I note that the video isn't finished- he then goes on to demonstrate it against a properly tempered breastplate like the ones worn by the knights at Agincourt. It does no significant damage.
would it have been common to wear a breastplate over chain? if so would the steel breastplate be enough to slow the arrow to a point where the chain may completely stop it?
@mashersmasher During the transitional period, yes. But only a breastplate or a coat of plates. But usually no backplate. When fully enclosed you would only wear an aketon or jack underneath with chainmail sections sewn onto flexible uncovered areas such as the armpits, inside the elbow, and behind the knee.
Ribs cracked, possibly internal bleeding, horrible bruise... Yeah, your daily hell happening in Afghanistan as well as back in the medieval times. Basically kevlar is the same thing with low caliber bullets.
Assuming the horse didn't have any armor either. But while you can find plenty of people who can make armor for humans today, try finding one who does armor for horses. Not easy or cheap. Hence why it's rare to see it in documentaries, demo's, or even movies.
yep, i have such arour. And I have to tell you that 30minutes in that stuff(Im shieldman, so + 6kg for shield and 1kg for sword) is really hard fun :) And you are REALLY tired after that. After 30min.
English archers were known to rub thier arrowheads and the front part of the shaft in rotten decayed human bodies that were infected, or in the rabid saliva of a dog. If the Knight was hit in a non-vital area and survived ( thier arrowheads did not use hemmoragin to kill), he would die no matter what within 2 days from severe infection.
The reason it aint penetrating is because the wrong head is being used, they made bodkins for a reason. Long bodkins for chain and short bodkins for plate. You weren't using either. Also what poundage was the "bow" the english archers were shooting between 170-190 pound bows. And at 20 metres with a short bodkin, it would of done a hell of a lot for damage.
my apologies, looking again i can see that indeed it is a short bodkin. I know several fellow reenactors who shoot 100 pound warbows, and they have easily punctured plate, so what they used in medieval times(170-190) would have gone straight through armour. So i am still stand by my point that they were most likely not using even 90 pound for the test.
Historical records actually disprove the notion that arrows penetrate plate armor. That's why they developed it in the first place, to increase defensive measures. It's easy to penetrate a sheet of plate, but not all steel has the qualities of all other steel. For instance, plate armor is shaped to prevent deflection, and heat treated in order to prevent penetration. Likewise, penetration does not necessarily mean it will penetrate the arming doublet underneath.
Allow me to rephrase; Historical records actually disprove the notion that arrows RELIABLY penetrate plate armor. It can be safely assumed that armor, even maille generally defeats arrows by the combination of historical records and the fact that people continued to wear armor until the mass ascendency of the firearm, the only weapon to 'truly' defeat armor.
A record of the battle of Poitiers, as written by Geoffrey Le Baker;
"For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards."
As written by Bishop Ruthal, of the Battle of Flodden;
"they were so well cased in armour that the arrows did them no harm, and were such large and stout men that one would not fall when four or five bills struck them."
I have a few links to great forum discussions about the topic, laden with citations and other quotes.
It happens from time to time. Most of the time armor defeats arrows. It's only occasionally that arrows penetrate enough to kill. I've even seen some situations where the author of a record makes note that it wasn't until a commander took off his helmet or lifted his visor before an arrow was able to find a point to penetrate.
Now, are you saying James IV died by Longbow fire? I think that's unsubstantiated. IIRC, we don't really know when we died in the battle, or how.
Actually the "average" weight for a bow seems to be under 150 pounds(As shown by the Mary Rose). As well, the "bodkin" isn't particularly an armor piercing point. They're generally cheap, easy to manufacture points, as well as being made from softer iron usually. Compare this to harder plate armor.
I think this test is inaccurate in just one way; arrow showers. An arrow fired from 20 meters point blank, won't make a curve, and will shoot in a straight line at the target, hitting the target with greater force. But from longer range, an arrow would probably not hit as hard due to the curve made in mid air. Like the arrow volleys you see in movies. However, volleys still injured and killed some unlucky soldiers, and a lot of horses, sending their riders flying.
your right without a doubt guncore but usually the guys that died werent armoured because armoured knights on ly made up a relativly small part of the army.
There is no such vest as bullet proof, merely bullet resistant. Do you want to wear one and test your theory? I can make up some hot loads with metal piercing projectiles - anyone who reloads their own can do so. A few hot .308 hunting loads will change your mind as well.
Like this is ever going to be something of concern. A .357 FMJ would go completely through any armor of that era. A kevlar vest is not much good against one of those rounds.
Umm.. .357 FMJ's are handgun rounds and every level III kevlar vest is rated to stop them. Only handgun rounds made specifically to penetrate a kevlar vest will do so. Handguns just don't have the power of a rifle.
your right brainplay a .357 fmj wont penetrate a good kevlar vest it wont even pierce 12 gauge mild steel i know because ive tried a risky buisness considering the chance of recochae
This test is bullshit, i saw this on TV. Mike Loades is completely unfair, he used data from a longbow that was only 150lb draw, when the real warbows were closer to 200. Also he didnt use a recurved longbow for the test, then went on to explain how the english learnt to recurve their bows from the arabian composite bows in the crusades, so he basically declared his own test invalid.
And yes a knight hit with a full power arrow would get knocked off, i know people whov tried with dummies
Traditional longbows were regular stickbows. Recurves didn't gain popularity until after their use was starting to be surpassed by the Gonee` (gun) and the crossbow which took less time to train. Traditional warbows were 150lb pulls. 200+lb pull bows are specialist bows that only the most hardy could pull.
No, full power arrows don't have enough kinetic energy to throw a knight off of a horse. They do have enough power to unseat a light dummy who isn't using stirrups while riding.
maybe, but loades still bolloxed his own test by not taking this into acocunt. his armour piercing is bullshit, look on youtbe for lukas novonty mughal bow, he tests it and a longbow against armour and they both penatrate several inches. the people back then were the most hardy, archery was their life, wer the soft ones.
and yes they do have enough energy, getting one smack in the face or torso would send you cartwheeling. put it this way- would you be willing to be the subject of this test?
Not really, Lukas bolloxed his own test by making approximations with the plate. No details were given about the plates used unlike this test where the exact armor was crafted using the same materials and methods.
Lukas and others also screwed up by firing their bows at a range of 10yrds. Archers run way before they get 10yrds of a charging knight. The arrows loose speed and power as they fly. 120lb was the average pull on a longbow, 150 was good. 200lb was godly even back then.
well if thats not enough then theres plenty of other videos on youtube demonstarting a longbows armour piercing capabilities. just type "arrow armour" into the search and youll get more than enough.
so what exactly is the basis of your archery knowledge?
wouldnt get knocked off. i did a very stuoid thing. my friend got on a horse. held a home made shield that was about 5cm thick oak with 1mm plate steel on it. i shot him with a 150lb longbow and he didnt even come close to falling off. I shot from 15m.
really? im glad someones actually tried it. thats weird i was well certain the blunt force would do it. maybe if you shot at there head next time? lol joking.
bet it would work with light cavlry though. ie little or no armour.
I agree with you, but now picture this scenario; What if you didn't shoot the rider, but the horse..? The horse would probably start staggering, and your friend would probably fall off.
huh? thats not an arrow thats a bolt. im no expert in physics but arrows might still not able to penetrate the armor since its head is barbed(making it wide) and flat
This experiment is too controlled. There's a lot of other elements that was not factored in:
1) Wind (outdoor), battles were not fought indoor.
2) Experiment's plate armor is not hardened steel.
3) The test is stationary; knights don't stand in one spot to take the arrows. One of plate's strongest point against projectiles is the fact that they are made round to prevent perpendicular impact.
4) The transition of force from arrow to wearer. This test subject is planted firm.
I tested a carbon arrow with a broadhead against a 3mm piece of sheet steel. The steel was good quality and the bow i used is a 70lb martin bengal. I shot at 35 meters and it penetrated very deep.
i just want to let you know your lying i have shot a 16 gauge piece of mild steel with a 44 special bullet and it did not penetrate along with a 65 pound compound bow from 25 meters and it just dented the steel theres no way that arrow of yours penetrated much less deep
Sry. i just checked the actual thicknes of the steel. when i said 3mm i didnt mesure it, i just thought it was something like that. the steel is 1,9mm thick. i was using sharp field tips. it penetrated but it broke the shaft. Sorry about the bad english. im still learning.
In the late 1300s Plate armor became more and more common... By the 1400 AD plate armor was very, very common... Most regular infantrymen had plate armor...
At 1300 plate armor is not becoming common. Becouse it was the start of plate armor, and its not full armor but just pieces. At 1400 common for who ? Knights.
@Roman55Legions most infantrymen are peasants who cannot afford custom made plate armor; even in nobilities not every knight can afford plate armor and horse
Well, during the 1400s it was a lot more common than a lot of people think(Though, not as common as Hollywood portrays). For instance, the Landsknecht units of the late 1400s, early 1500s were usually encased in three quarters plate. It's here that you need to differentiate between peasants, and professionals. It would be common for at least pieces of plate armor to be worn by professionals(Men At Arms).
Milan wasn't the only city in Italy to produce these. It's sort of a misnomer, I know.
Um no, they didnt use to 180 lbs. The highest i believe was 130 or so. Crossbows were around 180 -220. Thats why they were so effective against armor and thats why the french used them instead of warbows etc.
@flintrocks Try google or read some books about warbow. You will find 100-180 lb for warbow (+/-10)... surely not 130. I thing that Edward III has 180lb longbow but I´m not sure.
French used crossbow for train a good bowman takes years, but that doesn´t matter, becouse they belive that knights are importatn in battle, not some poor archers. The crossbowman, for example, in battle of Crecy was Italian.
I dont beleive this they to actually do it with a bow not a air cannon
joec123able 1 month ago
Good luck taking a charging knite out, ud be shitting ur pants
DC5LVR 3 months ago
I note that the video isn't finished- he then goes on to demonstrate it against a properly tempered breastplate like the ones worn by the knights at Agincourt. It does no significant damage.
seosaidh 4 months ago
would it have been common to wear a breastplate over chain? if so would the steel breastplate be enough to slow the arrow to a point where the chain may completely stop it?
mashersmasher 6 months ago
@mashersmasher During the transitional period, yes. But only a breastplate or a coat of plates. But usually no backplate. When fully enclosed you would only wear an aketon or jack underneath with chainmail sections sewn onto flexible uncovered areas such as the armpits, inside the elbow, and behind the knee.
brainplay 5 months ago in playlist brainplay's Favorited Videos
Ribs cracked, possibly internal bleeding, horrible bruise... Yeah, your daily hell happening in Afghanistan as well as back in the medieval times. Basically kevlar is the same thing with low caliber bullets.
Southpark124 9 months ago
that wouldent have killd him but it would have maked him bleed :P
SweStuff94 11 months ago
haha the countdown he makes is very funny . it wasnt really gonna warn anyone
alcosher 1 year ago
here we go again...they should have used the correct arrowhead for the period of the plate armour they used...
Poitierswarbows 1 year ago
The bodkin is too pointed and acts like a wedge the ones in the British musium are less pointed so would do better against steel
etelonlongbows 1 year ago
fair test
etelonlongbows 1 year ago
isnt it easier just to shoot the horse
gbdehcbsdc 2 years ago
Assuming the horse didn't have any armor either. But while you can find plenty of people who can make armor for humans today, try finding one who does armor for horses. Not easy or cheap. Hence why it's rare to see it in documentaries, demo's, or even movies.
brainplay 2 years ago
.. are you guys actually telling that ppl those days were actually holding 40Kg+ bows during day-long battles?... ? that can't be right
Trying2ShowReason 2 years ago
yep, i have such arour. And I have to tell you that 30minutes in that stuff(Im shieldman, so + 6kg for shield and 1kg for sword) is really hard fun :) And you are REALLY tired after that. After 30min.
kazioo14 2 years ago
thats the weight of the draw, not the actual bows weight
darthmongoose2 2 years ago
@Trying2ShowReason im replying to a 3 month old comment but no, i believe it was the drawforce of the bow
Hokuten1640 2 years ago
@Hokuten1640 Thanks... its never too late ;) that was really confusing me so thank you for enlightening the situation
Trying2ShowReason 1 year ago
that is the strength required to draw the bow not the weight
loz1023 2 years ago
but it is.
BottledFairie 1 year ago
Good point... Chainmail would have stopped it. Even if it killed him the archer would be trampled by the horse he was on...
Grymbaldknight 2 years ago
The knight's probably going to have a layer of mail underneath that, which means it's not going to do much.
halfassedfart 2 years ago
What was the poundage used in this clip?
TheAznValedictorian 2 years ago
English archers were known to rub thier arrowheads and the front part of the shaft in rotten decayed human bodies that were infected, or in the rabid saliva of a dog. If the Knight was hit in a non-vital area and survived ( thier arrowheads did not use hemmoragin to kill), he would die no matter what within 2 days from severe infection.
TatankaOhitika1 2 years ago
The reason it aint penetrating is because the wrong head is being used, they made bodkins for a reason. Long bodkins for chain and short bodkins for plate. You weren't using either. Also what poundage was the "bow" the english archers were shooting between 170-190 pound bows. And at 20 metres with a short bodkin, it would of done a hell of a lot for damage.
AsbjornTheBrave 3 years ago
I was thinking this as well the bodkin did look a bit suspect...
Urbitrix 2 years ago
That was a bodkin.
255Knights 2 years ago
my apologies, looking again i can see that indeed it is a short bodkin. I know several fellow reenactors who shoot 100 pound warbows, and they have easily punctured plate, so what they used in medieval times(170-190) would have gone straight through armour. So i am still stand by my point that they were most likely not using even 90 pound for the test.
AsbjornTheBrave 2 years ago
Historical records actually disprove the notion that arrows penetrate plate armor. That's why they developed it in the first place, to increase defensive measures. It's easy to penetrate a sheet of plate, but not all steel has the qualities of all other steel. For instance, plate armor is shaped to prevent deflection, and heat treated in order to prevent penetration. Likewise, penetration does not necessarily mean it will penetrate the arming doublet underneath.
Caliburnis 2 years ago
Allow me to rephrase; Historical records actually disprove the notion that arrows RELIABLY penetrate plate armor. It can be safely assumed that armor, even maille generally defeats arrows by the combination of historical records and the fact that people continued to wear armor until the mass ascendency of the firearm, the only weapon to 'truly' defeat armor.
Caliburnis 2 years ago
A record of the battle of Poitiers, as written by Geoffrey Le Baker;
"For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards."
Caliburnis 2 years ago
As written by Bishop Ruthal, of the Battle of Flodden;
"they were so well cased in armour that the arrows did them no harm, and were such large and stout men that one would not fall when four or five bills struck them."
I have a few links to great forum discussions about the topic, laden with citations and other quotes.
Caliburnis 2 years ago
Yet the Scottish King himself fell to arrows though and he was as heavily armoured as any knight would of been. ;)
Urbitrix 2 years ago
It happens from time to time. Most of the time armor defeats arrows. It's only occasionally that arrows penetrate enough to kill. I've even seen some situations where the author of a record makes note that it wasn't until a commander took off his helmet or lifted his visor before an arrow was able to find a point to penetrate.
Now, are you saying James IV died by Longbow fire? I think that's unsubstantiated. IIRC, we don't really know when we died in the battle, or how.
Caliburnis 2 years ago
Actually the "average" weight for a bow seems to be under 150 pounds(As shown by the Mary Rose). As well, the "bodkin" isn't particularly an armor piercing point. They're generally cheap, easy to manufacture points, as well as being made from softer iron usually. Compare this to harder plate armor.
Caliburnis 2 years ago
they wear chainmail under there armor 2 u know
gbrlaguila 3 years ago
Only the early plate armors. Which means around 20-30 years.
sanpilou 3 years ago
I think this test is inaccurate in just one way; arrow showers. An arrow fired from 20 meters point blank, won't make a curve, and will shoot in a straight line at the target, hitting the target with greater force. But from longer range, an arrow would probably not hit as hard due to the curve made in mid air. Like the arrow volleys you see in movies. However, volleys still injured and killed some unlucky soldiers, and a lot of horses, sending their riders flying.
guncore 3 years ago
your right without a doubt guncore but usually the guys that died werent armoured because armoured knights on ly made up a relativly small part of the army.
aries772 3 years ago
this was a heat treated breastplate
right?
Lovesgoats 3 years ago
No it was not. It was just plane steel...
255Knights 3 years ago
no it was heat treated,just not quenched.
WarbowofEngland 3 years ago
There is no such vest as bullet proof, merely bullet resistant. Do you want to wear one and test your theory? I can make up some hot loads with metal piercing projectiles - anyone who reloads their own can do so. A few hot .308 hunting loads will change your mind as well.
alwaysopen 3 years ago
Like this is ever going to be something of concern. A .357 FMJ would go completely through any armor of that era. A kevlar vest is not much good against one of those rounds.
alwaysopen 3 years ago
Umm.. .357 FMJ's are handgun rounds and every level III kevlar vest is rated to stop them. Only handgun rounds made specifically to penetrate a kevlar vest will do so. Handguns just don't have the power of a rifle.
brainplay 3 years ago
your right brainplay a .357 fmj wont penetrate a good kevlar vest it wont even pierce 12 gauge mild steel i know because ive tried a risky buisness considering the chance of recochae
aries772 3 years ago
alguien sabe el titulo de este documental? me gustaría verlo entero
haralfhalgrada 3 years ago
I doubt archers will still have bows ready when the cavalry was only 20 meters away :|
LordEinar 3 years ago
This test is bullshit, i saw this on TV. Mike Loades is completely unfair, he used data from a longbow that was only 150lb draw, when the real warbows were closer to 200. Also he didnt use a recurved longbow for the test, then went on to explain how the english learnt to recurve their bows from the arabian composite bows in the crusades, so he basically declared his own test invalid.
And yes a knight hit with a full power arrow would get knocked off, i know people whov tried with dummies
zaltais2 3 years ago
Traditional longbows were regular stickbows. Recurves didn't gain popularity until after their use was starting to be surpassed by the Gonee` (gun) and the crossbow which took less time to train. Traditional warbows were 150lb pulls. 200+lb pull bows are specialist bows that only the most hardy could pull.
No, full power arrows don't have enough kinetic energy to throw a knight off of a horse. They do have enough power to unseat a light dummy who isn't using stirrups while riding.
brainplay 3 years ago
maybe, but loades still bolloxed his own test by not taking this into acocunt. his armour piercing is bullshit, look on youtbe for lukas novonty mughal bow, he tests it and a longbow against armour and they both penatrate several inches. the people back then were the most hardy, archery was their life, wer the soft ones.
and yes they do have enough energy, getting one smack in the face or torso would send you cartwheeling. put it this way- would you be willing to be the subject of this test?
zaltais2 3 years ago
Not really, Lukas bolloxed his own test by making approximations with the plate. No details were given about the plates used unlike this test where the exact armor was crafted using the same materials and methods.
Lukas and others also screwed up by firing their bows at a range of 10yrds. Archers run way before they get 10yrds of a charging knight. The arrows loose speed and power as they fly. 120lb was the average pull on a longbow, 150 was good. 200lb was godly even back then.
brainplay 3 years ago
well if thats not enough then theres plenty of other videos on youtube demonstarting a longbows armour piercing capabilities. just type "arrow armour" into the search and youll get more than enough.
so what exactly is the basis of your archery knowledge?
zaltais2 3 years ago
wouldnt get knocked off. i did a very stuoid thing. my friend got on a horse. held a home made shield that was about 5cm thick oak with 1mm plate steel on it. i shot him with a 150lb longbow and he didnt even come close to falling off. I shot from 15m.
Chompa901 3 years ago
really? im glad someones actually tried it. thats weird i was well certain the blunt force would do it. maybe if you shot at there head next time? lol joking.
bet it would work with light cavlry though. ie little or no armour.
zaltais2 3 years ago
I was surprised my self. Still made him crap his pants though. Dressed him up in 3 stab vests. Anything for science.
Chompa901 3 years ago
I agree with you, but now picture this scenario; What if you didn't shoot the rider, but the horse..? The horse would probably start staggering, and your friend would probably fall off.
guncore 3 years ago
thats wqhy they shot the horses and we took extreme precautions, the horse was behind a wood fence.
Chompa901 3 years ago
Your test was a bit biased. Shields tended to be wood. Willow boards usually. Metal and wood hybrid shields are pretty rare for those days.
Urbitrix 2 years ago
Yeah most of them just had an metal trim on the edege.
1ohtaf1 2 years ago
huh? thats not an arrow thats a bolt. im no expert in physics but arrows might still not able to penetrate the armor since its head is barbed(making it wide) and flat
boomstix 3 years ago
This experiment is too controlled. There's a lot of other elements that was not factored in:
1) Wind (outdoor), battles were not fought indoor.
2) Experiment's plate armor is not hardened steel.
3) The test is stationary; knights don't stand in one spot to take the arrows. One of plate's strongest point against projectiles is the fact that they are made round to prevent perpendicular impact.
4) The transition of force from arrow to wearer. This test subject is planted firm.
Vehement00 3 years ago 2
Think about it. If you were riding on a horse at full galop towards the enemy and you got hit wouldnt it knock you off your horse
Chompa901 3 years ago
I tested a carbon arrow with a broadhead against a 3mm piece of sheet steel. The steel was good quality and the bow i used is a 70lb martin bengal. I shot at 35 meters and it penetrated very deep.
Chompa901 3 years ago
i just want to let you know your lying i have shot a 16 gauge piece of mild steel with a 44 special bullet and it did not penetrate along with a 65 pound compound bow from 25 meters and it just dented the steel theres no way that arrow of yours penetrated much less deep
aries772 3 years ago
Sry. i just checked the actual thicknes of the steel. when i said 3mm i didnt mesure it, i just thought it was something like that. the steel is 1,9mm thick. i was using sharp field tips. it penetrated but it broke the shaft. Sorry about the bad english. im still learning.
Chompa901 3 years ago
An air-cannon can replicate the conditions of a longbow shot quite effectively, asshats.
halfassedfart 3 years ago
the presenter is full of shit
meckanika300 3 years ago
This test blows balls. They need to get a Real bow, and a Real set of armor, and REALLY shoot it. It can't be verified as fact until that is done.
VikingII 3 years ago 2
This is a lab machines shot test; not a real human... This would be a luck shot... Also a direct hit was not too common...
Roman55Legions 4 years ago 2
I saw the Hole teast. This test is not very good; because this was not harden steel... Europeans used harden steel armor...
Roman55Legions 4 years ago 2
How many could afford it ? Not many. This special armor were made at Milan and at part of Germany and they were more expensive... many times more.
DO not forget that this part of armor is usualy twice wide than the rest. Actually, with a helm, it is the most fortificed part of armor.
Also, british used warbow of strengh from 100lb to 180lb.. which one was at this test ?
Viceslav 3 years ago 3
In the late 1300s Plate armor became more and more common... By the 1400 AD plate armor was very, very common... Most regular infantrymen had plate armor...
Roman55Legions 3 years ago 8
At 1300 plate armor is not becoming common. Becouse it was the start of plate armor, and its not full armor but just pieces. At 1400 common for who ? Knights.
Viceslav 3 years ago
LOL troops like Man-at-arms!!
Most forget about OTHER professional or semi professional troops, don't we? Knights were the elite...
And I said becoming common, not that it was common in the 1300s. Also I said LATE 1300s, not 1300s.
It is like every thing, you do not think people want the best stuff?
Roman55Legions 3 years ago 9
@Roman55Legions most infantrymen are peasants who cannot afford custom made plate armor; even in nobilities not every knight can afford plate armor and horse
chwuwd 1 year ago
Well, during the 1400s it was a lot more common than a lot of people think(Though, not as common as Hollywood portrays). For instance, the Landsknecht units of the late 1400s, early 1500s were usually encased in three quarters plate. It's here that you need to differentiate between peasants, and professionals. It would be common for at least pieces of plate armor to be worn by professionals(Men At Arms).
Milan wasn't the only city in Italy to produce these. It's sort of a misnomer, I know.
Caliburnis 3 years ago
In their other video the speed was given 140 mph. With 100g for arrow & string and 30" for draw, that equals to an initial velocity of a 116lb bow.
HiReeZin 3 years ago
Um no, they didnt use to 180 lbs. The highest i believe was 130 or so. Crossbows were around 180 -220. Thats why they were so effective against armor and thats why the french used them instead of warbows etc.
flintrocks 1 year ago
@flintrocks Try google or read some books about warbow. You will find 100-180 lb for warbow (+/-10)... surely not 130. I thing that Edward III has 180lb longbow but I´m not sure.
French used crossbow for train a good bowman takes years, but that doesn´t matter, becouse they belive that knights are importatn in battle, not some poor archers. The crossbowman, for example, in battle of Crecy was Italian.
Viceslav 1 year ago
There was another part of this where they did test the hardened steel. It defended against the arrow perfectly.
Caliburnis 3 years ago 2
Wow I didn't expected the arrow to do that.
Dagsschiller 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YUP KNIGHT PWN :)
Methodios 4 years ago