Lars is back.
I admit, I’m rather surprised that he’s produced another video, and I’m sure a lot
of people have been wowed by his even greater display of skill.
At the same time, his video brings up a whole new bunch of historical claims that viewers
will latch onto and begin stating as fact.
This doesn’t surprise me, but the fact that Lars has an organised team to produce and
market his video means that he’s trying to go viral again.
I give credit to Lars for his skill, but I do believe that this video is intended as
entertainment for the masses rather than being truly educational.
For my part, I believe that the video presents a skewed and selective interpretation of history,
one that contains a few contradictions.
My goal in this video is to provide additional commentary on the information provided, and
to encourage viewers to be critical thinkers.
Before I begin my commentary, I want to address some of the major themes that appeared in
my previous videos on Lars Andersen.
I know a lot of you will straight out say “You’re just jealous”.
Am I impressed by Lars?
Yes.
Can I do what he does?
No.
Am I jealous?
No.
I’m not really interested in his style of archery and I have no reason to be envious.
Lars can do things that I can’t, and I can do things that he can’t.
This shouldn’t have any bearing on having a mature discussion on what has been presented.
You’re free to judge me, but I don’t think it matters.
Another common criticism of me was that I don’t have a right to speak because I can’t
replicate what Lars does.
Well firstly, neither can you, so you don’t have a right to criticise, by that logic.
But, if we’re going to scrutinise our credibility, then I ask: what authority does Lars have
that makes him automatically correct?
Lars is a…painter.
His “combat” archery experience comes from archery tag.
I have no doubt that he is a skilled and amazing archer, but does that mean that he is an expert
historian?
Now, I’m not claiming that I have any more authority: I’m just a high school teacher.
I studied medieval history as part of my degree, but I don’t specifically have an academic
background in historical archery.
But at least I’ll say it right now: what I’m presenting here is just my opinion and
understanding.
So, let’s begin.
The video opens with the claim that movies depict archers releasing arrows at the same
time and that this is “silly”, fewer arrows are shot and energy is wasted holding the
bow.
This opening statement alone is completely wrong.
The claim that “fewer arrows are shot” is ambiguous.
The video doesn’t elaborate on this.
As far as I’m concerned, if you have 500 archers, then you have 500 arrows in the air.
If each archer has 20 arrows, then they may shoot up to 10,000 arrows in total.
Whether they shoot them all at once, or spread them throughout the battle, doesn’t change
the number of arrows shot.
As for wasting energy while holding the bow drawn, this is something that is depicted
frequently in movies.
This is of course done for dramatic effect.
This would not have been done in real life.
An English master archer would not tell his band of brothers to hold their 120lb war bows
until just the right moment.
What would have happened is that the captain will order the archers to nock arrows, and
then order the archers to loose arrows.
The archers would then execute the shot at roughly the same time, because most archers
take the same amount of time to loose an arrow.
No energy is wasted in holding the bow.
In fact, the rate of fire being controlled by a captain or master archer meant that a
formation of archers would use energy more efficiently, compared to individual rapid
fire, which would be very exhausting with bows designed for battle.
Horse archers would use faster methods of shooting, but they would do so in short bursts
as they passed their targets.
Foot archers would have to sustain their battlefield effectiveness for a longer period.
Furthermore, archery formations were effectively the artillery of the medieval army.
It was easier to coordinate mass fire and command the whole unit to adjust their aim
rather than rely on individuals to mark their own targets.
This isn’t to say that archers only used volley fire tactics.
Battles are dynamic, so I think it would be safe to assume that as distances closed, a
body of archers would probably shoot at their own pace and pick their own targets.
There’s a time and place for volley fire.
As Lars primarily deals with medium to close range, this is where archers would benefit
more from autonomy than control.
The video continues this line of argument by stating that volley shooting would be pointless
because the target would simply raise their shield and that would be a total waste of
arrows.
There are two things that are going on here.
Firstly, yes, there would actually be a lot of ineffective arrows.
If there are a thousand arrows shot, some will hit shields, many will simply hit nothing.
That is exactly why arrows were shot en masse: so that some arrows would hit.
It’s a matter of probability.
A large number of arrows means that some arrows will hit unprotected areas: feet, arms, faces,
and so on.
Even if there were few lethal hits, the fact that a formation is being shot at means that
its battle effectiveness is severely hampered.
You have to keep your head down and advance slowly.
Holding up the shield is tiring.
Most importantly, you can’t fight back.
That leads to a drop in morale.
Archers seldom decided the outcome of battle – their role was to harass, not to kill.
Even today, the majority of projectiles fired from weapons don’t hit anything, but it
doesn’t mean the ammunition is wasted.
Secondly, this is the first of many examples of misleading visual presentation.
In his demonstration, Lars crouches behind a shield and blocks several arrows.
This is clearly staged and directed to convince the viewer that this is what would happen.
In fact, at many points in this video, Lars makes reference to battlefield scenarios,
but the visual demonstration is not a battlefield scenario.
The shield demonstration is misleading for the following reasons.
He is audibly told when the arrows are incoming.
The demonstration is done from very close distance, where the arrow trajectory is flat
– a distance that archers would not engage in, so he is able to hide behind the shield.
In a real battle, the arrows would arc over his shield.
If he lifts his shield, he exposes other weaknesses.
Furthermore, not everyone has that particular kind of shield.
Sure, large shields such as the Roman scutum would provide wide protection, but many warriors
had smaller shields, or didn’t have shields.
They might be using two-handed weapons such as pikes – and the English longbows devastated
the Scottish schiltron formations.
And, of course, archers were often skirmishers that would engage other skirmishers, and apart
from some well-equipped crossbowmen, archers didn’t have shields.
So, there are many battlefield situations in which mass volley fire would have a significant
effect.
The video claims that “Lars is fast, so he can easily dodge arrows”.
For me, this is where I felt the video became ridiculous.
He doesn’t dodge arrows because he’s fast.
He knows where they are being shot.
In the first shot, he knows the archer is going to shoot straight at him, so as long
as he moves, he’ll be fine.
It still takes a very good reflex time, but as long as he doesn’t stand still, he’ll
be OK.
That’s not the same as dodging.
The second test is even sillier: the arrows aren’t even aimed at him.
The same goes for the other people in the demonstration.
They don’t even need to move.
The arrows are shot so wide or so high that half of them just flinch instead of dodge,
and in one frame the arrow isn’t even in the shot.
Whoever is shooting the arrows is clearly not intending to hit the person.
Some of it might just be inaccurate shooting, but it doesn’t prove that arrows are easy
to dodge.
In fairness, arrows actually aren’t that fast.
If you can see it coming, you can move out of the way.
However, if Lars is talking about battlefield scenarios, then you have to factor things
you would expect on a battlefield.
You’ll be carrying arms and armour, which will slow you down.
You might be able to dodge a single arrow, but you won’t dodge a thousand arrows because,
you know, volley fire.
And you’re not going to dodge when you’re shoulder-to-shoulder with a thousand men.
Realistically, either the arrow hits something, or it misses.
Dodging has little to do with it.
But yeah, running in a straight line in an open field is a pretty bad idea.
The video goes onto say that standing still and shooting slowly is useless, and it provides
a source from the Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy.
At this point, I want to highlight an ambiguous area that was raised in numerous comment threads:
scale.
This isn’t clearly identified in the video, and a lot of people will argue that in small
skirmishes, archers will employ more mobile tactics.
This makes sense – most conflicts were small scale border wars.
However, it’s important to highlight differences between major battles and minor skirmishes
rather than saying that this encompasses every aspect of war.
If you’re exchanging shots with another archer, you probably don’t want to stand
still.
If you’re in a battle formation, you don’t have much choice.
Back to the video.
Again, we see a mismatch with what is being said, and what is being shown.
The narrator explains that slow shooting is useless.
The video shows the standing archer being hit by an arrow.
The accompanying text highlights the speed shooting component.
While I haven’t read the original source, the part that is shown in the video is specifically
taken from the chapter titled “The Training and Drilling of the Individual Soldier”.
What is being explained in this section is a training drill – one that includes leaping
onto horse, shooting forward, behind, left and right, placing the bow into a case, pulling
out a spear, putting the spear back, pulling out the bow, and repeat.
It’s a training drill, not actual combat technique or doctrine.
As far as the speed is concerned, since it highlights horseback archery, this is in line
with how horse archers would engage in close distance where speed is more important than
aim, and armies of horse archers would train the same methods on foot.
This is not a universal understanding of how archery was done everywhere.
The video claims that fast shooting is the only way to get past a shield.
Remember a minute earlier how Lars tucked himself behind the shield?
If three simultaneous arrows can’t get past, fast shooting won’t get past either.
Instead, what we see is another questionable demonstration.
These guys are swatting the arrows away with their shields, stand still for a full second,
and then get hit.
…Why?
That’s not how you use a shield.
That’s not fast shooting beating a shield.
That’s the person letting himself get hit.
In fairness, if you have a small shield and you’re under fire from arrows, you might
have a tough time guarding high and low, or from different directions.
If you’re in a one-on-one situation, you don’t have much choice other than to fling
arrows as quickly as you can and hope that you find an opening.
The video claims that the use of a target board came about by chance, and then says
“imagine if swordfighting had evolved the same way”.
…what?
Swordfighting has always made use of static targets to practice cuts.
That’s not silly at all.
It’s a way to hone your skill – and some people will only do this.
Archery isn’t different.
Even if you’re not shooting at a bright coloured target, you’re shooting at something
else.
I mean, archery has evolved to the point where we’re shooting at foam targets in the shape
of dinosaurs.
The video claims the bow was simply “string and bow and nothing else”, includes a diagram
of a modern Olympic-style bow, and says how “all the new stuff is problematic for the
war archer”.
All this new stuff was invented hundreds of years after archery ceased being used in war.
This is sports equipment.
It’s like comparing swords to baseball bats.
Of course this would never be used in war.
I don’t get why Lars keeps on making these jabs towards modern archery.
Look, Lars, your style of archery is awesome.
It’s great to watch and you’re the only person in the world who can do it.
But when you make these facetious comparisons, you make a million viewers think that modern
archery is a horrible corruption and it’s wrong, and you’re doing us a disfavour.
They’re different things and should not be compared.
The video ends on the footnote that war archery disappeared because bullets can’t be dodged.
The more commonly accepted reason is logistics and training.
Archers required years of training and a lifetime of experience, plus a constant demand for
bows and arrow, which was labour-intensive.
It was far easier to manufacture guns and produce lead shot, and a gunman could be trained
in weeks.
Plus, arrows were generally ineffective against armour.
Guns made armour redundant.
It’s not so much about dodging, it’s about effectiveness in battle.
This kind of disproves the claim made in the same sentence: war archery probably wasn’t
that fantastic.
At this point, I’ve only covered around…two minutes of the video.
That’s because I think the rest of the video is BADASS.
Lars references passages of exceptional trick shooting and tries to replicate legendary
feats, and that looks pretty awesome.
That’s the sort of thing someone could watch all day and marvel.
That, in my opinion, is the best part of the video – taking a historical source or a
mythical story and turning it into a real challenge.
I really do applaud Lars for pulling it off.
And we’ll end on that note.
Again, it’s another brilliant showcase of the skill of Lars Andersen, and it’s cleverly
put together to go viral, and I won’t criticise Lars for doing that.
Hopefully this video gives you more insight into the depth and detail of archery in different
contexts.
The whole point of this is to open a discussion about what you see and think, so feel free
to add your comments below.
I am looking forward to a reasonable and civil discussion.
If you’re just going to say “You’re jealous”, don’t bother.
You’re not going to believe me and I won’t change your mind, so don’t bother.
Otherwise, I leave the floor to you.