A WEAPON FOR PEACETIME

The Bow! That weapon of remote antiquity - once so destructive - so bloody - so cruel: - that Weapon, by which Nations have subverted Nations - among us is now known only as an instrument of polite amusement! 

--Walter Moseley, An Essay on Archery, 1792-- 

Thus have we seen in the lapse of time, one of the most dangerous and destructive weapons of war laid aside... and English Archery, once the terror of foreign enemies, now changed into a pleasing, elegant, and healthful amusement. May we not wish for a similar alteration with regard to every other instrument invented for the destruction of men; and hope for the arrival of those peaceful days, so beautifully described by the poet - 

No more shall nation against nation rise, 

Nor ardent warriors meet with hateful eyes; 

Nor fields with gleaming steel be cover'd o'er, 

The brazen trumpets kindle rage no more; 

But useless lances into scythes shall bend.

And the broad falchion in a plowshare end.

--Anecdotes of Archery, 1792--

WILLIAM TELL And Why His Famous Arrow Shot Is Not So Impressive

Think of an archer shooting an apple off someone's head, and William Tell is probably a name that springs to mind. If you are Swiss, it is likely that you revere him as a national hero, responsible for the birth of Swiss independence in 1307. But throughout the world, he is most famous for shooting an apple off his son's head from 120 paces in one shot. 

If the legend is true, which is far from certain, it was undoubtedly an impressive achievement, but not as impressive as people imagine. Think of Tell performing that legendary feat, and you may be picturing him with a longbow or something similar, but William Tell was renowned for his proficiency with a crossbow, as the famous statue of him in Altdorf testifies. And a crossbow is a very different species of bow. 

What makes shooting an apple off someone's head with a bow and arrow so remarkable? Leaving aside, of course, modern bows with sights and such, success is determined by a number of factors: stance and positioning, knowing or guessing the correct distance, arm height, releasing the string correctly, using your back muscles properly, keeping your bow arm from moving. Any slight deviation in these matters could well be fatal for the boy under the apple.

With a crossbow, however, the only things one really need worry about are aim and distance. No less impressive as the same feat with a rifle, but nowhere near as impressive as accomplishing it with a bow.

Somehow William Tell shooting that apple has been conjured up in the minds of many as a longbow archer. Maybe deep down we all instinctively know which of those two weapons requires the greater skill.

ARCHERY IN ART AND FILM

I have developed a fear of becoming one of those archers who grumbles about how inaccurate and unrealistic archery is in films. I did not need to take up archery to know how stupid some fantasy archery is, and I do believe that even fantasy is not completely off the hook when it comes to captivating an audience by making the fantasy somehow believable. Yet there are inaccuracies I never even thought of until I took up archery myself and learned more about it. I must admit, I have been corrupted by knowledge. I am now slightly irritated by creaking noises when a bow is pulled, archers holding heavy war bows at full draw for ages without even getting the shakes, and hearing the term "fire!" as a command to archers to loose their arrows.

Notwithstanding my conversion to archery geekery, I do find some complaints about archery in film a little ridiculous. We do not watch film because we think it is just like real life, but because there is aesthetic beauty, drama and fantasy involved. That is the appeal. Similarly, I do not admire a painting or even a photograph because it exactly mirrors what I see in real life, but because it expresses something beautiful or meaningful by exaggerating what is there and bringing out something usually unseen in our mundane day-to-day existence. 

Likewise, I do not expect in a film that will be recorded for posterity and distributed throughout the world for all to see something that is not notable for anything more than its loyalty to banal reality. There must be exaggeration, a consideration for aesthetics, and for practicability when it comes to camera work and so forth. Complaining that the archery techniques in films are incorrect is taking things too far and out of context. 

Seeing physical actions which are physically impossible in film somehow makes fantasy fiction unbelievable even in a fantasy context. But expecting to see realism without beauty or elegance, however untrue to real life it may be, is just a little bit ridiculous.

By all means, take your archery seriously, and by all means take film, fantasy, art, history and literature seriously, but please consider that if you want grim, dull realism in everything you see, maybe visual arts are not for you.

POWERFUL BOWS, WEAK ARCHERS

Is it just me, or do fantasy literature and "historical" film give the impression that the bow is the ideal weapon for women, delicate elves and effete men? Think of a battle-axe, war-hammer or broadsword, and you probably imagine them in the hands of some big, burly male warrior; think of a bow and, apart from Robin Hood, you probably think of elves and heroines from fantasy films. But in reality it is the exact reverse. A war bow required incredible strength to pull. These were not recreational toys. If they were to cause any real damage from a distance and pierce armour, they needed to pull more than 75 ibs. This was not a weapon suited to effete, delicate creatures. Wielding a blade effectively required less strength than pulling such a bow. So, it does irk me somewhat that the bow is thought of as the weapon for slender pretty boys, not least because I am not one.

That being said, there is today the other extreme. Tell people about the kind of poundage war bows had, and suddenly the attitude (at least amongst men) is that the higher the poundage the better. I find this irritating because there is really no need for war bows anymore. If you are bow hunting, then you need a bow that pulls at least 40 ibs (and arrows suited to such a pursuit). That aside, unless you are taking part in flight archery competitions, I see little point in having a bow that exceeds 50 ibs. 

What's more, I have noticed archers who are proud to have a bow that pulls 50 ibs or more, yet they never manage to pull it to full draw. In other words, they are not actually pulling the draw weight of their bow, as the draw weight is measured according to the draw length (usually 28 inches). So what is the point of bragging about having a 50 ib bow when you are only pulling 40?

If you want to shoot far or penetrate anything of value, it is not a powerful bow you should be concerned with, but acquiring the strength to pull it.

BACK QUIVERS (& 3 Reviews)

If you are a traditional archer, then surely at some point you have at least considered a back quiver. Let's face it, they look cool, but are they practical? 

I have used and continue to use both back and side quivers, and I have found little difference between them in terms of practicality. One advantage of the back quiver is it is less cumbersome while walking (something for field archers to consider), but a side quiver is less likely to get your arrows caught in low hanging branches (also something for field archers to consider).I find that drawing arrows from a back quiver makes for a smoother motion when nocking one's arrows, but getting your arrows back into your quiver without taking it off can prove an ordeal.

The pros and cons of the back quiver seem to balance out. So here are three quivers I have used, each with a significantly different price tag. Behold my review of these acquisitions to help you determine whether they are worthy of your money.

THE MAC LEATHER BACK QUIVER

My first back quiver was the MAC leather quiver from Merlin Archery, priced at £17.17. This is a very attractive price tag for such a fine looking artifact. I had no trouble holding as many as 14 arrows in here at a time. However, it is not too comfortable to wear, and getting arrows back into the quiver was often difficult. That being said, under £20 for a good-looking leather back quiver is a bargain.

THE TIMBER CREEK SUEDE BACK QUIVER

A better looking and more comfortable back-quiver, which I also acquired through Merlin Archery, is the Timber Creek Lil Bear Tan, priced at £29.95. A beautiful suede quiver with faux fur and a couple of feathers for decoration, it is undoubtedly an attractive piece of equipment. More importantly, the three point harness makes it considerably more comfortable to wear than the cheaper MAC leather quiver. If you are committed to wearing a back quiver, you may want to consider this. 

THE SODIAL PORTABLE QUIVER

The third quiver I shall review here is aesthetically inferior to the above, but practically superior, and what's more, far cheaper. The Sodial Portable Archery Quiver which I procured through Amazon for a mere £9.84 functions as both a back and side quiver. It is easy to put on and looks nice enough. If, like me, you enjoy shooting with both side and back quivers, this is a great item! It cannot hold as many arrows as the back quivers mentioned here. I can just about squeeze 12 arrows in (6 if the arrows have broadheads). The strap needs to be done up tightly to be able to reach arrows if going for the strapped to the back option, and even then you likely will be drawing arrows from the nock rather than from below the fletchings. Due to the material, drawing an arrow from the quiver can be a little noisy, so for hunting it may not be ideal. But I think you would be hard pressed to find a better bargain. Due to the limited storage, when field shooting (in which many arrows may be required in one session since losing arrows is more likely) I can use this as a side quiver with a back quiver for extra arrows, so it is a very handy piece of equipment which I highly recommend to traditional field archers and target archers alike.

TRADITIONAL ARCHERY AND AESTHETICS

Let's face it, traditional archers care about how things look, and I must say that it is starting to annoy me somewhat that some archers consider aesthetics irrelevant at best, laughable vanity at worst. 

I am not denying that vanity for inexplicable reasons is an irksome vice found in all people, which irritates us when we find it in anyone but ourselves, yet there is surely something good to be said of aesthetics and, for want of a better term, "looking good".

In Kyudo, for example, an archer is judged not only by the outcome of his or her shots, but by how graceful the archer is in his or her movements. This is not deemed vanity, but an indication of one's inner self. The manner in which one conducts himself, his movements, his posture, his gracefulness, has been considered in many societies throughout the ages something more noble than vanity. Rather, it was the measure of how civilized and cultured a man or woman was.

In a similar way, I do not believe that aesthetics in archery, be it the choice of weapon or some other instrument of the art, or the manner in which the archer stands, takes an arrow, nocks an arrow, draws and shoots, is simply a matter of vanity.

So, let us consider yet further the charge of vanity. I remember at my first archery club, when I turned up with a longbow and a leather back quiver, together with a leather bracer and shooting gloves (to my surprise, the experienced shooters of modern bows could not understand why I needed a glove on my bow hand when shooting a long bow) I was gently ridiculed and accused thus: "He thinks he is Robin Hood". 

After the initial embarrassment, I became rather upset that my fellow archers could not comprehend why I preferred wood, horn and leather over fibreglass, plastic and synthetics. If I am going to shoot a traditional bow, I will acquire trappings to match. How many people willingly go out wearing socks of colours that do not match? Or how many decide to go to a club wearing dirty jeans to go with their smart shirt and tie? Similarly, why would I purchase some horrible-looking plastic quiver to go with a traditional weapon of exquisite beauty?

Some may like to think of traditional archery and all the stunning craftsmanship that goes with it as vanity. I think of it as good taste and common (or perhaps not-so-common) sense.

KEEPING A LENGTH

I would like to share with you a chapter from a book I found in the Archery Library. The text in question refers to ‘Keeping A Length’, which sounds much like what we call maintaining consistency in shooting.

In the most beautiful language, this text sums up precisely why instinctive shooting is an art, and why I find traditional archery so challenging and rewarding.

HOW TO TRAIN IN ARCHERY

Being a complete study of the York Round

By Maurice and Will H. Thompson, 1879

KEEPING A LENGTH in archery nomenclature, is shooting the same distance with each arrow. If you shoot in line as directed in the preceding chapter, and keep a length as this one bids you, you will have the pleasure of seeing all your arrows find the central part of the target, a thing very difficult of accomplishment over the long ranges of the York Round.

Keeping a length comes of drawing always the same, elevating always the same, standing always the same, aligning your arrow always the same, holding your bow always the same, and nocking and loosing always the same. In fact, this keeping a length is the crowning achievement of the master bowman. To attain to reasonable proficiency in its execution requires long and painstaking practice. Indeed the York Round demands careful training at every point; but nowhere are alert intelligence and exhaustless patience so absolutely indispensible. Every, even the minutest operation of shooting must be perfectly performed and uniformly repeated at each shot. If one finger in the slightest possible way slips on the string - if the nock of the arrow is a little awry - if the merest fraction of an inch varies the aim - if the bow is held a little loosely - if you lack the eighth of an inch of drawing the full length of arrow - if you draw just a little lower or higher at the chin - if you hold a quarter of a second longer or shorter in aiming - in a word, if in anything one shot is performed differently from another, the result will be a noticeable, if not a disastrous variance in keeping the length.

Any one who has hunted game with the longbow and arrows as long and has attained to such proficiency in keeping a length with hunting shafts as have the authors of this book, will see difficulties in target-shooting not dreamed of by the novice. It may seem marvelous, nevertheless it can be practically demonstrated, that a painted and graduated target, 4 feet in diameter, the center of which is placed 4 feet above the ground, is as hard to hit at 100 yards with an arrow as a bird the size of a wild turkey standing on the ground at the same distance. In fact, the larger your target the more difficult it is to fixedly at its central part. The painted circles of a target, too, have the effect to confuse the eyes and tend to prevent concentration of sight. This peculiarity will be curiously demonstrated when you first attempt the York Round. Your shooting will be proportionally better at the longer ranges, especially in keeping the line. Now keeping the line has much to do with keeping a length, wherefore the York Round should always be practiced at targets and not at staves, because after having learned to keep a line and a length by staff shooting, you will be confused and will blunder when you go to the targets.

One of the most difficult elements of keeping a length is to so accustom the eye to the necessary elevation, at each of the three ranges, that, in shooting, the bow-hand and the eye mechanically operate together in fixing the point quickly and surely. To make this more easy shoot the same bow at all distances. It is true that a few of the best shots of England shoot a light bow at 60 and 80 yards and a heavy one at 100 yards; but we condemn this practice as injurious and out of all form, unless it were possible to have three bows so graduated in power as that in shooting each at its respective range the elevation would be uniform. The only safe theory as well as the only perfect practice for keeping a length is to use precisely the same weapons at all the ranges; the only change being in the elevation of the bow-hand.

See to your arrow feathers very carefully before shooting a match and after each shot; for the least damage to a vane will seriously endanger both line and length. It is quite often the case that the best arrow-makers, with all their care, suffer a slight difference to be made in the width of the feathers to their shafts. Of course, the arrows having the broader vanes will fall shorter than those having the narrower ones. It requires very close observation and nice practice to detect defects of this kind; but the York Round demands just this sort of observation and experiment, especially on the two longer ranges, where almost undiscoverable errors work such sad havoc with promising scores.

ZEN ARCHERY: IS IT MUMBO JUMBO?

I am not really into Zen archery. I find it a little pretentious. Any attempt to add some lofty, self-important, spiritual purpose to a hobby, sport or activity which is about little more than survival, war or recreation, is likely to provoke a little silent laughter in me. Nonetheless, I do not think it is all nonsense through and through. From the moment I took up archery, I instinctively knew that there was a meditative quality to it. It was because of my interest in this that I discovered that there was such a thing as Kyudo (Japanese for 'the way of the bow'), also known as Zen archery. The good news is whatever form of archery one practices, this meditative quality is accessible. 

While I am unable to understand the hows and whys, I have learned a thing or two about the importance of attitude in archery. Seeing archers more experienced and capable than myself shoot, and hearing those who take the art seriously speak on the matter, has substantiated my own meager experience.

So, here are a few meditative qualities an archer needs to work on, which are also necessary to hone one's skills and develop consistency.

Clear the Mind

A mistake I keep making is rushing. Limited time no doubt plays a part, but I find that it is important to take one's time when setting up his equipment and also before shooting to acquire a measure of calmness. Archery is one of those martial arts/sports that creates calm all by itself, but also which requires one to be calm to do it properly. It is not unsual for me to have to shoot for an hour before acquiring the right frame of mind to start shooting accurately and consistently. While this is partially due to becoming physically accustomed to shooting, much of it involves the mind. A little time clearing the mind (and doing physical warm ups, which too many of us archers forget or can't be bothered to do) is helpful.

Enjoy the shot cycle

 

Sometimes I am too keen to get to the shot, and do not spend enough time on each element of my shot cycle. This cycle should be thought of as one action, from stance to follow through. The more calm and measured one is, the more meditative and relaxing archery becomes. Perhaps one reason speed shooting, which has been popularized and brought to the attention of the masses recently, is frowned upon by some archers is that it contradicts the calm and measured approach which characterizes target archery and even field archery. I think both forms of archery should be respected and enjoyed, but it is important to know the difference.

You are alone

Generally, archery is not a very social sport. I have noticed that even when a club is full of archers, the best ones are silent and behave as though there is no one but him/herself and the target. They do not compare their shooting with other archers, and you will never know when they have made a mistake or a bad shot because they react no differently to when they make a good shot. Too often, in our embarrassment or concern that others are seeing our errors, beginners make a song and dance about the terrible shot or what was wrong, thus trying to demonstrate that they are not normally this bad, or that  they know exactly how to rectify the problem. The best archers seem to be free of such vanity (at least while they are shooting).

You are the target

 

I know it can sound pretentious to hear "The target is yourself" or "You and the target are one", as you do in Kyudo. But it is true in a way. The arrow does not consistently hit its target just because the archer is aiming at it. The beauty (and difficulty) of archery - and this is particularly true of traditional archery (no sights, stabilisers, clickers or other gadgetry) - is that what the archer is trying to master is his own body: the stance, grip, draw, anchor point, release, and so on. Just a fraction of a difference in these translates into wildly different results on the target board. So, in a way, the more one masters his own body, the better an archer he becomes: the one who controls himself the best shoots the best.

Timing and repetition

Another bad habit of mine is reaching for another arrow as soon as my previous one has hit the target. I focus too much on the shooting, seeing all that precedes it as nothing more than preparation for the shot. But really good archery is about the whole shot cycle being one activity enjoyed for its own sake. Of course, there is no denying that archery would be no fun and completely pointless without shooting, and it can be a great deal of fun even when only shooting is the focus. Yet it does not change the fact that the best archers take every element of the art seriously, and see the preparation and shooting as one action and one activity.

End as you began

 

Instead of hastening to put away their equipment and rushing off to the next thing they have planned, many good archers end their sessions the way they begin: in a calm, collected and measured manner. It will make no difference to how you shot that day or how you will shoot next time, but it is indicative of a certain mindset required for archery. In this respect, all archery to an extent shares a characteristic of Kyudo, in which hitting the target is but an indication of the archer's self-mastery and inner peace.

***

All of this suggests that what is true for Zen archery is true for all archery: hitting the target is not the goal, but the result, of archery. It is a form of developing a calm mind impervious to distraction and emotion, a way of practising self-mastery by "way of the bow".

FLETCHES: ARE FOUR BETTER THAN THREE?

In all forms of archery, arrows nearly always have three feathers. One of them, called the cock feather, is at a right angle to the nock, and it is usually a different colour to the other two feathers. The reason for this is so that the archer can more easily discern the cock feather because it should be facing outward to avoid friction throwing the arrow off when it flies past the bow and tearing the feather off. This type of arrow was used by English longbow archers, Kyudo practitioners, and by the vast majority of traditional and modern archers today.

An arrow will fly with two or even no feathers, but it will not be as efficient. Three feathers are required for the arrow to stabilize properly in flight. But considering the extra time needed for the archer to make sure his arrow is placed on the bow correctly, why not four feathers? I had some wood arrows custom made with four feathers to test. Alas, the plastic nocks that were placed on the arrow had very small fins slightly protruding from the nock, thus compelling one to think in terms of placing the arrow on the bow in a particular position. It was hard to tell if and to what extent the nock was effecting flight when placed with the offending little fin inwards, but I found it off-putting nonetheless.

My reason for wanting four-fletched arrows was to eliminate concern for the position of my arrow when nocking it, which would speed up the process of nocking an arrow. While I have no reason to master rapid fire during archery, sometimes I do get a little annoyed by the time required to nock a three-fletched arrow. Ancient horse bow archers did indeed use four-fletched arrows. They had no time to spend nocking arrows while charging on horseback on the battlefield, unlike longbow archers, who were stood in ranks away from the midst of battle. 

To my surprise, I found that the four fletches did not make any difference to the performance of the arrow. Whether four feathers would improve the stabilization of the arrow in windy conditions, I cannot yet say. The only advantage I can see is speeding up the time the archer needs to shoot an arrow.

While I am sure to never find myself on horseback in the middle of a battlefield, thinking, "Damn, if only I had four-fletched arrows that I may dispatch these infernal orcs with greater speed!", I am inclined to procure some four-fletched arrows with less obtrusive nocks, just so that I can enjoy more time shooting and less time nocking.

THE HORSE BOW AND THE MONGOLIAN THUMB RELEASE

The XL Scythian horsebow from Merlin Archery

This fine morning I made my first serious attempt at learning the authentic method of using a horse bow: using the Eastern, or Mongolian, thumb release. 

I know that there are many fans of the horse bow who are eager to learn this style of shooting, but who are perplexed by it. I am therefore eager to share my experience of experimenting with this technique and what I have learned so far.

Equipment and distances

First of all, a few details about the equipment I was using. My bow was a Scythian horse bow which pulls 30 - 35 ibs at 28 inches, and with a maximum draw of 32 inches. I used two different sets of arrows, which worked equally well: my Gold Tip Traditional carbon arrows (500 spine, 31 inch length, 100 gram tips and 4 inch feathers), and my XX75 Platinum Plus aluminium arrows (19/16, 29.5 inch length, 3 inch feathers).

Archer's thumb ring

I am still waiting to receive a thumb ring, so I practiced the technique without it, drawing with my thumb around the string and locked into place with my forefinger and middle finger, and releasing by opening my hand and moving the elbow outwards (from what I have observed this is the traditional method of release for horse bows). Fortunately, my Scythian bow is quite easy for me to pull without a thumb ring, though it did become a little strenuous after much repetition.

I practiced the thumb technique from 15 yards and 20 yards, and, to my surprise, the results were very much the same from both distances.

Right or Left Side?

Due to Lars Andersen's viral video on archery, some may be of the opinion that the rapid fire of the horse archers of yore was down to placing the arrow on the right side of the bow (for left-handed archers, it would be the left side). Lars Andersen's video demonstrates that it is possible to shoot this way, but when I tried it (both with the bow canted and with the bow upright) the arrow, rather than flex around the bow, flew off to the right and completely missed the target. It seems to me that the arrow needs to be on the left side since it first flexes to the right. It is possible that the choice of wing feather (left or right wing) may have some role to play here, and that not all arrows behave the same way. 

My own meagre experience aside, I have noticed that the most notable horse bow archer, Lajos Kassai, as well as some Eastern archers, do indeed place their arrow on the left, just as Western archers do.

Aiming

The first thing which struck me about using the thumb technique is how far to the left my arrows would fly in comparison to where I was standing and aiming. I had already noticed this pattern with my horse bow when using the Mediterranean release (I assumed it was just down to having the wrong arrows, different to the ones I was now using), but it was more acute when using the thumb release. I continued to adjust my position and aim accordingly, until eventually my arrows would land where I wanted. 

This was most frustrating, and I racked my brains for an answer to this problem, suspecting there was something wrong with my technique, with my bow or with my arrows. I was certain my arrows were not the problem, for they were penetrating the target straight and not at an angle, so I believe they were matched to the bow. On previous occasions when I used the same horse bow with wood arrows not quite suited to my bow and employed the Western method of shooting, the arrows would penetrate from all angles, but mostly with the nocks to the left, suggesting that they were too weak for the power of my bow. 

Example of an Eastern thumb technique

I later ceased trying to imitate the release as demonstrated in the above link, and instead simply opened my thumb and fingers while drawing my hand back a little to avoid inadvertently torquing the string, and the arrows began flying far straighter. Clearly my attempt at the "open arm" release, which I had seen, was torquing the string considerably, making my arrows fly to the left. By simply opening my thumb and forefingers, I was getting a much cleaner release.

Speed and penetration

The second thing I noticed was a marked difference in the speed and penetration of my arrows. I expected the thumb technique to give me a cleaner release, but I was truly surprised by the increased velocity of the arrows. As yet I have no idea why the thumb technique has this effect.

Anchor point and consistency

I then turned my attention to the problem of anchor points. I had observed previously that notable horseback archers, such as the remarkable Lajos Kassai, would shoot from the breast, with no clear anchor point I could detect. I found it very difficult indeed to acquire any consistency with this method. It is a method which makes sense for an archer mounted on a charging horse. For mobility would surely make a normal anchor point very difficult to maintain. 

The thumb release on horseback (Lajos Kassai)

If I had any consistency it was only vertically, with arrows forming a line across the target, but no real grouping. I then decided to make my anchor point (as seemed fitting for the bow and method I was using) the side of my jaw/front of my ear. Once I began using this as my anchor point, some consistency began to form. 

Towards the end of my two-hour session of practice, I was taken aback by the degree of accuracy and consistency in some of my rounds, with three or four arrows very closely grouped together on some occasions. 

This proved to me that however different this weapon and method of shooting to other bows and styles - traditional and modern - it is indeed possible to master consistency and accuracy as well as speed with this remarkable weapon and Eastern style of archery.

A different kind of archery

I realised that I had the horse bow all wrong, and I came to appreciate the Eastern method of archery like never before. I will never shoot a horse bow with Western eyes again. 

Now I can truly enjoy two different styles of archery: the Western style and the Eastern style. Twice the know-how: double the fun!