I've provided my initial response and commentary in this video.

What makes dissecting Andersen's video difficult is that he is probably correct in certain contexts based on his sources and experience, but he makes overarching claims that sweep across all styles and time periods without distinction, leaving it to his viewers to debate.

Many will accuse Andersen of pseudo-history. He doesn't provide sources for the majority of his claims, and many of his theories are contradictory or are based on straw man arguments.

1. Mass volleys

Andersen's claim is that simultaneous shooting was not done because people had shields. There isn't practical sense in this. Arrows can go through or around shields. A formation under a barrage of arrows is unable to advance and will suffer attrition, which will break down morale. Massed archers were used in major battles, and volleys were commonly used at long distance, where archers had to coordinate their shooting for area effect. This was successfully done in battles such as Crecy and Agincourt against the French, and the English archers devastated the Scottish schiltron formations at Halidon Hill with a barrage of arrows.

As distances close, archers would select their own targets and fire at will. This is not an unreasonable understanding of how battles are fluid and the tactics change. Andersen would therefore be inaccurate in claiming that mass volley fire was useless.

2. Dodging arrows

It's possible. Arrows aren't that fast. The issue in the video is that it's far removed from battlefield scenarios. It's easy to dodge an arrow that you know is coming, and you're wearing casual clothing on a sunny day.

When you're carrying arms and armour, packed in dense formations, have to cross uneven, muddy ground after a forced march, you're not going to dodge. Soldiers would keep their heads down, because looking up meant being hit in the face or eyes. There's a huge difference between dodging a single arrow and being hit by many.

This is one of the many contradictions presenting. The video claims that mass volleys were useless, but also argues that single arrows are easily dodged. I don't imagine that a real medieval battle would have footmen dancing side to side like crabs to avoid arrows.

3. Widespread usage

Andersen doesn't back this up himself. Many of his techniques, training drills and trick shots are derived from Eastern sources - Byzantine, Saracen, etc. The problem is that he doesn't provide a clear limit as to what "his style" represents. Speed shooting over slow, standing archery? Eastern cultures made more use of horse archers, and their tactics and techniques reflected that. Western European cultures made more use of foot archers. It's not universal. Did every soldier learn to trick shoot like Andersen? Some might, but it doesn't seem plausible for a military to waste time in parlour tricks instead of actual combat training.

4. Guns > Bows Because of Dodging

Considering that dodging was not a battlefield tactic, this is not a plausible rationale. Guns became prevalent for two reasons: they nullified armour while arrows were mostly ineffective, and it was much easier to train a corps of muskets in less time than to maintain a corps of archers, which required years of training, a lifetime of experience and constant upkeep. Not everyone could become a well-rounded warrior; but anyone can hold a rifle.

Follow-up question. "Bullet is too fast to dodge", then how about 18/19th century warfare with soldiers marching in formation towards you (with no armor), wouldn't they be easy targets?

Why weren't archers used in that period to supplement riflemen?

Yes, hail of gunfire and smoke is scary, but just position the archers behind your riflemen and you'd have arrows flying constantly.