I can never trust this guy and his "experiments" because his "experiments" don't use actual medieval/early modern technology. For instance, the longbow he's using is probably like 50lb drawback weight, medieval longbows were around and more than 120lbs draw back. So- his tests are stupid. It's ingratiating because he acts like he KNOWS what he's up to, when clearly he doesn't.
it isnt a good comparision to compare a crossbow with the long bow imo.Longbows were best employed en-masse and worked like a machine gun because of higher rate o fire, while the cross bow was more like a sniper rifle, powerful, long ranged and slow to load.But the fact that low training and upkeep required fro crossobows and the fact that they were superior while defending fortifications eventually made them more popular.
@sushanalone Crossbows tend to have a shorter range compared to longbows. Also, they have a shorter power stroke compared to bows which means it needs a considerably heavier draw for the same power. At a short distance crossbows release more kinetic energy making them deadly at about 20-50 yrds. A better modern analogy is a semi automatic rifle: longbow, pump action shotgun: crossbow. Having shot both, accuracy is about the same. Bows take far more practice to make a consistently accurate shot.
a longbowman would beat a crossbowman any day. I guess it just depends on whether you want a peasant rabble with crossbows or an elite archer unit with longbows
@justAwatermelon13 Yeah but it took years for en archer to be properly train and just some days for a crossbowman. There is also the cost : the crossbowman equipment is more expensive but the man himself isn't. So you can recruit more people, more quicly, for the same result..
@MrRemicas The English whatever his name was made it law that you had to practice the longbow every sunday, so he could recruit a large force of archers in small period of time. With a ranged weapon like a longbow you didn`t have to be pinpoint acccurate to hit massed ranks of soldiers, so all you really needed to be trained for was the strength to pull it back. Anyway longbowmen cost less gold and have +1 pierce armour
The now he was using probly wasn't of equal strength to a bow they would've used they used bows of 160 pounds plus this guy probly doesn't even weigh that and you compare a bow to a gun it's very obvious the gun has all advantages tho I'm more of a bow guy it's still very obvious
Oooooooh the longbow lost, so it must be not a true longbow! Get over it, the longbow was worse than the arquebus and dont tell me any "it needed a lot of training" bullshit.
@6U4RD1AN yeah but the matchlock musket had an ideal firing rate of about 2 shots per minute whereas the longbow could fire 6-10 shots a minute. The main advantages of the matchlock over the longbow and crossbow was that it required little training, wasn`t dependent on the user`s physical strength, and had greater penetration power.
@supersmash43 Have you noted the irony, that the only weapon wich needed an ancient weapons expert to be operated is in fact the arquebus? The longbow needed years of training is an old myth, arquebus were way more complex to operate. Correct me if I´m wrong but, the training sistem of the longbow did´nt was one hour a week every sunday after mass?, No surprise it taked years to training them!, it was´nt a very difficult weapon to master but a very poor training sistem!
@6U4RD1AN so do you have evidence to imply that musket-training was far more efficient than longbow training. Keep in mind that most of longbow trainee are peasants so it be more efficient to do other things for most of the week. Also an English longbow required more physical strength and stamina to operate especially in heat of battle than muskets since the Bow's penetration came from the user's muscle power rather than the chemical energy of gunpowder.
@supersmash43 He, he...It´s difficult to have a less efficient sistem...It doesn´t matter if it was less or more, the point I was adressing is that "the bow take years to master" is as far as I know a myth (but mind you that firearms didn´t took years to train so I think that yes, it was more efficient). Among other things manuals with the steps to use a firearm were printed so you could train yourself as much as you wanted. Even if the firearms of the day were way more complex.
Clue is his arch at 40 yards and the wooden nochs rather than bone. Any longbow over 40lbs draw weight would need bone nochs to last for a decent amount of time.
I remember a documentary from History Channel, some 10 years ago, where they weighted the bow, the crossbow, the matchlock, the musket, and the rifle, pretty much like they did here.
I remember they shot the crossbow side-to-side with a longbow, where the bow could shoot about 6 times faster than the crossbow, and it wasn't until the rifle that speed, accuracy and reload times got equal.
it's been 10 or so years, and I still can't remember its name, or find a website that has it....
what a total bullshit waste of time show, all garbage. The so called short bow was a samick horse bow, and since he was shooting easily with bare fingers, im sure it was 40lb pull or less. His longbow, was also very weak and the arrows weren't matched to either bow.
they are covering only Europe's mid ages. while there where composite bows of turks and mongols, from around X to XV centuries - that are as powerful as crossbow or a longbow, but required significant skill level.
looking at the way there drawing them, those bows look incredibly light for warbows, of course they will not penetrate at that poundage. As usual, these shows are completely inaccurate. are they using correct points on the arrows?
@shonuffisthemaster next to the fact that they seem to praise fire weapons of the time, which required gunpowder, something that you don't want near a campsite. :D
any self respectable English Longbowman wouldve been able to hit a target at 60 yards and the English armies ability to mass arrows into barrages over several hundred yards out wouldve ensured the crossbowmen wouldve been shredded before they got within range. example: Crecy Crossbows were most useful in sieges where range wasnt an issue and the superior power, simplicity and protection of the Pavise or castle walls held the advantage over any bow
Those bows probably are no more than 35lbs. They should be shooting over 100 lbs. Even the crossbows should be over 400lbs. Im not saying an arrow has the penetrating power of a musket by a longshot (teehee), just that when it comes to archery, people either severely underestimate a bow's power and rage by saying it will just bounce off armor and cant shoot past 100 yards, or severely overestimate in the case of saying it can easily penetrate plate armor enough to kill someone.
That is not a shortbow and what not use "everwhere" that my friends is a Recurve only really used by the Turks and all the other South easten eroupe cournties
Anyone noticed that the last armour in that row was of an earlier design? First two were late Gothic armour, not sure what the last one was but it looked much simpler. A shame to shoot holes in pretty armour like that though:P
@pluckyou90 It more looks like your average longbow, plus there are less then a handfull of people left alive in the world who really know how to make the 100-200 pound draw weight bow's, i am getting a bow rather like that but to me that looks like a Martin L100
yeah he aint using a warbow cos he cant handle it, the point of the test becomes quite useless now because a warbow could penetrate armour at that ranges, crossbows should certainly penetrate the armor at those ranges
The duke of wellington actually enquired as to whether there were still people about who could use the longbow, considering it to be a useful addition to forces on the battlefield, especially seeing armour was barely used anymore. Unfortunately his agents found the skill had all but died out.
Now there's something fishy about the arquebuse (matchlock musket). Allright the first hit by 20 yards was of that handgun.{The shorter the barrel, the less acceleration}. And any cases that handgun did NOT pierce that armour at 20 yards.
And I find it also odd the last one at 60 yards has another armour. I may be wrong but to me that last armour is only 1 mm thick not the standard 1.5 mm like the gothics.
WTF?!? A 'common peasant' couldn't afford a crossbow. Most crossbowmen were highly paid elite mercenaries, because they could afford the weapon. Has this guy not heard of Crecy? It was the LONGBOW that levelled the playing feild and gave the peasant the power to kill a knight. jesus.
@lifes40123 why would they waste the money? It would be a large payout for no significant benefit. Best to keep them practicing every sunday with a bow.
@sniperfish it takes more than one day a week to become proficient with the longbow, it takes years of practice, longbowmen began training as children, they grew to have stronger shoulders and arms than the average person. They came from the yeoman class, the land owning 'free' peasants that didnt have to slave away for a master all the time, so they had some free time to practice their longbow skills. The king encouraged them to use their Sundays (after church) to practice even more.
@BVargas78 Well the peasants were encorage to practice by law, the banning of all other sports and at least an hour practice on Sundays for any man up to the age of 60. They became proficient over many years as you rightly said, graduating to bows up to 180lb, and deforming their limbs in the process. But the basics are simple to pick up, it's a matter of getting better and moving to bigger bows. I was actually refering to making a lowbow :) but whatever.
@sniperfish he's not saying the peasants would buy crossbows, their noblemen would kit them out, even a peasant could be trained in it, but you couldnt train peasants to use longbows as they werent strong enough.
@BVargas78 I didn't mean that the peasants would buy crossbows, just that longbows were cheaper in general. They were in pretty decent circulation and the skills for making simple longbows were common, the nobleman would have only had to pay for arrows and replacement bows. And there were (from the pesantry point of view) great benefits from their arms being held by them, rather than by a nobleman. Generally it would be cheaper to utilise the simpler longbow than more expensive crossbow.
I can never trust this guy and his "experiments" because his "experiments" don't use actual medieval/early modern technology. For instance, the longbow he's using is probably like 50lb drawback weight, medieval longbows were around and more than 120lbs draw back. So- his tests are stupid. It's ingratiating because he acts like he KNOWS what he's up to, when clearly he doesn't.
DiVeronica 2 days ago
5:36
Just because you're shit with a longbow does not mean the Longbow itself is shit.
RyanBrooksby 2 weeks ago
how much does all that armor cost together?
USMCBringThemHome 3 weeks ago
it isnt a good comparision to compare a crossbow with the long bow imo.Longbows were best employed en-masse and worked like a machine gun because of higher rate o fire, while the cross bow was more like a sniper rifle, powerful, long ranged and slow to load.But the fact that low training and upkeep required fro crossobows and the fact that they were superior while defending fortifications eventually made them more popular.
sushanalone 1 month ago
@sushanalone Crossbows tend to have a shorter range compared to longbows. Also, they have a shorter power stroke compared to bows which means it needs a considerably heavier draw for the same power. At a short distance crossbows release more kinetic energy making them deadly at about 20-50 yrds. A better modern analogy is a semi automatic rifle: longbow, pump action shotgun: crossbow. Having shot both, accuracy is about the same. Bows take far more practice to make a consistently accurate shot.
KnightofAshes 1 week ago
@KnightofAshes Having shot both, as in bows and crossbows.
KnightofAshes 1 week ago
This series looks very similar to the Weapons that Made Britain series in the UK.
RedneckedCrake 1 month ago
a longbowman would beat a crossbowman any day. I guess it just depends on whether you want a peasant rabble with crossbows or an elite archer unit with longbows
justAwatermelon13 1 month ago
@justAwatermelon13 Both had their advantages and disadvantages.
shaggzm4 1 month ago
@justAwatermelon13 Yeah but it took years for en archer to be properly train and just some days for a crossbowman. There is also the cost : the crossbowman equipment is more expensive but the man himself isn't. So you can recruit more people, more quicly, for the same result..
MrRemicas 1 month ago
@MrRemicas The English whatever his name was made it law that you had to practice the longbow every sunday, so he could recruit a large force of archers in small period of time. With a ranged weapon like a longbow you didn`t have to be pinpoint acccurate to hit massed ranks of soldiers, so all you really needed to be trained for was the strength to pull it back. Anyway longbowmen cost less gold and have +1 pierce armour
justAwatermelon13 1 day ago
@justAwatermelon13 Even better would be an elite crossbow unit.
Disthron 5 days ago
5:10 - Those dummies have huge exposed knees, why didn't the archers aim there?
Saturos007 1 month ago
The now he was using probly wasn't of equal strength to a bow they would've used they used bows of 160 pounds plus this guy probly doesn't even weigh that and you compare a bow to a gun it's very obvious the gun has all advantages tho I'm more of a bow guy it's still very obvious
joec123able 1 month ago
On the other hand, if it started raining the matchlock would have become useless, unlike the bows.
MsDjessa 1 month ago
Oooooooh the longbow lost, so it must be not a true longbow! Get over it, the longbow was worse than the arquebus and dont tell me any "it needed a lot of training" bullshit.
6U4RD1AN 2 months ago 3
@6U4RD1AN yeah but the matchlock musket had an ideal firing rate of about 2 shots per minute whereas the longbow could fire 6-10 shots a minute. The main advantages of the matchlock over the longbow and crossbow was that it required little training, wasn`t dependent on the user`s physical strength, and had greater penetration power.
supersmash43 2 months ago
@supersmash43 Have you noted the irony, that the only weapon wich needed an ancient weapons expert to be operated is in fact the arquebus? The longbow needed years of training is an old myth, arquebus were way more complex to operate. Correct me if I´m wrong but, the training sistem of the longbow did´nt was one hour a week every sunday after mass?, No surprise it taked years to training them!, it was´nt a very difficult weapon to master but a very poor training sistem!
6U4RD1AN 2 months ago
@6U4RD1AN so do you have evidence to imply that musket-training was far more efficient than longbow training. Keep in mind that most of longbow trainee are peasants so it be more efficient to do other things for most of the week. Also an English longbow required more physical strength and stamina to operate especially in heat of battle than muskets since the Bow's penetration came from the user's muscle power rather than the chemical energy of gunpowder.
supersmash43 2 months ago
@supersmash43 He, he...It´s difficult to have a less efficient sistem...It doesn´t matter if it was less or more, the point I was adressing is that "the bow take years to master" is as far as I know a myth (but mind you that firearms didn´t took years to train so I think that yes, it was more efficient). Among other things manuals with the steps to use a firearm were printed so you could train yourself as much as you wanted. Even if the firearms of the day were way more complex.
6U4RD1AN 2 months ago
I wish they have fired a simple stir-up crossbow too, to compare it to the other weapons
Dagsschiller 2 months ago
Must be a weak longbow.
Clue is his arch at 40 yards and the wooden nochs rather than bone. Any longbow over 40lbs draw weight would need bone nochs to last for a decent amount of time.
leeham991 2 months ago
Kiss my ass God!!!!
Haddockxyz300 2 months ago
My weapon of choice when hunting vampires.
Zachbro39 5 months ago
What an irritating presenter.
2003kantata 6 months ago
@2003kantata Why is that?
LukeHasGamez 4 months ago
the longbow he's using is not a long bow...... i bet under 30 lbs
bruenor82 6 months ago
I remember a documentary from History Channel, some 10 years ago, where they weighted the bow, the crossbow, the matchlock, the musket, and the rifle, pretty much like they did here.
I remember they shot the crossbow side-to-side with a longbow, where the bow could shoot about 6 times faster than the crossbow, and it wasn't until the rifle that speed, accuracy and reload times got equal.
it's been 10 or so years, and I still can't remember its name, or find a website that has it....
gstv87 6 months ago
@gstv87 that would be awesome to watch
Dagsschiller 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pope Innocent? I think not!
IAmTheAce5 7 months ago
The longbow didn't hit because it needs skill to shoot it. That guy hasn't got the skill.
Same for the hand gun.
The crossbows they used are inauthentical and to weak to penetrate the armor.
Of course both longbow and bow are too weak to penetrate the armor.
Wikingersohn93 7 months ago 3
what a total bullshit waste of time show, all garbage. The so called short bow was a samick horse bow, and since he was shooting easily with bare fingers, im sure it was 40lb pull or less. His longbow, was also very weak and the arrows weren't matched to either bow.
wdhmjm 7 months ago
they are covering only Europe's mid ages. while there where composite bows of turks and mongols, from around X to XV centuries - that are as powerful as crossbow or a longbow, but required significant skill level.
bulatus 8 months ago
1:36 :0 satan?
JoeBWonKenobi 8 months ago
Comment removed
JoeBWonKenobi 8 months ago
that long crossbow at 6.35 whats it called can it be shot standing up holding it in your arms someone give me an answear please
lewisgunner1 9 months ago
looking at the way there drawing them, those bows look incredibly light for warbows, of course they will not penetrate at that poundage. As usual, these shows are completely inaccurate. are they using correct points on the arrows?
shonuffisthemaster 9 months ago
@shonuffisthemaster next to the fact that they seem to praise fire weapons of the time, which required gunpowder, something that you don't want near a campsite. :D
gaoth88 9 months ago
Comment removed
shonuffisthemaster 9 months ago
Comment removed
shonuffisthemaster 9 months ago
at 5:35 I wouldn't eliminate the longbow... it's still perfectly good for formation fighting.
Henners1991 10 months ago
Shouldn't any weapon not be used against Christians?
DavidUmstattd 11 months ago
@DavidUmstattd Not if your king says otherwise! And he has divine right to do more or less whatever he likes!
But no, according to bible no man should kill another or oneself especially. But thats been thrown out the window - its impratical.
AbokaseeTheTroll 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
too many men babies?
lmollot 11 months ago
UK has a decent 2nd amendment for weapons....
the right to bear broadswords, trebuchets, bows, crossbows and all their accesories
lol
Sturmmann 1 year ago 3
any self respectable English Longbowman wouldve been able to hit a target at 60 yards and the English armies ability to mass arrows into barrages over several hundred yards out wouldve ensured the crossbowmen wouldve been shredded before they got within range. example: Crecy Crossbows were most useful in sieges where range wasnt an issue and the superior power, simplicity and protection of the Pavise or castle walls held the advantage over any bow
Alacastor450 1 year ago
4:05 i bet this guy's like "the tought of a flat earth at the center of the solar system gets me hard" lol
"i live and breathe 1550s" lmao
Sturmmann 1 year ago 8
@Sturmmann The whole "everyone in the Medieval Age thought the earth was flat" is a myth.
BloodskullMannoroth 11 months ago 46
@BloodskullMannoroth its was more expend in the early middle age like 11th-12th century.
yumyum97 1 month ago
@Sturmmann lol couldn't stop laughing when i saw that guy and read your comment XD
clipmaster30001 11 months ago
@Sturmmann wtf?!
EarlOfEs 7 months ago
Those bows probably are no more than 35lbs. They should be shooting over 100 lbs. Even the crossbows should be over 400lbs. Im not saying an arrow has the penetrating power of a musket by a longshot (teehee), just that when it comes to archery, people either severely underestimate a bow's power and rage by saying it will just bounce off armor and cant shoot past 100 yards, or severely overestimate in the case of saying it can easily penetrate plate armor enough to kill someone.
LotusDragon09 1 year ago 2
5:56 That was amazing.
TheAndroooid 1 year ago
Sweet...
TheAndroooid 1 year ago
That is not a shortbow and what not use "everwhere" that my friends is a Recurve only really used by the Turks and all the other South easten eroupe cournties
00nerd4 1 year ago
Anyone noticed that the last armour in that row was of an earlier design? First two were late Gothic armour, not sure what the last one was but it looked much simpler. A shame to shoot holes in pretty armour like that though:P
evildeathmonkey1 1 year ago
He just shot someone!
landofold 1 year ago
@landofold
its ok, he cant exceed his limit of three people per show
Sturmmann 1 year ago 2
that was a nice hit on the armor with the matchlock :D
steelpanther88 1 year ago
why doesn't he us a warbow??? this more look like a target bow
pluckyou90 1 year ago
@pluckyou90 It more looks like your average longbow, plus there are less then a handfull of people left alive in the world who really know how to make the 100-200 pound draw weight bow's, i am getting a bow rather like that but to me that looks like a Martin L100
00nerd4 1 year ago
@00nerd4
yeah he aint using a warbow cos he cant handle it, the point of the test becomes quite useless now because a warbow could penetrate armour at that ranges, crossbows should certainly penetrate the armor at those ranges
Olwe1992 1 year ago
The duke of wellington actually enquired as to whether there were still people about who could use the longbow, considering it to be a useful addition to forces on the battlefield, especially seeing armour was barely used anymore. Unfortunately his agents found the skill had all but died out.
BVargas78 1 year ago
Matchlock owns...and it's only a smoothbore too. No wonder guns went on to rule the world.
nookie077 1 year ago
5:54 holy shit thats just brutal
jabames 1 year ago
I wonder if the pse tac15 can penetrate those armor.
papaburger 1 year ago
I want this programme.
BiffaTW 1 year ago
the crossbow is my favorite medieval weapon
lewisgunner1 1 year ago
where can i buy one?
maxie355a 1 year ago
Now there's something fishy about the arquebuse (matchlock musket). Allright the first hit by 20 yards was of that handgun.{The shorter the barrel, the less acceleration}. And any cases that handgun did NOT pierce that armour at 20 yards.
And I find it also odd the last one at 60 yards has another armour. I may be wrong but to me that last armour is only 1 mm thick not the standard 1.5 mm like the gothics.
Madmachine73 1 year ago
WTF?!? A 'common peasant' couldn't afford a crossbow. Most crossbowmen were highly paid elite mercenaries, because they could afford the weapon. Has this guy not heard of Crecy? It was the LONGBOW that levelled the playing feild and gave the peasant the power to kill a knight. jesus.
sniperfish 1 year ago
@sniperfish a peasant cant afford a crossbow.. but the kings and nobles can afford a crossbow for his peasants... : ]
lifes40123 1 year ago
@lifes40123 why would they waste the money? It would be a large payout for no significant benefit. Best to keep them practicing every sunday with a bow.
sniperfish 1 year ago
@sniperfish bow no good as crossbow.. only longbow is and only the english could perfect it
lifes40123 1 year ago
@sniperfish it takes more than one day a week to become proficient with the longbow, it takes years of practice, longbowmen began training as children, they grew to have stronger shoulders and arms than the average person. They came from the yeoman class, the land owning 'free' peasants that didnt have to slave away for a master all the time, so they had some free time to practice their longbow skills. The king encouraged them to use their Sundays (after church) to practice even more.
BVargas78 1 year ago
@BVargas78 Well the peasants were encorage to practice by law, the banning of all other sports and at least an hour practice on Sundays for any man up to the age of 60. They became proficient over many years as you rightly said, graduating to bows up to 180lb, and deforming their limbs in the process. But the basics are simple to pick up, it's a matter of getting better and moving to bigger bows. I was actually refering to making a lowbow :) but whatever.
sniperfish 1 year ago
@sniperfish he's not saying the peasants would buy crossbows, their noblemen would kit them out, even a peasant could be trained in it, but you couldnt train peasants to use longbows as they werent strong enough.
BVargas78 1 year ago
@BVargas78 I didn't mean that the peasants would buy crossbows, just that longbows were cheaper in general. They were in pretty decent circulation and the skills for making simple longbows were common, the nobleman would have only had to pay for arrows and replacement bows. And there were (from the pesantry point of view) great benefits from their arms being held by them, rather than by a nobleman. Generally it would be cheaper to utilise the simpler longbow than more expensive crossbow.
sniperfish 1 year ago
@sniperfish Well mate, we both agree that the longbow was the better weapon :)
BVargas78 1 year ago
holy shit...
60 yard armor got totally fucked by that musketball....
leeham991 1 year ago
On some level you have to admire the beauty of the crossbow.
georgekostaras 1 year ago 3