Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Nord on 24 January 2015, 03:30:52 PM
-
Interesting video to see on youtube
http://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk (http://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk)
Looks like we might need some new sculpt poses.
-
Yeah, watched this the other day and he makes some very good points. As an archer myself I would never even consider a back quiver and we've definately lost the ability to move rapidly while shooting.
He looks like an idiot though in most of those 'poses'.
-
Thanks for posting. Some really interesting info there.
PM
-
Amazing Video and very thought provoking - he makes Peter Jackson's Legolas a reality.
-
Though his skills are impressive and showy, I am willing to bet that this is, at least in the context of Western medieval archery, largely rubbish. The bow he is using is manifestly not of any worthwhile draw weight, and his insistence that battlefield archers were somehow apt to "machine-gun" their arrows is based on very evidence, from what I see.
Still, a very talented man!
-
Impressive. Trick shooting in many cases, but not tricks which do anything to underrate his skill and proficiency and which illustrate the techniques of holding arrows in the hand and a hip quiver.
Like the modern yabasume samurai horse archery competition and the mounted archery of Kassai I think this shows us what can be achieved by a skilled archer using ancient techniques.
Thanks for sharing.
-
Though his skills are impressive and showy, I am willing to bet that this is, at least in the context of Western medieval archery, largely rubbish. The bow he is using is manifestly not of any worthwhile draw weight, and his insistence that battlefield archers were somehow apt to "machine-gun" their arrows is based on very evidence, from what I see.
Still, a very talented man!
Indeed, give him a proper war bow with a big draw weight and then lets see what happens. Of course the video is still quite entertaining.
-
Very interesting video and impressive skills. I was also thinking about how this would relate to longbows… It looks plausible for horse archers or skirmishers etc. But I guess for massed volleys other techniques would be needed, although speed might have played a role.
Anyway, I wsh I could do that lol
-
Yes, I think this is applicable, but more to ancients, light bows, hunters, horse archers and so forth.
The arms race of the later medieval period eventually sacrificed all other factors in favour of penetration power. I expect that modern western ideals of standing archers with longbows and fixed competition targets come from that era and aren't just some oddball modern invention.
-
The arms race of the later medieval period eventually sacrificed all other factors in favour of penetration power.
Never thought about it this way - the longbow is not the pinnacle of archery, but an extreme onesidedness… I like that.
-
Nice video
When i grow up i would like to be like him. :D
As an archer i would never considered doing those things but the experiment with 2 or 3 arrows in the hand does work although we loose some accuracy.
-
Did you see where he penetrates chainmail? That seems like a worthwhile penetration power to me.
Though his skills are impressive and showy, I am willing to bet that this is, at least in the context of Western medieval archery, largely rubbish. The bow he is using is manifestly not of any worthwhile draw weight, and his insistence that battlefield archers were somehow apt to "machine-gun" their arrows is based on very evidence, from what I see.
Still, a very talented man!
[/quot
-
Sure, though it is most certainly cheap "butted" mail, rather than a serious set of riveted mail, which is both MUCH stronger and historically accurate.
Having had the pleasure of playing around with a friend's set of riveted mail, it generally stops just about everything short of close range fire from high poundage warbows. Indeed, there are accounts from the crusader-era which suggest that archers who did manage to penetrate a knight's armor struggled to actually cause any worthwhile damage, since the difficulty of getting through riveted mail robbed the arrow of its force, meaning that it could not penetrate the padded clothing underneath.
Though, I suppose the most egregious error this gentleman makes is in assuming archers were somehow tasked with fighting "up close and personal" with their bows. We have plenty of historical evidence which suggests that archers- with a few exceptions, such as at Agincourt- were used only as skirmishers or ranked missile troops, and fell back when confronted by a foe. This seriously challenges his notion that archers were unloading at point blank range with an array of showy skills.
I guess the final point I would bother to make is that even Eastern warbows were not of a piddly draw weight- I have heard they still reach well past the eighty pound point with regularity, which seems to be a great deal heavier than this guys' bow.
-
Exactly. While most impressive, I fail to see how the skills he displays could be translated to the battlefield. Ninjas might be interested though.
-
With the mindset honed with the hindsight of centuries of tradition with massed battle, linear warfare et al, we probably can't see the value of this. For less rigid warfare, i.e. Plains Indians, African Tribal Warriors and possibly early Ancient Era combatants, amongst others, who's to say that such techniques weren't used or had value?
I did note that the guy did remark that he wondered what could be achieved by someone fitter and stronger, using a bow with a heavier draw weight.
-
Sure, one could very well propose that in contexts for which we have little to no reference material, anything could have happened. However, given that "linear" warfare was not typically common in any period (in the case of the Middle Ages, for example, raids and small private wars were far more common than pitched battles), we still have no evidence to uphold some of the points being made here.
Though the guy has some valid arguments (the back quiver being one, shooting on the right side of the bow being another, though not typically in the West), it seems as though he has used those minor observations to create wildly unfounded claims.
-
not moving ????? http://toxophile.pagesperso-orange.fr/voy16byx.htm
-
not moving ????? http://toxophile.pagesperso-orange.fr/voy16byx.htm
(http://toxophile.pagesperso-orange.fr/voyages/bayeux-a-51.jpg)
Interesting, the upper left archer looks like he has his quiver slung around his back (or his throat - look uncomfortable lol). And he definitely is moving.
The others seem to pretty much corroborate Lars Andersen.
-
I'm always skeptical of people who believe they've 'rediscovered lost secrets' in this way. As others have pointed out, there is surely some truth to his ideas, at least in certain cultural and technological contexts. But he reminds me of one of those larpers whose love of the "feel" of a period overrides their interest in the facts such as we can reconstruct them, and all the goofy stunts make me think he's more interested in spectacle than in developing a sound theory.
Note, for example, that in the images he provides, none of the archers shooting on the right side of the bow holds arrows in either the bow or draw hand, while most of those holding arrows in the draw hand seem to shoot from the left side of the bow. And a search on Google Images brings up plenty of contemporary illustrations showing all the techniques he says are wrong (as well, it must be said, as some doing it his way). Just seems like a bit of highly selective research in the service of a pet theory that lets him play around and show off.
-
Yes, I have to agree, especially when you consider that the people making the tapestries, paintings and whatever were not usually archers, they would have seen some sure and on that basis the arrow could actually have been either side of the bow, or indeed quivers have been worn round the neck... the odds are against it though.
I'm picturing some Normans admiring the Bayeux tapestry and one of them saying "Thank God our archers didn't really ponce around like that or we would have lost".
;)
That being said, with folk lore of arrows being split and apples shot off heads, you can guarantee there were more than a couple of 'show-offs' around in those times.
:)
-
Well, here we go. It took a day or two but here's something not-entirely-unexpected: Professional archer completely shreds Andersen's video (http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/)
He seems to be usin facts over vitriol, so I'm inclined to believe him.
-
Crikey, I wonder what you call vitriol then Fram... he didn't take any prisoners there. lol
Nevertheless it was both informative and entertaining, cheers! :)
-
Well, here we go. It took a day or two but here's something not-entirely-unexpected: Professional archer completely shreds Andersen's video (http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/)
lol Well, that was that.
-
It is very interesting to see what he can do - although I wouldn't accept all his conclusions.
Also it depends which kind of bows you are talking about.
I would make a big difference between (1) antiquity/oriental/feodal bows, and (2) Welsh/English longbows (HYW etc):
some movement possibility, but less penetration, for (1), and greater armour penetration but shooting immobile for (2).
(and yes this is also a simplification for gaming purpose, but hey).
-
Crikey, I wonder what you call vitriol then Fram... he didn't take any prisoners there. lol
Nevertheless it was both informative and entertaining, cheers! :)
He's certainly... annoyed by this "charlatan", shall we say. lol
I don't think Andersen is a deliberate fraud. Much more likely he's just the type that's a bit full of himself, thinking they're a genius for figuring out the "secret answers" on their own. I'm sure he impressed a ton of his local friends who were all "Wow, you're amazing." and that doesn't help anyone be objective.
-
I think Jim on GeekDad went a little over the top, and prefer Mike Loades' second post on FB (his first was also a little emotionally charged).
The chap certainly has particular skills, but the narration to the piece is just nonsense. None of these skills/knowledge have been lost or forgotten. They just haven't engaged with the wider archery community.
Edit - I started going through the arguments Jim gets drawn into in the comments to his piece - ouch!
-
Also consider that it is an edited video. We can't know how many times he tried specific feats until he got them just right for the camera. Also, he mostly shoots at targets only a few meters away. At that range, I bet a medieval archer would be pretty screwed in the face of an assault by footsoldiers. Better draw that short sword... :D
-
I'm watching this thread with interest. I'm also thinking more of the Yoemanrey of England and their skill on and off the battlefield. I guess that it would be circumstantial as to how much an archer would move around (with his bow) in a battle/raid situation. On a raid, mobility is of the essence, it's not impossible to loose a longbow from horseback (though with the more eastern styles of archery as we know this was common).
Even in battle an archer might be forced to move forward out of necessity to take better aim at a foe. There is an interesting depiction in Mike Loades Longbow Osprey book where he shows the archers at Crecy protected by men at arms armed with long spears giving them the potential to rush forward at least when they aren't being charged.
however, as usual, evidence from contemporary sources is scant.
Darrell.
-
Either right or wrong i think the videos shown are usefull.
We can see in action what we only seen in pictures and that allows us all to take our own conclusions, being archers or not.
Basically if we dont try we cannot know for sure and we cannot do the same things with diferent kinds of bows for they where designed and created for specific diferent warfare.
-
I think without the voice over and historically questionable claims the reaction to this video would have been very different. Kinda sounds like Lars is trying to claim becuase he has experimented with and liked to shoot with these techniques this is the way shooting was done and we have just forgot it rather than just saying this is one of the many ways thst an archer might have used their bows depending on the situation, culture etc.
-
Actually I find a spaniard using the word crikey far more amazing than this bow and arrow fellow.
To be fair to him though as I said earlier in tribal warfare they run about shooting their bows albeit less circus act. There are a few gems in the minefield with what he is saying its just very bad signal to noise with too much ego added.
Well you might if I was Spanish... I'm just an Inglés who lives and works here. :)
Point taken though and on the basis that there is little new under the sun, you can probably guarantee that competent archers were able to do some/all/more than what he demonstrated, but their opinion of any facet's practicality would be obtained through experience... some of which would be bitter.
Given that Europe appears to have moved towards massed bows etc from skirmishing with them, does sort of imply that methods were lost or discarded in the Old World at least and gives us the idea that such troops were relatively static. Those areas where skirmishing or 'individual combat' is the norm do tend to be far more mobile and fast moving.
As I hinted at before, 19th Century Apache raiders would have found some of those techniques quite simple, compared to what they (maybe) did themselves, while an archer at Agincourt would have probably found them pretty useless.
-
Ian Mortimer's book '1415: Henry V's Year of Glory' described an Agincourt where English archers ran forward to attack initially and then appear to shelter behind men at arms, running forward 30 or so yards to shoot several arrows at the French before running back to regain shelter. I rather dismissed this as rubbish (particularly as Mortimer repeats the idea, of high piles of French dead needing to be clambered over, that I think John Keegan effectively disproved years ago) but this video shows how it might have been done.
Except I really don't think it was, the English longbow strikes me as an 'area effect' weapon for large battles. Some may have used such techniques in smaller skirmish affairs and the idea of archers holding several arrows in one hand seems feasible but this isn't a total rethink of medieval archery.
-
Give him a helmet, sword and mail shirt, 48 arrows, starve him for a few days, give him dysentry and put him in a muddy field. Then see how much he can jump about! ;)
-
Ian Mortimer's book '1415: Henry V's Year of Glory' described an Agincourt where English archers ran forward to attack initially and then appear to shelter behind men at arms, running forward 30 or so yards to shoot several arrows at the French before running back to regain shelter.
Interesting; but does it means they were running and shooting individually and very fast as in the video? I would rather think it means that small units of longbowmen moved swiftly forward (still forming an unformal line), shot arrows, and then quickly retreated in good order. I've seen it done a few times by English HYW/WOTR re-enactors without breaking formation.
But in the Dark Ages and 12th-13th century, some bowmen (with less powerful bows, and not organised in units but mixed with other infantry and small knights retinues) probably moved individually in the fighting to shoot at rather close range.
-
I'm not sure 'order' is the word I would use, but a 'formed mob' rather than an 'unformed mob' for sure. Rush forward to a reasonable range, fire rapidly, then fall back behind the men at arms to get more arrows... repeat as often as able. Certainly judging by the 'idea' we have of Towton, that was the tactic used by the Yorkists to goad the Lancastrians (who were apparently facing into a blizzard and unable to achieve the same range) to give up their high ground and attack.
I've never encountered anything to suggest archers were 'store mannequins' and incapable of a fair degree of mobility and flexibility. However to get the best out of their weapon, stationary shooting at a massed body of men, where no aiming is really required, is obviously the best situation (as it is for any missile weapon in truth). The one advantage of the bow is that you can draw it on the move without any real disadvantage. It's much more problematic to wind a windlass, or use a crow's foot with a crossbow, or indeed load a handgun, while trying to advance; once loaded is a different matter of course.
-
Well, here we go. It took a day or two but here's something not-entirely-unexpected: Professional archer completely shreds Andersen's video (http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/)
He seems to be usin facts over vitriol, so I'm inclined to believe him.
That was beautiful.
But a quick scan over some of the comments reminds me that humanity is doomed.
-
As I understand it the 'double draw' mentioned in Scurv's link is exactly the method used to draw a 'English warbow', judging by examination of human remains of archers.
:?
-
Bit of a bump, but I just got linked to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbqz_07dW4
A skeptical response to Lars' original. I thought the same thing about him basing so much on ancient/medieval art - the artists weren't likely to be professional archers, much like contemporary depictions of archery are a bit dodgy in some cases.
-
I'm not sure 'order' is the word I would use, but a 'formed mob' rather than an 'unformed mob' for sure. Rush forward to a reasonable range, fire rapidly, then fall back behind the men at arms to get more arrows... repeat as often as able. Certainly judging by the 'idea' we have of Towton, that was the tactic used by the Yorkists to goad the Lancastrians (who were apparently facing into a blizzard and unable to achieve the same range) to give up their high ground and attack
I concur. :).
Darrell.