Can an archery nerd comment on the _historical accuracy_ of this method of shooting? He certainly proves it's effectiveness, and it's nice that he's been able to take some heretofore presumed to be "false" historical accounts and demonstrate that they were, in fact, possible... but that still leaves the question of whether this WAS the way in which some, most, or even (as certain segments seem to imply) all ancient masters shot.

For example, in this video, it is claimed that Mr. Andersen "studied the ancient master archers of China, Turkey, Persia". OK, in what way, exactly? Were there actually written accounts of Chinese archers holding a quivers-worth of arrows in their hand? Were there many drawings of such techniques? Or did Mr Andersen simply pick out some of the more extravagant claims of the chroniclers, and set about finding ways in which to accomplish them? The video takes pains to show various pieces of art that corroborate the historicity of his unorthodox (but still widely accepted) hip-shooting technique. Yet we see the arrow-holding technique in only one of the cited pieces, the detail from the Bayeux Tapestry, and to the best of my knowledge that one colonial oppressor is the only archer in the entire tapestry to be shown firing like that (although admittedly, there's only like five archers on the damn thing in the first place). That does not not seem to engender confidence in the claim that this style of shooting was widespread - and further, if this was the case, since Mr Andersen's hand-quiver technique was obviously known to at least a few ancient peoples, it begs the question of why the technique was not more widely adopted. If hand-quiver shooting really conferred such a large advantage, you'd think that anyone who saw it in action (like the Normans and Saxons at Hastings) would have dumped their historian-approved style of archery and gone to work turning themselves into bow-slinging human machine guns. What might the disadvantages be? Mr Andersen does not say.

Anyway, I really don't know enough about the sources he's using (or not using) to say. Can anyone help us out?

He soundly trumped the Legolas Delusion. Don't know why you need any more convincing than that. If you really want answers, somebody should fire up the Lindybeige Signal.

Not a historian here at all, so take this all with a giant grain of salt.

Saw elsewhere he uses a 30 pound draw (due to his LARPer background, which limits bow draw to that) - that's a far cry from the longbow estimates.

I didn't think you'd ever want your longbowmen that close to make this a viable tactic - that style relied on distance and lots of archers to rain down arrows, more like artillery than machine guns, didn't it? Or better put, if your longbowmen were close enough to need to rapid fire arrows at close range, you're doing it wrong.

Makes sense for mounted archers though.

I put my bretonnian longbow-men in that triangle formation all the time.

"You see, eh, uh, this is, uh, not accurate, as anyone can, ah, see if you, ah, look at the Bayeux Tapestry where, ah, we see these armored knights clearly, eh, using bows fashioned from, ah, the bones of small animals and not, ah, children, as most people foolishly believe. Also, the tapestry itself is, ah, wrong, as it's made from woven, er, cloth, which makes NO sense, erm, when one looks at the fashions of the, ah, day, which were clearly produced by, ah, gluing together, erm, fish."

I'll offer him my rebuttal.

of COURSE he was already mentioned in this thread.

Sounds good

Man that takes me back.

Not before he shows if he can shoot a boxing glove arrow.

Does this count?

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=132271

But did he also have bagpipes and a Scottish broadsword?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

Wow! No, nothing so awesome- just chewing tobacco and stoicism; yet another example of the unimaginative, Southern-fried failed-jock type who keeps the wolf from the door.

*****

!!!!
*********

Dude I don't think they had compound bows in the paleolithic era

I'm not so sure they even had them in the Victorian era.

You clowns know what I mean.