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.
Someone needs to make me a gif of that 3-second bit (starting at 2:09) where he throws the ball. Right now.
Wow, there are some hate filled keyboard jockeys out here in internet land. It truly is amazing how many of you go into attack mode when someone says something in a way you don’t like and then all but say “fuck you you fucking fuck”. Y’all need to go outside and shoot some archery or get laid or something productive cause you have waaay to much pent up frustration and just sound like angry little archery trolls. If you don’t like his article, just go away.
Your article is convincing enough on the surface and his video may well be making false claims. However, nothing in this article actually proves he is wrong. You see, to truly be able to debunk his assertions, (and to properly teach all your sons about critical thinking) you actually have to provide verifiable references to peer reviewed material that supports your case. I’m sorry but a short clip from Brave just doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. When did major motion pictures aver stand in for REAL evidence!? And Russell Crowe in Robin Hood!? Please, “Every home is an Englishman’s castle” what a bunch of tripe that film was. Head over to rotten tomatoes to see what critics thought of that sorry excuse for a movie! Are we really going to take evidence from a film with script writing as bad as that one!? Go back and do your work properly instead of just ranting about it. At that point you might actually have something worth believing.
The idea of every man’s home being his castle comes from English common law and is a concept in modern U.S. law as a result. England itself moved away from that concept.
Since when has anyone used Hollywood for defining historical accuracy (for anything).
Leave the guy alone… Unless you can do half of what he does. My guess is you probably couldn’t hit a target without some coaching.
I don’t understand why so many people feel like they have to tear another person down. If it isn’t for you, just ignore it. There is no reason to attack them.
Your article itself is wrong regarding the archers paradox – what you describe is only true for right-handed archers. Regardless of which side of the bow the arrow sits, it will bend _around_ the bow if properly spined, so placing it on the left will make it shoot to the right in exactly the same way, and to the same degree.
I agree that left/right side has nothing to do with shooting with both eyes, indeed I used to shoot with both eyes open, and a ‘normal’ recurve style. Because my right eye is a little more dominant than my left, I had no problems at all.
What I don’t understand is the burning need to take down a “fraud” who clearly only intended to entertain people with his video. In fact, he is quite candid about how it was filmed; it takes mere seconds to find the information. He even readily offers up the fact that he uses bamboo arrows for some of his stunts. This article feels like someone trying to raise themselves up by pushing someone else down.
Yes, Lars’ video has some likely historical inaccuracies (which the author alludes to, but curiously does not provide counterpoints for). So what if it does? The video is fun to watch, and frankly far more interesting than watching competition archery. (I say this as someone who practiced archery for several years.)
The “two hands” reference, if you look at his technique was in reference to using the bow hand like casting a rod while letting go with the string hand. I like how quick you are to ridicule this claim you didn’t understand in order to attack his character. It really reflects well on your own character.
I have no dog in this fight because I’m not even interested in archery. However, this article falls apart from me when it started using a CGI rendering of archery (Brave) as proof against Lars’ methods. Furthermore, it purports he can’t fire at anything over 20 feet with absolutely no proof (along with other claims that lack any proof or citation), quite in fact, he even fires at 3 targets about 50ft away at 3:15 in the video. Lastly, this article is petty, infantile, belittling, and relies heavily on ad-hominem attacks to prove its point.
Exactly. The article does more to undermine its own author’s credibility than that of Lars Anderson.
Watch that scene and some slow motion video’s of archers paradox, its a near perfect representation and is a scene from a popular film that many people have seen, no reason for him to link to another video that many people wouldn’t have seen or go out of the scope of his article to explain it.
Not withstanding the drivel spoken by the narrator, and questions of fakery and number of takes, does anyone else think this guy is a bit of a d**k?
Too much free time on your hands GeekDad (I am right there with you)?? Couldn’t find anything legitimate on which to hate?
Get hacked and go bankrupt in a fire, you scumbag. Post a video of yourself failing at something like this guy is failing at archery, so *we* can hate on you, some. I pray you never receive another cent for any words you write for the rest of your life.
Wow all this because he wrote an article you do not agree with. You sir have anger issues.
Sad to read to many questioning and mean comments.
It is a man with skill.
Anyone with skills should be encoruaged,
If we dont encourage these kind of skills, what world will we have ?
The video by Lars is show archery and you aren’t supposed to take it seriously. The historical “facts” he presents are there just to give the video a cool theme. Pointing out that the video is inaccurate is like pointing out that a show brawl match is unrealistic. Doing so is just a silly way of making it obvious that you don’t understand the genre.
So I was going to read this article completely, but lost interest after the first couple paragraphs. “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.” Maybe you need to go watch that video again. Not all the shots that were done were within 20ft. On top of that, being able to hit small moving objects (whether it is you moving or it is moving) is going to be difficult at any range, if you are not accurate.
so im not a great knowledgable person but since you are shooting down the things lars is saying with “fact” why don’t you put up the source of these facts? because i see no more source here than from lars, therefor i have just as little reason to believe you.
The only thing Lars is guilty of is exaggerating for effect, his history is “mostly” accurate and the trick shots are real, although we must remember they are “trick” shots not made with a real military or hunting bow (he readily admits that) the writer is simply jealous he can’t do these things. I also would like to point out the archers paradox works both ways and so they did not put the arrow on the left because of archers paradox but rather because of the way they grip the string, the thumb ring style used in Asian archery causes archers paradox to work the opposite way. So the only reasonable explanation for why we traditionally put the arrow on the left is exactly what he said. His point is in a military situation you can’t just be accurate, you need to be accurate, fast, and able to hit moving targets, he accomplishes all of these thing (with a 35# bow) we can all agree a 70# bow would slow him down considerably! but that wouldn’t be as entertaining now would it? Truth is most of what is in this video is not exactly news to knowledgable archers, a little gimmicky? Yes… But not a lie, nor fake….
Thank You ! I saw the video a few days ago and i told my friend “sounds fishy, extremely fishy” about… pretty much everything. Now I can say why. Thanks.
“…the fact that the man obviously can’t hit anything that’s more than about 20 feet away.”
Except at the 3:15 mark…
Not talking about the historical part, or his supposed claims…
But let’s be honest: all this part (80% of the text?) where you try so hard to bash his accuracy and paint it as under-average…
Envy is bad for you. No, seriously. It kills. :/
I notice you don’t go so far as to challenge Lars to a game of archery tag.
Well honestly his claim about the mail is really really wrong:http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.php
Of all the posts have read so far, I find Glenn Braeden’s (27th Jan) comments to the most sensible and accurate by far. He is spot on to state that every country or entity had come up with their own bow development based on local factors, availability of materials etc, like the English Longbow, the Mongol skirmishing bow or the Japanese Longbow. All these deadly hardware had their own advantage and disadvantages and none could claim dominance over the other. At the end of the day, it was all about tactics employed that won battles.
I like this article, its as butthurt as I’ve probably seen anyone being anywhere on the entire internet. Ever. To try to accuse someone of fakery is pathetic – especially when the reasons given are either straw men or just plain reached for. Not conforming to your narrow view of what “an archer” is doesn’t make what this guy is doing even remotely fake or “misleading”. But if you insist on taking things out of context, there’s probably not much anyone can do to teach you how to argue properly.
Nobody is claiming that he’s a professional – but that doesn’t make the professionals better than him. Lars has even stated that while he’s very unlikely to be the best in the world at what he does, for now – he IS. Until someone challenges him and beats him, the feats still stand. Crying about it doesn’t make it go away Jim. Sorry.
The fact that you bring up guys like Howard Hill like they’re supposed to be a pinnacle of what this guy is about, you’re (again) sadly mistaken. Most footage on, e.g. Howard Hill shows him as fairly clumsy. Not a guy who can put three arrows in someone in under 2 seconds. I’d be surprised if he could even find his bow in that time.
In the end, nobody really care that much about archery. Get over it. Somebody did something, and did it better than you could ever. Loosen up. Try see if you can do it. Otherwise shut your yap and give credit where credit is due.
The 3 hits in 1.5 seconds is from a book called Saracen Archery. 60 Saracen bow lengths was about 69 meters and factoring in the speed at which the arrows flew the time needed to fire the arrows in was 1.5 seconds. No stop watch needed. His style is based on mounted archers who would be a lot closer than long bowmen.
His video is sensationalist and carefully edited but it is based on fact.
I will preface this by saying i am not a archer, i am a martial artist, i think you have neglected to observe the skill set from a tactical stand point
In the video the narrator discusses how lars believes firing the weapon from both side of the bow was required of the warrior, this makes perfect sense. At long range where there is time to load the bow into position and take careful aim shooting from the left is better, how ever, with in close range speed would be preferred over accuracy, as you said he can only shoot the bow with in 25 ft.
Something you may not know is a rule known as the 21 ft rule, a knife is more dangerous then a holstered pistol within this range, the famous martial arts master dan inosanto has videos online and this rule is taught to military and law enforcement.
In this range i would prefer speed over accuracy, next, your obsession with accuracy is that of a sports archer, but when you fire a gun you do not aim for perfect accuracy, you aim for Centre of Mass… all lars shots fall well within CMASS i.e. a kill shot
I did find the tone of your article as one of a jealous hater because you have not received the acclaim after so many years of practice then Lars did quickly
I intent to start learning the bow as a martial artists and Lars video has a lot to do with it, i will endeavour to train both skill sets, at long range and at close range, i have also heard archery at it peak is like many martial arts in terms of the zen state
Your article and the discussion beneath it nearly turned me off completely
Hey man, more power to you for wanting to learn more skills, I’m just gonna mention a few things less as objections and more just things to keep in mind and I guess a few things about the video too.
When you go to practice speed shooting, I would focus more on drawing quickly with the arrow on the left (or right if you’re a lefty) mostly because when pulling back and especially with a half draw like the guy in the video there’s a tendency to twist the string a bit (I know this from experience) and the arrow might aim way off to the side and shoot in a bad direction (sadly also know this from experience…)
Just for a point to make off of the video, while archers for battles may have focused on speed, I don’t really think it would have been for close quarters like he suggests. Again, your 21 foot rule. The point in an archer was to deal death from range, so they probably didn’t train intensely on being able to shoot three guys within swords reach. In addition, an archer can carry a sword or knife too, or have one handy, so I dont believe they trained for that..
Anyway, the more you can do more power to you, but if you want to be combat ready you don’t need to be Katniss on us. Be safe have fun
When Andersen got to the quiver … he jumped the shark for me.
Quivers were (are, still) a way of transporting arrows. A quiver is to arrows what a dufflebag is to gym equipment, or a magazine/clip to ammo rounds. And they were /are better than holding /storing those arrows in hand for a long walk/march.
If i recall it correctly, european archers in middle age prepared for battle … by sticking some arrows to the ground in front of them. http://i.imgur.com/rmeNxCo.jpg
But who said he is against quivers or that he didn’t use a quiver to “long walk/marchs”? :/ I’m sorry to say that, and I mean no offense at all… But, that requires a complete lack of text interpretation… :/ We can see all over the video that he does, indeed, USE a quiver. He was just talking about how he doesn’t agree about a “hollywood myth” (his words) that archers use it in their back. He, as I have seen many others, does use the quiver on his belt.
Oh, and the ones in his hands were just for faster shooting..
Lol. I shoot a Longbow with wooden arrows and @45lbs @28″ draw it is 209 feet a second. He can try and catch that. AS for aiming I shoot instinctively but some basics still need to be adhered to. I found the knocking of his arrows Interesting. AS for shooting at stationary targets. That was a requirement in the olden days for all archers as practice.
http://youtu.be/7eYDwRZFDwU
http://youtu.be/XmzVCBL48vw
Catch this
http://youtu.be/GAxKgacgqdM
In asian traditional asian archery, the archers uses the thumb-realease, and the arrow is placed on the right side of the bow – for a righthanded archer, and opposite for a lefty. Lars use traditional finger-realease, and let the thumb of his bowhand act as arrowshel.
Mr Macqqaaarrrrierrrr is the worlds new archery expert.. Googles all night long…
I’ve read most of the comments, left a couple that totally agrees with the overall jealous butt-hurt nature of this article (regardless of accurate points it may make about the narration)….and I will not be following the thread or this blog. The thing that is the rudest about this “Dad”…??? Is that he puts “archer” in quotation marks. And “Dad” is in a fury about misrepresentation…..how is this Lars NOT an archer? How disrespectful, demeaning and misrepresenting is this??(love how you, a self-proclaimed geek, bash on him seeming “awkward” and your excuse for lack of mobility is being ancient at 56…whatever..so you were once this mobile and now are disabled?) “Dad”, you need to grow up a bit if you want to raise children. (wait, how do we actually KNOW you have balls and even biologically fathered anyone…adopted kids aren’t really yours according to me, and I have a PhD in biology so don’t go there..yadda yadda yadda….see how those quotation marks work??? Yeah I didn’t think so…..).
‘Adopted kids aren’t really yours’ according to you, who has a PhD in Biology? Fuck you. I have 2 adopted children and they are absolutely ‘mine’. From a legal perspective, a responsibility perspective and an emotional perspective. Get a PhD in life, you fuckwit. Your comment is probably the most insensitive in this whole thread.
No, they are not “absolutely” yours and they will never be butthurt, get over it.
It’s not just because you were never loved by your parents who never wanted you that other people’s adoptive children aren’t really absolutely theirs.
She was taking the piss out of the author with that comment, imitating his style of argument, ie “I know shit, okay? I have academic credentials. So there.” Like that, do you see? You need to look at the context in which it was being said. And you should probably get your knee checked out, it’s not good when it jerks so violently like that.
To the Author, you and I point for point agree. This is gimmick, and ignorance at work. As a horse archer and and bow hunter (and serious Magyar reenactment nerd) thank you.
Your explication of the the archers paradox was wrong.
Jim, I am sure you think you know what you are talking about, and are an expert on ALL things archery related. But I would pay money to see the look on your face when he puts 6 arrows in your dumb-a@# whilst you are worrying about “form” and “technique” and using your “back muscles” Hahahahaha. And as for your “debunk” of the “3 arrows in 1.5 sec” tirade; no they didn’t have stopwatches you chop! The text plainly states (and i am loosely simplifying here…) that at 60 bows length you should “…see the dust of 1st arrow and have 3rd in the air” etc . Ancient stopwatch! Somebody just tested it & wrote those figures down for you Jim!!
The test was simply for SPEED. As for accuracy, why would the ancient archers (or Mr Larson himself) waste their time learning all this if they weren’t deadly accurate?! To impress the enemy into submission???!!! Horse or foot archers were massed, a wall of arrows towards the enemy @ even 30arrows/min would be devastating, never mind @ even 1 per second (60arrows/min!)
You Jim, are what we in SA call a “Poophol” and I have 2 questions for you and all the other trolls posting on your ridiculous thread. My questions’: 1] How jealous are you? 2] Would you want to get into a bow-fight with him, EVEN @ 50m ? 3] If answer to 2 is YES, can i watch please?
Becasue he clearly is not accurate and aming is ver much neglegted when shotting fast.
Here is my take on it: It looked pretty amazing no matter what. One thing is for sure: Lars will get super rich from this, he will be cast in a no lead role, jumping around doing his thing in some “Tolkien like” universe movie in the future. As for Archery technique, myths debunked or not; I have no idea, i know nothing about archery. I do however know quite a bit about shooting handguns and rifles, in both practical and combat situations ( 2 tours to the sandbox as a norwegian soldier ). And i will say this: Under stress, under certain situations ( Where there is no time to apply the technique used for precision shooting ) a warrior will use whatever works to get out alive of that situation. When i do competitive practical shooting with a handgun ( hitting targets often while on the move, laying on my back etc ) I often have to stray far, far away from what a precision shooter consider proper technique. However; I have a chance to survive in a combat situation up close with multiple targets, a sports shooter who only practiced stationary targets/shooting would probably not survive. I can place several rounds in the torso of a target while on the move, but none of them would be considered “bulls-eye” but they would be considered “combat effective”. maybe that is what Lars is showing? I dont know, just throwing it out there.
I agree with most of it but :
“(in truth, a 10-year-old with a 15-pound bow can penetrate chain mail at the short distances Andersen favors),”
Only if it badly made butted mail .Thighly and thinly RIVETED mail can withstand far stonger bows:
That’s a quote for the third crusade :
“.drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them… I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.”
It’s not called chainmail.
2.Most medeival artist show european archers with quiver on the waist/hip.
Any educated adult watching Lars’s video for the first time should be skeptical and shouldn’t believe everything that they hear or see in it without consideration for the life of knowledge acquired before watching.
Saying the artists whose works have lasted for hundreds and thousands of years that they were clueless about what they were painting and knew little to nothing of archery is no different that the writer of this article making the same assertion about Lars not having his “facts” straight. I wouldn’t say that Lars is “right” about every point he and the narrator make on history, but I also wouldn’t say that the Holy Bible or the book that I learned US history from in high school were “right” about every point. History is written by people wanting to impress their ideas on present and future peoples…just like the author of this article is trying to impress his/her ideas on anyone willing to read what they’ve written.
Even if Lars can only make the shot one time, or from 15 ft away, or with a 50lb bow, he has obviously practiced a lot….just like I would expect that anyone wanting to be good at what they enjoy would do as well. I assert that Jim MacQuarrie should practice hatin’ a little less and spend more time trying to shoot arrows in half and can tabs so he can make a video that shows historically accurate technique at performing such feats.
I agree that camera effects and cutting out bad footage can make someone seem more impressive, but this guy knows how to shoot using his technique. He did make a few long range shots, but those easily could’ve been edited.
In regards to lost techniques, how do you know these techniques weren’t lost to him? You apparently knew about them, right? Lost techniques aren’t lost to everyone. That’s how they become rediscovered. Why would your friend be writing a book on something that everyone knows?
Lars seems to have practiced and perfected the technique. I’ve never seen arrows shot so fast and accurate.
Either way, I always say the proof is in the pudding. Find a clear provenance for the technique and follow it to modern archery. You should find an archer that can shoot as fast as Lars using that technique… Unless the technique was lost.
You mad bro?
who gives a turd?
I think most people realized the vid was far too far fetched; yeah, its a web clip; how many forced and edited takes did you take to ham it up correctly for the camera Mr. Knoxville? Many people can spot hacks as old as America’s Funniest Home Videos as well know Wrestling’s fake, but they’re watchin mainly for entertainment rather than any enlightenment.
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp
You are a bit angsty–and you–like Lars’ narrator–also assume things that are not correct. I realized this with your paragraph on medieval/ancient illustration of archers. As a professional bookbinder, book historian, and conservator I have found ancient and medieval illustrations to be very accurate and I have worked and seen many illuminated manuscripts from all over the U.S. and Europe. Illustrators would have seen these things every day–not just a ‘one day I happened upon a war and it was too fast for me to see everything so I made up something and drew it’. Archery, like many other things, was a well known and understood activity–even for monks and aesthetics making books (I mean, they had to eat–and fight in the crusades too). Please don’t assume that these illustrators were bad at their job–they were as equally smart, perceptive, and intelligent as we are.
Admit you don’t know some things and stick to what you do know.
Anyone who is part of the mythbusters or skeptic subculture in America is going to think that ALL people who lived prior to 1975 were incapable of rational thought or self-critical thought processes. Only now, in our godlike 21st century awesomeness, are such behaviors even remotely possible (and then they are only possible for a small minority of people who read things like the skeptical enquirer all the time.
I’m not an archer, but I am fascinated by history. For my two cents, Lars style of mobile archery probably is closer to what a warrior culture such as the Mongols would have practiced. Mongolian warriors would likely have been equivalent to today’s sharpshooters, trick shooters and the elite horse riders because that was what their whole culture was about and warriors trained from the moment they could walk. However, it would not have made sense for agricultural societies such as medieval Europe (where most of Hollywood archery “myths” come from), to invest the kind of training and resources into teaching these techniques in any kind of systematic way.
In Europe and specifically Britain, strength and accuracy were favored over speed and mobility as epitomized by the English longbow which was as a tall as a person. The longbow was designed to accurately attack from hundreds of yards away while maintaining the strength to break through most armors, and was most effective when used in mass. A hundred longbow men on top of a hill could rain down a devastating hail storm of arrows. More importantly, they could do so with minimal amount of training. A British farmer could quickly be trained and so long as he was strong enough to pull to bowstring could be made into a deadly soldier. Would it have been cool to have 100 Lars around a battle field firing off a barrage of arrows every second? Probably, however it would have been practical for the ways that Medieval European fought or structured their societies. They had few of what we would consider “professional soldiers” (knights and men-at-arms) and in war their armies were largely composed of conscripts who needed simple weapons.
Saw Lars’ video, thought “damn, I’ve got to study archery!” read this, thought “meh, but with my luck I’d probably get some dismissive rage-oid like this guy, who gets off on pointing out every imprecision”. Pass! It’d be cool to study with Lars, tho.
You make a MAJOR assumption in this article about art and artists in the Middle Ages that is not correct: most art was intended as either historical records or manuals to demonstrate process and technique: artists did not have license to depict scenes as they did after the advent of photography. Depending on the source, the images could be very detailed and accurate. The notion of artistic prerogative doesn’t appear until the Renaissance at the earliest, later in the Middle East and Central Asia.
A note about quivers: using them to carry arrows is one thing: using them to draw from during battle is another. I wish you had examined this distinction more closely in your article.
Using mythbusters as a scientific touchstone to prove your point is laughable, they are as much ‘show business’ as the video you are whining about. As a ‘real’ scientist, i often find their scientific method horrible, and many of their conclusions are outright wrong. I can only assume that many of their ‘busted’ or ‘confirmed’ outcomes are decided by a producer who has more interest in ratings rather than real science.
I think a lot of us just need to chill and accept that what Lars is demonstrating in this video is Cool-Moe-Dee. We are not interested in who has the biggest or most awards or the most scientific knowledge because in the end, no one cares how much you know.
Hollywood movies after all have many, many takes before getting just one right, and we watch them because of the action and intrigue, which is what we are seeing on display here. Trying to dissect flaws in Lars’ execution in my books is like a movie critic dissing Star Wars because of a lack of storyline or dialogue. If you want history, go read a book.
I know nothing about archery or its history but I know skill when I see it, and I think Lars rocks the house.