In general, at least at the moment, Tod's comments are fairly civil, and constructive. Which is a fair blessing online. So it's less a trench walk and more a scenic walk in a wooded gully :p
One thing that the tests failed to address was that during the battle of Agincourt many of the English archers were very ill from dysentery, so much so that reports stated that many cut away the backs of their trousers to save time. In future experiments I suggest that you force feed Joe several curries/baked beans/Newcastle Brown Ale and laxatives before the experiment takes place. This should replicate the effects on the English archers at the time of battle, an effect which is known in modern Britain as "Sunday mornings."
@Frankthetank123098 especially if they stick the spare arrows in the 'soil' as was often done on battlefields. Biological weapons at their finest! Now we know why many knights would die of wound infections.
@@Tennouseijin "Francois, why is your magnificently gilded breastplate turning brown? I did not see you fall into the mud." "What? No, Gilbert it was all those English arrows that kept hitting my...... Oh! Those @&%$£&!:$!!!!!"
This explains the English victory. The French knights lifted their visors so they could clutch their noses. Also, when the front line tried to back away from the stench, they'll have caused confusion and worsened the press. Some may even have fainted. What a way to go!
@@erikjarandson5458 And any knights who would try to put fabric etc. inside their helmets like a gas mask to block the stench, would have reduced their vision and breathing even further.
@Christian Changer Mike Loades made a video a few years back where he tested a warbow against a historical gambeson, it was pretty good but Tod’s video is definitely better.
I haven't done anything to contribute to this discussion, other than sharing the video and praising it as one of the best researched test videos on arrows and armour. This response to comments furthers the depth that the team has gone through to respect the historical authenticity that we know of. Well done.
Just wanted to say that I appreciate how unique your channel is. Your passion is fantastic, and I learn a heck of a lot every time I watch. Your production quality is fantastic these days too. Keep up the great work mate!
@@peter4210 thirded, and very much hoping the videos pull enough money to allow for this to become a series. I'd love to see a sort of hand made mythbusters style with professionally done weapons and armor in various situations.
@@SwadianKnight101 given he pulled like 2 million views, I'm assuming that the funding should take care of itself. I'm thinking it is more scheduling both the time to do said videos/time for the professionals to manage to get around to it at the same time and to ensure he puts out the videos slowly enough to not drive off the hype. It sucks, but better to do it slow and steady for a long time than burst through a quick run of epic vids that result in it fizzling as people stop tuning in every time
Hey Todd, Thanks for mentioning me. Wonderful video again, I think you have addressed everything in a very accurare and professional way. I watched this video while having pizza. I don't know why I told you this last piece of information but hey. Keep it up!
Now i have the memory of a neopolitan restaurant resurrected in my mind, the craving for fresh sauce & herbs with melted cheese made the previous day.... We have it all in Wisconsin.
I feel like a lot of people were taking this as "it would be cool to see a longbow arrow pierce a breastplate" instead of "here is a case study with relatively accurate gear". Frankly, I find the null results FAR more interesting, as it leads to deeper questions about tactics, psychology, etc
i mean weve been plinking arrows at good breastplates all over the net, lindybeige filmed an armourer showing his breastplate being hit with a 150l bow as well and it did bugger all. hence why, s i said in the video comments, i am FAR more interested in testing the smaller but still essential armour pieces, cuisses, helmets and helmet visors, aventails, voiders. the breastplate wont likely fail but those areas failing or holding up is likely where most of the wounds would be sustained
@@elgostine This is a late comment..but! The tactical advantage of raining arrows on an advancing enemy is probably huge. The knights that are walking over the battlefield have to close their visors and look down to mitigate the risk of getting an arrow in a less protected part of the helmet. The sound of swarms of arrows hitting you and the rest of your line would be loud. To all that we can add the slippery and wet conditions at Agincourt. Its easy to think of something could and would go wrong. Keeping in formation without hearing commands or seeing exactly what is happening would be very hard indeed. And if you and your men manage to close with the enemy line you have been walking all that way with a closed visor. Chances are that you all will at the very least be exhausted.
The maturity of this video is astounding and quite refreshing in the YT landscape. You seem to approach this as an adult or teacher imo should; acknowledging the questions, factual, relaxed, to the point and with the ability to say "I don't know" or "someone else can answer this better than me". Bravo!
All valid points, I didn't have many of the concerns some others seem to have had but appreciate the greater insight into the decisions made. Looking forward to the next in the series.
Tod: "Medieval Smiths! Assemble!" Joe: "You have my bow." Will: " You have my arrows." Kevin: " You have my armour." Chrissi: " You have my paddings." Tobias: " You have my scrolls." Tod: " Let's (after 30 seconds loading crossbow) end this rightly." (to be continue)
@@johnmccallum9106 they also don't have armour or paddings, etc. But that's just not the point here. Besides... who says crossbows cannot have pommels in the first place?! If you want a pommel on your crossbow, there's nothing preventing you from adding one.
Well, my biggest question: Will there be more tests? was answered! I’m very much looking forward to the next videos. Thanks lads for all the work you’ve done and are doing.
I know I'm very late to the discussion on this, but regarding the question of "How did the English win at Agincourt if the longbow could not penetrate French armor?": Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the only tangible benefit on the battlefield comes from killing shots through the breastplate head-on, and that if your shots aren't scoring kills, you aren't being useful. There are still plenty of avenues for longbow hits to have contributed in a critical role to the English victory. Don't think of it as being a leading contributor of kills, necessarily. Think of it as degrading the ability of the French army to operate due to wounds--yes, non-lethal wounds--and fatigue, both physical and psychological. First off, consider the psychological impact of being under fire from those heavy arrows coming down, or, as the case may be, coming straight at you and your comrades. As Tod mentions here, there's always the sense that you're not safe. You *know* there are weak points in your armor, and all it takes is one lucky arrow to find its mark, or for some of those splinters to slip in somewhere and cause some harm. More to the point, even if the arrows are not penetrating, one can't imagine the sensation of an impact would be comfortable. That has to contribute to the psychological strain as well, and imagine having to suffer through the dread of arrows pinging off of your armor like dozens of little hammers banging away at you while your formation trudges across open ground. You can't very well charge forward across that whole distance, and you'd much rather cluster together with your brothers in arms instead of breaking ranks to rush forward, so you can't very well use speed to reduce the time during which you're under fire. Sure, your armor is keeping you safe, but that's only good for as long as you can hold it together. That psychological strain has an exhaustion all its own. Men reaching the English lines already a bit worn down from the barrage--both physically and mentally--are going to be easier to break. Secondly, and just as importantly, you're not just dealing with arrows hitting the front of your breastplate, where your armor is thickest. Not only do you have those gaps to worry about, but the armor isn't of uniform thickness. Consider Tod's test shooting at brigandine. Those arrows punched through 1.2mm mild steel plates. That's not to say any and all 1.2mm plates of iron-based metal would be equally vulnerable; angles matter a lot as well, for example. However, we can already see ways in which armor at the periphery is more vulnerable. Arrows striking the inside of the elbow, for example, might penetrate, or might penetrate through a plate elsewhere on a limb. Thinner plates offer other opportunities for penetration. And then, as soon as you've been wounded, you're no longer as effective in combat. Either you are brave and resilient enough to keep fighting despite a physical injury or you have to withdraw from the line. Either way, that is a longbow arrow that has degraded the effectiveness of the French army, right there. All of those factors add up.
Interesting points. I dont know which war exactly this reffered to but i think it was vietnam where some traps were specificly designed not to kill but to wound the enemy. The thought is that it is more ressource consuming to treat and evacuate a wounded soldier than it is to just have a dead body. And the alternative to just end them right there or leave wounded people to die slowly or fall into the hands of the enemy would probably drop your troops moral signifficantly, to know you will get abandoned by your comrades is a horrible thought imo so eitherway having people wounded sucks. Again i dont know how accurate that information is but it made sense to me and fits perfect with your train of thought.
That tactic has been used throughout the history of warfare. To the point snipers will let a wounded soldier live so those attempting help are new targets. Amazing scene in full metal jacket shows it spectacularly.
@@paultequlabeer That's not even really what I'm referring to. That was the sniper letting a wounded soldier act as bait. I'm talking about, on an even more superficial level, an injured man can no longer fight at full capacity and, often times, he would probably withdraw rather than proceed to join the attack knowing that his limb or shoulder has an arrow lodged in it. He's not dead, and his armor may well have done its job, but you've still taken a man out of the fight.
@@DavidEllis94 similar to how punji pits caltrops snipers purposefully wounding are all able to degrade the effectiveness of the unit as a whole. Again tons of examples throughout history so while you’re “not even referring to” my initial example it’s a very similar tactic.
@BLUE DOG Because you actually don't precisely aim with a warbow. Well you try to. But you are aiming at moving troops that are relatively far away. Also they didn't set out to discover whether or not the arrow would pierce a helmet or a leg piece. They set out to discover whether or not it would pierce a breastplate.
@@Tibovl When I was young and was into medieval RPGs, I had a miniature in plate that had the huge bulging stomach/breast plate... we used to call that 'fat mail' (vs. plate mail) but it makes more sense having seen the historical armour in action. I'd bet a lot of prettier looking armours wouldn't be half as effective.
@BLUE DOG Doubting it's simple to hit the eyes through a good helmet well designed to also deflect shots. It might be your best bet, but it may well not still be a great bet and the odds of missing entirely go up. Were it me, I'd guess to shoot for the thighs, knees, and upper arms with elbows. The joints will be less well armoured likely and the if you get through what might well be thinner armour on the upper arm or leg, you can hit pretty major veins and arteries (esp the leg). With an arm down or a leg out, the knight may well be mission killed.
@@Tibovl If you are shooting at any formation in mail or lighter armour (not knights), center of mass is a good bet for maximum number of hits and maximum effect. Now, if they were firing straight (vs. arced) and at ranges 30m and under, they they might be able to try a headshot, but your odds of a miss go up. Shoot for the body, try to find an armour join or a bending joint or the side or rear of a limb that might be easier to penetrate. Of course, if they were horsed (not this case), shoot the horse. They have less armour and taking them out removes the mobility and shock power plus the collapse could pin or kill the knight.
Tod, the channel is amazing, specially for me, a fan of the subject. Thanks for the dedication and for the great work! Been in a distant country with no Medieval history (Brazil), it is a great pleasure to find a channel such as yours. Keep up the great work! Cheers!
It's amazing that first, people who would have never done any of the work and training and expense to do your test are so quick to criticize, and second, that you took the time to answer the better criticisms in full. - Thank you again for all of your work and attention to detail. You entertain and educate us all.
Another solid performance, Tod! This test was excepionally well received by most creators and viewers on this part of UA-cam, and for a very good reason. You adress one specific aspect of the subject matter, and that is a very sound strategy. This video is really a defense of the method used, but your humble approach instead transforms it into an in-depth explanation. You’re a great educator, Tod. I very much look forward to your group’s future tackling of other aspects.
Side note: i just learned that if you edit (i had to correct a minor spelling error) a "favorited" comment, it losses its "favorite" status. I suspect this is to prevent commentors from messing with content creators by changing harmless comments into awful or offensive remarks
I've said this before but your medieval mythbusting is possibly the best test in medieval weapons and armor that I have ever seen. The fact that you went so specific in a situation and focus on the most realistic scenario is what makes it so good. That's some real experimentation there.
I'm glad there is so much excitement, the video deserves the attention. Hopefully, we can have more of these videos. It's great that you are taking the time to answer these questions.
Thanks for this Tod. Many clarifications to my questions (particularly those regarding blunt force trauma, those fellows with the vests were madmen. I am always impressed with just how much punishment the human body can withstand with just a little bit of help.) and it's interesting to hear that others were curious about the same thing I was. Really interested to see how you guys get along with answering some of the lingering questions in future videos (I think anything horse related is going to be a challenge). Eager to see what comes next.
14:33 Sounds awesome! I know you said your goal wasn't to pierce the armor, but I'd love a video where that was the objective. Either by using different points, different bows, or even different weapons! Seems like it'd be awesome, (if not expensive to destroy a piece of plate).
The original video was IMHO well informed and well set up. Many of the comments you addressed in this video you had already answered and I am impressed by your patience in coming back to re-answer them. I look forward to future videos. My only advice to you comes in cod latin - nil illegitimae carborndum est - and keep up the good work.
You're a better man than I Tod. I wouldn't have bothered with addressing these questions, especially since it seems to me like most of what you said was at the very least alluded to in the original video. I really appreciate the care and quality of your videos and how patient and kind a teacher you are. Thank you for your excellent work.
My father and his archery friends did your series of tests in the 60s and filmed it (with slow motion in some cases too). The results were very similar to the results in your myth-busting film. Though I suspect the armour was not quite as thick as some penetrations were achieved. Plus they did some of the tests from a much greater range, so the arrows came from a high angle where the armour wasn't as thick. They concluded the 'shrapnel' and finding nooks and crannies with 1000s of projectiles would have been effective enough but the biggie for them was the injuries to horses (yes, I know there was horse armour but it was rare and could not cover all areas). Once the knights were on the ground it would have been game over. Fantastic videos Tod, keep up the great work!
@@Kriegerdammerung From what I gather, Richard was actually hit in the shoulder, died of gangrene two weeks later, and most importantly, sources closest to the event mention that he wasn't wearing any armor, only his helmet. So probably not relevant here.
@@lscibor Which begs the question: "Why in god's name was he not wearing his armor???" You'd think a king out on campaign would wear the best armor available. As king, he probably had access to the best Gambeson, Mail hauberks, Coifs and possibly even a coat of plates.
@@shockwave6213 , Same reason some leaders have worn red, moved across in front of their company, etc. To inspire their men. They come to be doing it for their leader, a stable and real thing to hang on to. I made a concrete decision to enjoy the adventure, to replace the fear. It worked.
@@shockwave6213 I don't know the specifics here but I can think of many times in history when a commander was not wearing armor for one reason or another. For example there is Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome from 361-363 AD. He was killed in the field when he was fighting without wearing armor for whatever reason and died from his wounds
I must say I am impressed. I was one who posed a question regarding the added momentum of the horses and am very pleased to have had my humble question addressed (especially when answering a different question referred to the previous test being about knights on foot which addressed my question without the need to later add detail.) I will certainly be looking forward to future tests. Thank you for taking the time to address our questions. It shows not only an attention to your viewers but adds to demonstrating your earnest attempt to cover every angle in case you, yourself, missed something.
Tod, your original video was not only interesting but very very thorough in laying out the parameters of the tests you were doing and what conclusions that could be drawn from it. It sounds to me like most of those questions you just answered were posed by people who didn't pay attention to the first video. Really looking forward to more of these analysis type videos, you do them very well !
An excellent series that I am enjoying following. Such an esteemed collection of experts analyzing and testing the questions we've all been asking for so many years. Thank you :-)
Dear Tod (and crew), in the web wide world of hysteria, half-facts and hypocrisy and Clickbaiting, you stand as a rock of reason, common sense and hard work. Thank you for all your efforts.
I love everyone online that knows more than real professionals that did the experiment. Most of them learned everything they know from Hollywood movies and fantasy books.
A jolly good continuation of the original, I think we all want to see those arrows punch through armour so there are bound to be questions and I think you answered them, to use a popular phrase, ''fully and frankly''. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing more myth busting.
You have followed up a great video with a good "questions answered" video. The thing that I would really like to see in further tests is to add shoulders to the armour to see if the ricochet pieces of the arrows lodge in the shoulders and armpit? Mounting a helmet for similar reasons would be great- but it all adds to the cost and preparation time.
Sheesh - folks really were not paying any attention to the video at all..... you disclaimer-ed almost all of those questions. REALLY looking forward to the following up videos - of which thier must be soo many qued up already - sounds like a long running series to me - excellent! You folks have the best test(s) going - keep it up - FOR SCIENCE!
100% correct! Everything Tod says in this video, he said in the first one. It's as if the people who were complaining didn't pay attention the first time. Of course, they probably won't pay attention this time either. :(
Seems to be an internet thing, people agitating themselves over something they did not read/listen to in it's entirety. Pretty common, but you are 100% correct.
Exactly and what daft questions in my opinion. Why did they not do this and why do that? Why didn't they use a cannon? stupid. People with doubts with zero knowledge of that time, the battle nor are they blacksmiths etc
The internet has created many platofrms that allow anyone, no matter how well educated or not, no matter how informed and intelligent or not, to have a say. It is literally the entire bell curve of quality in replies when maybe only the top two sigma are worth the time. I guess it is empowering, but not necessarily elevating the discourse.
I've only watched the original Arrows vs Armour video and this one, and I already have a huge amount of respect for you as creators on this show and the obvious expertise you have. I look forward to watching a great deal more of your content.
Great content. I also wanted to thank you, I bought one of your bronze handled folding knives for my father’s birthday, which just arrived yesterday. He loves it and we all agree it’s beautiful. Thanks for everything!
I so deeply love your videos.... Thank you so much, from across the pond.... I love your videos and knowledge, thank you on behalf of the thousands for helping us learn and appreciate every damn thing you speak about... I feel like I have learned so much from you, metatron, and shad, and schola... Thank you for your community... is truly awesome..... THANKS! What wonders I have beheld, what questions, honestly investigated...... pure wonder.. and love. Bless every one here and 'round in community.
I must say though that there's a surprising amounts of sources from Agincourt that mention a lot of knights getting killed by arrows. It seems like visors were particularly "easily" penetrated, likely owing to the breaths. Some of the sources do imply breastplates being penetrated as well, which I believe could certainly be possible in two situations: 1. When the breastplates are weaker. And to reinforce this point I will mention some armour regulations from 1448 France. Said regulations states that a plate cuirass should be proofed with 2 marks if it was windlass crossbow-proof or with 1 mark if it was proof against lever crossbows or _bows._ However the bows that the English used were more powerful than the French ones, and I'd probably put the power they delievered at closer to the mark of a windlass. Meaning that if you had armour in a similar grade as the single-proofed armour, it may get penetrated at close ranges. 2. The second situation would be if arrows hit the same place a few times. One arrow may leave a dent, but hit with two or three in the same place and it will likely pierce. And while this seems uncommon, it perhaps is not when you send thousands upon thousands of arrows downrange. The chance goes from highly unlikely to somewhat plausible. Of course it bears to mention that if every single arrow fired did damage, then the French would never have reached the lines of the English and there would never be a melee (even if one particular source says something along the lines of 'No one arrow flied without wounding', however I have my doubts about that statement). But even if a mere 10% of arrows found their mark, that effect would be quite profound and in line with what is described in the accounts of the battle.
Something to keep in mind, I believe that the English forced the French to cross a field...after a rain, hence why there were no horses or mounted charges. Knights would have gotten bogged down in the mud, slower and easier pickings with more volleys able to be fired. On top of the ones who simply got stuck and became, according to one source I read (I am sorry, I can't remember what the source is), so deeply mired in the muck that when the archers walked out onto the field they simply strode up to the stuck knights (they wore no armor so could move fairly easily), flipped open their visor and stabbed them in the eyes.
@@135Fenrir I think that last is reasonable, given testing of armor steel in mud done in another video on another channel, and the force required to extract it (while those with cloth shoes had no trouble, those with armored feet were well and truly stuck. Those who fell down were also well and truly stuck. Victims for those dastardly English peasants with their daggers.
My personal belief is that your first point might be close to what has actually happened. There is a video of a Polish bladesmith, who builds his blades from historical material and then tests such a blade against historical steel. Search for "legenda polskiej sztuki wyrobu oręża - Festiwal Tajemnic 2014" to find the video. The testing starts around 21:30 mark. He starts with historical iron, then proceeds to modern iron and finally modern mild steel. His blade is capable of simply cutting the historical material with ease and no damage to the edge at all. Modern iron is much tougher, modern mild steel is on yet another level. The brestplate tested in Todd's video was built from modern steel. It's hard to tell how much better it is than what was available in XVth century, but most probably it does not reflect the quality of the vast majority of armor available back then. I mean, there must have been a reason for using bodkin points as shown around 1:50 mark... We even know this particular bodkin was shot at something hard, because the tip rolled over. A point shaped like that is bad at piercing maile, it's not very good against flesh and it only makes sense as plate-piercing device.
Taking a simple look at the outcomes of all the battles it's pretty clear that without a defensive setup the English forces were overrun. That gives an impression that multiple arrow strikes are needed for effective archery.
I would like to say, that having watched this video after watching the original, I must say... "Thank you." So many times response videos turn out in a way that almost reads as "We did it how we wanted, deal with it." and instead you answered the broad topics and in both a calm and respectful way, as well as informative. I truly appreciate you and the team that did this, and thus I plan to subscribe as to binge watch many of these. I wish you all the best, and look forward to all your coming content.
Definitely. When you are talking draw weights as big as they were talking, you don't just draw it like any other bow unless you are Hercules. With a little training, I managed to draw a 200 lb. bow once. Once. And the way that I had to bend my body, to use every muscle I had, was very similar to the way it was shown in the video.
@@HistoricalWeapons My local fish and hunting club has an Archery program every year that lasts two weeks . Its a driv eto get more people interested in Archery (they started it after the uptick i interest after The Hunger Games movies). They had a guy from the UK there who was running a seminar on the longbow. He had a 200lb. bow and was giving some instruction on it. I would never purchase one myself. Too heavy, too difficult for me to use. Too expensive!
How many people have seen that though? A lot of the test shooting videos out there I've seen have been at about 80-100lbs because that's all they could manage.
The people complaining about Joe's technique sound like they've never pulled a bow over 90 lbs in their life. Also, what makes them think that that would affect the outcome? The same bow, same arrow, same velocity, same distance, same target. So the result will be the same.
My longbow is 90 lbs. It is well suited to me, but and extra 60-70 lbs would make it way to much for a aimed shot, if I even could pull it. I guess I would need lots of extra training.
Amazing job addressing the context around that first test. I’m also very excited for Toby’s reply and the upcoming / subsequent testing you’ll be doing. I can’t wait for the follow up videos in this incredibly interesting series. Keep it up! :)
One thought that I had as I was watching this is the shape of the Breastplate had a lot to do with dissipating the energy of the arrow, and I am curious how much effectiveness is lost as more dents are made to it. One example, a Knight gets whacked in the belly with a mace and makes a large dent, which is followed by a hardened tip arrow. Another example, 5 Archers singled out one knight and pelted that knight with 5 arrows at once in 3 volleys. Could arrows compromise the shape of the armor enough that one arrow would not glance off the side any more and penetrate it?
One of the best videos I've watched in years. Simply amazing, You can see and literally feel your passion, and that of your experts participating in their respective fields . It makes for an enjoyable exchange of information and leaves me wanting to know more. Seeing a "War Bowmen" in action is amazing to say the least. The fear that they were able harness and use as another "silent" second weapon is incalculable in value on a war front. Can you imagine 100, or even 1000 Master Bowmen like Joe raining down death upon those that oppose the Crown?
I’m so glad you took time to film this and answer a few questions from people, to me it shows an unbiased approach. The legend of the long is something we British are instilled with, and while it must’ve been effective on the battlefield to some degree it would never be the only reason for victory at Agincourt. I’m really enjoying these videos and I’m hoping you get chance to put more together. My understanding for the victory at Agincourt boils down to the different fighting styles, the British relying on archers and men at arms. While the French were after individual combat with someone of equal standing to themselves. But the French also expected to be able to be taken prisoner and ransomed back to their family, however at Agincourt there was a major concern that so many French had surrendered and were taken to the rear of the British lines. This would mean the British could’ve been caught in a pincer like movement if the French prisoners rose up, so king Henry V ordered the slaughter of the French and it was some of the archers that carried out those orders. As I say that’s my understanding. Please keep the videos coming 👍
You guys are doing excellent work! The most comprehensive and realistic testing I've seen. Could you please do some tests for accuracy at various ranges for mounted knights with the Long Bow? Churchill wrote that many knights were pinned through their legs and in many other places besides through the most protective armor. I find it hard to believe that lifelong archers would not selectively target an armored opponent, especially at close range.
Nice video. I would still like to see heavier arrows used, such as the "quarter pound" arrow. If the arrows that were used had shafts of poplar or other light wood, maybe an ash shaft would do better. And also, I think the blunt force would be most effective against the head, not the breast, at least for the disorienting effect. That would be interesting to look into.
Yeah, for a longbow to be shooting arrows at 180 FPS seems to be indicative of a fairly light arrow grain per pound wise. You could undoubtedly squeeze out more energy there. But, of course, those arrows would be terrible for distance shooting.
@@nutyyyy Yes, but there are also historical arrows that were heavier and I would like to see those tested because I think they would be more effective.
@@jamesk8730 medieval arrows were lossed at comparatively short ranges (consistent evidence that they fired flat trajectories), where the speed would be more an advantage than momentum of mass.
Something many people fail to consider is that longbows could have played a significant role in a battle that was won for reasons that would have played out the same with various other ranged weapons, ie reasons not directly related to their ability to pierce good armor. How many knights actually died from ranged weaponry, how many were killed when isolated in melee, how many were killed while captives when their captors beat a hasty retreat, etc?
Would a crash dummy really be able to provide relevant data in other circumstances than crashes? I'm under the impression those sensors are highly specialised for that very specific job. But if not, I'm voting for this idea!
The collaboration between craftsmen, sportsmen and academics to test theories on history adds so much to our understanding of what was possible. It helps to cut out the crazy news and take a moment to appreciate how things have changed for the better.
I really, really appreciate this update video of sorts. Because I was one of the people who did ask about the horse charge, and was curious. So I do like this little review video, very cool!
I suspect that many of us who watched and appreciated the video have tried out some ideas along these lines in the past, and some may have formed conclusions that may have been a little off the mark, or perhaps been a little along the lines of "wishful thinking". We're all human and that's just how it is. The video you produced has been by far and away the very best and most balanced test thus far attempted and I really don't think you should be overly concerned at some of the detractors who might just be a bit miffed at seeing their pet theories not quite being borne out. C'est la vie. Keep up the good work. No - make that keep up the excellent work - because that's what it is.
A lot of the "criticism" was noting variables not tested in the video, especially since it was stated that there would be follow up tests and was given respectfully and constructively. Not all, of course, as it it the internet, but surprisingly the large majority of it.
Thank you for answering my query about the added velocity/opposing energy from the mounted charge! I knew the French had dismounted during the battle, so I guess my query was more about their initial charge rather than facing leveled-off longbow fire afterward. I really appreciate your guys' historical replication using best-practices and average equipment-increased likelihood of historical reenactment is much better than outlier what-if scenarios (steel arrowheads, better armor, flank shots on the breastplate, etc.), and you guys do a splendid job of filming & post-production! Grammarcy, sir!
The weather at Agincourt and the soil composition played a great part in the French defeat. The weather was very wet and this caused the ground to become very sticky . If you walk across a wet clay field it sticks to your feet, if you don't stop and remove it it builds up and saps your strength. Also you have a crowding effect from the narrowing of the terrain. Think of the work recently done to computer model crowd accidents in Stadiums and the like. All of these factors added to the arrow storm causing the French knights to close their visors and try to walk in an orderly fashion over heavy slippery soil and people behind them pushing them on . In those circumstances it is likely that a great many knights fell over and were then walked over and drowned by their own side. They would not be able to stop and pick up a fallen comrade, they would have been trying not to fall over themselves and reach the English line of battle. In hindsight it was a battle the home side should have refused to fight as they had room to give and then chose to fight on a better suited field. Great video on the arms and armour and it looks like you have got it about right.
The original video was fantastic. Fact based and straight to the point with real conclusions based on the evidence provided and some, but not too much, insightful and knowledgeable commentary. Thank you for that video and for this one following it up. I really hope to see many more experimental videos like this. They are absolutely top tier videos and I hope you are proud of the quality of the content you have put out for us to view.
I would love to see something like this dealing with blunt trauma and metal deformation with slings vs Roman and Spanish armour. The spaniards were said to be most afraid of the slings when fighting the Inka at Cusco and Saqsayhuaman. Thank you for the most in depth video on this subject, and you even delved deep into the UA-cam comment section, brave soul indeed.
Interviewer: "Big question, this is the one I always ask you medievalists. You got an arrow like this. A thick shafted, bodkin tipped arrow like this, can it punch through plate armour?" Toby Capwell: ........ Not really... But it doesn't matter. If you... One of the things I've been asking myself in the last couple of days as I've been thinking more about this is "Did Henry V do the math?" Because if you actually sit down and start doing a few calculations, there's a very, very strange effect that happens, and you find that the longbow doesn't actually have to be that effective against armour on this scale. The numbers really stack up in the English favor. If Henry's sitting down and does the figures, It's very clear that even if the archers are only shooting 4 arrows a minute, and that's slow. That's taking your time. That's taking your cup of tea and biscuits between shots. You can still kill a 1000 French knights before they've got anywhere near your lines. So the French knights gallop into this attack. Cross this difficult field. Horses stumbling on the recently ploughed field in the thick mud. They are attacked by a swarm of arrows. The accounts of English archers often described the arrows like driving snow. They use atmospheric sort of analogies to give a sense of what it felt like. It says that the English shooting was so thick, it made the advancing French knights bow their heads. And that's a very important point because you don't bow your head when stuff is dropping down out of the sky at you. You bow your head when its hitting you straight in the face. So all of this stuff about archers shooting high up into the air, at high elevation? Rubbish. It never happened. They didn't do it. All of this is straight on shooting. Very nasty business. You've got 6000 guys shooting en masse. If you shoot enough of those arrows, some of them are going to find the weak points, some of them are going to find the unprotected points, and very few, but some, are going to make the armour fail. But again, even if only 1 in 100 shots kills somebody, and even if only 1 in 75 arrows causes significant injury. I mean that's not a very good rate of success, but even if you have a very poor rate of success, you've shot 144,000 arrows in less than 10 minutes? That stacks up. And thats one of the... I think the numbers is one of the things that gave Henry a lot of confidence in this battle.
There's a battle during the battle of the roses where the archers on both side open the battle by shooting volleys at each other. Of course, these archers weren't heavily armored. A strong wind blew unfavorably for one side. Each time, their arrows landed short. The other side laughed and mocked, and then returned fire. This went on for a while. What's the best way to achieve maximum distance in such a case? Also, let's say the wind didn't blow, whats the best way to achieve maximum distance against unarmored targets using mass volleys in such a way that you remain out of range?
gotta say it guys i absolutely love this channel, I'm an archer and just finished a warbow which is only 55lb draw weight but i have a lot of health issues from sports and physical jobs so can't safely shoot heavier bows but you guys are awesome dudes :) and serious respect for joe he's a mean machine
i really respect that you a care enough to reply to comments. I think a lot of posters see longbows in a vacuum. One archer, one knight.That's ignoring the effects of the massed fire of hundreds of long bow men. Armor has gaps, different qualities, and so if you are facing an opponent shooting bunches of arrows at you, your forces are likely to in for a world of hurt.
It’s so nice to see folks of my generation that can take criticism and respond gently and accurately. Hats off to you brother! I’d like to order more of your kind for here in the United States of Stab Each Other In The Back. All the best to you and yours!
I always thought that when we had soldiers in red coats firing those gunpowder guns in 18 century against the enemy in steel armour and fired arrows from a bow from 13 or 14 century The red coat would be wiped out by the arrows lol.
Currently you have 5.1k upvotes and only 16 down...that in itself is pretty impressive. I respect your dedication to testing these sort sorts of things too.
The whole original video was fantastic work, Tod, as have been the followups. I'm so excited to see what the team does in the future. I also happened to watch Matt's analysis of it over at Scholagladiatoria, which I recommend just as you did. His main point was that arrows can hit a lot of other places on a man besides the thickest part of the strongest piece of armor, and that's how they're still effective. Also, archers were quite an equalizer against cavalry, which is likely why there wasn't a large cavalry contingent on the French side at Agincourt. Once again, great work. Can't wait to see what you do next.
"Why didn't they shoot the 200lb bow?" For the same reason the US doesn't arm it's soldiers with 30-06s anymore, it's hard to shoot and is completely overkill. It really must be pointed out how insane 160lbs is. most people getting started with archery might struggle with 40lbs.
Although I must admit I'm a fairly fit 200lb bloke, so a weight like that shouldn't be a problem for me anyways. (I really want to try my luck with an 80 pound bow sometimes)
@@Olav_Hansen I asked around somewhere a while back about what a good starting weight should be for a complete novice at archery, thinking40 lbs would probably be no big deal, and they were telling me to go lighter. And yeah, you are probably an exception compared to the average youtube commenter. One thing to think about though, if you do get to draw that 80lbs, that that is still half of what Joe is drawing.
I'm 6'4", 225lbs and shoot a 55 lb bow. At bow meetings we shoot 6 dozen before lunch and 6 dozen after lunch and by the end of the day my accuracy begins to suffer. Can't even begin to think how much strength training I'd need and sore I'd be with 160lbs let alone 200lbs.
@@johnplath1072first there is a special draw method (using your back and not your arm strength) which will make you draw 1 1/2 - 2 times your normal draw, and second firing 70 arrows is more than likely more than the average amount of arrows that was shot during azincourt. (and third archery was not a hobby, but a job practiced for (assumably) over 1 1/2 years of training by only the most "promising" (accuracy/strength ratio) archers in a country in which archery was already a hobby/usefull skill.
I think you did the most probable recreation with much respect towards the subject that not many others could have done. You covered a massive amount of info and did as accurate enough test.
I still would have liked to see how a lighter arrow would perform, since the bow would propel them faster, and velocity is more important than weight when it comes to piercing armour.
more accurately, what matters is the momentum, not the velocity. momentum is a product of mass and velocity, as you probably know. so, if you increase the velocity but decrease the mass, the momentum doesn't necessarily changes much.
A heavier arrow will actually always have more energy than a light arrow. It's not the same as with guns. The heavier arrow takes longer for the bow to accelerate, giving more time for the bow to impart energy into the arrow. This also results in the shot being quieter and with less handshock, as less energy is left over from the shot. In fact, the arrow they used is fairly light for the bow they used. It was around 1100 or 1200 grains if I recall correctly, and the bow was 160lbs. Usually 10 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight is standard, which would mean an arrow of 1600 grains for this bow. I would actually like to see heavier arrows used. The "quarter pound" arrow is somewhat famously used for armour piercing, and would be around 1700 grains.
Glad that I subscribed and then found your follow up vid, as it goes on to answer my query about internal damage to the wearer of the armour (blunt force trauma)! Leaving that aside though, what an excellent video production (both)! Can’t wait to see any follow up’s that you produce on the subject! 👍🏻👍🏻
One question I'd love to know more about: In grade school we were taught that the British killed cows in advance of Agincourt, and the archers would poke the bloated corpses with their arrows before shooting. This (supposedly) meant even a scratch would go sceptic so fast, the french knights would go feverish and die in under an hour, and many bogged down in the mud died this way (with just a few, infected scratches). I have no idea if this is even remotely true, but if so, it might make those tiny splinters of wood flying up under the chin etc. much more dangerous.
Sounds like nonsense to me. If the arrow point can't even get through the armour, there's no point to poisoning the head. If they did that, it was to take out soldiers, archers and mercenaries. Not for taking out men-at-arms or knights. The British probably did kill all the cows in the area to deprive the French from food (and to feed themselves). Because that was normal in medieval warfare.
A couple of hours is nowhere near enough for an infection to spread, let alone reach a lethal stage. A couple of days at a minimum, notwithstanding an already existing disease that is about to reach lethal stage.
Nice thought, more linked to siege rather than open warfare. While my knowledge of biology is by no means perfect I'd call that one a myth. Outside of engineered viruses and bacteria it simply doesn't set in that fast. Days or weeks later? Oh aye, that's going to take its toll. On the field? Probably not.
If you wish to use this method (which is valid, if incorrectly applied in this case - see Vietnam-era pungee stakes) you need to use the dung from carnivores/omnivores (eg humans) to provide the correct pathogen. Herbivore dung won't work to incapacitate any enemy in any length of time to be useful, & isn't generally lethal (excluding protracted seiges ofc, in which case you'd simply throw the whole rotting carcass over the wall). Even carnivore or human dung isn't fast-acting enough to produce a significant effect: it's likely to require 12-48hrs minimally- or un-treated to be of significance to a warrior I agree with the other comments here: it's far more likely that the English killed the cows simply to feed their own troops &/or deprive the French from food in sieges; for the same purpose they may have stripped/burned nearby crop fields
It would mean having you position filled with dead rotting cows, probably not the most pleasant, sanitary or practical thing for battle, and likely to mean you’re over run with flys, also a negative for you. If this was a real advantage why would they not always do this in battle? Why not dip swords and axes in too? Why not have a fresh cow bladder in your scabbard? Also I’d be surprised if you’d die in under an hour from sepsis, maybe 24 hours. I wasn’t there so can’t say for sure, but this sounds unlikely to me.
I was fully expecting a tirade admonishing the plethora of inane comments instead of this quite reasonable discourse on the particular how's and why's of your experiment.
I love this sort of response video as it answered a lot of the questions after watching the first video. I'd point out that from the accounts at Agincourt the French knights were essentially surrounded by archers. This means they were getting shot from the sides and if completely surrounded from the rear. There are enough texts on the use of missile weapons in medieval and ancient warfare (going back to ancient Greece) indicating that these weapons were most effective when used from the rear of an enemy (either moving or already engaged in melee). I'd suggest that even if the arrows weren't penetrating the armour from behind (which there would have been a lot more cases of as the armour is designed to protect from blows to the front with thinner armour and more caps to the sides and rear) that the combination of percussive force from areas where the armour is in close contact with the body and the psychological impact of getting hit by arrows in the side or the back would have had a huge effect on the outcome of the battle.
@@ME-hm7zm Not seriously, but... He used to be funny, despite frequently wrong and "making up facts", while never mentioning any sources. However, over time he lost it, got that feeling of being invincible. I was there, when he assaulted NUSensei for criticising his poor understanding of archery, I was there seeing flood of armchair general's fandom spilling through links under "NUSensei is IDIOT" video, filling comment section with invectives and racial slurs... Luckily, NUSensei has proved to be more mature, stepped back, issuing lenghty explanatory video, apologising for "not being precise". Shad mistakenly understood it as apology for "criticising Allmighty Shad", deleted abovementioned assault gate and boasted in his community page, that it was proven, he was right... ...disgusting...
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You actually went down in the trenches called the comment section searching for reason. I salute you brave soul.
In general, at least at the moment, Tod's comments are fairly civil, and constructive. Which is a fair blessing online.
So it's less a trench walk and more a scenic walk in a wooded gully :p
The hero we need, but don't deserve 😄
We're a pretty decent bunch, not the gaggle of nazis and barn animals on...some other cahnnels.
It's not like the Garandthumb comments section after all!
@@jeffreyroot7346 GarandThumbs comment section might be one of the wildest things on UA-cam. Ive never seen anything quite like it lol
One thing that the tests failed to address was that during the battle of Agincourt many of the English archers were very ill from dysentery, so much so that reports stated that many cut away the backs of their trousers to save time.
In future experiments I suggest that you force feed Joe several curries/baked beans/Newcastle Brown Ale and laxatives before the experiment takes place. This should replicate the effects on the English archers at the time of battle, an effect which is known in modern Britain as "Sunday mornings."
Pack up. It’s been found.
You sir or ma’am, get my personal award for the greatest comment of 2019.
@Frankthetank123098 especially if they stick the spare arrows in the 'soil' as was often done on battlefields. Biological weapons at their finest!
Now we know why many knights would die of wound infections.
@@Tennouseijin "Francois, why is your magnificently gilded breastplate turning brown? I did not see you fall into the mud."
"What? No, Gilbert it was all those English arrows that kept hitting my...... Oh! Those @&%$£&!:$!!!!!"
This explains the English victory. The French knights lifted their visors so they could clutch their noses. Also, when the front line tried to back away from the stench, they'll have caused confusion and worsened the press. Some may even have fainted. What a way to go!
@@erikjarandson5458 And any knights who would try to put fabric etc. inside their helmets like a gas mask to block the stench, would have reduced their vision and breathing even further.
I’ve said once and I’ll say it again, that was one of the best experimental archeology videos ever put on UA-cam.
Agreed. I'm incredibly excited to see what Todd and these gents are going to test next.
I wish they'd shot it a few more times.
One of the best? Is there something other of similar quality?
@Christian Changer
Mike Loades made a video a few years back where he tested a warbow against a historical gambeson, it was pretty good but Tod’s video is definitely better.
Did you mean archerology videos?
Can we just talk about the level of Depth that Tod has gone into in this video series? Truly remarkable, some of the best content on UA-cam
Some of the best content on the subject, period.
A follow-up video, addressing and answering comments? Now that's a rare sight. Nice.
And a quality level headed one too
@@GiskardRevenlov Yes, I really liked this.
No kidding! Thanks to the creators! I'm not even super into this sort of thing but I subscribed over this. Very thoughtful and well done
I haven't done anything to contribute to this discussion, other than sharing the video and praising it as one of the best researched test videos on arrows and armour. This response to comments furthers the depth that the team has gone through to respect the historical authenticity that we know of. Well done.
Just wanted to say that I appreciate how unique your channel is. Your passion is fantastic, and I learn a heck of a lot every time I watch. Your production quality is fantastic these days too. Keep up the great work mate!
I second that opinion
@@peter4210 thirded, and very much hoping the videos pull enough money to allow for this to become a series. I'd love to see a sort of hand made mythbusters style with professionally done weapons and armor in various situations.
Unshackled Jester and I second your opinion. I would love to see that as well.
@@SwadianKnight101 given he pulled like 2 million views, I'm assuming that the funding should take care of itself. I'm thinking it is more scheduling both the time to do said videos/time for the professionals to manage to get around to it at the same time and to ensure he puts out the videos slowly enough to not drive off the hype. It sucks, but better to do it slow and steady for a long time than burst through a quick run of epic vids that result in it fizzling as people stop tuning in every time
@@SwadianKnight101 May I "Fifth" that opinion please .. He does an honest job .. which is much valued in this era.
Hey Todd, Thanks for mentioning me. Wonderful video again, I think you have addressed everything in a very accurare and professional way. I watched this video while having pizza. I don't know why I told you this last piece of information but hey. Keep it up!
Of course you wrote this while eating Pizza. Of course you did :D
The real question is, was it good pizza? Lol!
Funny, I just had some pizza too.
because you like pizza
Now i have the memory of a neopolitan restaurant resurrected in my mind, the craving for fresh sauce & herbs with melted cheese made the previous day....
We have it all in Wisconsin.
I feel like a lot of people were taking this as "it would be cool to see a longbow arrow pierce a breastplate" instead of "here is a case study with relatively accurate gear". Frankly, I find the null results FAR more interesting, as it leads to deeper questions about tactics, psychology, etc
i mean weve been plinking arrows at good breastplates all over the net, lindybeige filmed an armourer showing his breastplate being hit with a 150l bow as well and it did bugger all.
hence why, s i said in the video comments, i am FAR more interested in testing the smaller but still essential armour pieces, cuisses, helmets and helmet visors, aventails, voiders. the breastplate wont likely fail but those areas failing or holding up is likely where most of the wounds would be sustained
@@elgostine This is a late comment..but! The tactical advantage of raining arrows on an advancing enemy is probably huge. The knights that are walking over the battlefield have to close their visors and look down to mitigate the risk of getting an arrow in a less protected part of the helmet. The sound of swarms of arrows hitting you and the rest of your line would be loud. To all that we can add the slippery and wet conditions at Agincourt. Its easy to think of something could and would go wrong. Keeping in formation without hearing commands or seeing exactly what is happening would be very hard indeed. And if you and your men manage to close with the enemy line you have been walking all that way with a closed visor. Chances are that you all will at the very least be exhausted.
The maturity of this video is astounding and quite refreshing in the YT landscape.
You seem to approach this as an adult or teacher imo should; acknowledging the questions, factual, relaxed, to the point and with the ability to say "I don't know" or "someone else can answer this better than me".
Bravo!
All valid points, I didn't have many of the concerns some others seem to have had but appreciate the greater insight into the decisions made. Looking forward to the next in the series.
The parameters they chose are reasonable.
Tod: "Medieval Smiths! Assemble!"
Joe: "You have my bow."
Will: " You have my arrows."
Kevin: " You have my armour."
Chrissi: " You have my paddings."
Tobias: " You have my scrolls."
Tod: " Let's (after 30 seconds loading crossbow) end this rightly."
(to be continue)
Matt Easton: You have my knobkerrie.
@@peterlynch1458 Isn't the dreaded Context his favourite weapon?
And then comes Skallagrim throwing a deadly pommel into the mix!
Crossbows don't have pommels.
@@johnmccallum9106 they also don't have armour or paddings, etc. But that's just not the point here.
Besides... who says crossbows cannot have pommels in the first place?! If you want a pommel on your crossbow, there's nothing preventing you from adding one.
Well, my biggest question: Will there be more tests? was answered! I’m very much looking forward to the next videos. Thanks lads for all the work you’ve done and are doing.
1 year later and we got nothing new :(
Thanks corona.
I know I'm very late to the discussion on this, but regarding the question of "How did the English win at Agincourt if the longbow could not penetrate French armor?":
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the only tangible benefit on the battlefield comes from killing shots through the breastplate head-on, and that if your shots aren't scoring kills, you aren't being useful. There are still plenty of avenues for longbow hits to have contributed in a critical role to the English victory.
Don't think of it as being a leading contributor of kills, necessarily. Think of it as degrading the ability of the French army to operate due to wounds--yes, non-lethal wounds--and fatigue, both physical and psychological.
First off, consider the psychological impact of being under fire from those heavy arrows coming down, or, as the case may be, coming straight at you and your comrades. As Tod mentions here, there's always the sense that you're not safe. You *know* there are weak points in your armor, and all it takes is one lucky arrow to find its mark, or for some of those splinters to slip in somewhere and cause some harm. More to the point, even if the arrows are not penetrating, one can't imagine the sensation of an impact would be comfortable. That has to contribute to the psychological strain as well, and imagine having to suffer through the dread of arrows pinging off of your armor like dozens of little hammers banging away at you while your formation trudges across open ground. You can't very well charge forward across that whole distance, and you'd much rather cluster together with your brothers in arms instead of breaking ranks to rush forward, so you can't very well use speed to reduce the time during which you're under fire. Sure, your armor is keeping you safe, but that's only good for as long as you can hold it together. That psychological strain has an exhaustion all its own.
Men reaching the English lines already a bit worn down from the barrage--both physically and mentally--are going to be easier to break.
Secondly, and just as importantly, you're not just dealing with arrows hitting the front of your breastplate, where your armor is thickest. Not only do you have those gaps to worry about, but the armor isn't of uniform thickness. Consider Tod's test shooting at brigandine. Those arrows punched through 1.2mm mild steel plates. That's not to say any and all 1.2mm plates of iron-based metal would be equally vulnerable; angles matter a lot as well, for example. However, we can already see ways in which armor at the periphery is more vulnerable. Arrows striking the inside of the elbow, for example, might penetrate, or might penetrate through a plate elsewhere on a limb. Thinner plates offer other opportunities for penetration.
And then, as soon as you've been wounded, you're no longer as effective in combat. Either you are brave and resilient enough to keep fighting despite a physical injury or you have to withdraw from the line. Either way, that is a longbow arrow that has degraded the effectiveness of the French army, right there.
All of those factors add up.
Interesting points. I dont know which war exactly this reffered to but i think it was vietnam where some traps were specificly designed not to kill but to wound the enemy. The thought is that it is more ressource consuming to treat and evacuate a wounded soldier than it is to just have a dead body. And the alternative to just end them right there or leave wounded people to die slowly or fall into the hands of the enemy would probably drop your troops moral signifficantly, to know you will get abandoned by your comrades is a horrible thought imo so eitherway having people wounded sucks. Again i dont know how accurate that information is but it made sense to me and fits perfect with your train of thought.
That tactic has been used throughout the history of warfare. To the point snipers will let a wounded soldier live so those attempting help are new targets.
Amazing scene in full metal jacket shows it spectacularly.
@@paultequlabeer That's not even really what I'm referring to. That was the sniper letting a wounded soldier act as bait. I'm talking about, on an even more superficial level, an injured man can no longer fight at full capacity and, often times, he would probably withdraw rather than proceed to join the attack knowing that his limb or shoulder has an arrow lodged in it. He's not dead, and his armor may well have done its job, but you've still taken a man out of the fight.
@@DavidEllis94 similar to how punji pits caltrops snipers purposefully wounding are all able to degrade the effectiveness of the unit as a whole. Again tons of examples throughout history so while you’re “not even referring to” my initial example it’s a very similar tactic.
I've been waiting for a followup! Watching now. The first episode was better than nearly any big budget show. I'm eager for more similar content.
It's badass that u are addressing criticism
Alot of channels wouldnt even acknowledge any questions
@BLUE DOG I think literally everyone noticed that.
It has been pointed out on every video ever about armor why there is a bulge on the chestplate.
@BLUE DOG Because you actually don't precisely aim with a warbow. Well you try to. But you are aiming at moving troops that are relatively far away.
Also they didn't set out to discover whether or not the arrow would pierce a helmet or a leg piece. They set out to discover whether or not it would pierce a breastplate.
@@Tibovl When I was young and was into medieval RPGs, I had a miniature in plate that had the huge bulging stomach/breast plate... we used to call that 'fat mail' (vs. plate mail) but it makes more sense having seen the historical armour in action. I'd bet a lot of prettier looking armours wouldn't be half as effective.
@BLUE DOG Doubting it's simple to hit the eyes through a good helmet well designed to also deflect shots. It might be your best bet, but it may well not still be a great bet and the odds of missing entirely go up.
Were it me, I'd guess to shoot for the thighs, knees, and upper arms with elbows. The joints will be less well armoured likely and the if you get through what might well be thinner armour on the upper arm or leg, you can hit pretty major veins and arteries (esp the leg). With an arm down or a leg out, the knight may well be mission killed.
@@Tibovl If you are shooting at any formation in mail or lighter armour (not knights), center of mass is a good bet for maximum number of hits and maximum effect.
Now, if they were firing straight (vs. arced) and at ranges 30m and under, they they might be able to try a headshot, but your odds of a miss go up. Shoot for the body, try to find an armour join or a bending joint or the side or rear of a limb that might be easier to penetrate.
Of course, if they were horsed (not this case), shoot the horse. They have less armour and taking them out removes the mobility and shock power plus the collapse could pin or kill the knight.
Tod, the channel is amazing, specially for me, a fan of the subject. Thanks for the dedication and for the great work! Been in a distant country with no Medieval history (Brazil), it is a great pleasure to find a channel such as yours. Keep up the great work! Cheers!
It's amazing that first, people who would have never done any of the work and training and expense to do your test are so quick to criticize, and second, that you took the time to answer the better criticisms in full. - Thank you again for all of your work and attention to detail. You entertain and educate us all.
Have you thought about opening up a kickstarter campaign to make a full documentary on the subject of armour vs arrows?
Love that you answered the questions from the casual historical fighting fans, love all your videos and the work you put into making them accurate
Another solid performance, Tod! This test was excepionally well received by most creators and viewers on this part of UA-cam, and for a very good reason. You adress one specific aspect of the subject matter, and that is a very sound strategy. This video is really a defense of the method used, but your humble approach instead transforms it into an in-depth explanation. You’re a great educator, Tod. I very much look forward to your group’s future tackling of other aspects.
Idk Todd, Brits and sheds have a very unique relationship in history
Side note: i just learned that if you edit (i had to correct a minor spelling error) a "favorited" comment, it losses its "favorite" status. I suspect this is to prevent commentors from messing with content creators by changing harmless comments into awful or offensive remarks
Ian actaully got angry? Tell me. Which video, and when.
@@Legitpenguins99 did it get re favourited then?
I've said this before but your medieval mythbusting is possibly the best test in medieval weapons and armor that I have ever seen. The fact that you went so specific in a situation and focus on the most realistic scenario is what makes it so good. That's some real experimentation there.
I'm glad there is so much excitement, the video deserves the attention. Hopefully, we can have more of these videos. It's great that you are taking the time to answer these questions.
Thanks for this Tod. Many clarifications to my questions (particularly those regarding blunt force trauma, those fellows with the vests were madmen. I am always impressed with just how much punishment the human body can withstand with just a little bit of help.) and it's interesting to hear that others were curious about the same thing I was. Really interested to see how you guys get along with answering some of the lingering questions in future videos (I think anything horse related is going to be a challenge). Eager to see what comes next.
14:33 Sounds awesome! I know you said your goal wasn't to pierce the armor, but I'd love a video where that was the objective. Either by using different points, different bows, or even different weapons! Seems like it'd be awesome, (if not expensive to destroy a piece of plate).
The original video was IMHO well informed and well set up. Many of the comments you addressed in this video you had already answered and I am impressed by your patience in coming back to re-answer them. I look forward to future videos. My only advice to you comes in cod latin - nil illegitimae carborndum est - and keep up the good work.
I just discovered your channel and I have to say that I’m very impressed. You’re definitely one of the best.
You're a better man than I Tod. I wouldn't have bothered with addressing these questions, especially since it seems to me like most of what you said was at the very least alluded to in the original video. I really appreciate the care and quality of your videos and how patient and kind a teacher you are. Thank you for your excellent work.
It seems like each demonstration brings in great questions for new material, great job keep up the good work.
My father and his archery friends did your series of tests in the 60s and filmed it (with slow motion in some cases too). The results were very similar to the results in your myth-busting film. Though I suspect the armour was not quite as thick as some penetrations were achieved. Plus they did some of the tests from a much greater range, so the arrows came from a high angle where the armour wasn't as thick. They concluded the 'shrapnel' and finding nooks and crannies with 1000s of projectiles would have been effective enough but the biggie for them was the injuries to horses (yes, I know there was horse armour but it was rare and could not cover all areas). Once the knights were on the ground it would have been game over.
Fantastic videos Tod, keep up the great work!
"Lucky" hits are actually far easier with several dozen (or hundred) archers making the same shot, at the same target, at the same time.
Yes, the Lionheart died from a crossbow that hit him in the throat. And one bets that a warrior king must have worn the best armour available.
@@Kriegerdammerung From what I gather, Richard was actually hit in the shoulder, died of gangrene two weeks later, and most importantly, sources closest to the event mention that he wasn't wearing any armor, only his helmet. So probably not relevant here.
@@lscibor Which begs the question: "Why in god's name was he not wearing his armor???"
You'd think a king out on campaign would wear the best armor available. As king, he probably had access to the best Gambeson, Mail hauberks, Coifs and possibly even a coat of plates.
@@shockwave6213 , Same reason some leaders have worn red, moved across in front of their company, etc. To inspire their men. They come to be doing it for their leader, a stable and real thing to hang on to. I made a concrete decision to enjoy the adventure, to replace the fear. It worked.
@@shockwave6213 I don't know the specifics here but I can think of many times in history when a commander was not wearing armor for one reason or another. For example there is Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome from 361-363 AD. He was killed in the field when he was fighting without wearing armor for whatever reason and died from his wounds
I must say I am impressed. I was one who posed a question regarding the added momentum of the horses and am very pleased to have had my humble question addressed (especially when answering a different question referred to the previous test being about knights on foot which addressed my question without the need to later add detail.) I will certainly be looking forward to future tests. Thank you for taking the time to address our questions. It shows not only an attention to your viewers but adds to demonstrating your earnest attempt to cover every angle in case you, yourself, missed something.
15:00 The understatement of the year.
It's a must watch! Thank you for the incredible content, Tod (and friends, of course).
Tod, your original video was not only interesting but very very thorough in laying out the parameters of the tests you were doing and what conclusions that could be drawn from it. It sounds to me like most of those questions you just answered were posed by people who didn't pay attention to the first video.
Really looking forward to more of these analysis type videos, you do them very well !
As someone who asked about shooting into the side, thank you for the update! I can't wait to see future tests!
I'd also be interested to see how other pieces of armour would fare. Pauldrons and cuisse for instance.
An excellent series that I am enjoying following. Such an esteemed collection of experts analyzing and testing the questions we've all been asking for so many years. Thank you :-)
Dear Tod (and crew), in the web wide world of hysteria, half-facts and hypocrisy and Clickbaiting, you stand as a rock of reason, common sense and hard work. Thank you for all your efforts.
It's criminal you're not more popular. This is much more educational than 99% of whats out there.
I love everyone online that knows more than real professionals that did the experiment. Most of them learned everything they know from Hollywood movies and fantasy books.
They are the "fantasy experts", and they have outnumbered the other experts :D
A jolly good continuation of the original, I think we all want to see those arrows punch through armour so there are bound to be questions and I think you answered them, to use a popular phrase, ''fully and frankly''. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing more myth busting.
You have followed up a great video with a good "questions answered" video. The thing that I would really like to see in further tests is to add shoulders to the armour to see if the ricochet pieces of the arrows lodge in the shoulders and armpit? Mounting a helmet for similar reasons would be great- but it all adds to the cost and preparation time.
Sheesh - folks really were not paying any attention to the video at all..... you disclaimer-ed almost all of those questions. REALLY looking forward to the following up videos - of which thier must be soo many qued up already - sounds like a long running series to me - excellent! You folks have the best test(s) going - keep it up - FOR SCIENCE!
Many of the comments you responded to seemed like they didn't pay attention to the context of the original video. Pitty people wasted your time.
thats a good point.
100% correct! Everything Tod says in this video, he said in the first one. It's as if the people who were complaining didn't pay attention the first time. Of course, they probably won't pay attention this time either. :(
Seems to be an internet thing, people agitating themselves over something they did not read/listen to in it's entirety. Pretty common, but you are 100% correct.
Exactly and what daft questions in my opinion. Why did they not do this and why do that? Why didn't they use a cannon? stupid. People with doubts with zero knowledge of that time, the battle nor are they blacksmiths etc
The internet has created many platofrms that allow anyone, no matter how well educated or not, no matter how informed and intelligent or not, to have a say. It is literally the entire bell curve of quality in replies when maybe only the top two sigma are worth the time. I guess it is empowering, but not necessarily elevating the discourse.
You handle yourself so professional and you speak with such calm and respect.
Todd... You are a beautiful man.
I'm really glad to here that there will be more of these tests coming in the future, this is great stuff.
I've only watched the original Arrows vs Armour video and this one, and I already have a huge amount of respect for you as creators on this show and the obvious expertise you have. I look forward to watching a great deal more of your content.
Great content. I also wanted to thank you, I bought one of your bronze handled folding knives for my father’s birthday, which just arrived yesterday. He loves it and we all agree it’s beautiful. Thanks for everything!
I so deeply love your videos.... Thank you so much, from across the pond.... I love your videos and knowledge, thank you on behalf of the thousands for helping us learn and appreciate every damn thing you speak about... I feel like I have learned so much from you, metatron, and shad, and schola... Thank you for your community... is truly awesome..... THANKS! What wonders I have beheld, what questions, honestly investigated...... pure wonder.. and love. Bless every one here and 'round in community.
I must say though that there's a surprising amounts of sources from Agincourt that mention a lot of knights getting killed by arrows. It seems like visors were particularly "easily" penetrated, likely owing to the breaths. Some of the sources do imply breastplates being penetrated as well, which I believe could certainly be possible in two situations:
1. When the breastplates are weaker. And to reinforce this point I will mention some armour regulations from 1448 France. Said regulations states that a plate cuirass should be proofed with 2 marks if it was windlass crossbow-proof or with 1 mark if it was proof against lever crossbows or _bows._ However the bows that the English used were more powerful than the French ones, and I'd probably put the power they delievered at closer to the mark of a windlass. Meaning that if you had armour in a similar grade as the single-proofed armour, it may get penetrated at close ranges.
2. The second situation would be if arrows hit the same place a few times. One arrow may leave a dent, but hit with two or three in the same place and it will likely pierce. And while this seems uncommon, it perhaps is not when you send thousands upon thousands of arrows downrange. The chance goes from highly unlikely to somewhat plausible.
Of course it bears to mention that if every single arrow fired did damage, then the French would never have reached the lines of the English and there would never be a melee (even if one particular source says something along the lines of 'No one arrow flied without wounding', however I have my doubts about that statement). But even if a mere 10% of arrows found their mark, that effect would be quite profound and in line with what is described in the accounts of the battle.
Draugr the Greedy quite interesting input! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, sounds plausible.
Something to keep in mind, I believe that the English forced the French to cross a field...after a rain, hence why there were no horses or mounted charges. Knights would have gotten bogged down in the mud, slower and easier pickings with more volleys able to be fired. On top of the ones who simply got stuck and became, according to one source I read (I am sorry, I can't remember what the source is), so deeply mired in the muck that when the archers walked out onto the field they simply strode up to the stuck knights (they wore no armor so could move fairly easily), flipped open their visor and stabbed them in the eyes.
@@135Fenrir I think that last is reasonable, given testing of armor steel in mud done in another video on another channel, and the force required to extract it (while those with cloth shoes had no trouble, those with armored feet were well and truly stuck. Those who fell down were also well and truly stuck. Victims for those dastardly English peasants with their daggers.
My personal belief is that your first point might be close to what has actually happened. There is a video of a Polish bladesmith, who builds his blades from historical material and then tests such a blade against historical steel. Search for "legenda polskiej sztuki wyrobu oręża - Festiwal Tajemnic 2014" to find the video. The testing starts around 21:30 mark.
He starts with historical iron, then proceeds to modern iron and finally modern mild steel. His blade is capable of simply cutting the historical material with ease and no damage to the edge at all. Modern iron is much tougher, modern mild steel is on yet another level.
The brestplate tested in Todd's video was built from modern steel. It's hard to tell how much better it is than what was available in XVth century, but most probably it does not reflect the quality of the vast majority of armor available back then.
I mean, there must have been a reason for using bodkin points as shown around 1:50 mark... We even know this particular bodkin was shot at something hard, because the tip rolled over. A point shaped like that is bad at piercing maile, it's not very good against flesh and it only makes sense as plate-piercing device.
Taking a simple look at the outcomes of all the battles it's pretty clear that without a defensive setup the English forces were overrun. That gives an impression that multiple arrow strikes are needed for effective archery.
I would like to say, that having watched this video after watching the original, I must say... "Thank you."
So many times response videos turn out in a way that almost reads as "We did it how we wanted, deal with it." and instead you answered the broad topics and in both a calm and respectful way, as well as informative. I truly appreciate you and the team that did this, and thus I plan to subscribe as to binge watch many of these.
I wish you all the best, and look forward to all your coming content.
10:05 - Anyone who has ever seen people shoot these heavy bows will recognize the draw style. I'm surprised that was even a question raised.
Definitely. When you are talking draw weights as big as they were talking, you don't just draw it like any other bow unless you are Hercules. With a little training, I managed to draw a 200 lb. bow once. Once. And the way that I had to bend my body, to use every muscle I had, was very similar to the way it was shown in the video.
Where did you get the 200lb, I currently shoot 140lb but i cannot find heavier bows
@@HistoricalWeapons My local fish and hunting club has an Archery program every year that lasts two weeks . Its a driv eto get more people interested in Archery (they started it after the uptick i interest after The Hunger Games movies).
They had a guy from the UK there who was running a seminar on the longbow. He had a 200lb. bow and was giving some instruction on it.
I would never purchase one myself. Too heavy, too difficult for me to use.
Too expensive!
How many people have seen that though?
A lot of the test shooting videos out there I've seen have been at about 80-100lbs because that's all they could manage.
@@dynamicworlds1 im doing some tests with 170-200lb bows
Of all the well-known "early weapons" channels, this is far and away the best. Relaxed, factual, enjoyable, informative, well argued. Thank you.
The people complaining about Joe's technique sound like they've never pulled a bow over 90 lbs in their life.
Also, what makes them think that that would affect the outcome? The same bow, same arrow, same velocity, same distance, same target. So the result will be the same.
I think all the people criticising his technique, all probably shoot 60lb compound bows.
My longbow is 90 lbs. It is well suited to me, but and extra 60-70 lbs would make it way to much for a aimed shot, if I even could pull it. I guess I would need lots of extra training.
I own a 150 and a 200 and it only takes 15 minutes before I am exhausted
Im shooting 170@32 u have to pull that way for the immense draw weight
Amazing job addressing the context around that first test. I’m also very excited for Toby’s reply and the upcoming / subsequent testing you’ll be doing. I can’t wait for the follow up videos in this incredibly interesting series. Keep it up! :)
One thought that I had as I was watching this is the shape of the Breastplate had a lot to do with dissipating the energy of the arrow, and I am curious how much effectiveness is lost as more dents are made to it. One example, a Knight gets whacked in the belly with a mace and makes a large dent, which is followed by a hardened tip arrow. Another example, 5 Archers singled out one knight and pelted that knight with 5 arrows at once in 3 volleys. Could arrows compromise the shape of the armor enough that one arrow would not glance off the side any more and penetrate it?
The thoughtfulness you brought to the initial video and this follow-up set the standard.
I like how almost all these questions were addressed in the original video.
One of the best videos I've watched in years. Simply amazing, You can see and literally feel your passion, and that of your experts participating in their respective fields . It makes for an enjoyable exchange of information and leaves me wanting to know more. Seeing a "War Bowmen" in action is amazing to say the least. The fear that they were able harness and use as another "silent" second weapon is incalculable in value on a war front. Can you imagine 100, or even 1000 Master Bowmen like Joe raining down death upon those that oppose the Crown?
...there were 8000 Archers at Agincourt.
I’m so glad you took time to film this and answer a few questions from people, to me it shows an unbiased approach. The legend of the long is something we British are instilled with, and while it must’ve been effective on the battlefield to some degree it would never be the only reason for victory at Agincourt. I’m really enjoying these videos and I’m hoping you get chance to put more together.
My understanding for the victory at Agincourt boils down to the different fighting styles, the British relying on archers and men at arms. While the French were after individual combat with someone of equal standing to themselves. But the French also expected to be able to be taken prisoner and ransomed back to their family, however at Agincourt there was a major concern that so many French had surrendered and were taken to the rear of the British lines. This would mean the British could’ve been caught in a pincer like movement if the French prisoners rose up, so king Henry V ordered the slaughter of the French and it was some of the archers that carried out those orders. As I say that’s my understanding.
Please keep the videos coming 👍
You guys are doing excellent work! The most comprehensive and realistic testing I've seen. Could you please do some tests for accuracy at various ranges for mounted knights with the Long Bow? Churchill wrote that many knights were pinned through their legs and in many other places besides through the most protective armor. I find it hard to believe that lifelong archers would not selectively target an armored opponent, especially at close range.
Nice video. I would still like to see heavier arrows used, such as the "quarter pound" arrow. If the arrows that were used had shafts of poplar or other light wood, maybe an ash shaft would do better. And also, I think the blunt force would be most effective against the head, not the breast, at least for the disorienting effect. That would be interesting to look into.
Yeah, for a longbow to be shooting arrows at 180 FPS seems to be indicative of a fairly light arrow grain per pound wise. You could undoubtedly squeeze out more energy there. But, of course, those arrows would be terrible for distance shooting.
@@MegaAdeny Yeah. If I recall correctly, the arrows were 1100 or 1200 grains or so, which is light for a 160lbs bow. 1600+ grains would be better imo.
@@jamesk8730 As explained in both videos there are based on historical arrows.
@@nutyyyy Yes, but there are also historical arrows that were heavier and I would like to see those tested because I think they would be more effective.
@@jamesk8730 medieval arrows were lossed at comparatively short ranges (consistent evidence that they fired flat trajectories), where the speed would be more an advantage than momentum of mass.
Something many people fail to consider is that longbows could have played a significant role in a battle that was won for reasons that would have played out the same with various other ranged weapons, ie reasons not directly related to their ability to pierce good armor. How many knights actually died from ranged weaponry, how many were killed when isolated in melee, how many were killed while captives when their captors beat a hasty retreat, etc?
I wonder if you could partner with a car safety testing lab and get access to a real crash test dummy with all its built in sensors.
That would be freaking cool!
I'm not sure they consider war bows a road safety hazard these days . . . 'it's all in the past, the rest is history.' : )
You can get Arduino shields with the accelerometers. About $50 usd, to build a data logger for enertia, iv would think. Pressure sensors cost more.
That might be a way to get around the problems of developing a test rig for a mounted knight.
Would a crash dummy really be able to provide relevant data in other circumstances than crashes? I'm under the impression those sensors are highly specialised for that very specific job.
But if not, I'm voting for this idea!
The collaboration between craftsmen, sportsmen and academics to test theories on history adds so much to our understanding of what was possible. It helps to cut out the crazy news and take a moment to appreciate how things have changed for the better.
Damn that bows pretty.
Calm down it's just a piece of wood.
bow woods are prettier than bows themselves
You are pretty.
You should see the pretty bow in my shaft. 🤥🤤🤢🥵
I really, really appreciate this update video of sorts. Because I was one of the people who did ask about the horse charge, and was curious. So I do like this little review video, very cool!
Joe's shooting style with leaning forward is actually characteristic for all cultures using strong warbows going as far as east asia
I suspect that many of us who watched and appreciated the video have tried out some ideas along these lines in the past, and some may have formed conclusions that may have been a little off the mark, or perhaps been a little along the lines of "wishful thinking". We're all human and that's just how it is. The video you produced has been by far and away the very best and most balanced test thus far attempted and I really don't think you should be overly concerned at some of the detractors who might just be a bit miffed at seeing their pet theories not quite being borne out. C'est la vie. Keep up the good work. No - make that keep up the excellent work - because that's what it is.
Awesome Channel !!!
Your patience with answering these nit picky questions is fantastic.
Really!? Anyone criticised that video!? Some people are never satisfied! Idiots! It was brilliant!
A lot of the "criticism" was noting variables not tested in the video, especially since it was stated that there would be follow up tests and was given respectfully and constructively. Not all, of course, as it it the internet, but surprisingly the large majority of it.
Thank you for answering my query about the added velocity/opposing energy from the mounted charge! I knew the French had dismounted during the battle, so I guess my query was more about their initial charge rather than facing leveled-off longbow fire afterward. I really appreciate your guys' historical replication using best-practices and average equipment-increased likelihood of historical reenactment is much better than outlier what-if scenarios (steel arrowheads, better armor, flank shots on the breastplate, etc.), and you guys do a splendid job of filming & post-production!
Grammarcy, sir!
The weather at Agincourt and the soil composition played a great part in the French defeat. The weather was very wet and this caused the ground to become very sticky . If you walk across a wet clay field it sticks to your feet, if you don't stop and remove it it builds up and saps your strength. Also you have a crowding effect from the narrowing of the terrain. Think of the work recently done to computer model crowd accidents in Stadiums and the like. All of these factors added to the arrow storm causing the French knights to close their visors and try to walk in an orderly fashion over heavy slippery soil and people behind them pushing them on . In those circumstances it is likely that a great many knights fell over and were then walked over and drowned by their own side. They would not be able to stop and pick up a fallen comrade, they would have been trying not to fall over themselves and reach the English line of battle. In hindsight it was a battle the home side should have refused to fight as they had room to give and then chose to fight on a better suited field.
Great video on the arms and armour and it looks like you have got it about right.
The original video was fantastic. Fact based and straight to the point with real conclusions based on the evidence provided and some, but not too much, insightful and knowledgeable commentary. Thank you for that video and for this one following it up. I really hope to see many more experimental videos like this. They are absolutely top tier videos and I hope you are proud of the quality of the content you have put out for us to view.
I'd love to see a test against a face plate, would an arrow go through/break open the eye slits or breaths
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the arrows they used went through a face plate
I would love to see something like this dealing with blunt trauma and metal deformation with slings vs Roman and Spanish armour. The spaniards were said to be most afraid of the slings when fighting the Inka at Cusco and Saqsayhuaman. Thank you for the most in depth video on this subject, and you even delved deep into the UA-cam comment section, brave soul indeed.
I would also love to see this :)
Interviewer:
"Big question, this is the one I always ask you medievalists. You got an arrow like this. A thick shafted, bodkin tipped arrow like this, can it punch through plate armour?"
Toby Capwell:
........ Not really...
But it doesn't matter. If you... One of the things I've been asking myself in the last couple of days as I've been thinking more about this is
"Did Henry V do the math?"
Because if you actually sit down and start doing a few calculations, there's a very, very strange effect that happens, and you find that the longbow doesn't actually have to be that effective against armour on this scale. The numbers really stack up in the English favor.
If Henry's sitting down and does the figures, It's very clear that even if the archers are only shooting 4 arrows a minute, and that's slow. That's taking your time. That's taking your cup of tea and biscuits between shots. You can still kill a 1000 French knights before they've got anywhere near your lines.
So the French knights gallop into this attack. Cross this difficult field. Horses stumbling on the recently ploughed field in the thick mud. They are attacked by a swarm of arrows. The accounts of English archers often described the arrows like driving snow. They use atmospheric sort of analogies to give a sense of what it felt like. It says that the English shooting was so thick, it made the advancing French knights bow their heads. And that's a very important point because you don't bow your head when stuff is dropping down out of the sky at you. You bow your head when its hitting you straight in the face. So all of this stuff about archers shooting high up into the air, at high elevation? Rubbish. It never happened. They didn't do it. All of this is straight on shooting.
Very nasty business.
You've got 6000 guys shooting en masse. If you shoot enough of those arrows, some of them are going to find the weak points, some of them are going to find the unprotected points, and very few, but some, are going to make the armour fail. But again, even if only 1 in 100 shots kills somebody, and even if only 1 in 75 arrows causes significant injury. I mean that's not a very good rate of success, but even if you have a very poor rate of success, you've shot 144,000 arrows in less than 10 minutes? That stacks up. And thats one of the... I think the numbers is one of the things that gave Henry a lot of confidence in this battle.
There's a battle during the battle of the roses where the archers on both side open the battle by shooting volleys at each other. Of course, these archers weren't heavily armored.
A strong wind blew unfavorably for one side. Each time, their arrows landed short. The other side laughed and mocked, and then returned fire. This went on for a while.
What's the best way to achieve maximum distance in such a case?
Also, let's say the wind didn't blow, whats the best way to achieve maximum distance against unarmored targets using mass volleys in such a way that you remain out of range?
gotta say it guys i absolutely love this channel, I'm an archer and just finished a warbow which is only 55lb draw weight but i have a lot of health issues from sports and physical jobs so can't safely shoot heavier bows but you guys are awesome dudes :) and serious respect for joe he's a mean machine
Tod is such a nice guy. man, even if i disagreed with you, id feel bad for arguing haha
i really respect that you a care enough to reply to comments. I think a lot of posters see longbows in a vacuum. One archer, one knight.That's ignoring the effects of the massed fire of hundreds of long bow men. Armor has gaps, different qualities, and so if you are facing an opponent shooting bunches of arrows at you, your forces are likely to in for a world of hurt.
Advance until an effective fire is received, scary words.
It’s so nice to see folks of my generation that can take criticism and respond gently and accurately. Hats off to you brother!
I’d like to order more of your kind for here in the United States of Stab Each Other In The Back.
All the best to you and yours!
Why you didn't use machine gun to get through the armor? Would be much more effective. Jeez.
At least a pistol! Is it really that difficult!?
@@MCAroon09 all of you are pathetic, clearly the best option and historically accurate method is a nuke.
I always thought that when we had soldiers in red coats firing those gunpowder guns in 18 century against the enemy in steel armour and fired arrows from a bow from 13 or 14 century The red coat would be wiped out by the arrows lol.
@@garethlloyd1445 lol
@@garethlloyd1445 well guns have way larger ranges
Currently you have 5.1k upvotes and only 16 down...that in itself is pretty impressive. I respect your dedication to testing these sort sorts of things too.
"Why didn't you do x"
"Scope?"
The whole original video was fantastic work, Tod, as have been the followups. I'm so excited to see what the team does in the future.
I also happened to watch Matt's analysis of it over at Scholagladiatoria, which I recommend just as you did. His main point was that arrows can hit a lot of other places on a man besides the thickest part of the strongest piece of armor, and that's how they're still effective. Also, archers were quite an equalizer against cavalry, which is likely why there wasn't a large cavalry contingent on the French side at Agincourt.
Once again, great work. Can't wait to see what you do next.
Hence the phrase, "Odds bodkins."
Bravo sir. The more I see from this channel the more I am impressed with what you (and friends) are doing. Thanks!
"Why didn't they shoot the 200lb bow?" For the same reason the US doesn't arm it's soldiers with 30-06s anymore, it's hard to shoot and is completely overkill.
It really must be pointed out how insane 160lbs is. most people getting started with archery might struggle with 40lbs.
I can draw and hold a 40 pound bow for quite a while, my only problem seems to be that my fingers are a tad on the soft side for it.
Although I must admit I'm a fairly fit 200lb bloke, so a weight like that shouldn't be a problem for me anyways. (I really want to try my luck with an 80 pound bow sometimes)
@@Olav_Hansen I asked around somewhere a while back about what a good starting weight should be for a complete novice at archery, thinking40 lbs would probably be no big deal, and they were telling me to go lighter. And yeah, you are probably an exception compared to the average youtube commenter. One thing to think about though, if you do get to draw that 80lbs, that that is still half of what Joe is drawing.
I'm 6'4", 225lbs and shoot a 55 lb bow. At bow meetings we shoot 6 dozen before lunch and 6 dozen after lunch and by the end of the day my accuracy begins to suffer. Can't even begin to think how much strength training I'd need and sore I'd be with 160lbs let alone 200lbs.
@@johnplath1072first there is a special draw method (using your back and not your arm strength) which will make you draw 1 1/2 - 2 times your normal draw, and second firing 70 arrows is more than likely more than the average amount of arrows that was shot during azincourt. (and third archery was not a hobby, but a job practiced for (assumably) over 1 1/2 years of training by only the most "promising" (accuracy/strength ratio) archers in a country in which archery was already a hobby/usefull skill.
I think you did the most probable recreation with much respect towards the subject that not many others could have done. You covered a massive amount of info and did as accurate enough test.
I still would have liked to see how a lighter arrow would perform, since the bow would propel them faster, and velocity is more important than weight when it comes to piercing armour.
more accurately, what matters is the momentum, not the velocity. momentum is a product of mass and velocity, as you probably know. so, if you increase the velocity but decrease the mass, the momentum doesn't necessarily changes much.
A heavier arrow will actually always have more energy than a light arrow. It's not the same as with guns. The heavier arrow takes longer for the bow to accelerate, giving more time for the bow to impart energy into the arrow. This also results in the shot being quieter and with less handshock, as less energy is left over from the shot.
In fact, the arrow they used is fairly light for the bow they used. It was around 1100 or 1200 grains if I recall correctly, and the bow was 160lbs. Usually 10 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight is standard, which would mean an arrow of 1600 grains for this bow.
I would actually like to see heavier arrows used. The "quarter pound" arrow is somewhat famously used for armour piercing, and would be around 1700 grains.
Energy = Energy. And there just isn't enough of it to make a difference.
I appreciate your reverence for actual history, God bless you.
You failed to use the English's legendary Pommel tipped Arrowheads.
They'll end them rightly!
Glad that I subscribed and then found your follow up vid, as it goes on to answer my query about internal damage to the wearer of the armour (blunt force trauma)! Leaving that aside though, what an excellent video production (both)! Can’t wait to see any follow up’s that you produce on the subject! 👍🏻👍🏻
One question I'd love to know more about:
In grade school we were taught that the British killed cows in advance of Agincourt, and the archers would poke the bloated corpses with their arrows before shooting.
This (supposedly) meant even a scratch would go sceptic so fast, the french knights would go feverish and die in under an hour, and many bogged down in the mud died this way (with just a few, infected scratches).
I have no idea if this is even remotely true, but if so, it might make those tiny splinters of wood flying up under the chin etc. much more dangerous.
Sounds like nonsense to me. If the arrow point can't even get through the armour, there's no point to poisoning the head. If they did that, it was to take out soldiers, archers and mercenaries. Not for taking out men-at-arms or knights. The British probably did kill all the cows in the area to deprive the French from food (and to feed themselves). Because that was normal in medieval warfare.
A couple of hours is nowhere near enough for an infection to spread, let alone reach a lethal stage. A couple of days at a minimum, notwithstanding an already existing disease that is about to reach lethal stage.
Nice thought, more linked to siege rather than open warfare. While my knowledge of biology is by no means perfect I'd call that one a myth. Outside of engineered viruses and bacteria it simply doesn't set in that fast. Days or weeks later? Oh aye, that's going to take its toll. On the field? Probably not.
If you wish to use this method (which is valid, if incorrectly applied in this case - see Vietnam-era pungee stakes) you need to use the dung from carnivores/omnivores (eg humans) to provide the correct pathogen. Herbivore dung won't work to incapacitate any enemy in any length of time to be useful, & isn't generally lethal (excluding protracted seiges ofc, in which case you'd simply throw the whole rotting carcass over the wall). Even carnivore or human dung isn't fast-acting enough to produce a significant effect: it's likely to require 12-48hrs minimally- or un-treated to be of significance to a warrior
I agree with the other comments here: it's far more likely that the English killed the cows simply to feed their own troops &/or deprive the French from food in sieges; for the same purpose they may have stripped/burned nearby crop fields
It would mean having you position filled with dead rotting cows, probably not the most pleasant, sanitary or practical thing for battle, and likely to mean you’re over run with flys, also a negative for you. If this was a real advantage why would they not always do this in battle? Why not dip swords and axes in too? Why not have a fresh cow bladder in your scabbard? Also I’d be surprised if you’d die in under an hour from sepsis, maybe 24 hours. I wasn’t there so can’t say for sure, but this sounds unlikely to me.
Tod Todeschini Sir, I have a degree in history. Your channel is better than any ten professors I studied under. Outstanding work.
I was fully expecting a tirade admonishing the plethora of inane comments instead of this quite reasonable discourse on the particular how's and why's of your experiment.
I love this sort of response video as it answered a lot of the questions after watching the first video.
I'd point out that from the accounts at Agincourt the French knights were essentially surrounded by archers. This means they were getting shot from the sides and if completely surrounded from the rear. There are enough texts on the use of missile weapons in medieval and ancient warfare (going back to ancient Greece) indicating that these weapons were most effective when used from the rear of an enemy (either moving or already engaged in melee). I'd suggest that even if the arrows weren't penetrating the armour from behind (which there would have been a lot more cases of as the armour is designed to protect from blows to the front with thinner armour and more caps to the sides and rear) that the combination of percussive force from areas where the armour is in close contact with the body and the psychological impact of getting hit by arrows in the side or the back would have had a huge effect on the outcome of the battle.
when shadiversity isnt pissed no one should be.
But what about dragons?
The man was bloody ecstatic
Do people still take Chad seriously?
@@ME-hm7zm I can't believe they ever did. But maybe they like long versions of other people's stuff. Each to their own! :)
@@ME-hm7zm Not seriously, but... He used to be funny, despite frequently wrong and "making up facts", while never mentioning any sources.
However, over time he lost it, got that feeling of being invincible. I was there, when he assaulted NUSensei for criticising his poor understanding of archery, I was there seeing flood of armchair general's fandom spilling through links under "NUSensei is IDIOT" video, filling comment section with invectives and racial slurs...
Luckily, NUSensei has proved to be more mature, stepped back, issuing lenghty explanatory video, apologising for "not being precise".
Shad mistakenly understood it as apology for "criticising Allmighty Shad", deleted abovementioned assault gate and boasted in his community page, that it was proven, he was right...
...disgusting...