A bit of rapid fire archery

**Morte66** · 08-03-2011, 16:12

Hope I'm not repeating a thread, but I think people might find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU

... a guy who (apparently) has re-enacted Hunnic technique to fire accurate shots at better than one every 2 seconds.

Would be interested to hear how knowledgeable people think this applies to real warfare, in the EB and/or Hun migration periods.

**Lazy O** · 08-03-2011, 16:34

And just think that this is a guy who learned it, the Huns were born on Horseback, beyond imagination as to how proficient they were at their form of warfare.

**Randal** · 08-03-2011, 16:45

On the other hand, this guy is a world-record holder and probably just amazingly talented at what he does.

Huns and other steppe peoples may have been trained from an early age, but that's not to say all of them had that much native talent. Nor do I know at what age he started, nor how much he trains. Maybe it's as much or more than the Huns did.

Still, it's amazing to see.

**Ludens** · 08-03-2011, 19:33

I am not sure how important the casualties caused by arrow fire were in classical battle. As I see it, steppe nomads defeated their enemies by breaking up their lines and destroying them piecemeal, rather than through sheer arrow fire. A shielded, armoured soldier is a hard target. The Romans at Cannae lasted an entire day under arrow fire, but were only destroyed once their retreat became disorganized.

Still, it's pretty amazing to see. But, like Randal, I think this guy is extraordinary, and the average Hun wasn't quite as talented as he is.

**vartan** · 08-04-2011, 02:36

@Ludens: Turns out arrow-inflicted casualties weren't as important as other kinds. Of all casualties in antiquity, estimates put arrow-inflicted casualties at something like 1 in every 5 or lower, if I recall right.

They are estimates, though.

**Randal** · 08-04-2011, 08:16

A rapid fire barrage like that would still be extremely demoralising, though. Particularly if you're fighting other archers who're only getting off one volley for every two of yours. Or maybe it'd make the enemy look more frightening and numerous if they attack from an unexpected direction shooting this many arrows at you.

**Ca Putt** · 08-03-2011, 19:35

I don't see any problem with some of the more talented huns shooting that fast. The huns used relatively short bows(which also helps when mounted :D) so shooting significantly faster than drilled yeomen is no surprise. That said I'd suspect most huns and users of hunic bows would probably shoot much slower and and considerably less accurate.

**Arjos** · 08-03-2011, 16:38

Impressive the accuracy with that speed! :O
Anyway with practice, and I mean dedicate one's life to it, I don't see any problem with it...
As for warfare: more arrows, more chances to kill the enemy :D

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · 08-05-2011, 10:31

The man in the You-Tube video has very impressive speed, but all his shots are at very short range. If his targets were enemy warriors with the ability to shoot back, he would be easily within javelin range, or even that of a hurled stone. For a horse archer, that's uncomfortably close range! If he's fully armoured, then maybe he might be alright, although his horse would still be vulnerable and if it is killed, he's a dead man. We're not talking cataphracts here.

I'd like to know what kind of range that man can get with rapid shooting. In a battlefield situation, I think range is more important to an archer than accuracy, since firing at a mass of men, you're quite likely to hit something even with fairly inaccurate shots. (Even if only a raised shield.)

I would guess that his maximum range would be quite short. The bow is obviously very easy to draw, so probably not especially powerful, even if it is recurved.

**vartan** · 08-06-2011, 05:03

Part b) in Ca Putt's post in this thread (post #12) is well put regarding any perception of how significant "arrow casualties" really were, because it brings to light the fact that any warriors still fighting after being wounded by an arrow would be considered casualties of the melee fight if they indeed end up dying in the ensuing fight. Fact may be that regardless of his eventual downfall, that arrow may have been the turning point in his particular case. What this tells me is that regardless of how much weight I put on whichever of these two (the arrow and the sword), the fact is that their synthesis is what brought this hypothetical warrior down.

**Randal** · 08-06-2011, 08:55

Not sure I agree with that. Armies suffered very few casualties overall, below 5% if victorious I believe the consensus is. Among other things that must mean not everybody, or that is to say only a relatively small percentage of people in the front ranks would engage in actual hand-to-hand combat. It seems reasonable to assume that if someone was injured by an arrow but not severely enough to retreat the field he might not stay in the front rank.

Another factor: in many armies the warriors in the front rank were the wealthiest, best equipped and most heavily armoured. That would then mean they'd suffer far fewer arrow injuries than their rear-rank compatriots.

Edit: However, casualties were far heavier when an army broke and fled, and here minor arrow wounds might play a big role. Someone who's lost blood may well be less capable of escaping pursuit and get added to the casualty figures that way.

**vartan** · 08-06-2011, 20:26

Originally Posted by Randal

Not sure I agree with that. Armies suffered very few casualties overall, below 5% if victorious I believe the consensus is.

Usually, yes, and the loser would usually have disproportionate amount of losses. Fluctuations were great in individual cases, though.

Edit: However, casualties were far heavier when an army broke and fled, and here minor arrow wounds might play a big role. Someone who's lost blood may well be less capable of escaping pursuit and get added to the casualty figures that way.

Yeah, hence the tendency for losing side to have disproportionate amount of losses. It would suck to be on the losing side usually. Especially by the time Rome was an imperial power.