SQUARE PEGS AND ROUND HOLES

Why Traditional Archers Often Don't Fit In

This is not the first time I have noted a certain divide twixt modern and traditional archery, and it probably won't be the last. On this occasion, however, I want to focus more strongly on the difference between the skills and purposes of these forms of archery. Moreover, and with this in mind, I will suggest that clubs, tournaments, targets and most of what is deemed the norm today are not appropriate for traditional archery.

Let us begin with the original purposes and skills of traditional archers. The two primary purposes were hunting and warfare. While accuracy was necessary for both, archers were never aiming for small spots as we do in modern archery. Strength as well as proper form were required of trained war archers, as was "rate of fire". Of course, one may argue that strength and speed are not necessary for the modern sport or for archery as a form of recreation. But in the same sense one can argue that there is no need for pinpoint accuracy either. The only reason there is a need for it is because we have come up with rules and a scoring system for the game of archery. Since hitting a small spot and accumulating points on a target face are the foundation of archery as a sport, equipment has been developed to enable archers to execute their shots with greater accuracy. These enhancements and modifications are not part of traditional shooting.

Target practice is nothing new. War archers throughout the ages have trained through target practice, but the goal was a little different. For example, in Saracen Archery, we read how archers would train to loose three arrows in quick succession to hit a target 3 feet in diameter in size 75 yards away. While this is by no means an easy feat, attempting to hit a target 3 feet in diameter is not the same as trying to hit a bullseye. 

We read also in Arab Archery that war archers would train by practising something called 'The Imitation Horseman'. The targets involved were discs the size of a shield and the size of a helmet, as these are what the archers were training to hit on the battlefield. Again, not easy to accomplish at long range, but still not the same as trying to hit a bullseye on a modern target face.

It is true that there are different categories for different forms of archery in many tournaments and competitions today, but all the same, the skills of traditional archery are not fully considered. I wonder whether target faces and scoring should be very different for traditional archery, while speed should perhaps also be taken into consideration. I think this would be a fairer way of measuring a traditional archer's skill, while also being honest about what accuracy and effectiveness really meant in archery before it became an Olympic sport. 

TRIPLE SHOT

"What is said of Menelaus is worthy of being related. He could take three arrows at once, and with one shot hit three men, by which manner of shooting he killed a great number of the enemy, and was himself almost the cause of their flight."

(Zosimus, Historia Nova)

FULL DRAW IN THE WAY OF ARCHERY

A problem for many archers - particularly those who practice traditional styles - is that once we have learned the basics, we do not have continued coaching to help us maintain and master good form and get rid of bad habits early on. I have been fortunate that other more experienced archers at clubs and field shoots now and then have given me invaluable advice. A more surprising source of help, however, has come from reading texts, and in particular a translation of a 17th century Chinese military manual: The Way of Archery.

While I am interested in and practice both Eastern and Western styles of shooting, this text is written in the context of Chinese archery, and so archers who practice different styles should bear this in mind, particularly when it comes to things like gripping the bow and loosing the arrow with the thumb draw. Other things are relevant to all archers.

One section of the text in particular has helped me address a couple of problems I have had with my archery. The first is the conspicuous movement of my bow arm on release whenever pulling around 30 ibs or more. The other is inconsistency in the power of my shots even when my form and release appear to be consistent.

Enter The Way of Archery and a passage on the meaning of full draw. I had not considered until I read this text that both problems I was having were related to proper joint alignment and the pre-draw. I could always "feel" when my shots were right in terms of power and alignment, but could not fathom exactly what was right about them until I read this:

"There is only one true path to reaching full draw, but a lot of people are not aware of it. Some people can reach full draw by chance. But because they do not understand how they were able to achieve it, they are not able to maintain it. After practicing a while, the problem of misaligning their joints creeps in. At first the problems are not severe because their joints are occasionally aligned. But then over time, their muscles get strained, and the joints that were almost aligned eventually become completely misaligned. In the end they cannot reach full draw at all! 

What is the right way to reach full draw? The basis of reaching full draw rests entirely in the bow shoulder settling down and rotating clockwise [for the right-handed archer]. Once the bow shoulder settles down, the bow-side and draw-side arms and the draw-side shoulder lift together and assume proper alignment with respect to the bow shoulder. The draw-side elbow bends all the way and points towards your back. You feel your back exerting most of the effort and your joints have reached their limit. You can hold the draw without moving. The arrowhead has a little room until it reaches the handle. This is what you can call full draw.

Nowadays, people do not know how to reach full draw. They rely entirely on muscle strength to draw the bow and think that it is enough for the arrowhead to reach the handle to call it full draw. They do not account for joint alignment at all. However, within a given day a person's strength will change. From morning to night, your strength diminishes gradually. If you rely exclusively on strength and try to measure your full draw length, then you would be able to reach full draw in the morning but fail to reach full draw by the end of the day! With multiple draw lengths, the distances which you are able to shoot will change accordingly. How can you achieve consistency? Only when your joints are at their limit can you consider it full draw. That is why people with long arms should use long arrows, and people with short arms should use short arrows. Strong people should use heavier bows, and weak people should use lighter bows. In all cases, the arrowheads of these properly-sized arrows will reach the bow handle, and only then will they be able to draw to a consistent length."

In addition to the original text, which goes into much more detail about this and other aspects of archery, this particular volume (by Jie Tian and Justin Ma, published by Schiffer), includes modern photographs to demonstrate technique plus notes and annotations by the translators and editors which are very useful. On page 26 and 27, for example, we have four images demonstrating the process from pre-draw to full draw, and the following explanation:

1. Start with the bow and arrow pointed to the ground and draw-side shoulder hunched.

2. Draw the string back as you lift your bow arm, making sure the bow shoulder blade is settled down the whole time.

3. Use your back and shoulders to push down your arms to reach the end of the draw.

4. Now you are at full draw and ready to release.

I acquired a copy of 'The Way of Archery: A 1637 Chinese Military Training Manual' because I am interested in historical archery and old books and ancient manuscripts on the subject. What these authors have done, however, is taken an old Chinese text (the original Chinese is included in the margins) which is already useful in itself, and added modern photographs and annotations so that it can be used as an instruction manual for modern bowmen, particularly those who practice Eastern styles. I can not recommend it highly enough.

BYZANTINE ARCHERY

Think of horseback archers, and likely what come to mind are the Huns, the Ottomans, the Scythians, the Parthians, the Persians, the Avars. Few are aware that remarkably skilled horseback archers were just as vital to the success of the military campaigns of the Byzantines. 

It was largely the excellence of the Byzantine Empire's military organization and the martial abilities of its cavalry and bowmen that enabled it to withstand assaults from Persians, Avars, Franks, Slavs, Arabs and many others for more than 500 years between the 6th and 11th centuries.

This excellence was due largely to reforms of the emperor Mavrikios (582-602) codified in an outstanding military manual, the Strategikon, which remained considerably unadulterated for the next 500 years. Well before the Strategikon was written, when the Byzantines were fighting the Goths in Italy in the mid-sixth century, they were already doing so with the tactical edge of mounted archery. An eyewitness, Prokopios, described the skill of the Byzantine horseback archers as follows:

"They are expert horsemen, and are able without difficulty to direct their bows to either side while riding at full speed, and to shoot an opponent whether in pursuit or in flight [the rearward “Parthian shot”]. They draw the bowstring along by the forehead about opposite the right ear, thereby charging the arrow with such impetus as to kill whoever stands in the way, shield and corselet alike having no power to check its force."

The Strategikon depicts an army radically different in structure from the classic Roman model, most obviously because of a fundamental shift from infantry to cavalry as the primary combat arm. The primary type of soldier was neither an infantryman nor a cavalryman but rather both, and a bowman first of all. He required training in both foot and mounted archery with powerful bows, in using the lance for thrusting and stabbing while mounted — with unit training for the charge — and in wielding the sword in close combat. 

Few historical sources give so much detail regarding the training of troops as does the Strategikon, which provides us with specifics of the practice required for these lancer-archers. We read, for example, that the archer was to practice quickly alternating from shooting one or two arrows, to pulling out the spear from its back strap, to replacing the spear, to taking out the bow again:

"On horseback at a run (gallop) he should fire one or two arrows rapidly and put the strung bow in its case, if it is wide enough, or in a half-case designed for the purpose, and then he should grab the lance which he has been carrying on his back. With the strung bow in its case, he should hold the lance in his hand, then quickly replace it on his back, and grab the bow. It is a good idea for the soldiers to practice all this while mounted."

"He should also shoot rapidly mounted on his horse at a run [galloping], to the front, the rear, the right, the left.”

"They should be trained in rapid shooting with a bow... in either the Roman or the Persian manner. They should be trained in shooting rapidly while carrying a shield, in throwing the small javelin a long distance, in using the sling, and in jumping and running."

While it is clear that these special tagmata of mounted archers were trained in the sword and shield, the lance and the sling, the primary weapon was the composite reflex bow, the most powerful personal weapon of antiquity. The composite reflex bow was effective because it accumulated much energy but was equally resistant, so it was a good idea to choose a bow whose string could be pulled back quickly and confidently even on the fortieth arrow, and not just the first. Hence the injunction to use “Bows suited to the strength of each man, and not above it, more in fact on the weaker side.”

Weaker archers with weaker bows could compensate for lack of power with technique:

"We bend the bow toward the ear, sometimes to the neck, and sometimes we draw the bowstring to the breast. Drawing the bowstring back to the ear makes for the most powerful shot".

Power was not everything. Three things were deemed of equal importance in Byzantine archery: accuracy, power and speed:

"In archery we have three goals: to shoot accurately, to shoot powerfully, and to shoot rapidly".

None of these characteristics should be emphasized at the expense of another. What use is rapid shooting without accuracy against moving targets? What benefit is there in an accurate shot that lacks the power to pierce the heavy armour of the enemy? 

The success of the Byzantine archers, no less than the Huns, was their ability to execute powerful shots with precision and speed:

"He should be trained to shoot [the bow] rapidly on foot, either in the Roman [thumb and forefinger] or the Persian [three middle finger] manner. Speed is important in shaking the arrow loose [from the quiver] and discharging it with force. This is essential and should also be practiced while mounted. In fact, even when the arrow is well aimed, firing slowly is useless."

I am not altogether certain of the exact draw method of the Roman and Persian techniques mentioned here and further above. A similar but slightly earlier text on Byzantine archery, written around the early 6th century, may shed some light on the matter: 

"Some archers draw the bowstring with the three middle fingers..."

This sounds much like the Mediterranean draw most Western archers today are familiar with, but it seems to match the above reference to the Persian draw.

"...others with only two. Of those who use two, some will press the thumb upon the index finger..."

This is a technique I had previously never heard of, but the archer, Alexander Stover, has produced an interesting video on the subject, which you can view here.

"...and others just the opposite..."

Just the opposite from the thumb upon the index finger would be the index finger upon the thumb, which sounds just like the thumb draw used by Eastern archers, and which also seems to match the above reference to the Roman draw.

..."The last draws the bowstring back further and fires the arrow with greater force." 

"Each man should practice each one of these methods, so that when the fingers that he has been using become tired from the continual tension, he may use the others".

All the evidence suggests that these lancer-archers of early medieval Byzantium were truly remarkable and versatile bowmen who were used to great effect in a variety of situations in Byzantine warfare. Yet by the late 9th century, East Roman archery was in decline, giving the emperor Leo VI cause to complain in his Taktika (a revised version of Mavrikios' Strategikon) that the Byzantine archers were a shambles, compelling the East Roman army to hire "barbarian" (non-Roman) archers to fight for the Byzantines. 

Perhaps this is why 'Byzantium' is not the first thing to enter our heads when we think of the notable horseback archers of antiquity.

SARACEN ARCHERY AND SPEED SHOOTING

I have been reading Saracen Archery, which is freely available as a PDF here. I was led to this by Lars Andersen's viral Youtube video on the subject of speed shooting.

I became interested in finding evidence of speed shooting in the past and its application in military warfare. With the fad in speed shooting engendered by Lars Andersen's video, I became intrigued by the concept, particularly given my doubts regarding Andersen's historical claims. Indeed, some things said in the narration of the video are false, and are proven to be so by the very historical texts he cites (Arab Archery and Saracen Archery). 

For example, how he could say that target archery was unknown in the past and that the back quiver is a Hollywood myth when both are mentioned in those texts is beyond me. 

But I was also curious to know whether the impressive speed shooting which Andersen demonstrates so accurately was possible with bows which ancient archers would have used for warfare. It is clear from both archaeological and literary sources that war archers of East and West would shoot bows with draw weights of 100 - 150 ibs. Is it really possible to shoot 3 arrows in less than 2 seconds with a bow requiring such strength and still consistently hit one's target? 

Enter Saracen Archery, and two passages (from pages 141 and 142 in the text linked above) which describe both the speed at which the average Saracen war archer was expected to shoot (3 arrows in 1.5 seconds) and the practice of getting a good grouping from 75 yards (the desired diameter of the grouping was 3 feet). 

The poundage of the bow and the flight speed of the arrows are not mentioned. I only know from my own experience that arrows shot at a target 80 yards away with a 30 ib bow take about 3 seconds to land in the desired spot. If we put the following two passages regarding grouping and speed together, it is possible to conclude - though with no certainty - that Saracen archers would shoot 3 arrows before the first arrow even landed, and they no doubt did so with bows weighing over 100 ibs!

In the literature and legends of many countries there are stories of almost incredible shots achieved by archers, and in modern times some remarkable shots have indeed been made. Such feats, however, may be regarded as isolated cases representing the perfect shot out of many thousands made. In our text, on the other hand, we have a rare and important guide to the standard of accuracy expected of every archer. He is required to group his arrows within a circle roughly 3 feet in diameter at 75 yards. The ability to do this with wooden shafts and without the aid of a sighting device such as can be fitted to a bow by the modern archer demands a very high standard of accuracy and bespeaks a well-trained and experienced bowman. It is nevertheless within the reach of anyone who will practise with diligence. 

In terms intelligible to the modern reader the standard of rapidity the author sets for the archer is the ability to discharge 3 arrows in about 1/5 seconds. This is a fast time and one's first reaction is surprise that such a high standard, which few, if any, Western bowmen of today could attain, should be expected of the general run of Mameluke archers. It is nevertheless an attainable standard as is evident from the achievement in modern times of Saxton Pope who did succeed on a number of occasions in shooting 7 arrows in 8 seconds (Elmer, Target Archery, pp. 428-30). Accuracy naturally diminishes with increased speed, and field trials suggest that it is difficult to exceed 8 well-aimed shots per minute. Nevertheless, it cannot be doubted that Muslim archers could shoot at high speed and, given a large enough target, hit with all shots. During the Second Crusade William of Tyre, who must have been conversant with the performance of his own bowmen, remarked more than once on the dexterity of the enemy archer, 'The Saracen cavalry... began to shoot thicker and faster than one could believe possible' is a fairly typical comment of the period (Smail, Crusading Warfare, pp. 76-77 and nn. 8, 9). In contemporary military science the rate of projection of missiles, when multiplied by their weight or explosive force, gives what is termed 'fire-power'. If we may be excused an anachronistic and, in the context an admittedly incongruous, use of words for a nevertheless legitimate purpose, the fire-power of a crossbow shooting 2 x 800 gr. missiles per min. would be 1,600 gr. per min. and might be compared with that of a hand bow shooting 8 x 400 gr., or 3,200 gr., per min. Fire-power combined with mobility is a point upon which modern military teaching lays great stress, and it is this combination that undoubtedly contributed to the effectiveness of Muslim horse-archers in their heyday. That 3 arrows could in fact be regularly shot in about 1.5 seconds we do not question; we only regret that we are not told exactly how the arrows should be held in order to shoot with such elacrity.

THE ADVANTAGE OF FEATHER FLETCHINGS

When I first took up archery, I was taught that the cock feather should always face away from the riser, or else the bow would deflect the arrow slightly and possibly tear off the plastic vane. What I was not told, until a year later by another archery instructor, is that when using arrows with feather fletchings, this is not an issue, since the malleable nature of feathers means that they do not cause deflection when the arrow passes the bow, unlike plastic vanes. 

A few weeks later, when I considered attempting speed shooting but found that taking care to have the cock feather correctly placed slowed down the process too much, I put this theory to the test. What I was told about feather fletchings proved true: it made no difference which way the cock feather faced, since there was no notable deflection. 

With this in mind, I am going to start working on blind nocking. That is to say, nocking the arrow without looking at it, but getting the arrow in place by feel alone, while looking ahead at the target at all times. This is, of course, how horseback archers would have to nock arrows. While it is not necessary in any other instance, it may well be helpful for speed shooting. A pointless activity speed shooting may be, but it might be fun nonetheless. 

REVISITING THE THUMB DRAW

Japanese and Korean archers release the bow string with the thumb, while the arrow is placed on the outside of the bow. To keep the arrow from flying off to one side (due to the way the arrow flexes on the string's release), the archer twists the wrist of the bow arm away from his body. Here is my first attempt at practicing this method, which to my amazement, immediately yielded positive results.