I think the whole thing is worth a read. I tried finding it other than a facebook post. It's by Anna Maltese, who I guess is a pretty famous archer. Here's the article:
Thanks, it was a good read, and very reasonable. There are a bunch of points that are very sensible so I have nothing to say about them.
* Third, the narration asserts a lot about the placement of the arrow on the bow shelf. The reason the arrow is usually shot by the opposite hand from the side of the bow it's resting on is that the physics of the Archer's Paradox make sure that the arrow is going to fly in a straight trajectory after bending around the riser. Now, it's true that there are many traditions of same-side shooting - notably, the Mongolian style with thumb ring. Lars incorporates this into his style on account of wanting to speed up the shot sequence. But whether it's necessary for speed is up for debate. In many other types of archery, same-side shooting is going to make the arrow fly off to the side at longer distances, but up close - like from the distances Lars is shooting - it's probably not going to be that much of a problem. However, archery - especially in warfare - wasn't always up close. Also, the archers don't shoot "on the right" or "on the left." They shoot with the draw hand of their dominant eye, whichever that eye is. However, since Lars isn't drawing back to any anchor, that's not an issue.
The Mongolian style isn't necessarily Mongolian, doesn't necessarily use a thumb ring, and is very widespread. The flying off the side issue is simply not present with the thumb release, bringing that up suggests she is (not surprisingly) trained in western-style finger release and has little exposure to thumb release (which is true of most western archers). There is an argument that thumb release is generally faster, it maybe helps a little that the arrows start on the right side of the bow, but the real advantage Lars is using, I think, is holding multiple arrows in the hand. It does help quite a bit. I haven't seen anything to suggest it's commonly done anywhere in current practice. For regular target shooting there's no point. I don't know whether it's really historically common as Lars claims. Certainly you would
also carry a quiver because there's a limit to how many arrows you can hold in your hand at once, and sometimes you need your hands free. The point he should be making, and handles very poorly, is that you wouldn't necessarily be drawing arrows from that quiver one by one with each shot.
She also mentions he isn't drawing back to an anchor point, which others have criticized as sloppy technique, but it's typical of Mongolian archery.
* Fourth, he's using a 35# (35 - pound draw weight) bow; that'll give him an easy pull. This would not have done much damage to an armored fighter. He's also not even drawing it back fully, so the weight is going to be even less than 35#. (This will also help him with the 'catching the arrow in midair trick shot - the weight might be as little as 25#, depending on how far back the other bow is drawn.) Most archers these days who hunt with traditional, non-compound bows shoot with at least a 35# for some (unarmored) game, but more likely with at least a #40 and more likely a 50#. British archers in warfare often pulled as much as 100# because they relied on distance shooting in warfare. So, historical accuracy is out the window for this aspect, because war bows have a heavier pull.
It's definitely true that using a light bow helps the speed as she says.
But the English longbow is the exception when it comes to war bows. 50-60 lbs draw is more typical in other cultures. So, although his bow is light, it shouldn't be read that it's only a third of combat strength.
Can you imagine how Agincourt would have turned out if the British had had to rely on this type of archery, instead of their traditional style, which is what saved their bacon? Or can you imagine how the Mongols would have succeeded in their adventures had they adopted the British method of using the longbow?
This sounds like very western bias to me. Really, although the English longbow is a very heavy draw, the recurve design is more efficient and composite construction provided its own advantages. If the Mongols had all been given English longbows, they would have had to get off their horses and probably would have been slaughtered. After all, they did not lose because of poor military technology, they lost because their leader died and they all had to go home to figure out his successor.
Meanwhile, if the English had Mongol composite bows, they probably would have died too because composite bows don't tolerate rainy (English) weather nearly as well as self bows. In sunny weather... some have argued the longbowmen were more effective against cavalry at Agincourt by shooting the lightly armored horses, more than the mounted knights themselves. Would have worked out the same with Mongol bows. Against the heavily armored infantry, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt describes the battle this way:
The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as "a terrifying hail of arrow shot".... Modern historians are somewhat divided on how effective the longbow fire would have been against plate armour of the time, with some modern texts suggesting that arrows could not penetrate, especially the better quality steel armour, but others suggesting arrows could penetrate, especially the poorer quality wrought iron armour. Rogers suggests that the longbow could penetrate a wrought iron breastplate at short range and penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs even at 220 yards (200 m). He considers a knight in the best quality steel armour would have been more or less invulnerable to an arrow on the breastplate or top of the helmet, but would still have been vulnerable to shots hitting the limbs, particularly at close range.[47] In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armour weighing 50–60 pounds (23–27 kg). Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades.[48]
The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.Sounds to me like they would have done fine with Mongol bows.
