So a lot of you probably remember this guy:
I just noticed that a sort of debunk video was uploaded around the same time, and since most people here are interested in historical accuracy I felt you would be interested 
6 Likes
IT is just as problematic as the original videoā¦ making claims that are wrong and that they donāt back up properly.
I am sorry to bring it to you like this butā¦
4 Likes
Oh Iām sorry, tried to search for it but I found no results. Should I just delete this one?
All the other were deletedā¦ so just keep this one so theyāll stop making posts (I already made one a month ago silly me)
3 Likes
They are not deleted whatsoever there arenāt just many dedicated to Lars himself (the ones that are dedicated have been locked because of flaming).
this video has been posted in almost every single archery thread made.
Look this ones still open.
Archery like the world hasnāt seen in hundreds of years - this thread even has multiple versions of Larsās videos.
I would do more digging but this should be sufficient to prove my point.
The real question isā¦ can Lars Anderson hit the target in KC:D alpha demo?? Thatās where archery will really matter in this day and age.
3 Likes
The original video I posted was just to show everyone what I was referring to, I know that one has been posted before.
I just wanted to share the second one.
1 Like
I think your the first to post that one.
Thereās been a few links to written debunks no videos yet.
1 Like
no, he barely pulls the string back. all his super fast shots will bounce right off plate and even thick gambesons.
also, a lot of his trickier shots are way too difficult, not to mention dangerous, to have been performed without the aid of fishing wires and digital editing.
aside from obvious problem of poor historical accuracy, supposition, etc my verdict on the man, personally: fraud
1 Like
Nice rebuttal of the original video. Sheās kinda cute, too (sorry, couldnāt help it).
1 Like
Iām going to go ahead and leave the same response I left on the āskepticallyPwndā video, please read and considerā¦At what time did she actually use any evidence? It was opinion disguised as fact by calling him on something he didnāt prove via source but proved via action, that she didnāt disprove.
So without anything further, my response to that terrible ādebunkingā video.
"You have yet to disprove what heās saying. You claim historical pictures canāt be used to make an argument because āartists of the past would have fewer resources to draw uponā to make accurate depictions, but then you use them to make a counter argument. If theyāre inaccurate for him to use than they are inaccurate for you to use and that only hurts your credibility through hypocrisy. While he may not have released his sources (I say āmayā because I do not know,) I have done some digging and found some of what he was probably referring to for you.
Letās start with āSaracen Archery,ā which is an English translation of a Mameluke work on archery, written in the year 1368.
Itās worth reading the preface and also looking at the bibliography for further sources on the matter from the publisher that translated it.
If you go to page 87 of the PDF (133 of the actual book) you will see the technique that you call āexaggeratedā in 14:10 of your video.
Iād also direct you to āThe Song of Hiawathaā which says:
"Strong of arm was Hiawatha;
He could shoot ten arrows upward,
Shoot them with such strength and swiftness,
That the tenth had left the bow-string
Ere the first to earth had fallen!"
http://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=278
This was thought to be ridiculous and impossible until Lars Andersen went and did it. There actually are historical texts backing his claim, just because he hasnāt posted his sources (or just because you have yet to discover sources that he may have posted,) does not mean they do not exist.
So what have we learned? We have learned that legend has been backed by historical text and that historical text has been proven on film by Lars Andersen, so explain to me again how you ādebunkedā him? I heard you make a poor argument citing āevidenceā that you said wasnāt credible. I have presented you with the sources you asked for, now Iād like hear what you have to say on the matter to ādebunkā me. But this time, Iād recommend using actual evidence, or somehow proving that my sources are inaccurate. Thus far, Lars has shown these practices to be very real, practical, and executable.
One point Iād like to make about your artists and resources claim. If drawings from hundreds, and thousands of years ago are so inaccurate, how is it that cartographers of the time managed to make such highly detailed and accurate maps as to astonish even modern map makers with their satellite technology? And imposing our media culture inaccuracy on ancient cultures is bad logic. For all you know the people who made those pictures were contracted by kings to create historical records. Some of those easily could have been created by historians of the time, which is far more likely than them being created by the Michael Bay of the time. Just food for thought. Donāt think for a second that people 1,000 years ago were any less intelligent or sophisticated. Thereās an interesting article going around about a 1,000 year old Anglo-Saxon text that has a cure for a Stye infection that we, with all our labs, couldnāt come up with. As it happens, it also kills the superbug MRSA just as effectively as Vancomycin, an extremely powerful, last resort antibiotic. MRSA has even been developing an immunity to vancomycin and itās starting to lose itās effectiveness yet, an ancient people a thousand years ago have a remedy that can kill it.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27263-anglo-saxon-remedy-kills-hospital-superbug-mrsa.html
While Iām at it I might point out our own historical knowledge isnāt quite as grounded as we think. As it happens, organized civilization may well have started 5,000 years before we believed it to have started. Theyāre finding underwater cities that date back nearly 10,000 years, which disrupts the civilization chronological timeline quite a bit. In fact, our understanding of the human timeline is what you might call "debunked."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm
The point here is this, just because something may have become common in one time doesnāt mean it will continue, and it doesnāt even mean weāll know if it was ever common. The scientific method is wonderful but it doesnāt always get built upon the way itās supposed to. History has a way of disappearing certain parts of it, Iām sure there were plenty of people in that time that were more than happy to destroy books that discussed anything remotely scientific or medical. Just like with MRSA, we had to create something new to kill it because a text that should have been built upon was lost. For all we know Lars is breathing new life into an old technique that could be the same thing. Things are lost until theyāre found, thatās how it works. Put the work in, do the research and then tell me heās full of it.
I look forward to your response.
Tony"
Cheers!
Tony
2 Likes
Didnt you see him using the same bow penetrating mail and thick gambeson?
The mail was mostly likely cheap crappy stuff. Theres videos of war bows not penetrating thick gambeson with mail underneath. If an 80-150 lb war bow doesnāt penetrate real mail then his little toy bow of 30-40 lbs certainly wouldnāt even at full draw.
Alright. Fine. To be honest, Iām really bored by this, probably because I spent half of my life in an enviroment where literally thousands of people toyed around with historical archery. Some were good hobbysts, some were really good archers - and really serious one. Some of them did not gave too much about historical accuracy, some of them entitled almost their entire life for a few bone artefacts. One thing is common amongst them:
They had history, they did not have to āreinventā things from absolute zero. ā¦because archery is not a ālost artā It has itās science, it has itās conferences, itās debates, itās practicioners and believe it or not, but in some of our archery forums i have seen people working with the Mameluke Handbook in around 2007; probably before that. And that is the wide, public internet. But we arenāt the only one, many folks, including koreans, mongolians, chinese etc. actively practicing archery, some of them with a little exaggeration almost have a living tradition ever since their origins. Turkish nationalism also helped to spread the will to research their ancestral archery tradition.
Long story short:
We are talking about thousands (actually, ten thousands rather) of people and at least a hundred years, from locations spread out from China to England.
Either everyone is wrongā¦
ā¦or you just fell for a very wise marketing video.
Itās up to you to decide.
But of course, you need sources. How should we do that? Shall I start with Saxton Pope, cite basically most of the historians, give you a link to the aforementioned nations archery associations, give you an invitation to 2015ās āHail of Arrowsā at Ćpusztaszer, give you an invitation to the next conference of the National Archery Association in Hatvan, or direct you to the english forums of the āFree Archery Portalā where you can find guys who do mameluke archery - you know, in actual mameluke equipment, bow and arrows? Itās weird that you accept one YouTube-video, but you donāt another (this also has itās flaws, may I add.) But even if I give you exact titles, it wouldnāt matter anyway, becauseā¦
āThe scientific method is wonderful but it doesnāt always get built upon the way itās supposed to. History has a way of disappearing certain parts of itā - Yes, like Atlantis.
See, the problem is, that a bow remains a bow, and a human remains a human - and, most importantly, physics remains physics. I have to admit, that with the fencing we are in a bit easier situation, because there is the possibility to go out and beat the crap out of the guy who apparently āinventedā a ānew way of fencingā, at least a little bit - since you donāt believe in āscientific methodsā. You canāt just shoot at each other, of course.
But hereās a last thing.
Let us meet this fine gentleman. His name is MĆ³nus JĆ³zsef.
In 1226 a mongolian archer named Esunkhei shot his arrow to a distance of todaysā 502,5 meters. It is written, so it is true, right? It has a historical backing. Fine. JĆ³zsef shot in march, 2010 to a distance of 508,74 meters.
At that point, we all can accept that our ancestors shot their arrows over 500 meters, JĆ³zsef reinvented this method and everyone who canāt reach that does not shoot the proper, historical way.
ā¦and this actually has more of a claim in itself, since what is the first thing that comes into your mind when you hear the word ābowā? Killing the guy as far as possible, right? By the way, JĆ³zsef hit a 140x140 centimeters target from 453 meters in 2012. In a suspiciously similar way you could see it in the old mongolian video, may I add.
Too bad JĆ³zsef is a dedicated distance shooter with fine tuned equipment to do so, and somehow does not feel the need to make an idiot out of everyone.
But that was the last time I wrote about that. This is really a minor thing compared to what a bunch of people believe in history.
As of me, I believe that archers shot like this. Ah, I donāt have historical source about this. ā¦as a matter of fact, I kind of do.
I should probably make a YouTube video about it.
Edit: I felt the need to clarify: I think that Lars is a really fine, if not the best trick shooter (I donāt care if or if not his videos are edited in any way). Putting the āhistoricalā before this on the other hand is like looking at an athlete who runs the 100 meters in 10 seconds and stating that āpeople were insanely fast in the past centuries in general.ā, and since most of the people donāt have access to a bow AND they want to believe, they will eat it big time. Taking a great personal achievement, and selling it like a āforgotten artā - this not only ridicules many people and an insane amount of work, but even worse: fatally distorts the view on archery of the great public.
But then again, there are people who still think that each and every one of our ancestors fought with swords weighting 5-10 kilograms too. Well, feel free to do so.
4 Likes
I have meet Lars a few times and know some of the people who helped him make the video.
(including the speaker)
Iam highly critical of many of the historical things that is said and some of it I simply donāt agree with.
But I have no doubt that Lars actually do the things we see him do. But naturally some of the things required many attempts.
Shooting an arrow our of the air was done in only four takes and they where rather surprised that he managed to do it. So luck was also a factor.
It is something I have seen him do with LARP arrows with no problem, but that is naturally a lot easier because of size and speed.
So I think he is great at trick shootingā¦ but he is not an historianā¦
(he is actually a professional painter. And have painted some members of the Danish royal family and Anders Fogh Rasmussen who was Secretary General of NATO from 2009 to 2014)
Yeah that kinda makes your arguments irrelevant. You claim you are big on historical accuracy yet you defend this guy who makes bull shit claims constantly. So i can see you not wanting to go against your friends but you should stay out of this because youāre clearly being biased towards your friends here.
This guy wouldnāt last a minute against anyone with thick clothing because he doesnāt even pull the string back enough to hurt anyone. I also bet he wouldnāt be the āfastestā archer any more if he pulled the string back. His competitors are real archers who pull the string back and use real bows not toys.
Having meet him is not the same as him being a friend. He is not. Fare from it.
If anything It makes me more criticalā¦
I donāt like this hole spectacle at all. And I do agree that most of his claims are not correct and I really donāt like the way the show is made. Lots of claims that is not backed up in any wayā¦
He is claiming to be an expert on historical archeryā¦ and In my opinion he is not.
Many of the things he do canāt be done with a real bowā¦ simple body mechanics.
But Iam rather sure they did not cheat with the tricks we see him doā¦ since I have seen him do some impressive things with a bow IRL.
So to repeat myself. He is great at trick shooting. But not of proper historical workā¦
Donāt get me wrong what he does is very impressive but I think him not pulling the bow back all the way could be considered cheating. He claims he fires 3 arrows in under a second but he was pretty much just throwing the arrows at that point with how little the string went back. I would be far more impressed with him if he used a real bow and pulled the bow back all the way.
I think we are pretty much agreeing about all the problems with what he do in relation to āhistoryā
My point was that ā213ā accused him of cheating with wires and digital editingā¦ and I am sure they did not do so.
When we see him shoot an arrow out of the air, Iam sure he did so.