the last 30 years there has been so much bias about the short bow, I always had a feeling they knew what they were doing,, and there was a reason for the designs,, and much lost knowledge,,
Lars ability is not in question, but I believe some of his assumptions of ancient archery in previous videos have been called into question. I haven’t finished the posted video yet, but it looks interesting.
Anyone interested in Comanche archery and history has to read this book. They were absolutely as viscous as could be imagined to settlers and other tribes alike. This writer gives it to you straight .. the true history no “PC” bullshit.. and walks a tightrope where in the end I can see both sides of the story (European settlers and Indians).
Yes - that is a great book. The author discusses in detail the Comanche’s prowess with archery, lance, and horsemanship. As mentioned in the second video, the Comanche halted the Spanish’s northern expansion into present day Texas. The Spanish wanted nothing to do with them and were content using the Comanche as a buffer between Spanish Territory and US territories.
Yes - that is a great book. The author discusses in detail the Comanche’s prowess with archery, lance, and horsemanship. As mentioned in the second video, the Comanche halted the Spanish’s northern expansion into present day Texas. The Spanish wanted nothing to do with them and were content using the Comanche as a buffer between Spanish Territory and US territories.
Also read "Blood and Thunder" about Kit Carson and his life. It is his account of the same region and exploits of the Comanche and expansion into the south west. I'm also in the middle of Bill O'reilly book "killing crazy horse" a good bit about the same subject but on a much broader scale. It starts off in the Southeast USA and the plight of the Creeks and Cherokee tribes and the stealing of their land and subsequent trail of tears. Mans aggression has always existed then and today, sorry to get political but the treatment of the Native people was horrific. enough of that but one more series is the Lonesome dove 4 books by Larry mcmurtry, even though novels, well researched and factual.
I’m afraid I can’t begin to recall where I ran across it (other than “somewhere on YouTube), but I did see a video which was film captured in the very early days of moving pictures, and there was a very elderly man in full powwow dress who demonstrated the technique right along these lines, and he had five arrows in the target in no time at all.
So were the Commanches the only ones who developed these kind of skills? I really doubt it. For one thing, anyone they ran up against would likely want to figure out how they were doing it, just as a matter of survival. And I believe the song of Hiawatha mentions getting five or six arrows into the air at once. And there is a Hiawatha Falls in the Twin Cities area, although maybe that has more to do with where the poetry lovers lived than where Hiawatha was from. God knows the Commanches weren’t the ONLY tribes to develop a Horse Culture..
Another thing that I picked up somewhere in my reading… And I do not profess to have all of the facts on this… But I did read somewhere that the incredible savagery and the atrocities committed by tribes including the Comanches were Learned Behaviors picked up from White Men, who had been roasting infants on the spit going well back into the Middle Ages. And this would’ve been something written well before being “woke” became so tremendously fashionable. Trying to remember if the taking of scalps didn’t BEGIN when the US Govt started paying a bounty on them….
Anyway… You think about the archery/military aspect of this… can you imagine going up against that kind of firepower with a muzzleloader or a trapdoor Springfield? A lot of people will point out that these fast shooting techniques are of not much use outside of close quarters, but as long as you’re staying out of sword/bayonet range and you can hit at or above the diaphragm….
Corax no doubt the brutality of the Comanche is well documented but I agree the genesis is not known for sure. No one people has a market on this behavior, it has been shared by all at some point in history.
you could see, he didnt try to shoot an asprin,,,,,the bows and arrows from that time are very intersting,,there is not anyting negative about trying to learn bout the people that were here before us,,especially the archery,,if you really love archery,,,, its important,
That man destroyed Robin Hood : ) Just entertainment
Would be fun to see how that stuff works in the hunting grounds Not the Indians way of life or what they did,,but what that mans take on Archery is in it Hes been round and made some claims thats forsure To each there own
"Entertainment value" and plenty of arrows flung. That's about it. It is documented that the Comanche shot "heavy" draw weight bows in the 70# range and that gives the short draw techniques some more power than the 40# average plains bows. So this will give the arrow more range, accuracy will be about the same. The higher range comes in handy because you can shoot a lot of arrows from horseback while you are a very difficult target for a muzzleloader in a cover free environment. Accuracy is good to about 20 yards and then downhill. But you also have to have a bunch of arrows with you to shoot a bunch of arrows. It seems their quivers were fairly empty or not sized for larger quantities of arrows... so shooting them very fast won't help in a prolonged situation.
"It seems their quivers were fairly empty or not sized for larger quantities of arrows... so shooting them very fast won't help in a prolonged situation"
Prolonged situation? From all I've read, the Comanche warfare is nothing like European one. Lars Andersen has his flaws, but at least he is doing the research and tries to replicate the facts described in those documents. Everybody is talking about his "back quiver" or that he "invented the hot water with the arrow on the right side of the bow" when in reality he was looking for a way to shoot arrows very quick - hence 3 arrows hold by the nock eliminating the extra moves. The same here, with his video. He was looking for a way "to make it happen" based on the historical resources. And having those 3 or 4 arrows in your bow hand ready to be drawn is working perfect. Once the 3-4 arrows were shot the spear, tomahawk and knife were finishing the job.
Shooting arrows very quick is pointless against armor. That's why bows faded from the battlefields in Europe, together with the training requirement. That's why military muzzleloaders got longer barrels and heavy balls to smack through armor. The Comanche situation was unique, because of the very open terrain being advantageous for fast cavalry movements and the low battle value a small in number, unarmored, muzzleloader wielding group of white settlers on their horse wagons possessed against a rapidly moving hard to hit target. Not different than russian cossack cavalry against slow moving french infantry on the retreat. Comanches against a fortified farmhouse adequately defended did not fare well. Numerous accounts for that where a large number of warriors couldn't take a simple well defended station. Low accuracy and low penetration of their main weapon forced them into close quarter combat where you are welcomed by a good load of buck and ball or shot and your losses will be high. Light cavalry will only be able to harrass the enemy and inflict damage but will never decide a real large scale battle or war. Hit and run tactics only work if you have somewhere to run. When the regular army fought the native americans in the plains, they were always understrength for the mission they were tasked with and did not have enough fast-reloading firepower to counter that. In the early period the US government even sent infantry columns...at least they learnt fairly quickly not to do that. In addition, they frequently made simple tactical mistakes and were often overconfident. Some yellow haired general comes to mind....
The Spanish were very few and it was the time of the 80 year Dutch war of indepencence where matchlock muskets were the most modern European arms. Even in Europe the longbow was still in use at that time by the English mostly. The Spanish equipment, even though the most modern in Europe, already proofed inadequate in Florida against similar ambush tactics of the native tribes. Their arrows were said to splinter on the spanish armor and piercing the unprotected parts of the body. But in this time and in the Florida climate a small, infected wound could mean sickness and death very fast. But all these Spanish expeditions was no organized military campaign. The same is true for the plains wars. It took a long time for a real military campaign to happen and that was mostly on the northern plains and then finally against the Apaches.
Still, in comparison to the CW, there was basically nobody there fighting. Look at army strength and look at the numbers of the US forces/ comanche forces and the only thing amazing was, that so few comanches were able to hold such a large tract of land for this long.
Chief "Iron Jacket" obviously figured out that armor is a good idea in battle to me named after it. I bet no arrow penetrated that mail in absence of bodkin points. But he was killed in a later battle against the US army. If he was shot through his armor is unknown, but likely. Bullets easily penetrate mail. Highest hit probability to die is in the torso.
A comparably lightweight wooden shield would have saved plenty of white settlers and would have provided cover.....
Wow disrespectfull to America's first nation people.Yeah and he knows more about Comanche archery than they do.?????Admitedly lots of indigenous tribes have had their culture taken away I am sure some still know about this.If I was an indigenous Comanche I would find Lars to be total ass wipe.Got no time for his BS. Osr
Wow disrespectfull to America's first nation people.Yeah and he knows more about Comanche archery than they do.?????Admitedly lots of indigenous tribes have had their culture taken away I am sure some still know about this.If I was an indigenous Comanche I would find Lars to be total ass wipe.Got no time for his BS. Osr
We Spaniards like our killings up close and personal, be it bulls or other human beings we like to step up and look them in the eye, that's why we were the last empire to be conquered basically in hand to hand combat. The Spanish Tercios were the Worlds finest infantry after the Roman Legions. They conquered everything in their path from Northern California to Tierra del Fuego, jungles, deserts, mountains nothing stood in their way, and they were not afraid of engaging the Comanche, Juan Bautista de Anza led a punitive expedition against the Comanche who had been repeatedly raiding Taos in 1779. With his Ute and Apache allies and about 800 soldiers he went north through the San Luis Valley, entering the plains at what is now Manitou Springs, Colorado. He surprised a small force of Comanche near present day Colorado Springs. Chasing them south down Fountain Creek, he crossed the Arkansas River near present day Pueblo, Colorado. He found the main body of Comanche, returning from a raid on New Mexico, on Greenhorn Creek and inflicted a decisive defeat, killing Cuerno Verde, the chief (for whom Greenhorn Creek is named) and many other leaders of the Comanche. Severely weakened, the Commanche ceased their raids and moved to the southeast into what is now Oklahoma and Texas. There was just nothing in Comanche territory that was worth fighting for, the Spaniards were not farmers they were adventurers looking for gold and glory, but they had something in common with the Comanche and the rest of the tribes, the only way the Anglos were able to stop them was to find a way to kill them from far, far away.
Corax, my post was just for fun, not historical accuracy. I know they had repeating Winchesters but many had bows judging from the arrow wounds suffered. Also, the bows could arc an arrow over a rise inflicting damage while keeping the shooter hidden from view.
When the archeological expedition was conducted on the battlefield in the 1980's there were 2,361 cartridges, cases, and bullets recovered. These are believed to represent 45 different types of firearms. The selection of firearms was a hodge podge on both sides. During that time in history any member of the armed forces could carry their own privately purchased firearms if they chose to do so.
Charles Windolph a Private from Company H said that from what he saw the Sioux and their allies were armed about 50/50 firearms and bows.
Very simple design and shooting style. I think Rev Groscup would have enjoyed
It too. Well done.
No mention of target panic. Paper tuning or any of that. Just a man and his bow and arrows. Using his God given instinctive ability and talents. I think all of us have it within us to develop.
