|
| 2 people 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.
It is a bit sad that when a guy's claims are queried, suddenly it's hate (this isn't aimed at the specific poster I quote, more a general comment). it isn't, it's scepticism and debate. I don't hate Lars, his video is highly entertaining, and he's clearly a lot better at shooting a bow than me. And some of his historical stuff in likewise interesting. But there may be aspects that are questionable, so they are being questioned. That's how knowledge progresses. All power to Lars for putting the questions out there. It is healthy not to take the claims of other people at face value. If people did this a lot more probably a lot of the troubles in the world would be less troublesome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish people would be clearer about what they're trying to debunk. There's a lot of things being suggested by the video, some of it true, some of it debatable:
Lars can literally fire at twice the rate any other archer in the world can manage.
Some / many ancient archers used a technique similar to this.
This technique was used effectively on the battlefield, not just for display purposes.
These arrows are fired with enough force to penetrate light/medium armor.
Lars has enough accuracy to shoot arrows out of the air.
Lars has enough accuracy and power to shoot arrows out of the air even when they're fired with full force by a competent archer.
Quivers of arrows weren't used in real battles.
Something something Hollywood something.
Not all battles are the same. If you're firing at French knights mired in mud, you have a couple of minutes to shoot at them before they get to you. In this situation, you only need so much rate of fire because if you're firing every two seconds you'll run out of arrows in no time. What you need is good range, and good penetration because they're going to be in high quality armor. (If rate-of-fire was everything, no-one would ever have bothered with crossbows.)
If you're fighting mongol hordes or peasant spearmen, the situation will be different. Or you might be in a siege, or fending off lions, or trying to defeat a single guy with a sword ten feet away, or in an archery contest firing at a non-moving target.
His technique is impressive, and would be useful in some of those situations, and not so useful in others.
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.
Patay and Formigny show that sufficiently well-armored infantry or cavalry could carry a frontal assault in the face of massed longbowmen with light or even negligible casualties, if the longbowmen lacked prepared fortifications and favorable terrain such as the mud of Agincourt.
On the other hand, the longbow certainly had the power to inflict at least some casualties through mail and plate (more often wounds, but also some deaths) - but not nearly enough and fast enough, if the enemy could advance resolutely over passable terrain.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea if the historical "facts" from the video are accurate or not, but holy smokes, this was incredibly cool.
Also, just because there might have not been a technique like this in the past doesn't mean that something like it could have evolved with some correct set of circumstances, with innovative ways found to make this work. For us fantasy folks, that's more than good enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet this doesn't make archery useless, because it will kill some, wound others, and has an effect on morale and organisation that can't be ignored.
This is definitely a good point.
Even arrows that do not hurt or kill can win a battle.I've read about an event taking place in eastern Europe. It was summer when an army of heavily armored cavalry tried something there (long ago that I read the stuff so I'm rather vague). The locals with light armor on light horses, armed with bows did hit and run tactics all day forcing the invaders to wear their heavy armor all day in the summer heat.
Come evening the locals stopped their attacks at once. And soon after sunset the temperature dropped rapidly. The invaders, glad that the attacks stopped, undid their armor and sat, sweaty and overheated, in the chill of the night.
After some days they started getting pneumonia and soon non of them was fit to fight any kind of battle anymore.
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.
He is usually shooting at large targets for the distances he is shooting at, and usually not hitting them anywhere near the center or a consistent place. The 2 shots he has of him shooting above the minimum distance of most places I've been to practice at, he is shooting at the closer distances, and he misses several times. 40 yards is roughly the farthest they show, and he misses at least 2 of the 6 arrows he shot, and the arrows that hit are poorly placed.
He does some really good trick shooting at very short range, but all that shows is that he practiced a single trick a lot. It does not show that he is a great archer overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish people would be clearer about what they're trying to debunk. There's a lot of things being suggested by the video, some of it true, some of it debatable:
Lars can literally fire at twice the rate any other archer in the world can manage.
True, but he sacrifices a ton of accuracy for doing so. Other archers are practicing for speed and accuracy, he is mostly practicing for speed. Thus he will be faster.
Some / many ancient archers used a technique similar to this.
This technique was used effectively on the battlefield, not just for display purposes.
Yes. But he also makes the claim that other techniques were not used when they were just used in different areas, and he tries to back up his position with demonstrably false claims.
These arrows are fired with enough force to penetrate light/medium armor.
They can be fired from his bow with enough force, maybe. Note, he takes significantly slower shots when piercing the armor, instead of his normal speed shooting, and they don't show him so we don't know if he is using the same equipment.
Lars has enough accuracy to shoot arrows out of the air.
Lars has enough accuracy and power to shoot arrows out of the air even when they're fired with full force by a competent archer.
An impressive feat of trick shooting.
Quivers of arrows weren't used in real battles.
Something something Hollywood something.
The video of him wearing a quiver is rediculous. First, his arrows are not sized for the quiver he has - they are too long. Second, he is about as coordinated as puppy on a good day, even without the quiver getting in his way. I have run through woods with a side quiver on. The bow in my hand slowed me down more.
Not all battles are the same. If you're firing at French knights mired in mud, you have a couple of minutes to shoot at them before they get to you. In this situation, you only need so much rate of fire because if you're firing every two seconds you'll run out of arrows in no time. What you need is good range, and good penetration because they're going to be in high quality armor. (If rate-of-fire was everything, no-one would ever have bothered with crossbows.)
If you're fighting mongol hordes or peasant spearmen, the situation will be different. Or you might be in a siege, or fending off lions, or trying to defeat a single guy with a sword ten feet away, or in an archery contest firing at a non-moving target.
But he isn't making a claim about Mongolians. He is making broad sweeping claims about all archers in general.
His technique is impressive, and would be useful in some of those situations, and not so useful in others.
Yes. Unfortunately he isn't making that claim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea if the historical "facts" from the video are accurate or not, but holy smokes, this was incredibly cool.
Also, just because there might have not been a technique like this in the past doesn't mean that something like it could have evolved with some correct set of circumstances, with innovative ways found to make this work. For us fantasy folks, that's more than good enough.
They are mixed and in a few cases, it seems, he definitely should have known differently than what he was saying. But in a game with orc double axes and dire flails, it still makes fine inspiration.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are mixed and in a few cases, it seems, he definitely should have known differently than what he was saying. But in a game with orc double axes and dire flails, it still makes fine inspiration.
Which is really the important point for the messageboard of an RPG publisher.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember watching AMVs and you'd always have a jerk pop in the comments and say how horrible the video was and yet had no videos they had made....hmmm.
“Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.”
-Behan
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another video of a totally legit archer (well as legit as Lars) shooting really fast and accurately. He even pierces a TON of armor. It MUST be legit and real since we're watching it...
right!?
Lar's cousin proves Lar's theory is right and his style DOES pierce armor and kill things
Props to Lars but we all know who is the best archer.
Posts are already out from archery coaches indignantly complaining how bad Lars is, how he does everything wrong, has no accuracy, and can't do long range shots.
I laughed pretty hard. Well said Lincoln.
Eh, you don't watch Lars video for the historical facts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is usually shooting at large targets for the distances he is shooting at, and usually not hitting them anywhere near the center or a consistent place. The 2 shots he has of him shooting above the minimum distance of most places I've been to practice at, he is shooting at the closer distances, and he misses several times. 40 yards is roughly the farthest they show, and he misses at least 2 of the 6 arrows he shot, and the arrows that hit are poorly placed.
He does some really good trick shooting at very short range, but all that shows is that he practiced a single trick a lot. It does not show that he is a great archer overall.
He has to be VERY accurate to hit even 4 out of 6 arrows shot towards him. Those are VERY SMALL objects.
I didn't even know Point Defense Drone mode was possible until I saw this. (And by the way, I still haven't heard from anyone what the Pathfinder equivalent ability is -- I saw this once, but I can't remember the name or where on d20pfsrd.com it was, and now I can't find it again.)
He is usually shooting at large targets for the distances he is shooting at, and usually not hitting them anywhere near the center or a consistent place. The 2 shots he has of him shooting above the minimum distance of most places I've been to practice at, he is shooting at the closer distances, and he misses several times. 40 yards is roughly the farthest they show, and he misses at least 2 of the 6 arrows he shot, and the arrows that hit are poorly placed.
He does some really good trick shooting at very short range, but all that shows is that he practiced a single trick a lot. It does not show that he is a great archer overall.
He has to be VERY accurate to hit even 4 out of 6 arrows shot towards him. Those are VERY SMALL objects.
I didn't even know Point Defense Drone mode was possible until I saw this. (And by the way, I still haven't heard from anyone what the Pathfinder equivalent ability is -- I saw this once, but I can't remember the name or where on d20pfsrd.com it was, and now I can't find it again.)
He is shooting at larger than standard targets at 40 yards and has worse accuracy than me, and I'm not good. I know more than a few people who can consistently hit cds at that range with more consistency.
I've commented on this video in other forums, but, while Lars trick shots are indeed impressive, I find many discrepancies in trying to derive specific archery mechanics based on his demonstrations. Several things to consider are: he is using a practice bow with a very low pull strength and he is barely doing a half pull each time. If he were using a full strength war bow (I'm not even considering the extreme pull of an English longbow which is considerable higher than most bows of war), Lars couldn't possibly release so many shots in such short duration, let alone pulling more than half the distance the string allows. Most of his shots are less than 20 feet distance from the target, yet the arrow barely passes the paper target, perhaps going 1/2 inch into the target straw backing - which is not deep enough to kill. So I find his demonstration questionable. Also sticking a tipped arrow into a non-tipped arrow is a cool way to show his accuracy, but a tipped arrow will never split another tipped arrow - it only works against non-tipped arrows, so is almost meaningless beyond an interesting trick shot.
If Lars used a full strength bow (even with training) and pulled the bow string to its fullest extent, there's no way he could loose arrows as effectively as his demonstration with a practice bow (its almost a toy compared to the real thing.)
I completely agree with Lars historical point that archers did hold several arrow in their draw hand as one technique to be faster at loosing arrows than pulling each from a quiver. However, just as often archers placed arrows vertically stuck in the ground around his feet and could feed his bow almost as fast.
I've commented on this video in other forums, but, while Lars trick shots are indeed impressive, I find many discrepancies in trying to derive specific archery mechanics based on his demonstrations. Several things to consider are: he is using a practice bow with a very low pull strength and he is barely doing a half pull each time. If he were using a full strength war bow (I'm not even considering the extreme pull of an English longbow which is considerable higher than most bows of war), Lars couldn't possibly release so many shots in such short duration, let alone pulling more than half the distance the string allows. Most of his shots are less than 20 feet distance from the target, yet the arrow barely passes the paper target, perhaps going 1/2 inch into the target straw backing - which is not deep enough to kill. So I find his demonstration questionable. Also sticking a tipped arrow into a non-tipped arrow is a cool way to show his accuracy, but a tipped arrow will never split another tipped arrow - it only works against non-tipped arrows, so is almost meaningless beyond an interesting trick shot.
If Lars used a full strength bow (even with training) and pulled the bow string to its fullest extent, there's no way he could loose arrows as effectively as his demonstration with a practice bow (its almost a toy compared to the real thing.)
I completely agree with Lars historical point that archers did hold several arrow in their draw hand as one technique to be faster at loosing arrows than pulling each from a quiver. However, just as often archers placed arrows vertically stuck in the ground around his feet and could feed his bow almost as fast.
Define war bow for me?
I personally think he is using a bow in the 40-55lb draw range. That would put him at the low end for what many non-european cultures used, and at the point where you can reasonably kill medium game (deer, humans). The fact that he is not drawing back the bow to proper draw length is killing the power though.
It looks like the same kind of practice bow I've used which is about a 25+ lb pull, which is nothing like a hunting or war bow. Not pulling the proper draw is more than just killing the power, it is hiding the fact that pull and release would significantly increase the time it takes to shoot rapidly, thus his range to target would have to greatly increase and his reaction to changes on the battlefield would be significantly lessened. Pretty much all of his tricks would not apply to actual combat.
He is accurate for sure, but hitting your target yet not penetrating more than a 1/2 inch through a paper target is not effective at all.
I've commented on this video in other forums, but, while Lars trick shots are indeed impressive, I find many discrepancies in trying to derive specific archery mechanics based on his demonstrations. Several things to consider are: he is using a practice bow with a very low pull strength and he is barely doing a half pull each time. If he were using a full strength war bow (I'm not even considering the extreme pull of an English longbow which is considerable higher than most bows of war), Lars couldn't possibly release so many shots in such short duration, let alone pulling more than half the distance the string allows. Most of his shots are less than 20 feet distance from the target, yet the arrow barely passes the paper target, perhaps going 1/2 inch into the target straw backing - which is not deep enough to kill. So I find his demonstration questionable. Also sticking a tipped arrow into a non-tipped arrow is a cool way to show his accuracy, but a tipped arrow will never split another tipped arrow - it only works against non-tipped arrows, so is almost meaningless beyond an interesting trick shot.
If Lars used a full strength bow (even with training) and pulled the bow string to its fullest extent, there's no way he could loose arrows as effectively as his demonstration with a practice bow (its almost a toy compared to the real thing.)
I completely agree with Lars historical point that archers did hold several arrow in their draw hand as one technique to be faster at loosing arrows than pulling each from a quiver. However, just as often archers placed arrows vertically stuck in the ground around his feet and could feed his bow almost as fast.
This I have heard.
He is using an Asian bow, not a practice bow. They are small composite bow, but small doesn't mean they don't have power. It looks like a Korean bow to me, but there are many varieties due to the number of cultures that used small composite bows. Small isn't illegitimate, it is still archery.
An experienced archer estimated it would be a 40lb bow or thereabouts, which can do a lot with the right heads, and is comparable to the bows the native Americans used. The arrows aren't slow, indicating there is power behind it. He also used one of his small bows to pierce armour with a full draw (not rushed), but mail is rubbish against thin arrowheads.
Heavy war bows are not meant to be fired quickly, they take a long time to draw. This isn't an issue with smaller Asian (and eastern european) bows.
It looks like the same kind of practice bow I've used which is about a 25+ lb pull, which is nothing like a hunting or war bow. Not pulling the proper draw is more than just killing the power, it is hiding the fact that pull and release would significantly increase the time it takes to shoot rapidly, thus his range to target would have to greatly increase and his reaction to changes on the battlefield would be significantly lessened. Pretty much all of his tricks would not apply to actual combat.
He is accurate for sure, but hitting your target yet not penetrating more than a 1/2 inch through a paper target is not effective at all.
Let's not forget on the battlefield or out hunting, the head is very important. A strong bow with a crappy target head may just wound a goat or goose, but put on a proper broadhead and a weaker bow can do a lot more damage.
Likewise, use a bodkin or other anti-armour arrows and chain isn't going to save you (it goes through the chain links).
We had this problem at a uni, someone hunting swans with a fairly strong bow but terrible heads and poor accuracy. If they had used broadheads they would have not left the animal to suffer, it would have shredded organs and not just created a hole.
Well not being an archery expert, I couldn't tell that his bow wasn't a practice bow - it still looks like one to me. That said, yeah, arrow tips are where it matters, I fully understand that. Still, though seemingly quite accurate, Lars skills just don't impress me.
If you google Korean bows you will be good to go and see more. Plenty of light thin bows of a design that did the job for thousands of years.
Here is a modernised version, check the draw weight options:
http://www.koreanarchery.org/ktb_02.jpg
If Lars doesn't impress you it doesn't impress you. They are some amazing and unusual feats of skill, hence why it is causing so much buzz on the net, and jealousy. I liked the upside down shot and rapid shots while seated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still more impressed with that one video of the 18 yr old girl who shows both speed AND a fairly good degree of accuracy. Perhaps partially because she doesn't narrate it and talk about herself in the third person.
Claus Raasted is listed as the narrator in the video. I don't believe Lars even speaks English.
One thing to keep in mind: People note Lars shooting with lower frequency at the armor targets than at other things. This may well be on purpose: You are a better archer if you can adapt your style to different conditions, including different types of targets.
Point Defense Drone (still don't know what the proper name of this ability is, IRL or Pathfinder): You need the highest accuracy first, and and as a close second the highest frequency of fire; power comes after these, although you do need enough to get the velocity that your arrows need to hit their targets without too much delay. Not sure how often this was ever used in historical combat, but it could come in handy in certain situations (more likely in special operations than in battlefield war).
Up against swarms of thugs You need to be able to fire at the highest possible frequency while moving rapidly (especially if they are throwing or shooting stuff at you), while your accuracy just needs to be good enough to score a severe injury on your targets.
Up against armored foes (not mounted -- instead see below): You need power first, and accuracy almost tied for first, to make sure you hit somewhere important. Take a bit more time to do it right -- they aren't going to be able to run as fast as you can.
Up against mounted opponents: Like being up against thugs, but you are going to have to give more priority to dodging (they are probably going to charge you, if they aren't busy with something else), and you may need to trade off some firing frequency for more accuracy and/or power to get between the parts of the mounts' armor/barding. If the mounted opponents are armored, shoot at the mounts. If the mounted opponents and their mounts are both armored, you will need a hybrid between this mode and the one above. Fortunately, if this is true, they won't be charging as fast, unless they are riding Harleys (vulnerable unless tires are solid -- fortunately, you don't have to worry about these if you travel back in time to the Middle Ages) . . . or rhinos (somebody managing to achieve a controlled ride on a rhino would be an achievement up there with Lars Anderson's archery).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about power, speed, accuracy.
Out of the three, the Eastern Roman manual with which I am most familiar (Maurice's) recommends speed and power at the explicit expense of accuracy - a contrast to all of your proposed scenarios, none of which really tank accuracy.
This may be because you are looking at archery from a different perspective. Your post seems to analyze archery from the goal of causing casualties directly, which is not necessarily what it was actually used for. Historically - and again I have in mind the Mongols and medieval Eastern Rome and similar Eastern traditions - it was often developed along the lines of suppressive fire and disruption as larger goals than killing, at least till the rise of powerful crossbows that swung things towards directly inflicting casualties.
Aim was less important for archers operating in a suppressive role that emphasized a close combination of arms, rather than elevating the bow to be the chief battle-winning weapon itself.
Out of the three, the Eastern Roman manual with which I am most familiar (Maurice's) recommends speed and power at the explicit expense of accuracy - a contrast to all of your proposed scenarios, none of which really tank accuracy. {. . .}
Dain Bramage! I forgot to put in a 5th condition, which would summarize what you said:
Up against a massed army, side by side with other archers: You want high power (you need range) and high firing frequency; accuracy is just icing on the cake, because you are laying down suppressive and disruptive fire.
Thanks for reminding me.
Can you imagine the pandemonium of an English hundred years war heavy yeomen with longbows army, against a Mongol bow cav army?
Speed or punch? Stationary defences or mobility?
That's a dude with modern skill. Where his targets are stationary, or on a pre-determined track. Where the arrows are fired at him, he knew the distance.
Imagine how much more badass a master archer from "way back when" actually was when their technique was molded in the FLAMES OF WAR! Where it was less predictable where your targets would be, for one thing.
Can you imagine the pandemonium of an English hundred years war heavy yeomen with longbows army, against a Mongol bow cav army?
Speed or punch? Stationary defences or mobility?
Didn't they something like that already in the first crusade where basically the archers couldn't hurt the crusaders, but the crusaders basically took over the Holy Land?
In fact, it was the enemy cavalry and infantry types that eventually started to gain ground on the crusaders rather than anything with their archers in later crusades.
That didn't have longbowmen, I imagine if they had tons of longbows the crusaders wouldn't have lost so much during the third crusade. With longbows during the later date by the time 100 years war was starting to happen, the ME was starting to have cannons and gunpowder. I think guns vs. Longbows, eventually the guns win.
What does that have to do with this Lars guy anyways?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you imagine the pandemonium of an English hundred years war heavy yeomen with longbows army, against a Mongol bow cav army?
Speed or punch? Stationary defences or mobility?
Of mild interest:
Carpini (a spy sent to the Mongols by the pope circa 1250) returned with a number of recommendations for the manner of armies necessary to fight the Mongols in the open field. Other than the miscellaneous stuff which would be of use to any army (don't send your soldiers home and not replace them; don't let your soldiers stop fighting and start looting while the battle is still going; stuff like that), the Mongol-specific recommendations are as follows:
-An armament of crossbows, which were feared by the Mongols - or else strong bows with great numbers of hardened arrows - axes, lances, and daggers.
-Good strong armor to ward off the Mongol's own hardened arrows.
-leaders who do not allow themselves to get caught up in direct combat, so as to better exercise command
-An organization of many smaller mutually supporting battle groups rather than larger units
-Training in coordinated formation maneuver
-Strong mounted forces with diligent scouts that are constantly ready to ward off surprise attacks on the flanks
-Ability/training to pursue an enemy a short distance but then reform in battle-ready order, so as to deal with constant engagements and disengagements and not be drawn away by false retreats.
The longbowmen had the first, to some extent (no crossbows, but certainly strong bows - but they did not carry relatively great numbers of arrows, partly because the archers were expected to discard bows and charge into melee if the enemy showed signs of wavering). However they had little to offer as regards all the other points - several of which, such as cavalry on the flanks, touch on major weaknesses exposed during the later Hundred Years War.
Also, an army that discards its bows and charges into melee at the decisive moment is exactly the kind of army that the feigned retreat is designed to mess up.
Also, those targets moved, and actively tried to avoid being hit with arrows.
Although with the lack of power he's demonstrating, anyone with a reasonably thick coat should be fairly safe.
As seen above, he's adapting to the targets. He has the accuracy when he needs to hit arrows shot towards them (those are moving targets), and when up against the chainmail dummies, he used enough power that even if the chainmail was substandard by Medieval standards, a heavy coat still wouldn't stand up to his arrows (unless your coat is linothorax).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine how much more badass a master archer from "way back when" actually was when their technique was molded in the FLAMES OF WAR! Where it was less predictable where your targets would be, for one thing.
Well for a start they'd endeavor not to be in a position where they can be shot at.
Their are accounts of Mongol archers, for example, who got off their horses and sat down when faced with rival archers because horses tend to be really big targets.
Which goes to show that bad assery is no substitute for common sense.
Also, those targets moved, and actively tried to avoid being hit with arrows.
Although with the lack of power he's demonstrating, anyone with a reasonably thick coat should be fairly safe.
As seen above, he's adapting to the targets. He has the accuracy when he needs to hit arrows shot towards them (those are moving targets), and when up against the chainmail dummies, he used enough power that even if the chainmail was substandard by Medieval standards, a heavy coat still wouldn't stand up to his arrows (unless your coat is linothorax).
Yes, but he is comparing himself to people that are shooting consistently with accuracy and power and saying he is better because he can fire faster, then when he tries to match their accuracy and power fires slower than his other demonstrations.
^If he can switch (especially switch quickly) between shooting at high frequency but lower power and shooting with high force but lower frequency, then he has an advantage.
He has the deadly aim feat ;)
He's also demonstrating accuracy with his arrow on the "wrong side". Which is part of his point, that you don't need to nock on the side closer to your body to use your dominant eye for aiming. Nocking on the side away from you is faster and still offers good accuracy.
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).
and as a consequence, I've been told, were at high risk of contracting tetanus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Seems it would put the targets at more risk of contracting tetanus than the archers, unless the archers often accidentally put the arrows through their feet when sticking them in the ground, or often stubbed their toes on them thereafter, or often accidentally cut themselves with the arrowheads when readying arrows.
I think they often nicked their fingers on the arrow heads. Short term wound infection was probably more of a problem for targets than slower-developing tetanus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry it took so long, but thanks to Bob Bob Bob for finding Toxophilite, the Pathfinder Point Defense Drone.
