Greek archer miniature

A Greek archer miniature. If anyone cares to know, the helmet type is called a pilos, and it is developed from a wool felt cap commonly in use in ancient Greece.

The bow is of correct recurve type, but it does not curve properly. Inflexibility seems to be one of the most common mistakes.

Also the arrows on the back quiver, they are situated directly vehind the head, from where they are very difficult to get.

Another Roman archer, much better this time.

Another Roman archer. This time mroe historically accurate, although the helmet has very strange decorations and the greaves should be left off. I drew in red where the bow should actually bend, I think this miniature model is made of something that is not suitable for thin details such as bows and arrows, since both of them are horribly deformed. I took the correct shape of the bow from a photograph of myself shooting with a recurve bow from last Sunday, actually in a Roman garb (but a couple centuries later than what this guy is wearing). Also looks like he's using only two fingers for the pull, when he should be using three. And a quiver is missing. Okay I though that I wouldn't have to count the mistakes, but here they are again.

1. Deformed bow and arrow.

2. Two finger grip.

3. No quiver.

Medusa drawing (Harryhausen style)

This drawing is copied from the late and great Ray Harryhausen's Medusa from Clash of the Titans (the 1981 version, not the 2010 remake, which is not of course on par with the original). The Harryhausen Medusa didn't have any clothes, but the young man who has drawn this has been shy about drawing naked breasts (I know the feeling, I've been at that point myself), but he has been titillated enough to draw the nipples showing through the cloth. So what's the point of drawing the cloth in the first place then?

Anyway, to the archery mistakes:

1. This bow is asymmetrical, and not on purpose.
2. Bowstring goes over the arm, which is of course wrong by all measurable standards.
3. Reverse grip with four fingers, instead of three.
4. Another mistake in the same circle, the string is bend significantly inside the fist.
5. This arrow is huge, almost the size of a javelin. It's just too heavy (especially with such a huge tip).
6. Index finger over the arrow, a beginners mistake.
7. Quiver on the back.
8. Arrows on the quiver are lacking the nocking space between the fletching and the end of the arrows.

Bonus:
Left-handedness, definitely not on purpose. Medusa in the film was right handed.

Isis spreads terror with a "bow"

These pictures are from a trailer of an online videogame called Smite. I don't really care about games in which you just fight against other nerds with candy graphic characters in a low polygon environment. Complete waste of time, as well as boring game design.

The trailer showed this obviously (clichéd) Egyptian goddess, who cannot be anyone else than Isis, since Isis is the only human faced Egyptian goddess the general public knows about (how about Maat anyone?)

Like all this game's female characters, our friend Isis here is dressed in a very revealing attire, which in this case is blatantly copied from Anaksunamun's similarly skimpy and also golden outfit from the film Mummy (1999) (the yellow lipstick is also same). They thought I didn't remember, didn't they? Anyway, the dress has to be either glued on her fake breasts, or then it's just bodypaint, which seems quite likely here. Animation of this trailer is especially bad, since it has no feel of gravity or realism in any sense of the word. The characters are just massless CGI-lumps flying everywhere at the same time. How about motion capture the next time guys?

But now to the mistakes, regarding the thing they call archery in this video:

1. This "bow" has three strings. THREE (3) STRINGS!!! What in the actual afterlife is this? Bows have one bowstring for a reason. And we will come to that later. Three strings in this "bow" makes this one of the (if not THE) worst depiction of a bow in the history of the Universe.
2. What are these three spikes in each end of the bow? They severely disturb the bowstring(s). They can even brake it/them (if it/they would not be made out of "magical glowing substance").
3. Reverse grip in the string hand. Later she uses this hand the other side up, so this is just a mistake.
4. What is this Kheperi-shaped golden shield with a large saphire doing in this "bow"? This is the size of the steel bucklers some archers used in later medieval times, but it was never attached to the bow itself of course, and never used at the same time with the bow. It only disturbs shooting more. The bow is not meant for blocking anything, it will brake.
5. Fire arrows, too much fire arrows! Why won't regular arrows do? Do they think people die more if they are penetrated with an arrow which is also on fire? Because real fire arrows were constructed differently than normal arrows, they were slower and penetrated less, so they'd be actually less dangerous against other people. Thus they were never used against humans, only (VERY RARELY!) against some objects which had to be set on fire.
6. This (left) is the side of the bow the arrows should (usually, and in this case) go, not the right side.
7. What are these blades doing in this monstrosity? Bows are not meant for hitting, but shooting! It won't last long as a mêlée weapon. Also these metal blades make the "bow" weight a ton. In this picture we can see that it more resembles an ancient harp than a bow. Maybe it's for playing music, and not fighting at all? Would make more sense.
8. Were are her arrows? There is no quiver to be seen or any spare arrows anywhere. That is a bad fighting plan.
9. Three arrows at once. While it is possible to shoot three arrows at once (I've done it) it's it not good to do so. The aim is terrible and they also have less power than one arrow would have. At least two arrows are also wasted if shooting at the same target. The arrows are also impossible to hold here, that's why I drew this circle.
10. WHAT, she releases one string at a time!!! And that actually works?!? The makers of this video has no knowledge of archery at all it seems now. The bow arc is the one which flexes and gives the power to the arrows, the string does not stretch! If a bow would have three strings it would do nothing, since it would be (theoretically) possible to shoot the three arrows at the same time, not one after another without flexing the bow again. This is just pure nonsense and a crappy idea from start to finish! Shame on you game maker dudes!
11. This bow is also about 10 times too thick. It wouldn't bend at all, but it seems like a minor mistake compared to the last one, even though this'd be a major mistake in a piece which would be otherwise decently designed. This is not.
12. Why is she having this "glove"? Is it supposed to be archers glove? Since this does only cover the area which does not touch anything while shooting, so it's completely useless. Archers glove should cover the first three fingers, not just knuckles! Also the larger bracer is in the right hand, when it would be better on the left, but they are here to bring the "Egyptian" feel anyway, even though Egyptians didn't use these kind of bracers.

Good, hahaha, are you kidding me?!?
Our Isis (not to be confused with the infamous terrorist organization, which boasts with a name of a false god (in their belief system)) does not have a bow here. This is not a bow, this terror is something else, straight from Ammit's rectum.

P.S.
Oh, now I noticed that the arrows don't have fletching at all, but whatever, this disaster couldn't be any worse.

All about Amazons!

The day before yesterday I played a game called Smallworld with my girlfriend and a good friend of mine who brought the game. It was a great experience, Games Magazine 2010 game of the year winner. The version we played was on Ipad (I don't like Apple's products), and my friend said it was even better in board game version, which it originally was designed to be.

Anyway, the game has several different "races" (more like species, like they should always be called in fantasy and science fiction settings, since the "races" are so different they cannot be of the same species), and one of them is Amazons.

This (A) is the Amazon picture from the game. B is a figure made of the character, which can be purchased on the game's official website.

I don't have much good to say about this character. And not even talking about archery yet! The baby-faced sex-Amazon has the kind of Poison Ivy-esque "clothing" that only holds on her body with the Holy Spirit, which may explain the visual connection with Eve of Paradise. No, boots and one bracer are not clothes. And neither are some strategically placed tree leaves. She has some kind of "tribal" tattoos or warpaint on her body, but also heavy mascara, pink eyeshadow and red lipstick. Of course Amazons didn't really exist outside ancient mythology, but this is not the style any woman has ever dressed herself. Especially for battle!

How far have we come from the original source of Amazons from Greek mythology?
This is a real image of an Amazon (as "real" as it can be of a mythical character):

Herakles (Hercules in Latin) here is fighting with an Amazon queen Adromakhe (NOT the wife of Hektor of Ilion (Troy)). The Amazon is clad in elaborately embroidered khiton (a Greek tunic), bears a helmet, greaves (shin armour), shield, spear and sword. Most of the pictures of Amazons show them fully dressed in robes, tunics and trousers. In fact after this early period of vase painting which this image represents, Greeks tended to portray Amazons in Persian garb. That's because Persia was their mortal enemy, and represents barbarism in Greek minds (which it really was not, but that's propaganda). Amazons also represents barbarism and the whole idea of women fighting against men was a blasphemy to the Greeks, a nation of great inventors and military geniuses, but also of probably the biggest gynophobia (fear of women, chauvinism) of any advanced civilization. Thus, Amazons were dressed in Persian style headdresses, long sleeved tunics and even trousers, such barbarian clothes Greeks would have never used. And trousers were seen as feminine! How have times changed.

A few millenniae later some sweaty nerd boys in their basements read about Amazons as well as other mythological stuff, and incorporate them in their role-playing games. They probably didn't have pictures of Greek vase paintings, since internet was not in use yet, and with their longing of women, they created the modern charcter of Amazons, exotic ultra-sexual nation of fighting females. They were not man-haters and hated by men anymore, now they become just targets of lust. How many times have male game designers / moviemakers / comic draughtsmen justified their Amazons (used here as a synonym for all female fighters) as being strong and dangerous opponents to any man, while at the same time their costume choices tell a wholly different approach of just trying to please teenage male audience.

The introduction text for the Amazon figure in the Smallworld game official webstore tells a lot:

“Strong and fearless... beautiful and exotic... the Amazon is deadly accurate with her favorite weapon, the bow and arrow. Definitely not a foe to encounter in the dark! Winner of the 2009 popularity context as the most beloved Small World character, this Amazon will be a natural fit at the top of your game shelf!
The Amazon figure is 21 cm tall.
Note that the Amazon figure is mildly NSFW. If you, or your family, are offended by partial nudity, you should not view or purchase the Amazon.”

And why is that every Amazon/female warrior uses bows nowadays? Archery is not easier than sword fighting for instance. It does require a great amount of strength and skills. Not to say that women couldn't be strong and skilled warriors, just trying to defend archery, since it seems to be so misunderstood these days.

And now we finally get to the archery mistakes:

A. Game picture:

1. This bow doesn't get thinner at all towards the ends of it. How is it supposed to bend? Completely ridiculous bow which doesn't work. Great.
2. This is like reverse sideways shooting. Maybe the maker of this picture had a hard time (pun intended) fitting the bow into the small square tile which shows in the game. Anyway, the bow is way too tilted. The fistmele is also too big.
3. What is this position of arrow?!? It's not even on the bow grabbing fist! It looks nothing else than dropping. It should be on the other side of the bow, so this wouldn't happen.
4. Maybe the arrow is dropping because it has a way too large arrowtip. That wouldn't fly very far. Stop drawing spear heads on arrows, please. An arrowtip should not be much bigger than the last bone of your thumb.
5. The arrow doesn't have fletching at all. At least none can be seen here. If there is something, it's too small and too close to the nock of the arrow.
6. Another mistake inside the same circle, what is this style of drawing the string with two fingers, and even keeping the pinky straight? We're not in Versailles you know? Grab it with three fingers in Mediterranean style. That grip is more powerful, and power you will need to bend that inlexible bow.
7. The arrow should be drawn about here. It's not anywhere near the correct place in this picture. The makers of these kinds of pictures always want to show the face of the woman so badly taht they just can't draw the arrow near the mouth of the archer where it should be. This Amazon has a very very poor aim.
8. Where are all the other arrows? Don't tell me she only has one.

B. Figure:

1.  The figure is somewhat better in the manner of archery form than the original drawing, but this has got a series of new mistakes. The arrow is again on the wrong side of the bow.
2. The arrowtip is still too large and heavy.
3. No quiver to be found here either.
4. This white arrow shows the correct nocking point for the arrow on the bowstring. Now it's nocked too high. At the last picture is was nocked too low.
5. The last picture shows quite clearly how the bowstring touches the forehead and left breast of the Amazon, and bends. It's not good. The original myth of Amazons is that they supposedly burnt the mammary glands of the left breast of their prepubescent daughters before their breast started to grow, so that the left breast wouldn't infere with a bowstring. They even got their national name from this, "a" = without, "mazon" = breast (in Greek). This is of course not true. Not only because Amazons as a nation didn't exist (there were some women warriors in ancient times, mainly in steppe peoples, like Scythians), but because no women archer would have to do that. The breasts have to be exceptionally large in order to disturb archery, and for them to be that large a woman has to be very fat, which women were not back at the ancient times. This Amazon figure although draws too much, which results in the bowstring to touch her forehead and breast. They have enlargened her bust from the original picture though.
6. She doesn't even hold the bowstring! The bowstring is not even at the nock of the arrow! This is impossible. The string is only back of the fletching, which is made of feathers, which would of course not hold the string back there.
7. Again the two finger grip, but what is she even gripping, since the string isn't in her hand?
8. The fletching is big enough, but it's too far back and has only two plumes instead of three. An arrow will fly even without fletching at all, but the purpose of those feathers is to give the arrow a spin (life rifling gives to a bullet) so that the arrow will fly more accurately. Three feathers are needed for that.
9. What is this bulge in the arrow? They may have thought to give the arrow some more charcter, but this ball really just hinder the arrows flight by hitting the bow's arc while it flies besides it.

Good:
Hmm... nothing except at the figure, the position of arms and bow is correct, and she has got a bracer in left arm only.
The game Smallworld is great though, buy it, play it, enjoy it! I command you.

Roman archer (illustration by David Kennett)

Today, for a change, a piece of illustration. Other drawings found from DeviantArt and around the Internet I just call pictures or drawings, since they are not art nor illustrations. Art would have to have some artisticality in it, and those picture lack it completely, showing only a collection of overused clichés, plain sexism and downright poor drawing skills. This is labeled as illustration, thus not high art, but some kind of an art form itself. It's made by David Kennett, who owns himself to honor to be nominated here, unlike countless others triers and failers.


Mistakes:

1. There are really only two mistakes here. Kennett has clearly done research about the Romans, this piece is called "Roman archer" (he has illustrated books about Romans and other Ancient peoples). I am also an expert of the Romans, so I can tell that the work is done properly here and the armament is in good order. But he should've looked photographs of archers using a recurve bow, because the bow doesn't bend properly here. It's almost in it's undrawn form. Not good. I've drawn for comparison the real curvature a Roman recurve bow should have.
2. The other mistake is smaller one. The quiver is not behind the shoulder, which is great, and it is on the waist level, although it's too tilted. It's almost completely sideways, a way many Asian peoples use it, but their quivers are of different construction that Ancient ones. If the quiver is in this position, the arrows tend to fall off too easily while moving. It should be vertical, like I've drawn on the right. I get that it makes a nice diagonal in the picture, but still, it's an error.

Good:

Everything else is really good in this picture! The form of the archer is perfect, the arrows and bow look decent, and even the outer-archerely things haven't got mistakes. And the drawing has a great mood in it, and I quite like Kennetts style (which is a lot to say from me).

Guinevere (King Arthur 2004)

Today, Guinevere from King Arthur (2004 movie). This is one of the 106 movies/tv–series/animations made about the Arthurian legends, not the worst, but not the best either. Made by a director no one knows, this movie is most famous for its theatrical poster which had Keira Knightley's bust enlargened in Photoshop. Because sex sells and a small breasted woman is not feminine and sexy enough, according to media.
Anyway, the movie was claimed to be based on most recent archaeological and historical evidence, but it ended up being a collection of blatant mistakes and errors. It takes – as the first adaptation of the story – the stance that King Arthur lived in the Late Antiquity (300–500 C.E.), instead of High Middle Ages (1000–1300), and this was more realistic and interesting approach in my mind.

While everything else from the error of calling Picts "Woads" (now this is the real people who painted themselves with blue war paint, often misidentified to be made of the woad plant) to their use of trebuchets (large counterweight powered stone throwing siege machines), which were only invented much later in the Middle Ages, and to the fantasy outfits everyone's wearing, archery in this movie is pretty well portrayed. Even surprisingly so!

I will start with good points this time, since there really are many!

Good:

Keira Knightley has learned archery well from her trainer. She really knows how to shoot. This is very uncommon in movies, where actors don't pay much attention to their archery teachers, or then they don't have those at all. Knightley's form is just perfect! This is because...

1. Both her arms and the arrow form one parallel line.
2. The draw is full and the string is drawn very close to face.
3. Mediterranean grip is perfect with three fingers around the string.
4. The position of the arrow is right, the cock fletch (marked with blue arrow) points towards the face and the other two fletches point up and down. Even this minor detail is right here! Bravo!
5. The arrow goes around the bow at the left side, resting on the bow gripping fist.

Mistakes:

There are some mistakes though, but some of them are not the actress's fault at all. Rather director's or costume/prop department's.

1. The arrow tip is not sharp. This is of course a safety reason, since it could be deadly if sharpened (it still can, but you wouldn't be as much dead as after getting hit by a sharp tipped arrow). This is not a major issue, and I'm okay with it. Even I don't want the actors to die... maybe extras are expendable though.
2. In the last picture Knightley is overdrawing her bow. This is probably not very powerful recurve bow, like in movies they never are, and even a woman can easily overdraw it. Shooting becomes a bit more difficult if you do this. The arrow tip touches the bow hand, which it should not do.
3. The actress holds the bow a little too high. Her hand is not properly on the grip, looks like she has got the bow in her hand a half a second ago and must shoot like her life would depend on it. But this is not the case in this scene of the movie, where the Picts are shooting a volley of arrows. Keeping hand on the grip makes the bow's limbs bend more equally and the shot is more stable.
4. Where are her arrows? There are no quiver anywhere to be seen, and no spare arrows tucked to a belt or anything. Only two swords for 'coolness factor', but of worthless use.
5. Guinevere has at least two bows in this movie, which are depicted in the middle pictures. Both are recurves, but the first one is more of a "longbowish" type, since it's obviously quite long. We don't know much about the Picts, but I'm fairly certain that they didn't use recurve bows, such as the last one here. It is primarily an Eastern invention. Picts would've probably used simple D-shaped self bows. Strangely, the extras at the background in the last picture, are using self bows! Maybe they thought that a recurve bow looks 'cooler', and thus the main character has to have it. This might be the case in many movies of our era.

Atalanta (concept art from Hercules, 2014)

This is a concept of the character Atalanta from the movie Hercules starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, which I just reviewed in my last post.

This concept differs by many factors from the initial costume they made for the actress in the movie. This is far better than the one they ended up making, since this isn't trying to look like armour with only skimpy leather attire, not even covering vital areas. This is an archer, not a front rank soldier, like archer's weren't in history. The khiton (Greek tunic) is far more suitable for Atalanta, but someone just insisted that she had to have a fantasy leather 'boob armour'. Oh well, and they also changed her hair colour from brunette to blonde (some ancient Greeks were blonde, but not most of them)...

Archery mistakes:

1. The bows fistmele (brace height, the space between grip and string) is too wide, this bow is overcurved and the string is too short for it. Anyway, I've drawn a comparison with proper measurements. The bow itself seems to be rather big for a recurve bow anyway. Recurve bow has more potential energy in its arc than the same sized regular bow, so it doesn't have to be as long as a longbow in order to be effective.
2. The arrow is not nocked in the middle of the string, it's way too up. I've corrected that also. Nocking the arrow at proper point benefits the bow's energy in the most effective way and the bows limbs provide the missile equal power.
3. The grip of the bow is unnecessarily long. It really only needs the space for the fist, since the grip doesn't bend, it's the part which doesn't provide the arrow any energy, so keeping it as short as possible is beneficial for the energy transfer from bow to arrow.
4. The fletching of the arrows is too short. There's also not enough room for fingers to hold the arrows nock behind the fletching.
5. The arrows are on a back quiver, which is the only thing they brought from this concept to the appearance of Atalanta in the movie. And it is a mistake.

Good:

The costume is more authentic, if not accurate, than the one they used in the movie, and the bow doesn't have the stupid blades on it's ears. But nothing more really.

Atalanta (from Hercules, 2014)

This is from 2014 movie Hercules starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, the only ex-wrestler who has successfully turned into an actor. Many have tried, but failed miserably, since they have no skills in acting whatsoever. Anyway, in this movie, based on a comic book series: "Hercules, the Thracian Wars" (Thracia was a neighbouring country of Greece in the antiquity) features Atalanta, a Greek heroine (originally Atalante in Greek) who was a virgin huntress famous for her running speed (faster than any man), under the favour of Artemis (also a virgin huntress, and a goddess).

This movie version has dressed Atalanta with a skimpy leather outfit, which imitates armour, but because of the material, and of course the fact that it doesn't cover her belly, it is a useless piece of sexualised cliché fantasy female costume.

Mistakes, concerning about archery:

1. They made the bow also a mêlée weapon with attached blades on both of its ears. That makes the nocks different than usual, with long slits where the string loops go, since if the string would loop around the nocks like usual, the blades would cut through it. The thing I'm complaining about is the whole use of the bow as a mêlée weapon, instead of just shooting arrows with it. The bow can brake! It's not designed for that. It can take even years, but more probably weeks to make a proper recurve bow, so no one in their right mind would want to brake it by hitting enemies with it. Instead making a spear takes a day or so and making replacement shaft for it is super easy. Why don't Atalanta has a backup weapon (I admit a spear is difficult to carry, so someone must choose either a bow or a spear), but a sword or even a dagger would be fine, with a small shield accompanying it. Don't hit with a bow!
2. Atalanta, since she's a heroic character, shoots two arrows at once, several times in this movie. They made it her "trademark" of sorts, as well as the bladed bow. Shooting two arrows at once is in fact possible, but it doesn't do anything else than waste two arrows in place of one. And there isn't infinite amount of arrows. In one movie scene Atalanta shoots two arrows at two different objects, which is impossible, since the arrows would just fly to the same target. It's also not possible to aim at two places at the same time.
3. In this picture her arm is quite low, maybe she's tired or something. But it really should go straight back and continue the parallel line of the arrow.
4. Beginners grip of the string with all four fingers. The mediterranean grip which she should be using only involves three fingers, index finger above the arrow nock, and the two next below it. If using four fingers the string turns around to the right too much which might effect the flight of the missile.
5. Quiver on back. Arrows are hard(ish) and slow(ish) to get from there. A hip quiver would be more practical. They also wouldn't fall off quite so easily while running and jumping, which she certainly is doing a lot in this movie.
6. Shooting sideways. Always a mistake. Repeatedly done in movies. The bow can only be drawn to the point where the string contacts the archers flank. There could be some 10 to 20 cm:s more drawing space if the bow would be held vertically.

Good:

The actress' archery form is not so bad, only the four finger string grip (which is a minor mistake), and the lower elbow position in one scene are her errors. For the others are moviemakers to blame. Also which is good, is the use of spare quivers on chariots. There were regularly many quivers on a chariot carrying archers around a battlefield, since otherwise they would've ran out of arrows pretty quickly. Although Greeks didn't use chariot archers (in Homeric times they used chariots to bring noble fighters to the battlefield, and carry them out when they were tired of battling), but this is a fantasy/legendary movie, so they can have it.

Herakles / Hercules (statuette)

This is a small statue of Herakles/Hercules, a Graeco-Roman hero, who had a pelt of Nemean lion as his armour (since it was impenetrable by weapons), club as his main weapon, but also a bow and arrows (poisoned in the blood of the multi-headed serpent monster Hydra).

Mistakes:

1. Even though Herakles was the strongest of all the Greek heroes, drawing the bow this much is not reasonable at all. It makes the arrow harder to control and aiming difficult.

2. The arrow is the size of a javelin! It’s way too big, too long and too heavy. The arrow tip is also too large and heavy. Would be more practical to actually throw the arrow by hand, than try to shoot it with a bow.

3. The quiver is attached to the hip, but it’s way too short for this huge “arrow”. In the second picture I’ve drawn the length of the arrow over the quiver, so everyone can see that it’s way too small. Maybe it’s long enough for practically sized arrows, and not for these spears.

4. The form of the arrow hand is way off, since the arrow is so overly long. The hand should be much closer to the face and directly behind the arrow, not bent like this.

5. Arrow is on the wrong side of the bow. This is also one of the most common errors, since people just don’t do their research properly, before starting to draw/sculpt an archer they have in mind.


In the last picture I’ve corrected the size of the arrow, and other minor errors.


Good:

Not much, but I’ve seen worse.