Skills Lost

It's called cinematic "license."

The point was, at one time the skills set was once common.

How about a total insult to engineering, science, physics and the sentence structure of the english language in general.

Wow! That makes no sense at all.

Well, Professor Peabrain wasn't using a turboencabulator in his design.

Disregard.

I watched 10 seconds of it - told me all I needed to know. I'd love to force him, perhaps under the threat of a long jail sentence, to study for a degree in engineering. Then ask him back to present this again.

I was just using him as a contrast of how there are highly skilled and trained people in this world worth noting and how there are others so far from that level that they too are worth noting but for entirely different reasons.

I suspect the Archer sees every flaw in his work even though it looks perfect in our views yet the babbling village idiot likely sees his knowledge as being flawless despite the fact most anyone can clearly see otherwise.

Some of the village idiots we've had here come to mind.

Was it me, or the words being used were not even words? Pacifier time!

Two thumbs up from Legolas and Del!

I actually found this through Independent Journal Review.

They had a good write up about the Danish archer Lars Andersen and a little history of the technique.

Which explains my comment about the cinema.

The back quiver may be useless for combat, but seldom do you hear of lone archers in a battle.

When used in warfare, weren't the archers used in a 'mass formation' (more of a line than a mob, but still working as a groups, not independent fighters like a unit of skirmishers) firing over the battlefield with a rain of arrows on the opposing forces, like an artillery barrage? Those archers had their arrows stuck in the ground in front of them, loosing the arrowed in coordinated waves, to bring death from the sky before they retreated from the battlefield.

And they HAD to retreat quickly, they had no footmen in front providing protection (like we do with modern combined arms, using infantry as a 'meat shield' to protect the close artillery), the archers were not 'important' enough to warrant protection, not like the knights, and as the opposing knights closed in, the archers had to flee or be cut down my the enraged nobles wanting revenge for this attack from 'mere peasants.'

In the Mongol world, it was different, since Mongol archers were respected as warriors, but then again, most of the Mongol army consisted of equestrian archers, so it made sense to value the skills the army relied on for victory.

---

On a side note, let me share something I discovered recently. If you highlight a URL you type in, you get all the text formatting icons at the top of the edit window. The one that looks like a globe and chain lets you turn the URL into a clickable link.

Those are good points,

What surprised me, was some of the techniques. such as the side of the bow string was on and the like. As far as the mongols, they did have an example of that where I'm sure there was some close quarters fighting going on.

The other item, was this guy showed some commitment by practicing, Not to take anything away from the skill, I just wonder how many takes he did to get it right.

And lastly, the only use I see for this skill to survive today is in exhibitions.

Thanks about the suggestion about the URL, unfortunately, when I post from iPad, I don't have the menu options. And I hate hard coding it in ASCII.

I'd be interested in Del's opinion.

I think a lot of why these became 'lost skills' is due to the class system in place in Europe at the time.

Swordsmanship, Riding, Jousting, those were all 'Noble' pursuits, meaning the Nobles did them and talked about them, and wrote about them, so they were recorded.

Archery, on the other hand, was an 'Ignoble'(1) task, left to the peasants. The Nobles may have archery contests to show skill and win bragging rights at court, but that was all just standing still shooting at stationary targets, much like 'modern archery.' The peasants did not write down their techniques, since they were generally forbidden to learn reading or writing(2), so when things like the Black Plague raced through the land, the skilled people in both groups died, but the Nobles at least had their writings lo learn from. You can't learn 'oral tradition' from a corpse.

Notes:

1) The class system is even built into the language, where 'noble' is a synonym for 'good' and the antonym for noble, which should just mean 'not-noble', is considered a synonym for 'bad.' Kind of how the anti- prefix is considered to mean 'opposite' when it just means 'other.' You do not get a huge explosion if a Pope and an anti-Pope shaker hands(3).

2) Even in Thee Goode Olden Dayes you still had The Man trying to keep The People down.

3) Well, aside from the sociopolitical explosion of the followers of each Pope (for any Pope is an anti-Pope to another Pope, each claims to be the rightful heir to the Papacy) as they scream in outrage over 'their' Pope being friendly with 'the impostor.' But I try to avoid religion or politics here, and since this is veering towards the politics of religion, I'm going to run away from this post as fast as my caffine-fueled legs will carry me.

That's how I understand it, the archers were farmers/peasants. Who took up arms when needed (ordered).

As far as the skills set for a professional archer that was a professional warrior????, I'd have to give that to the Mongols and possible Yabusame.

I have to say, after seeing this video, it made me look into things like this.

And I'm sure Del would add to this or set things straight.

From what I've read, yeoman were a step up from peasants as the word was first used. They were skilled bow users, requiring years of training, from youth, to have the muscle strength to draw the English longbow. Normal peasants did not receive this kind of extensive training.

I'm guessing, too, that the term yeoman is a contraction of 'yew men', since the bows were most often made from yew wood. (The origin seems to be lost in the mists of time. I can't find the 'original' origin.)

I've seen well-detailed paintings and drawings from the Middle Ages that show longbow users with the arrow on the right side of the bow and on the left side of the bow. It certainly makes sense that the arrow would be mounted (nocked) on the right hand side to allow swift firing for a right-handed archer. One painting shows the arrows in a bundle slung at the archers right hip.

My overall impression of the video is that the guy is just being a 'show off' - a Legolas wannabe.

I too want to see what Del has to say about all of this.

SHow off yes, still... I made a comment as to how many takes it took him.

like Dizzy Dean once said,... "It ain't bragging if you can do it."

I'm just surprised at the time he invested to 'Master' this skill. At least as a layman, I'd call it master.

The professor I had in college once said. If you put an extra hour a day into doing anything, within two hears you'd be an expert.

Thinking, he meant an extra hour above of what you're doing now. And to a degree, I think believe he was right.

effin awesome...

I don't normally finish nerdy youtubes...this one was pretty good

I originally saw it on IJReview, (see later link I posted), they had a good write up. It was impressive.

I am more interested in Lars' archery skills than the BS of Hollywood and their blighted distortions. I find this sort of stuff absolutely amazing demostration of "practice makes perfect", but more than that, a change in paradigm that makes a lot more sense to rapid firing of arrows.

What initially caught my eye, was a statement of archer splits his own arrow he just shot in mid air with another arrow.

If I knew it was on you tube, I would never had watch. but considering the source where I found it. I had to see.

Well Hollywood is trying to sell entertainment not history.

I do doubt that the common archer had these skills. If they did how did the musket ever make it. The time it would take to reload a musket would have seen it's own down fall.

As the U.S. Cavalry learned when they used drop-block loaders against bows and arrows, or even lever-action rifles their opponents had.

Also, the British also learned hard lessons about drop-block loaders against the Zulu in the Battle Isandwna. (Not bows and arrows, just a horde of Zulu warrior with short handled spears and cowhide shields.)

I didn't know that.

As of seeing this I can't help but comment on how much of the people of today think they too should be able to perform at those skill levels with whatever it is they chose yet none will ever put forth 1% of the effort and work it would take to reach his level.

My wife and her present woodwork craze are a perfect example. At the moment she has all the workable knowledge and skill sets of our 6 year old daughter but that in itself seems to be of no concern to her as to why mastering how to do high end 3D sculpture work with a multi axis CNC system is not likely going to be happening any time soon.

Not quite 30 years ago... I was working at a company and we had a guy working there, he was nice enough,.... in a strange way. But was highly ambitious to get to the top in the most least strenuous way. He had a (2) year Associates degree in Architecture. He read what he called business strategy books.

I saw one. It was called. "Why take the ladder to the top when you can take the elevator". This book was full of short quips like that..... actually that's what it was consisted of.

I asked him why and his reply was it was easier reading than the boring books, such as management, or economics and the like.

I suggested to him that he should read "The Art Of War" by Sun Tzu, but he made it clear he was against violence. I'm going to stop there and go on with the story.

He also always listened to motivational tapes in the car in the morning. One day, When it was quitting time and time to leave, He returned to the office and asked if someone could give him a jump.... turned out, that the motivational tape he was listening to that morning, distracted him enough that he forgot to turn off the auxiliary and remove his key. So his tape played all day and drained his battery.

Fate/karma can be both cruel and funny.

There's more to this guys antics, but that's for another time.

Lars Andersen would be no match for this guy

At first I thought he had a patch over one (or maybe both) eyes, as a result of shooting his eye(s) out with that trick. ONLY in the movies, my friend, only in the movies.