# [merged] Archery: the films have it wrong



## Quartz (Jan 24, 2015)

I've just read watched this video which debunks many archery myths. Enjoy.

[video=youtube]BEG-ly9tQGk[/video]


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2015)

Very cool.  Not sure about the splitting arrows thing.  A steel tipped arrow hitting a sword blade would not split in half around the blade, at least I'd have to see more evidence to believe it.  Additionally, two steel tipped arrows striking in mid flight, head to head, would not split - there's just no way an arrow would have enough force behind it.  Again, I'm not sure I buy that one.  Sounds pretty far fetched.  But, the holding arrows in the draw hand seems to be a bit more believable.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 25, 2015)

I rather doubt his arrows were steel-tipped.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2015)

Well, that kind of defeats his message a bit doesn't it?  Since he's talking about the "ancient art of archery" and then using untipped arrows?   I mean, even target arrows are still metal tipped.  And, his arrows would have to be steel tipped to cut through the other arrows.  IOW, the "splitting arrows" tricks he's doing are a bit ... overstated.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 25, 2015)

I don't think it debunks anything. He's using what appears to be almost a toy bow. Look at how you can see the arrows move fairly easily with your eye. That means they are going very slow.

Try doing this stuff with a bow that hunters use. The arrow would be there before he even moved.

Don't get me wrong, hitting the center of even a slow moving arrow is pretty impressive, but even then I suspect some chicanery was involved.

OTOH, holding the arrows in the drawing hand does make sense, but as that video shows, there are a number of historical depictions of that, so I'm not sure it was ever something in doubt, either.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 25, 2015)

trancejeremy said:


> OTOH, holding the arrows in the drawing hand does make sense, but as that video shows, there are a number of historical depictions of that, so I'm not sure it was ever something in doubt, either.




True, but films don't show that, do they?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 25, 2015)

The incessant, "with this trick, he has recovered abilities that nobody has done for centuries!!!1!" around this video really sets of my "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" alarms.  So, my critical analysis kicks in...

Is he a good archer?  Sure.  But let us remember a few things:

This is an edited video.  For each and every shot, we don't know how many times he tried it, and failed.

While he makes claims about how awesome it is, and even notes that modern archers shoot at fixed targets, most of his own targets are fixed!  He runs and jumps around beforehand, but the target isn't moving.  He can practice and rehearse that running and jumping to get it exactly right for exactly that setup.

Yes, he hits an arrow in flight.  But, again, he does so in a staged way - he knows where that arrow is coming from.  This is trick-shooting, not a battlefield simulation.


----------



## GMMichael (Jan 25, 2015)

trancejeremy said:


> I don't think it debunks anything. He's using what appears to be almost a toy bow.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, hitting the center of even a slow moving arrow is pretty impressive, but even then I suspect some chicanery was involved.



I'm in with the chicanery.  Lars is great at making 20-foot shots - in a video clip.  I could do that too - given enough tries and my pick of which clips to use in my final video.

Why do archers need to make lots of rapid, close-range shots anyway?  Isn't the point of a bow to be able to hit a target that's far away from you?  Can't you just take a dagger along, in case your front line (hint: not the archers) gets swamped and you find yourself needing to make close-range attacks?

If filmmakers and artists of today mistakenly draw arrows on the right side of the bow, couldn't historical artists make the same mistake?

Quivers: yup, they probably dump out easily.  Which is why I've seen them on hips as well, and interestingly, eschewed in favor of sticking arrows in the ground.  After all, a kneeling stance is steadier than standing.  But, if you're an archer and you need to run - you're probably beyond needing your arrows anyway.

Congrats to Lars on being really fast!


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 25, 2015)

DMMike said:


> Why do archers need to make lots of rapid, close-range shots anyway?  Isn't the point of a bow to be able to hit a target that's far away from you?  Can't you just take a dagger along, in case your front line (hint: not the archers) gets swamped and you find yourself needing to make close-range attacks?




That's what horse- and chariot- archers train for, or at least the ones fighting in the traditional steppe and maryannu styles. Small groups riding forward and across the face of a target at close range, and releasing as many arrows into that target as they can while doing it. It would be even more important to gt your shots of fast and accurately if the other side is doing the same thing. It's perhaps less significant for the wave attacks practiced in the middle east by ghulam cavalry and others, but it certainly would't hurt that style. It would be a lot less significant for some archery styles, of course, especially massed shower-shooting by infantry or cavalry.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 26, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Well, that kind of defeats his message a bit doesn't it?  Since he's talking about the "ancient art of archery" and then using untipped arrows?   I mean, even target arrows are still metal tipped.  And, his arrows would have to be steel tipped to cut through the other arrows.  IOW, the "splitting arrows" tricks he's doing are a bit ... overstated.




You're assuming that both arrows were identical. Maybe he used a steel-tipped arrow to split an untipped arrow.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 26, 2015)

And creates some new ones...


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 26, 2015)

trancejeremy said:


> I don't think it debunks anything. He's using what appears to be almost a toy bow.




Yes.  He's using a 35lb test bow similar to what a girl scout or boy scout would use.   And he doesn't even draw back the bow fully to his chin, but pulls it about 3/4 of the way.



> Look at how you can see the arrows move fairly easily with your eye. That means they are going very slow.




I'd guess about 80 feet per second, or less than half the speed you'd expect with a hunting or war bow.  Hense the ability to perform the tricks.

So, as far as myths go...

1) It is true that back quivers are ahistorical for Europe.  They are not ahistorical for North America, Africa, or Japan - and it's not like Japan didn't have refined archery arts.  It's likely that Hollywood got the notion that quivers were worn on the back because the most recent USA experience with real archers was in the Native American wars.   It's really weird don't you think how he can discipline his body in every way EXCEPT to keep his posture upright enough to keep his arrows in a quiver.  Native American and African hunters managed just fine.
2) While it is true that the Hun archery techniques that he's most fascinated with were lost as a result of a political situation, it's not generally true that all ancient archery was lost just because 'gunpowder'.  Afterall, archery was widespread in many areas into the 19th century, and is still practiced in some areas today.
3) It's not true in general that ancient archers were highly mobile warriors.  Horse archers, sure, but we aren't talking about horse archery.  Those same pictures showing features like holding arrows in your bow or draw hand, also often show those same archers with arrows arranged around their feet.  The vast majority of archers fought in semi-static positions, sometimes accompanied with a shield bearer to defend them.  Skirmishing with a bow would have a variety of disadvantages and light skirmishers tend to disappear overtime anyway, probably because they aren't that effective against disciplined troops.
4) He's not actually that accurate.  The target archers he disparages shoot at penny sized targets at 20 yards and missing by more than about a quarter's distance is considered a bad shot.   At 60 yards, they shoot at 9cm targets.   At equivalent ranges he hits somewhere on  a dinner plate and somewhere on a 2x1m target, most of the time.   Most of his shots are from 8 yard or so away, if that.   And the hitting moving targets isn't that impressive either.   The top trick shooters routinely shoot penny sized targets that are falling, and they've been doing it in front of live audiences for years.  Since he's only doing it on a video, we don't know how much Jackie Chan magic is involved here.  He's clearly highly skilled, but we don't know how many takes were required to produce the perfect shots.  He starts touring and doing this for live audiences for a few years, and then I'll believe.
5) The sort of rate of fire he's using has only limited battle field utility - mostly I would think if you were on a horse and riding by a formation of infantry.  But as infantry, your burst rate of fire is far less important than your sustained rate of fire.  Assuming you are drawing a 75lb to 110lb bow, firing a shot every half second - even if it were possible - would leave you exhausted in short order.  Archers fired about every 10 seconds not just to get good aim and make sure their shot counted, but because firing faster is equivalent to sprinting in terms of exertion you are doing.  If you are trying to fire only every 6-10 seconds anyway, a lot of his economy of motion is wasted.

All that said, until he came along, the top Hun archery recreationists were firing with arrows in the bow hand on the left side of the bow at about 1/3rd the rate he fires.  At the time, it was generally believed that a lot of the historical descriptions of rate of fire were purely legendary.  Now, any halfway decent kid copying his techniques and practicing for a few weeks can recreate tricks that were believed by experts to be impossible just a few years ago.  He deserves a lot of credit for training and reinventing a lot of techniques no one was really paying attention to.


----------



## Minsc (Jan 26, 2015)

*Eat your heart out, Legolas.*

http://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk


----------



## BRKNdevil (Jan 26, 2015)

someone should make a subclass based on this dude


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2015)

MarkB said:


> You're assuming that both arrows were identical. Maybe he used a steel-tipped arrow to split an untipped arrow.




I'd say that's pretty obvious what he's doing.  But, that is the point though isn't it?  It's not the "ancient art of archery" being displayed if you're using untipped arrows.  It's simply trick shooting.  Impressive, but, kinda pointless.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Jan 26, 2015)

A lot of the challenges I've seen to his technique have been that it doesn't work so well against thick armor.

Thing is, working against heavy armor is part of why polearms were invented.


----------



## thalmin (Jan 26, 2015)

I'm curious what pound bow equivalent he was pulling. Whether light poundage, or not fully drawing the bow, the penetration/damage and the range should both be dramatically reduced. Apparantly, short-range accuracy was not hurt.


----------



## Minsc (Jan 26, 2015)

thalmin said:


> I'm curious what pound bow equivalent he was pulling. Whether light poundage, or not fully drawing the bow, the penetration/damage and the range should both be dramatically reduced. Apparantly, short-range accuracy was not hurt.



2" in and you're inside the heart. 

It's penetrating enough.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 26, 2015)

And he puts them through chain armour, so yeah, I'm impressed.


----------



## DongMaster (Jan 26, 2015)

Lars, epic level.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 26, 2015)

I won't be impressed until he runs up an elephant and kills it singlehandedly.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 26, 2015)

Well, I guess that proves a shortbow archer can easily fire a ton of arrows quickly. Still not sold a longbow archer could pull this off.


----------



## transtemporal (Jan 26, 2015)

Break the wrist, walk away!


----------



## Hriston (Jan 26, 2015)

Puts more credence into 1e rate of fire.


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 26, 2015)

Hriston said:


> Puts more credence into 1e rate of fire.




And the 4e Ranger's twin strike and disruptive strike!


----------



## Plaguescarred (Jan 26, 2015)

Whoa that was impressive!


----------



## Morrus (Jan 26, 2015)

We have three threads about this video, so I'll merge them!


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 26, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Yes.  He's using a 35lb test bow similar to what a girl scout or boy scout would use.   And he doesn't even draw back the bow fully to his chin, but pulls it about 3/4 of the way.
> 
> I'd guess about 80 feet per second, or less than half the speed you'd expect with a hunting or war bow.  Hense the ability to perform the tricks.
> 
> ...




All very excellent points. The one that is most telling, to me, is that he's not drawing a horsebow in the manner that is so common to the type; OVERdraw. It's quite historically common for horsebows to be drawn back to the ear, or beyond. 

I make my points about the questionable utility of this method, against an armoured opponent, below.

(As I'm a left handed archer I'm going to have to mentally swap sides, so please bear with me in case I make an error) When shooting off the fingers or with a release of some sort, it's generally a good idea to rest the arrow on the left side. This is because the nock will kick slightly left on release, as the string rolls off the fingers. A horsebow is more often used with a thumb ring as the release, which would tend to make the nock kick to the right on release. For this reason it's common to place the arrow on the right side. It's about making the arrow fly straight, compensating for the fact that the bow is effectively in the way. It's not got a whole lot to do with this guy's "miraculous discovery" as people have been doing this for centuries, and still do to this day.

I've been seeing videos of this guy for maybe a little over a year. I own a bow with similar construction (mine is a Mongol pattern horsebow that draws about 45#, whereas his looks like a Hungarian style horsebow of indeterminate weight). Drawing and releasing that quickly, on my bow, would have me sent off to a hospital in short order for various torn up muscles and tendons. His achievements are far from trivial, but are made so by the overblown claims.



BRKNdevil said:


> someone should make a subclass based on this dude




You mean "every half decent 3.5/Pathfinder archer build" 

Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Point Blank Master....... It's all about making a character shoot like this guy.



mach1.9pants said:


> And he puts them through chain armour, so yeah, I'm impressed.




Don't be. We don't know if he's only 10 feet away, barely out of shot. We don't know how his arrows are tipped. We don't know if the gambeson under the chain is realistic in construction (a gambeson can be quite good at stopping arrows, by itself). And, to top it off, we don't know what the chain is made out of and if the chain mail is riveted links, welded links, or simply butted links that you could twist open with your bare hands.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 26, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I make my points about the questionable utility of this method, against an armoured opponent, below.




We can't know what he's shooting at, but it really doesn't matter.  Longbows with 110lb draws have been extensively tested against real armor.  The basic result of that test is that an average longbow would have penetrated light armor well, but would have been largely stopped by heavier armor.  Knowing that and mentally comparing the velocity on his shots to the sort of velocity you'd except from an arrow, it's pretty clear to me that there is no way he's going to penetrate realistic armor at any range to any significant degree.  Getting 3/4" penetration on some non-fight quality twisted coat hangers and a thin unhardened leather cloth is pretty much meaningless.  It's like kids that think "leather armor" means a kid skin jacket.



> His achievements are far from trivial, but are made so by the overblown claims.




I'm not an experienced archer so I can't critique his technique.  My knowledge is mostly "I'm a DM so I got to know this stuff", and "I've fired bows and crossbows a few times, and played lots of paintball (where velocities are comparable to archery)."   He's at his best when he's saying things like, "Historical archers claimed they could do X, and they probably could."   Had he stuck to a more academic discussion of his craft, I'd have nothing but good to say about him.  Instead he has this whole crazy shtick.  Byron Ferguson has a bit of a shtick too, but Ferguson has been doing this for decades and needs to self-promote because its what he does for a living.  So far, this is just some guy on the internet.


----------



## Rune (Jan 26, 2015)

Hriston said:


> Puts more credence into 1e rate of fire.




I don't understand. 1e used minute-long rounds. Every single archer from 3e on has had a better rate of fire, even without extra attacks.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 26, 2015)

Rune said:


> I don't understand. 1e used minute-long rounds. Every single archer from 3e on has had a better rate of fire, even without extra attacks.




The two shots per minute in 1e were just the ones that had a chance of hitting and doing some damage, just like the one melee attack per minute. I don't know about other editions, but unless I'm mistaken, in 5e you don't get twice the number of attacks when using a bow that you do with a sword. In 1e you did.


----------



## Rune (Jan 26, 2015)

Hriston said:


> The two shots per minute in 1e were just the ones that had a chance of hitting and doing some damage, just like the one melee attack per minute. I don't know about other editions, but unless I'm mistaken, in 5e you don't get twice the number of attacks when using a bow that you do with a sword. In 1e you did.




Huh. We always played ranged attacks as shot-per-shot. Otherwise, how could you keep track of ammunition spent (or darts/daggers/knives thrown)?

Things kind of break down if you treat ranged combat like melee combat in 1e/2e.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 26, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> We can't know what he's shooting at, but it really doesn't matter.  Longbows with 110lb draws have been extensively tested against real armor.  The basic result of that test is that an average longbow would have penetrated light armor well, but would have been largely stopped by heavier armor.  Knowing that and mentally comparing the velocity on his shots to the sort of velocity you'd except from an arrow, it's pretty clear to me that there is no way he's going to penetrate realistic armor at any range to any significant degree.  Getting 3/4" penetration on some non-fight quality twisted coat hangers and a thin unhardened leather cloth is pretty much meaningless.  It's like kids that think "leather armor" means a kid skin jacket.
> 
> I'm not an experienced archer so I can't critique his technique.  My knowledge is mostly "I'm a DM so I got to know this stuff", and "I've fired bows and crossbows a few times, and played lots of paintball (where velocities are comparable to archery)."   He's at his best when he's saying things like, "Historical archers claimed they could do X, and they probably could."   Had he stuck to a more academic discussion of his craft, I'd have nothing but good to say about him.  Instead he has this whole crazy shtick.  Byron Ferguson has a bit of a shtick too, but Ferguson has been doing this for decades and needs to self-promote because its what he does for a living.  So far, this is just some guy on the internet.




Even a longbow arrow with a bodkin point, at significant range, might well get caught in the gambeson after penetrating the chain. There are so many stories from historical battles of chain armoured soldiers fighting on when they had so many arrows in them that they looked like hedgehogs, that they must be credited with at least some truthfulness. And it's not because the arrows found flesh, but because the points were stuck in heavily padded cloth.

The issue may not even be with claims made by the archer, himself, but may well just be overblown by whoever put together this series of videos. I agree that sticking to an academic discussion would have been the far better way to go. The parts that annoy me the greatest are the ones in which claims are made that he 'rediscovered' various 'ancient skills', that have never in fact been lost.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 27, 2015)

Another perspective on this video:

http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/


----------



## Hriston (Jan 27, 2015)

Rune said:


> Huh. We always played ranged attacks as shot-per-shot. Otherwise, how could you keep track of ammunition spent (or darts/daggers/knives thrown)?
> 
> Things kind of break down if you treat ranged combat like melee combat in 1e/2e.




Good point. I guess I was just going off the fact that archers get twice the number of attacks.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 27, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Another perspective on this video:
> 
> http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/




That is a very complete and effective debunking of the video.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 27, 2015)

TarionzCousin said:


> I won't be impressed until he runs up an elephant and kills it singlehandedly.




Howard Hill did exactly that, killing an elephant with a 175lb draw longbow.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 27, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> That is a very complete and effective debunking of the video.




I found it a bit overly harsh in some areas (which is funny coming from me), but where the author debunks Lars's bad history and poor understanding of archery, I'm in full agreement with it.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 27, 2015)

Coincidentally, I was catching up on my 80s nostalgia by watching some episodes of _Mysterious Cities of Gold_ earlier today, and they featured South American natives firing arrows nocked on the right-hand side of the bow, and holding spare arrows in their bow hand. So, even kids' TV shows from 1982 managed to portray these 'lost' techniques.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 27, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> I found it a bit overly harsh in some areas (which is funny coming from me), but where the author debunks Lars's bad history and poor understanding of archery, I'm in full agreement with it.




The more bombastic and unsupportable the claims, the less issue I have with harsh criticism 

One simple point in the video, that annoyed me, was the comment about multiple moves being needed if you lay the arrow to the right of the bow. He takes the time to go around the outside of the string, change grip, then nock the arrow. I run the arrow between the string and the bow, then nock. Simple conservation of motion.


----------



## BRKNdevil (Jan 28, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> You mean "every half decent 3.5/Pathfinder archer build"
> 
> Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Point Blank Master....... It's all about making a character shoot like this guy.




Nah, i meant for 5e


----------



## Minsc (Jan 28, 2015)

Off topic, but I was just reminiscing about that 3e archer cleric build. Sweet.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 28, 2015)

That is not a graceful man!  He needs some dance lessons!


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 28, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That is not a graceful man!  He needs some dance lessons!




Obviously not a Bard Archer.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 28, 2015)

Really, who truly expects authenticity from the movie industry? I don't. How many horses are Arabians in any movie with horses featured, that isn't in Arabia. If a movie depicts pre-Crusader knights, they shouldn't be riding Arabians, rather horses normally found in Europe. How often do you see 15th century armor being worn by a crusader knight - I almost never see knights in chainmail in any movie depicting a knight. Anachronisms is an expectation in any historical film depicting anything more than a few centuries in the past. You want authenticity, build yourself a time machine, because you'll never see true authenticity at the box office.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Really, who truly expects authenticity from the movie industry? I don't. How many horses are Arabians in any movie with horses featured, that isn't in Arabia. If a movie depicts pre-Crusader knights, they shouldn't be riding Arabians, rather horses normally found in Europe. How often do you see 15th century armor being worn by a crusader knight - I almost never see knights in chainmail in any movie depicting a knight. Anachronisms is an expectation in any historical film depicting anything more than a few centuries in the past. You want authenticity, build yourself a time machine, because you'll never see true authenticity at the box office.




Did you mean to reply to a different thread?


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 28, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Did you mean to reply to a different thread?




No, the thread title specifically calls out "the films have it wrong", and I was simply stating... duh, its the film industry, who almost always gets authenticity wrong. I was just pointing out beyond just archery, socalled historical films get horses wrong, armor wrong, as just 2 more of the million ways the film industry cannot create an historically authentic film, unless its very recent history, and they often screw that up too.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> No, the thread title specifically calls out "the films have it wrong", and I was simply stating... duh, its the film industry, who almost always gets authenticity wrong. I was just pointing out beyond just archery, socalled historical films get horses wrong, armor wrong, as just 2 more of the million ways the film industry cannot create an historically authentic film, unless its very recent history, and they often screw that up too.




Which is true, and all well and good, but some of the things that they say the film industry got wrong, it actually got right.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 28, 2015)

Many films strive for authenticity (at least some state they do), but getting "some things right" doesn't equate authenticity.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 28, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Many films strive for authenticity (at least some state they do), but getting "some things right" doesn't equate authenticity.




Of course it doesn't, but I'm talking about the claims in the video. Claiming that movies got things wrong, that are actually correct from a historical aspect, doesn't help the video's pedigree.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 28, 2015)

Well many movies do get things wrong, even those that get "some things right". Consider any Kurosawa film. He often depicts samurai with hip mounted quivers which is indeed historically accurate. That said, I've seen very few Japanese films using Japanese horses, even Kurosawa depicts samurai riding Arabians, which never occurred historically speaking. So sometimes films get some things right, but they never go far enough with authenticity. Now how practical it is to truly achieve authenticity in film, is certainly an issue when trying to be authentic. Unless large herds of trained Japanese horses exist, how could Kurosawa depict using them? Do films get some things right? Certainly, and I'm not disagreeing to that point.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 28, 2015)

I like to think he is onto something but until we get a "way back machine" I don't know as there are still a number of cultures out there that still fire bows the way they have for hundreds of years, Mongolian horse men, tribes in the Amazon, etc.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 28, 2015)

I knew that I had this bookmarked somewhere. This is for those who don't know what the term "archer's paradox" means (it's referred to in the debunking link). As I mentioned previously watch how the string jumps and the way that the arrow behaves.

[video=youtube;cP8XVW4H90g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP8XVW4H90g[/video]


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 30, 2015)

I saw a thing about the making of that Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie on TCM, apparently they really shot people with arrows. They had padding/armor so it didn't hurt, but still...just a first inches off...


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 31, 2015)

I had forgotten that Matt Easton also posted a video about this guy, a little while back.

[video=youtube;cr_1z3GwxQk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr_1z3GwxQk[/video]


----------

