Real Archery
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
62 comments displayed.
#15
-
SirFail (12/21/2015) [-] His skills are not fake but they are over exaggerating his abilities. Hes using a 10-20 pound bow. Sure hes nailing the targets, after how many takes though? Armies never used quivers? are you ******* kidding me of course they used quivers they would need more than three bloody arrows in a fight. Hes shooting pretty quick in that speed test but hes only half drawing not full drawing like the others. Also that book hes referencing 'Arab archery' is a work of fiction. Hes just a trick shooter(albeit a good one), not a fighter.
#48 to #15
-
StrummeR (12/21/2015) [-]
Im sure we would all agree with that. "Lars anderson: Pretty (darn)
Good at archery." the story of a man that has gotten pretty good at shooting things with a toddlers bow, and forced his friends to film him for hours to compile a low budget internet documentary until he hit EVERY TARGET. combining techniques of ancient archery, and modern day film editing, Lars anderson is: (buh buh buuuhhh) someone with s lot of time on his hands.
Good at archery." the story of a man that has gotten pretty good at shooting things with a toddlers bow, and forced his friends to film him for hours to compile a low budget internet documentary until he hit EVERY TARGET. combining techniques of ancient archery, and modern day film editing, Lars anderson is: (buh buh buuuhhh) someone with s lot of time on his hands.
#54 to #15
-
anticitezenone ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] He's pretty good at archery, he's accurate (in takes) and can do some bretty gud stuff, defininetly wouldn't want to go into the Hunger Games against him
But the thing is, historical militaries almost NEVER fired bows horizontally.
Let me explain. Historical battles always had groups of troops in formations. There would be the spear/pikemen, the cavalry, and the archers. Swordsmen were rare and usually were for smaller skirmishes or city raids, but don't take my word on that.
The spearmen were the peasants and were really good against cavalry, and the cavalry were really good at killing all infantry. Archers were good against thick formations, since they fired in vertical volleys.
Longbows were scary as **** , especially when you had a huge formation of them. Shortbows were usually used on horses, but were the same principal. Fire a **** load of arrows at the enemy formations, and then keep doing that till they're routed.
Any chases through the forest like he's showing are complete fantasy ******** .
Quivers were a necessity for archers too, but European archers used belt or hip quivers. Back quivers were used in Asia, particularly in Japan, and in North America with the natives.
TLDR: What he's showing isn't historically accurate for military archery, since historical armies fought in formations. Plus, back quivers were a thing, but not commonly in Europe.
But the thing is, historical militaries almost NEVER fired bows horizontally.
Let me explain. Historical battles always had groups of troops in formations. There would be the spear/pikemen, the cavalry, and the archers. Swordsmen were rare and usually were for smaller skirmishes or city raids, but don't take my word on that.
The spearmen were the peasants and were really good against cavalry, and the cavalry were really good at killing all infantry. Archers were good against thick formations, since they fired in vertical volleys.
Longbows were scary as **** , especially when you had a huge formation of them. Shortbows were usually used on horses, but were the same principal. Fire a **** load of arrows at the enemy formations, and then keep doing that till they're routed.
Any chases through the forest like he's showing are complete fantasy ******** .
Quivers were a necessity for archers too, but European archers used belt or hip quivers. Back quivers were used in Asia, particularly in Japan, and in North America with the natives.
TLDR: What he's showing isn't historically accurate for military archery, since historical armies fought in formations. Plus, back quivers were a thing, but not commonly in Europe.
#27 to #15
-
smartythechicken (12/21/2015) [-] also, shooting on the left side of the bow isn't a hollywood myth.
#43 to #15
-
cptsweatpants (12/21/2015) [-] The quivers actually very much depended on the role of the archer. For example a company of english foot longbowmen would not use them. They'd simply have the arrows in front of them stabbed into the ground and someone would be running around dispensing fresh ones from large bundles if needed. They would not be expected to move around much. However a horse archer obviously needs to keep his ammo somewhere. And even they would have a couple arrows out in hand when shooting, he is most certainly right about that.
#19 to #15
-
amuzen ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-]
It says later on in the video that they would carry 3 arrows in their draw hand AND have a quiver AT THEIR WAIST. The thing they call out as a myth is the quiver on the back thing.
Also they show him shooting arrows through chainmail and leather armor so I guess if that's a 10-20 pound bow either that's more than enough for a combat situation, they're straight up lying, he switches to a different bow for that shot, or that armor is super shoddy.
Also what the **** would qaulify as a fighter then? Guy can do a ninja roll and land an arrow on a ******* golf ball about 15 feet away or he can just snipe out the head of multiple targets a couple hundred feet away. That means he could jump out of the way of something, load and arrow, aim it, and land an arrow in someones eye faster than the average soldier could swing a sword or if 50 guys were charging him across a foot ball field he could take out all of them before they could get to him and they couldn't even just shoot him because he can literally snag arrows out of the air and shoot them back faster than the average archer can load a bow string.
Short of actually going around killing people with your bow as a soldier on a battlefield I can't see anyone being any more 'combat ready' than that.
Sure it probably wouldn't stand up on a modern battlefield what with the whole bullets being a thing so all these fancy skills comparatively would just boil down to 'a particularly good aim and being able to shoot somewhat slower than usual' but still.
Also they show him shooting arrows through chainmail and leather armor so I guess if that's a 10-20 pound bow either that's more than enough for a combat situation, they're straight up lying, he switches to a different bow for that shot, or that armor is super shoddy.
Also what the **** would qaulify as a fighter then? Guy can do a ninja roll and land an arrow on a ******* golf ball about 15 feet away or he can just snipe out the head of multiple targets a couple hundred feet away. That means he could jump out of the way of something, load and arrow, aim it, and land an arrow in someones eye faster than the average soldier could swing a sword or if 50 guys were charging him across a foot ball field he could take out all of them before they could get to him and they couldn't even just shoot him because he can literally snag arrows out of the air and shoot them back faster than the average archer can load a bow string.
Short of actually going around killing people with your bow as a soldier on a battlefield I can't see anyone being any more 'combat ready' than that.
Sure it probably wouldn't stand up on a modern battlefield what with the whole bullets being a thing so all these fancy skills comparatively would just boil down to 'a particularly good aim and being able to shoot somewhat slower than usual' but still.
#30 to #19
-
whatsitsay (12/21/2015) [-]
Then why are there so many 'ancient manuscripts' and artworks from all over the world that distinctly display quivers on the back? I'll tell you why, because anywhere but dense forest they were pretty damn decent! And especially on horseback they were great since a waistquiver would just have your arrows falling out everywhere.
It's actually a very good chance that that chainmail is quite shoddy, but the truth of the matter is that piercing chainmail isn't that far-fetched, especially not with specialized arrows they already had in the middleages. Judging from the way they bounce after being hit, however, i'd say they don't actually hit the target underneath, just get snagged in the chainmail and cloth.
What would qualify him as a fighter? Well, being able to cope with the hectic nature of a battlefield, knowing when your bow is not going to be enough, and that sort of thing. A lot of his tricks depend on knowing where something is in relation to himself. I can guarantee that if you shoot an arrow at him randomly without warning, he'll have no way of snatching it from the air, let alone live long enough to shoot back at you. He simply knew his partner was shooting at a particular spot so he knew where to grab. That's not a discredit; he's undoubtably very agile and has great coordination to manage something like that. The practicality of it is a second thing.
Finally, while he may be able to take out knaves, a full-fletched soldier with plate armor, even partial, would be his undoing, since there's no form of classic bow archery that can penetrate steel plate.
It's actually a very good chance that that chainmail is quite shoddy, but the truth of the matter is that piercing chainmail isn't that far-fetched, especially not with specialized arrows they already had in the middleages. Judging from the way they bounce after being hit, however, i'd say they don't actually hit the target underneath, just get snagged in the chainmail and cloth.
What would qualify him as a fighter? Well, being able to cope with the hectic nature of a battlefield, knowing when your bow is not going to be enough, and that sort of thing. A lot of his tricks depend on knowing where something is in relation to himself. I can guarantee that if you shoot an arrow at him randomly without warning, he'll have no way of snatching it from the air, let alone live long enough to shoot back at you. He simply knew his partner was shooting at a particular spot so he knew where to grab. That's not a discredit; he's undoubtably very agile and has great coordination to manage something like that. The practicality of it is a second thing.
Finally, while he may be able to take out knaves, a full-fletched soldier with plate armor, even partial, would be his undoing, since there's no form of classic bow archery that can penetrate steel plate.
#41 to #30
-
amuzen ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-]
if he can shoot a moving target the size of a pop can tab then why wouldn't he able to shoot into the slits between eyes? I agree that if you were to just throw him into the hectic chaos of a battlefield he'd have to cope with something new but there's a good chance he could still do it and if he saw another archer prepping to shoot him he could still potentially catch that out. Like, yeah he wouldn't be an absolute unstoppable killing machine but he'd be pretty damn ahead of the game in raw combat prowess.
#23
-
anon (12/21/2015) [-] Yes, truly, a quiver on the back would have been inconvenient in the dense oak forests of Persia and Mongolia.
Seriously, though. This is ******** . He didn't rediscover long lost techniques. He's just using a devolved version of archery. See, some time around "a long ass time ago" and "old as balls" people developed this thing called "armor". At first it was just a guy who put on 15 shirts or some **** , but eventually people went "wait, if I just wore my thick, padded winter jacket into battle, arrows bounce right off. SWEET!" and so padded armor was born. And it was effective as **** , so people had to start making more powerful bows to get through it. Then came metal armors like mail and lamellar stuff, so they had to make even MORE powerful bows. Then came steel and suddenly all of those were even more effective, so they made even more powerful-er bows. By the time plate armor came to be, bows weren't firing pointy sticks at enemies, they were launching ******* steaks. Seriously, have you seen a longbow arrow? ****** the width of a finger. Imagine being poked at 150km/h by the worlds' sharpest finger. Now imagine that times several thousand, falling from the sky. Scary **** . And yet plate armor could stop it most of the time, so people went " **** this, we can't make a bigger bow. Let's go work on guns instead.".
Basically, as history went on, armor became better, so bows became more and more powerful. You can't fire a powerful bow the same way he does and really powerful bows were large and kind of cumbersome. His bow is around 30 pounds. That's the force required to pull it back all the way. And he's not even pulling it back all the way, so it may as well be 20. The bows, which were used to train medieval children were 40 pounds. Hunting bows were around 60. War bows were close to 100, while the biggest, baddest, most powerful english longbows, used by the kings' personal archers were around 160-180. Those things were so hard to use, only the tallest, strongest of men could do it after decades of training. By the end they were so ripped their biceps had abs. OK, not really, but they were so ripped, archeologists can tell which skeletons were archers, because they trained so hard the bones in their arms became thicker than a regular humans'. That is the absurd amount of power that was required to use the truly powerful bows. Angersons' puny babby bow just can't compare. His archery focuses on speed, not power. If he fired 30 shots at some simple padded armor, almost all of them would bounce off and none would actually penetrate the armor. A longbow could shoot through the goddamn person. His techniques aren't "long lost secrets of archery", they're just ******* outdated. It's like someone making a sun clock out of rocks and a stick and claiming they've rediscovered the long lost secret of time.
Also, unblock me, you cunt. Sincerely, thechosentroll.
Seriously, though. This is ******** . He didn't rediscover long lost techniques. He's just using a devolved version of archery. See, some time around "a long ass time ago" and "old as balls" people developed this thing called "armor". At first it was just a guy who put on 15 shirts or some **** , but eventually people went "wait, if I just wore my thick, padded winter jacket into battle, arrows bounce right off. SWEET!" and so padded armor was born. And it was effective as **** , so people had to start making more powerful bows to get through it. Then came metal armors like mail and lamellar stuff, so they had to make even MORE powerful bows. Then came steel and suddenly all of those were even more effective, so they made even more powerful-er bows. By the time plate armor came to be, bows weren't firing pointy sticks at enemies, they were launching ******* steaks. Seriously, have you seen a longbow arrow? ****** the width of a finger. Imagine being poked at 150km/h by the worlds' sharpest finger. Now imagine that times several thousand, falling from the sky. Scary **** . And yet plate armor could stop it most of the time, so people went " **** this, we can't make a bigger bow. Let's go work on guns instead.".
Basically, as history went on, armor became better, so bows became more and more powerful. You can't fire a powerful bow the same way he does and really powerful bows were large and kind of cumbersome. His bow is around 30 pounds. That's the force required to pull it back all the way. And he's not even pulling it back all the way, so it may as well be 20. The bows, which were used to train medieval children were 40 pounds. Hunting bows were around 60. War bows were close to 100, while the biggest, baddest, most powerful english longbows, used by the kings' personal archers were around 160-180. Those things were so hard to use, only the tallest, strongest of men could do it after decades of training. By the end they were so ripped their biceps had abs. OK, not really, but they were so ripped, archeologists can tell which skeletons were archers, because they trained so hard the bones in their arms became thicker than a regular humans'. That is the absurd amount of power that was required to use the truly powerful bows. Angersons' puny babby bow just can't compare. His archery focuses on speed, not power. If he fired 30 shots at some simple padded armor, almost all of them would bounce off and none would actually penetrate the armor. A longbow could shoot through the goddamn person. His techniques aren't "long lost secrets of archery", they're just ******* outdated. It's like someone making a sun clock out of rocks and a stick and claiming they've rediscovered the long lost secret of time.
Also, unblock me, you cunt. Sincerely, thechosentroll.
#32 to #23
-
smellypantsmcgee (12/21/2015) [-]
youre right but he was talking a lot about ancient persia and **** , i think he meant around egytian times these techniques were prevalent
regardless english longbowmen were the most feared unit in war until some ****** thought hey how about a bow... that takes no skill
everyone called hacks and the pope tried to ban them from server but no use
crossbows were modded in
regardless english longbowmen were the most feared unit in war until some ****** thought hey how about a bow... that takes no skill
everyone called hacks and the pope tried to ban them from server but no use
crossbows were modded in
#37 to #23
-
anon (12/21/2015) [-] obviously a quiver on your back is useless while moving at any speed faster than walking (in persia and mongolia, too). you never addressed the fact that one of the first things mentioned was how many more movements are needed to fire an arrow on the left side and that the modern form is great if youre standing still but not as efficient, making it a poor battle technique.
you're arguing a point that the video doesn't try to make. it never once mentions bow power or armor piercing ability as 'lost'. it specifically mentions speed. it's a speed and technique focused presentation and you lost your **** over how powerful it is or isn't
you're arguing a point that the video doesn't try to make. it never once mentions bow power or armor piercing ability as 'lost'. it specifically mentions speed. it's a speed and technique focused presentation and you lost your **** over how powerful it is or isn't
#56 to #37
-
norkasthethird (12/21/2015) [-] quivers do not hold arrows nearly quite as loosely as you think.
#55 to #23
-
testaburger (12/21/2015) [-] "they were launching ******* steaks. "
Ah, but were those steaks medium rare?
Ah, but were those steaks medium rare?
#44 to #23
-
cptsweatpants (12/21/2015) [-]
Fun fact, the late english longbow was actually a lot more effective in dealing with armour than the early guns, it was just a lot cheaper to have a peasant bloke light a fuse on a gun than train him with a longbow. The early arquebusiers were heavily armoured men who still relied mainly on mellee. Armour didn't become obsolete until much much later after the introduction of a gun to the battlefield and it was actually due to the development of foot artillery. Once cannons became moderately accurate and mobile, everyone realized that the only thing that's gonna save them now is getting across that field really ******* fast. And even after that guns were still just a pre-text to mellee with bayonets. Wasn't until the american civil war that the gun became the main killing instrument.
#22
-
muffinssnuffims (12/21/2015) [-]
Yeah, this guy is ******* retarded and anybody who has ever used a bow for hunting or... anything really, would know so. This explains it pretty well. 
#24 to #22
-
shinigamigod [OP](12/21/2015) [-] Basically her point was, he made a bunch of ******** claims, which is fair enough, he wanted attention.
But, he is actually legit doing those tricks making him an extremely good archer...
But, he is actually legit doing those tricks making him an extremely good archer...
#26 to #24
-
muffinssnuffims (12/21/2015) [-]
Also, notice in my comment how I didn't say he was a bad archer, but that he was ******* retarded. My comment is about how stupid he is, not how much skill he has.
#25 to #24
-
muffinssnuffims (12/21/2015) [-]
*Good trick archer
He's absolute **** in any other environment. Also there are much better trick archers... also I've never heard of him doing any of his archery live, and therefore we don't really have a particularly good idea how good he is or whether he just does a lot of takes.
He's absolute **** in any other environment. Also there are much better trick archers... also I've never heard of him doing any of his archery live, and therefore we don't really have a particularly good idea how good he is or whether he just does a lot of takes.
#11
-
codydunavin (12/21/2015) [-] IDK I just can't take someone seriously if they look this autistic.
#38
-
anon (12/21/2015) [-]
this guy has been proven to be completely wrong several times, please look up on youtube how full of **** he is.
#46
-
widar (12/21/2015) [-]
No no no no no no no no no no no!!
This is not "real" archery. This is trick shooting. All his "historical" **** is 99% made up. Don't get me wrong, he's highly skilled at what he does and it's very impressive, but it just has to be said that his claims of this being historical war archery are lies. This belongs in a circus, not on the battlefield.
This is not "real" archery. This is trick shooting. All his "historical" **** is 99% made up. Don't get me wrong, he's highly skilled at what he does and it's very impressive, but it just has to be said that his claims of this being historical war archery are lies. This belongs in a circus, not on the battlefield.
#53 to #46
-
konysugandanbitch ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] Are you saying what he's doing wouldn't have been useful on the battlefield?
#60 to #58
-
BowChickaBowWow (12/21/2015) [-] Didn't you watch the video? 4:33, he shot right through a chainmail jacket and gambeson.
#62 to #60
-
heartlessrobot (12/21/2015) [-] Yeah, chainmail. Notorious for being useless against arrows.
#65 to #63
-
heartlessrobot (12/21/2015) [-] No, I'm pointing out a fact.
If a kevlar vest can stop a 9mm, it can stop an arrow fired from a bow made for children, which isn't even being pulled back all the way.
If a kevlar vest can stop a 9mm, it can stop an arrow fired from a bow made for children, which isn't even being pulled back all the way.
#59 to #58
-
konysugandanbitch ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] I meant as in back when archery was the primary ranged weapon.
#61 to #59
-
heartlessrobot (12/21/2015) [-] Well, then it REALLY wouldn't be effective, since he uses a 30 lb draw bow, and doesn't even pull it all the way back.
It might stick the arrow head in a wool jacket, but nothing more.
It wouldn't do jack **** against steel plate.
It might stick the arrow head in a wool jacket, but nothing more.
It wouldn't do jack **** against steel plate.
#8
-
anon (12/21/2015) [-]
Those are some light bows - great for up close & small game - but for long distance and medium / large game (including humans, armoured or unarmoured) a heavier draw weight would be much more effective. Heavier bows drive arrows deeper into targets - meaning less arrows to incapacitate or kill each target. Unless you can carry a LOT of arrows - medium / heavy longbows are the most effective bow (in skilled hands).
#21 to #8
-
amuzen ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-]
He seems to change bows depending on the occasion (he's seen doing a couple long range shots in the video)
Also when you can fire quick enough and with enough precision to put three arrows in someones eye from 30 feet away before they could swing a sword I don't think they're going to give a **** about the size of your bow. Unless it's modern times and they have a shatter resistant bullet proof visor over their face, are decked out in kevlar, and have any sort of gun with a modicum of training.
Also when you can fire quick enough and with enough precision to put three arrows in someones eye from 30 feet away before they could swing a sword I don't think they're going to give a **** about the size of your bow. Unless it's modern times and they have a shatter resistant bullet proof visor over their face, are decked out in kevlar, and have any sort of gun with a modicum of training.
#28
-
IrishSasquatch (12/21/2015) [-] Guns are more my speed, but I know enough about archery to know that this is definitely not "real."
#9
-
shinku (12/21/2015) [-] What kind of stupid ass draws the arrow to the left side of the bow if they are shooting right handed.
#31 to #9
-
whatsitsay (12/21/2015) [-]
Various archery schools do, actually. One of the claims he makes is that by shooting at a 2d target you aim with only a single eye, which is utter ******** cause you need both eyes to get a 3d image and gauge distance properly.
Speaking of ******** claims; shooting stationary targets being undheard of before is one of them, as there are plenty of images, several of which he uses IN HIS OWN VIDEO, of archers practicing firing at stationary targets.
Worst of all is his depiction of nocking the arrow around the arm-side of the bow, which is quite simply infomercial levels of bad. There are plenty of archers, both competative and trick-shooters, that can nock an arrow around the 'wrong' side of the bow in the same amount of time he does the other side.
Speaking of ******** claims; shooting stationary targets being undheard of before is one of them, as there are plenty of images, several of which he uses IN HIS OWN VIDEO, of archers practicing firing at stationary targets.
Worst of all is his depiction of nocking the arrow around the arm-side of the bow, which is quite simply infomercial levels of bad. There are plenty of archers, both competative and trick-shooters, that can nock an arrow around the 'wrong' side of the bow in the same amount of time he does the other side.
#52
-
mrvindix (12/21/2015) [-]
"A time when archery was simpler" Then they show him shoot with his foot lol
#51
-
lordfudgel (12/21/2015) [-]
"Real archery". Standing in a line with about 20 other people and launching a furry of arrows that's real archery.
