4 ms·

I'm not an archer of any rank. But my take on this is that he's trying to represent or reproduce the skill of archery when archery was essential to war and hunt

I'm not an archer of any rank. But my take on this is that he's trying to represent or reproduce the skill of archery when archery was essential to war and hunting. Great skill in an Olympic competition is certainly an impressive achievement but it may be worthless outside the clearly defined rules of competition. Between your 120 bowman and this guy, which one wins in battle and which one brings home fresh meat for dinner. I think I'd rather have this guy on my side.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
When archery was essential to war, it was still only "stand and loose" - foot archers typically planted stakes in front to ward off cavalry, or would be on hills or in front of woods. Basically stand still, shoot the buggers, run and hide if anyone charged. As for hunting, that is extreme slowness, and perfect accuracy because you won't get a second shot, and if you move at all before loosing the animal moves too. Hunters wait. So apart from firing in the saddle, archery was and is about stillness, accuracy and yes, in war, speed. The guys able to put 30 arrows into the attacking targets at 50 paces will win the war, and the guys setting snares will fill the pot ;-)
- paulgerhardt 12y ago
  "Stand and loose" is an ok strategy but "Ride and Loose" let the Mongols capture more territory in 25 years than the Romans did in 400. Hardly the "only" strategy.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    The Commanche were also particularly effective at it. The combination of their horse riding and archery skills made them more lethal than the US Army, until the revolver was invented. Before the revolver, firing on horseback was a non-starter because reloading was almost impossible; a Commanche could fire dozens of arrows in the time it took one reload. I read about this in the book "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S. C. Gwynne.
    - BashiBazouk 12y ago
      Samurai as well. Very skilled horse archers.
- romaniv 12y ago
  While the notion that "stand and loose" was important in war seems sensible to me, the implication that mobility and shooting speed were irrelevant does not. Being able too shoot fast seems like an immensely useful skill when confronting a mass of enemies that move, have armor and actively try to avoid getting shot. More shots per minute would mean more chance to actually inflict damage. Also, what about smaller confrontations that did not involve a wall of charging cavalry/footmen? While the acrobatics is silly, what this guy is doing is impressive and indicate skills that could be applied more broadly.
- vacri 12y ago
  It's weird that you don't see the benefit of being effective while moving when your rebuttal includes 'run'. Not to mention that there are plenty of situations where stakes/hills/woods as a static defense don't apply - if you're attacking; if you're sieging; attacking a town, fighting in the streets; if you're not taking part in a large set-piece battle; so on and so forth. If you're part of a small patrol and encounter the enemy, you fight them then and there, no time to plant stakes or move the site of the battle. Likewise, you need to be able to move around as the battle progresses. There's no point standing behind your stakes if the enemy you need to put pressure on is 200 yards away over a meadow. All the zen-like calmness in the world and impregnable field position isn't going to help you if the enemy doesn't come within range.
jdmichal 12y ago
Being able to reliably hit a very small target at 70 yards at full draw is exactly what I would want for hunting. That game is easily spooked and can likely evade you better than you can chase it. Why in the world would you want to get any closer than necessary and be moving while attempting to shoot it? Not to mention that his 10 shots at the beginning of the video are no where close to full draw. I'd suspect that even if he did hit an animal with hide that it would not be a lethal shot.
- Zibulon 12y ago
  Hunting at 70 yards? All the bowhunters at my club practice below 50 yards.
  - jdmichal 12y ago
    That's exactly my point. Olympic archery is at 70 yards, and they are very consistent at hitting the inner rings of the target. That extra distance would be great for hunting.
  - killerpopiller 12y ago
    would it be ok to write the amount in m - this yard values still have no meaning to me and probably many others here
    - wingerlang 12y ago
      Had to look it up 70 yards = 64 metres 50 yards = 45 metres
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago
  You might be hunting bison or hunting on horseback(or an ATV).

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

When archery was essential to war, it was still only "stand and loose" - foot archers typically planted stakes in front to ward off cavalry, or would be on hills or in front of woods. Basically stand still, shoot the buggers, run and hide if anyone charged. As for hunting, that is extreme slowness, and perfect accuracy because you won't get a second shot, and if you move at all before loosing the animal moves too. Hunters wait. So apart from firing in the saddle, archery was and is about stillness, accuracy and yes, in war, speed. The guys able to put 30 arrows into the attacking targets at 50 paces will win the war, and the guys setting snares will fill the pot ;-)

paulgerhardt 12y ago
"Stand and loose" is an ok strategy but "Ride and Loose" let the Mongols capture more territory in 25 years than the Romans did in 400. Hardly the "only" strategy.
- scott_s 12y ago
  The Commanche were also particularly effective at it. The combination of their horse riding and archery skills made them more lethal than the US Army, until the revolver was invented. Before the revolver, firing on horseback was a non-starter because reloading was almost impossible; a Commanche could fire dozens of arrows in the time it took one reload. I read about this in the book "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S. C. Gwynne.
  - BashiBazouk 12y ago
    Samurai as well. Very skilled horse archers.
romaniv 12y ago
While the notion that "stand and loose" was important in war seems sensible to me, the implication that mobility and shooting speed were irrelevant does not. Being able too shoot fast seems like an immensely useful skill when confronting a mass of enemies that move, have armor and actively try to avoid getting shot. More shots per minute would mean more chance to actually inflict damage. Also, what about smaller confrontations that did not involve a wall of charging cavalry/footmen? While the acrobatics is silly, what this guy is doing is impressive and indicate skills that could be applied more broadly.
vacri 12y ago
It's weird that you don't see the benefit of being effective while moving when your rebuttal includes 'run'. Not to mention that there are plenty of situations where stakes/hills/woods as a static defense don't apply - if you're attacking; if you're sieging; attacking a town, fighting in the streets; if you're not taking part in a large set-piece battle; so on and so forth. If you're part of a small patrol and encounter the enemy, you fight them then and there, no time to plant stakes or move the site of the battle. Likewise, you need to be able to move around as the battle progresses. There's no point standing behind your stakes if the enemy you need to put pressure on is 200 yards away over a meadow. All the zen-like calmness in the world and impregnable field position isn't going to help you if the enemy doesn't come within range.

jdmichal 12y ago

Being able to reliably hit a very small target at 70 yards at full draw is exactly what I would want for hunting. That game is easily spooked and can likely evade you better than you can chase it. Why in the world would you want to get any closer than necessary and be moving while attempting to shoot it? Not to mention that his 10 shots at the beginning of the video are no where close to full draw. I'd suspect that even if he did hit an animal with hide that it would not be a lethal shot.

Zibulon 12y ago
Hunting at 70 yards? All the bowhunters at my club practice below 50 yards.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  That's exactly my point. Olympic archery is at 70 yards, and they are very consistent at hitting the inner rings of the target. That extra distance would be great for hunting.
- killerpopiller 12y ago
  would it be ok to write the amount in m - this yard values still have no meaning to me and probably many others here
  - wingerlang 12y ago
    Had to look it up 70 yards = 64 metres 50 yards = 45 metres
IndianAstronaut 12y ago
You might be hunting bison or hunting on horseback(or an ATV).