Comments

  1. Rob Grigjanis says

    Hah! This bloke didn’t even need to see the target. No idea whether Japanese archers could actually do this, but they were good. My favourite scene from Shōgun.

  2. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Arrg. Look, there are bows and then there are war bows. He’s fast, he’s accurate, assuming of course that there weren’t dozens of failed takes for each of those shots, but his claim of equivalency with ancient military archers is false. That bow he’s using has a very light draw weight, way lighter than a war bow’s. It’s an impressive display, but it’s not historically accurate despite his claims to the contrary.

  3. says

    Wowsa. Back when I was learning to shoot a long bow (in HS), I was taught to shoot from the right. I was never taught to go left.

  4. says

    Aw jeez, not this shit again.

    f this stuff were in a fantasy movie, you’d snort and say that’s all impossibly unrealistic

    It is. It’s flashy, it’s impressive, and it’s about as useful in an actual fight as those quickdraw pistol artists who hang out at rodeos and Western theme parks. Maybe the people who wrote that book could usefully shoot arrows that fast from a combat-strength bow, but a)this person isn’t demonstrating that, he’s using a very light bow and b) the historical archers who maybe could weren’t hopping around like traceurs while they were firing, or using bows at that close range anyway, because that’s a good way to get painfully dead via the swords, axes, clubs and/or spears of the people you’re shooting at. The smart archer drops the bow and draws a hand weapon at that range. The really smart archer bugs out before the enemy gets that close in the first place. The really skilled archer who that book was writing about would probably have mastered the famous ‘Parthian shot’, in which the archer turns 180 degrees in the saddle of a galloping horse and releases an arrow at a pursuer directly behind. (Now if this guy in the video could do that, I’d be impressed, and even allow him some credit towards having learned/revived ancient Persian archery practices.)
    That said, many game systems allow this kind of thing by default, or at least have optional rules that allow it, because you can then do things like in the movies.

  5. unclefrogy says

    I like it when modern people really take on some “ancient” art like this guy taking on how did ancient archers actually did what they are said to have done and discover that our assumptions of what they could accomplish and how they may have done it are incorrect. Humans are clever and can figure out how to do many seemingly impossible things.
    Like legendary archers as here or Inca or Egyptians builders.
    We seem to take the ancients as either much more primitive and ignorant then us or far superior some how. All without enough data to make either conclusion valid.
    uncle frogy

  6. Zeppelin says

    Great trick shots! … but they make some dubious claims in that video.

    Which side of the bow you put the arrow mostly depends on the grip you use, from what I’ve seen, and so it’s obvious that having the arrows in your drawing hand would favour one side, regardless of whether you aim with one eye or both (and different people have different dominant eyes, so it still doesn’t follow that one-eyed shooting would lead to having the arrow on the left side of the bow). It’s well-known that in war archery you look at the target, and don’t aim over the arrow. It’s just a different discipline from target shooting. It’s also understood that having the quiver on the back isn’t useful, that’s not a new discovery. Historically you’d have the quiver on your hip, or maybe on your horse, or stick the arrows in the ground in front of you if you were stationary, which was most of the time in many historical armies.
    The trick shots he shows have nothing to do with historical war archery, because there’s no power behind them and wouldn’t penetrate even light armour – there’s just no way a human-shaped creature can fully draw a full-strength warbow fast enough to do most of these tricks. Look at the tiny plinking draws he does when he shoots from his wallrun or when jumping.
    There’s this perception, from RPGs presumably, that archery is for lithe, weak people, when operating a warbow competently actually requires way more specialised strength training than, say, using a two-handed sword. The secret weapon of the english wasn’t “the longbow”, or some special technique; anyone can make a great big bow with 150+lb of draw weight. What they had was very strong, well-fed men who’d trained from early childhood to be able to actually draw that bow and hit a target.
    It’s kind of a shame they felt the need to mystify all the super impressive tricks he can do with a lot of bollocks about Ancient Manuscripts and Forgotten Ultimate Techniques.

    [/armchair historical weapons master]

  7. carlie says

    This guy does a lot of impressive trick shots (extinguishing two swinging candles with one arrow from 20ish yards, throwing things and then immediately shooting them, etc.) with a “traditional” hold. Heck, his daughter learned how to shoot a lifesaver out of the air in a few months. I think it’s more practice than a secret of technique.

  8. carlie says

    And I’m guessing there had to be some kind of reason that archery changed from a right-side nock hold to a left one – that’s a big change, and wouldn’t be undertaken for no good reason if there was better speed and accuracy with a right. (Speaking of which, who says that painters were paying enough attention to get it correct, rather than it just being easier to paint it as a right-side nock?)

    I like archery very much. I am also right-handed but left-eye dominant, which makes my archery abilities very poor indeed.

  9. Rob Grigjanis says

    carlie @15:

    I am also right-handed but left-eye dominant, which makes my archery abilities very poor indeed.

    I’m very much left-handed (and footed), but right-eye dominant. It took me many more years than it should have to realize why I shot a rifle right-handed. To use a bow, I have to shut my right eye, because the left arm has to draw.

  10. Suido says

    Great to see a better produced video. I saw a video on this guy a couple of years ago, and it was clunky with really bad voice-overs. The content was amazing, and I’m glad it’s more accessible now.

  11. Suido says

    @Zeppelin #12:

    Do all warbows need to be able to penetrate armour? If you can shoot fast and accurately from horseback, I would imagine that there would be plenty of opportunity to hit small exposed areas enough to debilitate an enemy – joints/eyes/hands. Hits don’t need to be fatal to be effective.

  12. says

    Yeah, this guy’s stuff isn’t representative of what a ranked mass of archers would need to do — they wouldn’t be running around, jumping, and shooting at pikemen 20 feet away. But that’s OK, this is just fun stuff with a light bow, and it takes a different kind of skill.

    Longbowmen were also unique: they trained to the point where their arms had detectable asymmetries.

  13. carlie says

    Hm, so maybe if I managed to teach myself to shoot left-handed, but used my kid’s right-handed bow, I could do this but backwards…

  14. unclefrogy says

    Annie Oakley shot a 22 rifle. not a spring field 30-06. but so what? It seems to me that this man demonstrates what is capable in well trained hands.
    Most modern soldiers are not sharpshooters and waist bullets spraying in the general direction of the target on full auto. I suspect that soldiers were not that different in the past. The big advantage of firearms is they take a lot less training to shoot good enough for battle.
    he still is impressive!
    uncle frogy

  15. carlie says

    This release is normally used with the arrow on the right side of the bow for a right-handed archer, and on the left side of the bow for a left-handed archer.

    So, he’s “rediscovered” Mongolian style shooting, then.

  16. Menyambal says

    I enjoyed the video, and was very impressed. What he was doing was ideal for a light, little agile guy, and he could mess you the hell up before you could blink, in a social situation. Against a charge of cataphracts, yes, he’d be hopeless, except for skinning out through the woods – where I, for one, would not be willing to go after him.

    The vid mentions that he hasn’t much strength, and says that a heavier bow would take years to work up to. But he shows plenty of images to support his claim that many archers did something other than stand still and shoot at a stationary target,and used different techniques to do so.

    I loved the bit where he shot from the back of a motorcycle.

  17. lorn says

    I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the relative draw strength of the bow. The effectiveness of the bow is not greatly diminished by having a lighter draw. A higher draw increases the velocity of the arrow and makes adjustments for wind, travel, and arc easier but it doesn’t even double the velocity. In effect higher pulls mainly make for increased accuracy, with only a small increase in penetration.

    A comparison can be made shooting a long versus short barrel pistol. The longer barrel increases velocity but it is an incremental increase. A snub-nose pistol can be very accurate even as aiming becomes more problematic because the lower muzzle velocity means you have to deal with a much increased bullet drop. At longer ranges the parabolic trajectory means even minor errors in range estimation and bullet drop are magnified and result larger variations.

  18. says

    There seems to be some spirit channeling , PZ. I am currently building a primitive wooden bow for the fun of it (it helps against depression, yay!). After that I am going to learn to shoot it. How did you know this is the perfect video to motivate me to persist in it and not to give in? And you keep insisting that Spirituality does not exist. Checkmate, naturalist!

    [disclaimer] I am fully well aware of the probabilities involving big audiences. Above written post might contain traces of tongue-in-cheek. [/disclaimer]

  19. says

    Really cool shots, but yeah, what the others said.
    A) don’t use “more natural” when talking about a weapon it took people a long time to discover, make and refine. Really.
    B) he’s mostly shooting at a very close distance. Try 20 yards instead of 20 feet and you get differnt results
    C) what makes him think that people who do modern day archery would be interested in doing that stuff? What I really like about target archery is that you get a combination of relaxation* and exercise
    D) I really doubt that people who hunted with bows would try to shoot that thing running, giving the prey some advance notice or run with a very pointy object in your hand over uneven ground through the branches.

    *I personally found the technique you use for target shooting very relaxing. Mileage may vary

  20. cyberax says

    This archery is actually pretty historic. The ancient bows were not exactly strong, so no great strength was needed to draw them. Longbow and compound bows were a completely different weapon – more like modern rifles.

    Mongol hordes excelled in this – they used small bows while _riding_. That allowed them to quickly strike and retreat. That strategy worked perfectly fine against armed and unarmed opponents. Yes, in close combat bows are inferior to swords but Mongols simply avoided all the close combat.

    The same is true for hunting – you don’t need your arrows to pass through your quarry and then through a couple of small trees. Simply making a wound which prevents an animal from making a quick escape is sufficient.

  21. Al Dente says

    Giliell @31

    I really doubt that people who hunted with bows would try to shoot that thing running, giving the prey some advance notice or run with a very pointy object in your hand over uneven ground through the branches.

    Modern bow hunters generally sit in a “stand” (that’s what it’s called) in a tree and wait for the prey to wander into range.

  22. twas brillig (stevem) says

    @ 31:

    What I really like about target archery is that you get a combination of relaxation* and exercise

    You mean “Zen and the Art of Archery“? I should’ve read it, instead of rejecting it for the “Zen” inclusion [in the title], and the parody(?), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Another rejection due to the “Zen” in title. I’ve come to appreciate “Zen”, since then, but whatcanyado.

  23. says

    twas brillig
    Ehm, not really, don’t know that book. You could probably compare it to some form of meditation. For me it worked well because the movements were pretty “ritualised” and you had to concentrate on posture, breathing, drawing, aiming, releasing that it pushed everything else out of my mind.

    Al Dente
    Hunting with bows is illegal in Germany for animal welfare reasons. But yeah, I guess that “lurking in a hidden spot” and “sneaking carefully close” would be much better than runing at full speed.

  24. DLC says

    Well, if it’s 3rd ed D&D and you have the rapid shot, many shot and shot on the run advantages. . .
    But who plays 3rd ed D&D ?

  25. Who Cares says

    Heck I’ve never used a back quiver, even with a normal stationary target, always a belt one. Even then I’d rather put the arrows in front of me, the quiver basically being a safe way to cart arrows around. And splitting an arrow that is already on the board in two being special? OK it doesn’t happen every week and due to carbon arrows being hollow technically you don’t split the other arrow in two but it is common enough that my archery club can decorate using arrows that have been shot into each other.

  26. numerobis says

    This video was a big improvement on the previous heavily-watched video of his: the previous video was all about how he’d rediscovered stuff, but lacked any references.

    To the critics: are the set of techniques he’s using commonly taught anywhere? If not, then it’s totally legit in my mind to say he’s rediscovered them and is popularizing them.

  27. Amphiox says

    Didn’t the Mythbusters debunk the whole grabbing-an-arrow-out-of-midair thing?

    They debunked it as a practical defence against arrows, particularly if surrounded by multiple archers. Not as an act of opportunity if a poorly shot arrow happens to come near you, when there’s little to lose grabbing that thing and shooting it back. Free ammo is free ammo.

  28. Amphiox says

    Some of the things demonstrated don’t look like they’d be practical in regular battle situations, but I could see ancient archers doing them in practice, both to hone their skills in general, and to impress their peers in social situations. A lot of the basic principles of shooting rapidly while moving are applicable to horse archery, and could be useful skills for a horse archer to have if he ever got knocked off his horse in the middle of battle. Kind of a last-ditch, bug-out, just worry about surviving to fight another day situation.

    By the way, would it be practical for ancient war archers to carry two bows of different draw strengths into battle? A high strength bow for long distance accurate sniping, and a shorter lighter bow for more rapid fire at middle ranges or confined quarters?

  29. inflection says

    This must have come up on a TV show recently or something. This guy regularly gets reposted on gaming forums by someone new thinking it’s an amazing feat of archery: We’re gonna have to adjust Bow ROFs is the one today, with links to three of the times the video has been posted before, such as We’re gonna have to adjust Bow ROFs.

    Summary of forum response: highly unimpressed. Slighly more detailed: in this early version of the discussion, Dell’Orto — a writer for the fairly well-regarded GURPS combat system — is dubious about the combat utility. As a performance, hey, great, not a lot of people can do that, sure.

  30. inflection says

    This must have come up on a TV show recently or something. This guy regularly gets reposted on gaming forums by someone new thinking it’s an amazing feat of archery: Amazing Archers is the one today, with links to three of the times the video has been posted before, such as We’re gonna have to adjust Bow ROFs.

    Summary of forum response: highly unimpressed. Slighly more detailed: in this early version of the discussion, Dell’Orto — a writer for the fairly well-regarded GURPS combat system — is dubious about the combat utility. As a performance, hey, great, not a lot of people can do that, sure.

  31. inflection says

    I think posting a reply with multiple similar URLs may have gotten me dropped in the spam filter, so let me just say that Mr. Andersen frequently gets reposted on the SJGames forums under titles like “Amazing Archers” (today’s latest) or “We’re Gonna Have to Adjust Bow ROFs.” The forum denizens, including people who are fairly gearhead about weapon stats (I am not one of them) and at least one author for some GURPS’ generally well-regarded combat supplements, broadly consider it more of a circus performance than anything combat effective.

  32. consciousness razor says

    I should’ve read it, instead of rejecting it for the “Zen” inclusion [in the title], and the parody(?), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

    Definitely not a parody. And it has nothing to do with relaxation. And it definitely came first in the line of “zen and the art of…” books, however many there are now. Was it worth reading? Not really.

  33. says

    unclefrogy

    Most modern soldiers are not sharpshooters and waist bullets spraying in the general direction of the target on full auto.

    No they don’t. Spray n’ pray is the hallmark of ill-trained (and usually -equipped) irregulars. Most modern military rifles don’t even have an option for full auto, because it turns out there’s no good use for it in combat.
    Menyambal

    What he was doing was ideal for a light, little agile guy, and he could mess you the hell up before you could blink, in a social situation.

    I disagree; from the ranges he was mostly shooting at, I’d put condsiderable money on my ability to my hands (sword, knife, what have you) on him before he could get an arrow off. Also, he’d have a much harder time of it if the targets were actually trying to get out of his way.
    lorn

    I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the relative draw strength of the bow. The effectiveness of the bow is not greatly diminished by having a lighter draw.

    I’d like to see your figures on that one; certainly heavier draws than that were historically favored for war bows. On top of that, this guy isn’t even fully drawing the light bow that he is using.

    cyberaxe

    This archery is actually pretty historic. The ancient bows were not exactly strong, so no great strength was needed to draw them.

    Untrue; the standard weapon of the Persian (and indeed Mongol) horse archers was the composite recurve bow, modern replicas of which tend to draw about 65 lbs, and can be made to draw at over 120, although few modern archers want or can use a bow that strong.
    numerobis

    To the critics: are the set of techniques he’s using commonly taught anywhere? If not, then it’s totally legit in my mind to say he’s rediscovered them and is popularizing them.

    In order to count as rediscovering them, he has to actually be doing the things that they did, which, as previously noted, includes lots of horseback riding, mounted archery, the Parthian shot, etc, not bouncing aroung like a Traceur or shooting from behind a table, which are not historically attested styles.

  34. Ichthyic says

    B) he’s mostly shooting at a very close distance. Try 20 yards instead of 20 feet and you get differnt results

    yes. that.

    I shoot. A lot.

    drawstrength makes a tremendous difference in accuracy and penetration at range.

    with low drawstrength bows, there is a HUGE amount of compensation you have to make to even hit a target at useful ranges (like 30 yards). penetration drops off considerably, and you often get deflections on impact

    That said, going the other way, arrows flex. the more stress you apply to the arrow, they more they flex on release, which is why a lot of the best target shooters use fairly low drawstrength bows. Also, this guy’s technique is all about close combat with a bow, of which, there are actually any number of weapons that would be more useful, even for the time periods he presumes to be drawing from.

    details:

    http://www.meta-synthesis.com/archery/archery.html

    so yeah, if you just want to hit your target at close range, this technique shown in the video will work great. like throwing a dart at someone. shots will be very easily deflected though, and the impact damage itself will be minor.

    and no, this is NOT comparable to someone using a 22 pistol vs a 45. bullets ALL (modern ones, any way) travel at high enough velocity where deflections aren’t really an issue any more at the ranges you might try to compare them to bows.

  35. Ichthyic says

    Modern bow hunters generally sit in a “stand” (that’s what it’s called) in a tree and wait for the prey to wander into range.

    also of note is that most states that allow bow hunting, also have a legal minimum poundage (often measured indirectly by how far you can shoot a certain weight arrowhead) for bows, as while you might be able to hit a deer with a 20 lb drawstrength bow, it’s unlikely you’re going to kill it, even at point blank range.

  36. Ichthyic says

    Heck I’ve never used a back quiver, even with a normal stationary target, always a belt one

    I use a homemade “pole quiver” myself.

    it’s just a cardboard tube with a can lid fixed to the bottom with a piece of sharpened rebar clamped on the side.

    you jam it in the ground in front of you, and the arrows are all right there in front of you, at a very convenient height for drawing quickly and smoothly.

    It got a lot of titters from my local club, but the old guys appreciated it.

  37. brucegorton says

    I suspect his technique could have been used in combat – to cover a retreat or to cover positioning actions.

    Basically if you can run away while still firing, rather than having to stop, hold and fire it adds to your unit’s mobility.

    The point would not be to score any fatalities, but to slow your opponent down.

  38. Who Cares says

    @Ichthyic(#50): I can see how that works. You would get a bit of a ribbing from me due to the jury rigged aspect but otherwise that is a creative solution. And faster then adding/removing arrows to a standard quiver.

  39. says

    I think (I got this information on a sightseeing tour, so take it with a grain of salt) English longbow archers used to stick their arrows into the ground and pee on the ground for an extra bit of nastiness and convenience

    Amphiox

    By the way, would it be practical for ancient war archers to carry two bows of different draw strengths into battle? A high strength bow for long distance accurate sniping, and a shorter lighter bow for more rapid fire at middle ranges or confined quarters?

    It might simply be a matter of means. A decent bow isn’t exactly cheap. Also, you don’t carry a strung bow. That really is a Hollywood thing. You kept your strings in oiled paper to keep them smooth and you only string your bow when you are ready to fire, because else the constant strain on the bow ruins it much faster*. So you’d have to carry two bows and either string one long before you need it, or you’d have to string the lighter bow during battle. Dunno if that would be practical.

    *If you want to ruin a bow and make an archer cry, try this: Take a bow, don’t put on an arrow, draw the string and release with a twang.

  40. carlie says

    it’s just a cardboard tube with a can lid fixed to the bottom with a piece of sharpened rebar clamped on the side.
    you jam it in the ground in front of you, and the arrows are all right there in front of you, at a very convenient height for drawing quickly and smoothly.

    At the place my son started going (indoor range), they have 5-gallon plastic buckets set out with lids that have a smaller hole in the top to use as stationary quivers.

  41. mattwatkins says

    I’ve seen this video posted 3 or 4 different places and in every single one, all of a sudden there are a bunch of experts who jump out of the woodwork to explain how “That’s not a war bow” or “He’s too close; an edged weapon would be more effective…” or “I’d like to see him try that from horseback.” or etc etc etc. As if there’s anyone alive who has any experience using bows and swords in battle.

  42. says

    mattwatkins

    “That’s not a war bow” or “He’s too close; an edged weapon would be more effective…” or “I’d like to see him try that from horseback.” or etc etc etc. As if there’s anyone alive who has any experience using bows and swords in battle.

    Huh?
    No, people today don’t have experience with using bows and swords in battle (and neither has the guy in the video). But there are people who have a solid education in the history of wars, there are people doing some serious historical reenactment, so they are quite able to make an educated guess, there are people who do horseback riding AND archery and there are people who know a thing or two about archery.
    What he’s doing is cool trick shooting, no argument, but claiming that this is somehow the real historical thing is quite overselling it.

  43. Richard Smith says

    @ unclefrogy (#25):

    Most modern soldiers are not sharpshooters and waist bullets spraying in the general direction of the target on full auto.

    That’s what they get for shooting from the hip…

  44. numerobis says

    What he seems to be claiming is historical is:
    – holding the arrow on the opposite side of the string
    – holding arrows in your draw hand

    Both of these improve the speed at which he can fire arrows (while still having some accuracy) compared to what’s depicted in Hollywood recreations and, more important, what gets taught to Western archers, according to him.

    I don’t see him claiming that shooting arrows out of the sky, or grabbing them in flight and firing them back, or shooting from the back of a scooter, are historical techniques — just tricks enabled by being able to shoot quickly. Shooting arrows and other projectiles back at the enemy is not a new concept, even Hollywood gets into that.

    His claims are not written as one would write careful academic studies, no argument there. He’s a trickster who’s coming up with new tricks based on old tricks that aren’t taught in his local archery circles.

  45. Ichthyic says

    look, what Anderson does is basically a circus act, and it’s designed to sell videos, nothing more.

    he changes his position and style constantly. just how many takes do you think it required to demonstrate his “phenomenal accuracy”.

    yeah. can we put this to bed please?

    or, how about we just let this guy do it.

    http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer

    PZ got conned. that’s about all there is to it, really.

    Anderson should offer free sets of steak knives with whatever he’s selling.

  46. Ichthyic says

    a point was made in the lounge…

    OK, dungeon masters, you’re going to have to revise your rules for bows

    fair enough. it DOES make a good source for changing the rules of fantasy games after all.

    I can’t argue with that.

  47. Amphiox says

    As if there’s anyone alive who has any experience using bows and swords in battle.

    There are people who study and practice the techniques used for swords and bows in battle, and have used them in simulated battle scenarios. Horse archery techniques remain practiced as sport in a variety of cultures around the world. And, iirc, special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have used and are using crossbows in certain battle situations.