Lars Andersen reveals the TRUTH about the most viewed archery video ever made
Video Statistics and Information
No captions available for this video.
Channel: larsandersen23
Views: 293,194
Rating: 4.9301267 out of 5
Keywords:
Id: i4mqt69VZ28
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 89min 48sec (5388 seconds)
Published: Mon May 18 2020
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
Holy fuck that took a long time. If I wasn't so bored I would have said fuck it after an hour, but here you are, timestamps, some information on what each section covers, and in a few cases personal notes where I couldn't resist the urge to add something.
The video was actually better than I expected, length and rambling aside. I was originally planning to do the whole "Urgh, Lars, downvote and move on" thing, but after watching the first and second sections I realized that it provided a lot of insight into where he was coming from and how horrendous he is at conveying his thoughts to others. I'm still not fussed on 'em, but it's better to understand and disagree than to not.
00:00 - 14:28 | introduction, how his form developed.
14:28 - 21:32 | What techniques were "long since forgotten"?
Shadiversity brought up this common criticism and noted that the techniques Lars seems to be promoting were never forgotten. Lars himself acknowledges throughout the video that he wasn't the first person to use many of the form variations he's become known for, which further calls the original claim of reinventing archery into question.
Lars replied with an analogy, explanation, and guest speakers that show what he meant wasn't a reinvention of techniques but rather a reinvention of "archery ability", or perhaps more accurately (in my words), trying to recreate what made period archers so good at what they did.
21:32 - 23:07 | "It also works with sharp arrows and powerful bows"
Shadiversity criticized that Lars hadn't demonstrated these techniques with heavier bows or sharp arrows during his original video.
The reply was straight forward, Lars used a 100# bow to perform some speed shots and goes on to explain that he prefers not to due to the strain and there's no need to use a heavy draw weight with trick shots.
The fact that he was still half-drawing wasn't brought up, more on that later.
23:07 - 34:07 | Speed shooting in war
Shadiversity brought up the common criticisms and claims regarding the effectiveness of speed shooting in warfare, and asked Lars to explain his thoughts on it.
Lars starts by talking about how much information has been lost to time and how many unknowns there are when talking about archery throughout history. He goes on to explain his thoughts on speed shooting, which he illustrated best with a video and the statement that an archer with an arrow nocked is a threat to their enemy, so it stands to reason that an archer would want to nock their arrow as quickly as possible. He closed his response by saying that he doesn't believe historical archers would have tried to shoot super fast, but they would have wanted to nock another arrow and shoot quickly.
Personal note, a few things that would be relevant to the use of archery in warfare that weren't touched on are: Use of terrain, formations, the interspersing of infantry among their ranks, the archers being armed and trained to fight at close range, and the ranges at which bows were used.
34:07 - 43:08 | Speed shooting comparison
Shadiversity criticized the speed shooting comparison clip in the original video, calling into question the fairness of the comparison shown, the light draw weight Lars is using, and the partial draw used. Shadiversity goes on to suggest that speed shooting be compared by category, asks Lars how quickly he can shoot with a full draw, and asks for his input about claims that Lars has modified nocks that allow easier nocking that might not have been available historically.
Lars opened his reply by talking about the world record for most arrows in the air before the first one lands, he made use of overdrawing to give the first shots additional power, effectively proving he can still shoot quickly even with a full draw.
He acknowledges that during the aforementioned clip he was focusing entirely on speed, and states that if he could do it again he would do it differently. He also states that he's using the same bow draw weight as the other archers, but doesn't say anything about his lower draw weight on the fingers due to the partial draw, or how he's not using his back muscles or good bone alignment, which would be potentially dangerous were he to do that with a heavier weight on his fingers.
Lars closed his response by addressing the criticisms about his nocks.
43:08 - 46:20 | "Saracen archers were expected to be able to shoot 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds"
Shadiversity mentions criticisms regarding the time claimed and the difficulty in measuring it uniformly. He goes on to ask Lars what his source is for the claim and how sure he is that it's really 1.5 seconds in modern time.
Lars provided his source and explains that the 1.5 seconds comes from working out how long the first arrow takes to land. The source is Saracan Archery, which states the following on page 138 of the English translation:
Personal note, I'm seeing a lot of variables here, including standard bow height, draw weight (on the fingers/thumb), arrow weight, and the string and limb materials.
46:20 - 52:32 | Historical artwork showing arrows on the right side of the bow
There's a bit of rambling in this one. Shad talks about the artwork in the video, disingenuous claims, and shooting bows with the arrow on the right side. Shadiversity then asks Lars why he feels that artwork is valid and reliable evidence
Lars responds by talking about his experience, the differences in information contained in written and drawn mediums, and the unreliability of each.
52:32 - 56:10 | Arab Archery book, 'best style of shooting, nothing beyond it'
Shadiversity points out how much controversy surrounds this section of the video, as well as how much of that criticism takes the quote out of context; the book itself really does claim it's the best style of shooting. Shadiversity then questions the accuracy of the historical text's claim, before talking about a few other things and then having his clip cut off.
Lars states that he doesn't believe the book's claim was meant to be interpreted literally, but instead refers to the overall power and accuracy of an attack. He finishes by restating that this is his personal opinion and that he doesn't know the truth about historical archery.
56:10 - 1:02:08 | Shooting at stationary targets, unknown in the past
Shadiversity starts by immediately and effectively disproving the claim as interpreted literally, but given how often translation has been an issue, goes on to ask Lars what his real opinion is regarding stationary target archery.
Lars explains that in order to learn to shoot at people, using cavalry as an example, you need to practice on more than a stationary target. He complains about "bs" modern target faces, and talks a bit about his personal experience and experience teaching others to shoot at moving objects. He brings on archery coach Jorgen Philipp whose archers he's taught to shoot at moving objects, they talk about the difficulties the girls had going back and forth. Lars concludes that shooting at a flat target is actually quite difficult, presumably from an instinctive perspective, and that shooting at a 3D target is easier.
Personal note: I'm honestly not surprised. The human brain is very good at predicting angles and trajectories if you let it, like the alignment of your two hands and a target, but depending on what you're focusing on it doesn't always do this, and switching back and forth between instinct and deliberate process requires a fair bit of mental control.
Lars Andersen and Shadiversity? Cheers, I'd rather stick my cock in a bacon slicer.
"It's long but worth a watch"
I have totally used that one before.
I'm not a masochist. Can someone who is post a summary?
You fucking what mate. How many adverts do you want to put in a video.
I already know what the guy is all about. He wants people to believe, for some reason, that combat archers were the pre-firearm equivalent of modern, close combat fire teams.
They were not, and he's insufferable to watch.
Fuck Shad pretending like he's some kind of martyr for pointing out unverifiable shit and then playing the victim when being told to fuck off.
Oh yummy. Two of my least favorite experts ๐