The medieval bow time forgot 

They actually also had crossbows at the Battle of Hastings, now we need Shad to compare crossbow vs bow myths.

@@patricialavery8270 I mean It depends? Bows and crossbows are designed for what they were made to do. Crossbows new weapon against the growing armor of the era. As not every army is gonna have well trained archers but crossbowmen? Is a different story. It's easy to load and shoot. Compared to their English longbowmen counter parts.

Recurve bows and self-longbows were used across the entirety of Eurasia. The Romans stationed Syrian bowman with recurve bows in Britain (known for its wet climate), and longbows were commonly used in parts of South Asia/India and southern China.

I'm sure I saw in s documentary years ago that the longbows found on the Mary Rose were recurves.

Can you point us to the Norman knights with recurve bow on BT? I can find only one character with a bow on a horse, at the very end, and it looks like perfectly straight bow, with no siyahs/recurved tips.

2018 Robin Hood as well

I wish the hunting bow in Skyrim wasn't useless, because it's beautiful

It's an Ebony Bow using the Real Bows mod.

​@@Mote. just mod it.

I was about to say that

Rangers appretice to me is what harry potter is to most people

​@@ferro9926 same

YES! Same guys, although I dropped it on the 12 volume. To this day my imagination fuels from memories of this series

@@ferro9926 Same.

Ah, a man of culture, I see. 😄

It's pretty cool to find out about this stuff through shad's channel

Is thumb draw harder because it's harder to use a thumb, or is it harder because you learned 3 finger Mediterranean draw as your first and primary draw method?

yea i usually switch between the two to manage soreness. also you can use your middle finger to support the thumb draw, neat trick i discovered.

​@@Intranetusa That's a complicated question for several reasons and even go as far as not necessarily harder rather it's just different. The obvious thing is that the same weight is loaded on one joint rather than three is more taxing on your hand, that being said the different wrist position results in a more stable forearm. Now the not so obvious thing, in my experience shooting thumb draw requires a different mindset from shooting 3 finger (regardless whether it's mediterranean or 3 under). While release can be clearer (seeing as you only have to loosen one joint instead of three), thumb draw comes in many variations (both in grip and anchor point) so finding the correct combination that suits you can be a challenge. The last thing that comes to mind is the bow hand, in case of thumb draw the two hand need to work together in order to get a good release and that coordination might pose a challenge. Keep in mind I might be leaving stuff out, that's mostly because I'm still learning and I have a shitton of things to discover still.

Thumb draw requires practice from an early age to master heavy bows. The Steppe cultures started early with children playing with small bows. Furthermore, they oftentimes used a thumb ring for additional leverage. They understood that heavier the bow, the greater the stand off distance: i.e., you can hit someone before they hit you. Mongolian-style archery using a Mongolian bow is often used with a thumb ring.

Speaking of, it's easier to wrap one leg around it to keep it stable, hold it vertically, and step on it just enough to bend it down and string it

ME!

I was cheering for the bow to win

Great video Shad. Oz you will be made an archer yet one day lol.

I was enjoying his struggle.

The frog laughter really puts a bow on this scenario

There is an argument that the English longbow had some recurve to them. Iirc it is the warbows brought up with the Mary Rose are what our English longbows are copied from and they all went flat in the water. The recurve bow Shad shows at 17:41 might be how they were shaped judging from English medieval artwork.

@@trevtall1094 It's wrong though. Longbows were made in the straight limb shape long before the Mary Rose was discovered. Victorian archery in particular lionized the traditional straight limbed bow as a (now disproven) example of English historical superiority.

"Hon-hon-hon intensifies" is the finest stage direction written in the history of the English language.

There is a reason why nomads could make composite bows more easily: the CATTLE. You see, when you make good composite bow, you need glue (could be made from bones), with which you secure horn (or bone) parts on the ends, then glue thin horn plate on the back of the bow and tendons (or rough leather) on the front. The horn and the tendons as a result work like a spring to speed up bow shoulders. Civilization that is not nomads simply cannot afford to spare so much cow parts.

@@dilen754 In Europe we composite bows did exist; especially on crossbows. From what I've read traditional composite bows can takes months to cure once assembled & glued. So it seems to me there needs to be somebody who stays put to make the bows, because traveling with bows while they cure would interfere with the curing process. I also think that stationary civilizations would certainly have access to animal parts such as cows to make those into if they so chose. Granted cows in the Middle ages were more often valued for their milk than meat, but economics drives societies. If a big need for cow parts to make bows were there the $ to slaughter cows for parts would be there too. BUT it is far cheaper & less time consuming to manufacture large numbers of military bows from a natural composite wood, like yew.

@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 yes, the are composite bows, but they are quite costly. You can look up for the crossbow price. The curing process in that regard is long, but not costly per see. There is as well a misconception that nomads would be always moving, no matter the place and season, that is not right: for example, they can stay quite put in winter. Yes, the economics drive societies... And that is precisely why there was quite a shortage of cattle - it is simply not cost effective when you need to feed a large city. Cattle took a lot of place, it is hard to protect etc. Of course there are some, but not nearly as much as in steppes. So Europe naturally (there I am completely agree with you) preferred simple variant, then make drastic economic efforts for dubious results.

@@dilen754 yes composite bows are expensive regardless of area they were from; even amongst nomads. If curing can take 6-9 months & winter is 3-4 months then they still need someone staying put. Cattle we're not in short supply but they were used more for milk than me because you can have a cow make milk throughout the years to make products like cheese which can be stored for many months as opposed to slaughtering a cow which you can only eat once it's simple economics. But if the need for composite bows were big enough then the market for Bose would make raising cattle for slaughter to make bows profitable and therefore it would have been done. I don't think the results for composite bows in Europe for dubious but when you're equipping a large army economics plays a role in if you can make a serviceable bow I have less out of less expensive materials more quickly... Well it only makes sense to go that roughy. Often crossbow men were mercenaries so they paid for their own equipment so to have more expensive equipment is more on the individual than the person hiring them. But it's not just crossbows that were composite they were composite bows in Europe. Many Asiatic nomadic cultures

@@dilen754 Composite bows were costly weather made in Europe or by nomads. Many nomadic asiatic cultures were horse cultures; as such horsemanship was integrated into their society. Quick archery attacks from horseback make more sense than trying to field infantry based armies. A horse born archer needs lightweight armor primarily designed to deflect arrows, and although often made from metal it could be made from material like horn or hardened leather. Horn & leather based armors are cheaper than fully metal armors. But in a society where you are raising in slaughtering animals the materials are also very readily available. I don't imagine many nomads were mining for iron ore, so they would have had to trade for it rather than get the supplies to make their armors from within their own groups. Where European knights may prize swords and put a lot of their income into a sword even though a sword wasn't a primary weapon. Asiatic archers would invest money into bows as bows were often their primary weapon. As far as curing... if nomads camp for winter and winter last three to four months but curing a bow can take anywhere from six months to a year this still doesn't solve the problem of needing someone to do the curing in a set location. When traveling weather can cause all sorts of problems especially with natural glues. There was never a shortage of cattle in Europe of cattle as far as I'm aware. But cattle were primarily raised for dairy reasons. Products like cheese can store for several months and carry you through a hard winter whereas slaughtering a cow for meat you can only do once. I still feel if the economics were such that the composite bow were needed & no good alternative was available then the economics of bow making would have caused people to raise cattle for the necessary parts to make bows. But as a natural laminates like yew can make a great bow which is both quicker and less expensive to manufacture than a composite bow. As such there was no great drive to produce in mass composite bows in Europe. We know that composite bows did exist in Europe so we can conclude that there were people willing to pay the extra cost for whatever reason. I don't think the results were dubious, I think they were more expensive and therefore not used when equipping armies. But if somebody were a noble who went hunting or a mercenary who bought their own equipment they might opt for the advantages of a composite bow. BTW please don't think I'm trying to attack you. I was a philosophy major in college & enjoy debating. I respect you & your opinions, I'm just not convinced as of now. That being said I fully admit I could be wrong & you could be correct. I'm enjoying this debate!

get a saber instead of the falchion, much better and also, historically accurate

I'm Pole and I'm also happy. Interestingly, this bow is a part of polish noble insignia, along with sabre.

Do you think Shadiversity will ever build the castles he wants to build?

I was going to comment about Rangers Apprentice. Cause that's where I know of the recurve bow myself. Glad to see I wasn't the only one.

You reminded me. I gotta read that again :D

I'm so happy to see another person reference Ranger's Apprentice

Also, the Ranger's Apprentice has a sequel series if you didn't know. It is called Ranger's Apprentice; The Royal Ranger.

think horsehair has been used in pillows and blankets in the past. came to mined when i heard horsebow. can also be used in violin bows, for the bards i guess.

Given that the longbow was predominantly a British thing (the idea of which was taken from the Welsh after Wales was conquered by England), the concept of the longbow as an ubiquitous medieval bow is a very Anglophilic thing.

Longbows are used across Europe and across Eurasia. There are remains of ice age longbows found in the Alps, and longbows were historically used in South Asia (eg. India) and southern China too.

@@Intranetusa Sure, for hunting. Not generally for war. I challenge you to find me one historical army outside of the English that used the longbow as their typical bow.

Yes. the next episode should be about Arpad dynasty or Premyslid or Battle of Lechfeld :D

I've only recently become aware that the military history of Eastern Europe is significantly neglected in the English-speaking world. There's a tendency for people in British-influenced nations to believe Europe begins at Germany. It's not deliberate -- it's just an effect of language and culture. I'm interested in cavalry tactics and equipment and you can't really understand the evolution of cavalry without studying the armies of Poland, Hungary, and other points east.

Én is őt ajánlottam🙂

he uses it on the wrong way, he dont do thumbrelease bc he dont have full thumb........ you say just a bad example

@@tengriguidesmysteps960 There are different drawing methods. You can read about them on the wiki, search 'bow draw'.

You don't need that great of strength.if you can pick up 200lbs. You can pull it. Any bow that need training would be a warbow. Even then your local lumber jack could pull it easy. Us fat slops in the real world would find it a challenge. But a world where you live like medieval But with dragons.

@Wyatt George you use different muscles for lifting and drawing a bow, so no, if you lift 200 you can't necessarily draw a 200 pound bow.

@Luke Rogers, you may be better served by making a home brew rule that assigns a pull strength capability to strength scores i.e.: 16 = 100lbs, 17 = 150lbs, 18 = 200lbs. Good luck, may all your roles be crits!

Actually I Incorporated it as so, hunting bows 1d6 dmg with no strength requirement. War bows 1d8 dmg with strength requirement of 13. Great bows 1d10 with strength requirement of 16. Figured I would set it up to basic D&D strength requirements, but been debating doing 14 and 18 for strength check. Bow models do matter at the moment for usage but debating getting rid of this part.

@@lukerogers9348 I recall in one campaign when the archer rolled a 1 and had his elven bow snap in half! That was the most demoralized player I’d ever seen. Crits work both ways!

Considering the strong influence Native Americans have had on North American archery, there is a pretty good chance that the short and long bows in D&D are based on their traditions. Many Native American tribes had 2 bows built in similar styles; one that was long, with a heavy draw weight used primarily for warfare, and one that was shorter, lighter, and used for hunting. Longer bows will generally allow for longer draw lengths, which accelerates the arrow longer, which then results in faster arrows that can fly further. But longer limbs weigh more, which means the arrow accelerates less quickly. So you are right in that with any number of magical materials, you could make a shortbow that was more powerful than a longbow.

AD&D was even weirder you had Longbows and Shortbows which is mostly a typical wargaming type categorization to make a distinction between armies that had formidable firepower like the English and those that had bows, but which didn't seem to have a critical effect in battle. Gygax must have consulted some 1960's books on weapons or encyclopaedia and discovered that they used a different type of bow in the east. And given that the mysterious orient had superior weapons, martial arts and all that mystical stuff their bows were better so that basic European bows were OK, but the really fancy Oriental models allowed you to use your strength and dexterity bonuses, but they both came in long and short version. Same with long and short type weapons, almost every single time the larger one is considered much harder to use and requires a highly trained user, whereas any peon or wizard with tiny withered arms can lift up a short weapon and be competent with it. It's all about game mechanics and introducing distinctions and principles that didn't apply in real life. The only advantage of short weapons was that they were handier in tight quarters, not because they were mean to be easier to handle somehow.

Not wrong. The problem is always jargon and terms used. To modern bowhunters, a longbow means one thing. To those of us who make bows, where tiller and limb geometry define styles, it means something else. To the British Longbow Historical Society, something else again. I will call a Hadza hunting bow a "short longbow" because that best describes how the bow WORKS,, because I make bows. I struggle to call an English longbow a recurve, even if it has recurved tips (which I would, in most cases Shad cited,, actually call "reflexed" tips.) So, yeah.

My interpretation is that D&D had short bow refer to a bow that was short, and long bow to one that was long. The distinction between manufacturing details is covered by the "mighty" modifier. A basic short bow is unlikely to be a recurve, but a mighty +4 one that someone with 18 strength can take full advantage of will be taking advantage of every possible trick to beef it up.

@@cuernimus Perhaps "hunting bow" and "war bow" would be a better categorisation then, if you wanted to split bows into two categories for gameplay reasons.

The Iliad/Odyssey is surprisingly accurate in its depiction of the late Bronze age period right before the collapse. Even mentioning weapons and armor that were from said period.

I never got the idea that Odysseus was unusually large, and his bow is the only reference I recall to him being stronger than normal. But given the Greek penchant for spear, shield, and sword, if he was an archer trained from the cradle it would give him a huge advantage over everyone else he knew. But this also reminds me of a Viking saga where a warrior with a mighty longbow stood off an assault by himself to protect the king, then his string broke. The king offered his own bow, and the man said it was much too weak.

Well it was definitely composite at least since it is described as being made of rams horn.

Use of a bow is the only weapon that changes the physiology of the dedicated user. It actually changes your muscles, tendons and bones to the point that archaeologists can identify an Archer by their skeleton alone. So if Odysseus was a dedicated lifelong Archer and had a custom war bow it could easily be a 200 plus pound bow that almost nobody could string much less shoot.

Throughout much of history, archers were either professional soldiers or outright martial nobility. As such, archers were usually regarded highly in the ancient world, from the bronze age all the way until their replacement by gunpowder weapons, and all around the world too from the americas to east asia and everywhere in between.

It's a much faster, stronger bow than that plank with a stick Brittish are always pushing, and also it can be used from horseback, but real recurve bows are made from composite. Usually keratin, leather, sinnew and yew. Used by the Hungarians long before coming to europe and used by their ancestors the Huns to demolish Roman legions

@@Loki-qo2kb Also used by the Mongols to conquer half the known world

@@6393dude yh but that was mostly Strategy and tactics

Tutankhamen had two composite bows in his tomb. Egypt, Africa, around 1350 b.c. and probably not actually the oldest found.

@@freakusofc643 how does it look like?

don't see that in 5E, it's simplified a lot of things and they wouldn't go for extra complexity

In DnD one solution could be to 'rename' the shortbow and longbow to a light and heavy bow. That would work for the editions I'm aware of. Different damage, potentially different weapon proficiency.

poundage and style "Your shot failed to cause critical damage, but you looked great doing it. +1 on Charisma"

The key problem with a STR requirement on bows would introduce the problem Monks have. That is - needing three or more high stats to just be average compared to other classes. I don't disagree from a "simulator" aspect, but there would be almost no reason to play anything other than a fighter as a physical combat class. For practical D&D games, I would just negate the strength requirement on bows and focus on the idea that accuracy and critical rate are the focus of the class leveling/damage scaling. That with arrow combinations. As a DM, I would probably allow for some creative use of arrows and magic/enchantment etc. Tying thunder stones to arrows and loosing them would be an amusing strategy. Anyway - the bows themselves I would class according to pull and archetype. The pull class would come with higher damage potential or even reduced critical threat range (and critical damage done), whereas each pull class would count as something of a feat for weapon specialization. Any untrained character could pull a hunting bow, the rogue or ranger start at being able to pull a low grade warbow (large game hunting, basically). Each additional higher class must be taken in sequence and count as a feat (I may include a bonus feat or two if I feel it necessary on the leveling pathway - depends on the group and the campaign tone - are we building herculean legends or is this a story of the misfits who saved christmas by the skin of their teeth and a happy accident or two? ). Heavier bows could be drawn at lower strength at a loss of bonuses to damage and crit - IE - you can still pick up and use a bow too heavy for you as a better than nothing. Maybe some sort of strength and dexterity check could be performed in lieu of specific weapon training - so the hulk of the group could still pick up the warbow and fire it untrained, at the risk of failing checks. Granted, I am talking mostly in 3.5, here... I have no idea what 5 looks like.

Eastern europe had it from what i know, im really surprised anyone is surprised by this

@@boguslav9502 Yea, me too. As a Hungarian it was always natural to me. But us we see, the world needs more education :)

@@GaborSzabo747 I remember doing role playing and when learning about the szlachta etc. or even earlier and recurve/reflex bows were everywhere in our minds, to the point I always prefered them even in games such as mount and blade. But you are right the world is oddly... western europe centrific... Polak węgier dwa bratanki, i do szabli i do szklanki!

I was surpised Shad didn't know about the bow quivers. If you were to look at any Orthodox church art featuring bows, you'll find a lot of bow quivers shown.

Sycthians, Sarmatians, Huns, Turks, Mongolians, Eastern-Central Europeans all had them among others, it's only new to Shad.

Eastern Europe is quite Asiatic.

@@KeyserSoze23 Same for Central Europe, since it is actually a Hunnic/Hungarian Invention, both Chinese and Romans got it after they were defeated by the Huns. An authentic recurve bow from Hungary is made from Keratin(Horn), Sinew with structural elements of yew and then wrapped in leather. There are vast amount of information about it both pre 800 and after in Hungarian, I'm sure most of it is Translated

HECK NO....THE XIONGNU NU HAS BEEN USING IT SINCE BEFORE THE HUNS. XIONGNU NU WERE A CONFEDERATION OF TURKIC TRIBES IN WESTERN MONGOLIA NOW. HUNGARIAN ALSO HAVE TURKIC BLOOD SO...THAT'S EXPLAINED IT :p@@Loki-qo2kb

If they have blue eyes blond hair and white skin they are White.

​@@Loki-qo2kb Nope. The bow is older than the Huns. Perhaps, the scythians or possibly even older. We have examples of the recurve bow much before the Huns. The scythians sculptures with their bows. The coins(1st century)of cheras in the deep south of India also had recurve bows.

Think of the draw weight a horse could handle. We're taliking ballista territory. 😆

It is called a bow because the glue to join the parts to make the bow was made out of horses.

@@piotrjeske4599 as opposed to rabbit bows. Or human bows. 😆

Funny, but I have a better explanation: horsebow menans a bow which fires horses 😂😂

​@@gergelyrohaly250 You sir, operate on a completely different level, this is brilliant.

Compare to the "after credits" with the assistant trying to string that mere 30 lb. recurve. I learned to do that fairly quickly -- when I was ten years old, my first one week summer camp visit. The camp bows, of course, were cheap fiberglass recurves, molded rather than laid up and shaped, but they were good enough for tweens to learn bow safety and the basics of archery -- and once my parents let me get new glasses *before* camp instead of after, those cheap bows were good enough to hit an archery target at 60 yards, at least some of the time.

that's not how you string them. that's why it's so tough

Don't pull the string, push the staff. I'm like super fit, Judoka, strong back and shoulders, but can only pull the 60-65# category, the Krimean Tartar bow I took to tournaments was only 42# and I changed to a 33# Scythian bow for recreational shooting(also have one with 24#). A few days ago, I found a quote from an English king. His father taught him how to push his whole weight into the bow, allowing him to use heavier and heavier ones. I tried this, and man, this feels like cheating! The strain on the finger joints is the same, and with my Ehler-Danlos-syndrome, I probably need a tab or glove, but drawing my heavier bows is really easy now. For the first time, I think 100#+ is possible for me. But budget short bows(I shoot Flagella Dei) end at 50# or 60#, so I guess I'll just stay in that range.

Same.

Yea well everybody were using the new big thing - the crossbow. And as the crossbow used the same horn and sinew technology (for the most part) so you could indeed say recurves/composite bows were more prominent in a way..

This one of those cases that Shad wasn't aware of something, and largely ignored it, therefore he assumes that the lack of awareness was common. It's like his whole longbow, shortbow, horse-bow thing. I've never seen Recurve Warbows depicted as weaker than longbows, I've never seen it assumed they werent used in Europe. Composite recurves are a design optimized for use on horseback, doesn't mean thats it's only use, or that other bows don't work on horseback. He's also conflating reflex bows and recurve bows.

@@stroongboow I said what I did knowing about and ignoring crossbows. I've heard it said that Agincourt was not just a major victory for the English Longbowmen but also a victory for the longbow over the shortbow and crossbow mix that the French had their archers equipped with. With this comes the claim that the longbow was superior to the shortbow in terms of capabilities and that the French didn't have anything that could compete with the superior longbow which contributed to the victory at Agincourt. Thus the D&D thing of the longbow being superior to the shortbow looks to be based upon nonsense that has been claimed through history.

@@rainsilent Considering the french did not make use of their crossbowmen at Agincourt it doesn't seem fair to the crossbowmen.. But yes I agree with you 100%. The style of bow is not important but rather the power/draw-weight.

There actually is a definite answer to which has the superior draw force curve, or rather, power delivery curve. Recurve bows, especially those with a severe recurve, maintain higher power delivery for longer than a simple longbow but not as long as a compound bow. The recurve ends up acting similarly to the pulleys on a compound bow but typically aren't quite as effective.

Well that seems to be a good scientific explanation for what I would feel when shooting a composite recurve compared to a longbow, and also watching how the arrows left the bow. Thanks

well, dang... I really have to skim over comments before writing my own. The only thing I have to add is Newton's third law. The lighter the bow, the more force you have to receive by yourself, instead of it being absorbed by the limbs and considering how many soft connections the human body has I'd wager the efficiency suffers at least a little bit. But I'm not entirely sure if this wouldn't be totally negated by proper technique. And even if it isn't I can't really tell if those considerations are worth the fuss. The effect might be so negligible as to be virtually nonexistent. Mind you, I never held a bow in my life, let alone shot it... so, I'm mostly talking out of my back side. Which, admittedly, has somewhat of a grip on dynamics...

Wow! Never thought about the compound bow’s increased power storage! You made SEVERAL good points, but that one was a huge revelation for me. Thanks for sharing your knowledge - great addendum to Shad’s video!

Straight limbed bow has an optimal draw length. Shorter the bow=shorter draw length. Not because string may come off (you could just change nock design to prevent this) but Pull it past optimum and the force is pulling more along the length of the limb (called stacking) rather than bending it and storing more energy. Recurves don’t have this problem as it maintains an angle at the end of the limb that even at longer draw lengths that still converts force from the draw to bending the limb hence shorter recurves.

Yeah I understand it drives me crazy trying to give them a proper label and all I can suggest is possibly calling them ARC Bows which is just an aberration of your saying of Composite Asiatic Recurve (I changed the words around mainly for it to have a better ring to it) But besides that I can't wait for it to getter a proper name that won't be a misnomer

No problem with the name horsebow, only the the horse lords from the steppe used this bow on horseback noone else in history

Traditional (old world) composite

@@GM-os6fo Manchu bows(which are very similar to the one Shad showing) were used by foot soliders mainly...

​@@GM-os6fo there are depictions of recurve bows in Ancient Greece art. Korean traditional bow is recurved too, and used by infantry. China also has recurve bows used by infantry. Persia as well. they are most common in the steppes (Huns, Turks, Magyar...), but not exclusive to them.

And the Magyars were originally horse archers from the central Asian steppe. The recurve/composite bow as we know it is absolutely Asian in origin. Just because the Romans and Medieval Europeans used it doesn't mean it's not Asian in origin

@@rohunagarwal6497 I mean technically we could argue about the assiriran and scytian bows origin since they show up in roman and medivevil sources some of them originating from Byzantine but even those sources most likely are after the huns coming to Rome or from the roman expansion where the romans went toward the Karpatian Basin. Also the Bizantian empire was hiring different tribes of horse archers since they were good enough to give trouble to the empire. so yeah

He already has a real castle what do you mean

@@rollerjumps The reason he bought that huge plot of land was to construct a castle on it (or two castles)

Yeah! So here’s another penny in the box in the form of this comment :) @RollerJumps Shad has a video on his plot of land and also watch his videos on castles he designed they re amazing.

I'll throw down on it!

Going to move to Sharland if they jabs mandatory here.

well i think the logic behind the longbow, is that it was easier to create then the recurve

@@Adierit Much like how not every foot soldier would be able to afford brand new plate armor, I'd imagine a shortbow like this one would be far more expensive and, thus, more likely to be in the hands of someone wealthier.

And I am thankful for his research. His work makes valuable information accessible to the masses. He creates opportunities to free people from the vile grasp of ignorance.

@@SergioLeonardoCornejo lol wtf

True, also Elves are very slight creatures as a rule. They aren't feeble but Longbows require a lot of strength.

@@treborschafer3945 your elf my be slight but my High Elf Archer Mage in Skyrim is a 6 foot 4 monster of a Mer.

@@treborschafer3945 Both type of bow require a lot of strength but it comes from the back muscles not from the arms(as many people seems to think so) so they would just have stronger muscles on their shoulder blades.

@@treborschafer3945the video went right above your head then, I see :)

Can confirm this technique works amazingly, but, utterly sucks if the string-loop is too tiny to fit over the recurve limb. (Have that problem with a couple of my wider-limbed recurves)

@@gardoniangardonian844 sounds right, manchu bows are fairly large. The bow I do this with is my 80 lbs Korean bow.

When I saw The Odyssey (1997) for the first time as a kid, I was really impressed by how Odysseus strung his old bow after he returned home, and I've been using that method ever since. I'm not certain what that method is called, but it really helped allow my weak little arms to string bows as a kid.

Or just use an actual bow stringer to prevent injuries.

@@MethosJK9Modern bows, yes. But that does not work well with the more ancient recurve type bows.

Yeah, I think that "forgot/forgotten" is not the best choice of words for this one. It's definitely not as popular as the longbow, but certainly not forgotten.

You know rangers aren't the only ones that use bows.

I would, if I had a group.

Not even after Tasha's? Because Rangers seem pretty cool now. I have this idea for a dhampir Swarmkeeper Ranger whose swarm is either bats or just ominous shadows floating around him. I was thinking of going melee focused though, using the Druidic Warrior fighting style to grab Shillelagh so I can focus on WIS.

If you care about balance, this system is a super buff to strength builds. Strength builds are usually better than dexterity ones because of higher base damage and access to heavy armor, but they also struggle with range. This system not only takes that weakness away, it makes them superior to dexterity builds on doing that as well. I'm also not 100% sure, but I suspect that system would also allow barbarians to shoot while raging, which is super huge for them. Of course, balance isn't everything but in case you or your players care about it.

I'm playing a ranger in a campaign now!

Magyars are just as Asian as Germans, most current Europeans were the vassals the Huns who are the ancestors of the Magyars, some exceptions are the Celts, who were here before, but the others were settled when Attila defeated Rome and he needed someone to take care of the conquered lands.

Yes but if you look at the Yumi bow it has a very long top limb and a very short bottom limb as much as all bows were used on horse back recurves were preferred. Above them was crossbows not the windless however but the short crossbow. Long bows were much harder to draw on horse back.

Something I'm trying to figure out now is if a long bow and a short bow can be similarly powerful by being made at equal poundage, why would anyone make or use a long bow over a short bow?

@@NegatveSpace draw length a 25 lob long bow a 25 lb draw recurve and a 25 lb draw crossbow will all have different maximum distance the crossbow will be shorter the recurve will be longer than the crossbow but shorter than the long bow even though they all have the same pound draw.

@@NegatveSpace also the feel of the long bow is easier than a recurve of the same pound draw.

Native Americans had access to osage orange, not exactly an inferior wood by any means

They probably did it cause recurve bows look cooler

@@davidspring4003 yea probably true, recurve bows definitely tend to look nicer and more advanced than just a regular old longbow

@@Dell-ol6hb but hey, if cool means more accurate, that's even better, right?

@@davidspring4003 lol, I think the longbow looks cooler!

@@neofd3223 to each their own, but I'm just offering the most likely explanation for why the game that gives vikings horned helmets has recurve bows be the best bows.

Most bws in Eastern Europe used resin glue.... But the string itself can be damaged, as some were made using animal tendons, and that thing can deform and soften if the humidity is too high.

In India, Persianized Turks would keep their bows in their quiver when they were not using them.

Another advantage of a shorter bow is the overall weight distribution. Weight that is further away fron the point of rotation, needs way more energy to be moved. By moving the tips closer to the handle you greatly reduce the Problem of extra weight on the tips eating away the power that you invested during the draw. Every gram on the tips of longbow reduces the efficency of the bow to a far greater degree than extra weight on a shorter bow.

@@thomastschojer2268 agreed, overall mass and mass placement has a huge impact on cast and performance. It's fascinating to see how different cultures differently addressed these variables. As far as I know, there's a whole family native American short plains bows that were straight limbed, a little heavier to pull, and just had shorter draws. And those worked just great for what they needed it to do

Came here to say this. Quite right. It's more about how the bow stacks than about the string falling off. Recurves make bows more efficient and nicer to draw.

they went for efficiency not cost or manufacturing speed. These are the guys that made a mobile field ballista that required a metal frame, after all.

@@thekaxmax The Romans were awesome

roman recurve bows were actually scythian and hunnic bows. They either hired scythian and hunnic mercenaries or bought hornbows from them. Have evience for both of these.

@@marcelllovas1465 They also had Syrian archers who used reflex bows.

Yes Romans were great engineers "Marcus, man the Ballista".

BUT HUNGARIAN ARE MIXED PEOPLE THOUGH....YOU GUYS ARE A MIXED OF TURKIC AND SLAVIC PEOPLE SO TECHNICALLY YOU GUYS ARE ASIATIC XD.

But the bowmen were often behind infantry which would significantly reduce the intimidation factor

I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, if your enemy is afraid of you, they're more likely to retreat. However, if you're enemy underestimates you, then they are more likely to make a potentially war ending mistake.

"H-h-h-have you seen how much wood is in that m-m-m-mans hand...? Look how *thick and long it is....."* Innuendos aside, I think you're going a bit far on that. At most combat ranges, in battle conditions, you're probably not even going to be able to tell the difference between a bunch of guys carrying longbows and a bunch of guys carrying shorter bows. I feel like your logic could also be applied to comparing longbows and crossbows, and I'm confident in saying that it doesn't check out for that comparison

@@grognakthedestroyerattorne3211 Be careful with that assumption. My understanding is that there's actually a lot of uncertainty on how archers were used. There's this iconic hollywood image of archers firing at long ranges, but we have reason to think that the main bulk of arrows loosed may have been at closer ranges. The art tends to show archers shooting at low elevations (apart from when attacking in a siege), and it also makes sense to save your arrows for when you know you can hit and have maximum effect. But overall, we don't seem to really know as of now

@@WarriorVirtue As Sun Tzu once said "Appear strong when you are weak, and weak when you are strong"

Same for asia minor and further east.

Came to the comments to say this exact thing

Yeah it's really annoying that the HRE managed to get that copyright before the Roman empire despite the latter being older

I came here for the same too haha you beat me to it.

Obligatory "HRE was not Roman, not really an empire, and wasn't particularly holy." :P

Yep. The Roman Empire never renamed themselves as the Byzantine Empire and never changed the name of their capitol to Byzantium. These are ahistorical influences from post 1453 German scholars in the Holy Roman Empire who sought to distance the meaning of Rome away from the Roman Empire after its final collapse. Modern historians use the term to distinguish between antiquity and post antiquity Rome and, because much of modern history has its origins in German influenced universities from after the fall of the Roman Empire.

It's not even maybe, it's as close to certain as it can be in regards to the technologies required. Bows are a prehistoric technology. Ötzi was found with a work in progress yew bow stave.

Oh it's almost certainly a recurve bow. Odyssyos is a traveller, he goes all over the place and one place he's known to have gone is up into the black sea. That means that almost 100% chance he would have come into contact with the Scyth, who dominated that area for hundreds of years. The Scyth, being the inventors of the recurve bow, probably had them around this time and it's not too unreasonable to assume that Odyssyos bought one as a curiosity and learned how to use it.

@@moritamikamikara3879 There is also a mesopotamian tombstone dating from the 23rd century BC depicting a composite bow.

@@arnaudpascal1691 Huh, so maybe even older than the Scyth. Damn. Well, in that case I'll have to clarify that although the Scyth did not invent the recurve bow, they were prolific users of it.

@@moritamikamikara3879 I did not mean to contradict you because I suppose it's a matter of shaping. Very early depictions of bows (-2000 and before) as well as bow remains from egyptian tombs (-1000 and before) are interpreted as composite bows, but they don't have the "classic" shape such as the present video. I just meant to add that if the present video's bow design is similar the scythes of old, differently shaped horn and sinew bows also existed. My point was to add that there is plentiful evidence and findings showing that bows are an old and stable tech.

Watching longbow videos keeps mah depression away, my dude.

I recently revealed the genders of my two girlfriends. It got a lot of hate and now has 30 times more dislikes than likes. I am really sad that people can be so mean. Sorry for using your comment to talk about my problems, dear see

I could be remembering it incorrectly, but wasn't Odysseus' bow a recurve that could only be used by the strongest of warriors?

The Compound bow has been used for thousands of years. It was a well known technology and no surprise it's mentioned in the Old Testament. Also, understand that the Old Testament was written during "Babylonian Captivity" around 600 BC. The scholars of Judah had access to the archives of the Babylonian Empire, dating back thousands of years earlier to the Mother Civilization of Sumeria. They borrowed a lot: Flood stories, Eden, Gilgamesh = Samson, Angels = Annunaki, etc. The Ancient Egyptians adopted the Hyksos compound bow around 1500 BC. When you combined the Hyksos compound bow and the light, but highly maneuverable Egyptian chariot, you had a deadly combination which wasn't surpassed until mounted horse archers.

@@davidokinsky114 Yes. Archery started 70,000 years ago and the recurved Compound Bow existed at least 4100 years ago. So, it wouldn't be far fetched to say that the Achaeans during the Trojan War had compound bows and probably simple bows as well.

Eh, longbows overshadow recurves only due the marketing power of English culture