This is just pure conjecture, but I wonder if the heavier arrowheads with their more forward centre of gravity are perhaps wobbling more in the air and so hitting more air resistance, hence the greater energy loss? Anyway, absolutely loving this series, those were some pretty good shots at such long range. I was amazed at how dangerous the arrows remained even at those significantly higher distances.
Possibly the more 'wobble' adds to the drag massively - that could well be it and a slower launch off a longbow would not wobble as much - a very good point - thanks !
A greater amplitude of arrow flex/wobbling was my guess as well. I would hypothesis it has more to do with the inertia of pushing a heavier arrowhead during the power stroke than the center of gravity of the arrow. I wonder if you could see/measure the wobble in your high speed shots? I also wonder if it is to do with the angle of attack of the arrow during flight, you appeared to have some differences in the angle you had to aim upwards for the different types. Having done a bit of research their a lot of published papers on arrow drag/ dynamics. Very interesting, great video!
I was thinking this as well. However I think the most likely explanation is just that there is a lot of variation and the sample size was just to small
i just want to say, great content. you went all the way to 100 meters. can't find tests like this anywhere, except here. Since you mentioned "there is so much left" ... and if you are taking requests, i'd really love to see if arrows can pierce the boss of a boss shield as that seems ideal to protect the hand?
As force is product of acceleration and Mass and we are able to calculate drag force from different formula it is also possible to determine how big influence mass has on arrow acceleration (deceleration). You can check my previous comment. Heavier arrow -> bigger mass -> decelerate faster
@@tods_workshop Yes! I am loving the 'Lockdown Longbow' content. Also really appreciate you showing us your measurements and responding to question people have. Thanks for giving this to the community Tod.
There was a terrific documentary on the War of the Roses where one army was in fog, the other clear. They had a recreation of the army trapped in fog with only enough visibility to see the few men around you and the sound of arrow strikes as men start to drop. It was absolutely terrifying.
If there's anything we've learned here, it's the following: *1)* Tod is a master craftsman, but his battered shield stand can attest that he needs more archery practice. *2)* Needle bodkins were almost certainly the go-to armour-piercing warhead against everything except plate. *3)* Poplar is a good material for making shields. Building-grade spruce is not.
I do think that while the 'lockdown longbow' is a good facsimile, those arrows aren't all launching perfectly out of it. My guess is that a lot of the variation is a result of porpoising, and not entirely in Tod's control.
This feels like Medieval Paul Harrell, “We’re our on the range here today so please bear with the sound of arrows” “We have our Winchester White Box 90 gram needle bodkin arrows”
@@robgoodsight6216 After watching those damn arrows poking through two-by-fours like no one's business I doubt that having a pavese would make me calm under archers volley. Of course its still so much better to have a shield than not in this scenario.
Tod's xmass song: on the 7th day of xmass, my bodkin gave to me; 1 layer of poplar, 4 layers of wool, 32 layers of linen, ... and a tenderised shoulder of pork!
Yeah; especially when it is multiplied by several hundred incoming shafts. I guess that the reduction in hearing and sight due to wearing a helmet would have reduced the terror effect a bit; until the arrows start to hit home around you.
Playing around with our reenactment group once a group of us volunteered to form up a shield wall while some archers practiced rate of fire against a formation (with blunts obviously). A few newbies volunteered to take turns in the shield wall and rapidly devolved into nervous giggling or started outright dropping their shields in fear under the sustained barrage. I think I gave more orders in that brief experiment than in an average training skirmish just to keep people in line and properly locked. It was an interesting experience. The worst they could get from those arrows was a stinging bruise, but it was still apparently psychologically draining, I can completely see why accurate and fast arrow volleys could win battles, and it's not just from killing people. The whizzing, phwips and resonating thuds as the arrows rebounded off the most curved shields, or pinged off bosses and helmets, not to mention the yelps of surprise, were an unsettling chorus I'll admit.
@@mazar128ivan7 You could always look for a reenactment group near you. :p Community, shared interests, bashing eachother with weapons, exercise to burn off that beer belly, studying history in a desperate attempt to justify a bit of kit you bought cheap only to realise it's over a hundred years out of date. All the fun. :p ((I'm kidding, really don't buy kit unless you have consulted an officer or know with confidence that it's good for your period).
starshipeleven you could theoretically make it very safe but that amount of safety equipment would make it way less enjoyable and getting it approved by any kind of bureaucratic agency might be impossible
It's absolutely graphic! A mix between hammering a nail in (minus the metallic ring) and chopping wood with an axe! The sound of the arrow in flight doesn't help either. Nyzoom-thwack! I wonder how much just the sound affected raw recruits (assuming veterans got used to it)
I loved that. I had always assumed that sound was a hollywood thing like the metallic sound of drawing a sword or the click when someone lifts a gun just to indicate to you what you are supposed to notice, not the actual sound of the thing. But it is the actual sound of the thing.
really love Tods explanations and willingness to listen and try new things based on what people have said he explain well and logically and is willing to try suggestions... really cool and really great testing
Seeing lots of comments from People who have never fired a bow, for those in England, suggest you just buy one and experiment, one of the few weapons you can legally own in the UK, without a license, but please be careful, ANY bow can kill.
@@LOFIGSD good idea, there are lots of archery clubs where you can go to and do a "have a go session" for as little as 7 English pounds. It is great fun.
Roman empire era: Iron bosses to prevent arrows going into hands. Normand Era : Kite shields with boses to prevent arrows going into hands. 13th to 14th century: Vanbrace protect the arm so you can remove boses
I think it's more to do with how the shield is held. If the shield is held at the centre then you have a boss; if the shield is strapped to the arm you use a vambrace instead. Consider buckler shields which are pretty much oversized bosses.
Ouch. My wife and I performed our marionette concert at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds several years ago. We were treated to a reenactment of a battle from around the time of Agincourt, put on by a local group. We were amazed to see the sky full of arrows aimed at other human beings. No, they weren't broadheads, but still. They assured us that no one had ever died, but there were occasional injuries. Sure enough, an ambulance came as we watched. But it looked like fun.
@@samarkand1585 Yes, and the arrows were not moving that fast by the time they got to the opposing army. Not very realistic, but still a shock to see in real life.
High-angle volleys are often used in re-enactments for a combination of safety and spectacle. In history there is some account of high-angle shooting being used, but no distinct record of it militarily. You could, presumably, have your sections of archers firing a combination of high and low angle volleys to make it more difficult for approaching enemies to know exactly where to put their shields, but that's looking back on medieval warfare from the comfort of my very modern desk chair with an academic understanding of the capabilities of a formation of archers.
Anyone making medieval-era movies, take note - give us this kind of heavy, powerful, scary battle scene! At 75m (further than people think by the way, try measuring it out) the arrows have only lost about 10% of their velocity and are *still* ripping through that target like nothing. And the glorious/terrifying sound! One of your best lockdown videos yet, in a strong field.
Longbows which werent common outside of england, that are far stronger than any other bows that were used. And archers didnt shoot so close overwhelming majority of the time and usually wasted most if not all arrows skirmshing with enemy archers, only suicidal people would attempt at shooting at a 100 meters from an enemy formation. 100 meters can be closed extremely fast
@@alexmag342 not true. Archers were trained to shoot at a distance closer than 100 yards, otherwise you will waste your arrows and die. Complex bows were even heavier than longbows often and were used extensively since the bronze age. Their downside is that they are very complicated and expensive, while longbow is just a stick
@@tedarcher9120 the average engagement distance for archers was about 100-150 meters, it was downright condemned to engage at less than 100 meters unless there was a heavy infantry or cavalry force defending them
@@nicholasbrown668 that's not true. It is really really difficult to hit anything with a bow at 150m, even a strong one. You need to aim at around 30-40 degrees up. When you shoot at 70 meters, you aim only ine finger higher. The thing with archers is, they have legs, and they can retreat when threatened. But usually they were deployed on the flanks to provide enfilade fire
@@tedarcher9120 I literally looked up a treatise on archer tactics in the High Medieval Ages to get my information, archers weren't put dangerously close to enemy as the distance could be closed by enemy cavalry extremely fast
Still, every arrow that didn't get the hand is an arrow that didn't do it's job. So as terrifying as it would be on a battlefield, you would have to put your shield in front of you and pray for the best, because having shield is still much better than not having it
From my observations, armor plating on hands and wrists, along with proper helmets seemed to become more common during the golden age of the longbow, which was from around 1200's to mid 1300's.
I think they still do there job even if they dont dont get the arm/hand. If i would run at a archer formation and i would see 5 arrow heads in my shield that clearly would have pierced my arm if they hit and i still have another 100meters to run i would very much start thinking about running in the other direction.
Not sure that's really true, sure they didn't get the hand/arm but all those arrows in a shield probably do render it less effective in combat, heavier at least. Additionally you have to wonder were the arrows that don't hit the shield end up, they might not hit you but they'll be slamming into everyone around you and while a wealthy knight may not have to worry about such minor impacts peasants, horses and even some poorer knights were generally not protected by solid plate. To protect against mass volley you have to do something at least close to a testudo, if you're doing that then you're bunched together and can't fight in melee effectively or even rapidly advance now that I think of it.
@@TheAnon03 If you're in a testudo due to arrow fire, the opponent isn't likely to be engaging in melee unless their footmen are maniacs who like being shot in the back.
TOD, a thing from firearms ballistics, when you're using the same propellant charge with different weight bullets, the heavier projectile is always slower out of the barrel, this is the same for arrows. Think of it as kicking a beach ball vs kicking a bowling ball with the same amount of force. it's the same with your bow, A heavier projectile is always a slower projectile from the start. you can double check your findings and test what I'm saying by measuring the velocity as it's launched from the bow, this will also help you filter out aberrations or erroneous measurements. For instance, if your velocity at target for a shot is not within the average from the others shot, but the velocity of it at the bow is within the average of the others at launch, there is probably error in the measurement at target. On the other hand if it was launched at a higher speed from the bow, and hit at a higher speed at target, there is no error.
The heavier projectile carries the energy in it's mass, the lighter in it's speed. The difference ist in the effect on the target. The faster projectile will achieve a better penetration, but wont transfer as much energy to the target and vice versa.
He knows all of that... That's basic high-school physics... Tod's talking about the LOSS in velocity that should be higher for lighter projectiles. The disparity stems from the difference in the dynamics and weight distribution of the arrows, not the difference in the initial speeds.
You missed the point. Like the other guy said it's about how much of their starting speed they lose as they travel. Or as you would put it - you roll a bowling ball down a lane and it just keeps going because it is heavy and has a lot's of inertia. You roll an inflatable beach ball down a lane and it stops half way because it is light and has a same air drag but much less momentum. Except - the arrows didn't behave that way because apparently Tod and his "lock-down longbow" are casually braking the laws of physics :)
Am I right in observing that for the heavier arrows you're having to shoot at a steeper angle to make the target? If so, as the arrow is travelling over a bigger parabolic arc, it's having to travel further before it hits the target, compare to the flatter arc of the lighter arrow. I don't think this is the only factor - aerodynamics, balance, oscillations in the shaft, probably all play a part.
Yeah, I was searching for a comment like this. The heavier arrow must be aimed higher so it has to travel further. Also, I would assume that the heavier arrow would leave the bow at a lower velocity as it takes more time and force to accelerate it. Great video Tod.
Yes friend, it's exactly that. W=F*D. Simple physics, but if you look at the Distance between the Bowman and the Target instead of the arrow's Trajectory, you're unlikely to realize it.
I figured since the heavier arrows are heavier, gravity pulls them down faster and they dont travel as fast so shooting them at a lower arc will just cause them to hit the ground
Yup. Now i better understand the boss. Nevermind the arrow in your arm.... what about the guy next to you flailing like a maniac trying to get his pinned arm out? Probably not a good place to be.
@@miskatonic6210 i disagree as i have learnt allot from Tod. but should you not learn anything then thats unfortunate. maybe you should try to do better and show us where he is wrong but also where you are right. what these tests do show is how effective a shield is verses a longbow and at what ranges the archer loses accuracy. that raises more questions about effective range of the longbow and different shields and their manufacture.
Shout out to your adaptability and being able to get 3 different weighted arrows all in a tight grouping like that. They may not be in the shield but they're hitting your legs your shoulders your head consistently. That's adaptability at its finest. Well done!
1) Your enthusiasm during this series has been infectious. I get so excited to see each new video in no small part because you're so excited. 2) Your camera angle was absolutely perfect to show just how far away 50m, 75m, 100m really is from a target. Far. The fact that you were still close (and still probably hitting the legs and other extremities if it was a real person) shows how devastating a good archer would have be. And how amazing those arrows you have are.
Very interesting. I did a lot of arrow velocity and drag testing a few years ago, and the variables are maddening. The aerodynamics of the points even comes into play. Of course, this testing was done on mostly state of the art modern arrows, so the differential range was smaller, but I believe all of the principals are the same. At the end of it all, we kind of gave up on exact precision, and established a working range with plenty of wiggle room (just as you have) to base some rough conclusions. So, my best guess on the velocity issue? A combination of point shape aerodynamics, and travel time and distance. The heavier arrow actually spends more time (and distance) travelling through the air (drag), due to the higher parabolic arc, needed to arrive at target with the slower speed (gravity being a constant, and all).
I’ve always wondered how the kinetic energy that gets stored in the shaft gets released and what effects if has on flight and impact. He is using heavy arrows that probably don’t flex as much as lighter arrows but sometimes you see a lot of energy being released during flight and sometimes an arrow will wiggle into the target after impact. It is crazy that we can learn to feel something out that is so difficult to calculate and measure accurately even under controlled conditions.
Measures from small distance show that the starting energy is more or less the same. The longer flight time increase is quite obvious. There are differences in distance that are bad for the heaviest arrow, but longer flight does not necessarily mean more losses due to drag. Depending on many characteristics, shape, air density and obviously speed, the drag can go from a velocity squared based loss to something much worse as you approach higher speeds. That's also when you start heating up dangerously things, and should not happen with an arrow unless you have something very powerful to shoot it. For the same arrow, shooting at half speed will result in a quarter of the drag for twice the time. But you have to consider it's more than twice the time, because the trajectory is different (longer) . So you have many things that could make it look like one thing is faster but without actually doing the math it's not clear. I didn't even mention lift which increases at higher speed and reduces the angle you need. It's not much but can make a small difference in the end.
@@meneldal All very true, with one caveat: The testing I did (10 bows, 12 different arrow types / weights, 1500 + shots 4 different experienced archers) along with the (Easton) factory wind tunnel tests seems to indicate that there is very little measurable "lift" in the arrows (if they are properly made and symmetrical). If there were to be any "lift" it would be impossible to predict if flight would be upwards, or sideways, and thus very inaccurate. This may not be true for some broadhead arrows with only 2 fletches, but I have no test data for that. I do know that 2 blade broad heads require very large feathers to stabilize them, because they can act like a wing. In the US, modern broadheads are 3 or 4 blades, or otherwise centrifugally balanced around the center axis of the arrow shaft. I can't speak for primitive arrowheads.
@@jakeapplegate6642 The bow hunters seem to understand this pretty well. For them the terminal "column loading" is an important part their penetration calculation. Unfortunately, all of my experience is with the target world. As to arrow weight, theoretically, the arrows are matched in stiffness (spine) to the bow weight. The actual weight of the arrow is based on the material is is made from. A properly "spined" arrow shaft will "wiggle" the same regardless of the shaft weight. A heavier point on any given shaft will cause more initial flex on loading, and therefore more "wiggle" . Some really interesting stuff has been done using air powered arrow shooters, which have no string, nock, or fingers to impart movement. And, because they drive the point directly (rather than driving the nock) they impart no initial load to the shaft. They have more terminal impact for a given initial velocity, so clearly, something is being lost besides drag?? Sorry... stupid long reply.
11:59 The error is likely in the starting velocity. It's reasonable to assume that the starting velocity wouldn't change, but you are changing the angle you are shooting at, and thus you are changing the horizontal component of your arrow velocity. The missing speed is becoming vertical velocity to counteract gravity and ensure it hits the target; it seemed like you were aiming lower on the lighter arrows, so they'd have more speed in the direction you are measuring. I imagine it's actually a complicated cocktail of factors, but I think that would absolutely be the most significant one. Might also be worth noting that if they have to have a higher angle because they are slower, then they are spending more time in the air, and thus-let it be known that I am a musician and not a physicist so I imagine this bit will be completely wrong but-they might experience more drag due to more air time. (I'm pretty sure the earlier bit of the post is right though, ugh shoot me)
I made amistake when I first responded, so I deleted it, but I'll repeat what still holds. I don't know if heavier arrows require a steeper trajectory than lighter ones, because the heavier arrows have greater forward momentum to help maintain speed. What is certainly the case, is at a further distance the angle of the is steeper, and heavier arrows slow down more when climbing, but all objects fall at the same speed, and this gives lighter arrows a distinct advantage in retaining speed at distance. In a straight shot, they should retain speed vaguely equally, but as soon as the angle is increased, the lighter arrow has the advantage.
Like it’s so awesome when your subscribers leave comments with questions on a video and the creator actually comprehensively responds in a full video. Thanks for being one of the last awesome you tubers
1:08 I am always annoyed when people say "not absolute science" or something similar, if they mean "not an accurate measurement", "not a definitive answer", or similar. Every rigorously conducted experiment is absolutely science. One only needs to be clear, what the experiment can show, and what in can't. Just phrase the analysis accordingly. And always be aware of the fact, the conclusions might be wrong. Having stated my view of what is scientific, I think, you ARE doing science. You increase our knowledge by thinking up a hypothesis or an unanswered question, and testing it in a controlled environment. You always give caveats, and encourage people to debate or even disprove you. This is how science should always work.
i think what was meant here in 'absolute science' is 'a science that provides final (absolute) answer'. And that, indeed, is no science (How do I know this? I'm bit of a scientists myself, and if you want to read up on the philosophy of the experimental under-determination of theory, I might recommend a bit of ol' Popper). What I think you're confusing is 'absolute science' and 'absolutely science' - and yes, what Tod is doing here is science, though obviously there are limitations (as there are inherent in all scientific endeavours). So in conclusion, what Tod has said, is indeed correct - his work is not an absolute science, but he is admirably following aspects of scientific method. Cheers, ey
I think you are doing a excellent work with all the experimentation's with different type of arrows and distances. It's a lot of work behind what you are showing us. Very interesting. Thank you.
I just remembered that scene in 300 when spartans cover themselves with shields and waits for the arrows. After the "rain", they brake the arrows like nothing. Hummm...
What I am going to write here are all my thoughts I based on watching YT videos with construction of shields and usage tests, I don't have shields and I didn't test them myself, so this is the info compiled in my mind, take it with a grain of salt (or a fistful). The rawhide was used to strengthen the structure of the shield during construction, and to keep the structural integrity of the shield as much as possible, when it's used to protect from melee weapons. It does add to protective properties, but not very much, and against missile fire the difference is negligible in my opinion. Using rawhide allows you to make a shield that is strong and resilient but lighter, than a shield you would make just from wood. To get the same level of strength and resilience you would need a noticeably thicker shield made only out of wood, which would result in a lot heavier shield, which is something you don't want.
Oh, we often do not consider that when looking at something without an apparent use in an antique device, it could possibly be made only to make the construction of said device easier. Nice one, didn't thought of that ;D
The rawhide would definitely help hold a shield together, put it on wet and just let it dry. SCA reenactors often use "whalebone" for weapons, rattan wrapped in rawhide. Those last much longer than the usual rattan wrapped in duct tape.
Excellent, and I love the tables. In regards to the arrow weight, you'd see the heavier arrow maintain (or regain) more of its speed over the lighter arrows when firing in a greater arc. Remember that at 100m an advancing line of infantry would only be 15-20 seconds (assuming not a full pelt sprint) from contact, and even this would be considered short-range for them as they wouldn't be able to fire over the heads of an infantry wall. Over the standard accepted effective range of 200 yards (around 180m) the arc would be sharper and the arrows would lose speed on the up, and gain slightly on the down. From figures I've seen they lose about 30% (VERY APPROXIMATE AND VARIABLE) before hitting a target at their max range (the barrage style). Even so, what these numbers prove is that shields are FAR more effective at realistic ranges than the first test indicated. Yes, they still penetrated at 75, but barely compared to the destruction we saw from close up. Even greater range combined with moving shields at odd angles would probably spare people from all but the most powerful strikes but this fits with the historical use of bows, as a saturation weapon to weaken and break up formations before contact. One further thing to note, and while not directly representative of the battle being fought in these examples, would be an infection. You may survive a strike with only a scratch letting you fight on, but without antibiotics, many would die from even minor wounds which could tip the balance in the next battle. This would (if it were me) make soldiers VERY nervous about bowmen :)
Except the Agincourt evidence suggests they were aiming their bows fairly forward, which means at a much shorter distance than the 180m you're talking about
@@samarkand1585 Agincourt was only one battle and the archers had the high ground so they wouldn't need the arc to reach further targets. Not to mention they were placed on hills to the flanks of the English infantry allowing them to fire past the infantry rather than overhead. I also suspect the narrow pass the French moved through which was so muddy many accounts state the French got so clumped together they couldn't use their weapons properly, would have allowed the archers to maintain their fire at a much closer distance without fear of a charge. But yea, they were on hills off to the sides and the French were clumped below in combat with the English infantry. It was a terrible tactical decision to attack at all, but the French princes felt their overwhelming numbers and the battered and half-starved enemy would see them to victory. Most (at least reasonable) commanders would not try to charge over muddy ground in a narrow valley flanked by archers and many battles took place on more level fields. Edit: I just had a look and it seems the battle line was about 700m wide, meaning the archers were probably at times firing as far as they could. With them being on the flanks, the enemy in the centre would be around 350m away and probably just out of range of the bowmen although with elevation I'm not sure. Either way, they'd easily be aiming at 200m+ distances.
@@MrMatthewPR Could it be you are confusing this with Crecy where the English were positioned on hills which were difficult to approach? Never read of hills at Agincourt which took place on quite a plain set of (muddy) fields between wooded areas. Hence the famous stakes of the English archers, to even things out. The archers seemingly had occupied parts of the wooded area, too.
@@wolfgangzeiler2605 Possibly, but looking a little into a few accounts it seems to indicate that "Henry marshalled his troops in a natural depression flanked by protective woodlands." So yes looks like woodlands, but the depression and another description referring to the area as a defile (which can be considered a narrow pass between hills or mountains) indicates they still had the high ground. But... it may not have been as much as I assumed. The distance I mentioned was correct though, the 700ish meter line of battle means that flanking archers would have been firing at longer ranges. If someone could point me at a source for them aiming their bows flat I'd appreciate it though. I had assumed that was accurate and the hill was high enough to compensate, but I'm always interested in reading more :)
@@MrMatthewPR Just watch Tod's longbow Vs armor test, and Tobias' more detailed description of the battle. And for your idea that they were on an elevated position, I think it's about time you admit that you're just grasping at straws here
Even if shields are held directly in front of the users, some arrows will likely hit at various angles, so it would still be nice to see a shield shot at an angle.
Ballistic coefficient. We use it to describe energy lost in firearms projectiles over distance. I am certain that the effect is much more pronounced in arrows because of their size and inescapable structural constraints. You can have two projectiles of the same mass but different shape, and impart the same initial velocity to them, and one of them is going to slow down more rapidly than the other. Now, that's not how we would usually use it, except when you get down to premium long distance ammunition loads, where tiny design details and exceptional quality control are needed to eek out that extra accuracy over long distance. More often, it is used to demonstrate the performance difference between different calibers for a particular application at a particular distance. For instance, .45 ACP vs. 9mm. Both are very acceptably accurate and powerful at general handgun engagement distances. But the further you push that distance out, the .45 ACP loses its velocity faster, and therefore also drops closer, because gravity is constant. There is also transonic aerodynamics to consider, what happens when a projectile drops from supersonic speeds to subsonic speeds, and the turbulence that causes. That .45 ACP if it was a heavier projectile for the caliber might have started out subsonic right off, and transonic aerodynamics is functionally irrelevant. Whereas, with high velocity rifle calibers at long distances, what happens at the point it drops back through the sound barrier is greatly important. If two different calibers are really close in ballistic coefficient and initial velocity, the one with the greater mass is going to have the advantage at distance because of inertia, and also be less dramatically affected by the wind.
Having your arm stapled to your shield would certainly ruin your day. Definitely better than no shield but I imagine the chances of a nasty infection would be pretty high
@@DjDolHaus86 with people putting not just wax onto their arrows but also sometimes putting arrow tips into gong, "cadaver extract" and other nasty stuff, you can definitely bet on that, yes! "Poison" arrows were a thing...
@@Heroesflorian the wax tips is conjecture, and the english denied french accusations that they poisoned their arrows (doesn't mean they didn't do it, but trusting the french over the english is still biased, so they *may* have poisoned their arrows). as for a shield boss, another option is buying some plate armour for your arm, while being slightly more expensive initially, you don't have to remove it from a shield (when said shield gets too old or beat up for use)
I imagine that's why Centre Boss shields are so common even though I personally prefer the look of the Kite shields and thing that the art strap would be more comfortable and maneuverable In a pure melee fight certainly, but if those longbow arrows are flying your way then I'll take that (IMO) ugly Boss shield thanks!
@@matthiuskoenig3378 oh I certainly think some medieval archers (and crossbowmen and possibly even spearmen) did it... if infections are damn dangerous and you know just how to cause them and there's war with the enemy ready to take your life and possibly pillage your family's hometown afterwards... I'd be completely and utterly surprised if nobody had ever happened to put their arrowtips into poop or similar. I did not, however, mean to imply that this was commonly done by most or all of the archers most or all of the time, or by the British specifically more than others.
I would argue some of the previous points and one more though. With all due respect to Tod - it's just my opinion and some observations from other sources, after all. - It's a targe. If you'd want to cover as much of yourself as possible with it, you generally wouldn't hold it plainly in front: you would duck a little bit and hold it at an upwards angle, slightly to the side. Fandabi Dozi has a good video on targes where he shows how it could be done with an even smaller round targe. - The armor of the period was pretty good at deflecting arrows already. The shields, particularly that small, were probably not made with deflecting arrows in mind. That is a wild guess, though. - You are way more knowledgeable about rawhide than I am, but there just might be some stopping effect from it that isn't immediately obvious, like there was from waxing arrowheads.
Hey Tod, I watched some parts where you are shooting in the slowest speed YT allows and what I noticed even at normal speed is that some arrows just go straight head-forward in very straight line from the crossbow, while some arrows tend to go usually nose-up in the first couple of meters before they right themselves thanks to the fletching. The issue you seem to have here is that crossbow you are using is not launching the arrows in a very consistent manner, and that may have completely ruined statistics of such small samples very easily imo. It also doesn't seem to be a problem linked with any particular arrow, it just sometimes happens, sometimes does not, but this would require more testing and more careful investigation. Either way, arrows being launched in semi-random manner definitely will affect both accuracy and also drag.
Yeah i noticed it too, the crossbow throws those arrows sideways just like my compound bow when i completely fail the stance and release. Btw that gave me an idea - Todd seems to cock the crossbow by hands which can create uneven cocking where you dont have the center of the string sitting in the string retainer due to uneven pulling by hands. That is one of the reasons cocking devises exist - not only to relieve the force required but also to keep the string centered while cocking because when the string is unevenly cocked it will throw the back of the arrow sideways during the shot. However it cannot throw it upwards or downwards
@@georgewashington1621 makes a big difference, I have a similar weight crossbow, always use the cocking rope for that reason, as per manufacturers instructions. Biggest challenge Todd is facing, is with wooden arrows, of different weights and sizes, almost impossible to know the aiming point, add in a few flyers and wind etc, did well to even hit close to the target at 70m.
Great series! A little surprised at just how effective the arrows were at such a long range. These experiments really help put those stories of longbows shooting through armour into perspective.
The only thing I can think of if we assume you didn’t make any measuring errors is to do with the flex of the arrows as they are fired. A heavier arrow head will cause the arrow to flex more since more force is required to overcome the initial inertia of the greater mass. Since an arrow continues to ‘flex’ through the air after the initial firing this will cause some energy to be loss due to the arrow flex. So arrows which flex less have better energy retention would be my hypothesis. You could test this theory with some slow motion analysis. Would be interesting to see.
As a sidenote, I have a couple of studies that may be of interest to you if you want to continue looking into some of these numbers and points (I've had to study it extensively for accurate simulation research) but if they'll be useful to you more than happy to forward it along.
I would still like to see rawhide. I was very impressed by ThegnThrand's video on rawhide that I am convinced that it is an enormously resistive material against impact, even if it is not historical on a heater shield. Also, what about a metal heater? I'm trying to imagine being a medieval knight and figuring out the problem of how to stay alive at Agincourt (so that I can be killed once captured?)!
When you were counting frames, did you take into account the vertical velocities? The heavier arrows were being shot with a higher upward angle and so less of their initial velocity would be directly translated to their x-velocity. So as you aim higher, more of the energy of the bow is being put into vertical velocity which is being slowed by both gravity and air resistance vs the shorter shot which would have less of its energy in the y-direction.
This was what I were thinking. While the top-comment probably has a point about increased drag from wobble (if there is such wobble), I feel like there will inevitably also exists a loss based on the ejection-angle. Any vertical component is fought by gravity until it is overcome at the peak of the arc, and then increased by gravity until impact. That said, if the target is on the same altitude as the shooter, the vertical component at the point of impact will simply be inverted but mostly same magnitude. Meaning that it would simply require to "take into account the vertical velocity" as you said (no actual losses or gains), or in other words, not only count the pixels on the x-axis it traveled in a frame, but rather the actual distance it traveled (so count the pixels in the y-axis too, and then pythagoras for the pixels/frame velocity. Or, yknow, convert same diagonal line into metric using some guide of how far on camera corresponds to how far irl).
@@feha92 yes, the longer flight path means more time for drag to act on the arrow, slowing it down more. In addition to the lower "muzzle velocity" caused by the heavier weight.
@@Ulfheodin As far as I remember the physics of it, air resistance is proportional to the cross-section of the arrow and the flight speed, so if the shafts are the same, the air resistance is the same. The energy "stolen" from the arrow is also the same, what is different is the initial energy of the arrow as it leaves the bow. If the lighter and heavier arrows both loosen with the same initial speed, the heavier one has more initial energy and will retain more energy at the impact.
From the looks of it the lighter arrows come off the bow flatter, the heavier ones are more at an angle. That would increase their effective cross section and cause more drag.
Click "Show more" in the description to see the numbers. The lighter arrows do go faster to start, but the percent of velocity lost is oddly lower at 100m. It's mixed for other distances which makes me think it's mostly measurement error.
Good work Tod! The hallmark of any good scientist, is one who doesn't try to arrange the experiment to get the results they want. Showing the unexpected result was brilliant!
The arrows you have named short bodkins are not short bodkins. A bodkin is only a long narrow shank and only that. The type 7 arrowheads here are the short bodkins. Many of the bodkin points we have are longer than these. There are in fact 9 bodkin points between 141mm and 179mm in the Museum of London. The shorter bodkins are between 80mm and 95mm, and Museum of London have 5 of those. And as a side note, they are narrow close to the shoulder, unlike these. Take a look at Simon Stanley and his type 7 reproduction. The arrowhead you have named short bodkin is in historical sources most likely a 'dokebyll hedy', named after the tool they resemble. A duckbill head for drilling holes. The ones you have here are outliers. The others we have in the Museum of London are heavier than these and longer. Enough to make an arrow a near quarter pound arrow, as mentioned in the sources. Weighting between 15 and 20 grams more. Short square heads and short triangular heads (type 8a and type 12) were known as 'byker hedys'. To byker someone means to harass them. The M2 heads along with type 16b and type 16c arrowheads were known as 'spear hedys'. The M2's you have here are also outliers. They aren't pointy enough and shouldn't be wider than the socket. These are for penetration of mail and padding and replaced the type 7 late in the 14th century. In the 15th C they came in two variants. One intended for plate and one for mail + padding. Take a look at Simon Stanley and his M2 arrowheads for comparison. Also take a look at John Beavis at olive mead forge and his M2 'True Tudor bodkin'. Type 16a and type 13 arrowheads were known as 'culvertail hedys' and 'horse arwes'. The type 16 arrows you have are closer to this than a spear head, but somewhat short, probably because the original this is based on has broken and been sharpened multiple times, just like the M2 you have. These were meant to be shot at horses with armour and is definitely designed to go through mail. Take a look at Simon Stanley and his reproduction. Every single one of the arrowheads you have here are outliers. Last, the type 11 arrowheads with a triangular head on a long round shank were named 'silver spoon hedys'.
I really liked the fact you had a camera next to the shield when you did the shooting. Hearing those arrows impact the wood...really brings home how terrible it must have been for the French men-at-arms to wade through an arrow storm toward the English lines. That must take balls!
2:24 If you need help with translating german, I can help you with that. I'm not a professional translator or historian, but I can do my best. Hit me up, if you're interested.
I have no idea what is going on, but I do know that I would not want a heap of these coming my way unless my shield was seven feet tall and four feet wide. Thanks for all the time and energy you put into your videos.
Another fascinating film, I have never fancied the idea of cowering behind a small shield while hundreds of arrows poured out of the sky every minute, bloody terrifying!! Every film and indeed illustration tends to show upper body injuries but I would imagine that the feet, shins and upper thighs of your average foot soldier must have been peppered with the shots that missed their shields, leaving them injured and effectively out of the fight.
As the heavier arrows need to be shot at a steeper angle: a) they travel a longer arc at lower velocity and therefore experience drag for a longer period b) fall at a steeper angle so maybe a correction for the length of the curve measured should be applied if it is not already on the other hand drag is usually a function of the second power of velocity and therefore should be lower for the heavier arrows (omitting shape and dimension).
Ooh, I love the woosh some of those arrows made! If someone had told me that - as a WW2 tank enthusiast - I'd be a deeply enthralled follower of a medieval archery channel, I'd not have believed them. I think it is testament to your affable style, passion and explained reasoning / conclusions that make the whole process of what you do so interesting. Another channel might riddle some object of ridicule with holes and them laugh about it, but you make the science and mechanics of it come to life in a way that shows just how sophisticated thinking and technology was long ago.
That whistle of the air being cut... just phenomenal. I feel like we have some kind of "genetic memory" or something of that sound, as it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
This is definitely Sciences! You learn so much by this fairly simple experiments while you are clearly documenting the results! It doesn't get more sciences than that! This is exactly in the spirit of Galileo,
While tabbed away from the video, I got a bit excited thinking I'd just learned a new British idiom after hearing Tod say that the arrow had "just about got the beef". Alas, actual side of beef behind the shield.
Hey Tod, great video, I am really enjoying your content. Thank you for sharing. In my past I had the opportunity to compare crossbows and long bows as I used to shoot a re-curved longbow while my buddy was shooting a modern crossbow. As we were both fans of fantasy movies and games we liked comparing our results. We found some interesting things. While the speed of shooting arrows vs bolts was quite different that the game system, the ratio of shots seemed close to correct. We discovered that basically an average archer vs average crossbowman would shoot double or triple the amount in a given time. We also discovered that while at a distance of 20 or 30 meters his crossbow was hitting the targets harder, with deeper penetration, that wasn't the case as ranges increased. We found that from 50 meters to 90 meters my arrows began hitting harder than his bolts. Now we figured this had to do with different draw lengths and flight characteristics of the projectiles. His bolts shot at a higher poundage, shorter power stroke flew with a much flatter trajectory. While as the archer I had to arc my arrows more to hit the further targets. This makes me wonder how true a comparison you are getting with your 'lockdown longbow'. Now admittedly you are shooting arrows, not bolts out of your crossbow so that ammunition differences should be accounted for, i am just wondering if there were different flight characteristics that you may be missing. Just a thought, albeit a long one. Sorry for the paragraph ;)
