The LONGBOW is not as good as you think! or is it?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2021
- Is the Medieval Longbow's reputation justified?
If you like the content and want to support the channel, you're welcome to do so through patreon or subscribe star:
/ shadiversity
www.subscribestar.com/shadive...
Awesome Shirts and chainmail print clothing: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/sh...
Visit Calimacil for the best replica foam swords and LARP weapons: calimacil.com?aff=38
Buy my sword IMPERIOUS from Calimacil: calimacil.com/products/imperi...
My novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:
US: www.audible.com/shadbrooks
UK: www.audible.co.uk/shadbrooks
CA: www.audible.ca/shadbrooks
AU: www.audible.com.au/shadbrooks
Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
amzn.to/2XErUaR
Barnes and Noble:
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shad...
Kobo:
www.kobo.com/au/en/ebook/shad...
Come check out my new channel GAME KNIGHT: / @knightswatch
Community run discord server: / discord
My official website: www.shadmbrooks.com/
You can't just drop a line like "There are some very significant drawbacks to a longbow" with a straight face like that.
I was hoping I wasn't the only one who heard the pun there
Oh, I get it, now !
Longbow, the AK-47 of the Medieval world, easy to mass produce, very reliable. Not exactly High Tech, which makes the Recurve the M-16 of the medieval era.
Wow.
so ur saying the cross bow is the berreta 50 cal of the medevil ages?
@@boom-wj1gt you meant Barret, the american company. Beretta, the lombard manufacturer, doesn't make guns in .50 cal. And Beretta was already making guns in the '500.
@@arx3516 Well granted it's not the Barret because it's not .50 caliber but the Beretta is still a fair comparison just in 9mm. Lol Just because it is very complicated. The Glock would be the longbow of the handgun world. Lol
@@michaelfrench4153 Beretta also makes assault rifles, submachineguns, shotguns, revolvers and a variety of sporting guns.
Shad has a passion for the long bow because if you get rid of the string look what you have... a STICK
Double ended spear/staff!😁
More like a quarterstaff.
Actually, that could very well be another point in the longbow's favour. If a shortbow string breaks, or even the bow itself, its useless. If a longbow breaks, you at least have a club or staff to defend yourself ( I know archers typically had blades of some sort, but options are always good.)
And it shoots other sticks.
@@matthewlentz2894 a quarterstaff is just a stick with a fancy name mate
let's be real...the English long bow is amazing, but it got so overhyped that it turned into the Katana of traditional Archery
A very strong statement. However, the longbow was actually effective as a main, powerful weapon, even if it wasn't the be all, end all that is made out to be.
A katana is just a third option.
@@kelvinferreira3767 i mean, _every_ sword is a third option, so among swords (which is the context i think OP was talking in) the katana is just a normal sword, good at some things, bad at others, like every sword
@@comradesoupbeans4437
Indeed. Didn't intend to imply the katana is bad at what it is actually supposed to do, just that it wasn't the same kind of category nor does it really deserves as much as the hype (in my opinion, at least).
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
@@kelvinferreira3767 Yep, that hype including such claims as putting arrows through thick oak doors.
@Sack4ra i'm guessing there's some level of sarcasm there lol
* laughs in bill hook *
So basically the high poundage recurved shortbow would be ideal for the re-evaluated fantasy ranger from a few videos back.
@@neoaliphant A fantasy ranger may well need to fight larger monsters with tough hide or bulky bodies, as well as foes such as goblins, orcs or more exotic humanoid foes that may wear armour. Therefore a high power bow does seem like a practical thing to have. If they were just a less combat prone "woodsman" kind of ranger, then a lesser bow might still be fine.
A long bow would get tangled a lot
Ranger's apprentice in a nutshell
which is exactly what i said
@@neoaliphant, why is it jarring though?
Good vid.
The long bow was a more reliable bow and the fact that the English archers were superior archers is what elevated the perception of the the bow going from good to godly.
The same with the “Mongolian” recurve bows, being a superior bow is a conclusion based on similar perceptions, bc it was really the archers that were so great and able to extract more out of their weapons.
As Ron Swanson says "literally anything is a weapon son, that binder in my hands is far deadlier than this bow in yours"
The english also had the advantage of having easy access to the pretty much perfect material for making longbows. Just like how sheffield made some of the best blades, they simply had better raw materials to work with.
@@danbell3827 That isn't completely true. They preferred to use yew from Southern Mediterranean countries, such as Italy and Spain, as it was superior to English yew.
Had Rifled-Muskets existed at the same time as Longbows and Recurve-Bows the Scottish and Chinese would curbstomp the English and Mongols
@@johnmccrossan9376 That's... probably true.
I like how Shad has a level headed approach to examining pros and cons of various weapons even when he is massively passionate about the topic.
The fact the upload is almost half an hour is indicative.
I abhor sub-10 min videos that isn't cute cat vids.
Lets be real - not knowing disadvantages of your favorite weaponry, could cost you your life! :D
Shad: The longbow is amazing! Great ranged weapon.
Also Shad: Is it though?
@@toddsilverwolfe lol
The longbow is a an amazing and great ranged weapon. That doesn't mean it's the BEST ranged weapon in every circumstance.
Every weapon has trade offs. Weapon A that is optimised for Circumstance X will beat Weapon B, but Weapon B is optimised for Circumstance Y and will beat Weapon A.
There is a reason why we used longbows against recurve bows in warfare, they could shoot heavier arrows at a longer distance with decent penetration. My 40lb longbow can reach 200yrds but is not really accelerating by the time it reaches its max distance, shooting at targets at 120yrds gives a good depth of penetration but in warfare that means only getting three or four of rounds off before they are on you, with 140lb bows that distance extends greatly and with a 3 ounce arrow doing a lot of damage at 200 yrds but really you have to be lucky to get a direct hit a that range, more that you are harassing the army ahead and until they get into the killing range you'd hold off on the bodkin and broadhead until that time.
Ideally, you want to be hitting your target at an angle of around 35/40 degrees or less.
Shad is wrong, the biggest drawback of longbows is drawing back the arrow when shooting :D
Shut up and take my updoot
Since shorter bows bend harder, doesn't that mean they have a bigger drawback?
*ba-dum tsss*
It's a bit of a bummer
Technically, Yumi’s and Manchu Bows have a higher draw length (and therefore have the biggest “drawback” 😉), but I get the joke...
I shall now leave you in peace.
It makes sense that elite horse archers would use more expensive high performance bows. But peasant levy would use mass bows.
On a horse, a longbow is impractical because of its length.
I mean you're saying that but yew would wound take 2 years to dry.
@@mcwaff8661 that's a good point, because the wood, sinew & horn for composite horn bows don't need to be dried like that before construction but rather after being glued together and it can take 8-12 months for such a bow to dry
@@maryginger4877 virgin English longbow men: "longbow is too long for horseback"
Chad Samurai: "watch me shoot an even longer Yumi bow from horseback and watch me draw it beyond my ear all the way to the other shoulder"
@@aburoach9268 Daikyu or hankyu as in Japanese long or short yumi.
''yumi bow'' is redundant as you are basically saying 'bow bow' just as any 1 that say ''Sahara desert'' is saying 'desert of sa desert'.
(Yabusame=mounted archery) roughly translated uses the hankyu/shorter yumi in contrast daikyu used in Kyudo=the art/way of archery.
yumihiki (弓引き) a connective of yumi=bow & hiki= lift up/raise though daft people translate it as puller.
Mind anyone can fire a British longbow or Japanese hankyu from horse back but it is not convenient nor advisable.
14th to 16th century (Shihodake) a type of 2 layer Bamboo & wood construction being most common in the senjoku jidae are about 80Ib's give or take 10Ib's so 70-90Ib's.
post 1550 Sanbonhigo a 3 piece construction of bamboo core, back & front with wooden nocks /ends get about 120Ib's roughly.
A British war bow can reach 200Ib's depending mainly on wood used & treatment of said wood with maple, yew, mulberry, plum & dogwood general seen as the most desirable in history.
''The confirmed first use of the longbow was in 633 AD, in a battle between the Welsh, led by Cadwallon ap Cadfan of Gwynedd, against the Northumbrians''
though likely older.
You see the British longbow in high poundage is very old!
Britain had in excess of the Japanese 120IB (sanbonhigo) by near a millennia.
What is amazing about the British long bow is how it didn't change over a 1000 years yet still managed to remain prevalent & dominate medieval battlefields.
Please stop being a 'weeaboo' as many call it in the west though to the Japanese you are (愚かな外国人=what brainless aliens/forigner) roughly!
Short version: as with everything, each type has advantages and disadvantages and "best" depends upon your circumstances. Long version: a number of reasons I hadn't actually thought about. This was educational. To be fair, my interest in archery is casual and maybe true aficionados already knew this stuff.
I've been working on a fantasy novel in a mediaeval setting.
Shad's videos hasn't made me reconsider my choices in weapons, armour, lifestyle... etc.
He's made me CONSIDER them... as in so many facts I was unaware of.
Keep up the good work, Shad.
Amen
Being a lifelong archer I appreciate this video more than any other video you've made to date. Thank you for continuing to learn and grow. Please note that you missed the key number one reason that small bows were less common than long bows. The simple fact of the matter is that hard wood trees are more plentiful than animals with horns suitable for bow making. That is that only additional point that you didn't manage to touch on.
Really depends on the location. The reason that the Steppe tribes used composite bows was precisely due to the lack of sufficient good quality timber.
@@Cervando
In raw amount, you get a lot of suitable wood from a tree and not much usable horn from an animal. This vid basically says that this is the sten of the bow world.
@@CtrlAltRetreat It doesn't matter how much you get from a tree, if they are so rare as in the steppes or desert.
You seem to be discounting widespread trade across the Steppe and deserts. You're talking about nations that traded throughout the Indus valley, China and over into the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. They had plenty of timber if they really wanted it for whatever purpose they needed.
@@MrValentineful You are discounting the fact that trade started after they developed bows. For a long time the Steppe tribes were nomadic herdsmen. It is a Historical fact that they developed composite bows because of the lack of suitable timber, using their animals as sources for the sinew and horn used in their bows to supplement whatever wood they could spare.
The reason the English were so successful with the longbow is that a law was passed forcing the population to practice archery on a weekly basis. The common interpretation was 'there are only two activities you are allowed to do on Sundays - Church and archery'. Because the longbow was a lot simpler to make than an equally powerful short-bow (and therefore cheaper) it made a lot more sense to use for most people to use.
Implied it's ok to shoot priests if they do a poor sermon.
Shad said all of this in the video thought why are you commenting it?? Are you doing a tl;dr
But: 1. that law is passed later after the introduction of muskets 2. during the hundred-year war, when the English lost a battle (never happened, but just if) they had problems finding replacement archers
You know this only concerned yeomen so free peasant so specific class of quiet well of people. And lonbows were not cheap
Here's a video idea - You shoot arrows at that target whilst Oz in full Armour with arming sword and kite shield charges the same distance and see how many arrows you can fire before he gets there?
Like a medieval test of the 21 ft rule? That sounds interesting
@@DarthAxolotl Pretty much yeah. Shad doesn't seem to be firing from a great distance though so maybe Shad could start at his standard distance then move 10 paces back before firing again whilst Oz does the same with his charges.
Obviously after the first couple of rows of charging enemies go down the ones behind will be impeded and slowed but it seems that Shad's not loosing at anything like the ranges that would be required in an actual battle.
I am glad he was considering economics, culture, and hinting at logistics (maintinence, repair, failure of material on a campaign, etc). This is how a hobbyist really becomes an expert.
Amateurs study tactics, experts study logistics.
no
@@phatpigeonii no
@@petermuller3995 Yes.
i always love seeing old medieval art because of how goofy people are drawn. Like no matter what they are doing, walking, bathing, hunting, killing, dying, they always have this pleasant look on their face. "Ah, I've been stabbed in the neck. That's okay, I had a pretty nice life."
I agree Shyla, in fact it's not only people, animals often have lovely expressions too. I recall a really bemused looking horse.
Well, this is mostly the early and high gothic art, the later is in most cases either a bit more refined or everyone looks pissed or distrusting. But yeah, it’s really funny if one guy keeps the exact same expression whilst having sex, eating soup and being executed.
While composite bows do require more maintenance in humid climates, it is still possible and not uncommon to use them in humid climates. The Romans stationed Syrian bowman with composite bows in Britain, and the kingdoms of South China and India used composite bows (and composite crossbows for the former) in their hot and humid subtropical climates.
syria is hot and humid.
Not just that, crossbow limbs were often made of composite materials too. And very widespread used in Europe
Yeah, the humid climate effect on composite bows thing is all over the internet, but in fact there's little evidence that it does anything... Weather and temperatures do have an effect on ALL bows. A bow being overheated has to be cooled down before stringing and shooting, extreme cold has also impacts of course. If you use organic strings, then ambiant humidity can loosen them and the bow will lose power. But well made historical composite bows? They were glued and sinewed in such a way that nothing will come apart, and they are generally coated with leather on sensible locations for preservaiton purpose, making them largely impervious to humidity negative effects on the bow's structure in itself.
I shoot bows made of natural and historical accurate materials and construction, in a bogland area, semi-continental climate, never experienced a problem because of humidity. Nomads would never have used such bows if humidity broke them! In fact well made composite bows were very often passed generation from generation, testifying of their longevity.
I mean you are 100% right Shad, everything is a give and take. I want to say it is from a early Muslim source but, outsiders originally thought that the bows used by the Mongols were more primitive(I am going to forget the reasons) than the bows of nomadic Turkic peoples they had already encountered. It is later discovered that the supposed primitiveness of the Mongol bow was an intentional attempt to make the bow as light as possible without sacrificing power. It also had a very adverse effect on the bows ability to deal with moisture. All bows suffer in wet conditions but the changes to the Mongol bow made is so bad in the damp that it is the reason for them carrying not just extra bowstrings but up 3 or 4 bows(though one was usually larger and meant for use on foot in sieges).
There is many kinds of composite bows: Turkic, Mongol, Korean, Syrian etc.. 13th century Anatolian Turkish sources said that Turkish Alps (in Turkish it is kind of freelance) use Mongol bows rather than Turkic bow. It doesn't say reason of this. Obvious reason could be effectiveness, other reason could be that Turkey is ruled by Ilkhanate Mongols in 1243-1308. I am curious about differences among composite bow types.
On the Mongols' home turf, the steppes, there's not a whole lot of rain most of the year, so when operating outside that region they may have found their bows failing more often due to that moisture sensitivity. I wonder if that contributed to their losses in Europe (along with their typical maneuvering tactics not working as well in the generally less flat, less open European terrain).
@@markfergerson2145 Terrain thing isn't true. Huns, Magyars, Bulgars, Ottomans won a lot of battles in Europe with nomadic light cavalry armies. Stone defenses stopped Mongols and Ottomans. Ottomans had cannons but it is still very hard to take castles even with cannons. Holy Roman Empire builded Bastion forts along Ottoman borders in order to stop Ottomans and it became successful until Holy Empire gained enough power to accept pitched Battle against Ottomans.
@@Asterix958 Stone walls weren't the only thing that stopped the Mongols note, they were a nomadic army and nation that doesn't like to stay in a land for too long. They conquered nearly all of China and some Muslim kingdoms.
But they haven't establish a strong foothold of loyalty towards the Mongols. China had stone walls but it didn't stop the mongols from invading.
Mongols would establish a siege on the European castles or stone towns. The Mongols would focus majority of their troops to threaten the city or town and raid neighboring villages and harass with whistling arrows and smoke bombs from China and bombardment. Along side preventing any reinforcement from arriving.
The Mongols were known to strike fast before any army is able to establish an army to repel them.
Check
Kings and general youtube channel about mongol documentary.
Its not to say the Mongols ever lost battles. But they have due to poor tactics, the Mongols didn't fail to adapt but relied too much on the same tactic it is also due to their mostly light cavalry.
Even tho their heavy cavalry (isn't so heavy due to its the rider that's heavily armored with lamallar and better well armed.
The Mongols won due to the flexibility of their army being mobile which most European armies haven't fought before.
@@koreancowboy42 Chinese and European walls are different. China surrounded its large cities with walls or used long fortification lines like (attacker can assault Walls in very large front because walls are too long, meanwhile Europeans builded small and sturdy castles which can't be destroyed by Mongol siege weapons which are Trebuckets, Mangonels and primitive cannons. For instance, Order of Assassins also stopped Mongols 13 years in Girdkuh (it is near to famous Alamut) Castle. In conclusion, using stone fortifications is best way to deal with Nomadic Armies before muskets arrived. Even Mongols who are best siege weapons couldn't surpass well-designed stone fortifications. After muskets, nomadic armies became obsolete. Then, nomadic armies were hunted by urban people's armies.
Allllmost made it through the vid without a reference to big girthy wood.
At this point we don’t know if Shad named his bow after his junk or named his junk after his bow.
That is the long bow's greatest advantage - it's big, girthy wood. Much more impressive than the alternative.
The other factor that helped to cement the Longbow in English culture was Henry II and Richard I's ignorance of the papal ban on projectile weapons. When it was pointed out that the ban only applied to the use of these weapons against Christians the armies of the Third Crusade rapidly grabbed all of the projectile weapons they could find. The Angevin ignorance of the Papal ban meant that English and Welsh archers were highly skilled with their longbows and the Agevin, Aquitanian, Breton, Gascon and Potiou forces were at least familiar with crossbows. The Frankish forces under Philip Augustus tried to learn how to use the crossbow and the arbalest but didn't have the cultural familiarity that the Angevin troops had.
Additionally one shouldn't care about the Church's bans and crap:)
that's a oof there but still better to use crossbows and other weapons cause they are the things that will equalize the field of battle till guns get in there and mass ammount of guns to will go the distance.
After the slaughter of the army of Jerusalem at Hattin (the event that triggered the pope to call for what is now known as the third crusade) Richard I realised that the only way he had a hope of countering the massed mounted archers Saladin could field was with massed archers and crossbowmen.
Alls fair in love and war🤗👍
@@superdinkydoo the whole point of war is not making it fair.
Shad: significant drawbacks
Me: _slight smile_
Making things easier and cheaper to make and dish them out in mass numbers really explains alot about how military logistics worked throughout time. Not everything but alot.
I absolutely love the long bow, as a Welshman, we have a great history of being longbow men in history, many times the famous 'English longbow men' were actually Welsh.
yeah it was English kings getting taught a hard lesson in Wales that made them think hmm...maybe this is a good idea...
I think it's just a misnomer, the name became famous when Wales was still an annexed territory of England.
It was good and effective for a couple of years than it wasn't. If you study history that's how most weapons were. Everything is changing tactics and strategies in medieval wars.
@@peterzin8979 'a couple of years' is that classic English understatement?
@@penrythajanitor4644 a couple of years if you put it into perspective.
Best isn't just about on an individual level, it's also about production and costs for the army, availability of materials and will it work in the environment your are going to use it (some very effective compound bows come unglued in damp climates).
Composite bows require more maintenance and is more difficult to produce in damp climates, but it is still possible. The Romans stationed Syrian bowman with composite bows in the British Isles, and the kingdoms of India and Southern China both had composite bows and composite crossbows in their humid subtropical climate.
true and all it takes especally with the longbow one dissater the one that la hire and the mounted cavalary pulled off against the longbows by catching there users out of possition and cut down which crippled the english is one such weakness which would take a decade or a generation to replace.
@@redsimonDE it's true look up that situation in the hundred years war that happened.
@@TheManofthecross that would be true with short bows too. No bow is a good weapon when you have no defences between you and charging cavalry. At that point, you can run, or hopefully everybody in the unit has a spear and you can form a tight formation with lots of pointy sticks that the horses won't really want to run into. Also, its not like a short bow archer would be trained any quicker than a longbow archer. Short bows aren't much easier to use effectively in battle than a longbow.
@@theogoltzman5372 I see. though that would not stop the cavalry from using tricks to enable such head on charges in to said sticks and break the lot the polish wingged hussars did it to swedish (though german mercenary pikes) who were determined to stand there ground and take on the change and got overwelmed from the front.
also did not think that the short bow would train quicker then the longbow. never really thought about that bit for training time with it. though you can expand on that point anyway. *shrugs.*
The most powerful weapon was economics all along.
Shad, take some time to look at the Japanese writings on their it warbows. They are expertly made laminated longbows. However they have significant issues with humidity. To such an extent it effected whole campaigns. What makes a good warbow is more than how good a bow is. It's about the logistics and availability to put the right arrow in the right place in the biggest range of conditions.
In fantasy games we can often see bows with very interesting and weird shapes. In many cases they have multiple arms like a tree branches. I assume real live bows look the way they do for reason. The question is what makes a good bow design?
I am an artist that likes drawing weapons for my fictional world. How can I make bows look fancy and how I can ornate them with making them also functional?
It would be also great if you could make video in which you judge fantasy designs of bows. I propose Skyrim bows for example, they do look very intresting.
what about the bows used in anime and other things? even D&D. though you should porvide or tell shad to look up the lot with images and other things to at least know what he is getting at.
I'd focus on embellishments around the handle where the bow won't be flexing and avoid doing anything to alter the uniformity of the arms. It's important to remember that when drawn the back of the bow is being put into tension and the belly into compression and you need to avoid anything that would create an excessive stress point that would break. If you want something a little different from standard longbows, flatbows, and recurve bows, you might take a look at the cable-backed bows made by various groups indigenous to arctic areas.
@@locke03 Thank you sincerely good sir. I have found your comment very helpfull.
The general rule would be to just not touch the limbs or the string, keep thrm light and functional, don't bore holes into the limbs and make them at least look like they could flex.
Everywhere else you're pretty much free to do whatever you like as long as the handle looks solid and don't block the arrow's way, I've seen artists jut out some "fake limbs" in front of the actual ones in order to more evenly distribute the embellishments along the length of the bow without impairing to its functionality.
Because you're none too concerned about weight compared to something you need to swing around you can add a lot, some modern compound bows are actually quite heavy with all the fiberglass, titanium and a slew of optional counterweight and you don't hear people complaining about them being unrealistic.
@@cdgonepotatoes4219 of course. once that basic is done everything else is fair game like you said.
"The longbow: not as good as you think, but exactly as good as it is."
Love the way you are able to be so unbiased. Amazing videos good sir.
I would really love to see your take on fantasy throwable weapons and how would it fair in comparison with bows and crossbows for races with immense physical strength.
In my novel, one of the fantasy races has monstrous arm strength and use stone spheres as projectiles, throwing them as far as 500 meters with cannonball like power. I believe your video will really help to fill the blanks and add more interesting nuances.
Sounds interesting. Maybe also a Pop Culture Weapons Analyzed that compares franchise weapons? Batarang vs Xena's chakram vs Blade's "glaive" and other stuff.
Here's a twist, the projectiles are not heavy stones, but light rock, allowing the projectile to not just reach higher speed, but more likely to shatter (shrapnel).
Spez: but just reach > not just reach
Great video as always, armies or even people in general rarely buy the most effective equipment if the step down is 20x cheaper and faster to make. I remember reading something about longbows being about a day or two's salary in england while an asiatic composite bows costed their soldiers much much more, required a lot more time to make, but of course were the best they could get for their specialist units( horsemen archers)
Manchu bows have similar draw weight ranges to English warbows (80 - 200s lbs). The Manchu Qing had imperial strength bows made up to 240 lbs, and there was a record of a champion archer using a 240 lb bow in a competition. Manchu bows also have very heavy siyahs that makes it inefficient for shooting light arrows at lower draw weights, but excellent at shooting very heavy arrows at higher draw weights. Manchu bows have very long draw lengths (typically 36+ inches), and typically shot large arrows of ~40 inches and longer that are basically the size of small javelins.
I think the myth of the most powerful long bow in the world Shad. Was really smacked when you and your mate tried to string that new recurved bow of yours. Not to mention the poundage of the thing when you did the draw test.
That's the first time i am hearing about composite bows being more prone to breaking and being less reliable than self bows as an history/archery enthusiast and amateur bow maker. One very important reason to go for a composite design is the resilience under stress from flexion (hence the sinew on the back) and compression (horn in the belly). The wood layer in the center is the 'intermediate' material completing the design along with a very specific, high quality glue used to assemble them very firmly (with optimal drying time taking at least a year). In the Ottoman empire very short (112-140 cm) composite recurve bows were made to last generations and had an usable lifespan of around 200 years. These bows were world renowned for their speed and outstanding range. They were covered, painted/lacquered to be water proof, so the layers weren't exposed to rain. Besides they were carried covered in their quiver at the side with an additional part covering the top of the bow. They were successfully used in Eastern and even central Europe among other quite wet places, so no, a properly made composite bow doesn't suddenly break or becomes weaker under the rain. In summary there are lots of personal, misleading assumptions in this video. Shad clearly lacks knowledge about composite bows. By the way the term 'short bow' generally refers to self bows made wood while being 'shorter' than a longbow. The term isn't a synonym for the 'recurve composite bow' featured in the video (apparently very similar to Sycthian type in shape). A short bow doesn't automatically become recurve and composite by the sole virtue of being short.
You're not mentioning how durable and reliable an English longbow is, so your argument has no comparison. You're also talking about a bow that's made to highest standard during the course of a year (not all work-time, obviously), not counting preparation for raw materials, as well as implying that weather has no effect at all on those bows. I find that to be an unsubstantiated claim. You're kind of sounding like a katana fanboy.
Shad isn't using the term "short bow" as a synonym to "recurve composite bow". He's using it as a term for a bow that is short, just using the one he has on hand as an example. He did go into detail about terminology in a previous video, which you seem to have missed, since otherwise you'd have known that. He also mentioned that recurve composite bows where used in western Europe, and showed art as indication.
@@AnotherDuck says dude who presents any facts. Longbows were also affected by wether like all bows. but for example composite bow can be repaired to some degree.
And btw shad is totaly a fanboy of longbows really bias
@@swietoslaw You respond to an eight month post with a post of that low quality?
@@AnotherDuck Yes why not? I wrote a long post about some things shad say little earlier you can read it if you like
Agree, he is just repeating the same ill informed myths on that, from people who have probably never even seen a proper composite bow.
Really clean releases on those slow mo shots of you shooting the dummy. Arrow was barely wobbling coming off the string really impressive 👏🏾
I love how this video has been out for 2 minutes and people are already commenting on video that is 24 mins long and have opinion on it..
Cool.. cool..
Shad has never been on the bad side of a good Two River longbow
Good to see another wheel of time fan, although given the channel I shouldn’t be so surprised
Good mention about the bow wood, and all the other factors. One comparison I read from a traditional bowyer and archer was him comparing his 120# draw yew longbow to his 90# draw sinew backed Osage orange recurve. When shooting the exact same arrow with each bow through a chronograph he found that his lighter draw recurve launched the arrow an average of 10% faster than the long bow.
A good traditionally made english longbow shoots about 160 fps, very excellent bow maybe 180 fps. A poor one only 140 fps. Composite bows (of any type, sinew backed bows are also composites) usually shoot everywhere from 170 to 200+ fps. All readings refer to standart 10 grain per pound arrow weights. That actually goes with every kind of self bows pretty well. The speed difference is mostly due to material difference. I have made bamboo backed jatoba english longbow, that has bit of set, but shoots 180 fps. With a bit of reflex a laminated elb like that can also reach 200 fps, so mostly the speed difference has less to do with the design and more to do with material and build quality. But yes, it is very possible that a good sinew backed recurve out shoots heavier average self bow. But equally very good self bow is faster than a poor quality composite recurve.
@@jkre A shorter straight bow of osage orange will shoot a faster arrow than a longer bow of the same material. I had old Ben Pearson reflex wood bows and you could feel the difference. You are right about poundage. Some of the most accomplished archers stayed up around 90#-100# to get the speed to beat the arrow arch.
@@oldgoat1890 it is usually true if talking about just arrow speed, no matter the weight of the arrow, how ever if we talk about standard 10 gpp arrows or higher, it depends much on witch has longer draw length, if the longer bow is also drawn longer, then it will shoot faster also, if the build quality is the same on both.
an interesting thing that i noticed from the medieval artworks with the recurve bow is that in almost every picture the soldiers were wearing cone shaped helmets implying that the recurve bow was not around until advancements were made.
those artworks most of them are novels and stories
Oldest recurve bow find is Holmegaard bow which is more than 9000 years old; composite bows were made in Ancient Egypt and Ancient China, many are more than at least 3500 years old. And composite recurve was perfected on the Steppe in the antiquity.
Also I agree with Seca Rio.
Be very carful when considering Medieval drawings as evidence. Many of the drawings were made hundreds of years after the event had taken place, if it had taken place in the first place. And back then people didn't care as much about historical accuracy, or just plainly had no idea it was different back then.
The difference between reflex and dflex is not trivial. Manchurian bows can achieve 30-40% more power with the same draw weight. You can't really make a 150 pound longbow 40% heavier
But such a bow would be more costly to manufacture. The Longbow has the advantage of being cheaper in some material ways. Warfare is also a matter of cost effectiveness which is the whole point here.
@@pickcomb332 that is true. But if you want most power per pound, you need to buy Manchu. Even better would be to use longbows for training and composite bows for your army, if you can afford it
@@tedarcher9120 You should also keep in mind the ease of making and durability of the bow. Recurve bows are more likely to break simply by bending the limbs more. Second, composite bows require glues. It's undoubtedly true that high humidity climates will affect them negatively with only a question of how much. As war demonstrates, weapons that need less replacing and are easily repaired are prefered over more powerful, more expensive, and more likely to break down ones (e.g. Sherman vs. Tiger). The difference between a 150 pound longbow and a broken 150 pound Manchu bow is much larger than the difference between a 150 pound longbow and a 150 pound Manchu bow. If you use it in an area where the breakdown is less of an issue (e.g. Asian Steppes) then I can understand why you would consider it better but humid areas will not be kind to that type of bow.
@@Alex_Fahey that's a lie, comppsite bows are much more reliable due to their contratuction, and can serve for decades, and lackered ones were water resistant. Most longbows could only work for one or two battles, losing strength rapidly. English armies always had a train of wooden sticks used to make replacements
@@tedarcher9120 Well, that's just a lie. They aren't more reliable in construction. To argue two seperate bows held together by a bonding agent is more structurally sound than a single bow taking up the same space as those two is asinine. Unless the bow has balsa wood in it the bonding agent is not going to be the strongest part.
Obviously a bow can serve for decades. I never said they couldn't. I said they are more likely to break and in any given situation they are for the reason I just laid out in regards to construction. I didn't say anything about when a specific lovingly cared for bow would break.
As for the ridiculous final two sentences, I'm not even going to waste time with that.
Edit: Also, lacquering is not an eternally lasting or fool-proof process. It does not automatically make it immune to water damage. That layer could be damaged by banging against something the day after lacquering it and be exposed to water damage.
Clearly Shad doesn't know his history. A longbow can go straight through a knights plate mail, into the next five guys behind him, back around the world, and finally fall back into the quiver.
Only if it is made of glorious a thousand times folded welsh wood.
If a bow can do that, then what are the arrows for? 🤔
@@jkre
So that the guy next to him can tell what direction he's firing in obviously! Imagine, a world where arrows aren't use to tell direction. We'd all be turned around!
Ironic or ignorant?
Ahhh yeah right !
Was that ep 4 season 3 of Robin Hood ?
The point you started at 19:38 was my first thought on the matter. It reminded me of some of the heavier crossbows Todd has shown off. Originally I was surprised by how absurdly over the top a 1,000+ pound crossbow sounded until he started explaining how much of the stored energy is spent accelerating the steel bow forward (in addition to only having like 1/5th of the draw distance [compared to a bow] to impart the rest of that energy into a bolt)
Wow, you and I have the same bow from the same bowyer. I LOVE this channel Shad, it cheers me up whenever I see a new video become available. I recently read your book as well, such a fantastic read, I read it in a day. I can't wait for your film, and hopefully more novels with the same characters, as your worldbuilding was very well done.
I liked the video but, the cost and difficulty of production is largely overstated. There is a tangible example, in Europe, where the two types of bows (as well as the crossbow) was consistently employed and produced in industrial quantities. In the 10th century (a period where technology would not have been as advanced as in the late middle ages) Cordoba could and did produce, among other things, about 12 thousand bows a day. These are the shorter recurve bows used by cavalry in razzia and other types of similar engagement, as well as the called "infantry" bow, which was longer, and also reflex and of composite material. This does not hint at a significant enough difficulty, given the infrastructure, to make a difference in adoption.
From the same region, we take a probable example of the why the reflex, short or long, was probably not adopted as much in continental Europe: ideology and cultural affiliation. The reflex was, consistently, depicted and seen as the "weapon of the moor" as contrasted with the deflex selfbow, or even more so, the crossbow. The crossbow regains prominence in the later Granada period, as, most likely, there was a lack of infrastructure and emphasis in the training of the populace for the heavy draw weight recurves or longbows, that existed in previous Ummayad and Taifa period doctrines of strategy in war.
The answer, then, remains very complex, and although I would not discount the points made in the video, cultural clashes cannot be discounted as a stubborn holding to one's implementation of an instrument of war; tradition is important, even in the face of a less efficient design (which the longbow is, sorry to say).
This andalusian fellow approved this comment.
The reason why the reflex bow wasn't adopted in continental europe is because it was.
You go east of the germanic people and everybody starts using that instead of crossbows. To be honest, the english and their longbow was kind of unique, at least at their time. Not many other civilizations used it, it was more crossbows to the west, and more reflex bows to the east, with quite the blend in the middle.
@@kovi567 the longbow was employed in western Europe throughout the medieval period in conjunction with a minority of reflex bows. This was not just the case in England, or Wales and Scotland. Italy, France and the Iberian communities utilized it extensively - the best wood for import (in England) was considered to be of Italian or Spanish origin. The cultural symbol is what overstates it. The unique character of the English longbow is a social phenomenon, more than a strategic one; and even then it was not that extraordinary since all throughout western and southern Europe the mandatory or encouraged practice with longbows or crossbows was widespread - all these examples follow the English model (as we know it more famously) in social and legislative content, with regional and local variations.
I know we use Balkan and Eastern European medieval sources as a standard for what European armies and societies used at the time, but the Eastern European and Balkan cultures are varied in their adoption of western or eastern paradigms and instruments of war. Most of those cultures tilted farther to the East, not the West; religious differences are relevant in this distinction.
So, did reflex bows exist in Western Europe? Yes, but the traditional bow more widely represented seems to have been the longbow as we tend to conceive of it. So, again, they were not adopted as openly as in other regions, such as Eastern Europe.
@@joaoteixeira6443 As you say, this probably has more to do with cultural bias than anything else. It's why the Japanese are enamored with their katanas, why (some) Hungarians and other ex-steppe-nomads idolize reflex bows, and why during the Cold War, everyone on the US side was in love with M16s, while everyone in the Soviet camp considered the AK47 the best gun ever invented.
A bowyer can make a new longbow or the highest power brackets from the seasoned log on hand in an afternoon, your recurved, particularly the composite ones you just can't get close to that speed of turn around, its a much more complex construction. You also must consider the costs - nobody wants to equip their army with something that is functionally basically as good but is less reliable, costs more, takes longer to make - there must always be a reason - recurves are very popular with cultures that emphasised horseback shooting for instance - where the length of a longbow is a disadvantage, but for folks going on campaign a long way from home and fighting on foot a recurved just isn't worth it - your simple stick and string bow is durable, easier to store as unstrung its just a stick (generally at least recurve just don't pack easily) and basically just as effective...
Interesting That I have never seen (at least do not recall) people depicted with two bows with them - one on the back as a reserve if the first breaks. Having two bows will make them more reliable, plus if the situation dictates, they can give the spare to other swordsmen or spearmen and provide additional barrage from the distance, no?
There are definitely records of people carrying two or three bows on horseback but you can probably imagine how cumbersome that would be on foot.
I think there is a limit in practicality. Saying “they could carry a spare bow” is like saying, why doesn’t each of them carry double the amount of arrows, so they don’t get out of arrow as quickly as they do?
That's what baggage trains are for. Knights had spare lances on wagons behind the lines to resupply. They surely would have spare bows with them like that.
Spare bows would be carried on the baggage train.
As would arrows, spears, lances, etc.
Cavalrymen, especially landed knights, even brought spare HORSES.
I have made wood bows. A nick, cut, or heavy scratch in the bow would probably make it useless. I doubt that the archers used them as "Walking sticks" or spears as many would like to believe.
Fascinating - such detail and you prove you are a deadly shot with the Longbow. I would love to see a similar comparison with the crossbow vs Longbow and recurve bow. Thanks !
Very well done. Great combination of historical and engineering perspectives!
Could you do a video testing the difficulty of shooting a bow while wearing a great helm or a closed-visor helmet as shown in medieval tapestries?
Shad I’m curious about your thoughts on the “greatbows” from Dark Souls. Greatbows are typically depicted as being constructed from solid hunks of dragon horn and are used, go figure, for felling dragons and presumably have a proportionally superhuman draw weight (and are also wielded by superhumanly strong silver knights and player characters)
Their most interesting feature is that they are supposedly so heavy and transfer so much force that they need to be planted in the ground to shoot, which I felt was mechanically silly at first. After all, the limbs need to flex in order to fire, and being planted in the ground would interfere with a bow’s release, but then I learned about bows that flex asymmetrically like the Japanese yumi, which is held almost a third of the way from the bottom, while the upper limb does most of the flexing (And indeed one of the greatbows in the game is a yumi called the “Onislayer Greatbow”).
Theoretically it seems sound then that a tall enough and powerful enough bow could benefit from being planted in the ground in this way. Would love to hear your thoughts on this fantasy weapon.
Guys! Bump this comment to the top!
Not Shad, but an equally informed content creator has done a video on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/w5cj3KDAUYU/v-deo.html
If I'm not mistaken, there was an eastern bow during Alexander the great's conquest of Persia that had to be buried in the ground and stood on so it would have a firm enough foundation to be properly used, but in one of the battles it had just rained so the ground was too soft to properly plant the bow meaning the Persians had little archer support.
1. Planted in the ground doesn't work, because the lower limb needs to be able to move, even yumi lower limb does bend and move.
2. Bows after 60 lbs or so has diminishing returns, when the draw weight goes high enough, the bow power starts to drop, how ever that happens way beyond any human strength, but is the very reason why ballista uses rope torque bows with short ridgid limbs instead of conventional bending bows.
3. For throwing heavy objects like spear like great arrows, a muscle operated spring power weapon isn't the best pick for that, because there will always be energy loss. Spear shooting devise has already been invented, and it predates the bow for several thousands of years, and it is called spear thrower or atlatl. Atlatl is way more efficient in throwing heavy objects than a bow is, and the stronger you are, the more powerful your throws with atlatl are, unlike the diminishing returns of a super strength bow, so those super strong characters would be far more better off with big atlatl than a big bow, when wanting to shoot spear size or bigger objects. Bow is better at lighter projectiles, cus it can move faster, but lacks the strength needed for the extremely heavy projectiles.
4. Even if a dragon bone would be so light and strong that it would make efficient super strong bow, it should still not be planted to the ground, and it should have narrower tips than the rest of the bow, not wider like in dark sould 3, cus it still would need to save as much mass at the tips as it can, for most efficiency. Also it would benefit more of a manchu bow shape than longbow shape, cus longbows are not that great with heavy arrows, even tough english arrows are heavy, but they are light in comparison to their draw weight, like around 6 to 10 grains of arrow weight per pounds of draw weight, where as manchu bow shoots 13 to 17 grains per pound arrows.
So, if I water a tree with the blood of my enemies, the bow I make with its wood will deal more damage.
Got it.
Your videos are always interesting & well researched/well argued. Great information and food for thought, whether I agree or not ! Keep it up, much appreciated.
Can the Longbow cut the moon in half? I THINK NOT!
Longbow: 0
Katana: 1
The Mongols and Huns preferred the reflex bow because the were easier to use on horseback. Although there are some archers from different army types that can use big "long bow" type bows from horseback, they are generally limited in angle of attack using such big bows.
I think there were some big bows that took that into account in their creation. The Japanese long bow was one I think.
Though I wonder what's the con of making in that way.
@@lightningpenguin8937 The Japanese Yumi was over 7 feet in length. A big bow like that can only be fired to the left and in front of you while mounted on a horse. As for why they would use such a large bow; it has to do with the draw length and mass of the arrow. Todd's workshop made several excellent videos on it, where he compared a long bow with a 100 pound draw weight to a medieval crossbow. The crossbow needed over 800 pounds to compare in power and penetration.
Going through this journey of Shad slowly coming to the light on topics related to the fantasy Ranger has been great lolol
I'm about to binge watch your whole channel! This is awesome content!
Reliability, training, overall expense (and therefore, availability): in other words, logistics.
Amateurs talk tactics. Semi-pros talk strategy. Experts talk logistics.
If memory serves, the John Flanagan, author of The Ranger's Apprentice went into something very much along these same lines in the first book of the series.
This topic is addressed by Halt when he is teaching Will what it will take for him to become a Ranger, including helping him to improve his archery, while explaining to him why the shorter recurve/reflex bow he crafted for himself (under Halt's watchful eye) was the best option for him given what would be expected of him.
Halt explained to Will that not only was the smaller recurve / reflex bow capable of being just as powerful as the longbows used by the Ranger Corps in full-scale war, it was much easier to carry, travel with, and shoot.
I also vaguely recall Halt mentioning something about how he personally preferred the shorter bow as well, and had been using one ever since he learned to craft them during one of his undercover missions in a foreign nation.
-----
You are right as well though; when it comes to outfitting an army the longbow is simply the most practical and cost-effective choice, in addition to it being an exceptionally reliable weapon. Individual accuracy becomes less important when your shooting volleys into an enemy battle formation as well.
There was one glaring point though that you overlooked, and it is part of why the shorter recurve/reflex bow is also a reliable option in warfare. Mounted Archery, or firing a bow from horseback. With the longbow, attempting to do so would be far too unwieldy and impractical due to the design of the bow itself.
The Recurve / Reflex Horn bow was one solution to this problem. The other solution was the Yumi bow invented in Japan and wielded by the Samurai.
Truthfully, I can't say any of these bows is universally superior to the others, as they all have their strengths, and their weaknesses.
At around 5:00 this visual aid is so helpful! Excellent video editing!
I remember watching you make that longbow shot at 20:50, the first perfect shot on camera. That must have felt sooooo good.
My theory is that the "deflexed" longbows were old bows that started out as normal longbows but as the shooter got stronger over time he decided to have a bowyer reflex the limbs to make it higher poundage.
This was always my impression. That our historic success with our longbowmen was about fielding lots of well trained peasant archers.
Agree. The long bow is not superior on any field, but when you gather 1000 longbows and fire them under commando, they really make an impression on the incoming end.
Yeoman is not a peasant and a longbowman was well paid.
They weren't just peasants. They were highly skilled and highly sought after specialists. They were the elite military weapon of the European Middle ages. They had a higher status than mere peasants.
@@sidekickbob7227 and the longbow is clearly superior in terms of power.
Very informative video! Thanks!
Shad always love your video dissertations! Sending lots of love and good vibes form free Texas!
I'd like to see you examine a yumi bow. That would be entertaining 🤣
Me too! And comparison with other types.
Also the sheer determination on shads face when he freezes the video at full draw is amazing
One thing that you didn't mention was stringing/ restringing the bow. With the Longbow, an archer could use the step through method of restringing somewhat more easily than with a recurve shortbow. This could make a difference if the string snapped and needed to be restrung or the bow needed to be strung quickly, especially with a high poundage bow.
Haven't tought of making your own bows Shad? Aren't the local Forest good for the wood?
Not all wood is suitable for bow making. Pine is very bad for bow making where ash is exceptional. I’m not sure what those trees are, but they might fall closer to pine than ash which would make them unsuitable for bow manufacturing
If he chops it with his machete in one swing, I wouldn't craft a bow from it.
@@michaelangelomaimone3181 ash isn't exceptional bow wood, it is good, but not exceptional. Exceptional bow woods would be osage, mulberry and yew. Also you can make faster bow than any self bow from compression pine backed with birch, both woods that alone are poor bow woods, but together make the best wooden bows medieval europeans could get their hands on, reaching over 200 fps with 10 gpp arrows. Even the most exceptional self bows shoot "only" about 190 fps, and that is very very fast for self bow.
@@jkre neat, archery is one of those fields where I don’t know much, so it’s cool to hear about this
@@michaelangelomaimone3181 well archery is one of those fields I know the most about. Less historical accuracy, even tough little of that also, but mostly bow making, how different designs change the bows characteristics and all that technical stuff about bows and archery shooting styles. Feel free to ask anything archery related, I might know the answer.
Great video, the longbow actually makes me think about the Sherman tank. Like the longbow, the Sherman was easy to make and was a very reliable tank, it had its drawbacks but it was still a very reliable and useful tank even by the end of WWII. Love the video would like to see more on this topic.
thorough explanation as usual, this did clarify a lot of things for me
I had wondered about the merits of the longbow, thank you for this video, Shad. :)
I'm glad you covered the pros and cons of not just the longbow, too, but others, and mentioned other archery cultures.
In essence, the longbow was the Kalashnikov rifle of bows: cheap, reliable, does its job well, and easier to equip an army with, but also much heavier.
But unlike the AK it takes a lot of skill and physical conditioning to use. In that regard a crossbow is much closer, since it's easy to use.
Can't be used by child soldiers, though. AK wins.
What is this timeline? Please take me back to the times when I didn't pine after a high poundage recurve bow.
Really enjoyed the video. A real enthusiast seeks to understand and appreciate.
Thankyou! Most informative!
I've read that there were another reasons behind english archers: they were sure through their expirience from wars in Scotland that their knights and man-at-arms (who was put on foot) wouldn't leave them to be slaughtered, so they continue shooting from close distances instead of runnig for their lifes.
Was mass retreat of archers that common? I doubt they were as effective as common infantry after exhausting their arrows or being pushed from and advantageous position, but it isn't like it had to be common practice to leg it, was it?
Reminds me of how Hanibal Barca put himself with his weakest troops in the battle of cannae. As if to say "i have not abandoned you. Just trust me."
Never underestimate high moral in warfare
@@kelvinferreira3767 from what I know, the mass retreat of any infantry in the face of heavy cavalry charge was common event: those people were badly motivated, badly equipped and most importantly badly trained and badly disciplined. The infantry started to stand their ground when they received training, payment and equipment - which was the case when they had knights on foot in their ranks, or when professional Swiss and German soldiers appeared.
@@dilen754
That is partially true (I disagree that the state of the infantry was sooo poor). I was thinking more about archer-specific retreats or archers being the major factor on a mass route of the army. Specially if they were attacked by infantry rather than cavalry.
@@kelvinferreira3767 well, it was quite poor as we see from the sources and the fact that army leaders had to make sure it wouldn't happen.
On the other hand - yes, there were places and times, where and when infantry not only stand their ground, but defeated and routed enemy forces.
Since the English were constantly practicing with heavy bows, did that translate into hunting bows as well? You mentioned 40lbs, which is on the low end of modern hunting bows. Did most people have a war and hunting bow, or did they hunt with 100+ draw weight?
Also, interesting. I wondered why a heavier bow would be harder to aim, but distribution makes sense.
From memory and with only a passing interest in this question (though its a good question) it seems like the local lord or king provided the war bows, and expected folk to go train with them but their personal bow if they had one was likely lighter hunting tool. Really not an expert on this though, and I'm not sure there are enough sources to really draw such conclusions.
There's at least one Medieval source (Book of Roi Modus IIRC) that says hunting bows should be lighter.
A simple rule of thumb, the higher the poundage the less likely to hit the target.
@@foldionepapyrus3441 nope, the lords and kings only provided the arrows, the rest of the equipment, including bows, the soldiers had to provide them selves
There are even today people hunting with 100+ lbs bows. Bow of that weight is not something you can just crab with zero archery experience and start training to use it, you will never succeed in drawing the thing like that. You need to start lower, and change to higher and higher while you get stronger, so yes, people most likely had multiple bows, unless they broke or they sold the old ones. Btw heavy draw weight is not the same for everybody, for me a heavy draw weight is 80 and over, i can barely draw 80 lbs, but for somebody drawing and shooting 160 lbs bows, even 120 lbs bow is rather light, so he would have no problem shooting 120 lbs bow accurately, nor problems to hunt with it. Also if you take to battle the heaviest bow you can possibly draw, you will be too exhausted after a few shots to use it anymore, or even fight with other weapons. Archers would never use as high draw weight bow as they can shoot in battle, they would shoot draw weights that are comfortable for them to use extended period of time, and still have strength left to fight melee. For a guy who's max is 160 lbs, probably 140 lbs would be good battle field bow. For me max 70 lbs perhaps, i can draw it quite some time, i might even end up using only 60 lbs bow, to ensure i don't use all my strength before the fight really starts, but will still have plenty left for melee
A big reason why short, highly recurved bows are more efficient is that they're often drawn further than simple deflex bows.
All things being equal, such as poundage and arrow weight, the bow that is drawn further will impart more force to the arrow.
This can be seen on a draw force curve, where the horizontal x-axis is the length of the draw, the vertical y-axis is the draw weight of the bow, and the total area described by the curve is the amount of force imparted to the arrow.
I learned about this in The Bowyer's Bible, which is a really good book for anyone interested in archery. 🏹
Great analysis!
Interesting fact: by Chingishan's Yasa every mongol warrior was required two have at least TWO bows. May have somethind with complexity and chance to break.
Longbows also broke sometimes, but it was rare enough that they could just bring along a few extras with the baggage train rather than needing each man to carry a spare. That said, Mongol bows were light enough compared to longbows that each man could easily carry the weight of a spare, especially on horseback.
ISTR that one bow was for mounted fighting, and second one was bit heavier and more powerful for dismounted archery.
The only advantage of the long bow is simplicity of manufacture, when compared to recurved steppe bow. However, when taking into account power per unit of length the recurved bow wins. The laminated recurved bow very sensitive to getting wet, which may cause it to delaminate. In the medieval era the glues were water-based animal collagen/protein types. Waterproof glues/adhesives would not exist until the industrial revolution.
Then, there is culture considerations, the recurved bow is the primary weapon of the horse mounted archers of the Eurasian steppe Scythian, Sarmatians, Cuman, Huns, Pechenegs, Avars, Alans, Mongols, Tatars, etc . The recurved steppe bow could be considered to fill the same role as a “cavalry carbine”.
Remember, in the crucible of war, everything that is not effective or useful is burned away. If the recurved bows advantages did not outweigh its cost and complexity of construction, it would not have been used for millennia.
1:43 well i should hope it has 'draw backs"! that's how every bow works lol (thanks for the vid Shad!)
Sir,I found your lesson most informative and enjoying. I shoot a 68" mildly recurved Osage Orange longbow,around 68/70# at my full pull. Surprisingly fast,light & practically no hand shock. You shined a light on many design features & clearly answered numerous questions. Thank you.
They had no industry either then so anything complex took a long time to make , hense the long bow , simple but useful
Ah yes, The Longbow. The bow that takes years to practice but is the starting bow in video games
Longbow doesn't take years to practice. Heavy draw weight longbow does. You can make a longbow that is so weak even 5 yo can full draw it, and you can make it so strong that no man currently alive can draw it (modern world record is 200 lbs). They are all longbows, they are just different draw weight longbows, but only bows from 80 lbs or so up are called war bows, but war bow longbow is still longbow, and recurve can also be war bow.
Me and my friends made what could be considered a long bow in a class we had called Maker Space (basically a time to just make what you want) And we made 2 long bows. the first one we made we all worked together to keep making it stronger and stronger and stronger (we just used white yarn and a gray rubber ppc pipe) until the director of the maker space found out we were making a bow and arrows and forced us to break it.
I had the earliest class where I was typically alone so i made a copy of the first bow from what I understood. it was powerful but just not as powerful as the first because I didn't keep working to make it stronger, I just wanted a bow. I brought it home and it came unstrung a couple weeks later, and i never bothered to fix it, and eventually just threw the pipe away since i had no use for it and it was just taking up space.
thank you for listening to this little story of mine! ^-^
I wonder what the acceleration curves of each bow looks like? For example:
Take reflex bow and test poundage at each 10% of it's deflection (if bow flexes 44° at full draw, do it at 4.4°, 8.8°, etc.) and graph it.
Do the same for the standard longbow.
Whichever bow maintains more poundage behind the string longer *should* fire the same arrow faster, and therefore more power.
You could also just test the arrow speed of each bow, provided each bow draws the same poundage at full draw.
This test doesn't account for the speed with which a bow can straighten its limbs. Shad said in the video that the longbow limbs have more mass and hence more inertia and at the same draw weight it would just be slower
Actually Shad the composite Recurve used to be actually far more common in the Medieval World then the Long bow
If we are talking about Nomadic armies like the Mongols & Timurids which almost all consisted of multi role horse archers, we are speaking about at least 200 000 troops with each warrior equipped with at least 2 composite recurve bows
I've never heard or read about That many archers with Longbows
This
Longbows was an English thing
Almost all (superior) archery cultures used recurved and or composite bows
Can you do a video on swords being in WW1 style settings? My fantasy story takes place in modern times but warfare is a combination of swords and trench warfare (with more WW2 era developments towards the end). World War I saw tons of melee fighting with beignets, knives, and improvised weapons, despite being in the same time period as the machine gun. How could arming swords, longswords, side swords, sabers, messers, and all other type of swords possibly work in and against trenches and rifle fire?
That's sounds great! Your story already have a name?
If people with swords can still be used , then you simply can't have working heavy machine guns , it makes no sense
The problem is historically, swords are obsolete by WW1 period in terms of a weapon of war, and trenches don't do them any favours, with the fighting being too close for swords, hence the proliferation of knives and clubs.
So if you want swords to work in WW1 fantasy setting, you need to have a reason for it, like the shields of Dune making firearms not effective, or a in universe cultural reason, like Japanese Officers and their "Katanas" in WW2.
Smaller weapons were preffered in the trenches so long weapons are not very practical . Long things are more likely to get snagged on things like barbed wire and make it harder to move around in general (which is why bayonets started to get shorter , though there are other factors involved). I think swords were issued to officers at the start , but they fell out of use because they made it very clear you are an officer (which makes you sniper bait) .
@@pp-wo1sd I have this idea where one character carries a longsword/estoc into the trenches, and he uses it halfswording, almost like a bayonet.
Another gr8 video from Shad but really what it comes down to is, like most things, it's not the size of your bow but how you use it that counts! Which is something that people with small bows say.
There are a number of drawbacks in any bow, depending on how many times its been fired.
I remember when I used to think the English longbow was somehow the only bow in history (discounting crossbows) that had a super high draw weight. To be fair, I was a lot more ignorant on military history then than I am now. I didn't realize back then that the Mongol recurve bow, yumi, Waliangulu longbows, etc. were also very powerful.
But anyways, very interesting insight on the real strengths the English longbow does have.
The mongol bows were nothing like as powerful. They wouldn't have been able to ride and use a warbow at the same time. The mongol bows were quicker and easier to draw but they didn't have the same destructive power of a warbow.
Can you remake the adventurer gear video with the short recurve bow? It would remove one of the main drawbacks of carrying the bow and possibly let you carry more things with it
I think the recurve its not bending back, its just adding a lever(like a compound bow) making It more eficient
Nice vid thow, everything is so well explained
I've always considered the longbow to be the katana of bows. Great at what it does but not perfect and certainly isn't the mythical unstoppable weapon that some people profess it to be.
Took months to make recurve bows. Takes a day to make a warbow, when waging wars mass production is great. Also the recurve bow wasn’t the best in wet England or European countries due to the materials used to make it at the time. Warbow is pretty good in any weather
Sir, a "warbow" isn't a perticular bow shape, it's the strength of the bow, please correct your comment to not be misleading
From the record, no.
Bow makers produced recurve bows quite easily. It is harder to make compare to self bow but not that hard since vast majority of countries in Eurosia+africa used recurve for their archers in med period. If the cost difference be really significant then that wouldn't be the case
We had record of gradual abandonment of self bow to switch to recurve bow with the Nubians. After the bow makers gained enough experience making recurves, they managed to produce them cheap and fast enough to render self bow obselete
An upload from Shad makes the pantaloons glad
I have a longbow I didn't string up yet. This video and the recurve bow one was very informative and useful.
The variety of battle arrows used made the longbow more versatile than the crossbow. The Japanese longbow, the Saracen bow were all formidable, but the English had the best strategic battle tactics and they also had among the best trained archers. So yes--definitely have to agree with you about the bows.
How can you say something so controversial yet so true?