This has been troubling me for a while now, and I thought I'd get some views.
It seems to me that horseback archery is trying to go in two separate directions: pure sport and historical accuracy. I have yet to decide which way I lean. I would like to keep to some sort of middle road but finding it is difficult.
There are a few area where this has arisen recently in my notice:
Penetration
There has recently been discussion here on ATARN about draw weights, draw length, power and penetration. Basically the argument being put forward is that a steppe archer would have used a powerful bow and drawn it right back so as to get maximum penetration, whereas in competition it is common to see people not coming to full draw and using 20-30lb bows so that the arrow barely penetrates the foam target at 10yds. This is plainly unhistorical but is valid for pure sport - frankly if you're passing the target and aren't ready to shoot you can get a scoring shot off quicker by half drawing a light bow than by heaving a heavy one all the way back. I understand that at the Biga event there will be a rule that you must shoot from full draw.
Then there's the point about women and children (somebody I mentioned this to also pointed out disabled competitors, but I'm not going to go there!). Should they be able to use lighter bows? Should they be allowed to compete?
Speed
Again there has been discussion about the way in which speed affects scores in competition. Under WHAF rules you used to get no extra points for going faster than the allotted time. Now you do. Then EOCHA reintroduced an old WHAF rule that gives bonus points for hitting three targets in a row or hitting all five targets, thereby potentially rewarding a slower pace again, since few people can hit 5 targets 30yds apart at a flat gallop. Then again there is Zarasp's suggestion that we should divide the shooting score by the time, or my suggestion that we should use targets with more scoring zones to reward really accurate shooting.
Clearly the combat archer went quickly. Probably very quickly. Often he would be shooting at massed ranks and so would not have to be that accurate. Historically speaking we should reward speed. On the other hand many people agree with the view I heard expressed at EOCHA, that "this isn't supposed to be a horserace".
The Track
The Hungarian track is straight. The Korean track has a curve. The new Polish style course involves some tight corners, hills, ditches and potentially (although not at EOCHA) jumps. I recently saw a view expressed on a Roman Army Reenactment forum that sport horseback archery is totally unhistorical because we use a roped track and the horses know where to go without being steered. They also wondered where the skill or fun was in that!
Technically it is right that for historical accuracy we should be able to do this without a track. Not terribly practical from a sporting point of view...
Clothing and Equipment
I love the costumes in this sport! I feel genuinely aggrieved that my country has no history of horseback archery for me to fall back on (although I have discovered that the late Roman army in Britain may have had horse archers and the Scots claimed descent from the Scythians, so there may be some hope. In the meantime I make do with outfits that just look vaguely historical).
On the other hand, I ride in a helmet. A riding helmet specifically desiged to protect me if I fall from my horse. Which I did at EOCHA. Headfirst into a wooden fencepost. And I'm fine. I may say that one thing I love about this sport is that whilst most people don't wear helmets, nobody appears to judge those who do.
More importantly, there is talk of progressing this sport. At the recent WHAF AGM there was talk of the Martial Arts Olympics. One point that was made was that this would require national uniforms. I think it would be a tragedy to lose the spectacular individual outfits but that may be what happens if we keep going down the pure sport route.
Different Events
Grand Master Kim Young Sup has spent many hours researching old styles of competition. He was kind enough to show me a few last month in Korea. They include a wide course with targets on either side so you have to ride a zig-zag, directing your horse yourself because there is no marked track and an event that is similar to a standard Korean event but with targets that get progressively smaller in each run, being run like a knockout - you only proceed to the next round if you hit a certain number of the targets on the last round.
On the other hand you have the Hungarian or Kassai round, which he invented about 30 years ago. More are being invented every year - the Belgian style, Polish Hunting style, British Hunt the Hare. The Swiss are holding an event next year that will involve a Swiss style event. They haven't quite decided what it will be!
Should we be inventing new styles? Should we just be doing traditional events? Should we be inventing new styles that are just interesting to do or should they be attempts to get more historically accurate?
Shooting Styles
As things stand, WHAF rules insist that arrows be held in a quiver. There is a suggestion that it must be a hip/waist quiver. You are not allowed to use Kassai's invented (I think?) style of holding them in your bow hand, nor are you allowed to use the Turkish historical (I think? Gokmen?) style of holding them splayed in your draw hand. You also can't tuck them in your boot as I used to, or in your belt (which could be a problem for yabusame?). Nor can you use the brilliantly inventive but I think unhistorical arm quivers that some of the Iranians used in Korea (for those who don't know, they basically had an armguard with clips attached for the arrows. You just grab the nock and twist slightly, the arrow comes loose and is ready for a finger release shot. Brilliant...).
Should we be allowed to do any of these things? Pure sport might argue that you can feel free to create new styles and new equipment. Historical accuracy would even argue against my kind of hip quiver, which holds 9 arrows at most, holds them tightly and splays them out ready for me to grab.
Some of these questions have what to me seem like obvious answers and some are more difficult. I suspect that even my obvious ones will be disagreed with by others.
I've tried not to put too much of my own opinion into this, just raising the questions. They seem to me to be symptomatic of a wider issue in horseback archery, and one that seems to have as many answers as there are people thinking about it.
I suppose one final issue is this: if we want historical accuracy then what period, use and people are we talking about? I personally don't think that weapons and tactics have remained fixed. I suspect, for example, that early Steppe nomads used lighter bows than the Mongols did, not least because they didn't need to penetrate plate armour: they were fighting other Steppe dwellers who may have been wearing a couple of layers of cloth and fur.
What do you guys think?
Zarasp
GREAT topic Dan.
I need to talk straight here, i dont mean to offend anyone.
1.the arm-guard method is a desperate attempt from people who cannot draw from quiver & were used to draw with KASSAI method, it is an attempt to go around the quiver rule in korea...
2.the horse race comment i hear in Iran is basically from people who cannot ride fast horses!!! there is no historical evidence of shooting on slow horses & i know 1st hand that for hunting the fastest available horses were chosen.
3.shooting at masses, very true but traditional horse archers were EXTREMELY accurate, accuracy is not a modern concept in horse archery, see qabaq tradition were a little gold vases were shot.
4.a perfect example of bad archers are the same people you mentioned, please next time you meet them put a large one meter target at 30-40 meters and watch that they can not hit that big target from that distance, let alone hit it in center, this is ridiculous.
5.Kassai method has some huge flaws:
a.it doesnt have stability against wind on fast horses.
b.takes too much time to arrange.
c.extremely dangerous if rider loses balance.
d.it uses modified nocks which destroy the accuracy.
6.fast shooting is not a modern thing either , the inventor is not Kassai & it can be done from quiver if one has enough practice,
I have seen videos of highest grade Kassai school attendants (brown khaftan) shooting 3 arrows in 7-8 seconds on galloping (not cantering) horses, for their fast horse test, of course with arranged arrows etc...
the fact is : it is possible to the same with traditional quiver, normal nocks & heavy bows on a much faster horse .... see my point? we should make Polo a great example for us. popular traditional sport with modern elements.
A final word : horse archery was a functional tradition & for every detail there is a reason, perfected by many generations of experience,
the truth is, this activity like many other eastern traditions is suddenly "discovered" , exploited & modified on its way to be sold to the masses that don't know riding, archery & have little respect for the tradition & this sort of business approach is not noble.
if we need to do anything, it should be to train better riders & archers & by all means use modern capabilities that we have now available.
Dan
Just about everything you say is true, but many would say that it is beside the point!
You need to start with the question of how far we are aiming at making a sport and how far we are carrying on ancient traditions and practices. If you say that this is a sport divorced from its roots then the fact that something is without historical precedent is neither here nor there.
Take modern target archery. The ability to hit a 10cm circle at 70m after aiming for 20s with a bow covered in weights, sights, rods, clicker etc is about as far from the roots of archery as you can get!
As I said, I favour a middle way to some extent but haven't quite decided where it falls.
On your point about fast horses, I agree that ideally we should be riding fast horses and hitting all the targets. Until that is a reality, we need to balance between those who ride more slowly and hit all the targets and those who ride much quicker but only hit every other target...
Gokmen
I am happy there is a few people at least who want to talk about these things. I met many more horsearchers who just dont care.
I am not even gonna write my opinions here. Dan, you created a very nice list which shows all the implications and questions (more could be added even). It shall show the possibilities and make people think.
Just a few general thoughts:
-horsearchery should be fun, whichever way you want to practice
-dont forget our goal: we want to promote horsearchery and increase the number of people who practice. too difficult rules will have the opposite effect.
-the general skill will improve by time, creating need to change/adapt the rules.
example for the last 3 points: the kabak target in Biga was a 60cm metal tray on a 8m pole. The hit rate wasnt too great. Putting a historically correct 20 cm diameter brass globe would be wrong at this time. Nobody would hit it, and even if, few would penetrate it. It would make this discipline really boring and frustrating.
jak
Hi gokmen and dan
last year I was a little bit ill but now I do HA again:I have buy a french camargue horse .
I have choice to work the "pure sport" ,as you call.
Wich is to drive the horse without reins,not in a gallop track,in open area
I dont choice "historical accuracy"...french history of HA !!!
in france most of rider are women or girls and they dont like to be a "warrior" but they like to work with the horse
That is why I dont like to go to ECHOA anymore
Bede
Dan,
I have a few comments that you might find interesting.
. I recently saw a view expressed on a Roman Army Reenactment forum that sport horseback archery is totally unhistorical because we use a roped track and the horses know where to go without being steered.
There are several nineteenth century books on horsemanship that show, even in Europe, cavalry let go of the reins when they charged using any two handed weapon. Surviving manuals which describe shooting on horseback recommend dropping the reins. Most contemporary paintings of horse archers show them with their reins dropped on the horse's neck. Drawing aiming and shooting require your full attention; all you want your horse to do is go in a straight line until you take up the reins again.
You are not allowed to use Kassai's invented (I think?) style of holding them in your bow hand, nor are you allowed to use the Turkish historical (I think? Gokmen?) style of holding them splayed in your draw hand. You also can't tuck them in your boot as I used to, or in your belt (which could be a problem for yabusame?).
Whether Kassai reinvented holding arrows in the bow hand or just reintroduced it is a moot point. It was a traditional way of holding arrows at least as far back as the Parthians and there is a terracotta bas-relief to prove it. The Seljuk style of holding arrows in the drawing hand is old too. Boots are mentioned in Arab Archery from 1500.
Kassai's innovation may be holding the arrows point down which would be dangerous with broad heads. The yabusame archers use the same motions to pull the arrows through their hakama as they would use with a traditional Japanese waist quiver.
I wonder if the thrust of the quiver rule is for safety among a group of unevenly skilled archers.
I have discovered that the late Roman army in Britain may have had horse archers and the Scots claimed descent from the Scythians, so there may be some hope.
You could also take some comfort in the fact that horse archery was probably used in hunting in Britain in mediaeval times. There were Sarmatians in the Roman army in Britain, but I think it is a stretch to see the Scots as descended from Scythians.
I think there is enough space in horse archery for tradition as well as fun. If it is to flourish there has to be something there for the different types of people who want to take it up. As technical competence increases with experience, more traditional sports will be practical. This is not the same as martial re-enactment for historical research. Though I do not doubt that people who develop their skill in sport will make valuable contributions to research. The ancients played sports to enhance to techniques, fitness and reflexes and so can we.
Holtzmann
Its realy fun that HA is evolving whit new ideas!
i got some thoughts about it.
about the sport and the historical competitions,
i have read better and worse ideas around this,
but the simplest way is to devide it in two diffrent groups, those that want to do HA as a sport and those how does it historical,
the Sport group stay whit the HUngarian, korean, Qaback style as a first choise,
and the Historical shoot at armored targets.
an easy way to give points, the more leathal the hit is the more points you get, same as a 3D animal target.
but the hard thing is that if we play whit our thoughts,
we got three main targets
first one whit leather armor,
secounds one whit chainmail over the leather,
third one got plate armor.
as head you could use a melon, or something..
if you like to have a 20# bow you probebly could get full score by penetrating the leather armor,
but not at the other targets, exept if you do a HS,
some targets may be hiding behind a shield and you are forced to shoot them in the back whit parthian shoot.
this way you could trigger the archers to get more precition in their shoots or more pounds in their bows!
AND! you could use what ever historical tip you want, exept explosivs or fire;)
jak
but the simplest way is to devide it in two diffrent groups, those that want to do HA as a sport and those how does it historical,
the Sport group stay whit the HUngarian, korean, Qaback style as a first choise,
ok ,so the first group is,may be;"historical HA" do you agree?
the second group is "pure sport" and in america they call that" combined HA" do you agree?
or better:"combined HA races" ???
Dan
Bede wrote:
Whether Kassai reinvented holding arrows in the bow hand or just reintroduced it is a moot point. It was a traditional way of holding arrows at least as far back as the Parthians and there is a terracotta bas-relief to prove it. The Seljuk style of holding arrows in the drawing hand is old too. Boots are mentioned in Arab Archery from 1500.
I didn't know about the Arabs using boots, I confess. As to Kassai, my personal view is that he reinvented it. I base that purely on his own description in his book. He basically says that he started doing it that way because it was quick. In a documentary clip I saw recently he says that the Huns held their arrows the way he does, for which I would like to see the evidence, but as you say it's a moot point. That said, the images I've seen (and I've not studied this in depth) don't seem to show a great many arrows in the bow hand. One or two from what I've seen. Is there evidence of more?
I wonder if the thrust of the quiver rule is for safety among a group of unevenly skilled archers.
No, it's because that is how it was traditionally done, according to Grand Master Kim (through an interpreter, to be fair) at the WHAF referee training course this summer. There was a certain amount of muttering followed that...
You could also take some comfort in the fact that horse archery was probably used in hunting in Britain in mediaeval times.
Very probably, but I've not managed to turn up any evidence beyond common sense...
There were Sarmatians in the Roman army in Britain, but I think it is a stretch to see the Scots as descended from Scythians.
I agree, but that's what they claimed, at least as late as 1320 and the Declaration of Arbroath, when a group of Scottish nobles wrote to the Pope, essentially declaring independence from England. They claimed that their people had come from Greater Scythia.
I think there is enough space in horse archery for tradition as well as fun. If it is to flourish there has to be something there for the different types of people who want to take it up. As technical competence increases with experience, more traditional sports will be practical. This is not the same as martial re-enactment for historical research. Though I do not doubt that people who develop their skill in sport will make valuable contributions to research. The ancients played sports to enhance to techniques, fitness and reflexes and so can we.
I agree completely, but the question seems to be everywhere developing: "how much room is there for tradition?" and perhaps even more "how much room is there for things that are not traditional?".
Everyone seems to have a different answer, and that's without the fact that there are several traditions in play: WHAF looks very heavily at the Asian tradition (even allowing Mongolians an exemption to a rule about joining stirrups because they did it traditionally). Kassai has pretty much established a new tradition with his grading system, kaftans etc. Then you have the various other traditions competing for space: to take just the one example, we come back to holding the spare arrows - hip quiver, boot, back quiver, bow hand, draw hand, these are all traditional somewhere but not all are recognised.
I have to say I find it fascinating to be in the sport (that's what it is to me) at a time when it is expanding rapidly and when it will, I suspect, change radically in my lifetime.
Bede
The rule about joining stirrups sounds interesting. Could you quote it for me. I know it was used for training in China.
Dan
Bede wrote:
The rule about joining stirrups sounds interesting. Could you quote it for me. I know it was used for training in China.
Not exact quote but in essence the WHAF rules say that competitors may not have any strap connecting the stirrups together unless the competitor is Mongolian. The reasoning is that the Mongols did have such straps.
My feeling is that if a practice was traditional somewhere then anyone can use it. There's no tradition of thumb draw in England but I use it all the same...
Interesting that the Chinese used one as well. Could you give me a source? I think WHAF and Grand Master Kim would be interested to know.
Bede
I will have a look into it. I did a quick scan through Chinese Archery, but couldn't find it. However, it is a big and intricate book. I felt sure it was associated with the Five Dynasties or the Song. I may have came across it when Stephen was sending me preliminary translations or in some research I did at the time. I will continue looking and let you know if I find it.
