Holy fucking shit /k/.. this guy is the greatest archer I've ever seen:
He basically read the old historical accounts of how archers used their bows and arrows and he threw away all the modern shit and started practicing the old way. The result is fucking amazing!
Go take a look.... this guy does shit for real that you don't even see being done in movies using CGI because it might be too unbelievable...
>Or maybe the reason he's good is because of the fuckhuge amount of time spent practicing.
It's not just that, it's the technique. He has a second video comparing people on YT who are famous for shooting fast to himself... he can shoot 10 arrows in <5seconds while the second best is that Russian girl with 13 sec.
Hell, he's even faster than Legolas in LOTR/Hobbit movies!
The implication is that the only reason he can do all those fancy tricks is because he used some soopar sekrit bowl it's technique passed down from generation to generation.
About the only thing that makes a huge difference is shooting from the right side of the bow. And maybe not using a quiver.
Both are things that aren't exactly special.
Oh, you mean when the archers would draw their short swords and arming swords and knives on the off chance that the ranks and ranks of footmen screening and flanking them failed?
Using a bow close quarters is about as stupid as you can get.
There's no reason for modern people to know the skill, but there's a reason for it to exist.
It wasn't unheard of for archers to be forced into melee by an enemy closing ground with them.
No point for anyone to learn it anymore though.
Yes, then would be the time to use it.
As you say, a smart person would just pull a short sword instead of learning this shit, but it could work.
Arrow tip strong like katana.
Can cut through anything.
Gaijin go home.
It just reminds me of those people who go to the rifle range and try to be "tacticool"
Also nothing is over 20 yards for the shot in that video, I hunt, I'm routinely hitting out to 50.
Also that bow cannot be more than 30 pound draw if even that.
They're attempting to say that this guys technique was the actual technique used by archers for combat and such. Or on the very off chance I heard it all wrong, they at the least heavily implied it.
The biggest problem is that holding the arrows in your hand in a combat situation is entirely impractical. You're an archer, you're sitting back behind lines with the protection of your foot soldiers in front of you. You don't place down rapid shots, holding the arrows just makes things harder. Your arrows are stuck in the ground at your feet or in your quiver, and you release in a volley as ordered, until you're given a release at will command at which point you pick your own targets. You don't trying to fire off as many shots a second as you can. Arrows take time and money to make, you don't have an unlimited supply, you'd run out of arrows and your buddy Lewis the Third won't share any of his because the commander also only gave him a set amount. Arrows had to stretch across the time frame of a battle, not just 5 minutes.
>it could work
Right, just like someone could cut down a tree with a sword. You use a tool for the purpose it was made, the ONLY time you use a bow in close quarters is to club someone with it until you can draw your own sword. You never do any fancy bullshit like "rapid fire arrows in hand" because it's the stupidest shit possible and would get you killed.
>this guys technique was the actual technique used by archers for combat and such
no way, from the pictures in the video it's mostly from medieval england, those guys had bows from 80-100 lbs draw weight
Him vs uncle Jerry battling to the death, who wins?
>Arrows had to stretch across the time frame of a battle, not just 5 minutes.
I remember reading about a roman battle where they got forced into a corner and shot to hell
Their plan was to wait unti lthe archers ran out of arrows.
They surrendered once they realised that they were constantly bringing more arrows with camel trains.
Alright, fine I'll accept that it's theoretically possible, only because I've gone full retard at the archery range and fired 3 arrows at once, just to see if I could. However, both things are horribly impractical. This is not "the true technique" or however these guys tried to put it. It's dumb, it's impractical, was never used as stated. Just like my retarded 3 arrows at once.
That was one situation in which slingers had a pretty significant tactical advantage. Depending on the terrain of the battle, they could gather ammo.
Couldn't do tight formations, though.
>As an archer this made me cringe, hard
That's because you're a giant fаggоt. And you shouldn’t call yourself an archer... you're just a baby enthusiast with a shitty compound bow that any retard can shoot.
I... what? I'm not sure if you're trying to agree with me or not. Did you read the full first sentence or did I accidentally trigger you, because I don't want to be "that guy" who tries to correct someone agreeing with him. But yes, your point was the one I forgot to include. In a battle situation, or any situation really, attempting this "technique" with a proper poundage bow would be so difficult as to not be worth trying. Your arms would get tired quicker than they should, your fingers would take unnecessary stress and by the end of the day you wouldn't want to do it again. I'd like to see this guy using his technique for a few hours straight. This is all assuming of course he even has the strength to pull the bow that many times that quickly.
>you're just a baby enthusiast with a shitty compound bow that any retard can shoot.
Okay there non-archer friend
Did they mention draw weight in the video?
I watched it with the sound off
In what situation would you need to empty your handgun's, shotgun's, or rifle's magazine in 5 seconds? Military studies suggest that the more rounds fired, the more likely the enemy has been incapacitated.
If you're facing an enemy, you keep firing until they stop fighting. You don't stop and tell them that you'll only spare them 3 shots so please don't hurt me.
The guy is a trickshot archer and nothing more.
To say that his rapid fire shooting is applicable for combat is like saying olympic air rifles are suitable for modern warfare.
>It just reminds me of those people who go to the rifle range and try to be "tacticool"
It's actually the opposite from being tacticool. it's the guys with compound bows and sights and quivers and stabilizers and all kinds of other shit attached to their bows that are "tacticool".
Very. I tried shooting two at once before moving up to three. Shooting two arrows at once I was able to hit the "target" (read, the fuck huge bundle of hay but not the actual target in the middle). Both arrows were about 2 to 3 feet apart and they both stuck with the force I could throw them at. Maybe just a tad bit more. Like a 10 pound kids bow.
Not even close to being applicable.
For one, ammunition is really fucking cheap compared to arrows back when archers were a thing.
For two, you don't need to fire ten arrows in five seconds when you've got a thousand other dudes next to you aiming at the same area.
For three, it'd be really tiring if not downright impossible to rapid-fire a 120 pound bow
>To say that his rapid fire shooting is applicable for combat is like saying olympic air rifles are suitable for modern warfare.
Where are you getting that from? Straight from your ass? Are you an expert on historical use of archery in military conflicts?
Fact is that ancient military books are online now and you can read from them and see what the requirements for archers were and how they trained. To claim that you know better is beyond retarded. You're a nobody who has never seen any combat. And especially not combat with bows and arrows.
Another issue is movement.
He says that archers need to be able to move and that modern target shooting isn't realistic because you stand still. But is that really true?
Outside of archers on horseback, I have never heard (though, admittedly I've never looked) of archers needing to hit targets while on the move. That sounds distinctly Hollywood to my ears.
Everybody who thinks arrows and bows are outdated should watch Rambo again.
>itt we pretend somebody said something different from what they actually said and then attack that statement instead
But firearm ammunition requires SCIENCE! to make. An arrow only required a learned skill and a short knife. Not all battles will be between armies of 1000+ men each. Skirmishes between far smaller groups or even individuals was frequent. And finally, there's no need to fully draw that heavy bow for every shot. Your fullest draw is for the longest range shots which, coincidentally, are the slowest.
define close quarters. 7 yards is definitely close quarters, but it's still farther away than basically every melee weapon except the sarissa. I would prefer to stop someone while they're 7 yards away than within striking distance of a knife or sword, because that makes it less likely that I'm the one that's bleeding.
>guy firing off more arrows in a shorter amount of time than anyone here probably previously thought possible
>using original source documents and illustrations to base his techniques off of
>fires them in almost every mock combat situation possible
>hits his target every time
>yes, you retards, even fires at such a long distance he can arc his shot and still hit it
>a hurp durp this is completely inaccurate and worthless
I guess you idiots always have to shit on something. I'm pretty sure he can hit a 100m stationary man-sized target too, probably with his eyes closed.
It's a trade-off. Bows have a effective minimum distance (even for speed shooters) while blades require drawing a new weapon. An archer is obviously more skilled with a bow, so will they use their most skillful weapon at its disadvantage or switch to a weapon they're less skillful with?
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm saying that the concept of someone loosing 2 or more arrows at once in fiction could be from misunderstanding the historical illustrations of people holding extra arrows in their drawing hand.
Meteor Hammer and rope dart, maybe, but those are weird even by East Asian standards.
35# is enough to penetrate an unarmored man. It's not great, but the situation has already gone to shit if you need to speed-shoot a bunch of guys 10 yards away.
Still think it would be more sensible to run away instead of pulling some Legolas shit, though.
You're right, for the most part, for a one on one fight. Which I sort of doubt many duels were fought with a bow but I could be completely wrong on that. In most cases 7 yards in front of an archer, and all the other archers around him, would be the screen of footmen set to protect against flanking because if someone takes out your archers and still has his, he has a huge advantage.
ITT sperglord REALLY REALLY REALLY liked legolas from lotr
That was Carrhae, the battle that cost that faggot Crassus his life. Interestingly, the Parthian general was such a badass that his king ordered his execution because he thought the general was a threat to him.
Yeah this kind of shits all over every other archer without proper justification.
He's a speed archer with the magic of youtube editing to make it seem like he can be impossibly good and get these kinds of shots on the first try when he works hard to get them perfect like everyone else.
His groups are shit compared to those static archers but it is true he has balls and motion control to do shit like get shot at with a bow.
You do realize that for the majority of history, up till the end of the bronze age, all foot soldiers were archers as well? Both the Egyptians and Assyrians primarily relied on archers in battle, and would mainly use chariots to take them into firing range, and from then on it was them moving on foot until they were close enough to hit each other with short blades.
Alright let's set the record straight.
1: His methods are suitable and useful for close combat against lightly armoured opponents.
2: His methods would not be suitable for long ranged formation archery. Full draw lengths on heavy bows for maximum range, accuracy, and penetration heavily decreases one's ability to launch arrows with speed. There are not many archers who can get ten arrows downrange with a hundred pound bow in any space of time measured in seconds who is not winded afterwards. Additionally, battlefield formation fighting calls for less individual movement, meaning the fancy moving trickshots are not useful for a foot archer formation.
3: I will not take it for granted that he can penetrate a proper combination of rivetted maille and heavy layered gambeson. The video does not adequately detail the method of manufacture for the test armour, which leads me to suspect loose, thinly weaved rings on a thin or improperly produced gambeson. The mannequin underneath also has no give as a human meat/water sack would. Use ballistics gel, or a pig.
This guy is goofy as all fuck. What's up with all that extra arm movement? I'm surprised he's not running with his arms trailing behind him.
Also, he's drawing that bow like a quarter of the draw length. That's like saying I can punch 20 times in a second because my punches are 1 in.
Despite that, he does have a lot of practice and is good at the things he's doing.
OP, you got trolled hard and you are most likely a moron for falling for this shit...
some people here are jealous, rest re jus trucking retarded.. it's /k/ after all... can't expect much more from grown men who worship little jap cartoon girls.
Yes, I am aware. But I also doubt that THOSE archers were using this guy's "technique". Anyway, my examples are medieval based because, well I could be wrong but that seemed to be what the focus of this "technique" was; english archers and european archers in the medieval period.
>It's not like those.
I watched the video and they made a case for how it was, with evidence.
Exactly, but browse the thread and half the fags are saying "muh longbows, muh penetration, muh formations".
Also going off of what >>24451834 said. Most pitched medieval battles had designated people to run supplies from the baggage train to the soldiers. Archers would rarely run out of arrows unless they got separated or cut off from the train.
But he's making it out to be a MUCH bigger deal then it is. With the implication that if your DON'T do it like he does it (nothing more than putting the arrow on the other side of the bow and learning to use both hands) then you're doing it all wrong because his way is so much better.
>The practical purpose it serves is to give me a steadier shot.
Do you use your nugget in shooting competitions while standing?
then it's not tacticool, but you're a retard for using a nugget in a competition.
>very good at something useless
it's very related.
I don't want to be good at spoon balancing.
Their evidence was paintings which zoom in so that you can only see a single archer.
Other than that he just says "I read books"
They provided pictures and sources. Do you want them to read a bunch of books out to you like a 12 year-old in pre-school?
Of course, he's making a youtube video. Shit was overly flashy. But calling him retarded and what he does bad and shit is just unjustified. It's the kind of shit people say to gun owners.
Bipod is not, foregrip is. Foregrips may offer additional stability for followup shots, but followup shots are not a thing on a bolt-action rifle.
Tacticool accessories offer a legitimate use. What makes them tacticool is when they're on the gun but they won't actually be used for that purpose. A peq-2 is useful when you need to designate targets at night when you're all wearing night vision. It is tacticool when some random fag has it on his AR at the range.
Of course they wouldn't be using his technique, no historical archers would. My points to counter your statement are that they weren't sitting stationary behind a mass of infantry, and they weren't all sitting there waiting for some idiot to yell loose, they were moving around and firing as fast as they could at any target they saw.
He was talking about assyrian and babylonian archers as much as he was medieval european ones.
I think the focus wasn't so much on "Everyone else is bad and should feel bad", but more "I think this is how they really did it, and look at all this wacky stuff doing it that way lets me do."
>Their evidence was paintings which zoom in so that you can only see a single archer.
>Other than that he just says "I read books"
>You are now aware that this is actually where the vast majority of historical knowledge comes from.
Seriously do you even understand how history works?
What this what you expected:
"Hi, this is Anumaptai. We found his bones in the desert in the middle east, and brought him back to life. He lived 3,000 years ago, and he's taught me how to shoot a bow."
You're applying this to pre/early post bronze age, right? In that case I won't argue with you, because I don't know too much about that time period. If you say they didn't stay stationary and wait for too many orders, then I'll take your word and that's how it was.
>all this buttrage
Idk I thought it was pretty cool. Id still use a compound bow with sights and other fancy shit for hunting that I can only shoot a few times in a minute or whatever, but I still thought it was cool.
I think the "wacky" shit is what a lot of people are calling bullshit on, and the main downfall of the "technique". Why bother learning this strange way that lets you do "wacky" shit when in order to fight a battle all you have to learn his how to stand straight, aim, and release where you want. You don't need anything fancy to put arrows down range.
I was. However, even during medieval times archery was more than standing in the rear and taking turns shooting. In most medieval engagements, archers were always placed in the front, and the only times in they fought in the rear is if they were on elevated ground, so they could see who they were shooting. They also didn't fire in volleys, when they saw an opportunity they took it. During the 100 years war, English peasants were ordered by law to begin training with the longbow beginning in childhood, that fact alone should tell you that during battle they were doing something more simple than pointing their arrows at an incline and all shooting at once when told.
Yeah, I'd agree that some of the silly shit was just that, silly. But he does at least make a strong argument for the idea of being able to loose several arrows quickly.
Volley shooting isn't any good after the infantry engage, then being able to sight, aim, and pick off a target at speed has some legitimate value.
I'd be interested to see him combine distance standing shooting with his speed techniques.
And they can laugh at him all they want, he split an incoming arrow in two. He clearly has some fucking skill.
Right, I completely agree. But my points about archers having soldiers in front of them was just that, if they were charged the archers didn't just stand there like deer and take a sword charge. They fell back from the front and let the footmen do their job. Ideally an archer doesn't partake in close combat, and the point was if he did, he didn't use his bow shooting from 5 feet, he clubbed the bastard and used a sword or axe or knife or whatever he had that didn't involved have to try and "rapid shoot".
which one of you faggots posted this? freaking gold, and copy pasta worthy
"Hey guys, Redditor checking in! (I announce I'm from Reddit so you know that I'm knowledgeable about the topic) As an archery and sword fighting expert, I can assure you that I would slay this man with one fell swoop of my katana. This guy is just like some child running around in the backyard with his toy plastic archery set from the dollar mart. For the redditors and more intelligent people here (synonyms, really, but i digress), this man's character can be portrayed with a Reddit™ Meme™ known as Annoying Childhood Friend™.
Top text: Gets a cheap bow an arrow
Bottom text: Brags that he has rediscovered the old art of archery and gets on the History Channel.
If you didn't understand this meme properly, you can sign up for Reddit and go to /r/AdviceAnimals to learn more!"
>freaking gold, and copy pasta worthy
That's because it is copy pasta you twit.
People have been going to videos posted on reddit and posting shit like that for months.
The basic format is the same, and they just tailor it to fit the context of the video.
> I read a book that said so
>doesn't reference book
>doesnt quote book
>literally says a bunch of shit and validates it by saying "books"
If he can name a book, cite a passage and quote the relevant bit that proves his point I'll pay more attention.
whether it's completely historically accurate or not, it's still cool as fuck.
And as someone who enjoys shooting traditional bows, I wish i could do even a small percentage of the shit he does.
Which I specifically mentioned.
The video implied that modern archery isn't historically accurate due to the fact that they are standing still. Which, combined with the video itself, implies that archers ran around the battlefield on foot, shooting at bad guys while they were moving. Which resulted in the question.
I think the purpose with shooting fast with arrow was to create panic and hinder the opponent formation rank.
You can't really think when this asshole shoot 20 arrows at you in short amount of time.
it's hilarious that he is so accurate and dexterous with a bow because he is a huge awkwardly moving faggot. do you see how he jumps and moves? it's so bad.
but his skill is undeniable. and his bow is strong enough to penetrate chainmail at whatever distance he was shooting in the video.
obviously he could not to the same with a super heavy draw weight bow. but he is not showcasing the skills of an english longbowman.
given his lack of athleticism i bet if you threw him back 2000 years he'd be a middling archer. it'd be freaky to see what a professional life-long mongol horse archer could do.
Exactly. For all we know, those paintings were by artists. AKA, the people who aren't good at anything technical.
What we are seeing is the equivalent as the portrayal of guns with current artists.
Look at pic related, imagine you are alive in the year 3000, and that the pic related is how you got your idea about our weapons and techniques.
Very, a lot, so much.
Europeans uses index and middle finger draw from the left, hence the famous English insult of V sign. Europeans also draw back from an extended bow arm.
Asia use thumb draw from the right. Mongols are famous for this and their speed. Asian draw their bow from the top and extending both the bow and draw hand, most likely due to horse archery influence.
Not to sound like a weeaboo, but Asian variety of bows are better because of the recurve design. Even their giant bows, ie Japanese Dai Kyu Yumi shoot longer and heavier arrows at the same draw weight.
Tested by the English Master of Weapons guy. I don't think he's a weeaboo.
With the pathetic poundage of these bows this super sekrit bowjitsu could be defeated by a gambeson. A malnourished peasant would rape this guy's face with some regional farming tool.
Hoyt is good, just avoid the Formula series if you're starting out. They use special snowflake limbs.
Watch the video then try again. He pierces Gambeson under chainmail with rapid shots.
Short bow does not mean shit bow
Not Built like a brick shithouse does not mean weak as a bean
>160 posts / 67 posters
OP confirmed for being the only samefag defending this bunny hop weeaboo shit
Really though its just trick shooting mized with close combat archery that stopped being practical centuries ago. It wasnt "forgotten" it was just made obsolete.
Does the guy have skill? Absolutely. But so did rainman.
My real beef is him acting like ANY other form of archery is wrong.
Not op here
Obsolete and forgotten are seperate, the fact so many are in here saying it's BS and impossibru is the exact difference.
Chances are he's not intending to come across as "ANY" archery is wrong, more he's likely been told what he's doing is wrong dozens if not hundreds of times he'll be happy to have some proof that it's viable
Also, it doesn't look like it penetrates. You can see the black arrow head, but part of that is probably because his dummy is wood.
I doubt that his armor is indeed armor, and his "test" is piteously flawed.
Viable for what? I just skimmed the video and what I gleaned was:
>super sentai bowfu
>Matrix runs along walls
>Some video of legolas
>Quivers are dumb because you can't run full tilt through dense woods
>Everyone but me is wrong and here's some pictures from google images of half a dozen different archers from as many different cultures that all used bows differently to prove it
If this had been a scholarly discussion where he lays out his research we wouldn't be pointing and laughing this hard. This is like one of those Ultimate Ninja Warrior books you see in the Martial Arts/Other section of the book store. Or deadliest Warrior. Yeah, this guy would be a great guest on that show.
Just going to point to 4:36 where you can clearly see full penetration of both the Mail and the Gambeson to a point where only the arrows shaft is visible
this is a pair of 5 minute videos however, to verify the reliability a longer documentry would be nice
however you are correct that this is crazy bunny hop, but that trying to illustrate that the Static archer is not necessarily correct.
>My real beef is him acting like ANY other form of archery is wrong.
I will be more than willing to admit that this guy is good. Scary good in fact. But that's due more to the fact that he trained his ass off than that he found out the soopar sekrit lost bowjutsu technique of nocking your arrow on the right side of your bow.
Your working on the assumption that he hasn't done scholarly discourse and research.
The video looks ninja warrior because the 5 minute documentary is meant to look sensational, The fact remains He can loose Arrows twice as fast as his contemporaries and can make shots that conventional bow knowledge would deem impossible
That's the bit I'm drawing my conclusions from. I have no idea how much if any of that is a legitimate test. I find it hard to believe that his technique magically makes a weak bow able to defeat armor specifically designed to protect against arrows on the battlefield.
I'm inclined instead to think that:
A. His chain mail is possibly wool painted to look like chain mail
B. His gambeson is not constructed correctly, or from the proper materials
C. Wood is not ballistic gell, and is a poor human body simulator
D. And finally I doubt that it even penetrated enough to cause death or even serious wounding, anyway. Not that it's possible for you or me to know since this test was such a crock of shit.
Any of you care to point me to a source of Him saying that any other archery is wrong? Because as far as I saw He never spoke and the only time a statement like that was made it was quoting a book on Saracen Archery.
Ok, You're. Can we not start being petty grammar Nazi's if we have nothing to really add
Thankyou I legitimately didn't know that one, Judging from the sources purported to in the videos this technique seems to be base more in the east, what are the major construction differences over there? is it possible / likely that their bows where rolled the other hand?
Your post didn't leave me with much to reply to. Do you have any links to his extensive research? That would be more interesting than watching a doughy white guy try to be legloas.
Not specifically, no. But it was definitely implied.
If he had just wanted to show off his skills, he would have done so. "Hey, look how good I am. I can shoot arrows out of the air. Also, I use a different technique than most people, but whatever"
Instead, it was "Hey, look at all the things I do differently because of muh historical accuracy. Now here's video of me doing cool things while some guy talks over me about historical accuracy."
You are spot on, in most eastern techniques they use a ring release, which is closer to a mechanical release in technique. In Japan the technique is to actually grip the sides of the arrow on both sides.
That's actually my interest in this thread I'm here after seeing the 1st video trying to
B check the thread for legit responses
as most people are just looking and taking dramatic leaps based on the tone of the clip, rather than wanting to actually know more.
The latest threats etc have been fired up since the start of the month but Google has turned up old threads on some forums 3 years ago discussing whether or not the idea could be done.
Well if you find something, post it. The video in the OP is pure drek. I compared it earlier in the thread to Deadliest Warrior, it's that bad. Skip to around 5:00.
2 links I've found that both say fairly similar things
Nothing historical yet but I am approaching this as a layman so i'm not sure what results to narrow down.
He's so far done at leasts 2 things that conventional archery Claimed was Impossible. The Saracen 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds and the Legend of Hiawatha Loosing 10 arrows before the 1st lands, that incidentally is the world record he holds with 11 before the 1st lands.
1 alludes to a Friend of his who researched "War Archery" but doesn't give a name
>why has it been forgotten today?
Skill Speed doesn't get you that much dps.
I've found His youtube channel with his record
There are less videos but you can see some of the videos are from several years ago when he was just learning the idea of the technique.
It seems like the idea came to him while watching archers currently and then invented this way of shooting and then has found there are several eastern sources that show techniques that are similar. He at no point says this is definitely how they shot and states that he is still trying to learn more himself
Also the Bow He shoots with is 35lb draw weight, noticeably lower than War bows but his physical strength is not that high compared to what one would have expected a fighter of the time to have
Well, that's better. I wish the OP's video was less "muh anceint ninjitsu sekrits" and more "hey, look at this neat thing I do in my spare time.
I'm pretty impressed by the actual skill, like I am by parkour or people who shoot in open divisions with race guns. I just don't see the real world application. I don't think real skirmishers in the ancient world would take those kinds of insane risks.
I think part of the problem is that the original video makes the mistake of assuming fast mounted archery is what was useful everywhere, even though historical evidence points to Western Europe going almost exclusively to either crossbows for armor penetration, or the English longbow for heavy arrow artillery.
>awake for two days
>Read this thread before going to bed
>Dream about running around a huge battlefield of middle aged crusader armor humans and wizards fighting demons and zombies while I shoot shit with a bow like in the video
>All this while Moots voice gently talks to me from the Q&A
That was one cool dream.
> GET SOME
> Well let's see what we got here on the timer, i'd say that's a .56 for the first shot and a .14 for the second.
> First one got him a bit high, but the second one i'm quite pleased with
Niggas what are you all complaining about?
HE FUCKING 360 NO-SCOPED AN ARROW IN FLIGHT AND SPLIT IT IN TWO! That's takes some serious shit to do!
Holding arrows in your draw hand is also OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR to using a quiver. I literally cannot imagine a scenario where using a quiver is better, so at the very least any of you who practice archery should try it out.
The technique of holding the arrow on the outside of the bow reminds me of a thumb draw, and no one doubts that works well.
What we need is some peer review. Keyword being PEER. If you practice archery, or know someone who does, try out the techniques and make a video. Even someone who doesn't practice for as long as he did could probably make SOME comments about it's usefulness.
>That's takes some serious shit to do!
No one is saying that's not impressive
>I literally cannot imagine a scenario where using a quiver is better
any time you need more than 3 arrows?
The problem we have with him is that he's acting like it's the only way anyone should use a bow and is slandering other methods because they don't suit his legolas bullshit.
From studying old pictures of people I discovered that some historical people moved their limbs like this. This means that you can walk like an egyptian. Which is both hipper, and better.
What other methods?
Here is what he's doing, broken into self-contained pieces:
>holding arrows in the draw hand
Point: Reduces the need to reach for the quiver, which is good from a standpoint of speed, while also being good for stealth (less movement) and for accuracy (less reason to look away from your target)
Counterpoint: It's hard to do it? He says he spent years perfecting it, so presumably it's not something you can just pick up instantly.
>drawing arrows on the outside of the bow
Point: Reduces the number of motions required to loose an arrow, resulting in a simpler, faster draw. You're less likely to fumble an arrow because you never have to let go of it, and the motion is simpler and easier.
Counterpoint: the arrow lacks stability and has to be braced against the thumb on the opposite hand to stay in place. This could theoretically be fixed by switching to a thumb draw, but that may be incompatible with holding arrows in the draw hand.
>drawing and loosing in one motion
Point: This is instinct shooting, used by many archers today, though not a majority by far. It revolves around the concept of aiming-without-aiming, just like how you'd throw a ball or a rock.
Counterpoint: It's extremely difficult to train yourself for instinct shooting and requires constant practice to maintain.
3 isn't in contention as it's a widespread technique used in the modern day, 1 is dead practical for anyone who bothers putting the time in to get good at it, and 2 is a modification to a standard draw in order to loose arrows faster.
He's not saying he's fucking Apollo, he's saying that the style he's recreating lets you shoot really fast, and that combined with instinct shooting lets you hit targets at middling distances rapidly with high accuracy, which is decidedly NOT what people think when they think about ancient archery.
>Most modern archers are only passably accurate standing still
>This guy is accurate with multiple arrows while flipping through the fucking air
I think he has every right to talk shit about everyone else, none of whom are as accurate as he is even standing still.
Simply put, he makes modern archers look like rank amateurs the same way competitive quick shots make most people's draw and fire drills look pathetic.
tl;dr He can back up his shit talking. Get over it.
he shot through an arrow being shot at him by another person literally beating the fucking robin hoods trick
disregard how useful or not he would be on a medieval battlefield, you can't fucking deny his insane skill
Even though its impressive, it is completely useless for any kind of modern bow use.
Also following what medieval drawings depict isnt concrete evidence. The artists are known to have no clue what they are on about and draw shit to make it look good.
>makes modern archers look like rank amateurs
Id like to see what kind of groupings he could get at 40, 60 and 100 meters. All of his shots in that video are under 15m. I doubt it would be anywhere near what a modern archer would get.
Motherfucking nigga at 1:40 with the watermelon bow
european armor around the 1000-1200 timeframe was fairly resistant most arrows. there's accounts during the crusades of european knights looking like porcupines while fighting because of all the arrows stuck in them
later on more powerful bows like the longbow pierced armor, so armor techniques had to change from padding and chainmail to heavier plates and such
>I bet he's not as good at long range
I'm sure its irrelevant, as the point is battle archery. His ability to fire into a clump of a thousand men as they charge is probably just as identical as anyone else's. Even assuming he isn't accurate at long range, he doesn't need to be.
So, even assuming you're perfectly correct:
>Modern archer can shoot gnat's ass at long rnage
>Irrelevant for firing into groups of enemy soldiers
>Inaccurate at close range, thus making them useless beyond opening volleys
>Ancient archer inaccurate at long range
>Irrelevant for firing into groups of enemy soldiers
>Accurate at short range, thus making them a formidable foe in close quarters
Long range archers and short range archers are near identical in volley fire. Long range archers get BTFO in short range combat while short range archers do not.
+1 Crazy Dutch guy
Where in the FUCK are you getting this from?
>Modern archer can shoot gnat's ass at long rnage
>Irrelevant for firing into groups of enemy soldiers
>Inaccurate at close range, thus making them useless beyond opening volleys
At close range, I used to be able to stack arrows on top of each other. Try again.
>Accurate at short range, thus making them a formidable foe in close quarters
Archers got fucking crushed when forced into close range all through history. There isn't a single example of archers in the open devastating a foe close up, aside from a few cases where they went to swords and outfought an attacker. It was well understood that they were dead if they got caught in melee.
He's got a lot of trick shots and is using lighter bows, but at the core he's right.
Shooting with the arrow on the farside of the bow rather than the nearside like all modern compound bows are designed to do is superior if the objective is releasing arrows faster.
Quivers were common, though made differently than seen in the video. However it was also common to have multiple arrows in hand rather than reaching behind you for each shot.
It would naturally be an initial "arrows in hand" technique to first have the extra arrows in the hand that holds the actual bow, having the full benefit of your right hand to pull the string with just one arrow, and then for persons more advanced to have multiple arrows laced in the fingers of the hand pulling the string.
What's yet to be seen is how fast can he shoot with a bow with real torque needed.
>Quivers were common, though made differently than seen in the video. However it was also common to have multiple arrows in hand rather than reaching behind you for each shot.
Quivers were worn sling across the hips. Which, incidentally, makes for a much fatser draw.
There's also the simple fact that byzantine manuals speak of the importance of speed in shaking arrows loose from the quiver-meaning the ONLY professional soldiers using bows in Europe for several centuries weren't holding arrows in their hand.
>The implication is that the only reason he can do all those fancy tricks is because he used some soopar sekrit bowl it's technique passed down from generation to generation
Are you a functional illiterate or just an american? Lars studied old manuals, you ass hat!
With such light draw weight, it'll barely scratch ANSI rated safety glasses. I mean he's using foam targets everywhere and shot chain mail off screen.
Anyone with basic archery or common sense would figure this out.
>like 20 pounds
we don't know but composite Asian bows have a much more smooth draw.
yes make him shoot an inferior type of bow and never use a superior bow like mongol or Asian composites. HHHUUURRRDUUUURR
>Archers got fucking crushed when forced into close range all through history.
This almost all medieval european stuff you are thinking about.
Think about steppe horse archers and pre-genpei war ancient Japan.
>muh draw weight
Rate of fire would decrease but his point still stands. Interestingly Kyudo uses the arrow on the right side and a spare arrow in the hand.
Coincidence? I think not...
>Think about steppe horse archers and pre-genpei war ancient Japan.
Steppe archers fared very, very fucking poorly in close range combat against everyone who wasn't also a steppe nomad. The Byzantines in particular defeated them by either a: outshooting them by wearing armor to reduce attrition
B: Spears at close range.
You do realize they hit with more or less the same amount of force, right? The advantage of a composite bow is in the ability to use it o horseback.
as an archer i found it impractical and silly. Even for medieval times that would be useless. unless you were a small force of scouts, in which you would be trained to that degree.
Historically, that was pretty cool education wise.
Though im still in love with my jennings compound bow.
try something that isnt shit.
i got a question:
why not have the arrows hanging off you left hand or the left side of the bow that way you dont have to learn to place the arrow on the right and aim that way but can shoot normally with one motion?
Loose an arrow, go to pull the bow string back, little gizmo on your right forearm holds the arrows, grab one and pull back in one motion, and loose another.
you can still run and move with it and dont have to learn that other garbage.
And works with compounds.
Hell, may work BETTER with compounds.
mongols were bitches who fought the shittiest of the shitties and used a fuck ton of horse archers.
When shit came to in non flat lands, cross bows, long bows, fortresses, heavy armor, ect mongols did jack shit.
Check out the second mongol invasion, barely did shit after the east euros figured their faggotry out.
>Guy researches ancient archery techniques
>/k/ screams the research was shit
>Uses techniques he says he learned in order to shoot faster
>/k/ screams there isn't enough penetration and the bow isn't "good enough"
>Video shows him shooting through chainmail and shooting at distance
I know it looks stupid and autistic as fuck but there is clear video evidence that even if the research was dodgy, it's some effective technique. If I had a smaller bow with a weaker draw I might try it myself.
The problem I have with this, is that when he's doing his ninja hollywood shit he's not even close to fully drawing the bow. The draw weight on that thing cannot be any more than 30 or 35lbs, and halfway drawing a 35lb bow would do almost no significant damage unless he was reallllly close to his target.
Also pissed me off when the video claimed modern archers only shoot with one eye, when that couldn't be farther from the truth.
Still his nock/draw speed is impressive, especially when he picks a single arrow up and gets that shit on instantly. His fast shooting is also pretty crazy since he almost gets a full draw every time. Cant say much about his accuracy when it's all recorded, but if it didn't take him a ton of tries to do some of that shit, I'm jelly.
It's just that damn ninja shit... almost everything else was really cool.
When he's shooting through the chainmail, he's getting a full draw or very close to it, changing how he shoots. He doesn't shoot the same way for every scene in the vid, which is actually pretty damn impressive.
Sometimes he goes halfway or a little less, other times he goes 3/4 of the way or a little less. It depends on what he's trying to shoot, and how fast. Obviously his slower barrages are when he draws deeper, and when he speeds it up really quick he goes half or less.
Maybe if you want to know what books he read you should ask him instead of expecting him to spell out every reference and page number like to some mongoloid which you are. Its a youtube video not a research paper.
Or perhaps, you know, the horseback archers and chariot archers who wanted to throw down as much lead as possible before hitting enemy ranks?
Please report to Pharaoh immediately for reeducation.
What is Song Dynasty and the fortification of China? They all got BTFO by the Mongols. Mongols being shit at besieging is a shit tier misconception.
>The implication is that the only reason he can do all those fancy tricks is because he used some soopar sekrit bowl it's technique passed down from generation to generation.
OP didn't imply that at all, stop being retarded. He's amazingly skilled and gets even better results because of the technique, because that has to be written for you, again.
>Both are things that aren't exactly special.
They are very special if the video is correct in claiming these methods were overlooked historically.
>combat archery at all
God it's almost if he would have to have meant before firearms existed.
>no one ever used bows for close combat like ever.
And maybe this was an assumption based off the belief it was impractical, which is clearly false now.
>The biggest problem is that holding the arrows in your hand in a combat situation is entirely impractical. You're an archer, you're sitting back behind lines with the protection of your foot soldiers in front of you. You don't place down rapid shots, holding the arrows just makes things harder. Your arrows are stuck in the ground at your feet or in your quiver, and you release in a volley as ordered, until you're given a release at will command at which point you pick your own targets. You don't trying to fire off as many shots a second as you can. Arrows take time and money to make, you don't have an unlimited supply, you'd run out of arrows and your buddy Lewis the Third won't share any of his because the commander also only gave him a set amount. Arrows had to stretch across the time frame of a battle, not just 5 minutes.
Thank god an expert has arrived.
This is practiced by hardly anyone in the modern world, you have never learned the skill, and yet you know enough about it to explain why "it can't work".
It's historically accounted for, it was practiced technique.
He's been forcing himself forever, surprised it took him this long to get popular
I just wish a stronger person would do it so we could see it done with a bow that could actually kill people beyond 10 yards
>If he can name a book, cite a passage and quote the relevant bit that proves his point I'll pay more attention.
Arguing with anons aside, he's not making a historical claim for peer review. He just taught himself something he read about, demonstrated it, glossed over where he got it from, and claimed modern conceptions of archery are based off of a modern sport and contradict what current practitioners conceive to be possible.
Not exactly an asshole spreading misinformation. If I remember right he didn't even claim how or when real archers did this, just that they could.
>Exactly. For all we know, those paintings were by artists. AKA, the people who aren't good at anything technical.
This is a good point, but artists weren't deviant art non-conformists back then.
This post is so absurdly retarded.
>Automatic weapons are useless because in war you must stand in formation and fire in volleys!
Fucking brits and their abnormal fetish for being a large, immobile target with no cover.
I was talking about his realllly fast shooting technique
At that part his style is different. He draws much further and shoots slower, while also using what looks like a heavier draw weight bow. That's not what I'm talking about. Still, what he did there was impressive from an accuracy point.
>They are very special if the video is correct in claiming these methods were overlooked historically.
Different techniques were used at different places and times for different reasons. Mongol horse archer held their arrows in their hands and placed the arrow on the right side because they needed the speed it provided. They didn't do this in medieval europe but that doesn't make them wrong, they simply favored power of speed and used their extra fingers for drawing the bowstring instead of holding arrows. They weren't riding a horse so they could just stick the arrows in the ground next to them anyway. Them placing the arrow on the other side was a result of it being more accurate when using the 3 finger draw instead of your thumb, due to the way the bowstring rolls.
The techniques in the video aren't anything special they are just different from european style, but european styles are different for a reason.
People are acting like the only time a bow ever killed someone was in a war formation.
Are you telling me a guardsmen never killed someone running away with a bow? Bandits never ambushed people? A bow was never used in self defense?
All of you just need to go fuck yourselves
"HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME, IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE IGNOOORE"
If a cloud of hate made out of steel and wood from a formation of men twenty long and four deep was coming at me, I don't think moving would help me too much. Especially if I were stuck in the middle of another formation of men.
But does it take preference over what that faggot knows?
Especially when what that faggot knows is certain truth.
He said modern archery is a bastardisation and acted like he had the real deal.
From this thread it's made pretty clear that his method, while impressive, is not the real deal.
>primary sources from hundreds to thousands of years ago
I think I know which one is probably more reliable...
Also, when did OP ever say modern archery is a bastardization (which, as we can see from older manuals, paintings and all other evidence, it is.)?
"Placing the quiver in the belt solved most problems, and if the archer is horseback, the quiver could be placed on the horse in front of the rider. These methods were the most common ways to use a quiver."
Taken directly from the video description. He's not suggesting that not using a quiver is a good idea.
The guy is definitely good but is everyone going to ignore the fact that he looks and acts autistic? I'm honestly not trying to be mean either. He has autistic features and just study his movements. The way he freezes for 5 seconds after a shot makes me think he is autistic.
For those claiming that the historical precedent for this isn't legitimate, look up Kyudo. Japanese have literally been teaching people to hold their arrows in their hand and place them on the opposite side of the bow all along, and still do.
Vid related, Kyudo practitioner doing the exact same thing in a video years before Lars' first video.
It's worth mention that the japanese use fuckhuge asymmetrical bows so the "HURR DURR IT'S USELESS WITH LONGBOWS" argument is false.
If anything the real crime here is this European guy ripping off based Nips and claiming this as his own discovery.
Kyudo is also a cavalry technique, and the bows are assymetrical because they didn't have the right materials to make laminate composite bows like the mongols did, so they made huge bows nocked low enough and tillered to fire from a horse.
Which still doesn't mean jack shit for the longbow argument, because those are still significantly heavier bows meant to be fired from formations.
>and the bows are assymetrical because they didn't have the right materials to make laminate composite bows like the mongols did, so they made huge bows nocked low enough and tillered to fire from a horse.
Regardless of their reasons, they're still huge bows with comparably huge draw and an overall superior design to medieval longbows. They don't suddenly become shortbows because they were used on horseback.
>Which still doesn't mean jack shit for the longbow argument, because those are still significantly heavier bows meant to be fired from formations.
You literally just said in your post that Kyudo was used for cavalry.
>they're still huge bows with comparably huge draw
>Kyudo maxes around 66# draw
>English longbows have been recovered at an estimated 180# max
Two very different styles of archery, for different styles of warfare. Period.
This is the book that he is referencing I believe that is so hard for /k/ to find
Always traditional archers shitting on someone who does something they would struggle with. Yeah, the jumping and such is unnecessary and it seems a bit cringe worthy but he can still outshoot the shit out of most of the people where who are talking all the trash.
I just think it's impressive and there's a whole lot of nitpicking and shitflinging when it comes down to it, because people are jealous or think there's only one kind of archery. It's unsightly.
>mfw the AR lower is backwards with the grip coming out of the magwell
> taking time to aim
> Implying you should have time to aim
That was one of the points in the video. He doesn't take the time to aim, he points it and draws in one fluid motion releasing on the same instinct you probably use to click X to select shit on your game controllers.
Granted, some of his shots in the video probably took several takes much like the kid videos of trick sports shots.
This is a similar distance trick shooting with handguns are done.
>Westerners "discover" an amazing method that revolutionizes archery
>Asians have been doing it for centuries
>Mostly useless in European warfare context
>But makes a great youtube video of a guy who spend a shit-ton of time learning it and likely has freakishly fast reflexes naturally
>implying this kind of thing is new in any way
>in a european warfare context
>implying european "stand in one big, stationary, easily-targeted block and fire slow volleys" is relevant by any metric
Why do you have such a hard-on for what has been historically proven to be an awful strategy, while moving more and firing more often has been historically proven an effective strategy?