For it is Legolas................

[airboy]

Amazing.  I've seen a lot of the Assyrian stone work in the British Museum and elsewhere.  Some of the other illustrations I've seen at museums.  The guy is right, I never put 2 & 2 together on modern archery and pre-guns archery.

The guy's skill level is amazing.  Some of those shots (not the trick shots of incoming arrows) would be hard to do with a pistol in the time frame he is getting his shots off in.

[LongBlade]

Whoops. Looks like this could be a hoax.

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

[jejo68]

Whoops. Looks like this could be a hoax.

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

why ?
First of there are actual reports of speedshooting being used. In fact in some of the accounts from first and second crusade the knights write about the blankets of arrows being shot at them. We also know from the Mamluk Furusaiyya that a mamluk Archer was expected to fire 3 arrows in 1.5 second. This we know from an mamluk army manual from 1368 which was later translated to English as "saracen archery". Its also mentioned in other books ex from "crusader warfare" by David Nicolle.
Now you can make the point that this type of shooting is simply not possible with the later longbows because of the greater drawstrenght required, but even those where able to shoot 12 arrows a min, albeit only for a very short while.
Also most speed shooters you see on the internet, only Draw their string about halfway, which is not really usefull as you then dont have enough energy in the arrow to shoot more then a few feet.

Lars does make some faktuel mistakes though, first and foremost that its a lost art, which quite simply isnt true. Its more a case of this type of archery wasnt really used in Europe but was more of an Asian thing. And indeed its still being taught throughout Asia.
Secondly the reason he gives for putting the arrow on the left side of the bow in modern European archery is simply bollocks to be frankly. The reason you put it there is because of the 2 or 3 finger grips which is being used. That Means the bowstring will naturally move slightly to the left when released which would mean the arrow would not fly straight if placed on the other side of the bow (very simple explanation I know). Native Americans, and fx the afore mentioned mamluks on the other hand holds the arrow with the thumb, which Means that the bowstring will move to the right when released so therefore you need to put the arrow on the right side of the bow.

[Grimnirsson]

That geek dad posting is a rude, obnoxious rant combining statements that are probably true (about the narrator not the shooter) with a good dose of envy that he obviously can't do what Lars does and so he tries to belittle him with cheap shots. So hero, show us your skill and then we can talk.

And why should we believe some ranting dude who doesn't show any skill himself anyway and not the one who does show skill?

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp

[jejo68]

anyways speaking of skills 

[JasonPratt]

And why should we believe some ranting dude who doesn't show any skill himself anyway and not the one who does show skill?

Well, could we believe the polite woman who serves as Arrow's archery consultant and is making a documentary on ancient bow practices?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-maltese/yes-ive-seen-the-video-thank-you-for-posting-it-/10152769003622585?pnref=story

Also, Snopes favorably quotes the man you're calling the "ranting dude", so...

combining statements that are probably true (about the narrator not the shooter)

Since the narration shows up in a video arranged by the shooter on the shooter's video channel, I think we're reasonably inferring the shooter (Lars) is making such claims, being narrated (in English) by the narrator.

It doesn't seem likely that someone just randomly caught Lars doing things (fumbling a back quiver, aiming with one eye down a bowshaft instead of using both eyes like real archers typically do) supposedly echoing the historical claims being made by the narrator.

[JasonPratt]

As for claims of "hoax": even the grumpy critic doesn't make that claim about everything Lars does and (via narrator) says. The historical claims tend to be rubbish (and occasionally self-contradicting) precisely at the points where a contrast is being made with Lars' supposed superiority, though, so that's a real problem.

I was impressed enough at what he was actually doing to mentally filter out the sillier parts of what he's talking about: trick shotting is still talented, even if (like for a film stunt sequence) it takes some practice to catch a good run on film, and even if it isn't very useful militarily or for hunting except in a last-ditch scrap.


I do think the grumpy critic isn't giving enough credence to artistic representations; but Lars in his presentations isn't giving enough credence to a ton more study on archery physics both ancient and modern.