Saracen Archery: 3 arrows in 1 ½ seconds.

This video is old and there is an Updated video
"Reinventing the fastest forgotten archery."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxe...
which also tries to answer many of the questions people have asked for this video.
----------------------------------------­----------------------------------------­-------
I show it is possible to shoot 3 arrows at 1 ½ seconds.
Looking for someone who can do it faster ?



The first part of the video I shoot my old speed
in the second part of the video I shoot 3 arrows at 1 ½ seconds.

The book "Saracen Archery" An English translation of a Mameluke work on archery, written in the year 1368.

In this book are 3 test as ancient archers should be able to do:
1. A target test
2. A test of ballistic
3. And a test to show whether the archer was fast enough !
To pass the speed test, required to be able to shoot 3 arrows at less than 1 ½ seconds.
(third arrow must be in the air before the first arrow hits the target,
distance 60 bows = 69 meters,we can then calculate the time to 1 ½ seconds)

The last 3 years I have seriously trained to see how fast it is possible to shoot with bow, I try to find a speed limit but have not found it yet.

Why do I not show my technique?

If we accept that the historical source is true
(and there are also other sources)
Then there was in the past archers, who were able to shoot arrows at speeds less than 0.75 seconds for a new arrow and probably 0.5 seconds.

I have tried to study all the modern archers who shoot fast, there are many good and talented archers and many good systems.
But none of the modern systems I've seen can reach speeds near the historical.

So I started from scratch and has spent a long time trying until I found something that worked.

But I'm certainly not finished developing a system.
There are many mistakes, and I am no master, and much to be learned.

I currently have no intention to teach others something that is not finished.

Comments on my videos
I remove: profanity, stupid and not funny comments, childish criticism,
but I would like to have sensible adult criticism.

sincerely
Lars Andersen

• Category

  Sports

[CockyIrishman]

no they all think there the hood from arrow

[Nevables]

they all think they are legolas

[SAMAND33]

Mongol bows had longer effective rate than 9mm hand gun so it could go throw European armour without any problem.

[John Huang]

Like I said, it didn't matter much that you're wearing metal because you would be wearing a THICK layer of padded clothing between your armor and your skin, and quite likely another layer on top of the metal. The purpose was not just to protect the expensive armor against the elements, but to provide additional protection from crushing weapons and armor-piercing arrows.

[SAMAND33]

Man I live in Russia if you were metal you will freeze. The Mamluks and their lords originaly came from central Russia and they were Kipchaks. The Ural mountains are much colder than Europe. They could wear metal but it was not usefull for them.

[americandream69]

i know this is a stupid question, but can u do this with a compound bow

[John Huang]

Not all Turks and Mongols were so likely protected, look for images of their elite warriors (the Kheshig or the Askari or the Mamluk) and you would see all of them encased in mail or lamellar. Metal armor was never worn next to the skin, you would always wear a thick layer of padded clothing underneath and often over it for additional protection, so cold weather was not a problem. I'd say it's more of a problem during hot weather

[SAMAND33]

It is not also good to wear armour in the cold. I live in Kazan republic of Tatastan Russian fedration ask me. If you wear metal in freezin condition you will freez. Turks and mongols wore silk the covered them selves leather so when the arrow shot it will get through the leather then the silk will cover the mouth of the arrow and the wound will not be serious. The armour was not expensive for the muslims of the middleast because they were richer than the Europeans. They dominated the silk road.

[John Huang]

Besides, common sense should probably tell you right away that armor was probably quite resistant to arrows, at least most of the time. Otherwise, why would the Turks and Mongols themselves, especially their elite warriors, always wore them? Armor was heavy, stifling to wear in the hot Middle East and ridiculously expensive, if they didn't provide decent protection they wouldn't even be considered.

[John Huang]

Yet more historical evidences, this time about King Louis VII during the 2nd crusade, facing Seljuk Turks:

"The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armour protected him from the arrows."