I think your the first to post that one.
There’s 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. She’s kinda cute, too (sorry, couldn’t help it).
1 Like
I’m going to go ahead and leave the same response I left on the “skepticallyPwnd” video, please read and consider…At what time did she actually use any evidence? It was opinion disguised as fact by calling him on something he didn’t prove via source but proved via action, that she didn’t disprove.
So without anything further, my response to that terrible “debunking” video.
"You have yet to disprove what he’s saying. You claim historical pictures can’t be used to make an argument because “artists of the past would have fewer resources to draw upon” to make accurate depictions, but then you use them to make a counter argument. If they’re 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 “may” because I do not know,) I have done some digging and found some of what he was probably referring to for you.
Let’s start with “Saracen Archery,” which is an English translation of a Mameluke work on archery, written in the year 1368.
It’s 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 “exaggerated” in 14:10 of your video.
I’d also direct you to “The Song of Hiawatha” 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 hasn’t 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 “debunked” him? I heard you make a poor argument citing “evidence” that you said wasn’t credible. I have presented you with the sources you asked for, now I’d like hear what you have to say on the matter to “debunk” me. But this time, I’d 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 I’d 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. Don’t think for a second that people 1,000 years ago were any less intelligent or sophisticated. There’s 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, couldn’t 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 it’s starting to lose it’s 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 I’m at it I might point out our own historical knowledge isn’t 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. They’re 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 doesn’t mean it will continue, and it doesn’t even mean we’ll know if it was ever common. The scientific method is wonderful but it doesn’t always get built upon the way it’s supposed to. History has a way of disappearing certain parts of it, I’m 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 they’re found, that’s how it works. Put the work in, do the research and then tell me he’s 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 doesn’t penetrate real mail then his little toy bow of 30-40 lbs certainly wouldn’t even at full draw.
Alright. Fine. To be honest, I’m 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 “reinvent” things from absolute zero. …because archery is not a “lost art” It has it’s science, it has it’s conferences, it’s debates, it’s 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 aren’t 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 wrong…
…or you just fell for a very wise marketing video.
It’s 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 2015’s ‘Hail of Arrows’ at Ópusztaszer, give you an invitation to the next conference of the National Archery Association in Hatvan, or direct you to the english forums of the ‘Free Archery Portal’ where you can find guys who do mameluke archery - you know, in actual mameluke equipment, bow and arrows? It’s weird that you accept one YouTube-video, but you don’t another (this also has it’s flaws, may I add.) But even if I give you exact titles, it wouldn’t matter anyway, because…
“The scientific method is wonderful but it doesn’t always get built upon the way it’s supposed to. History has a way of disappearing certain parts of it” - 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 “invented” a “new way of fencing”, at least a little bit - since you don’t believe in “scientific methods”. You can’t just shoot at each other, of course.
But here’s a last thing.
Let us meet this fine gentleman. His name is Mónus József.
In 1226 a mongolian archer named Esunkhei shot his arrow to a distance of todays’ 502,5 meters. It is written, so it is true, right? It has a historical backing. Fine. József 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, József reinvented this method and everyone who can’t reach that does not shoot the proper, historical way.
…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 ‘bow’? Killing the guy as far as possible, right? By the way, József 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 József 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 don’t have historical source about this. …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 don’t care if or if not his videos are edited in any way). Putting the “historical” before this on the other hand is like looking at an athlete who runs the 100 meters in 10 seconds and stating that “people were insanely fast in the past centuries in general.”, and since most of the people don’t 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 “forgotten art” - 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 don’t 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 shooting… but he is not an historian…
(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 you’re clearly being biased towards your friends here.
This guy wouldn’t last a minute against anyone with thick clothing because he doesn’t even pull the string back enough to hurt anyone. I also bet he wouldn’t be the “fastest” 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 critical…
I don’t like this hole spectacle at all. And I do agree that most of his claims are not correct and I really don’t like the way the show is made. Lots of claims that is not backed up in any way…
He is claiming to be an expert on historical archery… and In my opinion he is not.
Many of the things he do can’t be done with a real bow… simple body mechanics.
But Iam rather sure they did not cheat with the tricks we see him do… 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 work…
Don’t 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 “history”
My point was that “213” accused him of cheating with wires and digital editing… 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.
Well I’m sure you can understand why @213 might think that. Lars makes a video spewing lies so its not that hard to think he could be lying about some of his trick shots. Again I’m not claiming his trick shots are staged I’m just saying i can understand where @213 is coming from.
1 Like
Go up and read my post. There are 14th century sources that show methods that he uses. The one I linked to is “Saracen Archery.” I recommend reading it.
If you take the time to put in the research you’ll find his techniques are legitimate, historical, and effective techniques.
1 Like
So archers back then used underpowered bows and didn’t pull the string back to even half draw?
1 Like
I can’t speak to the draw weight of the time, nor can I speak to how much power it would take to kill a lightly armored target from horseback at the various mentioned ranges (mentioned in the text.) However, I would like to point you to page 142 of the text (pdf page 99) you’ll see under section 5 “Dexterity and Rate of Shooting” it says, “… the author sets for the archer is the ability to discharge 3 arrows in about 1 and 1/2 seconds…It is nevertheless an attainable standard as is evident from the achievement, in modern times, of Saxton Pope who did succeed on a number of occasions in shooting 7 arrows in 8 seconds (Elmer, Target Archery, pp. 428-30)… During the second crusade William of Tyre, who must have been conversant with the performance of his own bowmen, remarked more than once on the dexterity of the enemy archers. '” The Saracen cavalry…began to shoot thicker and faster than one could believe possible."’’’
You’ll find all of it on 142 of https://pgmagirlscouts.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/saracen_archery.pdf
Is Lars using the exact same methods? Possibly, or maybe he’s created new methods that obtain the same results, it doesn’t matter, the point is that what he’s doing is what archers in history were capable of and there is plenty of historical record to corroborate that. But it’s accurate to say he as re-invented the techniques that produce these results. That’s what re-inventing is…Until a time comes where we discover archers of the time used the same technique it is accurate to say “re-invented” given the results are the same.
Just because something was lost doesn’t mean it never existed, and just because archers today can’t do it doesn’t mean it’s not real. I urge you to please read the pdf. You can’t expect to argue a point if you haven’t researched it thoroughly.
If you’d like to present a source that has the draw weight of 14th century Saracen Mameluke bows and also the force it takes to kill an armored target from horseback I’d gladly welcome and appreciate the education!
Thank you!
There are tests done with war bows that have a draw weight from around 85-175 lbs shooting a gambeson with chain mail underneath. It has little effect so there’s no way in hell his little toy bow will do anything.
I never said this was impossible. But the way he does it is just stupid and wouldn’t be effective against even a lightly armoured opponent. The string doesn’t even go back to half draw it almost looks like he’s throwing the arrows. If he could get 3 arrows off in 1/2 seconds with a real bow at full draw then i would be impressed.
Yeah again I’m not saying any of this is impossible I’m just saying the way he does it would not be in any way effective in combat. Lets give him a 85 lb English long bow and see if he does it that fast.
Nothing was lost. Archery techniques from hundreds of different cultures have been passed down through the generations and Lars Anderson is telling those people that they’re doing it all wrong.
I believe the average draw Weight of those Saracen bows were around 50-60 lbs some may have been 80 lbs. At draw weights like that they would have had trouble penetrating armour. When Lars does his fastest shooting he is using a tiny bow that you can judge to be around 20-30 lbs draw weight. A bow like is a toy that would probably bounce off a thick winter coat.
We don’t know the range at which this was shot but it was a 140 lb English war bow.That is an extremely powerful bow. As you can see it didn’t penetrate the armour. So i will repeat there is no way in hell his toy is going through any real armour.
1 Like
Well im not sure if any of you have seen this. Its his video responding to the critics. Its pretty much just him backpedaling and contradicting himself. Read the comments too. Everyone thinks this guy is Jesus or something if anyone disagrees with him they’re viciously attacked.
1 Like
How is he denying the truth when he backs up what he says with the facts that are written in the book? I dont understand your hate towards the video he made, backing himself up and basically saying that he does some stuff by trick shooting etc etc.
If you watch his first video he claims he discovered and reinvented this archery. In his new video he backs out of his statement and says " Well i’m sure other people knew about it but i think im the first one to do it". He also doesn’t address his bold statement “everything you know about archery is a lie”.
In regards to the back quiver he once again backs out of his original statement. In his original video he claims its a Hollywood myth and then in this video he says “what i mean’t to say is it wasn’t as common as people thought”. He realized that he sounded like an arrogant prick in the first video by telling everyone that his way was the true way and by making false statements. Now hes trying to make himself sound less like a dumb ass by contradicting his first video, but i just lost all respect for him when i saw him doing that.
Yes trick shooting. That’s what he does. don’t call it historical. His method would not be effective under any circumstances unless he was fighting a naked guy. He claims this was the way archery was done and that today’s archer is a lie. He’s saying that the English, Welsh, Japanese, Mongols , American Indians, and many other cultures are doing archery all wrong even though they’ve been using the same (effective) techniques for hundreds if not thousands of years.
That’s my issue with Lars Anderson. He’s an impressive trick shooter and if he didn’t go around claiming he knows everything, and that his way is the truth then i would have no problem with him. Lets also add his fanatical fan base that attacks anyone who disagrees with his “historical methods”. If you don’t believe me read the comments on that video. Anyone who shows the slightest doubt are told they know nothing about archery and they are just sad trolls.
2 Likes