The Jerry Miculek of archery.

[just Warren]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2zGnxeSbb3g#!

Amazing stuff. The ancients knew and could do lot of stuff that we moderns are too arrogant to believe was possible.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

thank you that was amazing

[just Warren]

And the fact that it penetrates armor common to the time proves it was useful and not some trick or entertainment.

[Hutch]

A-flippin'-mazing.  I cannot imagine how much talent AND practice it must have taken to develop that skill.  From a practical standpoint, though, pretty much useless.  A high schooler with a coach, a brick of .22LR, and a 10/22 would be a much more formidable opponent in a week.

Still, quite a feat of skill.

[brimic]

And the fact that it penetrates armor common to the time proves it was useful and not some trick or entertainment.

From 10 feet away...
It was really good trick shooting, in fact outstanding trick shooting, but the bow he was using didn't look very powerful, at least in comparison to an english longbow or any hunting bow made in the last 100 years. Its much easier to speed shoot with a bow with a 30lb draw weight than one with a >100lb draw weight of a mongol or English bow.

[MechAg94]

They did show him shooting some longer range targets pretty quickly. 

I think it just shows that chariot archers and horse archers of old could lay down some serious fire if needed.

[Jamisjockey]

The thing about armor of old is that it was expensive and hard to make.  Many soldiers were unarmored, or wore leather armor.  Knights, nobles and people in leadership positions wore the armor.
His techniques would work against many armies.

[HankB]

Imagine an army of trained archers, each of whom could put 10 arrows into the air before the first one hit the ground . . . silent and deadly, potentially invisible to radar . . .  a new superweapon. (Courtesy of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick? Extra points to catching the reference without Googling.)

[SADShooter]

Imagine an army of trained archers, each of whom could put 10 arrows into the air before the first one hit the ground . . . silent and deadly, potentially invisible to radar . . .  a new superweapon. (Courtesy of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick? Extra points to catching the reference without Googling.)

Loud. Cheesy, but loud.

[brimic]

The thing about armor of old is that it was expensive and hard to make.  Many soldiers were unarmored, or wore leather armor.  Knights, nobles and people in leadership positions wore the armor.
His techniques would work against many armies.

Something as simple as leather armor with padding underneath would be more than enough to protect from the bow/arrow combination he was using. A light draw weight bow shooting light carbon arrows isn't going to penetrate much, the bow he was using was likely less powerful than what my 10 year old shoots.
As I said before, mongols and English used very powerful bows, which were very effective weapons.

[Jamisjockey]

Something as simple as leather armor with padding underneath would be more than enough to protect from the bow/arrow combination he was using. A light draw weight bow shooting light carbon arrows isn't going to penetrate much, the bow he was using was likely less powerful than what my 10 year old shoots.
As I said before, mongols and English used very powerful bows, which were very effective weapons.

As a counter to armor, many armies started using long thin sharp points on arrows.

I would think that for a highly mobile archer, such as on horseback, this method would be highly effective. 
Also, think suppressive fire 
The big, long long bows seemed to be overpowered for shooting longer distances and penetrating heavy duty armor.

[MillCreek]

I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

So I wonder how modern soft body armor would stand up to a longbow?

[Jocassee]

I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

So I wonder how modern soft body armor would stand up to a longbow?

Most soft body armour isn't even rated against knives IIRC...I think a clothyard shaft with an iron tip would make short work of it

[brimic]

So I wonder how modern soft body armor would stand up to a longbow?

The longbow would be a no-brainer. I wouldn't even take the side of wearing SAPI plates versus a bow. Throw in modern archer equipment and modern broadheads and I would definately not bet on the armor being at all effective.

[brimic]

I would think that for a highly mobile archer, such as on horseback, this method would be highly effective.
Also, think suppressive fire  AR15 Firing
The big, long long bows seemed to be overpowered for shooting longer distances and penetrating heavy duty armor.

I get the image of the scene from Apocalypse Now where the boat is attacked by natives with ineffective montagnard bows.

Most effective bows in history were very powerful- light arrows look impressive at short range even when shot from a kid's bow, but they lose their energy very fast. Heavy arrows carry their energy much better and require a powerful bow to launch them. Also realize that at longer distances, arrows lose much of their speed at the top of their arc and regain speed as they fall back to earth- heavy arrows have a big advantage in having a lot more weight for negligably more  wind resistance.

[MechAg94]

Something as simple as leather armor with padding underneath would be more than enough to protect from the bow/arrow combination he was using. A light draw weight bow shooting light carbon arrows isn't going to penetrate much, the bow he was using was likely less powerful than what my 10 year old shoots.
As I said before, mongols and English used very powerful bows, which were very effective weapons.

How do you know how powerful the bow is?  According to the video, he has been shooting a lot for years.  You don't think he could do that with a moderately powerful bow?

I don't think typical leather armor would stop an old arrow meant to penetrate plate and chain mail.  Distance is a determining factor with any archery comparrisons though.   

On the other hand, if he is using Persians as a model, their arrows were less effective against armored Greek hoplites or even later Crusader heavy infantry.

[brimic]

How do you know how powerful the bow is?  According to the video, he has been shooting a lot for years.  You don't think he could do that with a moderately powerful bow?

The bow has very thin limbs, my best educated guess is that the bow is fairly weak (I've been shooting a bow of one kind or another for over 30 years ) The penetration the arrows had at short and long range was very shallow- you would have to have a very dense target (chailmail or not) to get that little penetration with an arrow. Again, I could be totally off on my judgement, but I doubt it.
I think he could do the same demonstrations with a fairly powerful bow, just as Jerry Miculek would still look amazing shooting a pair of .44 magnums instead of .38s.

I don't think typical leather armor would stop an old arrow meant to penetrate plate and chain mail.  Distance is a determining factor with any archery comparrisons though.

I did a little googling, and found this:
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf
It seems that pretty much everything less than plate mail was about equally ineffective.

[Regolith]

Most soft body armour isn't even rated against knives IIRC...I think a clothyard shaft with an iron tip would make short work of it

Kevlar doesn't work against knives because of the follow-through force involved. It requires that you keep pushing on the knife to get it to cut through. Arrows don't have that; they are stopped by Kevlar just as bullets are.

[De Selby]

Not too sure about the safety procedures in that video - seemed to be lots of standing around next to the flying arrows

[brimic]

Not too sure about the safety procedures in that video - seemed to be lots of standing around next to the flying arrows

What could possibly go wrong?