It looks rather impressive and all that but those who are rather erudite to the ways of Asiatic archery perhaps have noticed quite a few questionable things regarding the video. One rather astute skeptic has already made a video response:
This skeptic video does a fairly good job itself of drawing attention to some of the rather outlandish statements made in Lars' video, but there are deeper matters to discuss here I feel.
For instance, and as briefly touched upon in the skeptics video, Lars is indeed using lighter bows of the modern synthetic make to demonstrate his technique. And so the problem is he claims to have 're-discovered' these techniques quoting a brief passage in 'Arab Archery' that is all too vague regarding how these techniques were actually done. In relation to this is the true horn composites' use in historical times and just what their draw weight and what length they were drawn to was during combat both on horse and on foot. The skeptic video made a big deal particularly about the shortness of Lars' draw and how in ancient times the idea would rather have been to try and ensure a draw that would be able to penetrate through army.
This is a very interesting point to discuss as various reports mention the horn composite bows in museums to possess heavier draw weights. It begs the question then as to whether or not the typical length drawn to would have indeed been short and the seemingly excessive draw weights (90, 100 pounds etc.) meant to offset this in the name of 'speed shooting'. This is something that the skeptic video actually falls short of mentioning which I feel should be fleshed out here a little more.
Also, the skeptic video brings up at the end how Lars' video mentions that the arrows must be shot every 1.5 seconds in order to demonstrate some sort of mastery of the technique, quoting again one of the ancient texts (Saracen, Arab archery?). The point the skeptic brings up is 'just how did 'Saracens' measure seconds back then'? Interesting to bring up as it did get me wondering if appropriate metric conversions were considered when translating these texts. It may have been for all I know, but at the same time many have pointed out various errors in these texts regarding such.
I'd also like to say that yes the Lars video does appear to have made some rather lofty claims, however I can also at the same time appreciate the attempts made at 'interpretation'. There are definitely a myriad of historical interpretive problems here and this thread perhaps can be used to discuss in greater detail the pitfalls, shortcomings, but also 'successes' of the video.
Bede
I have spoken to Lars about some of these assertions by email. There are some follow up videos being made to explain some of the things he said which he realises were a little too assertive.
Regarding some of the criticisms, I think that the writers might do well to look at the original texts so that their comments would hold more weight.
In the case of Arab Archery, chapter XLIV, "Stunt Shooting", pp. 131-145, appears to be the main source. The author makes comments about what he considers would be useful in warfare and what are entertaining exhibitions of skill. In the case of shooting at the edge of the blade, here is what is written.
The eighth is shooting at the edge of the sword. It consists in taking a sword and planting the hilt firmly in the earth while its edge remains above the earth. You then make for yourself full-bodied arrows with tips thicker than their steles and leave them without arrowheads. Their ends, where normally the arrowheads are fixed, should be cut straight and even without being pointed. You next take a soft bow free of recurvature, fitted with a fairly thick string, and stand facing the edge of the sword squarely. If your shot be accurate, the arrow will be split in twain by the edge of the planted sword. You may also try the same thing while on the back of a galloping horse, shooting sev?eral arrows in succession against the edge of the sword.
I think this addresses the issue of using a bow weaker that the war bows of the time since it is clearly specified that you should. There is another section of Arab Archery which discusses rapid shooting, in chapter XLV, "Targets and target practice". This section is "On Shower or Successive Shooting", pp. 150-153.
The instructions given are fairly detailed and while there is room for individual variation the procedure to follow is laid out.
Regarding the number of arrows shot in a time period, this comes from the chapter including the testing of dexterity in Saracen Archery. There are three basic tests given, accuracy, low trajectory and rate of "fire". The authors, who were an expert on Classical Arabic and a very experienced archer, come to the conclusion that if the distance in the accuracy test was combined by the minimum height of the trajectory in the second test, and the fact that the first arrow had hit the ground after the third arrow had been shot in the third test, then the arrows must have been shot at the rate of three in 1.25 seconds. They believed on the basis of known speed shooting at the time that, with training and practice, an archer would be able to attain this speed. The tying together of the three tests to generate the speed of shooting is reasonable. The first test gives a distance and the second gives a height for the trajectory. From that the velocity of the arrow was calculated (180 fps minimum). This is an achievable speed with a composite bow. At that speed, an arrow travelling over 75 yards was used to calculate the rate of fire. (See Saracen Archery pp. 141-142). Things that could mess up this calculation include a faster bow. This would mean that with that calculation the speed of shooting would have to be higher. As can be seen, no stopwatch was required and geometry and algebra required was of no great difficulty. Taybugha, the original author, would have done no calculations since the test was self evident. If the third arrow was not shot while the first was in the ground, then the archer had failed the test.
I think some of the criticisms are practical, but the ones covered above ignore the source material. I think it is easy to separate the stunt shooting from the techniques appropriate in war and also the ones that are designed to train the archer to react quickly. For instance the purpose of the sword target is to make sure that your arrow is travelling perfectly straight when it reaches the target thus ensuring maximum impact. It is also to show off in front of your commanders how good you were.
Mule
The skeptic video made a big deal particularly about the shortness of Lars' draw and how in ancient times the idea would rather have been to try and ensure a draw that would be able to penetrate through army.
A lot of critics are thinking too much in terms of black and white.. The point isn't that they always shot this way. It's just another technique in their arsenal. Nothing is stopping you from drawing fully when you're trying to pierce armour but that isn't always the case.
You could be close enough that you can accurately aim for unarmoured faces or necks, or your opponents could be unarmoured altogether. Then rate of fire is going to be far more useful than armour penetration.
geoarcher
Thanks Bede for the response, but another interesting thing about this I think regards context as this video brought up:
In some regards this seems to be a bigger problem as the original video naturally doesn't really go into what should be used for which situation. Also, would a 'lighter bow' have ever been used in a combat situation? And would most combat situations require full draws or rather would shorter draws be appropriate in some cases in combat?
I'm thinking more in terms of an actual pitched battle where theoretically both sides would have been well enough prepared with appropriate arms and armor.
Also, wouldn't horse archers be required to shoot in volleys at times? It seems some of these fast shooting techniques may have been reserved more for skirmish fighting.
Bede
I think that an attempt to categorise the shooting Lars does into applicable and not applicable to warfare is wasted.
I agree that there is no place for light bows in warfare. Hunting is a different issue. 50 to 60 lb bows are effective at close range and even lighter bows can be used by skilled hunters. Target bows in the Middle and Far East might have been much stronger than we would consider necessary, but there is an expectation that arrows will strike the target at right angles at all distances used in target archery in Arab Archery and this requires fast arrows.
Short draws are another issue. In an emergency any draw that gets the arrow shot is probably what was done, but trained archers would always come to full draw and having short arrows would be dangerous to the archer. Overdrawing in high stress situations is not unknown today. Short drawing with normal length arrows at short distances would change the spine of the arrow and would cause it to hit while still oscillating.
geoarcher
Yes, thank you Bede, and this is sort of what is overall somewhat misleading with the Lars video is that the implication made from it is that these techniques were unquestionably 'the thing' to use for warfare/combat. But in reality full draw would more likely be the norm and that in itself does not really lend itself well to 'speed' or 'shower shooting' as discussed in Arab Archery.
Actually I reread the chapter on 'target shooting' with the section concerning shower shooting. This is essentially what Lars is trying to reconstruct, perhaps a better term than 're-discovered', and I say this because the section does not actually appear at all to suggest how the bow should be drawn with the drawing hand once the arrow is slammed against the bow as described. It seems to leave this part open to interpretation allowing the archer perhaps to choose between a 'fingered' or thumb release as some showing what Lars does in greater detail suggest in other videos. Its also worth noting here I think that the section says these techniques were developed around the time of 'Kisra' which I believe would mean Sassanian era Persia.
Bede
Reference to the Kisras is not an uncommon way to refer to the "old times". The reference to Bustam is a little inappropriate since it mentions "with five, ten and fifteen arrows, all held at the same time in the archer's hand... because no one could possible strike ten simultaneous blows with the sword etc." This comment really should have been in the previous section on shooting tens of long arrows simultaneously since it implies that the arrows all land together at the target. Needless to say, it would be ineffective in warfare since each arrow would have a fraction of the total energy of the bow. It should be mentioned that the Sasanians were well known for their rapid shooting and Ammianus Marcellinus I think points out that this was at the cost of shooting less powerfully.
There is no indication that anything other than the thumb draw is intended and, even in the section on shooting multiple arrows at once, a form of thumb draw is used. I don't think the drawing method is open to interpretation there. By not describing a particular method, the standard method is implied. The author's description of finger draws elsewhere in the book shows his knowledge was probably hearsay.
The real indication that the shower shooting technique is used with a light bow is the fact that the nocks (and the unfletched section of the shaft before the feathers start) are held in the middle, ring and little fingers. This means that the clench is not very strong because if those fingers were tightened then the arrows could be damaged or the fletching crushed against each other.
geoarcher
Bede wrote:
It should be mentioned that the Sasanians were well known for their rapid shooting and Ammianus Marcellinus I think points out that this was at the cost of shooting less powerfully.
Interesting, but the Sassanids were also known to use a type of fingered release as well. I notice that the draw can be rather efficient for 'loading, reloading' etc. Is Marcellinus' account referring to this draw or another? Is whatever he's describing being used in combat? Or were these noted during a type of exhibition?
Bede wrote:
There is no indication that anything other than the thumb draw is intended and, even in the section on shooting multiple arrows at once, a form of thumb draw is used. I don't think the drawing method is open to interpretation there. By not describing a particular method, the standard method is implied. The author's description of finger draws elsewhere in the book shows his knowledge was probably hearsay..
It appears at times in some of these videos though fingered release are being employed by Lars but also most notably by the guy in this video explaining/interpreting the techniques:
I was not implying that the actual release methods used by Lars are precisely as described in the manuscripts. He has undoubtedly worked out a way that suits him. How close it is to a historic technique is not something that I can accurately comment on.
The Sassanians used a two fingered draw (middle and ring) below the arrow. It was easy to shoot with the arrow on either side of the bow. Ammianus Marcellinus was a Roman general who had fought the Persians. His history does not include detailed technical description. I might have seen the reference in Procopius. I am looking through them both at the moment.
...and next to them the archers (in which art that nation has always been most skilful from the cradle) bent their supple bows with widely extended arms, so that the strings touched their right breasts, while the arrows lay just upon their left hands; and the whistling arrows flew, let loose with great skill of finger, bearing deadly wounds.
Marcellinus, Ammianus; Yonge, C.D. (2009-10-04). The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus (Kindle Locations 5736-5738). MacMay. Kindle Edition.
The quote gives you an idea of the type of description we are relying on from these authors.
Most Middle Eastern and Indo-Persian arrows had nocks to fit 3.5 to 5 mm strings. The Turkish nocks are an exception. 4mm is an average for Persian and Indian except for flight strings. They believed that thicker strings gave greater accuracy and with war bows the durability was an asset too.
I suppose the challenge is that where Lars is not using the original draw to find a way to do the same thing with the traditional thumb lock. He told me he was trying to duplicate the results. I think he would be best to answer what his approach is when the technique is not specified in detail.
Bede
It was Procopius and here is the quote.
For while their missiles were incomparably more frequent, since the Persians are almost all bowmen and they learn to make their shots much more rapidly than any other men, still the bows which sent the arrows were weak and not very tightly strung, so that their missiles, hitting a corselet, perhaps, or helmet or shield of a Roman warrior, were broken off and had no power to hurt the man who was hit. The Roman bowmen are always slower indeed, but inasmuch as their bows are extremely stiff and very tightly strung, and one might add that they are handled by stronger men, they easily slay much greater numbers of those they hit than do the Persians, for no armour proves an obstacle to the force of their arrows.
Procopius (2009-10-15). The Works of Procopius: The Secret History and the Wars of Justinian (Halcyon Classics) (Kindle Locations 2717-2722). Halcyon Press Ltd.. Kindle Edition.
It would be reasonable to assume that this is not an objective comment but partly designed to encourage the Romans to believe they would be invincible in combat against the Persians. However, it is undoubtedly a perception of the time that in order to shoot very rapidly you needed to use weaker bows. This was written hundreds of years earlier than the text of Arab Archery, the current dating of which puts it in the late thirteenth century instead of 1500 as noted in the translation.
geoarcher
Yes, that's the draw I was referring to as well. In some depictions the finger extends along side the arrow like this one:
I remember the thread here on the finger guard for it and of course the discussion of it in Saracen archery and so I made one. I find the draw intrinsically efficient for nocking arrows but nothing seems as powerful as the thumb draw.
I see about the arrows. I wonder then if they used narrow nocks, then how did they achieve ease of nocking for shower shooting?
And so it seems to be the challenge how to effectively recreate all this based on the practices most common at that point in history regarding technique and equipment.
That's actually a very interesting quote Bede from Procopius. Thanks, but how much weaker were the bows? More like 50 or 60 pounds?
Bede
The problem with using old sources like Procopius is that there is sometimes only one line with any details. The author in this case was not an archer, but a rhetorician so he made his living like a lawyer before he became the secretary of Belisarius. He undoubtedly saw many of the things he wrote about, but probably did not understand them on a technical level. The Sasanian bows were probably closer to 90 lbs rather than 60 lbs, but did they use their normal long draw when they were shooting rapidly? Perhaps they only drew to the ear and dropped the draw weight by a few pounds. All would be speculation.
The Sasanian draw, as I have reconstructed it, is quite efficient. I touch the arrow with the index finger if I am shooting on the right of the bow and hold it clear when I am shooting on the left. If you release with a twist of the wrist you can get an arrow speed almost as fast as the thumb ring. Posture is important with all finger draws that go back past the ear because of the chance of hitting yourself with the string. The two main causes of this are plucking the string with the fingers as you release and putting part of your body in the path of the string.
Bede
Regarding the narrow Turkish nocks, the Ottomans were not as famous for rapid shooting as the Seljuks and others like the early Mamluks. The slight chamfer on the lips of the nock and the feathers being right down to the notch make it easy to accurately nock the arrow without looking. They would have been able to shoot fast, but the demonstrations of extremely rapid shooting may have gone out of fashion by their time.
Regarding the narrow Turkish nocks, the Ottomans were not as famous for rapid shooting as the Seljuks and others like the early Mamluks. The slight chamfer on the lips of the nock and the feathers being right down to the notch make it easy to accurately nock the arrow without looking. They would have been able to shoot fast, but the demonstrations of extremely rapid shooting may have gone out of fashion by their time.
Do you have a good example of this arrow picture wise?
This also makes me wonder in relation to speed/shower shooting the length of the arrows. It seems a shorter length would be preferred for this say 28 inches. Easier to manage essentially I'd wager to say.
Bede
I have some pictures or can take some new ones.
As to the question of using a short draw, I have mixed feelings. In trick shooting where you are trying to put on a good show, short drawing is a possibility. However, in warfare the chances of an overdrawing accident are greater because of the situation and the consequences could be fatal. Saracen Archery mentions that the war arrow was 1 qirat shorter than the target arrow. The logical reason is that a soldier wearing a helmet is restricted in how far he can draw an arrow in the standard manner. It might also be a scribal error replaced shorter with longer. After all, Manchu soldiers wearing helmets could draw very long arrows. With a slightly longer arrows, the chances of an accident would be reduced.
But taking the description as it has come down to us, would you spend your time practising with a full draw and then go into battle using a short draw that destroyed your aiming and reduced the effect of the arrow? My feeling is that the slightly shorter draw in SA could be managed with a helmet with metal ear-flaps while still aiming and also extending the shoulders for a strong draw.
There are short war arrows (about 66 cm) in various collections and while they could have been for short archers, I feel there is another explanation. In 1500 a device called a navak-e qabza was described. It was a siper with a metal trough that was tied to the bow grip. It could even be safely used to draw small width broad heads. I made one several years ago. The book it was mentioned in was in Persian and probably represented a widespread technology.
geoarcher
Bede wrote:
I have some pictures or can take some new ones.
Whatever you have. Definitely still interested.
Bede wrote:
There are short war arrows (about 66 cm) in various collections and while they could have been for short archers, I feel there is another explanation. In 1500 a device called a navak-e qabza was described. It was a siper with a metal trough that was tied to the bow grip. It could even be safely used to draw small width broad heads. I made one several years ago. The book it was mentioned in was in Persian and probably represented a widespread technology.
I made one of the arrow guides recently out of bamboo. Its more like what you see the Koreans use but this one sounds different. Got a picture of it?
The one Bede is talking about is different in that it's attached to the bow, not the hand
geoarcher
I know that. That's why I'm asking him for a picture of what he made.
Bede
This is a picture of the nock and fletching of a pishrev arrow in the Grayson Collection. You can clearly see how the sides of the nock have been chamfered to capture the string easily. This is s a flight arrow so it was not meant to be nocked rapidly, but most Turkish nocks follow this pattern with some variation in the degree of filing the nock opening. You can see by the different colours of the nock lips where they poke out beyond the sinew wrapping that they are bakam (i.e. brazil wood pieces glued on).
Bede
I have some pictures of the navak-e qabze somewhere. I will look for them. If I can find them, I still have the device and with put it on a bow and photograph it.
geoarcher
Thanks Bede that's a really good picture for reference of the arrow. If you still have your siper I'd be curious to see.
Bede
I did post it on the forum many years ago, but I can't find it there so I will have to make new pictures.
jchocz
Draw weights bow (100 and more pounds) is not suitable for fast archery. Lars Andersen and fast archery - an interesting topic. My humble opinion - it was not just the ability to pierce the armor of a soldier. Sometimes it is more psychological effect - soldiers on fast horses, fast rain of arrows shot ...
geoarcher
It doesn't seem though as we analyze things more deeply, per this discussion, that what Lars shows was really all that applicable to warfare. Matter of fact it seems more applicable to exhibition shooting as Bede discusses here in the second to last post:
Heavier bows would have been pretty much essential to warfare. Ergo this fast with light bow firing techniques demonstrated in these videos is not really the way warfare was conducted using a bow as the video narrator proclaims.
Bede
It is my opinion that what Lars demonstrates is essentially the kind of demonstration put on before rulers and army chiefs to show your skill. Could these skills been useful for training for warfare? Whereas I think it unlikely that in a battle with thousands of arrows flying through the air at once that it would be possible or practical to catch one and shoot it back, on the other hand the coordination developed in the practice might be useful.
While I do not think it likely that shooting at the rate that Lars has achieved could be done with a 90 lb + bow (except by exceptionally strong individuals), the dexterity would have permitted shooting war bows at a higher rate than the average strong archer.
The choice of a light and supple bow for some of the shots is probably not only for the comfort of the archer, but also to contain the arrows within a reasonable area so that random arrows do not fall on the spectators. I am also guessing that you did not shoot your best arrow shafts at a blade to be split down the middle.
Reading the old manuals and historical accounts of archers, it is clear that there always were some exceptional ones who were often chosen to make difficult shots. In one Persian manuscript written in India there are accounts of members of the leader's bodyguard being called out to shoot particular enemies such as the opposing general. If it worked, it could change the course of a battle. If it failed it was only a wasted arrow.
![[external image]](http://oriental-arms.com/photos/items/22/001922/ph-0.jpg){kind=link}
![[external image]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5mfzPouaiU0/maxresdefault.jpg){kind=link}
