Why are modern archers such pussies compared to ancient archers...

Why are modern archers such pussies compared to ancient archers? You'd think they'd practice it instead of turning it into some olympic meme.
youtube.com/watch?v=R8dBQVDROdA

Go and read about how autistic Nip archery is, sounds like it would be right up your alley

>taking that faggot seriously

ancient archers killed things and could be killed.
Dumb question.

This would never work because people would take offense to it. But imagine if they released rabbits at a certain distance, and an archer only has 3 arrows at his disposal. The archer having the most gain will win.

>Lars Andersen
A literal memer

Ancient archers mostly shot their bows in volleys, on command and into large formations of enemy soldiers so accuracy wasn't t that important.

This kind of archery was mainly used by horse archers in certain situations, but not by for example English longbowmen.

Lars Andersen is a historically illiterate retard who is obsessed with trickshooting and thinks it must be how archers conducted themselves on the battlefield

Lars catches a lot of crap from archers & others. “It’s fancy trick shooting but no practical value.” “The bows he uses are way too light to be effective in battle.” “His tricks take many takes to get right & are just for showing off and not how ‘real’ arches would have shot.” Etc. Not going to dig into that.

I think his ideas on skirmish archery Vs mass volley are interesting. There are historical texts & depictions that I think support both sides. For example, ancient Middle Eastern warfare was massed blocks of arches protected by shield troops. All the descriptions & pictures show tight packed blocks of archers. Whether they were volley firing or sending off a constant shower, I think is unimportant. But they certainly weren’t running around in highly mobile, quick firing squads. I tend to think the famous English longbowmen were much the same. Accounts and depictions of battle show tightly formed arches protected by works & dismounted men at arms. Though I’m not as certain that they always stayed that way as the battle evolved & things got closer in.

But this was not the only way to go to war with a bow. There are all kinds of accounts of skirmishers, ambushes, raiders, that were much more fluid, and nimble. Hitting quick & getting away. The Welsh archers gave the English hell (it was the Welsh that taught them all about the longbow) with their hit & run raids, small groups ambushing, then scattering. And there are tons of stories about Native American tribes fighting very fast & loose with bows . Then there are, of course, all of the steppe horse archers who's go-to move was the fast moving skirmishing raid.

I think it comes down to differences in philosophy, differences in training, and differences in purpose on the battlefield. There was no one single way of employing archers on the battlefield. This should not come as a shock, we’re talking about a weapon system that was employed for thousands of years by tons of different people in tons of different kinds of conflicts. Some would gather up a mass of levies, stick a bow & a pile of arrows in their hands, & pack them close together so cavalry couldn’t run them down; going for sheer volume of fire for effect. Others would have very skilled archers with years & years of training that could move fast, skirmish, pick off stragglers & hit gaps, relying on their speed & flexibility to hit fast & get away before heavier forces could press in close.

Neither of these are THE right way. None of them are THE only way. Lars is clearly enthused about the quick firing skirmishing end of things. In several of his other videos he’s talked about reading Turkic & other Central Asian archery manuals and their focus on a fast fluid style of shooting. And coming from the western tradition of archery that has long focused on the total opposite spectrum I think he can be forgiven a bit of hyping & showing off other ways doing things. But I don’t think his methods are the best/only way, he’s just very skilled at a different approach