# Why wouldn't ancient archers have used sights?



## oldnewby (Oct 13, 2015)

Sights on bows are a superior way of aiming the weapon; and they would have been well within the technological capabilities of ancient and medieval archers. However, it seems to be widely assumed that they were never used, and were invented only in the 20th century. Physical evidence of bows from ancient or medieval times is sparse; but why would archers from those periods not have used sights? It is not making sense to me.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

I can't believe that some in history did not work with some form of sights.
The only place they were for sure never used is in the era some wish to create that never existed.


----------



## jab73 (Jan 22, 2013)

Sights are great for stationary targets. Especially with a fast compound bow.
They used bows for moving targets while hunting or in battle.
Also they had long bows or a variation. 
But honestly I can't answer your question

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Because they flock shoot.....grin

It seems to me in Europe the longbow was used as a long range weapon vs the close hand to hand combat of the time. They didn't have to aim at a specific target...but a blob of an attacking army. The archers let loose a volley that rained down on attackers 200yds away.......which at the time troops probably thought that was a fairly safe distance- not! 

They were more concerned with getting the distance right as i understand it....than picking an individual target.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

This ^^^^^

And ancient warriors were Martialists

They were more proficient with their tools because their life depended on it 

English longbow men shot till the point of changing their body structure 

The Samurai were archers before swordsman 

For volley fire they did not need long range accuracy while I'm sure some where accurate and for the close stuff a simpler aiming method ruled the day 

You will see types of sights on some ancient bows thou ..... it's nothing new


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Well, you do have the tip of the arrow which makes a pretty decent sight. Something as simple as a mark or landmark on the belly or riser of the bow can work as a sight/reference. It doesn't have to be a plastic pin.


----------



## oldnewby (Oct 13, 2015)

I do believe that volley fire against a formation of soldiers would not require sights. That makes sense to me. But bows were used for so many thousands of years, for things other than massive volley fire. Take hunting, as one example. Are sights not helpful for that on a traditional bow? Were the archers of those times so skillful that they could not improve their marksmanship by using sights? That seems unlikely. They must have used them a lot.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

oldnewby said:


> I do believe that volley fire against a formation of soldiers would not require sights. That makes sense to me. But bows were used for so many thousands of years, for things other than massive volley fire. Take hunting, as one example. Are sights not helpful for that on a traditional bow? Were the archers of those times so skillful that they could not improve their marksmanship by using sights? That seems unlikely. They must have used them a lot.


I'd imagine that a sight is quite useless even at short distances since a sight is only good for one distance. Those guys would shoot arrows until they could shoot no more. They were highly skilled warriors and hunters and had their own aiming methods.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

A sight is NOT only useful at one distance. When was the last time you sawed the sights off of a rifle? LOL

A sight is properly adjusted for "max point blank"...meaning that, for a given distance, point of impact will me a known distance above or below the point of aim. The sight will be exactly on at two distances. It will be a little low prior to the first point on, a little high between the 1st and 2nd point on and low after the second point on.

As I recall (it's been a long time), I could sight my 30-06 in such that I'd be no more than 4 inches or so high or low for something over 300 yards...meaning that for a target the size of a deer's vitals, I just aim dead on.

I sight my air rifle in at about 17 yards and I'm dead not on again at about 40 yards. Hey, it's an air rifle LOL

With my bow, my fixed crawl has me point on at a little under 20 yards. But that means from zero to a little over 20 yards (on a deer sized target), I can pretty much put the tip of the arrow on what I want to hit with no regard to exact distance.

If some of my number are off it's more of a reflection on my memory than the facts. The point is that trajectory is parabolic and you'll be dead on at two distances. You set things up to get the max useful range given the expected size of the target.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

oldnewby said:


> ...but why would archers from those periods not have used sights?


Because sights weren't considered *"traditional."*

Samurais were known to be gappers, mongols were blatant string walkers, and Turks where known to make small sighting marks on their bows. All three were frowned upon and were eventually disqualified from all international 3D competitions.

KPC


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

MGF said:


> A sight is NOT only useful at one distance. When was the last time you sawed the sights off of a rifle? LOL
> 
> A sight is properly adjusted for "max point blank"...meaning that, for a given distance, point of impact will me a known distance above or below the point of aim. The sight will be exactly on at two distances. It will be a little low prior to the first point on, a little high between the 1st and 2nd point on and low after the second point on.
> 
> ...


True, sights are useful at more than one distance (I used to shoot a rifle and pellet guns as well and would always adjust my crosshair up at extended ranges to compensate for droppage). The thing is that a sight is a lot less useful on a bow especially considering that most mid evil archers canted their bow to various degrees and would shoot on volley's and "sniper shots" at short distances with a canted bow. 

A sight is borderline useless in these situations especially once you start tilting the bow. Once you start tilting the bow you throw the sight off and almost all mid evil archers tilted their bow to a set degree. 

As I said those guys were proficient to the point where they did not need a sight. Personally I feel as though a sight would hold me back as well unless I needed to make one long careful shot at a set distance with my bow held vertically and I had plenty of time to make it (which is not the case in most situations). Otherwise a sight might become en cumbersome and more of a distraction if you are shooting at unknown distances and/or canting your bow.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

old - 

Actually, more did than you might thin k. 
Only thing is (was) that the definition and appearance of a sight may have changed. 

Only in recent times (and only in some circles) have sights become a dirty word...

Viper1 out.


----------



## Longbow91115 (May 4, 2009)

Another guess would be that bows in those days did not last as long as they do today. They weren't made with glass or carbon fiber or even laminated. Being packed around constantly or surviving in the climates or conditions they were subjected to caused a lot of them to break and lose their strength. They were most likely shot off the hand as opposed to a shelf. I'm sure arrows were not the quality that we expect and demand today either. All of which would make a sight more of a maintenance nightmare.


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

GEREP said:


> Because sights weren't considered *"traditional."*
> 
> Samurais were known to be gappers, mongols were blatant string walkers, and Turks where known to make small sighting marks on their bows. All three were frowned upon and were eventually disqualified from all international 3D competitions.
> 
> KPC


That is too funny.

If my life depended on this craft, and food for my family's life depended on this craft, I'd be squinting my eye and using that arrow tip as a reference.

And I believe a lot of our ancestors did too..


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Didn't the English Longbow Warriors use a point of aim or GAP method? I recall them being allowed to put one or two bean bag's on the ground at a set location at shooting tournaments. It seemed as though they used a GAP method when shooting at close distances.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

English longbows were used as artillery. Nothing much more. Once men closed enough for careful aiming it was a sword and shield fight. I doubt many men ever died by carefully aimed arrows from inside 50 yards. Men that close together used their armor and battle axes or broadswords. A very manly way to get one's self killed if you ask me.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

There are accounts of the Welsh and Irish/Scot's using them in ambush style encounters as well.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Because sights weren't considered *"traditional."*
> 
> Samurais were known to be gappers, mongols were blatant string walkers, and Turks where known to make small sighting marks on their bows. All three were frowned upon and were eventually disqualified from all international 3D competitions.


Classic. Worthy of a sticky.


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

This might only be tangently relevant to the discussion.

I watched a hunting program episode. The celebrity hunter with his compound bow hunted in the Bolivian jungle with rural natives who supposedly still survived only by hunting and fishing.

The native equipment and techniques were best observed during bowfishing. The water was clear plus filled with fish. The fish were located at all sorts of random distances. Some of the distances appeared to be possibly up to 40 yards.

The natives did not use sights, but they noticeably deliberately sighted down their long arrows. Either the natives never missed or misses were edited out. The longer shots were impressive. Their ability to quickly shoot at various random distances was impressive.

The bows appeared totally unrefined. They appeared to have a stout 2-inch diameter cylindrical cross-section rather than D-shaped or rectangular. Some still retained the bark. It looked as though someone had just sawed off a length section of limb or sapling. The arc of the bent braced bow included the entire bow. The bow was gripped in the middle of the arc and shot off hand.

The bowstrings were essentially thick crude cordage ropes rather than strings.

The arrows appeared to be the most carefully crafted and refined component of their archery equipment. The arrows were longer than the bows and slightly taller than the natives’ height (maybe 5 feet).


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

I've been chastised at tourneys for Gapping (not that I even mentioned how I aimed), the argument given once was people shot Instinctively and didn't Gap 1000 years ago, I asked for their documented evidence to this fact :angel:

These kind of thing seems to come full circle several times over and when we see unrelated cultures come up with the same/similar technologies, then using sights can be an interesting and plausible concept.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Stephen Morley said:


> I've been chastised at tourneys for Gapping (not that I even mentioned how I aimed), the argument given was people shot Instinctively and didn't Gap 1000 years ago, I asked for their documented evidence to this fact :angel:
> 
> These kind of thing seems to come full circle several times over and when we see unrelated cultures come up with the same/similar technologies, then using sights can be an interesting and plausible concept.


I don't understand what people have against GAPing. The only thing that I view as "unfair" is string walking only because you are using the arrow as a sight in a fashion that it becomes your "crosshair" at all distances right on the target. But even then it comes at some disadvantages such as throwing the bow out of tune.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

JamesThom. said:


> I don't understand what people have against GAPing. The only thing that I view as "unfair" is string walking only because you are using the arrow as a sight in a fashion that it becomes your "crosshair" at all distances right on the target. But even then it comes at some disadvantages such as throwing the bow out of tune.


I'm doomed then because I now Stringwalk, I would only consider it unfair if Gappers were *made* to shoot against Stringwalkers. That being said I've seen some world class Gappers out shoot Stringwalkers i.e. B/H Recurve Graham Holmes beat BB's by over a 100 points at World Bowhunters in Yankton a few years ago, it doesn't happen very often and most average Gappers would struggle against Stringwalkers.

My last tourney the other week was IFAA 100 x 3D's I out shot the B/H Recurves by 200 points, most 28 Field target tourneys I normally see a 20-30 point advantage by the end of the day, I guess I had a really good day, felt good as it's been a while. 

If you know how to tune for Stringwalking and have good Form then you're at no disadvantage.


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

My 2 cents:

As many modern barebow archers have demonstrated, it's possible to be very, very accurate and consistent without "sights", as we understand the term. Necessity being the mother of invention, historical archers may have simply not seen a need for it. 

Second, modern society is very focused on the needs and greeds of the invididual. Hunting and warfare long ago was very much a group activity, with the survival of the community at stake. So while the individual archers were likely very skilled and did everything they reasonably could to maximize power and accuracy, they were ultimately part of a team. Cave paintings show teams of archers driving animals towards other archers lying in wait. Animals dying of multiple injuries inflicted from multiple archers. And if you read the account of how Ishi said his tribe would hunt, it's very consistent with this concept.


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

Also, the centuries-old english longbow manuals make clear reference to archers who either shoot "underhand" (the target appearing under the hand) or those who shoot "overhand" (the target appearing over the hand). That's essentially a form of sighting, isn't it?

Overhand archers were advised to use thicker shafts, and underhand archers thinner, tapered ones. It's a bit obtuse, but this is probably one of the earliest references to an understanding of arrow spine as it relates to draw weight.


----------



## berzerk64 (Nov 27, 2013)

Just a thought, in looking at the design of natural material bows and other available materials for the sight itself - what would be the advantages of trying to design and mount a sight that is reliable and accurate consistently, versus just learning to gap, string walk, whatever? Metal not available to the extent we have it today, and hide glue isn't exactly the most robust adhesive, compared to modern glues and epoxies. Screws and bolts are in widespread use now, but even 100 years ago a lot of furniture was constructed using wood mortise and tenon, rabbets, and other wood joinery methods not involved screws and bolts. The amount of effort that would go into not just designing the sight, but how to mount it and also keep it in the same place, consistently, would possibly make the return on investment in time and sweat and thought and materials less attractive than learning to gap or whatever other method was employed. Materials and methods could well have been limiting factors in the widespread use of a sighting device. Just a thought.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them used some type of reference on their bow. In fact I think I'd be more surprised if some of them didn't use something. 

For truly ancient archers, from the development of the bow until as close to the present day as you define ancient to cover, their bows were used for both food or warfare. Both were much more serious than anything we do now, basically life or death and not the sporting purposes we used them for. Since they were as smart as we are, and the stakes were higher, the idea of increasing their accuracy by using some kind of reference on the bow would have occurred to them too. 

A sight doesn't have to be a complicated pin arrangement, a simple piece of leather wrapped around the bow handle might be all the reference needed.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Stephen Morley said:


> I'm doomed then because I now Stringwalk, I would only consider it unfair if Gappers were *made* to shoot against Stringwalkers. That being said I've seen some world class Gappers out shoot Stringwalkers i.e. B/H Recurve Graham Holmes beat BB's by over a 100 points at World Bowhunters in Yankton a few years ago, it doesn't happen very often and most average Gappers would struggle against Stringwalkers.
> 
> My last tourney the other week was IFAA 100 x 3D's I out shot the B/H Recurves by 200 points, most 28 Field target tourneys I normally see a 20-30 point advantage by the end of the day, I guess I had a really good day, felt good as it's been a while.
> 
> If you know how to tune for Stringwalking and have good Form then you're at no disadvantage.


Well to be fair there is a reason why string walking is banned under a lot of traditional archery tournament rules. I don't see string walking as a problem personally (competing against one I mean), as I said it has the disadvantage of throwing the arrow out of tune at all other crawls besides the archers stock crawl which the arrow is tuned for which is a major disadvantage of string walking. 

I just think that string walking ruins the fun of archery for me. It feels like I'm sighting down a gun at that point and counting strands is no fun (and takes too much time) in which case......I'd rather just shoot my .22 rifle.


----------



## berzerk64 (Nov 27, 2013)

Easykeeper said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some of them used some type of reference on their bow. In fact I think I'd be more surprised if some of them didn't use something.
> 
> For truly ancient archers, from the development of the bow until as close to the present day as you define ancient to cover, their bows were used for both food or warfare. Both were much more serious than anything we do now, basically life or death and not the sporting purposes we used them for. Since they were as smart as we are, and the stakes were higher, the idea of increasing their accuracy by using some kind of reference on the bow would have occurred to them too.
> 
> A sight doesn't have to be a complicated pin arrangement, a simple piece of leather wrapped around the bow handle might be all the reference needed.


I think this is more likely than not. Simple, reliable, done with readily available materials.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

JamesThom. said:


> Well to be fair there is a reason why string walking is banned under a lot of traditional archery tournament rules. I don't see string walking as a problem personally (competing against one I mean), as I said it has the disadvantage of throwing the arrow out of tune at all other crawls besides the archers stock crawl which the arrow is tuned for which is a major disadvantage of string walking.


This side of the pond we don't have these issues and SW is quite popular. Yes you are out of tune on some closer distances but it's not as much as you would imagine, Form errors will be highlighted more in your groups, a perfectly aimed/executed shot will find it's mark as accurately as an archer using sights. I think it was two years ago when John Demmer won BB Indoors at Vegas, his scores were impressively close to some top sighted Archers and he out shot the BB Compounds.

I think it took me about 6-7 months to catch my best Gap scores (due to lot of experimenting to find the best SW setup for me) once I started to match my best Gap scores I could shoot those SW scores that I maybe shot as Gap 1-2 times a year, as a SW almost every week.

If SW has any disadvantage, it's the fact that it's more pressured to compete, as it's harder to dominate because the top SW scores are so tight.


----------



## oldnewby (Oct 13, 2015)

Well, I gather many forum members accept that ancient archers did not use sights, and think that 

(1) Archers in all previous millennia were more skillful than today's archers, so they had no need to use sights, as many archers of today do. They used stringwalking and gapping so skillfully that they could not improve their accuracy by using sights; so they did not invent sights; and
(2) In any case, they could not make sights that were useful or robust, because they lacked the materials or technology to do that.

I do not have enough knowledge of history to evaluate these ideas, but they seem implausible to me. Are there any members who can speak definitively about this?


----------



## Bowmania (Jan 3, 2003)

"Sights on bows are a superior way of aiming the weapon". I would sure disagree with that statement when it comes to hunting and quick shots. In fact I'd say they're hindrance to quick killing.

In ancient times what good was a pin for 20 yards, when they hadn't invented a yard yet.

Bowmania


----------



## Atilliator. (Aug 24, 2016)

I don't think it would be practical for anything but target shooting.


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

oldnewby said:


> Well, I gather many forum members accept that ancient archers did not use sights, and think that
> 
> (1) Archers in all previous millennia were more skillful than today's archers, so they had no need to use sights, as many archers of today do. They used stringwalking and gapping so skillfully that they could not improve their accuracy by using sights; so they did not invent sights; and
> (2) In any case, they could not make sights that were useful or robust, because they lacked the materials or technology to do that.
> ...


We don't have any evidence of sights attached to bows, and the historical archery manuals talk about aiming methods that are mostly familiar to modern "trad" archers. Most likely the existing technology and methods were fit for purpose. 

https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/ford/docs/chapter11_1.html (19th century England)

https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/toxophilus/second_book08.html (16th century England)

https://pgmagirlscouts.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/saracen_archery.pdf (14th century Egypt)


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Stephen Morley said:


> This side of the pond we don't have these issues and SW is quite popular. Yes you are out of tune on some closer distances but it's not as much as you would imagine, Form errors will be highlighted more in your groups, a perfectly aimed/executed shot will find it's mark as accurately as an archer using sights. I think it was two years ago when John Demmer won BB Indoors at Vegas, his scores were impressively close to some top sighted Archers and he out shot the BB Compounds.
> 
> I think it took me about 6-7 months to catch my best Gap scores (due to lot of experimenting to find the best SW setup for me) once I started to match my best Gap scores I could shoot those SW scores that I maybe shot as Gap 1-2 times a year, as a SW almost every week.
> 
> If SW has any disadvantage, it's the fact that it's more pressured to compete, as it's harder to dominate because the top SW scores are so tight.


That's good that you like SW but like I said, I find that it makes archery boring for me. I'd rather shoot a .22 using the iron sights if I'm going to resort to counting strands on a string and calculating distances using the arrow as a direct "iron sight". 

There's really nothing impressive about string walking it's the reason why the top string walkers are not popular outside of a small group of online archers yet guys like Byron and other archers are extremely well known.

I think if we really want to make traditional or single string archery more popular and spectator friendly we should focus more on aerial target shooting and moving target's. As it stands right now FITA or WA barebow is extremely boring to watch.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

James 

There is an old saying.......... only accurate rifles are interesting 

So for many the act of how the arrow gets to the target is irrelevant ....it's that the arrow gets to the center of the target 

You are right Byron who which I like and have meet.... is entertaining ....he's an entertainer that uses archery as his medium 

He not famous for his hunting ....he not famous for his competition scores 

He is famous for his trick shots and his entertaining character 

In a hunting camp he is just another bowhunter and in a competition he's not even placing against other bare bow shooters 

I love what he does for archery and he is a great entertainer 

I'll tell ya what impresses me 

A guy that can consistently kill mature big bucks with any bow and a guy that can stand on the line at something like The Lancaster Classic or Vegas and shoot arrows into a tea cup at 20 yards with 100 archers breathing on him on the line 

The first on occasion I do  the second scares the bejesus out of me and I can't do it 

The thought of standing on the line scares the death out of me  

This is coming from a guy that shoots a non sighted bare bow and aims with a subconscious gap  

I like olympic archery and every other form of it


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

JParanee said:


> James
> 
> There is an old saying.......... only accurate rifles are interesting
> 
> ...


To each their own JP, that's what's beautiful about archery (and these conversations). 

You have to admit Byron is also a damn good hunter as well though. I know hunting is all about how close you can get but the man took down a deer at 50 yards and an Elk at 60 yards and also took down a water buffalo among many other game. 

The thing is, we can call him just a trick shot but usually a trick implies that there is some sort of magic that is happening that we can not see. 

Most of his shot's that he performs in front of live crowds requires great precision. 

I believe that calling his aerial target shot's such as hitting a golf ball sized ball in mid air is (while the wind was gusting very hard in one of his videos I saw recently) an under statement because in all reality it's a precision shot. 

Most would be lucky to hit a golf ball sized target at 10 yards that's sitting still. 

That's great that you are impressed by someone shooting a target at a set distance every time. What impresses me is someone that can hit a golf ball out of mid air at 20 yards, can snap shoot aspirins out of mid air, and can hit anything they look at from odd angles and regular angles out in the woods whether it be stumping, shooting 3D, or field.

I personally never found Olympic Archery appealing, too many crutches. 

Their bow's look like and perform like compounds with all of the equipment they have on their bow so in my opinion they should drop Olympic Archery in the Olympics due to it's low spectator count and bring in the compounds or go back to true archery with no crutches and make it barebow only just a single string and bow NO attachments. 

I really don't think that Byron would appreciate you just calling him an entertainer though. The man operates a bare bow instructor school twice a year that his student's pay thousands of dollars for and he is the author of a few books that have helped many people improve their shooting. 

Maybe he does not compete because he find's it boring or too much pressure? I know that shooting paper for me can get quite boring at times. I'd prefer to be stumping in the woods, shooting 3D, or pushing my shooting limits to the max somehow. 

Again I apologize if I offended anyone I'm just stating my personal opinion and what I find to be most enjoyable about archery!


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Your not offending anyone James and your thoughts and comments are well received  

You say that a trick usually implies some type of magic 

I say a trick involves some type of illusion  

On film we are all great 

I've seen Byron shoot live and on that day he missed more than he hit 

if I may ask 

How long have you been shooting single strings ? 

Did you come from compounds ? 

Have you attended any shoots ?

Have you harvested any game with the bow ? 

I don't ask to be negative in any way just truly curious of your background and references 

I respect your love of archery and your choices.... just curious 

Btw 

You missed the thing I respect the most and that's harvesting big bucks consistently with a bow 

I respect the guys that can group in a teacup indoors because I can't do it 

I can turn on my video camera and snap shoot at golf balls till I hit them and edit out my misses all day long my friend  

Trick shooting is just that ....... it's not magic it's an illusion


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Byron does his shot's live in front of an audience year round.

Just take a look at his schedule and check out his videos online of him performing in front of a crowd. 

He normally gives each shot 3 try's at most but nails most within his first try or second try. 

I never shot a compound besides trying one out. 

There's no trickory going on with Byron and his live exhibitions. 

Where did you see him shoot at?

How is Byron a trick shot if he does it in front of live audiences and where are the illusions?

It seems like there's a lot of hate for Hill and Byron (the pioneers) on this forum.


----------



## MCROW (Oct 9, 2015)

I would bet that some used notching or markings on the bow which is a form of sight. Like others have said, in war it was treated like a form of artillery and didn't required the individual archer to hit small targets, you just flunk a large number of arrows at a column of soldiers. 

A sight may no always be advantagous either. I started shooting trad with no sight because of my eyes. I have a neurological issue where using a peep or sight is impractical because trying to focus on a point or through a peep makes it so I can't see the pin or the target.


----------



## Ben Pearson (Oct 7, 2016)

For me this isn't a larping (Is that the word?) issue. I just think shooting without sights is more fun. If I wanted to use sights and get extreme accuracy, I have pellet guns that will put five pellets through the same hole. I don't really see the point of shooting a bow without sights and then using some elaborate system to do basically the same thing. Just put a sight on the thing and be done with it.
People have been writing for a very long time. One of the things they've written about is archery. We also have hundreds of old bows. I've seen little evidence of bow sights until recently. Bows were for hunting and warfare. They certainly didn't have five pin, glow in the dark sights. They probably tried putting something on their bow and found it useless for what they were doing.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Here's my take on it. 

It has been documented that the English Warbow archers would put bean bags down at archery competitions. 

This is a form of GAP shooting. 

The Celtic people were known for their relatively close distance bow usage during warfare especially in ambush situations and again, these cases have been documented. 

Archery was also shot horseback and on foot throughout Europe and in the East.

The bow was used HEAVILY while hunting which takes place at relatively close distances. 

Based upon all of this information it's very realistic to me that most shot what's now known as "instinctive" or rather "subconscious GAP". 

I'm sure some archers put marks on their bow but using a sight can slow you down and make you question your shot which is not something you want in warfare or on a hunt where your life depends on it.

String walking and 3 under would of been out of the picture and have never been documented in history as being used so I highly doubt any of these warriors and hunters gun barreled the arrow. Reason being is that they used self nocks and shooting 3 under gives up any arrow control and increases the risk of nock slippage or a dry fire which in their cases, could of cost them their life.

Mediterranean was the most popular form used at least in Europe as you keep arrow control at all times since you have one finger above and one to two fingers below the nock at all times as well preventing the arrow from falling or slipping off the string.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JamesThom. said:


> Byron does his shot's live in front of an audience year round.
> 
> Just take a look at his schedule and check out his videos online of him performing in front of a crowd.
> 
> ...


He's been at the Harrisburg Sportsman show 

No hate ... just reality 

Byron call himself a trick shot .... there is no shame in it 

He has a show ... a routine 

It's how among other things archery related that he makes a living 

You didn't answer my other questions. 

Thx


----------



## MCROW (Oct 9, 2015)

JamesThom. said:


> Here's my take on it.
> 
> It has been documented that the English Warbow archers would put bean bags down at archery competitions.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it's my belief that there is no such thing as the mystical "instinctive" shooting. Everyone gap shoots, some just get good enough at it that they don't realize they are even doing it. I think what people call instinctive shooting is just highly evolved gap shooting. I started out conciously gap shooting now I just bring the bow up and shoot and hit my spot. I'm still gap shooting but I've repeated the mechanics and different distances to a point where the gap is instantaneaiusly calculated in my head without me realizing it. Personally, I think that most people start with gap shooting and evolve to unconcious gap shooting...AKA instinctive shooting. Just because you don't know you're doing it doesn't mean you're not.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

JamesThom. said:


> There's really nothing impressive about string walking it's the reason why the top string walkers are not popular outside of a small group of online archers
> 
> .



James you've heard of the saying "Don't knock it till you've tried it."

I have a deep respect all forms of Archery because I've tried most, I may have been average at a few but it allowed me to appreciate the guys who can do it well. Things like doing training camp with Korean Coach and Olympians, compared to these guys I sucked at 70m but I never worked so hard at my fitness/Archery at that camp, I walked away with deep respect for these guys even though Target Archery was never my thing.

I've done the trick shooting stuff in front of people so I have a deep respect for what Byron can do, mainly because I'll never be able to do it as well as him.

A Finnish friend told me the Sámi people aimed with facewalking technique, how does he know this, well because they're still around and hunt that way.


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

JamesThom. said:


> String walking and 3 under would of been out of the picture and have never been documented in history as being used so I highly doubt any of these warriors and hunters gun barreled the arrow. Reason being is that they used self nocks and shooting 3 under gives up any arrow control and increases the risk of nock slippage or a dry fire which in their cases, could of cost them their life.
> 
> Mediterranean was the most popular form used at least in Europe as you keep arrow control at all times since you have one finger above and one to two fingers below the nock at all times as well preventing the arrow from falling or slipping off the string.


You can shoot three under with self nocks no problem, provided they are well made. I've done it plenty. Both loose ones and slightly snug ones. It's not an issue. The real hangup for using three under with historical equipment is having an actual nock point on the string, which believe it or not, is apparently a fairly recent innovation. None of the medieval sources mention them at all. 

The upwards pressure of the index finger and resistance of the nock point keeps the arrow on. I haven't tried stringwalking with self nocks, but with slightly snug nocks and a double nock point it should be more than possible. Additionally, I have carved self nocks that have definite "clip on" properties, and Ottoman horn nocks reportedly had similar clipping qualities to modern plastic nocks.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Traditional Archers of today don't use sights.

Since today's Traditional Archers don't use sights, and today's Traditional Archer's are following the old Traditional ways then obviously ancient Archers didn't use sights.

Right?


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Stephen Morley said:


> James you've heard of the saying "Don't knock it till you've tried it."
> 
> I have a deep respect all forms of Archery because I've tried most, I may have been average at a few but it allowed me to appreciate the guys who can do it well. Things like doing training camp with Korean Coach and Olympians, compared to these guys I sucked at 70m but I never worked so hard at my fitness/Archery at that camp, I walked away with deep respect for these guys even though Target Archery was never my thing.
> 
> ...


Lot's of GAPers face walk as well. Howard Hill even face walked. Face walking is very easy and quick to do. 

I have respect for those that shoot string walking but like the other poster said 'it's not my thing. If I wanted to take my time and count strings and estimate yardages while using an arrow like it's an iron sight I'd rather save myself the time and shoot a rifle at the range. 

I think I'll resort to calling it trick shooting when I start to see string walkers and other archers that talk down on him shooting through rings and hitting golf balls out of mid air. 



MCROW said:


> Yeah, it's my belief that there is no such thing as the mystical "instinctive" shooting. Everyone gap shoots, some just get good enough at it that they don't realize they are even doing it. I think what people call instinctive shooting is just highly evolved gap shooting. I started out conciously gap shooting now I just bring the bow up and shoot and hit my spot. I'm still gap shooting but I've repeated the mechanics and different distances to a point where the gap is instantaneaiusly calculated in my head without me realizing it. Personally, I think that most people start with gap shooting and evolve to unconcious gap shooting...AKA instinctive shooting. Just because you don't know you're doing it doesn't mean you're not.





JParanee said:


> He's been at the Harrisburg Sportsman show
> 
> No hate ... just reality
> 
> ...


He calls himself an "exhibitionist shooter" on his website. 

http://www.byronferguson.com/index.aspx?pageid=3180942

He also charges $1,500 per person giving bare bow instruction I do not see any SW guy's charging that kind of money so he must be pretty damn good at that as well.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

James, I watched and met Byron one time. I watched his act. He missed about half his carefully set up shots. Of course if most people tried what he was doing they'd miss more often. Point is, he makes fun of his misses, it's part of the entertainment value of the show. You see only his best shots on videos or Youtube leading a person to think he never misses.

As for hitting golf balls thrown into the air at a full 20 yards? NO WAY. Maybe once in 25 or 30 attempts. Maybe. Byron works at about 15 feet on thrown targets. Closer on aspirin type objects. Most of the time it's his fletching taking the aspirin out the air, not the point. Still a very close miss and impressive but not overwhelming shooting by any means. Not really. 

Your flying golf ball at 20 yards kills me. The best target archers shooting barebow at 20 yards might hit a golf ball size spot about one-third of the time on a good day at twenty yards. And that's stationary. Byron Ferguson couldn't do that with his longbows more than once every 10 shots from 20 yards on a stationary target. 

Jim, have you ever been to an indoor match with the best shooters in the country present? They so outclass exhibition shooters it's not funny. You will never see an exhibition shooter put his real skill level on display at a real shooting match. Nothing against Byron, who is a doll of a guy. But he's an entertainer and not a truly great shot.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

JamesThom. said:


> He also charges $1,500 per person giving bare bow instruction I do not see any SW guy's charging that kind of money so he must be pretty damn good at that as well.


I personally know most of the top WA/IFAA tourney Longbow shooters in the World, none have been to his School and I never heard of anybody who has been to his School that had any success with tourney or flying golf balls :angel: so it seems bit of a steep price for no real results. I've done a few of his tricks, like the candle shot but refuse to due thrown targets purely for safety, I just don't agree with these kinds of tricks with someone down range of a flying arrow.

I'll do my own throwing through...






Ricky Welch charges quite a bit but he has had a number of his students win at IBO world champs. Nothing against Byron just pointing out that I see no track record with any of his students doing anything of note, you can enlighten me if you know of any.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

James, if you read this forum and pay attention to S. Morley, Viper, limbwalker, Jimmy Blackmon, and most anyone in the FITA section you'll learn more about shooting for free than you'll ever learn by paying Howard Hill 1500 dollars if you could dig him up.

Did you know Morley is a several-time world champion in Europe where I believe target archery is taken more seriously than here in the States? Some of the best shooters in the world read and comment on this forum. You are aware of that? Olympic team members, world champion field archers. Men and women like that.

They all give advice freely and suffer fools well. Most of them do.

You seem like a harmless sort but you do annoy the more experienced because you do a disservice to neophytes with your off-base archery assumptions based on your unabashed adoration for Howard Hill - a man so far out of this time frame he's no longer really relevant. 

I tend to pick on you because I read most of the threads and your arrow is always the farthest away from the center. I can not help but notice you. You're like one of my collapse shots I pull out the dirt next to the 60 meter target at my house. It's right there, I can't miss it. It offends me, and so don't you at times.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Ryddragyn said:


> We don't have any evidence of sights attached to bows, and the historical archery manuals talk about aiming methods that are mostly familiar to modern "trad" archers. Most likely the existing technology and methods were fit for purpose.
> 
> https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/ford/docs/chapter11_1.html (19th century England)
> 
> ...


Dang Ry....some great links....especially that last one. 

An interesting comment on page 51, the first couple sentences under "Comments" where they essentially say; You have to aim....some degree of intuitive shooting can be attained but its best to aim. 

So the age old argument on instinctive shooting......has been going on for at least 700 years!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JamesThom. said:


> I personally never found Olympic Archery appealing, too many crutches.


There are no crutches in archery. Each discipline is equally hard in it's own game. If you find Oly bow easy, next time, don't sign up to shoot it in Traditional


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Keeshond said:


> James, if you read this forum and pay attention to S. Morley, Viper, limbwalker, Jimmy Blackmon, and most anyone in the FITA section you'll learn more about shooting for free than you'll ever learn by paying Howard Hill 1500 dollars if you could dig him up.
> 
> Did you know Morley is a several-time world champion in Europe where I believe target archery is taken more seriously than here in the States? Some of the best shooters in the world read and comment on this forum. You are aware of that? Olympic team members, world champion field archers. Men and women like that.
> 
> ...


I don't shoot FITA style archery (could care less about FITA barebow).

You talk a lot of crap but back down from a challenge.

Small dog barks loud but has no bite, in this case you are the small dog. 

I offered to shoot whatever round you want me to shoot, at any distance, with my longbow and we could compare scores. 

Loser has to stop posting.

Why are you backing down?

It should be an easy win for you because according to you an ILF rig is automatically more accurate than a longbow.



Sanford said:


> There are no crutches in archery. Each discipline is equally hard in it's own game. If you find Oly bow easy, next time, don't sign up to shoot it in Traditional


You're telling me a long heavy stabilizer, V bar, sight, draw check, and a kisser button are not crutches?

If those are not crutches than I do not know what are.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JamesThom. said:


> You're telling me a long heavy stabilizer, V bar, sight, draw check, and a kisser button are not crutches?
> 
> If those are not crutches than I do not know what are.


There seems to be a big world of archery out there you have not experienced yet. Since we are throwing around famous shooters, Brady shoots all those on his bow, so just put them on your bow, buy the best now, and go shoot with him and compare hits at various distances. That will be your answer.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Sanford said:


> There seems to be a big world of archery out there you have not experienced yet. Since we are throwing around famous shooters, Brady shoots all those on his bow, so just put them on your bow, buy the best now, and go shoot with him and compare hits at various distances. That will be your answer.


Why not just have him take off all of those accessories and gimmicks and have him shoot with me? I don't have the money for all of that gear anyways.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

JamesThom. said:


> You're telling me a long heavy stabilizer, V bar, sight, draw check, and a kisser button are not crutches?
> 
> If those are not crutches than I do not know what are.


Not at all, Brady is an awesome shot/person, top of his game in Olympic Archery for at least the last 6-7 years, he has a lot of respect for other forms of Archery, specially Barebow and the guy can flat out shoot.








JamesThom. said:


> Why not just have him take off all of those accessories and gimmicks and have him shoot with me? I don't have the money for all of that gear anyways.


He's done that in the past, he would still leave most of us in his dust. A couple of Olympians have retired and switched to Barebow, they're still awesome shots with all the gadgets taken off.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JamesThom. said:


> Why not just have him take off all of those accessories and gimmicks and have him shoot with me? I don't have the money for all of that gear anyways.


Well, I'll loan you some, but the fact would remain for all of us, those gimmicks, per se, would not change the differential in talent between us and Brady. As you mature in this sport, you will come to realize that it's always the archer, it's all archery, and just different games for different folks. It makes no sense to mix Oly with Trad, as they are equally hard to master, just different games.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

Likely you wont be interested but at the end of this is the USA team winning gold at World Field champs (Brady again), some awesome shooting for a easy win, what impresses me though is we see a Barebow, Compound and Oly Recurve all working together and the respect/support for each other is very apparent. You could learn a thing or two watching this video :thumbs_up

Team USA starts 2hr 49sec, you will see all 3 disciplines at the very top of their game.


----------



## oldnewby (Oct 13, 2015)

To all those who posted on the original topic (whether ancient and medieval archers used sights, and if not, why not): Thank you for contributing your thoughts and knowledge. Thanks to Ryddragyn for those interesting links. I regret that there were those who felt it would be OK to highjack the thread with comments that were not closely related to the topic.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

Apologies Oldnewby, just got annoyed and carried away with the trash talk and total lack of respect for other Forms/Styles of Archery. I'm done on this tread.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Stephen Morley said:


> Not at all, Brady is an awesome shot/person, top of his game in Olympic Archery for at least the last 6-7 years, he has a lot of respect for other forms of Archery, specially Barebow and the guy can flat out shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really?


----------



## berzerk64 (Nov 27, 2013)

oldnewby said:


> Well, I gather many forum members accept that ancient archers did not use sights, and think that
> 
> (1) Archers in all previous millennia were more skillful than today's archers, so they had no need to use sights, as many archers of today do. They used stringwalking and gapping so skillfully that they could not improve their accuracy by using sights; so they did not invent sights; and
> (2) In any case, they could not make sights that were useful or robust, because they lacked the materials or technology to do that.
> ...


I'd disagree in part, certainly not in whole, to both points.

1) I think the average archer, in far past days, was more skillful than the average archer today, simply from volume of practice, at least in archery heavy cultures. I am sure there were no shortage of people who couldn't even string a bow. An average Roman citizen who enjoyed archery as a hobby or pastime would likely be as skillful as a modern hobbyist archer. However, cultures for whom archery took a more central role (ancient Mongols, and British under Assize of Arms, for example) would likely have been much more skillful, on the whole, whatever their aiming means were. I think skill likely varied widely, and we may well give more credit to the average archer in days past than we should, depending on the culture and times. I'd not want to face a mongol or english archer, but they would cause me far more consternation than other less archery centric cultures of ancient times might. 

2) I don't think it's that they lacked the technology to do so, more similar to putting a $1200 scope on a rifle. Most modern shooters don't have high dollar optics on their weapons, they use a more mean tool to provide the requisite capability (Tasco level). For the average archer using an ELB or horn bow, how would you mount a sufficient sighting device that wouldn't come loose, move, etc.; rather it was likely more economical to use some sort of reference mark on the bow itself, whether that was some sort of leather wrap, grain striations, etc. It still isn't quite putting a pin or dot or crosshair on the target and loosing, moreso it was aligning the arrow and reference mark to the target. I'm just positing thoughts based on the construction and use of self bows and such without a riser to which an archery could mount anything solidly and not subject to the stress and vibration a limb mounted design would. A modern pin type setup would be next to impossible to make durable and reliable with the commonly available pre-industrial revolution materials, whereas elevation reference marks on the belly would be eminently doable by even a beginning archer.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JamesThom. said:


> Really?


You haven't met Ben Rogers yet, have you?

Killer Olympic archer in college, so I hear. When I met him, he was part of Mathews prostaff, saw him a shoot freestyle compound. Last time I got to compete with him, it was at IBO Western Traditional shoot couple years ago, and I shot well enough to be in his group the last day. One arrow each target, unmarked yardage, all hunting distances. As close to real life spot and stalk still hunting shots are you're going to get without a live animal. He and Alan Eagleton (who I think holds some records too) battled it out, pounding 11's regularly. Both were shooting no sights, hunting length stabs, with hunting appropriate draw weights. If you have enough knowledge to appreciate watching somebody with excellent form, the pair of them was astounding.

Shooting without a sight adds an additional dimension, no doubt. If you take archers who are used to shooting long distance exclusively without time constraints, and take bows that were tuned and balanced with a stab and remove it, and then plop them into a speed contest, yeah, they're not going to do so well. If you're thinking that the shoot at an Olympic level because they have crutches, and that you could do the same, I think you should go get a medal. 

Yes, gear makes a difference. That's why they have different equipment divisions. But, calling something a 'crutch' is derogatory, implying that they can't shoot for 'real'. Implying that one game is somehow more valid than another says more about the person making the statement than it does about particular equipment preferences, and it is typical of what I described of the 'Neo Trad' mentality, and of those who have little experience across disciplines. 

It's like saying the snipers that make shots regularly at 600-1000 yards are shooting with a crutch because they don't shoot with iron-sighted pistols, and they aren't as skilled as Cowboy action shooters who can quickly knock cans off a fence at a distance of 7-10 yards. 

Would you say that?


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

James, you are just funning with us, right? I mean really.


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

Back on topic, although anything is possible and we will never know for sure, the kind of combat shooting required for medieval war didn't really have time for sights, here is the Hungarian Kasai Lajos showing his incredible mounted skills. 

I read an article years ago about an experiment from English Warbow Archers to simulate a charging 25mph (robot) horse from 200 yards, to see if they could maintain accuracy while adjusting for the decreasing range, I recall in the 30 seconds they had they managed to get off about 5-6 shots off, which says to me sights again would be impractical in this situation. Medieval Hunting may be a more realistic scenario for sights but I don't really see it in Warfare, The crossbow was likely considered more as a sniper weapon of choice and possile these may have had sights.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

This may be of interest ... this is what Roger Ascham had to say on the matter .... old Roger knew a thing or two about archery



> *Tox.* Of giving aim, I cannot tell well what I should say. For in a strange place it taketh away all occasion of foul game, which is the only praise of it; yet by my judgment, it hindereth the knowledge of shooting, and maketh men more negligent; the which is a dispraise. Though aim be given, yet take heed, for at another man's shot you cannot well take aim, nor at your own neither, because the weather will alter, even in a minute, and at the one mark, and not at the other, and trouble your shaft in the air, when you shall perceive no wind at the ground, as I myself have seen shafts tumble aloft in a very fair day. There may be a fault also in drawing or loosing, and many things mo, which altogether are required to keep a just length. But, to go forward, the next point after the marking of your weather, as the taking of your standing. And, in a side wind, you must stand somewhat cross into the wind, for so shall you shoot the surer. When you have taken good footing, then must you look at your shaft, that no earth, nor wet, be left upon it, for so should it lose the length. You must look at the head also, lest it have had any stripe at the last shoot. A stripe upon a stone, many times will both mar the head, crook the shaft, and hurt the feather, whereof the least of them all will cause a man lose his length. For such things which chance every shoot, many archers use to have some place made in their coat, fit for a little file, a stone, a hunfish skin, and a cloth to dress the shaft fit again at all needs. This must a man look to ever when he taketh up his shaft. And the head may be made too smooth, which will cause it fly too far ; when your shaft is fit, then must you take your bow even in the midst, or else you shall both lose your length, and put your bow in jeopardy of breaking. Nocking just is next, which is much of the same nature. Then draw equally, loose equally, with holding your hand ever of one height to keep true compass. To look at your shaft head at the loose is the greatest help to keep a length that can be, which thing yet hindereth excellent shooting, because a man cannot shoot straight perfectly except he look at his mark ; if I should shoot at a line, and not at the mark, I would always look at my shaft end ; but of this thing somewhat afterward. Now, if you mark the weather diligently, keep your standing justly, hold and nock truly, draw and loose equally, and keep your compass certainly, you shall never miss of your length.
> 
> *Phi.* Then there is nothing behind to make me hit the mark, but only shooting straight.
> 
> *Tox.* No truly. And I first will tell you what shifts archers have found to shoot straight, then what is the best way to shoot straight. As the weather belongeth specially to keep a length (yet a side wind belongeth also to shoot straight) even so the nature of the prick is to shoot straight. The length or shortness of the mark is always under the rule of the weather, yet somewhat there is in the mark, worthy to be marked of an archer. If the pricks stand of a straight plain ground, they be the best to shoot at. If the mark stand on a hill-side or the ground be unequal with pits and turning ways betwixt the marks, a man's eye shall think that to be straight which is crooked; the experience of this thing is seen in painting, the cause of it is known by learning ; and it is enough for an archer to mark it, and take heed of it. The chief cause why men cannot shoot straight, is because they look at their shaft; and this fault cometh, because a man is not taught to shoot when he is young. If he learn to shoot by himself, he is afraid to pull the shaft through the bow, and therefore looketh always at his shaft; ill use confirmeth this fault, as it doth many more. And men continue the longer in this fault, because it is so good to keep a length withal: and yet, to shoot straight, they have invented some ways to espy a tree or a hill beyond the mark, or else to have some notable thing betwixt the marks; and once I saw a good archer which did cast off his gear and laid his quiver with it, even in the mid-way betwixt the pricks. Some thought he did it for safeguard of his gear : I suppose he did it to shoot straight withal. Other men use to espy some mark almost a bow wide of the prick, and then go about keep himself on the hand that the prick is on ; which thing how much good it doth, a man will not believe, that doth not prove it. Other, and those very good archers, in drawing, look at the mark until they come almost to the head, then they look at their shaft; but, at the very loose, with a second sight, they find their mark again. This way and all other afore of me rehearsed, are but shifts, and not to be followed in shooting straight. For having a man's eye always on his mark, is the only way to shoot straight; yea, and I suppose, so ready and easy a way, if it be learned in youth, and confirmed with use, that a man shall never miss therein. Men doubt yet in looking at the mark what way is best, whether betwixt the bow and the string, above or beneath his hand, and many ways moo ; yet it maketh no great matter which way a man look at his mark, if it be joined with comely shooting. The diversity of men's standing and drawing causeth divers men look at their mark divers ways ; yet they all lead a man's hand to shoot straight, if nothing else stop. So that comeliness is the only judge of best looking at the mark. Some men wonder why, in casting a man's eye at the mark, the hand should go straight: surely if he considered the nature of a man's eye, he would not wonder at it: for this I am certain of, that no servant to his master, no child to his father, is so obedient, as every joint and piece of the body is to do whatsoever the eye bids. The eye is the guide, the ruler, and the succourer of all the other parts. The hand, the foot, and other members, dare do nothing without the eye, as doth appear on the night and dark corners. The eye is the very tongue wherewith wit and reason doth speak to every part of the body, and the wit doth not so soon signify a thing by the eye, as every part is ready to follow, or rather prevent the bidding of the eye. This is plain in many things, but most evident in fence and fighting, as I have heard men say. There every part standing in fear to have a blow, runs to the eye for help, as young children do to the mother; the foot, the hand, and all waiteth upon the eye. If the eye bid the hand either bear off or smite, or the foot either go forward or backward, it doth so ; and that which is most wonder of all, the one man looking stedfastly at the other man's eye, and not at his hand, will, even as it were, read in his eye where he purposeth to smite next, for the eye is nothing else but a certain window for wit to shoot out her head at.


----------



## schnauza2000 (Dec 27, 2013)

Very interesting discussion topic. I'm going to take a different tack here based on some relevant experience. This is entirely speculative and I have no historical sourcing to refer to, but it seems logical.
The answer to the original question is: because sights hadn't been invented yet. Why not? I think because sights are a result of the invention of firearms. The idea of having a dot or blade five feet out in front of your face as a visual reference to aim with is directly related to already having a gun barrel sticking out there. I don't think ancient archers even thought about it. As many previous posters pointed out, ancient archers would have been schooled from a young age on how to hit a mark with a bow, so the idea of needing another visual mark besides the point of the arrow and the target probably never even entered their heads. Even medieval crossbowmen didn't use sights and yet were highly valued as soldiers, especially in siege operations, so it stands to reason that they knew what they were doing and could shoot just fine.
My basis for this speculation is my experience in historical fencing, which has recently established itself based on old Italian and German fight manuals being discovered and translated. I've found the whole sport/movement to be influenced by modern Olympic fencing and stage combat concepts to the point where a medieval person would probably not recognize it. Our own 'mileiu' so to speak influences the way we look at everything, which leads me to my next point. Imagine people 300 years into the future trying to understand boxing by watching 'Rocky'. They'd have an idea, but it wouldn't be quite right would it?
I believe that the idea of 'archery as artillery' is ludicrous, and is a creation of Hollywood; filmmakers having been themselves influenced by pictures of European battles from the 16th to 19th century with their mass exchanges of un-aimed musketry. It flies in the face of everything we know about (for example) the English longbowman. Trained from childhood and bound by law to practice regularly, why would they all of a sudden stop aiming in a battle situation? I also reference recent work by historian Mike Loades, who noted that arrows were very expensive ammunition. Time consuming to make properly and (as many of us can attest) useless if not made well, arrows would not have been wasted in mass flight shooting at distances where the shooters couldn't be fairly sure of hitting their marks. Two other factors support my hypothesis: arrows must be made out of straight, seasoned wood. The Turks and Mongols, famous horse-archers, lived in areas where good quality lumber was hard to come by- the steppes of Central Asia. In such an environment, one would hate to waste arrows because you might not be able to find more wood to make new ones. Even their bows were not made all of wood, but of animal horn and sinew, which they usually had a lot more of. 
The second factor (from Mike Loades) is medieval manuscripts: we have many well drawn depictions of battles with archers in them, and nowhere does one find any archer with their bow pointed up at the sky. Why not? If you get far enough away, you lose accuracy and maybe lose the arrow, right? Therefore, I believe the classic archery engagements of medieval times such as Crecy and Agincourt were shot at distances of 100 yds or less. Remember also, during the Hundred Years War, large engagements between armies were rare, and most of the fighting happened in sieges of castles and towns where archers would have needed to hit small targets


----------



## oldnewby (Oct 13, 2015)

Steve Morley: Thanks for your acknowledgement. I appreciate the views of a respected archer.
Berzerk64: I appreciate your opinions on the topic of this thread.
To others who have little interest in the topic of this thread: you could start a thread of your own, and discuss whatever topic you wish to.


----------



## berzerk64 (Nov 27, 2013)

schnauza2000 said:


> Very interesting discussion topic. I'm going to take a different tack here based on some relevant experience. This is entirely speculative and I have no historical sourcing to refer to, but it seems logical.
> The answer to the original question is: because sights hadn't been invented yet. Why not? I think because sights are a result of the invention of firearms. The idea of having a dot or blade five feet out in front of your face as a visual reference to aim with is directly related to already having a gun barrel sticking out there. I don't think ancient archers even thought about it. As many previous posters pointed out, ancient archers would have been schooled from a young age on how to hit a mark with a bow, so the idea of needing another visual mark besides the point of the arrow and the target probably never even entered their heads. Even medieval crossbowmen didn't use sights and yet were highly valued as soldiers, especially in siege operations, so it stands to reason that they knew what they were doing and could shoot just fine.
> My basis for this speculation is my experience in historical fencing, which has recently established itself based on old Italian and German fight manuals being discovered and translated. I've found the whole sport/movement to be influenced by modern Olympic fencing and stage combat concepts to the point where a medieval person would probably not recognize it. Our own 'mileiu' so to speak influences the way we look at everything, which leads me to my next point. Imagine people 300 years into the future trying to understand boxing by watching 'Rocky'. They'd have an idea, but it wouldn't be quite right would it?
> I believe that the idea of 'archery as artillery' is ludicrous, and is a creation of Hollywood; filmmakers having been themselves influenced by pictures of European battles from the 16th to 19th century with their mass exchanges of un-aimed musketry. It flies in the face of everything we know about (for example) the English longbowman. Trained from childhood and bound by law to practice regularly, why would they all of a sudden stop aiming in a battle situation? I also reference recent work by historian Mike Loades, who noted that arrows were very expensive ammunition. Time consuming to make properly and (as many of us can attest) useless if not made well, arrows would not have been wasted in mass flight shooting at distances where the shooters couldn't be fairly sure of hitting their marks. Two other factors support my hypothesis: arrows must be made out of straight, seasoned wood. The Turks and Mongols, famous horse-archers, lived in areas where good quality lumber was hard to come by- the steppes of Central Asia. In such an environment, one would hate to waste arrows because you might not be able to find more wood to make new ones. Even their bows were not made all of wood, but of animal horn and sinew, which they usually had a lot more of.
> The second factor (from Mike Loades) is medieval manuscripts: we have many well drawn depictions of battles with archers in them, and nowhere does one find any archer with their bow pointed up at the sky. Why not? If you get far enough away, you lose accuracy and maybe lose the arrow, right? Therefore, I believe the classic archery engagements of medieval times such as Crecy and Agincourt were shot at distances of 100 yds or less. Remember also, during the Hundred Years War, large engagements between armies were rare, and most of the fighting happened in sieges of castles and towns where archers would have needed to hit small targets


Not off the mark, in many aspects, i think. Combat in pre-firearm days was a much, much closer affair. Long range could well have been 100 yards to a man with a spear on foot. Sighting was in use in other aspects of warfare, particularly siege warfare (trebuchets, ballista, etc.) though not quite as we think of them, so it is certainly conceivable it would have bled over into archery, though I only am supposing. Mounted fighters and arrows from even 50 yards would be incredibly discouraging to the majority of fighting men back then. The spear or lance in the hands of a man on foot was similar to the M-4 or Kalashnikov of modern vintage, the most commonly carried weapon. That and possibly a long knife, so a man who could even likely, if not necessarily surely, strike you from such a distance would be devastating to all but the stoutest fighting men. Agincourt was so devastating not just because of the use of bowmen, but because the bowmen were employed in militarily advantageous positions and distances, in a way that was not common to the time and cultures involved. It is possible, even likely a Mongol warrior observing the battle would have went "well...duh". Those distances were relatively short, by modern warfare standards, too.

From what i have read on mongolian life, culture, and history, they did employ mass arrow attacks at points, but their strategy was generally speaking a hit and run type tactic, where they rode in and closed the distance enough to fire a volley or two of aimed fire, then retreated, and repeated or conducted in waves. They didn't throw them away, but they also didn't hesitate to take a shot if they thought it had a chance, or if it served the higher tactical or strategic objective. Not every shot was meant to kill. Recon by fire, harassment and retreat to ambush, and pursuit were common tactics. 

I think the truth is somewhere in between. They likely used a variety of aiming methods amongst their tactics, in warfare, that carried over from hunting. I believe there were likely hunting methods that were improved through things learned in warfare as well as cultural exchanges. Warfare today is constantly changing, and the best tactics and weapons today could deliver defeat tomorrow. There's so much we don't know, and if you consider the volume of knowledge available among current warriors, how much will be retained 100 years from now? How much detail of those tactics will be available? Likely more than was retained from ancient days, yet nowhere near the volume of information that exists. 

A professional man at arms will not retain anything that doesn't work, and will make a deal with the devil to retain things that do work. If there had been a significant advantage in warfare to use a sighting device, it would have taken hold and spread as much as possible. That much leads me to believe that they either tried it and discarded the idea as either unreliable or unworkable, or never came up with the thought in the first place. Which it is, we can only speculate to varying degrees of educated guesses.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

oldnewby, if I can return to your original question,

There is some evidence of sighting systems used on ancient bows. Some of the bows found in the tomb of Tutankhamen had graduated designs painted on the belly of the upper limbs that some commentators suggest are a rudimentary sighting system ( source : Self Bows and other archery tackle from the tomb of Tutankhamen: W McLeod: J.H. Harris. (editor): Griffith Institute: University of Oxford ISBN 0 900 416 335)


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

James, you aren't OneSharpBroadhead are you?


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

reddogge said:


> James, you aren't OneSharpBroadhead are you?


Hey, that's kinda funny.


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

BarneySlayer said:


> You haven't met Ben Rogers yet, have you?
> 
> Killer Olympic archer in college, so I hear. When I met him, he was part of Mathews prostaff, saw him a shoot freestyle compound. Last time I got to compete with him, it was at IBO Western Traditional shoot couple years ago, and I shot well enough to be in his group the last day. One arrow each target, unmarked yardage, all hunting distances. As close to real life spot and stalk still hunting shots are you're going to get without a live animal. He and Alan Eagleton (who I think holds some records too) battled it out, pounding 11's regularly. Both were shooting no sights, hunting length stabs, with hunting appropriate draw weights. If you have enough knowledge to appreciate watching somebody with excellent form, the pair of them was astounding.
> 
> ...


The guys in the Olympics are not "shooting for real". If they did they would be using a bow with no aids on it. 

Why would I want to shoot something that I do not enjoy? For the money? No thanks.

I'd rather shoot 70m with a barebow. 

Bow's and sights do not mix well so your analogy with sniper rifles and scopes does not go over too well with me.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

JamesThom. said:


> The guys in the Olympics are not "shooting for real"..


Oh dear ...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Stephen Morley said:


> Back on topic, although anything is possible and we will never know for sure, the kind of combat shooting required for medieval war didn't really have time for sights, here is the Hungarian Kasai Lajos showing his incredible mounted skills.
> 
> I read an article years ago about an experiment from English Warbow Archers to simulate a charging 25mph (robot) horse from 200 yards, to see if they could maintain accuracy while adjusting for the decreasing range, I recall in the 30 seconds they had they managed to get off about 5-6 shots off, which says to me sights again would be impractical in this situation. Medieval Hunting may be a more realistic scenario for sights but I don't really see it in Warfare, The crossbow was likely considered more as a sniper weapon of choice and possile these may have had sights.


That dude is awesome! 

I think you have a good point. In combat scenarios, the advantage of a sight, in terms of a precision instrument, is diminished. Rough marks on the riser, or riser shape, sure, as a secondary reference.
Between 0 and 25 yards, the sight picture for a upright man is close enough. With my anchor and sight picture, the difference in impact between 0 and 20 yards travels in about an 8 inch window. If I zero at center of mass for 15, that'd put me at good enough to about 30. Left/right precision using the arrow as reference is far more precision than you need if you consider that the target is moving.

You want to get them bleeding as soon as possible, You're not worried about an ethical kill. Hopefully you can get away long enough so that they fall before they get to you. It's important to note that non-artillery archers tended to be very mobile. I.e, you cant count on them dropping between where you hit them and where you're standing. If they lay down, and bleed out over hours, awesome. If they bleed out after lopping off your head, not so much awesome.

But that dude, bonafide awesome!

Much beyond that, if you're shooting in battle, precision is no longer relevant. At 40 yards, there's enough time such that if somebody actually sees the arrow coming, they can step out of the way. Even if the bow is fast, and the air doesn't slow it down, 200 fps means 40 yards, 120 feet, you've got 6/10th of a second before the arrow gets there. Now, trying to step around a volley of dozens of archers who are sending arrows 'that way' into a tightly packed group of infantry...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JamesThom. said:


> The guys in the Olympics are not "shooting for real". If they did they would be using a bow with no aids on it.
> 
> Why would I want to shoot something that I do not enjoy? For the money? No thanks.
> 
> ...


All I can see in this comment is that you don't consider it valid if you don't like it.

That's fine. I won't argue that  It just doesn't apply to anybody else who doesn't feel the same way, and that's okay too.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

JamesThom. said:


> Why not just have him take off all of those accessories and gimmicks and have him shoot with me? I don't have the money for all of that gear anyways.





JamesThom. said:


> I don't shoot FITA style archery (could care less about FITA barebow).
> 
> You talk a lot of crap but back down from a challenge.
> 
> ...





JamesThom. said:


> The guys in the Olympics are not "shooting for real". If they did they would be using a bow with no aids on it.
> 
> Why would I want to shoot something that I do not enjoy? For the money? No thanks.
> 
> ...


Is that you stringstack?

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4145162


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I was thinking Logos...


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I think Kassais video above exemplify why sights were not the norm 

Fast shooting moving targets and bows that broke a lot


----------



## JamesThom. (Oct 9, 2016)

Easykeeper said:


> Is that you stringstack?
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4145162





BarneySlayer said:


> I was thinking Logos...


I'm Logos, Stringnstack, and One Sharp Broadheads all in one (according to another poster).

I don't even know who those guys are.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> That dude is awesome!
> 
> I think you have a good point. In combat scenarios, the advantage of a sight, in terms of a precision instrument, is diminished. Rough marks on the riser, or riser shape, sure, as a secondary reference.
> Between 0 and 25 yards, the sight picture for a upright man is close enough. With my anchor and sight picture, the difference in impact between 0 and 20 yards travels in about an 8 inch window. If I zero at center of mass for 15, that'd put me at good enough to about 30. Left/right precision using the arrow as reference is far more precision than you need if you consider that the target is moving.
> ...


I don't know. Combat rifles and handguns have sights. Shotguns at least have a bead and usually some feature on the receiver to line it up with.

Shotguns are a different animal but I used to shoot air born targets with rifles and handguns and I used the sights. I've never seen anybody shoot stuff out of the air faster with a bow than I used to be able to with a handgun or rifle.

The idea that sights somehow slow you down seems wrong to me. You use them to whatever extent that you can and/or need to...and they work.

I don't know about the ancients but the reason I don't have sights on my bow is that I don't need them for the distance I shoot and the size targets I'm shooting at. Remember, I have the tip of the arrow.


----------



## Ben Pearson (Oct 7, 2016)

I just did a quick search, but didn't find much. One websight listed 1937 as the first year sights were used in competition.
One thing to remember is that making and attaching a very fine pin wouldn't have been that easy, long ago. Needles would have been highly valuable up till recently. No duct tape. Can you imagine life without duct tape? Or Velcro? Must have been really hard.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

There's one factor that everyone has overlooked so far. 

The single biggest jump in archery technology was the ability to mass produce arrows of almost identical properties. 

This single factor allowed predictable accuracy. When your arrow variation levels practically guaranteed that nobody could achieve anything close to what is possible today, there are no advantages to having a sight. 

Much of ancient archery practice is misunderstood and misrepresented in popular culture. 

Ancient and primitive hunting relies on the same methodology. Be incredibly sneaky and shoot from as close as possible to compensate for your lack of predictable accuracy. 

Anyone who assumes otherwise, should just take the opportunity to actually go hunting with primitive tribespeople. Many archers have and quite a few in the last ten years or so. 
You will not find them preaching of the accuracy of primitive hunters. 

Archery as a war weapon was usually conducted against either a massed foe, or by massed archers. Totally effective as a distance weapon. 

Archery suffers by the depictions in popular culture. Everyone you see in the movies and tv almost without exception is a good shot. You'll also notice that anyone who CAN'T shoot is depicted as incompetent. 

The reality of course is that it's bloody hard to be accurate and nobody has ever achieved that which is routinely depicted in entertainment and fiction. 

The ancient archers didn't use sights because they were:
Incredibly sneaky hunters. Their lives depended on it. 
Their arrows weren't consistent enough to make predictable sights practical
Their long distance accuracy wasn't important when they had a target rich environment.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

MGF said:


> I don't know. Combat rifles and handguns have sights. Shotguns at least have a bead and usually some feature on the receiver to line it up with.


Valid. I would clarify, that I think that a consistent anchor, and the arrow point, is a good enough for the task. Consider...

Handguns have a very short sight radius, such that your front sight could be on target, but if you don't have some kind of rear sight, be in a groove, the rear of the barrel, whatever, you could have the front of the barrel 'on' target, and yet hit nowhere near it. On top of that, when you pull the trigger, particularly if you're not proficient, the barrel moves. If you're flinching, it moves a lot. A lot of people even forget to use their sights, flinch, and miss, under stress, to a degree that it makes many mediocre 'traditional' archers look like crack shots. Heck, I'm not awful with a pistol, but within 20 yards, I probably shoot my recurve sans sights as well as my Glock using front and rear sights.

My shotgun has a bead sight, though honestly, I can't imagine missing much with it, at least at stationary targets. I'm not competitive trap shooter, but if you can't hit a guy running right at you with a shotgun, bead sight or not, it's because the round didn't load, you forgot to take off the safety, you thought shooting from the hip was cool because you saw it in the movies, or the gun is broken. It's what makes the shotgun the ideal home defense weapon.

Also, both handguns are rifles are far more effective one on one at distance, where more precise shooting would be required. Projectiles get there a lot faster, and you can't dodge them. 



> The idea that sights somehow slow you down seems wrong to me. You use them to whatever extent that you can and/or need to...and they work.


I wouldn't disagree with you there. I don't think having the visual reference will stop you from shooting. If you're in a hurry, you may not want to take your time and try to hold as still as possible..When I shoot my handguns at a cadence, the speed of the shot is more limited by how fast the gun comes back on target, in terms of returning to position after recoil. Finger is finding the wall and waiting for sights to realign, takes a fraction of a second, then it goes. So, not to give up on being contradictory, but you're right 




> I don't know about the ancients but the reason I don't have sights on my bow is that I don't need them for the distance I shoot and the size targets I'm shooting at. Remember, I have the tip of the arrow.


I guess what I was trying to say was that, yeah, I think that too. Rephrased, I would say, that at distances where picking out an individual is an effective tactic, a 'good enough' sight is built in.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

whiz-Oz said:


> There's one factor that everyone has overlooked so far.
> 
> The single biggest jump in archery technology was the ability to mass produce arrows of almost identical properties.


Okay, if I had something to give away, you'd win it 

If you happen to know of anything I have that I don't want, and you want it, PM me


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

whiz-Oz said:


> There's one factor that everyone has overlooked so far.
> 
> The single biggest jump in archery technology was the ability to mass produce arrows of almost identical properties.


If you look at the arrow flight of so-called "primitive" peoples, it's actually pretty damn amazing. Very straight and clean. Very impressive considering that some folks (like those in Papua New Guinea) don't even use fletching. 

These people spend a LOT of time carefully straightening their arrows. But also, a big commonality among some (thought not all) surviving hunter gatherers is that their arrows are very, very long. 35-40+". 

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DYXHPR/young-hadza-men-practice-hunting-with-bow-and-arrow-DYXHPR.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Hadzabe1.jpg/400px-Hadzabe1.jpg
http://www.grizzlystik.com/PR/Ashby_Papua_New_Guinea_Bows_and_Arrows.pdf

Our modern arrows are very short by comparison. Even blunted arrows used for hunting small game are very long. Considering that small game requires good accuracy, this should tell us that the increased length isn't there just for momentum. 

The longer length probably plays a big part in neutralizing irregularities in spine. Longer arrows resist tilting in flight more due to increased surface area. Almost acting like built in fletching. Plus there are probably other complicated factors involving the nodes of vibration. I've tried this out myself. More often than not, the more the arrow length exceeds the full draw length (beginning around 6-7" of overhang or so, at least in my experience), the more forgiving it seems to be to small differences in spine. And despite the notion that this would result in ungainly heavy arrows, I've found that the overall arrow mass actually goes DOWN. The required tip mass to achieve the equivalent dynamic spine with a shorter shaft is greater than the added shaft mass of the longer shaft. 

This is subject to more empirical testing of course, but the bottom line is...non-modern equipment was evidently very well thought-out, and people were capable of great practical accuracy even without external sighting mechanisms like pins, etc. And we may yet have things to re-learn.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

JamesThom. said:


> The guys in the Olympics are not "shooting for real".


It is better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.


----------



## whiz-Oz (Jul 19, 2007)

Ryddragyn said:


> , and people were capable of great practical accuracy even without external sighting mechanisms like pins, etc. And we may yet have things to re-learn.


You may wish to go and speak to anthropologists who have actually spent time with primitive tribes and witnessed their archery skills first hand. 

I have personally demonstrated my level of shooting to a military pidgin language instructor who grew up in the southern highlands of PNG. He was utterly stunned that we were shooting targets at 30 meters away and thought that we were joking when we moved targets to 50m. He lost his mind at 90m. He took a loan out before he left Australia to buy some medium quality archery gear for presents for his home village head man. 

There is no actual evidence that primitive archers are anywhere near as accurate as you'd think. All you need to do is see how accurate the traditional Korean, Bhutanese or Kyudo archers are. There's a reason that these types of bows aren't featuring even at basic levels of competition. 

I mean, it's find to be romantic about archery in ancient times, but the physics of accuracy are the same as consistency. You may argue all you like, but you're doing it from a position of no proof and significant lack of probability.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)




----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Great image. Three pins on his bow. Obviously not a "Trad Guy".


----------



## Stephen Morley (Aug 11, 2016)

Sorry Grep it's not legal, you need a 5 pin for IFAA 

Nice find, you sure it's not Photoshop as it seems lighter than the surrounding scene.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Stephen Morley said:


> Nice find, you sure it's not Photoshop as it seems lighter than the surrounding scene.


Of course it's real, it's on the internet.

KPC


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Definitely photoshopped but funny.


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

GEREP said:


> View attachment 4993657



His bow looks exactly like the bows that are still being used for survival hunting by isolated tribesmen in the Bolivian jungle!

Except, the Bolivian tribesmen have lost their sights.

I wonder why the Bolivian tribesmen stopped using sights.

Anyway it is interesting to observe that such a bow design has survived to present day.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)




----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

whiz-Oz said:


> You may wish to go and speak to anthropologists who have actually spent time with primitive tribes and witnessed their archery skills first hand.
> 
> I have personally demonstrated my level of shooting to a military pidgin language instructor who grew up in the southern highlands of PNG. He was utterly stunned that we were shooting targets at 30 meters away and thought that we were joking when we moved targets to 50m. He lost his mind at 90m. He took a loan out before he left Australia to buy some medium quality archery gear for presents for his home village head man.
> 
> ...


I was merely making the point that arrows that aren't manufactured within extremely tight spine and weight tolerances are not necessarily as big of a factor in the inconsistency as you may think they are. I wasn't claiming that primitive archers were anywhere near as accurate as modern ones. Nothing even remotely of the sort. Not sure how you got that idea.

Key phrase: "practical accuracy". It's all relative.


----------



## Keeshond (Sep 13, 2016)

Hey, I got sucked in. LOL I thought the photo was real. 

It should be.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Keeshond said:


> Hey, I got sucked in. LOL I thought the photo was real.


You mean it's not?

:embara:

KPC


----------



## schnauza2000 (Dec 27, 2013)

Somehow I think 'ancient' got confused with 'primitive' earlier on here... If we're just talking 'ancient', then we can note sophisticated technologies that existed for thousands of years up to the modern era that produced finely crafted weapons of war.
As far as arrow manufacturing goes, you can see the level of craftsmanship, time spent, and thought that went into it during the reign of Henry VIII. It's also fair to assume that such attention to detail would have been taken in earlier centuries as well.
Check out these folks from across the pond if you're interested:
http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/TudorLiveryArrow2015.html


----------



## Ryddragyn (Jan 28, 2012)

whiz-Oz, just as a followup to what I replied with initially, here are some accounts from other archers that match my own experience with longer shafts. Just so you can see that I'm not totally crazy.

http://www.grizzlystik.com/Matching-Arrows-W16.aspx (scroll down to "The magic of long shafts")
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=22277.0


To clarify what I meant with regards to primitive archers, the fact that many of them use obscenely long arrows may be part of a deliberate and clever effort to compensate for the fact that they are not shooting perfectly matched shafts produced with industrial processes. The article above sums it up rather nicely "Long shafts have an amazing ability to negate differences in stiffness."

So while you are certainly correct that most archers with primitive equipment are not anywhere near as accurate as modern ones, I would disagree that the arrows are necessarily a major contributing cause. That said, for historical groups that used far shorter arrows, there your argument absolutely applies.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> View attachment 4993657


What's a picture worth?

:smile:


----------

