Forget gun control, this guy has bow control

[Onkel Neal]

Man, this shakes my faith in semi-automatic handguns as a good defense,

Bows in video games: You have to stand still to fire, it takes time to nock the arrow and pull back and you're left relatively vulnerable while you set up your shot. It's a low-tech sniper rifle with the added benefit of being nearly silent.

But what if those assumptions were wrong?

The video embedded above shows a man who claims to have studied "ancient manuscripts" and images of classical archery to come up with his technique, which admittedly is pretty badass.

He can fire many arrows in rapid succession, and he can do so while moving. The video is well made and edited, although I'd love to see what his work looks like in person, without the possibility of edits and quick cuts.

[Stealhead]

Never put much thought to the inherent weakness of a quiver until seeing the part at :54. At any rate I can see how his method is good I'm sure that the mongols,Huns, and Comanche did not use quivers either or at least did hold a batch in the hands as he dose. Both the Mongols and the Comanche would actually lean beside the horse and fire over its shoulder. Which would mean in addition to being wicked horse riders they where wicked archers.

With the exception of the English long bow and some Japanese bow they always where a machine gun if sorts(rapid fire).

At the end of the day defense and what one chooses as weapon the important factor is ones skill. If your life will depend on it whatever that choice is the employment should so familiar as to be not second nature but instinct. If it is not well you may die. My dad used to always say your best weapon is your head(brain) everything else is a tool that you can weild. He survived two tours as a LRRP recondo in Vietnam so I'd say good advice.
The ending of the video

[Sailor Steve]

Impressive!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Never put much thought to the inherent weakness of a quiver until seeing the part at :54. At any rate I can see how his method is good I'm sure that the mongols,Huns, and Comanche did not use quivers either or at least did hold a batch in the hands as he dose. Both the Mongols and the Comanche would actually lean beside the horse and fire over its shoulder. Which would mean in addition to being wicked horse riders they where wicked archers.

With the exception of the English long bow and some Japanese bow they always where a machine gun if sorts(rapid fire).

At the end of the day defense and what one chooses as weapon the important factor is ones skill. If your life will depend on it whatever that choice is the employment should so familiar as to be not second nature but instinct. If it is not well you may die. My dad used to always say your best weapon is your head(brain) everything else is a tool that you can weild. He survived two tours as a LRRP recondo in Vietnam so I'd say good advice.
The ending of the video

Well said. I think the difference shows in the design of the bow. The longbows are fairly big cumbersome devices used to send arrows a great distance into the air in order to achieve maximum fall velocity, a compound bow is for closer ranged combat or mounted combat (which generally falls under the previous category) and as such the bow is generally smaller, lighter and a bit easier on the draw.
But yes, skill comes down to it a lot, one of the reasons why we had mandatory Longbow training courses in England back in the 1300s, to get people used to the bow and to help build up their arm muscle strength in order to pull it. In regards to the quiver, apparently our Longbowmen preferred to stab the arrows in the ground at their feet in order to improve firing rates, which makes sense...I think the over the shoulder quiver is a Hollywood thing...perhaps also the over the shoulder blade scabbard too, although how else one would sheath some of the longer swords of the medieval era I could not say.

[Stealhead]

You can easily how gunpowder and firearms caused a major change in warfare. The skill required to be an effective combatant with a firearm is fairly easy to learn.In a matter of weeks of focused training a person can become an effective combatant with a rifle.

Compare this to the skill and time required to become skilled in arcerchy or swordsmanship it takes much longer and is far more expensive. The firearm allowed a conscript non professional army to be a feasibility which of course allowed nations field sizable forces in times of need very rapidly.

As to the issue of sword sheathage that's what your page is for in addition to making horse hoof sound effects with sections of coconut. In all seriousness I assume that the larger two handed swords likely where not sheathed meaning they where brought out of storage and carried into combat. Then a page must have taken the sword back upon retirement from battle or taken it and given his lord a lighter weapon when he signaled the need. I imagine one would need to retire from a battle after a short time if using a two handed weapon he'd be the shock troop bust some heads then retire and re-engage as required.

I wonder how many high velocity swallows you recon this Dane could shot?

[nikimcbee]

Time to regulate them.

[Stealhead]

African or European swallows?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well said. I think the difference shows in the design of the bow. The longbows are fairly big cumbersome devices used to send arrows a great distance into the air in order to achieve maximum fall velocity,

Artillery

Originally Posted by Oberon

a compound bow is for closer ranged combat or mounted combat (which generally falls under the previous category) and as such the bow is generally smaller, lighter and a bit easier on the draw.

Skirmish weapon.

The longbow won English wars because it was effective against noble cavalry. Great stopping power at long distances, before cavalry could arrive close.
Compound bow was great for picking of infantry.

[Jimbuna]

Excellent but I reckon most weapons in the hands of a true master are most effective.

Reminds me of this movie 'Hawk The Slayer' the elf (I think that's what he was) at 1:42 even looks like him:

[Skybird]

Hehehe.

Subman many years ago had engaged me in a bitter debate about bow and sword versus assault rifles. I said that in quite some situation of real combat, bow /sword are tactically superior. He of course only laughed. But having had a mentor and trainer who excelled in both for so many years, and having seen from first perspective what can be done with both if they are in capable hands, and having practiced that stuff myself (though I mostly did sword fighting, and only a little archery), I still stick to that. Its just easier to fire an assault rifle for effect, that is true. Every donkey can learn how to do that, and quite fast. Swords and bows need much more training, and a generla tailroing of living style, and accompanying mental training as well.

And a good modern compound bow has a penetration power that exceeds that of most pistol callibres, btw. Easily. I have seen arrow tips going through 10 cm of oak. Most pistol callibres would fail in that.

I once had a replica of an old Korean war bow, made of modern materials, and the frame deconstructable into five parts. Very exlcuive, only 15 were build, and very expensive, also very small and still extremely powerful (pulling it was a torment). Considering the silence this weapon has over firearms, such a weapon in skillful hands makes for a terrifying enemy.

Too bad I had to sell my own stuff already some time ago. But it earned me a little fortune, for it was quite exclusive (amongst them two bows of limited series of manual craftsmanship, no market-ware to be found in shops, and an ancient Katana). I could have bought a new BMW 5 for the money from the two bows and three swords sold.