35 Replies to “Military archery and speed shooting videos – a little rant”

  1. this is obviously a response to Lars
    what he is doing is called saracen archery, it was, i understand, developed in cities and not meant for a war situation
    also Lars has demonstrated that to get the full force(what i assume is the full force) of his bow adds very little time
    also what dose it matter, its 2019 in case anyone hadn't realised
    no one is using bows for war any more

    also is there anyone els on youtube that this vid could be aimed at??
    i just tried to find anyone els doing what scholagladiatoria is describing, i think its only Lars
    if anyone knows about anyone els doing speed archery, pleas tell me i want to watch them

  2. The difference for bows in hunting versus guns is the shock damage a bullet does. The expansion of the bullet does the damage and distributes the energy over a larger area (a muzzleloader ball does not create the same shock damage). An arrow, properly placed such as in the lungs or arteries, will make the animal bleed out very quickly, relying on blood loss to kill. However, an arrow not placed to cause a quick bleedout will be much less effective. A friend (who does A LOT of hunting) shot a black bear in the head with a bow (obviously killing it because of the brain shot), and it was very messy dressing it because it did not produce the same blood loss that a heart area shot does.

  3. Range vs effective range is and was the issue. I've heard estimates of range between 350 to 400 yds for medieval longbows. But the penetration of even a war arrow at that range was greatly reduced.

  4. Eurocentric take, and full of assumptions about the combatants equipment. Read or listen to Empire of the Summer Moon about the exploits of the Comanche tribes horse archers. Six arrows or more could be shot in the time it took to fire once and reload a Kentucky Rifle. Their bows weren't Heavy War Bows in the sense of European equipment. But they didnt use them in the same way. And they didn't necessarily shoot arrows that went in and out in a through shot, employing hardened iron points. They used arrows with heads made of scrap metal that often bent if they hit bone and made removal that much more painful. They were famous for shooting people in the naval area, causing infections like peritonitis. And the worst part was that they weren't going to just employ these light bows. They combined this with 14 foot lances, knives and clubs. Once they peppered a group with arrows, then the hand to hand butchery began. They were every bit as wicked to face as the Huns, and they used their primitive weapons to great effect against people with advanced weaponry and outmoded tactics that failed to defend them against a swift and determined enemy without Christian moral compunctions about what were acceptable ways of combat.

  5. Good Point, but… being able to handle every situation is the best preparation.
    Piercing armor on a long distance if you cant hit them in the right weak spot or giving tree headshots to 3 different opponents in a splitsecond are both effective technics in their own ways.
    So maybe some circus trick lessons wouldnt hurt any serious archer 🙂

  6. I tell you for a fact, we had contest to see who could shoot the fastest with our bows. I tell you for a fact i have killed more animals to eat than I could count, bunch of garbage talk about meat and hormones. I regularly kill and eat animals, some never see it coming, others I kill with my bare hands, trust me if I'm wringing out your throat, and I'm snapping your neck you will have adrenaline coursing, and your meat will taste fine.

  7. Chosun era military arrows were approximately 250g, shot at a range of up to 400m. That's five times the weight of one of my 45-50 lb spined wood/ bamboo arrows at 32" which yield around 50lbft impact energy on target, so I think you may well have massively underestimated the draw weight of eastern composite bows used, especially heavy broad limbed horn bows. They could shoot them pretty quickly considering the draw weight, but only because if you train for it your whole life you end up very much stronger than your average modern man

  8. Very good information about terminal ballistics. I would not say bullets are better at killing people so much as incapacitating them rapidly enough to matter. Penetration and especially perforation causing bleeding is what usually causes death, it's expansion and temporary wound cavity that causes rapid incapacitation. But yes, you shoot people less times with bullets than arrows to win most of the time.

  9. Just a side note on this. It's rather easy to shoot 6 arrows in 30 seconds with a 45-pound bow, to full draw.

    This is a video of me shooting a 64", 45-pound full draw bow, "rather leisurely", and quite accurately (and I'm not even trying to speed shoot), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd77u5MJRZ8

    So again, just pointing out that 10 to 12 arrows a minute can be shot accurately at full draw with a 45-pound bow with relatively little training (with a modicum of practice).

  10. Guns are loud and smell bad. They are small and fast and have alot of versatility. However they are not better than bows which are light and quiet and have alot of versatility. They are both very good at what they are intended to do.

  11. I disagree with you on the point that short arrows weren't good as an offense weapon. An Arab account (Arabs used long bows with long arrows) the account was that they were hit by arrows that they defended against and later they were hit wit with "nishaab" turkic/Persian short arrows and he says that you don't see them coming until it is to late even though they don't do as much damage as the larger arrows they would still take an eye or cause some damage since it wasn't expected and it freezes or slows the enemy who is expecting another volley that he doesn't see coming.

  12. When the enemy is far away, you dont need to shoot fast.
    When the enemy is close, you must be faster, and it also take less energy to penetrate then.

    And it is a fact that the Arab book from around 1300 says very clear that a archer should be able to shot as fast as for example Lars Andersen say, and also show us from a page in this book.
    Not because they needed to shot fast at enemies far away, but at some point most of this wars would end up in close combat, and right before that happen, i would love to have fast shooters by my side. 😉

    And no, i am no archer, but i know for sure that i would not take your word for it that it would be safe to be shot at by a fast shooter.. 😉

    And when i think about it(if that is not a myth), riders often used a cape as protection against arrows.
    I dont know, but i will guess that a cape would not protect so very much from the kind of powerful arrow shot as you prefer to,
    but i am pretty sure they would give a good protection from for example fast shooting that most probably would not be so powerful.
    And my guess is that since both ways of using the bow was common, it would make sense to have a cape too.

    And not every shot need to be deadly.
    For example when i was in the military, we learned that it was much better to harm the enemy then then it would be to kill them, as long as they no longer was able to fight.
    Both for psychological reasons, and because it then take 1 or 2 other enemies to help the wounded soldier in safety.
    And even if they still was able to fight, i would prefer to fight a wounded soldier more then one that had no injuries at all. 😉

    I still think you have some good points that needed to be pointed out.

  13. I know that I am years late in finding this video but I have to add, context. Your talking about heavy arrows to pierce thick armor and long distance firing. In medieval times yes you would be correct, but then this style of shooting and even recurve bows were not utilized in war for that time period, they were using massive longbows, large formations of archers and later on crossbows. Armor is why the English archers were famous. So who did short range “speed” shooting? The earlier almost biblical period mounted archers and bowmen, when armor was rare if not unaffordable and art shows most warriors in normal clothes if not shirtless (keep in mind fully armored forces didn’t really take hold until the Spartans, Romans etc with professional standing armies.) flesh as it happens is the softest, loveliest target you can hope for. Weapons and blades during the Bronze Age were soft and more for thrusting at close range then slicing. So the ability for a bowmen to take down 3 or 4 opponents at 20-30 yards before drawing their oversized dagger was a huge advantage. Also it has to be said during this time period slings were also a common form a projectile in combat…and comparing slings vs. a medieval knight would just be laughable.

  14. Scholagladiotria what is your opinion on Native American bows and arrows; as I'm writing this you mentioned them. You are right we were hunters who shot close range trying to get a kill shot. Reason why we were master ambushes. I find our arrow heads very long

  15. Alexander the great adobted Iranian horse archers into his army. Used as hit and run to squeeze the opposing forces lines closer for a more effective charge. And to pester them. I believe killing by the horse archers was a secondary result.

  16. I am not a fan of circus shooting.but this video dosent show anything other then u standing there talking peoples heads off.and showing your bow. And arrow.mongolians are the ones who invented the horse bow and took it across the asia so dont call that bow hungarian .

  17. This guy – Insists firing a bow fast is BS
    Books, paintings, and manuals on the topic from back when Bows were serious military gear – Call it a basic skill.
    Figure I'll believe the people who bet their lives on their bows, not youtube experts.

  18. Weeeell, I'm not a Lars fan, but arn't you claiming that wars have always been fought with heavy armor, and with archers standing far away from the enemy? This is just not true, and in cases of small battles of a few hundred soldiers in total (VERY common) where archers where riding amongst and around the enemy (often not wearing much protection, and certainly no armor), this type of trick shooting might have decided the outcome of the battle. Full armor is not very common throughout history, and the face was more often than not exposed. And if you have the skills that Lars have, then one shot from a relatively underpowered bow will kill pretty much every time, and if not causing instant death, that soldier is as good as dead, and out of the battle. I can see how this type of shooting would have been a necessity in pretty much every type of battle that featured archers outside of the more recent rarge scale medieval battles. And throughout history, you wouldn't really be likely to come across a battle in the traditional sence. Instead, you would mostly find small skirmishes with 5-20 participants on each side (all dressed in simple leather tunics, no face protection, and leather sandals), and I can definately see Lars destroying every single one on the opposing side. Stone age archery; it's the same thing there. Archers were important to battle, but used their bows in a very different way to what we are used to seing with the English longbow, for example.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *