Real life badass archer destroys Hollywood archery myths
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.beamdog.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0
in Off-Topic
The user and all related content has been deleted.
9
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=BEG-ly9tQGk
This kind of thing takes a hell of a lot of practice - just being able to nock an arrow quickly takes a hell of a lot (I can't do it quickly and I've been shooting for years)!
I have tried a variation of rapid archery with my longbow, using a reverse-grip on the draw (similar to how that Russian woman does it), but it'll take a lot more practice to do it that fast, or get any kind of accuracy from it, and I don't really want to wear my bow out - it's not a competition recurve bow with which I can just replace the limbs when they break, when this breaks I'll have to buy a whole new bow! I haven't tried holding multiple arrows in my drawing hand, or shooting on the right side of the bow, yet.
Interesting fact: I was told that Byzantine horse archers carry the arrows in their quivers point-up!! I dunno about you, but that seems like a bad idea to me...you'd have to be really careful not to prick your hand on the arrows as you draw them.
Also, back quivers...no. Just no!
Awesome! That was how Robin Hood fought!
But I thought everyone knew this was possible?
The Huns and The Mongols fought using bows from horseback.
The simple tactic was to ride in at a canter (trot to slow, gallop seen as too fast for the formation involved, but the aim was faster the better...) Guys at front fire, then canter to the back and reload, Guy behind fires, then canters to the back... You get the picture. A whirlwind of arrows.
The trick to it was the so called parthian shot, when the horse leaves the ground for a moment, allowing a perfect shot.
...
Kids are forced to learn this stuff in school people.
In primary school I did Ancient Egypt, Tudors, WW1, WW2 and Romans.
In secondary school I did Native Americans + battle of little big horn, Romans, Medieval stuff (Norman conquest etc), Causes of WW1 and Causes of WW2, oh I for got I also did 'nam
Huns and Mongols would have been awesome!
I will point out that I did in fact learn that from Total war anyway but that's besides the point.
Choice quotes: "His gimmick is speed, not accuracy, and it’s obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about archery that his complete lack of any kind of consistent form is going to require camera tricks and a lot of luck, which is exactly what’s on display here."
"“He uses forgotten historical methods…” No, they were not forgotten. They just weren’t European. Archery is one of the oldest human activities, found in virtually every culture on Earth, and dating back tens of thousands of years. There are wide variations in equipment and shooting techniques around the world, and Andersen’s “discoveries” are well-known to anyone who has ever studied Asian and Eastern European archery, such as Mongolian, Tibetan or Hungarian styles."
"What he claims as a revolutionary discovery is in fact common knowledge among archers. The fact that Andersen didn’t know this is evidence of just how little he actually knows about archery, or how little he thinks his audience knows."
All I know is that when I first watched the video the guy looked really sloppy with his shooting. I wouldn't trust him to shoot an apple from my child's head
If you're interested in archery, take a look at Yabusame - a Japanese horseback archery. On a horse. On a high speed.
When you're able to handle one of their bows, you can get yourself a wooden bow and practice different methods of shooting...so long as you don't endanger other archers, I can't see it being a problem.
We did have a better terrain and an awesome general, also the french cannons were horrendously unreliable
Oh i'm sorry, when i read the"horrendously unreliable" i missed the cannon part and something else sprang to my mind.
The thing about Agincourt was that the English had a lot of bowmen who could shoot quickly, and there were hundreds of arrows raining down on the French knights. It was like charging against a machine gun.
Of course, I could be wrong too, but this is what I've gathered from many internet resources, as well as TV shows that examined the actual damage properties of such weapons, and the protective properties of armour, that debunk the Hollywood myth of the one-hit kill. After all, bows went out of use in Europe after the 15th century, most likely because it wasn't much use against newer, better armour. Bear in mind, though, that the Hollywood myth of an entire army in plate armour is also a myth; plate armour was expensive, and a common soldier could not afford it. A medieval battlefield tended to consist of a very small percentage of knights in full harness. Also, plate armour was new, and bows were in use long before it ever saw service. Orion's version of Excalibur has it totally wrong when it shows Arthurian knights wearing 15th century armour. Until then, mail was the standard.
Incidentally, when guns got too good for armour to be of any use, they started to doff the armour bit by bit, favouring the increased mobility that being lightly armoured offered you, so that you could take the first volley and charge down infantry before they reloaded, hence the invention of bayonets. From knights in full harness, to 17th century cuirassers/hussars, to 18/19th century sabre wielding dragoons...there's a reason for every development/change in warfare.
In short we broke the rules of warfare and used a professional army both tactics that tend to win wars