If you've been on an archery forum in the last few years, you've seen the discussions about Lars Anderson and his speed shooting videos. The comments across the internet about his videos are almost universally negative. You wouldn't believe the hate this guy gets.
In a way, it's understandable. In his videos, Lars essentially claims that modern archers have lost many of the techniques that made ancient archers so formidable, and that through his readings of ancient archery manuals, he was able to rediscover some of those techniques. He then demonstrates that by using those techniques, he has become the fastest speed shooter alive today.
And oh my god, those claims set the archery world on fire. The amount of hate he got then, and continues to get, is insane.These are VERY bold claims, and it's only natural to be skeptical. However, I find most of his critics to be disingenuous. And through my own readings of the early archery writings, I find that Lars is a lot closer to the mark than you might think.
I am not a professional historian, but I have read nearly all of the early writings on archery, including the ones that Lars references. In reality, there are not that many primary sources written before the 1700s, when military archery began to decline. There is a lot of room for interpretation and there is a lot that has been lost forever. Entire civilizations rose and fell without leaving a trace of their techniques behind.
The earliest writings known to historians that detail archery techniques and methods of training, are both from the Arabs. Those books are of course Sacrean Archery from the 1300s and Arab Archery from the 1500s.They are well worth the read. You can really get into the minds of some of these early archers. The earliest English language books were Toxophilus from 1545 and The Art of Archerie from 1634. These four books are the primary source material for early archery historians and are what I am going to be referencing in this post.I'm going to look at Lar's main claims, which are:
- Military archers would have shot on the right (outside) of the bow.
- Military archers would not have used back quivers
- Military archers would have been able to carry their arrows in their draw hand
- Military archers would have used a form of instinctive archery
- Modern archers were unaware of these techniques (aka, did he actually discover something?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which side of the bow does the arrow go?
The first claim is very easily proven in our first two texts. Arab archers without a doubt shot their warbows while nocking arrows on the right. When the video came out, this was a hotly debated topic. People claimed that it was inherently inaccurate and dangerous because it breaks the archer's paradox. I believe that this is untrue. The Arabs did it, Lars can do it, and I can even do it.When we look at the English language books, the early evidence points to the arrow being nocked on the left:
"To nock well, is the easiest point in all the art of archery, and contains no more but ordinary warning, only it requires diligent heed giving; first in putting the nock between your two first fingers, then bringing the shaft under the string and over the bow, then to set the shaft neither too high nor too low, but even and straight overthwart the bow"
Keep in mind that this book was written more than 100 years after Agincourt and is 1000 years newer than the beginning of the middle ages.There's a lot that can happen in 1000 years, obviously. We have zero record of the earlier archers, other than in drawings, which are split on the matter. It is safe to say that the Arabs clearly practiced this technique, while the English likely nocked on the left. The methods of the other dozens of civilizations are relatively unknown.
Quivers
Lars claims that back quivers wouldn't have been used in ancient times because they limit both draw speed and mobility. Here's what Arab Archery has to say about quivers:
"The manner of carrying the quiver consists in having its strap over the left shoulder and the quiver itself hung along the right side of the back with its opening on a level with the right shoulder. It will not interfere with you in all your movements and all your pauses and all your shooting. Never place it in front of you along your shoulder, for it will interfere with your draw and with your sitting down and walking and running and all your movements and all your pauses and all your shooting."
The Arabs clearly used a back quiver, but the answer isn't as clear as it seems. Artwork from the time shows horseback archers clearly using a hip quiver. I have seen Roman statues with back quivers alongside Roman images of soldiers using hip quivers. It could be said that either style of quiver was in use through most of history.
Speed Nocking
The earliest book we have on archery clearly states that an archer can shoot quicker by holding arrows in the bow hand and describes very precisely the method by which to do so.
"For this stunt one should use fine arrows that are pared thin at their nocks and are fletched with four vanes set a little way off from the nock at a distance of about two finger joints. In every arrow you may have two nocks intersecting each other crosswise at right angles. This makes it easier to nock an arrow with great speed and without looking at the nock or string.
To shoot such an arrow, place it first in the palm of your hand and then hold its nock beneath your fingers—the little finger, the ring finger, and the middle finger—in way resembling the count of nine. The arrowhead should point to the ground. You then slam its middle point, or the point marking a third of its length from the head, again the grip of the bow and, at the same time, push the arrow with the palm of your hand and receive it with your index finger and thumb. Then nock it, draw, and release. Others have said that it is better to slam the arrowhead against the grip.
This should be practiced until it is mastered completely. Then you add another arrow, placing both in the palm of your hand and holding their two nocks beneath your fingers—the little finger, the ring finger, and the middle finger—in a way resembling the count of nine. You the slam the arrowhead of one of them, or its middle point, on the point marking a third of its length, against the grip and at the same time push the arrow with the palm of you hand and receive it with your index finger and thumb. Then nock, draw, and release."
I have seen some confusion online about the fact that this is described in a section of the book as a kind of "stunt." In these Arab books, the stunts described are clearly intended for use in battle. For example, one stunt in Arab Archery tells you how to practice shooting over walls and strongholds, which is useful for raiding.
"In this way the arrows descend upon the enemy from above like crashing thunder while they are unaware. This will inflict great losses upon the enemy and will enable the Moslems to storm their strongholds successfully. Records show that a certain eastern city was stormed and occupied in this fashion"
From this evidence, I can only conclude that Lars is right on the mark, although I see no evidence that this would have been done by cultures that weren't using the thumb draw. He does tend to mix bits and pieces from various cultures together.
Sighting
Lars claims that ancient archers would have been using instinctive archery, including sighting with both eyes. Both the Arab and English accounts confirm this. The English in particular instruct that the draw should be released the instant it is full. This is to prevent fatigue and reduce the risk of damaging your bow.The Arab books state the following:
"When sighting the mark, turn your eyes so that the lines of vision of both eyes merge and the two eyes become as one, and a single object is seen in the same way as it would be with one eye only. The reason for this recommendation is that the use of both eyes gives stronger vision."
However it later states that if you are unable to master this technique, closing one eye at the moment before release is acceptable. The books are very clear about this. Lars is right on the money with this one.
Historical Accuracy
Finally, we have the biggest question. Did modern archers "forget" these techniques?The answer to this is complicated, but for simplicity's sake, I would say yes. The extremely important "Arab Archery" manuscripts were not even translated into English until the 1940s. The translator himself states that the manuscripts were full of novel approaches to archery and contained information that would help shape the understanding of later texts. Sacrean Archery was not widely published until 1970.I have been unable to find an example of an archer in the last 100 years who mastered the "Shower of Arrows" stunt, and if one existed, they did not publish their method. I really do believe that when Lars made his video, he was demonstrating something that was completely unknown to the majority of archers, including many historical archers.Modern archers were known to shoot on the right side of the bow, of course, but in the West this was seen as a fairly unusual approach. It was considered more of a stunt, rather than a part of the body of knowledge that makes up modern shooting. Lar's claim on that point was at least somewhat true.
TLDR;
In conclusion, Lars Anderson really did contribute to our knowledge, understanding, and practice of ancient archery. He was the first to bring many of these recently translated techniques to a wider audience and he deserves praise for that.He presents his work in a way that is offensive to those who have spent years mastering modern archery, and some of that criticism is founded, but much is not. His videos are over the top and exaggerated to a high degree.
No archer was going to quickdraw his bow on someone standing across the table.
Still, the attacks he has had on his character and his findings are mostly disingenuous. It's amazing what I have seen and heard people say about his videos, even when the sources and history are thrust in front of them.Everything Lars does is historically plausible and accurate except, in my opinion, the three finger draw. The techniques he demonstrates are clearly Arab and would have been practiced with a thumb draw.I hope that this post at least points you in the right direction. If I could leave one recommendation, read Sacrean and Arab Archery. They're very interesting and sometimes unintentionally hilarious!
Sources:
Sacrean Archery: 1368
Arab Archery: 1500s
The Art of Archery (Originally French): 1515
Toxophilus: 1545
The Art of Archerie: 1634
Holy War (translation notes on Sacrean Archery): 1943
[link] [comments]
from newest submissions : Archery https://ift.tt/3xykg1j
via
Comments
Post a Comment