Any archers/bowmen here? What do you think about this?
- Thread starter Guffe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The threads that were generated about this video on /k/ was split between people thinking that:
1. Anderson is really impressive and everyone who seriously criticizes his archery ability is obviously an inactive, jealous manchild.
2. Anderson's form of archery seems to be solely based on that one book and the images from throughout history, both of which mainly encompass the Mongols, and he could be expanding his skills from other cultures
3. Whether or not Anderson is truly effective with archery, because:
--3a. A lot of controversy over whether the arrows he shot actually penetrated through the gambeson compared to getting caught inside the gambeson
--3b. The complaint of draw power on his bow, whether it'd be good enough for distance shooting or combat in general
--3c. What the fuck why is he having another guy shoot arrows at him so much
4. Why would anyone practice archery if they would never conceivably use it in combat, and his form is not suited for competition shooting (a minor complaint, since /k/ is probably the worst board to go on if you want to argue that weapons don't have recreational uses)
5. Way too many of his actions in the video are archery porn and are completely unnecessary bouts of HARDCORE PARKOUR and spectacle shots
Numbah 5 seemed to be the biggest opinion I witnessed. Some people mixed Numbah 1 and Numbah 5, saying stuff like "he's obviously very practiced and in shape, but most of what he does looks to be completely unnecessary." And yeah, that's how I feel. His speed shots and accuracy while constantly staying in motion are really impressive, without a doubt it shows just how comfortable and good he is at the bow as a whole, but the action shots he did like splitting the arrow are obviously for showing off.
Maybe he's not showing off. Maybe he was trying to get something cool in the video to get more people interested in archery -- and it's hard to deny the video isn't anything but a six minute long advertisement about getting interested in archery. And I don't mind if that's true, because what made a lot of Anderson's skills even more impressive was how the video presented them.
1. Anderson is really impressive and everyone who seriously criticizes his archery ability is obviously an inactive, jealous manchild.
2. Anderson's form of archery seems to be solely based on that one book and the images from throughout history, both of which mainly encompass the Mongols, and he could be expanding his skills from other cultures
3. Whether or not Anderson is truly effective with archery, because:
--3a. A lot of controversy over whether the arrows he shot actually penetrated through the gambeson compared to getting caught inside the gambeson
--3b. The complaint of draw power on his bow, whether it'd be good enough for distance shooting or combat in general
--3c. What the fuck why is he having another guy shoot arrows at him so much
4. Why would anyone practice archery if they would never conceivably use it in combat, and his form is not suited for competition shooting (a minor complaint, since /k/ is probably the worst board to go on if you want to argue that weapons don't have recreational uses)
5. Way too many of his actions in the video are archery porn and are completely unnecessary bouts of HARDCORE PARKOUR and spectacle shots
Numbah 5 seemed to be the biggest opinion I witnessed. Some people mixed Numbah 1 and Numbah 5, saying stuff like "he's obviously very practiced and in shape, but most of what he does looks to be completely unnecessary." And yeah, that's how I feel. His speed shots and accuracy while constantly staying in motion are really impressive, without a doubt it shows just how comfortable and good he is at the bow as a whole, but the action shots he did like splitting the arrow are obviously for showing off.
Maybe he's not showing off. Maybe he was trying to get something cool in the video to get more people interested in archery -- and it's hard to deny the video isn't anything but a six minute long advertisement about getting interested in archery. And I don't mind if that's true, because what made a lot of Anderson's skills even more impressive was how the video presented them.
Fun to watch and certainly an impressive talent, but not very realistic in any sort of real historical battle situation.
As fun as it is to imagine an army of Legolas jumping around shooting up their enemies, the truth of the matter is that archers worked best in massed numbers. Long lines of archer who would hail arrows down on their advancing opponents or before advancing themselves and then retreating to allow the frontline soldier to do their thing. If the enemy ever got closer enough to the archers that those sorts of techniques would be useful then something has already gone horribly wrong.
Same goes for mounted archers like the Mongol and Assyrian.
Meanwhile one guy leaping around and being fancy looks cool but also takes a lifetime of training and is only really effective at a relatively short range, compare that to the relative ease of rallying up a few hundred peasants to equip with bows and deliver a literal rain of arrows down on their enemies, potentially killing dozens in a span of seconds. Those peasants who can then after the war return to their homes and jobs supporting the economy and making new baby archers for future wars while this guy returns to training.
It's just not economical or efficient, especially when you consider how shooting fast means nothing when it also means you're also out of arrows in minutes while having dealt questionable damage.
As fun as it is to imagine an army of Legolas jumping around shooting up their enemies, the truth of the matter is that archers worked best in massed numbers. Long lines of archer who would hail arrows down on their advancing opponents or before advancing themselves and then retreating to allow the frontline soldier to do their thing. If the enemy ever got closer enough to the archers that those sorts of techniques would be useful then something has already gone horribly wrong.
Same goes for mounted archers like the Mongol and Assyrian.
Meanwhile one guy leaping around and being fancy looks cool but also takes a lifetime of training and is only really effective at a relatively short range, compare that to the relative ease of rallying up a few hundred peasants to equip with bows and deliver a literal rain of arrows down on their enemies, potentially killing dozens in a span of seconds. Those peasants who can then after the war return to their homes and jobs supporting the economy and making new baby archers for future wars while this guy returns to training.
It's just not economical or efficient, especially when you consider how shooting fast means nothing when it also means you're also out of arrows in minutes while having dealt questionable damage.
Well all the unnecessary posing in that video dose make me laugh but it is still impressive.
Although I'm not history buff but on archers not staying still...I thought most archers in a battlefield would be behind other troops firing volleys not running around and if the enemy did make it up to them they would ditch their bow for another weapon or is this just Hollywood talking? although I suppose in smaller skirmishes you might have archers running around firing? It just seems a bit strange to me.
Hunting often consist of waiting in place or trying to sneak up on something not parkouring around a forest trying to chase the animal so I don't think you would use this technique for that much either. I know there are some cultures that made extensive use of horseback archery and side quivers were common, I've just never heard of running around on foot shooting being common.
Although I'm not history buff but on archers not staying still...I thought most archers in a battlefield would be behind other troops firing volleys not running around and if the enemy did make it up to them they would ditch their bow for another weapon or is this just Hollywood talking? although I suppose in smaller skirmishes you might have archers running around firing? It just seems a bit strange to me.
Hunting often consist of waiting in place or trying to sneak up on something not parkouring around a forest trying to chase the animal so I don't think you would use this technique for that much either. I know there are some cultures that made extensive use of horseback archery and side quivers were common, I've just never heard of running around on foot shooting being common.
Intersting read this one, also a few other posts I read were very interesting and nice to read about archery since I know nothing about it, learning something new everydayByte2222 said:
I also edited my post to "shoot" in stead of "fire"
, hadn't thought about that One question.
When you mention what side the arrow is supposed to be on based on "the way of" aiming.
I said in the opening post I've had some training with a gun, and depending on wether I have good time to fire or not I do it "differently". When I have time I pull out the gun from the holster and bring it in pretty close to my stomach and then I "push" both arms forward, after which I start to aim. If the situation would be fast and I don't have time to aim (self defence / life in danger situation) then I would stop at the push arms forward and not aim, but just shoot. Because the gun is basically an extension of my arms, and since I've done this movement many times, basically when I push my arms forward and start to aim (in a calm situation) I am always already in my target, it's just the precision I get from aiming.
Could this be applied to archery? The fact that he doesn't really "need to aim" but that he has done a certain movement so many times that he knows where the arrow is going (or close enough) just based on how the rest of his body is? (and the speed thing mentioned in the vid.)
Thanks for the answer
Fellow archer here. Boring old Olympic-style recurve, though. Nothing special.
Looking at the video I'd say it must be fun to be able to do so many kinds of trickshots, and I would love to try some myself, but the way they make it out as some sort revival of a long lost mystic art is kinda silly.
Looking at the video I'd say it must be fun to be able to do so many kinds of trickshots, and I would love to try some myself, but the way they make it out as some sort revival of a long lost mystic art is kinda silly.
That's so true. They used to make fun of me (in a good natured kind of way) for using dainty little arrows. I'm short, my arms aren't very long, so yeah, my ideal arrows are rather short. I also wasn't in the habit of using the thickest arrows regulations allow. If any of the larger archers tried to use my arrows they wouldn't be able to draw all the way to their reference point, ruining the shot.
I initially wrote 100lb+ before thinking... nah... even though I had a nagging feeling it was off by quite a fair bit.Hoplon said:
Nnnnnn... not really. Shooting through the bow (as opposed to around it) came about as a means to aim down the shaft. Shooting around it means the bow itself is in the way of your line of sight. Speaking from my own experience with both recurve & compound, my bow arm would be just shy of straight as I lift the bow, but the bowstring would be tensed in preparation (it's also down so that you don't drop the bow... sound weird? Yeah, kinda is, because most archers these days don't hold their bow, it just rests in their hand, tensing the bow hand can mess with aiming). Once raised, draw arm comes back while bow hand pushes out increasingly. Once at full draw, aim with as much languor as humanly possible... then wait for the click (or shock)! (Experienced recurve archers have clickers that helps bring about consistent shots thanks to refined technique, with inexperienced archers, it's sort of a pointless piece of kit.) As for the shock, since I used a back-tension release aid, the 'perfect' shot would scare the shit out of me.Guffe said:One question.
When you mention what side the arrow is supposed to be on based on "the way of" aiming.
I said in the opening post I've had some training with a gun, and depending on wether I have good time to fire or not I do it "differently". When I have time I pull out the gun from the holster and bring it in pretty close to my stomach and then I "push" both arms forward, after which I start to aim. If the situation would be fast and I don't have time to aim (self defence / life in danger situation) then I would stop at the push arms forward and not aim, but just shoot. Because the gun is basically an extension of my arms, and since I've done this movement many times, basically when I push my arms forward and start to aim (in a calm situation) I am always already in my target, it's just the precision I get from aiming.
Could this be applied to archery? The fact that he doesn't really "need to aim" but that he has done a certain movement so many times that he knows where the arrow is going (or close enough) just based on how the rest of his body is? (and the speed thing mentioned in the vid.)
Thanks for the answer
The guy doesn't bother aiming as, for the most part, he doesn't have to, given the range of most of his trick shots. Shooting around the bow allows for high shot frequency, but a single archer on his/her own doesn't justify it, a couple thousand of them does. *shrug*
I sincerely hope that archery in video games takes a few pointers from this.
Not only is it possible, but it looks awesome as fuck. Yet for some reason, we still favour the 'ole quiver method(probably due to in no small part to Hollywood as shown in the video) and resigning archers to sniper instead of skirmisher roles.
Not only is it possible, but it looks awesome as fuck. Yet for some reason, we still favour the 'ole quiver method(probably due to in no small part to Hollywood as shown in the video) and resigning archers to sniper instead of skirmisher roles.
His movements seemed to coincide with how I move as an archer during larp. It looks a bit goofy, but those stances and such are just a very natural balanced stance for something like archery. Some things he did looked a bit too fantastical though. But who knows, I'm not an expert.
As for practicality. I don't think he meant it as a melee range weapon, even if he showcased a few situations like that. It seems like a style that would fit well in small skirmish groups, having one or two melee allies to defend you. Or possibly for ambushes where you might need to be able to shoot in any number of stances, and need to be quick on your feet.
As for practicality. I don't think he meant it as a melee range weapon, even if he showcased a few situations like that. It seems like a style that would fit well in small skirmish groups, having one or two melee allies to defend you. Or possibly for ambushes where you might need to be able to shoot in any number of stances, and need to be quick on your feet.
That was interesting, thanks for posting!
As others have pointed out, it's impressive but I am not sure you can classify this rah-rah video as unbiased evidence. At no point do we see him perform these for anyone other than a camera man; there are no public demos in any of these shots even though some of them, such as simply running or rollerskating and shooting a line of targets, would be both safe and easy to set up in an archery range. So as interested as I am in the shots we see, I'm even more interested in knowing how many shots (with failed archery shots) were left on the cutting room floor.
If he can do even half of those tricks in public at an 80% reliability of success, then color me REALLY impressed.
(For people pointing out that longbowmen and other historical archers were static on a battlefield, yes, they were. But unless I'm mistaken, he's not trying to immitate them; he's going for mounted archers or chariot archers. If I remember my antiquities history, Egyptian and Assyrian era archers (horse or chariot) actually stopped to take aim and fire as a group, a little like longbowmen only able to move about a battlefield more quickly if they had to break rank and change grounds. But Mongol riders could ride and shoot rapidly at the same time, and so would require the kind of feats he's tryint to demonstrate, it seems. I can't really say though; I can kinda ride a horse and I can kinda shoot a bow, but if I tried to do both together, I would possibly be the first person in history to die from being trampled by a horse while impaled on my own arrow)
As others have pointed out, it's impressive but I am not sure you can classify this rah-rah video as unbiased evidence. At no point do we see him perform these for anyone other than a camera man; there are no public demos in any of these shots even though some of them, such as simply running or rollerskating and shooting a line of targets, would be both safe and easy to set up in an archery range. So as interested as I am in the shots we see, I'm even more interested in knowing how many shots (with failed archery shots) were left on the cutting room floor.
If he can do even half of those tricks in public at an 80% reliability of success, then color me REALLY impressed.
(For people pointing out that longbowmen and other historical archers were static on a battlefield, yes, they were. But unless I'm mistaken, he's not trying to immitate them; he's going for mounted archers or chariot archers. If I remember my antiquities history, Egyptian and Assyrian era archers (horse or chariot) actually stopped to take aim and fire as a group, a little like longbowmen only able to move about a battlefield more quickly if they had to break rank and change grounds. But Mongol riders could ride and shoot rapidly at the same time, and so would require the kind of feats he's tryint to demonstrate, it seems. I can't really say though; I can kinda ride a horse and I can kinda shoot a bow, but if I tried to do both together, I would possibly be the first person in history to die from being trampled by a horse while impaled on my own arrow)
Ok, I have no ideo about archery and bows. But: Marvel should hire this guy to finally make Hawkeye at least look really awesome.
In principle, you can shoot a bow without aiming as long as the target's at a very short distance and you don't need any accuracy. There are, however, two thorny issues.Guffe said:Intersting read this one, also a few other posts I read were very interesting and nice to read about archery since I know nothing about it, learning something new everydayByte2222 said:
I also edited my post to "shoot" in stead of "fire"
One question.
When you mention what side the arrow is supposed to be on based on "the way of" aiming.
I said in the opening post I've had some training with a gun, and depending on wether I have good time to fire or not I do it "differently". When I have time I pull out the gun from the holster and bring it in pretty close to my stomach and then I "push" both arms forward, after which I start to aim. If the situation would be fast and I don't have time to aim (self defence / life in danger situation) then I would stop at the push arms forward and not aim, but just shoot. Because the gun is basically an extension of my arms, and since I've done this movement many times, basically when I push my arms forward and start to aim (in a calm situation) I am always already in my target, it's just the precision I get from aiming.
Could this be applied to archery? The fact that he doesn't really "need to aim" but that he has done a certain movement so many times that he knows where the arrow is going (or close enough) just based on how the rest of his body is? (and the speed thing mentioned in the vid.)
Thanks for the answer
One: the further you pull the bow back, the more powerful the shot. On an olympic-style recurve, a quarter of an inch of draw length can cause the arrow to drop by 2 or 3 inches at 20 yards. Your 'instinctive' shot must be of repeatable draw length, meaning you basically just have to do a normal shot, with your arm fully extended and drawing to a reference point.
Two: as I've kinda already covered, bows are more sensitive to the user's technique than guns. A gun is basically just point-and-click but you can't just point a bow at a target, pull it back, let go and expect the arrow to be anywhere near the target. The situation you describe sounds like aiming by pointing it at the target, which might work for a gun but a bow is too sensitive.
Some archers do shoot instinctively (mostly field archers). Most of them use 'instinctive' as an excuse to ignore any coaching and advice directed at them but some of them do shoot with good technique and can shoot quite accurately, all things considered. They still shoot a lot slower than Lars because, while they may aim by instinct, their instinct is based on a stable shot technique/procedure that they've practiced and prepared. The shot itself must be stable for you to predict where the arrow will go.
Archers rarely make a conscious effort of aiming, it's too difficult, physically, mentally and psychologically. Physically because you can be holding enormous amounts of force which will make you shake no matter what, the act of forcing the sight pin onto the target is a significant mental effort and trying to force it is a great way to give yourself target panic. Target panic is what archers call it when you lose control of your shot - it's a psychological problem that isn't fully understood but is widely accepted to be rooted in the psychological trial of being judged for every single shot. Archers with target panic tend to tense up throughout the shot, making it less stable and more volatile (prone to some pretty impressive explosions). Compound archers, who shoot with a scope, are particularly prone to this problem and a good form of prevention/cure/mitigation is to focus your attention on the gold (or whatever else you're looking at) while looking through your sight pin (i.e. the ring of a recurve iron sight or a sticker-ring on a compound scope). The sight then naturally aligns with the target with no conscious effort. I'm not sure that was particularly relevant.
As you may have guessed, I don't immediately have an answer to your question and am just throwing some thoughts around. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking me either but I hope I've given you enough information to help (I'm also happy to chat about it via PM)
Well, the whole point of arrowheads being erm... arrow shaped was so that it was hard to pull it out of whatever it got stuck in and shoot it back. Although with narrower, armour-piercing designs it was probably easy enough to pull them out and fire them back.Sniper Team 4 said:
Anyway, I snopes'd the video and apparently it's legit. There's no CG stuff, although some of the camera angles and stuff are designed to make things look more impressive.
Archer of several years (though I've fallen off it this past year or so, need to get back into it)...its impressive but is focused heavily on a particular type of bow in a particular type of bow culture.
One size most definitely does not fit all for old archery styles. And its relevance to modern archery is also questionable, at least in terms of competition (useful for hunting maybe?). Despite that what he can do is very impressive.
One size most definitely does not fit all for old archery styles. And its relevance to modern archery is also questionable, at least in terms of competition (useful for hunting maybe?). Despite that what he can do is very impressive.
I just shot my bow upside down a bunch of times to spite youByte2222 said:
And i have always shot with the arrow on the left, i am righthanded
1+1=2