Response to Lars Andersen: Once There Was Archery
Articles Blog

Response to Lars Andersen: Once There Was Archery

August 14, 2019


Lars is back. I admit, I’m rather surprised that he’s
produced another video, and I’m sure a lot of people have been wowed by his even greater
display of skill. At the same time, his video brings up a whole
new bunch of historical claims that viewers will latch onto and begin stating as fact. This doesn’t surprise me, but the fact that
Lars has an organised team to produce and market his video means that he’s trying
to go viral again. I give credit to Lars for his skill, but I
do believe that this video is intended as entertainment for the masses rather than being
truly educational. For my part, I believe that the video presents
a skewed and selective interpretation of history, one that contains a few contradictions. My goal in this video is to provide additional
commentary on the information provided, and to encourage viewers to be critical thinkers. Before I begin my commentary, I want to address
some of the major themes that appeared in my previous videos on Lars Andersen. I know a lot of you will straight out say
“You’re just jealous”. Am I impressed by Lars? Yes. Can I do what he does? No. Am I jealous? No. I’m not really interested in his style of
archery and I have no reason to be envious. Lars can do things that I can’t, and I can
do things that he can’t. This shouldn’t have any bearing on having
a mature discussion on what has been presented. You’re free to judge me, but I don’t think
it matters. Another common criticism of me was that I
don’t have a right to speak because I can’t replicate what Lars does. Well firstly, neither can you, so you don’t
have a right to criticise, by that logic. But, if we’re going to scrutinise our credibility,
then I ask: what authority does Lars have that makes him automatically correct? Lars is a…painter. His “combat” archery experience comes
from archery tag. I have no doubt that he is a skilled and amazing
archer, but does that mean that he is an expert historian? Now, I’m not claiming that I have any more
authority: I’m just a high school teacher. I studied medieval history as part of my degree,
but I don’t specifically have an academic background in historical archery. But at least I’ll say it right now: what
I’m presenting here is just my opinion and understanding. So, let’s begin. The video opens with the claim that movies
depict archers releasing arrows at the same time and that this is “silly”, fewer arrows
are shot and energy is wasted holding the bow. This opening statement alone is completely
wrong. The claim that “fewer arrows are shot”
is ambiguous. The video doesn’t elaborate on this. As far as I’m concerned, if you have 500
archers, then you have 500 arrows in the air. If each archer has 20 arrows, then they may
shoot up to 10,000 arrows in total. Whether they shoot them all at once, or spread
them throughout the battle, doesn’t change the number of arrows shot. As for wasting energy while holding the bow
drawn, this is something that is depicted frequently in movies. This is of course done for dramatic effect. This would not have been done in real life. An English master archer would not tell his
band of brothers to hold their 120lb war bows until just the right moment. What would have happened is that the captain
will order the archers to nock arrows, and then order the archers to loose arrows. The archers would then execute the shot at
roughly the same time, because most archers take the same amount of time to loose an arrow. No energy is wasted in holding the bow. In fact, the rate of fire being controlled
by a captain or master archer meant that a formation of archers would use energy more
efficiently, compared to individual rapid fire, which would be very exhausting with
bows designed for battle. Horse archers would use faster methods of
shooting, but they would do so in short bursts as they passed their targets. Foot archers would have to sustain their battlefield
effectiveness for a longer period. Furthermore, archery formations were effectively
the artillery of the medieval army. It was easier to coordinate mass fire and
command the whole unit to adjust their aim rather than rely on individuals to mark their
own targets. This isn’t to say that archers only used
volley fire tactics. Battles are dynamic, so I think it would be
safe to assume that as distances closed, a body of archers would probably shoot at their
own pace and pick their own targets. There’s a time and place for volley fire. As Lars primarily deals with medium to close
range, this is where archers would benefit more from autonomy than control. The video continues this line of argument
by stating that volley shooting would be pointless because the target would simply raise their
shield and that would be a total waste of arrows. There are two things that are going on here. Firstly, yes, there would actually be a lot
of ineffective arrows. If there are a thousand arrows shot, some
will hit shields, many will simply hit nothing. That is exactly why arrows were shot en masse:
so that some arrows would hit. It’s a matter of probability. A large number of arrows means that some arrows
will hit unprotected areas: feet, arms, faces, and so on. Even if there were few lethal hits, the fact
that a formation is being shot at means that its battle effectiveness is severely hampered. You have to keep your head down and advance
slowly. Holding up the shield is tiring. Most importantly, you can’t fight back. That leads to a drop in morale. Archers seldom decided the outcome of battle
– their role was to harass, not to kill. Even today, the majority of projectiles fired
from weapons don’t hit anything, but it doesn’t mean the ammunition is wasted. Secondly, this is the first of many examples
of misleading visual presentation. In his demonstration, Lars crouches behind
a shield and blocks several arrows. This is clearly staged and directed to convince
the viewer that this is what would happen. In fact, at many points in this video, Lars
makes reference to battlefield scenarios, but the visual demonstration is not a battlefield
scenario. The shield demonstration is misleading for
the following reasons. He is audibly told when the arrows are incoming. The demonstration is done from very close
distance, where the arrow trajectory is flat – a distance that archers would not engage
in, so he is able to hide behind the shield. In a real battle, the arrows would arc over
his shield. If he lifts his shield, he exposes other weaknesses. Furthermore, not everyone has that particular
kind of shield. Sure, large shields such as the Roman scutum
would provide wide protection, but many warriors had smaller shields, or didn’t have shields. They might be using two-handed weapons such
as pikes – and the English longbows devastated the Scottish schiltron formations. And, of course, archers were often skirmishers
that would engage other skirmishers, and apart from some well-equipped crossbowmen, archers
didn’t have shields. So, there are many battlefield situations
in which mass volley fire would have a significant effect. The video claims that “Lars is fast, so
he can easily dodge arrows”. For me, this is where I felt the video became
ridiculous. He doesn’t dodge arrows because he’s fast. He knows where they are being shot. In the first shot, he knows the archer is
going to shoot straight at him, so as long as he moves, he’ll be fine. It still takes a very good reflex time, but
as long as he doesn’t stand still, he’ll be OK. That’s not the same as dodging. The second test is even sillier: the arrows
aren’t even aimed at him. The same goes for the other people in the
demonstration. They don’t even need to move. The arrows are shot so wide or so high that
half of them just flinch instead of dodge, and in one frame the arrow isn’t even in
the shot. Whoever is shooting the arrows is clearly
not intending to hit the person. Some of it might just be inaccurate shooting,
but it doesn’t prove that arrows are easy to dodge. In fairness, arrows actually aren’t that
fast. If you can see it coming, you can move out
of the way. However, if Lars is talking about battlefield
scenarios, then you have to factor things you would expect on a battlefield. You’ll be carrying arms and armour, which
will slow you down. You might be able to dodge a single arrow,
but you won’t dodge a thousand arrows because, you know, volley fire. And you’re not going to dodge when you’re
shoulder-to-shoulder with a thousand men. Realistically, either the arrow hits something,
or it misses. Dodging has little to do with it. But yeah, running in a straight line in an
open field is a pretty bad idea. The video goes onto say that standing still
and shooting slowly is useless, and it provides a source from the Handbook of Byzantine Military
Strategy. At this point, I want to highlight an ambiguous
area that was raised in numerous comment threads: scale. This isn’t clearly identified in the video,
and a lot of people will argue that in small skirmishes, archers will employ more mobile
tactics. This makes sense – most conflicts were small
scale border wars. However, it’s important to highlight differences
between major battles and minor skirmishes rather than saying that this encompasses every
aspect of war. If you’re exchanging shots with another
archer, you probably don’t want to stand still. If you’re in a battle formation, you don’t
have much choice. Back to the video. Again, we see a mismatch with what is being
said, and what is being shown. The narrator explains that slow shooting is
useless. The video shows the standing archer being
hit by an arrow. The accompanying text highlights the speed
shooting component. While I haven’t read the original source,
the part that is shown in the video is specifically taken from the chapter titled “The Training
and Drilling of the Individual Soldier”. What is being explained in this section is
a training drill – one that includes leaping onto horse, shooting forward, behind, left
and right, placing the bow into a case, pulling out a spear, putting the spear back, pulling
out the bow, and repeat. It’s a training drill, not actual combat
technique or doctrine. As far as the speed is concerned, since it
highlights horseback archery, this is in line with how horse archers would engage in close
distance where speed is more important than aim, and armies of horse archers would train
the same methods on foot. This is not a universal understanding of how
archery was done everywhere. The video claims that fast shooting is the
only way to get past a shield. Remember a minute earlier how Lars tucked
himself behind the shield? If three simultaneous arrows can’t get past,
fast shooting won’t get past either. Instead, what we see is another questionable
demonstration. These guys are swatting the arrows away with
their shields, stand still for a full second, and then get hit. …Why? That’s not how you use a shield. That’s not fast shooting beating a shield. That’s the person letting himself get hit. In fairness, if you have a small shield and
you’re under fire from arrows, you might have a tough time guarding high and low, or
from different directions. If you’re in a one-on-one situation, you
don’t have much choice other than to fling arrows as quickly as you can and hope that
you find an opening. The video claims that the use of a target
board came about by chance, and then says “imagine if swordfighting had evolved the
same way”. …what? Swordfighting has always made use of static
targets to practice cuts. That’s not silly at all. It’s a way to hone your skill – and some
people will only do this. Archery isn’t different. Even if you’re not shooting at a bright
coloured target, you’re shooting at something else. I mean, archery has evolved to the point where
we’re shooting at foam targets in the shape of dinosaurs. The video claims the bow was simply “string
and bow and nothing else”, includes a diagram of a modern Olympic-style bow, and says how
“all the new stuff is problematic for the war archer”. All this new stuff was invented hundreds of
years after archery ceased being used in war. This is sports equipment. It’s like comparing swords to baseball bats. Of course this would never be used in war. I don’t get why Lars keeps on making these
jabs towards modern archery. Look, Lars, your style of archery is awesome. It’s great to watch and you’re the only
person in the world who can do it. But when you make these facetious comparisons,
you make a million viewers think that modern archery is a horrible corruption and it’s
wrong, and you’re doing us a disfavour. They’re different things and should not
be compared. The video ends on the footnote that war archery
disappeared because bullets can’t be dodged. The more commonly accepted reason is logistics
and training. Archers required years of training and a lifetime
of experience, plus a constant demand for bows and arrow, which was labour-intensive. It was far easier to manufacture guns and
produce lead shot, and a gunman could be trained in weeks. Plus, arrows were generally ineffective against
armour. Guns made armour redundant. It’s not so much about dodging, it’s about
effectiveness in battle. This kind of disproves the claim made in the
same sentence: war archery probably wasn’t that fantastic. At this point, I’ve only covered around…two
minutes of the video. That’s because I think the rest of the video
is BADASS. Lars references passages of exceptional trick
shooting and tries to replicate legendary feats, and that looks pretty awesome. That’s the sort of thing someone could watch
all day and marvel. That, in my opinion, is the best part of the
video – taking a historical source or a mythical story and turning it into a real
challenge. I really do applaud Lars for pulling it off. And we’ll end on that note. Again, it’s another brilliant showcase of
the skill of Lars Andersen, and it’s cleverly put together to go viral, and I won’t criticise
Lars for doing that. Hopefully this video gives you more insight
into the depth and detail of archery in different contexts. The whole point of this is to open a discussion
about what you see and think, so feel free to add your comments below. I am looking forward to a reasonable and civil
discussion. If you’re just going to say “You’re
jealous”, don’t bother. You’re not going to believe me and I won’t
change your mind, so don’t bother. Otherwise, I leave the floor to you.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. The haters here are hilarious. I feel like response videos to his videos are totally unnecessary, and just for the "views". The bow and arrow is ancient. To say that the kind of archery Lars does is wrong and not historically accurate would be close minded. It is indeed historically accurate, and we do have accounts of people doing exceptional feats of archery by horseback and by foot that many in the past had said were impossible but that Lars has recreated. What he has done is similar to experimental archaeology. The thing to remember is that it was not THE way to shoot a bow and arrow. It was simply A way. It was highly effective in certain situations, but it was used in certain time periods, by certain cultures.

  2. I am an average archer and i do it for sport… get me a weak bow, some capped arrows and 2000 hours of paid support and video editing team so i could be a legend too! 😀 takes lots of attempts but i can get LUCKY TOO!!
    PS: lars's history knowledge SUX

  3. As a wars of the Roses reenacting Archer and have been in the staged re-enactment battles such as the battle of Tewkesbury (1471)) and the battle of Bosworth (1485). On average, at these bigger staged battles, there could be upto 100 archers on the field, 50 up the Lancastrian end and 50 up the Yorkist end so on command we cross shoot giving, obviously, a total of 50 arrows will be coming in from an approx height of 50 ft. We are warned by the Archery Captain of arrows coming in, so for safety, if you are in the middle of the "block" then it is definitely a good idea to keep your head down. However, if you are on the extreme end of the block, a place where I prefer to be as I'm a left hander, then you can see and watch arrows coming in which are very easily dodged even if you have got 3 or 4 coming in at you so, in my opinion, NUSensi's explanations and opinions have a lot of truth in them..

  4. You're just jealous! No really, jokes aside, I think you nailed it. He will go viral with the video but it's just super inaccurate. Of course a war archer doesn't have stabilisers on his bow… But I'm gonna bet money he also doesn't lift the bow with his foot, jump up, pirouette mid-air and shoot without even having fully drawn… i mean COME ON LARS!!! This video is for viral purposes only, great entertainment but makes me kind of sad that he'll be misleading so many easily impressed people…

  5. Agree 100% on the inherent contradiction between the dodging and volley fire arguments. Ridiculous to an extreme.
    For the Byzantine manual, this is actually a topic I made a video on some time ago.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpSXZRoUJ8
    Put bluntly: the source is actually rather ambiguous, and it is possible to interpret it rather differently. Byzantine manuals do generally talk about drills for balancing speed, power, and accuracy, and the Strategikon contains the drill for switching rapidly between weapons, BUT, the particular passage saying "shooting slowly is useless" is being abused.
    It is arguably actually referring to the speed and penetrative abilities of the individual arrows, not shooting in a rapid fire manner. Shooting an arrow such that it is released with velocity and power, which involves holding at full draw for less time to avoid energy loss from hysteresis (which horn bows are prone to). This "power" interpretation is actually the one favored by later historical sources, such as Roger Ascham, who had access to Leo's Taktika, which is essentially just a slightly edited version of the Strategikon.
    You find very similar thoughts in near eastern sources, in situations where distance and power were appropriate. The laws of physics are the same the world over.
    "draw quickly with one continuous draw, straighten your stand gradually as you draw, and then release with a sudden jerk without pause. Experts hold that in target shooting the pause is both desirable and good, whereas in competitive flight shooting it is very bad. Your release should therefore be quick and sudden without pause."
    "There is no disagreement at all among the experts that the jerk of the string should be done with force and speed and without slowness or delay, because the strength and velocity depend upon the speed of the loose, upon which depends the secret of all shooting."

    Obviously this has connections to the warped depictions of volley fire in movies, where they hold at full draw, but that's not something that anybody has seriously argued for in the first place.

  6. Here are some interesting examples of the real life use of archery in tribal ethnic warfare.

    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Bows_and_arrows_deadly_weapons_of_rural_Kenyas_war_999.html
    https://books.google.com/books?id=rCT2ud6-5Z4C&pg=PA160&dq=kalenjin+warfare+arrows&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie9-KRxa3WAhXGrlQKHardBCsQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=arrow&f=false

    ""We cannot know the time of day when they (Kalenjins) will come. If they catch you off guard, you're dead," says Samuel, 25, holding a bundle of ready arrows…Shooters say the advantage of arrows is that their victims often do not see them coming."

    So…in real life, in realistic scenarios, it seems arrows are not so easy to dodge. The element of surprise, either from it being a genuine ambush, or just from the chaos of having many archers bobbing and weaving and shooting at once. If anything, simultaneous volley fire by a group of archers makes a lot of sense in some situations, since it maximizes the surprise element.

  7. Last comment (for now):

    His title has a glaring grammatical mistake, owing to the lack of appropriate commas and multiple meanings for the word "once". Maybe it's due to poor English ability, Danish commas rules are perhaps somewhat different from English.

    "Once there was archery" is a sentence fragment. One way to make it a complete statement: "Once there was archery, people used it to hunt at long distances". That's using "once" as an adverb.

    Contrast this with using it as a conjunction, and with a comma: "Once, there was archery". Which is apparently his intended meaning. Essentially: At one point in time, archery existed.

    So…the poor proofreading/inadequate peer review isn't limited to the historical claims.

  8. I agree that Lars should put out video without the historical claims. Pretty sure he can open his own Dojo right now and be successful. I would just like to see more or Lars anyways…

  9. I disagree with your basic premise. The main thing is that you don't like that he believes his style is more the style of actual archers back in the day. And no it is not selective interpretation. This is how archers really did it. The British Long Bow was not the primary thing earlier in history because the Long Bow was developed to counter the harder armor during the Middle Era and that armor became useless with the advent of firearms.

    Also, it is clear that you don't know the basics of war and the history of war. I have studied it, and mobility and quick fire archery was highly prized. Todays archery bows used in competitions are COMPLETELY USELESS in combat. They are too slow. That is like going into combat (today) with an accurate sniper rifle versus a fully automatic minigun. The minigun will win unless you are lucky to get a pot shot in with your sniper rifle.

    Good luck with your archery skills, but clearly, you DO have a problem with Lars's opinion and, yeah, that DOES make you envious and resentful. Instead of trying to knock down Lars, how about trying to learn his technique and emulate him and actually get better than him? If you have skill and have been doing "traditional" archery for a long time, then it should be easy for you…

  10. Legend has it that Genghis Khan's son shot a bird over 200m away and the Scythians could shoot a bird out of the air from on horse back at full gallop shooting behind themselves .. .. ..
    When Lars can do these things he might be qualified to state what archery is and isn't !

  11. Lars' point about volley fire makes no sense and your comment about it being used to harass in battles is spot on. It's called "suppressive fire" with guns so the enemy isn't able to move around as freely and so your own troops are able to use the distraction to get into a different position.

  12. Another musing on volley fire: when you're under pressure, it's very tempting to rush a shot, to not come to full draw, and to not aim well. Having someone barking out commands to coordinate and regulate the tempo of your actions would probably improve the overall quality of shooting.

    Mark Stretton has an interesting posting on the subject, using actual warbows at a target simulating a charging knight:

    http://markstretton.blogspot.com/2016/08/how-many-arrows-can-warbow-shoot.html

    Once he figured out how to "be slow in a hurry" (to quote Wyatt Earp), he was able to get off fewer but better shots that would have actually saved his life.

  13. I agree with you, and I felt kinda irritated on most of the things like you discribed, but I think what Lars is trying to do here is showing people something different than the usual kind of modern archery, something he kinda developed from many different sources and inspirations.
    Unfortunately he was kinda rushing it and didn`t explain his points very well.
    I do think that the things that he learned are quite awesome, and it looks really badass when, but he should take his time making his Videos.

  14. Love it when youtubers criticise something with the use of the right language, regardless of whether of not I should agree with them.

  15. 100 lars vs 100 historical archers –> 100 dead lars 😀
    i would like to watch how the larss jump and duck into eachother :D:D:D

  16. Terry Jones Crusade documentary(1995) seems to support Lars point of view. Terry point out that crusader infantry could receive as many as 40 arrows from Arab horse archers during a days march with no ill effects. Rapid, accurate fire from light weight bows with light weight arrows.

  17. 18:26 – I don't. This kind of stuff only has value when done live – in my opinion – the magic, the wow factor becomes yawn factor when seeing it filmed – for.. obvious reasons, I should think..

    Also, @ 12:36 – there is another factor there: armor. The dude is using what looks like a longbow, and as such he'd also be wearing armor – probably a gambeson, maybe boiled leather on top of it.. which would be enough to offer decent protection from the weak bow Lars is using; my money would be on the one aiming carefully, not on the clown dancing around.

  18. Did you see the new video from Lars? He seems to have taken a lot of the criticism to heart and now seems very careful about historical claims and also explicitly names his shooting 'trick shooting'.

    Really good to see that he seems to respect the criticism from the archery community. As you have already said: Each shooting style has its own place as long as it is properly described as what it is.

  19. Here is the issue with Lar's stating that volley fire does nothing. Yes it does it stops the enemies advance or slows it, they raise shields and either duck down (if they are behind fortifications.) Or B they slow down in their formation as they raise their shields. Which then gives other warrior's an opening maybe with javalins or thrown axes or even pikes. Either way it's a tacticle thing Lars has a point in a one on one fight. But not on the battlefield.

    As for the shield part, hahahahah I hate using shields but I know that isn't how you use a shield against an individual archer. Thrand has a good video where he has an archer shoot at him as he charges the man with a shield and the guy can't touch him. Because he uses the shield the way it was made to be, you duck behind it and close with your foe and gut the archer while he fumbles for a new weapon.

  20. As far as his "dodging" goes… Now I don't know if all his videos are shot at special frame rates… but when I full draw and release, it MOVES… If I shot an arrow AT someone 10 feet away, with full draw, I almost guarantee they wouldn't be able to step out of the way. He shoots at like half draw at best, hell I wouldn't be surprised if it was weaker than that… When you take the time to watch his videos they don't make much sense.

  21. I agree, Lars is a trick shooter, not a master of archery. There is much more to archery than sticking an arrow into a target!!

  22. Speaking as a thumb shooter myself, Lars video's hype was rather annoying. People get a lot of misconception regarding traditional archery. Even Chinese traditional archery emphasis static target training for form practice.

  23. Show us the things you can do and not Lars!
    Everybody likes to troll and splitting hairs..
    Everybody who are complaining.. Show us an video when you are doing the same! 🙂

  24. Lars does it because he KNOWS everyone will get fired up by the controversial BS talk about it and make videos like this. It the ultimate "trick shot", an extension of "click bait" where he multiples views via videos like this one.. Any publicity is good publicity, apparently.

  25. Great video as always. Lars really need to stop making random claims and just stick to what he's good at, trick shooting.

  26. I'm commenting early into this video because of history sake, i must correct you when you say 'English' archers, the English had no archer's that is why it was so important for them to conquer Wales and bring them into the fold first, all 'English' archers where Welsh bowmen and then descendants of. This is important to me because I am a descendant of of one such line. (oh btw that doesn't make me an expert or a great bowman, just an interesting fact about my family history).

  27. To add to the shield versus arrows arguement, I believe there are accounts of shields being dropped because the arrows sticking in them make them too unwieldy to use effectively. I wish I could find a source for this, but I do know that the romans had a spear that was designed to stick in a shield and then bend, making it nearly impossible to remove, so the shield would at least be less effective, and at most be abandoned.

  28. why is everybody so afraid of alternatives views on something different, as when all scullers believed that the earth was flat, or the earth was the center of the universe

  29. but is it not naive to belive that the way we have been shooting bows for fun the last 150 years, is the right way, when people has been shooting bows for war and hunting and survivel for many thousend years ?? There could be others ways !?

  30. If you are good enough at standing still and shooting at targets you can make a living doing it. Sounds like a pretty useful skill to me.

  31. Should I aim as high as NuSensei, (Olympic archer) or as high as lars Anderson, (mobile and fast as fu*** boiiii)

  32. Actually never seen this guy before…but he is very good with his trick shooting. Which is fair enough, there's trick shooters with guns…then there's trick snooker players etc etc. And I dare say on an archery line he'd be very good.
    He's not the first, there used to be a fella back in the day did trick shooting, can't remember his name, but he could hit just about anything.
    As to historical war archery, as Lars says, there's not a lot of real info. The book describing splitting your arrow on a sword….but how many could actually do it? I would think, if you had 500 archers lined up, as you say, there'd have to be someone giving commands to co-ordinate the archers. It seems obvious some will overshoot, some will under shoot and some will be on target.
    Of those on target many won't hit..some will.
    As the enemy closes then archers may well pick their own targets.
    Also the arrows often had a "hammer"head designed to knock a knight off his feet through impact rather than penetration.
    Using a sword is fine, you can carry a shield…if on the other hand like English knights your main weapon is a poleaxe, carrying a shield and using it ain't easy.
    Perhaps some commanders had their archers in two, or three lines, that way you can keep the arrows flying..I don't know for sure.
    good luck dodging those arrows..
    Back in those days bows like the English long bow would be capable of shooting an arrow into the hundreds of yards.
    I'd think the main purpose of the archers was to instill fear, kill or injure as many enemy troops as possible and tire them before they get to any hand to hand combat.
    As they come closer you'd be shooting more level and your aim would improve, your hit rate should improve somewhat. Although by now your arms are tiring a bit..
    We get the word Artillery from archery, modern warfare uses artillery for the same reasons really..to take out as many enemy as possible and soften them up.
    Lars trick archery is incredible to watch..but I'd think sometimes he has to have a few goes before he gets it right..and as he says there are some shots he can't do.
    Battlefield archery is a different kettle of fish altogether…you ain't dodging those arrows and a shield is only going to be effective up to a point.
    Sport archery is just that, a sport. Different again..As is field archery or hunting with a bow.

  33. I just love the way you dismantle some wannabes.And by the way,thank you for all your videos,they were very useful.Respect from Romania.

  34. I've got to say…

    The tiny little pony Lars was riding was adorable. Especially given what was being said at the time.

  35. I know this is an older video and I apologize for my late comment, but I just have to say something 🙂 This comment concerns volley fire. In large scale battles, or battles where ground is restricted volley fire is a valid tactic. Lars talks about dodging arrows, and this is a prime example of why volley fire works. If you can dodge one arrow, can you dodge 50 at the same time? Another point, volley fire usually happens at the beginning of the battle where there is some distance between the two armies. In this scenario, it would be less likely that even a skilled archer could hit a standing target accurately due to distance to target and flight time of the arrow. This however makes it perfect for volley fire where you can force the opponent to raise their shields and expose their bodies to other weapons that might be closer.

  36. Lars pulls off some great trick shots but they are VIDEO. We all know when creating a video we can do as many "takes" as necessary. Who is to say how many times he missed before he got the one good recording.

  37. An arrow from a 30 pound recurve bow can travel at 225 feet a second (69 meters/s), so if shot at close distance (let´s say 30 feet), it is IMPOSSIBLE for a human being to dodge such an arrow!!

  38. I actually havn't heard any of his theories, I've only seen him repeat what he's read; and he provides his sources.

  39. you can use the mass archer theory to battles fought before the US Civil War as well… armies would line up in long lines and fire their muskets together to get as much lead downrange as possible. 40% would misfire, or not hit anything.

  40. Lars is very skilled, but his "research" isn't historicly accurate at all. Besides, I wanna see him shooting from 45" horsebow with full draw. I don't think it will be the same.

  41. Can you do a video on selecting a bow for Lars Anderson’s style of archery. Western archery is so cumbersome, awkward and slow.

  42. Lars needs to just stick to tricks and leave history out of it. Unless you are going to be damn sure you are right just shut up.

  43. This is such an accurate microcosm of political and social debate in our times. Lars strikes me as similar to a Flat Earther – someone who is intelligent and willing to do research and experiment- but who is also working on faulty premises, and desperately trying to confirm their own biases. Lars, like a Flat Earther, is endlessly capable of producing enough straw men to appease the believers and exhaust the deniers. I appreciate that you will take the time and expend the effort to address the shortcomings of his reasoning, while also appreciating the things that he is actually good at.

  44. HI, sorry for my late comment, i dont want to give you any suggestion, but because your video is giving wrong message to the viewers, I just want to make a point that, In the subject of research, we always use some old references to make our point, neither you nor Lars can be completely correct to make own point. But we need to understand that Lars is trying to explain that is such skills was there in the history they must be like this. If we have any strong opinion to put then you can challenge Lars to prove his theory, otherwise your video is looking like unidirectional thoughts,
    All the best.

  45. Lars is a skillfull trick shooter. However, it seems that he's a person who knows one fact about historical archery but act like he's an expert.

  46. LARS IS THE MASTER you haters are what makes me so confident that what Lars is doing is actually proof that’s its real. All you wannabes can’t even draw a bow back let alone do trick shots I’m practicing all the time I don’t find anywhere on YouTube where I can find something I can use to improve myself LARS ANDERSON is the only one. Go practice stop making “Lars Anderson is a fraud” videos y’all looking dumb at this point 😂😂😂😂😭😭

  47. Enjoyed your post , you come at it very analytical . As for volley fire . no , it was a cluster . As I enjoy yours , I do enjoy watching lars , trick shooting , his statement's . Mmm .

  48. His archery is good in naked tribal villages where people haven't invented chain maille. Everywhere else in the world he would get his ass wrecked on any battlefield by formations of troops. He might take out the odd roman spear chucking scout who's not wearing armour. So Lars would make a good front line scout, in the role they send their 15-17 year olds to harass the enemy lines. Obviously his archery would have no effect on the majority of the worlds trained formations.

    He is just clickbaiting.

  49. I don't think he's the only person who can do this style of archery, I think if I trained for a month with his style I could pull off most of the shots he does. I'll buy a shitty youth bow and give it a try soon.

  50. Something that bothered me about the original Lars video this is responding to, is that it follows this logic:

    " I propose that volley fire was useless.

    Because of that, people shot single arrows.

    Single arrows can be dodged at long distance.

    Hence, combat didn't happen at long distance"

    That's a complete fallacy. He is making a deduction based from something he stated, but did not prove.

    In fact, as Nu sugests, it's quite the other way around. "Arrows can be dodged at long disntance, which is why volley fire was used"

  51. Hes not 100 % off, his theory on ancient archers are the same as anyone elses theorys theyre opinions based on texts filled with outdated terminology. Nobodys correct hes basing his knowledge on what he can replicate realistically and adding some bias based on prior knowledge all people do that.

  52. Idea witch, i really like in this video is… Lars your style is amazing you doing thing witch I can't do..and I do things witch you can't do…its big true..just respect each other..and thats true we are archers and we shoud respect each others because of ours nice interest…

  53. Immediately stating you're not jealous… then going on to state you're vastly uneducated on the topics you talk about… lol Being a teacher you should know the traditional form of education is bullshit. Hes indirectly teaching people to do their own research and think for themselves. Stop criticizing and focus on your terrible form of teaching. Clickbait leeching off other peoples fame is disgusting.

  54. Lars does what is effective. There are plenty of modern archery that is great, but is a sport, or rather an art form. People can and should enjoy that. Like all martial arts, there are sports based and combat based systems. You will find that all over the world, most combat based Martial arts skills converge into what is effective. I am more inclined to see history Lars’ way because effectiveness is most important from my view. If it isn’t that way… well, it probably should. Again, not knocking the theory and sports side of things, often you need to become good at these to become more combat effective.

  55. Lars is a fuckin charlatan. He'd be just impressive showman if he wasn't such a liar and didn't attract so many pre-pubecent cunts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *