| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome video. Though it does seem to imply that a level 20 archer may in some ways fall short of an archer irl.
Sublime.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exceptional trickshooting. The fact that he is obviously one of the best trickshots in the world, if not the best, yet is still humble enough to recognize that he is not as fit as an archer of the past would have been, is really cool of him. I was astounded that he could pierce armor, because until that clip, I was sure that the bow was either too weak, or that he didn't pull it all the way back.
Really amazing, and exceptionally cool reference for us here in the lands of roleplay, and fantasy archery :D
-Nearyn
You still need draw power. My archery experience is limited to one quarter in college, but the more compensating you need to do (steadying to aim, wind speed, dropping over a distance, etc), the less accurate you will be. Obviously though, this fellow is good enough to overcome those things. :)
Everything in the video is just unreal though. I'm blown away.
Thanks for sharing! Very interesting.
Love the guys history, he got interested in archery in 2003 when he attended a LARP in Denmark.
So awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe he was shooting at authentic mail and gambeson. We know that Saracen archery was mostly ineffective against that combination from eg. the battle of Dorylaeum during the First Crusade.
Reproduction mail is of uncertain quality. Medieval European steel was impurity ridden, but reproduction mail is usually made from mild steels that are easier to draw into wires rather than more difficult to work steels that perform better as armor. The misconceptions about how gambesons were made are also almost as bad as those about archery: The surviving examples do not match the literature and still exist, both of which make it unlikely they were ever actual field armor. The surviving examples are two layers quilted with cotton batting. the reproduction Lars Anderson used as a target is probably also just two layers quilted. The written descriptions are 10-30 layers quilted together with cotton batting and sometimes leather. I'm inclined to believe that the absence of descriptions from the crusades is evidence of an absence of standards rather than an absence of quality armor given the ability of upper class Europeans to withstand arrow fire.
I said as much when I saw this earlier. This guy is no doubt impressive but could he kill a man in plate at 40 to 100 yards out?
Probably not with that bow.
However in ancient times against lighter armor?
Much more likely.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything I've heard from professional (well, maybe not professional, that's a bad word for it...how about expert) archers say this guy is a laughing stock.
They first point out that his "5000" year depictions are actually not that old.
Second, they point out that he couldn't have any draw strength with the way he is pulling the arrow.
They mention it is most likely a 30# or less bow and with a half draw only around a 15# draw strength or something.
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.
Next, grabbing an arrow from air is possible with a LOW speed arrow (aka, one that wouldn't penetrate your winter coat if shot), but against a high speed one...that only happens in D&D (right!?)
The experts I've heard also say that archers didn't jump around with quivers on their backs, if they had quivers they were used for transportion, and many of them were held at the waist.
They also say that arrow technique held in the hands, is actually NOT forgotten and used by Asian/Japanese archers today in modern times...STILL.
Finally, though no one here probably listens to the HEMA guys...
There's this on the entire fast shooting phenomena which have people gasping at on the internet...
HEMA guy not impressed with archery fad
Next, archery folks state other problems. First, is distance. It doesn't matter how much you jump around and flip out, if they can shoot you dead at 400 yards and take their time about it before you can even touch them....well...that's one reason standing still with a really heavy bow is better than jumping around with a light one.
Secondly, is that in medieval battles, the battles were waged in formation with LOTS of arrows. They may fire them quickly (up to 1 every 5 seconds I've heard), they are still not going to be helped by jumping into each other in their formation.
Thirdly, in target or hunting these days, or if you WERE in a low numbers thing, you don't need to shoot 3 low powered arrows on a target, you only need ONE to hit and kill your target. They only need one to kill you. It's better to ensure that you have the power and ability to hit them at a further range but with enough power to penetrate whatever armor they have, then jump around and shoot three arrows that won't actually kill the individual (or these days, the beast they hunt, or hit the target at the ranges archery occurs).
My guess [and it's just that, based not on MY experience, but what I've heard others that are archers and into historical archery talk about] is Lars Anderson is a great trick shooter, but not so great at war archery or big game archery...though who knows...maybe we'll see him at the Olympics to show off his great target shooting abilities and win a gold...or not...
Some of it is probably camera trickery, a lot of it reminds me of tacticool firearms instructors on youtube.
But that Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact he did at 3:20? That was pretty impressive.
He holds the world record for most arrows simultaneously in the air, 11. It seems to me that requires both speed and draw strength.
Shooting through rivetted chainmail seems like it'd require some draw strength as well.
I was astounded that he could pierce armor, because until that clip, I was sure that the bow was either too weak, or that he didn't pull it all the way back.n
What astounded me isn't that he could pierce chainmail, but that the fellow actually put a gambeson beneath it - almost every "armor piercing arrow" test I've ever seen forgets that actual armor consists of several layers, not just the shiny metal bit you see on the outside (and that the shiny metal bit you see on the outside usually isn't what stops arrows, it's the layered cloth beneath it)
I was astounded that he could pierce armor, because until that clip, I was sure that the bow was either too weak, or that he didn't pull it all the way back.nWhat astounded me isn't that he could pierce chainmail, but that the fellow actually put a gambeson beneath it - almost every "armor piercing arrow" test I've ever seen forgets that actual armor consists of several layers, not just the shiny metal bit you see on the outside (and that the shiny metal bit you see on the outside usually isn't what stops arrows, it's the layered cloth beneath it)
The experts addressed that as well. Apparantly that wasn't real chainmail as was used in the time of Bow and Arrow, but a weaker form of Hollywood chainmail made today. They call it butted (I think that's the spelling) and his style was basically thin wire that could be twisted by hand to fit together instead of the steel riveted links that would have been used.
In addition, his gambeson was not a real gambeson, but appeared to be a very thin and loose piece of stuff rather than the heavy padded that would have been utilized.
To reinact this, get a small frail chain that you can break apart with your hands, and put it on top of two pieces of cloth. It won't seem so impressive when you can pierce that with your fingernail.
That stated, they also don't se that he used the same bow he was using, or that it wasn't camera trickery on those specific shots.
However, the main complaint I've heard from the archery guys is that it isn't the authentic stuff that would have been preventing an arrow in the first place.
That in order to even take down something mansize or less you need at least 45-50# unarmored, and armored you'll need at least 100# to pierce. They all seem to be pretty certain his bow doesn't have the necessary strength to penetrate the armor that would have been worn at the time, much less bring down a full adult (or deer, or boar, or any decent sized animal for that matter...according to them at least).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From another geek perspective: damn, it makes all of those historic carvings make sense!
This video is totally awesome. In StarCraft 2, Lars Anderson could substitute for a Point Defense Drone.
In Pathfinder RPG, he would have Focused Shot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Parting Shot, Point Blank Master, Pinpoint Targeting(*), Shot on the Run(**), Quick Draw, Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows, and Snap Shot (and both the Improved and Greater versions thereof). Haven't seen Manyshot yet, but eventually he'll probably pick that up too. He also has some Pathfinder ability that I can't remember the name of (or where to find) that allows him to substitute for a Point Defense Drone, as noted above. He also seems to have at least most of the abilities of a 20th level Archer Fighter (including Base Attack Bonus +20).
(*)He must also have some Improved/Greater version of Pinpoint Targeting that isn't in any Pathfinder rulebook yet, because he can do this while moving rather fast, instead of having to stand still.
(**)He must also have some Improved/Greater version of Shot on the Run that isn't in any Pathfinder rulebook yet, because he is able to make multiple accurate shots while moving rather fast and performing fancy acrobatics.
The lack of force for penetrating plate mail or high quality chainmail (if the latter complaint is accurate) could be solved by keeping all skills exactly the same, but working up some more Strength. Or maybe just pinpointing vulnerable spots where different parts of the armor join.
How well Lars Anderson would do on a Medieval battlefield is an open question, but he would certainly do well as a Medieval equivalent of a special forces warrior, which is what most player character (and a decent number of villain) parties are composed of.
As for practicality against gun users, somebody with that much archery skill could actually outshoot orderinary gun users (although as also shown in StarCraft 2, the Point Defense Drone function wouldn't work against them). (Keep in mind that guns came to dominate not because of inherent weapon firing superiority, which came quite a bit later, but because they were easier to train random conscripts to use.)
Also see Jack Churchill for actual successful longbow use in World War II.
Hmm expert vs. dude doing it on camera...
I love "experts".
ikr?
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.
Why are people thinking he has any resemblance of a 20th level character?
A fine target has an AC of 13 or 18 if it's moving. A first level PC can hit this without too much difficulty.
He can shoot fast. This doesn't mean he is high level. The game doesn't care about fire rate too much. If there were a video of someone shooting a target 6+ times with 2 guns, does that mean +16/+11/+6/+1 base with rapid shot and all the 2 weapon fighting feats with at least 19 dex? No.
He doesn't have deflect/snatch arrows, because that would mean he can catch bullets.
Since high level equals high CR, that would mean a dire crocodile (a CR 9 monster that's large enough to swallow elephants and killer whales whole) isn't even half the CR of this person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^I have no problem believing that he could kite the dire crocodile for a bit (as long as they were on ground that didn't make it harder for him to move than the crocodile) and wear it down rather quickly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, even if he doesn't have that much draw strength, I'd imagine getting hit by three or four arrows would still be pretty darn incapacitating to someone, if only over time. Might not go down from one shot, but bleeding out and just generally feeling pain from several low impact arrows would still have a pretty debilitating effect on someone. (Plus, I'd imagine without the heavier draw, those arrows are less likely to penetrate clean through like the guy in the HEMA video attests arrows should/would, which would make them even more of an annoyance. Pincushion time.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns exist. Archery isn't practical no matter what technique you use. It's a hobby.
Honestly, frigging awesome-looking trick shooting is arguably much more practical in this day and age than the techniques that let people pierce plate armor with their arrows required them to train from childhood and DEFORM THEIR BONES.
You know, actually, I'd like to see what arrows can do against modern body armor designed so specifically to stop bullets. I know kevlar doesn't help a ton against knife wounds, so, I wonder if arrows would fare better than bullets or worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, actually, I'd like to see what arrows can do against modern body armor designed so specifically to stop bullets. I know kevlar doesn't help a ton against knife wounds, so, I wonder if arrows would fare better than bullets or worse.Guns exist. Archery isn't practical no matter what technique you use. It's a hobby.
Honestly, frigging awesome-looking trick shooting is arguably much more practical in this day and age than the techniques that let people pierce plate armor with their arrows required them to train from childhood and DEFORM THEIR BONES.
Greatly depends I think.
Certain bullet proof armors don't work too well against knives for example.
That's because there's more force behind and into the point of a dagger or knife than in a bullet.
From my understanding of kevlar it takes the force of the bullet and disperses it over the vest. It happen so fast and the bullet loses energy so quickly it fails to penetrate in a meaningful way. It also helps that bullets are menat to spread on impact making the wound bigger.
But, arrows, unlike bullets, slice rather than use their force to penetrate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's great that we are now debating if this guy can kill a dire crocodile!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe he was shooting at authentic mail and gambeson. We know that Saracen archery was mostly ineffective against that combination from eg. the battle of Dorylaeum during the First Crusade.
Reproduction mail is of uncertain quality.
What I have heard tends more towards "near worthless as test material" than "uncertain."
(of course, that goes for a lot of other tests, too, sword blows and such, not just arrows)
Some of the claims in the video are quite inviting to skepticism. On the other hand, the midair arrow shot - be it as it may against a ploddingly shot arrow - is damn cool.
And, some other aspects of the video - the emphasis on rate of fire, for example, particularly in Eastern European and Near East archery - are true, if perhaps a bit misleading in presentation.
Honestly, even if he doesn't have that much draw strength, I'd imagine getting hit by three or four arrows would still be pretty darn incapacitating to someone, if only over time. Might not go down from one shot, but bleeding out and just generally feeling pain from several low impact arrows would still have a pretty debilitating effect on someone. (Plus, I'd imagine without the heavier draw, those arrows are less likely to penetrate clean through like the guy in the HEMA video attests arrows should/would, which would make them even more of an annoyance. Pincushion time.)
Well, yeah. No one is arguing that. It's part in part why the archer in the back of a chariot was such a nasty thing to deal with in the ancient world. It took a long, LONG time before armor got to the point where shields were essentially redundant.
And shields were good. They worked. That's why they stuck around so long.
So while I'm certain eh can do just fine agaisnt unarmored foes, hell even against those in chain mail. I'm dubious about him fairing against anyone in real armor with that.
I've seen two videos with this guy while impressive I also doubted the arrow through the chain mail. My first thought was that it must be butted chain mail not riveted. Then they specifically say he shot through riveted chain mail with a not very sharp tip. If it was a bodkin arrow maybe. With a blunt tip no way.
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."
Guns win out over bows, but this guy is more dangerous with a bow than I would be with any gun.
For example, an AA-12 could easily shoot an arrow out of the air with little to no skill.
A modern target arrow has point that is smaller in diameter than the shaft of the arrow, meaning that it will go inside the loose rings of the "chainmail" in the video, as opposed to the broad headed man killing arrows used historically. Those had to actually split the mail.
In Pathfinder RPG, he would have...
...BAB +2 and Dex around 16
Being generous and assuming that ANY of his shots at all counted as potentially dangerous attacks, as opposed to tricks done for entertainment.
A PF archer with enough levels to accumulate the feats you decribed would have shot through targers and ended up with arrows embedded into the building walls up to their fletching, considering that about every single one of his probable opponents in the game has skin at least as strong as steel. And some might be entirely metal, or rock or a similarly durable substance, with no weak points even theoretically.
Guns win out over bows
In most cases, yes.
But arrows have some things going for them:They are quieter than most silenced guns.
You can reuse the ammo and easier learn to craft more
You have better penetration vs some materials. At least better than really big guns. That's because of the tip being steel instead of lead and the arrow being heavier than the gun projectile.
You can shoot ballistic and thus hit targets behind cover. (Yea, in theory you can do that with guns, too).
An amazing display of Perform (archery)!
Arrows and crossbow bolts are no fun when discussing penetration power. Bullets go fast, they kill effectively, but they do not really weigh much. As such, when hitting armor designed for them, they don't work well. The bullet deforms and splays out against the hard kevlar surface, causing a bruise and so on. An arrow weighs far more, and all that energy WILL go somewhere. When it hits the kevlar, it's an entirely different ballgame. I'd say penetration would be quite likely.
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?
An amazing display of Perform (archery)!
Arrows and crossbow bolts are no fun when discussing penetration power. Bullets go fast, they kill effectively, but they do not really weigh much. As such, when hitting armor designed for them, they don't work well. The bullet deforms and splays out against the hard kevlar surface, causing a bruise and so on. An arrow weighs far more, and all that energy WILL go somewhere. When it hits the kevlar, it's an entirely different ballgame. I'd say penetration would be quite likely.
Knights did not die from swords piercing their armor.
Guns can still kill completely bullet proof targets. Taking a full automatic clip to the chest is like getting wrecked by the Fist of the North Star.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... where's the slinging video?
*ducks as everyone throws garbage and boos*
Kevlar doesn't stop pointed objects. You can punch a knife through Kevlar. An arrow will go through it. So will a blow dart, among other things.
Kevlar is good at taking blunt force trauma, kind of like super leather.
Modern combat armor is, unsurprisingly, a mixture of Kevlar and ceramic strike plates, i.e. classic hard and soft combinations to work against both kinds of penetration.
If you watch the video, he's using multiple kinds of bows depending on what he's doing. I wouldn't be surprised if his arrows are epoxy or plastic and thus splittable.
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.