As I've previously mentioned; in war scenarios wherein two armies are facing off against each other, there would likely be formations of pikemen and swordsmen battling it out in the skirmish. The only way for a line of swordsmen from army A to come charging at a line of archers from army B in a 1:1 ratio would be if the swordsmen and pikemen of army B were all dead, in which case, the archers of army B would retreat (with a lot more stamina than the charging, battle fatigued, armoured swordsmen) while retaining the advantage of being able to pepper the charging swordsmen with arrows while retreating. Add to that the use of terrain as an advantage in military tactics, the charging swordsmen would likely be running uphill. Finally, as discussed by LindyBeige in the video "Pursuit in Battles - Don't Try Too Hard", it's a bad idea to chase a retreating enemy, since you're more likely to survive if you don't catch up, and the battle will still have been won.
having one, i'd agree. but if I merely took my Hoyt Charger out it's case, the entire opposing army would instantly fall down dead on their own lines XD
Since you holding a Larp Sword , i share a bit about my experience from there, also with the archer volley topic. so i play in a group that is mainly made from around 10-15 people all equipped with a 25 pounds bow. even without any support of other troups normaly a close combat enemy feels nervous rushing against us. cause your assumption is absolutly correct, the closer they get, the better we hit a similar siced meele troup mostly reaches us when they are down to 5 oder 7 persons. and then we have to decide, since we all have close combat weapons we could rush them with supirior number, or since we dont wear much armor, only gambelsons, we are most of the time faster, we still can outrun them pretty easy (( ok in Larp the shield is invincible that is a huge problem, but i will only mention it here )) it is a matter of fact that an arrcher will just switch to his sidearm when the enemy gets close. even an one and one scenario has the archer the adventage, the first who strikes will most likely win. now about the volley. Actualy we never informed us much about how it realy happend in the middle age. since the larp scenario allows only battles with around 100 people on each side, with ca 20 archers it comes often down to this, we shoot one volley as a first strike, and to keep the enemy occopied, while our meeles rush in. then we switch to individual fire, even going so far as to closing in our and breaking our own battleline to use the gaps between the own meele troops. aiming for weak spots at the enemy line or special targets. since its small scale we run out of arrows and then switch just to meele fighting at the flanks of the battle . as i say i am not sure how it was realy down to that time, but since it feels natural to do so, i would assume that in the old times they applyed same tactics and thanks for the intressting videos
everybody (well, maybe just most folk) think of medieval battles as grand Tolkeinesque epic scale affairs. back in the day, human populations were MUCH lower. a sizeable army probably numbered 2-500 warriors plus supporting personnel, runners, cooks, camp whores and such. 20 archers among those numbers could be pretty devastating
I suspect the prevalence of the archer vs swordsman thought experiment is actually an extrapolation of knife versus gun, from modern day police practical experiments. The experiment using several hundred participants, over many trials, has shown that a knife is 80% more effective than an _unprepared_ gun armed person when the distance is less than 7 meters. The average time it takes a knife weilding assailant to bury the knife in a target from a distance of 7 meters, is right around 1.2-1.8 seconds. Many factors were included, such as elderly knife holders, people on crutches, people at the peak of health, short and tall people, etc. The average time it took to draw, find target, and fire for the stationary gunner was around 2 seconds. The precedent was therefore set that within a radius of 7 meters, a ranged target was at a severe speed disadvantage to a mobile melee assailant. Reality is of course not a laboratory experiment, and people are not averages of the populace, but the upper limit set forth by the experiment was that trained and untrained shooters alike, could not fire adequately in the space of time most likely to be alotted for defensive action, in that space. Where this becomes important is that we tend to think of swordsmen as 'people with long knives' and we think of archers as 'ye olde gunmen'. However, the logistics of modern self defense and police shooting, are wildly different from the logistics of realistice medieval battle scenarios. Its not impossible that a person only armed with a bow might at some point have unluckily been assailed by someone only armed with a sword, at any point in history, but it would have been an exception to the rule of how archers and swordsmen behaved... an exception, that, as it is _so_ rare and exceptional, exists only to confirm the rule is in place. (Barring any evidence contradicting this that we may find in the future, though we have not as of now) In this rare event, then the answer would be a function of probabilities (not absolutes) related to the average speed at which an archer could nock, point, and loose an arrow, by comparison to the average speed a swordsman could close a distance and execute a debilitating attack (which is further reliant on both the average speeds of the archer and swordsmen in order to set said distance). These are variables we can only guess at at best, given modern examples and historical accounting, neither of which are necessarily accurate. I would posit, as a very rough estimate, that 20 meters is effectively skewed in the favor of melee versus ranged, given period data, and negating the possibility of a melee defense in kind. 20 Meters seems like a relatively easy to cross distance which would subvert the ability to nock and loose. The problem then becomes: How does one engineer a scenario where target A and target B have become that close without both being prepared for each other beforehand?
It also depends on the time period, and what we're talking about. Historically the most elite archers like The English Longbowman, the Mongol and Muslim Horse Archers, the Genoiese Crossbowman etc, tended to start learning at very young ages (ex. it was law in England that every male between 7 and 70 practice 3 hours of archery a day) Archers from countries like France and many Italian City States for example were often mercenaries or poorly trained conscripts. Also the swordsman of the medieval period was often weighed down by heavy armor, granted if you're talking about the Early Modern Period where swordsmen were just as likely to brandish guns and wear lighter armor, then you'd have a problem as an archer since the swordsman wouldn't be weighed down by as much armor and could charge much faster.
The knife vs gun scenario applied I pre black powder era would be a civilian situation, and I would say look at the chosen self defence items of various ported periods; knives and swords. Bow vs sword cannot really be compared to gun vs knife.
this is ridiculous. Both a sword guy and a bow guy ARE trained somewhat and know of each other and see each other. Who cares if there's a mincy chance that the bow guy screws up. He has a couple shots first is the point. You can get any one if you're hiding in the bushes and "Blaahhhh!!!!" , yea sure... not a point of contention.
my own rate from nock to shoot is about 3seconds. that does not include drawing the arrow from quiver & positioning the outer vane/nocking point - i'd add at least another 2 seconds for that. call it 5 seconds. exclude fear/panic at being charged at by someone intent on ending your life with a bit fekn shank of sharp heavy steel or iron. it comes down to could a human wielding a sword cover, say - at least 20metres in 5 seconds? less than that, i'm throwing away my bow & drawing my own blade or axe - if I was a medieval warrior. let's face it, no archer walks onto a battlefield armed ONLY with a bow & arrows. you would just KNOW you had to be ready for the possibility of hand to hand. I would think
That 7m range (more commonly known as the 21 foot rule) was a standard for police use of force guidance to draw and aim their sidearm... NOT draw and SHOOT their side arm just because a suspect displayed a lethal contact weapon. They needed to be able to answer challenges from the pundits of "he only had a knife and you already had your gun drawn! We don't need such trigger happy cops!" This is specifically the stacking effects of reaction time, putting one's hand on the sidearm, drawing it from a holster, getting a good grip and then shooting it. Completely different if you have already have a weapon in hand, loaded, with a good grip just waiting for the moment to shoot. So by analogy, the arrow is already nocked, fingers on the string ready to draw and loose. One motion. This scenario is pointless, why would you have a bow in hand ready to face adversaries but not have an arrow knocked? It's like having a gun at the ready but it's unloaded.
Another interesting point is this scenario always seems to be based around a foot archer. Considering that most "speed shooting experts" use horsebows then why not flip it around? What happens if a swordsman charges a Mongol? He rides away is the boring answer, no speed shooting needed.
Rocketfist McDangerpants Or . . . what if a bunch of swordsmen charge a riding Mongol? Within five seconds, the swordsmen are all dead, the Mongol didn't lose a step, and they're putting on their sunglasses while explosions go off behind them. Eyyyy Speed shooting from horseback, if all this Lars stuff has some truth to it, means that a few of mounted archers could devastate entire groups of footsoldiers from relative safety. Maybe this is how the Mongols wrecked everyone's day.
@@jamieg2427 entire groups of unarmed peasants maybe, a group of people with some decent armor and SHIELDS then only a few will be injured, horsearchers always had the purpose of disruption and lowering the morale, they were never magical machine guns that killed hundreds while they charged
#NuSensei Actualy in battle of Marathon, Athenians sprinted over the battlefield to reach the Persians and mitigating the archers effect. I think always is counting also the way how you deploy the infantry
The Greek hoplites repeated the feat at Palateea. Again the tactic wass to minimize the archer effect on troops . But yes, in both cases was a combination between speed & armor & surprise. Why I say this? The Athenians during the Peloponezian War used archers and other skhirmishers to wipe out Spartans or make them surrender.
You also need to take into account that the Athenians were hoplites with large shields~and moving in formation, NOT individually. I wouldn't say they charged but rather a fast and well choreographed disciplined run.
'fallacy' implies that it would never happen. But not all bows are war bows. Not all archers highly trained and steadfast. Not all combats battles. Not all armour ineffective at resisting arrows. Not all archers perfectly rested and fed while their opponents are not. And not all quivers filled with an infinite number of arrows.
How is that implied? Of course there are plenty of "not all" anecdotes. To me, a fallacy is something that implies that the logic behind the assumption is wrong and therefore mostly did not happen, but maybe still happened on rare occasions. EG: It's a fallacy that "anyone who picks up a rubik's cube can solve it in under 10 seconds", but there are still rare cases of people who can do it under 5. fallacy /ˈfaləsi/ noun a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments. "the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy" synonyms: misconception, mistaken belief, misbelief, delusion, false notion, mistaken impression, misapprehension, misjudgement, miscalculation, misinterpretation, misconstruction, error, mistake, untruth, inconsistency, illusion, myth, fantasy, deceit, deception, sophism; a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. "Kraft exposes three fallacies in this approach" faulty reasoning. "the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem"
The biggest thing that people just don't get about extreme range archery firing en masse onto an advancing enemy is that the individual archer within that archer unit is not aiming at any particular enemy soldier. The whole group firing together is massing their fire so that they can get a combined effect and a certain percentage of arrows while hit a vulnerable spot... It's the same as a machine gunner firing at a formation of enemy soldiers at 1000 meters, he isn't using pinpointed fire, he's using short bursts of what's called 'grazing fire' and sometimes 'plunging fire' .... The object is not for an individually aimed shot to hit with pinpointed accuracy but the bursts of bullets to keep the enemies' heads down, keep them from effectively maneuvering to flank and mount a counter attack.... It's the difference between direct fire and indirect fire.
Mostly good points, but I don't think most types of archers participated in melee as you described it? Sure they had melee weapons like swords, but those were generally secondary weapons. If you only have swords (and maybe a small supplementary weapon like a buckler or a dagger), you're pretty screwed against a shieldwall, pike formations, or troops in plate armour. Of course that doesn't apply to all archers, as you say. The Samurai are a popular example of warriors who were both archers and heavy melee troops, bringing primary melee weapons like polearms and heavy armour. But I don't think central Europeans for example had archers like that. Agincourt seems to be a very extreme example of a heavyhanded assault through awful terrain, where the French arrived so sparsely, disrupted, and exhausted, into well prepared positions, that even archers could take them down in melee. But there were many battles with archers which had those hours long formation melees, from which archers certainly wanted to keep their distance, unless they could decisively tip the scales against an opponent who was already entirely bound up by other frontline troops.
You are right. Central europeans mostly used crossbows and early firearms. Probably because high density of forts and castles where crossbows are better suited for combat.
Just something to share during the Imjin War, the Koreans are renowned for their archery however they were often denied by the quick charges made by the Japanese. They were only able to fire two to three shots before they get routed.
Attacking enemy foraging parties was a very common activity in pretty much all eras of warfare. It denies the enemy food and gives your soldiers the chance to gain experience and confidence overcoming weak opposition.
I don't get the logic of "we're here for food so we can't multitask at all, despite bringing weapons I literally cannot imagine using them to oppose our adversaries. I must follow my simple programming of acquiring food. And I expect them to do the same. "
@@Treblaine to some extent, efficient methods of gathering food and supplies will tend to leave your group vulnerable to attack; you'll usually be spread out, probably not wearing much armour, your weapons sheathed, and maybe carrying bags of grain/berries, stolen chickens, firewood, etc. But yeah, you've still got weapons. Also, if you run into an enemy foraging party, they're going to be in the same situation, so the disadvantage cancels out. (Also I watched this video five years ago and don't remember exactly what this was about).
@@MisdirectedSasha Well if the bow is in your hand then why not have an arrow knocked? If the bow is stowed, likely unstrung, then forget about it. But there should be at least one person on the lookout to give a bit more warning than a hostile swordsman appearing a couple dozen paces away. Even then, I would expect at least a moment for them to assess the situation, for example are you isolated enough that he could rush over to you and then escape before being surrounded? Are you aware of him? Is he sure you're not an ally? Are there obstacles in the way? It's very video gamey for a swordsman to instantly rush as soon as my avatar intersects with his vision cone.
@@Treblaine I would imagine it would depend on the context. An archer looking to shoot wild animals for food would have his bow strung and probably an arrow at the ready, but an archer carrying a stolen chicken would not. It's true that a patrol of light cavalry, for example, would not instantly charge a group of dispersed infantry on a foraging party, but neither would the infantry be able to instantly reform into a useful combat formation. The first guy to see the cavalry would have to get everyone's attention, then his buddies would have to understand what was going on and *then* they would have to start closing up to present a credible threat. Infantry looting a farm or village might also have the problem that some of their number were rooting around in barns and basements where they couldn't see anything that was going on outside. One would expect there to be *someone* on guard at all times, but there are plenty of examples historically where there seems not to have been, and in any case one or two alert soldiers would not last long against a formation of enemies out looking for a fight.
@@MisdirectedSasha I can't help but think that's just desserts for stealing a poor farmer's chickens. You could impair your ability by greed for all sorts of things. Foraging shouldn't mean stealing from local farmers. I get it that foraging is a euphemism for looting, but at least try to trade with farmers. I guarantee a great warrior like an archer has something the farmer would trade a lot of food for. There's really no need to complicate this with unforced errors, if you're expecting contact with the enemy, it's not unreasonable for those who are most likely to first encounter an enemy to be ready to fight. If something needs to be carried have it be carried by someone in the middle of the group. Good point on light cavalry patrolling and looking for scouts, that's precisely what cavalry are really good at, mopping up small pockets of enemy troops. They would be looking for precisely this sort of combat. I don't think they'd say "Oh, we'll meet at the battle okay?"
older literature was more difficult to make and more expensive to acquire. in every ancient culture that had it, there was a reverence surrounding the written word. those kinds of books were more likely to be essentially wishful thinking, or rather, a description of what would be ideal if achievable.
depends on what kind of archer and what kind of swordman. it could be samurai swordsman charging peasant archer. or samurai archer intercepting peasant swordsman.
You know, the arrowheads used at Agincourt couldn't actually penetrate the French armor - it was too soft. What basically happened was the French were stuck in the mud and got killed by knives. Similar story in the east where Korean archers couldn't really do much to Japanese infantry in the Imjin war.
What about a scenario in which the charge against your archers includes enemy archers too ... why would only one side have archers? I think the side with faster archers and / or with greater range would have an advantage ...
There's one more consideration: The other side having skirmishers of their own. Infantry's job is to take and hold ground, not get kited by skirmishers and cavalry. A better comparison might be archer vs. slinger vs. javelineer vs. crossbowman instead of vs. swordsman.
Light bows and fast shooting do have value! Imagine a family protecting a farm against a small group of thieves. No one will be wearing armor. If someone used to shoot warbows get use a hunting bow, he will be able to shoot very fast and with deadly accuracy. The archer do have a melee weapon and is protected by others. The bandits will have to engage in melee *and* dodge his arrows. If they got hit, they will be more easily killed in melee. They don't even have to be killed, as they probably will choose an easier target after encountering hard resistance!
I'm going to give a bit of a different scenario. Lets say there are two very skilled fighters in modern day, one being an archer and the other focusing on quicker lighter swords. These two fighters would be trained in all sorts of different fighting techniques learned from past styles focusing on multiple different weapon types. Lets say the light sword fighter is trained in many martial art techniques and has other smaller weapons such as knives and rapiers, and the archer is trained in two handed weapons such as katana's. Also lets assume that they are solo fighters, having to learn dodges as neither have ways to block other than their swords or specially crafted knifes. Could there be an equal chance for a winner?
The thing to understand is that these matchups aren't really about individual skill, but about probability. The skill of the light sword fighter is irrelevant until the fighter is able to be in range to apply their skill. Before that, it is entirely dependent on the archer's ability to hit the target. The archer is unopposed, has deadly kill zone in the 30-50m range and can probably take 2-3 shots on the closing attacker, including a near-certain close-range shot. As long as the archer doesn't lose their nerve and panic, the matchup should be rather lopsided against the swordsman. Just the sheer fact that the archer can attack at range should tip the odds in their favour. The only way to statistically change this imbalance would be to give the swordsman a way to be impervious to arrows, such as a shield or armour, in which case the matchup swings greatly against the archer because they have an ineffective weapon in a bad scenario.
I could perhaps see this scenario in an indoor fighting context where individual fighters could get separated from the group and have to use whatever weapons they have on hand. I could also imagine this being relevant in a the chaotic aftermath of a battle where non-regular soldiers may be fighting with less clear goals for individual engagements. Likewise many ancient battle strategies were specifically designed to break up enemy lines and create a chaotic scenario. These tactics of breaking up the lines would be more valuable if your archers are capable of functioning independently with high rate of fire at closer distances. If you were an ancient Archer would you only train for scenarios where everything goes according to plan, or would you specifically train for skills that will keep you alive in an SHTF scenario? Though your point about rate of fire is particularly relevant around the timeframe where early firearms we're starting to be incorporated onto battlefields. Early firearms had absolutely abysmal rate of fire, but rate of fire wasn't always necessary if they had sufficient stopping power at long range. Once tempered steel armor could repel even the most powerful bows, the additional power advantage became more important than the rate of fire disadvantage for those early firearms.
What should be remembered that coming up with an unfavourable scenario doesn't mean that there was a method to deal with the scenario. Archers were typically not used in "indoor fighting" - tas a specialised unit, it would make little sense for archers to be fighting in confined spaces or use bows where other weapons were on hand, or invest time and resources into the absolute worst case scenario where _only_ a bow was available for close quarters combat. Similar problems exist with a musketman or a modern sniper being caught in a CQC environment. There's no trick that would allow them to effectively function in that kind of combat environment, not for lack of skill, but because the equipment provides a hard limit to how fast they can shoot. The extremely rapid shooting we see with bows is typically only done with light draw weights far below that of what would have been used in battle. But even a modest 3-5 seconds per shot, which an average archer can sustain, is plentiful as long as the enemy is further than 20 metres away. We don't have any evidence that bows were effectively used in indoor close quarters combat environments.
@@NUSensei (I Love your channel BTW and I appreciate being able to have an interesting discussion with you.) Just as modern prison guards and naval sailors use firearms in close quarters, I believe that bows were used in prisons and inside the hulls of ships in medieval Europe and Aisa. Just like any other weapon or tool, there were many types of bows for many purposes. Not all bows were heavy war bows. For the reasons you describe in this video, it makes perfect sense why there would be bows specially made for contexts other than shoulder-to-shoulder battles. Do I think that specialized, ultra-fast archery techniques were the norm? No. That 3-5 seconds per arrow would have been sufficient for the vast majority of contexts. In some cases where it was more important to be able to hold at full draw while aimed at a target for a long time, but rate of fire was not important, crossbows were preferred to conventional bows. Contrary to what bowhunters will tell you, crossbows were not used to compensate for low archery skill. They were a different type of bow for a specialized purpose and having unique limitations (very low rate of fire). There were many kinds of bows. Just as with swords: some were all-round weapons, some were specialized for the battlefield, some were highly specialized for other contexts, and some were used specifically for showing off. Status was *hugely* important to medieval warriors, and many swordsmanship manuals include "flashy" techniques that were used for demonstrating skills rather than being highly practical in combat (i.e. wielding two swords simultaneously). The same is true of horses. Mutiple breeds existed for multiple purposes; some specialized and others generalized. A knight would own no fewer than 3 breeds of horse with different battlefield purposes. They also often owned some "show" horses as important status symbols, and would learn some impractical but impressive horsemanship techniques for the same reason. In North America, there are detailed historical accounts of Comanche warriors effectively using light bows at short range. My point is that the most common contexts are not the only contexts. Naval and prison contexts were important too. Also what we consider "tricks" were of significant social importance at the time.
@@ThirdLawPair 1. Why would historical prison guards need bows? A medieval prison is not like a modern prison. You didn't have a large number of criminals with access to tools and amenities that could overpower a smaller number of guards. Give guards clubs at the minimum, spears and pikes at most. It makes no sense to deploy a specialised soldier with a specialised long-range weapon to guard prisoners chained in a dungeon. 2. There's plenty of evidence to show that bows were used in ship-to-ship combat, but this was for the purpose of long-distance engagement, not fighting in side the hull of the ship. We know from texts that practice of English archers shooting up to and down from the masts, the longbow being a prized weapon for naval combat. But there's no evidence of close quarters fighting with bows on ships. 3. There's little reason to hold a bow at full draw to aim. No historical manual or text advocates long holds. Long holds are a modern method used with lighter target bows, and even then the holds are short.
@@NUSensei The long holds were used when laying siege to a castle or another fortified position. With a crossbow you could aim at the crenel and wait for enemy archers to appear. Aiming in a ready position directly at the crenel made it so you could get your shot off before the archer on the wall.
"a swordsman would never charge you, it just wouldn't happen" I'll be sure to tell my DM that in my next game of Dungeons & Dragons. I'm sure he'll understand that the swordsman should just leave to meet me at "the battle" after I've finished looting.
But Nu Sensei ,but, but, what about the Battle of Marathon. Greek hoplites charging the Persian line to clear the beaten zone as quickly as possible protected by shields and armour, to engage the Persians in melee combat.
Hi. I'm new to your channel. And I really like it. I'm getting into archery for hunting, and I learned so much from you. Before this video started, I was thinking about the target animal, or a random animal, charging me. And my counter to that, is rapid firing with a reverse string grip & back quiver, or, firing multiple arrows at once into the animal's chest, like that Elf in Lord of the Rings did, to the back of a monster's head. What do you think?
@@NUSensei In my rapid fire example, I was thinking of the video, of that red haired Russian lady, firing arrows quickly, but isn't her form bad for a high draw-weight Bow for hunting? And other than The Lord of the Rings example. I've seen videos of people seriously firing at least 2 arrows, at the same time. There was an incident, where a man ran at a cop, with a knife, and even though the cop shot him with a gun, multiple times, the cop still got stabbed. I'm asking you seriously. If something like a bear, a moose, or a very determined person, was running at me, and fleeing is not an option. Would it be best to fire as many arrows as possible? Or should I just fire normally, with a full draw, aiming at the heart or face, even if I only have time to fire like that, once or twice? How would you recommend self-defense with a Bow, when I don't have a sword, a survival Knife, or a gun? If I'm surprised by a threat, then I will focus on getting the most out of a single arrow. But if I feel something bad is going to happen. Should I prepare to fire multiple at once? Should I change my form, to fire rapidly, even if I can't do full draws? Or should I still just focus on 1 arrow? I'm not worried about missing the threat. I'm worried that my single arrow will be ignored. I'm not even sure if hitting the heart, will stop them immediately.
@@observingrogue7652 Self-defense with a bow: take out your knife. Have you actually ever heard of someone bringing down a wild animal with multiple shots? Have you actually heard of any hunter who scored multiple hits on a single animal? Don't be sucked in by speed shooting. The demonstration you reference is with a low draw weight and not likely something that you could do under duress. In a life or death situation, you would likely fumble with nocks and drop arrows. I would not ever suggest that someone seriously consider a bow for personal defense. It's never been applied for such a role, and it's an unproven method for what you intend to use it for. Shooting multiple arrows results in each arrow having a fraction of the power of a single arrow, since the energy is divided between the arrows, and that's assuming you can get them to fly straight. Most military "doctrine" from history focuses on short-range accuracy. Gao Ying's Chinese archery manual outlines that effective combat distances is taking the range you can 100% hit, and *half* that. If you can't bring down the target right away, switch to your secondary weapon. If you're asking me seriously about what to do, get an arrow and start stabbing furiously. Fight or flight reaction will not allow you to go through the motions of using a bow in the manner you imagine.
NUSensei It never even crossed my mind, that I couldn't go through the motions of operating a Bow, in a fight or flight reaction. I guess without thinking about it, I was going to apply to Bows, the same self-discipline that keeps me from panicking on a Motorcycle. It's so easy to crash and even die on one, because the controls are so sensitive. Your inputs must be deliberate & precise, to maintain stability of the bike, especially in stressful situations, like something cuts in front of you, or a tire starts slipping. It takes a lot of practice to suppress panicking, whether it's doing the wrong thing, or not acting at all. And because of my practicing on a bike, multiple times, I have automatically avoided crashing, without thinking about it. Whether or not I can be a machine with a Bow too. You're right. I should have a blade with me. Always. No. I haven't heard of someone bringing down an animal with multiple shots from a Bow, nor have I heard of a hunter scoring multiple hits on an animal. I am new to Archery, and hunting. But these are skills I will need, because I'm going off-grid. I just want to live in an isolated, solar-powered home, eating what I can grow & catch. I will only hunt what I can kill quickly, with 1 arrow, so it won't suffer. But if they don't die immediately, then I will follow to finish them off. Or the very least, get my arrows back. As for firing multiple arrows at once. I understand they will be weaker than a single arrow. I was thinking more along the lines, of multiple arrows being harder for a crazed person or animal to ignore. And I was also thinking, with multiple arrows, I'm more likely to hit something important, like the heart, or a major blood vessel, spreading out the damage, instead of relying on the path of one arrow through the body. Especially up close. The Shotgun strategy. I won't get sucked into speed shooting. I'm more interested in power & precision. I'm not interested in normal guns. They are way too loud, and they are so politically charged right now, I don't want to go through the nonsense of getting a gun, and ammo for it. I just want to be independent, with different alternatives.
I doubt a "swordsman " trained in the art of war would charge without a shield is he gonna twirl his sword like a windmill hitting arrows out of the air ? and people forget or simply do not know that bows who where used to speed shoot in war was not heavy bows perhaps 60 pounds max and intended to wound to reduce the enemy fighting ability
Twirling your sword looks cool in movies, but actually doesnt do jackshit. Check skallagrims videos about defending against arrows with a sword. Maybe you can defend against 1 arrow with a sword if you have good reflexes. But against hundreds of them raining down on you? No way.... Also if anybody speedshoots with 60 pound I will eat my shoes... Also speedshooting doesnt meant to hit targets 100+ meters away. If they are closer than 100 meter, your normal 100 pound+ bow can kill almost instantly even through light or medium armor (obviously not plate). So why would you bother trying to wound or reduce morale if you can kill the immediate threat? Or you think there were little group if speedshooters running around the battlefield annoying the enemy?
i was being sarcastic about the sword , however its has been shown in some asian movies where people can fly . speed shooting works if you flank or defend but you need power to cause damage unless you trying to herd the enemy if you dont have enough power in the bow to kill you want to wound to get that advantage , end perhaps there is a reason the romans used the throwning spears
Oh sorry. I'm preparing for a big exam so my sarcasm detector might dysfunction :D I still dont see the point of speedshooting. You shoot 5 arrows in 10 seconds with low accuracy and poundige. So what? Also they have to be close because above 50 meter you wont hit anything. Why let them that close so you can maybe wound some of them? Romans used the pilum to force their enemies to drop shields. They usually had soft necks, so they hit the shield and bent, so the enemy couldnt throw it back and it started dangling around in the shield making it very hard to use. But it was a proper javeline, so if it hit someone on the torso it was a likely deathblow. The point wasnt to injure. It was to disable shields and kill.
You mentioned that the warbow had a range of 200-250 meters. Where did you find these numbers? I am curious because it seems I need to do some real digging to get effective range for bows in ancient times. I am interested in military history, would be nice if an archer such as yourself had a recommendation for books or passages which we could learn. Thanks again for the video.
"The Longbow" by Mike Loades - the author discusses that in his experiment in riding across the Crecy battlefield, it took 40 seconds to "cover the longshot distance of 250-300yds" galloping on horseback, and he estimates that the Genoese crossbows were engaged at under 100yds. His assessment was that extreme long shots of 300yd were possible (he cites a replica arrow shot in modern times at 292yd from a 170lb longbow), though points out that 200-250yds was more typical, and the effective penetration would end at around 120yds, with 80yds and under being optimal for flat trajectory. "Arab Archery" refers to the maximum possible range as being 300 cubits (~177yds), with the added note that anything above "45 bow lengths" (~81 yds) is beyond the distance for accuracy due to the inability to aim with the hand obscuring the target. I've generalised the figures to give a starting point of the "charge" at around 200m (as we see in the English Longbow in Crecy), though also bearing in mind that not all bows had the same draw weight and velocity as the English longbow. I think it is fair generalisation of bows used in war that an arrow *could* be shot up to 200m and still cause harm to unarmoured opponents, and that 80m and under would begin the effective kill zone of an archer line.
What about heavy metal armour? I have seen tests on TH-cam where a decent breastplate is virtually impenetrable. Of course a headshot is still lethal, but that would be hard to hit, no?
what about archer vs calvary charge? i think in most games archers r correctly classed as counter for base melee units. however calvary is the counter for archers.
In real life, archers counter cavalry most of the time, in complete contradiction to game mechanics. While a cavalry charge can take an archer formation by surprise and cut them down, a prepared position will normally result in the horses being shot up by the archers. It's like running into a machine gun trench. If you manage to get past the beaten zone, you're relatively safer and will likely come out on top.
NuSensei's most Buzz Killington video yet! "Who would win in a fight between archer and Swordman?" "Ahem, well, first off, that scenario would never happen. That said, their battle would be interrupted by the multitude of other forces present on the battlefield." Yeah, thanks. I'm sure the "one swordsman vs one archer" or "small group of swords men vs archers" must have occurred in history. Would there have been no armed bandit encounters in the woods with sword-wielding bandits, and bow wielding hunters carrying fresh kills? Even if the bandit encounter is fiction, as a general thought exercise, given what you know about archery and history, what distance do you think an archer would need the draw, nock, and loose an arrow and have any hope of hitting a moving target charging at him? How easy would it have been for a person in that situation to shoot accurately, given the high adrenalin? Let's make it simple, too: there's little to no armour, they're both essentially wearing clothing. One hit from the swordsman would be crippling, as would one well-placed arrow from the archer. So what distance does the archer need to not be disadvantaged?
An archer trained in warfare should be expect to reasonably hit a target at 50m, and anything under that is a killzone. A hunter should be able to hit first-shot within 10-30m, a level of proficiency that we still expect from hunters today. A reasonably proficient archer today (using traditional bows) should be able to get a torso-sized grouping at 30m. The swordsman must be able to cover that kill zone to reach the archer to stand a chance - remember that the closer they get, the less time they have to react and the more likely it is to be hit. Then it comes down to whoever is more capable in melee. The range advantage is huge. Note, however, that the question is not "who would win?", but "does an archer need to be fast?". An archer doesn't need to fling a dozen arrows in a few seconds in a realistic combat scenario. Even in a hypothetical 1v1, rapid shooting doesn't equate to better effectiveness unless we have an arbitrary "one-hit" rule. The one-hit point system is exactly why speed-shooting is favoured in LARP and archery tag, so it favours quantity over accuracy.
Thanks for the quick reply! I really think this is the answer a lot of people are curious about when they pose this sort of question (as Sciver Zero says below, it's like the Old Timey equivalent of the "knife vs. gun" conversation). Other factors I think people are generally curious about is draw time for a bow in this scenario (assuming the bow needs to be raised from resting position and an arrow needs to be nocked), as well as stopping power of an arrow (in the "gun vs knife" conversation, getting multiple bullets off is important since a single bullet isn't guaranteed to stop an attacker. I imagine arrows are probably heavier on impact, given the wider surface area of arrow heads and general heavier weight of arrows). Anyway, facetious comment aside I generally love your content! Discovered you 6 months ago when trying to find a video on which bow to buy, and binged a lot of your content afterward. Cheers!
Even with smaller scale conflicts, the use of the bow did not hugely differ. There was really only one way to use the bow. Styles that used the thumb draw and held arrows in the draw hand had the option of shower shooting, but other archers were limited what they could do. A skilled archer with a war bow can shoot no faster than they are physically able to, and texts such as Gao Ying's manual on Ming military archery supports holding off on shooting until they enemy is within certain-kill distance (which is said to be half the distance of a definite hit). If an archer could not use their bow in close distance, they would use another weapon.
Even cavalry wasn't proof against archers. Terrain could do a lot to take away a Knight's advantages. At Crecy they had to charge uphill, at Agincourt, muddy ground and simple fortifications (wooden stakes) defeated one cavalry charge. So on flat, open, dry ground, Cavalry is King, but in the other 90% of the world....The English chose their battlegrounds well when they were forced to fight against overwhelming odds. If anything these scenarios show how powerful archery can be when defending ground rather than trying to take it.
People give too much credit to the archers at agincourt, lets not forget even with the terrain and all the odds thousands of french soldiers made it past english lines, thats why the english king killed all the captives, they outnumbered the english army and could easily rebel and kill them from the back
I'm really surprised that archery died off as a military tool after the invention of the musket as soon as it did. Archery: 7 shots per minute, works when wet, reasonably light weight. Musket: 1 shot per minute, won't work when wet, and a bit heavy to carry around. Effective range moot point until the invention of the rifled barrel. Archery: Volley fired at 200 meters. Musket: Volley fired at point blank 70 meters. Not to mention that body armor fell out of fashion once muskets were on the field. This would of made the archer more effective.
Archery: Required years upon years of training and a specialised skill set; expensive to maintain and largely ignored by most armies Musket: Anyone can use a gun within months. Archery was already largely disused outside of hunting and sport, and with the mounting casualties outstripping the supply of skilled archers, there wasn't a body of archers that could take on standardised musket armies.
True, but if I were a general back then, I would still want a Calvary of archers to outflank the enemy lines. Reloading a musket on horse back at a full gallop wouldn't be very practical. I believe the Calvary consisted of lancers back then. As in Crimean war Charge of the light brigade, etc.
You wouldn't have that option. By that time, bows had been out of use for over a hundred years, a long shot from training every man and child by law. In any case, the issue of fighting on horseback was solved by carbines, which emerged soon after the standardisation of infantry arms.
there the theory falls. Vikings were like suicide squads. their greatest wish was to die gloriously in battle with their weapon in their hand. thus ensured their place in Valhalla. the Berserkers were another thing altogether. that was the Viking shock troops. probably took some concoction akin to the Zulu juice where they were incapable of fear & felt little or know pain. charging a line of archers would be perfectly fine, so long as they took a few with them. again, most of this is conjecture going on reading material which may be, or have been, disproved since.
unsure my arrows/minute rate of fire. have never raced a timer. but nock to shoot is about 3 seconds for me - on an inanimate target (or a living target unaware of my presence, if such a thing was A. legal & B. necessary lol), a target, charging with intent to end my days in blistering & savage violence? I think fear, nerve, near panic - may play a slightly psychological role in my ability to shoot straight & well. let us hope I never have to answer that question ;) lol
Aaaa :D Great intro. But, why does it always have to be a war scenario? Thousands against thousands. Bows were used in other situations as well. It was a weapon, much like a gun nowadays. Not all encounters were huge battles. You really have a problem with speed shooting, don't you? Again, a bow was a weapon., invented to hunt and protect you. And in that respect being able to shoot as fast as possible was an advantage, isn't it so? Not in a long battle, but in day to day life. Now a days it's just a hobby, but historically, like any martial art, every second counts. And like martial arts, speed shooting techniques have endured for thousands of years. Doesn't that give it any credence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling your reasoning, I just enjoy a good argument. I still love you Nu. Keep doing what you do, man :D
I don't have a problem with speed shooting. I have a problem with the poor argumentation that is used to suggest that speed shooting was used in contexts where it would otherwise be inappropriate or impossible, and this is highlighted by faulty logic and incorrect assumptions. So as to make no mistaken assumptions, let's do this line-by-line. *But, why does it always have to be a war scenario? Bows were used in other situations as well. It was a weapon, much like a gun nowadays. Not all encounters were huge battles.* Because that is what most people envision when they use this scenario. There are very few other scenarios in which a swordsman would charge at you. If there is another context, specify the context and that can be debated. *Again, a bow was a weapon., invented to hunt and protect you.* The bow was invented first and foremost as a tool to hunt with. The assertion that it was to "protect" is an unnecessary and inaccurate logical extension. This is like saying "An axe was invented to chop wood...and protect you" or "A knife was invented to cut things and protect you". That something can be adapted to serve for protection may be true in most cases, but it doesn't lend any credence to your later statements. *And in that respect being able to shoot as fast as possible was an advantage, isn't it so?* For hunting? No. Hunters shoot from close distance to bring down prey with a single shot. Rapid shooting would not provide any advantage, as this would spook the animal and it is nearly impossible to hit a fleeing animal. There may be exceptional examples, such as the Plains nations hunting bison on horseback, but for nearly all other forms of hunting, speed was not a factor. Modern hunters don't use automatic weapons to gun down deer. A bowhunter, with a weapon that is inherently a single-shot tool, did not use multiple arrows to bring down prey. If there is evidence otherwise, either modern or historical, please provide evidence. *...like any martial art, every second counts.* In the context of combat, in this case, yes - every second counts. But this is not an argument that supports speed. Combat is entirely contextual. Speed *can* be an advantage, but it isn't always an advantage, isn't always needed and isn't always possible. If speed was paramount, we'd equip all our soldiers with automatic rifles that can shoot 1200rpm - but there are obvious problems with this. Archery is no different in that the other factors can be just as important, and depending on context, more important: speed, power and accuracy form the triangle of archery, and this is supported in historical and military texts, from Gao Ying to the "pillars of archery" cited in Saracen Archery. The mindset of "every second counts" means that the limited timeframe of an encounter means every action needs to be carefully considered and wisely acted upon. This doesn't mean to attack with the utmost speed and haste. Does a martial art system maintain that you should punch as quickly and as many times as possible, as speed is advantageous? That would be ridiculous, as much as a modern soldier holding down the trigger and emptying their magazine. There are situations were it may be necessary to attack rapidly, but this is not every situation, and such action may not be possible depending on the tools you have at your disposal. *And like martial arts, speed shooting techniques have endured for thousands of years. Doesn't that give it any credence?* This is too ambiguous to be proved or disproved, and makes the fundamental mistake of generalising "martial arts" as one thing, as "archery" is one thing. Just as there are different martial arts, there are different styles of archery, each adapted to suit the context that it was used for. Firstly, the assertion that "speed shooting techniques have endured for thousands of years" is somewhat dubious, as we do not have records of methods that extend this far. The earliest documented evidence that describes what could be considered "speed" shooting is the Mameluk text (which we know as "Saracen Archery" dating to the 14th century). More to the point, however, is that numerous sources *don't* support the use of speed shooting methods, as these methods were not used and not suitable in other contexts. Therefore, we cannot say that speed shooting endured for thousands of years when many cultures never used it. When historical texts that cover these methods, from Roger Ascham to Gao Ying, either neglect or outright criticise shooting faster than necessary, doesn't that give credence to the case against speed shooting? Does the existence of an Arab text that contains speed shooting methods mean that an English archer, an African tribal hunter or a Ming military archer must have logically used speed shooting techniques in the same situation, even though their equipment, culture and style of warfare vastly differed to that of the Arabs? That brings my argument to this final point: *What exactly is speed shooting?* Many people today use the "Lars Andersen = speed shooting = combat archery" mindset - again, despite evidence to the contrary. In comparison to modern firearms, speed shooting involves techniques that are specifically adapted to be as quickly as possible, and this can include alterations to equipment (such as hair triggers, modified holsters and bandoliers, etc.) and exceptional, specialised training. Jerry Miculek can empty two magazines with a double-action trigger in mere seconds and nail a target in realistic distances with precision. But would such a method be used by police and military? What is possible may not be what is practical. A more contextual understanding of "speed" shooting is shooting as quickly as possible. That is, using the normal method of shooting, but going through the steps at a faster pace with less time to rest between each shot. The key in this understanding as the condition "fast *as possible"*. There are physical limitations to how quickly one can draw an arrow from the belt, how fast they can draw a war bow, and how soon they can repeat the process with accumulated fatigue. An English longbowman can shoot an arrow every 10 seconds at a fairly relaxed pace (and this is fast compared to modern archers), and they can sustain that all day. As the fighting closed, they could go up to an arrow every 6 seconds, but that would quickly exhaust the archer and render him unable to shoot after a minute, as demonstrated by Mark Stretton. A Chinese archer, who is almost always depicted as only shooting from a quiver, would be unable to go through the motions of loading, drawing and aiming any faster than 3 seconds, and this is exceptional speed for a style that prided itself on power and accuracy. So when we see renowned "speed" shooters such as Mihai Cozmei, Lajos Kassai and Lars Andersen, we see styles that are significantly faster and based on historical methods in Asiatic archery sources and traditions, and we can see where such methods could have practically been used, adapted to be shot slowly and carefully if needed, and to a maximum speed when necessary - but no faster. Thus, we see the differences in approaches and tactics. If faced with an approaching enemy, an Arab or Hungarian archer may be more inclined to use shower-shooting to improve the chance of a hit. A Ming archer might hold onto their arrow until they were within a "certain kill" distance. An English archer might draw and loose instinctively at the target as soon as they were within point-on distance, discharge three or more arrows, then fight with sword and buckler. A mounted Parthian archer might loose a dozen arrows and then ride away. Each culture and style dealt with this situation in the way that was more effective and most appropriate for their context. Thus, the single assumption that speed is essential in this kind of armed conflict is misguided.
@@NUSensei I should really thank you for such good reply you've written and your video. But to the point that "If there is another context" thing I'm thinking about multiple scenarios that might related to this topic so I may discuss it here. I think one of the things you mentioned that "most people envisioned speed-shooting scenario" for war, but if I remember right most of such scenario happens for characters that are mostly into banditry or trick-shooting, outlaws, thieves, elfs.etc, for such occupation it might be possible for many scenarios that could happen: a poacher might encounter several wolves/dogs charging at them in the forest, an outlaw might encounter other bandits in a dense foreset, a thieve/bandit walking on a hotile street might turn a corner and find a four-man guard team with both swordsmen and crossbow that happens to walking towards him at a distance of less than 7m... What these scenarios shared in common would be that first, there's only split-second to react with a melee weapon (especially if the protagonist have a longsword that takes longer time to pull out than a knife), and second, The archer in these scenario are OUTNUMBERED and CAN BE OUTRUNNED so running away only results in death (canines surely runs faster, or the guards can shoot bolts if the bandit turn his back), i really think it would be highly possible for an outlaw/poacher to encounter these scenarios as he often works alone or with only a small numer of companions. Such scenario can even been applied to soldiers, that not all war scenarios are archers having equalized number towards infantry but it might be circumstances like 100 angry mobs charging towards 20 (or worse, 10). In these scenarios shooting at normal speed might be a disadvantage as the other enemy/animals can still charge at the archer even if he took down one or two, and no one can survive a melee fight against multiple opponents. I think actually LOTR represented some of these circumstances really well, because everytime when Legolas have to use his bows, he often faces swarms of orcs charging at the party with few companions that can shoot arrows at them. In such scenario, I would say speed shooting could be vital to at least temporarily supress enemy that outnumbers the archer, and it might be even better if a skilled archer can take down several enemies at split-second (the dogs/crossbowmen first .etc) and then he can retreat without being outrunned. Even if there's only a single opponent with armour at range less than 5-7m, shooting multiple arrows at him in few seconds might also confuse or supress him before the archer have time to pull out his 80cm messer. However it's just a theory. (There might be some more hollywood scenarios like maybe an excutioner with several guards is going to hang one of the hostages and the archer need to take them down quickley, or an assassin need to take down 2-3 guards in a watchtower before any of them sound the alarm, but these also shares some similar points like the protagonist is outnumbered and the circumstances force him to fight than flight) It might also differs with the regions for this scenario, most people talks about English longbows while discussing archery, but I'm currently interested in Eastern-European (especiall Polish) archers who might use composite and recurved bows that have less strength but can surely draws faster. It might be easier for them to perform speed-shooting than a cliche English setting. Also about the point you mentioned in the video about Cavalry charging at archers, it's interesting for me because i rarely find historical examples about cavalry successfully routing foot archer formations (maybe because in most times archers are well defended by footmen like in Argincourt), it's interesting if this do happens in history, in most cases people focus on Knights and infantry while talking about medieval battle casualties, but rarely talk about possible circumstances that an entire missile formation is suddenly crushed from the back by a cavalry charge, before the knights/infantry engaging in face-to-face melee.
not sure if a cavalry charge is the best against archers , like in world war 1 when the snipers dominated the trenches ,until they got shelled , the rise of other sniper schools and training was implemented to deal with them so you got sniper vs sniper. relating this to archer gives us a scenario where you enter into the realm of close combat so a shielded unit like the crossbow men could advance under cover or other archers , of course the archers with the heavier bows would have better reach so first one to shoot from further away wins. a mouted knight was costly and most of the advantage was the expensive trained war horse. charging into the arrows storm is most likely the horse being bigger will get hit and die reducing the mounted unit to a footman giving you more time to pelt them with arrows . taking out dollars worth of units with arrows costing pennies . why roman shield wasnt used to close the distance is beyond me
Cavalry charges were often the only way to rout archers. A well-timed charged against archers caught out of position, or without defensive works, would have the desired effect. The battles in which English longbowmen did not have a significant impact were the ones where they were ridden down unsupported.
yes sadly the cavalry charge dominated so the chiltron apparead and bad leaders wasted their troops . it amazes me that history channel or discovery has not put a ballistic dummy in full armour and gotten 100 or so archers to fire at the thing on horse back , or make some machine to fire a volley and get some data points like how many arrows will actually hit within one square meter with wind and different draw weights , formation of the archers . how many volleys would be loosed by the time a horse covers 200 meters ?
Interesting point about the volleys, I remember seeing a video by the Warbow Society shooting at a replica breastplate and as is often seen the arrow failed to penetrate. However they continued shooting and the 5th or 6th certainly did - by then the breastplate was a mess of dents which allowed the arrows to gain more purchase.
People who ask this kind of question don't know much about ancient warfare. By the time the lines met the archers fell back. The archers were in the back to begin with. A knight commanding an army would never risk his archers by putting them in the middle of the melee at the front lines. If An archer did meet an enemy one on one, as in they were broken off in confusing terrain like thick forest and surprised one another mutually. He would also be carrying a sword, or mace, a dagger or two. Not even a knight went out with just armor and a sword. So in that scenario an archer would not even reach for his bow. Keep in mind he was a squire before he became an archer. That means he learned the basics of hand to hand, as well as staves, swords, and bow from a young age. He is an archer because in his youth training his teachers noted him to be proficient in bow and taught it to him as a focus. That doesn't mean all he knows how to use is a bow. Like you said. In usual situations these types of encounters were rare if not unheard of. It would have to be an arena situation where you drop two combatants in an arena with selected equipment and see what happens.
Once again NUSensei against Totalwar players or Turn by Turn RPG fans x) . Logic and knowledge against Folklore and modern believes. Of course archers are very underestimate troops in close combat, to simplify numerous video games rules but guys this is not reality. In middle age in europe, the word "Archer" is used in strategic context most of the time. Because most of troops was "Men at arms". At the beginning this word is used to define a polyvalent warrior. The "Men at Arms" can be archer in Battle number 1 and Spearmen in battle number 2 it just depend of what kind of "Arms" your superior gived to you before battle. An "archer" is a soldier in first place. Take a look of the battle of "Azincourt".
Actually, the term "men-at-arms" is typically used to describe professional soldiers equipped with, if not knight-quality equipment, then something close to it while not actually being a knight or nobleman. And no, an archer would not be deployed in battle as a spearman except in an emergency. An archer is an investment; not just anyone can draw and shoot a bow powerful enough to be considered useful as a battlefield weapon. It takes years of constant practice, which is why the English paid their archers more than their billmen, and why the archers at Agincourt didn't take up melee weapons until they were out of arrows. In that scenario, it was a light force of mostly archers; note that in a proper English army, as at Crecy or Poitiers, the archers were not sent into the fray. At Agincourt, they were backed into a corner, and putting their archers into melee combat intentionally was essentially a move of desperation against a disadvantaged foe stuck in the mud and tripping over the corpses of their comrades. Normally they followed up on the arrow storm with men-at-arms and knights, but those were not present in great enough numbers at Agincourt.
It gets annoying tho the way bows are shown in games. Arrows were designed to tear through things. You can't just remove an arrow the way it came into the body most of the time. (In all that I mean, give my style of game play importance and not just "Oh look an arrow from the weakest link.")
My personal favorite in movies that feature archers, is when an archer draws his bow and holds it at full draw indefinitely, like someone pointing their gun. Good luck holding your bow at full draw with 150 lb draw weight.
keep shooting them, if they get too close run, if you got other troops using pikes or such then switch with them once the enemy get close and keep shooting
With so many swords and so many bows throughout history, it is pretty safe to bet that sometimes there was a single archer up against a single swordsman. If not on military campaign, but perhaps in the civilian context. For example, imagine a farmer just coming home from target practicing the bow with his friends, when he encounter a road bandit on the way of pillaging one other local farmer, with just a sword. What would happen? It could have happened!
Depends on the armor arrow and how if u have arrows tipped specially for penetration of armor and a high draw weight if u hit him even with armor there's a good chance u will kill him or hurt him badly or knock him back or cause him to trip and that's just 1 Archer 1 arrow
I love medieval video games, but they get historical combat all wrong. Real combat is all about keeping your foe at a distance because it is less danger to you, and all it takes to incapacitate someone is a fairly small puncture. One arrow, or spear thrust and most people will be out of the fight for weeks, or die from infection. It's about efficiency, not looking cool.
not quite. I would roll for either axe-wielding Berserker Rage or Dragon Charmer spell. let's see how your Ring of Arrows does against a Dragonrider ;) lol
I love your video's, however the battle of Marathon was won by melee units against archers by charging.. in full armor. So it's not madness, although the Persians always lacked discipline it seems. Still, in my opinion, it's a valid question. 😊 many good vids on TH-cam on how..
The Battle of Marathon wasn't so much melee units charging into archers. It was melee units charging into a completely unprepared army unaccustomed to Greek tactics - a different concept and context to why people use this scenario.
This is preposterous... fantasized characters usually seem to be better than the average (sometimes, that one badass that’s stronger and faster than the rest). Like anime for example, a lot of the time.. every character seems to be some type of evolved human, besides regular civilians... they die normally and regularly as they do in real life. Most likely.. as long as the characters have enhanced speed and strength.. yes.. they will beat an archer, of course to some extent still depending on the situation. Archers still have the advantage.. as long as the swordsman isn’t within hand to hand combat... from there that’s just individual skill with sword.
Hey nusensei i am looking for a recurve to start on and use for hunting i don't what bow to get if you have any advice it would be appreciated. And also i live in australia so would i need to get a permit to own a american bow?
NUSensei i knew that but my mate said you can't have bows from a different country or something but he musg be full of it. Thanks for your time and help man really appreciated
NUSensei okay good because i want a samick sage i was thinking of but didn't want to get confiscated or something haha. Thanks sensei have a good one mate
A quick question; Does anyone know if there is sight for bows that can be calibrated for different ranges? Kinda like a rifle, where you shoot in the bow at intervalls, 20m, 30m, etc..
There are many versions of the bow sights with quick range/distance adjustment. Newest version is made by Garmin, this sight is using electronic distance measurement to target and projects dot in correct position on your scope. Search for Garmin Xero A1
I did Kendo for a bit , and I can honestly say , if there was a samurai charging at me with a yari spear , I would sh!t my pants before I even nock the arrow
A true archer would shit his pants While knocking the arrow, you'd have practiced enough for muscle memory to activate...you'd also end up with a clean pair of pants, if the samurai didn't shit them when he saw you pull back on the bow.
War movies make archers look weak and they also make them look thin in the movies and also looks malnourished good thing there's Legolas to prove them wrong.
this is why people think archers would get destroyed, but i'm glad that you brought up other arms that archers carried. people tend to look this over. th-cam.com/video/Ej3qjUzUzQg/w-d-xo.html
There are very few, if any instances, of Roman infantry defeating (specifically) archers in battle. Roman infantry had advantages to provide protection against missiles, but the battle was won (or lost) on a strategic level instead of this 1v1 or unit v unit match-up. The most notorious of the Roman defeats against archers (albeit horse archers) was Carrhae, in which the Roman infantry were helpless against the continually-supplied Parthian horse archers. Even if you take the horses away, Roman infantry don't have a way to rout archers, who would leave the battle to their own infantry.
A Roman infantryman carrying 50 lbs of armor would catch a lightly armed archer?? Maybe if the infantryman was among the most genetically gifted men in the globe at that time, vs an archer with 2 bad knees. Then yes. Otherwise, no.
Skeeter McBeater Norris could do a lightning fast round house from 10 paces away, causing a tornado between them making the old lady’s shot inaccurate. Even if he’s slow with his kick (he is getting a little old) he could always just catch the bullet in his teeth😁
only if the gun was already prepped & ready to go. a knifer isn't going to draw steel & walk onto a gunman from distance. Kn would stay ostensibly unarmed & unthreatening until pretty much beside the GM, who's gun would most likely be holstered & safe at this point. then behind GMs back Kn draws & slips the blade into GMs kidneys. knife beats gun.
this is not really helpful in debunking this senario. firstly if i talk about man at arms, what time are we talking? early medievel waering a full assembly of mail or plate? that alone makes all the differenc in how effective the archers will be. while bursting the ring of mail is a realistic senario puncturing plate isnt. sure u could always hit a gapp but aming at those 50m+, not sure. they arnt that exposed to beginn with if ur advancing normaly. the how poilnt of armored combat is to wrestel down the enemy to get in these gapps, its not easy. also more likty to have a speerman charde at u since swords were what hand guns are now, side arms used only as back up or in civillian fights. pls dont say lightly armored archres dance around heavy armord man at arms, full plate is not half the disadvantege fantasy makes it out to be. full plate is all benefit no down site. the restriction of movement comes mostly from what u were beneth the plate not the plate itself, full plate was in most cases articulated more then the human joins could move in the first place. the the food man wears plate and the archer doesnt the it looks bad eaven if the food man is more exausted. if both were mail the the archer would still have to over come the reach advantege to the polearm and pass by a shield that he may be missing. i dont think that a soldier armed with sword or spear, etc would charge an archer in the first place. if i were an archer and found my self in the senario unable to retreat i would drop my bow and draw my sword axe mace etc. and fight back like that. archers are armend for meele. but if we really take this serious i think the arches chance od winning in close combat are 40% at best. ur an archer ur are not equipped to fight in the conditions, the tool u have are really u last ditch not ur trump card. my concluson: archers in meele far from helpless but still far bedder of is the dont get to close.
You're assuming that all knight or men at arms had high quality armor to protect against arrows in the first place. The quality of steel back then would have been form very poor to average depending on the blacksmith and the availability of iron. So, knight in shining armor is not as "arrowproof" as you think. Furthermore, you had crossbows which are even easier to use than a bow and packs more punch, enough to pierce armor or at least damaged it. I don't think anyone would said that an archer's trump card is in close combats, at least form what I understand form the video. Nusensei just points out how disadvantages is for a foot soldier to fight an archer in close combat after being barrage by arrows and marching forward. Many factors here just benefit the archers more than a foot soldier is. Basically, its just like fighting an already exhausted enemy, he many be well prepared for close combat, but the don't have they stamina to do it. So, IMO a battle between an army of advancing foot soldiers and an army of archer is always at an disadvantages, even though the foot soldiers managed to close the distance.
u make a point but im refering to the ridiculus assumtion of the 1vs1 senario. the armor makes all the diference. also why does every one makes it sound like using a bow does not fatige u? not to mention that the muskel used in archery are not the same u use in sword fighting. it helps dont get me wrong aving muscels and stamina are always helpful in combat but its still not the same. and of couse i know that most people had helmets and gambeson or mail, not full plate. but if we talk about a fictiv senaroi realistic or not we should be more specific about it. other wise u have to many holes and i theorie dosnt hold up. kinde like shad initial one. to many holes to many open questions. on a different note. yes crossbows are easyer to aim, thus requier less training. but they are not more powerfull. the short power draf of the crossbow necessitats the highdraw wight as to make the bolt fly as power full as a bow. in short the longer u draw the bow the more time is ther to accelerate the arrow = more power. crossbow dont penetrate armor and where not part of the discussion.
but you should also than say that arrows were not so good quality to puncture armor of iron... and new carbon bows have greater efficiency of draw weight than medieval wooden bows.
Full plate's principal disadvantage (besides cost, of course) was heat. It is easy to overheat in, especially if you're burning calories quickly (if you're, for example, running around on foot carrying 65 pounds of weight). Thus, if they were fighting aggressively (and not holding a line), they tended to fight on horseback. Barding was expensive and didn't arrive on the scene until later on, so horses were typically vulnerable to arrows. Even if you can't kill the armored cavalrymen themselves, you can rob them of their most immediate threat, the couched lance charge, while at the same time costing them a great deal of money. This protects your own soldiers from harm, while allowing you to attack their peasant levies without significant risk to your own men. Then, when their levies are dead or scattered and they're unable to mount a coherent cavalry charge, you send in your own (fresh) men-at-arms to capture or kill the (fatigued and disorganized) enemies. Or you can just use light cavalry to lure them into charging over and over again, using their vainglory to pull them away from their supporting foot soldiers and allowing you to surround them with a vastly overwhelming force, annihilate them, then move on to the rest of the army with a significant advantage. That happened more than a few times during the Crusades. Horse archers are very effective, as long as you don't have any particularly urgent need to hold a particular area or go up against foot archers.
@@Zigg33 medieval bows arent always made from wood. The more quality versions of them are made from horns, sinew and bone. A good example you can find is with the traditional korean or chinese war bow.
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 25 วันนี้!! "อเล็กซิส vs รีเกียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/suVr9a6BM2g/mqdefault.jpg)
I had to stop watching right at the beginning. I was too intimidated and got scared by the charge.
*Chivalry Medieval Warfare* taught me to duck and side step when charging an archer. :D
That opening scene was scary. :O
*charging* aaaa....
Thats why I always spam longbowman in Age of Empires.
Man of culture
Same
0:02 Most Brutal Metal Scream 2018
"switching to your sidearm is always quicker than reloading"
As I've previously mentioned; in war scenarios wherein two armies are facing off against each other, there would likely be formations of pikemen and swordsmen battling it out in the skirmish. The only way for a line of swordsmen from army A to come charging at a line of archers from army B in a 1:1 ratio would be if the swordsmen and pikemen of army B were all dead, in which case, the archers of army B would retreat (with a lot more stamina than the charging, battle fatigued, armoured swordsmen) while retaining the advantage of being able to pepper the charging swordsmen with arrows while retreating. Add to that the use of terrain as an advantage in military tactics, the charging swordsmen would likely be running uphill. Finally, as discussed by LindyBeige in the video "Pursuit in Battles - Don't Try Too Hard", it's a bad idea to chase a retreating enemy, since you're more likely to survive if you don't catch up, and the battle will still have been won.
Or a part of the infantry was acting as a flanking force, hidden from view and the enemy doesn't have cavalry.
If the archer was using a samick sage they would have killed all the swordsman instantly
im dead
having one, i'd agree. but if I merely took my Hoyt Charger out it's case, the entire opposing army would instantly fall down dead on their own lines XD
Tru dat
Or a Bear Super Kodiak :D
I have recent;y bought one as a cheap way to get into the sport. Do you consider it a bad bow?
Since you holding a Larp Sword , i share a bit about my experience from there, also with the archer volley topic.
so i play in a group that is mainly made from around 10-15 people all equipped with a 25 pounds bow.
even without any support of other troups normaly a close combat enemy feels nervous rushing against us.
cause your assumption is absolutly correct, the closer they get, the better we hit
a similar siced meele troup mostly reaches us when they are down to 5 oder 7 persons.
and then we have to decide, since we all have close combat weapons we could rush them with supirior number, or since we dont wear much armor, only gambelsons, we are most of the time faster, we still can outrun them pretty easy
(( ok in Larp the shield is invincible that is a huge problem, but i will only mention it here ))
it is a matter of fact that an arrcher will just switch to his sidearm when the enemy gets close. even an one and one scenario has the archer the adventage, the first who strikes will most likely win.
now about the volley. Actualy we never informed us much about how it realy happend in the middle age. since the larp scenario allows only battles with around 100 people on each side, with ca 20 archers it comes often down to this,
we shoot one volley as a first strike, and to keep the enemy occopied, while our meeles rush in.
then we switch to individual fire, even going so far as to closing in our and breaking our own battleline to use the gaps between the own meele troops. aiming for weak spots at the enemy line or special targets.
since its small scale we run out of arrows and then switch just to meele fighting at the flanks of the battle .
as i say i am not sure how it was realy down to that time, but since it feels natural to do so, i would assume that in the old times they applyed same tactics
and thanks for the intressting videos
everybody (well, maybe just most folk) think of medieval battles as grand Tolkeinesque epic scale affairs. back in the day, human populations were MUCH lower. a sizeable army probably numbered 2-500 warriors plus supporting personnel, runners, cooks, camp whores and such. 20 archers among those numbers could be pretty devastating
"ahhhhhh"
- NUSensei
"a swordsman charging at an armed bowman is madness" madness? *THIS! IS!! SPARTA!!!*
and even those brave & mighty 300 fell to an arrow storm in the end. "fight in the shade" my Persian ass XD - poor joke. i'm not actually Persian lol
Okay, so massed archers beat massed swordsmen. That's all I wanted to know...because for years Warcraft has taught me the opposite.
I suspect the prevalence of the archer vs swordsman thought experiment is actually an extrapolation of knife versus gun, from modern day police practical experiments.
The experiment using several hundred participants, over many trials, has shown that a knife is 80% more effective than an _unprepared_ gun armed person when the distance is less than 7 meters.
The average time it takes a knife weilding assailant to bury the knife in a target from a distance of 7 meters, is right around 1.2-1.8 seconds. Many factors were included, such as elderly knife holders, people on crutches, people at the peak of health, short and tall people, etc.
The average time it took to draw, find target, and fire for the stationary gunner was around 2 seconds.
The precedent was therefore set that within a radius of 7 meters, a ranged target was at a severe speed disadvantage to a mobile melee assailant.
Reality is of course not a laboratory experiment, and people are not averages of the populace, but the upper limit set forth by the experiment was that trained and untrained shooters alike, could not fire adequately in the space of time most likely to be alotted for defensive action, in that space.
Where this becomes important is that we tend to think of swordsmen as 'people with long knives' and we think of archers as 'ye olde gunmen'.
However, the logistics of modern self defense and police shooting, are wildly different from the logistics of realistice medieval battle scenarios.
Its not impossible that a person only armed with a bow might at some point have unluckily been assailed by someone only armed with a sword, at any point in history, but it would have been an exception to the rule of how archers and swordsmen behaved... an exception, that, as it is _so_ rare and exceptional, exists only to confirm the rule is in place. (Barring any evidence contradicting this that we may find in the future, though we have not as of now)
In this rare event, then the answer would be a function of probabilities (not absolutes) related to the average speed at which an archer could nock, point, and loose an arrow, by comparison to the average speed a swordsman could close a distance and execute a debilitating attack (which is further reliant on both the average speeds of the archer and swordsmen in order to set said distance).
These are variables we can only guess at at best, given modern examples and historical accounting, neither of which are necessarily accurate.
I would posit, as a very rough estimate, that 20 meters is effectively skewed in the favor of melee versus ranged, given period data, and negating the possibility of a melee defense in kind. 20 Meters seems like a relatively easy to cross distance which would subvert the ability to nock and loose.
The problem then becomes: How does one engineer a scenario where target A and target B have become that close without both being prepared for each other beforehand?
It also depends on the time period, and what we're talking about. Historically the most elite archers like The English Longbowman, the Mongol and Muslim Horse Archers, the Genoiese Crossbowman etc, tended to start learning at very young ages (ex. it was law in England that every male between 7 and 70 practice 3 hours of archery a day) Archers from countries like France and many Italian City States for example were often mercenaries or poorly trained conscripts. Also the swordsman of the medieval period was often weighed down by heavy armor, granted if you're talking about the Early Modern Period where swordsmen were just as likely to brandish guns and wear lighter armor, then you'd have a problem as an archer since the swordsman wouldn't be weighed down by as much armor and could charge much faster.
The knife vs gun scenario applied I pre black powder era would be a civilian situation, and I would say look at the chosen self defence items of various ported periods; knives and swords. Bow vs sword cannot really be compared to gun vs knife.
this is ridiculous. Both a sword guy and a bow guy ARE trained somewhat and know of each other and see each other. Who cares if there's a mincy chance that the bow guy screws up. He has a couple shots first is the point. You can get any one if you're hiding in the bushes and "Blaahhhh!!!!" , yea sure... not a point of contention.
my own rate from nock to shoot is about 3seconds. that does not include drawing the arrow from quiver & positioning the outer vane/nocking point - i'd add at least another 2 seconds for that. call it 5 seconds. exclude fear/panic at being charged at by someone intent on ending your life with a bit fekn shank of sharp heavy steel or iron. it comes down to could a human wielding a sword cover, say - at least 20metres in 5 seconds? less than that, i'm throwing away my bow & drawing my own blade or axe - if I was a medieval warrior. let's face it, no archer walks onto a battlefield armed ONLY with a bow & arrows. you would just KNOW you had to be ready for the possibility of hand to hand. I would think
That 7m range (more commonly known as the 21 foot rule) was a standard for police use of force guidance to draw and aim their sidearm... NOT draw and SHOOT their side arm just because a suspect displayed a lethal contact weapon. They needed to be able to answer challenges from the pundits of "he only had a knife and you already had your gun drawn! We don't need such trigger happy cops!"
This is specifically the stacking effects of reaction time, putting one's hand on the sidearm, drawing it from a holster, getting a good grip and then shooting it.
Completely different if you have already have a weapon in hand, loaded, with a good grip just waiting for the moment to shoot. So by analogy, the arrow is already nocked, fingers on the string ready to draw and loose. One motion.
This scenario is pointless, why would you have a bow in hand ready to face adversaries but not have an arrow knocked? It's like having a gun at the ready but it's unloaded.
"[WILD ASIAN WARCRY]"
"ah."
It’s much more scary when thousands of them are doing it at once
Another interesting point is this scenario always seems to be based around a foot archer. Considering that most "speed shooting experts" use horsebows then why not flip it around? What happens if a swordsman charges a Mongol? He rides away is the boring answer, no speed shooting needed.
Rocketfist McDangerpants Or . . . what if a bunch of swordsmen charge a riding Mongol? Within five seconds, the swordsmen are all dead, the Mongol didn't lose a step, and they're putting on their sunglasses while explosions go off behind them. Eyyyy
Speed shooting from horseback, if all this Lars stuff has some truth to it, means that a few of mounted archers could devastate entire groups of footsoldiers from relative safety. Maybe this is how the Mongols wrecked everyone's day.
Lars is full of crap. You can't use those techniques with any bow capable of defeating even a gambeson.
@@jamieg2427 entire groups of unarmed peasants maybe, a group of people with some decent armor and SHIELDS then only a few will be injured, horsearchers always had the purpose of disruption and lowering the morale, they were never magical machine guns that killed hundreds while they charged
And even better, just use the Parthian Shot whilst riding away for extra insult
Him: It is highly unlikely
Me: May the odds be ever in your favour
I swordsman runs towards you, you drop the bow and pull your gun... Oh wait you mean historically?
#NuSensei Actualy in battle of Marathon, Athenians sprinted over the battlefield to reach the Persians and mitigating the archers effect. I think always is counting also the way how you deploy the infantry
I think this was less about charging towards archers and generally just charging at the Persians before they realised what was happening.
The Greek hoplites repeated the feat at Palateea. Again the tactic wass to minimize the archer effect on troops . But yes, in both cases was a combination between speed & armor & surprise. Why I say this? The Athenians during the Peloponezian War used archers and other skhirmishers to wipe out Spartans or make them surrender.
You also need to take into account that the Athenians were hoplites with large shields~and moving in formation, NOT individually. I wouldn't say they charged but rather a fast and well choreographed disciplined run.
Fantastic video! Great points, well made.
Interesting video, never been able to practice archery but I find your channel very informative
'fallacy' implies that it would never happen.
But not all bows are war bows. Not all archers highly trained and steadfast. Not all combats battles. Not all armour ineffective at resisting arrows. Not all archers perfectly rested and fed while their opponents are not.
And not all quivers filled with an infinite number of arrows.
How is that implied? Of course there are plenty of "not all" anecdotes.
To me, a fallacy is something that implies that the logic behind the assumption is wrong and therefore mostly did not happen, but maybe still happened on rare occasions.
EG: It's a fallacy that "anyone who picks up a rubik's cube can solve it in under 10 seconds", but there are still rare cases of people who can do it under 5.
fallacy
/ˈfaləsi/
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"
synonyms: misconception, mistaken belief, misbelief, delusion, false notion, mistaken impression, misapprehension, misjudgement, miscalculation, misinterpretation, misconstruction, error, mistake, untruth, inconsistency, illusion, myth, fantasy, deceit, deception, sophism;
a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.
"Kraft exposes three fallacies in this approach"
faulty reasoning.
"the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem"
This is Nusensi, and I ruin everything.
Jk love you nu!!!!!!!
"Aa."
Instantly earned my like on the video
The biggest thing that people just don't get about extreme range archery firing en masse onto an advancing enemy is that the individual archer within that archer unit is not aiming at any particular enemy soldier. The whole group firing together is massing their fire so that they can get a combined effect and a certain percentage of arrows while hit a vulnerable spot... It's the same as a machine gunner firing at a formation of enemy soldiers at 1000 meters, he isn't using pinpointed fire, he's using short bursts of what's called 'grazing fire' and sometimes 'plunging fire' .... The object is not for an individually aimed shot to hit with pinpointed accuracy but the bursts of bullets to keep the enemies' heads down, keep them from effectively maneuvering to flank and mount a counter attack.... It's the difference between direct fire and indirect fire.
Mostly good points, but I don't think most types of archers participated in melee as you described it? Sure they had melee weapons like swords, but those were generally secondary weapons. If you only have swords (and maybe a small supplementary weapon like a buckler or a dagger), you're pretty screwed against a shieldwall, pike formations, or troops in plate armour.
Of course that doesn't apply to all archers, as you say. The Samurai are a popular example of warriors who were both archers and heavy melee troops, bringing primary melee weapons like polearms and heavy armour. But I don't think central Europeans for example had archers like that. Agincourt seems to be a very extreme example of a heavyhanded assault through awful terrain, where the French arrived so sparsely, disrupted, and exhausted, into well prepared positions, that even archers could take them down in melee. But there were many battles with archers which had those hours long formation melees, from which archers certainly wanted to keep their distance, unless they could decisively tip the scales against an opponent who was already entirely bound up by other frontline troops.
You are right. Central europeans mostly used crossbows and early firearms. Probably because high density of forts and castles where crossbows are better suited for combat.
Just something to share during the Imjin War, the Koreans are renowned for their archery however they were often denied by the quick charges made by the Japanese. They were only able to fire two to three shots before they get routed.
isn't that depend on the battlefield and the composition of the soldier?
Ha! Liked the video the instant I saw the title :D Fun times discussing this during livestreams.
Attacking enemy foraging parties was a very common activity in pretty much all eras of warfare. It denies the enemy food and gives your soldiers the chance to gain experience and confidence overcoming weak opposition.
I don't get the logic of "we're here for food so we can't multitask at all, despite bringing weapons I literally cannot imagine using them to oppose our adversaries. I must follow my simple programming of acquiring food. And I expect them to do the same. "
@@Treblaine to some extent, efficient methods of gathering food and supplies will tend to leave your group vulnerable to attack; you'll usually be spread out, probably not wearing much armour, your weapons sheathed, and maybe carrying bags of grain/berries, stolen chickens, firewood, etc.
But yeah, you've still got weapons. Also, if you run into an enemy foraging party, they're going to be in the same situation, so the disadvantage cancels out.
(Also I watched this video five years ago and don't remember exactly what this was about).
@@MisdirectedSasha Well if the bow is in your hand then why not have an arrow knocked?
If the bow is stowed, likely unstrung, then forget about it. But there should be at least one person on the lookout to give a bit more warning than a hostile swordsman appearing a couple dozen paces away.
Even then, I would expect at least a moment for them to assess the situation, for example are you isolated enough that he could rush over to you and then escape before being surrounded? Are you aware of him? Is he sure you're not an ally? Are there obstacles in the way?
It's very video gamey for a swordsman to instantly rush as soon as my avatar intersects with his vision cone.
@@Treblaine I would imagine it would depend on the context. An archer looking to shoot wild animals for food would have his bow strung and probably an arrow at the ready, but an archer carrying a stolen chicken would not.
It's true that a patrol of light cavalry, for example, would not instantly charge a group of dispersed infantry on a foraging party, but neither would the infantry be able to instantly reform into a useful combat formation. The first guy to see the cavalry would have to get everyone's attention, then his buddies would have to understand what was going on and *then* they would have to start closing up to present a credible threat.
Infantry looting a farm or village might also have the problem that some of their number were rooting around in barns and basements where they couldn't see anything that was going on outside.
One would expect there to be *someone* on guard at all times, but there are plenty of examples historically where there seems not to have been, and in any case one or two alert soldiers would not last long against a formation of enemies out looking for a fight.
@@MisdirectedSasha I can't help but think that's just desserts for stealing a poor farmer's chickens. You could impair your ability by greed for all sorts of things. Foraging shouldn't mean stealing from local farmers.
I get it that foraging is a euphemism for looting, but at least try to trade with farmers. I guarantee a great warrior like an archer has something the farmer would trade a lot of food for.
There's really no need to complicate this with unforced errors, if you're expecting contact with the enemy, it's not unreasonable for those who are most likely to first encounter an enemy to be ready to fight. If something needs to be carried have it be carried by someone in the middle of the group.
Good point on light cavalry patrolling and looking for scouts, that's precisely what cavalry are really good at, mopping up small pockets of enemy troops. They would be looking for precisely this sort of combat. I don't think they'd say "Oh, we'll meet at the battle okay?"
Still dealing with the fallout from that Lars speedshooter guy, huh? So, that Saracen archery manual is . . . fake?
older literature was more difficult to make and more expensive to acquire. in every ancient culture that had it, there was a reverence surrounding the written word.
those kinds of books were more likely to be essentially wishful thinking, or rather, a description of what would be ideal if achievable.
Well explained.
aaahhhhhh....... best intro
depends on what kind of archer and what kind of swordman. it could be samurai swordsman charging peasant archer. or samurai archer intercepting peasant swordsman.
You know, the arrowheads used at Agincourt couldn't actually penetrate the French armor - it was too soft. What basically happened was the French were stuck in the mud and got killed by knives. Similar story in the east where Korean archers couldn't really do much to Japanese infantry in the Imjin war.
What about a scenario in which the charge against your archers includes enemy archers too ... why would only one side have archers? I think the side with faster archers and / or with greater range would have an advantage ...
There's one more consideration: The other side having skirmishers of their own. Infantry's job is to take and hold ground, not get kited by skirmishers and cavalry. A better comparison might be archer vs. slinger vs. javelineer vs. crossbowman instead of vs. swordsman.
Light bows and fast shooting do have value! Imagine a family protecting a farm against a small group of thieves. No one will be wearing armor. If someone used to shoot warbows get use a hunting bow, he will be able to shoot very fast and with deadly accuracy. The archer do have a melee weapon and is protected by others. The bandits will have to engage in melee *and* dodge his arrows. If they got hit, they will be more easily killed in melee. They don't even have to be killed, as they probably will choose an easier target after encountering hard resistance!
Hi Nu, i've got back from my club. Pretty great.
I think I'm going to move out the beginner level
I'm going to give a bit of a different scenario. Lets say there are two very skilled fighters in modern day, one being an archer and the other focusing on quicker lighter swords. These two fighters would be trained in all sorts of different fighting techniques learned from past styles focusing on multiple different weapon types. Lets say the light sword fighter is trained in many martial art techniques and has other smaller weapons such as knives and rapiers, and the archer is trained in two handed weapons such as katana's. Also lets assume that they are solo fighters, having to learn dodges as neither have ways to block other than their swords or specially crafted knifes. Could there be an equal chance for a winner?
The thing to understand is that these matchups aren't really about individual skill, but about probability. The skill of the light sword fighter is irrelevant until the fighter is able to be in range to apply their skill. Before that, it is entirely dependent on the archer's ability to hit the target. The archer is unopposed, has deadly kill zone in the 30-50m range and can probably take 2-3 shots on the closing attacker, including a near-certain close-range shot. As long as the archer doesn't lose their nerve and panic, the matchup should be rather lopsided against the swordsman. Just the sheer fact that the archer can attack at range should tip the odds in their favour.
The only way to statistically change this imbalance would be to give the swordsman a way to be impervious to arrows, such as a shield or armour, in which case the matchup swings greatly against the archer because they have an ineffective weapon in a bad scenario.
I could perhaps see this scenario in an indoor fighting context where individual fighters could get separated from the group and have to use whatever weapons they have on hand. I could also imagine this being relevant in a the chaotic aftermath of a battle where non-regular soldiers may be fighting with less clear goals for individual engagements. Likewise many ancient battle strategies were specifically designed to break up enemy lines and create a chaotic scenario. These tactics of breaking up the lines would be more valuable if your archers are capable of functioning independently with high rate of fire at closer distances. If you were an ancient Archer would you only train for scenarios where everything goes according to plan, or would you specifically train for skills that will keep you alive in an SHTF scenario?
Though your point about rate of fire is particularly relevant around the timeframe where early firearms we're starting to be incorporated onto battlefields. Early firearms had absolutely abysmal rate of fire, but rate of fire wasn't always necessary if they had sufficient stopping power at long range. Once tempered steel armor could repel even the most powerful bows, the additional power advantage became more important than the rate of fire disadvantage for those early firearms.
What should be remembered that coming up with an unfavourable scenario doesn't mean that there was a method to deal with the scenario. Archers were typically not used in "indoor fighting" - tas a specialised unit, it would make little sense for archers to be fighting in confined spaces or use bows where other weapons were on hand, or invest time and resources into the absolute worst case scenario where _only_ a bow was available for close quarters combat. Similar problems exist with a musketman or a modern sniper being caught in a CQC environment. There's no trick that would allow them to effectively function in that kind of combat environment, not for lack of skill, but because the equipment provides a hard limit to how fast they can shoot.
The extremely rapid shooting we see with bows is typically only done with light draw weights far below that of what would have been used in battle. But even a modest 3-5 seconds per shot, which an average archer can sustain, is plentiful as long as the enemy is further than 20 metres away.
We don't have any evidence that bows were effectively used in indoor close quarters combat environments.
@@NUSensei
(I Love your channel BTW and I appreciate being able to have an interesting discussion with you.)
Just as modern prison guards and naval sailors use firearms in close quarters, I believe that bows were used in prisons and inside the hulls of ships in medieval Europe and Aisa. Just like any other weapon or tool, there were many types of bows for many purposes. Not all bows were heavy war bows. For the reasons you describe in this video, it makes perfect sense why there would be bows specially made for contexts other than shoulder-to-shoulder battles.
Do I think that specialized, ultra-fast archery techniques were the norm? No. That 3-5 seconds per arrow would have been sufficient for the vast majority of contexts. In some cases where it was more important to be able to hold at full draw while aimed at a target for a long time, but rate of fire was not important, crossbows were preferred to conventional bows. Contrary to what bowhunters will tell you, crossbows were not used to compensate for low archery skill. They were a different type of bow for a specialized purpose and having unique limitations (very low rate of fire).
There were many kinds of bows. Just as with swords: some were all-round weapons, some were specialized for the battlefield, some were highly specialized for other contexts, and some were used specifically for showing off. Status was *hugely* important to medieval warriors, and many swordsmanship manuals include "flashy" techniques that were used for demonstrating skills rather than being highly practical in combat (i.e. wielding two swords simultaneously). The same is true of horses. Mutiple breeds existed for multiple purposes; some specialized and others generalized. A knight would own no fewer than 3 breeds of horse with different battlefield purposes. They also often owned some "show" horses as important status symbols, and would learn some impractical but impressive horsemanship techniques for the same reason.
In North America, there are detailed historical accounts of Comanche warriors effectively using light bows at short range. My point is that the most common contexts are not the only contexts. Naval and prison contexts were important too. Also what we consider "tricks" were of significant social importance at the time.
@@ThirdLawPair
1. Why would historical prison guards need bows? A medieval prison is not like a modern prison. You didn't have a large number of criminals with access to tools and amenities that could overpower a smaller number of guards. Give guards clubs at the minimum, spears and pikes at most. It makes no sense to deploy a specialised soldier with a specialised long-range weapon to guard prisoners chained in a dungeon.
2. There's plenty of evidence to show that bows were used in ship-to-ship combat, but this was for the purpose of long-distance engagement, not fighting in side the hull of the ship. We know from texts that practice of English archers shooting up to and down from the masts, the longbow being a prized weapon for naval combat. But there's no evidence of close quarters fighting with bows on ships.
3. There's little reason to hold a bow at full draw to aim. No historical manual or text advocates long holds. Long holds are a modern method used with lighter target bows, and even then the holds are short.
@@NUSensei The long holds were used when laying siege to a castle or another fortified position. With a crossbow you could aim at the crenel and wait for enemy archers to appear. Aiming in a ready position directly at the crenel made it so you could get your shot off before the archer on the wall.
@@ThirdLawPair Could you point me to a source that demonstrates / explains long holds during sieges?
"a swordsman would never charge you, it just wouldn't happen" I'll be sure to tell my DM that in my next game of Dungeons & Dragons. I'm sure he'll understand that the swordsman should just leave to meet me at "the battle" after I've finished looting.
What if the footmen have the Defend upgrade ?
the archers have Dragonrider upgrade ;)
Very Good Information .
But Nu Sensei ,but, but, what about the Battle of Marathon. Greek hoplites charging the Persian line to clear the beaten zone as quickly as possible protected by shields and armour, to engage the Persians in melee combat.
This situation was already answered by Legolas at the Battle of Amon Hen
Hi. I'm new to your channel. And I really like it. I'm getting into archery for hunting, and I learned so much from you. Before this video started, I was thinking about the target animal, or a random animal, charging me. And my counter to that, is rapid firing with a reverse string grip & back quiver, or, firing multiple arrows at once into the animal's chest, like that Elf in Lord of the Rings did, to the back of a monster's head. What do you think?
I think you shouldn't mix real life and fantasy. It won't work well for you.
@@NUSensei
In my rapid fire example, I was thinking of the video, of that red haired Russian lady, firing arrows quickly, but isn't her form bad for a high draw-weight Bow for hunting? And other than The Lord of the Rings example. I've seen videos of people seriously firing at least 2 arrows, at the same time.
There was an incident, where a man ran at a cop, with a knife, and even though the cop shot him with a gun, multiple times, the cop still got stabbed.
I'm asking you seriously.
If something like a bear, a moose, or a very determined person, was running at me, and fleeing is not an option. Would it be best to fire as many arrows as possible? Or should I just fire normally, with a full draw, aiming at the heart or face, even if I only have time to fire like that, once or twice?
How would you recommend self-defense with a Bow, when I don't have a sword, a survival Knife, or a gun?
If I'm surprised by a threat, then I will focus on getting the most out of a single arrow. But if I feel something bad is going to happen. Should I prepare to fire multiple at once? Should I change my form, to fire rapidly, even if I can't do full draws? Or should I still just focus on 1 arrow?
I'm not worried about missing the threat. I'm worried that my single arrow will be ignored. I'm not even sure if hitting the heart, will stop them immediately.
This Russian lady, with this form.
th-cam.com/video/1o9RGnujlkI/w-d-xo.html
@@observingrogue7652
Self-defense with a bow: take out your knife.
Have you actually ever heard of someone bringing down a wild animal with multiple shots? Have you actually heard of any hunter who scored multiple hits on a single animal?
Don't be sucked in by speed shooting. The demonstration you reference is with a low draw weight and not likely something that you could do under duress. In a life or death situation, you would likely fumble with nocks and drop arrows. I would not ever suggest that someone seriously consider a bow for personal defense. It's never been applied for such a role, and it's an unproven method for what you intend to use it for.
Shooting multiple arrows results in each arrow having a fraction of the power of a single arrow, since the energy is divided between the arrows, and that's assuming you can get them to fly straight.
Most military "doctrine" from history focuses on short-range accuracy. Gao Ying's Chinese archery manual outlines that effective combat distances is taking the range you can 100% hit, and *half* that. If you can't bring down the target right away, switch to your secondary weapon.
If you're asking me seriously about what to do, get an arrow and start stabbing furiously. Fight or flight reaction will not allow you to go through the motions of using a bow in the manner you imagine.
NUSensei
It never even crossed my mind, that I couldn't go through the motions of operating a Bow, in a fight or flight reaction. I guess without thinking about it, I was going to apply to Bows, the same self-discipline that keeps me from panicking on a Motorcycle. It's so easy to crash and even die on one, because the controls are so sensitive. Your inputs must be deliberate & precise, to maintain stability of the bike, especially in stressful situations, like something cuts in front of you, or a tire starts slipping. It takes a lot of practice to suppress panicking, whether it's doing the wrong thing, or not acting at all. And because of my practicing on a bike, multiple times, I have automatically avoided crashing, without thinking about it.
Whether or not I can be a machine with a Bow too. You're right. I should have a blade with me. Always.
No. I haven't heard of someone bringing down an animal with multiple shots from a Bow, nor have I heard of a hunter scoring multiple hits on an animal. I am new to Archery, and hunting. But these are skills I will need, because I'm going off-grid. I just want to live in an isolated, solar-powered home, eating what I can grow & catch.
I will only hunt what I can kill quickly, with 1 arrow, so it won't suffer. But if they don't die immediately, then I will follow to finish them off. Or the very least, get my arrows back.
As for firing multiple arrows at once. I understand they will be weaker than a single arrow. I was thinking more along the lines, of multiple arrows being harder for a crazed person or animal to ignore. And I was also thinking, with multiple arrows, I'm more likely to hit something important, like the heart, or a major blood vessel, spreading out the damage, instead of relying on the path of one arrow through the body. Especially up close. The Shotgun strategy.
I won't get sucked into speed shooting. I'm more interested in power & precision. I'm not interested in normal guns. They are way too loud, and they are so politically charged right now, I don't want to go through the nonsense of getting a gun, and ammo for it. I just want to be independent, with different alternatives.
I doubt a "swordsman " trained in the art of war would charge without a shield is he gonna twirl his sword like a windmill hitting arrows out of the air ? and people forget or simply do not know that bows who where used to speed shoot in war was not heavy bows perhaps 60 pounds max and intended to wound to reduce the enemy fighting ability
Twirling your sword looks cool in movies, but actually doesnt do jackshit. Check skallagrims videos about defending against arrows with a sword. Maybe you can defend against 1 arrow with a sword if you have good reflexes. But against hundreds of them raining down on you? No way....
Also if anybody speedshoots with 60 pound I will eat my shoes... Also speedshooting doesnt meant to hit targets 100+ meters away. If they are closer than 100 meter, your normal 100 pound+ bow can kill almost instantly even through light or medium armor (obviously not plate). So why would you bother trying to wound or reduce morale if you can kill the immediate threat?
Or you think there were little group if speedshooters running around the battlefield annoying the enemy?
i was being sarcastic about the sword , however its has been shown in some asian movies where people can fly . speed shooting works if you flank or defend but you need power to cause damage unless you trying to herd the enemy if you dont have enough power in the bow to kill you want to wound to get that advantage , end perhaps there is a reason the romans used the throwning spears
Oh sorry. I'm preparing for a big exam so my sarcasm detector might dysfunction :D
I still dont see the point of speedshooting. You shoot 5 arrows in 10 seconds with low accuracy and poundige. So what? Also they have to be close because above 50 meter you wont hit anything. Why let them that close so you can maybe wound some of them?
Romans used the pilum to force their enemies to drop shields. They usually had soft necks, so they hit the shield and bent, so the enemy couldnt throw it back and it started dangling around in the shield making it very hard to use. But it was a proper javeline, so if it hit someone on the torso it was a likely deathblow. The point wasnt to injure. It was to disable shields and kill.
combat has 3 ranges long mid and close and it always comes down to close hard to fight with an arrow in the knee
Because only one side has bowman advancing infantryman have cover fire well from their bowman how did English bowman fare against the viking
You mentioned that the warbow had a range of 200-250 meters. Where did you find these numbers? I am curious because it seems I need to do some real digging to get effective range for bows in ancient times. I am interested in military history, would be nice if an archer such as yourself had a recommendation for books or passages which we could learn. Thanks again for the video.
"The Longbow" by Mike Loades - the author discusses that in his experiment in riding across the Crecy battlefield, it took 40 seconds to "cover the longshot distance of 250-300yds" galloping on horseback, and he estimates that the Genoese crossbows were engaged at under 100yds. His assessment was that extreme long shots of 300yd were possible (he cites a replica arrow shot in modern times at 292yd from a 170lb longbow), though points out that 200-250yds was more typical, and the effective penetration would end at around 120yds, with 80yds and under being optimal for flat trajectory.
"Arab Archery" refers to the maximum possible range as being 300 cubits (~177yds), with the added note that anything above "45 bow lengths" (~81 yds) is beyond the distance for accuracy due to the inability to aim with the hand obscuring the target.
I've generalised the figures to give a starting point of the "charge" at around 200m (as we see in the English Longbow in Crecy), though also bearing in mind that not all bows had the same draw weight and velocity as the English longbow. I think it is fair generalisation of bows used in war that an arrow *could* be shot up to 200m and still cause harm to unarmoured opponents, and that 80m and under would begin the effective kill zone of an archer line.
Thank you, NUSensei. I greatly appreciate the time you took to answer my question. I will be adding your recommendations to my reading.
If its a siege battle, maybe that will bring another view?
What about heavy metal armour? I have seen tests on TH-cam where a decent breastplate is virtually impenetrable. Of course a headshot is still lethal, but that would be hard to hit, no?
what about archer vs calvary charge? i think in most games archers r correctly classed as counter for base melee units. however calvary is the counter for archers.
In real life, archers counter cavalry most of the time, in complete contradiction to game mechanics. While a cavalry charge can take an archer formation by surprise and cut them down, a prepared position will normally result in the horses being shot up by the archers. It's like running into a machine gun trench. If you manage to get past the beaten zone, you're relatively safer and will likely come out on top.
NuSensei's most Buzz Killington video yet!
"Who would win in a fight between archer and Swordman?"
"Ahem, well, first off, that scenario would never happen. That said, their battle would be interrupted by the multitude of other forces present on the battlefield."
Yeah, thanks. I'm sure the "one swordsman vs one archer" or "small group of swords men vs archers" must have occurred in history. Would there have been no armed bandit encounters in the woods with sword-wielding bandits, and bow wielding hunters carrying fresh kills?
Even if the bandit encounter is fiction, as a general thought exercise, given what you know about archery and history, what distance do you think an archer would need the draw, nock, and loose an arrow and have any hope of hitting a moving target charging at him? How easy would it have been for a person in that situation to shoot accurately, given the high adrenalin?
Let's make it simple, too: there's little to no armour, they're both essentially wearing clothing. One hit from the swordsman would be crippling, as would one well-placed arrow from the archer. So what distance does the archer need to not be disadvantaged?
An archer trained in warfare should be expect to reasonably hit a target at 50m, and anything under that is a killzone. A hunter should be able to hit first-shot within 10-30m, a level of proficiency that we still expect from hunters today. A reasonably proficient archer today (using traditional bows) should be able to get a torso-sized grouping at 30m.
The swordsman must be able to cover that kill zone to reach the archer to stand a chance - remember that the closer they get, the less time they have to react and the more likely it is to be hit. Then it comes down to whoever is more capable in melee. The range advantage is huge.
Note, however, that the question is not "who would win?", but "does an archer need to be fast?". An archer doesn't need to fling a dozen arrows in a few seconds in a realistic combat scenario. Even in a hypothetical 1v1, rapid shooting doesn't equate to better effectiveness unless we have an arbitrary "one-hit" rule. The one-hit point system is exactly why speed-shooting is favoured in LARP and archery tag, so it favours quantity over accuracy.
Thanks for the quick reply! I really think this is the answer a lot of people are curious about when they pose this sort of question (as Sciver Zero says below, it's like the Old Timey equivalent of the "knife vs. gun" conversation).
Other factors I think people are generally curious about is draw time for a bow in this scenario (assuming the bow needs to be raised from resting position and an arrow needs to be nocked), as well as stopping power of an arrow (in the "gun vs knife" conversation, getting multiple bullets off is important since a single bullet isn't guaranteed to stop an attacker. I imagine arrows are probably heavier on impact, given the wider surface area of arrow heads and general heavier weight of arrows).
Anyway, facetious comment aside I generally love your content! Discovered you 6 months ago when trying to find a video on which bow to buy, and binged a lot of your content afterward. Cheers!
Sword guy should have brought a shield.
I think you underestimate the frequency of skirmishes and their almost hunting style.
Even with smaller scale conflicts, the use of the bow did not hugely differ. There was really only one way to use the bow. Styles that used the thumb draw and held arrows in the draw hand had the option of shower shooting, but other archers were limited what they could do. A skilled archer with a war bow can shoot no faster than they are physically able to, and texts such as Gao Ying's manual on Ming military archery supports holding off on shooting until they enemy is within certain-kill distance (which is said to be half the distance of a definite hit). If an archer could not use their bow in close distance, they would use another weapon.
Simply run in the opposite direction while nocking your arrow, turn and shoot and then keep running.
Man that shirts need an iron
You might a look at this, Swordsman Vs. Arrow video: th-cam.com/video/5HxoacyTTBU/w-d-xo.html
Even cavalry wasn't proof against archers. Terrain could do a lot to take away a Knight's advantages. At Crecy they had to charge uphill, at Agincourt, muddy ground and simple fortifications (wooden stakes) defeated one cavalry charge. So on flat, open, dry ground, Cavalry is King, but in the other 90% of the world....The English chose their battlegrounds well when they were forced to fight against overwhelming odds. If anything these scenarios show how powerful archery can be when defending ground rather than trying to take it.
People give too much credit to the archers at agincourt, lets not forget even with the terrain and all the odds thousands of french soldiers made it past english lines, thats why the english king killed all the captives, they outnumbered the english army and could easily rebel and kill them from the back
I'm really surprised that archery died off as a military tool after the invention of the musket as soon as it did.
Archery: 7 shots per minute, works when wet, reasonably light weight.
Musket: 1 shot per minute, won't work when wet, and a bit heavy to carry around.
Effective range moot point until the invention of the rifled barrel.
Archery: Volley fired at 200 meters.
Musket: Volley fired at point blank 70 meters.
Not to mention that body armor fell out of fashion once muskets were on the field. This would of made the archer more effective.
Archery: Required years upon years of training and a specialised skill set; expensive to maintain and largely ignored by most armies
Musket: Anyone can use a gun within months.
Archery was already largely disused outside of hunting and sport, and with the mounting casualties outstripping the supply of skilled archers, there wasn't a body of archers that could take on standardised musket armies.
True, but if I were a general back then, I would still want a Calvary of archers to outflank the enemy lines. Reloading a musket on horse back at a full gallop wouldn't be very practical. I believe the Calvary consisted of lancers back then. As in Crimean war Charge of the light brigade, etc.
You wouldn't have that option. By that time, bows had been out of use for over a hundred years, a long shot from training every man and child by law. In any case, the issue of fighting on horseback was solved by carbines, which emerged soon after the standardisation of infantry arms.
Viking berserkers would probably have even second thought charging an archer. Its idiocy. Pray the guy cant shoot
there the theory falls. Vikings were like suicide squads. their greatest wish was to die gloriously in battle with their weapon in their hand. thus ensured their place in Valhalla. the Berserkers were another thing altogether. that was the Viking shock troops. probably took some concoction akin to the Zulu juice where they were incapable of fear & felt little or know pain. charging a line of archers would be perfectly fine, so long as they took a few with them. again, most of this is conjecture going on reading material which may be, or have been, disproved since.
unsure my arrows/minute rate of fire. have never raced a timer. but nock to shoot is about 3 seconds for me - on an inanimate target (or a living target unaware of my presence, if such a thing was A. legal & B. necessary lol), a target, charging with intent to end my days in blistering & savage violence? I think fear, nerve, near panic - may play a slightly psychological role in my ability to shoot straight & well. let us hope I never have to answer that question ;) lol
Why doesn´t the other side have archers?.....*cough cough*
Budget cuts 🤷♂️
they often did so what are you talking about there is more to archery than one battle
Morten, no there is not. There is only Agincourt. Ok, maybe Crecy, and if you really press the issue Poitiers. And Agincourt....
ah you're on of them selective history trolls living under your own bridge of ignorance . I supose Nu has to make a video about charging trolls now .
Kyle Pearson, funny but it might actually have some truth in it. Franc-Archers didn´t go too well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franc-archer
Aaaa :D Great intro.
But, why does it always have to be a war scenario? Thousands against thousands. Bows were used in other situations as well. It was a weapon, much like a gun nowadays. Not all encounters were huge battles.
You really have a problem with speed shooting, don't you? Again, a bow was a weapon., invented to hunt and protect you. And in that respect being able to shoot as fast as possible was an advantage, isn't it so? Not in a long battle, but in day to day life. Now a days it's just a hobby, but historically, like any martial art, every second counts. And like martial arts, speed shooting techniques have endured for thousands of years. Doesn't that give it any credence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling your reasoning, I just enjoy a good argument. I still love you Nu. Keep doing what you do, man :D
I don't have a problem with speed shooting. I have a problem with the poor argumentation that is used to suggest that speed shooting was used in contexts where it would otherwise be inappropriate or impossible, and this is highlighted by faulty logic and incorrect assumptions. So as to make no mistaken assumptions, let's do this line-by-line.
*But, why does it always have to be a war scenario? Bows were used in other situations as well. It was a weapon, much like a gun nowadays. Not all encounters were huge battles.*
Because that is what most people envision when they use this scenario. There are very few other scenarios in which a swordsman would charge at you. If there is another context, specify the context and that can be debated.
*Again, a bow was a weapon., invented to hunt and protect you.*
The bow was invented first and foremost as a tool to hunt with. The assertion that it was to "protect" is an unnecessary and inaccurate logical extension. This is like saying "An axe was invented to chop wood...and protect you" or "A knife was invented to cut things and protect you". That something can be adapted to serve for protection may be true in most cases, but it doesn't lend any credence to your later statements.
*And in that respect being able to shoot as fast as possible was an advantage, isn't it so?*
For hunting? No. Hunters shoot from close distance to bring down prey with a single shot. Rapid shooting would not provide any advantage, as this would spook the animal and it is nearly impossible to hit a fleeing animal. There may be exceptional examples, such as the Plains nations hunting bison on horseback, but for nearly all other forms of hunting, speed was not a factor. Modern hunters don't use automatic weapons to gun down deer. A bowhunter, with a weapon that is inherently a single-shot tool, did not use multiple arrows to bring down prey. If there is evidence otherwise, either modern or historical, please provide evidence.
*...like any martial art, every second counts.*
In the context of combat, in this case, yes - every second counts. But this is not an argument that supports speed. Combat is entirely contextual. Speed *can* be an advantage, but it isn't always an advantage, isn't always needed and isn't always possible. If speed was paramount, we'd equip all our soldiers with automatic rifles that can shoot 1200rpm - but there are obvious problems with this.
Archery is no different in that the other factors can be just as important, and depending on context, more important: speed, power and accuracy form the triangle of archery, and this is supported in historical and military texts, from Gao Ying to the "pillars of archery" cited in Saracen Archery.
The mindset of "every second counts" means that the limited timeframe of an encounter means every action needs to be carefully considered and wisely acted upon. This doesn't mean to attack with the utmost speed and haste. Does a martial art system maintain that you should punch as quickly and as many times as possible, as speed is advantageous? That would be ridiculous, as much as a modern soldier holding down the trigger and emptying their magazine. There are situations were it may be necessary to attack rapidly, but this is not every situation, and such action may not be possible depending on the tools you have at your disposal.
*And like martial arts, speed shooting techniques have endured for thousands of years. Doesn't that give it any credence?*
This is too ambiguous to be proved or disproved, and makes the fundamental mistake of generalising "martial arts" as one thing, as "archery" is one thing. Just as there are different martial arts, there are different styles of archery, each adapted to suit the context that it was used for.
Firstly, the assertion that "speed shooting techniques have endured for thousands of years" is somewhat dubious, as we do not have records of methods that extend this far. The earliest documented evidence that describes what could be considered "speed" shooting is the Mameluk text (which we know as "Saracen Archery" dating to the 14th century).
More to the point, however, is that numerous sources *don't* support the use of speed shooting methods, as these methods were not used and not suitable in other contexts. Therefore, we cannot say that speed shooting endured for thousands of years when many cultures never used it. When historical texts that cover these methods, from Roger Ascham to Gao Ying, either neglect or outright criticise shooting faster than necessary, doesn't that give credence to the case against speed shooting? Does the existence of an Arab text that contains speed shooting methods mean that an English archer, an African tribal hunter or a Ming military archer must have logically used speed shooting techniques in the same situation, even though their equipment, culture and style of warfare vastly differed to that of the Arabs?
That brings my argument to this final point: *What exactly is speed shooting?*
Many people today use the "Lars Andersen = speed shooting = combat archery" mindset - again, despite evidence to the contrary. In comparison to modern firearms, speed shooting involves techniques that are specifically adapted to be as quickly as possible, and this can include alterations to equipment (such as hair triggers, modified holsters and bandoliers, etc.) and exceptional, specialised training. Jerry Miculek can empty two magazines with a double-action trigger in mere seconds and nail a target in realistic distances with precision. But would such a method be used by police and military? What is possible may not be what is practical.
A more contextual understanding of "speed" shooting is shooting as quickly as possible. That is, using the normal method of shooting, but going through the steps at a faster pace with less time to rest between each shot. The key in this understanding as the condition "fast *as possible"*. There are physical limitations to how quickly one can draw an arrow from the belt, how fast they can draw a war bow, and how soon they can repeat the process with accumulated fatigue. An English longbowman can shoot an arrow every 10 seconds at a fairly relaxed pace (and this is fast compared to modern archers), and they can sustain that all day. As the fighting closed, they could go up to an arrow every 6 seconds, but that would quickly exhaust the archer and render him unable to shoot after a minute, as demonstrated by Mark Stretton. A Chinese archer, who is almost always depicted as only shooting from a quiver, would be unable to go through the motions of loading, drawing and aiming any faster than 3 seconds, and this is exceptional speed for a style that prided itself on power and accuracy.
So when we see renowned "speed" shooters such as Mihai Cozmei, Lajos Kassai and Lars Andersen, we see styles that are significantly faster and based on historical methods in Asiatic archery sources and traditions, and we can see where such methods could have practically been used, adapted to be shot slowly and carefully if needed, and to a maximum speed when necessary - but no faster.
Thus, we see the differences in approaches and tactics. If faced with an approaching enemy, an Arab or Hungarian archer may be more inclined to use shower-shooting to improve the chance of a hit. A Ming archer might hold onto their arrow until they were within a "certain kill" distance. An English archer might draw and loose instinctively at the target as soon as they were within point-on distance, discharge three or more arrows, then fight with sword and buckler. A mounted Parthian archer might loose a dozen arrows and then ride away.
Each culture and style dealt with this situation in the way that was more effective and most appropriate for their context. Thus, the single assumption that speed is essential in this kind of armed conflict is misguided.
@@NUSensei Holy shit, that was extensive 😂 Thanks for the well constructed reply. I think no rebuttal is necessary.
@@NUSensei I should really thank you for such good reply you've written and your video. But to the point that "If there is another context" thing I'm thinking about multiple scenarios that might related to this topic so I may discuss it here.
I think one of the things you mentioned that "most people envisioned speed-shooting scenario" for war, but if I remember right most of such scenario happens for characters that are mostly into banditry or trick-shooting, outlaws, thieves, elfs.etc, for such occupation it might be possible for many scenarios that could happen: a poacher might encounter several wolves/dogs charging at them in the forest, an outlaw might encounter other bandits in a dense foreset, a thieve/bandit walking on a hotile street might turn a corner and find a four-man guard team with both swordsmen and crossbow that happens to walking towards him at a distance of less than 7m...
What these scenarios shared in common would be that first, there's only split-second to react with a melee weapon (especially if the protagonist have a longsword that takes longer time to pull out than a knife), and second, The archer in these scenario are OUTNUMBERED and CAN BE OUTRUNNED so running away only results in death (canines surely runs faster, or the guards can shoot bolts if the bandit turn his back), i really think it would be highly possible for an outlaw/poacher to encounter these scenarios as he often works alone or with only a small numer of companions.
Such scenario can even been applied to soldiers, that not all war scenarios are archers having equalized number towards infantry but it might be circumstances like 100 angry mobs charging towards 20 (or worse, 10). In these scenarios shooting at normal speed might be a disadvantage as the other enemy/animals can still charge at the archer even if he took down one or two, and no one can survive a melee fight against multiple opponents.
I think actually LOTR represented some of these circumstances really well, because everytime when Legolas have to use his bows, he often faces swarms of orcs charging at the party with few companions that can shoot arrows at them. In such scenario, I would say speed shooting could be vital to at least temporarily supress enemy that outnumbers the archer, and it might be even better if a skilled archer can take down several enemies at split-second (the dogs/crossbowmen first .etc) and then he can retreat without being outrunned. Even if there's only a single opponent with armour at range less than 5-7m, shooting multiple arrows at him in few seconds might also confuse or supress him before the archer have time to pull out his 80cm messer. However it's just a theory.
(There might be some more hollywood scenarios like maybe an excutioner with several guards is going to hang one of the hostages and the archer need to take them down quickley, or an assassin need to take down 2-3 guards in a watchtower before any of them sound the alarm, but these also shares some similar points like the protagonist is outnumbered and the circumstances force him to fight than flight)
It might also differs with the regions for this scenario, most people talks about English longbows while discussing archery, but I'm currently interested in Eastern-European (especiall Polish) archers who might use composite and recurved bows that have less strength but can surely draws faster. It might be easier for them to perform speed-shooting than a cliche English setting.
Also about the point you mentioned in the video about Cavalry charging at archers, it's interesting for me because i rarely find historical examples about cavalry successfully routing foot archer formations (maybe because in most times archers are well defended by footmen like in Argincourt), it's interesting if this do happens in history, in most cases people focus on Knights and infantry while talking about medieval battle casualties, but rarely talk about possible circumstances that an entire missile formation is suddenly crushed from the back by a cavalry charge, before the knights/infantry engaging in face-to-face melee.
not sure if a cavalry charge is the best against archers , like in world war 1 when the snipers dominated the trenches ,until they got shelled , the rise of other sniper schools and training was implemented to deal with them so you got sniper vs sniper. relating this to archer gives us a scenario where you enter into the realm of close combat so a shielded unit like the crossbow men could advance under cover or other archers , of course the archers with the heavier bows would have better reach so first one to shoot from further away wins. a mouted knight was costly and most of the advantage was the expensive trained war horse. charging into the arrows storm is most likely the horse being bigger will get hit and die reducing the mounted unit to a footman giving you more time to pelt them with arrows . taking out dollars worth of units with arrows costing pennies . why roman shield wasnt used to close the distance is beyond me
Cavalry charges were often the only way to rout archers. A well-timed charged against archers caught out of position, or without defensive works, would have the desired effect. The battles in which English longbowmen did not have a significant impact were the ones where they were ridden down unsupported.
yes sadly the cavalry charge dominated so the chiltron apparead and bad leaders wasted their troops . it amazes me that history channel or discovery has not put a ballistic dummy in full armour and gotten 100 or so archers to fire at the thing on horse back , or make some machine to fire a volley and get some data points like how many arrows will actually hit within one square meter with wind and different draw weights , formation of the archers . how many volleys would be loosed by the time a horse covers 200 meters ?
Interesting point about the volleys, I remember seeing a video by the Warbow Society shooting at a replica breastplate and as is often seen the arrow failed to penetrate. However they continued shooting and the 5th or 6th certainly did - by then the breastplate was a mess of dents which allowed the arrows to gain more purchase.
People who ask this kind of question don't know much about ancient warfare. By the time the lines met the archers fell back. The archers were in the back to begin with. A knight commanding an army would never risk his archers by putting them in the middle of the melee at the front lines. If An archer did meet an enemy one on one, as in they were broken off in confusing terrain like thick forest and surprised one another mutually. He would also be carrying a sword, or mace, a dagger or two. Not even a knight went out with just armor and a sword. So in that scenario an archer would not even reach for his bow. Keep in mind he was a squire before he became an archer. That means he learned the basics of hand to hand, as well as staves, swords, and bow from a young age. He is an archer because in his youth training his teachers noted him to be proficient in bow and taught it to him as a focus. That doesn't mean all he knows how to use is a bow. Like you said. In usual situations these types of encounters were rare if not unheard of. It would have to be an arena situation where you drop two combatants in an arena with selected equipment and see what happens.
Once again NUSensei against Totalwar players or Turn by Turn RPG fans x) . Logic and knowledge against Folklore and modern believes. Of course archers are very underestimate troops in close combat, to simplify numerous video games rules but guys this is not reality. In middle age in europe, the word "Archer" is used in strategic context most of the time. Because most of troops was "Men at arms". At the beginning this word is used to define a polyvalent warrior. The "Men at Arms" can be archer in Battle number 1 and Spearmen in battle number 2 it just depend of what kind of "Arms" your superior gived to you before battle. An "archer" is a soldier in first place. Take a look of the battle of "Azincourt".
Actually, the term "men-at-arms" is typically used to describe professional soldiers equipped with, if not knight-quality equipment, then something close to it while not actually being a knight or nobleman. And no, an archer would not be deployed in battle as a spearman except in an emergency. An archer is an investment; not just anyone can draw and shoot a bow powerful enough to be considered useful as a battlefield weapon. It takes years of constant practice, which is why the English paid their archers more than their billmen, and why the archers at Agincourt didn't take up melee weapons until they were out of arrows. In that scenario, it was a light force of mostly archers; note that in a proper English army, as at Crecy or Poitiers, the archers were not sent into the fray. At Agincourt, they were backed into a corner, and putting their archers into melee combat intentionally was essentially a move of desperation against a disadvantaged foe stuck in the mud and tripping over the corpses of their comrades. Normally they followed up on the arrow storm with men-at-arms and knights, but those were not present in great enough numbers at Agincourt.
It gets annoying tho the way bows are shown in games. Arrows were designed to tear through things. You can't just remove an arrow the way it came into the body most of the time.
(In all that I mean, give my style of game play importance and not just "Oh look an arrow from the weakest link.")
My personal favorite in movies that feature archers, is when an archer draws his bow and holds it at full draw indefinitely, like someone pointing their gun. Good luck holding your bow at full draw with 150 lb draw weight.
A real war bow used by a seasoned archer was a formidable weapon in anyone's book🤷🏻♂️.
You mean war wasn’t fought with just Ashe and Garen??? My whole view of medieval war is now busted lmfao jk.
Great video NuSensei.
In all fairness, shields and armor existed. And let's not forget archers were suppressed by other archers.
What if they were using shields? Like in armadillo formation?
keep shooting them, if they get too close run, if you got other troops using pikes or such then switch with them once the enemy get close and keep shooting
With so many swords and so many bows throughout history, it is pretty safe to bet that sometimes there was a single archer up against a single swordsman. If not on military campaign, but perhaps in the civilian context. For example, imagine a farmer just coming home from target practicing the bow with his friends, when he encounter a road bandit on the way of pillaging one other local farmer, with just a sword. What would happen? It could have happened!
you mean an alone bandit attacking him from the front and let him the time to take out is bow?
If I had to hit the moving armpit or chin of a running and jumping man with 2 arrows I would be pretty terrified.
Depends on the armor arrow and how if u have arrows tipped specially for penetration of armor and a high draw weight if u hit him even with armor there's a good chance u will kill him or hurt him badly or knock him back or cause him to trip and that's just 1 Archer 1 arrow
I love medieval video games, but they get historical combat all wrong. Real combat is all about keeping your foe at a distance because it is less danger to you, and all it takes to incapacitate someone is a fairly small puncture. One arrow, or spear thrust and most people will be out of the fight for weeks, or die from infection. It's about efficiency, not looking cool.
What if the Warrior had a Ring of Arrow Protection? Checkmate... :)
not quite. I would roll for either axe-wielding Berserker Rage or Dragon Charmer spell. let's see how your Ring of Arrows does against a Dragonrider ;) lol
@@pfalky2k Fair enough. Damn dragons... :)
Real answer to how an Archer deals with a charging swordsman in close range?
Tauntkill them.
Easy they throw their bow aside and use their sword of wathever weapon they carry
The swordsman can charge all he wants. I won't pay anything. It's my money.
Did anyone here mention Shields already?
No?
You can't hit what hides behind a towering shield x)
2:45
A towering shield can't charge, either.
I love your video's, however the battle of Marathon was won by melee units against archers by charging.. in full armor. So it's not madness, although the Persians always lacked discipline it seems. Still, in my opinion, it's a valid question. 😊 many good vids on TH-cam on how..
The Battle of Marathon wasn't so much melee units charging into archers. It was melee units charging into a completely unprepared army unaccustomed to Greek tactics - a different concept and context to why people use this scenario.
And people wonder why Minsc was the best archer in his debut game!
Can the winner of archer vs footman iron your shirt?
Archers also played havoc on cavalry. Killed off horses.
the Metatron of archery
I try, but I've got a long way to go before I match that level.
This is preposterous... fantasized characters usually seem to be better than the average (sometimes, that one badass that’s stronger and faster than the rest). Like anime for example, a lot of the time.. every character seems to be some type of evolved human, besides regular civilians... they die normally and regularly as they do in real life. Most likely.. as long as the characters have enhanced speed and strength.. yes.. they will beat an archer, of course to some extent still depending on the situation. Archers still have the advantage.. as long as the swordsman isn’t within hand to hand combat... from there that’s just individual skill with sword.
Hey nusensei i am looking for a recurve to start on and use for hunting i don't what bow to get if you have any advice it would be appreciated. And also i live in australia so would i need to get a permit to own a american bow?
You don't need a permit to own a bow.
NUSensei i knew that but my mate said you can't have bows from a different country or something but he musg be full of it. Thanks for your time and help man really appreciated
Never heard of such a law.
NUSensei okay good because i want a samick sage i was thinking of but didn't want to get confiscated or something haha. Thanks sensei have a good one mate
A quick question; Does anyone know if there is sight for bows that can be calibrated for different ranges?
Kinda like a rifle, where you shoot in the bow at intervalls, 20m, 30m, etc..
Multi-pin hunting sights.
Thank you!
There are many versions of the bow sights with quick range/distance adjustment. Newest version is made by Garmin, this sight is using electronic distance measurement to target and projects dot in correct position on your scope. Search for Garmin Xero A1
ObelixCMM thank you, is that the same Garmin that makes GPS?
Yes.
So, you're saying it's about context?
Careful. You'll summon Matt Easton talking about that.
Look at the modern military.. rarely see hand to hand combat.
I did Kendo for a bit , and I can honestly say , if there was a samurai charging at me with a yari spear , I would sh!t my pants before I even nock the arrow
A true archer would shit his pants While knocking the arrow, you'd have practiced enough for muscle memory to activate...you'd also end up with a clean pair of pants, if the samurai didn't shit them when he saw you pull back on the bow.
War movies make archers look
weak and they also make them
look thin in the movies and also looks malnourished good thing there's Legolas to prove them wrong.
Of course it can happen, I've seen it in movies many times, so it's got to be real........
this is why people think archers would get destroyed, but i'm glad that you brought up other arms that archers carried. people tend to look this over. th-cam.com/video/Ej3qjUzUzQg/w-d-xo.html
Imagine hating an archer so much that you would push through 200 metres of wounded people, flying arrows, and other swordsmen just to get to them...
Sounds like a typical Mordhau game.
@@NUSensei Haha
I got a Rebuttle to this. ROMAN INFANTRY! ya archer losses.
There are very few, if any instances, of Roman infantry defeating (specifically) archers in battle. Roman infantry had advantages to provide protection against missiles, but the battle was won (or lost) on a strategic level instead of this 1v1 or unit v unit match-up. The most notorious of the Roman defeats against archers (albeit horse archers) was Carrhae, in which the Roman infantry were helpless against the continually-supplied Parthian horse archers. Even if you take the horses away, Roman infantry don't have a way to rout archers, who would leave the battle to their own infantry.
A Roman infantryman carrying 50 lbs of armor would catch a lightly armed archer?? Maybe if the infantryman was among the most genetically gifted men in the globe at that time, vs an archer with 2 bad knees. Then yes. Otherwise, no.
Arrows run out,,read about Crecy
Old lady with a gun vs Chuck Norris 10 paces away. R.I.P. Mr. Norris.
Skeeter McBeater Norris could do a lightning fast round house from 10 paces away, causing a tornado between them making the old lady’s shot inaccurate. Even if he’s slow with his kick (he is getting a little old) he could always just catch the bullet in his teeth😁
Also spears > swords
Iron your shirt mate.
HoldenMan3000 nahhh..iron is for pussy
Manscape your body, you animal.
The same with a knife and a gun a gun would always win
only if the gun was already prepped & ready to go. a knifer isn't going to draw steel & walk onto a gunman from distance. Kn would stay ostensibly unarmed & unthreatening until pretty much beside the GM, who's gun would most likely be holstered & safe at this point. then behind GMs back Kn draws & slips the blade into GMs kidneys. knife beats gun.
this is not really helpful in debunking this senario.
firstly if i talk about man at arms, what time are we talking? early medievel waering a full assembly of mail or plate?
that alone makes all the differenc in how effective the archers will be. while bursting the ring of mail is a realistic senario puncturing plate isnt. sure u could always hit a gapp but aming at those 50m+, not sure. they arnt that exposed to beginn with if ur advancing normaly. the how poilnt of armored combat is to wrestel down the enemy to get in these gapps, its not easy.
also more likty to have a speerman charde at u since swords were what hand guns are now, side arms used only as back up or in civillian fights.
pls dont say lightly armored archres dance around heavy armord man at arms, full plate is not half the disadvantege fantasy makes it out to be. full plate is all benefit no down site. the restriction of movement comes mostly from what u were beneth the plate not the plate itself, full plate was in most cases articulated more then the human joins could move in the first place. the the food man wears plate and the archer doesnt the it looks bad eaven if the food man is more exausted. if both were mail the the archer would still have to over come the reach advantege to the polearm and pass by a shield that he may be missing.
i dont think that a soldier armed with sword or spear, etc would charge an archer in the first place. if i were an archer and found my self in the senario unable to retreat i would drop my bow and draw my sword axe mace etc. and fight back like that. archers are armend for meele. but if we really take this serious i think the arches chance od winning in close combat are 40% at best. ur an archer ur are not equipped to fight in the conditions, the tool u have are really u last ditch not ur trump card.
my concluson:
archers in meele far from helpless but still far bedder of is the dont get to close.
You're assuming that all knight or men at arms had high quality armor to protect against arrows in the first place. The quality of steel back then would have been form very poor to average depending on the blacksmith and the availability of iron. So, knight in shining armor is not as "arrowproof" as you think. Furthermore, you had crossbows which are even easier to use than a bow and packs more punch, enough to pierce armor or at least damaged it.
I don't think anyone would said that an archer's trump card is in close combats, at least form what I understand form the video. Nusensei just points out how disadvantages is for a foot soldier to fight an archer in close combat after being barrage by arrows and marching forward. Many factors here just benefit the archers more than a foot soldier is. Basically, its just like fighting an already exhausted enemy, he many be well prepared for close combat, but the don't have they stamina to do it.
So, IMO a battle between an army of advancing foot soldiers and an army of archer is always at an disadvantages, even though the foot soldiers managed to close the distance.
u make a point but im refering to the ridiculus assumtion of the 1vs1 senario. the armor makes all the diference. also why does every one makes it sound like using a bow does not fatige u? not to mention that the muskel used in archery are not the same u use in sword fighting. it helps dont get me wrong aving muscels and stamina are always helpful in combat but its still not the same. and of couse i know that most people had helmets and gambeson or mail, not full plate. but if we talk about a fictiv senaroi realistic or not we should be more specific about it. other wise u have to many holes and i theorie dosnt hold up. kinde like shad initial one. to many holes to many open questions.
on a different note. yes crossbows are easyer to aim, thus requier less training. but they are not more powerfull. the short power draf of the crossbow necessitats the highdraw wight as to make the bolt fly as power full as a bow. in short the longer u draw the bow the more time is ther to accelerate the arrow = more power. crossbow dont penetrate armor and where not part of the discussion.
but you should also than say that arrows were not so good quality to puncture armor of iron... and new carbon bows have greater efficiency of draw weight than medieval wooden bows.
Full plate's principal disadvantage (besides cost, of course) was heat. It is easy to overheat in, especially if you're burning calories quickly (if you're, for example, running around on foot carrying 65 pounds of weight). Thus, if they were fighting aggressively (and not holding a line), they tended to fight on horseback. Barding was expensive and didn't arrive on the scene until later on, so horses were typically vulnerable to arrows. Even if you can't kill the armored cavalrymen themselves, you can rob them of their most immediate threat, the couched lance charge, while at the same time costing them a great deal of money. This protects your own soldiers from harm, while allowing you to attack their peasant levies without significant risk to your own men. Then, when their levies are dead or scattered and they're unable to mount a coherent cavalry charge, you send in your own (fresh) men-at-arms to capture or kill the (fatigued and disorganized) enemies.
Or you can just use light cavalry to lure them into charging over and over again, using their vainglory to pull them away from their supporting foot soldiers and allowing you to surround them with a vastly overwhelming force, annihilate them, then move on to the rest of the army with a significant advantage. That happened more than a few times during the Crusades. Horse archers are very effective, as long as you don't have any particularly urgent need to hold a particular area or go up against foot archers.
@@Zigg33 medieval bows arent always made from wood. The more quality versions of them are made from horns, sinew and bone. A good example you can find is with the traditional korean or chinese war bow.