Is this accurate?

you beat me to it senpai, here's another test from the same channel
youtube.com/watch?v=l2-QuTLkZOQ

Either way OP's video is full of shit and has been debunked by a lot of people

He's a trick shooter most definitely but is there any evidence you couldn't use the same techniques on a higher poundage bow? With enough training, shouldn't you be able to shoot pretty fast?

The only sensible counter argument you can give is the one presented by Lars uses a very low weight bow, allowing him to not get tired and to shoot faster. But that's a very weak argument: if it's only a matter of physical strenght, it really comes down to the individual genetics and time spent training, and it says nothing about the method.

Watch his previous and his following video
youtu.be/2zGnxeSbb3g
youtu.be/8iLTA43MBuA

Two things you'll need to understand in order to navigate to the sea of hypothesis and criticism that surrounds Lars' videos, and both of these things regard other counter arguments that are NOT sensible, because are brought forward by people who are simply envious or not paying attention.

1. Lars' method is about ductility and versatility
You 'll hear a lot of bullshit about
>hey hey you can't use a mediterranean grip if you put the arrow on the right side of the bow, you have to compensate for the archer's paradox
Lars sometimes uses a mediterranean grip, sometimes a pinch grip, sometimes a mongolian grip. Sometimes he puts his arrow on the right side, sometimes on the left side, he shoots with both hands and from the waist. His method is adaptive and it's all about context and compensating weaknesses and strenghts.

2. Lars' method is not just fast, is instinctive
A lot, and I mean A LOT of professional archers are bashing on Lars, calling what he does "trickshooting" -not a derogatory term, but a way of saying that he's just showing off by shooting fast. There was a particularly ridiculous video by the YouTube channel "skepticallypwnd" in which an insufferable feminist liberal atheist female archer was burning with butthurt, but infortunately the video was so bad they had to take it down. I wish someone has a copy.
Anyway, Lars' main point is that, by holding the arrows in the draw hand, shooting becomes istinctive and it can prescind from classical aiming method.
Cont.

Cont.

Simply put, he's bringing a revolution in modern archery. And, like any groundbreaking theory, it's hard to accept. Historians needed 50 years to swallow the idea that vikings went to North America before Columbus did, what do you expect form a bunch of larping fanboys?

Comparisons to the English longobow also make no sense. The longbow it's a WAR WEAPON, it has nothing to do with what Lars is presenting.

I'll give you an example with modern weapons, even if I'm not remotely qualified in this field:
It's like, in 5000 years, people are going to think that a 50cal. Barret rifle was the standard gun for our age. And Lars is one of those people who looks at a double-barreled shotgun and says: maybe there was a faster and less demanding way of shooting bullets.

You are free to screencap these posts and paste them everytime a cyclical Lars thread comes popping around.

This is cool. I like this Lars guy.

i was thinking the same, however the vast proprtion of an archers work is going to be firing at unarmoured targets - hunting local criminals/bandits as part of a lords retinue, hunting animals. Firing against armoured targets isnt something that happens often unless you are at war. I would guess, assuming that his vid is accurate, that like say DeGrassis fighting manual, it is one kind of archer rather than all archers, the same way that DeGrassi was for a gentleman fighter not a average bloke in the army. The issue is that people here jump on every fact they see and it has to be true or false, the world isnt like that. Things can be part right, right in some circumstances, right in some age, etc. and still be wrong in other senses.

Could someone do this with a long bow that requires 90-104 pounds of draw strength? Yes, is it practical for combat? No, when you're shooting at something 25-50 meters away, trying to balance extra arrows in your draw hand complicates things.

Hell, you can get good at duel wielding swords too with enough training.

The original claim was this was some lost technique that archers once used but current archers forgot all about it.

>it's a WAR WEAPON

So whyd you shoot at chainmail with your low energy bow?

>But that's a very weak argument: if it's only a matter of physical strenght, it really comes down to the individual genetics and time spent training, and it says nothing about the method.
Even the strongest archers won't be able to pierce (actually, not even hit, at >30m) lightly armoured foes with that method.

Sure, if you're literally Hercules, Son of Zeus, with a power armour and exoskeleton and trying to hit targets just a few meters away, you might use this.
For any real world applications, it's useless, though.

>Simply put, he's bringing a revolution in modern archery. And, like any groundbreaking theory, it's hard to accept. Historians needed 50 years to swallow the idea that vikings went to North America before Columbus did, what do you expect form a bunch of larping fanboys?
Or, people might actually just be right that this is useless trick shooting, just as flat earth theory isn't just rejected because real physicists are jealous.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

>Even the strongest archers won't be able to pierce (actually, not even hit, at >30m) lightly armoured foes with that method.
>Sure, if you're literally Hercules, Son of Zeus, with a power armour and exoskeleton and trying to hit targets just a few meters away, you might use this.
>For any real world applications, it's useless, though.

t. seen-it-on-youtube

>can stay far away and rain death on french knights with your archer buddies
>go on to the front lines with your trickshooting
Sounds dumb

Call me back when this is replicated in a journal. With digital video editing, everything is possible to be shown on YouTube. I think it being partially faked is more likely than all of mankind getting archery wrong for the past 10.000 years.

Why would any of this even be useful on a battlefield. If you were an archer you'd be standing in a formation. You can't exactly go jumping around.

You are basing your knowledge on YouTube videos of larping faggots and then ask for counterproof.

>war context is the only context
See, that's the kind of shit I'm taling about.

I've never referenced or even watched someone shoot a bow on YouTube. In fact, I didn't even watch the video in the OP, I just read an article describing it and why it's wrong.

Speak for yourself.

>does historical research on primary texts to see how archers were once expected to perform
>realizes that modern sporting archery techniques cannot come close to meeting those standards
>develops a theory of technique as to how those performance standards could have been met
>convincingly demonstrates that such techniques meet the performance standards
>convincingly argues why such techniques make sense on an historical-practical level outside of modern sport archery
>essentially has done important original historical research

response:
>dude but chainmail is invincible lmao
>why aren't u using my meme bow?
>muh archer's paradox
>say that staring down 12,000 men-at-arms on an open field (fucker) not online (and see what happens)

>not hitting the target at 30 metres
>real world applications
>rationalwiki

But it's useless in every context except trick shooting. It's useless for hunting birds (which are the only things you'd be able to hunt with such a low poundage bow), it's useless for war, it's useless for target shooting, what exactly is it good for?

I'm sure this guy has discovered a new way of reloading muskets faster too.

No, the british just never invented the composite bow.

The composite bow was always better because it was more efficient, meaning you needed less strength to fire an arrow with the same power, and shorter meaning you could fire from horseback

>less strength to fire an arrow with the same power
That makes no sense from a physics standpoint, can you go into a bit more detail?

No, the fucking brits did not invent the composite bow.
The composite bow was alwasy better but was not as used in europe as in the steppes or the middle east because the climate was more wet and the shitty glue these bows used suffered.

Not him, but:

The horn belly allows the bow to store more compressive energy; the sinew/bamboo backing makes it more "springy", snapping back to the default position.

Notice how the tips of the bow are curved in this picture. Just by being strung it is more curved than, say, an English longbow. Thus, the amount the archer has to pull (In order to get an equivelant amount of force to that of a non-recurve bow) is lessened as it's already being given energy just by being bent into the ready position.

The bow is doing some of the work for you.

>Composite bow was always better
>Except here here and here
God I hate this fucking board

go to bed lars

Are you dumb? POUNDAGE ALLOWANCE IS RELATIVE TO INDIVIDUAL STRENGHT.
Lars is just a skinny manlet that in his free time has shown that not just medieval legends or people blessed with genetics like Dyron Ferguson can use a bow extremely effectively.

And if you can't imagine contexts in which an archer can use his abilities outside of infantry formations, you sure have some serious mental deficiency.
Here are few examples:

Cavalry archery
Guerrilla fighting
Ambushes
Shooting from the merlons of a wall
Hunting deers
Hunting boars
Showing off as a jester
Showing off to impress the ladies
As a form or religious meditation
As a sport
Being a bandit and raiding villages
Being a villager and defending from bandits
Escorting a convoy of pilgrims headed to Jerusalem
To perform your duty as a city guard
To perform your duty as the personal squire of your lord
Shooting an arrow through the holes of twelve axe heads in order to defy the suitors who want to marry your wife since you disappeared when you sailed to the war twenty years earlier

Some of these context were more common than others, but in pretty much all of them you can see how Lars' istinctive archery may come into play.

Not that guy, but the main reason is the draw curve of a recurve bow allows to store more potential energy for the same maximum draw weight and draw length.
The ideal bow would have a constant draw force, something modern compound bows come very close to

>Thus, the amount the archer has to pull (In order to get an equivelant amount of force to that of a non-recurve bow) is lessened as it's already being given energy just by being bent into the ready position.
>The bow is doing some of the work for you.

What the fuck am i reading. Composite recurve bows are able to violate the first law of thermodynamics now?

The butthurt dyke was correct though, redditors much like yourself are mad that she's disproving your fantasies.

>meaning you needed less strength to fire an arrow with the same power

no, it's just more power in a smaller package. You still need the same strength to pull.

A stringed bow's starting position isn't 0 energy.

Nah, you don't really believe that.
She cropped screenshots, she pretended she had read the books that Lars had pointed out, she got lost in her inconsistent rambling on how «Archery is about what works!» fiercely ignoring that what Lars does ACTUALLY WORKS, she put forward absurd implications like
>hey hey you can't split an arrow down the middle hitting a blade if you don't cut the arrow's point, that's cheating!
Go watch Lars' response video, he's just «Yeah, of course you can't, the process is described in the book Arab Archery, and you have to cut the arrow point.»
or
>hey hey how did Saracens count seconds!
«READ. THE. FUCKING. BOOK.»

Come on, go call someone else a redditor.
I know you didn't mean it and just wanted to tease, it's ok, really.
God I wish someone had saved that video.

Those are literally two points.

She has more.

What about catching the arrow in mid air?

Left handedness vs right handedness?

muh back quiver is a le myth?

IIRC the only book Lars mention is Saracen Archery.

Lars is a good trick shooter but nothing he does is anything like historical archery. Get over it, fanboy.

>far away
Practical shooting was typically with straight shots at 50m. Because anything else is largely useless against an armored vanguard.

There is no historical record of anything like Lars' archery occurring in history outside of trickshooting. You're working backwards to justify something that has never happened.

???
>The bow is doing some of the work for you.
All the work is done by yourself. The net energy output of all bows is 0 (zero)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about

"make archery simple again"
>"shoots an arrow with his foot"

This.

What the fuck is the tactical advantage of doing that, alongside a third of the shit he does in the video?

>he thinks any of those things would be worth doing with a bow weak enough to be able to pull off this gay shit

...poundage... relative... individual strenght...

>>The bow is doing some of the work for you.
I'm not the guy who said that but it is true.

The net energy of a piece of wood is 0. Once you tie a string to both ends, not anymore. When you fire the bow, the force that propels the arrow isn't just the what you used to pull the bow.

You would have to be abnormally strong to have a relatively pounded bow thar is strong enough to be worth shooting at something while simultaneously being weak enough for you to shoot it like that.

Quasi-related question:
Does such a thing as a bow that you use while sitting and using your legs and back to pull back the bowstring exist? Like where the bowstring needs hundreds of pounds of draw strength.

Yes, they're called foot-bows. A foot bow was used to set the world record distance shot.

Also the world record for longest *accurate* bow shot was set by a man with no arms drawing the bow with his feet.

>The net energy of a piece of wood is 0
yes
>Once you tie a string to both ends, not anymore.
It takes a certain amount of work to string a bow. This however doesn't contribute at all to the energy transferred to the arrow
>When you fire the bow, the force that propels the arrow isn't just the what you used to pull the bow.
I don't even know what to make of this. Are you trying to say the work used to string the bow is also contributing? because that's fucking wrong

Composite recurve bows had an effective range comparable to the longbow, but not comparable power at the same range because composite recurve bows are designed to fire much smaller and lighter arrows with less stopping power. It's not all about draw weight and potential energy, the ammunition also counts for a lot in terms of how effective the weapon is at what range. Most of the steppe nomads favored very light arrows used for hunting or shooting down unarmored/lightly armored targets at distances in excess of 300 yards sometimes, which is impressive especially while mounted, but those arrows likely wouldn't do much against somebody in chainmail at that range, or even a leather jack. Mongols though were famous for getting really close, 200 yards or closer, and used thicker, heavier arrows with more stopping power. That's really what made them so successful, their cavalry archers were anti-cavalry archers.

Thanks senpai. They just make sense to me because you can deadlift the most weight and that setup seems like a pretty good way to siege a location from distance without being fired back upon.

No one is talking about long bows you fucking idiot.

Its just trick shooting with a weak bow that has virtually no application in real life

Actual historical archers never did anything like this except to show off

lars pls

No. All debunking aside, this shouldn't even be a debate, Lars even admitted it in his follow-up video. It's basically damage control admitting he lied and was wrong about a bunch of things, but he thinks it's okay because it's for entertainment.

>please upvote so others can see it!

His arrows penetrated chain mail with a gembeson underneath. You didn't watch the video. No, it's not a longbow, but those were for hordes of barely middle-class commoners to be drawn up and used en masse, having practiced the previous year, in their spare time. He's talking about techniques of master archers, using a variety of bows and applications, from less organized up-close situations, to horseback, to medium-long range accuracy. The longbow is obviously not made for single-man accuracy. It's a volley weapon.

I like him eh makes meme archery and arent afraid of anything

>it basically means that if you got hit, there was a good chance it would penetrate both gambeson, leather, and even chainmail and hit your vital organs.
Like who?

youtube.com/watch?v=cr_1z3GwxQk
He pretty much BTFO Lars

Lars is right and time will avenge him.
You are either stupid or dishonest.

Tell me what he says is correct

It's butted mail. You can tear a butted mail shirt in half with your hands.

It's not butted. It's riveted.

youtu.be/2zGnxeSbb3g?t=3m43s

>His arrows penetrated chain mail with a gembeson underneath
A low draw weight bow can't penetrate proper chainmail with gambeson you fucking idiot. The ones they use in the video are probably of low quality. War bows had a very high draw weight so they can have a chance of penetrating armour.

> just a shirt of chainmail hanging off a block of wood, no gambeson or padding underneath, no reflexive give like a body has, and the modern steel arrow tip manages to penetrate the soft wood by about a centimetre.

Cool story hansel.

>standing in formation with my m8s
>shields up, spears forward
>ready to receive the enemy volley
>the sooner we get this over with the sooner we can go home
>spirits are high but we're conscious that we'll lose some men in the volley
>the enemy volley never comes
>they send out one guy
>literally just one guy
>he's holding a fowling bow and is carrying four flightless arrows in his off hand
>the guys in the formation are all shrugging but maintain their stances, who knows what kind of trickery this could be
>the lone bowman starts jogging backwards for some reason
>does a backflip
>shoots three arrows in quick succession
>two fall short of our lines
>one bounces harmlessly off my shield
>I look to the man beside me
>he's trying to suppress a giggle
>the guy is sprinting towards us now
>he starts to roll from side to side
>whatthefuck.tapestry
>he does a cartwheel
>looses his last arrow
>it hits our standard bearer in the foot
>aw shit
>the arrow didn't go all the way through the felt in his shoe
>he wiggles his leg and it just falls out
>commander yells an order for the skirmishers
>the lone bowman is immediately turned into paste by a huge volley of javelins, darts, rocks and arrows
He was quite fancy in fairness

The guys complaining about "butted mail" should be saying "it's shitty Indian commercial mail".

May be. May be not.
It doesn't change anything either way. Again, if it's a matter of poundage, it just comes down to individual strenght.
English longbowmen were so fit and their shoulders so strong that we can identify their skeletons by how their bones are deformed. I have no problem imagining how a similarly fit man could use a composite, slightly lower poundage bow, as fast as Lars does. Because, again, the war-specific use of a longbow has nothing to do with what Lars is proposing.

I think that's probably more on the showing off to girls or doing it for sport reason...

>an archer must have total control over his bow
It's about building that instinctive feeling that Lars' method is all about.

That bloody bow has a pull weight of what, 1kg?

I doubt it, I doubt it even more with overreacting way he nods his head in that one part of the video.

Heretical show and dropped by the second episode desu

>the lone bowman is immediately turned into paste by a huge volley of javelins, darts, rocks and arrows
Except as Lars demonstrated he would catch the arrows in midair and launch them back

>master archers

So a thing that didn't exist?

WHEN WILL LINDY SET HIM STRAIGHT

>talks about holding arrows in draw hand
>uses a black and white photo of an archer with a quiver visible

What did he meme by this

Fuck off legolas

Isn't he a finn?

No Composite bow are an asiatic thing. Composite bows are more efiicient, but more expensive and time consuming to make, so they didn't suit the mass archery tactics that europe went for.

Here a video explaining it.
youtube.com/watch?v=rSxQNsYnH4Q

no, a dane.

>so they didn't suit the mass archery tactics that europe went for.
>Literally the default bow in Asia which all had mass archery considering they have to deal with steppenigs.
If anything, Medieval Europe doesn't have as big a missile compliment as there was in Asia.

see

>English longbowmen were so fit and their shoulders so strong that we can identify their skeletons by how their bones are deformed.

The bone deformation is a sports injury that is still the most common kind of injury in archers today. It has nothing to do with strength or fitness.

Looks like bullshit, and that bow has absolutely no draw weight

>this entire post