The Problem With Combat Archery
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- A discussion on the debate and controversy around "combat archery" and its place in traditional and historical archery styles.
Video links:
Archery Arena:
• Archery Arena Combat A...
Koshiya Kumiyumi demonstration:
• Koshiya Kumiyumi, Batt...
Panagiotis Kavalieratos Archery
• Using a bow as a melee...
Lars Andersen - A New Level of Archery:
• Lars Andersen: A new l...
===
Follow me on Facebook:
/ nusensei
Twitter:
/ nu_sensei
Yes, we have to agree. Very informative video. We also had to deal with a lot of people, who claimed that the kind of archery, which we portraied in our game Kingdom Come: Deliverance was wrong, and we should take a look at the videos of Lars Anderson, but this is a very different kind of archery. :)
as a hema student, i really liked sword fight on kingdom come deliverance, but archery was really really frustrating
btw, waiting for the next chapter :)
God lord ignorant people are ruining everything..
true dat.. i doubt that japanese or english with their longbows would be doing flips in small quotars.. same as claimimg that best way for snipers to fight is close range.. each has its own purpose and anyo e with little bit of common sense has to admit that if you have 1000 people that can demolish enemy forces before they even get to your walls you will fricking have them stand in line and point in the same direction to maximise their effectivnes.. also sure speed shootimg is nice but if are on battlefield sourounded by enemies id gues that your first weapon of choise will be shield and sword as it is more effective
I had a blast with Kingdom Come Deliverance. It drives me crazy that more people didn't play it. Looking forward to a sequel wink wink.
Kingdom come 👌👌👌👌
Great video, but I'm mostly hung up on how fun archery tag would be!
Rebrand it garden arrow
It is so much fun, catching them and firing them back at someone is way too fun... Very hard but fun 😂
I would say "Lets Go" but some idiot might bring broad heads to the games.
I used to have a little 10-15lb bow that I'd shoot up in the air and try to catch it on the way back down.
When I taking notes a usually hold 3 pens at the same hand. Should I call it combat writing?
If you end with 3 people around you harmed, then yes, you should.
@Duck Soup Put a green pen in the mix and call it 'camo'
YES!
Yes!!!
My father trained my brothers and myself in the art of Choctaw archery. Which was basically described as "Gorilla" style archery. Which is highly effective in both hunting and if necessary self defense. Which is why I nearly never hunt with my bow from a tree stand. I stalk my prey.
Gorilla warfare.
Crud. Now I am imagining a 400 pound silverback drawing a heavy warbow and dropping fools from 200 meter away.😁😉
Guerilla
@@remliqaas am I
Combat is two armed forces fighting.
Archery is shooting with a bow and arrows.
If you are using your bow as a tool to fight with then you are doing combat archery. That's it. Irrelevant of the style, the archer or the bow.
well said
Thank you😂
How to train for combat without setting. Up a zone similar to combat and use style that best pertains to it? Two words are not singularly define when put togethwr
Tout à fait.
Right. Anyone who has a problem with understanding this is being intentionally obtuse.
It's sad that this video most likely won't be viewed as much as Lars Anderson's stuff. Lars has impressive skill as an archer, but he's not so good with history.
Lars is, to me, a complete bore. Trick shooting is like a joke. Registers an effect once, but falls flat the second time around. I imagine comedians need a broad repertoire and so collect and study jokes, but if you’re not interested in becoming a stand up, what’s the friggin point?
He really doesn't have impressive skill. Most of his stunts depend on gimmicked equipment. He shoots around people by simply using mis-tuned arrows. His speed shooting uses extra-wide nocks. When he splits the arrow by shooting at a knife, he uses a shaft with no point. He's a circus act.
@@jimmacq8485 well I definitely couldn't do it, so it's impressive to me.
@@A.Tag90 You can. You just need to cut out most of the footage.
I've never searched for or watched an archery video on TH-cam and this was recommended to me. F Lars Anderson!
Nice discussion point.
I would agree that 'combat' is being employed in the same way as 'tactical'.
Sadly, the more they are used the less meaning they convey.
They should stop calling it combat archery and just call it by what it is: trick archery or performative archery
still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea.
there is some good point in his stuff.
@@charlespk2008 wut?
Agreed.
@@charlespk2008 Not much point with a very light bow only half-drawn.
@@johnminnitt8101 i am just referring to how he can shoot more quickly, there is no other type of competition that takes this into consideration.
All the information on historical military archery is in abundance in museums and comprehensive lliterary works. As with most things in modern times, the average person is much more interested in casual sensationalism and romanticism than seeking the true knowledge.
still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea.
there is some good point in his stuff.
@@charlespk2008 "still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea."
but that's a big 'if' though, isn't it? you keep repeating your little sentence, but what if attacking more often makes the attack much less likely to work? we can build 40mm autocannons with much higher rate of fire than 120mm canons; and while a few lucky hits from a 40mm shell could mission kill a modern main battle tank (MBT), i don't see any nation replacing the cannons of their MBTs with lower caliber, faster guns to be more efficient at killing other MBTs!
@@charlespk2008 There is a missing point in your logic. The correct logical way of thinking is, "If an attack works, then it works, at that specific scenario, with a specific timed action". Attacking sooner, will break the "a specific scenario, with a specific timed action", because the timeframe of action already different.
For example. If shooting needs three seconds, so you can concentrate on a specific point of target, i.e. joint of armor (which usually unprotected), then shooting with only two or even one second will likely makes you miss your target (different setup, different timeframe to concentrate, different body tension, etc). Hence, the attack that should be worked, will not work.
Im not a great archer, far from it. But I am an ex British soldier and when I see demos of this "combat archery" its just rings hollow. I just cant believe that a battle could be won with it. A bunch of English archers volley firing from distance? Yeah that just feels right to me. Fast hit and run calvary archers in Asia? Yep, I can easily get my head around that being a legitimate tactic. But, this so called "combat archery" seams to me contrived, staged and well, I cant image a bad-assed combat soldier putting much faith in it. As far as I know (please someone correct me if wrong) all historic fighting archers carried a sword or some other weapon. Just as a contemporary soldier carries a sidearm. Because im guessing (im not a historian) when the enemy got close it was time to go to the blade not dance around doing half draw snap shooting. The infantryman in me just cant see it. I just get the feeling that 3 or 4 of my old army buddies with swords or clubs in a house to house fight would ruin Lars Andersons day. Nicely laid out video David. Top job mate.
I have done a fair amount of archery, nothing amazing. But yeah, most archers carried some kind of melee weapon for close combat. Lars "system" is fun to watch and looks cool. Functional, not at all. Rapid shots from horseback, sure makes sense. Slow fire, but more accurate, also makes sense. Hell, using a crossbow because it takes less practice also makes sense. Bouncing around like Legolas from LotRs doesny.
Not just is a sword helpful when badman comes close with a shield...
But you also very rarely run out of sword ammo
Well, the least protection you should expect for someone looking for combat in a medieval times is a Gambeson (th-cam.com/video/ODS7ksbBRuE/w-d-xo.html). And those are already good against Arrows. So I doubt a low LB bow will even get through much of that. If the enemy brings a shield, it gets even harder, because most of the target is now covered by another layer of impenetrable protection for you. The whole reason to go to high draw weights was that you have more chance to get through the enemies armor.
You are correct Feral (also a soldier here for U.S. Army.) You would never go into combat giving your soldiers only a bow. in historic times they often either had a dagger, a sword, or some other weapon when stuff got hairy
@@justin9202 for sure, much as say, the Comanche valued the bow when it got real then they'd go to the knife, club or tomahawk.........no jesting about with trick shots in combat.
One thing that turned me onto the right side of the bow thumb style was that when I was a kid, making my own bows and arrows, I naturally started on the right side. Only when I watched movies did I switch to the Mediterranean draw because that seemed like the "right way". I've come around to the thumb style again because it just feels more natural
I don't mind having the label of "combat archery" if it refers to a collection of archery styles which is inclusive of all historical military archery from all around the world.
HAC - Historical archery combat.
HEAC - Historical european archery combat
What differentiates "combat archery" from "regular archery" is primarily what you are shooting at and the tactics used to employ bows on the battlefield.
The specific techniques of combat archery are rooted in a cultures traditional, non-military, shooting technique.
I like your definition. You have an open mind.
@@tyronekim3506 Which is why my brains keep falling out.
I have been heavily involved in "combat"-style shooting. I lived in a huge old house with a full basement. It had all kinds of hiding places, a huge old coal furnace and stoker, a coal bin, a big blower to circulate heat, heavy racks of shelving with canned goods, stairwells, small rooms, soapstone sinks, heavy clay pots for pickle and sauerkraut making, and cobwebs galore. It was a heaven for "combat" games where people could shoot at each other with rubber-tipped projectiles from spring-powered .45 acp plastic pistols. It was a local legend, and people would come from all over to participate. I spent many hours every day involved in this, and then I turned 11.... ;-)
I loved the mediaeval Japaense archery school of warfare stuff Antony Cummins presented. It almost reminds of modern military training- how to fire from different positions (standing, prone, crouching, on the move, etc), how to reload in those positions, finding cover (and firing from cover), etc.
Just came across this. I would LOVE to see him visit an SCA archery event! It'd be interesting to see because so many SCA people have dedicated decades to researching historical combat archery.
It's Lars again? Bow and arrows.. that's archery. Shoot them with whatever style you want and enjoy it with pleasure or to break a sweat. Just don't care whether it's stereotyped as combat archery or not...just happy shooting.
True 'combat archery ' was very variable from English longbow/warbow shooting to mounted Asian styles. What it wasn't though, is someone poncing about with a low poundage bow, shooting at spinning targets. Impressive though Lars is at his style, and others at theirs, combat archery is just archery used with the aim of killing or immobilising an enemy in warfare.
oh you mean like aiming at a person to kill them....thats how short this video shouldve been
still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea.
there is some good point in his stuff.
@@charlespk2008 The point is that Lars' attacks wouldn't work in an actual fight. His bow simply isn't powerful enough to get through textile armor, which was pretty much a universal thing on the medieval battlefield, much less the more effective armor combinations typically worn by professional soldiers.
@@alexanderflack566 i don't disagree with that, i am just saying that knowing how to shoot soon and fast is not worthless.
it's like comparing the machine gun to a bolt action 50cal
@@charlespk2008 You can't use those particular methods for speed shooting using a warbow. You will almost certainly injure yourself. If you want a firearms comparison, what use in war is there for a technique which works only with .22 LR rifles?
The bows used in war have hard limitations on how rapidly they can be shot, due to how muscles work. Additionally, an archer can't actually carry that many arrows due to their bulk, and so would want to ensure that each one had the greatest chance possible to penetrate whatever armor the target is wearing. It doesn't matter how quickly you can put half a dozen arrows into a soldier's chest if their gambeson protects them from injury.
Imagine a fast shooting archer with their 15# bows trying to kill a guy with gambeson or chainmail. That would be so bad. People just don't understand that people like Lars Anderson are trick shooters. He's damn good at it but it's not for battle.
Most people do not own chainmail or armor. Think urban combat. Law and order break down. No new bullets. Sure some people in reloading equipment. Most do not. And you can only reuse brass a limited number of times.
In that scenario, it doesn't take much of a bow to put a hurt on someone. You get hit in the thigh with a broadhead, you're not going to be running anymore. A gut shot? Slow, painful way to die. This reminds me of people who think a .22 isn't a big threat. But more people have been killed that caliber than any other. If shit hit the fan, Lars would mess up most of the people that came his way. I'm just saying I can see a scenario where I wouldn't want to mess with Lars and a kid's bow.
actually most gambeson (padded jackets) seemed to be bad vs piercing weapons...like arrows.
also i feel video games, with there dps archers, started this "hobby".
still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea.
@@charlespk2008 medieval archers used bows way on the heavy side. A light now wouldn't have been of much use on gambeson
@@infernalchaos1066 similarly one shouldn't mess with modern archer using modern recurve sniping at 90 m. Therefore, modern archer with modern recurve is as lethal as Lars with kids bow, I guess.
But this argument is stupid.
Yeah. Watching Olympic archers really makes me glad I'm not on their bad side. I probably couldn't even hit the target at that distance lol.
I still see scenarios where Lars' style could be useful, though.
If SHTF, I'd like to think I'd last an hour or two before I got killed. I probably wouldn't, but one can hope.
The SCA, a worldwide organization dedicated to living history and fun, has had events with combat archery since 1967 with society-wide combat archery rules since 1978- long before the rise of Lars. Our combat archers and target archers have mutual respect for each other... no major conflict; and many do both. Archery is and should remain a big tent with many variations. We should be able to appreciate and respect each other- and celebrate what we have in common.
2:40 yeah kinda like putting “assault” onto “Rifle”. Haha. Nailed it. That being said I totally agree and loved this video.
Setting historical accuracy aside it just seems intuitive that someone who has practiced moving and shooting and is able to quickly fire multiple arrows accurately would be more effective using a bow as a weapon than someone who only practices accuracy.
The same goes for firearms so I don’t understand why it wouldn’t also apply to the bow. Modern militaries train to shoot from different positions, on the move, reloading quickly, etc. If they’re going against an army that only trained to shoot, standing on line, the more dynamic soldiers win every time.
It sounds like you’re saying that “combat archery” isn’t going to allow you to drop 5 assailants in 1.5 seconds, it’s not practical at all.
The point of practicing some kind of combat skill is not that it’s going to turn you into John Wick with a bow or something. It’s that a slight advantage in speed can translate into the difference between life or death.
I highly doubt that an olympic archer would have the same level of proficiency in combat as someone who views a bow as a weapon and trains with that in mind. You can say that “archery is archery” but it’s obvious that a person training to hot a bullseye is not doing the same thing as someone who is training to hit a person.
I think the reason why this term combat archery has been used to differentiate is because modern archery is heavily weighted towards the sporting aspects. I think there are very few people exploring the practical application of the bow as a weapon.
The problem with setting aside historical accuracy is that people apply modern doctrine and concepts to historical contexts that they would not be suitable in. Modern militaries train in dynamic combat skills because the weapons they use allow them to do so, and are refined by the need to fight in environments and scenarios that did not exist earlier in history. The whole concept of urban warfare is relatively new, combined with huge advances in transportation and communication that allow for small unit tactics and independent operation, in turn permitting huge force projection and force multipliers.
Basically, it intuitively makes sense for a modern infantryman with an assault rifle to be able to move, shoot, reload quickly. They use a versatile weapons system that facilitates that kind of combat.
But that was not the technology, warfare and doctrine used by early gunpowder armies in the 18th century, which did fight in static lines. Clearly, this wasn't the style of warfare used by archers in the 15th century and earlier. Aside from horse archers, foot archers did not engage in dynamic urban combat the way we see modern soldiers do. You want to capture a town, you send in the infantry equipped with the arms and armour for close quarters fighting, not your ranged fighters.
Practical archery balances speed, power and accuracy. The current mindset with "combat" archery puts heavy emphasis on speed, but historical military texts such as Gao Ying and Saracen Archery strongly push the more balanced application. Saracen Archery specifically opens with the need to balance the pillars of archery, including speed, penetration, accuracy and self-defense (that is, not being in a position where they can be harmed).
Many of the specific skills in "combat" archery are, ironically, only suitable for an exhibition event to demonstrate personal feats of skill, and would not be suitable in a practical scenario. People can explore how a bow _could_ be used, but it doesn't mean that it _was_ used in such a way.
You can't set historical accuracy aside when talking about historical combat
Well done. I appreciate the way you engaged this academically. I liked your references to trick shooting because whether you were using a bow or a firearm that's what this kind of thing used to be called.
God bless you, NUSensei. I love the new enthusiasm for my favorite sport, but I reeeeaally don't like newbies coming in with no knowledge of the history coming in and telling us what is or isn't "real archery".
It's like complaining that that American football or hockey pads and helmets wouldn't protect someone from swords or guns. No one is pretending those sports are made for combat. Same with the sport of Archery.
Besides, all of you would lose against someone with a compound bow anyway 😂
Well I didn't expect to see you here
Hey that actually seems pretty fun, stick that in with regular HEMA Melee matches and it might work, see how they do with a unit of shield and sword users charging at them. I'm going to ask if we can try it at ScholaGladiatoria next time I go.
Dagorhir, SCA, and Belegarth have been doing these kinds of exercises for decades.
When I think of the “different” types of archery, what I think of are
Olympic Archery
“Combat” Archery(Like Hollywood Movies)
War Archery(Traditional Historical Archery)
Bow Hunting/Fishing
I wish I had teachers like you when I was in school . You are a natural teacher it's in your blood
It isn't true that urban warfare was so rare in ancient times.
It is true that many more battles were made in open battlefield than today, but fighting in cities and villages was very common actually.
As for combat archery, we should realy define it. It is a common term for all archery styles that can be used for combat scenario.
It can be historical combat archery, which also falls under the traditional archery, and it can also define a hipothetical modern of futuristic styles of archery for combat.
It is wide term, but when you hear it you can think about English longbow shooting style, Kyujutso (Japanese military style of archery), self defence with a bow and arrow, and also you can think what kind of archery style would you use if you were a commando warrior (yes, it is still in use by special forces today), guerilla fighter or just a simple archer who tries to defend himself in a survival situation where he has nothing better than bow and arrows.
Right lol. Does he think they never had sieges or raids on towns?
I think my favorite thing about the internet is the fact that we have so much information from nation to nation unfiltered by our "educational system" and we are learning incalculable amounts of Authentic History from one another.
On the topic of Archery technique snobs. My Two cents=If you're hitting your intended targets and not hurting yourself or your gear and you're having fun, you're doing it right.
Archery used in battle will vary according to the approach of people who use it. I remember some 2008-2009 news footage of the Maasai fighting with the Kikuyus and I found some footage on the internet that showed recent archery battles with x rays and TH-cam footage looking for Archery war between Masai/Masaai and Kikuyu/Kukuyu and footage from the search for "Archery war between Maasai and Kipsigis" in TH-cam as well still photos showed in Time Magazine. I did a google search using the words "Archery war between Maasai and Kikuyus" and found that information. First search result-Kenyan tribes wage war with bows and arrows.Time Magazine. It's still there. Those arrows are barbed, poisoned and very nasty looking. Archery used in warfare is very much alive in certain parts of the world. New Guinea used it effectively for many years, but that footage is harder to obtain, but it's out there. I thought you might find that interesting NUSensei. If not, then please disregard.
I really like the term ive heard from Malaysia.
Dynamic archery.
Competitive archery combined with obstacle course and timed.
Its a sport .
And looks fun .
Seems foreign to me and I'm Malaysian.
@@remliqa
Some online friends participate in it . Seemed more common .
But if you check my channel
By clicking my dog image you will see I shoot pole archery .
That's uncommon .
Cheers
People seem to be in the dark about what the average soldier is capable of or how that functions practically. Trick shooting exists for firearms too but that's not how soldiers work, nor would adopting such a specialized style be functional in real life. What's applied in real life is used because it actually works given the parameters.
Lars does pretty cool tricks and has a really interesting style. I'd love to see him publicly verified and recognized as a trick shooter. I think he would have had much better reception if he didn't brand himself as the new grandfather of archery.
Well said!
It's the branding I take most exception to. If instead Lars was branded as an 'Archery Trick Shooter' in much the same as you might see in a game pool trick shots, or some of the old 'Wild West Shows,' then it'd be great.
Trying to give it some form of false validity by claiming it is something which it demonstrably just isn't, is what makes it sad.
@@jens-kristiantofthansen9376 I completely agree and I think it's certainly hurt his credibility.
Lars is not giving a lost technique, he does not use a war bow weight bow , so everything else that follows is pure fantasy, your explanation is spot on. Archery was used to feed and protect plunder and murder. So to say “ combat archery” existed as a separate kind of archery that didn’t include distance shooting , hunting , and protection is simply inventing a definition that has no bearing on history. Lars style would be more reminiscent of Native American as the distances were always short and close quarter type warfare. But this style would be completely useless against fully armored knights. It wouldn’t be useful against the Mongols as they did both distance shooting by infantry style archers and close on horseback but it was horseback not running around jumping on walls etc...
Thank you Very Informative as I new archer I appreciate this 😎🙏
The "Problem" with Archery in general is it takes itself too seriously, that's why things like this crop up. At the end of the day we're doing something thats one step up from throwing stones.. just enjoy it.
As far as the close up archery while running around through obstacles and stuff goes, it might not have been common during medieval times and any time when large civilizations were present, but I could definitely see it being used before that. Bows predate history, and tribes would have fought close up running in trees or around their houses and stuff being invaded, almost like urban warfare in a way. The native Americans would have been fighting kind of like that too. We don’t know if they would have been “speed shooting” the way Lars does, but it is easy to assume that they would have been good at shooting fairly fast. There are plenty of cave depictions with them holding arrows in the bow hand, which definitely could aid in shooting fast, but of course they could just need to hold their arrows and that is how they chose to do it. I am not any kind of historian or archeologist, this is all just conjecture, but it seems right to me.
I'm Sioux and we used bows 40-50 ibs which was more than enough seeings how no one really had armour and we were close in fighters and not ranged fighters. The Algonquin natives had flatbows though which the Spaniards said "...there is no Spaniard who can draw the cord to his face whereas the Indians draw it past the ear and make astonishing shots"
-Garcilaso de la Vega, La Florida del Inca
40 to 50lb is clearly enough to kill unarmoured opponents and I would argue use of the bow at 30 to 60 yards was more common than this idea of longbowmen firing arrows at 300 yards which is absurd.
Firstly, I must applaud your virtuosity, as your expertise does not go unnoticed. I enjoy your content, and have been an avid hunter for many years. I use a modified recurve with all the trappings of post modern neo-traditional archery (of course). I'm a bit of a tech head, and I apologize for the offense lolol. That said, I agree with nearly all of your assessments and assertions good sir, and would only add this one thing. I think CQB ambush hunters often use the same skill set one would use against any unsuspecting predator. We've stalked small bears, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes and wild boars, and pound for pound some of these animals are quite dangerous under the right circumstances (they will charge if they catch you off guard), so you have to be competent in your skill set. I also have a few oral traditions in my family from world war two, where a small number of unsuspecting sentries were purportedly taken with a bow, by a well trained covert hunting unit.
I'd just like to give you a written thumbs up NUSensei you have proven to me from watching a fair few of your videos that you are an intelligent, logical, and reasonable person. I think You would have been a very wise and skilled Ancient archer on a real battle field if it was your intention in life to be a warrior archer! ;P Great work my guy!
thank you!... im a new student and currently working with an old compound bow but I'm highly interested in the potential for modern combative applications..thankyou for you educated opinion air
I've been a dedicated archer and bowhunter (both traditional longbow and recurve bow, and modern compound archery & hunting) since I was about 10 years old (about 30 years) And I am also a former US Army Infantryman and combat veteran. Having experienced modern combat, I can tell you that the applications for archery in a modern combat theatre would be very limited, and applicable to only very specific scenarios. One scenario that comes to mind would be a "sniper" type of application, where their is a need for silence, and to make one accurate killshot from a concealed/hidden location. In that kind of scenario, a crossbow would be an excellent weapon. Modern crossbows are incredibly powerful, and incredibly accurate. The one I own will shoot a bolt 500fps. At that velocity, it is every bit as accurate as a rifle at 100 yards, and targets can be easily be taken down at well beyond that. I've put a crossbow bolt thru a basketball sized target at out to 160 yards. Beyond that, I struggle to think of a scenario where a bow, whether it be a traditional longbow or recurve, or even a modern compound bow would be application. Perhaps in an ambush type scenario, where several people can shoot and move between hidden locations. This would allow you to choose your battlefield, which gives you a big advantage. For how long an attack like that could be sustained is questionable. Maybe 2-3 shots and movements at most before you would have to fall back on using something more effective such as a rifle. As a combat veteran, i really struggle to see a bow of any kind being useful or worthwhile in modern combat beyond that. Unless a doomsday scenario were to occur, and over time ammunition were to be depleted and become scarce, and we devolved back into a more primitive form of warfare, I'm afraid that the days where a bow could be applicable again in modern combat are long gone.
All archery was combat/hunting archery, the sport element was just training for it, different cultures hunted/fought in different ways depending on resources and terrain.
Nowadays combat archery is akin to line dancing. It never existed during the old west, just like combat archery never existed until now. It's just another boxercise/zumba sh-peal just created for people to spend their expendable cash on. Expendable cash!!!! Like anyone knows what that means anymore.
still, in battle, if an attack works, then attacking sooner and more often is a good idea.
there is some good point in his stuff.
@@charlespk2008
The key word there is "if". And, for every change, there has to be a downside. Attacking more often seems like a good idea, but it also means that you are effective for a smaller length of time as you run out of ammunition sooner. The video game logic of unlimited ammo and unlimited stamina shows in the theorycrafting of archery in battle. If someone can shoot quickly, accurately and with the desired penetrative effect, they should demonstrate it. Prove that the attack *can* work first.
@@NUSensei i mean that, in all the archery competitions there are, none of them seem to evaluate one's ability to aim/soot quickly.
i think that void is fueling the "combat archery" thing.
@@charlespk2008 As far as I'm aware, although I'm no historical expert, the lone archer at close quarters was never a thing in real combat. At close quarters the archer used his sidearm - club, hammer, knife, etc, and at long range he would have been one of hundreds or even thousands - his individual fire rate would be largely irrelevant - what mattered was range and hitting power.
Lars' skills are, to be sure, "something else" (in the very positive sense), and relevant in the "trick shot" or "demonstration" sense (somebody above mentioned he's a circus act, which rings very true), but they have no sense in real combat - that's "something else" in the very literal sense. I'm a circus act too, I can juggle 7 balls, but it doesn't make me good at cricket.
Combat archery seems like airsoft. I'm a compound bow shooter mostly and love the history of archery and the different styles. There is no need to disrespect any archery style or disiplin(spelling)
I agree.
I shoot a recurve and for me, that's the type of bow I love - although I would like a longbow at some point.
While compound isn't for me, it always makes me wince when some recurve shooters seriously criticise compound shooters. Sure, a little good-natured teasing between those two camps is fine, but both are entirely, and equally, valid bows/disciplines.
What's the difference between a compound and a recurve shooter? The recurve guy can spell 'Disciplines.' :D (Sorry, couldn't resist, mate).
nu, you are the man. 🏹 & 🌎 advice...thank you Sir.
I'd never think in terms of "combat archery" vs almost any other. It's archery in combat situations. If you want to know what that REALLY means in any modern context, look to the Vietnam war. Sometimes, SOME special force troops (Green Berets) would use a recurve bow to take down select targets on the sly. A bow and arrow are much quieter than a combat effective silenced pistol or rifle. Best tool for the job...but you'd never forego the firearm for a bow unless you were in desperate straights. Archery in combat is virtually identical to bow hunting, just with different targets and no use of hides.
Is there a source that substantiates that Green Berets' use of bows in Vietnam?
@@NUSensei OK, there's a reference for one guy, a Green Beret from Canada, who was also an avid bow hunter. He cut loose with it on a fight in Cambodia but actual hits are not recorded. In any case, no prisoners were taken who took an arrow to the knee.
www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/4/3/behind-enemy-lines-weapons-of-vietnams-covert-warriors/
@@NUSensei I only learned of it because of the game Far Cry 5, where a recurve you can use mentions it's use in Vietnam by Green Berets in its description. I then looked it up.
@@BooDamnHoo So, *one* soldier brought a bow from home. No record of silent kills or combat effectiveness. It's a huge stretch to say that the bow was used by the Green Berets in Vietnam in that case. Much like how many commentators say that the British used bows in WW2 because *one* crazy soldier brought a bow along (and scored a confirmed kill). From what I understand, the Far Cry 5 description is a pop culture reference to Rambo (though an erroneous one, as he used a compound bow in First Blood).
@@NUSensei True. That is the extent of modern "combat archery" I can find. I thought it was more than the one guy until I found this article. It's a nice story though!
Used in actual combat like he fis it is highly likely he missed. Most bullets fired in a firefight hit no one due to chaos and adrenaline. It cannot be less so using a bow.
Outstanding video Sir. This is an excellent point on the overall explanation of Archery as a whole, and to those who don’t quite understand the differences within this craft. Far too often, I encounter individuals in my archery community, how they criticize, and frown upon the Lars Anderson, or asiatic, or Mongolian, Turkish style of Archery. I will confidently refer them to your video, to enlighten them that there is NO one style of Archery. Thanks for sharing Brotha 😇🙏🏹🏹👍
Well explained, battle field archery is as diverse as the cultures that went to war. Gunpowder and muskets sort of made them obsolete. Even a heavy draw weight longbow couldn’t get through good armour, the points not being hardened steel, suppose they were going for the horses and the lightly armoured infantry. from the ramparts of a heavily fortified castle, preferably with a large moat. My kind of combat archery.
Also why a horse bow is referred to as a combat bow more often as it can be more versatile on a battlefeild
What type of quivers were the moving line archers using
Addition- combat archery: archery used to kill other people. Such as during war.
The quiver is called an ebira
This is a very useful essay. Combat archery implies combat was the last thing on peoples minds, when in reality combat was at the forefront. But we need the buzzword mindset, that’s how we relate to the crowd.
I like like this well put together summarisation of this kind of loaded topic.
Very good video, I agree with everything you said. In the day, I did 10 years of full contact medieval combat, battle reenactment & living history. Archery's (European) carried some kind of melee weapon, for up close and personal, for a very good reason, at close range you are not going to kill/injure/stop closing enemy's unless you were Robin Hood, or Legolas! Archers as I am sure you already know were used as a volly weapon as a rule. The only example I could think of what might be considered vaguely as "Combat archery", may have been depollied by the Native American Indians, like say the Apaches. Losing a arrow at a target of opportunity from cover, then relocating pretty damn fast, so not to have his head dress, or head blowen off. But not taking out a troop of Buffalo Soldiers singer handedly with just a bow and a quiver of arrows, that is the land of fairytales, you know.............Hollywood. Cheers! :)
In combat you are best to be able to draw arrow off either side of the bow, in either hand and multiple shots... basically the more versatile someone is the better off in the battlefield when paired with a bow. That being said doesn’t matter how fast you shoot if you can’t hit the broadside of a barn!
Thank you! Been leanring horse back archery and Larsa Anderson is basically making it more of a circus act - using 1/3 of draw length and a kids weight of a bow he could probably only shoot down a stoned squirrel. In a combat situation or hinting a bison he has no chance to get any penetration with his approach but rather would be dead in no time.
This was a long way of saying "The masses are desecrating Archery by overly simplifying one form and then generalizing across the sport/activity in its entirety." You even dismissed Archery tag as branding... Is it just not ok to do an activity that remotely resembles Archery without being classically trained in one of its forms?
I'm sorry to do this... When you mentioned that there is little practical value in being able to catch incoming arrows, I suddenly visualized an ancient battle between two nomad armies.
The horsemen on both sides were so skilled, they caught each others arrows before returning fire. This battle began at dawn, and ended at dusk with both armies returning to their own camps, with ZERO casualties.
Instead of being declared a win or a loss for either side, the battle was declared a waste of time. Even in my own fantasy scenario, you're still correct... Maybe there is little practical value in catching arrows.
Completely agree with everything said in this video. Just one quick critique of phrasing though, when you were conceding the point that Olympic archery couldn't win Medieval battles because it was never designed for it, you held up the Olympic bow and said "This is not an effective tool", while it should probably have been said that it's not an effective weapon, since it is infact an effective tool at what it was designed to be, just not a battlefield weapon ;p keep up the good work!
One can use any bow and any style/technique when it comes to combat. Everything has its own pros and cons depending on the situation. Combat is about using what you have and can do, to have the upper hand.
The problem is that people who claim specific pros and cons of any method of archery have no experience of using archery in combat. What we see is a surface-level comparison without any of the nuances brought about by practical application, comparing simplistic figures like how many shots per second, without a realistic grounding in when, why and how someone might shoot that quickly.
I'm an archery instructor and I teach combat archery in Israel. There are many aspects of it and many types of archery warfare, like shooting from horseback or from a jeep, advance with the cover fire of arrows, guerilla warfare archery, combination with more weapons, shooting in different terreins and extreme weather and many more aspects. There is no single type of it, it depends on the kind of warfare. For example modern combat archery will be different from the medieval combat archery, because in modern warfare the archer will have to learn how fight against guns and explosives, which is different from fighting against cavalry of the medieval era. So the debate is realy complicated, I agree with that. Historically there were also many kinds of combat archery which were developed by different peoples for their specific needs in combat. For example the Mongols used their bows from horseback as their default tactic, so they developed small horsebow, while the English used archers for arrow barrages so they used longbows which were more simple and cheaper to create in high number. It can't realy be compered because there are too many aspects to explore, like the number of available archers, materials available in the country, the combat tactics of the army, the tarrein, the weather and so on.... I personaly teach a uniqe type of archery which combine some historical archery from some coltures.
The grip on that bow is so intriguing
First I ever heard of Combat Archery. Looks like fun for what it is, a game. Hey, anyone know what kind of bow he was holding? Laminated Sycthian or Hungarian? Just the kind of bow I'm looking for.
Excellent explanation of modern Archery and the rest.
All in all...thank you for your analysis...always on target I would say! :D
for the stuff about close ranged archery. What if you take a bow into those kill houses that soldiers use for training?
That's what I think of when people say close quarters combat, and also the kind of demonstration that is needed to validate if combat archery works in the context that people claim it does. Run a practical shooting course, and the problems will become evident.
People don't think too much nowadays, i agree with everything u said
And you are doing wrong. NUSensei's attitude is good (first define then discuss etc.), but he has not a few false information there.
21 minutes and a bit to state that combat archery is more about killing humans than the other disciplines are. Well done.
Well done, well said, beautiful bow..👍
What bow is it?
Have you tried Tactical Combat Archery, though? I heard it's 100% cooler than Combat Archery.
lol...you need a Black Bow and Arrows.
@@bobboitt3126 with fluorescent colours!
Put a stock on your bow, and keep arrows in speed loading clips.
Trenchcoats and sunglasses optional
But still less cool than Combat Tactical Archery. Splitter.
I read "Combat Archery" and immediately thought "SCA-style Combat Archery". As an SCA fighter I really hated enemy Combat Archers... MY guys were great!
Nu I have a question. I have a similar bow to yours however I'm concerned with the stingray skin rest damaging my arrows. I'm wondering if I should still rest arrows on it.
The two main problems I have with the Lars Andersen style of 'combat archery' is primarily the draw length which, whenI see rapid shooting, it looks like you'd need at least an 80lb bow for close range, purely because of the draw length. the short/fast draw with a cut-down draw, looks like it's about 20lb at the fingers and wouldn't pierce anything outside of uncovered skin.
The other problem, in films, is the unrealistic ability level that reminds me of the sort of Kung Fu legends where the master would build his house with no doors, and only accept students who could enter his house by doing a standing jump through the first floor window. Sure, there was a use and even a need for high jumping kicks (dismounting riders) but as soon as one person sets a bar at a certain level, then in order for the master to be seen as a master, it gets doubled, then doubled again, ad infinitum.
Get good punk
@@mastercharlesdiltardino8058 I already am, but thanks for the input.
Great! All this is and was obvious for anybody, who is more or less seriously involved in real archery, and has at least a rudimental knowledge of history of archery. As usual, well done NUSensei!
I agree with you that modern target bows are not designed for battle. However a target bow with a decent draw weight can still kill, and therefore a line of archers with target bows could still be somewhat effective in battle if that's all they had.
Good explanation,,,most combat archery tried to cut down their opponents at a distance and than advance and finish them off. Edged weapons up close. Healing hugs
Very well explained.
Great video, great topic. Thank you.
So you're saying that quick-draw artists during the American Civil War couldn't take on 12 men with 2 revolvers? What's that? The Civil War was fought over 100 yards and not 30 feet?
Good understanding and good video
One thing I don't get is this idea that a bow used in war would have to be a high draw weight bow. Not everyone wore armor in war. A 60 pound bow drawn half way would still have enough power to penetrate clothing and inflict serious injury. As you say there were urban conflicts in history, rare as they are. Wouldn't it be effective then to shoot faster than your opponents in those scenarios?
The problem with historians is that they look at history from a modern perspective. People can do some pretty amazing things. Things that sound impossible until you see them. Relying on "evidence" can sometimes lead to underestimating people who lived in a different time. It can lead to misinformation. I can't help but think people who lived archery, who trained their whole lives, honed their skills through combat would be more skilled than people today. Combat archery is just a term, and shouldn't be taken as definition of anything. Like how we today like to use the term selfies, when "autoportrait" was there ever since the invention of cameras. People who claim the things you say they claim, like calling olympic archery an inferior form of the skill, are idiots. They shouldn't even be taken into consideration. But just as well, saying these "combat archery" skills were not effective in an actual combat scenario seems just as misguided to me. Post your reply below 😁
True - not everyone wore armour in war. But *most* people did. *Most* evidence of military archery and *most* archaeological finds indicate that the bows used were of heavy draw weights. *Most* battles were not urban. This isn't hypothetical - we know the kinds of bows and arrows that were used and what they were used against. It makes more sense to equip and train an army for the expected confrontation. It would not make sense to waste time and resources to train archers to use light, rapid bows for a situation they would not find themselves in. It doesn't make sense to disregard the vast majority of historical warfare to give credence and legitimacy to a style of "combat" archery that has little to no historical evidence of being used in the manner that enthusiasts claim. And what city fighting did happen was mostly carried by the infantry, which formed the bulk of historical armies, not archers.
What you outline as the problem with historians is quite the opposite. Historians look at history within their context. It's history *enthusiasts* - the ones that lack the formal education and familiarity with historical sources - that apply modern perspectives to situations where they would not have existed. It makes no sense to disregard "evidence". If the evidence lines up to support a strong theory and historians can establish a consensus, that is a much stronger case for what was likely historical fact. Ignoring "evidence" leads people into overestimating what people from a different time could do. This is an irrational line of thought.
Almost all claims in favour of "combat" archery fail to provide *any* evidence of its use, and no one has conclusively proven its effectiveness. If combat archery is effective, someone needs to do something to prove it. If the best that combat archers can say is "Well, surely it must have been done", it's not convincing. Today, practitioners can prove and validate that heavy historical bows, including English and Chinese bows, can be used according to the historical texts and manuals. Historical archery styles, such as Turkish archery, can demonstrate the same techniques that are outlined in sources like Taybugha. There is very strong reason to believe the "orthodox" mentality in archery because we have strong evidence that they can be done and have been done.
The same can't be said of "combat" archery. If sources exist that support such methods in combat, they should be provided, studied and evaluated. If an archer today claims to have reinvented a style that would have been used, they should prove that it works and their demonstration should be critically evaluated. But if no one can provide a source and no one can prove that it can work, then it should be clear which style of archery we should accept as legitimate.
@@NUSensei A thourgh and well constructed answer as usual. I appreciate it. When it comes to history, generally academics who write books about it tend to see their analysis as the only exceptable one. And due to the funds and recognition they gain from those books they tend not to want to admit they were wrong. Not in all cases, but I see this a lot. When a new theory is presented they shun it because it doesn't fit their theories. Yes, evidence is present, but I just find it hard to believe that we would know all about what happened hundreds, let alone thousands of years ago. An opened mind is necessary for historical study. I like what you're saying about there needing to be a demonstration to prove this combat archery theory. But no one alive today has actual war experience with archery. Which is why I think no one can speak so surely about it not being used it combat. Not in sieges, and perhaps not even in urban warfare. But surely throughout thousands of years of history somewhere. Not everyone who practiced archery was a soldier. So if no great battle was fought and written down, we have no way of knowing what people like that were capable off or what they achieved. Yet these records of speed shooting exist, and have existed for a Long time. So maybe it was not as useless as we might think. Am I making any sense?
@@gizmonomono
You make very broad generalisations about historians, and the absence of any specific criticism or controversy - especially in the archery context we are discussing - leads me to treat your claims of historical bias and narrow-mindedness as an empty point.
If anything, research into historical archery has seen more practical and experimental work done than many other fields. Mike Loades has produced many works that document the history of archery from around the world, shows an open mind about different possibilities, dares to challenge popular perceptions of how archers fought, and is himself proficient in multiple archery styles including English longbow and horse archery. in more recent times, Justin Ma - who not only co-wrote the English version of Gao Ying's military manual - has documented his process in achieving increasingly heavier draw weights, which at this point is over 120lbs. Not to mention the work done by the ATARN group and its members, with hundreds of enthusiasts sharing and contributing to the common knowledge pool with their experiences, perspectives and research.
In contrast, it is the armchair enthusiasts and commentators who display the narrow-mindedness that you lay against historians. These are often people who are not widely read, or have look at only one source and extrapolated all their knowledge from what someone else said. Often these are people who don't even practice archery themselves, or have very narrow experiences in specific styles that leaves them incapable of processing the fact that other styles beyond their own exist.
The manuals of the past don't just document battlefield archery. They document everyday archery. Archery was a core part of many societies, from the native American nations who relied on archery for hunting and survival, to the Chinese who used archery as part of military examinations, to the English who were mandated by law to practice archery. Even if these people did not fight as soldiers in war, the knowledge of archery was widespread and well-known.
Your thought process is irrational. The evidence is in many cases clear and evident, and combat archers base their "beliefs" on scant, weak evidence that, when pressed, are unable to produce or pulled out of context with extensive interpretations that are in turn not grounded in reality. Basically, you have the consensus of archers and historians who can establish through historical, archaelogical, experimental and practical evidence what likely would have happened. Then you get a handful of people who go "Yes, but what about this?" with no basis other than "logic".
That's why this video was made. It is nearly impossible to have an intellectual conversation when one party denies all the evidence and grasps onto a tiny handful of straws to validate an entire style of archery which no one can prove.
@@NUSensei I said I see this approach to history a lot, I didn't say every historian is like that. I know about Justin, and I follow his work. And talking about generalisation, you assume a lot. I do practice archery. All styles. I have a passion for it, and this is why some of your claims don't sit well with me. I have been experimenting with this "combat" archery and I can see the potential in it. And that's why I'm saying all of this. I am not a historian, I am an archer. Narrow minded with bad logic you say? How is that? I seem to be looking at a broader picture than yourself, my friend. I'm not making any claims, nor am I teaching you history. But you always cling to these large war scenarios, where everyone was armored and archers used heavy bows. It seems narrow minded to me, to think that that's the whole extent of bow usage in in all of history. From a practical stand point shooting fast while moving would be a useful skill to have in the olden days. Provided you do not limit yourself to only that, and practice long range precision as well. I shoot a lot, and I practice close, far, speed and precision. Which is why I have a hard time believing that people who actually used these skills in war would limit themselves to just one of those. And I'm not talking about your average soldier with limited training. But actual masters of their art. If this is hard for you to imagine, or if that logic fails to meet yours, than we'll have to agree to disagree.
@@gizmonomono Again, I press for evidence and specific examples. If not every historian is like that, then which ones are? Which texts should be trusted and why? Which historians should be distrusted and why? To be a historian is to be open-minded. Otherwise, by searching for specific "truths", you enter the realm of pseudo-history. That's the Lars Andersen fault - he selects evidence that suits what he thinks archery was and creates the narrative around pieces he doesn't understand. The basis of his speed shooting style is his visual analysis of European archers being crudely drawn with bows being held at waist level, which he combines with his understanding of the Slavic draw from Arab archery, which he uses to achieve the 3 arrows/1.5 seconds claimed in Mamluk archery. He is able to make these things together work, but there's little to no evidence that this was what was used or why it was used.
Each time critical points are raised, the same vague theoretical counter-points are brought up: It would've been useful. "Shooting fast while moving would be a useful skill in the olden days"? Let's show it. We don't have to theorise about an abstract idea. If people like yourself are practising the skill, then develop the scenario and prove that it would work. Tests can be scrutinised and critiqued. That's been happening with Justin Ma and Matt Easton, and the result is an improvement in the testing methodology. The conversation with Panagiotis Kavalieratos in this section outlined critical faults with the future prospect of covering the content in a clearer way. The fact that Panagiotis extensively covered his style and provided clear scenarios in which they would be useful makes it far more accessible and agreeable, and the sections which looked like plausible can be discussed and debated with clear and specific references to why it may or may not work.
But when combat archery is scrutinised, the dialogue shuts down. Lars Andersen pulls down videos and makes apologies. Bo Krause makes death threats. Fans shout "You're just jealous and your archery is boring". Whatever genuine interest there is in advancing our knowledge of historical archery, it isn't being helped by being elusive.
For the record, I don't think that large-scale war is the only use of archery. I know archery is used in other ways. I know the native American tribes didn't fight in large set-piece battles with volley shooting and massive war bows. I know African tribes didn't fight in massed formations. I don't claim otherwise, and where possible, I will contextualise and acknowledge other scenarios which are not referenced as much. But from what I've experienced with people pushing combat archery, I more often encounter the mindset that combat archery is the *only* real archery used because it's faster, instinctive, etc. And it baffles me that there's so much evidence of conventional archery in the historical record that is blatantly ignored.
Not saying this is you, by the way, and I make no assumptions about what you think or do. I'm grounding this response in why it is so difficult to make headway in the discourse on "combat" archery - hence, my problem with it.
When can we expect a review of that bow?
also the simple fact that many historical archers through the ages would carry a short sword. the bow was primarily the ranged weapon and if the enemy got to close the archer would revert to the sword. I don't know all the historical archery combat styles, but I am aware of many forms of horse archers and long range volley (longbow) styles. historical archery hunting was probably similar to today: shots at short distances (20-30m) and stealth approach.
I am just getting into archery and from your videos I have become very curious on the history of it all. As in the different types of archery from different regions and so on. I have very little actual knowledge and my only time being exposed to any such thing would be from games like Age of Empires or Total War, which I know isn’t much. Do you have or could you make a video or videos going over the different types of archery and their styles of bows, or at least a list of references to research then easier? For example, Korean archery, and what to look for in a Korean recurve bow, or Yumi bows/archery and what those bows were like and how they were used. I’m interest in learning about any and all different types, middle eastern as well. I apologize in advance if I said anything that was somewhat incorrect as I already mentioned my knowledge is very limited. I have interest in all types of archery, modern recurve, historical/trapshooting, modern compound bows, and hunting with them or just target shooting.
I’ve never once really delved into what archery is but now I really appreciate this nonetheless
I’m a lifelong Martial Artist that has a back ground in parkour and gymnastics when I picked up Bow I was able to move shoot and roll later I found out that they coined it Running Archery 🏹
It's actually not called that. "Run archery" is a like the biathlon in winter sports, but on foot and with a bow rather than skis and rifle. "Running archery" is uniquely what Charlie calls his channel, but it's not a recognised discipline. It would be more recognised as stunt shooting.
I think a better term to use is Tactical Archery. This approach can combine historical and modern ideas. It allows for flexibility through the combining of various skills that can potentially be deployed in survival situations.
This presents the same problem as other "tacticool" arts. The blend of historical archery with modern ideas might look really neat, but you cannot delude people into thinking that these are viable survival skills when they are untried and untested. In what reality is turning a traditional bow into a CQC rapid-fire weapon ever going to be relevant? If you're going to survive with a bow, learn to hunt with it - clean, ethical, single shots. You don't need the superficial speed and flair to be practical.
@@NUSensei I love your channel Sir. Almost agree with everthing you have to say but on your most recent point i think your completley wrong Sir. The bow could actually be a rapid fire weapon in the hands of a person who has trained to do that. At a minimum if all chaos breaks out even in a third world country or even an advanced one if you run out of Firearm Ammo then the bow could be a very relevant tool like the Atmos Survival Bow that could easily be consealed (for self defense reasons). Im not referring to anything illegal. Your opinion on this partical matter is more like a philiophical socratic dialogue that you cannot prove. Although i think it is an important discussion and your video is still worth watching because there are nuggets of really good information. nevertheless i love your videos and have learned a lot
Sensei, where is cheap archery store near tokyo? I will go to tokyo next month, maybe you have recomendation store?
Is there anything like archery duels? Like you need to be accurate at long range but taking too long to aim would get you shot first so you lose.
Agreed brother!
Lars's videos are entertaining at least... This one is about an imagined problem of a definition. With a guy holding a bow, not even shooting it, at least 15 min in.
I liked your video about Ottoman archery with the guy in Australia. It was positive and I learned something new.
I have a shield. Does this mean I should Get my friend with his bow. And then he tries to hit me while I’m behind my shields ?!
What would the specifications of a combat bow be?
I shoot in viking age reenactments using rubber blunts. As a weapon it's great as support to the melee troops, but one on one I will lose 4 out of 5 times. Its most effective when the person you're shooting at doesn't know your shooting at them. And I know what I do isn't historically accurate, we use bows 35lbs or less and regularly short draw so that the arrows hit with only the necessary force to get to the person. I would definitely be up for working with some HEMA practitioners to see how it would work though
I so like your lecture.
Just as an example. Some consider bows only as warbow over a draw weight of 80 pounds. But the roman bows had 65 pounds only. Infantry shot volleys at targets of 50 to 150 m distance. Horseback units shot at 25 to 50m distance more individually. For the standard linothorax or chainmail armor a horseback archer needed to shoot from closer than 30m distance to penetrate that armor. Just outside the range of a pilum. Then they lost some battles against the parthian horseback army who shot stronger bows and were fighting mostly the mongolian style without foot soldier formations. Following decades showed that the romans changed to scalemail or extra metal stripes and their bows became stronger, too. It was always a constant adaptation to enemies and their style. Most of military history the "heroes" as in the Ilias from homer were rushing in with their chariot or with a handful of followers, dealing as much damage as possible and rushing out for some rest. Experiments showed, that the ancient greek armor and weapon allowed only clashes of less than a minute. And then we see better disciplined armies in formation who sometimes loose against such more individual warfare and often win. There is no such thing as a superior way. Also the longbow is not superior. Just easier to make and more resistant to a humid climate than the compound bow.
To fight close quarters and be relevant to modern warfare with a bow without just sitting back in the woods trying to blend in, and to train for such, is combat Archery or combat Archery training!
When people bring up the "a speed-shooter versus a load of people at short range" are forgetting the classic example: bringing a knife to a gunfight. It sounds great in theory but I highly suggest you look it up on police training videos, even Mythbusters proved that the knife wins under 21 feet. So your speed shooter versus 10 guys in urban combat? He dies 10 times.
Those Mythbusters tests assume the person has the gun holstered and not ready to shoot. It shows how police has a hard time dealing with seemingly unaggressive people in a modern setting. Obviously if you had a gun against a guy with a knife in short range but were ready to shoot you would kill them almost every time.
Also I'm pretty sure in the video by Lars this guy is referencing he shoots 2 guys in close range in less than a second.
Back in the days when you needed to fight close quarters, you drop the bow and draw your sword.
why would you do that if you have the range advantage? Same reason why swords were shit back in the day compared to just halberds.
@@Jebu911 Because you can't control range with a bow at closer quarters? Polearms are good because you actually put a physical barrier between yourself and opponent. A bow is not going to do that all. All you can do is strike first... and that's it.
Haven't watched ya vids in a while, but my you've gotten a pretty bow!! Where did you get that blue/red beauty? Tbh, if people wanna do some amateur "living history' let em if it's safe and such.
That's the Bolide Archery Liuyao. It's an online-only bow being sold by Ebay/Ali retailers like Bosenbows, normally sold under generic "Traditional Chinese bow" tags.
I think "Combat archery" should be rather called "Extreme Archery"... Yep, it's extremely cool and their skill should be respected sincerely... but these are because they are a kind of cool extreme sports , not because they are practical.
I think that your perspective on what people think of as "combat archery" may be skewed by you tube videos and commentators. I do traditional archery shoots of various kinds, and we think of "combat archery" as when squads of dozens or hundreds of archers shoot at foot soldiers from fairly long distances or when horse back archers attack in masses, not at all the type of fast trick shooting that you're talking about.
I like Lars Anderson's stuff, but I love learning from nusensi.
I think the part around 7:00 to 10:00 is pretty important, and I think fantasy/hollywood is to blame for why people don't get this. Sport archery isn't trying to be historical, but most people only think of archery as historical reenactment and fantasy larping