Mounted archery vs. regular archery

Friggin' tradition, amirite?

#prank #stunt #educational

[CaseyEm]

Also, back in the day it would've been cheaper and simpler to make a long bow. You wouldn't have to worry about bending wood or some other material

[xnamkcor]

"What's different in Mounted archery from traditional archery".
I wish he said, "In mounted archery, you're on a horse.".

[imblobtheblob]

"Size doesn't matter baby" that's what I said but she didn't agree

[mememachine]

I'm sure a 200+lb draw weight yew-longbow was not kept around purely for tradition.

[maximetardy]

Actually it was note just for tradition. The turkish/mongolian bow is made of several layers held together by glue. Works great on a dry environnement, but when you get in Europe, the humidity disolves the glue parking the compound bow less durable.

[lukebortot]

English style longbows do not shoot faster, further, or more accurately but they can shoot much heavier arrows. For target shooting this does not matter. But if you were say fighting against 5, 000 fully armored knights at the battle of Agincourt, that extra mass matters a lot.

[mehmetsayman]

The composite bows used by the Turks, Scythians, Huns, Magyars and Mongols became shorter out of necessity to shoot arrows on horse back. During battle Turkish archers on horse back were able to shoot arrows in all directions, even backwards while retreating. This would be very difficult to do with an English longbow. A short wooden bow will not withstand so much bending and will break hence it is a composite bow to provide flexibility and also strength. English bows shot heavier arrows a shorter distance with greater penetration power as advantage whereas the Turkish bows shot lighter arrows farther with distance as advantage.

[enesabube]

Fun fact: Turkish and mongolian bows can litterally pierce samurai armour

[noahjohnson]

Both bows are actually pretty good overall and are mostly a result of climate.
The British Isles are wet and used to be pretty forested, so lots of wood is available for bow construction and the less parts means the less moisture getting into the bow and hurting accuracy and range.
In Mogolia and the Eurasian Steppe, you have a dry climate with little wood, but lots of potential for grazing animals. Making compact bows with more parts derived from animals becomes the norm, and without a worry for moisture hurting accuracy and power.
A Welsh Longbowman and a Mongol Horse Archer were the best of the best when it came to archery in their regions because they played to their strengths and environment with their equipment!

[paulmcpheeters]

Samurai: “Imma just do them both, bow from horseback”

[alikaraca]

The Turkish bow were designed to be used on the back of a horse to create mounted archery units. Such a simple invention resulted in concuring almost half of the known world back then by Ghengis and many others. Ghengis was Mongolian, but note that these two nations were living in the same region together and using exactly the same war strategies, army units and weapons. Also, Karakorum and its surrounding had been the capital of Uygur, Gokturk, Mongolian and many other empires as these nations considered themselves together sharing the same destiny and history.

[LetsPlayCrazy]

If someone says a weapon was simply used for "tradition" when it comes to a weapon used in war, I am always sceptical.
Like... sure the katana was used for traditional purposes... but it was also not a weapon of war.

Find me ANY weapon that was used in warfare that was not the perfect solution for the times.
A pitchfork? The cheapest, most available spear for farmers.
A pummel? Great against heavily armored units.
A nun-chuck? Well that guy had obviously just broken his favourite stick and only had a rope and a few minutes to fix it before combat. USE STICK!

[josephmcgillen]

Comparing apples to oranges. The two bows were built for entirely different combat rolls. The turkish bow needed to be small and fast for horse back archers and holds a distance record because its arrows weigh much less than that of traditional english long bow arrows. English long bows were fighting against hard armor so they needed the inertia gained from the heavy arrows. The turkish were fighting unarmored combatants.

[Erraddo]

The recurve is more compact than a longbow, and a lot more powerful than a shortbow, but an English longbow fires heavy, thick arrows, over a meter in length, 2-3cm thick, with heavy metal arrowheads. When fighting armored opponents, i dont think it's just tradition... a good warbow would actually break some thinner arrows if you tried to shoot them.

[mixey]

In Laymans term "If you lack size, make sure it bends" 😏

[devinmaney]

Distance record is set with one of those bows, sounds like the end pieces should be called siyah laters.

[Azaghal]

It's not only tradition that made single piece wooden bows more common in europe, composite bows, like most eastern bows, were a lot more prone to fall apart in the humidity of central europe.

[chingizzhylkybayev]

Bro is saying Europe didn't have composite bows lol

[Dr.Lakshit_ahari]

Mounted Archery was the secret of Mongol invincibility...

[jackwriter]

So you say we should make one of these bows in the seize of a longbow?
Good Idea!
Let's do it!