Lars Andersen explains why Archery dominates many Pathfinder tables!


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Hoover wrote:

So... where's the slinging video?

*ducks as everyone throws garbage and boos*

Just the first one I found

Now this one is comparing bows to slings, very interesting.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
In many ways, the full attack paradigm is unrealistic in that a real warrior with those superhuman abilities PCs attain would be a lot MORE capable than their in-game counterparts.
The full attack is a concession to this being a turn based game - a combination of full attack and AOOs make it so that there are disadvantages to sprinting around a battlefield during your turn and your opponents can't do anything about it since they have to wait for their turn.
I kinda feel like that concession is undermined when the capacity to cast twice in one turn while moving freely becomes a part of the game.

I chose instead to challenge the assumption: why SHOULDN'T people be able to run around like crazy?

Does it suck that people can just run past you? Well, yeah. So fix that directly by allowing people to prepare an action to defend adjacent squares from being passed-by. If you don't specifically try to block and it's a 10-15ft wide corridor then they deserve to run by you; there's a lot of room there to pass by a pre-occupied foe.

Sovereign Court

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
In many ways, the full attack paradigm is unrealistic in that a real warrior with those superhuman abilities PCs attain would be a lot MORE capable than their in-game counterparts.
The full attack is a concession to this being a turn based game - a combination of full attack and AOOs make it so that there are disadvantages to sprinting around a battlefield during your turn and your opponents can't do anything about it since they have to wait for their turn.
I kinda feel like that concession is undermined when the capacity to cast twice in one turn while moving freely becomes a part of the game.

I chose instead to challenge the assumption: why SHOULDN'T people be able to run around like crazy?

Does it suck that people can just run past you? Well, yeah. So fix that directly by allowing people to prepare an action to defend adjacent squares from being passed-by. If you don't specifically try to block and it's a 10-15ft wide corridor then they deserve to run by you; there's a lot of room there to pass by a pre-occupied foe.

It could certainly be done that way. I even made a homebrew feat to allow shield wielders to make a 5ft step as an immediate action to do just that - forcing their opponent to stop their movement or try to bullrush/overrun them. But that's not the system we have. (It has other playability issues considering how many players pay no attention to what's happening when it's not their turn.)


Kryzbyn wrote:

I've always wondered about the arrow on the other side of the bow thing in the movies. I've never done that when I've shot a bow.

Where does one buy a bow like he's using? Most places have compound hunting or competition bows. Looks like he's using a short recurve?

It is my understanding that if you are shooting with the arrow on the side of the draw hand you use a thumb ring to compensate for the archers paradox.

Which is essentially you're not shooting through the bow but besides it while the bow string is right inline with it. So different draw methods compensate each either side.

I did not see him use a thumb ring so I don't know.

Coriat, I'll look at your links and reply later.

I will say this though regarding past warfare there most certainly seems to be a lot of conflicting information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone who has taught archery to Cub Scouts, my first reaction was to wince at the damage he must be doing to his fletchings by nocking the arrow any which way.

The rest looks fancy (sometimes silly), but the main thing I was interested in was that thing about holding arrows in the draw hand. I'd like to give that a shot myself (pun entirely unintentional) if I get to a range this summer. Not sure how well it'll work for me, since I shoot left-handed because I'm left-eye dominant.


Bummer, I wanted to share it first :( is it the same as this one? [link]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk[/link]


Coriat wrote:
Lemartes wrote:
My first thought was that it must be butted chain mail not riveted. Then they specifically say he shot through riveted chain mail.

I'm rapidly outrunning my limited direct knowledge of these issues, but my understanding is that this is not a saving grace at all

Some Google image investigations seem to confirm - to my admittedly untrained eye - that "riveted" is often not even in the same neighborhood as "good."

Ah very cool.

I thought you were implying that riveted vs butted made no difference but I think you mean that shoddy riveted mail is no better than butted chain mail.

That being said from the varied sources I have found is that proper or historically accurate riveted chain mail is far greater protection than butted chain mail.

I will also say that I've seen various arrow vs armour tests and I've come to the conclusion that you can't trust any of them.

I've seen arrows punch through plate armour and on the other end bodkin arrows fail to penetrate a padded gambeson and various other "tests" of questionable credibility.

How good was the armour? How powerful was the bow or capable was the archer...range etc.

On another note one of my most favourite sources of European(mainly) weaponry and armour knowledge is Matt Easton of scholagladitoria on youtube.

Matt does HEMA and does a lot of research on these topics and I trust his videos more than many of my own books on these matters.

Anyways, I recommend his channel lots of good stuff. :)


8 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two kinds of people.

People who see this video and stare in awe.

Those who feel the need to poo poo Lars' accomplishment.

Seriously. There are paragraphs above me that exist solely to debunk what we saw.

I truly pity those people. That video is an amazing depiction of human skill and ingenuity. To spend so much effort pointing how "wrong" it was according to "experts" just makes me shake my head in shame.

I truly expected more of this communtiy.

Forevermore I will call acrobatic archers Lars. It just seems appropriate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

See I think it's more like we are all in awe of what he's capable of. However, at the same time he's putting out a bit of false information which I myself find annoying.

So you can get off your high horse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:

So... where's the slinging video?

*ducks as everyone throws garbage and boos*

Just the first one I found

Now this one is comparing bows to slings, very interesting.

Off-topic, but indirectly sort of relevant: While looking at the second of these videos, I stumbled upon a video for what in modern usage is called the falcata (along with its smaller relative the kukri), but in ancient times was apparently called the kopis. Didn't mention the sundering property that this supposedly had against the scutum(*), though.

(*)Roman tower shield.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen. Their main tactic was to fire rapidly, but to fire high so that arrows rained down from above in an area rather than specifically aiming. They didn't use quivers much either, they jammed their arrows in the ground point first when they wanted to use them in combat. But they didn't jump around much either but operated in groups to lay down heavy density arrow-rain. The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen.

It's rather closer to how steppe horse archers and maryannu chariot archers operated in terms of rapid close range shooting, although of course they were doing it mounted and not jumping around so much. Possibly to how some historical skirmishers fought too.

Quote:
The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).

Chain mail wasn't quite as good as plate, but either was sufficient to make longbow fire a nuisance rather than particularly lethal. Pavisiers were effectively immune to archery, though given the weight the troops involved had to carry the French discarded the idea after a period of experimentation in the 1360s.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

{. . .}

The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. {. . .}

Problem with that idea is that you can't get that much kinetic energy out of gravity unless you either:

1. Are lucky enough to be able to attack from considerably higher ground than those you are attacking, or
2. Supply that much kinetic energy with your pull, to get your arrows to go that high in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shane LeRose wrote:

There are two kinds of people.

People who see this video and stare in awe.

Those who feel the need to poo poo Lars' accomplishment.

Seriously. There are paragraphs above me that exist solely to debunk what we saw.

I truly pity those people. That video is an amazing depiction of human skill and ingenuity. To spend so much effort pointing how "wrong" it was according to "experts" just makes me shake my head in shame.

I truly expected more of this communtiy.

Forevermore I will call acrobatic archers Lars. It just seems appropriate.

I have to admit the man is having arrows shot at himself, I can't say it's at all surprising that there's a bit of staging involved in the video.

What I admire about the video is that it portrays archery in a manner we don't typically see. Rapid, mobile and very close range. I don't so much see this as a challenge to conventional archery as it is a compliment. And while 100% of what was depicted may not be all that viable in combat, I certainly wouldn't go the other way and say that Lars is without skill or merit.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

{. . .}

The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. {. . .}

Problem with that idea is that you can't get that much kinetic energy out of gravity unless you either:

1. Are lucky enough to be able to attack from considerably higher ground than those you are attacking, or
2. Supply that much kinetic energy with your pull, to get your arrows to go that high in the first place.

Agincourt suggests you are wrong. And, while the parallel may not be entirely apt, it you shoot a gun in the air and then let the bullet drop back down on to you, it will kill you, despite the fact that the impetus of the bullet will be entirely due to gravity - it's why loads of people die in Arab countries when they engage in celebratory gunfire. The aerodynamics of an arrow and a bullet aren't the same, of course, but an arrow fired high with an armour piercing head will hurt. Longbowmen didn't pick targets, they laid down suppressing fire with arcing shots. The impact would have been down the gravity. Sure, the height and range would have been down to the pull - and skeletal studies indicate that medieval longbowmen had very powerful arms in order to do this.

Saw this after a quick trawl on the net. Don't know how conclusive it is but it would appear the situation re armour penetration in not cut-and-dried.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually arrows have advantages over bullets in free fall when it comes to deadlyness. The fletching makes sure they land head first, and the size and shape means much more weight coming down.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen. Their main tactic was to fire rapidly, but to fire high so that arrows rained down from above in an area rather than specifically aiming. They didn't use quivers much either, they jammed their arrows in the ground point first when they wanted to use them in combat. But they didn't jump around much either but operated in groups to lay down heavy density arrow-rain. The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).

Bolded portion.

Lars has shown that he can reliably shoot faster than people using other techniques. If the English were primarily concerned with rate of fire, why would they not use this (or something similar) technique?

Sighting the arrow down the left side is better for accuracy, but as you say, the English were firing to a space, flooding an area with arrows, not attempting to hit a specific target. His method would seem more than adequate for doing that (even though he has shown himself to have good accuracy).


Irontruth wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen. Their main tactic was to fire rapidly, but to fire high so that arrows rained down from above in an area rather than specifically aiming. They didn't use quivers much either, they jammed their arrows in the ground point first when they wanted to use them in combat. But they didn't jump around much either but operated in groups to lay down heavy density arrow-rain. The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).

Bolded portion.

Lars has shown that he can reliably shoot faster than people using other techniques. If the English were primarily concerned with rate of fire, why would they not use this (or something similar) technique?

Sighting the arrow down the left side is better for accuracy, but as you say, the English were firing to a space, flooding an area with arrows, not attempting to hit a specific target. His method would seem more than adequate for doing that (even though he has shown himself to have good accuracy).

Part of the firing rapidly was also firing long arcing shots. For which you need power. Perhaps more power than Lars has shown? I haven't seen everything he's done, but it looked mostly like quick, short range shooting.

Perfect for PF style skirmishes, but not so much for full scale battles where you're hitting masses of troops at range, as they close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something to note involving all of the "debunking" so far....

None of it actually has to do with the technique he is using. Not one person has even claimed that his method of nocking, drawing and firing the arrow cannot achieve what he is doing.

It's all about how the bow he is using isn't effective, or the arrows aren't constructed right.

None of it has to do with the speed or accuracy he is demonstrating. I don't think he's some sort of genius, or that he's uncovering something completely unknown. Rather he is demonstrating a technique that is not widely used and showing it to be just as effective, if not more, than other nocking/drawing techniques.


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As an aside, what Lars was doing seems to have little to do with the archery that was practiced by English longbowmen. Their main tactic was to fire rapidly, but to fire high so that arrows rained down from above in an area rather than specifically aiming. They didn't use quivers much either, they jammed their arrows in the ground point first when they wanted to use them in combat. But they didn't jump around much either but operated in groups to lay down heavy density arrow-rain. The arrows didn't have much problem penetrating armour, certainly not chain mail, as most of the impetus for the arrow on penetration was from gravity and the fall from the parabolic reajectory rather than from the pull itself. A lot of the development of armour in the middle ages was an arms race against the arrows - chain mail was pretty useless, which is why plate mail progressively developed. Lars might be more relevant for Asian composite bows and horseback archery but that was not the bag of the English longbowmen (which were six feet long).

Bolded portion.

Lars has shown that he can reliably shoot faster than people using other techniques. If the English were primarily concerned with rate of fire, why would they not use this (or something similar) technique?

Sighting the arrow down the left side is better for accuracy, but as you say, the English were firing to a space, flooding an area with arrows, not attempting to hit a specific target. His method would seem more than adequate for doing that (even though he has shown himself to have good accuracy).

Part of the firing rapidly was also firing long arcing shots. For which you need power. Perhaps more power than Lars has shown? I haven't seen everything he's done, but it looked mostly like quick, short range shooting.

Perfect for PF style skirmishes, but not so much for full scale battles where you're hitting masses of troops at range, as they close.

Using the same person (Lars) with the same equipment, do you think he would develop MORE power using more mainstream modern techniques?

I think we're all in agreement, an English longbowman who trained all their life would probably be better at this than Lars. People have cited evidence that English longbowmen has physical changes from their years of training. Do you think an English longbowman would be more effective using a slower method or a faster method?


Irontruth wrote:

Something to note involving all of the "debunking" so far....

None of it actually has to do with the technique he is using. Not one person has even claimed that his method of nocking, drawing and firing the arrow cannot achieve what he is doing.

It's all about how the bow he is using isn't effective, or the arrows aren't constructed right.

None of it has to do with the speed or accuracy he is demonstrating. I don't think he's some sort of genius, or that he's uncovering something completely unknown. Rather he is demonstrating a technique that is not widely used and showing it to be just as effective, if not more, than other nocking/drawing techniques.

That's certainly reasonable.

Though it's also possible that the results wouldn't be quite so impressive using a different bow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He's also barely pulling the bow string back very far compared to an english long bowman. His bow also has far less powerful draw.

English war bows averaged like 130 lb draw.....at least thats what several sources seem to confirm. Some much higher.

Also remember that the longer your draw stroke the more power you get with your shot for a given draw strength.

Which is why a 100 lbs long bow is more powerful than a 100 lb "short bow".

Some of the bows he's using don't look to have a very strong draw.

Therefore, easier to draw and not pulling anywhere near as far back as a longbow man equals a much faster rate of fire but far far less hitting power and range.

Plus he's not using war arrows.

Don't get me wrong impressive but misleading.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What's interesting about Lars is that he fires rapidly, but not for a long time. The draws on some of these bows were enormous, especially the longbow which was essentially a solid piece of wood. To fire a yew longbow for a long period of time rapidly would require serious strength. I doubt Lars is really up for that. And I doubt he would claim otherwise.

My main point above is that Lars is basically using composite bows which are - to a large extent (I am no expert) - Asian in origin. The techniques in using a composite bow - for example a Mongol horseman - would likely be pretty different for an English longbowman, not least given the size differential. And the tactical uses to which they were put would likely be different, also affecting the techniques in use. So my point isn't that Lars is necessarily wrong, just that (historically speaking) what he is doing seems to me to be much more likely to be specific to a particular time and place. The historical examples given all seemed to me to be Asian or Middle Eastern. So the stuff about jumping around and riding on the back of a bike if fine and dandy, but he'd probably struggle to do that with a six-foot long piece of wood. I'd also like to see him catch a falling arrow from a longbow travelling at freefall speed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't even know what the point of that comparison is. He's not using a longbow. Nothing he's showing involves shooting arrows at a field full of targets from a great distance with a longbow.
He talks about using techniques other cultures used, NOT English longbowmen. Techniques used in skirmishes among close targets on the field of battle, not shooting onto it from a distance.

It's like comparing trap shooting to a sniper, and saying the trap shooter is doing it wrong. "He's not even using the right rifle..."

EDIT: ninja'd

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. But the film glosses over that. It talks about archery as if there is only one way to do it (Lars' way) and there isn't. It's not to take away from Lars, just to clarify that what he's doing isn't what "all" archers did in the olden days. And so his historical techniques are specific to particular cultures, which is also not clarified. I mean, it's only six minutes long and the main purpose is to go "Cool!" so it's not to get worked up about, but it also suggests additional aspects which aren't pursued.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It's not misleading, unless one might think English longbowmen read heiroplyphics, dressed like Egyptians, or were immortalized carved into Sumerian stone work...or fought from chariots...etc. etc.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Agincourt suggests you are wrong.

I think you missed what he's saying, because you're arguing with physics.

If the arrow comes DOWN with X amount of energy, that means that it went UP with X amount of energy (+ a bit from wind resistance) If it didn't have that much energy it couldn't get up there.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Agincourt suggests you are wrong.

Far from history expert, but I had the impression that angicourt was won more by the luck of having and very favorable terrain than the expertise of English archers or the power of longbows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Agincourt suggests you are wrong.

I think you missed what he's saying, because you're arguing with physics.

If the arrow comes DOWN with X amount of energy, that means that it went UP with X amount of energy (+ a bit from wind resistance) If it didn't have that much energy it couldn't get up there.

Actually the speed in the falling part of the trajectory is lower (so less energy) due to air resistance. The rotational movement of the arrow would also decrease for the same reason.


Save actually for when you actually correct someone

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

They also mention that though possible with bamboo, with real arrow quality wood used in war...shooting through an arrow is basically impossible due to the grain of the arrow.

Yeah - they did a couple of Mythbusters on that. It's impossible to split a real wood arrow.

No. What they found was that the incoming arrow would follow the path of the grain - just like splitting logs. Good, high power wooden arrows will use parallel grain, but you don't even bother trying to do that before 70lb test arrows. You don't need it on the target arrows for low power bows that they use, so when they tried to split the arrow it just sheared off the back end. I've seen target tips do that in the SCA, usually taking off no more than a hand span of the back of the arrow. But in the SCA, very few people are shooting over 60lb bows, and the vast majority are shooting 30-50.

The mid flight shear that happens in the video is exactly the type of failure I would expect from wooden arrows. The majority of the arrow moves to the left, including both the head and fletching, while a portion of the arrow, likely a single ring, split to the right. I've seen damaged arrows fail that way in mid flight from the bending stresses, and that type of failure is one of the things marshals in the SCA are supposed to look out for when checking someone's arrows.

As for the strength of the bows he is using, I would put money on them being between 50 and 60 lbs. It is a weight a trained archer can sustain for extended durations without as much compensation for low power, and on typical foam will drive the arrows about as far as he does. Trained archers wont strain to pull it back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

I don't even know what the point of that comparison is. He's not using a longbow. Nothing he's showing involves shooting arrows at a field full of targets from a great distance with a longbow.

He talks about using techniques other cultures used, NOT English longbowmen. Techniques used in skirmishes among close targets on the field of battle, not shooting onto it from a distance.

It's like comparing trap shooting to a sniper, and saying the trap shooter is doing it wrong. "He's not even using the right rifle..."

EDIT: ninja'd

He uses the first half of his video to talk about how bad English longbowmen are. That is where the comparison comes from.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


Agincourt suggests you are wrong.

I think you missed what he's saying, because you're arguing with physics.

If the arrow comes DOWN with X amount of energy, that means that it went UP with X amount of energy (+ a bit from wind resistance) If it didn't have that much energy it couldn't get up there.

Yes, fair enough. But the point I was making was that it was suggested that gravity wouldn't be sufficient to accelerate an arrow to killing, armour-piercing force (though on rereading it might just have been ambiguous wording). The would appear to be untrue, as the historical record suggests. Clearly you have to shoot the arrow up in the first place, and physical laws mean you don't get a free energetic lunch, and therefore the arrow has to be appropriately accelerated in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well the experts I've heard are still saying the same thing which I listed above. Basically, Lars doesn't have anything to stand on.

The only thing that they've mocked more now seems to be that he says all types of stuff about debunking Hollywood, and then goes to try to prove Hollywood did it right the entire time!

If anything, he's more Hollywood than Hollywood!

Also, that most of his stuff is a setup and not actually done in any way that would impress real archery. People have already stated it, but he's like a trick archer.

Someone had also pointed out that they DO have Asiatic people's who already practice mobile archery. If his technique was so effective, than they should be accepting him in droves...except, they aren't.

They also have a tournament of horse archery regularly in the Russia/Asian portions and supposedly (I haven't seen it myself, thus far, ONLY heard others talk) they DO NOT use Lars method.

I'd imagine one could probably take Lars down (if the two methods were compared) at a full gallop prior to Lars taking them down...but that's just a thought brought on from what some of the experts on the archery boards were talking about.


On another note, in regards to guns and bullets, I know a little about that. Not so much about the arrows and archery, and the experts at other places don't seem to be talking about that so much.

It is a common myth that a bullet shot upwards will come down and kill someone. It MIGHT...but it's very unlikely due to terminal velocity.

It can go up, but when it comes down it is limited to a maximum velocity due to the physics and dynamics of the earth. It actually goes up FASTER than it comes down, because as it comes down, not only does it have friction, but it also hits a maximum speed that gravity can cause.

Same thing happens with sky divers, there's a maximum speed they can achieve when falling. It depends on the wind resistance, air friction, and of course force of gravity. For example, the terminal velocity of a standard skydiver in freefall is around 195 mi/hr. Granted, that's pretty darn fast...but it's still less than some racecars go around tracks.

Most bullets are released at speeds faster than 1500 feet per second (or, if lower caliber, like a 22 I believe it's normally something a little faster than 1250 ft/sec).

A falling bullet's typical (it varies from bullet to bullet) terminal velocity is around 300 ft/sec which means, yes it's fast...but a BB gun shoots BB's at a faster velocity.

On other thing...

To the one who posted this link

Danish Archer Demonstrates Gullibility of Audience

Thanks for posting it, very informative as well.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..

The only thing I really take issue with here is the guy claiming the arrow would not break like that. I find that failure entirely plausible. Most of his other take down is really good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..
The only thing I really take issue with here is the guy claiming the arrow would not break like that. I find that failure entirely plausible. Most of his other take down is really good.

Well, in truth, unless Lars hits the arrow every time, Lars should be dead from having arrows shot at him and trying to split them in half.

However, there are TWO reasons the experts say it's not doable to shoot an arrow in half in the air. First is the grain of the wood on a real arrow, it's impossible to shoot in half lengthwise supposedly (as tried twice on mythbusters in season 3 and 4 supposedly).

The BIGGER reason though, is that there is an arrowhead at the front of that arrow. If you are in an archery contest, your arrow head will converge on the back of the other arrow, hence possibly going through it.

However, if it is coming at you, your arrowhead is going to hit that arrow head...and that's where they are going to smash together. Going through another arrowhead just as strong as your's would be harder than punching through platemail.

That's just getting through the head, prior to getting through the shaft itself.

Most likely, it was done by Lars having non-pointed and non-headed, slow moving bamboo sticks tossed at him (I could say shot, but with the speeds he's dealing with, it's more like someone tossing them at him as someone can throw faster than the shafts are coming at him in his catching video).


Time to get back on my high horse.

If you go to the youtube page itself he address' many of the concerns folks have in the description. It won't stop haters. Haters gonna hate, but it does help people like me who was wowed by most of the vid yet still held some misgivings. The sheer amount of backlash he's received is purely insulting.

All he needs now is to do a live show. This would vindicate his fans. Something that shouldn't be needed, but apparently is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..
The only thing I really take issue with here is the guy claiming the arrow would not break like that. I find that failure entirely plausible. Most of his other take down is really good.

Well, in truth, unless Lars hits the arrow every time, Lars should be dead from having arrows shot at him and trying to split them in half.

However, there are TWO reasons the experts say it's not doable to shoot an arrow in half in the air. First is the grain of the wood on a real arrow, it's impossible to shoot in half lengthwise supposedly (as tried twice on mythbusters in season 3 and 4 supposedly).

The BIGGER reason though, is that there is an arrowhead at the front of that arrow. If you are in an archery contest, your arrow head will converge on the back of the other arrow, hence possibly going through it.

However, if it is coming at you, your arrowhead is going to hit that arrow head...and that's where they are going to smash together. Going through another arrowhead just as strong as your's would be harder than punching through platemail.

That's just getting through the head, prior to getting through the shaft itself.

Most likely, it was done by Lars having non-pointed and non-headed, slow moving bamboo sticks tossed at him (I could say shot, but with the speeds he's dealing with, it's more like someone tossing them at him as someone can throw faster than the shafts are coming at him in his catching video).

1. He isn't making the claim that he is splitting it the whole length, just that he is splitting it. He obviously isn't splitting it in half, since the pieces aren't even remotely the same size.

As for the speeds of the oncoming arrows, they look pretty typical of what would come off a 30 lb bow.


I admit, I don't know what arrows look like at speeds from a 30 lbs bow, but I DO know the following off of personal experience.

Well, I got my daughter a toy bow for Christmas and her arrows go faster than that. It doesn't feel like a 30 lb bow, her's feels more like something really light...like 10 lbs...and they go FASTER than what he shows.

Not an archery expert, but I CAN say that I've seen her little toy bow with little suction cup arrows, and they GO FASTER than his bow does.

Hmmm...I wonder, if I put arrow points on her arrows and shot from 2 feet away...if I could pierce chinzy cheap chainmail with a cloth behind it too?

What's worse, is I DO sports, and I play Baseball (among other things) and I can even throw a BALL FAR faster most of the items that I saw moving in that video (PS: Lars doesn't appear he can throw that well...as an aside).

I can catch a thrown baseball...

Are you telling me arrows move slower from a 30 lbs bow than a thrown baseball or a toy 10 lbs bow?

If so, I can see why it's so easy to catch an arrow (though truthfully, catching one from daughter's bow wouldn't be so easy unless shot right at you). The experts seem to say it's impossible to catch an arrow from a real bow though (as opposed to my daughter's bow or a baseball).


TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..

I read part of the article, up to and even some way past the point where they said this: "You can see it in the slow-motion footage during the tournament scene in Brave; as the arrow begins its flight, it’s oscillating back and forth, swimming through the air like a fish and moving to the left, until the aerodynamic effect of the air passing over feathers causes it to begin spinning, at which point the arrow turns and begins traveling to the right." They even give a link to the trailer to the Pixar animated film, just to confirm that they weren't talking about a different Brave film than what I was thinking of. I am less than impressed with a takedown article that uses this for a source . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I admit, I don't know what arrows look like at speeds from a 30 lbs bow, but I DO know the following off of personal experience.

Well, I got my daughter a toy bow for Christmas and her arrows go faster than that. It doesn't feel like a 30 lb bow, her's feels more like something really light...like 10 lbs...and they go FASTER than what he shows.

Not an archery expert, but I CAN say that I've seen her little toy bow with little suction cup arrows, and they GO FASTER than his bow does.

Hmmm...I wonder, if I put arrow points on her arrows and shot from 2 feet away...if I could pierce chinzy cheap chainmail with a cloth behind it too?

What's worse, is I DO sports, and I play Baseball (among other things) and I can even throw a BALL FAR faster most of the items that I saw moving in that video (PS: Lars doesn't appear he can throw that well...as an aside).

I can catch a thrown baseball...

Are you telling me arrows move slower from a 30 lbs bow than a thrown baseball or a toy 10 lbs bow?

If so, I can see why it's so easy to catch an arrow (though truthfully, catching one from daughter's bow wouldn't be so easy unless shot right at you). The experts seem to say it's impossible to catch an arrow from a real bow though (as opposed to my daughter's bow or a baseball).

Considering the arrow used in the grab an arrow and shoot it back only is visible in flight for about 5 frames, it is really hard to make that claim. That being said, lets look at some simple sources

This site on compound bows has information on what the minimum recommended speeds for hunting game are. Taking their minmium medium game number of 25 lbs point blank, adding 5 for distance, to get to 30 ft/second, you have an arrow going 20mph as the recommended minimum. But bows will probably blow away this in the real world. The minimum recommended bow for hunting game that size is generally a 40 lb draw weight.

Playing with some base numbers with a speed calculator, I wouldn't be surprised if a 30lb bow only shot at around 60mph. (IBO 150, 28 inch draw, draw weight 30, 250 arrow weight, 0 extra on the string). I'm not really familiar with IBO, it seems to be something for compounds only, but they assume a general number of 5 for every 1 lb in the draw as a default, so I assumed the default. The arrow weight I got from my wooden arrows with target tips - broadheads would be slower.

Edit: This speed makes sense in my head for how fast the arrow is traveling when I shoot at long range targets. I have almost been able to get 2 arrows in the air at 100 yard targets. At at 60mph, that would be around 3 seconds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
This is the first thing I've looked at on the subject..

I read part of the article, up to and even some way past the point where they said this: "You can see it in the slow-motion footage during the tournament scene in Brave; as the arrow begins its flight, it’s oscillating back and forth, swimming through the air like a fish and moving to the left, until the aerodynamic effect of the air passing over feathers causes it to begin spinning, at which point the arrow turns and begins traveling to the right." They even give a link to the trailer to the Pixar animated film, just to confirm that they weren't talking about a different Brave film than what I was thinking of. I am less than impressed with a takedown article that uses this for a source . . . .

Physicists widely acclaimed the movie for its accurate portrail of the effect. As an archer, using that shot in their previews was one of the biggest reasons I wanted to see the movie. I got a huge physics hard on.


Lemartes wrote:

He's also barely pulling the bow string back very far compared to an english long bowman. His bow also has far less powerful draw.

English war bows averaged like 130 lb draw.....at least thats what several sources seem to confirm. Some much higher.

Also remember that the longer your draw stroke the more power you get with your shot for a given draw strength.

Which is why a 100 lbs long bow is more powerful than a 100 lb "short bow".

Some of the bows he's using don't look to have a very strong draw.

Therefore, easier to draw and not pulling anywhere near as far back as a longbow man equals a much faster rate of fire but far far less hitting power and range.

Plus he's not using war arrows.

Don't get me wrong impressive but misleading.

Again, your comments surround the bow itself.

Yes, Lars has not trained his entire life to be an English longbowman. I agree to this fact. So when comparing the physical capabilities of the two, we must acknowledge that they are different.

For example, if you compared me to nearly any kid from Jamaica (where sprinting is a major sport and everyone participates) I'm probably going to lose a foot race. They've trained most of their lives to do it and do it well.

Lars' point is that the mainstream method for nocking an arrow is slower than the method he demonstrates.

Do you have evidence that this is false?

I fully concede, Lars is not as strong as an English longbowman. He is also obviously not a scholar or expert on history. Do you have evidence that the technique itself is flawed, or do you ONLY have evidence that Lars is flawed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemartes wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Lemartes wrote:
My first thought was that it must be butted chain mail not riveted. Then they specifically say he shot through riveted chain mail.

I'm rapidly outrunning my limited direct knowledge of these issues, but my understanding is that this is not a saving grace at all

Some Google image investigations seem to confirm - to my admittedly untrained eye - that "riveted" is often not even in the same neighborhood as "good."

Ah very cool.

I thought you were implying that riveted vs butted made no difference but I think you mean that shoddy riveted mail is no better than butted chain mail.

That being said from the varied sources I have found is that proper or historically accurate riveted chain mail is far greater protection than butted chain mail.

I will also say that I've seen various arrow vs armour tests and I've come to the conclusion that you can't trust any of them.

I've seen arrows punch through plate armour and on the other end bodkin arrows fail to penetrate a padded gambeson and various other "tests" of questionable credibility.

All sounds reasonable to me.

And I can't really blame the guy, either. If you are purchasing something with intent to try to destroy it, well, are you going to buy the stuff that is a hundred times more expensive, or the cheap knockoffs? I know that if I were faced with the choice between $200 and 30 grand, and I hoped to destroy the thing, it would be a really easy choice to make.

But it doesn't make it any more accurate.


Irontruth wrote:
Lemartes wrote:

He's also barely pulling the bow string back very far compared to an english long bowman. His bow also has far less powerful draw.

English war bows averaged like 130 lb draw.....at least thats what several sources seem to confirm. Some much higher.

Also remember that the longer your draw stroke the more power you get with your shot for a given draw strength.

Which is why a 100 lbs long bow is more powerful than a 100 lb "short bow".

Some of the bows he's using don't look to have a very strong draw.

Therefore, easier to draw and not pulling anywhere near as far back as a longbow man equals a much faster rate of fire but far far less hitting power and range.

Plus he's not using war arrows.

Don't get me wrong impressive but misleading.

Again, your comments surround the bow itself.

Yes, Lars has not trained his entire life to be an English longbowman. I agree to this fact. So when comparing the physical capabilities of the two, we must acknowledge that they are different.

For example, if you compared me to nearly any kid from Jamaica (where sprinting is a major sport and everyone participates) I'm probably going to lose a foot race. They've trained most of their lives to do it and do it well.

Lars' point is that the mainstream method for nocking an arrow is slower than the method he demonstrates.

Do you have evidence that this is false?

I fully concede, Lars is not as strong as an English longbowman. He is also obviously not a scholar or expert on history. Do you have evidence that the technique itself is flawed, or do you ONLY have evidence that Lars is flawed?

I don't think my comments totally surround the bow.

Clearly his method is faster that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is a valid reason not to do this in a war situation, especially if you're a longbow man. I mentioned above that this was why he can shoot so much faster.

As I said above he's not pulling the bow string back far enough for even a weaker more eastern style of bow(not that all eastern bows are weak) to be effective in war. A method which he's claiming was used in war. Again I will emphasis that his bow has a very light draw. Please watch the video above posted by I think Greywolflord. Matt Easton explains it far better than me.

My take is and I don't claim to be an expert is that, weak draw plus short draw stroke equals a very weak shot thus not idea for military use and more for impressive trick shooting. He however seems to be claiming that this is how archers actually shot when I'm not so sure. I think that they(the non-english/non-european archers) would generally have pulled the bow back farther and even took slightly longer to aim and thus not fire as quick. I do think that the holding the arrows in the draw hand is valid and I learned something there.

I will say that I doubt you could do the same with a really powerful longbow(which is why I mentioned draw weights and war arrows). I'd also think it would be pointless as extremely fast shooting was not a huge merit when you can shoot really far(But I suppose that is another argument). Also, aiming even if it is just up at a 45 deg angle in the general direction of your opponent is more difficult and time consuming with a strong draw. All of these factors add up.

Plus with editing we don't know how accurate he really is. If he did it live like another poster suggested above and was that accurate I would be extremely impressed.

So my main problem is some of his claims don't seem to be very credible. If he just said it was fast trick shooting I wouldn't have any objection. In closing clearly he can shoot very fast with his method which I don't think I or anyone else is disputing.

Finally we can never agree with our Avatars. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The hate he gets has nothing to do with what he's showing. It's fun to watch.

It's that damn narrator spouting fox news quality facts.

Shadow Lodge

Apparently the narrator is Lars himself. Another reason not to trust him...he talks about himself in the third person.


By the way, for those who are claiming that Lars Anderson isn't accurate: That can't be right, given that he is able to repeatedly hit arrows and other small quasi-ballistically flying objects(*). Even if he did more than one take to get this, he still has to be good enough to have a decent chance of getting one take in which he hits multiple objects of this type. Hence, BAB at least close to +20.

(*)Speaking of which, can anyone remember what the Pathfinder ability for doing this is called? I can't remember if it is a feat or some archetype class feature (not Archer Fighter, though -- that was the first place I looked). In StarCraft 2 that is called Point Defense Drone, but that doesn't help much for Pathfinder . . . :-)

Whether or not Lars Anderson has his history somewhat mixed up, what he demonstrates clearly works. If you could combine his skill with additional Strength training (and a bow of draw strength to match while retaining close to the same shape), you would have an archer who could do all the stuff I listed several posts back AND punch through a large variety of armor types.

51 to 100 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Lars Andersen explains why Archery dominates many Pathfinder tables! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.