Shadiversity Response! | Should Rangers shoot from trees?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Shadiversity made an excellent video about rangers shooting from trees. I offer my thoughts to expand this concept. Should rangers shoot from trees?
Help Support me on Patreon!
/ livinganachronism
-----
-"Nowhere Land", "Mjonir", "Prepare for War", "Battle of the Creek", "Dungeons and Dragons" by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsou...
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
Climbing trees when you grow up in a farmstead or village is like part of your child past time. So there is reasons why someone should be experienced in climbing trees for no visible reason. I still like climbing trees from time to time.
Oh yes, climbing trees and crawling around in them finding weird positions to sit and read a book in is easy for me and it's a part of my childhood, I haven't lived in the sticks for years.
Now imagine what a person would be capable of if the trees were a fixture of their entire life.
I'm 36 and I still get the urge to climb trees lol.
The desire to climb trees is a part of human nature imo.
Climbing trees is also a lot easier when you weigh 80 lbs because you are 10.
@@reeetawd the strength ratio of a child is very low compared to a healthy adult in their prime.
One of my favourite little bits in lord of the rings movies is that one scene where this old guy just looses an arrow and starts the battle of helm's deep.
It's a bit odd how the same movie shows us that you can't just hold a draw like that but then they just do it anyway several times. As for Legolas I'm pretty sure elven bows,much like other elven weapons,are magical so the draw weight might feel light as a feather but is actually like 160 pounds in strength.
The elves have ceat codes to reality and it is literally so unfair
Well the guy was old, so they were just making a joke about him not being as strong as the other guys. The movies dont specify, but Tolkien's Elves are vastly stronger, faster, enduring, and more durable than Humans are, so they could either hold a string drawn for longer (not forever), or use higher poundage bows than we can. They're just plain better than Humans in every biological way.
@@Glorfindel_117 And also cheat codes.
@@LivingAnachronism In a fantasy setting, I can see shooting from a tree if you've narrowly escaped wolves or something that can't climb. Against anything that can shoot back or cut the tree down, it's a bone headed move.
It was a good way to show that the defenders at Helms Deep were mainly just conscripted civilians. Unless you train a lot as an archer, anyone off the street would be hard pressed to hold even a 30lb traditional bow at full draw for more than 20 seconds.
I have some insight on this. I trim trees for a living and own ropes, saddles, carabiners, and have an extensive work truck full of rigging equipment.
Depending on the species and dbh It’s reasonable to free climb 50 feet in 1 minute using nothing but old timey climbing gaffs, especially if it’s a slight lean.
Getting down is easy if there is water or a haystack nearby, lol. But, you can easily repel 10 feet a second if you use a metal friction device like a figure of 8. You can also retrieve your rope as long as you take both ends with you.
I have fired slingshots in trees to set my line before, but it’s tedious. The biggest concern for tree archery is the other parts of the canopy getting in the way of your vision. You can see further in a tree but people on the ground can usually get better angles on you unless it’s really dense forest.
In order to maneuver quickly you can set a high tie in point in a central stem. This gives you greater pendulum effect if your goal is to be Tarzan. You can forget about transferring from more than 1-2 trees though. Past 30 degrees swing you are fighting physics big time.
The main advantage of climbing a tree is going to be an escape using a zip line over an obstacle such as a canyon or river (set up in advance of course). Somebody in the comments said you could use a tree to shoot over a wall which is perfect.
I could imagine a scenario where you took 3-4 loaded crossbows, each with their own loop of rope already attached to a zip line, and make your getaway after firing your shots. You could retrieve your rope from the other side using a few tricks and a bunch of string if you’re on a budget. I can’t imagine good hemp or manila rope was cheap back then.
Bro you’re my hero
this is a good video and made me realize that the elves in my world are one of the _few_ people for whom this makes sense, they are significantly stronger and more nimble than humans and live in a literal jungle, so they could make legitimate use of ambush tactics for defense and then either drop (since they can take a very long fall and be fine) or make an escape through the branches that are incredibly close (because it's literally like the Amazon rainforest)
The could also do it in my campaign, but really for the rule that "Elves are always cool."
Reminds me of the na'vi in Pandora
use a short recurve, though, cos a longbow is an arse in a jungle.
@@thekaxmax yeah ofc
Something that might be fun to add to that area, and would also work for any canopy based race/culture, is predetermined structures, pathways, connecting trees. If you have close trees and structures between them then stability, mobility, battle kit etc. no longer pose significant threats. Imagine if those elves just built a pathway between those branches. Instead of hopping around they just have a path to move up and down. XD
Something I noticed about Shad's rearming fantasy series, he doesn't consider some factors. For example, Legolas has been using his bow for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. That alone would allow him to effectively do things humans would find difficult or even impossible.
True, he is by human standards impossibly experienced when it comes to archery. Another factor is that he's not human, and so we don't know exactly what his musculature would be like in comparison to a human, or how exactly it would develop from training.
Shooting from a tree would provide some advantage in aiming when firing into melee combat, or for targeting someone that is not in the front ranks of a formation. In other words, it is only feasible as part of a coordinated ambush.
A Mongol-style short recurve, including with a thumb-ring, is ideal. Partly 'cos the draw stance and movement is different as it is designed to be done from horseback. And those bows can be in the same draw weight range as a longbow.
Yeah, i think the same. The only drawback that i can see to the recurve bow its the mantaining and manufacturing, specialy in zones with not a lot of acces to cattle or have very harsh climate conditions. But putting that aside, they are almost the perfect choice for tree shooting, i would personally choose trowing weapons like plumbata or rocks or crossbows.
Yep. Shad dismissed such bows, pretty much, because they were historically very rare in Medieval Europe. I do not know whether those cultures that did use them specifically used them in trees, but as another commenter mentions, the Mongols in particular used them from horseback and almost exclusively in tree-poor terrain. As you imply, straddling a horse translates very nicely to straddling a large tree branch but you can steer a horse with your knees to alter your available angles of shooting, not so much in a tree. Also, the Mongol armies were all about mobility and maneuver during battle which is impossible when you're stuck in a tree.
None of that matters in a fantasy environment or an alt-history with more cross-cultural fertilization of weapons styles than n the real world. If you're going for strict historical accuracy it's harder to justify. However, a Ranger-in-training might reasonably examine one after a battle with Mongols and adopt it as especially useful for his purposes because he won't have a sergeant yelling at him to not use a non-standard foreign weapon that nobody in his army knows how to make, maintain and repair. Such bows are considerably more complex than a longbow which is basically a carefully trimmed stick after all.
@@markfergerson2145 I mean if you put them into the right environemtent it could be tottaly justified. For example your army works together with mercenaries who are horse archers and spending that part of the year closer to your country because they have harsh winters and kettle so they simply just ride to a warmer climate.
in that scenerio it would be ok to pick up one of those bows. You could win it in gamble or a drunk guy would sell you to get some money for booze etc. as maintenance you can just watch the merceneries doing that and ask them about it since you might hang out with them for weeks and will have something to talk about at the camp.
It's more complicated than that, actually. The draw weight range for bows used on foot is generally higher than what mounted archers use, and composite bows were no exception to this. Qing Dynasty records shows that their foot archers were using similar draw weights to what English archers shot (incidentally, Living Anachronism substantially understated the latter; the maximum was closer to 180# than 120#), while their mounted archers were using bows more in the 80-100# range. Additionally, the foot archers using composite bows with thumb draw still had pretty much identical body posture as English longbowman, because biomechanics forces you to shoot that way in order to use such heavy draw weights without injuring yourself.
Kinda depends on what the tree species are when it comes to fantasy.
Our natural species are not that good for running around on branches, but in fantasy we get those fantastical thicc trees. Those would probably be far easier to traverse considering they're depicted with branches as thick as a human let alone the massive trunks.
This is just something I think people completely miss on this topic.
Realistically, it's not that good. We're basic humans with basic trees.
Fantasy wise I can see it being good for tree dwellers.
I wish we had trees of those sizes that would be epic. It's pretty rare to find branches the width of a human and larger.
Well, I've seen ONE example of that kind of tree, but it was an ancient ...oak, I think? Maybe there were these kind of forests wayyy back? There were massive deforestations across Europe after industrial revolution started, after all. I don't know about other continents, though.
@@linkolek yeah certain species have the ability to get that large but what really matters is how many branches it can get up to that size. If there's a few branches the width of an average person then it still wouldn't be good for travel if half or more of the branches were the width of an average person then it's an entirely different ballgame.
Things like Dougless Firs and Giant Sequoias are pretty cool considering their sizes.
If you train the tree branches properly and let them grow for a couple hundred years, you can have some fairly thick branches to walk on.
Here in Florida, some of our shorter oaks get like that. Unfortunately it's Florida, one of Earth's domains of Nurgle the chaos god of plague, death, and decay, and so the branches can be kind of rotty and untrustworthy. However, in a slightly less daemon-infested clime and with a little fantasy idealism/resilience upgrade, they make for perfectly viable places to shoot holes in people from.
Yew is the classic species for making bow staves. I don't even know what the alternative is. I understand growing yew is not so easy though.
I love bows that show how heavy they are, ofc the size will effect how easy you can do it. A bigger bow can be in the way.
As for tree shooting probably best seen as a hunter or an ambush towards an opponent or fight you expect to be over in a few seconds.
If the enemy doesn't have a bow themselves, you can pull off at least two shots before they get to your tree. And then they have to climb it because unless they have an axe or a fellers saw, all they can do is lob whatever pebbles they can find at you, which isn't going to be effective tossing upward through that tangle of branches. Bring up a large stone with you and drop it on their head when they start getting close- combat is now over. A tree is just another form of castle just with less living and maneuvering space.
If the enemy does have a bow, they still have string it and nock their arrow- you get two shots and then hide behind the trunk while they are looking for you.
A smaller recurve bow has power but smaller and more practical in woodsy or crowded spaces that don't allow for full draw space. Recurve bows are used on horseback by many nomadic horse cultures. I have shot small 20 lb bows and my sons long 45.We had some arrows adjusted for that bow.
This seems more practical with Crossbows, especially if the marksman is on a platform or in a blind up in a tree. Bonus if they have some sort of hand crank available.
Yes! Glad you brought up draw weight. Everyone thinks you need 100+ to kill something. A legal hunting weight in Ohio is 45 and that can kill a deer easily. And fantasy rangers are usually highly accurate so a lighter can do the job if hit in the right spot.
Bingo! As he said shot PLACEMENT is crucial. In most fantasy worlds, the Ranger type has _exceptional_ accuracy (even at low levels) as opposed to a "normal" warrior. To bring it into real world equivalence, if you can hit your target accurately, you don't NEED anything more than a .22 to kill your target. But, is your average "Joe Blow" going to dedicate the time and effort to GAIN that level of skill when a .50 cal is available?
Another thing to consider is that many fantasy worlds have magical weapons, so a magical bow could be highly lethal regardless of draw weight.
@@michiganengineer8621 You were close but missed the mark. Marksmanship matters regardless of caliber, but you still need enough penetration and power. A 45 pound bow can kill any animal in North America, but it isn't going to do it at more than thirty to forty meters, and most people hunting large animals use modern bows in the 80 to 100 pound range, which are easily capable of putting shafts on top of one another out to 150+ meters. A traditional warbow of any stripe is going to be able to do nearly that, maybe only somewhat less accurately depending on the shooter. You aren't doing with a .22 what you can do with a 5.56, and neither will touch the long range capability and accuracy of a 180 grain Open Tip Match from a .300 Magnum. Same goes for bows.
70 lb for bear or moose.
I hunt with a 55 pound native bow an will I'm not to skinny soo yeah don't need a 120 war bow
First: I agree with the overall message of this video. Shooting from a tree is probably not a grand idea.
Second: I come with an argument regarding camouflage.
12:29
Something I learned from Ranger's Apprentice, and so far I have found it to be accurate, is that people seldom look up. When I was little and playing a game of hide and seek, I took a multicolored brown and green blanket to cover myself with, climbed a large tree limb in our backyard that was painfully in the open, and stayed hidden there for like 30 minutes before I finally came out because the other kids couldn't find me.
In fact, often times in games while I'm passing through an area (I'm talking any 3D PvP, be that Minecraft, some shooter game, anything similar) I will suddenly remember that I haven't been looking up at all, and, were I not aware that this 'rule' existed, I would have continued looking for threats at eye level.
Now, obviously in some areas (especially depending on the time of year) the trees are going to be painfully exposed. I think it's fair to say the opposite though, and that, in certain circumstances, the trees could be a better option for camouflage. At least until you fire an arrow. Then, in regards to camouflage only, I'm not sure which would be more advantageous. Again, it would probably depend heavily on exact location.
Baden Powell discovered the same thing as a child, which he later used to great effect during the Boer War in South Africa.
As for the topic, I could see Elves building Platforms in the Trees. Maybe even Cover and Murder holes. It would allow them mobility (maybe trap the ground, or it's swampy, or a bramble thicket), it would give them room to stand, it would conceal them, and still give them a good view, it would give them cover.
All depending on how much effort they spend on building this, trimming the foliage, maybe even letting Trees grow in the right way?
For an adventurer, it might make sense when they are setting up an ambush. You definitely would have to find the right tree, maybe prepare it a bit. Advantages might be shooting over enemy cover, or taking flanking shots, with a lower risk of getting rushed.
I think climbing trees is not that hard (depending on the tree), and you might learn it, just growing up and being bored, or for other uses.
Bonus points to be a ninja- climb up that other tree and swing over to your sharpshooting position in the unclimbable tree. Bring in rocks to drop overhead. Keep camouflaged at all times.
This is what I kind of thought of. Trees could be turned into little towers or castles. It wouldn't add the surprise factor but it could help protect those in it as well as conceal the number of people in the tree(s).
The Elves of Lothlorien build hides in the trees for their scouts to sleep in and keep watch from.
I can imagine that when the Orcs of Moria tried to invade the forest they might have run afoul of tactics like the ones you're suggesting.
Great comment
Good stuff.
With hunting, primary reason is to get as close to the target as possible without them seeing you, and making a single shot lethal.
Makes perfect sense compared to the fantasy analogue of an assasin going after a single target.
Another thing to remember about elves is that they have been drawing that bow for decades. They have the muscle development from 30+ years of practice.
Hey I think I know where a very low tree can be a good senario, swamp lands standing on a tree or a root is the most solid thing to stand on so it's more about practice standing on rough terrain rather than specifically tree. As for attacking down diving with a shield first would be a good idea basically land on them but yeah rough terrain over tree directly
Haul up a large rock, drop it on their head as they pass under you. Tie it with rope and you can pull it back up for another try.
also a good point that neither of them looked at
As someone who climbs tree a lot, including with equipment from time to time (tools), I really do not see why it would be hard with a medieval kit.
I agree, a stealth ranger archer with abilities to fire from trees is not going to be wearing 30kg of full plate armour.. Dress for the occasion ;)
I came from Shads video, and I have to say I was not disappointed. A nice exploration of Ideas, without unneeded hostility. And you covered more areas that Shad neglected (for flow of the video or whatever reason)!
Oh dude, this is about to go VERY well for you
It's been a surreal day!
10:08 lol this is exactly what happened in my first d&d game back in 3.5. my party had partly split (we kept within eyesight but went down two seperate paths) and when i returned the other half was under attack by an elf archer in a tree. i was a sorcerer and used mage hand (back in 3.5 it was just a 5lb telekinesis) to throw a rock at the archer. due to surprise attack and her failing the dex save she fell out of the tree and died.
My biggest gripe with actors playing archers, is the sheer number of them that would seriously injure their own nose if it was a real combat ready bow. There's a meme from the Hunger Games showing the main character cutting her own nose off from how far past the string it is when she's aiming. I found it stupid in the movie, but the meme was funny.
Nope. How far you draw can be a technique determined by culture. Turks drawing to the shoulder as proper for their ordinery draw, were not particularly known for being noseless.
@@hollyingraham3980 dude, I’m not talking about draw length. I’m talking about people tilting their head into the path of the bow string so the string would hit their nose.
How about:
Comparing a longbow to a recurve bow to a crossbow for an adventurer.
Show the reasons for a shoulder quiver vs. a hip quiver.
I watched Shad's video, he definitely convinced me on the longbow. But I immediately thought about composite, short-draw bow, such as the Mongols used from horseback.
Hell, you don't even need a mongol composite bow. I've made 4 foot 6 inch wooden bow myself with a 60 lbs draw that would be plenty comfortable to use in a tree and would be plenty historical for a European setting. Not every bow in Europe was an English style long war bow. Hell, not all English bows were of that style. Plenty of shorter bows with flatter profiles for hunting were common.
@@timothym9398 Indian bows were also mostly short boys as they were used in the woods.
@@timothym9398 I have never seen any evidence of short self bows in medieval Europe. There were composite bows used in eastern Europe, but as far as I know European self bows were all pretty long at that point.
@@alexanderflack566the bayeux tapestry is full of normans and Anglo Saxons using bows about 3 ft long, both recurve and straight.
The longbow didn’t become popular in England until the 13th century during Edward the 1st’s invasion of Wales, although the Welsh had been using it to great effect against Norman and Anglo Saxons for centuries by that point.
6ft long bows were a niche weapon used by the Welsh for about half the medieval period.
For about half of the medieval period, across the majority of Europe a bow is probably something 3-4 ft long.
@@Blaidd7542 Gee, it's almost like not every art depiction is perfect at depicting the subject. Have you seen medieval artists trying to show a horse from the front?
Also, bullshit on nobody using longbows before the 1200s. The Oberflacht bows were nearly 6' (about 5' 10"), and those were from the 400s to the 600s. The Haithabu and Ballinderry bows (yew bows used by the culture that the Normans branched off from) from the 800s to the 1000s were 6' 3" and 6' 1", respectively. But we can go further. We've found Neolithic bows from 5000-6000 years ago which were between 5' 7" and 5' 9". The shortest historical European self bow I could find reference to anywhere is the Bodman bow, which was about 5' in length and made between 5000 and 6000 years ago.
So, how about this: find me a single surviving European bow of 50# or greater draw weight (children used shorter bows, so we want to exclude those) from, say, the 6th Century to the 16th Century, that was neither composite nor greater than 48" in total length. If they were everywhere, as you claim, you should be able to point to a specific artifact, right?
I think that it would depend on the tree more than anything else. There were some huge trees in my neighborhood when I was little that had thick branches that spread out away from the tree. Those branches were easy to stand on. A tree similar to that which provides a stable place to perch with relatively good sight lines could be a good place to shoot from. Height should extend your range and possibly the speed of the arrow. For the most part it's something interesting to read about or see in a production but not something that I would find a practical solution.
In a roleplaying game I've absolutely climbed trees and shot, but only when I was playing a sentient squirrel person, and then the tree was a significantly larger platform to my character's scale and I was significantly more mobile in trees than my opponents, and often from my opponents on the ground. For a human, I could perhaps see it if you had magically oversized trees, because then the ground foliage layer would probably be quite sparse due to the giant canopy while the trees would be climbed more like rock walls, but that also depends on how rooted the ground is, because if you can ride a horse through that oversized forest that's probably your best bet...
Your content is excellent! Just as eloquent as Shadiversity, yet more concise. I'm genuinely impressed and looking forward to whatever it is you share next.
Exactly my thoughts, if someone would shoot an arrow from a tree it would be for an assassination attempt not to fend off armies of fully armored warriors or mythical beasts. Maybe it could be a scout spot granted the person can climb up and down fast in order to deliver whatever information.
4:09 "I'd like to see more histirically accurate styles represented in film and Tv" As a hungarian who seen "horse bows" being shot all over the country and only ever seen Long bows being shoot in movies ro Tv I felt that. Also I almost cried when The Dothraki in GoT used some actual shooting methods of horseback archers...
I actually tried shooting from a rather large tree once. Basically, there are two main obstacles.
1) thick foliage. If you insist on not being spotted easily, you need a tree with a quite dense crown. This nearly inadvertently leads to the fact that arrows will get misdirected or lose momentum when leaves or small branches are in the flight way.
2) climbing itself and arrows. While it is relatively easy for me to climb a tree with a bow slung across my shoulder, I have lost count of how many times I tried to climb and an arrow fell out my quiver.
Keeping that in mind, it's probably better to stay on the ground or on elevated platforms.
I mean the high ground is nice to have, though it limits your ability to take cover/escape as you have a fairly long fall if things go wrong. I think the biggest issue is obviously dependent on tree type. How big are the branches? Can you stand on it or just sit awkwardly. Is the branch cover so dense you might have trouble getting an arrow to fire out of the tree's without hitting a branch?
Obviously not able to use stronger pull bows with out being able to firmly brace your feet while firing.
It partly depends on your fantasy setting. In anything with more Wuxia in it's DNA, getting up or down just isn't that big a deal. But it also means that it doesn't really offer protection - you're purely doing it for initial concealment or for sight-lines. Plenty of people have super senses in that style of fantasy, so they will hear where your arrows are coming from.
You might also get away with it in something like Codex Alera - most Archers are people with Wood Furies (wood magic), which they use to give their bows greater draw, and to shift there arrows in flight, so they probably don't find tree climbing scary. But it still would slow them down going both up and down, so it seems marginal.
My brother and I grew up climbing trees, making our own ropes, setting traps, etc. Now that I'm in my 50s, I can't imagine taking the same risks. But, to the point at hand...
Deer and rabbits hardly ever look up, so being in a tree gives you quite an advantage, if you can hold still. And don't piss where you are hunting.
It is possible to shoot bows from trees, but not in every direction. You can really only shoot when your feet are in line with your shot. If you try to shoot perpendicular to a line drawn from one foot to another, you won't be able to retain your balance.
We weren't shooting much over 50# draw, but that is enough to push you over backwards if you can't place your feet correctly. Modern arrows can be much lighter, but I don't know that it'd make much difference.
I’m glad you logically talked out some pros and cons of the short recurve bow vs the tall long bow! Because I really disagreed with Shad saying that the long bow was the go to choice! Smaller and more compact bows would certainly be the choice of someone who is doing a lot of travelling, much the same reason mountain hunters tend to lean towards lighter and more compact rifles
This will be fun to brainstorm on.
Do you really have a wider range in field of view on a tree branch? I imagine that other branches, small and big, will get in the way. Is the tree you're in smaller or bigger than the other trees? It will also depend on the tree and the woodlands you're in, so it's pretty hard to say. It will have to be a planned ambush or on a route that is used enough times to warrant a ranger/elf to perch themselves on a tree to shoot arrows from. Ideally, the woodland would have to be groomed to properly utilize such a tactic. Maybe you could bend and shape the trees and their branches and attach bridges to make it easier to maneuver on, which could be pretty cool and useful if your settlement uses the trees as a defendable border.
In the Eastern States bowhunting deer from tree stands is very common. Placement is a huge issue because even if you have line of sight on an area, you probably only have a few actual shooting lanes you can sling an arrow through. So realistically you probably would only have a 4-5 ft corridor to send an arrow down to someone on a path. That and if you miss you are basically a sitting duck in a tree with a pissed off enemy.
@@ColoradoStreaming So you'd have to be one hell of a shot with your bow. Train your accuracy to such a fine point that you hardly ever miss. And if you multiple targets to shoot, you'd have to be a quick draw as well. The tactic in fantasy will always be cool, but not very practical in reality.
Now, it is possible to actually bend and shape trees, especially as they grow. In a hunting community, it'd make sense that would become a focus. However, I have never heard of any hunting communities to actually have done that, even in areas where they actually did bend and shape trees and the wildlife. So the tactic to hunt from atop the branches of trees was likely tried and not favored. From that, I speculate they knew it was better to simply keep their feet to the ground and hide behind the trunks of trees than in the branches.
"Is there any strategic advantage to shooting from a tree in the first place?"
*Vietnam Flashbacks*
(edit: in all seriousness, I know they used assault rifles and machine guns in the Vietnam War instead of bow and arrow, that was just my immediate reaction lol)
Ask the Vikings who landed in Cali. How being shot from trees felt 😂
Awesome video. I’m not sure about war bows or combat. But I do hunt with modern and primitive longbows. I prefer to spot and stalk. I use trees mostly to aid in ambush fashion hunts like you mentioned. And only when I’ve narrowed down movement of my quarry to specific trails. But I think it’s worth mentioning that thermals change the way wind moves through the landscape and thus how it carries scent. Being 16 or more feet up in a tree limits the animals ability to wind you. This is because the hot air carries the scent over their heads. Could the same be said for Orcs and goblins that hunt by scent?
That is a very good point that I hadn't considered, thank you!
Having grown up on a farm, climbing trees curiously is one of the more abstruse skills I possess. That being said, weight is less of a problem in this scenario than mobility. You would typically climb up empty, to then have someone else pass or throw whatever applicable equipment up (in my case it tended to be rope, planks, or snacks, rather than a medieval longbow). However, once seated within the branches you become somewhat lodged, as falling is an ever present hazard and secure platforms besides the one you currently occupy are usually scarce. If you had planned on remaining stationary, I don't think shooting a bow would prove that much of as issue though. We did throw ropes between the treetops attempting to build a rudimentary bridge back in the day after all.
My 2cents as a modern hunter who uses historical bows.
1. It's not that hard to climb many trees. Very few of us use pulleys or other stuff. We use "tree spikes" essentially a screw on a hook that one can put in the tree quickly without any additional tools. Even simple metal spikes can get hammered in, but they're harder to pull back out to leave nature as you found it, so they're regarded as poor nature conservation. After the spikes are placed it's about as difficult as climbing a ladder.
2. It's not necessary to climb 30' or 50' to get a good angle. 10' to 15' up a tree gives a much better field of view than ground level, and if you're an athletic person, isn't bad at all to simply jump down from safely. However it does likely put you out of convenient reach of most melee weapons (other than pikes of course). Remember, you don't have to jump the entire length. Grab the tree limb, dangle down, then jump. I've done it wearing a mail hauberk (full riveted steel not aluminum).
3. Even 10' up in a tree give a very advantageous angle to an archer if there are also melee combatants on both sides of an engagement. Trying to shoot past your allies when you're on the same level as them is very difficult, great way to shoot them in the back. That change of angle could make your ability to engage much easier without actively shooting through the space your allies are currently occupying.
Great points and insight, Timothy, thank you!
If you find the perfect tree you may have a perfect branch for escaping as well. For instance, if there is a rock cliff near by, 10 feet tall, you may go into a tree to shoot for better advantage, then run onto the cliff to escape. But its very situational :).
New to your channel! I can answer one of the first questions you ask in this video though so I'll get right to that. This is in regards to "Response Videos" and why they generally take a negative tack or at least lean towards it. This actually goes back to the early days of UA-cam where one of the features of the site was that you could respond to any video with your own video in what amounted to the comment section. Basically the response video was insured to be seen both by the person it was responding to and everyone else who watched it. This was most commonly used to respond with either criticism or just outright mockery of the original video. The reason it skewed so negatively was because there was already a rating system (star based instead of like /dislike). It didn't help that webcams and digital video recorders in general tended to skew on the pricier side of things, so most people also didn't even have the bare minimum of equipment necessary to do so. As time went one and things got monetized people quickly learned how profitable it was to stir up drama with response videos, and as with the modern news media, negativity just sells/sold better. Anyway good vid. Thought I could explain why response videos are typically negative in nature. It started with how the site was built and continues due to how the site is monetized.
Wow that actually makes a lot of sense
Just the whole way of thinking about "response videoes" deserves a like on its own... now on to watch the rest of the video :)
Great vid. Re climbing trees with stuff, you want to ask a tree surgeon! Had a cherry taken down in my garden not long ago, trunk about the diameter of my torso on the ground. Guy just shuffled straight up it, like it wasn't a thing!! With a mini chainsaw on his back too. So for people who are GOOD and practiced at it, getting up is pretty trivial, and it could offer an advantage as they can get up trees others cannot.
Another thought, might not be a serious thought, but does the elevation give any significant increase to the power of the shot, conversely firing up lessen it? At least in a fantasy environment, with huge trees, it could come into effect.
And finally, yeah I still climb trees occasionally and I'm in my late 30's :).
Great stuff as always man you inspired me to put together my first ever Medieval garb for my local Ren-Fest and it had been such a great experience!
Just as a small correction. Hunters don’t have a pulley system to get into their tree stand. They either have a treat and that has a built in ladder (aka. Ladder stand) or a tree stand that uses the stand itself to climb into the tree (aka. Climbing stand)
Ayo! I came from Shads video, and I musy say your content is amazing! I like the positive agruments and criticisms you have and your overall positive demeanor. Keep it up, you're doing awesome!
Thank you!
new here and this may be the crux of your channel, but i enjoy how you bring in tactics and hunting perspectives. it makes this new world more accessible to my understanding.
Trying to unravel the history of a world that never existed!
Why from a tree?.. "Don't do it Anikin, I have the high ground!" That being said. As a young man my dad and I would bow hunt for deer in tree stands. We used to use a hanging quiver off the belt and yes, lots of noise. Climbing was a chore, sometimes I'd drop an arrow and still the noise. Was SO happy when we started to use mounted quivers on the bows, was a lot easier to say the least. The bows we used were recurved so yea, shooting could be a chore as well. Then came the compound, smaller and with the break down in draw weight due to the pullies.. 😃. So that's my experience as a young guy. Love your vids, just found these, great content for someone who has a good grasp on the subjects.
I'd imagine you're getting a lot of new subscribers coming from Shad's channel, and I'm one of them. Im loving your videos and wishing I'd found your channel sooner. Keep up the good work.
Also, I love your hair. Mine is long too, so I gotta appreciate it. Mine is definitely longer though.
The Shad summoned me here. Thanks for the great content!
I cant help myself but you remind me of Yoshimo from BG2 so much :D I am so glad that Shad gave you shoutout so I can have another awesome chanel to watch.
A few concepts. Trees as watch towers.
Pre made tree network locations.
Zip lines and tree fortifications. Tree houses and tree forts.
In which a case firing from trees could be a cultural infrastructure approach.
Potentially also used for dealing with whatever animals are in the area. Similar to how some large predatory cats drag their kill up into the tree so they don’t have to compete with hyenas etc after they’ve done the work of hunting.
Suppose that also lands on the trope of mega trees like redwoods that could have long rope bridges between them. Kind of simulates the height and potential mobility advantage of not having to move through the terrain on ground level.
An example of humanoids using trees to shoot arrows from that I think makes more sense is the dryads from the Witcher, they live in Brokilon, a giant, ancient forest where I can believe there are enough trees that are big enough and close enough to move from one tree to another, therefore eliminating or at least reducing the limitations and their skin is green, which paired with the fact that they don’t wear clothes makes for great camouflage when looking from below against a backdrop of leaves
Great video. You're right. Probably the only useful application would be for a few skilled individuals out of a much larger group to climb the trees. More often you'd just do it if the opportunity forced itself. Like if you were attacked by an animal.
Three reasons for arches to be in tree for a tactile purpose. 1 assassination's. You have a single target traveling by horse shoot from up in the trees then use a zip line to escape. 2 Robin hood Prince of thieves. Your village is in the trees but they would run into similar issues as in the movie. 3 Dragonheart. There was a standing army on the ground with platforms built in the trees so the archers could have a better vantage point. So long as the standing army doesn't fall back and/or you have a zipline to escape, this is a brilliant tactic.
Hi! Shadiversity sent me over to check out your channel. Love your content so I've subscribed. Cheers!!
Thank you! Cheers
I think I forgot to comment on Shad's video, but I do remember that in the LotR, Legolas does use a short bow until he is given the new bow in Lorien. There's also a ranger type character in the Witcher novel series that also uses a short bow that's weighted, if I remember correctly, somewhere between 50 and 70 lbs.
My Cousin used to bow hunt, and then got hurt and went into a coma and came out of it without the use of his arm but still did not let it stop him. He ended up in a few Magazines and broke some records because he taught himself to pull his Bow back with his freaking TEETH!!! He was a Great Hunter who many Admired and it was really AMAZING to see him pull a bow back with his Teeth that others struggled to do with both their arms. Even with one arm working he could find a tree and climb up in it and place his treestand in no time and would get the Biggest Bucks. His name was William AKA Billy Whal and because of his accident, he took pain meds which 2 people a man and a woman Murdered him for in his own home with a Hammer that was so bad they thought it was a Shotgun wound at first. The man had the worst luck and was a Drinker which brought the A Hole out of him but he NEVER Deserved what ha[ppened to him, He was an inspiration to many and showed nothing can stop you from doing what you love if you have the drive to work at it, and
Here due to Shads shoutout. Watched a few videos, i like the content so far and subscribed.
What about a rogue climbing a tree to get a shot over an otherwise un-climbable wall at a noble in his secluded garden? Or to get a shot through an upper story window? Having made their shot they jump (maybe they're the magic rogue with Feather Fall, assuming a DnD-esque fantasy world) or climb out of the tree and run away before the people in the building/garden can react!
It's definitely viable in very specific situations, but I would consider them to be exceptions to the rule, which is why I didn't name all the scenarios I could think of, but that would be a good strategy given that scenario.
Now i need to go play Assassins Creed 3! Great video. When I was young we used to play "war" using apples as our ammo. I would often ambush from the trees but like you said... as soon as i hit someone i had to hide or drop out of the tree so as to not get trapped and swarmed.
I would say that i also expect elves to have different biomechanics,
Another example legolas can run in snow without sinking down into the snow. Its fantastical, near magical. And so do i see elven archery, or anything they do really
(a year late) when i think about from the tree, (giving my age) i go back to sheerwood forest with earl flynn. In this case the use of the trees make some sense. its a place to view the only road through the woods while giving the shooter high ground. The area was a place that travelling had to past so the merry man are able to set trees up to give them an advantage in the ambush.
As I recall, several of the Robin Hood movies had his merry men ambushing the Sheriff of Nottingham's Knights and Troops from trees. As a long time archer, I considered that a bit of a stretch at the time also. However, as I proved time and time again as a youngster, people NEVER look up to find a source of danger. So concealed tree archers as the ambush would potentially be practical aided by a sufficiently large ground force backup.
Thank you for the video! I can see no reason if even dexterous forest dwellers would climb up and especially jump from one tree to another with no preparations like stable platforms on it. However, if they, let's say, make a net of platforms with bridges between them, disguised with branches and leafs, that would surround a specific location like woods' clearing (where enemies could think they might rest), it is completely make sense and it would be almost the same as shooting from a castle wall or a tower.
Fun Fact regarding archery in movies, In the 1938 Robin Hood movie with Errol Flynn, they were actually shooting the stuntmen with live arrows. for a bonus of $150, they would put on a steel plate and some padding and the archer the studio was using (The Remarkably talented Howard Hill) Would shoot them in the plate, and padding, and for serveral close up shots of the arrow striking, the actor had a wooden block under the costume so the arrow would stick properly when he shot them there. Mr Hill even had developed some special arrows that he shot past some studio microphones to get that distinctive sound you hear . He was a good enough shot that on some of the extra features scenes of the DVD i have of that movie, that there is archival footage of him splitting twine at 50 paces on a regular basis. While I admittedly do not know his bow's actual draw weight, I do hold up that movie as a potential example of remarkable practical effects on the silver screen.
Great comment. I love Howard Hill, what an absolute Legend. I admit, my claim for how archery is done in movies is based off of LOTR and a lot of other modern movies. Looks like they were made of much sterner stuff back then. That and they didn't have the technology we have
I love your channel, can't wait to see it blow up! Just subscribed.
I've played Ranger characters a lot during my D&D days and came to the conclusion that a shortbow would be the better choice of ranged weapon... for a travelling Ranger. This was for several reasons, from shooting from horseback, shooting along vertices (fire giants are pretty tall and I don't think an arrow to the knee would stop them), and sheer mobility in the confines of dungeons (it was Dungeons and Dragons after all). Hmm... Dragons... I think I'd like to see Shad test out longbow versus shortbow when trying to shoot upwards, like when trying to shoot a flying dragon.
(Another thing I'm curious about is if a flying creature could use a bow. I'm thinking the lack of leverage from being connected to the ground would make this difficult and require a weaker bow to work.)
A great video responce
As for getting in the tree a rope with a graple hook would be the way id do it so that but that also limits what hight of tree you can use by both the amount of rope and how high you can throw the hook
I think the best instance of bows used from tree tops has to be in dragonheart
In the final big battle a large force of charalry and infantry gets lured into the forest where peasents had walkways set up in the trees leting them snipe away safely
Been a long time since I've thought of that movie. Walkways would be quite good, but I almost think it's cheating, its more of a castle rampart without a wall attached than really shooting from a tree
Ninja have a variety of gear uniquely designed for traversing trees.
3 different types of ladders that can be used from the ground to the top, grapple hook and climbing claws.
The one scenario I can think of were shooting from trees would be plausible would be in a forest with multiple connected platforms.
Basically a tree fort spread over a very large area through multiple trees.
G'day,
I can hopefully provide a little insight into archery from Tree's.
Currently a bowhunter, who uses a traditional bow and does shoot from tree's in certain situations.
The advantages of shooting from a tree;
- Better vision, and further line of sight.
- Concealment from vision. Seldom do deer look to the tree's for threats.
- Concealment from scent. Our sent, mixed with warm body heat, has a less of a change from being detected and more chance of lifting and being blown away undetected.
- Arrow drop shooting down is different, so can shoot further.
- Can remain stationary, pull up a seat and wait watching the game trail.
- Safe from other threats....you may be hunting deer, but that doesn't stop other predators from showing up.
But that being said, I would not hunt rabbit from a tree. They are a stalk on foot kind of hunt. Tree shooting is mainly done when you are watching a well worn game trail.
And finally the noise of the bow. You can dampen the noise of a bow significantly with bits of felt/soft velcro along the bow limbs where the string slaps, also put string silencers in the string (balls of fur or wool in the string). This makes the bow so quiet that it is possible to get multiple shots off at a group of targets without them scattering.
Hope this helps.
:)
It also depends on the size of the tree and how the branches grow. A massive old growth oak with branches ten or so feet above the ground with a very large diameter would be a better than a young tree that was only about 30 ft tall and no branches relatively close to the ground. An easy accessible escape route is key in this scenario.
Prince Edward the first , during both battles of Crecy and Poiteirs during the 100 years war had a special group of archers that were trained to release arrows from under wagons in the back of moving wagons, in trees, and horse back, and from inside of structures, they by what I was told from a living historian at a reenactment these archers trained 6 days a week fom sunrise to sunset. And they used a shorter style of bow possibly a asistic or other type of bow
as a Writer, the only time I ever think about a scene like this is if the character has some sort of nature magic that would allow them to teleport from tree to tree, kind of like a dryad.
I spent my childhood in my neighbors maple tree. My yard had a non climbable birch. When I moved to a place with a maple tree, I had to get into it to cut a rope off a branch. I needed a ladder to get into the tree enough to do the task. And I was just trying to get up there with a knife to cut the rope.
I'm sure if I stayed in practice of tree climbing, it would have been easier. Considering that I can't really climb trees, and I can't fire arrows when I am on the ground and actually hit a target hard enough to not bounce off, the firing arrows from a tree is impossible for this adventurer.
The problem of shooting from a tree is that you are a "treed" opponent. You are limited as to what you can do after you fire.........like running away or or getting out of the way, quickly that is, of return fire from the ground. Aka. you are very likely to be shot out of the tree because you are a more stationary target. I like the fact that this is addressed here.
I see your point personally I still agree with my original point I made on Shad archery in tree video which is it something you would only be doing if you was scouting ahead for Intel no need to use the bow.
But on different note after Shad video I had the ideal of making a d&d ranger more or less around this trope. Basically he is a crazy nomadic Forest man who camps out in treetops at night to prevent people from finding him. He performs dense Forests areas like rainforest, swamp forest, and caves so he can travel tree branch to tree branch. now I know what you are thinking why caves, he does the tree branch to tree branch thing like a sloth upside down and painfully slow so he's harder to notice and to test if the next object he grab hold to can support his weight. He's supposed to have two Mercedes that's have a heavenly reinforce back of the blade, because the back of the blade are design as climbing hooks. This is how he performs to climb trees. He basically climbs trees like how rock climbers use ice pick to climb glazes, or at least that what it look like until he can hook onto a branch. He also use them to "Cherry picks" his branches when going tree to tree. But yeah because of this it's supposed to be a in world thing that at night people sometime mistake him for a giant green praying mantis thing stalking the Forest.
That's a really unique character design
@@LivingAnachronism thanks
I would just like to point out that "strategy" is on a much higher level than what you are talking about. Strategy has to do with the goals & priorities that you are setting, planning the actions that will achieve your goals, making sure that the resources needed are available and transferable to where they are needed. Strategy involves things like, ruining your enemy's alliances, dividing them from within, cutting off their trade routes to ruin their economy. Strategy involves actions on a grand scale. What you are talking about, with regard to shooting from trees, that is the domain of "tactics".
Crossbows would be the ideal weapon to use in this situation.
With regard to climbing trees: If you practice it, you will be better at it. Some trees are easier to climb than others. It is not so dangerous. If you are practiced at climbing trees getting up in one with a bow, even a long bow is not a problem. There are tree trunks without branches and tree trunks with branches. Tree trunks with branches are easier to get in and out of. It is like climbing a ladder. The only problem is that trees with branches also have branches that potentially could get in the way of you drawing your bow. Just like Shad said. You could prepare a tree to make it easier to shoot from by clearing some of the overhanging and potentially entangling branches. You could also prepare a position, by making a camouflaged platform to stand on and shoot from beforehand. This would of course take some preparation and prior knowledge of enemy movements.
You missed one reason to shoot from trees. MOST PEOPLE JUST DO NOT LOOK UP!
This might sound ridiculous, but it is very true. Being in a tree potentially gives you an element of surprise, because people just do not expect you to be there. Obviously, trained rangers or soldiers are going to be more aware of their surroundings, especially if they are looking for you. But you would be surprised how easy it is to ambush people if they are just moving through an area, not expecting any hostile contact. Brigands could do this sort of thing to travelers quite easily. Soldiers are also vulnerable to ambush this way if they are not being careful. It happens sometimes.
You have to be able to be the master the situation surrounding what you are doing to use trees effectively as a ranger/archer. 'You have to assess the situation and choose favorable ground. Though this is best done beforehand like, when you know that the enemy must pass by a certain route or that they could. If you can prepare your position beforehand all the better.
Would you hide in a tree to shoot at an oncoming enemy army deployed in a skirmish line to sweep the woods and root out robbers, like in a Robin Hood scenario? No.
Why? Because the enemy knows you are there. They are ready, looking for you and they are heavily armed and armored. They are more likely to look up in the trees. Than a caravan passing through a wooded area. If you shoot at one of them. You will surprise them for a couple of seconds. The men near the enemy that you struck with the arrow will probably be surprised and then either take cover or rush to help their fallen comrade. The rest of the skirmish like is going to rush forward surround your tree and then their bowmen are going to make a quick end of you.
On the other hand, you could certainly stash your kit, climb a tree, especially a prepared tree along a known path, to spot the enemy, alert your friends, shoot an arrow or two at them to confuse and slow their progress and then disappear. This would work especially well, if the enemy had to climb through broken ground, cross a stream or navigate a steep defile that lay between you and the "kill zone" where you engaged them. Setting up the ground of an ambush cannot always be done ahead of time, but sometimes it can. If the terrain is such that it channels the enemy into choke points, then those choke points are ideal for little harassing ambushes.
I am sure that an orc camp or a camp of brigands would have trees that they had prepared so that archer/scouts could shoot from them.
This would especially work if you had scouting parties of 4-5 men. Imagine you knew that the enemy had to either come through the woods and a narrow defile that was in it or circle around the wood through a field. You could place 4-5 archers on the field side and 4-5 archers to cover the ravine. If you did this the enemy would come from another direction entirely. That is how it works. If they did come one of the ways that you suspected them to. One of the men, could silently go and warn of the enemy's approach, while the others stayed and harassed them with arrow fire. Ideally their positions would be hard to reach but would have a decent field of fire into a choke point. If the enemy did move toward them they would encounter obstacles and traps.
Shooting from trees would be a scouting and a guerilla style harassment tactic at best. You would never put a whole army or a whole party up in trees. A few me could be up in a tree or trees, spot the enemy, alert your friends, get out of the tree and escape without alerting the enemy to your presence. Then you and your friends could set a proper ambush for the advancing enemy.
If you are shooting from a distance of over 30+ yards, probably no one is going to hear your bow string snap when you fire. They will hear a crossbow.
Gimmicks are the spice of tactics. They give you the little edge you need to surprise the enemy. That is why someone might climb a tree and shoot from it.
Trees make you much more vulnerable in modern warfare and it is best to stay out of them and on the ground. While that is probably true in medieval fantasy worlds as well, at least there are a few MORE reasons that one might be up in a tree.
Oink!
= @ )
I believe that Shad did mention in passing that he choose the war bow under the assumption that in the medieval fantasy setting the adventurers/rangers will be required to go up against monsters. His choice was based on the theory that typically in games/movies, in the wild, monsters can get pretty tough/resilient and not accounting for shot placement, the longbow, and war bows would be the ones needed to breach monster natural armors/hides.
Another thing he mentioned as to being up in a tree although it may not be a great one is big monsters and getting height for shot angles, still, he did essentially claim that being in a tree for archery is not great anyway.
Great video though and raised great points.
Yes, Shad is certainly not wrong in this regard, I'm coming at it from the "shot placement is more important than draw weight" so it just depends on what specific scenario we talk about. But Shad's assumption is correct, given the context of his experiment
If the only thing you're concerned about is penetration, you would use a (~66") Manchu bow instead of a (72-78") English longbow. You would just need to worry about the much greater cost, the higher maintenance it requires, and the fact the if moisture gets past the outer layer and into the sinew or glue, it can explode in your face when you try to draw it. However, as far as actually fighting a large beast goes, there are types of composite bow that would work just as well for that as a longbow would, assuming you can keep them dry and properly maintained. Ottoman bows are often 42-50" strung, and those perform extremely well.
"He was tall as a young tree, lithe, *immensely strong*, able swiftly to draw a *great war-bow* and shoot down a Nazgûl, endowed with the *tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies*, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship."
Legolas was indeed using a heavy war bow, he's just built different.
Having used tree stands before (only fell out once!), yes, we all love the trope of a whole war-party up in the trees ambushing the living hell out of aa larger, stuck on the ground party. Here's the trick to making it work: you don't put your whole party in the trees. The majority of your skirmishers would be on the ground, your archers go up in the trees...that way an opposing force is worrying about getting a sword or axe in the face than attacking the archers...basically not looking up.
Robin Hood was always ambushing the Sheriff's men from trees. Loved those old swashbucklers.
As a person with a long but informal history of tree climbing, I can tell you that carrying a backpack wouldn't likely slow me down at all, and I can tell you that the best way to get your pursuer to look somewhere-- anywhere-- else is to throw a rock. Because one thing a person will ALWAYS DO when they hear a rock land is turn towards that rock. 100% of the time. Without exception. Few things in this universe operate as guarantees, esp. human behaviors. But when it comes to rocks, this rule is perfectly solid! FWIW.
Traditional bowhunters are an excellent source of practical knowledge.
Shad brought me here and then i decided to stay, awesome video.
My 5c contribution, movies/games need more crossbow sniper shots.
Great video but both you and Shad forgot crucial disadvantage of being in a tree: Even if you were able to pull off shooting while maintaining balance and all the other things, you're effectively cornered. If you were facing against more opponents (the Hobbit example is perfect here) yes you could shoot, but if they had shields, the moment they would find out where you are (which would be basically instantly as it's surprisingly easy to even subconsciously calculate where an arrow was fired from) they would have to just outlast your ammo using shields and then wait. This is perfectly portrayed in Hunger Games for example, where they literally camp under the tree to secure a kill.
the main reasons i think you nailed ambush and assassination for these it would be useful as most people when scanning for danger pay more attention to there level and the main ground level than random elevated positions.
i must admit, using the short bow makes a lot more sense. Plus, you can quickly make a short term, temp. short bow whilst on the move.
Shooting from trees (performed at any times, soviet sniper made it popular in WW2) has some advantages: good view, higher position eleminate enemys cover, but one big disadvantage:
once spotted, there is nowhere to run...
It depends on the tree, the bow, and the archer.
We actually did this in the pine forest of Oregon and Washington while bow-hunting deer. I can see why Shad would think it was impossible after watching his video, Australian trees are more like large bushes! Pine trees have thick, crevassed bark that requires very little climbing gear and long branches with almost all of the foliage on the ends. Traditional Christmas trees are actually a unique breed of trees with full coverage of foliage but even they often have wide gaps.
My other points that I may add were covered in this video with one exception, something humans do a lot more than intellectuals think about, doing it for fun and bragging rights!
Basically what I got from your’s and Shad’s videos was: Yes if you’re and elf, no if you’re not.
Legolas is using a magical enchanted bow it's draw weight is probably almost non existent and it's power is probably in the hundreds of pounds
There are medieval reports of fleeing soldiers climbing trees to escape their pursuers, no mention if they stripped off their kit before doing so, but then those reports mention the very same pursuers shooting up into the trees or chopping down the trees to dislodge their prey. Also, if you're living off the land as most soldiers did back before the early modern era, you might have to climb a tree to get your breakfast, course I don't think you'd be wearing your full kit either. So climbing might seem to you to be a very specific skill, but now days most people don't go out into the woods to forage or hunt, but instead enjoy hobbies such as mountain climbing and free climbing. I mean our ancient ancestors came from the trees, and most people still enjoy climbing them today.
Climbing trees in general is a great skill, I mean to say that climbing trees in battle kit for the express purpose of doing loosing arrows at an opposing enemy seems like a specific skill. Climbing trees for eggs seems like good fun!
Two comments
1.) If i were writing a scene where my archer is going to climb a tree to take a shot with a bow, a lot of what you are identifying, to me sounds like drama. This shit is gold for creating tense setpieces. I can already see the pieces of a scene that follows some broad strokes. An archer climbs a tree to get eyes on an advancing force, shit they're closer than expected, archer is spotted, and arrows start coming, one lands close and they yank it out of the trunk and send it back. They try to climb down and are grazed, falling a few branches down and then catching themselves. You already identified that climbing trees happens a lot in scenes of tension and escape. Will that be good and logical? Idk, I literally came up with the idea while watching this. But if we're tryna stay realistic I'm willing to bet there's something here.
2.) A lot of the fantasy of loosing arrows from trees and attacking from high ground is tied up in, well fantasy. Trees don't have to conform to what we understand them to be in a fictional setting. There can be trees large enough that their branches are like pathways. And a force of forest dwelling militia who are so used to traversing them that they can handily outpace anyone else to use the space to their advantage. If you're familiar at all with the Great Hollow setting of Dark Souls I think that gets across. The Assassin's Creed 3 'treerunning' mechanic I think is a phenomenal execution of this fantasy. ua-cam.com/video/WM1_wpnEAW8/v-deo.html
Ironically it takes place in the 'real world,' but being a game with carefully designed traversal mechanics it's obviously not bound by our limitations and the experience is better for it. I don't think there are many leaps that can't be made with a tasteful pinch of fantasy dust to make the loosing arrows from the trees fantasy work.
the teens at my archery camp in Vermont, were always climbing the maples. "Look Up" = )
i have heard once that there was a hunter/ranger that shot a bear from the treetops. the shot though was not to kill or hurt the bear but scurry away from the town because it was getting closer.
I've used mine to hunt deer etc from trees as well as on the ground but I use a 75lb bow for that. It's 6ft tall w/ a 31" draw & I've not had issues w/ it's length but I would never try a heavier bow from a tree. W/ lighter poundage you can stand differently & you don't have to shift your weight like you do w/ a war bow.
I climbed a tree once in a game..as a ranger...to spot our group on the ground who entered a tall crop field and used my arrows to help them pinpoint our enemies. I was in no danger of being shot at and eventually we just burned the field
For shooting from trees, you might have other terrain considerations or setups.
Shooting from a tree for an ambush would mean that they still need to come to you, and pulling them into prepared ground can be just as nasty there.
It also depends upon the trees, there's a lot of fantasy forests where humans can parkour through the canopy easily enough with wide enough branches for easy footing...several of which are in Middle Earth...
But you might also have terrain, shooting at someone from the trees while on the other side of the river might also give you more cover than being on the ground depending upon the other parts of terrain...if you're shooting down it's also easier than level shooting while also making it a bit harder to be shot at.
There are both advantages and disadvantages and it's a situational thing
I think allot of response videos get a bad connotation because, from what I've seen with some people's responses to Shad's archery style, they seem to be very belittling and bitter towards his style because it doesn't fit with their style. The same would go for his nunchaku analysis video. This however was very respectful, and refreshing to hear 😊 Archers from trees do sound like they could be strategically perfect at night though. But, the only thing issue would be visibility for the archer. So I guess that could destroy that point. Love the Jurassic Park plug 🤣🤣🤣
Elves shooting from trees definitely makes sense as balence and mobility essentially aren't an issue for them. In fact it does a good job of establishing what elves are like by having them be able to do it.
Literally THE only reason I could think of for wanting to be in a tree is for an ambush in a very specific area where you would otherwise have trouble concealing yourself. Even then, crossbows would be the much better option as opposed to even the most compact of short bows. Crossbows would (probably) be easier to aim and fire while in the foliage compared to most bows and you could potentially draw the crossbow before climbing the tree. Of course this is still assuming you couldn't hide just behind a bush of some kind instead.