About that Lars Andersen video -- The real authority on this kind of thing, Mike Loades, posted the following commentary after being barraged with questions about this link. In a nutshell, Lars is generally great at what he does, but whoever put these videos together for him need to get their facts straight. It would have been great to share the post, but it would just have shared the same video over again without highlighting Mikes comment. During the past 48 hours I have received a stream of messages and e-mails asking me to comment on the latest Lars Andersen video. The number of those requests has now topped 100 and so I feel compelled to give some response. The first thing I wish to state, unequivocally, is that Mr Andersen has an extraordinary and enviable level of skill. He is very, very good at what he does. He is exceptionally quick at nocking and he has an incredible ability to track targets on the move, whether that movement be his own or the target or both. These are real skills and he is superb at them – the feat of splitting an incoming arrow is quite astonishing. However, although there are aspects of the commentary and Mr Andersen’s approach that I do agree with, there are also things I disagree with. First let us deal with the style of presentation. Such things will always be a matter of personal taste but, to my mind, the rather silly, over-sensational tone of the narration is extremely off-putting, not to mention the casual use of the word ‘fire’ to describe the act of shooting. Personally I find the setting of the gymnasium annoying – he makes it look too much like a kid’s playground. Mr Andersen’s antics seem a little too self-conscious and are accompanied with a rather disconcerting facial expression. These are all things that annoy me, and I suspect many others. There are many more, I am sure, who like its deliberately punky style and think it is being irreverent and edgy, challenging old orders. Such differences in taste we will never resolve. However I mention them because it is important to be aware of what we are responding to. It would be a big mistake to dismiss the many valid points that are made here, simply because the video style made it hard for us to take it seriously. There is a central point to all this - that war archers are able to shoot rapidly and on the move, whether they be horse archers or infantry archers. The film criticizes the modern approach to static archery. As a general principle, I agree with this. Mounted archery speaks for itself – both for rapid nocking and for shooting whilst on the move – but there is also plenty of evidence that infantry archers would at times shoot on the move. Certainly those in the Bayeux Tapestry appear to be doing so and I do believe that medieval archers , despite the fact that we often see their arrows staked in the ground, would move around to some extent when the fighting got very close. If nothing else, this film raises this as a good point for discussion. The film begins with the lofty claim that Mr Andersen uses ‘forgotten historical methods’ and mentions holding his arrows in the hand. Well I’m not sure who he thinks has forgotten these methods – I certainly haven’t and have shot with arrows both from the draw-hand and the bow-hand long before this video. Mounted archers all over the world regularly shoot with additional arrows held either in the bow-hand or the shooting hand. We practice on the ground walking, running and shooting at the same time. Indeed we also sometimes jump whilst shooting. We have to get used to shooting on the move and at constantly changing target angles and distances. Nothing ‘new’ here Mr Andersen. However I do wish I were as fast as you and as accurate as you – you are good, just neither unique nor revolutionary, nor a great historical investigator. There is a splendidly comic scene dismissing the practicality and historical provenance of shoulder quivers – quite right - but did anyone, outside Hollywood, think otherwise? It is the claim of ‘new discovery’ that is at fault here – not the basic fact. The commentary goes on to cite an Assyrian wall relief – showing multiple arrows held in the hand – and says the practice is 5,000 years old. It may be but the 645 BC Assyrian relief they exhibited is only a little over 2,500 years old, so hardly evidence of what was done 5,000 years ago. The narrator makes the claim, presumably on Mr Andersen’s behalf that ‘modern slow archery has led people to believe that war archers only shot at long distances’ – clearly neither have read my book The Longbow! I have long been a proponent of both rapid shooting and short-range on the battlefield. As a performance shooter, Mr Andersen is undoubtedly impressive and at times entertaining but when his prowess is associated with military archery – archery as a martial art – then I think it starts to mislead. I do not think military archers used incredibly lightweight bows brought back to barely half-draw. I do not think they lollopped about or shot lifting their rear leg into the air with an effeminate skip or lifted up one leg and shot under it. Hanging upside down on a climbing frame to shoot is impressive but has little military application. These are trick shots for the circus. I happen to love circuses and skills and so admire the cleverness but these are not archery as a martial art nor as regular historical practice. There is a claim that he can shoot through a ‘chain-mail’ shirt – and he appears to be using no more than a 30lb draw-weight bow at half draw. Aside from the fact that the use of the term ‘chain-mail’, as opposed to the correct form – ‘mail’ - suggests little knowledge of medieval armour, I do not believe the claim. That it has been done on a theatrical piece of mail with large rings may be so, but that is not the same as shooting through an authentic replica or riveted mail with a tight mesh and a properly constructed gambeson beneath. In ‘Going Medieval’, archers using grown-up longbows with 150lb draw weight , shot at mail and a gambeson at a range of 10 yards. Many of their arrows failed to penetrate. Now different arrows will do a different job – this is a whole PhD paper in itself but my point is that ‘proper’ armour is fit for purpose and mostly does its job. If a 30lb bow at half draw defeated it, there was something wrong with the armour! I am not condemning the use of lightweight bows. Many mounted archers use lightweight bows, and following a wrist injury last May, which has still not healed, I am currently condemned to shooting a 30lb bow, 40lb on a good day (hopefully not for too much longer). The only problem with shooting lightweight bows is if you claim them to be other than they are. It is ridiculous for this film to suggest that Mr Andersen is shooting a bow with military power. Although he jumps about with a jack-in-the-box energy that my aged bones can no longer muster (and I envy him that), I fear that parcours experts or gymnasts would scoff at the rather clumsy inelegance of his awkward physicality. It seems to me that there is neither a ‘martial’ nor an ‘art’ aspect to his performance. There is nonetheless cleverness. He is quick eyed and deft and efficient at managing his arrows. He demonstrates that he can shoot equally well with both his right and left hand. That is an impressive skill. It is also historically valid, many mounted archery cultures advocated being able to shoot both left- and right-handed. I keep telling myself I am going to give that some serious practice – maybe this year. In fact so many of Mr Andersen’s techniques are borrowed from mounted archery practice, it is a wonder he has not yet learned to ride. I am sure he would find that a galloping horse had so much more martial purpose than swanning around on roller-skates. So his claims to have ‘discovered’ an old form of archery are plainly false, This is what mounted archers do all the time. Is he good, is he incredibly fast and accurate – yes he is. He is phenomenal. Would we admire him even more if , instead of the plucking half-draw, he drew all the way to the ear and shot properly – yes we would! He has become obsessed with the clock – how to get faster and faster, and by doing so has corrupted his shooting style. Because of his reflexes and co-ordination and instinctive shooter’s eye, he would still have the potential to be the fastest shooter in the world doing it with appropriate martial style. For grace, beauty, power and unbelievably impressive speed give me a Lukas Novotny or a Cosmei Mihai any day. (If you dont know who they are - they are unbelievably good horse-archers). However the general point of this video remains very valid. There is far too much emphasis in modern archery on standing still and at fixed distances. Obviously field archers change the distance, compared to target archers, but all archers would benefit from challenging their neural pathways and working on their instinctive aim by having a go at shooting whilst moving - just walking would be fine. The one, very interesting historical point the film makes is the observation that a great deal of art shows soldier’s arrows on the right-hand side of the bow – even for longbows. This has always been explained as an artistic convention – not wishing for certain lines to bisect but it does make me think. It is quicker to bring the arrow to the string on the right hand side – it does not have to cross the bow. It is what thumb archers do – it is one of the many good reasons for using the thumb draw for mounted archery. However the same would apply if rapid shooting were required for infantry archery. Of course the fingers, in a three-finger Mediterranean draw tend to rotate the string clockwise, which makes mounting the arrow on the right-hand side less of a good idea for that style but I suspect the effects could be managed. It is food for thought and for that Mr Andersen has my thanks. -- Mike Loades Official Page
Posted on: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:57:21 +0000