speed shooting = horseback archery?

[Stephen Selby]

I submit the 3 shots in 1.5sec is either trick shooting on foot or in error. It is not physically possible to discharge arrows at this rate on a horse, if at all.

The only clue I can offer you here is an 18th C European print of a Turkish horseback archer that we have on display in the Museum. He's shooting his bow with two arrows nocked on at the same time!

[Adam Karpowicz]

Bede:

If the enemy, however prepared, does not have archers, this tactic is perfect. I beleve I read it in de la Brocquiere (mid 1400s). The horsemen could do what they pleased, until finished. And it is (I imagine) easier to shoot to the left.

Adam

[Bede]

Adam,
As the Seljuks found out at Dorylaeum, non-missile heavy cavalry can be extremely dangerous if you cannot get out of the way. DeLa Brocquiere has some interesting tactical ideas, but he was writing to convince the Duke of Burgundy to start another Crusade.

Redhorse,
As far as I know, there aren't too many people alive today that have experience in large formations of cavalry in battle. Francis Dwyer (no relation) wrote a book in the nineteenth century when cavalry were a regular part of armies in which he made observations on the behaviour of horses in battle. The herd instinct was very useful for keeping formation, but everyone agreed that changing direction at the gallop was difficult, both for the horses and the men once their adrenalin was up.

My limited mounted archery experience some time ago suggested that there was not anywhere near the difficulty in shooting from horseback as there was of keeping track of where your own side was. The interesting fact that the Romans trained their cavalry in odd circular maneuvers indicates that they were aware of the difficulties. When Europeans took up using guns from horseback, they also developed some complex arrangements and gave up the gallop altogether until they were finished firing their pistols.

What I am trying to point out is that warfare on horseback is much more complicated that just getting on a horse and riding at an enemy.

[Stephen Selby]

Interesting point about herd instinct. A Ming writer pointed out that horses are social animals and in the battlefield, the enemy's horses may have come from your own horse's original herd. So if you can't control your horse well, it is just as likely to deliver you to your enemy as to keep you with your own comrades.

[Redhorse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J75hWF4MiI&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9fYQC7 ... ed&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIt28Alt ... ed&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3DuOj18 ... ed&search=
This is not dressage, dressage is what people do today.
Whit out control you would not live long on a battle field.
Why go slowly?
Because, if you can't do it in walk you can't do that in canter.
This has nothing to do with speed.

[Adam Karpowicz]

Thanks Redhorse for the video, especially the bullfighting. It does not seem these gentlemen have any trouble to control horses. I think it was you, Bede, who drew attention a while back to the film "Horsemen" and the buskashi game in it. The mastery of the horse, flexibility and the complete lack of fear is inspiring. This is why the manuals talk first about learnig how to ride a horse well, then archey. The horsemanship of these people was legendary. Closer home, stories by my father, who, as a teenager in the 1920s falsified his birthdate to join cavalry, match these too.

I agree De la Broquiere is biased, but not in his description of tactics. Bear in mind the enemy did not necessarily had horses, a situation actually rather common on the western front anyway. Even then heavy cavalry had little chance to engage the archers and with well done "Parthian shot" it was over (not everytime of course!). If the horsemen did not have space to do the manouvers, they would loose.

Adam

[Redhorse]

In old days they had not to write manuals about things everybody already know.
In old horse manuals they never talk about how to handle the horse or other basic things. Everybody could that.
So I guess it same with archery, what was basic knowledge they did not see any purpose to write about.
And who could write in those days? Not the horse trainer and maybe not the archer. The noble could but what did they know?
I think warhorse disappear with the Barock era. They had horses just to show of on Sundays in the garden.

[Szabi Nagy]

I have the feeling that manuals were written in the old days by those who faced a new enemy with new tactics - and as a logical consequence, they tried to copy these new tactics to successfully defend themselves.
But I may be completely wrong.
Szabi

[Bede]

Redhorse made a good point: who wrote the manuals?

It is a fact that only where military concerns were the business of the educated did you have manuals written. There is some indication that people wrote manuals when they thought that the basics were being forgotten by their contemporaries. Taybugha and the writer from Saladin's armoury wrote long before Roger Ascham in England. All had to be literate and archers to write what they did. Prior to Ascham, English archers did not have a literate advocate.

Adam,
Regarding the Afghan horsemen in the movie, The Horsemen, I was commenting on the individual horsemanship of the Afghan riders and the differences between them and the western stunt men. In a way, the manner the mass of horsemen behaved in the buz kashi game is somewhat like an undisciplined group of cavalry would.

The tactical considerations of fighting on horseback are the subject to much argument. When Caprilli introduced the forward seat (riding position) into Western European cavalry, there were all kinds of comments at the time about how it wouldn't work, the riders would fall off, and the horses would be able to jump effectively. However, everyone adopted it when it was clear that it was successful.

An enemy inexperienced fighting against horse archers was at a disadvantage. However, that surprise effect did not last long. Also horse archers facing shock cavalry could be surprised if they did not realise what the primary tactic of the shock cavalry was.

Riding directly at a charging enemy affected your arrows by adding your velocity to the arrow's velocity plus your enemy's velocity. Mark Stretton's experiments suggests that a knight charging a stationary archer had the disadvantage of his velocity being added to that of the archer's arrow. This measurably increased penetration. Logically the weakest shot was the Parthian shot at a stationery enemy, reducing the arrow's velocity by the velocity of his horse. If the enemy was charging the retreating archer, the status quo was established again.

[Bede]

Redhorse,
Your videos are really good and show classic southern European equestrianism. However, this is all individual horsemanship and of a type that was unfamiliar to most Eurasian horse archers, except when they met people doing this in battle. There are some comments from a literate society with both eastern and western traditions, Hungary, about what they thought of western schooling.

What we are talking about really here is a difference comparable to that between fencing and infantry tactics. The first concerns what one person does with a sword against another person, the second is about what groups of people do against other groups of people.

I am not arguing about the modern understating of how to ride a horse or shoot a bow or even do both together. This discussion moved into the area about what we know about what people really did with their weapons when acting in a mass. We have historical descriptions of battles, we have weapons and horsemanship manuals and we have a few tactical works. They usually do not come from the same time periods or the same geographical areas. So we speculate.

Adam's desire to find a few references of rapid shooting from horseback exposed how little we really know.

[Redhorse]

Go the other way, look what they do in bullfight. And think that in older times they did that on battle field.
Long time ago they for sure could use their horses efficient. What we have left is just a little.
And that will be lost soon. Thanks to the animal protection groups. Today the animal protection groups kill a man so they can release his rabbit (theoretical).
That discipline a horse need to be a safe warhorse can be impossible to train in future. And the horses will be so weak of wrong breeding/treating so you can't use them.

[Adam Karpowicz]

I do not know where in Asia the undisciplined hordes of horsemen ruled the battlefields, I am not a historian. The excellent discipline of Ottoman horsemen was well known however, drums were used as way to command. It is also rather obvious, as Redhorse is trying to show, the individual skills translate into tactical advantages. Never mind western riding schools, just look how well trained was the horse in the bullfighting video. I can well imagine the bull to represent a heavy cavalryman! I absoutely agree that this kind of (to us) reckless riding will soon be gone and no-one (well equipped in those helmets and insured) will ever know what was possible.

As to the advantage of forward shooting: the mere 30fps (this is according to Stretton) of a a charging rider maybe significant for the relatively low velocity of the heavy longbow arrow, but not much for the light arrow of the Turks. I can not see the tacticians obsessing about such slight advantages in a forward attack, if shooting to the side of a horse was so much more natural.

I think we are getting into areas tangent to the original question. I think we should look at either facts, or directly at the old texts, and quit speculating (it can be fun though).

Adam