Here I’d like to post some “real life bugs and glitches”
For instance CURVE ARROWS
Strange I’ve NEVER heard of Lars Andersen…
10 Likes
Thank you for making this thread. The forum has been too quiet and peaceful as of late. 
6 Likes
Ten arrows in 4.9 Secs… world record !
I can’t be quite due to the hype
Now this one! They covered with a ballon or blanket 
1 Like
Nice idea! Well, it seemed to me that he shot weaker against that blanket, but all the same, it should work. Same principle is used if you hang some fabric behing your target in order to stop arrows that miss. Very nice!
1 Like
And once again we come down to why people hate Lars Anderson. He is actually claiming this would be an applicable historical technique.
He shoots at quarter- half draw with a 30lb bow, and further slows the arrow down by curving it over, and around objects, and he thinks they would even be lethal at this point to anyone but maybe a naked man?
6 Likes
He is claiming that this is mentioned in historical manuscripts, which is totally true (look for “Arab archery” on google, it is even online, translated to english). We don’t know how they did use it, it might be just something for entertainment. But they knew it.
1 Like
Perhaps i am wrong, but he seemed to be implying it was a valid thing to do in combat, which is laughable. Considering he said all other of his trick shots were used in medieval warfare, i think i’m correct in assuming he was implying that.
2 Likes
I don’t think think you could use this in combat
That would be the best reason
Yes, testing done wrong 
2 Likes
So english translation of Arab archery (manuscript from something like 1500 AD) is here: https://www.archerylibrary.com/books/faris-elmer/arab-archery/docs/xliv.html Link leads to stunt shooting chapter, and “returning arrow” and “sideways arrow” is described on page 3 of this chapter. The chapter describes 15 tricks that were known and used in that time. At some of them they say what they are useful for. The “sideways arrow” for example is good for hunting flocks of small birds.
2 Likes
And that is completely plausible. But Lars Anderson presents his techniques as viable things to do in combat, which is absurd giving most of techniques would only harm a naked man, and not even necessarily kill him.
You are very reasonable, but most of his fan base is acts cult like and viciously attack anyone who criticises the things he says, and most of them have little to no knowledge about the subject.
4 Likes
In fact he says that trick shooting is perfectly historical, and that it is possible to hit enemy behind an obstacle. Which is both true.
About harming naked man and not killing - even today in places like Amazonia people are being shot by very weak bows (something like 30lbs and not fully drawn). They are really almost naked, and the arrows really don’t kill them. I have seen some documentary where member of Amazonian tribe described that bow is very useful weapon in combat, although it does not kill. He said that he shoots enemy from distance (he showed something like 10 steps), and when he is weakend, he kills him with spear. It does not necessarily mean that Lars’es turning arrows are good for combat, but it does mean that even a very weak bow is useful weapon that was used in history and is still used today. If it was not useful, Amazonians would not use it.
I would really like to know how many people were actually killed by an arrow in common say early-medieval battle. Not just hit, but killed. Because I think that arrows made injuries, weakened, but you had to go to melee if you wanted to kill. Compare it to hunting - if you hit a deer with an arrow, he will just run away. You have then to wait until he loses enough blood, track him down, and kill him when he is unable to run again or defend. Such animal does not drop dead immediatelly as it is hit, and i expect that it will be similar with people. Even if you use stronger bow then Lars.
2 Likes
Yeah, I know that Lars is quite problematic person, but I like him for exploring parts of archery that would otherwise be unknown. He has fanatic fans, but also fanatic opponents. I would rather be niether of them.
1 Like
Virtually none of his methods would be viable in a medieval battlefield. Things like shooting an arrow mid flight, shooting multiple arrows at once, flipping through the air ect.
He never mentions Amazonia, he usually mentions medieval Europe, and the Arab world. Both of which had armour proficient enough to stop arrows widely available.
Gambeson alone is enough to stop an arrow from a 140lb war bow, add mail, or plate, or (lammallar if we are speaking of the middle east) and that arrow will not penetrate deeply enough to cause serious injury or death. His 30lb bow would be useful in hunting small game, and injuring naked people, not people on a battlefield.
So to even injure a naked man the archer has to nullify the main advantage of the bow (range) and get within 10 steps. Not even with a firearm could you stop someone charging you with a melee weapon at that distance (unless you hit them in the neck or above).
I challenge you to find examples of “weak bows” (30lbs) being widely used on battlefields in history. For instance English longbows could be from 80-180lbs in draw weight, and middle eastern bows were usually 60-80lbs.
This basically proves my point. Majority of arrow hits on the medieval battlefield would wound not out right kill, and these were extremely powerful weapons. Lars’ bow is a toy in comparison.
The killing/wounding potential of his techniques are diminished even more by the fact that majority of his shots are done from half draw…
2 Likes
Nothing he has done is “unknown” he did not reinvent or rediscover anything. Trick shooting has been around for a long, long time.
He has certainly shed a large spotlight on it, but his arrogant claims of “rediscovering true archery” are just that.
2 Likes
Well, that all depends on your previous state of mind. If you first decide that Lars is bad, then you can find many problematic parts in what he says and does. And if you first decide that he is good, then you can find many useful and interesting things. Like that Amazonia - for me, Amazonians are proof that even weak bow is useful weapon. For you, Amazonians are proof that weak bow does very little to enemies. And we are both right.
This is the same effect that I encounter when we get to first crusade chronicler William of Tyre. He clearly states that crusaders were hit by many Saracen arrows, and they did very little to them. Some say, that this is proof that Arabian/Turkish weaker bows did not work (they later switched to heavier ones). Others say that it is proof, that their bows DID work, because otherwise they wouldn’t use them. They did work for a long time until they met European knights. Because to every weapon you can find counter, and Europeans countered weaker bows by their superior armor. And again, both sides are right.
I know that all important nations throughout history (especially in Europe) gradually increased strength of their bows up to really strong ones. I agree that you would have hard time to find weak bow on european medieval battlefield. Yet I still think that Lars - even if he would not be useful in battle of Agincourt - has some good points in his ideas and is really skilled.
As for rediscovering and unknown archery - I usually compare Lars to Bruce Lee in this. Bruce Lee also found nothing new, yet he did A LOT to popularize chinese martial arts and to make them really work. Difference is that Bruce Lee proved many times that he is really good fighter, not just good actor, while Lars did not prove that. Which is a pitty, I would really like to see Lars in archery battle like those that take part in Kenya Maybe he would rule tha battlefield, and maybe he would be disabled right after battle starts. Who knows?
1 Like
A weak bow can be a useful weapon yes, if the person is naked, as you described with the Amazonians. But lars does not use them as an example, he specifically talks about Medieval Europe, and the middle east, where a weak bow would be next to useless.
But also keep in lars is almost always shooting at half draw, which would significantly weaken the bow more, the chances of the arrow going deep enough to even cause injury is hard to believe.
I agree if their bows did not work, they would not have used them. However we know for a fact that the gambeson and mail armour employed by European knights were amazing protection against Saracen arrows. Similarly at Agincourt the English arrows fired by much stronger bows did not pierce plate ( at least not enough to cause injury to the wearer).
So why use the bows if they are not able to defeat even common armour like Gambeson? Because you do not need to go through the armour. Archers of any medieval army generally fired massed volleys, hundreds of arrows striking simultaneously into a mass of men. The arrows will be hitting gaps, killing horses, killing soldiers who are not wearing full face protection , ect.
Swords cannot go through plate, yet they still used swords. Because you are not trying to defeat the armour, you are trying to go around it, or exploit its weaknesses.
I am in no way saying Lar anderson is not skilled with a bow. He is incredibly skilled, and probably the best trick shooter alive. My issue with him, is the way he presents his techniques as historical combat techniques.
Bruce lee never publicly fought a top class fighter, so we cannot say for he proved his fighting prowess.
Plus how is Lars Anderson “making archery work”. Archery has been practised effectively for thousands of years, it’s not a lost mystical art that was recently rediscovered.
1 Like