The notion that archers had to be trained for a long time is pure bullshit why modern archery clubs can turn a complete...

The notion that archers had to be trained for a long time is pure bullshit why modern archery clubs can turn a complete noob into a competent archer within days but in the middle ages it supposedly took years?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eHK9idjEWZg
youtube.com/watch?v=Iy_nzehRnns
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I always assumed it was because it's easier to draw a modern bow as opposed to older bows but i could be talking out my ass i have no clue.

Maybe it's harder to shoot moving targets that are trying to kill you?

because modern sporting bow's drawing weight is 30-40 pounds instead of 140.

handing someone a crossbow or a pike makes them deadly immediately, logistically better than days.

I think the only justification for the "years and years of training" thing is that people would have needed a long time to build strength and work up to warbow draw weights (100+ pounds). Which, actually does make some sense.

But overall, it's something I've always been skeptical of. I've taught archery before, and it really doesn't take that long for someone to get the basics down, especially if all you want them to do is shoot upwards in a volley. Other than strength training, there really shouldn't be a reason for archery training to take years.

Because modern amateur archers use low draw weight bows and don't train for distance and stamina, which is what matters when you're in a battle.

it's not just volleys though. Siege warfare is a lot of professional soldiers essentially sniping each other, volleys are a battlefield thing and even then fire at will orders still happened. It's hard to be proficient enough to fire a bow accurately at a moving target so that you actually hit a vital area and not just the breastplate or shield, I imagine there's a lot of skill in getting neck shots and thigh shots and such, just look at accounts of mongol horse archers and what they could do, there is quite a huge skill gap there.

pretty much. Or there's the fact that skimish phases could last longer than one volley. So you're be working that 100 pound draw for longer than a few minutes. So you'd need strength, stamina, grit, and skill. And if you were a horse archer you probably needed to be born in the saddle to even hope to match up with horse lord. Sounds like years and years of practice to me.

Yes because archers were like Legolas fighting in the fucking frontline right? Not to mention they fired in volleys, in general direction of the enemy they didn't snipe them.

>fire at will never happened
>skirmishes never happened
>implying the archers weren't in the front at the start of virtually every battle.
>implying there isn't a vast spectrum of skill from a simply volley shitter to an expert marksman
>implying expert mercenary marksmen were paid lavishly to only shoot in volleys and never attempt any of the amazingly accurate kill shots they've trained their whole life to perform

you might be retarded.

>fire at will
>in the middle ages

that's how it was like in GoT?

>weapons r stupid thread #12345
>people are still being b8ed.

you really thing a defending siege force, especially a mercenary company hired for their expert siege defense, is just going to waste all their arrows in mass volleys into the enemy defenses? No retard, they poke out, fire an accurate arrow or bolt into whatever juicy target they could find, and quickly ducked behind the wall before some other bastard hit them. This is why crossbows were so effective in sieges because they were accurate and great for cover shooting.

that's how it's like in Skyrim?

your b8 is getting lazy

Because modern target archery is conducted at close range, with bows-and arrows-made of modern composites that are able to offer much more consistent performance. It also uses bows weak enough that a child can draw them.

Oh, and the bows are flat out superior, with much better efficiency.

Military archer training could (emphasis on could) consist of a lot more than "volley over there" endurance is a huge part of it. As is the ability to engage in running battles, with archer trained to be able to hit targets consistently while rapidly moving from one side of a field to another.

English archers very much fought on the front line, being rather well known for their tendency towards being armored and not only willing and able, but eager to engage in hand to hand combat. It would not be particular outlandish to see a group of longbowmen drop their bows and charge into a melee in partial plate armor with swords and poleaxes-or even to see some of the, them mount up and start acting as cavalry.

Modern bows are much easier to draw than handmade bows you dumbass

Modern people use handmade bows as well nigger and they don't have problems with it. Just face it that archers were not some 1337 warriors who trained since childhood but a bunch of fucking peasants who learned their craft after 2 hours of practice.

>Modern bows are much easier to draw than handmade bows you dumbass
That's not how that works.

>Siege warfare is a lot of professional soldiers essentially sniping each other,
Two questions:
Did you learn your history in Mountain Blade?
Were you born this stupid?

Reminder that archery threads are cancerous even for a board that is only cancers.

The archers at Agincourt did most of their damage when they used the hammers they used to hammer stakes into the ground, to beat dismounted french nobility to death in the mud.

Everyone seems to think that England was the only fucking place in the world where archers were used and longbow is the only bow.

muh deformed skeletons

Did you morons ever consider that nothing is an absolute?
You can learn to pull a bow in 30 seconds, but anything in the world takes time to get good at.
Consider that maybe, there were times/ places when archers were composed of rabble given sticks with strings, and other times were composed of people who grew up with bows in their hands.

Firing more than a couple of arrows per minute reasonably accurately is what takes quite a lot of practice.

He's correct, though. Why do you thin European fortifications are so unusual in design? The love affair with the crossbow radically altered how sieges were conducted. Shooting volleys of arrows at a slit becomes suicidal when it means sitting around not hitting anything while a crossbowman picks off your men one by one while his buddies hand him loaded crossbows.

>Why do you thin European fortifications are so unusual in design?
They aren't? "So unusual in design" is a literally meaningless phrase with zero context? Why do you continue to shitpost? Go away. Don't come back.

>real life is just like videogames where archers are somehow utterly incapable of fighting in close quarters, because that's not fair

>They aren't?
They are.

>Why do you continue to shitpost? Go away. Don't come back.
You are arguing with more than one person.

Yeah, it's not like there are multiple accounts of commanders being singled out and shot in the face during opportune moments. Hotspur killed and Prince Henry wounded (surviving only by luck more tgan anything else) at Shrewsbury. Henry VI wounded in the neck at First St. Albans . Clifford killed at Dintingdale. James IV killed at Flodden.

All were just moronic apemen who ran into the middle of arrows storms and totally weren't being targeted by proto-snipers taking aimed shots.

he's just trolling, nobody can be this stupid. There's like 8 of these threads on Veeky Forums right now and they're all trolls

You also have to take in mind how much more well off and well educated the average archery enthusiast is in 2016 than a peasant would have been in the king's army. At the very basic BASIC minimum, average joe recruit today knows the alphabet, basic math, maybe grasps the general principles of Newtonian physics, is inoculated against most debilitating diseases, has been fed regularly every day of his life (with foodstuffs that have been fortified with vitamins and minerals), etc.

I remember seeing some posts and webms about a US army consultant trying to teach Afghans (or maybe it was Iraqi) recruits how to do jumping jacks and the hilariously inept results. It wouldn't surprise me if it took at least a good 8-14 months of drilling to get a bunch of peasants to knock and draw in sync when ordered, plus the additional time to hone the skills >1924684 brings up, like how to hit a moving target, keep your cool as you're taking fire, proper care and maintenance of your kit, etc.

Nobody can just pick a 100 pound war bow be use it. It will take months of conditioning.

>I remember seeing some posts and webms about a US army consultant trying to teach Afghans (or maybe it was Iraqi) recruits how to do jumping jacks and the hilariously inept results
>youtube.com/watch?v=eHK9idjEWZg

Litterally how?
Intelligence should not be a hindrance to locomotion and muscle memory. How in the fuck can't the Afghans understand jumping jacks?

Were they starved when they were a child to the point that their brains were damaged?

I live in a third world shithole but even beggars here knows how to do parkour and speak English.

user, you're talking about people who can be trained to shoot by American riflemen, and then do shit like WRAP THEIR SLING AROUND THEIR FRONT SIGHT POST.

They're phenomenally stupid people.

Iraqis couldn't even be toilet trained with any consistency.

I remember seeing that documentary. I think it's important to note (iirc) that that fort they were trying to train had a big problem with drug use.

It's just the way people are brought up and their environment, there is probably something that the Afghans could do with ease that an American can't.

Nothing to do with intelligence t b h, here are Americans trying to do the Asian squat and failing miserably.

>youtube.com/watch?v=Iy_nzehRnns

I can squat like that too, for like 30 min at a time. Not that hard if you've ever done field work.

Ex: Agincourt

>I can squat like that too
Good for you, but as you saw from the video not everyone could. Just like in the army video, some were doing the jumping jacks while some couldn't.

Bingo

They had to shoot very far away at moving targets and possibly on horse. Many factors and they also were more retarded than we are today.

>It's just the way people are brought up and their environment
You can literally train any other group of people how front sight rear sight works, user. The open sights on AKs in particular are an old as fuck design that came about with illiterate peasant conscripts in mind. A literal retard can work them if somebody zeroes it.

Shit like wrapping your sling around it is stupidity, not environment. Especially after a bunch of professionals have taught you how to do it.

There's literally nothing about the average Americans life that prepares them to use aperture sights, they still manage do it correctly once trained.

Crecy and poitiers as well.

And English mercenaries in italy.

It comes from people misunderstanding what the decree to practice every week with a bow was all about. It wasn't about the necessity of training constantly all your life to use the bow, but instead to maintain what you already learned.

Also, it takes more time for a pampered college kid writing about how impossible a war bow was to draw without years of training to be able to himself. A yeoman who grew up farming or working on a ship wouldn't take that long to build the strength needed to draw a powerful bow.

Afghan soldiers/policemen are high on opium 110% of the time. I'm surprised they managed to even do what they did

Being this wrong and this mad :^)

you ever think that chicks back then got fetishes for people with deformed longbow skeletons?

I love how a common sports injury that even modern archers get is portrayed as a special deformed skeleton that medieval archers needed to develop to draw their bows.

The Hotspur and Henry weren't singled out. Both had lifted their helmet visors to have a drink and took an arrow from a volley