>the archers didn't colour their arrows so we know who hit the head or whatever
Still, fun watch.

>>64647179
Don't have time to watch all that right now, but what kind of steel are they using? Youtubers tend to ignore that bit despite it being effectively the difference between level II plates and level IV

wunderwaffe fails again

a medieval machinegun designed to cripple horses and unarmoured legs, provided it can hit anything. they got something like 3/40 hits at 60m, imagine the damage they would create at suggested 300m.

>>64648015
> unarmoured legs
This is the main question I had about this video
If I have to pick a large cross section of my body to tank arrows in without armor, my legs can cope the best.
But why am I walking into battle with amazingly effective torso armor but deciding leg protection is heavy and cringe, and taking 35 arrows to the knee? Extremely good leg armor was a completely known technology. It's a bit heavier and costs a bit more but what about that bit made them go to battle caked up in flimsy hoisery like women at the gym?

>>64648335
Perhaps some idea of the ubiquity of shields or the guy in front of you acting as sufficient leg armor (especially if he actually has leg armor or a shield) being good enough. Especially since that extra weight and cash is gonna be something you'll lug around on multiple hours long marches for days on end.

>>64647872
>but what kind of steel are they using?
Irrelevant, they are using steel arrowheads, therefore invalidating an entire test.

>>64648335
If you're fighting in formation, as basically everyone was in the middle ages, you can't be hit in the legs unless you're in the front rank. Any arrow on a trajectory to hit your legs would hit the guy in front of you instead.

>>64647179
>longbow is more accurate than mu...ACK!
And just like that last bits of britbongs mythology are completely shattered.

>>64648335
Leg armor is addition weight, weighting down legs increase energy consumption during walking the most, legs armor requires fitting more and more expensive.
If you are foot soldier it becomes unsustainable to own and march with legs armor.
Knights utilized full suits if armor, when fought dismounted too. But knights could afford it both financially and logistically. Knights didn't marched on foot, they rode pack horse during march also didn't do camp work, they had retinue die that. So they could wear leg armors and don't get to tired from that.

>>64648335
>why am I walking into battle with amazingly effective torso armor but deciding leg protection is heavy and cringe
Because you don't. Unarmored legs in the showcase exist only as an excuse for the cope, because in proper armor showcases people testing bows will need it a lot, as armour predictably will do it's job. So you can always bingo:
>modern steel arrowheads, heaviest bows to exist and ??? quality armour
steel arrowheads weren't a thing, and fucking christ, those from video don't deform after hitting plate at all.
>shooting at point blank range
at least that video does uniquely a "longer" range. People seemingly don't understand, that if you shoot arrows at knight 10 meters away, you are already dead. Charging horse covers that distance in less than one second.
>standard cope about blunt trauma
>w-welll arrow didn't even scratch that armour, but it's not like a wearer will be fine, I can guess 4 broken ribs, crushed heart and collapsed lung at the very least
And back to the og point, coverage
>well we didn't penetrate armour, but the arrow that hit groin did the job
No it didn't, because you can't hit groin, there is a horse between groin and an archer
>we can just aim at legs and disable them
no you can't, person in front will be either better armoured, or will use a shield. So realistically archers will be only able to hit top of torso and helmets, and guess what, those are armoured.

>>64647179
Cool video OP. I'm sure you are not related to the channel at all and posted this at your own volition. Therefore, I am sure you wont mind that I disliked and reported this video.

I remember watching some youtube video dedicated exactly to the subject of why mainstream historians ignore all these "bow vs armor" tests.
And the answer was
>Because the authentic historical sources unequivocally describe the archers btfoing the knights. Cope and seethe.

File: 4it5vsjsram91.png (524 KB, 449x600)

524 KB PNG

It's crazy how many misconceptions there are about armor and how it sucks for whatever reason. Stupid people have a vendetta against it.

I saw a video of some guy showing off the flexibility of some really fancy armor And about every third reply was some sort of "HEH all the work and it simply gets crushed like a tin can if you hit him with a hammer! just hit him with a hammer and all that fancy armor is useless... funny how he would get easily destroyed by a peasant with a hammer!". Crazy. Don't know where these retards come from.

>>64648898
Most battles weren't with composed entirely of knights, but peasants and men at arms whose equipment wasn't uniform. Knights almost never got worn down by arrows because the archers would tire. They could get killed or injured, sure, but not en mass. They weren't firing into armored guys the medieval equivalent of sniper rifles. Pikes decided the battle, not the dudes with the arrows. The dudes with the arrows were there to wear people down mentally because they were constantly being hit but couldn't fight back (archers would have their thumbs cut off if they were captured a lot of the time as punishment), kill or maim an odd guy unpredictably, and so on. Pikes, spears, cavalry, etc. all decided who won and who didn't, and that's why most causalities in battle during this happened one army began to break and tried to retreat. It's not at all dissimilar from combat between phalanxes. Two dudes heavily armored, lined up, in a melee, getting harassed by dickheads with slings and shitty bows. This is also why the rear and outer lines of the phalanxes were designed to keep the formation from breaking because it was almost entirely mental, and whoever broke first was going to get killed. This dynamic changed when terrain and cavalry started to find its footing. And you can also see how this constantly changed and adapted once more when the Mongolians invaded Europe. When the Euros began to adopt different tactics, and revolutionized their use of cavalry and armored foot soldiers the Mongolians got sent packing. There is also the theory that their bows turned to shit once they hit Europe because of the humidity fucking up their bows compared to longbows. Their armor was also not as good compared to the European knights in heavy cavalry, so they could just chase down the shitbirds on their small horses.

>>64647179
>misses every shot

>>64648899
Lot of that era of the 100 Years War also had some very interesting tactics employed by the English to directly counter and frustrate the shit out of the French way of fighting. Apart from the arms and armour, there was a lot more going on than just 'dudes getting shot by bows lol', eventually the frogs figured out how to not get baited into one-sided fights set up by the bongs in advantageous positions in field battles. Armour also got considerably better during and after the 15th century to the extent that you needed big two-handed weapons to crack through it, a lot of the use of shields got discarded simply because it was effectively neutralising a lot of missile fire as well.
Lot of professional specialist forces also running around Europe as well when people found they couldn't just rely on their nobility and levies to deal with military problems

>>64648971
>>64648898
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

>>64648990
>Apart from the arms and armour, there was a lot more going on than just 'dudes getting shot by bows lol', eventually the frogs figured out how to not get baited into one-sided fights set up by the bongs in advantageous positions in field battles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny

>>64648899
>It's crazy how many misconceptions there are about armor and how it sucks for whatever reason. Stupid people have a vendetta against it.
Countless Hollywood etc media depicting armor as useless and noble class associated with armor as pompous retards. Mass media propaganda.

the only reason why we are still having this "debate" is because the longbow myth is one of the foundational myths of the English/British identity.
more so it's one of the few foundational myths you are still allowed to have over there because it's about killing the French (the guys you fought and died next to in two world wars+the crimean war+the sues crisis) so no browns involved so no racism loicense needed

>>64648335
Wear and tear? Unlike arm armour, leg armour is in constant use when walking, so on long marches you will break straps, pop rivets, it will rust when you wade through muddy roads and puddles, get caught on long grass and brambles etc, resulting in you either having to carry the leg armour (along with your weapons, food, camping/cooking gear) until you can repair it, or just sling it in a ditch so you can keep up with the rest of the army. Wearing it is also more tiring when walking long distances, as with every step you are moving a little more weight on your limbs - it's spread out, but it is still there, making each step that little bit more tiring, as well as chaffing from straps, the leg armour trying to slide down, etc. I can imagine a lot of soldiers just saying 'Fuck it' and not bothering.

>>64648993
>guys break and flee
>get owned
Y-yeah... It doesn't really matter if it's archers or peasant levy, or knights, if you break and run you are going to have a bad god damn time.

>>64649047
>the leg armour trying to slide down, etc
Suspension is a serious business btw
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dMdNbPQipB0

>>64649050
Why did longbowmen break when they could just shoot to death charging knights with medieval machine guns?
Bet ya feel real dumb now dontcha,?

>>64649054
I never claimed in my post that arrows were particularly effective.
>They weren't firing into armored guys the medieval equivalent of sniper rifles.
Literally verbatim what I said. The arrows were there to help attrite your enemy and break morale since those two things could cause your enemy to break and that's when everyone died.

>>64648971
>medieval
>Pikes decided the battle, not the dudes with the arrows
>When the Euros began to adopt different tactics, and revolutionized their use of cavalry and armored foot soldiers the Mongolians got sent packing.
What the fuck are you talking about, you fucking retard?

>>64649006
The reason for the debate is that late medieval England was atypical in it's focus on the longbow and then won multiple gigantic victories against ostensibly the most powerful military in Europe, then Charles the Bold and every other continental military thinker started using longbows because they thought it was such a great idea.
So obviously longbows did something.
Except nobody started wearing less plate armour during the middle ages and the era of the longbow. So clearly armour did something as well.
That leads to a debate, probably ongoing.

This "longbow is only a thing because of England foundation myth" is a bit of a myth itself.

>>64649089
>The reason for the debate is that late medieval England was atypical in it's focus on the longbow and then won multiple gigantic victories against ostensibly the most powerful military in Europe, then Charles the Bold and every other continental military thinker started using longbows because they thought it was such a great idea.
This is a highly inaccurate and skewed description that is the foundation of the longbow muth.

>>64649089
>This "longbow is only a thing because of England foundation myth" is a bit of a myth itself.
i have never come across a German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch or French discussion about the longbow.
it is a entirely anglo discussion

>>64649099
can it be called a discussion if all it always amounts to is attributing the victories in 3 battles entirely to the bow and claiming it revolutionized warfare via some voodoo magic?

>>64647872
Mild steel. The brigadine has been face-hardened on one side according to historical examples. All armor custom made for the demonstration by historical armor smith. Arrows are of mid-14th century design with 3 different types catalogued in museums, using iron shafts with braised or welded steel warheads depending on the type.

At any rate, I found it surprising that the gauntlet front was penetrated at close range. Really makes you wonder how dudes in the 15th century abandoned shields for pole weapons with that shit still flying around the battlefield.

>>64648335
>This is the main question I had about this video
Your main question was about something irrelevant and outside of the testing parameters of the experiment?

>>64647179
imagine the damage these arrows would do on a rabble of unwashed peasants
we need that to be the next test

>>64649120
we should volunteer your mom for the job then

>>64648898
>tests prove that arrows are extremely dangerous and can easily pass through anything not made of 2mm plate or multiple layers of maille at 60m range
>arrows that don't penetrate can jam joint movements, injure limbs/extremities with impacts, cause concussive injuries to the head, create dangerous sharpnel that can find its way into helmet slits,
>dudes without plate armor have to rely entirely on shields to not die
>this somehow disproves Agincourt, because... something?

It makes you wonder, where in some battles during the 100 years war there are records that the English shot, literally, half a million arrows in a single battle, just how much damage it would have done. Because clearly, if you are some poor levied shitter without proper defences, you're dead. And we know that the French didn't count peasants as people when describing casualties too.

>>64648335
they would always always always, in every battle and in every war across every continent, put the heaviest armoured men in the front line. so if you were poor and had no leg armour you'd very clearly and obviously not be in the front line

>>64649130
Even if you have proper defenses, if you don't have plate armor or very dense and multi-layered maille, you're fucked. The tests show that 2 layers of maille isn't enough to prevent fatal injury. Without some kind of armor plate, your only hope is your shield if a line of archers targets you. And even then, it had better be a boss-grip shield because those arrowheads are going to poke through it.

>>64649140
Which begs the question, why are there only something like 1/3 of the Frenchmen killed in basically all of their losses? Is must be because they don't count the non-noblemen in their KIA counts. With something like 50 arrows per man shot, you'd think the casualty counts would be higher, unless everybody had premium armour

>>64649130
>half a million arrows in a single battle, just how much damage it would have done.
Just miss them all see accuracy lol.

>>64649130
Being 'battered' to death or exhaustion, pain and being too maimed to fight back is a fairly legit thing for the heavily armoured people. Armour isn't the lumbering, completely invulnerable juggernaut that makes people slow or too heavy, but you can get heat-casing from lots of strenuous activity, if its a bit hot and humid already then dehydration is a thing as well after a few hours fucking around trying to murder each other. Enough blood loss from half a dozen leaking injuries is also a fairly good possibility of causing someone to become ineffective or a casualty.

>>64649149
ur right maybe the bri'ish all shot high on purpose because they didn't want to kill somebody, just like everybody did in ww1

>>64649140
Have you considered that the tests might be inaccurate and present a false picture specifically engineered by using inaccurate replicas and nitpicking a favourable scenario?

>>64649123
honestly, we need to get death row inmates to volunteer for these kinds of tests. and if they survive? they are no longer on death row as the incentive
would be K I N O

>>64649156
Yeah tests shooters missed their shots on purpose sure.

>>64649166
maybe they loaded the mannequin with live hamsters you can't say they didn't

>>64649157
>nitpicking a favourable scenario
Which did happen so there's nothing wrong with seeing what happens
>inaccurate replicas
What are you upset about when it comes to the weapons and armour used?

the longbow was actually invented by the polish

>>64649184
>Which did happen so there's nothing wrong with seeing what happens
I guess we can discard the bow as a weapon since misses happened therefore it's impossible to ever hit anything with it and it's totally useless.
>What are you upset about
Stop talking like a woman and tell me why should i take tests with steel arrowheads with no historical basis by a know quack that had already cheated on his tests previously seriously.

>>64649217
>t. fr*nchman
opinion discarded gfy

File: 1743887415620537.jpg (73 KB, 450x337)

73 KB JPG

>>64649217
You are genuinely a retarded autist and should never comment on an online forum again. The testing in question was as close as possible to the real history as can be, given what we know. Just cut off your fingers and gouge out your eyes so people online can never have to suffer anything that you say, ever again.

>>64649232
>The testing in question was as close as possible to the real history as can be, given what we know.
That's a complete lie though.

>>64649232
Yeah test was interesting in a sense "300 meters range longbow" barely could hit target from just 60 meters away.

>>64649223
Are you the same mentally ill mexican subhuman that shits up every archery thread with the longbow myth spam larping as an Anglo?

>>64649238
>what is shooting into a dense mass of infantry
tard

>>64649146
Misses, ineffective hits. It's the nature of projectile combat. Look at any analysis of modern war: it's usually at least 10,000 rounds expended per enemy casualty, usually higher.

File: 1742854689950669.jpg (31 KB, 640x469)

31 KB JPG

>>64649235
Explain how then instead of just saying the "no u" equivalent.

>>64649157
>Have you considered that the tests might be inaccurate and present a false picture specifically engineered by using inaccurate replicas and nitpicking a favourable scenario?
No because that's schizophrenic and insane. What's the false picture being presented? What's the favorable scenario? What's the motivation?

Are you one of those loons who think all talkshow episodes are 100% scripted?

>>64649238
>barely could hit target from just 60 meters away
Would be a reasonable argument if, in battle, you sent a single knight on his own to engage archers and it not being hundreds of knights facing hundreds of archers. You put another 19 mannequins next to that knight and put another 43 archers there and ask them to fire, you're going to see a different result.

But hey, maybe the French were lying about the English longbow and made it up because they got dunked on in melee or something.

maybe they shot the bow, and not the arrow. ever thought of that???

>>64649252
>>64649241
Such cope is not what britbongs peddled before this test dropped.

>>64649252
>maybe the French were lying about the English longbow and made it up because they got dunked on in melee or something.
They did actually, except they didn't spread the longbow lie in the first place and it were drooling English nationalists centuries later that invented the myth. The ultimate decisive element in all the big English victories of the war were unmounted heavily armored men at arms.

File: 1708672335550585.gif (703 KB, 498x498)

703 KB GIF

>>64649251
He probably thinks he's being gangstalked by English longbowmen. Just disregard what he says the same way you would some homeless person on the street shouting illegible nonsense at you.

>>64649089
Hey man, when were pikes used? How long was the medieval period? And when did the Golden Horde attack Europe?

>>64649251
>What's the false picture being presented? What's the favorable scenario?
Steel arrowheads of nindescript construction and weight against impoperly made and hardened armor that's unfitted to promote the idea that shooting the gaps is viable, weak ass mail that is always shown worthles against any arrows and so on.
>What's the motivation?
To earn views on repeating the lie and beting the dead horse about arrows and plate armor for attention. His channel is literally just advertisment for his shop.

>>64649255
Except we have many reports from battles between the English and French that longbows weren't fantasy tier penetrating plate like butter, but being hit by several arrows could knock you over and if, like at Agincourt, you're knocked over in armor into mud, you get stuck.

>>64649259
Jean de Wavrin, who witnessed the battle, famously described the English arrows falling so thickly that they seemed to "blot out the sun" or "darken the air". As I said, plate armor offered protection, but it didn't prevent physics being applied. Additionally, horses were not protected and would get injured, panic and bolt, or the rider would be thrown. Arrows were recorded going through visor slits and weaker points in the armor.

As for your claim, very strange then that the French have accounts of them being embarrassed that 'common' archers could do such damage to the 'flower of nobility of France'. Doubly weird that longbowmen, if captured, were immediately executed rather than ransomed. Triply weird that French accounts laughed at how the archers wore basically nothing but jackets and were even barefoot and then, after Agincourt, they were offended to have been beaten by poorfags.

Again, you're making up this idea that the longbow penetrated plate at 300m. But an arrow hitting you is still exerting pressure and if you're a knight walking through mud and are constantly being hit by arrows, you slip and you're fucked. Hence, why when the arrows ran out, the archers were able to just walk up to downed and trapped knights and either kill them or force their surrender.

>>64647259
The back of the arrows' shafts had some colour, they also seemed to know who got the headshot.

>>64649287
>Steel arrowheads of nindescript construction and weight against impoperly made

WATCH THE PREVIOUS VIDEO YOU NIGGER. THIS IS WHAT THE ENTIRE PRIOR VIDEO IS ABOUT.

>>64649290
>Jean de Wavrin, who witnessed the battle, famously described the English arrows falling so thickly that they seemed to "blot out the sun" or "darken the air".
This speaks nothing about the effectiveness of the bow contrary to the falsehoods spewed at every paragraph by the proponents of the british myth.
>but it didn't prevent physics being applied
Your idiotic drivel isn't physics.
>Additionally, horses
Your myth doesn't revolve around horses.
> very strange then that the French have accounts of them being embarrassed that 'common' archers
There are no such accounts lying dipshit.
>Again, you're making up this idea that the longbow penetrated plate at 300m.
You shills peddling the myth do.
>Hence, why when the arrows ran out, the archers were able to just walk up to downed and trapped knights and either kill them or force their surrender.
That's a total lie too.

You're so full of shit an indian family squats on your shoulders.

>>64649299
That's Joe Gibbs, that's how they know he got it. He's fairly well known in this community as being one of the only guys who can fire a 170lb English Longbow repeatedly and accurately. It looks really weird when you see him do it because to do it requires a retarded amount of strength and a very particular sort of method that involves the whole body.

>>64649324
Oh I'm familiar with him, I mean later on when one dude hits the eye slot, they call him over.

Flemings with their goedendag's defeated and badly bloodies a French army. naming the battle after all the gilded spurs they recovered from the field.
only to get bodied by the French later on.
the longbow is the same, it won a few notable battles but the English would end up losing the war.
just like Flemish nationalists made the goedendag a symbol after a romanticist wrote a book about the battle.
so did the English after Shakespeare wrote Henry IV almost two centuries after the battle

why is there some weird retard ITT trying to discount the entire test? did he even watch the video? well in any case I hope somebody throws acid on his face

>>64649347
Because he will lose izzat if he is proven wrong.

>>64649108
>"Just don't get hit, bro!"

>>64649290
>Except we have many reports from battles between the English and French that longbows weren't fantasy
I am talking about longbow accuracy.
Show me an britbongs quotes
>yeah longbow barely can hit target at 60 meters but blah blah
You can't.

>but being hit by several arrows could knock you over
What with this Hollywood "stopping power" tier crap?

y'all never played medieval 2 total war and it SHOWS

>>64648672
tod has an entire stock of crossbows but they left them out completely as well. because muh joe can shoot just as well, yeah right

>>64648672
Musketbros keep winning.

>>64649108
>braised or welded steel warheads depending on the type.
Isn't that kind of questionable? Are there previous videos with wrought iron arrowheads because that would make this video a perfectly valid comparison between materials.

>>64649399
The funny thing is that those arrowheads with welded steel inserts are basically always broadheads, not the needle bodkins he exlusively uses in those tests.

>>64648993
A bit Party why everyone knows the battles of crecy and agancour and not the big French victories is the language.
Everyone speaks English and watches bbc hundred war documentaries.
No one understands frech.

File: knowing look.jpg (34 KB, 210x230)

34 KB JPG

>>64647179
>Oh look our modern case hardened 67HRC steel plates can defeat arrows
The absolute state of clankers. The desperation to never admit the superiority of the longbow despite massive historical evidence is amazing. It's like some severe autism.

>>64649106
The White Company was a mercenary company of longbowmen who dominated Italian warfare for like 20 years. You paid them to win battles for you. Cope and seethe.

I'd like to see what a nuclear bomb does to European 15th century infantry armour.
And I would like to see it now.

It's hilarious to me that there's one turboautist who comes into these threads to screech about how the longbow was useless and it was all propaganda being pushed by nefarious english people today for... what reason, exactly?

>>64649448
>for... what reason, exactly?
Unmediated schizophrenia

>>64649438
>Although the White Company is the name by which it is popularly known, it was initially called the Great Company of English and Germans
>Despite it being commonly referred to as the English Company, personnel were drawn from a wide range of nationalities, reflecting the international nature of Italian mercenary warfare in the 14th century, including at various times Germans, Italians and Hungarians but mostly English and French veterans of the Hundred Years' War.[6] The numbers of men in the company varied over the years. In 1361, it is recorded as having 3,500 cavalry and 2,000 infantry. At its lowest ebb in 1388, it had a mere 250 men.[7] The company was organised in lances of three men; a man-at-arms, a squire and a page. Of these, only the man-at-arms and squire were armed.[8] These lances were organised into contingents, each under a corporal, who was often an independent sub-contractor.
>The White Company is credited with introducing to Italy the practice of dismounting men-at-arms in battle,[12] a practice already commonplace in the battles of the Hundred Years' War in France.
Wow, another false accreditation to the british myth. How original.

>>64649448
>one
>implying
Personally I'm just tired of bowfags

>>64649448
What's more hilarious is that you have to make these posts with projections over and over again to damage control your obsessive behavior while knowing that you will never, ever be English or even white, but will always remain a half-nigger mystery meat monkey.

>>64649345
The longbow isn’t a magic weapon. It’s how it’s used.
In the battle of crecy the French just attacked a fortified position over a long and sloped, muddy field and send in their units one by one…
It’s like the stupid ar vs ak discussion…
There are so many factors in a battle which are way more important.

>>64649448
>>64649450
you are confusing some people
I'm saying that the longbow wouldn't be talked about here every other week if it wasn't an English symbol
there aren't any treads or videos about how good warpicks or maces really where against plate
idk how good it was and I'm not here discussing that

>>64648686
bare legs can be disabled even with children bows, but people got around that during all of warfare history because they carried shields

like the katana, any arrow made of any material can, and will, slice through any armour no matter what - just like it was butter.

just like it was MELTED butter.

>>64649448
Bongs drive thirdies fucking nuts, its hilarious to see.
I mean, there's a lot to be critical of their current place in the world and how they came to end up there. But its not like that changes very much from the very long, storied and sometimes factual history of being the worlds first global spanning empire. Like a few weeks ago when discussing Balearic Slingers and I compared them to English Longbowmen and Geonese Crossbowmen 'of their time' as being elite, highly prized ranged troops.
>suddenly screeching begins
>reee longbows aren't elite

>>64649467
No you're wrong it's just longbow that pierced right through knights' armor before they could even see who was shooting at them from hundreds of yards away, massacring them wholesale and revolutionizing medieval warfare for the next centuries to come until slow, inaccurate firearms replaced them because they didn't need training to use.

Longbows, Shortbows
what about Mediumbows?

>>64649484
We don't talk about mediumbows anymore, the mongols get too rowdy.

>>64649482
Oh i remember that thread
>broo peasant levies are actually elites because they TRAINED, ohmygod they were so hardcore and prized

>>64649491
sad

File: hq720.jpg (49 KB, 686x386)

49 KB JPG

>>64648841
If they are not punching armor anyway, heavy bows are kind of pointless except for increasing range. They'd be better of with somewhat lighter bows which would allow better accuracy, I suppose maxxing out on bow weight is just another part of the myth and common weights were in the 80-120# range. That's also quite enough to go through ordinary mail. The hidden issue of the whole longbow myth is that arrow nocks on the Mary Rose are very narrow, around 3mm I believe, but nobody managed to make a hemp string of that size that would endure a 160# bow. There are only apocryphal accounts on archery forums by, you guessed it, Will Sherman and Joe Gibbs. Not a bit of their string making method was ever published for an independent evaluation, and they are not using them in the tests.

File: Ahakos.jpg (15 KB, 387x516)

15 KB JPG

>>64649472
In pike and shoot era shields went away because bullets penetrate them and you cant hold a pike with big shields.
Breastplates with non armored legs were the thing.

>>64649089
You are overestimating the influence of the longbow. Yes Charles the Bold integrated them into his army and it did help him in no way to prevent the curbstomping he received from the Swiss.
The HRE and the lands east of it were dominated by Hussite tactics. The Balkans by the Hussite and the Ottoman tactics, Italy had its Condottiere who also didn't use it apart from the White Company and Spain also did its own thing.
So were are all the continental military thinkers using longbows?

File: Battle-of-Agincourt.jpg (705 KB, 1600x1345)

705 KB JPG

>arrows this, armour that
Alright /k/, if you were in command of the French army at Agincourt, what would you do differently so you could win the day?

>>64649503
>heavy bows are kind of pointless except for increasing range.
Increasing bow draw weight barely increases range.
Range is function of initial velocity and increase of draw weight doesn't affect this much. It's affected by bow design, longbow been here slowish bow.

(also tricks with very short and light arrows, Turkish siper etc, but these require fast bow too).

>>64649529
>if you were in command of the French army at Agincourt
The biggest problem was there was no command because the king was having a psychotic breakdown in the capital at the moment instead.

>>64648502
But arrows with iron sockets and steel heads/wings literally did exist though, there are studies on it, check out this one for example:
>https://hmsjournal.org/index.php/home/article/download/91/89
It's true that there's no material evidence for bodkin point arrows made of steel, but other types of arrow, like the type 16, which are shown in the video, did have steel points/wings.

>>64649006
exactly, and if they mention richard the lionheart they always have to romanticize his relationship with saladin like a children's cartoon.

>>64648985
embarrassing, innit?

>>64649547
i am afraid to ask but is there yaoi art/literature on the topic?

File: horsie.jpg (8 KB, 300x168)

8 KB JPG

>>64649120
we need longbow vs horse video desu

>>64649529
Wait. The English were low on supplies and had been suffering from dysentery.
They needed to make it to Calais, with the larger french army they could just put themselves between the two.
Either the English go on the attack against a superior force or they abandon their attempt to reach Calais and face the risk of falling apart from a lack of food and disease.

>>64649456
I'm an old bowfag and I'm tired of it as well. It's really just propaganda from my point.

>>64649484
medium bows are the best, like the egyptian/assyrian angular composite. best ratio of stability, efficiency, and comfort

>>64649530
yes, but they increase range with the same arrow mass unless you are shooting flight already, and iron war arrowheads are not really flight tier

File: wrench.png (84 KB, 224x167)

84 KB PNG

>>64649466
See what I mean, I don't even care about longbows. In Medieval Total War 2 I preferred crossbowmen. That's as far as my interest has ever gone lol. I just think it's funny you seethe and sperg out in every thread.
So what if they have a "foundation myth" that involves longbows? let 'em. How does it hurt you? Why do you feel this need to get attention by starting these shitfests? I'm serious, what are you trying to achieve, because fi I knew, then maybe I could help you achieve it and then you'd shut up lol.

>>64649466
lolwut

>>64649470
>I'm saying that the longbow wouldn't be talked about here every other week if it wasn't an English symbol
So what? Let them have their longbow discussion. Why does it matter to you? Inb4 you try to deflect and post that "how does it affect you personally" meme with the fires in the background, it doesn't apply in this case.

>>64649482
>Bongs drive thirdies fucking nuts
I think it may be this.

>>64649619
>Why does it matter to you?
my autism matters to me

File: genoese-venetian-inspired(...).jpg (874 KB, 1200x1439)

874 KB JPG

Let's face it, the English diss on the crossbow just because it reminds them too much of Catholic unity during the Crusades, and united continental Europe is what the Britbong fears the most.

>>64649544
huh, interesting
>Only three arrowheads had steel in their construction: one wholly steel and two composite types with iron sockets and steel wings. The latter both showed evidence of heat treatment but in only one case had this produced a transformation to tempered martensite, with an average hardness at the tip of Hv 601

>>64649574
Waiting has been the correct choice not taken, and the wrong choice taken too many times for history to have space to record but in this specific instance I don't think waiting was on the table. You're really trying to tell a bunch of French lords that you're not going to go mow down the English king while he's on your soil after he's been wandering around sacking shit. They'd have lost their fucking minds, and with the king being a crazy person he probably would have had you killed even if it ended up working, had you the capacity to keep the fight from occurring. Perhaps you get lucky and the English realize their position is really fucked and instead force the battle in better terms you decide rather than wager that you'll be a bunch of retarded Frenchmen who will stampede into wetlands.

>>64649614
That penetration power increase not range increase.

>>64649619
>So what if they have a "foundation myth" that involves longbows? let 'em. How does it hurt you?
I don't particularly care about it or their celebration, but i'm very tired of it polluting serious historical discussion with blatant falsehoods much like itt.

There's particularly one guy who does this, starting such threads once a week and sitting in them spamming his obsessive idea until the bump limt across multiple boards. Last time on /k/ it was "longbow is a wunderwaffe" thread or something, irrc, and he was samefagging in that line in that thread completely unironically until people started pushing against it and he had to try defending his position. He also makes the various "bow vs musket" threads shilling the same line about how guns were only better than bows because of armor and so bows are actually better in the 18th century when people stopped wearing it. All that goes on for at least a couple of years and this guy isn't even European or British, being outed as some kind of latam loser on a couple occasions, having zero connection or heritage to the topic.

>>64649599
NTA, but had I time machine I'd go back and watch Agincourt just to see what the fuck happened. Both sides claim the same shit (more or less), and anthropological evidence dug up at the site seems to also indicate that neither is bullshitting. I just need to see it with my own eyes. I have to understand if they were actually being murder fucked by longbowmen in some sort of insane fluke.

>>64649503
>If they are not punching armor anyway, heavy bows are kind of pointless except for increasing range. They'd be better of with somewhat lighter bows which would allow better accuracy
Heavy longbows at least seem to be able to deal with mail armour. In 17th century Polish soldiers that faced eastern hordes preferred mail over half-armour, despite latter being cheaper, because mail provided better coverage. That implies that Muscovite and Nomad bows couldn't pierce mail.

>>64649745
>Both sides claim the same shit (more or less), and anthropological evidence dug up at the site seems to also indicate that neither is bullshitting.
>being murder fucked by longbowmen
Based retard fabricating his own reality.

File: 6fe.jpg (20 KB, 334x393)

20 KB JPG

>>64649636
No it doesn't. If it did, you'd be posting contemporary sources and articles to back up your position not screeching /int/ tier slop about how the bongs are trying to divide europe like this guy >>64649651

>>64649730
>polluting serious historical discussion
>on /k/
Lmao
And again, like I said above, I don't buy it. You're not bringing sources, you're not quoting contemporary reports.
All of this is motivated by your personal animus towards the bongs. Which is fine, I don't really give a fuck, just be honest about it. Don't try to pretend you're trying to safeguard the standards of /k/ lol.

>>64649756
Are we going to deny that both the French and the English claim that the longbow fucked the French? Is that what we're doing now? Since that's the narrative about this FUCKING BATTLE THAT'S BEEN SPUN SINCE RETARDS WOVE IT INTO TAPESTRIES YOU DOUBLE NIGGER.

>>64649728
it's fps increase, you calculate the rest

>>64649752
there is also arrow mass in that equation, and distances shot

>>64649757
>reee you are wrong and you care because you hate bongs, reeee
>also i totally don't care as long as i get my way
Hello brown friend, long time no see.

File: great.jpg (12 KB, 232x231)

12 KB JPG

>>64649795
I mean you're free to prove me wrong buy quoting some sources lol.

>>64649765
>we
Can we see any of those claims outside of the depths of your asshole? Raging about it won't really make the myth any less bullshit.

>>64649803
Why would i? You've discarded your mask and successully outed yourself as the brown monkey that shills in these threads. Now it doesn't even matter what bows can do, all that matters is making you eat shit that rootless crazy genetic mystery meat mutts like you deserve.

>>64649812
Lmao, ok bud.

>>64649842
That's right, ok brown.

>>64649774
Bows of same design aren't really faster with increase of draw weight. They hit diminishing returns.

>>64649757
my autism get's triggered by how prevalent discussion of the longbow is in relation to it's historical relevance
you don't see a tread about the Hussite war every other week or the Reconquista.
no it's the 100 years war and the longbow because it's a fetish of the english

>>64649651
Unless you're French or German, absolutely no one in Europe wants a united continental Europe.

>>64649927
>no it's the 100 years war and the longbow because it's a fetish of the english
Right, so you have a problem with the bongs? Just be honest about it, this is /k/, nobody cares.

>>64649795
>>also i totally don't care as long as i get my way
I had to return to this because it's so bizarre lol, what "way" do you think it is I'm trying to get?

>>64649927
Why don't you make threads about the hussite war or the reconquista then?

>>64649730
>blatant falsehoods much like itt.

What falsehoods? He simply said the thing people actually say, that heavy bowfire combined with the muddy conditions incapacitated many French knights, literally nobody is claiming longbow arrows were punching clean through breastplates. The arrows vs armour films just show what everyone knew already, breastplates and helmets are very arrow resistant but gaps and thinner plates are vulnerable.