War Archer!

[boatman]

Funny how using Google is somehow to be sneered at, never heard a complaint in the past about using an encyclopedia. Didn't know what a lot of the woods used were so found out some which is more than Tenderfoot did with his blanket statement about UK woods. For the rest its just insulting.

There is a lot of discussion about short bows, pre-longbow, such as might have been used by the Normans in 1066 along with whether the chest draw was for real or just an artistic convention. Perhaps he would like to Google for himself to learn a little history.

 

[Buckshot]

Can we play nice please people
Come on now, spring has sprung. the sun is shining (at the moment anyway) and life is, well reasonable if not good so lets not spoil it please

 

[petrochemicals]

Can I just add that gengis kahn largely achieved his victory by using horse mounted archers. The mongol horse is not big, and I do not believe that the bows of Gengis' archers where very long. Like wise the roman legionaries sword was quite short. They where both weapons for close quarter fighting. An English longbow would be quite hard to manuvre on a horse or even round castles.

 

[Joonsy]

On the subject of war archery i had a visit to Chirk Castle in Shropshire, there was a guy who worked there as a medieval guard who was expert in longbows used in wars. He was a really nice fellow and he told me lots of interesting things about the bows their use and history and noting that I was showing an interest he took me to a nearby field to give me a demonstration. He showed how the bows were used differently in war as to hunting, the ability to shoot lots of arrows at speed was important, the target generally being not single people but blocks of lots of people. He explained how arrows lose velocity the further they travel horizontally so in war arrows were not shot directly at the enemy but shot high in the sky over the enemy so when they fell to earth they actually gained velocity through gravity instead of losing it, raining arrows is an apt description. He said an English archer in war had to be able to shoot a certain amount of arrows in one minute (though I forget the number) and that making the arrows themselves was just as skilled as making the bows. He explained that while some were killed directly by the arrow a great many actually died later through wounds getting infected and archers often dipped the points of the arrows in their own faeces to deliberately cause infection (which according to him is where the saying '' in the sh*t '' comes from). And on the subject of the origin of sayings no doubt you’ve heard the one ''knock off'' relating to finishing work, well he said this originated from the bowman in war, the order ''nock on'' or ''nock off'' was given relating to arrows nock being placed in bowstring or taken off it according to whether battle was imminent or not. And cock-up meaning ruining something in todays language originated from when one of the three flight feathers on an arrow was a cock feather and if placed wrongly on the bow it would make the arrow fly off course. PS, edited just to add, he also said the bows were so powerful if one broke while the bowstring was under tension it could severly injure the bowman (he mentioned the draw weight of the bows but sadly i've forgoten it).

Here’s the guy, Will the Archer
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/wra-1356327921400/427323/

and below, when i met him he wore a suit of chainmail which he had made himself and he said how time consuming the project had been

 

[boatman]

Archers would lower their aim as the enemy approached until they were virtually shooting point blank, the higher angle was to gain distance up to an optimum.

 

[Joonsy]

Archers would lower their aim as the enemy approached until they were virtually shooting point blank, the higher angle was to gain distance up to an optimum.

yes, thats what i meant so the arrows still had power at distance, sorry for not making that clear. (i'm not knowledgeable on the subject myself just what i was told by that archer).

 

[Robson Valley]

My research into the design of the trebuchet indicated that the device had to be built and functioned at a range of 300 yards.
That appears to be about the effective limit for castle defendant archers (historical records.)
Hugh Kennedy can toss a 1,500lb dead horse more than 300 yards into a castle courtyard = fact.
Austins, Grand pianos and flaming toilets do add to his entertainments.
In point, I have built just 14 trebuchet, every one of which has been an absolute delight to play with.

 

[santaman2000]

My research into the design of the trebuchet indicated that the device had to be built and functioned at a range of 300 yards.
That appears to be about the effective limit for castle defendant archers (historical records.).......

Ancient Persian bows had a range of a quarter mile (440 yards) IIRC.

 

[mrcharly]

Joonsy, I don't know if something has been lost in translation, but arrows don't gain velocity through gravity by shooting high in the sky. No magic breaking laws of physics here.

The 'cock' feather is the one standing up (I suspect that's the origin of the name, nothing to do with roosters since chicken feathers aren't usually used on arrows). It is at 90degrees to the shaft, the other two aren't. It is important to locate the cock feather and nock appropriately - for a right-handed archer (using a finger release), the cock feather points to the left.

Lots of medieval terminology is bawdy. Ballock daggers because the handle + guard looked like a cock and balls, for example.

 

[Joonsy]

Joonsy, I don't know if something has been lost in translation, but arrows don't gain velocity through gravity by shooting high in the sky. No magic breaking laws of physics here.

perhaps, i don't know anything at all about archery i was just repeating what i was told by that archer, the point he was making is that arrows shot straight lose power over distance, the greater the distance the more power lost until they don't have enough power to hurt anyone, whereas arrows falling vertically to the ground still retain enough power to injure people. For example an arrow shot straight horizontally for 200 yards may not have enough power to injure someone when it reaches them, however an arrow shot 200 yards but is falling vertically to the ground instead will still have enough power to injure someone. I don't know if it's true or not i'm neither an archer nor student of physiscs i'm just repeating what that archer told me, perhaps i misunderstood him, his explantation started when i asked what was the effective range of the archers in battle, to which he then expalned how the arrows were delibearatly shot high so they would fall vertically to ground in order to retain enough power to still injure at distance.

 

[mrcharly]

His explanation is utter nonsense.

An arrow shot straight will hit the ground before it reaches 200 yards.

If the target is relatively close to the archer, then either the archer can shoot directly at the target (but still aiming up so that the arrow reaches them - you understand that an arrow starts to drop the instant it leaves the bow), or they can shoot in a high parabola.

Either way the arrow will hit with a very similar force (actually we should talk of momentum here, not force). Arrows shot high hit the ground with an impressive thump, shot along the ground they tend to skip and may give the impression they have less momentum. It's just an impression.

I am not an expert in war archery at all but I seriously doubt his explanation for another reason. Consider a group charging archers. The archers shoot in a high parabola, the arrows come down near vertically. What is the chance of hitting a target? Now consider them shooting 'directly' at the target. If they miss someone at the front of the group, the arrow might hit someone further back.

Some misunderstanding can happen because arrows shot at distant targets have lessened the amount the shaft is snaking - when they hit the arrow is less inclined to snap and the laws of mechanics say more of the total momentum in the arrow will be used in penetration (due to the arrow shaft not bending as much under impact). If you shoot a high parabola, the arrow path is longer, it has longer for the shaft to settle down.

I've seen this myself when testing penetration on oil drums. Shoot arrow at oildrum 10yards away, shaft shatters, incomplete penetration. Hit same oildrum with similar arrow from 50 yards and there is complete penetration, arrow survives intact.

 

[Joonsy]

His explanation is utter nonsense.

Like I said I don’t know anything at all about archery therefore I can’t judge if what I was told was accurate or not or if the archer was actually as expert as he was portrayed, perhaps he wasn’t as expert as he led one to believe or I misunderstood him myself or prhaps you are right, I don’t really care to be honest I was just describing a nice day I had at Chirk Castle watching him shoot and talking to him. No doubt the re-enactors and professional archers may know the facts if you are interest enough to find out, personally I’m not bothered I just had a nice day out so I’ll leave it to others who may have an interest to argue the rights and wrongs.

 

[boatman]

To enjoy the day and the archery is the most important thing, my apologies.

 

[sandbender]

An arrow fired into the air and then falling vertically(ish) down on to a target isn't going to be travelling any faster than an arrow dropped from a high window onto a target. However (and an expert will be along shortly I'm sure) it may be that if a company of archers fire many arrows so that they all fall onto a target area and there are armoured warriors or horsemen in that area, there may be some advantage to striking those individuals from above? thinner armour? more horse flesh exposed? An arrow fired directly at an enemy (albeit with a slight parabola) will strike with more armour piercing force at a shorter range (taking on board mrcharly's comments re oil drums at short range, maybe not too short a range for best results)

.

 

[Joonsy]

On the subject of archery one of the most famous archers was ''Howard Hill'', often referred to as the worlds greatest archer who excelled in all branches of archery. An outstanding hunter with the bow, he won 196 archery field tournaments in succession, and he liked to perform trick shots. He made some short films on archery and did the archery in the film Robin Hood with Errol Flynn. I read his books The Man and the Legend & Hunting the Hard Way which were good, another good book is the Witchery of Archery which Howard Hill credited as giving him his original interest in the sport. Apologies for being slightly off topic regading ''War'' archery.


Howard Hill http://www.archeryhalloffame.com/Hill.html

a couple of Howard Hill films

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1iQhBhngD8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo8UZneuggE

 

[Swallow]

Remember your 3rd year physics.

The x motion is independant of they y motion is indpendant of the z motion.

 

[boatman]

Witchery of Archery is a lovely book despite the numbers of wildlilfe killed. Poignant piece in it about when the brothers were practicing and a tramp came out of the bush to ask for a shot with a bow, "I am a Gentleman", he said and hit the gold. Wonder what his story was.

 

[Robbi]

This might be of interest to some.



http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Great...607?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item4d317feaff

 

[boatman]

I re-read this thread and am puzzled by the oil drum account. Arrows penetrate if they are capable of doing so and if they can at fifty yards then they would at ten. If this were not so then they would tend to shatter whatever the target as long as there was some resistance such as from the square straw targets we sometimes use at ten or so yards.

Will add that this was also not the case when my son and friends shot at my first breastplate attempt, thicker an an oil drum.

 

[Lacijag1]

The title of the thread is very misleading. This guy is a very good trick shooter. But what he does is got nothing to do with war or combat archery.