quivers were used by some cultures, like Native Americans, who weren't exactly rubbish at hunting or fighting with the bow, so there may be more to it. 

[Sharur]

Odd his arrows were all "fired" rather than shot, yet didn't end up as piles of ash...

It shows what could be possible certainly, using a small bow at least, in some cases based on historical texts, though not using historical bows (i.e. modern bows may be more resilient than ancient types to such vigorous handling). Being able to shoot a dozen arrows in six seconds isn't much use if your bow or string repeatedly snaps after the third or fourth shot.

Plus nobody was trying to kill him, which has a tendency to reduce both speed and accuracy, judging by casualty rates in more modern wars (I've seen statistics quoted of one hit per 800 musket shots fired for the Napoleonic wars and 1 in 400 estimated for the American Civil War, for instance).

[Imperial Dave]

Just think if this chap can do all this in the modern era what could be achieved with archers who basically practised all their life especially the nomads

If it were just about doing it all your life, bus drivers would give Lewis hamilton a run for his money. 

welllllll.....bus drivers drive buses and normally dont throw them through chicanes at 100mph 

but I get your point 

[Justin Swanton]

That was a jaw-dropper for me. Having done archery when young I can confirm this guy is at a level beyond master bowman. I suspect his techniques would have been more relevant to mounted rather than foot archers. The latter were targeting a pretty static opponent and didn't need fancy footwork, but horsemen could expect to shoot their adversaries from all sorts of positions in a fluid situation, especially horse archers vs horse archers - that would have been something to see!

Notice his long-range shooting at 3:15. He's hitting targets at about 80 yards with speed shooting, loosing his third arrow before the first arrow hits the target. That is beyond impressive.

[barry carter]

Re: back quivers, the material used and method of construction is no doubt important. A rigid, box style quiver that lacks spacers is presumably a recipe for accidents.

[Erpingham]

Re: back quivers, the material used and method of construction is no doubt important. A rigid, box style quiver that lacks spacers is presumably a recipe for accidents.

I agree.  The Native American type seem to have been less rigid and have a flap to close.  Less good for Errol Flynn style antics but more practical stalking through the woods.

[Chuck the Grey]

Some thoughts for discussion.

Massed infantry archers such as Achaemenid Persian archers at Marathon and Plataea may have first used aimed, long-range shooting followed by increasingly rapid shooting rates that culminate in extremely rapid fire at near point-blank range as demonstrated in the video. I can't see the Persian archers abandoning the use of their bows simply because the Greeks are at the sparabara wall trying to force their way through. That would be the time for rapid point-blank shooting. From a wargaming point of view, I am now beginning to wonder if we are underestimating the melee power of massed archers.

Although it is outside my period of interest and knowledge, I'm beginning to think that wargame designers may have to reevaluate the effect of chariot archers, especially New Kingdom Egyptians and others. Those that compare chariots to helicopter gunships many closer to the realities of combat in that period than we think.

[Patrick Waterson]

He also believes that short range rapid fire, rather than longer ranged deliberate shooting was the norm.  Can this be supported from archery manuals?  I've certainly seen opinions to the contrary - that horse archers didn't get in too close until they'd weakened their enemies then they attacked with melee weapons.

Given that the closer one gets the more effective the opponent's shooting also becomes, I would suggest that there were optimum ranges for shooting exchanges, whether by skirmishers, formed troops or horse archers using what I would term 'blizzard shooting' (as per Mr Andersen's method).  One also has to consider ammunition supply - a handful of arrows might last only a couple of seconds at close range, and after that the archer himself is just a helpless target unless he can grab some incoming shafts or has a quiver he can extract another handful from.

Also the closer one gets the more attention one has to devote to turning away unless the enemy has actually collapsed.

All of this points to Hunnic tactics as described by Roman sources being optimal: short angular dashes towards the target by small groups which then pull out to let other groups have a go.

Some thoughts for discussion.

Massed infantry archers such as Achaemenid Persian archers at Marathon and Plataea may have first used aimed, long-range shooting followed by increasingly rapid shooting rates that culminate in extremely rapid fire at near point-blank range as demonstrated in the video.

Achaemenids, like most Biblical-type armies, seem to have deployed their archers in depth, making them most effective when shooting indirectly en masse.  At point-blank they would be almost useless because only the first couple of ranks could shoot directly, and would be shooting into opponents' shields.

I can't see the Persian archers abandoning the use of their bows simply because the Greeks are at the sparabara wall trying to force their way through. That would be the time for rapid point-blank shooting.

As indicated above, assuming they actually had arrows left, this would be ineffective against decently-shielded opponents.

From a wargaming point of view, I am now beginning to wonder if we are underestimating the melee power of massed archers.

Although it is outside my period of interest and knowledge, I'm beginning to think that wargame designers may have to reevaluate the effect of chariot archers, especially New Kingdom Egyptians and others. Those that compare chariots to helicopter gunships many closer to the realities of combat in that period than we think.

Inclined to agree: Amenhotep II's 'speed shooting' of heavy arrows through a number of copper shields tends to be considered a one-off by historians, but although Amenhotep II was physically very strong compared to the norm, nothing would prevent a trained chariot archer from shooting with rapidity and effect each time he went into the attack.

Thanks to Lars Andersen for devoting years to learning the art of shooting and to Jim for posting the video link.  Philoctetes eat your heart out.