There’s this video, which at least a dozen people have forwarded to me, is circulating the Internet at the moment purporting to “demolish every Hollywood myth” about archery and “prove that Hollywood archery is not historical.” Since apparently hundreds of sites have uncritically repeated its many preposterous and unsupportable claims, with the result that many people have asked me about it, I thought I should offer a detailed analysis.
The question really comes down to three separate categories; (1) the claims made in the narration; (2) the trick shots shown, and (3) Andersen’s actual archery ability.
We’ll start with the third. Andersen’s quick-shooting technique is obviously effective (if speed is the goal), in that he is able to fire a lot of arrows at a very rapid pace. It’s worth noting that the narrator goes to great pains to explain why shooting at close-up distances is so important and denigrates “warrior archers only shooting at long distances,” (just one of many totally false claims) in order to paper over the fact that the man obviously can’t hit anything that’s more than about 20 feet away. No doubt there are literally hundreds of failed attempts that were cut out of the carefully-edited video. His gimmick is speed, not accuracy, and it’s obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about archery that his complete lack of any kind of consistent form is going to require camera tricks and a lot of luck, which is exactly what’s on display here. He may in fact be the fastest archer in the world; he just shouldn’t pretend to be accurate.
The really egregious part is the staggeringly inaccurate, misleading, and hyperbolic narration, written by somebody with little-to-no actual knowledge of archery history and a willingness to distort facts to make a bogus case. Here are some of the patently ridiculous claims put forward:
“He uses forgotten historical methods…” No, they were not forgotten. They just weren’t European. Archery is one of the oldest human activities, found in virtually every culture on Earth, and dating back tens of thousands of years. There are wide variations in equipment and shooting techniques around the world, and Andersen’s “discoveries” are well-known to anyone who has ever studied Asian and Eastern European archery, such as Mongolian, Tibetan or Hungarian styles. The famous Native American archer Ishi was known for shooting in a style very similar to Andersen’s, putting the arrow on the outside of the bow in the style of the Yahi People of the Pacific Northwest. My friend Patricia Gonsalves (archery consultant for Arrow and owner of Lykopis Archery in Vancouver, BC) is currently making a documentary about precisely these allegedly “forgotten” techniques as they are currently being practiced around the world.
“The back quiver is a Hollywood myth.” This howler is put forward in the middle of Andersen’s ridiculous infomercial-like demonstration of what’s supposedly wrong with the back quiver. All it needs is an exasperated voice-over saying “has this ever happened to you?” The back quiver is not a Hollywood myth, it’s a historically-documented method of carrying arrows, albeit one that is more favored by hunters and traditional archers than by target archers. Archers are very practical; they use what works, and when they find something that works better, they change to that, and the back quiver was in common use throughout Europe and North America centuries before Hollywood existed.
The narration actually skirts close to accuracy when talking about target archery. With the invention of firearms, archery made the transition from weapon of war to sporting event, and with that came codification of rules, refinement of effective techniques, and modification of equipment, all in pursuit of what was regarded as the most difficult attribute to master. Something similar happened when the martial art of swordfighting became the sport of fencing. In the case of archery, accuracy at ever-increasing distances was chosen as the goal to focus on rather than speed or trick-shots. Having acknowledged that, the narration than launches back into bogus assertions and ignorance.
The narrator declares that shooting at a stationary target is “something that was unknown in the past,” which is patently absurd; archers who hope to hit a moving target such as an enemy combatant were obviously going to practice on a stationary target, and the modern archery target is a natural evolution of the ancient method; the difference is that what was once basic training is now the end goal.
Continuing on with a complete lack of understanding of the physics of archery, the narrator asserts “these archers started placing the arrow on the left side of the bow. This is probably due to the fact that aiming at a stationary two-dimensional target makes you aim with one eye.” In point of fact, no, it’s not. The reason for moving the arrow to the left side of the bow (for a right-handed archer) is something known as “the Archer’s Paradox,” a complicated collection of physics phenomena that results in the arrow hitting to the right even though when it’s on the bow it’s pointing slightly to the left. You can see it in the slow-motion footage during the tournament scene in Brave; as the arrow begins its flight, it’s oscillating back and forth, swimming through the air like a fish and moving to the left, until the aerodynamic effect of the air passing over feathers causes it to begin spinning, at which point the arrow turns and begins traveling to the right. (You can also see how simple and fast it is to place an arrow on the bow, despite Andersen’s absurd play-acting.) This scene was painstakingly recreated from high-speed footage shot by professional archers for Russell Crowe’s Robin Hood, using historically accurate English longbows. Placing the arrow on the left side of the bow compensates for this effect; without it, archers would have to aim to the left in order to hit their target. In point of fact, most archers, especially those shooting traditional styles, shoot with both eyes open.
“Lars realized that what we thought was historical archery only works well for modern target archery and Hollywood films.” What he claims as a revolutionary discovery is in fact common knowledge among archers. The fact that Andersen didn’t know this is evidence of just how little he actually knows about archery, or how little he thinks his audience knows.
The narration says that Andersen learned his techniques “from studying old historical pictures of archers.” What he obviously fails to understand is that artists in the past were as likely to be just as inaccurate and ignorant of archery techniques as artists today. They generally painted scenes that they either witnessed without understanding, or made up out of their heads, often based on what previous artists had done and compounding the errors. Unless an artist was illustrating a treatise on archery techniques and having their work reviewed by a competent archer, it is very doubtful that anything they illustrated is in any way a reliable record of archery form. What IS accurate is the archaeological evidence in the form of bows and physiological indicators in the archers’ bodies, such as separation in the shoulder cartilage, the thickness of bones in the bow arm and elongation of the bones of the draw arm, all of which is well-documented and known to competent historians.
“If he wanted to shoot like the master archers of old, he would have to unlearn what he had learned,” the narrator tells us. If Andersen had ever actually learned anything from real archers before going on his historical quest, he would have had a lot less to unlearn. What he had learned is the usual collection of bad habits that self-taught amateur archers always display, many of which continue unabated in his new, allegedly historic techniques. He is a terrible archer who can shoot fast. He shoots very fast. He shoots very badly very fast.
His new technique is described as “simpler and more natural, exactly like throwing a ball.” This is accompanied by a shot of him throwing a ball very badly and awkwardly. He throws about as well as he shoots, but nobody would ever put up that segment and try to compare him to Major League pitchers, because most people know how to throw a ball at least enough to know that this is not a particularly impressive example of the skill. Another fun exercise would be comparing Andersen’s clumsy attempts at running and jumping to actual practitioners of parkour, martial arts, or gymnastics. Frankly, I’m surprised people aren’t mocking his awkward attempts at action shots, since to me he looks about as impressive and coordinated as the Star Wars kid.
The real howlers pile up when the narrator tries to expound on the history of how ancient archers carried their arrows, telling us “in the beginning, archers probably drew arrows from quivers or belts, but since then, they started holding arrows in the bow hand, and later in the draw hand.” This is patently absurd, since the historic artwork shown during the sequence clearly illustrates that carrying the arrows in the hand is the oldest method, not a later refinement. The quiver, whether for back, hip, calf or saddle, was invented to simplify the archer’s life by getting the arrows out of his hand. The sequence shown in the video is exactly the opposite of the historic record, but it’s a lie they feel is necessary in order to build up Andersen’s credibility. The reality is exactly what the narrator later says, that holding arrows in the draw hand “requires immense practice and skill, and only professional archers, hunters and so on, would have had the time for it,” though truthfully, there were historically very few professional archers or hunters. Archery was just one of many skills a soldier was expected to have, and a hunter was also known as “somebody who liked feeding his family.” Here the scriptwriter is guilty of the sin of “presentism,” in other words projecting the attitudes and behaviors of the present onto people of the past. Specialization is a modern habit.
In reality, the quiver was the more modern invention that replaced the earlier method of carrying arrows in the hand. The narrator tells us “when guns started replacing bows, this technique was forgotten.” In actuality, it was forgotten long before that, when quivers were invented, in any culture that figured out how to make them. Many cultures never did; there’s plenty of evidence of aboriginal archers around the world who never adopted quivers, such as New Guinea and elsewhere.
After claiming that Andersen’s shooting technique is powerful enough that “his arrows still penetrate chain mail armor” (in truth, a 10-year-old with a 15-pound bow can penetrate chain mail at the short distances Andersen favors), the narrator again demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of actual archery, paired with Andersen demonstrating what he thinks modern archery looks like.
We’re told “modern archers use only one hand, but in the past, some archers allegedly used both hands to give the arrow more power.” This is utter nonsense, unless you’re talking about one-armed archers like Jeff Fabry. Any competent archery instructor will tell you that an archer’s power does not come from the arm, but from the back muscles, and both sides are used at the same time. A quick skimming of Archery Anatomy by Ray Uxford, Core Archery: Shooting With Proper Back Tension by Larry Wise, Why You Suck at Archery by Steve Ruis, Total Archery: Inside the Archer by US Olympic Archery coach Kisik Lee, or any of a hundred other books going all the way back to Maurice Thompson or Howard Hill will put the lie to this fairytale. Again, either Andersen and his team are that ignorant, or they hope the audience is.
Andersen then goes back to his emphasis on speed over accuracy, power or the avoiding of injury, asserting that “from old texts, we know that Saracen archers were expected to be able to fire three arrows in 1.5 seconds.” More interesting is the fact that apparently the Saracens had stopwatches. How Andersen arrives at this “fact” is anyone’s guess, but it’s a nice lead-in to his collection of circus tricks and stunts, most of which are also popular fare with magicians and martial artists, such as catching a very slow-moving arrow. Just as splitting an arrow can only be accomplished with the use of carefully-prepared equipment (using bamboo for the arrow to be split, for example), all of Andersen’s tricks require equipment modifications, careful camerawork and editing. Splitting an arrow by firing at a knife blade, for example, could only be accomplished by using an arrow without a point, which would require shooting from a distance of about 10 feet or less (an arrow without a point will decelerate quickly), and careful observation will reveal a camera cut between Andersen’s firing and the close-up of the arrow supposedly splitting (it looks to me like the arrow passes close beside the blade and doesn’t split at all, but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt). The second arrow was obviously shot from only a few feet away and was prepped to split. As for the supposed shooting at an oncoming arrow, he may have eventually hit an arrow fired over his head (not at him), but again, it wouldn’t have split, and in fact it probably didn’t. It looks like the arrow was deflected, then he picked up broken pieces already on the floor. I’d love to see Mythbusters demolish this fraud, and I’m only disappointed that so many people are so gullible as to believe it.
Andersen should stick to demonstrations of speed shooting and leave questions of science, history and modern archery skills to people who actually know something about those things. Along the same lines, web editors should check with competent experts before uncritically repeating nonsense.
Special thanks to my friend, animator, artist, fire-dancer and traditional archer Anna Maltese, whose far more polite take-down of this video inspired my own, and my friend Patricia Gonsalves, who taught me almost everything I know about ancient and non-European archery methods.
What a horrible article.
I don’t care if the author is the greatest archer in the world, and simultaneously a professor of historical archery, they are a complete asshole. Lars is obviously skilled and has obviously worked for years honing those skills. He’s wowed the world, and genuinely at that, because most people have never seen archery done this way. The historical stuff may not be entirely accurate, his knowledge of ‘proper’ archery theory may not be correct, but that’s not a sin you know. Everyone makes mistakes, and a six minute video was obviously going to take some shortcuts to make itself look better. Pointing out these shortcuts is helpful, yes, knowledge is always good, but a nasty, acidic, bitter article like this degrading a man for years of practice at something he loves… What is wrong with you? Why does his success make you so unhappy?
Won’t be coming back to GeekDad
“I’m only disappointed that so many people are so gullible as to believe it.”
Really? So I guess they are now teaching Archery and the History of Archery from K-12 and I just missed all those classes. You throw around “gullible” and “ignorant” a lot yet seem to forget that, for most of us, our knowledge of archery ends with understanding it involves a bow and arrow.
If someone presented you with a video involving String Theory (which based on your bio, I assume you know nothing about) that revealed some remarkable, amazing things why would YOU, personally, be expected to immediately doubt the claims? You are not a scientist who specializes in String Theory.
Yes, Lars’ presentation is an Internet video with multiple camera angles and several takes, so the idea of outtakes should have crossed my mind. But as for the historical stuff? Sounded reasonable enough with a single viewing. And forgive me for not immediately diving into the facts at thesis level to make sure what I saw was true. Honestly, I thought it was cool, shared it with some people and moved on (well until now obviously).
I appreciate knowing the truth about the video but wow could you do it with less vitriol? Even if Lars is a fake, constantly insulting the guy comes off as petty and defensive. You are gaining any allies by constantly referring to people who enjoyed the video as “ignorant” and “gullible” (see my opening paragraph). A simple OBJECTIVE point by point would have accomplished the same thing and made what is an otherwise very well laid out and articulated article far more palatable.
Just want to say a couple of things. First is about all the myth buster talk in this forum. If Lars doctors his videos, what do you think a large scale production like myth busters can do. It’s a television show with an agenda not an objective peer reviewed journal of physics, stop incorporating the show into your arguments. Plus what Lars does is not a myth, there are plenty of other archers that do what Lars does. There is no myth to be busted, Lars studies asiatic archery, throwing a unique spin on it. Don’t be angry people its not that impressive and being jealous of a self taught archer and his hobby of making very entertaining videos, is pretty sad.
Secondly is to the author, your article is well constructed, besides that half of it is you judging other people you don’t know. Why all the animosity? Lars is a pathetic fake in your mind, and all the “gullibles” or people who enjoyed the video like myself, are ignorant fools. when you judge people you truly do not know you are just judging yourself, or projecting onto them… Hmmm. Not trying to be hurtful, but mean people suck, plain and simple don’t be one of them.
Wow, this article comes across as incredibly bitter and mean-spirited. Why are people taking this video so seriously? It’s clearly meant to be a bit silly, I guess to add some entertainment value to it. I really don’t think he’s trying to make himself out to be some ultimate badass, the over-the-top narration seems obviously tongue-in-cheek to me. Is he not just trying to show that you can have more fun with a bow than just stationary target shooting? It certainly makes me want to take up archery again, so fair play to Andersen for that at least.
You say that he can’t hit anything over twenty feet away, but in the vid we see him hit a target that is more like 100 feet away.
And as far as myth busters go, I lost some respect for them with that whole Archimedes laser debacle. All they proved is that they are not clever enough to built in three days what would have taken, it achieved, one of the greatest scientific minds of the Ancient World months to accomplish.
Whoever wrote this post has a lot of bad attitude and lots bad to say but doesn’t really have any proof to back anything he says up. He’s full of hot air trying to sound smarter than someone else.
I am a teacher of primitive bow making and shooting — Lars is the real deal
you the writer is are full of hsit
Legit at what? Making wild claims of historical research? Claiming to have discovered a forgotten archery? Neither of these claims is legit. By making them he undoes what real researchers do. There is no historical style that is like what Lara does. He has zero sources cited that proves his legitimacy. His claim of forgotten technique is total crap. There are many many clubs, schools, research facilities around the world that prove otherwise.
He’s far from legit with those claims.
He is fast, I’ll give him that but not legit. He’s basically invented a new style of fast archery. That’s it.
As for your being a primitive bowyer, very cool, but it doesn’t exacty give you the credentials to make the call on his legitimacy.
I enjoyed the video of Lars and I think he hit on some constructive points. However, like most people said, archery is a personal endeavor and a traditional hunting bow ain’t something to be plucked and say this is the best way to snap shoot.
Traipsing or loping through the woods is not how bow hunters shoot deer. I noticed several arrows that he shot porpoised so bad just from the ragged nocking he made on the string.
There is no doubt he spent time shooting his “speed technique” but it would not suit me at all. Keep me entertained and we will both be happy Lars.
You should learn how to throw a ball though.
I don’t know if i should take seriously this article , it seems to me that the author doesn’t like Andersen and wants to make him look as bad as possible.
Even if the claims made in the video aren’t true , he still is a very good archer , as we can clearly see in the video.
While attacking Lars “facts” author commits major blunders himself.
Author’s explanation of moving arrow to the other side of the bow by “archer paradox” is unphysical. Archer paradox effect is mirrored when you mirror arrow placement. Archer paradox stems form the (obvious) facts that bow-arrow system is not (left-right) symmetrical to begin with (arrow is on the side) and bow’s string push is slightly off-axis when an arrow is being shot. But it’s off axis to the other side when the arrow is placed on the other side, and the whole effect is mirrored.
Author’s claims about ancient artists being clueless are well… unfounded. First, the amount of human technical knowledge was much smaller in the past, so one person could grasp much bigger fraction of that. Second, archery was much more common in the past – it didn’t require much effort to just go and see how archers do their thing. Third, in old time artists had often put much effort in knowing their art technique and their subjects. While today you could be considered a great artist while being rather mediocre technically, in the past technical mediocrity excluded anyone being considered a good artist.
Morale: don’t attack others on “facts” while you can’t get yours correct.
Archers paradox does not happen because of the way you describe. Archers paradox happens because the energy transferred to the string of the limbs returning to their static position is pushing the back end of the arrow faster than the front. The arrow must absorb this energy throughout its length. This is why arrows are spined and that the spine of an arrow must match or be stiffer. With the thumb release the arrow usually, not always, sits on the same side as the draw hand. This allows for the string to release more on a forward trajectory than the Mediterranean draw. When releasing with the Mediterranean draw the string comes off the fingers at an angle away from the hand.
There is less string ‘wiggle’ with a thumb draw.
You could not ‘just go’ and watch archery in ancient and medieval times.
Archery was a military endeavour and not sport. Thus your average stele/tombstone carver didn’t go out to the local garrison and observe. They would have been allowed to. Yes archery was used for hunting as well but I hazard that most artists wouldn’t go traipsing around after a hunter.
Archery was outlawed in England after William the Conquerer and the Norman invasion so no, most artists could not ‘just go watch’.
No, art in ancient/medieval times wasn’t always correct. Just google ‘longbow rabbit and hound’. Most artists in medieval times as well were monks. Monks who didn’t leave their monastery much. Do you honestly think the people who made the Bayeax Tapestry or the Alexander/Darius mosaic actually watched the battle?
You also assume that the artists producing some of this art were actually also alive during some of these events depicted.
Artists, as they do today, produce art based on their own interpretation. That is what makes it art. An artist is neither a good or bad artist if they do or do not study their subject. Art, is interpretation of one’s own vision.
Morale: don’t write things unless you can cite your sources and back up your claims. All three of you could do with that lesson.
I’m not an archer or a historian. Maybe his claims are false, maybe not, but who cares? He’s impressive, even if it is a stunt. If his video motivates an individual to pick up a bow and become a proficient archer, then more power to him! One thing I know for sure is gimmick or not, I’ll bet none of you who are bashing him would be willing to take a chance on him missing you with an arrow while you say mean things to his face. I’m pretty positive his arrow will penetrate your plaid flannel shirt.
Lars is an exeptionnal trickshooter, he do not say anything else in his video ! He only say how he has come to do such feats of skill, and prove he can do it ! (No one really doubt it, in fact).
And now internet “historians” of archery (without any other credential that the one you can give yourself) or “archers” (idem) are claiming that he has made false historical affimations, and that what he does is not really possible in combat. I am very sorry to see Geedad jum in this bandwagon with looser “archers of the internets” and would be historians who coumd no shoot a bow correctly.
http://www.youtube.com/user/larsandersen23/videos
owned!
Can’t believe all the haters on here! The man is doing something you all only wish you could do. I downloaded the video and used my video analyzing software and broke it down into single frames and completely analyzed the video. The only part of the video that is inconclusive is the armor penetration scene as you don’t actually see “him” shooting the arrows. Everything else is accurate. So keep hating and wishing you were that good, and you’ll never be anything but crybabies.
And if u still dont belive in it. There is no hope..
First off, i’ll give you that this guy looks very awkward, and that the jumps and so on are entirely meaningless. He’s clearly not a great archer (though not many are) but he has raised some interesting perspectives and ideas. Speed would have been more useful, and the range not such a big deal back in the day. But I find this guy quite credulous, and it’s a given that this is a classic YouTube video of his skills. However, you’ve written a lot of nonsense back on it too…
“archers who hope to hit a moving target such as an enemy combatant were obviously going to practice on a stationary target” er… no one sane practices doing something by doing something else that uses different skills. Hitting a moving target is fundamentally different to hitting a stationary one.
“truthfully, there were historically very few professional archers or hunters. Archery was just one of many skills a soldier was expected to have… Specialization is a modern habit.” Where on Earth does that bit of nonsense come from? Of course, in the professional soldier ranks, there were different specialities. Some would be more proficient with a sword, or a spear (etc) than an arrow, and vice versa. It stands to reason. This is ironic presentism, in that you’re applying your own perspective on the differences with the past, also with no evidence. That you even mention the physical changes discernible on the bodies of archers shows how much they must have been doing it. Not specialist? Explain that one.
Finally, let me just pick up this bit about closing one eye or having both open. I did a quick Google on images from archery at Olympics. Many with both, many with one. Which kind of undermines both arguments, really.
Lars has responded to theses …”theories” people have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iLTA43MBuA
Geekdad you seem butt-hurt by this guy, your endless babble is hilarious. Although Lars is comical in his delivery i still bet he can out shoot you on his worst day. (Anyone can become an archery coach so how are you the expert again?)
I am also an archer, & I am very impressed by Lars. I really do think that all these comment are sour grapes, & being pedantic. Geek Dad, & all the other sad jealous twats who hate on Lars – grow up. You are exactly what is wrong with the internet, & in fact the world. The minute someone comes along & does something cool, there is a long line of sniveling little mummy’s boys lining up to act all big & superior behind the safety of their keyboard. Stop caring about Lars Andersen, & get back to masturbating over the latest pop videos fools, as with your sad jealous attitudes you will only ever be able to get your kicks from being assholes on forums.
It’s two totally different things people –
Lars is a circus trick act. It is amazing to see what he does, but it is not traditional archery. Lars’ video’s history is incorrect and so the whole thing smacks of “falseness”, but his shooting is for real and I admire him for what he does.
On the other hand, I got an NFAA certificate at age 10 and so have been shooting for 50 years, and instructing for more than 30, and can confidently say that the unique style that Lars displays is not something I’d teach kids, as while it looks cool, hitting a target at distance and making show after shot into rings is also an impressive feat – different but impressive. Same for hunting, bowfishing, etc. etc.
Different strokes for different folks.
Catching arrows is an old trick. By trick I don’t mean faked, I mean it HAS been done. It’s not myth.
As an archer of over 50 years, ( yes that’s before compounds were around ) with 6 state titles and one world title, ( which would be more accurately called a U.S. east coast title ) all with recurve bows, made by my brother, my first thought after watching the video was to call my wife over to watch this guy shoot a bow while dancing, we had a really good laugh. yes it was impressive, but i don’t believe it would help much while hunting or competing, so, well done, Lars, but i believe you contradicted yourself, ” the back quiver is a hollywood myth” and then you make a video which is basically only good for hollywood, or a combat situation which has not happened in about 600 years. so yea, reading the comments on the video has been almost as much fun as watching the video itself. I’ll leave with a final lesson i learned at an early age, there’s a huge difference between a guy that shoots a bow and an archer, while I myself may consider what Lars can do useless, with the time and devotion he put into it, I’d have to say he’s an archer.
” What IS accurate is the archaeological evidence in the form of bows and physiological indicators in the archers’ bodies, such as separation in the shoulder cartilage, the thickness of bones in the bow arm and elongation of the bones of the draw arm, all of which is well-documented and known to competent historians.”
Reference? Elongation of the bones in the draw arm is so weird and unlike anything I’ve ever known that I’m inclined to say it’s not real. Sounds lamarckian. Increased bone density in the bow arm shouldn’t be more than that of a tennis player. If such movements were to have a visible effect, it would be probably much less significant than the bone length and thickness differences the arms of people who ride motorcycles with those ridiculously wide handlebars, versus people who ride naked/sports motorcycles. Soldiers who have used spears and pikes must have tremendously more dramatic skeletal asymmetries.
The comments in this article demonstrates that gullible people often get extremely defensive and butt-hurt when their gullibility is pointed out.
If anyone needs an example of being too stupid and ignorant to learn, I will direct them to the idiocy that is this comment section. These people watched an edited video about something they know nothing about and left with their minds blown for reasons beyond their ken, and when presented with information that contradicts their beliefs and the claims asserted in said video, they got angry and try to educate someone who presented them with information they lacked. Even worse, they could not even grasp the point of the article, which is Lars’ techniques would be useless in most combative situations.
“But internet will revolutionize education,” the glib and socially challenged lot say. Clearly.