@@sweetea6550right. If you want to turn people into a replaceable part and not have to worry about individuals, crossbows are better. If you want to prevent such a society, a bow makes more sense
@@marvalice3455 You can also look at it from a reverse perspective. If you want to engender a caste of people within your society who feel superior and entitled to better treatment purely because they have the resources and leisure time to focus on military training, you use the bow. If you want people to feel equally valued in said society regardless of whether their contribution is martial or economic, the crossbow is better.
A friend and I actually made a crossbow for a school engineering project once. It had about a 60 pound draw weight with no power at all, but it felt awesome to shoot something we built from scratch!
This is also the same reason guns won out over both crossbows and bows, because they are very easy to train on, ammunition is much smaller and easier to carry large amounts of, and they had power and range advantage over the average crossbow
Fascinating video, I always thought of crossbows as the medieval equivalent of guns, they shoot in a straight line with a lot of force, they can be reloaded without shooting, and they are shot via trigger. I never realised how versatile normal bows were though.
Warbows were actually much stronger. There is a video on the matter by a guy who recreates medieval things. If you write "longbow vs crossbow" by Tod's Workshop you'll find the video
Also, in the case of longbows you can teach most people how to make them in like a day, Will it be a full 180 lb draw weight monster? Probably not, but an archer without a bow is useless. So even if they can only make one, that's a 60 lb draw weight that is still better than nothing
@@heldermonteiro2718 and if you have well trained war archers then yeah sure the first shot from a crossbow can get out quicker than from a bow, but every shot after that, the bow will dramatically outspeed the crossbow assuming you have a well-trained war archers. In the second Lord of the rings movie when they're defending Helms keep, the fire rate of the mass archers is about accurate and there is no way you're going to maintain that kind of a fire rate with a crossbow.
Yeah that’s what I liked about it as well! A very good argument, not what passes as “debates” now lol. It was polite and gave advantages and disadvantages of each. But most of all left the choice to the situation and person.
In The Wheel of Time books there is actually a quite nice exploration of crossbows vs bows. It brings up the points of how you need to train longer for bows: The only group of prominent bow users by the end of the series are the "Two Rivers men" who are farmers and livestock herders who live in the woods and learn the bow from childhood to hunt. We never see anyone train to learn the bow but we see people training whole new armies of crossbowmen. in one of my favorite battles in book 11 a general who has to run with his army out of enemy territory, abuses the fact that they have new crossbows that shoot 8 bolts per minute instead of the common 3 per minute to make is army seem much larger by how many bolts they fire in a given time and information not traveling very well in that setting.
IIRC, that's the book where the Band of the Red Hand wins a battle with no casualties, effectively by creating a ranged Roman Tortoise formation with shields and crossbows.
I don't think telepathy ever appeared in the series, though dream communication did. Also, a group of wizards dumped a volcano on an army of trollocs, once.
I would take the stuff in wheel of time with a grain of salt. Robert Jordan wasn't very well versed in medieval warfare. A lot of his descriptions sound more like WW2 tactics.
My fantasy for the two is different, and seemingly in line with the reality. Mastering the bow is about the archer, a skilled person who can take any bow and push it to it's limits, like how a brass instrument player learns how to make the instrument shapes sound so theycan use it intuitively. A crossbow user is never mainly a marksman when I make characters, they're a tinkerer. They make their tool and it becomes their baby, skill is reflectes in the weapon rather than it's use, although usually I also have the x-bow be tailored to the user to where others may struggle fully utilizing it. In a way it's more like a music producer, they may not play any analogue instruments, but they understand how to combine various sounds and effects to produce art, and often make their own instruments based on tweaking synths and effects. Neither is better, rather both are worthy disciplines thatrequire both discipline and experience.
Basically this. Both apply their expertise in different things to achieve mastery. The real potential lies in how far you can intersect the two disciplines. Does the archer become a bowyer and fletcher himself? Crafting his own bespoke bow and specific-use arrows. Does the crossbowman push the limits of his marksmanship by training his athleticism? Firing on the move and in unorthodox positions.
@@MansMan42069 That's a good point, like you could make an engineer bow archer in a sci fi setting that makes his own trick arrows like what superheroes use. Or even make arrows that have mini flight computers to do micro adjustments to hit a target when you can't miss a certain shot etc. Then there's engineering of the bow itself which can be already be seen in the real world with the tech of olympic recurve bows. ua-cam.com/video/qmHqA_dSJ6I/v-deo.html
Another important advantage of crossbows is that you can have it "ready" more or less forever before pulling the trigger when you want to shoot. An archer needs to first draw the bow and expose more of his body until an arrow can be shot. This makes crossbows a very effective defensive weapon if you're shooting from a wall during a siege for example. It's also why many crossbowmen carried comically large shields that were basically portable walls; such as the famous crossbowmen of Genoa.
@@lipowka3356yea. Eventually the arms/string are gonna stretch and deform into that loaded position but it will likely take a long time, especially if it’s a heavier crossbow. So if you’re under siege you could have the crossbow loaded the entire time just in case you need a quick bolt
It is marginally easier and safer for crossbow the main advantage is space. You can get far more crossbow men on a wall than archers safely. This is why crossbow men are used primarily for defense and archers for offense as you can have far more archers further away
I like the comparison between the two. Indeed, when I first started learning how to shoot a bow, I had no clue how to aim properly and my shots went everywhere BUT the target. Where bow archery is more of an art, crossbows and modern firearms (not counting the wildly inaccurate flintlocks), are more of a science. Where you shoot where the sights are aiming, and if you’re a little bit off, you make small adjustments and corrections based on where the shots are hitting. Makes them easier to learn than bows.
While your comment is a couple months old, i still have the urge to write a quick correction. Calling a flintlock wildly inaccurate compared to crossbows is simply inaccurate. You could still effectively engange targets up to a 100m distance with for example a musket. While there was a significant chance of each individual shot to miss, the same would be true with a bow or crossbow. Additionally flintlock only refers to the ignition system of the weapon, more important for accuracy was whether the barrel was rifled or smooth. Rifles were first developed in the 15th century, although they wouldn't be widely adopted until the 18th century. If you are interested in a more thorough look at the accuracy of muskets Brandon F. has made some Videos on the topic.
@@blacktemplar2323 That’s fair I guess. I’m not a gun nut, so I’ll concede if someone knows more than I do. Though my original point remains the same. Archery is an Art, but Crossbow/Firearm marksmanship is more of a science.
@@maximumdon7637 I agree with that point wholehartedly, i just have a strong dislike for the vast amount of disinformation that is spread about early firearms.
This makes so much sense. In Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the Uruk-hai army uses crossbows, becasue their soldiers were literally born within the last few months. Where everyone else who had generations to train their archers, from the Gondorians to the Rhohirrim and even the Orcs, all use war bows.
I only just thought of this reading your comment, but in the Uruk-hai’s case, it could also possibly be viewed as another example of Saruman’s forces being a metaphor for industrialization - the more mechanical, “less artful” crossbow contrasts the Elves and their wooden bows, which they’ve mastered the use of after thousands of years.
It's also important to remember that crossbows were historically created in an age and place where plate armor was making some people nigh-invincible (or so thought) and sieges were one of the major locations that weapon innovation needed to happen. For that bill, crossbows fit perfectly. Some schmuck who's trained for ten days can kill an armored target by shooting them in the chest from on top of a wall, thirty meters away. As well, the fact you pre-load crossbows makes them superior in a siege where you have plenty of time to reload behind a wall, but not necessarily to aim outside of cover. They're more bang for proverbial buck in terms of wood as well, which was actually a consideration in some of the longer sieges. So while bows are - if you're skilled - usually better in many cases, the specific scenario that crossbows were created in made them a hot commodity for the time. Hope this makes sense, and I know war bows can pierce some armors too, but at the time iirc it was mostly crossbows which were given the job. Let me know if there's anything you want to add!
I'd like to correct you on 2 points. Crossbows predate plate armour in europe by at least 300 years. And neither bow nor crossbow will penetrate a 15th century breastplate, killing someone in armour sure, but with a shot into the weakpoints not the chest.
Crossbows also have the advantage that you can pass them on to untrained people to reload while shooting another crossbow. Not really useful for general combat, but in something like a siege it could allow a marksman to rapidly shoot.
@@rauhillah3884 Not really correct, Guns also predate plate armour. The first reliable evidence of handcannons is from 1327, while plate armour started to become widespread in the second half of the 14th century and only fully developed towards the end. What you are refering to is the general arms race between weapons and armour. Armour contemporary to firearms was bulletproofed(that's where the term comes from incidently), so guns became more powerfull etc.. But armour was not the reason for the initial invention of guns.
I'd find it interesting for more people to take a look at Chinese crossbows, as they are an interesting design. First off the trigger mechanism is much better than on the European version which means you don't need a huge lever shaped trigger. It also uses what is basically a full size composite bow, so it doesn't have the drawbacks of short draw length.
The real main advantage of crossbows is that they're better to use in movies for scenes where they want the guards to hold up the heroes, and just treat bows as if they're guns (running around with them drawn, holding it drawn for several minutes while the captain talks to the heroes etc)
I just love it how he’s constantly hanging from trees. It’s the last thing you expect (normally), there isn’t any reason to do it other than to show that he can do it, but there he is, hanging upside down a tree shooting a bow once again. 😂 I absolutely love it.
@zenvian693 Fair enough but be honest. If you’re someone who has never seen this guy and click on one of his random bow videos, do you REALLY expect him to start shooting bows hanging upside down from a tree…? 😃
The way he adds that hanging part really shows what a true archer can do. With training and practice a true archer can catch an arrow in hand a flip it and fire it straight back then vanish.
@@blazwings1021 maybe not catch an arrow and send it back (especially if the other side has "true archers" considering both sides would just stalemate) but definitely fire and vanish
I always love your videos because of how resectfully you talk about literally anything. Even when something is impractical or not realistic, you don't blantly call it "stupid". And like in this video right here - you don't say which is better or worse. You showcased the strenghts and weaknesses of both weapons and left it for the viewers to chose their preffered one. That's great! I hope you get more and more viral, we need more educational channels like this. Not to mention that I'd love to see you collab with Shadiversity if they were to do a video related to archery ❤️
I love this channel. Not only are the topics covered interesting, but the tone is always light-hearted and non-judgmental. Oh, and the videos never waste our time with fillers, sponsors, or incessant talk, going straight to the point in fun yet educational ways.
I love it when weapons reviewers/experts will inform you and comment on the differences in different types of weaponry, without belittling it. I love respectful informative education, with an awareness of bias! Thank you so much for this video!
Love it! Definitely down for more longer videos like this one. It never occurred to me that crossbows would be so much harder to load. Also, I highly respect your choice of doing what's more fun and skillful rather than what's "easiest and most efficient". Not that crossbows are even necessarily always that (depending on the skill of the archer)
Crossbows have a lot of advantages in specific scenarios: ambushes, very timing sensitive volleys, extreme long range arms racing in sieged situations, but most of all, having a prepared and immediate shot for assassination or indoor defensive situations. Don't get me wrong, I'd take a bow as well for general use, because they win out in a considerably longer and less niche list of advantages if we imagine any kind of varied combat
Another thing of note would be the variables. You as a person are prone to variables such as the weather, your own health, injuries, what have you. This means that while yes, you can be doing worse than your average due to issues, it also means having a great day means you're even more likely to be good at what you're doing. A crossbow - as you said - is just as it is with the mechanisms in place. So you could be down with the flu but your bolt goes just as hard & fast as if you were at full strength. Again, having a great day means not taking advantage of that potential. Not to prioritise one over the other of course, just great to see the differences and appreciate both for what they are!
On the other hand, if I'm sick then I'm less likely to use any weapon effectively, whether it be a bow, crossbow or even machine gun. Whether it's a fixed mechanism or not, you still have to use it yourself and being sick means you're naturally slower and weaker. You'll aim slower, reload slower, be less steady with your aim.
@@curtisevans8413 Fair, but speaking just as someone who tried archery literal days before, that stuff is tiring. My fingers felt horrible and my arm was shaking after my 4th or 5th shot on my first try, so I can imagine even with the muscles built you would be significantly worse at all the aspects because you'd be weaker, shakier, feeling worse, etc. With a crossbow, you're a bit slower but it hits just as hard
Thank you for providing precise argument both for and against, each weapon, and why you prefer one over the other. I too prefer the bow, over a crossbow.
I have a hunter main character for the story I'm writing and they will very stubbornly stick to their bows no matter how much their peers hype up crossbows lol
Quote from one of my favorite series, Night Angel (character speaking is a master assassin and warrior): “He hated crossbows. They were slow, heavy, and useable by any idiot that can point”
I love that you genuinely discussed pros and cons. If crossbows were garbage, we would likely not even be aware of the concept, because it wouldn’t have caught on.
I agree completely. It's comparable to why muskets were used over bows: shorter training time due to ease of operation despite long reload time. Good archers are valuable, but were phased out in the standardization of the military :(
That is true indeed. Especially the fact that once an archer gets killed, that's years worth of training, gone just like that. Gotta make life easier to win in battle
Matchlocks, the firearms that displaced the bow from English armies, were far from easy to use. Period sources suggest their greater accuracy, penetration power, & ability to shoot from cover were the main reason they took off.
I heard that the reason why early matchlock guns spread despite their short range, low accuracy, low rate of fire, and being unusable on rainy days was the enormous sound that intimidated the enemy, and the power that could hardly be saved if hit.It seems that the actual number of casualties in medieval warfare was much less than what we imagine in movies.It doesn't matter if a person wearing armor is a bow, crossbow, or halberd, but in any case, it takes a lot of effort to completely kill a person. It was hard work, which made fighting in those days somewhat more ritualistic than modern pure slaughter, in which an opponent could have been wounded and surrendered or fled, but the lethality of the gun completely changed that.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 It probably didn't hurt that they were finding it more and more difficult to obtain good quality yew. That takes a long time to grow, and they were using it for bows at an unsustainable rate for centuries. I find it interesting that the people who kept using their bows on foot as well as mounted despite having access to (and making significant use of) firearms were the Chinese. The bows in question had slow arrow speed but massively heavy arrows (almost double the weight of a longbow arrow, and 40" long), and were drawn to the string side shoulder. Between the draw length and their design having a frankly ridiculously good draw force curve, they stored 30-40% more energy for a given draw weight than any other historical bow that I've seen testing of (English longbow, Turkish, Tatar, Korean, and several others).
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Not according to John Smythe :P Fortunately, not everybody in the late 16th Century were Warbow wankists, and people like Robert Barre or Humfrey Barwick showed up and tore Smythe a new one! :D
Thanks for the comparison! I was thinking of a sort of “cyber punk but medieval” world and one of the main cast of characters was going to be a sniper armed with a high tech crossbow. I went with a crossbow because I thought that the high draw weight of a war bow would hold her back, seeing as she’s not that physically imposing. I still think I’ll go with a crossbow, but this will allow me to depict her and her weapon with greater accuracy!
I appreciate the “my choice” bit. If either of these weapons were objectively better, the other wouldn’t have survived for us to know about it. It’s not like comparing 2 hammers either, it’s more like comparing a wrench vs a screwdriver. Similar result and function, different purpose and mechanism
love how you explains both choices of weapon for fantasy setting, this takes me back to the very old game called "Battle Realms" There are 2 clans, and they take a different approach to archery the Dragon clan would train their archers. whereas the Serpent clan would take the shortcut and let their units use the crossbow instead they also mentioned in the game that archers were more skillful and respected for their arts. they're far from weak nor cowards. archer must possess great strength and courage to draw their bow and hold steady while the enemies are closing in. and they can't wear armors because they interfere with their delicate aims But the Serpent clan also bites back that archery took excessive training and they think strength would better be spent in the front lines. you can easily give crossbows to peasants, and they would be ready in days. not weeks. they also prefer it that their crossbowmen are cowards and quick to flee than fight. those crossbows aren't cheap after all
Two big things you didn't mention, that I feel are pretty important, are that crossbow bolts in flight tend to be less stable and lose energy faster than arrows, so they don't work as well at long distances, and that crossbows have the advantage of not exerting the user at full draw. IIRC crossbows were much more useful during sieges and the like, where a crossbowman could peek around the corner and shoot immediately, or shoot the peeking person before they go back in cover. Way tougher to do that with a bow. All in all, they are different weapons that have different uses. You wouldn't argue whether a sword or a spear is better, even though you can stab a bloke with both.
We don't need to argue whether a sword or a spear is better. The answer is obviously the spear since it was a primary weapon along with halberds and pole axes, while swords were a side arm
You find crossbows often depicted in medieval siege scenes. The reason is, you can draw a crossbow and lie in wait behind cover until some head pops up on the other side. You cannot draw a bow and keep it drawn for a longer time, especially the more powerful war bows.
Maneuverability is also a thing. Easier to carry a crossbow like that and shoot around a corner in a tight space. With a bow, better pray you have the room to draw it back.
There's also the exertion factor, sieges were long and drawn out processes. You could spend pretty much all day firing crossbow volleys at the enemy if you wanted to, not so with a war bow.
There would also be others factors: if you're besieges you have limited supplies so every arrow counts, better make crossbow bolts to aim at specific targets instead of arrow clouds ; walls give you protection and space to go crazy with size and have more powerfull weapons ; you want to be able to use the untrained population of your fort.
I tried not to subscribe because I'm not really into archery. But your videos have been popping up for about a week now. You do a really good job at explaining archery and making it interesting. From my point of view some would call it useless knowledge, but I don't really consider any knowledge useless. You got a new sub off this video.
Soeaking of this argument, I'd be interested in seeing you tackle some of the differences between different kinds of bows. Compound bows, for instance. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using a standard or recurve bow versus a compound bow?
Compound bows have a "lock in" zone at full draw that is much easier to hold, better for hunting where you're only taking one shot and want to take your time lining it up but probably more work if you're shooting more than a few shots
@@tieflinglesbian yeah, that's pretty much the trade off with the compound bow, it is easier to hold at full draw, but it is more difficult to draw... so in situations where you are going to be taking fewer shots, but will need to hold each draw for longer, it is a worthwhile trade, but if you are going to be doing rapid fire, probably not.
I'm suddenly reminded of a line from The Legend of Vox Machina when Vex gets tossed a crossbow while in a scenario where the party doesn't have their usual weapons, hers being a longbow: "A trigger? Ew."
Right then *changes character’s weapon to a bow* I’ve always heard crossbows are easier and wondered if the one we had once was just nonsense with the pain of trying to reload it. Glad(?) that wasn’t the case. Also thank you for this channel, lovely to have one dedicated to archery!!!
the one that’s easy to reload was maybe the repeating crossbow, with its magazine that lets you spam low powered bolts rapidly it’s not good against armour at all, but with enough peasants armed with these things with dung/poison-coated bolts, they could be used to defend against people with any body parts exposed by giving them sepsis
I prefer the bow as well. Crossbows are great, too, I just would prefer a bow. Mostly because there is less maintenance and a total of 2 parts or so (not a compound fan)! Longer videos are great, this was a great video!
The most powerful historical crossbows literally had a winch system to draw it because no person could physically do it. It took 30 to 60 seconds per shot with one. Ultimately it's about trade offs. Do you need the maximum possible penetrating power? Or would you rather favor speed or accuracy? Are you trying to train a large group? Or just yourself? Do you have a time limit you have to be ready by? These questions are relevant even if you've already picked bow or crossbow as there are various models specialized for different purposes within each group. An Olympic target bow won't serve a trick shooter or combat archer well. And a sound dampened hunting bow won't be the best option for any of the previous three.
Maybe I missed it, but also a crossbow's power decreases faster over range due to the lack of inertia in the smaller/lighter ammunition fired. So penetrating armor is going to be more consistent over distance with a bow, but more "front-loaded" with a crossbow.
I'm pretty sure war crossbows shot heavier bolts in comparison to arrows. Pistol crossbows shouldn't be compared to full size crossbows. Crossbows are far to varied to just think of them is one.
@@StygianEmperor Heavy crossbow bolts may be shorter than arrows, but they tended to be heavier as well due to their larger diameter (~100 g versus ~70 g for English war arrows and ~30 g for Ottoman war arrows). However, crossbow bolts also had a lot more aerodynamic drag both because of that and their wooden (rather than feather) flights, which made them lose energy much more quickly at longer range. Incidentally, though, there were arrows that were heavier than crossbow bolts, they were just found in the eastern part of Asia. The Japanese and Manchus (and later the Qing Dynasty of China) had long (~40"), extremely heavy (up to 130 g or more) arrows.
@@StygianEmperor Length isn't the only factor. Mass and width also play a role. What makes the biggest difference is that the head of the bolt was more substantial than that of arrow heads. What I don't understand is why those crossbows had such tiny powerstrokes. I'm sure they could of made them have longer ones but the didn't.
@@midgetman4206 mainly because size and mechanical weakness. Crossbows the size they were worked for purpose. anything bigger was a waste of recorces. Cant be sure on this last point but i imagine with a bigger power stroke they might have broke themselves apart over time. or become unreasonable hard to load
I’ve played one character in DnD that used crossbows, because it’s harder to get the proficiency for a longbow, but short bows don’t deal a ton of damage, and she wasn’t really an archer type. We were going for a traditional dungeon delving thing, and at the time, being able to shoot from a long range was less effective than being able to react with your bow, which was made easier by having a crossbow that was already loaded.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on my personal favorite ancient ranged weapon, the sheppard's sling, or simply the sling. I think they are one of the most overlooked weapons in history. However, they take just as much, if not more, training to become proficient with them compared to bows. I like them for their simplicity. they're braided bits of rope that fling stones, or lead bullets if you get fancy with it :). @blumineck, could you do a video comparing these together too??
Crossbow, by virtue of having more parts, also has more points of failure. A bow, you have the bow itself, and the string. You have to physically snap the whole thing in order for it to stop working. A crossbow could jam, or part of it could malfunction, much easier, and then need repairing before it's useful again.
I just wanted to thank you for your content & hard work you put into creating it! I've always wanted to learn archery, so your videos make me a little bit closer to my biggest dream. they inspire me and that's why I'm not giving up 🤧
It is so refreshing to hear someone talk about medieval weapons without claiming that one is useless, and especially also acknowledging that realism isn't always the most important thing in fantasy storytelling
A one handed crossbow (the vast majority of crossbows, honestly), at least in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, isn’t going to do much more than annoy fully armored opponents, unless you get incredibly lucky. You wouldn’t have the volume of fire needed to be effective at all if you’re only loosing one bolt.
Depends on the armor. Despite in the video him saying a heavy crossbow could pierce heavy armor, real life plate armor tended to be ballistic-proof aside from the gaps under the arms and such. This was due both to the strength of the metal and the curvature in the plate, which basically led to them glancing off. If it was heavy infantry vs. heavy infantry, chances of either taking out members from the other party would be extremely low.
You’re likely to lose or damage crossbows doing what you described. Also only the first and or second ranks of infantry would be able to fire them. Much better to mimic the Romans and give them a Pilum spear
@@waylander9265because a huge chunk of wood and bronze flying through the air is gonna pack a sizeable wallop. even if the personnel damage is minimal, thats a very big chunk of deformed metal and wood weighing you and/or your shield down.
I remember going to some summer camp place with my church or school as a kid. One of the activities available to us was the archery range. Although that was my only exposure to archery, I very much enjoyed it. Wish I had followed up on that interest...
Some advantages of the crossbow are also negated under some circumstances, high weight crossbows take almost as much time to reload as a ballista sometimes! I love them both, but for an archer character that needs to be versatile, I think you’re mostly fine with having your artificer make you an instant legolas, and just keeping it in your pack for a battle where you need it
Bow for Strength/dexterity users, crossbow for intelligence/faith/arcana users since bolts doesn't scale from stats as long as you can use the crossbow.
Crossbow advantages: 1. Much easier to aim accurately and inherently more accurate. 2. Greater maximum energy even accounting for shorter draw. 3. Can be held at full draw. 4. Short fat bolt unlikely to buckle on impact, meaning more effective against armor. 5. Can be fired with one hand after loading with two, allowing a secondary such as a tower shield. 6. Easier to become skilled with. 7. Strength and technique less of an issue to use high power versions. 8. More compact form factor. 9. Typically pretty durable. You could parry with it or even use it as a melee weapon. 10. Much fewer handedness problems. 11. Low ammo consumption rate due to accuracy and limited fire rate. Bow advantages: 1. High rate of fire. 2. Can be used with two hands, no levers or feet. 3. Mechanically simple. 4. Simple one can be made without any tools. 5. Long thin shaft and sharp point give it unreasonably good penetration against soft targets. 6. Excellent effective range against area targets.
Very pleased to see that this video 100% agrees with the information I received in a Ranger's Apprentice book and internalized years ago. 😂 I love explaining this to people. Personally I also prefer traditional bows though I do have one of those baby crossbows and they do have their uses.
From what I understand, crossbow is more efficient when you’re fielding an army. The little training required means that you’re limited by production. It’s like the German vs Russian tanks in ww2. Would you rather have 5000 archers or 25000 crossbow men? Not to mention, losing 1 archer means all that time of training him is lost, but losing 1 crossbow man means just giving the crossbow to the next man down the line.
There's a few misconceptions here. Peasants trained in the use of bows could be found almost anywhere. Look into any medieval village and you'll find several huntsmen who can shoot a bow at targets as small as fowl and rabbits. Meanwhile, crossbows were almost exclusively the weapons of mercenaries: professional, highly-paid soldiers. And similarly, crossbows themselves were more expensive to make and buy: nobody would just "give" a crossbow to a peasant. Throughout most of the middleages, a person levied into a medieval army had to buy their own equipment.
@@kubaGR8 While the peasantry used bow for hunting, I'm pretty sure war bows were wildly harder to use. I remember reading that it takes a lot of training specific muscles to be able to even pull back the string. It's this training of muscle that makes crossbow more efficient as it requires less of it, meaning that any soldier that had decent strength to pull a crossbow and aim could be given one, unlike the bow which requires specialized training for months.
This elf has obviously watched Top Gear his entire childhood spent in the woods, this is where he got both his archery (woods) and presentation (Jeremy) skills. I just love his manner and intonations
Spoken like a true Ranger, brother. Ranger was my first D&D and Pathfinder class and archery has been the only sport I’ve stuck with over my life time. Crossbows are awesome but, for me, quintessential skill with a bow is unmatched. A good friend of mine runs the Gunslinger class in Pathfinder and we always have this inter-party Bow vs Gun rivalry of seeing who can pull off the most wicked ranged stunts. Would be down with posting a video (within your legal limits, naturally) about how you as an archer would approach conflict against an opponent with firearms semi-realistically and from a fantasy point of view? Completely understand if limitations would prevent this or it wouldn’t be your cup of tea. Love your content.
I think there was a type of early crossbow called the “gastraphetes” from “gastro” meaning stomach, because you’d have to rest it on your stomach while reloading.
I actually really like crossbows, their whole design and purpose is so cool! Archers have a lot more flexibility but it takes a long time to learn them, but I think those key differences is why the crossbow became so popular in the first place.
I remember my first time shooting a bow. A crossbow in comparison is like driving a luxury car, that is comfy and easy to drive with all the technical and electronical helpers. You will get there reasonably fast, but it will not beat a true race car with a skilled driver. The crossbow is for the masses. You can teach a person to use it in a few minutes and they will be able to reasonably hit the target. Put a little more time in, and you have yourself a fighter. Now, if you need 100 of these quickly, the choice is easy. Kinda the 20/80 principal. Of course a skilled user can handle a bow in many more different situations and can adapt to the enviorment. That is much more important for such a specialized force. The question for the right tool is always a question of ressourcemanagement.
How come, then, that the English army at Patay consisted of mostly archers, who vastly outnumbered the mercenary crossbowmen fielded by the French? It seems strange that, despite being a weapon of the masses, crossbows themselves always seem to be used by mercenaries: i.e. professional soldiers.
For my money the biggest advantage of the crossbow is that you can effectively "hold" the shot whilst aiming more easily than a regular bow. Again it makes it simpler to use and to aim for a lot of people. And a lot of tools exist to help the crossbowman get speed into their shots etc. But you are completely right about the versatility of the bows. I would also say that crossbows are probably much more analogous to muskets in terms of their use so retraining crossbowmen to musketeers is potentially simpler than retraining bowmen, and you lose much less of the cost sunk into getting the good archers. But the advantages in power of the crossbow really scale up well with size as you can go far beyond the power in a single person, hence why ballistas and the like are basically giant crossbows.
For those curious, the historical way that crossbowmen got around the "slow reload" issue was that crossbowmen usually worked in teams of people (especially during sieges). The crossbowman would fire their shot then get handed an already loaded new crossbow. They could have like 3-4 crossbows prepared in this way. And while being handed a new crossbow to fire, the rest of the crossbowman's team would be reloading the spent bolts. In this way, the rate of fire for a crossbow would be comparable to the rate of fire of a longbowman. This is likely where the idea of people having multiple single shot pistols came from (for example Edward Teach, Blackbeard)
Theoretically though, this difference shifts over time, and in certain locations. In medieval days, carrying a bow into battle works great, and in most ways outclasses any crossbow of the time. Fast forward to Victorian era, and suddenly you’re trying to carry a bow around through a city, at a time when crossbows are a lot closer to guns than they are to bows. There’s no true definitive answer here, and that’s why both ideas have stuck around so long. Great video, by the way
Loved the assessment bro, fair and accurate, always found Crossbows are better for overall power/accuracy but not for efficiency, especially in skilled hands
I made kinda recently a video analysis of Resident Evil 4 Remake from the point of view of the crossbow that Leon uses. I learned so much about the history of it! I had no idea that one of the oldest crossbows is the Cho-Ko-Nu and, as you said, it was a weapon that anyone could use since, unlike a regular crossbow/pistol bow, it's a repeating one so you don't have that issue of the reloading since you can shoot many bolts, super fast and kinda accurately. The downside is that it wasn't as powerful as a regular crossbow and nowhere near good as a bow. In fact, this wasn't a weapon used in war at all, it was a defensive weapon used by peasents. The damage was low and it wasn't that accurate but if you have 20 or 30 people using it at the same time, it could be dangerous by just the sheer amount of bolts. Also, whether is a repeatin' crossbow or a regular one, one of the deadliest thing that you could do is coat the tip of the bolt with some type of poison and as long as one of those bolts hit you and creates a wound, you will eventually succumb to that poison!
When I was young, PBS had a ton of very weird random shows playing in the middle of the day. One I saw once was a medieval news show complete with commercials. This reminds me of the commercial for a crossbow.
Hmmm saw 2 shorts and this first youtube video (atleast i watched it as a youtube video and not a short) 3 out of 3 Videos i found interesting. I do enjoy this kind of content. I think you sir deserve another follower! and subbed! good job keep up the work
100% agree with all of your statements. You left one advantage of the crossbow off, that I think I a big one. The ability to pre-draw the crossbow and leave it drawn for an extended period has HUGE implications on usage. In a military setting, this facilitates a "peekaboo" tactic, even sharing a single shooting position with multiple crossbowmen. In hunting, it facilitates perched shots in a way a bow never could. Both of these are boring and unskilled benefits, and yet make the actual usefulness of a crossbow far better for a wider array of users.
A game I love called Oriental Empires a 4X game like Civilization covers this. Once you get crossbows, it explains that it’s more expensive, but much quicker to raise a militia with, as crossbows don’t require as much training like you said. And the solution for it being so difficult to reload, it was the practice at the time that if you had some, you had lots, and overwhelmed the enemy with just storms of crossbow bolts. That is until the Chu No Ku was invented (no, Zhuge Liang didn’t invent it, he just popularized it, it was around during the Chu Dynasty) and it became mainstream. You should do a video on said repeating crossbow if you haven’t already!
Admittedly my only experience on this front is Mount and Blade, but they were both damn effective in making someone stop existing before they got anywhere near you, which is all I wanted as a fledgling mercenary throwing down with kings and lords.
It's not about "Which one is better?", it's about "Which one is better for me? Or for you?". Due to both having their advantages and disadvantages, they're both equally matched. Also when you talked about speed on reloading a crossbow, in the ancient times, there were crossbows with lighter strings that made them faster to reload by hand, in ancient China there were the repeating crossbows that have loading boxes you fill with arrows, and then you move a lever to fire one arrow after the other repeatedly.
A big part of archery in the middle ages was piercing armour. It was a long arms race of bows and crossbows being made to break through armour while armor was being developed to better resist arrows. This eventually went on until firearms started to be developed. Just a tube with a ball and powder. Didn't have the accuracy or range of a bow or crossbow but could puncture armor easily (as they improved on them ofc, they weren't always able to get through armour.) So armies gradually got rid of armour for lighter uniforms that were cheaper and more recognizable in the smoke.
With a crossbow i could see a similar strategy to musket fighting. Fire a bolt and step back and reload the guy behind you will fire his bolt and you switch again back and fourth
Very informative vid cuz. I like the fact the you didn’t make your choice a bias decision but not only listed but showed the ways in which both can be good but ended with this is my choice.
I like that you end it with "this is my choice," not "this is better."
because it isnt better. bows and crossbows are situational
@@sweetea6550right. If you want to turn people into a replaceable part and not have to worry about individuals, crossbows are better.
If you want to prevent such a society, a bow makes more sense
@@marvalice3455 You can also look at it from a reverse perspective. If you want to engender a caste of people within your society who feel superior and entitled to better treatment purely because they have the resources and leisure time to focus on military training, you use the bow. If you want people to feel equally valued in said society regardless of whether their contribution is martial or economic, the crossbow is better.
I was just about to say this! I like how he said that at the end.
Eh i like crossbow coz its a smaller balista
A friend and I actually made a crossbow for a school engineering project once. It had about a 60 pound draw weight with no power at all, but it felt awesome to shoot something we built from scratch!
I bet! I think that's what always fascinated me about crossbow fantasy characters, they'd usually be the techy ones, the builders or engineers.
Speaking of that, a good slingshot can be incredibly fun
the main advantage of the crossbow is the low training needed and that it can be held ready rather than holding the bow at draw.
This is also the same reason guns won out over both crossbows and bows, because they are very easy to train on, ammunition is much smaller and easier to carry large amounts of, and they had power and range advantage over the average crossbow
@@realmofrandom3696 Well that and chemical energy eventually winning out over tension
@@realmofrandom3696Exactly, the flimsiest human on the planet can pull a gun trigger but wouldn't be able to do anything with a bow
5HEAD comment section here
which is also why it's a superior 'toy' you feel much more cooler shooting a bow than a crossbow
Fascinating video, I always thought of crossbows as the medieval equivalent of guns, they shoot in a straight line with a lot of force, they can be reloaded without shooting, and they are shot via trigger. I never realised how versatile normal bows were though.
Warbows were actually much stronger.
There is a video on the matter by a guy who recreates medieval things. If you write "longbow vs crossbow" by Tod's Workshop you'll find the video
Also, in the case of longbows you can teach most people how to make them in like a day, Will it be a full 180 lb draw weight monster? Probably not, but an archer without a bow is useless. So even if they can only make one, that's a 60 lb draw weight that is still better than nothing
The crossbow can be hold ready to shoot like a gun
@@BioTheHumanno they are not stronger at all also you need a lot of train
@@heldermonteiro2718 and if you have well trained war archers then yeah sure the first shot from a crossbow can get out quicker than from a bow, but every shot after that, the bow will dramatically outspeed the crossbow assuming you have a well-trained war archers. In the second Lord of the rings movie when they're defending Helms keep, the fire rate of the mass archers is about accurate and there is no way you're going to maintain that kind of a fire rate with a crossbow.
I like that you didn't just rag on the crossbow but actually compared the two with advantages and disadvantages.
They both have their place! Crossbows do scare me though
Yeah that’s what I liked about it as well! A very good argument, not what passes as “debates” now lol. It was polite and gave advantages and disadvantages of each. But most of all left the choice to the situation and person.
In The Wheel of Time books there is actually a quite nice exploration of crossbows vs bows. It brings up the points of how you need to train longer for bows: The only group of prominent bow users by the end of the series are the "Two Rivers men" who are farmers and livestock herders who live in the woods and learn the bow from childhood to hunt. We never see anyone train to learn the bow but we see people training whole new armies of crossbowmen. in one of my favorite battles in book 11 a general who has to run with his army out of enemy territory, abuses the fact that they have new crossbows that shoot 8 bolts per minute instead of the common 3 per minute to make is army seem much larger by how many bolts they fire in a given time and information not traveling very well in that setting.
IIRC, that's the book where the Band of the Red Hand wins a battle with no casualties, effectively by creating a ranged Roman Tortoise formation with shields and crossbows.
I'm so glad I found a Wheel of Time comment in this thread!!!
They should just use telepathic wizards for communications
I don't think telepathy ever appeared in the series, though dream communication did. Also, a group of wizards dumped a volcano on an army of trollocs, once.
I would take the stuff in wheel of time with a grain of salt. Robert Jordan wasn't very well versed in medieval warfare. A lot of his descriptions sound more like WW2 tactics.
I personally prefer the crossbow but to argue that one is better than the other is to misunderstand the utility of both.
Absolutely! Preferences are preferences, and we're all entitled to them!
Matchlock musket and pike for the win.
@@als3022 you're a few hundred years too early and will not survive the winter
@@als3022 Don't forget the bayonet.
@@Goblinoiddoof I am in the Caribbean, what is this winter you speak of?
My fantasy for the two is different, and seemingly in line with the reality. Mastering the bow is about the archer, a skilled person who can take any bow and push it to it's limits, like how a brass instrument player learns how to make the instrument shapes sound so theycan use it intuitively. A crossbow user is never mainly a marksman when I make characters, they're a tinkerer. They make their tool and it becomes their baby, skill is reflectes in the weapon rather than it's use, although usually I also have the x-bow be tailored to the user to where others may struggle fully utilizing it. In a way it's more like a music producer, they may not play any analogue instruments, but they understand how to combine various sounds and effects to produce art, and often make their own instruments based on tweaking synths and effects.
Neither is better, rather both are worthy disciplines thatrequire both discipline and experience.
Basically this.
Both apply their expertise in different things to achieve mastery.
The real potential lies in how far you can intersect the two disciplines.
Does the archer become a bowyer and fletcher himself? Crafting his own bespoke bow and specific-use arrows.
Does the crossbowman push the limits of his marksmanship by training his athleticism? Firing on the move and in unorthodox positions.
@@MansMan42069 That's a good point, like you could make an engineer bow archer in a sci fi setting that makes his own trick arrows like what superheroes use. Or even make arrows that have mini flight computers to do micro adjustments to hit a target when you can't miss a certain shot etc.
Then there's engineering of the bow itself which can be already be seen in the real world with the tech of olympic recurve bows.
ua-cam.com/video/qmHqA_dSJ6I/v-deo.html
Another important advantage of crossbows is that you can have it "ready" more or less forever before pulling the trigger when you want to shoot. An archer needs to first draw the bow and expose more of his body until an arrow can be shot. This makes crossbows a very effective defensive weapon if you're shooting from a wall during a siege for example. It's also why many crossbowmen carried comically large shields that were basically portable walls; such as the famous crossbowmen of Genoa.
Isn't the crossbow going to lose power if you have it "loaded" for a long time?
@@lipowka3356yea. Eventually the arms/string are gonna stretch and deform into that loaded position but it will likely take a long time, especially if it’s a heavier crossbow. So if you’re under siege you could have the crossbow loaded the entire time just in case you need a quick bolt
It is marginally easier and safer for crossbow the main advantage is space. You can get far more crossbow men on a wall than archers safely. This is why crossbow men are used primarily for defense and archers for offense as you can have far more archers further away
@@johnfijnvandraatI don’t see how an archer would take up more space than a crossbowman, could you explain?
@@lipowka3356after a couple of days or weeks-maybe, but not after hours
I like the comparison between the two. Indeed, when I first started learning how to shoot a bow, I had no clue how to aim properly and my shots went everywhere BUT the target.
Where bow archery is more of an art, crossbows and modern firearms (not counting the wildly inaccurate flintlocks), are more of a science.
Where you shoot where the sights are aiming, and if you’re a little bit off, you make small adjustments and corrections based on where the shots are hitting. Makes them easier to learn than bows.
While your comment is a couple months old, i still have the urge to write a quick correction.
Calling a flintlock wildly inaccurate compared to crossbows is simply inaccurate. You could still effectively engange targets up to a 100m distance with for example a musket. While there was a significant chance of each individual shot to miss, the same would be true with a bow or crossbow.
Additionally flintlock only refers to the ignition system of the weapon, more important for accuracy was whether the barrel was rifled or smooth.
Rifles were first developed in the 15th century, although they wouldn't be widely adopted until the 18th century.
If you are interested in a more thorough look at the accuracy of muskets Brandon F. has made some Videos on the topic.
@@blacktemplar2323 That’s fair I guess. I’m not a gun nut, so I’ll concede if someone knows more than I do.
Though my original point remains the same. Archery is an Art, but Crossbow/Firearm marksmanship is more of a science.
@@maximumdon7637 I agree with that point wholehartedly, i just have a strong dislike for the vast amount of disinformation that is spread about early firearms.
@@blacktemplar2323 Well thank you for correcting me.
This makes so much sense. In Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the Uruk-hai army uses crossbows, becasue their soldiers were literally born within the last few months. Where everyone else who had generations to train their archers, from the Gondorians to the Rhohirrim and even the Orcs, all use war bows.
I only just thought of this reading your comment, but in the Uruk-hai’s case, it could also possibly be viewed as another example of Saruman’s forces being a metaphor for industrialization - the more mechanical, “less artful” crossbow contrasts the Elves and their wooden bows, which they’ve mastered the use of after thousands of years.
Damn they really were thorough when they made the lotr movies weren't they?
@@ZakuroTLbruh saruman at the end of the books literally industrializes the shire (then gets murked)
But the one who shot Boromir used a bow
@@maximus3159that’s a ‘special unit’ case though. The epic hero units always have something to show them as better.
My day started very badly but your passion for archery helped me to feel better ! Your general chill attitude is real effective for those problems
I love the way you demonstrate what you're saying as you explain. I've learned so much about archery from this channel and it's awesome!
Thanks! I'm a very visual learner so I try to provide explanations that would work for me!
Same 😊
Honestly this channel is so underrated, really good content
Thank you! Tell your friends, I guess!
It's also important to remember that crossbows were historically created in an age and place where plate armor was making some people nigh-invincible (or so thought) and sieges were one of the major locations that weapon innovation needed to happen. For that bill, crossbows fit perfectly. Some schmuck who's trained for ten days can kill an armored target by shooting them in the chest from on top of a wall, thirty meters away. As well, the fact you pre-load crossbows makes them superior in a siege where you have plenty of time to reload behind a wall, but not necessarily to aim outside of cover. They're more bang for proverbial buck in terms of wood as well, which was actually a consideration in some of the longer sieges. So while bows are - if you're skilled - usually better in many cases, the specific scenario that crossbows were created in made them a hot commodity for the time.
Hope this makes sense, and I know war bows can pierce some armors too, but at the time iirc it was mostly crossbows which were given the job.
Let me know if there's anything you want to add!
I'd like to correct you on 2 points.
Crossbows predate plate armour in europe by at least 300 years.
And neither bow nor crossbow will penetrate a 15th century breastplate, killing someone in armour sure, but with a shot into the weakpoints not the chest.
Crossbows also have the advantage that you can pass them on to untrained people to reload while shooting another crossbow. Not really useful for general combat, but in something like a siege it could allow a marksman to rapidly shoot.
@@Lohgossthat's when gunpowder weapon invented, tvtropes told me about arquebus invented to penetrate those thick armor.
@@rauhillah3884 Not really correct, Guns also predate plate armour. The first reliable evidence of handcannons is from 1327, while plate armour started to become widespread in the second half of the 14th century and only fully developed towards the end. What you are refering to is the general arms race between weapons and armour. Armour contemporary to firearms was bulletproofed(that's where the term comes from incidently), so guns became more powerfull etc.. But armour was not the reason for the initial invention of guns.
I'd find it interesting for more people to take a look at Chinese crossbows, as they are an interesting design.
First off the trigger mechanism is much better than on the European version which means you don't need a huge lever shaped trigger.
It also uses what is basically a full size composite bow, so it doesn't have the drawbacks of short draw length.
The real main advantage of crossbows is that they're better to use in movies for scenes where they want the guards to hold up the heroes, and just treat bows as if they're guns (running around with them drawn, holding it drawn for several minutes while the captain talks to the heroes etc)
Isn't that what lances do?
I just love it how he’s constantly hanging from trees. It’s the last thing you expect (normally), there isn’t any reason to do it other than to show that he can do it, but there he is, hanging upside down a tree shooting a bow once again. 😂 I absolutely love it.
@zenvian693 Fair enough but be honest. If you’re someone who has never seen this guy and click on one of his random bow videos, do you REALLY expect him to start shooting bows hanging upside down from a tree…? 😃
@zenvian693 That answers a question, just not the question I asked 😂 it’s ok though
The way he adds that hanging part really shows what a true archer can do. With training and practice a true archer can catch an arrow in hand a flip it and fire it straight back then vanish.
@@blazwings1021 maybe not catch an arrow and send it back (especially if the other side has "true archers" considering both sides would just stalemate) but definitely fire and vanish
@@blazwings1021
who told you this?
I always love your videos because of how resectfully you talk about literally anything. Even when something is impractical or not realistic, you don't blantly call it "stupid". And like in this video right here - you don't say which is better or worse. You showcased the strenghts and weaknesses of both weapons and left it for the viewers to chose their preffered one. That's great! I hope you get more and more viral, we need more educational channels like this.
Not to mention that I'd love to see you collab with Shadiversity if they were to do a video related to archery ❤️
I love this channel. Not only are the topics covered interesting, but the tone is always light-hearted and non-judgmental. Oh, and the videos never waste our time with fillers, sponsors, or incessant talk, going straight to the point in fun yet educational ways.
Definitely appreciate the longer form! I came from your shorts looking for some arrow science and real-life testing, so I'd love to see more!
I love it when weapons reviewers/experts will inform you and comment on the differences in different types of weaponry, without belittling it. I love respectful informative education, with an awareness of bias! Thank you so much for this video!
Love it! Definitely down for more longer videos like this one.
It never occurred to me that crossbows would be so much harder to load. Also, I highly respect your choice of doing what's more fun and skillful rather than what's "easiest and most efficient". Not that crossbows are even necessarily always that (depending on the skill of the archer)
Crossbows have a lot of advantages in specific scenarios: ambushes, very timing sensitive volleys, extreme long range arms racing in sieged situations, but most of all, having a prepared and immediate shot for assassination or indoor defensive situations. Don't get me wrong, I'd take a bow as well for general use, because they win out in a considerably longer and less niche list of advantages if we imagine any kind of varied combat
😂😂😂
Nice summary!
"Draweth thy sh.. ot..."
@@zetprimordial7087 What's so funny?
Great summary. It's all up to finding the best tool for the job at hand.
You’re such an amazing educator! The Royal Armouries up in Leeds should totally hire you, your practical knowledge of bows is incredible.
Another thing of note would be the variables. You as a person are prone to variables such as the weather, your own health, injuries, what have you. This means that while yes, you can be doing worse than your average due to issues, it also means having a great day means you're even more likely to be good at what you're doing. A crossbow - as you said - is just as it is with the mechanisms in place. So you could be down with the flu but your bolt goes just as hard & fast as if you were at full strength. Again, having a great day means not taking advantage of that potential.
Not to prioritise one over the other of course, just great to see the differences and appreciate both for what they are!
On the other hand, if I'm sick then I'm less likely to use any weapon effectively, whether it be a bow, crossbow or even machine gun. Whether it's a fixed mechanism or not, you still have to use it yourself and being sick means you're naturally slower and weaker. You'll aim slower, reload slower, be less steady with your aim.
@@curtisevans8413 Fair, but speaking just as someone who tried archery literal days before, that stuff is tiring. My fingers felt horrible and my arm was shaking after my 4th or 5th shot on my first try, so I can imagine even with the muscles built you would be significantly worse at all the aspects because you'd be weaker, shakier, feeling worse, etc. With a crossbow, you're a bit slower but it hits just as hard
Thank you for providing precise argument both for and against, each weapon, and why you prefer one over the other. I too prefer the bow, over a crossbow.
I have a Ranger character that gets disgusted at the mention of crossbows. He would be very pleased to see this video 😆
Haha I love it when characters just have a preference and stick to it!
Sounds like a totally fun character to be around with....
I have a hunter main character for the story I'm writing and they will very stubbornly stick to their bows no matter how much their peers hype up crossbows lol
Quote from one of my favorite series, Night Angel (character speaking is a master assassin and warrior): “He hated crossbows. They were slow, heavy, and useable by any idiot that can point”
I haven't played any game where I preferred crossbows over bows 😂 wish I knew how to shoot bows in real life though 😊
I love that you genuinely discussed pros and cons. If crossbows were garbage, we would likely not even be aware of the concept, because it wouldn’t have caught on.
I agree completely. It's comparable to why muskets were used over bows: shorter training time due to ease of operation despite long reload time. Good archers are valuable, but were phased out in the standardization of the military :(
That is true indeed. Especially the fact that once an archer gets killed, that's years worth of training, gone just like that. Gotta make life easier to win in battle
Matchlocks, the firearms that displaced the bow from English armies, were far from easy to use. Period sources suggest their greater accuracy, penetration power, & ability to shoot from cover were the main reason they took off.
I heard that the reason why early matchlock guns spread despite their short range, low accuracy, low rate of fire, and being unusable on rainy days was the enormous sound that intimidated the enemy, and the power that could hardly be saved if hit.It seems that the actual number of casualties in medieval warfare was much less than what we imagine in movies.It doesn't matter if a person wearing armor is a bow, crossbow, or halberd, but in any case, it takes a lot of effort to completely kill a person. It was hard work, which made fighting in those days somewhat more ritualistic than modern pure slaughter, in which an opponent could have been wounded and surrendered or fled, but the lethality of the gun completely changed that.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 It probably didn't hurt that they were finding it more and more difficult to obtain good quality yew. That takes a long time to grow, and they were using it for bows at an unsustainable rate for centuries.
I find it interesting that the people who kept using their bows on foot as well as mounted despite having access to (and making significant use of) firearms were the Chinese. The bows in question had slow arrow speed but massively heavy arrows (almost double the weight of a longbow arrow, and 40" long), and were drawn to the string side shoulder. Between the draw length and their design having a frankly ridiculously good draw force curve, they stored 30-40% more energy for a given draw weight than any other historical bow that I've seen testing of (English longbow, Turkish, Tatar, Korean, and several others).
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Not according to John Smythe :P
Fortunately, not everybody in the late 16th Century were Warbow wankists, and people like Robert Barre or Humfrey Barwick showed up and tore Smythe a new one! :D
Thanks for the comparison! I was thinking of a sort of “cyber punk but medieval” world and one of the main cast of characters was going to be a sniper armed with a high tech crossbow. I went with a crossbow because I thought that the high draw weight of a war bow would hold her back, seeing as she’s not that physically imposing.
I still think I’ll go with a crossbow, but this will allow me to depict her and her weapon with greater accuracy!
I appreciate the “my choice” bit. If either of these weapons were objectively better, the other wouldn’t have survived for us to know about it. It’s not like comparing 2 hammers either, it’s more like comparing a wrench vs a screwdriver. Similar result and function, different purpose and mechanism
Realistically speaking, this is a really well made video.
What a great video explaining in details the big differences between bows and crossbows, without devaluating either ❤
All of my questions and history I needed to know answered instantly. Amazing video you should be very proud of your knowledge
love how you explains both choices of weapon
for fantasy setting, this takes me back to the very old game called "Battle Realms"
There are 2 clans, and they take a different approach to archery
the Dragon clan would train their archers.
whereas the Serpent clan would take the shortcut and let their units use the crossbow instead
they also mentioned in the game that archers were more skillful and respected for their arts. they're far from weak nor cowards. archer must possess great strength and courage to draw their bow and hold steady while the enemies are closing in. and they can't wear armors because they interfere with their delicate aims
But the Serpent clan also bites back that archery took excessive training and they think strength would better be spent in the front lines. you can easily give crossbows to peasants, and they would be ready in days. not weeks. they also prefer it that their crossbowmen are cowards and quick to flee than fight. those crossbows aren't cheap after all
Two big things you didn't mention, that I feel are pretty important, are that crossbow bolts in flight tend to be less stable and lose energy faster than arrows, so they don't work as well at long distances, and that crossbows have the advantage of not exerting the user at full draw. IIRC crossbows were much more useful during sieges and the like, where a crossbowman could peek around the corner and shoot immediately, or shoot the peeking person before they go back in cover. Way tougher to do that with a bow.
All in all, they are different weapons that have different uses. You wouldn't argue whether a sword or a spear is better, even though you can stab a bloke with both.
We don't need to argue whether a sword or a spear is better. The answer is obviously the spear since it was a primary weapon along with halberds and pole axes, while swords were a side arm
You find crossbows often depicted in medieval siege scenes.
The reason is, you can draw a crossbow and lie in wait behind cover until some head pops up on the other side.
You cannot draw a bow and keep it drawn for a longer time, especially the more powerful war bows.
Maneuverability is also a thing. Easier to carry a crossbow like that and shoot around a corner in a tight space. With a bow, better pray you have the room to draw it back.
There's also the exertion factor, sieges were long and drawn out processes. You could spend pretty much all day firing crossbow volleys at the enemy if you wanted to, not so with a war bow.
It's also because, outside of the Genoese Crossbowmen, you don't really find crossbows depicted much outside of sieges at all.
There would also be others factors: if you're besieges you have limited supplies so every arrow counts, better make crossbow bolts to aim at specific targets instead of arrow clouds ; walls give you protection and space to go crazy with size and have more powerfull weapons ; you want to be able to use the untrained population of your fort.
I tried not to subscribe because I'm not really into archery. But your videos have been popping up for about a week now. You do a really good job at explaining archery and making it interesting. From my point of view some would call it useless knowledge, but I don't really consider any knowledge useless. You got a new sub off this video.
Soeaking of this argument, I'd be interested in seeing you tackle some of the differences between different kinds of bows. Compound bows, for instance. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using a standard or recurve bow versus a compound bow?
Compound bows have a "lock in" zone at full draw that is much easier to hold, better for hunting where you're only taking one shot and want to take your time lining it up but probably more work if you're shooting more than a few shots
@@tieflinglesbian yeah, that's pretty much the trade off with the compound bow, it is easier to hold at full draw, but it is more difficult to draw... so in situations where you are going to be taking fewer shots, but will need to hold each draw for longer, it is a worthwhile trade, but if you are going to be doing rapid fire, probably not.
From admiring your knowledge to blushing with excitement when you shoot upside down, absolutely love your videos!
I'm suddenly reminded of a line from The Legend of Vox Machina when Vex gets tossed a crossbow while in a scenario where the party doesn't have their usual weapons, hers being a longbow: "A trigger? Ew."
Right then *changes character’s weapon to a bow*
I’ve always heard crossbows are easier and wondered if the one we had once was just nonsense with the pain of trying to reload it. Glad(?) that wasn’t the case. Also thank you for this channel, lovely to have one dedicated to archery!!!
the one that’s easy to reload was maybe the repeating crossbow, with its magazine that lets you spam low powered bolts rapidly
it’s not good against armour at all, but with enough peasants armed with these things with dung/poison-coated bolts, they could be used to defend against people with any body parts exposed by giving them sepsis
I prefer the bow as well. Crossbows are great, too, I just would prefer a bow. Mostly because there is less maintenance and a total of 2 parts or so (not a compound fan)! Longer videos are great, this was a great video!
Thank you for the feedback! I love my bows, regardless of which is more practical!
“My choice” is the best way to put it. Neither is objectively better, they’re designed for different scenarios
Beautifully said.
Thank you!
The most powerful historical crossbows literally had a winch system to draw it because no person could physically do it. It took 30 to 60 seconds per shot with one.
Ultimately it's about trade offs. Do you need the maximum possible penetrating power? Or would you rather favor speed or accuracy? Are you trying to train a large group? Or just yourself? Do you have a time limit you have to be ready by?
These questions are relevant even if you've already picked bow or crossbow as there are various models specialized for different purposes within each group. An Olympic target bow won't serve a trick shooter or combat archer well. And a sound dampened hunting bow won't be the best option for any of the previous three.
Maybe I missed it, but also a crossbow's power decreases faster over range due to the lack of inertia in the smaller/lighter ammunition fired. So penetrating armor is going to be more consistent over distance with a bow, but more "front-loaded" with a crossbow.
I'm pretty sure war crossbows shot heavier bolts in comparison to arrows. Pistol crossbows shouldn't be compared to full size crossbows. Crossbows are far to varied to just think of them is one.
@@midgetman4206 i’m not. even arbalest bolts are tiny compared to arrows
@@StygianEmperor Heavy crossbow bolts may be shorter than arrows, but they tended to be heavier as well due to their larger diameter (~100 g versus ~70 g for English war arrows and ~30 g for Ottoman war arrows). However, crossbow bolts also had a lot more aerodynamic drag both because of that and their wooden (rather than feather) flights, which made them lose energy much more quickly at longer range.
Incidentally, though, there were arrows that were heavier than crossbow bolts, they were just found in the eastern part of Asia. The Japanese and Manchus (and later the Qing Dynasty of China) had long (~40"), extremely heavy (up to 130 g or more) arrows.
@@StygianEmperor Length isn't the only factor. Mass and width also play a role. What makes the biggest difference is that the head of the bolt was more substantial than that of arrow heads.
What I don't understand is why those crossbows had such tiny powerstrokes. I'm sure they could of made them have longer ones but the didn't.
@@midgetman4206 mainly because size and mechanical weakness. Crossbows the size they were worked for purpose. anything bigger was a waste of recorces.
Cant be sure on this last point but i imagine with a bigger power stroke they might have broke themselves apart over time. or become unreasonable hard to load
I’ve played one character in DnD that used crossbows, because it’s harder to get the proficiency for a longbow, but short bows don’t deal a ton of damage, and she wasn’t really an archer type. We were going for a traditional dungeon delving thing, and at the time, being able to shoot from a long range was less effective than being able to react with your bow, which was made easier by having a crossbow that was already loaded.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on my personal favorite ancient ranged weapon, the sheppard's sling, or simply the sling. I think they are one of the most overlooked weapons in history. However, they take just as much, if not more, training to become proficient with them compared to bows. I like them for their simplicity. they're braided bits of rope that fling stones, or lead bullets if you get fancy with it :). @blumineck, could you do a video comparing these together too??
I find it fascinating the concept that archers were trained across generations!
Crossbow, by virtue of having more parts, also has more points of failure. A bow, you have the bow itself, and the string. You have to physically snap the whole thing in order for it to stop working. A crossbow could jam, or part of it could malfunction, much easier, and then need repairing before it's useful again.
I just wanted to thank you for your content & hard work you put into creating it! I've always wanted to learn archery, so your videos make me a little bit closer to my biggest dream. they inspire me and that's why I'm not giving up 🤧
it's training time vs. Troop quality
That's how I see it! It's why the two coexisted for so long, because they both have advantages
It is so refreshing to hear someone talk about medieval weapons without claiming that one is useless, and especially also acknowledging that realism isn't always the most important thing in fantasy storytelling
I could see them being used for heavy infantry. Just a quick shot from a 1-handed crossbow to pierce some nearby armour before engaging in melee.
A one handed crossbow (the vast majority of crossbows, honestly), at least in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, isn’t going to do much more than annoy fully armored opponents, unless you get incredibly lucky. You wouldn’t have the volume of fire needed to be effective at all if you’re only loosing one bolt.
Depends on the armor. Despite in the video him saying a heavy crossbow could pierce heavy armor, real life plate armor tended to be ballistic-proof aside from the gaps under the arms and such. This was due both to the strength of the metal and the curvature in the plate, which basically led to them glancing off.
If it was heavy infantry vs. heavy infantry, chances of either taking out members from the other party would be extremely low.
You’re likely to lose or damage crossbows doing what you described. Also only the first and or second ranks of infantry would be able to fire them. Much better to mimic the Romans and give them a Pilum spear
@@waylander9265because a huge chunk of wood and bronze flying through the air is gonna pack a sizeable wallop. even if the personnel damage is minimal, thats a very big chunk of deformed metal and wood weighing you and/or your shield down.
@@Atma_Weaponwhat happens if they dodge though?
wow, you’re telling a question of ‘is this better than this’ once again comes down to preference and situation? mind blowing
The way dwarves are always depicted using crossbows is so cool! 'Cause they're so short but so strong
I remember going to some summer camp place with my church or school as a kid. One of the activities available to us was the archery range. Although that was my only exposure to archery, I very much enjoyed it. Wish I had followed up on that interest...
If you're still interested, perhaps you still could explore it?
Some advantages of the crossbow are also negated under some circumstances, high weight crossbows take almost as much time to reload as a ballista sometimes!
I love them both, but for an archer character that needs to be versatile, I think you’re mostly fine with having your artificer make you an instant legolas, and just keeping it in your pack for a battle where you need it
Not only are your skill and discipline phenomenal, you're an excellent instructor and debater!
Enjoyed the video just subbed will stick around for more
Thank you so much 😁
I remember hearing many of these very same points when reading Ranger's Apprentice way back then. It's so nostalgic to review these points again now
Bow for Strength/dexterity users, crossbow for intelligence/faith/arcana users since bolts doesn't scale from stats as long as you can use the crossbow.
Crossbow advantages:
1. Much easier to aim accurately and inherently more accurate.
2. Greater maximum energy even accounting for shorter draw.
3. Can be held at full draw.
4. Short fat bolt unlikely to buckle on impact, meaning more effective against armor.
5. Can be fired with one hand after loading with two, allowing a secondary such as a tower shield.
6. Easier to become skilled with.
7. Strength and technique less of an issue to use high power versions.
8. More compact form factor.
9. Typically pretty durable. You could parry with it or even use it as a melee weapon.
10. Much fewer handedness problems.
11. Low ammo consumption rate due to accuracy and limited fire rate.
Bow advantages:
1. High rate of fire.
2. Can be used with two hands, no levers or feet.
3. Mechanically simple.
4. Simple one can be made without any tools.
5. Long thin shaft and sharp point give it unreasonably good penetration against soft targets.
6. Excellent effective range against area targets.
So you're basically a seventh generation wood elf archer huh? Sick ;)
Very pleased to see that this video 100% agrees with the information I received in a Ranger's Apprentice book and internalized years ago. 😂 I love explaining this to people. Personally I also prefer traditional bows though I do have one of those baby crossbows and they do have their uses.
Same here!
I also feel like the fact that you can choose how far to draw a bow is kind of a big deal
From what I understand, crossbow is more efficient when you’re fielding an army. The little training required means that you’re limited by production.
It’s like the German vs Russian tanks in ww2. Would you rather have 5000 archers or 25000 crossbow men? Not to mention, losing 1 archer means all that time of training him is lost, but losing 1 crossbow man means just giving the crossbow to the next man down the line.
There's a few misconceptions here.
Peasants trained in the use of bows could be found almost anywhere. Look into any medieval village and you'll find several huntsmen who can shoot a bow at targets as small as fowl and rabbits.
Meanwhile, crossbows were almost exclusively the weapons of mercenaries: professional, highly-paid soldiers. And similarly, crossbows themselves were more expensive to make and buy: nobody would just "give" a crossbow to a peasant. Throughout most of the middleages, a person levied into a medieval army had to buy their own equipment.
@@kubaGR8 While the peasantry used bow for hunting, I'm pretty sure war bows were wildly harder to use. I remember reading that it takes a lot of training specific muscles to be able to even pull back the string.
It's this training of muscle that makes crossbow more efficient as it requires less of it, meaning that any soldier that had decent strength to pull a crossbow and aim could be given one, unlike the bow which requires specialized training for months.
This elf has obviously watched Top Gear his entire childhood spent in the woods, this is where he got both his archery (woods) and presentation (Jeremy) skills. I just love his manner and intonations
Spoken like a true Ranger, brother.
Ranger was my first D&D and Pathfinder class and archery has been the only sport I’ve stuck with over my life time.
Crossbows are awesome but, for me, quintessential skill with a bow is unmatched.
A good friend of mine runs the Gunslinger class in Pathfinder and we always have this inter-party Bow vs Gun rivalry of seeing who can pull off the most wicked ranged stunts.
Would be down with posting a video (within your legal limits, naturally) about how you as an archer would approach conflict against an opponent with firearms semi-realistically and from a fantasy point of view?
Completely understand if limitations would prevent this or it wouldn’t be your cup of tea.
Love your content.
Man, I love this channel and I don't even practice archery
I think there was a type of early crossbow called the “gastraphetes” from “gastro” meaning stomach, because you’d have to rest it on your stomach while reloading.
Wait so I did it correctly the whole time!?
I actually really like crossbows, their whole design and purpose is so cool! Archers have a lot more flexibility but it takes a long time to learn them, but I think those key differences is why the crossbow became so popular in the first place.
Thanks for outlining the important differences between the two.
I remember my first time shooting a bow. A crossbow in comparison is like driving a luxury car, that is comfy and easy to drive with all the technical and electronical helpers. You will get there reasonably fast, but it will not beat a true race car with a skilled driver.
The crossbow is for the masses. You can teach a person to use it in a few minutes and they will be able to reasonably hit the target. Put a little more time in, and you have yourself a fighter. Now, if you need 100 of these quickly, the choice is easy. Kinda the 20/80 principal.
Of course a skilled user can handle a bow in many more different situations and can adapt to the enviorment. That is much more important for such a specialized force.
The question for the right tool is always a question of ressourcemanagement.
How come, then, that the English army at Patay consisted of mostly archers, who vastly outnumbered the mercenary crossbowmen fielded by the French? It seems strange that, despite being a weapon of the masses, crossbows themselves always seem to be used by mercenaries: i.e. professional soldiers.
Sir you are a very skilled archer. Your videos make me want to break out the compound bow and practice again.
You have been blessed by the youtube algoritme, for you just showed op in my recommendation and I love that
No way weapon choice is cosmetic only. You can use it as a plot device, as a way to hint at lore, just like any other piece of equipment
For my money the biggest advantage of the crossbow is that you can effectively "hold" the shot whilst aiming more easily than a regular bow. Again it makes it simpler to use and to aim for a lot of people. And a lot of tools exist to help the crossbowman get speed into their shots etc. But you are completely right about the versatility of the bows.
I would also say that crossbows are probably much more analogous to muskets in terms of their use so retraining crossbowmen to musketeers is potentially simpler than retraining bowmen, and you lose much less of the cost sunk into getting the good archers.
But the advantages in power of the crossbow really scale up well with size as you can go far beyond the power in a single person, hence why ballistas and the like are basically giant crossbows.
So basically
Bows: firerate build
Crossbow: piercing damage build
For those curious, the historical way that crossbowmen got around the "slow reload" issue was that crossbowmen usually worked in teams of people (especially during sieges). The crossbowman would fire their shot then get handed an already loaded new crossbow. They could have like 3-4 crossbows prepared in this way. And while being handed a new crossbow to fire, the rest of the crossbowman's team would be reloading the spent bolts. In this way, the rate of fire for a crossbow would be comparable to the rate of fire of a longbowman.
This is likely where the idea of people having multiple single shot pistols came from (for example Edward Teach, Blackbeard)
I never considered the almost philosophical aspect of archery until now. Very interesting and insightful
Theoretically though, this difference shifts over time, and in certain locations. In medieval days, carrying a bow into battle works great, and in most ways outclasses any crossbow of the time. Fast forward to Victorian era, and suddenly you’re trying to carry a bow around through a city, at a time when crossbows are a lot closer to guns than they are to bows. There’s no true definitive answer here, and that’s why both ideas have stuck around so long. Great video, by the way
Loved the assessment bro, fair and accurate, always found Crossbows are better for overall power/accuracy but not for efficiency, especially in skilled hands
Thanks for the explaination.
I'll pick Kar-98
I made kinda recently a video analysis of Resident Evil 4 Remake from the point of view of the crossbow that Leon uses. I learned so much about the history of it!
I had no idea that one of the oldest crossbows is the Cho-Ko-Nu and, as you said, it was a weapon that anyone could use since, unlike a regular crossbow/pistol bow, it's a repeating one so you don't have that issue of the reloading since you can shoot many bolts, super fast and kinda accurately.
The downside is that it wasn't as powerful as a regular crossbow and nowhere near good as a bow. In fact, this wasn't a weapon used in war at all, it was a defensive weapon used by peasents. The damage was low and it wasn't that accurate but if you have 20 or 30 people using it at the same time, it could be dangerous by just the sheer amount of bolts.
Also, whether is a repeatin' crossbow or a regular one, one of the deadliest thing that you could do is coat the tip of the bolt with some type of poison and as long as one of those bolts hit you and creates a wound, you will eventually succumb to that poison!
Both have advantages and disavantages, this video shows it in a way that's easy to understand
When I was young, PBS had a ton of very weird random shows playing in the middle of the day. One I saw once was a medieval news show complete with commercials. This reminds me of the commercial for a crossbow.
Hmmm saw 2 shorts and this first youtube video (atleast i watched it as a youtube video and not a short) 3 out of 3 Videos i found interesting. I do enjoy this kind of content. I think you sir deserve another follower! and subbed! good job keep up the work
100% agree with all of your statements.
You left one advantage of the crossbow off, that I think I a big one.
The ability to pre-draw the crossbow and leave it drawn for an extended period has HUGE implications on usage.
In a military setting, this facilitates a "peekaboo" tactic, even sharing a single shooting position with multiple crossbowmen.
In hunting, it facilitates perched shots in a way a bow never could.
Both of these are boring and unskilled benefits, and yet make the actual usefulness of a crossbow far better for a wider array of users.
Awesome explanation! I'm so glad i found this channel randomly the other day
I like these videos a lot. They're very positive about their subject matters.
A game I love called Oriental Empires a 4X game like Civilization covers this. Once you get crossbows, it explains that it’s more expensive, but much quicker to raise a militia with, as crossbows don’t require as much training like you said.
And the solution for it being so difficult to reload, it was the practice at the time that if you had some, you had lots, and overwhelmed the enemy with just storms of crossbow bolts.
That is until the Chu No Ku was invented (no, Zhuge Liang didn’t invent it, he just popularized it, it was around during the Chu Dynasty) and it became mainstream.
You should do a video on said repeating crossbow if you haven’t already!
Admittedly my only experience on this front is Mount and Blade, but they were both damn effective in making someone stop existing before they got anywhere near you, which is all I wanted as a fledgling mercenary throwing down with kings and lords.
Good analysis video. Helps me to understand the differences between crossbow and bow really well.
Personally I prefer crossbows for aesthetic choice
It's not about "Which one is better?", it's about "Which one is better for me? Or for you?". Due to both having their advantages and disadvantages, they're both equally matched. Also when you talked about speed on reloading a crossbow, in the ancient times, there were crossbows with lighter strings that made them faster to reload by hand, in ancient China there were the repeating crossbows that have loading boxes you fill with arrows, and then you move a lever to fire one arrow after the other repeatedly.
A big part of archery in the middle ages was piercing armour. It was a long arms race of bows and crossbows being made to break through armour while armor was being developed to better resist arrows.
This eventually went on until firearms started to be developed. Just a tube with a ball and powder. Didn't have the accuracy or range of a bow or crossbow but could puncture armor easily (as they improved on them ofc, they weren't always able to get through armour.)
So armies gradually got rid of armour for lighter uniforms that were cheaper and more recognizable in the smoke.
With a crossbow i could see a similar strategy to musket fighting. Fire a bolt and step back and reload the guy behind you will fire his bolt and you switch again back and fourth
Very informative vid cuz. I like the fact the you didn’t make your choice a bias decision but not only listed but showed the ways in which both can be good but ended with this is my choice.
Educational and entertaining. Blumineck is the best!