Joe’s odd lean when he shot looks exactly like medieval art. I had always assumed that the old artists (who were not known for realism) just stylized their figures. Interesting and surprising
Medieval artists still drew what they saw. Its a lot easier to draw a body that you're looking at than it is to imagine what a body would look like as it draws an arrow. If anything they would stylize the archer to be standing up, rather than standing at a strange angle that's likely more difficult to draw, as it's not a position you'd ever see a normal person standing in.
I remember thinking that the first time I saw Joe shoot. I'm not sure which set of videos it was, but there was some mention of it in one of Tod's films.
The power of the 'twang' from the arrow being released by just Joe is astounding. Imagine how deafening is was en mass with hundreds of archers. These "let's see what happens" video series are just marvelous. Keep them going.
It would be more of a continuous rush than a clear twang aat one moment. You must imagine, that archers didn't really do volleys like in movies often. The issue is that it costs a lot of power to draw a bow, and you don't want to waste half your armies power because it looks nice. Also, you would lose a lot of time, because you basically have to wait for the slowest archer. That being said, the need for a volley also isn't there. For muskets, with their slow firing rate, absolutely. To prevent charges in between a complete reload, and for smoke issues. But archers shoot faster.
@HandofNot volley fire would be terrifying to be on the recieving end of, but you're right. That constant stream of fire us what you are looking for with arrows. By having the archers all loosing at their own pace, you create a very hostile environment for your enemy and keep them distracted.
this is so cool like you could recreate this with just a random building or some scaffolding you throw up but to actually go to a place like this that was the site of an actual battle is just that bit of extra that really make this special
Gibbs is a beast. Couldn't help himself finishing his whole quiver enjoying his treat. Seeing him in action does really show how good archer is so valuable.
I always wondered why archers on battlements wouldn’t lay on their backs, brace the bow on their feet and use both arms, legs and back to draw. I’m 59 in good shape and quite confident I could easily out-range this professional with this technique. Especially since you are shooting at an area target at 300 yards. Even modern machine guns are considered ‘area weapons’ at this range and beyond.
@@wytfish4855 You are probably right re: bow. Dude was fully drawing a 140 pounder. Probably not much more range to be had. And anything stouter that would only be drawn human crossbow style would be useless on two feet.
So now we know how far you can shoot from battlements. Knowing how close you need to be to shoot the archers on battlements would help us measure the whole strategic efficiency of those. An even harder thing to stage for Todd and Joe. And thanks for this awesome experiment on medieval archery.
@@ThirdLawPair technique, not strength. Watched a number of Eddie's videos, trying out different disciplines and many of them he will humbly admit that skill and experience, not brute strength is the answer!
I've seen a few longbow experts on video and they all have a similar stance: Lean forward and arse out before they let fly. Frankly, the snap of the string is a very impressive indication of the power of the bow! A 140 pound draw weight bow is not for weaklings, to lift 64 kilos with one hand (and 2 or 3 fingers!) is an incredible feat. The "loser will buy us a pint of beer" bet is a win-win! Everybody gets at least one pint of beer - then the winner has to reciprocate and we are off, heading for a hangover...
Is it the same as lifting 64 kilos with one hand though? You technically have two arms working for that draw weight. Your bow hand and your string hand both work to pull the weight apart, wouldn't it distribute?
@@SavageDragon999it's definitely a bilateral asymmetric movement, and engages the upper back muscles a lot. It's somewhere between a pull-up and a reverse fly.
I love that Tod is experimenting with ideas, that we all were thinking about, probably even since childhood. What an amazing channel, for me it is even a gold gem. Thank you Tod.
As an archery coach it’s always fascinating to see the change in style for the really high poundage shooters. It’s such a skill and to see Joe use the high poundage downward draw and then maintain control while shifting to aim up at 45 degrees is seriously impressive.
Have you seen the other video they did from the top of this tower? The movements Joe has to go through to fire at a soldier near the foot of the tower, my back would be absolutely screaming.
Man, I shoot a 32 pound recurve bow and tire easily after a while. I can't even begin to imagine shooting 140 pounds regularly. I probably couldn't even pull back the string lol. Nice video sirs, very interesting stuff as usual. Thanks for the time and effort you people put into this. Love from an archer mate.
This video is a must watch for anyone who ever thinks about writing a sword and sorcery fantasy or a historical fiction story. Thanks to all involved for this effort.
I'm sure they would never let you do it, but it would be really interesting to see shots from the ground up to targets on the tower, since that's what the attackers were doing.
Its going to be a 2 to 1 advantage for the defenders. 300/ 150 or so. I read an article somewhere that said it was a 2 to 1 ratio, but they provided no numbers.
10:30 I don't know if Todd thinks of himself as a scientist, but this right here is a perfect example of what a scientist does: Hypothesize, test, and see what happens, then reject the hypothesis if the test disagrees. A great scientist asks good questions and accepts when their ideas are initially wrong. Really respect the work you guys do!
Where is hypothesis went wrong is he described it as the arrow arcs in response to losing energy, which it doesn't. Even if it maintained a constant speed in the x direction, the gravitational acceleration would cause it to change its speed in the y direction.
Thanks and in response to Scott, I messed up the description in that drag of course effects it from the start, but surely if the arrow slows it loses energy? Anyway, sometimes my business studies degree fails me when it comes to physics
@@tods_workshop wow thanks for replying! My point was not to point out that you were wrong or how you were wrong, but that you have a great attitude about being wrong. That was more what I was trying to get at. Keep being awesome! you are doing good basic science in my book.
@@tods_workshop wile I have you here I should tell you I once threw a paper airplane off the CN tower and it re-engineered itself back into a sheet of paper but still flew over 4 kilometres.
@@MiseryRex No kidding. Modern tennis players also have "deformations." In fact, it has been shown people are growing bone spurs on their vertebrae from spending all day bent over a "smart" phone. Crazy how the body is actually quite malleable when engaged in extreme, repetitive activities. Cheers!
Great video! I was also surprised by how much further it went. I think a reason for the arrow going further than anticipated might be due to the angle of the released arrow. When shooting from higher ground the optimal release angle is lowered, allowing for further distance.
Brilliant video. I was not surprised the arrow went a lot further. Although Tod thought the increase would not be much as the arrow would be falling steeper towards the end of flight. You need to remember it's starting 18 metres up at 45 degrees where as it would have flattened off a little bit when it reach that height starting from the ground. You can add maybe another second of flight time, so definitely increases. Slightly unrelated, but battleship guns longest shooting angle was not 45 degrees but maybe closer to 50 degrees elevation. This is because the shell would reach the higher thinner air and end up with less drag.
Another thing to think about is that you can shoot further from battlements but also the people sieging need to come closer to shoot the people on battlements which makes it even easier for the ones on battlements. Would be interesting to know from what distance you would need to shoot to be able to shoot over the battlements but I think the owners wouldn't like the idea.
And ofc you have the cover of the battlements as well, so the ones shooting up both have to be more precise to hit anything, as well as time it right, when the enemy is out (which likely then means they are shooting down at you as well at that same moment ;) )
Are you thinking what minimum distance, or what maximum distance? Like, how close you stop being able to, or (on approach) at what point you start being able to hit the folks on the battlements? Because, well... rather than aiming flat, you aim up, surely? Or am I missing some detail?
I was thinking this same thing. He could recreate it back where he normally shoots easily enough. Put up some scaffolding that height and try to shoot over it (or even a rope tied between two manlifts.
@@GummieI I dont think the attackers would try to hit individual men on the tower when they peek out. That would be nearly impossible unless youre very close. They would probably try to lob the arrows somewhere in the center and hope they hit someone.
Just throwing this out there: In GURPS (roleplaying game) you subtract the height from your distance to get the 'effective distance', so your max distance becomes max + height. Sure, this one was more like 1.5 times the height in practice, but close enough for a game! If you are below and shooting up, the opposite applies. GURPS is generally pretty good at 'real world testing' some things, but it would be interesting to see a real test. Still, if the RPG math applies, the archers in the tower would have had ~50 yards advantage, so call it 275 yards vs. 225 yards. I think probably the main advantage is cover from the crenelations and easier to see where the enemy is moving.
i adore anything to do with experimental archaeology, actually giving these things a go is so fun, seeing all the things i read about in school being tested just makes my day
The idea of maybe hearing a twang, depending on how quiet it was and how close you were, before a finger-thick and arms-length shaft of wood either whips past (or through) you on a level trajectory or just falls out of the sky with a hiss is certainly chilling. I've a newfound appreciation for why castles placed on the heights with line of fire on their approaches were so much of a deterrent.
The optimum angle for shooting distance on the flat is close to 45 degrees (it would be 45 without air resistance), but when shooting from an elevation a lower angle with a higher horizontal velocity is better and shoots farther. Joe was guessing the angle he fired at so we don't know if he was shooting as far as possible. I remember that from my Applied Mathematics A level course over 50 years ago when we discussed firing cannons up and down slopes and the range advantage height gives. The mathematics is fairly simple trigonometry and vectors.
I was thinking the same thing. Aim a few degrees shallower and use more of the arrow's speed and momentum to travel forward rather than fighting gravity.
To be fair, he didn't aim as high when aiming for the knight, and it didn't go as far. So I think the 45° shot was still pretty close to optimum for shooting from the tower
I would guess there wasn't much air resistance, so 45 is probably close enough to optimal that you aren't going to improve on with a human archer. Pen and paper gives 18 meters advantage to the distance with a 5 meter height difference, so there is definitely a sigma of at least 10 meters.
Joe's really begun to shine when he does these segments with you; He seems way more comfortable on camera. What a cool thing to see done from a real battlement with a real 140lbs Yew longbow.
Got the next video for you right away Tod. Because NOW, obviously you also have to figure out how much SHORTER the range is when firing against the people UP on that tower. So, roughly 30 yard advantage from standing up on the tower, not huge but certainly enough to be valuable. But how much closer would the attackers on the ground have to move to be able to hit the archers in the tower? Might be tricky to figure out a good way to test though. Nice shooting by Gibbs btw.
And how close is too close to properly shoot people in the tower? I think, in practice, a ring-shaped area is formed around the tower from which shooting is feasible.
@@robh5492 "Perhaps build a scaffolding tower in someone's field, dress it up to look roughly like a castle?" Yeah, something like that is probably the most realistic option. Though setting up targets on the side of a cliff might work as well.
Fantastic experiment. Strange and even poignant to think that the noise that we hear when joe lets loose is exactly the same sound that those bowman hundreds of years ago would have been so familiar with.
Don't forget that also for the guys that need to shoot towards top of the tower they need to get much closer because they need to use the same trajectory that would cross the top of the battlements at it's height and normally land way past the tower. It's different than shooting towards opponents at the same ground level. So Joe would probably need to come at around 200 yards or even closer to be able to threaten the defenders, while the defenders were a threat to them almost 100 yards further.
This is not how it works. Actually Tod was right, kind of. The distance where the arrow keeps momentum is the same. So they saw the arrow flies further. But the killing distance is the same. As the momentum does not depend on height, but on the power of the bow and the archer. Just the arrow is falling longer, but this is the phase where the arrow is losing energy, as Tod pointed. For the archers on the ground - the elevation of the tower is not big enough. For them matters the angle, as higher they shoot, smaller is the angle for the acceleration of gravity vector. So the gravity impact will be bigger. Here the elevation is simply too small. For high shots they shall be very close to the walls, where the shooting will be pointless anyway. So the archers on the ground will not have significant disadvantage in distance and power of the shots.
@@nick3175 I think you are greatly confused. The range for the bow on flat ground was determined as 246m. That is using the most optimal angle of shooting. Any degree less, or more means the range will decrease. That is how the physics works. You can check "Range of a projectile" wiki. This means if the attacking side stood at 246m distance to the tower their arrows would drop at the foot of the tower not at the top of it where defending archers had their positions. Any change at shooting angle would only cause arrows to drop even shorter than that. In order to shoot the defenders they would need to get closer and use trajectory passing over the tower. This is also used in modern day in ballistics calculators for snipers. Because your elevation and target's elevation difference plays a big role in how to set the scope (the only difference to the bow is snipers don't shoot using maximum range at 45deg {without accounting for air resistance})
@@gagarin777 You are missing the point. The angle matters for the archers on the ground who shoot to the tower. Also to compare modern bullet with arrow is in general stupid. The range of both depends on the initial energy. But the bullet due to its much higher speed is deadly even when it starts to fall. The arrow is not. If I drop arrow on you from 50 meters, it could scratch you, but nothing more. Archers shot to the sky, like they do in Hollywood movies, or like the archer here did once, to determine maximum range. That was the first shot, and not in every battle. But that shot did not aim to kill anybody. Arrow does not get more energy if you shoot from higher place, bullet too. It is falling longer. Of course if you shoot from much higher place like kilometers above, the arrow will get more energy due the acceleration of gravity. But that never happened in medieval battle. The point is - higher ground never been advantage to archers due range. They had better view, which is advantage. Also higher ground is advantage to melee soldiers. But higher ground, or towers do not give longer killing range. That changed when the armies started to use guns. As cannonball or bullet are still deadly long after they lose momentum. In Napoleonic wars higher ground often was the difference between win and defeat. But here, it does not matter. Archers in the tower just had better cover in that battle in 1450, when 1000 arrows killed one man.
@@gagarin777 To clarify - the archer on the tower will have exactly the same killing range as the archer on the ground. Same arrow, same bow, same energy. Yes the arrow of the first may fall longer, but that does not matter, as when it falls it is harmless.
Man the sound of that mighty yew longbow shooting from the top of the tower 😍 Thank you Tod and Joe, very interesting history and what a beautiful location.
I really appreciate that Tod gives his prediction and more than ready to admit he's wrong and then goes into why. Truly what we need more of in this world.
No stupid heavy metal guitar. No stupid cut in of silly faces. No endless waffle. No pointless close ups of faces up nostrils etc trying to dramatise. BBC etc take note. Compact, enthusiastic, accurate and to the point. I don’t do archery but this held me fascinated. Subscribed for more, thank you!
I have no idea how feasible the testing would be, but I'd love to see Joe try to shoot up at the battlements of a tower, how hard would it actually be to shoot past the crenelations without missing the wall entirely?
Guess you would have been closer used cover and arced your shots steeper to land down onto the battlements. Certainly harder than the defenders who in theory shot further with better visibilty.
I was going to comment asking for this as well, although only about range, I didn't even think to question the extra accuracy needed. I really hope they do something like that, even if only in a simulated environment.
Joe is a remarkable fellow nowadays, because so few can do as he does; and that brings home how horrible it would have been to face many hundreds like him all shooting simultaneously
@@Timoteusmusik I don't know about that. I mean there is a big difference from field archery and shooting from battlements. With 200 seasoned archers they won't be sniping but will be shooting a pattern formation to Cover a certain area because like Joe said, he couldn't even tell where his arrows went so he was just guessing. He got pretty darn close with that last volley though. Imagine how much he could improve with a few weeks of practice and getting a feel for his range up there. Then again Joe is one of the best archers in the world so I'm sure those 200 soldiers were not as good as him.
It’s definitely an interesting thing to discuss. The height advantage giving more distance is important in defensive situations as it allows you to outrange your opponent assuming you’re using similar equipment. I’m interested to see how the windlass works by comparison, being more of a machine and less affected by human input. It’s also important to consider the opposite side of things, firing up at people on that tower. Might be a bit more difficult to test for safety reasons, but I’d love to see the reverse of this if possible, focusing on how much (if any) range is lost when firing at a target perched that high up. An archer that can put an arrow 269m on flat ground wouldn’t logically be able to hit a target up 5 stories high from that 269m distance. So it’s be interesting to see just how close archers would have to get to retaliate against the ones firing at them from atop the battlements.
My prediction is probably 5-10 meter difference. When firing flat the arrows are coming down at roughly a 45 degree angle, presumably given more air time the arrowhead will cause the tip to drop more and create a more vertical impact. This steeper final angle means that the arrow is not going to be getting as much horizontal distance, so the increased air time doesn’t produce a linearly increased distance. EDIT: Even though I was wrong I’m glad to see that Tod had been thinking exactly the same thing.
My prediction was the same but i figured a bit further out. I'm still left with my original thought, which is that closer shots are going to have a much flatter trajectory, meaning that within maybe 100yds, you're firing much more accurately.
I was thinking it would be less of an extra distance because on the same ballistic trajectory the arrow would indeed by pointing more downwards towards the end and the height difference wouldn't make as big of a difference. However, it turns out the ballistic trajectory to shoot as far as you can from a even ground is actually probably different than the ballistic trajectory when shooting from up high. When shooting from up high, as others have said, you can get away with shooting a flatter trajectory and put more energy in the horizontal movement of the arrow when you don't have to compensate for the arrow hitting the ground too soon by aiming more upwards, so it actually is a big difference in the end. Really interesting.
Todd, if you had asked a golfer he would have told you elevation makes a big difference even when the descent/landing angle gets to 50%+. Another thing that you didn't mention, but that would be very important in a siege, is how much closer the attackers would need to be than the people on the tower. The people on the tower as you noted could potentially hit a target up to 300 yards away, however to shoot from the field UP to the top of the battlements would need to be much closer than the 269 flat shot, likely somewhere around ~240 yards. So we are talking about a 60 yard gap in distance. Not only do the people on the tower have the battlements to hind behind, but their shots will also be flatter and have more velocity retained. It's a massive advantage.
Oh I know it makes a difference, but just didn't know how much. Also we do need to be cautious comparing different things like fast light modern arrows, bullets, shells, golf balls etc speeds, densities and of course dimples all change the reality from each other
@@tods_workshop Don't forget that Newton had not invented Gravity until 1666... back in 1448 they were still working with centuries old Aristotelian physics - those guys could probably get 300-400 yards!
The advantage of shooting from height has always been clearer lines of sight and the ability to hit something otherwise hidden behind cover (because arrows travel through the sky better than the ground).
Amazing...I had shot a few rounds with a 60lb bow years ago, and I'm no slouch.....140lb over and over, is an incredible effort...Joe is a total unit....brilliant effort young man ;0)
Loved the video. Glad that Joe chose to loose the rest of the arrows at the target, as it was quite entertaining and interesting to watch. Also, what a fantastic setting to be doing experimental archeology!
Joe is such a machine. Amazing to see him do his thing. If there had been a body of Men there they wouldnt have taken damage. Also nice to see that just like Michael, Joe is also getting more relaxed on camera. Thx to everyone involved in this.
What this tells us is that you have to set your camp up a REALLY long way away from a castle's walls to avoid getting spiked. At those distances the arrow probably doesn't have enough energy to get through any meaningful armour but you sure wouldn't want one landing on you in your sleep or on the toilet! It just adds so much flavour to our understanding of siege warfare. At those distances you have to have a really giant cordon to properly encircle a place. Let's say you pitch your tent 270m away to be properly safe. At such distances being able to see what's going on at the extremes would be hard during the day and REALLY hard at night. A 270m radius circle gives you a circumference of 1700m and that's from an imaginary point - not from what's already a large area such as a castle which probably has a circumference of a few hundred metres. Medieval armies weren't huge - 10,000 men was a very big deal. It's not logical or feasible to spread your men evenly around this circumference to guard it. With 10,000 men you'd end up with 5 men per metre of your imaginary cordon. An enemy could easily sally forth at night and defeat that - and with such a large cordon it would be impossible to rally your men to counter that. In our hypothetical case it would already take about 5 minutes to respond assuming you could run a near 4 minute mile! Certainly not possible with armour and if it was at night you probably wouldn't want to run your horses along ground they couldn't see. So you end up splitting your men into say 4 groups of 2500 to cover the 4 compass points with maybe a few guards every 10m or so on the cordon to raise an alarm should someone sally out in force or try and sneak past it's still pretty difficult to respond effectively. The point is that you can quickly see how hard it would have been to keep an enemy sealed in - how easy it would have been to sneak food in and out and why the Romans put such an emphasis on engineering - building a surrounding wall/ditch to try and mitigate this problem. I'm not aware of medieval armies doing anything like what the Romans did, which is probably why sieges lasted for years and years in medieval times. Castles and cities were probably pretty porous during sieges.
An arrow at 70m retains more than 80% of its initial velocity, not sure at this, but even if we say 50% and I actually suspect around 80%, that is still plenty to cause death on unarmored people and would still likely go through poor mail
Thanks for a detailed breakdown - much appreciated. I think what I found really intriguing is that assuming half the guys were archers then that equates to an arrow every 30 seconds from each guy (on average). That is pretty leisurely and I love the difference between Hollywood/pop culture perception and reality
@@tods_workshop Hey Tod - love your videos! I took that low overall rate of fire as indication that the action was sporadic as opposed to sustained - which makes complete sense in light of what we know about modern conflicts. Assaults on fortifications are rarely sustained. You probe and push for a weakness - but then retreat and re-assess, particularly if you're taking heavy fire and possibly casualties. One death doesn't really tell us about the overall casualty rate and in many ways injured are worse than dead. They take up a lot of resources. You need to get them out of danger, tend to their injuries, they ruin morale with all their complaining etc... It sounded like a gang skirmish rather than a full blown battle. If that's the case the chances are probable that no one there was really expecting to die or indeed prepared to fight to the death. I expect there were many pauses in the action. Maybe even lasting a few hours whilst the attackers tried to plan or simply rally courage. That tower looked like a pretty substantial fortification and quite easy for a small group to defend effectively. I wouldn't want to storm it even with 200 heavily armoured men. I'd rather sit back with your trebuchet and lob a few rocks or something hot and nasty to try and set the tower alight!
I like the point that came up in one of your earlier videos about the time between Joe drawing and loosing an arrow, and that time that Hollywood archers hold their bows at full draw. 😄🥵@@tods_workshop
I'm only half joking when I say that I'm expecting to see Tod and Joe do a video where they are on a 15th century Ship out at sea shooting at a target on a different ship to test "Naval Archery" and whether the Mary Rose bows would be theoretically heavier than those used on land (maybe Marines were better quality of soldier due to limited numbers; aka heavier due to more specialization), theoretically lighter (accuracy more important at sea than range due to not being able to retrieve arrows that miss an opposing ship a.k.a. lighter due to ammunition restrictions), or largely no different. Then I'd expect a follow up video where Michael throws harpoons overboard.
Great video! I was also surprised by how much further it went. I think a reason for the arrow going further than anticipated might be due to the angle of the released arrow. When shooting from higher ground the optimal release angle is lowered.
Any idea how much more power an arrow would have being shot down onto attackers? I know it's just gravitational potential energy + starting velocity but it would still be awesome to shoot a shield on the level and then from the tower to see the difference!
It would depend on the angle. Arrows lose most of their speed to drag, and they are going many times faster than their terminal velocity, so I'd think not much. From mid ranges I think it would be more effective simply because your target would be larger firing at groups of men.
Another part is that any time that you get close enough to an obstacle, it will affect you mentally. Unless you're training for a while with it there, you want to be far enough back to put it mostly out of your mind. One more thing is that he was shooting over the merlons, and fairly flat, so he needed enough space to be sure that his arrows wouldn't clip them if anything went wrong.
Joe is seriously impressive. His technique is impeccable and he shot a heck of lot of arrows under that heavy draw weight. It may look goofy but he is engaging every muscle in his back and arms while finding the point of release and then lunging forward into the shot
IMPORTAINT QUESTION: Maybe for another video, how close does an archer have to be, to be able to hit a person up in a tower 20 meters up. (20m is just a random guess, take a number average tower/walls height)
Pretty sure elevation makes a big difference in long range shooting with firearms too. It seems that this is known to be the case for artillery. I found this quote: "The extra height will give you more travel time before it strikes the ground, and hence more time to travel horizontally. In an ideal situation, the projectile maintains its horizontal speed until it hits the ground. If the ground is further "down" from where it was fired, it means it will travel further, all else being equal."
So.. for those who might not look at ancient illustrations very much this is a demonstration of the exact pose medieval archers are shown to have used! Think Froissart! Amazing recreation!!
Shooting for distance from the ground, you angle up 45 degrees for max distance. On top of a tower, you're part way through the trajectory from the ground, so you shoot at a lower angle. Todd's archer did this... check it out in the video. This is equivalent to a stronger bow shooting from the ground behind the tower which of course gives you a good bit more distance.
I believe that the required angle would be the same at the top of the tower. He shot the same distance on the level from the top of the tower as he did on the ground. Then the arrow had another 20yrds to drop, while descending at approximately a 45 ° degree angle--which translates to another 20 yards further. Eyeballing the angle of the arrows stuck in the ground--the angle may have been flatter than 45°. Hard to tell from the video.
What an awesome opportunity. Really gives you a sense of just how effective fortifications were and how skewed our ideas get when most of what we see is epic movies with sieges and battles made to look exciting, but then we see the reality of trying to sling arrows at people for hours while some are protected by a giant stone tower with a height advantage and the attackers can spread out all around and you see just how hard it is to hit things.
I think the main reason you thought that the angle was so great on the last meters is because that's what the arrows look like stuck in the ground, but you've got to bear in mind that when the arrows sticks in the ground, it's horizontal velocity makes it rotate a bit and so it sticks up more than the angle it had just before touching the ground.
@@cct7558 “People use both further and farther to mean “more distant.” However, American English speakers favor farther for physical distances and further for figurative distances.” Interesting
I'd bet they measured from the top of the tower, and that's what made it the extra 9 yards. If they measured from the bottom I'd bet it would be exactly (or near enough) 20 yards farther or the height of the tower
00:00 🏰 Longbow Experiment: Shooting a longbow from a medieval tower, exploring its distance compared to shooting from ground level. 01:21 🎯 Environmental factors like temperature affect bow performance; colder weather generates more power. 02:13 🏹 On a flat field, the longbow shot reached 269 yards, showcasing its range. 03:36 🏰 Historical context: Stanton Harcourt Manor House's 1450 archery siege, where the experiment took place, had notable historical significance. 05:19 🍺 The height difference from shooting on the tower vs. ground level significantly impacted the longbow's distance. 08:29 💪 Shooting a longbow consistently over a period is physically demanding; even with fewer arrows in historical sieges, breaks were necessary. 10:41 🎯 Contrary to initial belief, shooting a longbow from height notably extends its range due to the angle and energy retention during flight.
I think it would be very interesting to see how close the attacker has to get to the tower to avoid being shot at since the battlements are in the defender's path. In general, a series of arrows against armor from this tower would be fantastic I love your videos, keep it up
It basically flew the same distance further as the tower was tall ( slight bit further), which makes sense as the arrow would have extra time to drop to the ground.
Love this view of Arms and Armor history. Shows how lethal a hundred or more longbowmen were on the battlefield. No wonder very good longbowmen like Joe were of such high value.
to see all of those weapons in actions is just fantastic thank you for doing it i love the chemistry between you and joe and the competition too it friendly and i love history to see history coming alive is awsome joe is a fantastic archer and you are a fantastic teacher and crafstman
Brilliant! One thing seems clear. You will have a hard time hitting individual targets at a distance from a tower. A formation of men would be another thing. Well done Joe and Tod!
Joe’s odd lean when he shot looks exactly like medieval art. I had always assumed that the old artists (who were not known for realism) just stylized their figures. Interesting and surprising
Medieval artists still drew what they saw. Its a lot easier to draw a body that you're looking at than it is to imagine what a body would look like as it draws an arrow. If anything they would stylize the archer to be standing up, rather than standing at a strange angle that's likely more difficult to draw, as it's not a position you'd ever see a normal person standing in.
I remember thinking that the first time I saw Joe shoot. I'm not sure which set of videos it was, but there was some mention of it in one of Tod's films.
You should see the old sword fighting manuals.
ITs because you use a lot of your back/shoulder muscles when firing i assume that weird posture enables better use of them.
Just about to say the same thing too! Spot on mate.
The power of the 'twang' from the arrow being released by just Joe is astounding. Imagine how deafening is was en mass with hundreds of archers. These "let's see what happens" video series are just marvelous. Keep them going.
It would be more of a continuous rush than a clear twang aat one moment. You must imagine, that archers didn't really do volleys like in movies often. The issue is that it costs a lot of power to draw a bow, and you don't want to waste half your armies power because it looks nice.
Also, you would lose a lot of time, because you basically have to wait for the slowest archer.
That being said, the need for a volley also isn't there. For muskets, with their slow firing rate, absolutely. To prevent charges in between a complete reload, and for smoke issues. But archers shoot faster.
@HandofNot volley fire would be terrifying to be on the recieving end of, but you're right. That constant stream of fire us what you are looking for with arrows. By having the archers all loosing at their own pace, you create a very hostile environment for your enemy and keep them distracted.
this is so cool like you could recreate this with just a random building or some scaffolding you throw up but to actually go to a place like this that was the site of an actual battle is just that bit of extra that really make this special
Why bother busing rickety scaffolding in a field, when you can go borrow a tower for a day?
Nice point 👍
well castles and towers are relatively common in the UK and throughouut europe
Agreed. It’s also nice that you guys have these amazing medieval castles in your backyard haha
It is a lot of extra special
I love everything about this video. The History, the architecture, the noise the archer makes before he shoots. Just great all around.
Gibbs is a beast.
Couldn't help himself finishing his whole quiver enjoying his treat.
Seeing him in action does really show how good archer is so valuable.
It was exactly like that. We went for three but there was no way that was all he was going to shoot
Let him cook
I always wondered why archers on battlements wouldn’t lay on their backs, brace the bow on their feet and use both arms, legs and back to draw. I’m 59 in good shape and quite confident I could easily out-range this professional with this technique. Especially since you are shooting at an area target at 300 yards. Even modern machine guns are considered ‘area weapons’ at this range and beyond.
@@CorePathway pretty sure the limit lies with the bow, not the body. good work being a fit 59yo grandpa though. keep it up!
@@wytfish4855 You are probably right re: bow. Dude was fully drawing a 140 pounder. Probably not much more range to be had. And anything stouter that would only be drawn human crossbow style would be useless on two feet.
So now we know how far you can shoot from battlements. Knowing how close you need to be to shoot the archers on battlements would help us measure the whole strategic efficiency of those. An even harder thing to stage for Todd and Joe. And thanks for this awesome experiment on medieval archery.
Joe’s strength always surprises me. It shouldn’t at this point but it always does
I wonder if Eddie Hall could do it.
Joes such a legend
@@ThirdLawPair I don't know if he has the mobility in his shoulders to do it correctly, but he may well be strong enough to just brute force it.
Me too, but note that as well as strength it is buckets of technique too
@@ThirdLawPair technique, not strength.
Watched a number of Eddie's videos, trying out different disciplines and many of them he will humbly admit that skill and experience, not brute strength is the answer!
I've seen a few longbow experts on video and they all have a similar stance: Lean forward and arse out before they let fly. Frankly, the snap of the string is a very impressive indication of the power of the bow! A 140 pound draw weight bow is not for weaklings, to lift 64 kilos with one hand (and 2 or 3 fingers!) is an incredible feat.
The "loser will buy us a pint of beer" bet is a win-win! Everybody gets at least one pint of beer - then the winner has to reciprocate and we are off, heading for a hangover...
That bow is 64 kgs ?
@@Chiga-lt6vq The draw weight is 140 pounds = 64kg. The bow itself is light as a feather compared to the draw weight.
Is it the same as lifting 64 kilos with one hand though? You technically have two arms working for that draw weight. Your bow hand and your string hand both work to pull the weight apart, wouldn't it distribute?
@@SavageDragon999it's definitely a bilateral asymmetric movement, and engages the upper back muscles a lot. It's somewhere between a pull-up and a reverse fly.
Always a treat when Tod is joined by Joe!
Yeah, that was fun to watch
I love that Tod is experimenting with ideas, that we all were thinking about, probably even since childhood. What an amazing channel, for me it is even a gold gem. Thank you Tod.
As an archery coach it’s always fascinating to see the change in style for the really high poundage shooters.
It’s such a skill and to see Joe use the high poundage downward draw and then maintain control while shifting to aim up at 45 degrees is seriously impressive.
Not to mention maintain good release after so many shots on such a high poundage bow
Have you seen the other video they did from the top of this tower? The movements Joe has to go through to fire at a soldier near the foot of the tower, my back would be absolutely screaming.
can u shoot over 300m tho?
3O° for DISTANCE n zero wind ....
Is does not look like he is shooting 45 degrees on the roof though.
Man, I shoot a 32 pound recurve bow and tire easily after a while. I can't even begin to imagine shooting 140 pounds regularly. I probably couldn't even pull back the string lol. Nice video sirs, very interesting stuff as usual. Thanks for the time and effort you people put into this. Love from an archer mate.
Must be some serious calluses on Joe's fingers.
It's amazing what he can do. A long time ago I used to be able to shoot about 50 arrows off an 80 pound bow. I can not even string it up anymore.
This video is a must watch for anyone who ever thinks about writing a sword and sorcery fantasy or a historical fiction story. Thanks to all involved for this effort.
Shows the sheer value of tall and strong fortifications.
I'm sure they would never let you do it, but it would be really interesting to see shots from the ground up to targets on the tower, since that's what the attackers were doing.
Its going to be a 2 to 1 advantage for the defenders. 300/ 150 or so. I read an article somewhere that said it was a 2 to 1 ratio, but they provided no numbers.
just build a wooden tower ask how much it would cost write it off as tax expensive for a video if its worth it.
@xazarl3381 they can just get scaffolding. Would probably cost around 1k for like 4 stories.
10:30 I don't know if Todd thinks of himself as a scientist, but this right here is a perfect example of what a scientist does: Hypothesize, test, and see what happens, then reject the hypothesis if the test disagrees. A great scientist asks good questions and accepts when their ideas are initially wrong. Really respect the work you guys do!
Where is hypothesis went wrong is he described it as the arrow arcs in response to losing energy, which it doesn't. Even if it maintained a constant speed in the x direction, the gravitational acceleration would cause it to change its speed in the y direction.
don't forget writing things down.
Thanks and in response to Scott, I messed up the description in that drag of course effects it from the start, but surely if the arrow slows it loses energy? Anyway, sometimes my business studies degree fails me when it comes to physics
@@tods_workshop wow thanks for replying! My point was not to point out that you were wrong or how you were wrong, but that you have a great attitude about being wrong. That was more what I was trying to get at. Keep being awesome! you are doing good basic science in my book.
@@ForestRaptor lol the class Science Montra: "if you never wrote it down it may as well never have happened" though I think filming may count ;)
Hey Tod, thanks for another very nice video and I am very happy with the dagger I just recently received from your workshop. I really love it. :)
It's something everyone has imagined as a kid but never put into action. One of life's mysteries solved! Thanks Tod and Joe!
It's nice to know that I wasn't the only one who had that question
Great to see Joe back, this was a really special film, something I've never seen before. I can't wait for part 2! Thanks Tod.
What a great privilege to be able to shoot from a castle tower. Thanks for making that wonderful video and sharing it with us all Tod 👍👍
It was, but I climbed the very narrow spiral staircase 7 times that day and my thigh muscles did not at all feel privileged for the next few days
@@tods_workshop Would have been my knees. They would probably have been screaming at me after the 1st time.
@@tods_workshop why no slave in the crane wheel that day ? I guess you know how the messenger felt during that long ago battle🤣
@@tods_workshop wile I have you here I should tell you I once threw a paper airplane off the CN tower and it re-engineered itself back into a sheet of paper but still flew over 4 kilometres.
How much force do you think an 80 gram arrow has at 250-296 yards? Is that enough to puncture chain mail?
We definitely need lots more videos of this type of content. Historical weapons testing/experiments fascinate me! History is fun.
The way Joe bends his body like a giant spring, the whole body effort is impressive. Thank you Joe and thank you Todd. Cheers!
The remains of archers from the period were readily identifiable due to the skeletal deformations.
@@MiseryRex No kidding. Modern tennis players also have "deformations." In fact, it has been shown people are growing bone spurs on their vertebrae from spending all day bent over a "smart" phone. Crazy how the body is actually quite malleable when engaged in extreme, repetitive activities. Cheers!
Great video! I was also surprised by how much further it went.
I think a reason for the arrow going further than anticipated might be due to the angle of the released arrow. When shooting from higher ground the optimal release angle is lowered, allowing for further distance.
Always like when Joe is on. He routinely does what very few can do and is always so low-key about it.
Brilliant video. I was not surprised the arrow went a lot further. Although Tod thought the increase would not be much as the arrow would be falling steeper towards the end of flight. You need to remember it's starting 18 metres up at 45 degrees where as it would have flattened off a little bit when it reach that height starting from the ground. You can add maybe another second of flight time, so definitely increases.
Slightly unrelated, but battleship guns longest shooting angle was not 45 degrees but maybe closer to 50 degrees elevation. This is because the shell would reach the higher thinner air and end up with less drag.
Another thing to think about is that you can shoot further from battlements but also the people sieging need to come closer to shoot the people on battlements which makes it even easier for the ones on battlements.
Would be interesting to know from what distance you would need to shoot to be able to shoot over the battlements but I think the owners wouldn't like the idea.
And ofc you have the cover of the battlements as well, so the ones shooting up both have to be more precise to hit anything, as well as time it right, when the enemy is out (which likely then means they are shooting down at you as well at that same moment ;) )
Are you thinking what minimum distance, or what maximum distance? Like, how close you stop being able to, or (on approach) at what point you start being able to hit the folks on the battlements? Because, well... rather than aiming flat, you aim up, surely? Or am I missing some detail?
I was thinking this same thing. He could recreate it back where he normally shoots easily enough. Put up some scaffolding that height and try to shoot over it (or even a rope tied between two manlifts.
@@GummieI I dont think the attackers would try to hit individual men on the tower when they peek out. That would be nearly impossible unless youre very close. They would probably try to lob the arrows somewhere in the center and hope they hit someone.
Just throwing this out there:
In GURPS (roleplaying game) you subtract the height from your distance to get the 'effective distance', so your max distance becomes max + height. Sure, this one was more like 1.5 times the height in practice, but close enough for a game! If you are below and shooting up, the opposite applies. GURPS is generally pretty good at 'real world testing' some things, but it would be interesting to see a real test. Still, if the RPG math applies, the archers in the tower would have had ~50 yards advantage, so call it 275 yards vs. 225 yards. I think probably the main advantage is cover from the crenelations and easier to see where the enemy is moving.
Always a treat to watch this stuff! Todd for the medieval science. Joe for his medieval strength and skill as Master Bowman.
The guy who wrote this clip's title earns a C- for poor diction.
Its just amazing we get to watch all this wondeful footage for free, thank you for all that you do!
Glad you enjoy it!
You guys are doing great work! Thank you from a military guy.
i adore anything to do with experimental archaeology, actually giving these things a go is so fun, seeing all the things i read about in school being tested just makes my day
The idea of maybe hearing a twang, depending on how quiet it was and how close you were, before a finger-thick and arms-length shaft of wood either whips past (or through) you on a level trajectory or just falls out of the sky with a hiss is certainly chilling. I've a newfound appreciation for why castles placed on the heights with line of fire on their approaches were so much of a deterrent.
The optimum angle for shooting distance on the flat is close to 45 degrees (it would be 45 without air resistance), but when shooting from an elevation a lower angle with a higher horizontal velocity is better and shoots farther. Joe was guessing the angle he fired at so we don't know if he was shooting as far as possible. I remember that from my Applied Mathematics A level course over 50 years ago when we discussed firing cannons up and down slopes and the range advantage height gives. The mathematics is fairly simple trigonometry and vectors.
I was thinking the same thing. Aim a few degrees shallower and use more of the arrow's speed and momentum to travel forward rather than fighting gravity.
Archers from the time would have known this through experience
To be fair, he didn't aim as high when aiming for the knight, and it didn't go as far. So I think the 45° shot was still pretty close to optimum for shooting from the tower
I would guess there wasn't much air resistance, so 45 is probably close enough to optimal that you aren't going to improve on with a human archer. Pen and paper gives 18 meters advantage to the distance with a 5 meter height difference, so there is definitely a sigma of at least 10 meters.
The optimal launch angle doesn't vary with height. It would only matter slightly if the wind was stronger at the elevation.
Joe's really begun to shine when he does these segments with you; He seems way more comfortable on camera.
What a cool thing to see done from a real battlement with a real 140lbs Yew longbow.
That one guy who died must've been staring down absolutely miffed from the afterlife🤣
Got the next video for you right away Tod.
Because NOW, obviously you also have to figure out how much SHORTER the range is when firing against the people UP on that tower.
So, roughly 30 yard advantage from standing up on the tower, not huge but certainly enough to be valuable.
But how much closer would the attackers on the ground have to move to be able to hit the archers in the tower?
Might be tricky to figure out a good way to test though.
Nice shooting by Gibbs btw.
Perhaps build a scaffolding tower in someone's field, dress it up to look roughly like a castle?
Yes I do need to do that, but in fact is much harder to set up - just need to find a tower in the middle of an unpopulated field
And how close is too close to properly shoot people in the tower? I think, in practice, a ring-shaped area is formed around the tower from which shooting is feasible.
@@robh5492 "Perhaps build a scaffolding tower in someone's field, dress it up to look roughly like a castle?"
Yeah, something like that is probably the most realistic option.
Though setting up targets on the side of a cliff might work as well.
@@tods_workshop I think perhaps a hillside or ridge, with a plywood “crenellation” will be your best bet
Fantastic experiment. Strange and even poignant to think that the noise that we hear when joe lets loose is exactly the same sound that those bowman hundreds of years ago would have been so familiar with.
Don't forget that also for the guys that need to shoot towards top of the tower they need to get much closer because they need to use the same trajectory that would cross the top of the battlements at it's height and normally land way past the tower. It's different than shooting towards opponents at the same ground level. So Joe would probably need to come at around 200 yards or even closer to be able to threaten the defenders, while the defenders were a threat to them almost 100 yards further.
yeah this is the most important part, 4 men at the bottom and 16 at the top could hold back a lot more men than 20 in a field
This is not how it works. Actually Tod was right, kind of. The distance where the arrow keeps momentum is the same. So they saw the arrow flies further. But the killing distance is the same. As the momentum does not depend on height, but on the power of the bow and the archer. Just the arrow is falling longer, but this is the phase where the arrow is losing energy, as Tod pointed. For the archers on the ground - the elevation of the tower is not big enough. For them matters the angle, as higher they shoot, smaller is the angle for the acceleration of gravity vector. So the gravity impact will be bigger. Here the elevation is simply too small. For high shots they shall be very close to the walls, where the shooting will be pointless anyway. So the archers on the ground will not have significant disadvantage in distance and power of the shots.
@@nick3175 I think you are greatly confused. The range for the bow on flat ground was determined as 246m. That is using the most optimal angle of shooting. Any degree less, or more means the range will decrease. That is how the physics works. You can check "Range of a projectile" wiki. This means if the attacking side stood at 246m distance to the tower their arrows would drop at the foot of the tower not at the top of it where defending archers had their positions. Any change at shooting angle would only cause arrows to drop even shorter than that. In order to shoot the defenders they would need to get closer and use trajectory passing over the tower. This is also used in modern day in ballistics calculators for snipers. Because your elevation and target's elevation difference plays a big role in how to set the scope (the only difference to the bow is snipers don't shoot using maximum range at 45deg {without accounting for air resistance})
@@gagarin777 You are missing the point. The angle matters for the archers on the ground who shoot to the tower. Also to compare modern bullet with arrow is in general stupid. The range of both depends on the initial energy. But the bullet due to its much higher speed is deadly even when it starts to fall. The arrow is not. If I drop arrow on you from 50 meters, it could scratch you, but nothing more. Archers shot to the sky, like they do in Hollywood movies, or like the archer here did once, to determine maximum range. That was the first shot, and not in every battle. But that shot did not aim to kill anybody. Arrow does not get more energy if you shoot from higher place, bullet too. It is falling longer. Of course if you shoot from much higher place like kilometers above, the arrow will get more energy due the acceleration of gravity. But that never happened in medieval battle. The point is - higher ground never been advantage to archers due range. They had better view, which is advantage. Also higher ground is advantage to melee soldiers. But higher ground, or towers do not give longer killing range. That changed when the armies started to use guns. As cannonball or bullet are still deadly long after they lose momentum. In Napoleonic wars higher ground often was the difference between win and defeat. But here, it does not matter. Archers in the tower just had better cover in that battle in 1450, when 1000 arrows killed one man.
@@gagarin777 To clarify - the archer on the tower will have exactly the same killing range as the archer on the ground. Same arrow, same bow, same energy. Yes the arrow of the first may fall longer, but that does not matter, as when it falls it is harmless.
This was a really incredible demo. Cheers to bringing us along for the adventure.
Mastery always is mesmerizing. I can watch Joe shooting for hours.
Man the sound of that mighty yew longbow shooting from the top of the tower 😍
Thank you Tod and Joe, very interesting history and what a beautiful location.
the effort being put into him shooting that bow is impressive!! cant imagine doing that for hours
I really appreciate that Tod gives his prediction and more than ready to admit he's wrong and then goes into why. Truly what we need more of in this world.
I see longbow content on Tod's channel, I click, simple as
No stupid heavy metal guitar. No stupid cut in of silly faces. No endless waffle. No pointless close ups of faces up nostrils etc trying to dramatise. BBC etc take note. Compact, enthusiastic, accurate and to the point. I don’t do archery but this held me fascinated. Subscribed for more, thank you!
I have no idea how feasible the testing would be, but I'd love to see Joe try to shoot up at the battlements of a tower, how hard would it actually be to shoot past the crenelations without missing the wall entirely?
Just put bull eyes between crenelation and let Joe shoot from ground to test how gravity interferes.
Guess you would have been closer used cover and arced your shots steeper to land down onto the battlements.
Certainly harder than the defenders who in theory shot further with better visibilty.
I was going to comment asking for this as well, although only about range, I didn't even think to question the extra accuracy needed. I really hope they do something like that, even if only in a simulated environment.
Joe's humility is wonderful I also admit I was thinking along Tod's lines re distance.
Everyday is a learning day.
Tod's t-shirt really made me smile.
Joe is another quality arrow in Tod's video making quiver.
Joe is a remarkable fellow nowadays, because so few can do as he does; and that brings home how horrible it would have been to face many hundreds like him all shooting simultaneously
you would be fine if everyone of them would have his hit rate lol
@@Timoteusmusik I don't know about that. I mean there is a big difference from field archery and shooting from battlements. With 200 seasoned archers they won't be sniping but will be shooting a pattern formation to Cover a certain area because like Joe said, he couldn't even tell where his arrows went so he was just guessing. He got pretty darn close with that last volley though. Imagine how much he could improve with a few weeks of practice and getting a feel for his range up there.
Then again Joe is one of the best archers in the world so I'm sure those 200 soldiers were not as good as him.
It’s definitely an interesting thing to discuss. The height advantage giving more distance is important in defensive situations as it allows you to outrange your opponent assuming you’re using similar equipment. I’m interested to see how the windlass works by comparison, being more of a machine and less affected by human input.
It’s also important to consider the opposite side of things, firing up at people on that tower. Might be a bit more difficult to test for safety reasons, but I’d love to see the reverse of this if possible, focusing on how much (if any) range is lost when firing at a target perched that high up. An archer that can put an arrow 269m on flat ground wouldn’t logically be able to hit a target up 5 stories high from that 269m distance. So it’s be interesting to see just how close archers would have to get to retaliate against the ones firing at them from atop the battlements.
Always fun to see Archery / Crossbow videos. Especially with Joe Gibbs!
Todd, thanks for your continued effort in bringing out your videos. Lovely watch as always, cheers
I cannot express the delight I feel at every one of these video experiments.
My prediction is probably 5-10 meter difference. When firing flat the arrows are coming down at roughly a 45 degree angle, presumably given more air time the arrowhead will cause the tip to drop more and create a more vertical impact. This steeper final angle means that the arrow is not going to be getting as much horizontal distance, so the increased air time doesn’t produce a linearly increased distance.
EDIT: Even though I was wrong I’m glad to see that Tod had been thinking exactly the same thing.
But because he started much higher, he started with a much flatter trajectory and that's where distance was made.
I'm saying 90m from guesstimating the arrow takes 3 seconds to fall flat (if that was possible) from the battlement and flies 30 metres a second
My prediction was the same but i figured a bit further out. I'm still left with my original thought, which is that closer shots are going to have a much flatter trajectory, meaning that within maybe 100yds, you're firing much more accurately.
I was thinking it would be less of an extra distance because on the same ballistic trajectory the arrow would indeed by pointing more downwards towards the end and the height difference wouldn't make as big of a difference. However, it turns out the ballistic trajectory to shoot as far as you can from a even ground is actually probably different than the ballistic trajectory when shooting from up high. When shooting from up high, as others have said, you can get away with shooting a flatter trajectory and put more energy in the horizontal movement of the arrow when you don't have to compensate for the arrow hitting the ground too soon by aiming more upwards, so it actually is a big difference in the end. Really interesting.
Joe's accuracy is outstanding thank you for taking the time to put this together.
This is very useful information for my D&D campaign. 10% extra range from an elevated position can make a difference.
99.99999% more cover also.
Brilliant, as usual! I love the collaborations with Joe Gibbs.
Todd, if you had asked a golfer he would have told you elevation makes a big difference even when the descent/landing angle gets to 50%+.
Another thing that you didn't mention, but that would be very important in a siege, is how much closer the attackers would need to be than the people on the tower. The people on the tower as you noted could potentially hit a target up to 300 yards away, however to shoot from the field UP to the top of the battlements would need to be much closer than the 269 flat shot, likely somewhere around ~240 yards. So we are talking about a 60 yard gap in distance. Not only do the people on the tower have the battlements to hind behind, but their shots will also be flatter and have more velocity retained. It's a massive advantage.
Such a good point
Oh I know it makes a difference, but just didn't know how much. Also we do need to be cautious comparing different things like fast light modern arrows, bullets, shells, golf balls etc speeds, densities and of course dimples all change the reality from each other
@@tods_workshop Don't forget that Newton had not invented Gravity until 1666... back in 1448 they were still working with centuries old Aristotelian physics - those guys could probably get 300-400 yards!
Just recovering from major surgery and watching jack made everything hurt... what a champ!
The advantage of shooting from height has always been clearer lines of sight and the ability to hit something otherwise hidden behind cover (because arrows travel through the sky better than the ground).
and the corresponding disadvantage the other way around
Amazing...I had shot a few rounds with a 60lb bow years ago, and I'm no slouch.....140lb over and over, is an incredible effort...Joe is a total unit....brilliant effort young man ;0)
Loved the video. Glad that Joe chose to loose the rest of the arrows at the target, as it was quite entertaining and interesting to watch. Also, what a fantastic setting to be doing experimental archeology!
The grouping of the first three arrows is staggering! Gobsmacked, and I haven't even seen the whole thing yet
Im super stoked for this one. Todd is becoming the premiere medieval artillery expert. Unfortunately my girl is gonna wanna watch this eith me later.
Watch it twice!
Oh no, how terrible!
Joe is such a machine. Amazing to see him do his thing. If there had been a body of Men there they wouldnt have taken damage.
Also nice to see that just like Michael, Joe is also getting more relaxed on camera. Thx to everyone involved in this.
What this tells us is that you have to set your camp up a REALLY long way away from a castle's walls to avoid getting spiked. At those distances the arrow probably doesn't have enough energy to get through any meaningful armour but you sure wouldn't want one landing on you in your sleep or on the toilet!
It just adds so much flavour to our understanding of siege warfare. At those distances you have to have a really giant cordon to properly encircle a place. Let's say you pitch your tent 270m away to be properly safe. At such distances being able to see what's going on at the extremes would be hard during the day and REALLY hard at night. A 270m radius circle gives you a circumference of 1700m and that's from an imaginary point - not from what's already a large area such as a castle which probably has a circumference of a few hundred metres.
Medieval armies weren't huge - 10,000 men was a very big deal. It's not logical or feasible to spread your men evenly around this circumference to guard it. With 10,000 men you'd end up with 5 men per metre of your imaginary cordon. An enemy could easily sally forth at night and defeat that - and with such a large cordon it would be impossible to rally your men to counter that. In our hypothetical case it would already take about 5 minutes to respond assuming you could run a near 4 minute mile! Certainly not possible with armour and if it was at night you probably wouldn't want to run your horses along ground they couldn't see.
So you end up splitting your men into say 4 groups of 2500 to cover the 4 compass points with maybe a few guards every 10m or so on the cordon to raise an alarm should someone sally out in force or try and sneak past it's still pretty difficult to respond effectively.
The point is that you can quickly see how hard it would have been to keep an enemy sealed in - how easy it would have been to sneak food in and out and why the Romans put such an emphasis on engineering - building a surrounding wall/ditch to try and mitigate this problem. I'm not aware of medieval armies doing anything like what the Romans did, which is probably why sieges lasted for years and years in medieval times. Castles and cities were probably pretty porous during sieges.
An arrow at 70m retains more than 80% of its initial velocity, not sure at this, but even if we say 50% and I actually suspect around 80%, that is still plenty to cause death on unarmored people and would still likely go through poor mail
Thanks for a detailed breakdown - much appreciated. I think what I found really intriguing is that assuming half the guys were archers then that equates to an arrow every 30 seconds from each guy (on average). That is pretty leisurely and I love the difference between Hollywood/pop culture perception and reality
@@tods_workshop Hey Tod - love your videos! I took that low overall rate of fire as indication that the action was sporadic as opposed to sustained - which makes complete sense in light of what we know about modern conflicts. Assaults on fortifications are rarely sustained. You probe and push for a weakness - but then retreat and re-assess, particularly if you're taking heavy fire and possibly casualties. One death doesn't really tell us about the overall casualty rate and in many ways injured are worse than dead. They take up a lot of resources. You need to get them out of danger, tend to their injuries, they ruin morale with all their complaining etc...
It sounded like a gang skirmish rather than a full blown battle. If that's the case the chances are probable that no one there was really expecting to die or indeed prepared to fight to the death.
I expect there were many pauses in the action. Maybe even lasting a few hours whilst the attackers tried to plan or simply rally courage. That tower looked like a pretty substantial fortification and quite easy for a small group to defend effectively. I wouldn't want to storm it even with 200 heavily armoured men. I'd rather sit back with your trebuchet and lob a few rocks or something hot and nasty to try and set the tower alight!
I like the point that came up in one of your earlier videos about the time between Joe drawing and loosing an arrow, and that time that Hollywood archers hold their bows at full draw. 😄🥵@@tods_workshop
This is real experimental archeology. We need more people like Todd.
I'm only half joking when I say that I'm expecting to see Tod and Joe do a video where they are on a 15th century Ship out at sea shooting at a target on a different ship to test "Naval Archery" and whether the Mary Rose bows would be theoretically heavier than those used on land (maybe Marines were better quality of soldier due to limited numbers; aka heavier due to more specialization), theoretically lighter (accuracy more important at sea than range due to not being able to retrieve arrows that miss an opposing ship a.k.a. lighter due to ammunition restrictions), or largely no different.
Then I'd expect a follow up video where Michael throws harpoons overboard.
Now that is a plan - I know Joe hasn't shot from a ship. Now I just need a ship
@@tods_workshop "Tod the Shipbuilder" has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
@@tods_workshop I wonder if the Oosterschelde might be willing to let you go for a spin. She's a schooner, but boat is boat.
Quite interesting. And it's always a pleasure to see Joe Gibbs.
Great video as always! it would be interesting to compare the spread of the arrows between longbow and crossbow at that distance.
Great video! I was also surprised by how much further it went.
I think a reason for the arrow going further than anticipated might be due to the angle of the released arrow. When shooting from higher ground the optimal release angle is lowered.
Any idea how much more power an arrow would have being shot down onto attackers? I know it's just gravitational potential energy + starting velocity but it would still be awesome to shoot a shield on the level and then from the tower to see the difference!
It would depend on the angle. Arrows lose most of their speed to drag, and they are going many times faster than their terminal velocity, so I'd think not much.
From mid ranges I think it would be more effective simply because your target would be larger firing at groups of men.
@@kingsford6540 That's a good point.
Another outstanding video. Watching Joe shoot his bow is amazing. It will be interesting to see the difference between the long bow and the crossbow.
Interesting that Joe stood a yard back from the battlements giving up that distance. His shooting stance is also fascinating.
It’s because he doesnt want to damage his bow on the stonework
Another part is that any time that you get close enough to an obstacle, it will affect you mentally. Unless you're training for a while with it there, you want to be far enough back to put it mostly out of your mind. One more thing is that he was shooting over the merlons, and fairly flat, so he needed enough space to be sure that his arrows wouldn't clip them if anything went wrong.
@@rianfelis3156 I figured he was protecting his bow from the stone.
I didn't ask, but I suspect Hema has it, but it was an unusual position for him, if he was used to it, it may have been different
@@tods_workshop We don't send archers to the parapets much anymore! Love your videos. Keep being amazing.
Joe is seriously impressive. His technique is impeccable and he shot a heck of lot of arrows under that heavy draw weight. It may look goofy but he is engaging every muscle in his back and arms while finding the point of release and then lunging forward into the shot
First I thought it was a Shad video, then a cooperation. But Joe GIbbs sure is a better pick.
I love Joe’s technique. Love to see him shoot. Nice video, thanks!
IMPORTAINT QUESTION: Maybe for another video, how close does an archer have to be, to be able to hit a person up in a tower 20 meters up.
(20m is just a random guess, take a number average tower/walls height)
@@cropduster123 - So you spent time reply to my question, but u ignore the question..cool
I enjoy these videos so much. Nobody has tried out this stuff. So fun.
Pretty sure elevation makes a big difference in long range shooting with firearms too. It seems that this is known to be the case for artillery.
I found this quote:
"The extra height will give you more travel time before it strikes the ground, and hence more time to travel horizontally. In an ideal situation, the projectile maintains its horizontal speed until it hits the ground. If the ground is further "down" from where it was fired, it means it will travel further, all else being equal."
So.. for those who might not look at ancient illustrations very much this is a demonstration of the exact pose medieval archers are shown to have used! Think Froissart! Amazing recreation!!
Shooting for distance from the ground, you angle up 45 degrees for max distance. On top of a tower, you're part way through the trajectory from the ground, so you shoot at a lower angle. Todd's archer did this... check it out in the video. This is equivalent to a stronger bow shooting from the ground behind the tower which of course gives you a good bit more distance.
I believe that the required angle would be the same at the top of the tower.
He shot the same distance on the level from the top of the tower as he did on the ground. Then the arrow had another 20yrds to drop, while descending at approximately a 45 ° degree angle--which translates to another 20 yards further. Eyeballing the angle of the arrows stuck in the ground--the angle may have been flatter than 45°. Hard to tell from the video.
From the tower you shoot at a lower angle, to reach the same target, if you shoot at 45 degrees it will reach further... don't argue basic physics.
What an awesome opportunity. Really gives you a sense of just how effective fortifications were and how skewed our ideas get when most of what we see is epic movies with sieges and battles made to look exciting, but then we see the reality of trying to sling arrows at people for hours while some are protected by a giant stone tower with a height advantage and the attackers can spread out all around and you see just how hard it is to hit things.
I think the main reason you thought that the angle was so great on the last meters is because that's what the arrows look like stuck in the ground, but you've got to bear in mind that when the arrows sticks in the ground, it's horizontal velocity makes it rotate a bit and so it sticks up more than the angle it had just before touching the ground.
I just want to say thank you for changing the way i look at history
Did you mean farther? 0:37
Only if you’re American.
@ What do you mean?
@@cct7558 “People use both further and farther to mean “more distant.” However, American English speakers favor farther for physical distances and further for figurative distances.” Interesting
I''m a physics lecturer. From the top of the tower, the arrow has to be fired from LESS than 45 deg. to get max range.
Out of curiosity, was the 296 the distance from the arrow to the top of the tower, or to the base of the tower?
I'd bet they measured from the top of the tower, and that's what made it the extra 9 yards. If they measured from the bottom I'd bet it would be exactly (or near enough) 20 yards farther or the height of the tower
Everything in this channel always makes me smile and I enjoy the content.
00:00 🏰 Longbow Experiment: Shooting a longbow from a medieval tower, exploring its distance compared to shooting from ground level.
01:21 🎯 Environmental factors like temperature affect bow performance; colder weather generates more power.
02:13 🏹 On a flat field, the longbow shot reached 269 yards, showcasing its range.
03:36 🏰 Historical context: Stanton Harcourt Manor House's 1450 archery siege, where the experiment took place, had notable historical significance.
05:19 🍺 The height difference from shooting on the tower vs. ground level significantly impacted the longbow's distance.
08:29 💪 Shooting a longbow consistently over a period is physically demanding; even with fewer arrows in historical sieges, breaks were necessary.
10:41 🎯 Contrary to initial belief, shooting a longbow from height notably extends its range due to the angle and energy retention during flight.
love all your video with joe (im an archer my self from canada shooting 125lbs bow ) keep the good work !! =D
I think it would be very interesting to see how close the attacker has to get to the tower to avoid being shot at since the battlements are in the defender's path.
In general, a series of arrows against armor from this tower would be fantastic
I love your videos, keep it up
It basically flew the same distance further as the tower was tall ( slight bit further), which makes sense as the arrow would have extra time to drop to the ground.
thank you for this! I just love your exploratory content. I'm always excited when I see a new one and watch it straight away
Love this view of Arms and Armor history. Shows how lethal a hundred or more longbowmen were on the battlefield. No wonder very good longbowmen like Joe were of such high value.
Todd, awesome job. I really enjoy seeing what these weapons were really capable of.
to see all of those weapons in actions is just fantastic thank you for doing it i love the chemistry between you and joe and the competition too it friendly and i love history to see history coming alive is awsome joe is a fantastic archer and you are a fantastic teacher and crafstman
so cool guys !! I'm a hobby-archer as well - love watching this stuff
Finally some briliant guys had the idea to make such a youtube video! Superb!
AWESOME video! Thank y'all for making this! I look forward to the crossbow version!
Brilliant! One thing seems clear. You will have a hard time hitting individual targets at a distance from a tower. A formation of men would be another thing. Well done Joe and Tod!
Awesome test! Seems like a big advantage for the defenders. Especially since they could test the distance beforehand and mark it out.