bow and arrow abilities

[kbs2244]

I know a lot of you put some weight on the development of the bow and arrow replacing hand or a spear throwing stick thrown spears a point of human development.
But there has been some discussion as to just how efficient a bow hunter can be.

This might give some insight into that question.

Old fashioned bow and arrow abilities with lots of practice.

http://www.wimp.com/forgottenarchery/

And to add a little modern sex appeal
(but remember it shows what can be done with practice)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJG-X-zyCKs

[Minimalist]

It is generally recognized that guns did not replace bows because they were more effective ( they demonstrably were not ) but because the amount of training needed to produce a useful archer far exceeded the amount of time it took to teach someone to load and fire a musket. In either case an army still needed a large force of pikemen to keep enemy cavalry away from the musketeers or archers.

[kbs2244]

Archery men were special not just due to training time but body development.
When they did the examinations of the skeletons on a British warship wreck they were able to tell who was an archer by the lopsided bone development from years of pulling on the bow.

But I was thinking of the other end of the history of the bow and arrow.
Its adoption over handheld thrusting or throwing spears.

One of the arguments against the adoption was the time it took to reload an arrow.
In the fast passed heat of a hunt or battle the argument was the bow was at an disadvantage.

This guy shows you can reload pretty fast.

[Minimalist]

Archery men were special not just due to training time but body development.
When they did the examinations of the skeletons on a British warship wreck they were able to tell who was an archer by the lopsided bone development from years of pulling on the bow.

I think you have a little bit of a chicken and egg scenario there. Of course, people who drew bows had lopsided bone development but that was a result of the amount of time spent training - since actual battles were rare.

One could argue that the musket replaced the crossbow ( similar range, loading time) while artillery replaced archers ( better range ).


"Its adoption over handheld thrusting or throwing spears."

There is no reason to assume exclusivity, though. It seems quite logical to me that then, as now, different tools (weapons) suit different purposes. The atlatl was the obvious advance over the thrusting spear in that it gave range but a kill shot at long distance seems like a one in a million chance. But you could wound an animal and then finish it off with your thrusting spear. I would also expect such a hunter to carry something to do the work of a knife and even a tomahawk. I agree that in the hands of an expert archer a number of arrows can be fired quickly, but if a wild boar charges out of a thicket 10 yards away I think you'd have more of a chance impaling it with a spear because I don't know if you could even get one arrow off before it was on you.

[kbs2244]

Agreed on all points.
Not a replacement, but a additional weapon.
But I do think there was a big difference in the war use of the “Long Bow” and the hunting use of the bow and arrow.

I saw a movie scene (maybe when Mel Gibson painted his face blue) that showed the English Long Bow tactic.
It used as many as 1000 men to produce a literal rain of heavy arrows at a good distance.
They were not aiming at individual targets.
It was a mass of arrows aimed at a mass of men.
In a time when battles were fought face to face this long range “softening up” provide a real advantage when the time for man to man fighting came.

That is not a hunting scenario.
One hunter and, at the most, two targets means a more accurate and fast reload ability is needed.
My point in posting the video was to show that could be accomplished.

[Ernie L]

amazing ..thanks

[Minimalist]

Agreed, kb. "Marksmanship" was unknown. Even with muskets it was not even particularly desired. I have replicas of British and French muskets from the late 18th century. The French Charleville has a front sight but no rear sight. The British Brown Bess has no sights at all. As with your longbowmen example the idea was to have an entire battalion drawn up in line and each rank level and fire in turn in the general direction of the enemy. At close range, the effect could be devastating. At long range you were probably safer standing in front of the gun than anywhere else.

For hunting stealth was required. With gun or bow the odds were that you were only going to get one shot at an animal in the woods and, as the joke goes, the word "vegetarian" is an Indian word which means "lousy hunter."

[Frank Harrist]

I agree on all points, but I must add that atlatl and darts are very accurate. I have some experience with these weapons. It is not a difficult skill to learn and is much more accurate than you seem to think. Not that this contributes a lot. Just wanted to throw that in.