Friggin' tradition, amirite? Watch the full episode here: • Firing Arrows Like a M... Merch, magic, and more only at www.scamstuff.com #prank #stunt #educational
Size does matter. There are no more English Longbowmen. Men trained their entire life for shooting the English longbow. But battlefield reports are pretty clear: The English Longbow out-distanced everything. Alas, they ceased to exist after the gun.
@@JaysSavvytrue, however, I know not of a battle where these two types of bows would have collided, sadly. Secondly, both bows had widely different usages, regardless of the possible distance, there is little need to shoot from 200m away if you are skirmishing on horseback.
not to mention that composite bows are always more fragile and sensitive to moisture which is main factor why composite bows never become a thing in most of Europe.
In fact, making a one piece bow from a stave is far more complecated than making a modern wooden bow... You need to follow the lines of the wood. If you cut one of the back of the bow, it will explode at the first shot. On laminated bows,you just need to put layers together with the outer fiber layers that keep every thing together.
@@GreasyBeasty Pretty much, longbow effectiveness came from proto-standardization and they were much easier they were to produce n standardized than composite bows. Also worth noting that Flight archery is a specific type of shooting, that became specialized during the later Ottoman Empire; so it’s a silly to imply those sorts of long shots were standard when the bows were contemporary with longbows. If you looks at Flight Archery records from the Ottoman Empire in the ~18th century, they are not too far off the distances recorded during the height of the longbow period.
@@tatumergo3931 In the Western europe maybe in the east its often different! Wouldnt hade mounted crossbow men not the same Problem in western europe ? But they where relativ common in Western europe!
@@erencanayhan8514 You've described characteristic properties. I asked about purpose. There's a reason composite recurves were not widely used in the European theatre of war. It's called plate armour and mass formations.
@@mememachine6763 longbow doesnt help on that either. At least if they used a more accurate bow they would be able to aim at weakspots. Only reason europe didnt use it was because the culture of bow making wasnt as developed in europe as it was in central asia
Actually it was note just for tradition. The turkish/mongolian bow is made of several layers held together by glue. Works great on a dry environnement, but when you get in Europe, the humidity disolves the glue parking the compound bow less durable.
@@LayCritic I'm not sure if they used it for Bows, but back then they had glue made by boiling the gelatine out of Bones and Skin. During my education to become a Carpenter we made some in School, it takes forever, stinks like hell but the finished glue is surprisingly strong.
English style longbows do not shoot faster, further, or more accurately but they can shoot much heavier arrows. For target shooting this does not matter. But if you were say fighting against 5,000 fully armored knights at the battle of Agincourt, that extra mass matters a lot.
@@ReasonAboveEverything Well, i'm from Poland. We have more humid climate, than middle east. And still from like XV/XVI century, horsebows were most popular type of bows here. It's not like you drop a little drop of water, and bow is broken. Ottoman's were saying, that the wet bow is "sic". They just leave it somewhere to dry, and after 2-3 days the bow was "cured". If a bow is wrapped into birch bark, as long as you don't drop it into water, it's gonna be good. Edit: I'm sorry i didn't catch that. Yeah fair point, you cannot make a spear from a horse bow haha.
The composite bows used by the Turks, Scythians, Huns, Magyars and Mongols became shorter out of necessity to shoot arrows on horse back. During battle Turkish archers on horse back were able to shoot arrows in all directions, even backwards while retreating. This would be very difficult to do with an English longbow. A short wooden bow will not withstand so much bending and will break hence it is a composite bow to provide flexibility and also strength. English bows shot heavier arrows a shorter distance with greater penetration power as advantage whereas the Turkish bows shot lighter arrows farther with distance as advantage.
If someone says a weapon was simply used for "tradition" when it comes to a weapon used in war, I am always sceptical. Like... sure the katana was used for traditional purposes... but it was also not a weapon of war. Find me ANY weapon that was used in warfare that was not the perfect solution for the times. A pitchfork? The cheapest, most available spear for farmers. A pummel? Great against heavily armored units. A nun-chuck? Well that guy had obviously just broken his favourite stick and only had a rope and a few minutes to fix it before combat. USE STICK!
Katanas were called "killing swords" by Westerners in 1800s Japan based on how quickly a trained Samurai could cut a man down with one. I'm aware that all swords are "killing swords" but the katana isn't well known and respected simply because of anime. A true kendo master was something to fear and admire. However, on the other hand, a spear was a far superior weapon to any sword. Deadly fast, long reaching, and precise. A master practitioner of the spear was once set against Musashi Miyamoto by a diamyo of the time. The spearman struck three times, Miyamoto parried the strikes. The match then ended with both men backing off without a word spoken. When the diamyo asked why, the spearman claimed that Miyamoto was a master swordsman to have avoided all three strikes without injury.
The katana was used kind of as a personal defense weapon in addition to tradition. A Samurai can't always be armed to the teeth. The shortness and two-handedness of the saber makes me think it was meant to emulate the use of other weapons available to the Samurai. Try carrying a spear around as a means of self defense, maybe not the best option.
You could backset a selfbow and get the same thing. Recurve allows for more speed per poundage but a heavy selfbow with backset would do the same thing
@@LS-VR Why make a longbow when you can achieve the same poundage with a shorter recurve? Why make a shorter recurve when you can make a longer thicker bow to do the same thing? Both seem fine. (not referring to a self bow as a longbow)
@@KanadMondal because countries had different bow styles. but different bow woods would hold different speeds. that’s why most laminated bows are faster because they use a variety of materials glued together
Both bows are actually pretty good overall and are mostly a result of climate. The British Isles are wet and used to be pretty forested, so lots of wood is available for bow construction and the less parts means the less moisture getting into the bow and hurting accuracy and range. In Mogolia and the Eurasian Steppe, you have a dry climate with little wood, but lots of potential for grazing animals. Making compact bows with more parts derived from animals becomes the norm, and without a worry for moisture hurting accuracy and power. A Welsh Longbowman and a Mongol Horse Archer were the best of the best when it came to archery in their regions because they played to their strengths and environment with their equipment!
eh, idk if its climate so much as cost and likely opponents. longbowman is more likely going to be fighting someone in heavy chainmail. and what you want there is firing heavier arrows with more inertia. And it just so happens that a long piece of yew is pretty good bang for your buck in that regards. Think during the time and place crossbows where pretty commonly composite.
@@midshipman8654most peasants in an army back in the day didn’t have chainmail, now if we are talking about the French army it’s different offcourse. But what he was saying about climate is correct, the humidity in the air in England/ Europe is much higher than on the steppes resulting in the disintergrating of the glue they used for the compound bows
@@huibbagchus8819 yah, but during the high medieval, the main body was still heavy cavalry noblemen or gentry or ocassionally heavy foot nobleman with peasants largely being support instead of being part of the main engagement. lighter troop becoming part of the main body in general is only a later medieval development. at least for open feild battles. and the fact that longbows where used in less humid areas all around europe like france. The english were just particularly known for their use.
@@midshipman8654the period the English longbowman dominated the armies of many nations were made up of professional companies of retainers paid by their lords and armoured by them Of course most were not wearing top quality Milanese steel armour but wrought iron suits were very common
Comparing apples to oranges. The two bows were built for entirely different combat rolls. The turkish bow needed to be small and fast for horse back archers and holds a distance record because its arrows weigh much less than that of traditional english long bow arrows. English long bows were fighting against hard armor so they needed the inertia gained from the heavy arrows. The turkish were fighting unarmored combatants.
thank you, it is sad to see "experts" like the one in this short immediately disregard all professionalism to fellate whichever national identity they hold
I agree that they were designed for completly different roles but turks (or other mounted nomads) fighting unarmored combatants? ;-; Sure, if you`re in the steppe not every tribe is that well equipped, but how did they conquer china, the middle east, byzantium or eastern europe then? All areas with well armored armies, I mean they themselves had quite good armor (if they had the money that is)
The Turkish bow were designed to be used on the back of a horse to create mounted archery units. Such a simple invention resulted in concuring almost half of the known world back then by Ghengis and many others. Ghengis was Mongolian, but note that these two nations were living in the same region together and using exactly the same war strategies, army units and weapons. Also, Karakorum and its surrounding had been the capital of Uygur, Gokturk, Mongolian and many other empires as these nations considered themselves together sharing the same destiny and history.
Quick Google says that's cap. Longest shot ever was with a crossbow. Longest hand drawn shot was with a flight bow, a bow specifically made to shoot far
He's comparing archaic hand drawn bows. And you bring in a crossbow, just because it has the word 'bow' in it doesn't make it the same weapon. Just like a compound bow and a recurve bow are different. A flight bow was made and designed with modern mechanics, specifically designed to beat length records. He's comparing old war bows and their limits. The google fact checkers are so ridiculous dude. Go read a book. You sound stupid.
The recurve is more compact than a longbow, and a lot more powerful than a shortbow, but an English longbow fires heavy, thick arrows, over a meter in length, 2-3cm thick, with heavy metal arrowheads. When fighting armored opponents, i dont think it's just tradition... a good warbow would actually break some thinner arrows if you tried to shoot them.
Tell that to the Longbowmen and Retinue ones who cant kill a single feudal knight of battles that Ive been through. Goddam English, theyre the weakest. Their range is amazing yet totally useless if they cant kill mid to late tier soldiers. I get that they had to nerf them from having the longest range of all ranged units, but with zero to little damage, totally not worth it. Even the Sherwood archers, their unique and supposedly strongest archers are nerfed down to half a platoon. Could kill but their numbers suck so much.
Sorry guys, Ive been playing Medieval Total War 2, revisiting an amazing childhood game of mine. Then this video showed up. Was talking about the longbowmen of the English, the game did them dirty.
The long now has more power, but a lot of folks misunderstand what power means in terms of combat usefulness. Power can either be used for penetrative utility, or range. Both has falloffs, but long bows will be better against armored targets than the Turkish composite bows, they're also a lot easier to manufacture, meaning you can field more of them. The downside of the longbow is it's weight, size and that its not just more powerful by default, it requires physical strength of the archers to utilise that power, meaning longbow archers need to be strong, and they can fire less arrows, as each fired volley takes a heavy toll.
@@LukeVilent for the range competitions you are right but you should consider this. Mean warfare distance for composite bow user armies was 400 meters and for long bow user it was 100-200 meters. In distance competitions long bow users send their arrows up to 400 meters composite bow users able to reach 1 kilo meters
It's not only tradition that made single piece wooden bows more common in europe, composite bows, like most eastern bows, were a lot more prone to fall apart in the humidity of central europe.
Saw the whole ep already. Really good. Respect to the archer. The two interviewers not so much. They shot a bow without an arrow by themselves. The bowman was pissed at that.
No wonder. Dry firing a bow can cause damage. And even a tiny crack can get dangerous under tension, depending on construction and material that can cause a pretty explosive break
The 2 interviewers also interviewed a guy showing the Turkish bows, in a Turkish traditional outfit. And then named their video "firing arrows like a mongolian warrior". Sure, Mongolians used the same type of bows and archery style. But it's really strange and even disrespectful (like you're saying it's not Turkish at all, even though this is the traditional bow that Turks have used for millenia from central Asia to the west) to have a title about Mongolian warriors while interviewing a guy demonstrating Turkish archery.
@@luggy9256 I think good quality armor can make you basically invincible, but for the discussion the mounted bow seems to have worked just fine against european armor :l
@@juliusnorr3041 good armour still has weak spots at the joints, and the horsebow worked well against European armour before Europe really used plate, it was mostly mail armour during the Mongol or Hun invasions.
@@luggy9256 have you tested good quality tempered armor of the late medieval period against said traditional long warbow and thick war arrows? No archers are gonna be standing there and waiting for the enemy cavalry to get close to be shooting their arrows. Archers were mostly for harassing the enemy compared to doing actual damage to the enemy especially if their heavily armored knights. Don't use the excuse about French knights getting beaten. The English beat the French due to the fact the French were on a horrible field. Which was muddy and uneven due to the heavy rain and mud. Which allowed maneuvers to be very complicated if anything went wrong. Along side armor slowing them down when they got dismounted and be slipping into the horrible mud.
@@koreancowboy42 I have not tested that myself no, but someone on RU-vid has tested it beautifully. Usually arrows are only a real threat to your joints where there is no plates, the thinner plates on the sides and rear, and of course to your horse. But from the testing you wouldn’t want to be the knight being shot at, even with only 1 archer…
The longbow was used because it was incredibly quick/easy and cheap to make in comparison to the recurve bow. It obviously vould only be used on foot but your normal mass of peasant archers were never going to be on one. Almost any type of bow can reach the 100+ pounds that a real warbow could get to
One thing should be mentioned: That tiny recurve bow is designed against lamellar armor, which is typically wood or leather straps but can sometimes be metal in later periods. The longbow is built to fire heavier, thicker, better piercing arrows to defeat Europe's better chainmail, and later plate. Though Europe did also have lamellar, by the time longbows really started to make a difference, lamellar was mostly dropped in favor of chainmail, and plate armors with gambesons hidden below.
To be fair tho, design wise both types could be made with draw weight capable of piercing mail. And the thing with plate armor is, that its pretty much very very pierce resistant. While you can pierce the thinner walled arm pieces, you wont really get through a good piece of chest armor unless the arrow heads were heat treated (which there isnt a lot of evidence of, if they did it or not). I can suggest tod's workshop's video "armor vs arrows 2". There they try out a warbow against french style plate mail.
Another thing is that the English started making their longbows with recurves in them right at the end of the Middle Ages, and then they REALLY stepped up their penetrating power and distance.
@@judahschultz tho they prolly just did it towards the end, due to the fact of making recurves into your bow just takes a lot of extra time and effort with a theoretical risk of ruining an otherwise perfectly good bow, just cus you wanted slightly more leverage on the string. Also, it's just easier to thicken the bow and be like "yeah, why bother, this gets it done too"
Small archer bows can be EXTREMELY powerful, there are small traditional bows like these with more than 90 pounds of draw weight used by Mongolians. Given the increased efficiency, it's equivalent to a 120 pounds longbow, wich is already well into the warbow range. Heavy arrows are required for these. Also, some european crossbows from the early 14th century were made from composite, just like these, and their draw weight would go beyond 600 pounds too.
I don't think sound makes any difference. For an assassin I would pick crossbow. About weight I think smaller size is more important. But this is my preference
"The world record is set with one of these" is such a disingenuous statement that he should almost be called a liar. The bow used to set the world recurve record wasn't a traditional Asian horse bow. It was a modern recurve, designed and constructed using modern methods and materials.
True that, but flight archery has separate classes for different bows, I believe he was talking about the complex composite class, modern bows have their own class
@@attilaseyfullah8522that sounds very much like "the great leader set the record. Trust me bro, its true cuz i wrote it down" akin to the bs attributed to the Kim's in north korea.
the perks to the English longbow mainly consist of being relatively easy to mass produce and you can get very high draw weights fairly easily and while you can get super heavy asiatic bows they are much more complicated to make and take a very long time to make and being so small makes it hard to get the extreme draw weights that the English longbow has, 9f course English longbow aren't super efficient with transferring energy whereas the shorter asiatic bows transfer that energy extremely well
I disagree. Longbows are generally at the sweet spot of energy transfer while these short bows are going to have a very short power stroke. See a similar thing why crossbows have HUGE draw weights but don't actually overpower bows (particularly longbows).
Also, it's not just about shape. Mounted archery shortbows are compounds made of wood/bamboo, sinew and horn, it's my understanding that the las two materials are way stiffer than traditional wood bows (while still being elastic) which adds a lot more pounds (the unit of power bows are measured at) per unit of length than just wood
@kinvoiach3014 except they became popular in modern-day archery because they were in common use throughout Europe it's not so much tradition as it is just common knowledge.
Traditional short bows are bound with hide glue wich is sensitive to humidity and will dissolve under the rain. Basically unusable in england, Scotland, and parts of France
@@josephwindle7177so it became prominent because of logistics and then kept in the modern day because of how common it used to be, like a tradition of sorts.
But also, the English had peasant levies that trained in the bow. It was relatively cheap and easy to make wherever Yew was grown and ideal for someone on foot. England did not have large mounted armies, like the middle east and Asia. So the long bow was suitable. Plus, some of the bows had 160lb draws which punches through armour pretty well. Plate armour was not common on the steppes.
The reason why the longbow wins in parts of Europe is because it's the one that survived the environment. Though I'm sure modern glues and resins would make up the difference today.
was craftable with less skill could attach a speartip too it used heavier arrows, for heavier european targets. could get those heavier arrows, further. for foot archers, longbow is king.
@@o0xTHEcoPlayerx0o heavier European targets? What are they shooting down, tigers? I'm pretty sure if you're shooting on the guy you're still shooting a guy
Both are products of their environment. Modern resins are the main reason compact bows have a bit of an edge. Not falling apart from humidity is an advantage that cannot be overstated
@@noahjohnson935 which actually also relates to why Turks and Mongols didn't conquer or even properly invade southeastern Asia: their main weapon and tactic suddenly became ineffective due to weather/local climate.
You also tended to have longbows in countries with lots and lots of mature forestry. Shortbows could be made with much smaller lengths of wood, supplemented at times with other materials, adding complexity.
It’s like how people cling to manual transmissions over automatics. They feel like they have more control and power, but it’s really just more of a headache.
Isn’t the English longbow going to be more powerful and take heavier targets down better? Definitely doesn’t seem like something you would use in mounted archery though.
Depends on what you mean by "take heavier targets down better" because opposed to common misconception no bow nor crossbow was especially good against hard armor like brigandine, lamellar, and especially not plate. When met with hardened steel plates arrows and crossbows no matter of what poundage almost universally bounce off. The higher the poundage the more likely you are to dent it but you are almost certainly not going through unless you've already hit the same spot numerous times (or more likely get lucky and one wedges itself between the gaps in the armor, but this becomes less and less likely as time goes on as heavier armor advanced to the point where the only real gaps where the eye slits by the late Medieval to early Renaissance). Though a higher poundage bow would make punching through more standard armors far more easy. Things like chainmail (which is always worn over padded armor as well) or just various padded armors which were far more common across most places in the Medieval era.
@@ThatGuyOrby then do you think people love the English longbow so much because of another reason? Has it been romanticized a lot like how the Japanese katana wasn’t actually used that often or wasn’t even the most used sword in a fight? Because I’ve seen so many different people talk about how powerful the English longbow is and how you have to have had years of training with it on top of being insanely strong just to wield it, and it’s still outperformed by this type of hun/mongol mounted bow?
@@theusernameicoodfind I'm not quite certain why people love the thing so much, even as a huge medieval buff myself. I like it, and it was very practical and easy to make, especially easy to make in higher poundage which was convenient for arming an entire army faster and cheaper. I guess it's strangely romanticized reputation probably has something to do with how well the English were known to be particularly skillful and potent archers during the Medieval period and people probably just extrapolate that if they were good at something they were probably the best at doing it and probably had the best things for doing it. That's my guess anyway. By all metrics it's just a pretty good bow but nowhere near as good as some people portray it as. Though to be fair, the man in the video was a bit misleading. As of right now that particular style of recurve bow does not hold any range records at all. A type of recurve does but not that kind. And comparing a recurve in this style to a longbow is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison anyway as longbows fire much larger and heavy arrows out of necessity of the length of their draw. It's only natural that a smaller lighter arrow will fly further and the reason these arrows can be so much lighter is because the draw isn't as long so they can be made shorter and the arrows themselves are not quite as thick as would be standard on a longbow. Two different weapons, two different purposes. While comparing them can be interesting it's best not to decide on "winners" because they prevailed in their roles, times, and locations because they were well suited to it. Also irrelevant but interesting side note, while people often cite that recurves are easier to shoot accurately I actually very much so disagree. When I was younger I used to go to a summer camp fairly often and my favorite activity there was archery. I took it in all three of the optional activity slots I could. They had us fire standard longbows (appropriately sized for kids), recurves, and more finally modern compound bows. I was best with the compound bow (no surprises there), second best with the longbow, and absolutely horrific with the recurve.
Not trying to offend anyone but to keep it short and simple Long bow Cleap easy to maintain Can work in any climate Has more versatile arrows Has a better power ratio when using bodkin Composite recurve bows Short portable and versatile Limited effect in humid conditions Unmatched other than crossbows in short range highly varied performance in longer ranges This was what i found basically it was cheaper to equip an entire army with longbows or simple bows than with recurve bows. Or even cheaper to use crossbows.
I imagine firing from a horse would be more difficult with a longer bow. I believe it's one reason hunters prefer short compound bows as a human sized bow is hard to maneuver in the forest.
Having a recurved, composite bow does indeed make it possible to have a smaller bow with a higher draw weight. This also makes it more practical to use for horse archery. However, this is also more expensive to make than, say, a regular bow made out of just wood.
so part of why big bows like that were common in the past was sturdiness and simplicity. part of the reason the mongols didnt go to far south is the humidity caused their bows to warp and the glue to unbind.
Why were simple longbows used in western europe? Simple : -cost -humidity Horn composite bows like the small horse archer ones are bound together with hide glue, wich is sensitive to humidity. It's pretty much useless in england, Scotland, and lots of northern parts of France. Longbows are also easier to produce, and will work very well when on foot. Short bows are more efficient and more compact, but it's a whole other process to make them.
@@Madi_Ernar so what? The technology of composite bows was already there since antiquity. Wooden bows backed with tendons and ligaments for exemple, but in the east, it was bows of horn, wood and ligaments. They did exist, and have existed for a huge amount of time. Even today, horn bows are extremely efficient, way more than a plain rounded wood bow
"distance record is set with one of these" is blatant misinformation, you cant lump recurve bows and compound bows together just because they aren't longbows, this is assuming he is talking about modern recurves and not the never reproduced physically impossible numbers the turkish sultans recorded.
It's also misinformation in the sense that he fails to mention that the arrow matters just as much as the bow for distance. Longbows were made to throw much heavier arrows than recurve bows. Lighter arrows will go farther.
It's not really that are more reliable. It's as you say, longbows are easier to make but also faster to make as well as cheaper. Meaning you can equip an an army faster and at less of a cost. Europeans did have recurve type bows even back in medieval periods. Recurve bows are more manual intensive to make. So it was only the wealthy and people who knew how to make them who had access to them
@Dian Slabbert They are much more reliable in the humid rainy climate of western Europe. Composite bows were made with hide glue which is softens when wet and can cause the bows to fail. An English longbow with a linen, flax, or horsehair bowstring and sealed with beeswax can be used all day in the rain.
@@Tekurin here I will share. Composit bows didn't hold up well in England since the glue would come undone in the climate. Long bows were used because a single piece of wood doesn't fall apart. Next the long bow was used to send massive arrows through thick armor. The French considered their use a war crime as it violated the chivolric codes. Composite bows fired a much smaller arrow since the primary forces they were used on were lightly armored. Both are great bows but there is a reason for their use in these different geographies other than "tradition".
@@cammi9948 Right because Bodkin arrows worked 100% of the time. If even an arrow from a European heavy longbow yields questionable results against armour, imagine how difficult it would be for an even smaller one.
Crossbows aren't exactly superior. Higher power, but very slow to fire. The big thing is that it's not too expensive to produce and cuts training costs down drastically. You need a lot of training to effectively shoot a bow and even more to do so in formation. You need far less for a crossbow. Thus you can get larger armies in times of need in a far shorter time with less cost and have more people focus more on economic resources so long as you can afford the crossbow. Similarly the main reason longbow would be used is they're extremely cheap and simple to produce, and very durable. The recurve is much harder to produce and more susceptible to weather changes altering the wood. They both have about the same power depending on the wood and the thickness and such and such. The recurve is smaller making it useable on a horseback and vastly easier to carry.
Yeah they are super simple guns. Thats why they are better point and shoot. You just train on accuracy. Anyone can do that. Bows take many other factors but are also fun and satisfying when you get the hang of it.
Crossbows are simple, but slow to load, and tend to be complicated to make (more complicated than a Matchlock, for example). Best on the defensive, or when needing to train an army with little experience but a lot of resources.
That reload time is dreadful in open battle. The are great siege weapons, great urban warfare weapons, and us italians loved them back in the day, but let's not pretend they can outmatch a proper trained longbowman. They are simply much easier to use.
Another factor: ease of production and mode of warfare. Much of Western European warfare involved stationary fronts focused on cities, population centers, or military forts. Cavalry archery becomes more prominent in steppe environments where mobile warfare becomes more advantageous. This, coupled with the significantly easier mass-production of traditional longbows, made mustering an army to defend a stationary location much easier.
The distance record goes to the composite bow because their arrows are designed differently, specifically for distance and accuracy. Heavy draw weight longbow arrows (specifically English style) are much heavier and made for momentum and killing ability.
Composite bow. . . Not only has strategic curves for spring but they are also "composed" of a few different materials so as to take advantage of the different material properties. .
This is wrong. Range and power are almost the same thing when it comes to bow and arrow. What you gain in mass from having a longer arrow for the long bow, you loose in draw distance. If you have the same draw Weight on both a long bow and a short bow, the short bow will apply all of that force to the smaller arrow over a shorter distance, which means higher acceleration value. The bigger arrow has higher mass in its momentum calculation, but that larger mass being accelerated over a longer elastic pull means lower speed at the point it leaves the bow. Both will impact their target with a similar amount of force at the same distance, but with a significantly different flight profile
@@Shocktrue1 You threw in a lot of gibberish to sound smart but at the end of the day the English longbow was used to great effect against armour because their heavy bows could launch heavy bodkin projectiles that decimated armoured knights by shearing chainmail and dismounting knights that weren't killed outright with the force of the arrows. Horse archers may have had a range advantage but their lighter arrows wouldn't have worked so well against the heavier armour favoured by the Frankish peoples of Western Europe as they were against the lighter armour used in the east, who were greater skirmishers and more maneuverable cavalrymen but didn't have the heavy armour of Western Europe. The longbow also worked much better in more humid environments where the recurve bow's laminated layers tended to break down as they were designed as a steppe weapon for dry plain environments.
@@callumcochrane7759Yes and no. Longbows couldn't penetrate plate armor, that much is known. Chainmail, yes. And recurve bows were used with great effectiveness against armor in Carrhae. Granted, not the same armor as medieval armor, but still quite a feat. That being said, anyone who says a 100-120 gram war arrow from a warbow hits the same as a 20-25 gram training arrow shot from a recurve horsebow is full of sh_t. Heavy draw weight longbows are legitimately terrifying.
@@Shocktrue1 that true if you dont take in account the properties of each type of bow. Longbows are intrisically made to shoot heavier arrows while recurves have their maximum output at lower charges.
@@horvathbenedek3596 well longbows won’t often pierce plate armour, but if you watch Todd’s workshops arrows vs armour series there is always chances it can happen, correct angles, weaker steel, thinner parts. And well if there is 2000 archers firing dozens of arrows, any small chance will happen to some poor bastard…
those composite hornbows took insane amounts of skill and work and time to make, and it was only necessary to have a smaller bow if you were shooting from horseback and western europeans/welsh and english weren't doing that
Turkish composite bows were lot more complicated to make and probably would have more preoblems with prolonged periods of very humid weather, since they were glued together.
The issue with compound bows is the glues used in their construction don't fare well in damp climates. Hence why you find strong compound bow traditions in drier places but they don't get adopted in areas that are damper.
