The Problem With Combat Archery
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июл 2019
- 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.
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.
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
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.
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 RUclips and this was recommended to me. F Lars Anderson!
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.
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.
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 (ruclips.net/video/ODS7ksbBRuE/видео.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Excellent explanation of modern Archery and the rest.
All in all...thank you for your analysis...always on target I would say! :D
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.
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.
2:40 yeah kinda like putting “assault” onto “Rifle”. Haha. Nailed it. That being said I totally agree and loved this video.
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.
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.
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 like like this well put together summarisation of this kind of loaded topic.
Great video, great topic. Thank you.
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 😇🙏🏹🏹👍
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.
Enjoyed the video as usual and coveting your jacket 😄
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.
Good points all. I like that you look at archery from two dimensions-1) Breadth. The breadth of archery, with its different styles such as traditional, compound, target, and so forth, and 2) Time. The history of archery and how its evolution varied, depending on place and culture down through the ages.
Since you seem well-versed in historical archery, how would you feel about doing a series comparing and contrasting different styles at a given point in history to help the rest of us become better-versed? For instance, pick a time period, say when the Mongols were at their peak, and compare their style and expertise to the various styles used by those against whom they fought? You touched on this briefly in this video. I’m just trying to give you a nudge in that direction? 😄 🏹
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'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!
How do I contact Nu Sensei?I got an interesting question I'd want him to adress. Big fan of the channel by the way
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
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!
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
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
Sensei, where is cheap archery store near tokyo? I will go to tokyo next month, maybe you have recomendation store?
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.
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.
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 RUclips footage looking for Archery war between Masai/Masaai and Kikuyu/Kukuyu and footage from the search for "Archery war between Maasai and Kipsigis" in RUclips 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.
When can we expect a review of that bow?
Thank you Very Informative as I new archer I appreciate this 😎🙏
Can you kindly tell me what make bow are you holding for most of your video
21 minutes and a bit to state that combat archery is more about killing humans than the other disciplines are. Well done.
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...
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?
Very good video. You put this whole topic in its place I think. Lars is good indeed but different styles are for different usage and reason. I also tried historical bows, compound bow and recurve bow as well. All good. I may learn them all :)) But comparing these are like comparing apples and oranges.
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.
Well done, well said, beautiful bow..👍
What bow is it?
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
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.
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.
awesome video dude.
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
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 wish I had teachers like you when I was in school . You are a natural teacher it's in your blood
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.
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! :)
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.
I’ve never once really delved into what archery is but now I really appreciate this nonetheless
Give me tips about combat archery or fighting with bow.
You have really good audio...outside?! Nice!
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.
What kind of bow are you holding?
The grip on that bow is so intriguing
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!
Can you make a video about expensive bow with cheap accessories vs cheap bow with expensive accessories?
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).
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.
Very well explained.
nu, you are the man. 🏹 & 🌎 advice...thank you Sir.
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.
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.
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.
Tod's Workshop did an experiment done with historically made armour, arrows, and longbow. It was a warbow +100lbs draw weight and if I remember right the armour stopped the arrows. The most dangerous part of the archery was the shrapnel from the arrows exploding on impact with sharp pieces deflecting under the gorget. It's a very interesting video.
The reason medieval archers were so effective was volleys and strategic positioning of the formations of archers. A completly different tactic from horseback archery which would be more of a hit and run scenario. No one was running around a battlefield alone with a bow and no other weapons that wouldn't get killed outright.
Mail and padding didn't stop the arrows. Only the plate. And not everybody could afford high quality plate
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
What would the specifications of a combat bow be?
can you do a reveiew for archery from the last samurai movie
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!
Also why a horse bow is referred to as a combat bow more often as it can be more versatile on a battlefeild
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.
Can yu please do a video on flatbows
Good understanding and good video
Love the topic. 👍😀
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
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.
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.
Please review the Southwest Tigershark Pro!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 ?!
If Olympic style bows had existed in a historical context do you think that something along those lines would have potentially been practical in a similar role to modern snipers?
No. The problem is that modern target bows have the same effective range (or less) than that of other bows, giving it no range advantage and therefore not fulfilling the role of a sniper. At best, you might consider a scoped bow as a designated marksman weapon. However, in an archer vs archer scenario, a regular archer is just as capable of hitting an Olympic archer with simpler gear and less restriction. The precision of the Olympic archer is excessive for a practical context.