[merged] Archery: the films have it wrong
- Thread starter Quartz
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
Very cool. Not sure about the splitting arrows thing. A steel tipped arrow hitting a sword blade would not split in half around the blade, at least I'd have to see more evidence to believe it. Additionally, two steel tipped arrows striking in mid flight, head to head, would not split - there's just no way an arrow would have enough force behind it. Again, I'm not sure I buy that one. Sounds pretty far fetched. But, the holding arrows in the draw hand seems to be a bit more believable.
Hussar
Legend
Well, that kind of defeats his message a bit doesn't it? Since he's talking about the "ancient art of archery" and then using untipped arrows? I mean, even target arrows are still metal tipped. And, his arrows would have to be steel tipped to cut through the other arrows. IOW, the "splitting arrows" tricks he's doing are a bit ... overstated. 
trancejeremy
Adventurer
I don't think it debunks anything. He's using what appears to be almost a toy bow. Look at how you can see the arrows move fairly easily with your eye. That means they are going very slow.
Try doing this stuff with a bow that hunters use. The arrow would be there before he even moved.
Don't get me wrong, hitting the center of even a slow moving arrow is pretty impressive, but even then I suspect some chicanery was involved.
OTOH, holding the arrows in the drawing hand does make sense, but as that video shows, there are a number of historical depictions of that, so I'm not sure it was ever something in doubt, either.
Try doing this stuff with a bow that hunters use. The arrow would be there before he even moved.
Don't get me wrong, hitting the center of even a slow moving arrow is pretty impressive, but even then I suspect some chicanery was involved.
OTOH, holding the arrows in the drawing hand does make sense, but as that video shows, there are a number of historical depictions of that, so I'm not sure it was ever something in doubt, either.
Quartz
Hero
True, but films don't show that, do they?
The incessant, "with this trick, he has recovered abilities that nobody has done for centuries!!!1!" around this video really sets of my "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" alarms. So, my critical analysis kicks in...
Is he a good archer? Sure. But let us remember a few things:
This is an edited video. For each and every shot, we don't know how many times he tried it, and failed.
While he makes claims about how awesome it is, and even notes that modern archers shoot at fixed targets, most of his own targets are fixed! He runs and jumps around beforehand, but the target isn't moving. He can practice and rehearse that running and jumping to get it exactly right for exactly that setup.
Yes, he hits an arrow in flight. But, again, he does so in a staged way - he knows where that arrow is coming from. This is trick-shooting, not a battlefield simulation.
Is he a good archer? Sure. But let us remember a few things:
This is an edited video. For each and every shot, we don't know how many times he tried it, and failed.
While he makes claims about how awesome it is, and even notes that modern archers shoot at fixed targets, most of his own targets are fixed! He runs and jumps around beforehand, but the target isn't moving. He can practice and rehearse that running and jumping to get it exactly right for exactly that setup.
Yes, he hits an arrow in flight. But, again, he does so in a staged way - he knows where that arrow is coming from. This is trick-shooting, not a battlefield simulation.
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
I'm in with the chicanery. Lars is great at making 20-foot shots - in a video clip. I could do that too - given enough tries and my pick of which clips to use in my final video.
Why do archers need to make lots of rapid, close-range shots anyway? Isn't the point of a bow to be able to hit a target that's far away from you? Can't you just take a dagger along, in case your front line (hint: not the archers) gets swamped and you find yourself needing to make close-range attacks?
If filmmakers and artists of today mistakenly draw arrows on the right side of the bow, couldn't historical artists make the same mistake?
Quivers: yup, they probably dump out easily. Which is why I've seen them on hips as well, and interestingly, eschewed in favor of sticking arrows in the ground. After all, a kneeling stance is steadier than standing. But, if you're an archer and you need to run - you're probably beyond needing your arrows anyway.
Congrats to Lars on being really fast!
That's what horse- and chariot- archers train for, or at least the ones fighting in the traditional steppe and maryannu styles. Small groups riding forward and across the face of a target at close range, and releasing as many arrows into that target as they can while doing it. It would be even more important to gt your shots of fast and accurately if the other side is doing the same thing. It's perhaps less significant for the wave attacks practiced in the middle east by ghulam cavalry and others, but it certainly would't hurt that style. It would be a lot less significant for some archery styles, of course, especially massed shower-shooting by infantry or cavalry.
MarkB
Legend
Well, that kind of defeats his message a bit doesn't it? Since he's talking about the "ancient art of archery" and then using untipped arrows? I mean, even target arrows are still metal tipped. And, his arrows would have to be steel tipped to cut through the other arrows. IOW, the "splitting arrows" tricks he's doing are a bit ... overstated.
You're assuming that both arrows were identical. Maybe he used a steel-tipped arrow to split an untipped arrow.
