Ancient/medieval archery - a rethink

[epmoretto]

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.

[duhamel]

not moving ?? http://toxophile.pagesperso-orange.fr/voy16byx.htm 

[shandy]

not moving ?? http://toxophile.pagesperso-orange.fr/voy16byx.htm 

Interesting, the upper left archer looks like he has his quiver slung around his back (or his throat - look uncomfortable  ). And he definitely is moving.
The others seem to pretty much corroborate Lars Andersen.

[Gangleri]

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.

[Arlequín]

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.
 

[FramFramson]

Well, here we go. It took a day or two but here's something not-entirely-unexpected: Professional archer completely shreds Andersen's video

He seems to be usin facts over vitriol, so I'm inclined to believe him.

[Arlequín]

Crikey, I wonder what you call vitriol then Fram... he didn't take any prisoners there. 

Nevertheless it was both informative and entertaining, cheers! 

[shandy]

Well, here we go. It took a day or two but here's something not-entirely-unexpected: Professional archer completely shreds Andersen's video

  Well, that was that.

[Patrice]

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).

[FramFramson]

Crikey, I wonder what you call vitriol then Fram... he didn't take any prisoners there.  

Nevertheless it was both informative and entertaining, cheers!  

He's certainly... annoyed by this "charlatan", shall we say.  

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.

[janner]

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!

[Cherno]

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...

[Atheling]

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.

[rumacara]

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.

[carlos13th]

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.