English kings actually passed laws that demanded that their citizens owned bows and trained with them and often subsidized archery tournaments to keep people motivated to practice archery.
That makes quite a fair bit of sense actually And back then its not like they had social media to scroll on, this probably was a fun use of their spare time too
They had mandatory trainings on Sunday, and these trainings ended up being incredibly useful in the hundred years war where the English could just go to any random village and find tons of skilled bowmen to recruit. The french couldn't do the same, and so they had to use crossbows which were significantly worse due to a number of reasons.
@@abhi5504 Crossbows are not inferior to bows. If anything they are supperior. they were even banned by the pope to use against other christians becouse they were op. they are much more expensive however.
@@Somespideronline Because they are acting like Archers were over armored, which just isn't the case. Archers wore a amount of armor that made sense. They were under the threat of being flanked or having enemy archers volley on them... They also might be required to engage in melee combat, if their frontlines failed. So the amount of armor archers wore, made total sense. It wasn't about overly protecting their skilled archers.
Using a warbow isn't just about skill. Strength training is also a significant concern and it has to be the right muscles. Archeologists can identify the skeleton of an English longbowman by how their skeleton deformed. We are talking draw weights over 100lbs. Not only do they need to be able to pull that string back, but they need to be able to aim as well and repeat the action multiple times in a battle. A proper archer would practically need to learn from childhood to develop the right muscles.
Well i dont kwow Drifters , but i Heard about oda Nobunaga. He was an Important Warlord in Japan and guess What , he introduced fireweapons (in great scale) to japanese battlefields.
@@geheimeWeltregierung well yes and no. Nobunaga was actually the guy who managed to use guns effectively in field battles(the Japanese were already using quite effectively in sieges , but their use in field battles were an enigma until he came along)
Well, he was usually willing by throwing larger armies of muskets, torches and pointy sticks at elite forces of warrior monks, so his career was a microcosm of this principle. That and the principles that you can't parry a forrest fire or a collapsing building with a katana, and that losing honorably is still losing. Scary man, that guy.
@@MrFelblood well no one was fighting honorable at the time either. This whole idea about samurai loyalty and honor was a myth created centuries after the warring states period of Japanese history. What set Nobunaga apart from his fellow warlords was a) he had a plan for unifying the fractured country and b) when he committed atrocities he made no excuses to the point he had a "what you see is what you get and then some" type of mentality about them . Basically many historians seem to believe that many of his atrocities were exaggerated/embellished by his enemies and nobunaga didn't bother to correct them because those stories made him appear more terrifying
World War 2, a British army officer named Jack Churchill, although most people called him “Mad Jack”. In May 1940 Jack and his unit ambushed a German patrol in France close to L'Épinette. Jack gave the signal to his unit to attack by shooting the enemy staff sergeant with a barbed arrow using a long bow, making him the only British soldier to ever down an enemy using a long bow in World War 2.
imagine being a member the warrior elite aristocracy of your kingdom. you've trained for 20 years to a master of warfare and combat. then in your last battle you get yeeted out of existence by a 16 year old stable boy who was just taught how to make the firestick go pew.
No kidding. That happens even as we speak. I've heard accounts of USAs tier 1 guys getting hit by potshots taken from a kid with a smooth bore AK. Guns are really something
This is basically what happened at the battle of Cerignola. Elite French cavalry and Swiss mercenary pikemen (the best money could hire of the day) were defeated by a force of Spaniards armed with firearms and pikes. Pike and shot tactics (formations that allowed firearm welding troops to engage enemy infantry and cav while being covered by friendly pike infantry) then took over Europe. At that battle the French lost about 4,000 men and the Spaniards only lost around 500.
"Point and shoot" weapons really changed logistics more than tactics. Any school kid can point an imaginary crossbow in the general direction of a target.
Except guns and crossbows were prestige weapons handled by professionals. People weren't arming peasants with expensive weaponry and shooting guilds were prestigious institutions handling crossbows. Indeed 16th century writers write that guns were the weapons of the professionals while bows were weapons best suited when there weren't enough guns to be around. By the tail end of the 16th century men showing up with longbows to muster were classified as unarmed men.
@@moisesflores5405... what? you know, if for "professionals" you mean menthat could coordinate their volley of fire to shoot in a consecutive fire line non stop while the ones who shooted were reloading counts as "professional" I get it, but I doubt a bow that needed a lot more of training was considered under a early gun wich was literally a cannon on a stick and about crossbows in late medieval Japan... I have no idea
Another advantage of crossbows and guns over bows is that you can keep them ready to fire for an indefinite length of time. So you can aim and wait, then when someone steps into range, there is no delay to firing
Keeping an arrow nocked but not drawn just doesn't have the quick fire potential of a finger on a trigger, but that's more of an urban warfare concept than field battles and sieges. Tactical moments might save the life of a single soldier, but to save a country you need to think about logistical and strategic scale stuff like, "we can train twice as many ranged units and have them ready before they enemy reinforcements arrive."
Which is why crossbows and guns were better during sieges. Because you could wait and only expose a small portion of your body to the enemy. A bowman needs to stand up and stand almost completely out of cover to get a shot off
Those are called mercenaries. Most mercenaries cross trained the most popular weapons of the time based on what they could afford. Sword as a sidearm, bow for the higher paying spots if the army could afford to pay the higher wages, crossbow if they army couldn't afford it, and gun if the mercenary could afford to own one.
Get Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword. It has the very thing you're looking for... You can be a Swedish Musketeer, a Cossack Serdjyuk, Russian Streltsy, Polish Hayduk, or an Ottoman Janissary under Crimea... Heck you could just lead a troop of those guys and be a Mercenary Captain
The Battle of Shiroyama was a great example of this. Although, when WW1 rolled around, it was found that well-trained units still had their advantages over conscripts.
The point isn't that crossbow and gun equipped soldiers weren't trained, but that to get an equivalent effectiveness crossbows and guns required several orders of magnitude of training less than bows.
I’ve used a bow with a 50lbs draw weight and it’s no joke to pull that to the rear and keep it steady. Medieval longbows would often have weights well over 100lbs. It would take years to train large numbers of people to use a bow like that consistently and accurately.
I’ve been listening to his podcast, but what I really want to know is… how annoyed is his coworkers? My mom gets annoyed when I talk about history… imagine THIS GUY with the history of the universe 😂
There was also the fact that as time went on guns just became better than bows. People often besmirch the musket’s accuracy, but in a decent few cases, bows were even worse-for example, an arrow’s accuracy could be heavily affected by the wind, a gun’s could not. And the rate at which guns improved outpaced protection, so guns could more easily penetrate armour compared to bows.
Battle of Cerignola is a great example of this. Most french officers got killed by spanish handcannoneers, which surprised not just the french but even the spanish, so much they reacted by mounting the first of what would become the spanish tradition of mourning for enemy deaths. Because indeed guns, even those early ones, had way more precission and armor penetration than bows and even crossbows. A trained longbowman had at best the same accuracy as a shotgunner (that's what they called a shotgun then, not what we call so now), and about the same penetration too. The non-wall-mounted arquebus had more pen but less accuracy. Early muskets (the long kind with the sticks) had both more pen and accuracy, locks made them more accurate, rifling even more so. A Musketeer from the 18th century was objectively better than a longbowman in every sense but frequency of shots, and that's only short term, because longbowmen got tired much faster too.
Muskets were superior in basically every way. This argument only really applies to *really* early guns. And btw armour that could protect from muskets existed and was actually quite common. It was standard equipment for cuirassier. It just couldn't take musket shots at close range.
Qi Jiguang & Humphrey Barwick both wrote that matchlock firearms were more accurate than warbows, while Sir John Smythe indicated otherwise. Based on modern tests, I suspect matchlocks were significantly more accurate than warbows in skilled hands & in prime condition. If loaded poorly or too hastily, or with heating & fouling, maybe not. In any case, matchlocks offered much higher velocity & power than warbows as well as greater ability to shoot from cover.
I feel the training aspect only really applies to the Gun/longbow comparison. Crossbows were just as easy to get the hang of as a gun. A point I had heard on UA-cam (will update if I remember who from) was that musketballs had much higher lethality than arrows. Arrows would rarely cause instant or near-instant death/incapacitation in a way bullets could I also would have thought the prevelance or armour on medieval battlefields would have made the gun more viable
A zhuge crossbow is, as far as the soldier using it is concerned, just a wooden SMG powered by levers instead of gunpowder and springs. Metal ammo, standardized replacement parts, machined barrels and chemical energy add more accuracy, reliability and power, but the real **revolution** in battlefield technology was point and shoot weapons. 1. Point business end at enemy. 2. Operate lever. 3. Go to 1
@@sigismundafvolsung5526True enough that a volley of arrows is scary too, but the key difference being you can at least *SEE* the hail of arrows coming at you :P With arrows you can at least see whose firing them and the poor bastards they are falling upon. You also at least have a sense of security from arrows with a shield. Guns take away all of that. You cant really see the projectiles, you dont know where its going to hit. All you see is a puff of smoke and next thing you know your friend next to you has a hole through his shield and his chest
Same thing with crossbows and why the French used them so much back in the day. Just like you said regarding early firearms, it was much easier and far faster, and more cost effective to train someone to be proficient with a crossbow then it did to train someone up to use a bow
This is true when you're talking about *very* early firearms- say, the middle of the 15th century. Unfortunately, too many people take this argument to its ridiculous extreme and claim bows were better than flintlock muskets. Horsemen continued to use bows long after the infantry traded them in for guns, since mounted men have trouble reloading muzzleloaders. I mean, consider the Japanese who were great archers and had excellent bows. And Japanese infantry gave up their bows for *matchlock* muskets as soon as they had the chance.
Yet the Manchus didn't give up their (probably better) bows & continued using them with success at least into the 19th century (& longer with less success). It's true was mostly for cavalry, but some Qing infantry also used bows & some even used both firearms & bows based on artwork.
Uhmmm not all Japanese armies replaced their bows. They still kept units with bows and matchlocks hence while the gunners are reloading the archers can still rain down hell
I find it hilarious that there are some people who genuinely think that bows were better for armies than the muskets of the Napoleonic era. If that was the case, nobody would have used guns. We can see this, for instance, with the air rifle. It was superior in every statistic to the musket, but it wasn't used because the overhead was so high that it made no logistical sense. Not that nobody ever used them. They were popular with private hunters, for instance. But they weren't used on the battlefield.
Are you familiar with tests of Girandoni air rifles? They most certainly were not superior in every statistic to the flintlock musket. The kinetic energy & velocity were quite low, even if originals performed better than replicas. If air rifles had become more common, soldiers could easily have adopted lightweight armor to protect against them. Air rifles were used on the battlefield, but not for very long & in limited numbers.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 That would have made such an interesting meta! It'd necessitate the use of both light and heavy armor for protecting from air guns vs. powder guns.
One of the reasons Sparta fell is essentially the same. Because Spartan training was so lengthy, if they took mass casualties, they couldn't easily replenish their ranks. There are other reasons, but this was a major factor.
Spartans weren’t significantly more effective at warfare then their enemies and didn’t participate in a a lot of battles directly, it was more to do with the fact that very small amount of people were granted Spartan citizenship.
@@pianoman-1359 That was also a significant factor. There's also the fact that they didn't really change their tactics. The small population of fighting men combined with the lengthy training time, were the two main factors in their decline & fall.
+pianomaN I’ve heard they were highly effective because frequent, military drilling wasn’t common among other Greek city-states. Once that DID become more common, though, the Spartans lost most of their edge. Then their xenophobia and small population combined with contual losses in frequent wars lead to their decline.
It was more the fact they had too many slaves. Their entire economy relied on slavery and if they were forced to fight a war for too long they risked the slaves revolting due to the army being away.
@@samiamrg7ecause most other Greek cities relied on militia for infantry. The hoplite formation ostensibly came out of defensive needs of the polis and light infantry was probably recruited from poorer populations or mercenaries. The only ones who could actually afford to train or gain firsthand war experience were oligarchic elite, but the hoplite formation was only as offensively effective as the discipline of its full force so they would lose cohesion during movement. What set Sparta apart was their hoplite phalanx marched as one, never drifting as others did and it's implied wouldn't retreat unless ordered. It's important to note that their school system wasn't initially a unique institution in Greece, but at some point they converted the education of the leisure class into a training regimen that conditioned and desensitized male youth of the citizen class to follow orders and kill at a moment's notice without question. It's also important to note that the period of Spartan hegemony was relatively short and the list available of Spartiates (hoplites) got smaller every year. There are a lot of theories why but there was clearly enough of a manpower shortage that they relied on non-citizens and even freed Helots to fill gaps in the phalanx, though not enough that they opened the agoge to them so their formation discipline was never what it once was. Given who beat them, and who beat THEM, and who beat the successors of that guy, there's probably a lesson in there about needing to scale resources and training while applying innovation to maintain military advantage, which those guys actually managed for a few good centuries.
Don't forget logistics. To create an arrow you need a fletcher, carpenter and blacksmith. For a lead ball you need lead and a form. Anyone can do it. Gunpowder is more difficult to make but it's easy to transport (Obviously, it's risky by it's nature but not logistically difficult, only safely.)
@@koreancowboy42 I was only talking about ammunition there, not crafting of the weapons, the weapons crafting were usually done out of the war where it wasn't time consuming. They didn't fight Total Wars of industrial scale then. HOWEVER. A bowyer does require more time than a gun barrel, and their resoruces are more expensive. Iron vs high quality yew. As for design, I mean sure it's more advanced technologically, but once it's been desigend you're done there. Don't need to keep designing every gun.
@@TheIfifi That's true, but before standardization and replaceable parts, gunsmiths had to customize every gun. Replaceability really changed the game in terms of cheap, easy manufacturing and maintenance of firearms.
I’ve read somewhere that additional reason as to why the first lockless guns stuck around was that the huge amount of smoke and the noise created during discharge had a tremendous psychological effect on the enemy.
Fun fact : If friction and air resistance didn't exist, an arrow would travel at lightspeed because the energy ratio of the arrow moving forward vs. the tips moving apart gets massive, approaching infinity!
Muskets could pierce suits of armor every time. Arrows COULD pierce armor given multiple factors were met, but it was far less reliable and a lot would break on impact. Adding a bayonet to the musket cemented its place as superior to bows and swords etc.
At least for europe, other than britain which still relied on bows for longer than mainland europe, it was not really a contest between gun vs bow but gun vs crossbow and here its much easier to see why guns took over so fast once the early arquebus was a thing.
Your friend should look into the historical availability of wood staves suitable for making longbows. You have to kill a ~20 year old yew tree to make 2-3 bowstaves, and bowstaves wear out. England would have had to transition away from bows even if guns didn't get better, because all that (necessary) archery practice killed most of the suitable trees in Europe.
@@swissarmyknight4306 You are probably wrong, opening new farmlands, wood houses, ships (most important compenent) and another wooden tools depleted forests in Europa not Longbows. Korean and Eurasian nomads made more bows than European counterparts (English, Vikings, Franks etc.) but their forest ratio is very high. Making ships deplete forest mostly.
There’s also the fact that the amount of arrows or bolts a soldier can carry was not even close to how much ammunition a soldier using a gun would be able to carry
Also the fact making bullets is easier than it is to make arrows. Arrows you need feathers from chickens, the wood need to be good and of quality, the arrow head iron work needs to be good.
A while ago, inspired by your plate armor video. I have done some research into the usefulness of maces or Warhammers against plate armor. Some say such weapons will demolish plate while some say it’s as effective as swords. What’s your thought on this?
i'd like to know the answer too, i guess it would be somewhere in between, i believe that the best area to hit would be the helmet. though the mace and warhammer are a horseman's sidearm, so i guess that makes sense
This is also why you still see pirates and Civil War era U.S. American soldiers with swords, but by the turn of the 20th century they were fully ceremonial.
They were still largely ceremonial. The American Civil War was between napoleonic and modern warfare. There are very few applications where a bayonet wouldn't be a more practical choice.
Swords were ceremonial by the 1870's with the advent of metallic cartridges. That's when we had repeating rifles and revolvers that were quick to reload.
Crossbows were time consuming to make. Not every smith knew how to make them correctly. Also, despite how they're often portrayed, they had about the same ability to punch through plate armor that longbows did, which wasn't much. If a bolt or arrow struck hit a weak point like a joint them it could do damage to the target, or if it hit the very edge of the plate it could deform the metal without losing too much force, meaning there would be more left over for penetrating a significant amount, but plate was very difficult for arrows or bolts to defeat. At close range, a bullet was sure to punch through. It was guaranteed to do serious damage if it hit. Being easy to use and able to reliably kill a fully armored knight made the difference. Although, on the point of crossbows being used, usually armies would have as many crossbows as they could get, but again; complicated to make correctly.
Well depending on the place, they did. The earliest known crossbows are from bronze age China, and theoretically simple wooden crossbows may be much much older. As for why it only spread so far: money. It is more expensive, time consuming and resource intense to build a large strong crossbow that noticeably outperforms a simpler cheaper bow. Add to that the strength and training needed to use a proper siege crossbow that rivals a longbow, well a bunch of the benefits are gone. Now if you were ancient China you absolutely could spend the money to throw crossbows at a few thousand soldiers that dont have an archery background to get your ranged troops, but for most ancient and early medieval states it was cheaper, simpler and faster to just use pre existing sling, javelin and bow traditions and infrastructure
They did take off. Longbows were the thing in England, most everyone else in Western Europe used crossbows for military purposes. Crossbows were very popular. Its just that they were surpassed by firearms in the late medieval period.
@@koreancowboy42 yep and the earliest found are Shang centuries earlier than the Qin in the bronze age. The lack of clarity is if/when crossbows overtook bows/became common mass weapons
Agreed although emergency trained archers can still be somewhat effective. A 50lb bow with broadheads is stil useful (against no armor) shot from beginners en masse
that chinese han dynasty crossbow, with the right poundage & bolt it should be able to reach 400-500 m & that would outrange the effective range of a musktet (200 m) twice + without armor the bolts would still be lethal at that range / since that particular crossbow was spanned by hand, back and feet, it would also have a higher rate of shot
That was the big reason why guns replaced bows. As soon as archers were up against armored infantry or cavalry. Even well trained archers and crossbowmen could do very little against them. Meanwhile even some half decent arquebuiser firing in volley would tear through armor and shields
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 That's not really true, Because the archers & especially the crossbowmen could still wound & incapacitate them / the only parts of the armor that could be considered arrow proof (not bolt proof, because crossbows need more testing) would be the chest armor and the helmet in case of lamellar and plate But Limbs protection due to thinner armor was still vulnerable to arrows, It would be especially a problem if the Arrows were to be poisoned which was rare but did happen historically On top of that, there is the wounding and killing of Horses, since horse protection was rare and still provided limited protection
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 the big reason why they replaced them was less training in case of comparison to the Bow and in case of comparison to the crossbow, cheaper ammunition, the terrifying effect of firearm sounds & ofcourse more power, but that wasn't the main reason
@@aburoach9268 Limbs were also harder to hit especially if the person had shields. Also getting hit in the limbs with an arrow or crossbow wasn't guaranteed to kill or incapacitate a person like a bullet could. Both arrows and bullets had been coated in poison. And unlike poison arrows, the lethality of poisoned bullets led to the Strasbourg agreement of 1675 that banned their use. In the aftermath of the battle of crecy many more knights and nobles were captured than killed. Meanwhile arquebuises were pretty much guaranteed to punch through breast plates and helmets at optimal range. This was important since archers became increasingly ineffective as armor became increasingly more effective and common on the battlefield. By the 16th century and the important Battle of Cerignola (1503) most combatants were wearing armor and the French Cavalry and Swiss pikemen found themselves repeating the battle of Crecy and Agincourt only this time at the hands of 1000 Spanish Arquebuisiers at not the 5000 to 6000 English Longbowen at Crecy or Agincourt. The point was you didn't need as many arquebuisers compared to archers to do as much damage to an enemy army.
Another thing people forget is that the same thing happened to swords and knights with the pike. With guns still being shit at the time of the early modern age, formations of pikemen replaced knights and most forms of infantry due to their easiness to train with
Todd's Workshop just did Arrows vs. Armor 2. One part of that series pointed out that we don't know what a war bow really is, i.e. what draw strength a bow had to have in a military setting. You have to keep in mind, that in a medieval army, an archer brought his own bow, because each bow is different and you can't simply pick a new bow and expect to shoot well with it.
It would be more correct to say that the term "war bow" is undefined. There is a multi dimensional continuum of possible meanings, and little contextual signposted as to which values are likely to correlate to a specific time or place in history.
War bows for most European armies is at 70-75 pounds. For the English archers it's at 100+ pounds on a bow. And yes we do know the standard of draw weight for bows and military standardization. English archers were among the best archers and trained all their life from child hood to adulthood. Which means they have higher standard for archers. Compared to most of European archers. And yes archers can bring their own warbows however, the archers would need the right type of arrow to be used so as to not break on impact of the arrow being released from the bow.
Muskets are superior to bows and the idea that it’s simply a matter of bows being difficult to use is preposterous. With that logic, elite units that go through really long training like Royal Guards would use bows, but they chose guns… Because they were superior.
@@natotomato4625 that trajectory isn't much of a training issue, bows take long with training because they're much harder to aim when preparing to fire.
Crossbows aren't really harder to train with, they just have many of the same problems as early guns. Difficult to manufacture, slow to reload, etc. In training requirements early guns and crossbows weren't that different. There's a video on this same channel about crossbows being banned because after their invention a single soldier with a day of training could kill an armoured knight with years of experience and nobles (typically well armoured) didn't like that. Bowmen at least took a long time to train and if they fought on the wrong side could be dealt with by removing two fingers. That wasn't the case with crossbows and the cost of metal limbed crossbows was the only thing that kept them out of the hands of peasants.
Most types of crossbows used across history required strength just like warbows. It was mainly in 15th-century Europe that this changed, with the windlass & cranequin, & even then the goat's-foot lever remained popular.
It was also easier to outfit gunmen than archers. Arrows cost a lot of money and arrows were usually destroyed after use. Compared to some cheap scrap metal (hopefully lead) being melted into a ball. Until saltpetre became cheaper, the only thing that was holding guns back was the powder
@@johnbu9098 You realize that flintlock muskets are known to be extremly inaccurate, the bullet is almost non-lethal if you bear the right armor, needs precious time to reload and you'll need more time to know how to effectively use a musket than a bow.
Also, muskets are for right-handed people only while a bow is binary, a bow had more penetrating power than a flintlock and doesnt make an ear-piercing sound when fired (perfect when stealth is a great advantage).
@@thebobbingtonYou are astoundingly incorrect, Flintlocks are not nearly as inaccurate as you’ve been lead to believe, nor are they as weak as you believe. They outclass bows in almost every scenario other than long-range shooting.
Fun fact swearing comes from bows when you stick up two fingers, it comes from British archers. Longbow were so skilled they could have 3 to 5 arrows in flight at one time, the French said they have catch a charger to cut off its fingers, so the two fingers stick up is to say I still have my fingers to the French
Crossbow is the only bow that can compete with guns after the invention of matchlock, while longbow almost imediately died out, mostly because crossbow were far more easy to train with than longbow.
I had this exact same question asked of me 2 weeks ago as I own, and have basic skills in archery, and in black powder firearms (Dutch matchlock, 2x flintlocks, and one percussion cap 3 band 1843 enfield.) I told him if I had a lifetime of training I would choose the bow of a gun however learnt much faster as you said in the 3 type of black powder guns in a matter of a week on each!!!
Its insane how skilled you had to be to be a bowman back then you had to be strong with good aiming skills and you need to be able to keep pulling that 100lb pull back weight for the length of an entire war
The thing I would say is often times with the whole bow vs gun is the bow tests are conducted in ideal weather and in cases of military application i.e. massed fire bows would rarely be aimed in any case. In terms effectiveness whilst battles such as Agincourt and Crecy are often used the day was won by English men at arms rather than the bowmen as arrows rarely pierced armour it was the French knights getting bogged down in the muddy conditions that lost them the day
Ok, I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet. Guns are also better for another reason, hand to hand combat. Guns are better than bows for when the enemy gets close. They carry more weight than a bow, they’re generally tougher than a bow, they’re generally more solid than a bow, ect.
This is exactly why bows and crossbows coexisted for so long. Bows were hard to use but could shoot much more rapidly whereas crossbows were slow but were easy to learn (plus they eventually packed a bigger punch as they got stronger and stronger over time)
Many people don't realise, that if you were an Archer and got captured, they would cut off your first two fingers, and sometimes just release you, because you couldn't do much damage as Archer. That's where the two finger insult insult "✌️" came from, as in "hey I can still fire an arrow". (When the fingers are raised, the back of your hand would be facing the enemy. I couldn't find a better emoji).
@@whatusernameis5295 The emoji I showed is, but if you turn your hand so that the back of your hand is facing away from you, it's not. It originally started out as a "taunt", like "haha I've still got my fingers". Now it just means "f#ck you", but back when you were an archer, it meant something completely different.
Stop lumping together all of history. The finger cut thing was something that maybe happened in some parts of europe some time. It didnt always happen, its stupid to say it did
Guns didn't change the entirety of battlefield combat because they were *cost effective* otherwise the same would've already happened with crossbows. Bows were better than guns in one capacity, they were faster to shoot, and that is it. Power, range, lethality, ease of use, accuracy, etc, all went to guns once they were adopted for primary military use. The ability for a couple of groups of men to take down massive amounts of enemy soldiers with a few volley fires, is something no other weapon was previously capable of. It was Shock and Awe that made the gun take the place of the sword.
i remember when i was a kid i saw this great demonstration of late tudor guns, and in the time it took for one shot to be fired, a bow fired 11 arrows (and those were just the ones on target)
It would also be worth mentioning that any arquebus sufficiently well made will have more power and a quicker and easier reload than a heavy windlass crossbow. European crossbows are notoriously inefficient, with massive draw weights combined with a really short power stroke, which in the case of the more powerful crossbows that might have *some* chance against armour, would have to be reloaded with a windlass. Even then their armour penetrating capabilities aren't anywhere near a properly made arquebus. Now they did manage to make armour that could stop anything up to a musket, but that'd be ridiculously expensive, meanwhile a relatively cheap mild steel cuirass will be more than enough to stop a crossbow bolt fired from almost any crossbow, or at the very least it will take a lot of energy out of the bolt before it gets to your body.
Expensive and un-maneuvreable, I'm guessing. Can't run away from artillery, can't flank easily, the opposing side can just run up to you and stab you with their bayonets. And meanwhile you can just build up a fortification or trenches that acts as shields more effectively than armor...
There's also the fact that as they got better a musket could punch straight through plate. Which is also why armor started going away until we finally developed armor that could match the rifles.
Muskets where able to penetrate armour. It took 1 month to train from peasant to musketeers in compare with years of training archer. But key reason was enlarged army. You can't find 100k archers in Britain but you can train 400k musketeers in one year.
I kind of wish that in the beginning of firearms they created a pole arm cannon hybrid. Basically the same thing as a musket or rifle with a bayonet. But an actual heavy spear, javelin, lance, or pole arm weapon that fires projectiles. It would be even cooler if it utilized the pump air guns of the 1700s that were semi automatic. That way you get a bunch of shots before during and after melee combat.
and they made a lot of noise witch was very terrifying in that moment, thats why the were shoulder by shoulder, to raise the morale and avoiding the troop to disband
Introducing the youth to bow's and training them up at a young age so theres a constant stream of new and inspiring bowman joining the forces < more gun
You missed out on the king of ancient warfare. The sling. It could out-range and over-power bows, was arguably even easier to use, and was only phased out when crossbows were becoming popular. Only after the arquebus was adopted did the sling finally become obsolete.
Even when archery was still widely practiced the question of whether bows or matchlock muskets were more accurate in a direct comparison seems to have been debatable at best. Writing about his early years as in the English army in the mid 1500s, Humfrey Barwick claimed that his commander held trials of arms 2-3 times a week involving longbows, crossbows, and firearms which wound up leaving little doubt that firearms were the most accurate of the three. He also concluded that after just a few months of training with his arquebus he could hit any target near or far as well as "the best archers in England." When the matchlock musket arrived in China and Korea, local sources wrote that on the practice field they would strike the target "five times better than the bow and arrow."
Fun fact: bows were still a popular weapon in warfare when guns dominated. They often had troops armed with bows during marches, because a company of bowman can respond to an immediate threat, like an ambush, faster than a company of gunmen.
The bow an important part of the armies of Asia for hundreds of years after gunpowder weapons were invented. Outside of Europe and Japan the mounted knight wasn't important enough to the battlefield to require guns in large quantites
If i'm thinking correct, the musket was easly picked up after the battle, and handed down to the new musketeer, while the bow would be lost with the dead bowman. And after the day of training, new shooter can load and fire the volley with others, somewhat effectively, but nobody could do that with the bow.
It depends on which guns and which bows. The first question that comes is: Why not crossbows? The second is: Which guns? There are firsthand accounts from English veterans such as Humphrey Barwick explaining why the gun is superior to the longbow, despite the fact that the longbow at the time of writing was still mandatory to train with (mostly for moral reasons). Not to mention the Japanese, whose samurai houses were the houses of Bow and Arrow, not Sword, very quickly took up guns because of their superior penetration power.
"If you want a great bowman, start with his grandfather."
"If you want a great rifleman, start on Tuesday."
And if you want great chicken, come to Los Pollos Hermanos. Los Pollos Hermanos, where something delicious is always cooking!
Only two comments under this thread and i love it already
"you said you want me to be free but all i want is ice cream"
Is that neptune as your pfp? I wouldnt know as the only reason i know she exists is due to dal sp collabing while i was still playing
English kings actually passed laws that demanded that their citizens owned bows and trained with them and often subsidized archery tournaments to keep people motivated to practice archery.
Huh. Now that is interesting
That makes quite a fair bit of sense actually
And back then its not like they had social media to scroll on, this probably was a fun use of their spare time too
They had mandatory trainings on Sunday, and these trainings ended up being incredibly useful in the hundred years war where the English could just go to any random village and find tons of skilled bowmen to recruit. The french couldn't do the same, and so they had to use crossbows which were significantly worse due to a number of reasons.
That's actually brilliant.
@@abhi5504 Crossbows are not inferior to bows. If anything they are supperior. they were even banned by the pope to use against other christians becouse they were op.
they are much more expensive however.
General upon losing 6 dudes: Years of academy training, wasted!
Assistant: Sir, they were gunmen.
General: ...Well, don't forget to bury them.
This general studied in Russia.
@@MrFelblood **shots fired**
@@MrFelblood
Well if it's worked for a thousand years.
@@MrFelblood No. Every country in the world has that mindset. Even today. Has been that way for centuries.
@@jaypeedesuyo662uh huh…
It could actually take as much as a decade to replace your best archers. It's why they were often better armored than they generally needed to be.
I’m stealing this for future conversations in which I have nothing else to say.
@@jackmrsich3178 smart move
Lol huh??? Archers were not that heavily armored, and there was always a threat of getting flanked... Why do people just make shit up?? Lol
@@dijonjohn1011 what makes you think that the comment was made up? Serious question btw
@@Somespideronline
Because they are acting like Archers were over armored, which just isn't the case.
Archers wore a amount of armor that made sense. They were under the threat of being flanked or having enemy archers volley on them... They also might be required to engage in melee combat, if their frontlines failed.
So the amount of armor archers wore, made total sense. It wasn't about overly protecting their skilled archers.
Using a warbow isn't just about skill. Strength training is also a significant concern and it has to be the right muscles. Archeologists can identify the skeleton of an English longbowman by how their skeleton deformed. We are talking draw weights over 100lbs. Not only do they need to be able to pull that string back, but they need to be able to aim as well and repeat the action multiple times in a battle. A proper archer would practically need to learn from childhood to develop the right muscles.
Does 100lbs mean they force needed to pull the string back equates to a 100lbs or the force of the impact is a 100lbs?
@@senseishu937 the pulling of the bowstring back takes 100 lbs of force.
Yes and no, it takes muscle but you can train anyone who is bellow 30 if you put enough effort into it but training is vital
Yep a common joke for the time goes like how do you train an archer you train his father.
@@senseishu937 yes the amount of force needed to pull the strong back. Also known as draw weight.
Once again I'm reminded of Oda Nobunaga from Drifters and his obsession with introducing guns to the fantasy world he was dropped into.
Well i dont kwow Drifters , but i Heard about oda Nobunaga.
He was an Important Warlord in Japan and guess What , he introduced fireweapons (in great scale) to japanese battlefields.
@@geheimeWeltregierung well yes and no. Nobunaga was actually the guy who managed to use guns effectively in field battles(the Japanese were already using quite effectively in sieges , but their use in field battles were an enigma until he came along)
@@james-97209exactly, i agree thats basically what i wanted to say :)
Well, he was usually willing by throwing larger armies of muskets, torches and pointy sticks at elite forces of warrior monks, so his career was a microcosm of this principle.
That and the principles that you can't parry a forrest fire or a collapsing building with a katana, and that losing honorably is still losing. Scary man, that guy.
@@MrFelblood well no one was fighting honorable at the time either. This whole idea about samurai loyalty and honor was a myth created centuries after the warring states period of Japanese history. What set Nobunaga apart from his fellow warlords was a) he had a plan for unifying the fractured country and b) when he committed atrocities he made no excuses to the point he had a "what you see is what you get and then some" type of mentality about them . Basically many historians seem to believe that many of his atrocities were exaggerated/embellished by his enemies and nobunaga didn't bother to correct them because those stories made him appear more terrifying
World War 2, a British army officer named Jack Churchill, although most people called him “Mad Jack”. In May 1940 Jack and his unit ambushed a German patrol in France close to L'Épinette. Jack gave the signal to his unit to attack by shooting the enemy staff sergeant with a barbed arrow using a long bow, making him the only British soldier to ever down an enemy using a long bow in World War 2.
Fucking madlad
He's also the one carrying a longsword into battle, right?
@@Diyel yep, also became a commando and escaped a few prison camps
That is cap, he literally said his bow was crushed
K
Bro it’s 2022. Stop repeating trivia everyone and their Boomer parents know already
imagine being a member the warrior elite aristocracy of your kingdom. you've trained for 20 years to a master of warfare and combat. then in your last battle you get yeeted out of existence by a 16 year old stable boy who was just taught how to make the firestick go pew.
"Damn, three days from retirement."
the Battle of Shiroyama is exactly that, its the absolute elite of the elite from the old days VS 1 infantry unite, and they got shredded
When a group of African child soldiers beat the shit out of medieval knights. 🤣🤣🤣
No kidding. That happens even as we speak. I've heard accounts of USAs tier 1 guys getting hit by potshots taken from a kid with a smooth bore AK. Guns are really something
This is basically what happened at the battle of Cerignola. Elite French cavalry and Swiss mercenary pikemen (the best money could hire of the day) were defeated by a force of Spaniards armed with firearms and pikes. Pike and shot tactics (formations that allowed firearm welding troops to engage enemy infantry and cav while being covered by friendly pike infantry) then took over Europe. At that battle the French lost about 4,000 men and the Spaniards only lost around 500.
"I have a bow!-"
*"DODGE LEAD THY FILTHY CASUAL-"*
i have a time machine and a nuke wait my time machine is the nuke better not overheat the reactor
I read that in the "I can see the futuuuurrre! We're all going to die!" Voice
Thee*
*BANG*
“Oh the horror i did miss-“
“Thee very much sucketh at aiming yond thing thee knoweth yond?” *pulls back bow*
@@bluscout1857Morden guns can shoot multiple times before archers can reload, don't challenge Guns, ye filthy peasant.
"Point and shoot" weapons really changed logistics more than tactics. Any school kid can point an imaginary crossbow in the general direction of a target.
Except guns and crossbows were prestige weapons handled by professionals. People weren't arming peasants with expensive weaponry and shooting guilds were prestigious institutions handling crossbows. Indeed 16th century writers write that guns were the weapons of the professionals while bows were weapons best suited when there weren't enough guns to be around. By the tail end of the 16th century men showing up with longbows to muster were classified as unarmed men.
@@moisesflores5405... what?
you know, if for "professionals" you mean menthat could coordinate their volley of fire to shoot in a consecutive fire line non stop while the ones who shooted were reloading counts as "professional" I get it, but I doubt a bow that needed a lot more of training was considered under a early gun wich was literally a cannon on a stick
and about crossbows in late medieval Japan... I have no idea
@@moisesflores5405 youre wrong lol
Now I'd like the explanation of the historic significance of "the kitty at the end" I'm sure this guy could find it.
Another advantage of crossbows and guns over bows is that you can keep them ready to fire for an indefinite length of time. So you can aim and wait, then when someone steps into range, there is no delay to firing
That is actually the reason why crossbows and guns can do formation fire wel and bows usually don’t
Keeping an arrow nocked but not drawn just doesn't have the quick fire potential of a finger on a trigger, but that's more of an urban warfare concept than field battles and sieges.
Tactical moments might save the life of a single soldier, but to save a country you need to think about logistical and strategic scale stuff like, "we can train twice as many ranged units and have them ready before they enemy reinforcements arrive."
Which is why crossbows and guns were better during sieges.
Because you could wait and only expose a small portion of your body to the enemy.
A bowman needs to stand up and stand almost completely out of cover to get a shot off
I now want a game where you play as a historically accurate but highly skilled soldier who can wield a sword, a bow, and a gun
Try Kingdom Come Deliverance. It should be what you are looking for.
Try Mount & Blade then lol.
So basically we play as "Mad Jack" in video game? 😳😳😳
Those are called mercenaries. Most mercenaries cross trained the most popular weapons of the time based on what they could afford. Sword as a sidearm, bow for the higher paying spots if the army could afford to pay the higher wages, crossbow if they army couldn't afford it, and gun if the mercenary could afford to own one.
Get Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword.
It has the very thing you're looking for... You can be a Swedish Musketeer, a Cossack Serdjyuk, Russian Streltsy, Polish Hayduk, or an Ottoman Janissary under Crimea...
Heck you could just lead a troop of those guys and be a Mercenary Captain
The Battle of Shiroyama was a great example of this. Although, when WW1 rolled around, it was found that well-trained units still had their advantages over conscripts.
The point isn't that crossbow and gun equipped soldiers weren't trained, but that to get an equivalent effectiveness crossbows and guns required several orders of magnitude of training less than bows.
Well to be fair the Samurais in shiroyama were outnumbered 60 to 1
@@tadferd4340 Crossbows didn't need any more training than a gun, probably less in fact.
@@fen3311 I didn't say they did.
I said both crossbows and guns require less training than bows.
@@tadferd4340 You right I musta done a hella misread
I’ve used a bow with a 50lbs draw weight and it’s no joke to pull that to the rear and keep it steady. Medieval longbows would often have weights well over 100lbs. It would take years to train large numbers of people to use a bow like that consistently and accurately.
Yes, but an AK is better than a bow
@@lollogamer05 Not if you’re out of bullets. In all other aspects, yes.
@@MoistNuggeteer haha
@@MoistNuggeteer but it is more possible that you finish the arrow instead of the bullet ☺️
@@lollogamer05 I actually own both, and I must say if I could only choose one it would be the AK.
I’ve been listening to his podcast, but what I really want to know is… how annoyed is his coworkers? My mom gets annoyed when I talk about history… imagine THIS GUY with the history of the universe 😂
Tell your mom to cope and seethe 😎
@@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation I will 😂
People who get annoyed at history anecdotes are usually pretty dull themselves. Sorry.
@@TripleBarrel06 Agreed. People who don't want too learn history are the same ones who will repeat it if they get too live long enough.
@@jillvalentinefan77 That’s what IM sayin
There was also the fact that as time went on guns just became better than bows. People often besmirch the musket’s accuracy, but in a decent few cases, bows were even worse-for example, an arrow’s accuracy could be heavily affected by the wind, a gun’s could not. And the rate at which guns improved outpaced protection, so guns could more easily penetrate armour compared to bows.
Battle of Cerignola is a great example of this. Most french officers got killed by spanish handcannoneers, which surprised not just the french but even the spanish, so much they reacted by mounting the first of what would become the spanish tradition of mourning for enemy deaths. Because indeed guns, even those early ones, had way more precission and armor penetration than bows and even crossbows.
A trained longbowman had at best the same accuracy as a shotgunner (that's what they called a shotgun then, not what we call so now), and about the same penetration too. The non-wall-mounted arquebus had more pen but less accuracy. Early muskets (the long kind with the sticks) had both more pen and accuracy, locks made them more accurate, rifling even more so.
A Musketeer from the 18th century was objectively better than a longbowman in every sense but frequency of shots, and that's only short term, because longbowmen got tired much faster too.
Muskets were superior in basically every way. This argument only really applies to *really* early guns.
And btw armour that could protect from muskets existed and was actually quite common. It was standard equipment for cuirassier. It just couldn't take musket shots at close range.
Qi Jiguang & Humphrey Barwick both wrote that matchlock firearms were more accurate than warbows, while Sir John Smythe indicated otherwise. Based on modern tests, I suspect matchlocks were significantly more accurate than warbows in skilled hands & in prime condition. If loaded poorly or too hastily, or with heating & fouling, maybe not. In any case, matchlocks offered much higher velocity & power than warbows as well as greater ability to shoot from cover.
Just thought you should know that watching your channel is my favourite thing to do on my lunch breaks at work
Thank you my friend
Your lunch breaks surely must be pretty short, i must say
@@quakeknight9680 I binge his videos for half an hour😁👍
@@kadenkc3923 Oh well, that seems reasonable
I feel the training aspect only really applies to the Gun/longbow comparison. Crossbows were just as easy to get the hang of as a gun.
A point I had heard on UA-cam (will update if I remember who from) was that musketballs had much higher lethality than arrows. Arrows would rarely cause instant or near-instant death/incapacitation in a way bullets could
I also would have thought the prevelance or armour on medieval battlefields would have made the gun more viable
A zhuge crossbow is, as far as the soldier using it is concerned, just a wooden SMG powered by levers instead of gunpowder and springs.
Metal ammo, standardized replacement parts, machined barrels and chemical energy add more accuracy, reliability and power, but the real **revolution** in battlefield technology was point and shoot weapons.
1. Point business end at enemy.
2. Operate lever.
3. Go to 1
and the intimidation also really helps. it doesn't help morale when you hear all of the gun shots, the smoke and just holes appear in people
sure, but a hail of arrows is terrifying as well
Not only that a single volley you can see like alot of your comrades the same line as you just fall down dead at the same time
@@sigismundafvolsung5526True enough that a volley of arrows is scary too, but the key difference being you can at least *SEE* the hail of arrows coming at you :P
With arrows you can at least see whose firing them and the poor bastards they are falling upon. You also at least have a sense of security from arrows with a shield.
Guns take away all of that. You cant really see the projectiles, you dont know where its going to hit. All you see is a puff of smoke and next thing you know your friend next to you has a hole through his shield and his chest
Arrows arent made to kill, sometimes arrows will injure most of the time than how it is seen in hollywood.
@@sigismundafvolsung5526a bow twang doesn’t make someone involuntarily twitch the way a gun’s report does.
Same thing with crossbows and why the French used them so much back in the day. Just like you said regarding early firearms, it was much easier and far faster, and more cost effective to train someone to be proficient with a crossbow then it did to train someone up to use a bow
The arquebus consistently outperformed the bow in battle - it wasn't just more practical, it was a superior weapon.
Unless.... your fighting a mongol. Guns were little use fighting a mobile hit and run tactics of a cavalry based army.....
@@aetius7139mongols would have been crushed with guns. But they didnt fight europeans in 16th century now did they
@@aetius7139hence the bayonet was invented...
"Guns are better than bows."
Comanche: Hold my Feathers
This is true when you're talking about *very* early firearms- say, the middle of the 15th century. Unfortunately, too many people take this argument to its ridiculous extreme and claim bows were better than flintlock muskets. Horsemen continued to use bows long after the infantry traded them in for guns, since mounted men have trouble reloading muzzleloaders. I mean, consider the Japanese who were great archers and had excellent bows. And Japanese infantry gave up their bows for *matchlock* muskets as soon as they had the chance.
Yet the Manchus didn't give up their (probably better) bows & continued using them with success at least into the 19th century (& longer with less success). It's true was mostly for cavalry, but some Qing infantry also used bows & some even used both firearms & bows based on artwork.
Native Americans, too.
Uhmmm not all Japanese armies replaced their bows. They still kept units with bows and matchlocks hence while the gunners are reloading the archers can still rain down hell
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 and lost to a small British army in two wars 😅
It should be mentioned that while guns were more expensive than bows bullets were a hell of a lot cheaper than arrows
I find it hilarious that there are some people who genuinely think that bows were better for armies than the muskets of the Napoleonic era.
If that was the case, nobody would have used guns. We can see this, for instance, with the air rifle. It was superior in every statistic to the musket, but it wasn't used because the overhead was so high that it made no logistical sense. Not that nobody ever used them. They were popular with private hunters, for instance. But they weren't used on the battlefield.
Are you familiar with tests of Girandoni air rifles? They most certainly were not superior in every statistic to the flintlock musket. The kinetic energy & velocity were quite low, even if originals performed better than replicas. If air rifles had become more common, soldiers could easily have adopted lightweight armor to protect against them. Air rifles were used on the battlefield, but not for very long & in limited numbers.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 That would have made such an interesting meta! It'd necessitate the use of both light and heavy armor for protecting from air guns vs. powder guns.
One of the reasons Sparta fell is essentially the same. Because Spartan training was so lengthy, if they took mass casualties, they couldn't easily replenish their ranks. There are other reasons, but this was a major factor.
Spartans weren’t significantly more effective at warfare then their enemies and didn’t participate in a a lot of battles directly, it was more to do with the fact that very small amount of people were granted Spartan citizenship.
@@pianoman-1359 That was also a significant factor. There's also the fact that they didn't really change their tactics. The small population of fighting men combined with the lengthy training time, were the two main factors in their decline & fall.
+pianomaN I’ve heard they were highly effective because frequent, military drilling wasn’t common among other Greek city-states. Once that DID become more common, though, the Spartans lost most of their edge. Then their xenophobia and small population combined with contual losses in frequent wars lead to their decline.
It was more the fact they had too many slaves. Their entire economy relied on slavery and if they were forced to fight a war for too long they risked the slaves revolting due to the army being away.
@@samiamrg7ecause most other Greek cities relied on militia for infantry. The hoplite formation ostensibly came out of defensive needs of the polis and light infantry was probably recruited from poorer populations or mercenaries. The only ones who could actually afford to train or gain firsthand war experience were oligarchic elite, but the hoplite formation was only as offensively effective as the discipline of its full force so they would lose cohesion during movement.
What set Sparta apart was their hoplite phalanx marched as one, never drifting as others did and it's implied wouldn't retreat unless ordered. It's important to note that their school system wasn't initially a unique institution in Greece, but at some point they converted the education of the leisure class into a training regimen that conditioned and desensitized male youth of the citizen class to follow orders and kill at a moment's notice without question. It's also important to note that the period of Spartan hegemony was relatively short and the list available of Spartiates (hoplites) got smaller every year. There are a lot of theories why but there was clearly enough of a manpower shortage that they relied on non-citizens and even freed Helots to fill gaps in the phalanx, though not enough that they opened the agoge to them so their formation discipline was never what it once was. Given who beat them, and who beat THEM, and who beat the successors of that guy, there's probably a lesson in there about needing to scale resources and training while applying innovation to maintain military advantage, which those guys actually managed for a few good centuries.
Don't forget logistics.
To create an arrow you need a fletcher, carpenter and blacksmith.
For a lead ball you need lead and a form. Anyone can do it.
Gunpowder is more difficult to make but it's easy to transport (Obviously, it's risky by it's nature but not logistically difficult, only safely.)
Also don't forget the creation of the gun barrel and overall design of the firearm. Needs expert craftsmen.
@@koreancowboy42 I was only talking about ammunition there, not crafting of the weapons, the weapons crafting were usually done out of the war where it wasn't time consuming. They didn't fight Total Wars of industrial scale then.
HOWEVER. A bowyer does require more time than a gun barrel, and their resoruces are more expensive. Iron vs high quality yew.
As for design, I mean sure it's more advanced technologically, but once it's been desigend you're done there. Don't need to keep designing every gun.
@@TheIfifi That's true, but before standardization and replaceable parts, gunsmiths had to customize every gun. Replaceability really changed the game in terms of cheap, easy manufacturing and maintenance of firearms.
I’ve read somewhere that additional reason as to why the first lockless guns stuck around was that the huge amount of smoke and the noise created during discharge had a tremendous psychological effect on the enemy.
I imagine it was the same effect with the first cross bows we're made too.
Fun fact : If friction and air resistance didn't exist, an arrow would travel at lightspeed because the energy ratio of the arrow moving forward vs. the tips moving apart gets massive, approaching infinity!
Now I am curious how long it took for gunpowder to be produced in large enough quantities for guns to be viable for the battlefield
Don't know about the early period, but by the mid-1700s the French were producing about 700 tons of it a year.
Skill wins battles, logistics wins wars.
Muskets could pierce suits of armor every time. Arrows COULD pierce armor given multiple factors were met, but it was far less reliable and a lot would break on impact. Adding a bayonet to the musket cemented its place as superior to bows and swords etc.
At least for europe, other than britain which still relied on bows for longer than mainland europe, it was not really a contest between gun vs bow but gun vs crossbow and here its much easier to see why guns took over so fast once the early arquebus was a thing.
As my friend once said, "the longbow didn't fail us. We failed the longbow."
No we human always seek better tools
Gun > Longbow
Your friend should look into the historical availability of wood staves suitable for making longbows. You have to kill a ~20 year old yew tree to make 2-3 bowstaves, and bowstaves wear out. England would have had to transition away from bows even if guns didn't get better, because all that (necessary) archery practice killed most of the suitable trees in Europe.
@@swissarmyknight4306 You are probably wrong, opening new farmlands, wood houses, ships (most important compenent) and another wooden tools depleted forests in Europa not Longbows. Korean and Eurasian nomads made more bows than European counterparts (English, Vikings, Franks etc.) but their forest ratio is very high. Making ships deplete forest mostly.
Imagine going back in time and training a knight to wield and M240B and be accurate with it.
Crossbow was actually a lot easier to learn than a conventional bow, because it was essentially an arrow gun.
if guns fell out of favor during medieval times i can imagine modern wars were fought with electric motor powered automatic crossbow
There’s also the fact that the amount of arrows or bolts a soldier can carry was not even close to how much ammunition a soldier using a gun would be able to carry
like, you can carry around 240 bullets and still have space for other equipments, but with bow, you can only bring some arrows.
Also the fact making bullets is easier than it is to make arrows.
Arrows you need feathers from chickens, the wood need to be good and of quality, the arrow head iron work needs to be good.
A while ago, inspired by your plate armor video. I have done some research into the usefulness of maces or Warhammers against plate armor. Some say such weapons will demolish plate while some say it’s as effective as swords.
What’s your thought on this?
i'd like to know the answer too, i guess it would be somewhere in between, i believe that the best area to hit would be the helmet. though the mace and warhammer are a horseman's sidearm, so i guess that makes sense
I completely agree they should have used crossbows instead of guns if they want to go the easy route
This is also why you still see pirates and Civil War era U.S. American soldiers with swords, but by the turn of the 20th century they were fully ceremonial.
They were still largely ceremonial. The American Civil War was between napoleonic and modern warfare. There are very few applications where a bayonet wouldn't be a more practical choice.
Swords were ceremonial by the 1870's with the advent of metallic cartridges. That's when we had repeating rifles and revolvers that were quick to reload.
Why did crossbows not take off like early guns did? Like guns, they didn't require as much skill to use and were effect against armor.
Crossbows were time consuming to make. Not every smith knew how to make them correctly. Also, despite how they're often portrayed, they had about the same ability to punch through plate armor that longbows did, which wasn't much. If a bolt or arrow struck hit a weak point like a joint them it could do damage to the target, or if it hit the very edge of the plate it could deform the metal without losing too much force, meaning there would be more left over for penetrating a significant amount, but plate was very difficult for arrows or bolts to defeat.
At close range, a bullet was sure to punch through. It was guaranteed to do serious damage if it hit. Being easy to use and able to reliably kill a fully armored knight made the difference.
Although, on the point of crossbows being used, usually armies would have as many crossbows as they could get, but again; complicated to make correctly.
Well depending on the place, they did. The earliest known crossbows are from bronze age China, and theoretically simple wooden crossbows may be much much older. As for why it only spread so far: money. It is more expensive, time consuming and resource intense to build a large strong crossbow that noticeably outperforms a simpler cheaper bow. Add to that the strength and training needed to use a proper siege crossbow that rivals a longbow, well a bunch of the benefits are gone.
Now if you were ancient China you absolutely could spend the money to throw crossbows at a few thousand soldiers that dont have an archery background to get your ranged troops, but for most ancient and early medieval states it was cheaper, simpler and faster to just use pre existing sling, javelin and bow traditions and infrastructure
They did take off. Longbows were the thing in England, most everyone else in Western Europe used crossbows for military purposes. Crossbows were very popular. Its just that they were surpassed by firearms in the late medieval period.
@@Rynewulf Qin Dynasty era is famed for their crossbows
@@koreancowboy42 yep and the earliest found are Shang centuries earlier than the Qin in the bronze age. The lack of clarity is if/when crossbows overtook bows/became common mass weapons
Agreed although emergency trained archers can still be somewhat effective. A 50lb bow with broadheads is stil useful (against no armor) shot from beginners en masse
that chinese han dynasty crossbow, with the right poundage & bolt it should be able to reach 400-500 m & that would outrange the effective range of a musktet (200 m) twice + without armor the bolts would still be lethal at that range / since that particular crossbow was spanned by hand, back and feet, it would also have a higher rate of shot
That was the big reason why guns replaced bows.
As soon as archers were up against armored infantry or cavalry.
Even well trained archers and crossbowmen could do very little against them.
Meanwhile even some half decent arquebuiser firing in volley would tear through armor and shields
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 That's not really true, Because the archers & especially the crossbowmen could still wound & incapacitate them / the only parts of the armor that could be considered arrow proof (not bolt proof, because crossbows need more testing) would be the chest armor and the helmet in case of lamellar and plate But Limbs protection due to thinner armor was still vulnerable to arrows, It would be especially a problem if the Arrows were to be poisoned which was rare but did happen historically
On top of that, there is the wounding and killing of Horses, since horse protection was rare and still provided limited protection
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 the big reason why they replaced them was less training in case of comparison to the Bow and in case of comparison to the crossbow, cheaper ammunition, the terrifying effect of firearm sounds & ofcourse more power, but that wasn't the main reason
@@aburoach9268 Limbs were also harder to hit especially if the person had shields. Also getting hit in the limbs with an arrow or crossbow wasn't guaranteed to kill or incapacitate a person like a bullet could.
Both arrows and bullets had been coated in poison. And unlike poison arrows, the lethality of poisoned bullets led to the Strasbourg agreement of 1675 that banned their use.
In the aftermath of the battle of crecy many more knights and nobles were captured than killed.
Meanwhile arquebuises were pretty much guaranteed to punch through breast plates and helmets at optimal range.
This was important since archers became increasingly ineffective as armor became increasingly more effective and common on the battlefield.
By the 16th century and the important Battle of Cerignola (1503) most combatants were wearing armor and the French Cavalry and Swiss pikemen found themselves repeating the battle of Crecy and Agincourt only this time at the hands of 1000 Spanish Arquebuisiers at not the 5000 to 6000 English Longbowen at Crecy or Agincourt.
The point was you didn't need as many arquebuisers compared to archers to do as much damage to an enemy army.
Another thing people forget is that the same thing happened to swords and knights with the pike. With guns still being shit at the time of the early modern age, formations of pikemen replaced knights and most forms of infantry due to their easiness to train with
I read the title as "boys were better than guns" and went on a *wild* trip
My boy over here is high 💀
*Archer dies*
YEARS OF ACADEMY TRAINING WASTED
Todd's Workshop just did Arrows vs. Armor 2. One part of that series pointed out that we don't know what a war bow really is, i.e. what draw strength a bow had to have in a military setting. You have to keep in mind, that in a medieval army, an archer brought his own bow, because each bow is different and you can't simply pick a new bow and expect to shoot well with it.
It would be more correct to say that the term "war bow" is undefined. There is a multi dimensional continuum of possible meanings, and little contextual signposted as to which values are likely to correlate to a specific time or place in history.
War bows for most European armies is at 70-75 pounds. For the English archers it's at 100+ pounds on a bow.
And yes we do know the standard of draw weight for bows and military standardization.
English archers were among the best archers and trained all their life from child hood to adulthood.
Which means they have higher standard for archers.
Compared to most of European archers.
And yes archers can bring their own warbows however, the archers would need the right type of arrow to be used so as to not break on impact of the arrow being released from the bow.
Same thing happened with slings, better than early bows but have the craziest skill gap
Penetration Power. They put an end to the knight-in-shiny-armour era.
Muskets are superior to bows and the idea that it’s simply a matter of bows being difficult to use is preposterous. With that logic, elite units that go through really long training like Royal Guards would use bows, but they chose guns… Because they were superior.
This tbh
Muskets weren't the first gun though.
We're talkung about Handgonnes not muskets.
I understand bows being difficult to train for but why are crossbows so difficult to train for?
Shooting in a arch vs shooting straight. Plus, crossbows are heavy and expensive.
@@natotomato4625 that trajectory isn't much of a training issue, bows take long with training because they're much harder to aim when preparing to fire.
Crossbows aren't really harder to train with, they just have many of the same problems as early guns. Difficult to manufacture, slow to reload, etc.
In training requirements early guns and crossbows weren't that different. There's a video on this same channel about crossbows being banned because after their invention a single soldier with a day of training could kill an armoured knight with years of experience and nobles (typically well armoured) didn't like that.
Bowmen at least took a long time to train and if they fought on the wrong side could be dealt with by removing two fingers. That wasn't the case with crossbows and the cost of metal limbed crossbows was the only thing that kept them out of the hands of peasants.
They are not difficult to train
Most types of crossbows used across history required strength just like warbows. It was mainly in 15th-century Europe that this changed, with the windlass & cranequin, & even then the goat's-foot lever remained popular.
That's why an ancient bard sang: "guns dont kill people... uh uh
bows kill people...with bolts"
"Bows are better than Guns!"
Gravity : *I dont think so.*
And they go BOOM smoke and fire and lead.
Any peasant can be trained within days or weeks!
Americans: 😮
Why would Americans be surprised by that? Have you heard of the US Army? They train "peasants" to shoot on a continuous basis.
@@swissarmyknight4306 That was my point, he just called Americans peasants! :D
Yet the people in charge fear an armed peasantry, funny no?
At close range the arquebus (matchlock) rifle was way more devastating in terms of damage
It was also easier to outfit gunmen than archers. Arrows cost a lot of money and arrows were usually destroyed after use. Compared to some cheap scrap metal (hopefully lead) being melted into a ball. Until saltpetre became cheaper, the only thing that was holding guns back was the powder
Arrows also were insconsistent in quality as they were handmade.
Bows are easy to make, require little to no moving parts, easy to use and can prove to be deadlier than a gun (at that time) if you got used to it.
Takes years to train a good bowman then just one lead to the chest he’s dead. Just take a flintlock, point and shoot, easy.
@@johnbu9098 You realize that flintlock muskets are known to be extremly inaccurate, the bullet is almost non-lethal if you bear the right armor, needs precious time to reload and you'll need more time to know how to effectively use a musket than a bow.
Also, muskets are for right-handed people only while a bow is binary, a bow had more penetrating power than a flintlock and doesnt make an ear-piercing sound when fired (perfect when stealth is a great advantage).
@@thebobbington If muskets were so bad then why did they use them.
@@thebobbingtonYou are astoundingly incorrect, Flintlocks are not nearly as inaccurate as you’ve been lead to believe, nor are they as weak as you believe. They outclass bows in almost every scenario other than long-range shooting.
Fun fact swearing comes from bows when you stick up two fingers, it comes from British archers. Longbow were so skilled they could have 3 to 5 arrows in flight at one time, the French said they have catch a charger to cut off its fingers, so the two fingers stick up is to say I still have my fingers to the French
Crossbow are like the medieval version of an ak
Logistics wins war. Napoleon has spoken the truth.
Crossbow is the only bow that can compete with guns after the invention of matchlock, while longbow almost imediately died out, mostly because crossbow were far more easy to train with than longbow.
I had this exact same question asked of me 2 weeks ago as I own, and have basic skills in archery, and in black powder firearms (Dutch matchlock, 2x flintlocks, and one percussion cap 3 band 1843 enfield.)
I told him if I had a lifetime of training I would choose the bow of a gun however learnt much faster as you said in the 3 type of black powder guns in a matter of a week on each!!!
Its insane how skilled you had to be to be a bowman back then you had to be strong with good aiming skills and you need to be able to keep pulling that 100lb pull back weight for the length of an entire war
The thing I would say is often times with the whole bow vs gun is the bow tests are conducted in ideal weather and in cases of military application i.e. massed fire bows would rarely be aimed in any case. In terms effectiveness whilst battles such as Agincourt and Crecy are often used the day was won by English men at arms rather than the bowmen as arrows rarely pierced armour it was the French knights getting bogged down in the muddy conditions that lost them the day
Ok, I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet.
Guns are also better for another reason, hand to hand combat.
Guns are better than bows for when the enemy gets close.
They carry more weight than a bow, they’re generally tougher than a bow, they’re generally more solid than a bow, ect.
This is exactly why bows and crossbows coexisted for so long. Bows were hard to use but could shoot much more rapidly whereas crossbows were slow but were easy to learn (plus they eventually packed a bigger punch as they got stronger and stronger over time)
Many people don't realise, that if you were an Archer and got captured, they would cut off your first two fingers, and sometimes just release you, because you couldn't do much damage as Archer. That's where the two finger insult insult "✌️" came from, as in "hey I can still fire an arrow". (When the fingers are raised, the back of your hand would be facing the enemy. I couldn't find a better emoji).
I thought that was a v for victory sign
@@whatusernameis5295 The emoji I showed is, but if you turn your hand so that the back of your hand is facing away from you, it's not. It originally started out as a "taunt", like "haha I've still got my fingers". Now it just means "f#ck you", but back when you were an archer, it meant something completely different.
That emoji but the way it is being POV is basically a British alternative middle finger
Stop lumping together all of history. The finger cut thing was something that maybe happened in some parts of europe some time. It didnt always happen, its stupid to say it did
Guns didn't change the entirety of battlefield combat because they were *cost effective* otherwise the same would've already happened with crossbows. Bows were better than guns in one capacity, they were faster to shoot, and that is it. Power, range, lethality, ease of use, accuracy, etc, all went to guns once they were adopted for primary military use. The ability for a couple of groups of men to take down massive amounts of enemy soldiers with a few volley fires, is something no other weapon was previously capable of. It was Shock and Awe that made the gun take the place of the sword.
And larger guns/cannons were game changers for sieges.
i remember when i was a kid i saw this great demonstration of late tudor guns, and in the time it took for one shot to be fired, a bow fired 11 arrows (and those were just the ones on target)
It would also be worth mentioning that any arquebus sufficiently well made will have more power and a quicker and easier reload than a heavy windlass crossbow. European crossbows are notoriously inefficient, with massive draw weights combined with a really short power stroke, which in the case of the more powerful crossbows that might have *some* chance against armour, would have to be reloaded with a windlass. Even then their armour penetrating capabilities aren't anywhere near a properly made arquebus. Now they did manage to make armour that could stop anything up to a musket, but that'd be ridiculously expensive, meanwhile a relatively cheap mild steel cuirass will be more than enough to stop a crossbow bolt fired from almost any crossbow, or at the very least it will take a lot of energy out of the bolt before it gets to your body.
Expensive and un-maneuvreable, I'm guessing. Can't run away from artillery, can't flank easily, the opposing side can just run up to you and stab you with their bayonets. And meanwhile you can just build up a fortification or trenches that acts as shields more effectively than armor...
Absolute, a crossbow IS such a complicated concept , even If IT has the Same fire Power of a gun...
Gun has far greater firepower than a crossbow.
There's also the fact that as they got better a musket could punch straight through plate. Which is also why armor started going away until we finally developed armor that could match the rifles.
I heard they trained people 10 years to use the english long bow , I also heard it had a 120 lbs pull weight
There's also the intimidation factor. Getting shot at is much scarier than getting bowed at
People don't realize that the most expensive part of an army is the training.
Muskets where able to penetrate armour. It took 1 month to train from peasant to musketeers in compare with years of training archer. But key reason was enlarged army. You can't find 100k archers in Britain but you can train 400k musketeers in one year.
I kind of wish that in the beginning of firearms they created a pole arm cannon hybrid. Basically the same thing as a musket or rifle with a bayonet. But an actual heavy spear, javelin, lance, or pole arm weapon that fires projectiles. It would be even cooler if it utilized the pump air guns of the 1700s that were semi automatic. That way you get a bunch of shots before during and after melee combat.
and they made a lot of noise witch was very terrifying in that moment, thats why the were shoulder by shoulder, to raise the morale and avoiding the troop to disband
I always made a joke to my classes for early guns: "They were basically a tube you lit, and prayed didn't take your hands off in the process."
Introducing the youth to bow's and training them up at a young age so theres a constant stream of new and inspiring bowman joining the forces < more gun
Crazy how we went from string+bendy stick + long stick with point at the end , to just straight up dropping nukes on people
You missed out on the king of ancient warfare. The sling. It could out-range and over-power bows, was arguably even easier to use, and was only phased out when crossbows were becoming popular. Only after the arquebus was adopted did the sling finally become obsolete.
Funnily enough, guns becoming more widespread and armor becoming less common also leads to bows becoming deadlier again
Oda Nobunaga after his ashigaru gunners shot down thousands of bowman and samurai by matchlock:😂😂😂
Even when archery was still widely practiced the question of whether bows or matchlock muskets were more accurate in a direct comparison seems to have been debatable at best. Writing about his early years as in the English army in the mid 1500s, Humfrey Barwick claimed that his commander held trials of arms 2-3 times a week involving longbows, crossbows, and firearms which wound up leaving little doubt that firearms were the most accurate of the three. He also concluded that after just a few months of training with his arquebus he could hit any target near or far as well as "the best archers in England." When the matchlock musket arrived in China and Korea, local sources wrote that on the practice field they would strike the target "five times better than the bow and arrow."
Fun fact: bows were still a popular weapon in warfare when guns dominated. They often had troops armed with bows during marches, because a company of bowman can respond to an immediate threat, like an ambush, faster than a company of gunmen.
The bow an important part of the armies of Asia for hundreds of years after gunpowder weapons were invented. Outside of Europe and Japan the mounted knight wasn't important enough to the battlefield to require guns in large quantites
the crossbow has many of the advantages of the early guns
God made Man, Sam Colt made 'em equal, and John Browning made 'em civilized
WW2 German Soldiers might get terrified when they faced against English man with a knight armor and a bow lol
Steel armor is hilariously ineffective against 8mm Mauser.
If i'm thinking correct, the musket was easly picked up after the battle, and handed down to the new musketeer, while the bow would be lost with the dead bowman. And after the day of training, new shooter can load and fire the volley with others, somewhat effectively, but nobody could do that with the bow.
It depends on which guns and which bows. The first question that comes is: Why not crossbows?
The second is: Which guns?
There are firsthand accounts from English veterans such as Humphrey Barwick explaining why the gun is superior to the longbow, despite the fact that the longbow at the time of writing was still mandatory to train with (mostly for moral reasons). Not to mention the Japanese, whose samurai houses were the houses of Bow and Arrow, not Sword, very quickly took up guns because of their superior penetration power.
Fun Fact: the german word for crossbow is "armboob"
So archers were basically Space Marines of the pike and shot era
"We're peasants, sir. We're meant to be expendable"
Another thing about these early guns is that they sometimes explode and harm the wielders