The Problem With Combat Archery

The Problem With Combat Archery



Oh over the past few years we've seen a notable increase in the interest in archery are they doing it or watching or talking about it and this is partly due to the rise of vara videos from Lars Anderson and others part of this new wave of enthusiasm also corresponds to what has become labeled as combat artery which is what we were talking about in this video unfortunately combat arteries also become a bit of a brand name for the game where people run around with furtive arrows and shoot each other like him paintball laser tag some places call it archery tag which is also a bit of a brand name so that's a bit confusing but just to clarify we are talking about what people perceive to be real historical battle for archery or combat archery if you go about looking for common archery you might notice a couple of things the first is that it's actually pretty hard to find comprehensive detailed information on combat archery on what it is or how to do it the second is that it tends to be quite controversial especially among archery and historical communities so what is the problem with copper doctoring and to clarify this is not meant to be an attack or criticism of combat archery but it's my perspective on why it's difficult for people to sit down and talk about it the first problem is that common archery is often poorly and lately defined it is something of a modernism it's something people today use interchangeably and synonymously with historical archery or military archery but this isn't really accurate back then actually was used for three main things hunting war and sport now today these disciplines have become very specialized of their own techniques and their own specialized equipment but back then people would have used the same equipment and techniques for all these purposes when you look at historical text you won't really come across the term combat archery what you will come across will include archery text which will mention archery in a military scenario you might come across military manuals which mentioned archery you might come across military artery manuals but all these things will describe archery in a fairly Universal way arteries are traits like combat archery so what does create is a strange redundancy where people are attaching combat in front of archery to indicate a particular kind of artery but that's kind of what normal archery it's a side effect of naming this as combat arteries that it kind of appeals to a modern buzz word mindset where it just sounds really cool and awesome and real and edgy it's like how manufacturers can take a product make it black and then attach the tactical label on it this isn't saying that combat our tree isn't real or it wasn't use historically rather when people talk about Tom and archery they refer to a specific star VAR trend it's just normal to do with the Arab art resources which are often referenced in videos by Lars Anderson and these are real and valid sources you must remember though that Arab archery does not represent the entirety of archery historically and worldwide it is one specific staff archery using one period of history in one region for one kind of warfare it doesn't disqualify other styles of archery used in other areas that will also use effectively in military context so these Styles used by the Arabs weren't the same as those used by the English or the Japanese or the Chinese or the Mongols yet all these nations and cultures and empires also use effective military methods which differed from what you might think is combat archery and even if you look at the arab archery context the Arab sources describe a multitude of ways to use the bow yet when people think about calm archery it's a very specific method which is mentioned almost as a footnote in these sources in fact to be even more specific the particular method which is identified as combat archery is the Slavic draw with multiple arrows in the hand and people see that they go AHA that's combat archery this creates a somewhat arbitrary black and white definition of what is and isn't common archery if you hold multiple errors in your hand that's common archery if you shoot one arrow time then you're not doing combat archery if you shoot from the right side then you're doing real archery you shoot from the left side then you are a fake Archer if you shoot three arrows and one and a half seconds then you're an effective Archer if you should slow than that then you're dead this simple polarization of what is and isn't common archery is what makes it difficult to engage in discussions and debates of historical archery on an intellectual level because people are just exposed to one flashy fast kind of archery and judge that to be the real common archery this is god the fact that not every culture use the same methods people fought in battles without holding multiple arrows in the hand people fought in battles without shooting extremely quickly these are just as valid some styles were used by some people some styles were not and the most important point here is to remember there is no one single universal style of archery the second problem is that combat archery often uses modern archery as a straw man just as combat archery is very narrowly defined proponents and enthusiasts of common archery often become very selective in deciding what modern archery is and the punching bag they use is modern target sport archery real battlefield archers could run around very quickly and shoot multiple arrows from short bows like these while modern archers are using these stupid long modern space-age bows with stupidly long rods and cheating sights there's no way this would be used in battle can't use it from a horse can't in a forest and if a modern Olympic Archer fought in battle they'll lose to real West Oracle archers yes that is correct this is not a practical tool and nobody has ever made the claim that this would be an effective battlefield implement this was designed specifically for one purpose to compete as a sport it is a specialized piece of sports equipment modern Olympic archery is entirely different from historical data for archery there is no connection and there is no claim to any connection there is no need to bring this up we know this already it is an entirely different style practiced an entirely different time period by entire different people for an entirely different purpose if you want to debate historical military archery or combat archery don't pick on sport archery as your foil nobody is arguing that sport are trees superior or more practical it isn't what's more interesting and relevant is if you compare historical stars with each other remember we have to recognize that multiple styles existed and coexisted and often they would be used against each other that's where we do have real historical debates and very interesting discussions after world we can compare these sources and takes on medieval English archery versus those of the 17th century Galilean Chinese military manuals we compare how the Japanese samurai fought from horseback with bows to pay to how the Huns the Mongol or the Parthian tall decisions used their horseback bows that's the kind of thing which is real hit head stuff not sport archery which nobody thinks is a real kind of practical archery but the actual stars which were used in battle in combat this was made 16 years ago to compete in an Olympic sport it has nothing to do with military applications or historical archery like comparing an ancient warrior to a modern fencer one wins battles the other wins medals historical archery by itself is already amazing fascinating and interesting if you I engage in discussion of historical techniques and you have to keep on bringing them how bad mana archery is that's a bit of an unhealthy obsession if you have to degrade one style to elevate another which we already agree on then it's not really anything new to the conversation it's not really bringing up a point of debate it's generally not a good way to go about engaging in an educational meaningful conversation as I do cover a lot of Modern Art on my channel I do often get this kind of comment and I feel compelled to remind you if you find this kind of archery boring you don't have to do it the third problem is that combat artery doesn't clearly fit into a Starkel context when historians or historic enthusiasts or arching enthusiasts discuss military archery there's a general consensus military archery typically involves the use of heavy war bows seventy pounds and higher now this is documented in historical texts and proven through archaeological records if a technique a style or method cannot be done with what is a military grade bow then it's authentic application in the military context is questionable this contrasts with the proper perception of common archery being purely about speed and agility there's a lot of praise for combat archery being practical but if it can't be driven using the equipment that was used historically in the scenarios that we use historically it raises questions it makes us make a very long assumptions and suspend our disbelief traditional archers history enthusiasts and researchers are often dismissive of combat artery because those techniques are often only perform on light bows with partial draws we have a fairly good understanding of how historical artists used historical bows and if you can't achieve a full draw with a proper full weight historical bow were these techniques really combat effective we can't just give historical art just to benefit out by giving them an automatic boost to strength speed and agility they are humans there are physical limitations to have you use war bows you can't exceed a certain speed unless you change the parameters and if it changes the parameters to now include very light bows with password rules of no accuracy minimum then is it really authentic combat archery we should also remember that archery history is actually quite well documented there are numerous sources they start with texts and manuals which reference archery and the events they were involved in so if we have this perception of common archery being multiple arrows to be shot against multiple enemies and how a good archer can fight in close quarters and kill a lot of enemies why don't we see this in history surely an army of a hundred arches or thousand archers could devastate every army they face because of how skilled these combat artists were and yet we see absolutely no mention of historical archers performing these feats outside of legendary myths and tales and usually these legendary feats were of extreme accuracy with a single shot not with multiple shots killing multiple enemies this should not be a secret it is quite well known even people claim that art has been rediscovered and Lars Hanson has reinvented forgotten archery should remember that these people who are even archery are using publicly available sources which are still used by archers and schools today these texts and sources have been used to teach traditional archery for hundreds of years uninterrupted there is very little secret in what they can and cannot do and people who actually practice these styles don't make these claims of calm effectiveness so if you think that somebody has reinvented forgotten archery they read a book that has an English translation from 15 years ago historical archery is largely not a lost art and Lister knowledge of it is not loss given the documentation available now there are fewer people today who can practice it to the same level of skill that historical artists might have but it doesn't mean that these arts are secret combat techniques the practice and research of traditional historical archery is ongoing one should not confuse historical archery with a staff combat archery which was never used historically the fourth problem of common archery is that it often omits practical realistic scenarios for a style which pride self are practical application being combat archery mostly demonstrations are more like exhibition or trick shooting just caused a lot of controversy and saying I was not treating its real battlefield archery and yet we don't see how this will be effective in a real battlefield situation make no mistake these demonstrations may demonstrate exceptional skill but they intended to impress dazzle and amaze it doesn't validate a battle application it is improved in a scenario or a test which may be relevant to a real battle scenario if common artists are criticizing one sport archery for shooting at stationary targets well many demonstrations of combat archery are on stationary targets if the targets are moving they're often very big targets shot at very short distances for certain hits or they may be exhibiting very specific skillsets like how fast they can shoot without having to qualify what they hitting they're not trying to hit a target that is avoiding being hit it's protected from being hit or there is no risk to the archer and there are some skills which have some practical value being able to shoot while moving is a pretty basic archery skill that would be used in historical combat but there are other things which really push that three jumping and shooting doing 360 spins catching arrows these don't seem practical they seem more like skills which are meant to be stunts or tricks not things you would do in a real situation often the demonstrator isn't using an opposing active resisting target so there's no penalty if they miss if they miss the target then they just cut and then they do a different take if the target is not going to be aggressive then whatever techniques they use for close combat archery would obviously work because they're not trying to avoid being hit and as a critical viewer I'll look at demonstrations and think what if this person was actually trying to avoid being hit or trying to actually attack the archer then there would be no chance these techniques would not work in real combat and you can't just invent a scenario just to make the archer win one of the common things people will bring up is well what about urban warfare if we can do speed shooting with a short bow that you can fight house to house and capture cities but historically there were very very very few examples of urban combat urban combat is a modern style warfare with modern weaponry and modern tactics ancient armies didn't fight in cities and when they did it was exceptionally rare and exceptionally bloody I just didn't train to fight in close quarters and then there's a snare just often brought up where you have the archer being ambushed by wolves or bandits and you have to kill all ten Banat of your bow there's no regard for the possibility that the archer might in fact be unable to do so and be killed while trying to do so now I understand obviously that running a live demonstration with real people shooting a real arrows can be dangerous and not encourage people to do that but I would want to see a test which is transparent and active where people are actually in a real situation or shooting against targets which emulate that if you're going to say that combat archery is useful for close combat then admits crazy scenario where they would have to use in close combat with success and the fail criteria it's one thing to shoot five balloons fire feet away with five arrows very quickly but does that mean the same person can do that against five actively resisting people who might have thought you might have shield to my death armor and you're supposed to bring them down with one arrow each somehow it's a very stacked scenario I don't think it's been proven I don't expend recorded I find it very hard to believe these things because the tests and demonstrations don't push these active elements and this is something of a similar problem to martial art where masses will claim that certain technique the Stars were very useful when we were very effective but they can't prove it because their systems are compliant and they don't resist and when the face gets real situations that techniques don't work obviously you know a historical common archery we're not using modern scenarios and modern techniques but if Noah can prove that could be done and never can prove they were effective then how can we just take that as fact and accept that this was real authentic combat archery the thing is that archery doesn't need to be theoretical it is a practical skill with practical equipment people do practice people can train to do this and if they can't train to reach that level they should be able to prove in some transparent way that these things were effective in the scenarios in which they were used and if it can't be proven they cannot be given the benefit of the doubt in conclusion I'm not saying that combat arteries fake or that he exists the right bits and pieces which were authentic real archery styles and techniques which are documented and are practiced what makes this topic of combat archery difficult is that it is not a well-defined topic it is a modern invention on one perspective that is redefining archery not reinventing archery or rediscovering archery but redefining it under certain terms and umbrellas that means some styles are combat artery other stars are not combat archery and that makes these discussions difficult I'm not discouraging people from learning different styles of archery I learn different styles of archery and I really enjoy it there's a lot to gain from exploring historical traditional styles the problems that combat archery as a thing is difficult to discuss around because it's not well understood or well defined by people in the archery community when you mentioned combat archery people who do archery don't actually know e talking about because archery is archery it's normal what you say is common archery is to other people normal artery and when people will make content or discuss combat archery this combat label kind of brings about a very specific in your head kind of archery which really understand its arches we just pull it as what it is that's Turkish archery that's ours an artery that's mounted archery that's a thumb – that's a slightly draw these are techniques which are generally well known among people practice them we didn't call it combat archery because comet archery has not been a thing into recent times and as we said before by saying certain styles are combat it implies other styles are not and that is entirely false anyway what are your thoughts on comet archery is it a thing we conclude this fine there's something that we've already known about for a long time is it just a passing fad purchase thoughts below this is new sensei thanks for watching and I'll see you next time

35 Replies to “The Problem With Combat Archery”

  1. You should have just said that "combat" archery is a modern gimmick. Then stop. Anybody ever says combat archery just trying to sell snake oil.

  2. 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.

  3. 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)

  4. My vision of combat archery is protecting my wife and home with a 50# Bear Grizzly recurve bow.
    Sending arrows into flight for 61 years and not tired yet🎯

  5. "Combat Archery/ Speed Shooting" with light bows, is an inefficient method of wounding others, compared to the speed and freedom of movement that thrown weapons like darts could provide…. … it's funny because it's somewhat very true.
    That said, in short ranged fighting scenarios, most armies used shields, and some degree of padding/armour, making "Combat archery, or small darts at 10-20m kind of useless, especially without the power of a ~70lb bow :S
    "Combat Archery" is really just a modern game scenario. I could imagine maybe a rogue assassin style character getting into a camp and wrecking undefended opponents, dispatching as many as possible… but that's would mostly be a bit of written fiction, and simply running people through with a sword would be more effective… Why am I thinking of so much murder right now? is this really what it comes down to? 🙁 Just have fun in whatever bit of fiction your enacting shooting at targets and skilling up.

  6. Combat Archery is the stupidest name for it yet. I much prefer the term "bow-soft", like air-soft, because it's just a game with toys, and nothing like real combat. I mean, 15 pound draw is a joke, you're better off just throwing the arrow.

  7. They should stop calling it combat archery and just call it by what it is: trick archery or performative archery

  8. 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.

  9. i used to practice 16 century English archery and for war its was all about range and your target was big ie large groups of men a long way from you

  10. 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.

  11. I guess people just want to call it, combat archery just to make the archery they practice(or that they watch) superior, when its debatable or just plain wrong.

  12. 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.

  13. Target archers trade speed and power for accuracy.
    Speed archers trade power and accuracy for speed.

    Flight archers trade speed and accuracy for power.

    Bow hunters trade speed for power and accuracy.

    Trick archers trade power for speed and accuracy.

    Machine gunners trade accuracy for speed and power.

    Lars can shoot three ping pong balls out of the air from at least 30 yards away with arrows weighing at least 300 grains travelling at least 300 fps while upside down in the middle of a single backflip, just like real combat archers used to do!

  14. just one thing. if archry was as fast and deadly as so many claim. how come that many culturs invented and transitioned to crossbows. it simpel. crossbows do what normal bows do, about as effeciv as normal warbows, but it is much simpler to train soldiers to use crossbows! the only palces in history, to my knowleg, that did not use crossbows where those that heavily rely on horsback archery. its really not a mistery. the battle of agincourt, is a very good exampel of how "wararchery" was used in europe.

  15. 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.

  16. If I were a medieval general and had a handful of today's Olympic archers available, I would use them as snipers and have them protected by a horde of mounted archers.

  17. 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.

  18. trick shooting 3 arrows in 1,5 seconds is not the best thing if you'd like your archer to be effective for more then 10 seconds overall..

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. I have an argument. I will take the side of an Olympic Recurve archer and place them as a long distance sniper. Cater to the specialty.

  23. 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.

Leave a Reply

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